|
I don't know if this applies to today's case but it's funny how:
- when Protoss is weak -> this is the map pool's fault
- when Protoss in strong -> obviously the race is broken and we need to nerf the units
It would be nice if people were a little more open-minded about the fact that regardless of race played there is someone struggling with a mouse and a keyboard on the other side too. These numbers don't show what the issue is and how to solve it, so reciprocally please don't discard every possibility including that it may not only due to map pool. It would be very sad if we had to absolutely always have the same boring standard maps to have something close to balance.
|
On January 03 2016 02:13 ApBuLLet wrote:
I agree that calling it a 'balance' report is misleading and implies that the statistics shown are solely a result of balance and no other factors, which is ignorant to assume.
LOTV is a new expansion and people are still figuring it out. The statistics you provided do show that Protoss players aren't doing well in PvZ at the moment, and one possible cause may be balance, but it is ignorant to assume that it is the only reason for them performing poorly.
Maybe part of the reason is that many Protoss players on ladder just deathballed for 5 years and now that style is no longer viable. I don't mean to imply that the players who played this way aren't skilled because I know many of them are, it was just the way Protoss had to play for a while.
But maybe the changes made for LOTV are causing Protoss players to relearn the matchup to an extent. Part of this is that the ravager has given Zerg some early/mid game timings that are being abused a lot on ladder right now. Blizzard has acknowledged that they think these timing attacks are too strong and plan to address it in the next patch by increasing the ravager morph time.
So my point is yes there may be some balance issues and yes these statistics may reflect that, however, it is naive to assume that balance is the ONLY factor driving those statistics because there are many other factors at play.
On January 02 2016 18:11 dNa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2016 18:04 Topdoller wrote:
More stats which mean nothing, when you consider the maps currently in use.
Also the word "Balance" is misleading in the title of the OP. Shouldn't it say "Win Rate" or something or are you trying to promote your agenda here?
Aligulac is nothing to do with balance, it never has and it never will, especially when the matchmaking system is designed to match player v player those numbers are based on pro games, not ladder games.
These stats are not from the ladder.
|
On January 03 2016 01:22 StateSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 01:15 EatingBomber wrote:
The game is balanced for the top of the practical skill ceiling - is it possible a filter could be applied to exclude all non-Korean matches not in the GSL or SSL? Thanks. Sure. Here are the stats for GSL 2016 and SSL 2016.
Nice.
A lot of names I don't recognize in the GSL stats (did they do open qualifiers or something? ) and almost no games between top players in the recent matches which I find odd. Could be skewing data but it definitely seems to indicate a big advantage in favor of Z in PvZ, slight advantage for Z in TvZ and about equal TvP.
SSL stats are interesting, less unknowns but still quite a few, a lot of unknown T losing to known P might be skewing that data set. Also not a whole lot of data on the TvZ set which seems so skewed. Protoss seems to have a slight advantage PvZ according to this data though.
Also nice to see you still playing in Korea State!
|
On January 03 2016 02:19 dae wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 02:13 ApBuLLet wrote:
I agree that calling it a 'balance' report is misleading and implies that the statistics shown are solely a result of balance and no other factors, which is ignorant to assume.
LOTV is a new expansion and people are still figuring it out. The statistics you provided do show that Protoss players aren't doing well in PvZ at the moment, and one possible cause may be balance, but it is ignorant to assume that it is the only reason for them performing poorly.
Maybe part of the reason is that many Protoss players on ladder just deathballed for 5 years and now that style is no longer viable. I don't mean to imply that the players who played this way aren't skilled because I know many of them are, it was just the way Protoss had to play for a while.
But maybe the changes made for LOTV are causing Protoss players to relearn the matchup to an extent. Part of this is that the ravager has given Zerg some early/mid game timings that are being abused a lot on ladder right now. Blizzard has acknowledged that they think these timing attacks are too strong and plan to address it in the next patch by increasing the ravager morph time.
So my point is yes there may be some balance issues and yes these statistics may reflect that, however, it is naive to assume that balance is the ONLY factor driving those statistics because there are many other factors at play. Show nested quote +On January 02 2016 18:11 dNa wrote:On January 02 2016 18:04 Topdoller wrote:
More stats which mean nothing, when you consider the maps currently in use.
Also the word "Balance" is misleading in the title of the OP. Shouldn't it say "Win Rate" or something or are you trying to promote your agenda here?
Aligulac is nothing to do with balance, it never has and it never will, especially when the matchmaking system is designed to match player v player those numbers are based on pro games, not ladder games. These stats are not from the ladder.
My bad, didn't realize that they were stats from pro games. I assumed it was ladder because the OP talks about 'performance rating' which I assumed was something to do with the ladder, such as MMR. Now I see that it is referring to the rating from aligulac.
That changes things slightly but I think my general point that there are more factors in play is still valid.
|
On January 03 2016 01:38 HellHound wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2016 23:47 CheddarToss wrote:On January 02 2016 22:46 Arvendilin wrote:On January 02 2016 19:22 Cascade wrote:I am increasingly realising that the reception of these threads is 99% depending on presentation, not quality or relevance of the analysis. Not 80% as I previously thought. Next month, better write up a smooth presentation with 50 paragraphs of nonsense organised in chapters with random images, and everyone will love it.  anyway, thanks for keeping it up aligulac ppl!  I always thought it was more like this: Thread gives a reason to whine about Protoss? Awesome great work, Aligulac shows us how the balance currently is. Thread doesn't give us a reason to whine about Protoss? Meh, but the graphs look really nice and game design guys! Thread shows Protoss looses a bunch more than winning? Why the fuck are you even posting it here you biased little c***?! Tho that might be my biased view on it that is heavily tarnished by reddits reaction to these threads =P I think you are right. When was the winrate for any of the 3 races this low in one MU? 40% in PvZ points to quite a huge imbalance, yet people keep suggesting how top Protoss players need to adjust and learn to play. If it was Zerg having a 40% in ZvP, TeamLiquid's server would crash due to excessive whining.  But no matter, I look forward to the Protoss nerfs and the winrate dropping below 40% in PvZ. Every races but mine whines the most my race makes valid complaints. The reason people don't take this stats seriously is because they don't really show us anything Note how zerg is by far the highest between JAN 2014 and july 2014 that was the blink era where protoss won 9 tournaments in a row and half of them had pvp finals. On the otherhand broodlord infestor had around 50% zvp winrate
By your logic of counting tournamets wins during broodlor infestor era (May 2012 till end of WoL) toournametnts wins:
Premier: Z:15, P:13
Major: Z:13, P:15
So PvZ close to 50% is not that suprising.
Terran struggled in tournaments wins and TvZ winrates.
As for 2014 Zerg was dominating major tournaments ,Between march and july(in these months aligulac shows Zerg as strongest race) Zerg won 10/17 events and had 18/34 finalists)
|
Prion Terraces and Central Protocol definitely need to go. They heavily impact PvZ balance.
On prion Terraces 3 hatch with 2 gold base is just too strong for Protoss to deal with and on Central Protocol the choke points are too big to defend.
It is not an issue zerg has to face as they have aquired the ability to deal with not having wall-ins and choke points over the years and good macro management is required as a zerg to have, but as a Protoss and Terran those wide open areas do not allow them to greedily tech and macro behind a small choke point with tanks/bunkers or Pylon Overcharge.
One very big thing though.
Since it is the beginning of LOTV I feel that Terrans and Protoss are very bad at defending and scouting.
80 % of my wins against P or T come from Roach/Ravager or Ling/Baneling All-Ins that they could easily defend if they scouted it, but instead they always do the same thing :
Build Reaper/Adept to harass and then macro/tech up and win lategame with a strong push right before Ultralisk spawn.
With new maps and P/T learning to be more dynamic towards scouting, map awareness and strategy reading I think the numbers will be different from what we see now.
|
On January 03 2016 02:17 Elentos wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 02:16 EatingBomber wrote:On January 03 2016 01:22 StateSC2 wrote:On January 03 2016 01:15 EatingBomber wrote:
The game is balanced for the top of the practical skill ceiling - is it possible a filter could be applied to exclude all non-Korean matches not in the GSL or SSL? Thanks. Sure. Here are the stats for GSL 2016 and SSL 2016. Ah, thank you so much. BTW, aren't you that American player who travelled to South Korea to train? He even still lives in Korea.
Ah, capital. I hope you achieve your aims successfully in Korea. It must be difficult going overseas to train for this game.
|
How on earth TvP is terran favored? very wow
|
On January 03 2016 01:38 HellHound wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2016 23:47 CheddarToss wrote:On January 02 2016 22:46 Arvendilin wrote:On January 02 2016 19:22 Cascade wrote:I am increasingly realising that the reception of these threads is 99% depending on presentation, not quality or relevance of the analysis. Not 80% as I previously thought. Next month, better write up a smooth presentation with 50 paragraphs of nonsense organised in chapters with random images, and everyone will love it. anyway, thanks for keeping it up aligulac ppl! I always thought it was more like this: Thread gives a reason to whine about Protoss? Awesome great work, Aligulac shows us how the balance currently is. Thread doesn't give us a reason to whine about Protoss? Meh, but the graphs look really nice and game design guys! Thread shows Protoss looses a bunch more than winning? Why the fuck are you even posting it here you biased little c***?! Tho that might be my biased view on it that is heavily tarnished by reddits reaction to these threads =P I think you are right. When was the winrate for any of the 3 races this low in one MU? 40% in PvZ points to quite a huge imbalance, yet people keep suggesting how top Protoss players need to adjust and learn to play. If it was Zerg having a 40% in ZvP, TeamLiquid's server would crash due to excessive whining. But no matter, I look forward to the Protoss nerfs and the winrate dropping below 40% in PvZ. Every races but mine whines the most my race makes valid complaints. The reason people don't take this stats seriously is because they don't really show us anything Note how zerg is by far the highest between JAN 2014 and july 2014 that was the blink era where protoss won 9 tournaments in a row and half of them had pvp finals. On the otherhand broodlord infestor had around 50% zvp winrate
Actually the movements in the balance line from Aligulac mirror the movements of balance pretty well, I'm not sure what you're talking about. PvT early 2014 is the high line until it gets patched, TvZ is the low line in broodlord infestor, and in both situations the other match-up is less influenced (because it was less influenced, and even then PvZ is not really at 50%...). All of the notable periods of imbalance are represented on the line. The ones that aren't were design issues (like the notion that protoss is forced to all-in before BL infest in 2012: it sucked, but they did have a good chance of winning when they did all in, so of course the balance line won't reflect anything relevant for PvZ there) or were problems that happened mostly in your imagination.
|
This at least reflects my ladder experience. You can really feel that the Zergs you meet are just weaker players, as you win all the mindgames, all the small micro skirmishes, but the race make them feel like playing a GM player, as they just have way more.
I mean it makes sense when you look at what happened since HotS and all the changes, Protoss was mostly nerfed and Zerg have received a ton of small buffs. Maps aren't that great either.
|
If we had blindly followed aligulac win rates the widow mine revert would have never happened. Aligulac's "balance" page has always been a poor source of information.
|
On January 03 2016 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
If we had blindly followed aligulac win rates the widow mine revert would have never happened. Aligulac's "balance" page has always been a poor source of information.
Why would we blindly follow the win rates? I don't see anyone arguing for that. They are a source of information to be considered.
But not ignored. Therefore we should neither follow them blindly, nor totally discard them. The fact that PvZ is at it's worst point in terms of win rates ever should be very concerning and is cause for some kind of change.
On January 02 2016 19:15 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2016 19:06 zerge wrote:
Please stop using winrates as an equivalent for balance. Balance means equal possibility to win given equal skill level.
We don't have tools to measure skill level.
But we do! That is what the performance difference chart is for.
|
On January 03 2016 02:18 PPN wrote:
I don't know if this applies to today's case but it's funny how:
- when Protoss is weak -> this is the map pool's fault
- when Protoss in strong -> obviously the race is broken and we need to nerf the units
It would be nice if people were a little more open-minded about the fact that regardless of race played there is someone struggling with a mouse and a keyboard on the other side too. These numbers don't show what the issue is and how to solve it, so reciprocally please don't discard every possibility including that it may not only due to map pool. It would be very sad if we had to absolutely always have the same boring standard maps to have something close to balance.
The blink era was entirely the fault of awful maps and everybody knew that and thats how it was resolved, I have no idea what you are talking about
|
On January 03 2016 03:49 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 02:18 PPN wrote:
I don't know if this applies to today's case but it's funny how:
- when Protoss is weak -> this is the map pool's fault
- when Protoss in strong -> obviously the race is broken and we need to nerf the units
It would be nice if people were a little more open-minded about the fact that regardless of race played there is someone struggling with a mouse and a keyboard on the other side too. These numbers don't show what the issue is and how to solve it, so reciprocally please don't discard every possibility including that it may not only due to map pool. It would be very sad if we had to absolutely always have the same boring standard maps to have something close to balance. The blink era was entirely the fault of awful maps and everybody knew that and thats how it was resolved, I have no idea what you are talking about
Uck. While you could blame the maps, I blame the game design. What solved the 1-1-1? Map design. What solve the Roach max build versus Protoss? Map design. And you can add so many more builds to that list.
There is an incredible number of restrictions on map design these days because Blizzard fails to solve the problems with game design.
|
On January 03 2016 03:49 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 02:18 PPN wrote:
I don't know if this applies to today's case but it's funny how:
- when Protoss is weak -> this is the map pool's fault
- when Protoss in strong -> obviously the race is broken and we need to nerf the units
It would be nice if people were a little more open-minded about the fact that regardless of race played there is someone struggling with a mouse and a keyboard on the other side too. These numbers don't show what the issue is and how to solve it, so reciprocally please don't discard every possibility including that it may not only due to map pool. It would be very sad if we had to absolutely always have the same boring standard maps to have something close to balance. The blink era was entirely the fault of awful maps and everybody knew that and thats how it was resolved, I have no idea what you are talking about
You mean like the Blink nerf?
I think MsC vision was also at that time, not sure.
|
Maps are Zerg favored yes but only changing maps won't be enough. I even think problem is much deeper than just balance, zerg is way too easy to play in lotv. Terran and Protoss is way harder to play than zerg league distribution shows it pretty well imo. Protoss needs late game buffs, they can nerf adepts but if they do it without buffing late game units first protoss will have no ways to win left.
|
On January 03 2016 03:52 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 03:49 Lexender wrote:On January 03 2016 02:18 PPN wrote:
I don't know if this applies to today's case but it's funny how:
- when Protoss is weak -> this is the map pool's fault
- when Protoss in strong -> obviously the race is broken and we need to nerf the units
It would be nice if people were a little more open-minded about the fact that regardless of race played there is someone struggling with a mouse and a keyboard on the other side too. These numbers don't show what the issue is and how to solve it, so reciprocally please don't discard every possibility including that it may not only due to map pool. It would be very sad if we had to absolutely always have the same boring standard maps to have something close to balance. The blink era was entirely the fault of awful maps and everybody knew that and thats how it was resolved, I have no idea what you are talking about You mean like the Blink nerf? I think MsC vision was also at that time, not sure.
They didn't nerf blink during the blink era, they did nerf MsC vision tho, but its not like they nerfed blink it self directly, even without the MsC nerf the maps where what was needed.
|
On January 03 2016 03:48 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
If we had blindly followed aligulac win rates the widow mine revert would have never happened. Aligulac's "balance" page has always been a poor source of information. Why would we blindly follow the win rates? I don't see anyone arguing for that. They are a source of information to be considered. But not ignored. Therefore we should neither follow them blindly, nor totally discard them. The fact that PvZ is at it's worst point in terms of win rates ever should be very concerning and is cause for some kind of change.
Aligulac's win rates are worth ignoring. There's too much garbage included that obscures the end result.
|
On January 03 2016 04:48 TheWinks wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 03:48 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 03 2016 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
If we had blindly followed aligulac win rates the widow mine revert would have never happened. Aligulac's "balance" page has always been a poor source of information. Why would we blindly follow the win rates? I don't see anyone arguing for that. They are a source of information to be considered. But not ignored. Therefore we should neither follow them blindly, nor totally discard them. The fact that PvZ is at it's worst point in terms of win rates ever should be very concerning and is cause for some kind of change. Aligulac's win rates are worth ignoring. There's too much garbage included that obscures the end result.
I remember when ByuN was being number 1 terran, in the middle of HotS
|
On January 03 2016 04:54 Lexender wrote:Show nested quote +On January 03 2016 04:48 TheWinks wrote:On January 03 2016 03:48 BronzeKnee wrote:On January 03 2016 03:48 TheWinks wrote:
If we had blindly followed aligulac win rates the widow mine revert would have never happened. Aligulac's "balance" page has always been a poor source of information. Why would we blindly follow the win rates? I don't see anyone arguing for that. They are a source of information to be considered. But not ignored. Therefore we should neither follow them blindly, nor totally discard them. The fact that PvZ is at it's worst point in terms of win rates ever should be very concerning and is cause for some kind of change. Aligulac's win rates are worth ignoring. There's too much garbage included that obscures the end result. I remember when ByuN was being number 1 terran, in the middle of HotS
We know how it works. When people play a lot of online tournaments, they end up advancing their rating way more (and way easier) than the people who play only GSL and the occasional week-end tournament, even though they are playing weaker opposition. You have demonstrated that the ranking is flawed, but that's completely different from collecting results and calculating a win percentage based on them.
What is described as "garbage" is simply things that contradict the narrative you're pulling for.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
