|
On January 24 2016 09:12 BronzeKnee wrote:
I'd ask for proof that it shows less than nothing about balance... but...
And other quotes.
I am not obligated to prove that something proves nothing. You have the 'burden of proof' backwards. That statistic is meaningless, I could break it down verbally for you why but it is self evident and too much effort to go over, unless you really want me to inwhich case I will, but I think you can go figure it out.
|
You are when I have a strong case that it proves something based on facts. The argument was that Protoss versus Terran was Protoss favored. However, Protoss is winning as many games against Terran as Terran wins against Protoss based on a website that collects data on win rates. Therefore, the argument isn't correct, because the definition of the word "favored" implies that one side have a better chance to win, and we know if anything, Terran has a slightly better chance to win based on the win rates.
Statistics matter. Facts matter. I know how inconvenient that is for the argument that Protoss is destroying Terran left and right. I'm sorry it isn't true. I'd be with you if the facts said TvP was in a terrible place winrate wise, seriously I'd be with you.
But you're telling me win rates don't matter. And you want to ignore them. So what does matter?
And whatever your answer is, it must be independent of the winrates. In other words, your answer must be able to explain why the imbalance isn't demonstrated in the win rates. That is a huge constraint, but I'd love to hear the argument if you've got it. I love being wrong because it increases the chances I'll be right next time.
I'm really looking forward to understanding balance better in SC2 without relying on winrates. I'd love to use your new objective measure based on statistics or qualitative thinking that can balance the game better. Blizzard, Riot, Valve and other companies have been erroneously using win rates which is "meaningless" apparently. So do tell.
And honestly, I've spent my entire life trying to argue, like Rene Descartes did, that things can be proven, that knowledge can exist. The skeptical argument was disproved by Descartes long ago, but people are ignorant and tell me that we can't prove things all the time, and then they go ahead and use fallacies to explain why things are the way they are.
At this point, I don't argue to prove anything to anyone, I argue to defend those who already know. Statistics matter.
On January 24 2016 09:56 pure.Wasted wrote:
So I'm cherry-picking by proving the claim "Terrans get 3-0'd by Protoss"... by showing games where Protoss 3-0 Terrans...
That was not your claim and you're be purposely disingenuous right now. Everyone knows Terrans can lose three games to Protoss.
Here it is:
On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
Nerfing damage by -2 wouldn't have changed a single other relationship that I can think of. Why not play it safe and avoid having to renerf Adepts two weeks later after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? There's literally no risk unless you consider the (highly unlikely) possibility of completely killing aggressive Adept openings a very bad thing. And even if it did, there's still MSC, Stalkers, Oracles... but it wouldn't...
Your claim was that an imbalance existed because Terrans were losing three games to none against Protoss due to Adepts, and that a -1 to their damage versus light wouldn't stop that, Terrans would continue losing 3-0 if Adepts only recieved a -1 to damage versus light. But when you look at the bigger pictures, Protoss losses just as much as Terran does in TvP, so you were cherry picking those statistics instead of looking at the bigger picture. That is where the winrates come in.
It isn't and wasn't evidence, it is hyperbole. There are plenty of times when Protoss loses three games to none versus Terran and it is evidence of nothing by itself.
And I know people like crazedrat will tell me that winrates don't matter, which I find ironic because he won't damn your statement based on cherry picked statistics of a few series where Terrans lose 3-0.
But such is bias.
|
People, you pay attention way too much to win rates themselves.
Thing is, when it comes to the highest level of play, some people (not races, but players) will be better then others.
Some P may be simply better then their T opponents Some T players may be better then their P opponents.
We don't have hundreds of progamers each of the same level. Only couple dozen. Some are better then others. They are not paired equally in the brackets.
Personal skill may or may not swing the win rates a lot more. If a great player goes through with 3:1 or 3:0, after being matched with weaker opponents, he will statistically cause "imbalance" or "balance" more then an average pro gamer who wins 3:2, and then loses 2:3.
In the end, the statistical balance is not worth much. What is worth is the way the games are won and lost. Not balance. But the game flow, the design, the asymmetry in the match up.
If we look at some of the recent games, either P harasses the shit out of Terran and wins, or Terran defends and proceeds to win in the late game.
In other words, Protoss early game (PO, Adepts, Warp Prism) swings the game heavily in P favor. Terran late game swings the game heavily in T favor.
There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy.
If PO and Adept is nerfed. then we need to look at the P mid-late game, or maybe even at the T new unit roster (especially Liberator).
You people arguing about proving imbalance, or throwing "fallacy" and other arguments (logical or not) just pollute this thread. Get back to talking about the possible future changes. Stop arguing about semantics.
To start it off, I'm gonna say that reducing Spore damage vs bio will make ZvZ a Muta snooze fest.
I'm a Diamond player using gasless Mutalisk exclusively and ZvZ is my best match up atm (53%), even though players I'm matched against all have 50-100% more apm then I do. With Spore nerf everyone is going to go Muta, only some selected few gambler types might still go for Roach timings.
Agree/Disagree
|
The quality of this thread decreased rapidly ...
|
On January 24 2016 19:13 404AlphaSquad wrote:
The quality of this thread decreased rapidly ...
The fact that protoss is getting nerfed is bad quality by itself.
|
On January 24 2016 19:58 ProtossMasterRace wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 19:13 404AlphaSquad wrote:
The quality of this thread decreased rapidly ... The fact that protoss is getting nerfed is bad quality by itself.
It's fine to nerf adepts and overcharge because they don't exactly lead to stellar gameplay. The problem is that there's no compensation for those nerfs even though Protoss has been clearly struggling against Zerg since before launch.
|
wrong thread sorry
patch is fine, it needs to be done to make the game better, we can go from there afterwards
|
On January 24 2016 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:+ Show Spoiler +You are when I have a strong case that it proves something based on facts. The argument was that Protoss versus Terran was Protoss favored. However, Protoss is winning as many games against Terran as Terran wins against Protoss based on a website that collects data on win rates. Therefore, the argument isn't correct, because the definition of the word "favored" implies that one side have a better chance to win, and we know if anything, Terran has a slightly better chance to win based on the win rates. Statistics matter. Facts matter. I know how inconvenient that is for the argument that Protoss is destroying Terran left and right. I'm sorry it isn't true. I'd be with you if the facts said TvP was in a terrible place winrate wise, seriously I'd be with you. But you're telling me win rates don't matter. And you want to ignore them. So what does matter?And whatever your answer is, it must be independent of the winrates. In other words, your answer must be able to explain why the imbalance isn't demonstrated in the win rates. That is a huge constraint, but I'd love to hear the argument if you've got it. I love being wrong because it increases the chances I'll be right next time. I'm really looking forward to understanding balance better in SC2 without relying on winrates. I'd love to use your new objective measure based on statistics or qualitative thinking that can balance the game better. Blizzard, Riot, Valve and other companies have been erroneously using win rates which is "meaningless" apparently. So do tell. And honestly, I've spent my entire life trying to argue, like Rene Descartes did, that things can be proven, that knowledge can exist. The skeptical argument was disproved by Descartes long ago, but people are ignorant and tell me that we can't prove things all the time, and then they go ahead and use fallacies to explain why things are the way they are. At this point, I don't argue to prove anything to anyone, I argue to defend those who already know. Statistics matter. On January 24 2016 09:56 pure.Wasted wrote:
So I'm cherry-picking by proving the claim "Terrans get 3-0'd by Protoss"... by showing games where Protoss 3-0 Terrans...
That was not your claim and you're be purposely disingenuous right now. Everyone knows Terrans can lose three games to Protoss. Here it is: On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
Nerfing damage by -2 wouldn't have changed a single other relationship that I can think of. Why not play it safe and avoid having to renerf Adepts two weeks later after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? There's literally no risk unless you consider the (highly unlikely) possibility of completely killing aggressive Adept openings a very bad thing. And even if it did, there's still MSC, Stalkers, Oracles... but it wouldn't... Your claim was that an imbalance existed because Terrans were losing three games to none against Protoss due to Adepts, and that a -1 to their damage versus light wouldn't stop that, Terrans would continue losing 3-0 if Adepts only recieved a -1 to damage versus light. But when you look at the bigger pictures, Protoss losses just as much as Terran does in TvP, so you were cherry picking those statistics instead of looking at the bigger picture. That is where the winrates come in. It isn't and wasn't evidence, it is hyperbole. There are plenty of times when Protoss loses three games to none versus Terran and it is evidence of nothing by itself. And I know people like crazedrat will tell me that winrates don't matter, which I find ironic because he won't damn your statement based on cherry picked statistics of a few series where Terrans lose 3-0. But such is bias.
Statistics are very much open to interpretation, and not every interpretation is as valid or as important or as factual or as likely to be correct as the others.
You seem like a smart guy, so let me take you on a trip to hypothetical land and show you how statistics can be misleading. This is not a parallel to current balance issues, in fact I haven't kept up much with how things are right now, consider it a pure thought experiment.
So let's say Terran is very strong against Protoss at the moment, across the board. They have a strong winrate in Bronze, in Silver, Gold, Plat and Diamond and even Low-Mid Masters. Terran is quite powerful across these skill levels. However at High Masters, GM and overall professional level, Terran is doing very poorly in this matchup, either because there's few of them, or because there's simply many skilled Protosses who have already figured out an effective counter to whatever strategy wins Terran so many TvPs at the lower levels.
A site like Aligulac looks at the professional level but there's also a lot of matches involving semi-pro or lower players. The latter are surprisingly common when you consider that we also add many online cups which do feature some of these players in the early rounds. So what you have is maybe half pro-level and half high-level matches. In half of them, Terran is getting obliterated by pro Protoss players, in the other half non-pro Terrans are wiping the floor with non-pro Protosses. The numbers say about 50-50, maybe 52-48 in either direction, but you can see why and how they're skewed.
If you look at the numbers overall, Terran is wrecking. If you look at the professional matches in major tournaments only, Protoss is dominating. If you look at the particular set of matches that we have over at Aligulac, it seems oddly even.
And honestly, this is one of the things that we've tried to mitigate but couldn't fully do so, throughout the years, with Aligulac. Which is why I, as well as other people involved, keep saying that you shouldn't use it as the be-all end-all for balance statistics. That functionality exists due to popular demand and ease of implementation, not because we consider it to be the main focus of the project.
|
On January 24 2016 15:52 BronzeKnee wrote:That was not your claim and you're be purposely disingenuous right now. Everyone knows Terrans can lose three games to Protoss. Here it is: Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 06:54 pure.Wasted wrote:
Nerfing damage by -2 wouldn't have changed a single other relationship that I can think of. Why not play it safe and avoid having to renerf Adepts two weeks later after it turns out Terran's still get 3-0'd? There's literally no risk unless you consider the (highly unlikely) possibility of completely killing aggressive Adept openings a very bad thing. And even if it did, there's still MSC, Stalkers, Oracles... but it wouldn't... Your claim was that an imbalance existed because Terrans were losing three games to none against Protoss due to Adepts, and that a -1 to their damage versus light wouldn't stop that, Terrans would continue losing 3-0 if Adepts only recieved a -1 to damage versus light. But when you look at the bigger pictures, Protoss losses just as much as Terran does in TvP, so you were cherry picking those statistics instead of looking at the bigger picture. That is where the winrates come in. It isn't and wasn't evidence, it is hyperbole. There are plenty of times when Protoss loses three games to none versus Terran and it is evidence of nothing by itself.
And all this time I thought I knew what I was claiming. You sure showed me, BronzeKnee!
You're too much. You realize that you've now spent 3 pages arguing against your literal interpretation of a statement which you've now admitted to knowing was a hyperbole? You realize that there is a reason this statement was not at the start of my post, and that reason probably has something to do with me not wanting to mislead people into thinking that it was the point of my post?
You realize that literally two posts up from the post that contains the sentence fragment which took you on this magical 3-page journey is another post of mine, on the exact same subject no less, which leaves absolutely zero room for interpretation?
Can anyone explain why Blizzard would even risk the Adept damage nerf not doing enough because of possible rushed +1 weapons? Why not just try -2 damage right off the bat to play it freaking safe?
If this wasn't the first patch in two and a half months, I'd be less concerned.
What's this? Not a single mention of win rates anywhere? Why, it's... it's almost as if the lack of mentions of win rates is some kind of clue... possibly indicating the fact that what I'm interested in talking about isn't win rates!
But by all means, keep digging that hole. Linking random logical fallacies is a lot easier than admitting you're wrong and have been spouting gibberish for pages on end.
|
Bronzeknee, it would help if you'd actually try to understand what people are trying to say. At this point, if you're not trolling, I think it's fair to say your reading comprehension skills are not the best.
|
loool, this is too funny :D
|
2v1 and they don't even have the balls to reveal their names. #justProtossThings 
|
Unfortunate that the season lock screwup messed with the rankings, there used to be a bunch of Terrans in an anti-adept clan near the top of the ladder
|
So Blizzard... about that...
|
On January 24 2016 14:55 crazedrat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 09:12 BronzeKnee wrote:
I'd ask for proof that it shows less than nothing about balance... but...
And other quotes. I am not obligated to prove that something proves nothing. You have the 'burden of proof' backwards. That statistic is meaningless, I could break it down verbally for you why but it is self evident and too much effort to go over, unless you really want me to inwhich case I will, but I think you can go figure it out.
When i told bronze that statistics are rubbish, i was called a troll.
Iam surprised he didnt call you a troll to.
|
United Kingdom476 Posts
On January 24 2016 19:04 Nazara wrote:
...
There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy.
...
Wow, first we have BronzeKnee being a dick and now the discussion has descended to this.
The PO change and Adept change are long overdue in order to promote a fairer and more interesting early TvP. Maybe they will show that P is weaker late game and lead to a non-gimmicky buff to some core units.
I think the real issue is that Blizzard have been too slow to make changes for some obviously broken things and now with the reduced number of games they will be even more reluctant to change things.
|
On January 25 2016 02:38 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 19:04 Nazara wrote:
...
There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy.
...
Wow, first we have BronzeKnee being a dick and now the discussion has descended to this. The PO change and Adept change are long overdue in order to promote a fairer and more interesting early TvP. Maybe they will show that P is weaker late game and lead to a non-gimmicky buff to some core units. I think the real issue is that Blizzard have been too slow to make changes for some obviously broken things and now with the reduced number of games they will be even more reluctant to change things.
Yeah... 5 and a half years isn't even long enough for them to do that. Why would we expect LotV in a good state at 2 and a half months? Or even 5 and a half months?
|
On January 25 2016 02:38 DeadByDawn wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 19:04 Nazara wrote:
...
There is no statistical imbalance. But the way games play out is gay and unworthy of a game called Real Time Strategy.
...
Wow, first we have BronzeKnee being a dick and now the discussion has descended to this. Language is ever-changing and taboo words only carry a stigma if the society allows them to.
Chill out. There is nothing homophobic in above statement. I never meant to offend anyone.
|
On January 24 2016 14:55 crazedrat wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 09:12 BronzeKnee wrote:
I'd ask for proof that it shows less than nothing about balance... but...
And other quotes. I am not obligated to prove that something proves nothing. You have the 'burden of proof' backwards. That statistic is meaningless, I could break it down verbally for you why but it is self evident and too much effort to go over, unless you really want me to inwhich case I will, but I think you can go figure it out.
I really don't know if he can figure it out. I was trying to explain he wasn't using the concept of burden of proof correctly (among other things) for quite some time and he came out with this:
On January 24 2016 09:11 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2016 09:04 Bohemond wrote:
I can't prove to you that mixing sodium bicarbonate and water creates a reaction, either. That's why this can't ever go anywhere. By one person endlessly asking for proof, the argument stalls. Then the person demanding proof uses the concept of burden of proof to declare victory and walks away pounding on their own chest.
So all I need to do is say that Smurfs live on the moon, and when someone asks for proof, I tell them they are stalling? Goes against everything science is based on, but sounds fun!
Which, as best I can tell, appears to equate a testable chemical reaction with the claim that Smurfs live on the moon. I think he just assumes people who disagree with him are saying stupid things and either isn't willing or isn't capable of trying to understand.
|
I think vs late game tempest army terran should upgrade liberator range and set it in max range so viking can attack tempest but stalkers can't attack vikings without get into liberator zone.So in theory tempest army doesn't seem unbeatable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
