|
On February 05 2016 04:09 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2016 22:42 Salteador Neo wrote:
Well that is many games, probably enough to get some conclusions.
I like how PvT is basically fixed at ~53%, TvZ at 50% (protoss so jelly) and PvZ is a total trainwreck.
Now I really wish stalker disruptor was good at the top level. Watching packs of roach/rav/hydra go boom was fun. Remember that most of the games played during that period were before the Adept and PO nerf. So Protoss was winning ~52% prior the nerfs.
Did you even read Scarlett's post? Scarlett's post reflects the state of the meta - protoss favouring blinkstalker/disruptors over the new korean PvZ meta of stargate harass into chargelot/archon/immortal.
|
Scarlett is one of the whiniest pros out there and really anything she says should be thrown out the window.
Here you've got data that shows Protoss wins 43% of the time against Zerg PRIOR to a huge nerf in the way they secure bases.
Yeah. Good luck.
User was warned for this post
|
On February 05 2016 04:33 DinoMight wrote:
Scarlett is one of the whiniest pros out there and really anything she says should be thrown out the window.
Here you've got data that shows Protoss wins 43% of the time against Zerg PRIOR to a huge nerf in the way they secure bases.
Yeah. Good luck.
User was warned for this post
In light of this warning I will elaborate.
The game has been out in more or less the same form for a really long time. The data is relevant because it shows that regardless of strategy employed Protoss can't manage a decent win rate against Zerg. We couldn't beat Zerg with Stalker Disruptor, and we still can't beat it at a high enough rate with Chargelot Archon.
Scarlett has a history of complaining about Protoss and I would take her interpretation of why the numbers are "wrong" with a grain (or two) of salt.
Finally, the Terran situation was different because that change was a straight Medivac buff. The learning required to USE the new Medivac was much less than that required to play against it. Terrans got much better, then Protoss caught up. Look at LotV TvP, for example. Adept drops were annihilating people left and right when the game first came out because they were easy to do and hard to defend against. Even BEFORE the nerf, Terrans began closing the gap by changing build orders and using new units (Cyclone).
LotV has changed a lot more than HotS did and Zergs are ALSO still improving their builds. So 6 months into the same game, basically, we're still asking Protoss to learn new builds while they sit at the worst PvZ ratio in history. And then Photon Overcharge gets nerfed. Okay.
|
On February 05 2016 05:33 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 04:33 DinoMight wrote:
Scarlett is one of the whiniest pros out there and really anything she says should be thrown out the window.
Here you've got data that shows Protoss wins 43% of the time against Zerg PRIOR to a huge nerf in the way they secure bases.
Yeah. Good luck.
User was warned for this post In light of this warning I will elaborate. The game has been out in more or less the same form for a really long time. The data is relevant because it shows that regardless of strategy employed Protoss can't manage a decent win rate against Zerg. We couldn't beat Zerg with Stalker Disruptor, and we still can't beat it at a high enough rate with Chargelot Archon.Scarlett has a history of complaining about Protoss and I would take her interpretation of why the numbers are "wrong" with a grain (or two) of salt. Finally, the Terran situation was different because that change was a straight Medivac buff. The learning required to USE the new Medivac was much less than that required to play against it. Terrans got much better, then Protoss caught up. Look at LotV TvP, for example. Adept drops were annihilating people left and right when the game first came out because they were easy to do and hard to defend against. Even BEFORE the nerf, Terrans began closing the gap by changing build orders and using new units (Cyclone). LotV has changed a lot more than HotS did and Zergs are ALSO still improving their builds. So 6 months into the same game, basically, we're still asking Protoss to learn new builds while they sit at the worst PvZ ratio in history. And then Photon Overcharge gets nerfed. Okay.
Pot really shouldn't call kettle's post-history black.
And I think we need to wait and see if the new meta is good enough for Protoss. I don't know what you mean by "high enough rate". Ideally, it should be 50% win rate versus a player of equal skill.
|
On February 05 2016 04:33 DinoMight wrote:
Scarlett is one of the whiniest pros out there and really anything she says should be thrown out the window.
Here you've got data that shows Protoss wins 43% of the time against Zerg PRIOR to a huge nerf in the way they secure bases.
Yeah. Good luck.
User was warned for this post
And I see you Balance whine a shit ton so your opinion should be thrown out the window right?
In all seriousness, in the beginning of LOTV and until about mid December I thought PvZ was incredibly Zerg favored. Then Protosses started opening up Phoenix into chargelot/archon/immortal which is a million times stronger and harder to fight then stalker/disruptor.
If you watch Code A, Protosses are winning PvZ's in a bo5 a lot. In Proleague Protosses have won more pvz then zerg has (small sample size of course).
The Protosses that I see struggle in pvz the most, are the ones who refuse to open stargate and play disruptor/stalker composition which is just not that good imo.
|
Code A is a very small sample size.
The stats don't lie. Win percentage in PvZ is totally off. That's not a racial bias talking. That's statistics.
Now what happens when you take a race that's wining the least in any matchup and nerf the strongest tool it has for securing expansions?
|
Scarlett is one of the whiniest pros out there and really anything she says should be thrown out the window.
I guess you'll just have to wait for her to play Toss against Zerg in a tourney again to show you how it's done 
|
I love that DinoMight is the one commenting on balance whine.
|
I'm sorry but what DinoMight said isn't an opinion. We were at the lowest point on this winrate in aligulac. We were there before a nerf happened. That nerf has now happened. The notion that protoss will get better now because they will figure out builds is incredibly unsubstantiated; if anything, it's zerg that now has to come up with builds that abuse the new state of the protoss defense as much as possible. It could be Avilo saying it and that wouldn't change a thing, and it would be fantastic if we could just acknowledge that.
|
On February 05 2016 13:22 DinoMight wrote:
Code A is a very small sample size.
The stats don't lie. Win percentage in PvZ is totally off. That's not a racial bias talking. That's statistics.
Now what happens when you take a race that's wining the least in any matchup and nerf the strongest tool it has for securing expansions?
- Stats do lie when interpreted with a racial bias.
- You appear to know about the shift in PvZ meta. + Show Spoiler +We couldn't beat Zerg with Stalker Disruptor, and we still can't beat it at a high enough rate with Chargelot Archon.
- Since this meta + Show Spoiler +phoenix opener into chargelot/immortal/archon
- You seem to think the win rate from the new meta isn't high enough. Others seem to think the new PvZ meta is a lot stronger. Time will tell. Until then, what you're saying is pure bias.
On February 05 2016 13:45 Nebuchad wrote:
I'm sorry but what DinoMight said isn't an opinion. We were at the lowest point on this winrate in aligulac. We were there before a nerf happened. That nerf has now happened. The notion that protoss will get better now because they will figure out builds is incredibly unsubstantiated; if anything, it's zerg that now has to come up with builds that abuse the new state of the protoss defense as much as possible. It could be Avilo saying it and that wouldn't change a thing, and it would be fantastic if we could just acknowledge that.
I'm sorry but you just seem out of the loop. There is no notion that Protoss WILL figure out builds. They already have figured it out. To attribute the winrate statistics from the previous meta while ignoring the change in the current meta is ridiculous.
The only question is whether the Protoss answer to Zerg is good enough. And that will be reflected in the next aligulac, assuming the current meta lasts until then, and doesn't get replaced by something else.
|
Hey Cascade is it possible to take into account the builds into account when dealing with PvZ winrates (or i suppose balance). I have a feeling that Z is easier to play, which allows Z more room for error which is pushing the win-rates in favor of Z. Basically the composition of roach+ravenger into lurker requires far less precision than P whose builds usually revolve around more volatile compositions; with these "volatile comps" exacerbated by precise building placement, disrupters, phoenixes, adepts, precise ffs and reliance on MSC cannons.
My statistical aptitude has sort of ummm disintegrated... Is there a way to compare the amount of apm needed to play well with the win-rates? My mind right now say absolutely no way this is calculable, but I'm still wondering.
|
The notion that protoss winrate will continue to increase based on this new meta is unsubstantiated (you say so yourself, we don't know). Even though we don't know, logic dictates very clearly that it would be more likely to go down than up, as zerg has two direct possibilities to improve (adjust vs new meta + adjust vs new defense) while protoss has no direct possibility to improve (the improvement only relies on even more players applying the new style that zergs are already practicing and possibly improving against).
I'd also question how straightforward it is that we should accept to have to play one style to achieve a decent winrate (of 45% so far). Cause I don't recall that sitting very well with terran in very recent memory, or with many people any time.
|
On February 05 2016 14:12 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Hey Cascade is it possible to take into account the builds into account when dealing with PvZ winrates (or i suppose balance). I have a feeling that Z is easier to play, which allows Z more room for error which is pushing the win-rates in favor of Z. Basically the composition of roach+ravenger into lurker requires far less precision than P whose builds usually revolve around more volatile compositions; with these "volatile comps" exacerbated by precise building placement, disrupters, phoenixes, adepts, precise ffs and reliance on MSC cannons.
My statistical aptitude has sort of ummm disintegrated... Is there a way to compare the amount of apm needed to play well with the win-rates? My mind right now say absolutely no way this is calculable, but I'm still wondering.
Sure, you can correlate builds and APM to winrate, although you'd have to be careful in the interpretations (not the most prominent virtue of the average TL poster), with correlation not implying cause and whatnot.
But I don't have access to the data, and I am not sure anyone has taken that data, so it don't see it happening.
A more natural next step would probable be to look at win rates by map.
|
On February 05 2016 12:39 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 04:33 DinoMight wrote:
Scarlett is one of the whiniest pros out there and really anything she says should be thrown out the window.
Here you've got data that shows Protoss wins 43% of the time against Zerg PRIOR to a huge nerf in the way they secure bases.
Yeah. Good luck.
User was warned for this post And I see you Balance whine a shit ton so your opinion should be thrown out the window right?
|
I don't know guys, I feel like I've been pretty fair recently.
I actually suggested the -1 nerf on Adepts that made it into the game... I do play the other races...
I know most people don't play Protoss but for those of you who do... it's EXTREMELY frustrating. Laddering is nothing but PvZ, which is only winnable with the exact same opener and build every game. The game gets really fucking repetitive.
EVEN if Phoenix into Chargelot Archon is better than the old meta and it starts winning more... we've had many many months of LotV to test various strategies and this is the only one that even comes close to winning enough of the time (close to 50%). And we haven't even given time for Zerg to learn to play against it.
Next, you need to understand how much P relied on PO to secure their third when going Phoenixes.... If you forgot to build enough Pylons at your third or if the Zerg made slightly more stuff than you anticipated you'd get absolutely fucking rolled. So what are we to do now when we open Phoenixes and they show up with Roach/Ravager to bust down our expansion?
I really don't think what I'm saying is unreasonable here. And so far the numbers have 100% been on my side.
|
On February 05 2016 13:46 plogamer wrote:
The only question is whether the Protoss answer to Zerg is good enough. And that will be reflected in the next aligulac, assuming the current meta lasts until then, and doesn't get replaced by something else.
And if there's some kind of small patch before then, how long should we wait before adjusting the longest-lasting apparent imbalance in the game?
The standards seem to be really weird here.
- PvZ is at ~45% (or lower) win-rate even at the highest levels
- Protoss come up with a build which appears to even out win-rates (at best even, according to what little stats we have)
- Protoss receives a nerf to their capabilities to take bases (something they have historically struggled with)
So ... what's the reason to wait?
I mean, yeah, you can wait another period. But when does that end? When does an actual change come?
Things will always be changing in a game like SC2. Having such a historically bad win-rate ... and having Zergs with very little time to adjust to a brand-new style still winning at 50% ... followed by a significant nerf ...
When is it actually time to nerf Zerg in PvZ or buff Protoss?
|
On February 06 2016 00:11 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 05 2016 13:46 plogamer wrote:
The only question is whether the Protoss answer to Zerg is good enough. And that will be reflected in the next aligulac, assuming the current meta lasts until then, and doesn't get replaced by something else. And if there's some kind of small patch before then, how long should we wait before adjusting the longest-lasting apparent imbalance in the game? The standards seem to be really weird here. - PvZ is at ~45% (or lower) win-rate even at the highest levels - Protoss come up with a build which appears to even out win-rates (at best even, according to what little stats we have) - Protoss receives a nerf to their capabilities to take bases (something they have historically struggled with) So ... what's the reason to wait? I mean, yeah, you can wait another period. But when does that end? When does an actual change come? Things will always be changing in a game like SC2. Having such a historically bad win-rate ... and having Zergs with very little time to adjust to a brand-new style still winning at 50% ... followed by a significant nerf ... When is it actually time to nerf Zerg in PvZ or buff Protoss?
PvZ is tough. You can't really buff P or nerf Z because of the way that those units interact with T.
You really need to lock down on the units that Z doesn't use against Terran as much, or change maps in a way that doesn't affect the matchup.
I think a Lurker nerf might be doable. Zergs aren't bulding too many Lurkers against Terrans. Maybe you can make the den itself faster to get but then reduce the range of the Lurker by 1-2 and maybe the length it takes to burrow. So it can't just run up to your shit and burrow on top of you.
Protoss used to have the strongest ground army. So you could play safe and get to something good. But it doesn't.
Zerg has an easier time securing bases and pressuring bases. It has the best ground army and the easiest way to get to a good late game army. It has the tech switches. Protoss can't compete with that aside from one build that wins less than 50% of the time which will get figured out, and that's nerfs aside.
Something needs to be done here, really.
PvZ is really the only matchup that consistently sees every unit being used. P really lacks strength in the mid game (it's just too tough to compete with roach/ravager in high quantities effectively) and it's really hard to pressure a greedy Zerg without going allin. Maybe those areas can be targeted for tweaks?
Perhaps ravagers being armored would help, or Zealots getting +1 damage by default to help with Zerlings.
If Ravagers are armored you can remove sieged Tank pickups/drops in TvT and not worry about hurting TvZ too much. Because Marauders will be more useful in fighting Ravagers.
|
I think Scarlett is 100% right that maps are having a huge influence on these numbers.
Is the data available to be broken apart by map?
|
Czech Republic12131 Posts
I love how we should wait in PvZ but adepts were too fucking strong so we couldn't wait in PvT. WTF? Why there couldn't be the waiting approach accepted? My only answer can be - because Terran bias.
(though I think that with proper map pool the PvZ would be OKish, but standard maps are not creative enough thus we have fucked up PvZ WR)
|
On February 07 2016 04:36 deacon.frost wrote:
I love how we should wait in PvZ but adepts were too fucking strong so we couldn't wait in PvT. WTF? Why there couldn't be the waiting approach accepted? My only answer can be - because Terran bias.
(though I think that with proper map pool the PvZ would be OKish, but standard maps are not creative enough thus we have fucked up PvZ WR)
The right approach is the slow one. Just because terran was patched arguably too fast doesn't mean we should now be fast in everything (I can't tell if you agree with this or not but I think you do)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
