aligulac.com Go here for interactive graphics, including number of games the stats are based on. Below is from Aligulac.
Balance report
The following chart show the historical month-by-month winrates for each non-mirror matchup in the database.
Note that this yields information about metagame balance near the top of the skill ladder, and is not to be confused with (although likely correlated to) actual game balance throughout the whole player population.
The winrate is shown with respect to the race listed first, so if the Protoss vs. Terran graph shoots up, that means Protoss is doing well and Terran poorly.
The performance difference chart shows the approximate difference between actual performance as evidenced by results and predicted performance by rating. For example, if, averaged over a whole month, all Terrans had mean rating difference -100 (which is to say, their mean rating was equal to 100 less than that of their opponents), but they performed as if they had a mean rating difference of +100 (about 54.5% winrate), then that amounts to a performance difference of +200, which is to be interpreted as that Terran players overall performed 200 points better than expected.
This chart can avoid some of the problems with the above, which can potentially be influenced by incredibly hot streaks from one or two singularly great players. However, as ratings catch up to the performances of the players, this chart will tend toward equilibrium, even if balance never changes.
Some stats Using stattrek.com This is by the OP, not aligulac.
I am summing the stats for November to end of January (so all of LotV, plus last week of HotS) for each matchup, and do some binomial tests to get p-values for balanced matchups.
PvZ: 1712/3928 = 43.6% (singel sided) p-value for 50%: less than 1e-6 (single sided) p-value for 45%: 3%
TvZ: 1836/3665 = 50.1% (singel sided) p-value for 50%: 46%
PvT: 1265/2511 = 50.4% (singel sided) p-value for 50%: 36%
These number show incredibly strong evidence that zergs beat protosses most often than not in this set of games. They also show well balanced winrates close to 50% in both TvP and TvZ.
However, the binomial test assumes that the games are independent, which they are not of course. The same players play several maps each time, and each (well, most) players play many series. This can create false significance in this binomial test, like the Z > P above. We can handwavingly take this into account by cutting down the number of independent observations (degrees of freedom), while maintaining the win ratio. Looking at ZvP (the others already have high p-values), we slash the number of games by 5, turning it into
PvZ (decreased #observations): 342/785= 43.6% (singel sided) p-value for 50%: 1e.7e-4 (single sided) p-value for 47%: 2.9% (single sided) p-value for 45%: 22%
These numbers still show a very strong signal of zerg winning more over protoss, although the evidence for a winrate over 55% isn't as compelling any more.
You can also add some multiple hypothesis testing for the three matchups, and double-sided p-values, which would further weaken the signal a bit, pushing back the point of 5% significance to 48% probably. Nonetheless, all these corrections doesn't change the fact that the measured winrate is 43.6%. It only changes how likely it is to be coincidental from a true winrate of 50%. In conclusion, there is striking evidence that zerg has a larger than 50% winrate in this data set, some evidence that it is larger than 53% and indications that it is above 55%.
I am a zerg player, so it is not in my interest to report a Z > P imbalance.
Although I have been trying to push the importance and significance of the signal we saw last month, so I guess I am biased to reproduce what I have been whining about since last month. Which it has been. but would I have written this OP if the January stats had been 50% for ZvP? Probably not. Which is called publication bias.
edit: oops, screwed up PvZ and ZvP. >_> fixed, sorry. Zerg is winning more over toss.
On February 02 2016 21:23 ZeRoX_TV wrote: Protoss is very UP after this patch and any stats cant deny it. I am thinking of quitting game until this is solved. Unplayable atm.
haha, yes, you are right. I accidentally wrote ZvP where it should have been PvZ. :o) Fixed now.
How much influence does it have, that the foreign scene has almost double the amount of notable Zerg players over Terran and Protoss (who seem rather close in notable player numbers) ?.
When we expect, that skill is equally devided between all 3 races, shouldnt have Zerg with the double amount of "notable players" have also a higher amount of strong players, who then kick not only more weaker Zergs in ZvZs out, but also win more games against other races then their counterparts from the other races?
Sorry, my english isnt perfect, I hope you understand what I mean.
the data from november/december is pretty much irrelevant in pvz now ; everyone was playing stalker disruptor and it didnt work. its like taking march/april 2013 pvt data and saying oh wow worst winrate ever for protoss and yet it evens out afterwards with no balance change as protoss players adapt to the new medivac speed
plus this map pool is incredibly zerg favoured in zvp
On February 02 2016 22:17 Acer.Scarlett` wrote: the data from november/december is pretty much irrelevant in pvz now ; everyone was playing stalker disruptor and it didnt work. its like taking march/april 2013 pvt data and saying oh wow worst winrate ever for protoss and yet it evens out afterwards with no balance change as protoss players adapt to the new medivac speed
plus this map pool is incredibly zerg favoured in zvp
January doesn't really seem to change the trend much though. Still below 45% win rate. But yeah, you never know if the meta will change and turn things around I guess. Do you know of any new OP PvZ builds on the rise? Would you tell if you did?
Should say that the HotS PvT thing only went for a month, about 750 games. We have 3 months and almost 4k games now. How long should we wait for the meta to change?
And yes, whenever you speak about balance, it is always on the current maps. So patching the units or the maps will have similar effect.
How will the upcoming unit/map patch affect ZvP do you think?
On February 02 2016 22:17 Acer.Scarlett` wrote: the data from november/december is pretty much irrelevant in pvz now ; everyone was playing stalker disruptor and it didnt work. its like taking march/april 2013 pvt data and saying oh wow worst winrate ever for protoss and yet it evens out afterwards with no balance change as protoss players adapt to the new medivac speed
plus this map pool is incredibly zerg favoured in zvp
Yes, the difference between stalker/disrupter and mass pheonix into chargelot archon is night and day, performance wise.
LotV is too volatile to be drawing conclusions from results right now.
On February 02 2016 22:17 Acer.Scarlett` wrote: the data from november/december is pretty much irrelevant in pvz now ; everyone was playing stalker disruptor and it didnt work. its like taking march/april 2013 pvt data and saying oh wow worst winrate ever for protoss and yet it evens out afterwards with no balance change as protoss players adapt to the new medivac speed
plus this map pool is incredibly zerg favoured in zvp
I dont think PvZ is a matchup that will stabilize on its own in the near future. The fundamental balance of PvZ was just thrown out the window.
In Wol / Hots, protoss had the strongest ground army in the lategame - this meant even if zerg takes 10 more bases, there was always a chance to come back into the game.
Zerg has the faster economy, easier to hold own expansions, ease to punish enemy expansions and now also the better setup in the lategame with ultralisks / lurkers / broodlords / vipers / cracklings.
Aside for some punishing timings from protoss - theres no straight up macro game to win anymore.
Your problem is assuming you should still be in the game if another player takes 10 bases, and that it was fine when that was the case.
A huge crutch was taken away from Protoss this last patch - the ability to defend basically any early aggression from zerg without units.
It'll take some time for that to shake out.
Also FYI - Zerg econ isn't actually faster in the first 5 minutes of the game or so. Protoss out drones Zerg until later on thanks to Chronoboost and doesn't have to choose between workers or units.
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.
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 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.
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.
is very new, the current statistics will not reflect the true state of PvZ balance. This aligulac report includes games largely from the previous meta.
- 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 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 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 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)
I'm seeing a lot of the same arguments used to justify not nerfing broodlord infestor. The argument that protoss will be saved due to Phoenix play reminds me of when Mvp won IEM due to ravens and zergs said not to nerf anything since the Raven meta needed time to settle.
One thing to note: PvZ is probably the most affected by maps atm. If u look at the Code A statistics, we have 5 maps with lopsided PvZ ratios. None of the other MUs were quite affected by maps (even PvT, if u factor in how PvT was pretty lopsided in Code A).
The point is that we don't know what map design is required in this meta. Back in WoL, we learned that maps must be designed so that Protoss can FFE. Later on, maps must be designed so that Protoss can hold a Stephano style roach max. Maybe in today's meta, a map must have a backdoor expansion? I don't know. But I'd say change up the map pool before we jump to any conclusions and make any hasty changes, since both Terran MUs seem OK atm (altho I think Protoss is still favored in PvT).
One thing to note: PvZ is probably the most affected by maps atm. If u look at the Code A statistics, we have 5 maps with lopsided PvZ ratios. None of the other MUs were quite affected by maps (even PvT, if u factor in how PvT was pretty lopsided in Code A).
Could you post/link these? PvZ has always been quite map dependant
I still find it odd how toss was double nerfed with no compensation even tho the statistics show they are behind in pvz. Makes me wonder if blizzard was looking at other statistics, or maybe they simple do not care?
Seems there are several ways toss could have been buffed without effecting the top 1% while helping the bottom 99% who are having issues.
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.
I was clearly speaking about PvT.
On February 07 2016 09:14 dyDrawer wrote: One thing to note: PvZ is probably the most affected by maps atm. If u look at the Code A statistics, we have 5 maps with lopsided PvZ ratios. None of the other MUs were quite affected by maps (even PvT, if u factor in how PvT was pretty lopsided in Code A).
The point is that we don't know what map design is required in this meta. Back in WoL, we learned that maps must be designed so that Protoss can FFE. Later on, maps must be designed so that Protoss can hold a Stephano style roach max. Maybe in today's meta, a map must have a backdoor expansion? I don't know. But I'd say change up the map pool before we jump to any conclusions and make any hasty changes, since both Terran MUs seem OK atm (altho I think Protoss is still favored in PvT).
People keep saying this over and over and over. So why haven't the maps changed?
Obviously maps affect balance greatly, but that doesn't mean maps have to change in order to solve a balance problem.
And SC2 better not need every map to have a backdoor expansion. If that is the case, then just start the game on two bases, which honestly Blizzard should have done long ago after showing a complete inability to balance the early game (which led them to speed through it with the new economic system in LOTV).
Either way, Blizzard is clearly unconcerned about PvZ, despite anything they've said.
Actions are what matter.
On February 07 2016 10:05 Hotshot wrote: I still find it odd how toss was double nerfed with no compensation even tho the statistics show they are behind in pvz. Makes me wonder if blizzard was looking at other statistics, or maybe they simple do not care?
Seems there are several ways toss could have been buffed without effecting the top 1% while helping the bottom 99% who are having issues.
Blizzard misnamed their "Balance Reports" and the "Balance" section of their patch notes.
The fact is, they are releasing Game Design Reports and Game Design changes. The changes they make are clearly not correlated to win rates.
On February 07 2016 10:05 Hotshot wrote: I still find it odd how toss was double nerfed with no compensation even tho the statistics show they are behind in pvz.
Yeah, they don't even talk about it. I haven't seen it mentioned in any of the updates. Blizzard probably has its own stats though, so I am wondering if they are showing different patterns, or if they just ignore the stats and try to figure things out by averaging over all the biased pro-feedback.
How about a graph of race representation in tournaments? That is the main indicator of balance at the top level. Importantly, as is stated, the winrates (w.r.t. skill ranking) will gradually converge toward equilibrium if the (im)balance and meta stabilizes.
Don't worry guys, PvZ is fine since DK said nothing about it for more than 2 months. According to the guy in the other threads, Protoss players are all fantasizing imbalance anyway. You just need to be cool and use the new meta chargelot/archon/phoenix comp. Thanks to it, I have been finally able to sometimes beat Zergs 1-2 leagues below me. We have every reason to be confident since obviously PvZ winrate can only go up after a double nerf.
One thing to note: PvZ is probably the most affected by maps atm. If u look at the Code A statistics, we have 5 maps with lopsided PvZ ratios. None of the other MUs were quite affected by maps (even PvT, if u factor in how PvT was pretty lopsided in Code A).
Could you post/link these? PvZ has always been quite map dependant
Well it's on the Liquipedia page for Code A statistics. I'll post it here:
On February 07 2016 10:18 BronzeKnee wrote: People keep saying this over and over and over. So why haven't the maps changed?
Obviously maps affect balance greatly, but that doesn't mean maps have to change in order to solve a balance problem.
And SC2 better not need every map to have a backdoor expansion. If that is the case, then just start the game on two bases, which honestly Blizzard should have done long ago after showing a complete inability to balance the early game (which led them to speed through it with the new economic system in LOTV).
Either way, Blizzard is clearly unconcerned about PvZ, despite anything they've said.
Actions are what matter.
I'm all for a buffing Protoss in some way or another, either by maps or by a balance change. My only concern with balance changes is how it would impact the Terran match-ups, and maps are a strong tool in balancing especially PvZ, seeing how it is the most heavily influenced match-up. As for the backdoor expansion, that's just an example. I don't think we can pinpoint exactly what Protoss needs in terms of map design against Zerg right now.
Why haven't the maps changed? That I cannot say. This is a question only David Kim can answer.
One thing to note: PvZ is probably the most affected by maps atm. If u look at the Code A statistics, we have 5 maps with lopsided PvZ ratios. None of the other MUs were quite affected by maps (even PvT, if u factor in how PvT was pretty lopsided in Code A).
Could you post/link these? PvZ has always been quite map dependant
Well it's on the Liquipedia page for Code A statistics. I'll post it here:
That's not enough games to say anything really. To spot even a 40-60 imbalance, you need a hundred games to even see indications, much more if you want reliable calls. We don't have even 10 games on any of these maps in code A. Not sure if aligulac have data bt map.
As long as it looks good at the highest level, I'm fine with how the game is. Which seems to be the case from what I've seen in Korea - perhaps with a few possible alterations that might need more time to be figured out. I think Protoss is still very favored vs Terran in the early-midgame, but it has to be that way because they'd get rolled lategame. So that sort of balances out, but might not necessarily be fun to play for either side. We'll see where it goes. Similar for TvZ.
I'd say leave it for now, too early to make big changes when the metagame is still not settled completely.
I think a buff to protoss in PvZ is fair. While its possible that meta changes will adjust winrates towards 50% it may not happen and protoss is indeed underperforming. In the end, despite the numbers, due to meta changes blizzard should take their own perception of imbalance into account, since waiting 6 months for the meta to stabilize is a bad idea. I think the real problem is figuring out what is the issue with the matchup, for PvT it was quite clearly the adept harass, for ZvP its not clear. edit: but its better to do small changes for now. Specially since the map pool is clearly zerg favoured. The matchup could be absolutely fine.
I think the real problem is figuring out what is the issue with the matchup, for PvT it was quite clearly the adept harass, for ZvP its not clear.
Since Legacy beta toss has been playing PvZ on some strong units and super powerful overcharge to expand more aggressively as needed for legacy - without it, you're playing more uphill in general because the econ you'll have in a safe game is lower.
Not that much lower but you can feel the difference in safety every game. The maps are also different than what they used to be - some naturals and thirds in the pool are way wider open than has previously been acceptable without OP mothership core.
You can make or break PvZ by changing the natural and third base
On February 07 2016 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote: I'd say leave it for now, too early to make big changes when the metagame is still not settled completely.
Stating "we don't know what we don't know" is not a reason to do nothing about what we do know.
The metagame is always changing.
I don't think we don't know what is wrong in PvZ either. We do know.
Ravagers are quite strong, Lurkers and Ultralisks incredibly strong, Parasitic Bomb is still very powerful, Abduct (which no one seems to need to use anymore) is still present to tear Disruptors and Colossi out of Protoss out of deathballs once those other issues are fixed as is Blinding Cloud (to go with the new Ultralisks and Cracklings). And of course, Protoss really has to open Stargate or Muta switches are deadly. And perhaps late game Muta switches with Vipers for Parasitic Bomb could very well be deadly too.
I'm not saying all of that needs to be nerfed, or even any of it. What I am saying is that Zerg has a plethora of options that can work very well versus Protoss, and due to the larva mechanic and the ability of Zerg to remax on whatever they want, it means that Protoss has to run a very well rounded composition to stop all of these options. And the power Protoss units of the past were never well rounded (ie the Colossus and Sentry), they were just really good in certain scenarios.
Right now, Zerg is winning and having fun with Roach/Ravager/Hydra/Lurker compositions with Muta switches so much, they sometimes don't even need to go beyond that and often don't except for Ultralisks. And that is a pretty A-move composition, as much as Colossus/Stalker/Sentry ever was.
Worse, the best Protoss response seems to be the well-rounded ultimate A-move composition, Immortal/Archon/Zealot/Pheonix... the way to fix the matchup is give Protoss some parity, bring back the old Colossus to start, and do something about Abduct, because with Lurkers and Ravagers, the shoe is on the other foot. Protoss needs help reaching out to pick off units, Zerg doesn't.
Those damage nerfs were actually a huge deal. Over 1.5x less damage in some circumstances with no compensation for the faster pace of legacy or removing most of chrono boost which both hurt colossus play a lot anyway
I think Blizzard doesn't want to do that because they are pushing their Disruptor. But Disruptors are such a binary unit, either you get the big hit or you don't. And because of that, there has to be a way to avoid their damage, and therefore the top players are quite good at avoiding damage, and you need consistent damage dealers that do damage overtime instead of burst. That is why Marines are so strong, they are consistent damage dealers.
It is the same with Abduct, it is a binary ability, either it pulls the opposing unit or it is killed or feedbacked/emped. If it was too easy to kill or feedback/emp, then it would be worthless and then not used. So it is strong and therefore counters the Colossus too hard in my opinion.
On February 07 2016 23:37 DarkLordOlli wrote: As long as it looks good at the highest level, I'm fine with how the game is. Which seems to be the case from what I've seen in Korea - perhaps with a few possible alterations that might need more time to be figured out. I think Protoss is still very favored vs Terran in the early-midgame, but it has to be that way because they'd get rolled lategame. So that sort of balances out, but might not necessarily be fun to play for either side. We'll see where it goes. Similar for TvZ.
I'd say leave it for now, too early to make big changes when the metagame is still not settled completely.
Well the funny thing is that the highest level is GSL and it has its own 2 maps :-) They removed Ulrena and Central Protocol(I think). Which are IMO broken as fuck.
Which kinda screws the balance stats for other tournaments & ladder
On February 08 2016 04:33 BronzeKnee wrote: I think Blizzard doesn't want to do that because they are pushing their Disruptor. But Disruptors are such a binary unit, either you get the big hit or you don't. And because of that, there has to be a way to avoid their damage, and therefore the top players are quite good at avoiding damage, and you need consistent damage dealers that do damage overtime instead of burst. That is why Marines are so strong, they are consistent damage dealers.
It is the same with Abduct, it is a binary ability, either it pulls the opposing unit or it is killed or feedbacked/emped. If it was too easy to kill or feedback/emp, then it would be worthless and then not used. So it is strong and therefore counters the Colossus too hard in my opinion.
The game is better without binary game design.
Binary... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2-base SCV pull vs Protoss is binary. Archon Toilet is binary. Viper vs Raven mech is binary. Adepts vs Marines is binary. Marines vs Banes is not binary. WMs vs Ling/Bane is not binary. And Disruptors are the least binary thing in the known universe.
Sure, it's POSSIBLE to get a 15-supply Disruptor hit that completely changes the course of the game, or a 0-supply hit that also completely changes the course of the game, but so what? A flock of Mutalisks could kill 20 workers, or they could kill 0 workers, depending on how much attention both players are paying. Does that mean Mutalisks are badly designed now?
Protoss needs 1) a weaker Adept, 2) a slightly weaker Disruptor, 3) a considerably more accessible Disruptor, and 4) a weaker Psionic Storm. Instead of prolonging the phase of the game where Protoss can roll Bio armies by A+moving, get to the next phase - the TvP version of bio vs Ling/Bling - ASAP.
On February 09 2016 07:18 pure.Wasted wrote: Binary... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2-base SCV pull vs Protoss is binary. Archon Toilet is binary. Viper vs Raven mech is binary. Adepts vs Marines is binary. Marines vs Banes is not binary. WMs vs Ling/Bane is not binary. And Disruptors are the least binary thing in the known universe.
But they really aren't.
They have a 21 second cooldown and do sufficient damage to 1-shot nearly everything.
- if you hit something, it dies - if you don't, that disruptor is useless for a very long time
^^ that's very binary. Your own suggestion for improvement acknowledges this implicitly:
On February 09 2016 07:18 pure.Wasted wrote: 2) a slightly weaker Disruptor, 3) a considerably more accessible Disruptor
You want:
- if it hits something, that something takes quite a bit of damage, but survives - one can field sufficient disruptors that one being useless for a bit of time isn't a big deal
... but what you want isn't what exists today.
The current Disruptor is very binary. If it was made much cheaper, faster to produce, and lower damage ... then, sure, it'd be a better-designed unit -- but it isn't any of those things.
On February 09 2016 07:18 pure.Wasted wrote: Binary... You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
2-base SCV pull vs Protoss is binary. Archon Toilet is binary. Viper vs Raven mech is binary. Adepts vs Marines is binary. Marines vs Banes is not binary. WMs vs Ling/Bane is not binary. And Disruptors are the least binary thing in the known universe.
But they really aren't.
They have a 21 second cooldown and do sufficient damage to 1-shot nearly everything.
- if you hit something, it dies - if you don't, that disruptor is useless for a very long time
^^ that's very binary.
Great, you killed one Marine 100% dead with the Disruptor's 1000 damage bomb. Feel like that Disruptor shot was worth it? No? How about you killed two Marines? Worth it yet?
How about you killed five Marines? Seven? Ten? Where do you draw the line between a very bad Disruptor shot, just a bad one, an OK one, a pretty good one, and a great one? Does it depend on the context of the size and make-up of your opponent's army?
The fact that these questions can be asked automatically means that the Disruptor does not have a binary outcome on a battlefield. Binary means something exists in two states. A typical lategame TvP will have numerous Disruptors, each of them launching numerous balls, each ball capable of hitting anywhere between 0 and 10 units. While it is possible that a single great hit will snowball into a victory, that is in no way different from a great Baneling flank snowballing into a victory, or a great Siege up doing the same. In practice, the effectiveness of each Disruptor is directly influenced by the Protoss and his opponent, and can vary widely. Get a bad hit? Don't worry, the game isn't over yet, you'll get another chance to try in 30 seconds.
NOTHING whatsoever about this behavior is binary.
Your own suggestion for improvement acknowledges this implicitly:
On February 09 2016 07:18 pure.Wasted wrote: 2) a slightly weaker Disruptor, 3) a considerably more accessible Disruptor
You want:
- if it hits something, that something takes quite a bit of damage, but survives - one can field sufficient disruptors that one being useless for a bit of time isn't a big deal
... but what you want isn't what exists today.
The current Disruptor is very binary. If it was made much cheaper, faster to produce, and lower damage ... then, sure, it'd be a better-designed unit -- but it isn't any of those things.
My suggestions have nothing to do with Disruptors being binary or not, and everything to do with the fact that I want PvT to revolve around Disruptors a lot more than it currently does - not just in the lategame of some games, but in every single TvP that gets to 2+ bases. Disruptors should be the way to deal with bio, the way Banes are the way to deal with Bio in TvZ. Storm should be an inferior, but versatile alternative. Why? Because it's a fuckton easier to Psi Storm well in SC2 than it is to Nova well. And Colo shouldn't be an alternative at all, just scrap the concept and rebuild that unit from scratch to deal with Lurkers and Ultralisks, or something.
On February 09 2016 10:57 pure.Wasted wrote: The fact that these questions can be asked automatically means that the Disruptor does not have a binary outcome on a battlefield. Binary means something exists in two states. A typical lategame TvP will have numerous Disruptors, each of them launching numerous balls, each ball capable of hitting anywhere between 0 and 10 units. While it is possible that a single great hit will snowball into a victory, that is in no way different from a great Baneling flank snowballing into a victory, or a great Siege up doing the same. In practice, the effectiveness of each Disruptor is directly influenced by the Protoss and his opponent, and can vary widely. Get a bad hit? Don't worry, the game isn't over yet, you'll get another chance to try in 30 seconds.
NOTHING whatsoever about this behavior is binary.
I just told you exactly what was binary. The number of units killed isn't (in the strictest sense). The "everything it hits dies" or "it's got a very long cooldown to wait-out before being useful" is very binary.
You can't focus on exactly one aspect and claim that is all that defines the unit. Disruptors are very binary in the sense I mentioned ... which, incidentally, is the only sense that the Protoss player has much control over: when to use the ability. The number of units hit / not hit is largely up to the micro of the opponent.
Novas, ultimately, aren't about killing things -- they're about shooing the opponent away from your army (given that you've sufficient novas). In this way, they're a whole lot more like swarm hosts (delaying the game) than they are like banelings (even if the "boom" aspect is obviously correlated to banelings and widow mines).
On February 09 2016 10:57 pure.Wasted wrote: My suggestions have nothing to do with Disruptors being binary or not, and everything to do with the fact that I want PvT to revolve around Disruptors a lot more than it currently does - not just in the lategame of some games, but in every single TvP that gets to 2+ bases. Disruptors should be the way to deal with bio, the way Banes are the way to deal with Bio in TvZ. Storm should be an inferior, but versatile alternative. Why? Because it's a fuckton easier to Psi Storm well in SC2 than it is to Nova well. And Colo shouldn't be an alternative at all, just scrap the concept and rebuild that unit from scratch to deal with Lurkers and Ultralisks, or something.
But not the Disruptor of today, because you see problems with it. Those problems are rooted in the binary aspect I've mentioned above. Those are exactly the problems you want to see changed (whether you acknowledge them as being binary or not).
The problems with the unit's design are obvious:
- it does too much damage - it has too long a cool-down / too few available at once
I'd add a third (which you'll probably disagree with given the above):
- too dependent upon opponent's micro to do damage
I suggest you use the term "high variance" instead of "binary", as you boys seem to be fighting about what it actually means. Hopefully everyone can agree that the disruptor has a high variance in terms of damage output, which I think is the actual issue some of you have with it, not being binary.
Probability distributions of damage output to illustrate.
Not Cascade, you are just being lazy and not reading the words. The other posters all understand what binary means. But if there is an argument, one is arguing binary in terms of damage, and the other is arguing binary in terms of player interaction. So yeah, nice graph, shame it is pointless.
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)
To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something.
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)
To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something.
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)
To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something.
PvZ in code A: 19-21
So much anti-protoss bias.
19-21 doesnt tell you much though. Consistent with both 50% (p=0.43) and 43% (p=34%). Just not enough games to see even a 43% imbalance.
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)
To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something.
PvZ in code A: 19-21
So much anti-protoss bias.
19-21 doesnt tell you much though. Consistent with both 50% (p=0.43) and 43% (p=34%). Just not enough games to see even a 43% imbalance.
Neither does data from November...
My point was that David Kim is not mentioning PvZ in any community feedback posts because PvZ seems to be doing just fine at the top level.
TvP on the other hand... When only 1 Terran makes the DH RO16 and one week later a Korean Protoss pro goes on camera to thank David Kim and ask for nerfs, there is ample reason to mention it and act.
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)
To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something.
PvZ in code A: 19-21
So much anti-protoss bias.
19-21 doesnt tell you much though. Consistent with both 50% (p=0.43) and 43% (p=34%). Just not enough games to see even a 43% imbalance.
Neither does data from November...
My point was that David Kim is not mentioning PvZ in any community feedback posts because PvZ seems to be doing just fine at the top level.
TvP on the other hand... When only 1 Terran makes the DH RO16 and one week later a Korean Protoss pro goes on camera to thank David Kim and ask for nerfs, there is ample reason to mention it and act.
Nothing to do with bias.
So 4000 korean pro games showing that Z has a 57% winrate in ZvP is "doing just fine"?
While 4000 games showing a 50% winrate in TvP is "ample reason to act", because of a certain round in a certain tournament you picked? What about all the other tournaments? how many terrans in the ro16 there? How about round of 32? Round of 8? How come those numbers didn't make it into your post? Because they didn't confirm what you want to be true. That is called "cherry picking", and yes, is a clear sign of bias.
And yes, each month is significantly different from 50% by itself (~1000 games in each month), but together it's even stronger.
Not sure if you are trolling or being sarcastic actually... If so, well done I guess.
I mean, I should say that a 50% winrate in aligulac doesn't necessarily mean that the matchup is fine. There may be imblances at the very highest level where we dont have power to spot it, and there may be other properties of the game that are not wanted but that doesn't affect the winrate. There is no sign of TvP imbalance in the data. What we can say, is that IF there is a significant imbalance in winrates in TvP, it can only be at the VERY top level, like code A and above, no longer visible code B, or we would have seen it in this analysis.
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)
To be honest, it's not terran bias, it's just anti-protoss bias. People love to shit all over protoss because they get angry when they lose to DTs or something.
I love how people love to argue PvT imbalance when PvT is "only" 52% in protoss favor, while 43% PvZ is completely fine and balanced. The anti-protoss sentiment in the sc2 community really is ridiculous.
On February 10 2016 06:23 Daimai wrote: I love how people love to argue PvT imbalance when PvT is "only" 52% in protoss favor, while 43% PvZ is completely fine and balanced. The anti-protoss sentiment in the sc2 community really is ridiculous.
To be honest, so far they've treated protoss the way it should be treated. We need ample evidence before we patch something, we need as few changes as possible to accomodate professionals. If there's a possibility that a new meta changes the game, we should account for that. Now I'd say we're pretty close to having enough data to state a problem exists, and we should probably consider a change soon, unless the data changes dramatically.
All of that is fair. It's the instant pass that terran got that was problematic, not the opposite.
On February 10 2016 06:23 Daimai wrote: I love how people love to argue PvT imbalance when PvT is "only" 52% in protoss favor, while 43% PvZ is completely fine and balanced. The anti-protoss sentiment in the sc2 community really is ridiculous.
To be honest, so far they've treated protoss the way it should be treated. We need ample evidence before we patch something, we need as few changes as possible to accomodate professionals. If there's a possibility that a new meta changes the game, we should account for that. Now I'd say we're pretty close to having enough data to state a problem exists, and we should probably consider a change soon, unless the data changes dramatically.
All of that is fair. It's the instant pass that terran got that was problematic, not the opposite.
I would suggest looking at P vs Z win rates in HotS via time in game. P vs Z has always been around 40% -- unless you all-in'd. What has changed? All-ins aren't as easy to pull off, thus the ugly reality of P vs Z is showing through. Anytime a matchup can get 41%, for any sample like that, and it's not even mentioned by the balance team, it smells. Smells bad.
On February 10 2016 06:23 Daimai wrote: I love how people love to argue PvT imbalance when PvT is "only" 52% in protoss favor, while 43% PvZ is completely fine and balanced. The anti-protoss sentiment in the sc2 community really is ridiculous.
There was an argument for adept 2 to 3 shot change in the early game but the PO change was a poorly timed design change without the appropriate compensatory buffs (particularly for PvZ and PvR)
I do mention Random because they're 12% of archon GM at the moment and protoss vs random is probably the most imbalanced matchup in the game right now (in favor of the Random).
I am myself a mathmatician and i would like to see how you calculated the p-values. If it doesnt take much time, could you please post the formulas of your binomial tests. I would like to reexamine it and check its validity. Thank you.
On February 09 2016 12:44 Cascade wrote: I suggest you use the term "high variance" instead of "binary", as you boys seem to be fighting about what it actually means. Hopefully everyone can agree that the disruptor has a high variance in terms of damage output, which I think is the actual issue some of you have with it, not being binary.
Probability distributions of damage output to illustrate.
On February 10 2016 07:07 todespolka wrote: I am myself a mathmatician and i would like to see how you calculated the p-values. If it doesnt take much time, could you please post the formulas of your binomial tests. I would like to reexamine it and check its validity. Thank you.
If you're a mathematician, you should be able to do this yourself. He just used a calculator linked in the OP and set 0.5 as the probability to win. The calculator uses a binomial distribution and finds the probability that we will have 43% winrate as protoss assuming the balance is perfect (meaning p = 0.5). This comes out to be really low, indicating the matchup is at least somehow skewed against protoss.
On February 10 2016 07:07 todespolka wrote: I am myself a mathmatician and i would like to see how you calculated the p-values. If it doesnt take much time, could you please post the formulas of your binomial tests. I would like to reexamine it and check its validity. Thank you.
If you're a mathematician, you should be able to do this yourself. He just used a calculator linked in the OP and set 0.5 as the probability to win. The calculator uses a binomial distribution and finds the probability that we will have 43% winrate as protoss assuming the balance is perfect (meaning p = 0.5). This comes out to be really low, indicating the matchup is at least somehow skewed against protoss.
Yes, was about to write exactly this, including the first sentence. thanks.
To be fair, the new TL style makes it very hard to spot links.
On February 10 2016 07:07 todespolka wrote: I am myself a mathmatician and i would like to see how you calculated the p-values. If it doesnt take much time, could you please post the formulas of your binomial tests. I would like to reexamine it and check its validity. Thank you.
If you're a mathematician, you should be able to do this yourself. He just used a calculator linked in the OP and set 0.5 as the probability to win. The calculator uses a binomial distribution and finds the probability that we will have 43% winrate as protoss assuming the balance is perfect (meaning p = 0.5). This comes out to be really low, indicating the matchup is at least somehow skewed against protoss.
Yes, was about to write exactly this, including the first sentence. thanks.
To be fair, the new TL style makes it very hard to spot links.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/gkvImgt.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VPubjUy.png)
![[image loading]](http://fs5.directupload.net/images/160202/vfgnap53.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/UA2ljlf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/idXiryz.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sqQDDPw.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/kZSXGdC.jpg)
