|
On March 07 2016 01:00 PinoKotsBeer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 00:51 -HuShang- wrote:On March 06 2016 22:48 SiorasSC wrote:
Can we make immortals not immortal again pls? its infuriating when you're literally killing everything except the immortals and they do so much damage to everything that only them surviving is enough They could, but they would have to nerf lurkers and ravagers to compensate. Im not a protoss player, but when i see PVZ games it turns out mass roach ravager lurker and the toss player can only go into air. But to do that you need more bases (gass). The lurker and ravager could certainly use a slight nerf. The new units are too "easy/versatile" to get. Made too many roaches? no problem, just turn them into ravagers. Too many hydra's? just make lurkers. In the past zerg needed to balance their composition a lot more. No QQ here, just my observation.
Are you talking about Phoenix/Immortal/Chargelot/Templar type of play or what games are you watching where Protoss goes mass air against Zerg?
|
Although I'm glad I got into masters league despite Protoss average win rate, I still think liberators' damage needs to be fixed. I can't comment much on PvZ as of yet.
Edit: I'm surprised not many people complain about liberators as much as other topics that are usually discussed. Countering an air unit only with another air unit (tempest) is bad! On top of that, tempest is bad against anything else terran has in their usual army.
|
On March 07 2016 00:19 duke91 wrote:
When will you realize that only looking at winrates is stupid. you need to adjust for how many of each race is there. The imbalance would be even bigger if there are relatively more zerg at the top ranks
I have gathered data for you guys to look at and discuss what you guys think. Would love to hear feedback and any opinions you guys have and any other data you would like me to collect!!! :D
Dreamhack Leizpig ZvP for All Players: 28-25 in series and 72-74 in maps.
Dreamhack Leizpig ZvP for Noteable Players: 12-7 in series and 35-22 in maps.
Noteable Protoss Players: Lilbow/PtitDrogo/Rail/ShoWTimE/Nice/Neeb/Probe/MorroW/State/Welmu/HuK/MaNa
Noteable Zerg Players: SortOf/Bly/Serral/viOLet/Elazer/Nerchio/TLO/Snute/ZhuGeLiang/Namshar/FireCake
2016 WCS Circuit: Winter Circuit Championship ZVP: 5-1 in series and 15-10 in maps.
Protoss Players: Has/HuK/ShoWTimE/Lilbow/Neeb
Zerg Players: FireCake/PiG/Nerchio/SortOf/Hydra
2016 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code S ZVP: 2-4 in series and 6-9 in maps.
Protoss Players: CJ.herO/Seed/MyuNgSiK/Stork/Super/Classic
Zerg Players: Leenock/Soulkey/Curious/DeParture/Solar
2016 StarCraft II StarLeague Season 1 Main Event ZVP: 5-2 in series and 14-4 in maps.
Protoss Players: Trust/MyuNgSiK/Classic/Stats/Patience
Zerg Players: ByuL/Dark/soO/Soulkey
2016 Proleague: Round 1 Round Robin ZVP: 7-8 in maps.
Protoss Players: Super/Classic/Creator/Billowy/Blaze/Trap/Zest/Hurricane/Dear/Seed
Zerg Players: Dark/Curious/DeParture/ByuL/RagnaroK/Rogue
2016 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code A ZVP: 6-4 in series and 21-19 in maps.
Protoss Players: Trap/Stats/Liquid.HerO/Choya/Trust/Creator/Super/Billowy/Hush/Hurricane
Zerg Players: Shine/DeParture/Sacsri/Losira/soO/Armani/RagnaroK/Rogue/DongRaeGu/Soulkey
Totals from all tournaments combined ZVP: 30-18 in series and 98-72 in maps.
Totals from just in korea for ZVP: 13-10 in series and 49-38 in maps.
Totals from just in foreign scene for ZVP: 17-8 in series and 49-34 in maps.
Maps ZVP:
Prion Terraces: 16-4
Dusk Towers: 22-22
Ruins of Seras: 18-13
Central Protocol: 1-1
Orbital Shipyard: 10-13
Ulrena: 6-9
Lerilak Crest: 21-11
Sky Shield: 1-2
Rak'Shir: 2-0
|
I was in the let's wait an see camp before, but I think we've waited quite long enough. Not only has the problem persisted, but if you look at trends, it's getting worse: Aligulac list 157 that finished a few days ago has PvZ at 40%, and the latest list started off even worse for ZvP so I don't think there's a miraculous single-day reversal either.
I'm not saying that this is a unit stats based balance problem, as it could be map based. But I'm pretty sure now that a problem exists.
|
Are the winrates for every map available? I'm pretty sure that we can balance PvZ with better maps.
|
On March 07 2016 02:37 Musicus wrote:
Are the winrates for every map available? I'm pretty sure that we can balance PvZ with better maps.
I'm pretty sure you can balance everything in this game with "better" maps.
|
On March 07 2016 02:32 Ghanburighan wrote:I was in the let's wait an see camp before, but I think we've waited quite long enough. Not only has the problem persisted, but if you look at trends, it's getting worse: Aligulac list 157 that finished a few days ago has PvZ at 40%, and the latest list started off even worse for ZvP so I don't think there's a miraculous single-day reversal either. I'm not saying that this is a unit stats based balance problem, as it could be map based. But I'm pretty sure now that a problem exists.
You know that Protoss had below 50% win rate vs Terran for 9 months right? But, the winrates evened out, and Protoss actually was favoured vs Terran towards the end of HotS. Now, the maps changed, but the balance didn't. Granted, it was never a 40% winrate, but there was an imbalance.
Especially because LotV turned a lot of how Protoss was played on its head, I'm willing to wait even longer. The winrates were climbing in January, and then they took a tumble after the patch, so it's really only been one and half months since the last patch. That isn't a lot of time.
Now, the other thing to consider is if stylistically, the game is fun in PvZ, kind of like in the PvT matchup, it was balanced for a while, but it was not considered overly enjoyable to play.
|
I'm not saying that this is a unit stats based balance problem, as it could be map based. But I'm pretty sure now that a problem exists. Look at Prion Terraces for example. DKim's philosophy behind the map was that he wanted to promote the clash of mineral heavy armies. There is only this one thing that is not setting in quite well with me: What the #+*~ does Protoss have that can be considered a mineral heavy army? Simply put: none.
The map currently sits at a comfortable 65,5% winrate in favor of Zerg. It was hovering around 62% before the gold mineral change. Blizz thought hey, maybe if the Protoss and Terran can get a faster access to gold bases just like Zerg, then it will even things out. Turns out the access to easy gold flows naturally faster for Zerg than Protoss anyway (talking PvZ now only, dunno PvT), making heavy ling pressure on this map even easier, the type of ling swarm that keeps denying Protoss from actually planting the Nexus at the golden natural.
iIf they want to keep their shitty philosophy of "different maps with different advantages", then they must admit that this philosophy in its core is disadvantagous to PvZ play on most of the maps, and they would need to buff Protoss/ nerf Zerg accordingly.
|
On March 07 2016 02:37 Musicus wrote:
Are the winrates for every map available? I'm pretty sure that we can balance PvZ with better maps.
Just added up for each map and added to my original post :D
|
On March 07 2016 02:10 SNSeigifried wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 00:19 duke91 wrote:
When will you realize that only looking at winrates is stupid. you need to adjust for how many of each race is there. The imbalance would be even bigger if there are relatively more zerg at the top ranks I have gathered data for you guys to look at and discuss what you guys think. Would love to hear feedback and any opinions you guys have and any other data you would like me to collect!!! :D Dreamhack Leizpig ZvP for noteable players in Group Stage 2 and Playoffs: 12-7 in series and 35-22 in maps. Protoss Players: Lilbow/PtitDrogo/Rail/ShoWTimE/Nice/Neeb/Probe/MorroW/State/Welmu/HuK/MaNa Zerg Players: SortOf/Bly/Serral/viOLet/Elazer/Nerchio/TLO/Snute/ZhuGeLiang/Namshar/FireCake 2016 WCS Circuit: Winter Circuit Championship ZVP: 5-1 in series and 15-10 in maps. Protoss Players: Has/HuK/ShoWTimE/Lilbow/Neeb Zerg Players: FireCake/PiG/Nerchio/SortOf/Hydra 2016 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code S ZVP: 2-4 in series and 6-9 in maps. Protoss Players: CJ.herO/Seed/MyuNgSiK/Stork/Super/Classic Zerg Players: Leenock/Soulkey/Curious/DeParture/Solar 2016 StarCraft II StarLeague Season 1 Main Event ZVP: 5-2 in series and 14-4 in maps. Protoss Players: Trust/MyuNgSiK/Classic/Stats/Patience Zerg Players: ByuL/Dark/soO/Soulkey 2016 Proleague: Round 1 Round Robin ZVP: 8-6 in maps. Protoss Players: Super/Classic/Creator/Billowy/Blaze/Trap/Zest/Hurricane/Dear/Seed Zerg Players: Dark/Curious/DeParture/ByuL/RagnaroK/Rogue 2016 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code A ZVP: 6-4 in series and 21-19 in maps. Protoss Players: Trap/Stats/Liquid.HerO/Choya/Trust/Creator/Super/Billowy/Hush/Hurricane Zerg Players: Shine/DeParture/Sacsri/Losira/soO/Armani/RagnaroK/Rogue/DongRaeGu/Soulkey Totals from all tournaments combined ZVP: 30-18 in series and 99-70 in maps. Totals from just in korea for ZVP: 13-10 in series and 49-38 in maps. Totals from just in foreign scene for ZVP: 17-8 in series and 50-32 in maps.
What purpose does cherry picking data serve? Generally, people that do that are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes when they do it. I don't know where you got the Korea stats from, but the sample sizes are so small it isn't meaningful, but here are the full stats from Korea, with links below:
GSL:
Code S-
PvT - Protoss has a 42.3% winrate
ZvP - Zerg has a 40.0% winrate
TvZ - Terran has a 73.7% winrate
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2016_Global_StarCraft_II_League_Season_1/Code_S_Statistics
Code A-
PvT - Protoss has a 62.5% winrate
ZvP - Zerg has a 52.5% winrate
TvZ - Terran has a 54.5% winrate
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2016_Global_StarCraft_II_League_Season_1/Code_A_Statistics
SSL:
PvT - Protoss has a 42.9% winrate
ZvP - Zerg has a 77.8% winrate
TvZ - Terran has a 41.7% winrate
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2016_StarCraft_II_StarLeague_Season_1/Main_Event_Statistics
Proleague:
PvT - Protoss has a 35.7% winrate
ZvP - Zerg has a 46.7% winrate
TvZ - Terran has a 53.8% winrate
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2016_Proleague/Round_1/Statistics
|
On March 07 2016 03:09 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 02:10 SNSeigifried wrote:On March 07 2016 00:19 duke91 wrote:
When will you realize that only looking at winrates is stupid. you need to adjust for how many of each race is there. The imbalance would be even bigger if there are relatively more zerg at the top ranks I have gathered data for you guys to look at and discuss what you guys think. Would love to hear feedback and any opinions you guys have and any other data you would like me to collect!!! :D Dreamhack Leizpig ZvP for noteable players in Group Stage 2 and Playoffs: 12-7 in series and 35-22 in maps. Protoss Players: Lilbow/PtitDrogo/Rail/ShoWTimE/Nice/Neeb/Probe/MorroW/State/Welmu/HuK/MaNa Zerg Players: SortOf/Bly/Serral/viOLet/Elazer/Nerchio/TLO/Snute/ZhuGeLiang/Namshar/FireCake 2016 WCS Circuit: Winter Circuit Championship ZVP: 5-1 in series and 15-10 in maps. Protoss Players: Has/HuK/ShoWTimE/Lilbow/Neeb Zerg Players: FireCake/PiG/Nerchio/SortOf/Hydra 2016 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code S ZVP: 2-4 in series and 6-9 in maps. Protoss Players: CJ.herO/Seed/MyuNgSiK/Stork/Super/Classic Zerg Players: Leenock/Soulkey/Curious/DeParture/Solar 2016 StarCraft II StarLeague Season 1 Main Event ZVP: 5-2 in series and 14-4 in maps. Protoss Players: Trust/MyuNgSiK/Classic/Stats/Patience Zerg Players: ByuL/Dark/soO/Soulkey 2016 Proleague: Round 1 Round Robin ZVP: 8-6 in maps. Protoss Players: Super/Classic/Creator/Billowy/Blaze/Trap/Zest/Hurricane/Dear/Seed Zerg Players: Dark/Curious/DeParture/ByuL/RagnaroK/Rogue 2016 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code A ZVP: 6-4 in series and 21-19 in maps. Protoss Players: Trap/Stats/Liquid.HerO/Choya/Trust/Creator/Super/Billowy/Hush/Hurricane Zerg Players: Shine/DeParture/Sacsri/Losira/soO/Armani/RagnaroK/Rogue/DongRaeGu/Soulkey Totals from all tournaments combined ZVP: 30-18 in series and 99-70 in maps. Totals from just in korea for ZVP: 13-10 in series and 49-38 in maps. Totals from just in foreign scene for ZVP: 17-8 in series and 50-32 in maps. What purpose does cherry picking data serve? Generally, people that do that are trying to pull the wool over people's eyes when they do it. I don't know where you got the Korea stats from, but the sample sizes are so small it isn't meaningful, but here are the full stats from Korea, with links below: GSL:Code S- PvT - Protoss has a 42.3% winrate ZvP - Zerg has a 40.0% winrate TvZ - Terran has a 73.7% winrate http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2016_Global_StarCraft_II_League_Season_1/Code_S_StatisticsCode A- PvT - Protoss has a 62.5% winrate ZvP - Zerg has a 52.5% winrate TvZ - Terran has a 54.5% winrate http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2016_Global_StarCraft_II_League_Season_1/Code_A_StatisticsSSL:
PvT - Protoss has a 42.9% winrate ZvP - Zerg has a 77.8% winrate TvZ - Terran has a 41.7% winrate http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2016_StarCraft_II_StarLeague_Season_1/Main_Event_Statistics
Proleague:PvT - Protoss has a 35.7% winrate ZvP - Zerg has a 46.7% winrate TvZ - Terran has a 53.8% winrate http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/2016_Proleague/Round_1/Statistics
Cherrypicking no i just actually added my stuff up myself but as you can see if you did the math their the exact same stats on that page so don't say meaningless comments to try and make me look stupid 0_0
2016 StarCraft II StarLeague Season 1 Main Event ZVP: 5-2 in series and 14-4 in maps. = 77.8% winrate
2016 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code A ZVP: 6-4 in series and 21-19 in maps.= 52.5% winrate
2016 Global StarCraft II League Season 1: Code S ZVP: 2-4 in series and 6-9 in maps. = 40% winrate
2016 Proleague: Round 1 Round Robin ZVP: 7-8 in maps. = 46.7% winrate
|
Balanced!
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Q8nov1F.jpg)
3 races, equal distribution on the top 10 
Specifically, Z P T Z P T Z P T
|
On March 07 2016 03:30 SNSeigifried wrote:
Cherrypicking no i just actually added my stuff up myself but as you can see if you did the math their the exact same stats on that page so don't say meaningless comments to try and make me look stupid 0_0
It isn't a meaningless comment to make you look stupid. I apologize if it came off that way.
I'm asking why you are cherry picking the data, or if you prefer, why did you collect those statistics and choose to ignore others? Because I assumed there was some qualitative reason to ignore quantitative statistics and I wanted to know what it was.
I now realize what you collected is what was already collected. I wrongly assumed you had collected and added up something new that hadn't been calculated by Liquipedia stats.
My mistake.
|
On March 07 2016 03:34 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 03:30 SNSeigifried wrote:
Cherrypicking no i just actually added my stuff up myself but as you can see if you did the math their the exact same stats on that page so don't say meaningless comments to try and make me look stupid 0_0
It isn't a meaningless comment to make you look stupid. I'm asking why you are cherry picking the data, or if you prefer, why did you collect those statistics and choose to ignore others?I now realize what you collected is what was already collected. I wrongly assumed you had collected something new.
I choose to only used data from premier events that were on location in lotv because that is where we will get the best competition but i had to limit dreamhack leizpig to only noteables because their were quite a big chunk of players who loss such as Monty/hinO who would hurt the accuracy of the data since the skill gap between them to compared ShowTimE/Snute is to big.
|
However, as I stated those sample sizes are so small, that a single series can often swing a positive win rate for one race to a negative one.
You can't infer anything from such a small data set.
|
On March 07 2016 03:40 BronzeKnee wrote:
However, as I stated those sample sizes are so small, that a single series can often swing a positive win rate for one race to a negative one.
You can't infer anything from such a small data set.
I think this data is useful when combined and I feel it may support the argument that it may just be a map problem.
Totals from all tournaments combined ZVP: 30-18 in series and 98-72 in maps.
Totals from just in korea for ZVP: 13-10 in series and 49-38 in maps.
Totals from just in foreign scene for ZVP: 17-8 in series and 49-34 in maps.
Maps ZVP:
Prion Terraces: 16-4
Dusk Towers: 22-22
Ruins of Seras: 18-13
Central Protocol: 1-1
Orbital Shipyard: 10-13
Ulrena: 6-9
Lerilak Crest: 21-11
Sky Shield: 1-2
Rak'Shir: 2-0
|
On March 07 2016 03:39 SNSeigifried wrote:
but i had to limit dreamhack leizpig to only noteables because their were quite a big chunk of players who loss such as Monty/hinO who would hurt the accuracy of the data since the skill gap between them to compared ShowTimE/Snute is to big.
So there is the cherry picking. The problem with cherry picking is that you never know who the next Stephano is going to be. Let's say that Monty performs poorly in one tournament, but then goes a massive streak two days later in the next tournament and is the next big thing, do you then retroactively add his statistics back into past data because you now realize he is good? That is the qualitative cherry picking I was looking for, and it is flawed.
As for the map pool, as someone said, "better" maps can solve any problem. And the data is still so small that just a few series can flip a favored map for one race to a favored map for another for 6 out of 9 (66%) of the maps.
|
Honestly just want a new map pool before too much balance discussion gets going. I think new maps could do wonders for P
|
On March 07 2016 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 03:39 SNSeigifried wrote:
but i had to limit dreamhack leizpig to only noteables because their were quite a big chunk of players who loss such as Monty/hinO who would hurt the accuracy of the data since the skill gap between them to compared ShowTimE/Snute is to big. So there is the cherry picking. The problem with cherry picking is that you never know who the next Stephano is going to be. Let's say that Monty performs poorly in one tournament, but then goes a massive streak the next tournament and is the next big thing, do you then retroactively add his statistics back into past data because you now realize he is good? That is the qualitative cherry picking I was looking for, and it is flawed. As for the map pool, as someone said, "better" maps can solve any problem. And the data is still so small that just a few series can flip a favored map for one race to a favored map for another for 6 out of 9 (66%) of the maps.
Well sorry i can't fix the sample size since their have only been 170 zvp maps played at the premier level of competition on location currently. Also i would rather cherrypick then add data of players who could of been silver since dreamhack leizpig was a massive open tournament that anyone in germany could play in which intern could skew the data incorrectly. 
|
I'm going to go on the record right now and say that maps alone will not solve PvZ unless we get a bunch of maps like Dusk Towers with free backdoor expansions and easily defendable 3rd and 4th bases.
Time will tell who is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
