|
United States5217 Posts
![[image loading]](http://s11.postimg.org/ha2ls1wib/Aligulac.png)
TvZ - 50.33% winrate for Terran
PvT - 47.49% winrate for Protoss
PvZ - 42.91% winrate for Protoss
Nothing really surprising this month, Protoss got nerfed and their win rates in both matchups dropped compared to January. TvZ is looking good and has been trending closer and closer to 50%.
According the performance difference chart, Protoss players are significantly underperforming, we haven't seen any race perform so far off expectations since March of 2013, the release of HOTS. Terrans and Zergs are slightly over performing.
David Kim stated that "Contrary to right after the last patch hit, Protoss didn’t look to be struggling as much" so I'd be surprised to see any Protoss buffs in the near future, Blizzard doesn't see a problem.
http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
|
Buff DT plz. Instant warp in at any pylon.
|
Well 2 out of 3 matchups are balanced. Just let the metagame settle.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 06 2016 18:08 MockHamill wrote:
Well 2 out of 3 matchups are balanced. Just let the metagame settle.
It is settling from the beginning of LotV. That is very funny, PvT HAD TO BE PATCHED immediately. But PvZ, who cares? There is no Terran.
|
On March 06 2016 18:08 MockHamill wrote:
Well 2 out of 3 matchups are balanced. Just let the metagame settle.
Currently, I think that's the smartest choice. Protoss has always been a race that takes more time to change to a meta. Look at the widow mines in the last half of 2014. They along with the Protoss nerfs changed the meta to favour Terran, but around six-eight months later, the meta was even again.
|
So when TvP is around 48% Protoss needs to be nerfed immediatly, but when PvZ stays below 45% for 5 months, we have to wait for the metagame to settle ? Okay !
|
On March 06 2016 18:08 MockHamill wrote:
Well 2 out of 3 matchups are balanced. Just let the metagame settle.
On March 06 2016 18:38 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 18:08 MockHamill wrote:
Well 2 out of 3 matchups are balanced. Just let the metagame settle.
Currently, I think that's the smartest choice. Protoss has always been a race that takes more time to change to a meta. Look at the widow mines in the last half of 2014. They along with the Protoss nerfs changed the meta to favour Terran, but around six-eight months later, the meta was even again.
It is a fair point that sometimes the balance sorts out itself. Sometimes it is better to just let the meta game settle. Question is: how long to wait? So I have tried to ask posters that call for waiting in these threads. At first as an honest question. No one so far has replied. I'll keep trying, by now to prove a point more than anything:
With a winrate below 45%, how long do you think we should wait after a new expansion like LotV before we do balance changes?
Obviously your answer is more than the 4 months it's been going now. 6 months? 9? A year? Never, as long as it is not my race losing?
Personally, I think maybe 2 months or so is a good time for a 43% winrate. Maybe even less. 1-2 months. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I'd like you to give a number, rather than just the lazy "let's wait and hope the problem goes away". I also invite people that posted "let's wait for the meta to settle" in last months thread to ask themselves if maybe now we have passed the point where we shouldn't wait for the meta any longer.
|
I think that simply changing this atrocious map pool will fix PvZ winrate.
|
Ultralisk -1 damage. There, fixed!
|
On March 06 2016 19:08 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 18:08 MockHamill wrote:
Well 2 out of 3 matchups are balanced. Just let the metagame settle.
Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 18:38 FrkFrJss wrote:On March 06 2016 18:08 MockHamill wrote:
Well 2 out of 3 matchups are balanced. Just let the metagame settle.
Currently, I think that's the smartest choice. Protoss has always been a race that takes more time to change to a meta. Look at the widow mines in the last half of 2014. They along with the Protoss nerfs changed the meta to favour Terran, but around six-eight months later, the meta was even again. It is a fair point that sometimes the balance sorts out itself. Sometimes it is better to just let the meta game settle. Question is: how long to wait? So I have tried to ask posters that call for waiting in these threads. At first as an honest question. No one so far has replied. I'll keep trying, by now to prove a point more than anything: With a winrate below 45%, how long do you think we should wait after a new expansion like LotV before we do balance changes? Obviously your answer is more than the 4 months it's been going now. 6 months? 9? A year? Never, as long as it is not my race losing? Personally, I think maybe 2 months or so is a good time for a 43% winrate. Maybe even less. 1-2 months. I am not saying it is right or wrong, but I'd like you to give a number, rather than just the lazy "let's wait and hope the problem goes away". I also invite people that posted "let's wait for the meta to settle" in last months thread to ask themselves if maybe now we have passed the point where we shouldn't wait for the meta any longer.
Post expansion takes more time to settle too. Still, I think maybe 3 months is reasonable at 43%. 6-8 months could be reasonable at 46%.
|
On March 06 2016 19:13 Big J wrote:
Ultralisk -1 damage. There, fixed!
Great way to give toss more power in PvZ without affecting the other macthups! Well done! 
|
Its obvious the ravager is this the root of all problems. They just need to nerf it like the infestor.
|
Dominican Republic621 Posts
On March 06 2016 18:52 Longduzboub wrote:
So when TvP is around 48% Protoss needs to be nerfed immediatly, but when PvZ stays below 45% for 5 months, we have to wait for the metagame to settle ? Okay !
haha right.
|
On March 06 2016 18:52 Longduzboub wrote:
So when TvP is around 48% Protoss needs to be nerfed immediatly, but when PvZ stays below 45% for 5 months, we have to wait for the metagame to settle ? Okay !
I've said it before, the problem in this situation is the terran being treated too well, not the protoss being treated too badly. I think we have enough now to state that there is a problem in PvZ and a patch might be needed, but I'll still be against saying that it should have happened earlier because terran got it earlier. Terran shouldn't have.
|
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
|
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
|
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.
|
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
...and, this is true. If you look out league distribution among races, you can see that zergs are allready very top-heavily distributed, meaning that there are significantly more zergs in top leagues than especially protoss (master and GM combined it is roughly 35% zerg and 24% protoss, source http://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=-2&l=-2 ).
If aligulac doest take it this into account it means that average protoss is getting matched against less than average zergs, and still gets beaten very badly.
|
On March 07 2016 00:51 -HuShang- wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On March 06 2016 18:08 MockHamill wrote:
Well 2 out of 3 matchups are balanced. Just let the metagame settle.
Sarcasm?
|
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
|
United States5217 Posts
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
|
United States5217 Posts
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.
|
United States5217 Posts
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
|
United States5217 Posts
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. 
|
United States5217 Posts
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.
|
United States5217 Posts
On March 07 2016 03:50 BretZ wrote:
Honestly just want a new map pool before too much balance discussion gets going. I think new maps could do wonders for P
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. And that is very constrictive to map design.
Time will tell who is right.
On March 07 2016 03:51 SNSeigifried wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote: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.
Stephano could have been silver too when you scan a tournament and see players you don't know and choose to remove them from a dataset.
Bad players of every race join open tournaments and lose to good players of every race. Overtime, that will control for itself. That is one of the benefits of using a large sample size.
|
On March 07 2016 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 03:50 BretZ wrote:
Honestly just want a new map pool before too much balance discussion gets going. I think new maps could do wonders for P 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. And that is very constrictive to map design. Time will tell who is right. Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 03:51 SNSeigifried wrote:On March 07 2016 03:45 BronzeKnee wrote: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. Stephano could have been silver too. Bad players of every race join open tournament and lose to good players of every race. Overtime, that will control for itself. That is one of the benefits of using a large sample size.
I can fix the dreamhack data if you want and use every series but everything else is accurate and not cherrypicked 
|
United States5217 Posts
That is up to you since you collected the data. I was just giving my opinion of what you collected since you asked.
Personally, I like data with large sample sizes. It is just so hard to infer much looking alone at the data from Korea when Zerg has a 40% winrate versus Protoss in one tournament and better than a 77% winrate versus Protoss in another.
|
No surprise Protoss is struggling vs Zerg right after the pylon overcharge nerf. Partially I think there needs to be some adjustment, while partially I think they may be just flat out weaker in the MU.
|
On March 07 2016 04:00 BronzeKnee wrote:
That is up to you since you collected the data. I was just giving my opinion of what you collected since you asked.
Personally, I like data with large sample sizes. It is just so hard to infer much looking alone at the data from Korea when Zerg has a 40% winrate versus Protoss in one tournament and better than a 77% winrate versus Protoss in another.
Updated dreamhack to have an all players stat and a noteables.
With all players its actually very close and protoss actually has a map lead but a series deficit:D!!!
|
Its funny that when there was 3 terrans in GSL and terrans went 6 months in a row without a single premier tournament title, toss didnt cared at all.
Now its been only 1 month, and suddenly, we shoud all feel bad for poor protoss?
I agree that toss is UP right now (mostly vs zergs), but the last time they were, it was in WoL...................
I know they dont deserve to be UP because they were broken for the vast majority of Hots, but i still dont feel any sympathy for them
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 07 2016 04:40 Ensiferum8 wrote:
Its funny that when there was 3 terrans in GSL and terrans went 6 months in a row without a single premier tournament title, toss didnt cared at all.
Now its been only 1 month, and suddenly, we shoud all feel bad for poor protoss?
I agree that toss is UP right now (mostly vs zergs), but the last time they were, it was in WoL...................
I know they dont deserve to be UP because they were broken for the vast majority of Hots, but i still dont feel any sympathy for them
I cared the same way I care about it now. Don't say stupid things. Many Protoss cared. And I haven't seen any Terran writing there "just wait and see" (if we don't count Flash)
|
United States5217 Posts
On March 07 2016 04:40 Ensiferum8 wrote:
Its funny that when there was 3 terrans in GSL and terrans went 6 months in a row without a single premier tournament title, toss didnt cared at all.
Now its been only 1 month, and suddenly, we shoud all feel bad for poor protoss?
It has been longer than 1 month. Look at the chart in the first post. It isn't about feeling bad, it is about wanting to play a competitive game.
And frankly balance has nothing to do with who wins what tournament. FruitDealer won the first GSL, but Zerg was horrendously underpowered. Nestea won the second GSL, Zerg still was underpowered. A tournament finals is nothing more than another series when it comes to statistics.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
3 races, equal distribution on the top 10
That's HOTS
|
On March 07 2016 05:24 Cyro wrote:That's HOTS
It includes HotS results but the players are where they are because of LotV results.
|
United Kingdom20285 Posts
Why do they have one labaled WOL, one labeled HOTS and no LOTV?
|
On March 07 2016 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:
Bad players of every race join open tournaments and lose to good players of every race. Overtime, that will control for itself. That is one of the benefits of using a large sample size.
no
this will depend on the balance on lower skill levels:
if protoss is imba in bronze, the bronze protosses will feel more encouraged to go to tournaments
|
France1887 Posts
it's just that we thought that for TLPD, having a common database would be better this time around.
Having a different database for LotV was having more cons that pros. Mostly it meant additional workload, and separate pages, just for the small advantage of having a LotV database.
Map stats should be good, because LotV has its own maps.
And for most of the stuff, you can filter out by the release date of LotV to get stats.
The only thing that changes is that the Elo is not reset, but resetting also means it puts every player at the same level at the start. Seeing that (in my opinion) Elo already has it flaws, it was an acceptable drawback to start with HotS Elo.
I know it's weird that we have LotV stuff in the "HotS" DB, but it will probably be eventually fixed in some way.
|
On March 07 2016 06:12 neptunusfisk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 03:54 BronzeKnee wrote:
Bad players of every race join open tournaments and lose to good players of every race. Overtime, that will control for itself. That is one of the benefits of using a large sample size.
no this will depend on the balance on lower skill levels: if protoss is imba in bronze, the bronze protosses will feel more encouraged to go to tournaments
If protoss is imba in bronze, the bronze protosses are now silver protosses... It's not like you can play a race that is imbalanced in bronze enough to be interested in going to tournaments but not enough to be promoted to silver.
|
Is it possible to download all the aligulac data? It'd be fun to do some more detailed analysis by map and by skill level and that kind of things.
|
With a better map pool everything is gonna be fine. P is not doing half as bad as people seem to think at the highest levels, give the players time to adapt.
|
But given how reluctant they've been with changing the maps, I get the feeling they want to have a good balance on these maps, before going on to other maps. The reasoning being that yes, you can balance through maps, but as seen at the end of Wings and HotS the diversity of maps narrows as they need to achieve balance. This time they want to tweak the balance in favour of balance on as many maps as possible.
|
Protosses just need to get better.
Be more like those manly zergs!
|
United States5217 Posts
On March 07 2016 07:38 [PkF] Wire wrote:
With a better map pool everything is gonna be fine. P is not doing half as bad as people seem to think at the highest levels, give the players time to adapt.
I disagree, but hope you are right. I think Protoss has some systematic flaws with how the race is designed that prevent it from being as strong as Zerg or Terran currently. Maps with an inbase natural mask some of those problems which is why we see a Protoss doing okay versus Zerg on certain maps.
But is the whole map pool going to be maps with in base naturals and easily taken thirds? That doesn't fit with Blizzard's current philosophy went it comes to map design.
But hopefully you are right and Protoss does better with a new map pool.
On March 07 2016 08:02 ejozl wrote:
But given how reluctant they've been with changing the maps, I get the feeling they want to have a good balance on these maps, before going on to other maps. The reasoning being that yes, you can balance through maps, but as seen at the end of Wings and HotS the diversity of maps narrows as they need to achieve balance. This time they want to tweak the balance in favour of balance on as many maps as possible.
I don't think Blizzard plans to do anything with comments like this:
The State of Protoss
Contrary to right after the last patch hit, Protoss didn’t look to be struggling as much... Although there are currently no immediate, glaring issues, let’s continue doing what we can during this time so that we can be prepared for the future.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/504638-community-feedback-update-february-26
|
I think its a game design issue... Protoss seems hardest to play of the 3 races currently. Many of their units require really precise micro in ways that cannot be done within a large control group. For instance adepts and disruptors require multiple clicks to control their spells effectively. Further units like phoenix and oracles (which seems essential to success especially against Z) always have to be controlled separate from the main army. Lastly P cannot use hotkeys to reinforce. They always have to warp-in, which requires numerous mouse clicks and looking away from the main battles!
Z on the other hand can control ravagers, lurkers, hydra, roach within one control group or large army group. I mean it does get tougher with vipers. But properly controlling a Z army requires slightly less precision.
|
United States5217 Posts
On March 07 2016 11:48 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Many of their units require really precise micro in ways that cannot be done within a large control group.
I was playing my first ladder game in a long time last night, and I thought the same thing.
I had a Void Ray, a few Phoenixes, Sentries, Disruptors, Adepts, Immortals, Stalkers and a MSC. They all have abilities, and just a single one (Immortal Shield) can be autocasted. I felt overwhelmed, switching between control groups like a madman. It is no wonder why Immortal/Archon/Chargelot is popular. Blizzard should make it so each ability has a different hotkey so I can select my whole army, and no matter what is in it I can press F and throw down Forcefields, G for Guardian Shield, ect.
I also thought about the Zerg composition I was facing. Hydra/Roach/Lurker/Ling/Mutalisk. I can count the number of abilities in that composition with one finger.
Yeah.
|
On March 07 2016 07:32 Cascade wrote:
Is it possible to download all the aligulac data? It'd be fun to do some more detailed analysis by map and by skill level and that kind of things.
Yes. I don't know if you figured it out, but here's the relevant page:
http://aligulac.com/about/db/
Alternatively, you can use their simple API if you're not putting in really long or hard queries, though they do limit returned results for obvious reasons.
I've been thinking, lately, about pulling the whole thing down and doing a detailed analysis of what I could to see if there are actual correlations anywhere between perceived balance issues (things which actually received changes in a patch, eventually) and the win-rates of sub-populations. I'm not a statistician, though, so it might be a bit before I do more than just think about it. 
|
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.
You right but thats good for the game, isnt it? It was not fair to zergs that they had to make useless units (roaches hydras useless lategame).
|
On March 07 2016 14:25 Edowyth wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 07:32 Cascade wrote:
Is it possible to download all the aligulac data? It'd be fun to do some more detailed analysis by map and by skill level and that kind of things. Yes. I don't know if you figured it out, but here's the relevant page: http://aligulac.com/about/db/Alternatively, you can use their simple API if you're not putting in really long or hard queries, though they do limit returned results for obvious reasons. I've been thinking, lately, about pulling the whole thing down and doing a detailed analysis of what I could to see if there are actual correlations anywhere between perceived balance issues (things which actually received changes in a patch, eventually) and the win-rates of sub-populations. I'm not a statistician, though, so it might be a bit before I do more than just think about it.
Oh, that was easy. Reveals how little effort I spent trying I'm afraid.
Thanks, nicely set up site!
|
On March 07 2016 12:09 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 11:48 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Many of their units require really precise micro in ways that cannot be done within a large control group.
I was playing my first ladder game in a long time last night, and I thought the same thing. I had a Void Ray, a few Phoenixes, Sentries, Disruptors, Adepts, Immortals, Stalkers and a MSC. They all have abilities, and just a single one (Immortal Shield) can be autocasted. I felt overwhelmed, switching between control groups like a madman. It is no wonder why Immortal/Archon/Chargelot is popular. Blizzard should make it so each ability has a different hotkey so I can select my whole army, and no matter what is in it I can press F and throw down Forcefields, G for Guardian Shield, ect. I also thought about the Zerg composition I was facing. Hydra/Roach/Lurker/Ling/Mutalisk. I can count the number of abilities in that composition with one finger. Yeah.
Strange when you consider for the last 5 years where Protoss is considered the lowest mechanical race, ie Colossus\Stalker\ Zealot and build a ball then "A" move to victory.
I bet Terran players wish they had that luxury, instead of constantly splitting units and juggling hot keys all game long with Bio.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 07 2016 16:57 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 12:09 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 07 2016 11:48 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Many of their units require really precise micro in ways that cannot be done within a large control group.
I was playing my first ladder game in a long time last night, and I thought the same thing. I had a Void Ray, a few Phoenixes, Sentries, Disruptors, Adepts, Immortals, Stalkers and a MSC. They all have abilities, and just a single one (Immortal Shield) can be autocasted. I felt overwhelmed, switching between control groups like a madman. It is no wonder why Immortal/Archon/Chargelot is popular. Blizzard should make it so each ability has a different hotkey so I can select my whole army, and no matter what is in it I can press F and throw down Forcefields, G for Guardian Shield, ect. I also thought about the Zerg composition I was facing. Hydra/Roach/Lurker/Ling/Mutalisk. I can count the number of abilities in that composition with one finger. Yeah. Strange when you consider for the last 5 years where Protoss is considered the lowest mechanical race, ie Colossus\Stalker\ Zealot and build a ball then "A" move to victory. I bet Terran players wish they had that luxury, instead of constantly splitting units and juggling hot keys all game long with Bio.
Honestly, many Protoss players would trade their "every unit has an activating ability" for the micro of Terrans, where they micro units instead of activating 1214154141 different abilities.
|
On March 07 2016 16:57 Topdoller wrote:Show nested quote +On March 07 2016 12:09 BronzeKnee wrote:On March 07 2016 11:48 My_Fake_Plastic_Luv wrote:
Many of their units require really precise micro in ways that cannot be done within a large control group.
I was playing my first ladder game in a long time last night, and I thought the same thing. I had a Void Ray, a few Phoenixes, Sentries, Disruptors, Adepts, Immortals, Stalkers and a MSC. They all have abilities, and just a single one (Immortal Shield) can be autocasted. I felt overwhelmed, switching between control groups like a madman. It is no wonder why Immortal/Archon/Chargelot is popular. Blizzard should make it so each ability has a different hotkey so I can select my whole army, and no matter what is in it I can press F and throw down Forcefields, G for Guardian Shield, ect. I also thought about the Zerg composition I was facing. Hydra/Roach/Lurker/Ling/Mutalisk. I can count the number of abilities in that composition with one finger. Yeah. Strange when you consider for the last 5 years where Protoss is considered the lowest mechanical race, ie Colossus\Stalker\ Zealot and build a ball then "A" move to victory. I bet Terran players wish they had that luxury, instead of constantly splitting units and juggling hot keys all game long with Bio.
It's far more tedious to try to activate a million different abilities than split your army. The most analogous situation with Terran would be trying to micro a big engagement while having to EMP, except you have even more than one ability. Abilities are far more difficult than just microing (you don't have to tab through units, you just split them via dragging).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
