| Forum Index > SC2 General |
NonY
8751 Posts
Win loss is not all we have, that is not correct. We can actually sift through the games manually from the start and remove corrupt data that does not fit the parameter of "were both players playing their races optimally". Honestly can't tell if you are just messing with me. If not then can you please put me in contact with the omniscient being who is informing you on what is optimal play because I have some issues more important than SC2 balance to inquire about. | ||
Poopi
France12904 Posts
On February 14 2019 02:57 NonY wrote: terran is winning tvp in GSL. early all-ins are strong and isn't blink cost reduction exactly the kind of thing to help vs all-ins? so that it'd be easier for protoss to have another tool or threat early on in the game. so why is blink cost increasing instead? i dont get it shouldn't protoss get a buff to help deal with the all-ins or terran get a nerf to their all-in and blizzard should go back to the drawing board on changes to make terran better at mid game and late game? I think this is misleading. At the time of your post terran wasn't winning in GSL, you probably only considered Code S games but there has been games played on the same patch (afaik, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) in the code S qualifiers. These qualifiers are part of the GSL with roughly the same playerbase as code S, with an incentive to wins from players since they want to advance to code S, so they are meaningful samples of games from KR scene for balance discussions. Hopefully there will be some TvP played in the later rounds with higher stakes (direct elimination) and less variance (bo5+) between top T/P so we'll see how the meta has matured out. This kind of sudden albeit small change seems odd because it shows they aren't waiting to see more games nor thinking of a better and broader solution before patching. | ||
|
narbsncharbs
34 Posts
On February 15 2019 02:19 NonY wrote: Honestly can't tell if you are just messing with me. If not then can you please put me in contact with the omniscient being who is informing you on what is optimal play because I have some issues more important than SC2 balance to inquire about. You are thinking too black and white nony. Based off your logic, you think that games where one race didn't use their toys properly should be counted as balanced. You essentially suggest that this data matters but in reality it is corrupt data that does not display proper usage of toys. You can't use a specific set of data to determine whether or not something is balanced or imbalanced if that specific set of data includes instances of sub-optimal gameplay. Sub-optimal gameplay does not show the true strength of any given unit/ability/race therefore those specific examples should be considered "corrupt" and either removed from the pool of data being used for analysis entirely OR the end result of those games should not be used as the deciding factor. Any data scientist that uses analysis to come to accurate conclusions will tell you the same thing. | ||
|
Poopi
France12904 Posts
On February 15 2019 02:28 narbsncharbs wrote: You are thinking too black and white nony. Based off your logic, you think that games where one race didn't use their toys properly should be counted as balanced. You essentially suggest that this data matters but in reality it is corrupt data that does not display proper usage of toys. You can't use a specific set of data to determine whether or not something is balanced or imbalanced if that specific set of data includes instances of sub-optimal gameplay. Sub-optimal gameplay does not show the true strength of any given unit/ability/race therefore those specific examples should be considered "corrupt" and removed from the pool of data being used for analysis entirely. Any data scientist that uses analysis to come to accurate conclusions will tell you the same thing. Humans make mistakes so every game will be corrupted then and you can't analyse anything, by your logic, so I don't really see the point? | ||
|
Vindicare605
United States16095 Posts
On February 15 2019 01:14 NonY wrote: I don't agree with this kind of analysis. That's all that matter is the win-loss when the matchup is so volatile and nobody understands it atm. I would agree that the win-loss is not much to go off of but it's all we've got. You agree with me that the win-loss is not much to go off of, but you do it from the angle that you understand the matchup so well that you know the full story behind each and every pvt that has been played so you're giving yourself the authority to say which games are truly reflective of the matchup and which are not. You are out of your mind if you think you understand it that well. I never said or even implied that I was an authority on the match up, please don't put words in my mouth. All I am is an avid student of pro play and what I CAN say is that it is no surprise at all to me that the results that Maru, Keen, MC and Gumiho put up in their groups is not surprising to me at all. Trying to infer any sort of greater information about the overall match up from those results seems extremely premature to me with that in mind. What WAS surprising was how bad Stats looked in his group, BUT considering that Stats ALSO got 2-0'd by MC in his group, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his results were more indicative of him having a bad day than anything that would imply some sort of long term slump or an unfavorable meta that he isn't familiar with. After all, as I'm sure you know better than I, every pro has off and on days. | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On February 15 2019 02:28 narbsncharbs wrote: You are thinking too black and white nony. Based off your logic, you think that games where one race didn't use their toys properly should be counted as balanced. You essentially suggest that this data matters but in reality it is corrupt data that does not display proper usage of toys. You can't use a specific set of data to determine whether or not something is balanced or imbalanced if that specific set of data includes instances of sub-optimal gameplay. Sub-optimal gameplay does not show the true strength of any given unit/ability/race therefore those specific examples should be considered "corrupt" and either removed from the pool of data being used for analysis entirely OR the end result of those games should not be used as the deciding factor. Any data scientist that uses analysis to come to accurate conclusions will tell you the same thing. Okay but your idea of balance isn't relevant to competitive play. I don't know why you're arguing about some hypothetical perfect balance with perfect play. It has nothing to do with esports. It's more of a philosophical / mathematical issue. In the first place, players don't use each individual thing optimally on purpose because they're trying to balance their attention. If it takes 1 second of work to get 90% efficiency out of something, and it takes 2 seconds of work to get 100% efficiency, then players are often purposely doing the first option and then using the rest of their attention elsewhere. So you're gonna balance based on the latter option which players are almost never doing, why? It's not a path to improving the game. So in your whole perfect analysis of each individual part of the game, you'd have to take human limitations and these decisions into account. It's not even remotely possible. The goal of balance patches is to keep the matchups within 45-55% win rates and to encourage the players to play in ways that are fun to play and fun to watch and then give the players plenty of unknown space to explore to come up with new strategies and tactics. Your whole angle has nothing to do with any of this. It's not fit for an esports forum. | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On February 15 2019 02:35 Vindicare605 wrote: I never said or even implied that I was an authority on the match up, please don't put words in my mouth. All I am is an avid student of pro play and what I CAN say is that it is no surprise at all to me that the results that Maru, Keen, MC and Gumiho put up in their groups is not surprising to me at all. Trying to infer any sort of greater information about the overall match up from those results seems extremely premature to me with that in mind. What WAS surprising was how bad Stats looked in his group, BUT considering that Stats ALSO got 2-0'd by MC in his group, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and say that his results were more indicative of him having a bad day than anything that would imply some sort of long term slump or an unfavorable meta that he isn't familiar with. After all, as I'm sure you know better than I, every pro has off and on days. Okay so it's premature to infer anything about the matchup from these results. But prior to these results, or even more prematurely, there was so much negative feedback about the matchup that it caused Blizzard to do a rollback on the patch in the middle of the competitive season. So that was doubly premature and we're both in the same position of wondering why that'd be done? | ||
|
narbsncharbs
34 Posts
On February 15 2019 02:48 NonY wrote: Okay but your idea of balance isn't relevant to competitive play. I don't know why you're arguing about some hypothetical perfect balance with perfect play. It has nothing to do with esports. It's more of a philosophical / mathematical issue. In the first place, players don't use each individual thing optimally on purpose because they're trying to balance their attention. If it takes 1 second of work to get 90% efficiency out of something, and it takes 2 seconds of work to get 100% efficiency, then players are often purposely doing the first option and then using the rest of their attention elsewhere. So you're gonna balance based on the latter option which players are almost never doing, why? It's not a path to improving the game. So in your whole perfect analysis of each individual part of the game, you'd have to take human limitations and these decisions into account. It's not even remotely possible. The goal of balance patches is to keep the matchups within 45-55% win rates and to encourage the players to play in ways that are fun to play and fun to watch and then give the players plenty of unknown space to explore to come up with new strategies and tactics. Your whole angle has nothing to do with any of this. It's not fit for an esports forum. This is a balance update thread nony. My contributions to this thread have everything to do with how the game is being balanced are directly related. This thread is not about esports and esports has no interconnectedness within the context of discussion at hand. Stop trying to make this thread about esports, that's not what it is about. Your approach to deciding balance is flawed, you got called out on it because various people in this thread don't want any blizzard employees who will more than likely read the community responses to be misinformed and that is that. It's literally okay for you to be wrong nony, no one is perfect and no one is judging you as a person(only your approach to balance!). Enough of the derailing buddy. User was banned for this post. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On February 13 2019 06:58 freelifeffs wrote: thanks but its not enough. protoss is on an absolute murder spree vs terran and zerg blows in general. i expected more than one tiny rollback. disappointed. Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16003 Posts
On February 15 2019 04:11 [F_]aths wrote: Maybe it is time for terrans and zergs to figure out new strategies instead of asking to make the game easier for them? Perhaps the current set of common strategies versus Protoss is not the optimal way to play? We would not find out if we quickly change the balance. Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? | ||
|
narbsncharbs
34 Posts
On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote: Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Did a protoss say that after protoss players complained to make the game easier by making gaateways automatically transform into warpgates? Meanwhile as a terran, I don't have a choice which side my reactor tech/lab builds on and i have to manually switch buildings lol. Can we get the ability to place techlabs/reactors on both sides already? How was this overlooked and why is it ok to give "QoL" changes to one race but not the others? Where is the consistency? | ||
|
Zetter
Germany629 Posts
On February 15 2019 04:55 Charoisaur wrote: Funny how this is always said by the players on the favorable side of balance. Would you say the same if the roles were reserved? What did you say in early 2017 when every Toss was dying to tank pushes? Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? | ||
|
ssregitoss
Turkey241 Posts
| ||
|
narbsncharbs
34 Posts
On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote: Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, GSL is ONLY a maximum of maybe 200 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. I would just add these w/l stats to the ladder and go from there. Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy though the w/l stats can sometimes point to whether or not balance is present or absent. Those ladder stats are nuts. Protoss must be having the time of their life. In the history of sc2 balance, there has never been as big of a w/l % gap in favor of one race over another ever to date until now. This is literally the worst it has ever been, EVER. And there are still people thinking everything is fine? | ||
|
Ben...
Canada3485 Posts
On February 15 2019 06:33 ssregitoss wrote: gsl results dont favor p > t . GSL is currently at 12-6 favouring terran, and 4 of the 6 protoss wins were a fairly rusty-looking Keen losing. The other two were Parting taking a game off Bunny and Stats taking a game off Cure. WCS Europe is at 11-9 favouring Terran after the first group stage. Innovation's games today showed a fairly strong split push drop style with a lot of liberators that certainly looked quite strong against the currently popular stalker/colossus composition protoss are going for to fight off tank pushes. It's almost as if maybe the midgame isn't as favoured for protoss as people are letting on. That early raven he and a few others have gone for certainly looks like something that could be incredibly useful to incorporate into timings and just in general. Disabling immortals and colossus certainly seemed effective. | ||
|
Zetter
Germany629 Posts
On February 15 2019 06:47 narbsncharbs wrote: Just look at gm ladder profiles of protoss and terran players. Looks at the win rates. Look at those players historic best/worst matchups. People put too much weight in gsl statistics, it's ONLY a maximum of 120 games a season lol, and that is spread out between all the match ups. That's an extremely tiny sample compared to the sample size found on ladder. Ladder provides a bigger picture compared to gsl though neither provide 100% accuracy. First of all: The game is balanced for the tournaments not the ladder. Second: You're still not providing data. And that seems to be very cherrypicked. Here's the stats for the Top 50GM Terrans on NA: No one except Masa (who only has 12 TvP games and 5 TvZ) has TvP as his worst matchup. You can go on propagating your anecdotal evidence all you want, but unless you start providing data there's no way your claims will ever be believable. Edit: And while we're at it: Here's the Top 16 Protoss and Terrans on Korea with a notable number of games. Again nothing pointing in the direction of the matchup being especially favorable for Protoss. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany16003 Posts
On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote: Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm? Terran players complaining - Protoss players saying the matchup is perfectly fine. Seems pretty conclusive to me. hey.User was warned for this post. | ||
|
Poopi
France12904 Posts
On February 15 2019 06:32 Zetter wrote: Again: Can you finally provide any kind of data to support your claim that PvT is Protoss favored in balance atm?  2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/QualifierDear 2-0 Maru PartinG 2-1 TY Creator 2-0 INnoVation Creator 2-1 INnoVation These seemed like big upsets to me. However it seems that top terrans adapted now and can beat worse protosses 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/Code S | ||
|
Zetter
Germany629 Posts
On February 15 2019 07:19 Charoisaur wrote: Terran players complaining - Protoss players saying the matchup is perfectly fine. Seems pretty conclusive to me. So, no data again. On February 15 2019 07:21 Poopi wrote: 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/QualifierDear 2-0 Maru PartinG 2-1 TY Creator 2-0 INnoVation Creator 2-1 INnoVation These seemed like big upsets to me. However it seems that top terrans adapted now and can beat worse protosses 2019 Global StarCraft II League Season 1/Code SAs you said they seem to have adapted now. Also that's a very very small dataset. Overall PvT was 52.8% in the GSL qualifiers which is not really that much. | ||
|
narbsncharbs
34 Posts
On February 15 2019 07:02 Zetter wrote: First of all: The game is balanced for the tournaments not the ladder. Second: You're still not providing data. And that seems to be very cherrypicked. Here's the stats for the Top 50GM Terrans on NA: No one except Masa (who only has 12 TvP games and 5 TvZ) has TvP as his worst matchup. You can go on propagating your anecdotal evidence all you want, but unless you start providing data there's no way your claims will ever be believable. Edit: And while we're at it: Here's the Top 16 Protoss and Terrans on Korea with a notable number of games. Again nothing pointing in the direction of the matchup being especially favorable for Protoss. The game should not be balanced for tournament views, It should be balanced for playing. I didn't buy starcraft so that I can then watch it. I bought starcraft so I could play it. As a person who hands money to a company to play said company's game, I only care about the gameplay experience. I don't care what it looks like from a viewer perspective. I don't care if it looks stupid or whether or not people want to watch others play it. I care about the fun that the game provides me when i'm playing. Tournaments are outside of the game of starcraft, aside from the in-game tournament ques. Outside tournaments have no impact on me as a consumer, I get nothing from it. If you expect me to support the development of the game prioritizing tournament viewership instead of the development of the game for how fun it is for the players actually playing the game, you will be disappointed. The data is literally on the ladder, you have access to it. Stop playing the game of "show me the data" when you literally have access to it on your computer. Look at it. You already have it, no excuses. | ||
| ||
|
|
BSL Team A[vengers]
Cross vs Sobenz
Sziky vs IcaruS
SC4ALL
SC4ALL
BSL 21
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Korean Royale
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
