|
On August 10 2019 00:33 Brutaxilos wrote:
People really need to stop using tournament wins by race to justify their views on balance. Not only is it a terribly small dataset, you would also have to factor in individuals.
Like if you looked at GSL wins per race since 2017 it would look like:
Terran: 6
Zerg: 1
Protoss: 1
But if you looked at GSL winners by race in the last 2 years it would look like:
Terran: 3
Zerg: 1
Protoss: 1
It's still not even, but with only a pool of 5 players, it's hardly definitive evidence for balance.
Non sequitur. You're only looking at a single, very unique tournament which makes no sense. It only makes sense to look at all premier tournaments for the year.
|
On August 09 2019 19:31 xelnaga_empire wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2019 07:40 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
When you roll a 6-sided dice 8 times... sometimes it hits on 1 or 2 on 5 occasions. 5 out of 8 players being Protoss doesn't prove the game favours Protoss at the top level of play. Wrong. If you role a 6 sided die 200 times and it hits 1 or 2 on 167 occasions, you have a broken die. Blizzcon standings are over the tournament from the entire year. Your suggestion that if there is over performance of Protoss in one tournament is true. But since the Blizzcon standings are for the performance for the entire year, there is something wrong with the balance. Want me to simplify this for you? Protoss has been over performing the entire year for Korea professional players and the Blizzcon standings support this assertion.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You need to use this rather than actually make up numbers in your mind.
https://stattrek.com/online-calculator/binomial.aspx
Assuming perfect balance there is a 50% odds that protoss wins over any other race. Therefore, the chance of a player being protoss is 1 in 3 as the strength of a race plays no role and it is just a matter of how many races there are.
So the probability of success is 1/3 and you have 8 tries as we are talking about the top 8. And we need 5 successes/protosses. So there chance to get this outcome [b]in one tournament[/n] has a probability of 0.09.
But you are specifically selecting a tournament with an extreme number of protosses. The real question is that given all of SC2 tournament history, how many times can you expect to have 5 out of 8 protosses, assuming perfect balance.
So now you get a new problem, where the probability is 0.09 and you need only 1 success (this specific tournament) out of X number of trials, where the trials are all tournaments that are significant. So let's take 20 tournaments.
And then the odds that we get at least one tournament with more than 5 out of 8 protoss players when we have 20 significant tournaments is 0.84.
That said, all of this thinking is flawed because if you have one really dominant player, that will break all the statistics. If the best player in the game happens to be protoss and that person is winning because he is the best and just happens to play protoss, protoss is going to win more often even though the game is perfectly balanced.
And the same is true with trends. If the best player in your game is protoss, more players will play protoss. And more of the top players will be protoss. If everyone played protoss, balance doesn't matter because the odds of having more than 5 out of the top 8 being protoss is always 100%.
And thirdly, there is a correlation between what skills a player excels at, what skills certain races require, and what skills make you win games at the highest level. So if a certain race has to play through mindgames and tricks, and at the top level games are decided through mind games and tricks, then you will have more strong players of that race.
SC BW is balanced, and almost all the top players ever are terran. Why? Because terran is the hardest to play and so the most talented players in SC BW history picked that race for that reason. We have no reason to reject the idea that if Oov had picked Zerg, he would have been even more dominant. Or that if Flash had picked protoss, etc.
|
On August 10 2019 04:22 NinjaNight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 00:33 Brutaxilos wrote:
People really need to stop using tournament wins by race to justify their views on balance. Not only is it a terribly small dataset, you would also have to factor in individuals.
Like if you looked at GSL wins per race since 2017 it would look like:
Terran: 6
Zerg: 1
Protoss: 1
But if you looked at GSL winners by race in the last 2 years it would look like:
Terran: 3
Zerg: 1
Protoss: 1
It's still not even, but with only a pool of 5 players, it's hardly definitive evidence for balance. Non sequitur. You're only looking at a single, very unique tournament which makes no sense. It only makes sense to look at all premier tournaments for the year.
Premiere Tournament wins by race 2017-2019:
Terran: 13
Protoss: 12
Zerg: 19
Premier Tournament winners by race 2017-2019:
Terran: Innovation, Maru, Gumiho, TY
Protoss: Stats, Classic, Neeb, Zest, herO,
Zerg: Reynor, Serral, Dark, soO, Rogue, Scarlett, Elazer
Is that enough data for you?
Source:  Premier Tournaments
|
On August 10 2019 04:56 Brutaxilos wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 04:22 NinjaNight wrote:On August 10 2019 00:33 Brutaxilos wrote:
People really need to stop using tournament wins by race to justify their views on balance. Not only is it a terribly small dataset, you would also have to factor in individuals.
Like if you looked at GSL wins per race since 2017 it would look like:
Terran: 6
Zerg: 1
Protoss: 1
But if you looked at GSL winners by race in the last 2 years it would look like:
Terran: 3
Zerg: 1
Protoss: 1
It's still not even, but with only a pool of 5 players, it's hardly definitive evidence for balance. Non sequitur. You're only looking at a single, very unique tournament which makes no sense. It only makes sense to look at all premier tournaments for the year. Premiere Tournament wins by race 2017-2019: Terran: 13 Protoss: 12 Zerg: 19 Premier Tournament winners by race 2017-2019: Terran: Innovation, Maru, Gumiho, TY Protoss: Stats, Classic, Neeb, Zest, herO, Zerg: Reynor, Serral, Dark, soO, Rogue, Scarlett, Elazer Is that enough data for you? Source: https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments
Balance exploits are seen at the highest level of play. Leaving WCS out of that metric is perfectly logical. Its not the highest level of play..never has been and contrary to all the hype still is absolutely not. You are seeing 2 to 3 zerg players at the highest level of play and 1 toss / terran making that list of would be code S contenders. Those players will always heavily skew the results. Kr is the only region where the majority of the field is a potential contender to beat on a good day the rest of the field. Protoss has been over represented in every Kr tournament since the post 18 blizzcon patch and the WCS points reflect that. Im NOT talking about who won the tournament. Im talking about the % of players advancing in each round.
Asserting that protoss just has the most top players left still playing is completely ridiculous. They were still playing on previous patches and they just magically became top players again post 18 blizzcon...riiight.
|
On August 08 2019 05:34 MarianoSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2019 06:56 MrFreeman wrote:On August 07 2019 06:41 Shuffleblade wrote:
Yes, zergs do have one massable powerful unit that creates free units at the cost of energy which can be used as a panic button if anything goes wrong. That is the exact reason they are toning infested terrans down, it is too powerful. I don't like the BCs as they are either and believe they are OP as well but at least they have counters. Infestors have 0 counters. Yes, that is true for Master and GM, but when I'm forced to counter A-move army with micro intensive army, it should either have clear advantage or not be as difficult. I think that if casting making it so that casting Fungal also unburrows the Infestor that is casting it would help, while not messing pro play, as player with good micro can do this already with just his/her skill. Zerg player complaining about A-move, and against Terran at that. Now I have seen everything. Do you remember a time when Terran had to kills Zerg before Ultras? Or before GGLords? Before 15 mins? Or micro and split as a god against BLing muta Amove? I think I remember it, its been going on for the past 5 years at least lol. Now after so long TvZ lategame is actually quite balanced and Zergs start complaining. Just learn to play against it. Its tough to learn to actually micro your units at first after so long of "spam larvae button and Amove", but with practice it should be possible 
Well, except I'm not a zerg player and I still prefer to kill Z as soon as possible as P and T, since they have the ability to just explode in economy and army if I give them time to breathe and get greedy.
PS: Except for MMM combo being super easy to lose through inattention, T is currently they easiest race to control for me.
|
Northern Ireland26119 Posts
On August 10 2019 05:23 DomeGetta wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 04:56 Brutaxilos wrote:On August 10 2019 04:22 NinjaNight wrote:On August 10 2019 00:33 Brutaxilos wrote:
People really need to stop using tournament wins by race to justify their views on balance. Not only is it a terribly small dataset, you would also have to factor in individuals.
Like if you looked at GSL wins per race since 2017 it would look like:
Terran: 6
Zerg: 1
Protoss: 1
But if you looked at GSL winners by race in the last 2 years it would look like:
Terran: 3
Zerg: 1
Protoss: 1
It's still not even, but with only a pool of 5 players, it's hardly definitive evidence for balance. Non sequitur. You're only looking at a single, very unique tournament which makes no sense. It only makes sense to look at all premier tournaments for the year. Premiere Tournament wins by race 2017-2019: Terran: 13 Protoss: 12 Zerg: 19 Premier Tournament winners by race 2017-2019: Terran: Innovation, Maru, Gumiho, TY Protoss: Stats, Classic, Neeb, Zest, herO, Zerg: Reynor, Serral, Dark, soO, Rogue, Scarlett, Elazer Is that enough data for you? Source: https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments Balance exploits are seen at the highest level of play. Leaving WCS out of that metric is perfectly logical. Its not the highest level of play..never has been and contrary to all the hype still is absolutely not. You are seeing 2 to 3 zerg players at the highest level of play and 1 toss / terran making that list of would be code S contenders. Those players will always heavily skew the results. Kr is the only region where the majority of the field is a potential contender to beat on a good day the rest of the field. Protoss has been over represented in every Kr tournament since the post 18 blizzcon patch and the WCS points reflect that. Im NOT talking about who won the tournament. Im talking about the % of players advancing in each round. Asserting that protoss just has the most top players left still playing is completely ridiculous. They were still playing on previous patches and they just magically became top players again post 18 blizzcon...riiight.
Well, they do though. across not just patches but expansions there’s a strong cohort of top tier Protoss players with multiple tournament wins each, strong Proleague records etc.
I think it’s more indicative of a wider problem in the Korean scene, namely that new players aren’t coming through and developing to challenge the top Kespa players in the post-Kespa era, even years down the line.
Judging from ASUS ROG it doesn’t look like relying on returning talent is going to help much either, neither Bomber and Taeja even look at top foreigner level yet, never mind challenging the better players in Code S. Hopefully they’ll get back to that level in time.
Players outside of the usual Protoss suspects have made good runs this year for sure. They haven’t really pushed on outside of the Super Tournament/GSL season 2, but Hurricane and Patience were outliers of a sort I guess.
I don’t think GSL is nearly as extreme, but Flash dominating ASL isn’t really taken as anything indicative of balance because it’s accepted he is just better than the field.
Protoss fans don’t tend to complain much as, happens all the time a Zest or an sOs or Stats or whoever lose in the Ro32, or even don’t make GSL because there are plenty of other Protoss players on the same level who can go deep.
If a Maru or TY or Inno, or more than one lose early it’s a disaster for Terran because there aren’t as many of them on the top tier of their race, and those below them haven’t really stepped up over the years.
Of course balance problems can exist independently of that too, there’s still something to be said of how top players are racially distributed in Korea affecting the results out of GSL too though
|
interesting discussion! here's my contribution: race distribution in gsl ro16 and ro8 during the last 2 years!
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/YXZDCaZ.jpg)
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26119 Posts
On August 10 2019 12:54 batatm wrote:interesting discussion! here's my contribution: race distribution in gsl ro16 and ro8 during the last 2 years!
And a fine contribution there sir.
The order isn’t exactly a surprise but the raw numbers are a bit different to what I’d have guessed. Protoss is sightly lower than I would have thought, Terran a little higher, Zerg quite a bit worse.
|
On August 10 2019 12:54 batatm wrote:interesting discussion! here's my contribution: race distribution in gsl ro16 and ro8 during the last 2 years!
Having these numbers is nice, but the race distribution alone does not say anything about balance. Each player selects a race for personal reasons, which are not random, so in Korea there may be more Protoss pros/semipros than Terran and more Terran than Zerg.
For example, in Ranking List 246 (July 31) from aligulac.com, there are 23 P, 29 T and 16 Z. List 236 (March 13) shows 33 P, 29 T, 15 Z. Looking at these two samples, it seems than there are less Zerg pros. It would be interesting to gather these over time for the last two years to compare vs your numbers - but I am too lazy for that 
|
On August 12 2019 04:19 Xamo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2019 12:54 batatm wrote:interesting discussion! here's my contribution: race distribution in gsl ro16 and ro8 during the last 2 years! Having these numbers is nice, but the race distribution alone does not say anything about balance. Each player selects a race for personal reasons, which are not random, so in Korea there may be more Protoss pros/semipros than Terran and more Terran than Zerg. For example, in Ranking List 246 (July 31) from aligulac.com, there are 23 P, 29 T and 16 Z. List 236 (March 13) shows 33 P, 29 T, 15 Z. Looking at these two samples, it seems than there are less Zerg pros. It would be interesting to gather these over time for the last two years to compare vs your numbers - but I am too lazy for that
that's why i chose to focus on the ro16 and ro8: when looking at this phases the total count of pro players in korea isn't as important imo, as only the absolute top representatives of each race make it this far.
|
On August 12 2019 06:39 batatm wrote:
that's why i chose to focus on the ro16 and ro8: when looking at this phases the total count of pro players in korea isn't as important imo, as only the absolute top representatives of each race make it this far.
Yeah, but if one race has (even more then) double the amount of Pro Players then the other (Protoss vs. Zerg in Korea), wouldn't it be a logical assumption that maybe there are also more Protoss Pro Players then Zerg Pro Players who are able to be top?
And in this case ... well there are a lot of "Protoss Big Guns" who have won one or even multiple big tournaments in the past out there ... more then for Terran or especially Zerg.
So for sure there maybe some imbalance regarding race destribution in Korea (same as in EU, only that there are sort of too much Zergies so it's the opposite of Korea) ... but that has nothing to do (or can be solved) with in-game balance ...
The change to Chargelots would be huge, as it is a core unit. Would be similar to removing zergling speed (or nerfing by 50+ Percent) or removing combat shields for Marines (or changing stim, that there would be no longer attack speed bonus, just move speed bonus).
You can't change one of them without changing something for the others. Especially as long there simply is no sign of any protoss dominance besides ONE (the last) GSL Season and maybe one or two Super Tournaments ...
|
On August 12 2019 15:40 JoFar wrote:
The change to Chargelots would be huge, as it is a core unit. Would be similar to removing zergling speed (or nerfing by 50+ Percent) or removing combat shields for Marines (or changing stim, that there would be no longer attack speed bonus, just move speed bonus).
You can't change one of them without changing something for the others. Especially as long there simply is no sign of any protoss dominance besides ONE (the last) GSL Season and maybe one or two Super Tournaments ...
Have you checked the patch history in lotv?
Zergling:
Slightly faster burrow and unburrow
Marine:
Unchanged
Zealot:
- Buff movement increase when charge is upgraded (2015)
- Charge now deals 30 dmg on hit, previous charge movement buff reverted (2015)
- Zealot charge damage reduced from 30 to 8 (2015)
- Zealot movement speed increase with charge massively increased (2016)
- Zealot charge upgrade cost from 200/200 to 100/100 (2017)
In lotv terran and zerg core units are untouched, the zealot has gained a very big runspeed buff when charge is researched, bonus damage on its charge attack and halved the cost of the charge upgrade. I could also mention that at launch of wol zealots didn't have a guaranteed hit with charge that was patched in 1 year after wol launched,
From launch the zealot has been hit with a literal bufftrain while the core units of other races has basically never been touched. (besides marine upgrade research time).
On August 12 2019 15:40 JoFar wrote:
You can't change one of them without changing something for the others.
Well thats what they have been doing for the whole history of this game, especially in lotv. The zealot was supposed to be powerful but clunky and now its powerful and fast, they keep patching away the only weakness of the zealot.
I'm not saying the nerf should have gone through, I'm actually undecided about it.
Edit: In my opinion it feels like the zealot is buffed into a new role, they have been made powerful enough to strongly contribute to immortal/archon compositions. Their previous slower itterations were a lot weaker in situations when they weren't buffering for units with enough range. Colossi or disruptor, without these or air the zealot used to be kitable without archons or immortals being able to get many hits off which made those compositions a bit iffy. The buffs have strengthened those comps while also making the zealot harassments OP.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On August 10 2019 12:54 batatm wrote:interesting discussion! here's my contribution: race distribution in gsl ro16 and ro8 during the last 2 years!
The GSL RO8 is fishy at best because of how the groups are created. If there would be a more fair way of the creation it would be more telling. That's why I use Ro16 from the Code S. Nice table though.
|
Translation (Once again): Protoss removed from game.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On August 12 2019 20:13 showstealer1829 wrote:
Translation (Once again): Protoss removed from game.
Every time they remove the Protoss from the game it doesn't work and they keep coming back and are successfull, I think your translating module needs restart, it's broken.
|
So let me get this straight. They wanted to tone down Infestors to ease Protoss in lategame vs Zerg but instead they:
Nerfed Infestors to the ground - dmg of IT by 50%, to the point that there are useless again...Hmmm. There is a reason why all Zergs mass Infestors against lategame of Protoss and Terran- because everything else that worked was nerfed already. Now thanks to geniuses from Blizzard, Zerg won't have valiable options vs Toss or Terran that are turtling into super lategame. JUST FUCKING GREAT!
But that's not enough right? Let's just additiinally buff Carriers and Ghosts. Not only we are nerfing the only counter to T and P lategame, but we are buffing Carriers which this already nerfed Infestors were suppose to counter, and Ghosts which are hard counter vs Infestors already just to make OP mass BattleCruiser more OP. I just can't comprehend logic behind this. Why just not fix the bug which already makes IT much weaker? Or just tone down dmg lil bit. Nooooo, lets overkill nerf them to the ground and in the same time buff things which they should counter...I wonder what will Zerg do now vs Mass Carriers and Mass BCs. Just roll over and die right?
And if it wasn't enough, let's give minor, meaningless nerf to OP Warprism and let's destroy early game in ZvT with buffing the most powerful upgrade in the game -STIM.
At the end let's buff Overlord Speed by reducing it cost by 25/25 (LOL HAHAHAHAHA) just to let Zerg see earlier ehat is going to kill them straight.
WOW Blizzard. You really do everything to destroy this game. I just wonder how long will take for u to understand that u made things worse.
|
On August 14 2019 19:52 hiroshOne wrote:
So let me get this straight. They wanted to tone down Infestors to ease Protoss in lategame vs Zerg but instead they:
Nerfed Infestors to the ground - dmg of IT by 50%, to the point that there are useless again...Hmmm. There is a reason why all Zergs mass Infestors against lategame of Protoss and Terran- because everything else that worked was nerfed already. Now thanks to geniuses from Blizzard, Zerg won't have valiable options vs Toss or Terran that are turtling into super lategame. JUST FUCKING GREAT!
But that's not enough right? Let's just additiinally buff Carriers and Ghosts. Not only we are nerfing the only counter to T and P lategame, but we are buffing Carriers which this already nerfed Infestors were suppose to counter, and Ghosts which are hard counter vs Infestors already just to make OP mass BattleCruiser more OP. I just can't comprehend logic behind this. Why just not fix the bug which already makes IT much weaker? Or just tone down dmg lil bit. Nooooo, lets overkill nerf them to the ground and in the same time buff things which they should counter...I wonder what will Zerg do now vs Mass Carriers and Mass BCs. Just roll over and die right?
And if it wasn't enough, let's give minor, meaningless nerf to OP Warprism and let's destroy early game in ZvT with buffing the most powerful upgrade in the game -STIM.
At the end let's buff Overlord Speed by reducing it cost by 25/25 (LOL HAHAHAHAHA) just to let Zerg see earlier ehat is going to kill them straight.
WOW Blizzard. You really do everything to destroy this game. I just wonder how long will take for u to understand that u made things worse.
Mmmmhm Zerg Tears 
|
On August 14 2019 22:14 darklycid wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2019 19:52 hiroshOne wrote:
So let me get this straight. They wanted to tone down Infestors to ease Protoss in lategame vs Zerg but instead they:
Nerfed Infestors to the ground - dmg of IT by 50%, to the point that there are useless again...Hmmm. There is a reason why all Zergs mass Infestors against lategame of Protoss and Terran- because everything else that worked was nerfed already. Now thanks to geniuses from Blizzard, Zerg won't have valiable options vs Toss or Terran that are turtling into super lategame. JUST FUCKING GREAT!
But that's not enough right? Let's just additiinally buff Carriers and Ghosts. Not only we are nerfing the only counter to T and P lategame, but we are buffing Carriers which this already nerfed Infestors were suppose to counter, and Ghosts which are hard counter vs Infestors already just to make OP mass BattleCruiser more OP. I just can't comprehend logic behind this. Why just not fix the bug which already makes IT much weaker? Or just tone down dmg lil bit. Nooooo, lets overkill nerf them to the ground and in the same time buff things which they should counter...I wonder what will Zerg do now vs Mass Carriers and Mass BCs. Just roll over and die right?
And if it wasn't enough, let's give minor, meaningless nerf to OP Warprism and let's destroy early game in ZvT with buffing the most powerful upgrade in the game -STIM.
At the end let's buff Overlord Speed by reducing it cost by 25/25 (LOL HAHAHAHAHA) just to let Zerg see earlier ehat is going to kill them straight.
WOW Blizzard. You really do everything to destroy this game. I just wonder how long will take for u to understand that u made things worse.
Mmmmhm Zerg Tears
yeh. let me just add: 'let the meta settle' like zergs have been spoon feeding us since GGlord-infestor.
|
Can't you guys just add new units instead of constantly making minuscule changes to the same units time and time again. Just add the reaver. Oh wait you would rather just continue to nickel and dime protoss and increase robo unit cost. My god
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
