On January 19 2011 22:25 Dont Panic wrote:
Close position metal is as bad if not worse than steppes. Zerg has a much harder time taking a third.The only other big map is Shakuras which is the most balanced because positions don't offer as great of a variation

This is exactly it. In fact, its not only the difficult to take 3rd base. But its also due to the high ground expansion between the bases in proxy positions.

While Steps is such a short rush, if you don't die with in the first 5 mins, the map actually is decent come Mid / late game.

windsupernova

Mexico5280 Posts

January 19 2011 18:35 GMT

#23

Wait, how does this proves that Z is UP/needs a boost?

The latest patch percentages has all matchups around 50%, unless I am missing something >_>

Anyways, yeah Close positions Metal is pretty bad for Zerg, at least in steppes the natural is easier to defend.

Entropia

France103 Posts

January 19 2011 18:48 GMT

#24

Great job man! Really great, I find that the ONLY source for balance should be pro level gamers.

In addition to that it corresponds to my feeling as a protoss, weaker vs T than vs Z!

Dragar

United Kingdom971 Posts

January 19 2011 21:50 GMT

#25

Misread, nevermind.

Dragar

United Kingdom971 Posts

January 19 2011 21:51 GMT

#26

Some of the numbers are quite small (like...how many matches took place on Kulas?). Including standard errors would be good, so we can see if the IMBA is even statistically significant.

Oleksandr

United States227 Posts

January 19 2011 22:05 GMT

#27

On January 20 2011 06:51 Dragar wrote:
Some of the numbers are quite small (like...how many matches took place on Kulas?). Including standard errors would be good, so we can see if the IMBA is even statistically significant.

So 100,000 match proves something but 100-10 doesn't? If one needs this many games to get the point, one will not get the point anyway.

sharkattack92

United States10 Posts

January 19 2011 22:08 GMT

#28

i cannot remember the last time I won a close position meta as zerg against terran.

it seems i play meta like 50% of my games, and i get close positions 75% of those games. its so difficult to win against, what the hell do you do when they get a PF at the third and their tanks defending the third can shoot ur nat?

i wish i could thumbs down 6 maps in this game

As a biased zerg player, I agree 200%. IMO it's really frustrating that so much luck comes in to play with spawn positions... not that you can't win close positions but I guarantee if we had the stats on close vs. cross positions it would be scary.

im really glad people feel my pain, its def my most played map too. honestly when i play on meta i just have to cross my fingers and hope i get good LUCK

biskit

Australia355 Posts

January 19 2011 22:24 GMT

#29

This is a good study, thanks for analysing the games so far. I hope there are people like you working as Blizzard balance squad.

Phanekim

United States777 Posts

January 19 2011 23:35 GMT

#30

good job. as always people will point out the flaws of this but it probably took a lot of hard work and it always gives people a sense of right direction and thats how it is in science.

Teddyman

Finland362 Posts

March 29 2011 20:46 GMT

#31

Now that version 1.3 is released I think it's time to bump this with an update again. As the number of tournaments really got out of hand, I wrote some Python scripts to automatically parse all TLPD games. Here are the new stats:

Patch 1.2.0 - 1.2.2 - Now with all TLPD games!
Non-mirror games: 4002
IMBA: 8.3%
TvZ: 692-556 (55.4%)
ZvP: 534-573 (48.2%)
PvT: 842-805 (51.1%)

The changes in 1.2.0 weren't exactly sweeping so most likely the changes from the previous version are from map pool changes and evolution of strategies. As for maps, the amount of games played on non-Blizzard maps is still too low to say anything about them.

greycubed

United States615 Posts

May 01 2011 04:15 GMT

#32

You rock. Hope you keep this up after 1.3.

sansalvador

Austria308 Posts

May 01 2011 04:54 GMT

#33

Nice read, thank you!

windsupernova

Mexico5280 Posts

May 01 2011 04:56 GMT

#34

Wow you rock. Hopefully we can keep this up

FlamingTurd

United States1059 Posts

May 01 2011 05:40 GMT

#35

Really interesting to see that the race vs race stats are still pretty similar as they were before as to which races win the most and which lose the most etc. No real surprises though, and still pretty cool to see some real stats.

GagnarTheUnruly

United States655 Posts

May 01 2011 05:46 GMT

#36

Very interesting, thanks!

Teddyman

Finland362 Posts

May 13 2011 09:21 GMT

#37

Here come the stats for 1.3 through 1.3.2.

Patch 1.3 - 1.3.2
Non-mirror games: 3358
IMBA: 6.9%
TvZ: 619-554 (52.8%)
ZvP: 516-461 (52.8%)
PvT: 588-620 (48.7%)

To recap: major changes from 1.2 were increasing stim research time, removal of Khaydarin Amulet and the buff to Fungal Growth.

Now I'll leave you with this pretty picture of the matchup win rates post-release:
[image loading]

MusiK

United States302 Posts

May 13 2011 09:25 GMT

#38

From the looks of the graph, seems like zergs are winning more games. nice

MockHamill

Sweden1798 Posts

May 13 2011 09:44 GMT

#39

The game seems to be very balanced currently. Race have almost no affect on the outcome in most games, maps maybe a little bit more.

Teddyman

Finland362 Posts

May 13 2011 09:53 GMT

#40

Yes, it should be emphasized that all of these numbers are over the map pool that was being played in that patch and it's very hard to separate what's caused by better maps and what's caused by gameplay changes.