|
Zergs are 20% of the total SC2 population, but they are 24.43% of diamond league.
The problem is that we're just taking a snapshot of Zerg players right now, but what we really need is a history of player distribution.
You could look at this and say: "hey, good players gravitate to Zerg," or "Zerg is balanced at high level," etc. There's no way to draw any definite conclusions just from the data presented. Using common sense, you can probably tell that the former is very unlikely and the latter is an unsatisfying answer considering some high-level Zergs are switching from / complaining about the race.
I'm incredulous that Zergs were always 20% (or 24% of diamond), but they are now. Are the 24.43% of Zergs in diamond those who were able to stick with it and cope? Possibly. It's also possible that it wasn't as easy to cope in leagues under diamond level. There's another poll on TL.net asking how many Zergs have race-switched for ladder since release, and of the hundred or so who answered at the time I saw it, about 20% said they had.
Of course, the sample size of the forumers at TL.net is insufficient for any concrete conclusions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be forgotten entirely. If anything, it's proof that SOME players are race-switching and SOME players find Zerg to be more difficult than the other races in a competitve environment. And, if that's the case, it only serves to support (not prove) IdrA's position that it's easier to succeed as another race, all things being equal.
The flip-side of the coin is that it would be ludicrous for somebody to look at those statistics and make the argument that Terrans and Protoss are struggling in diamond league. Food for thought.
|
On August 10 2010 06:44 heishe wrote:
Just a quick thing: Anybody in here who's constantly asking for statistical evidence: There is probably only that Blizzard statistic (which showed a greater than +1% in favour of terran btw, but those stats are from end of phase 1 or something? too old) because nobody is going to do the work and browse through a ton of websites (tournament sites, ladder etc.) just to compile a few numbers about a thing which is blatantly obvious anyways. If you're so hung up on statistical evidence then go ahead an proof that Terran is NOT imba at the moment, as you're in the minority group and most people agree that Terran is imbalanced.
You will fail btw, for reasons many others have pointed out.
By the way, I did provide substantial statistical evidence that zerg is NOT underpowered. See my posts here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=141732¤tpage=14#278
and here:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=141732¤tpage=15#283
|
On August 10 2010 08:47 Qikz wrote:Show nested quote +There are more Zergs in higher leagues, percentage-wise, than in lower leagues. That means that either:
1. Good players just gravitate to Zerg for some odd reason, while other races have a more normal distribution (not likely).
2. Less-skilled players who initially chose Zerg found them too hard and race-switched to something more manageable.
Using that logic, you could also say that Zerg are very easy to play and get to high levels with. 
Yes, that's entirely true. Perhaps there are so few Zergs in lower leagues because Zergs with, let's say for the sake of argument, "bronze" level skill are in "silver" divisions, and so forth.
However, my own experience with the battle.net community causes me to dismiss this explanation, especially given the prevalence of cheese (albiet poorly executed) in almost all divisions. Some players play the race they like while other players play to win. If Zerg were supremely easy to win and get high levels with (or even slightly easier), there would be way, way more Zerg in overall population (or they'd be the best-kept secret of Starcraft 2!).
|
I think the beta patch that added air AOE to the Thor was what broke it.
Thor always countered Mutalisks, cost for cost. But now 2-3 Thors can lock out the whole muta tech, way too cost effectively.
If they reversed that patch change, there will be so many beneficial side effects:
- Terran will need to get more Thors and fewer Tanks. We all know tanks are a big problem.
- Terran will need to get more Marines and less Marauders. Again, marauder balls are too effective against both roaches and hydras, after mid-game. Not to mention they make it much harder for Ultras too. Banelings and Infestors will also become a bit more effective.
- Broodlords will have a chance to work, while there are Vikings present, when Zerg is able to bring a decent number Mutas for support.
- Turrets are already very good against Mutas, but Terran will be forced to build more of them, since a single Thor can't protect an entire base anymore.
|
um whats with all the posts of how many percent certain races play. i thought this thread was about the tvz matchup????? not OMFG I HAS 1 MOAR % THEN YOU I AM OP...
you might ask well by using player percents is how we analyze the game. oh so how is the fact 30 or so % of people play protoss helping us work out whats wrong with the TvZ matchup. either T players are throwing stats in the spanner cause they have nothing else to argue about, or Z players are getting ingnorant to what the thread is about and just dropping numbers here and there.
i play zerg, i feel something is odd in the matchup.
Also saying every zerg player should just do what idra does is like saying if we believe hard enough we'll be like jesus and walk on water. Idra is a top player with skills that exceed MOST other players let alone zerg players. its sad when the only thing T players can use to support their case is. "well this pro gamer can beat us so everyone can."
rage over.... lol XP
|
United States47024 Posts
While I agree with your statistical analysis, kajeus, it's worth noting that balance plays out differently at different skill levels, due to the relative ability to exploit various features of each race. Analyzing the statistics is a good way to track imbalance across the general population, but it really doesn't have the resolution to handle issues of imbalance in the narrow window of higher-level play (especially since higher-level players often get the majority of their play done with practice partners and only ladder because of the eventual tournament qualification. That the statistics don't point to a general zerg imbalance doesn't mean it's not possible for one to exist at the higher skill levels (of course, it also means that most people complaining don't really have a right to do so).
|
You wasted your time with this. Blizzard already said the game was balanced as it is.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 10 2010 09:10 Toxigen wrote:Show nested quote +Zergs are 20% of the total SC2 population, but they are 24.43% of diamond league. The problem is that we're just taking a snapshot of Zerg players right now, but what we really need is a history of player distribution. You could look at this and say: "hey, good players gravitate to Zerg," or "Zerg is balanced at high level," etc. There's no way to draw any definite conclusions just from the data presented. Using common sense, you can probably tell that the former is very unlikely and the latter is an unsatisfying answer considering some high-level Zergs are switching from / complaining about the race. I'm incredulous that Zergs were always 20% (or 24% of diamond), but they are now. Are the 24.43% of Zergs in diamond those who were able to stick with it and cope? Possibly. It's also possible that it wasn't as easy to cope in leagues under diamond level. There's another poll on TL.net asking how many Zergs have race-switched for ladder since release, and of the hundred or so who answered at the time I saw it, about 20% said they had. Of course, the sample size of the forumers at TL.net is insufficient for any concrete conclusions, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it should be forgotten entirely. If anything, it's proof that SOME players are race-switching and SOME players find Zerg to be more difficult than the other races in a competitve environment. And, if that's the case, it only serves to support (not prove) IdrA's position that it's easier to succeed as another race, all things being equal. The flip-side of the coin is that it would be ludicrous for somebody to look at those statistics and make the argument that Terrans and Protoss are struggling in diamond league. Food for thought.
For lack of a better place to point, I'll link this: http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2007/11/12/when-conventional-wisdom-is-simply-wrong/
I meaaan, you know what I'm trying to say. Is there a real reason to not walk under a ladder? No, but people will tend to avoid doing it. How many people are going to keep grinding on zerg when everywhere they go, pros and Joes are saying zergs are bad and never win? Almost every English-speaking zerg I know has an excuse when they lose. Why is this? Beats me. Honestly, I think the qxc v Sheth turtle-fest at the end of Phase 1 was very influential, and the IdrA/Artosis faction has been very, very loud.
(Again, I play zerg.)
I don't know how the Koreans feel about this. Even fewer of them play zerg than do North Americans. That seems to suggest something. But Korean zergs are always at the top of the ladder (and have been for the past week, until a terran or two snuck up).
Zergs were also not especially popular earlier in the beta because people thought they were boring. Even when zergs won constantly, in every tournament, people said they were just so bland. Then qxc plays Sheth in a major end-of-Phase 1 tournament (after the roach food change), and all of a sudden everyone begins to grumble that TvZ is impossible for zergs.
We come back and get a ton of new data -- tons of people playing tons of games all the time, in a system that tries its damnedest to CONTROL for skill -- amazing!! And the numbers roll in... zergs are unpopular but as well-represented at the top of the food chain as they would be if skill were randomly distributed. Good zerg players appear to be as successful as good terrans and good protoss players. High-level zergs are the same proportion of high-level players as all zergs are of all players. This is statistical support for balance. It also points to unpopularity, yes, but it says they're successful.
On August 10 2010 09:25 TheYango wrote:
While I agree with your statistical analysis, kajeus, it's worth noting that balance plays out differently at different skill levels, due to the relative ability to exploit various features of each race. Analyzing the statistics is a good way to track imbalance across the general population, but it really doesn't have the resolution to handle issues of imbalance in the narrow window of higher-level play (especially since higher-level players often get the majority of their play done with practice partners and only ladder because of the eventual tournament qualification. That the statistics don't point to a general zerg imbalance doesn't mean it's not possible for one to exist at the higher skill levels (of course, it also means that most people complaining don't really have a right to do so).
Absolutely -- I do think it's possible for there to be an imbalance. I just don't see it in the numbers anywhere. If the 24% of diamond players are zergs and 20% of players in general are zergs, things seem pretty ok. We can also look at top 50-ranked players, top 100-ranked players, whatever, and control for region -- we get very similar results.
|
On August 10 2010 09:03 kajeus wrote:
Because we're assuming a random distribution of skill across races.
I know you're assuming that. I'm asking on what grounds are you making that assumption?
|
I disagree that zerg needs better defense. I disliked the spine crawler early in beta when it was very weak, as it is a bit of an iconic unit for starcraft II zerg, so I liked the buff, but it should never nullify the one thing that allows for a potentially balanced match-up against zerg in all the phases of the game and that is that you can threaten a zerg who is powering and in response he has to make more units.
Imagine that if the zerg had such good defense as terran had, for example. They'd win every single game, because they can now power as usual, but with better defense. The whole powering aspect of zerg is a consequence of the unique unit production they have, and it has the potential to break the game if there aren't ways to stop them.
|
kajeus , I think there's a lot of things that make Zerg unpopular, and they're not all balance related.
Certainly the whole "feel" of the ZvT matchup is something many Zergs don't like, i.e. being stuck with largely ineffective means of aggressive play for much of the game while enduring every sort of harass possible, followed by having to throw unit after unit at a seemingly unstoppable Terran blob.
If we could somehow get more means to make Zerg "fun", that would be great. I'm not a game designer, so I won't deign to make any suggestions. I just hope we get more options. Then if Zerg are too strong, number nerfs should follow. But anything to liven up the matchup would be appreciated.
|
I would like to as as opposed to salvage being changed to add some type of risk for early game bunker pushes for you to have to construct an engineering bay or use the OC to salvage the bunker.
If the engineering bay was chosen then it wouldn't be a research similiar to the poop creep mechanic of the zerg simply having a lair allows overlords to poop creep. Likewise simply having the engine bay would allow you to salvage bunkers which would mean that you would have to pay 125 minerals for the enginebay meaning that the first 1 1/4 bunkers you salvaged would not be payed for. Yes building an engine bay if you plan on going infantry will be needed eventually anyway but an early bunker won't be able to be salvaged.
I do like the idea of adding the gliding shot mechanic to the viking even if it reduced its range that would make them more fun to micro.
I was giving this alot of thought but a change in the nuclear reactor build time would probally change alot too currently there is no reason not to get it.
Building a reactor on the rax prior to building 4 marines
after 50 secs you have 0 marines, at 75 sec you have 2 marines, at 100 sec you have 4 marines.
Building a rax without a reactor to build 4 marines
after 50 secs you have 2 marines, at 75 sec you have 3 marines, at 100 sec you have 4 marines
As you can see at 100secs you have the same number of marines plus the investment of the reactor.
Extending the build time of the reactor would mean that you would have to pump out many more marines to help you be safe from early aggression as you wouldn't have time to wait for the reactor initially. Also the reactors build time would now be alot longer than the starport or factories which would delay hellion and viking harass even if you can swap and take the reactor that another building built for you.
Another potential solution would be adding a tax to the second unit built from a reactor.
|
On August 10 2010 09:10 Toxigen wrote:
I'm incredulous that Zergs were always 20% (or 24% of diamond), but they are now. I think it was probably around that amount for most of the beta. It was definitely the least popular race, even when the stats had it as firmly the strongest race, Q. Which race is played the most?
David Kim: Terran, Protoss, then Zerg.. Threads like this kind of leave one thinking Zerg just was never viewed as fun.
|
I don't think population is a factor for balance. In the campaign you play TERRAN mostly killing ZERG. Zerg are the villains. Makes sense that there'd be less of them overall.
|
Wayy too many players only want to win. Because of this they become those hated winning-team-joiners and will change their race if one race is perceived as OP or easier to play for the same win chance. So as long as there are people crying about imbalance there will be an uneven distribution of races.
Choosing a race to play is also influenced by personal preferences for their different playing style. It seems unlikely that people are distributed evenly with this preference.
So there are two good reasons to ignore the whole distribution statistic, because it doesnt prove anything. Only the win-loss ratio might prove something, but the game has been around for how long? I seriously doubt that everyone has already figured out his playing style and is at top quality, so I would wait for another two months at least to wait for solid numbers. Maybe the lazy Zerg have learned how to do harrass by then and are wiping the floor with Terrans, atm there is hardly any Zerg harrass.
|
Imho this thread is totally pointless until we have a source for the worldwide TvZ win/loss ratio that's clearly in favor of terran.
The assumption that T > Z is based on low and mid level skilled players claiming it to be true and one progamer, who is notorious for crying about imbalances even back in Broodwar, a game which is arguably perfectly balanced and is only influenced by the balance of certain maps.
Let's assume the statistics for TvZ are actually ~50% oder even slightly in favor of Zerg. What would you guys say then? It's still imbalanced towards T, the Zerg players are just better players and thus can make up for? That would be another baseless claim that has yet to be proven.
All in all I seriously think this thread should be closed. There's just no point to it without any valid proof that TvZ is actually Terran favored.
Oh and just for fun, play a few days as Terran. You'll probably notice three things: A) It's not much easier or harder to play as any other race. B) How people cry about your race being imbalanced after you TOTALLY outplayed them. I have yet to see a single Zerg losing a TvZ to me despite playing even remotely close to perfectly. C) When you play better than your opponent, you win. When you play worse than your opponent, make mistakes, forgo scouting, etc. then you'll lose. You won't win because your race is imbalanced and you won't lose because the other races are imbalanced.
What kind of a mindset is that anyways? I lost to race XXX so it must be because it's imbalanced. If it is imbalanced, you can't do shit about it so don't invest your precious time in pointless crying. Instead, try to make no mistakes and to develop solid strategies against the race you're having problems with. If you think you played a perfect game and lost anyways, watch the replay. You'll notice 99% of the time there are some thing you could have done better or you didn't notice during the game.
|
On August 10 2010 10:02 tetracycloide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2010 09:03 kajeus wrote:
Because we're assuming a random distribution of skill across races. I know you're assuming that. I'm asking on what grounds are you making that assumption?
Well, I explained it pretty clearly in my post, I thought. If 5% of all players are in diamond, and 6.15% of zerg players are in diamond (terran and protoss are pretty close), then it was a reasonable assumption to make.
|
On August 10 2010 21:23 Mooncat wrote:
Oh and just for fun, play a few days as Terran. You'll probably notice three things: A) It's not much easier or harder to play as any other race. B) How people cry about your race being imbalanced after you TOTALLY outplayed them. I have yet to see a single Zerg losing a TvZ to me despite playing even remotely close to perfectly. C) When you play better than your opponent, you win. When you play worse than your opponent, make mistakes, forgo scouting, etc. then you'll lose. You won't win because your race is imbalanced and you won't lose because the other races are imbalanced..
And when are you going to spend your time playing as Zerg so you can understand the matchup from the other side instead of just making the same baseless assumptions that you blast Zerg players for?
|
@kajeus:
You can't really use the popularity of zerg across all leagues to project the expected percent of higher level players that play zerg. This is because players motivations changes based on there skill level.
Terran might be more popular at lower levels becuase of familiarity, the campaign, or maybe its just more fun to play than zerg.
But at higher levels where simply winning is the priority you would expect players to play the race that gives them the best chance to win. If the game were balanced the total number of players across the races at high levels should relatively even.
By focusing on the global population you are getting data skewed by the lower level players (most players) that make it seem like zerg is over represented in diamond league.
For example, if hypothetically, Idra was the only zerg player left you could say "100% of zerg are in diamond league" and make it seem like zerg was overpowered, when really its just no one plays zerg and there would probably be a gameplay/balance related reason.
|
On August 11 2010 00:17 lt.dunbar wrote:
@kajeus:
You can't really use the popularity of zerg across all leagues to project the expected percent of higher level players that play zerg. This is because players motivations changes based on there skill level.
Terran might be more popular at lower levels becuase of familiarity, the campaign, or maybe its just more fun to play than zerg.
But at higher levels where simply winning is the priority you would expect players to play the race that gives them the best chance to win. If the game were balanced the total number of players across the races at high levels should relatively even.
By focusing on the global population you are getting data skewed by the lower level players (most players) that make it seem like zerg is over represented in diamond league.
For example, if hypothetically, Idra was the only zerg player left you could say "100% of zerg are in diamond league" and make it seem like zerg was overpowered, when really its just no one plays zerg and there would probably be a gameplay/balance related reason.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=141732¤tpage=15#283
6.15% of zerg players are in diamond. If IdrA were the only zerg left, 100% would be in diamond. The expected value is 5%, given that 5% of players overall are in diamond league. Moreover, zergs would be a tiny tiny percentage of all diamond league players in that case -- obviously not balanced either.
In reality, 6.15% of zerg players are in diamond (not 100%), and they are 24% of the total number of diamond players (not .00001%). Given that they are 20% of the total number of players everywhere, this is a completely reasonable outcome.
"If the game were balanced the total number of players across the races at high levels should relatively even." -- That is simply not true. If 20% of all players were zerg and zergs were 33% of diamond league, this would be truly bizarre. Let me give you an example.
If you have 50% red jelly beans in a jar, 30% yellow jelly beans, and 20% white jelly beans, then take a large random handful of jelly beans, it is completely unreasonable to expect an even 33% split across all colours. Do you disagree with that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
