|
On September 21 2012 22:02 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 21:55 RaiZ wrote:On September 21 2012 21:40 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 19:17 shadymmj wrote: its not a troll thread, this is a legitimate balance thread because STATISTICS DON'T LIE
when you have 2.5x more zergs than terran in GM, in a server that caters to the United States (and no, im not american), you undeniably have got a problem.
most of the hardcore fan base this game has got left are the masters and maybe diamonds, sectors in which terran is vastly underperforming, they are the ones who keep the game active.
thank god I quit for counterstike and wow a long time ago, games which you can enjoy when you have a job and college papers to go through, instead of having to read up on the new terran nerf after i get home. Statistics "don't lie" - but there's no shortage of people who fail to interpret stats properly. Second, just because there are 2.5x more Zs than Ts in GM, it doesn't mean anything about race balance if we don't know what the base rates are to begin with. For example, if there are just 2.5x more zerg players than terran players to start out with, than this would be perfectly proportional. I've some doubts about the second part... I mean the GM league is filled with only 200 players, we aren't talking about the number of terran or zerg, but rather how much of them are reaching the tops. Do you really think that the more zerg than terran still applies ? I don't know about you, but i'd rather see a pretty balanced rate between all 3 races. And even so, don't you think that it should be the opposite ? Since terrans are facing way more zerg than zerg against terran, it means they got a lot more practice, yet that's not the case. That second part is in fact wrong. If the races were equal you would expect to see a more normal distribution, not necessarily dead even, but not what it is now. There is a reason for the disparity, I believe its because most people will naturally gravitate towards what is more effective.
1. Rikter, see my previous message and bear in mind that I am talking about why it's erroneous to say that disproportionate numbers of X in GM indicates imbalance.
2. Your previous post doesn't detract anything from what I said. It doesn't matter if everyone "is playing to win" - what does that have to do with anything? If the game is perfectly balanced, but 90% of all players collapsed across all leagues play race X, then you would still see their race being over-represented in the top 200.
|
On September 21 2012 21:58 whatevername wrote: I find this a little amusing coming from a bw perspective: The races were never ever even remotely similar in popularity in BW, that was never used as evidence of imbalance, or a consistent source of, you guessed it, whining. I'd be suprised if terran cracked the 20% barrier in BW, outside of Korea anyway. It was a very unpopular race, it required huge mechanical demands before you actually saw any progress, etc. Everyone knew and accepted that the skill curve wasnt even. That doesnt imply the game is unfair, it implies you need to play a competetive game harder-- and if your not willing to do that, than the game aint for you in the first place. No one has a right to complain that, hardly trying at all, putting no time into sc2, and playing mediocrely as fuck in Gold or diamond league--- that they cant win x match up. People will still do it, but that doesnt imply its intellectually valid.
The races are never going to be equally represented or equally difficult for newbies, move on. Koreans are better than the whiny terrans in the foreign community and you know what they say? TVZ is terran favoured and protoss is a tad op; we get totally opposite discussions here because we spend our time self consciously complaining about balance instead of practicing.
the thing is, BW was made to ancient standards and if someone in Irvine said that one day BW will have TV channels showing nothing but BW, it would probably amuse the staff at blizzard very much.
i dont know where ur from, but most people play to have fun, even in so-called "competitive games", because they have real life to worry about already. by competitive i mean the real thoroughbreds like quake 3, ut, cs, street fighter, tekken...not COD (lol)
in this day and age, having a race heavily over-represented is never a good thing, except maybe in bronze where it can be forgiven, seeing that many beginners will naturally choose terran. just ask the 50% GM zergs, who likely play ZvZ more than anything else.
|
On September 21 2012 22:05 Covariance wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 22:02 rikter wrote:On September 21 2012 21:55 RaiZ wrote:On September 21 2012 21:40 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 19:17 shadymmj wrote: its not a troll thread, this is a legitimate balance thread because STATISTICS DON'T LIE
when you have 2.5x more zergs than terran in GM, in a server that caters to the United States (and no, im not american), you undeniably have got a problem.
most of the hardcore fan base this game has got left are the masters and maybe diamonds, sectors in which terran is vastly underperforming, they are the ones who keep the game active.
thank god I quit for counterstike and wow a long time ago, games which you can enjoy when you have a job and college papers to go through, instead of having to read up on the new terran nerf after i get home. Statistics "don't lie" - but there's no shortage of people who fail to interpret stats properly. Second, just because there are 2.5x more Zs than Ts in GM, it doesn't mean anything about race balance if we don't know what the base rates are to begin with. For example, if there are just 2.5x more zerg players than terran players to start out with, than this would be perfectly proportional. I've some doubts about the second part... I mean the GM league is filled with only 200 players, we aren't talking about the number of terran or zerg, but rather how much of them are reaching the tops. Do you really think that the more zerg than terran still applies ? I don't know about you, but i'd rather see a pretty balanced rate between all 3 races. And even so, don't you think that it should be the opposite ? Since terrans are facing way more zerg than zerg against terran, it means they got a lot more practice, yet that's not the case. That second part is in fact wrong. If the races were equal you would expect to see a more normal distribution, not necessarily dead even, but not what it is now. There is a reason for the disparity, I believe its because most people will naturally gravitate towards what is more effective. Rikter, see my previous message.
I saw it, and I see the point you are trying to make. But you cant just say, oh the population is bigger so they should be more represented. Ask yourself, why is the population so skewed in the first place? In every game I have ever played, watched, studied, whatever, over the past 20 years, you can always see people trending towards what is effective. The population functions like a hive mind computer, and right now this 'computer' is saying that zerg is more effective
|
I agree with those who are saying this reflects the relative size of each population, with plenty left for margin of error and limited sample size. I don't think this represents anything more than meets the eye, and that no conclusions can be made in regards to balance at this time.
|
On September 21 2012 20:17 mazqo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 20:14 Andr3 wrote: I personally like that terran is having a hard time atm, tbh it's not that bad when 1.5 came out but still. It feels better when you win.
There's also the problem of no good EU/US terrans. Kas sometimes show some brilliance but it's not enough. Happy is just a one trick pony, always plays the same. Lucifron has showed some good games, but I doubt it he'll continue to. Saying "no good [insert race] in [insert continent]" is getting really old and its stupid. Did you know about slivko, vortix or sortof 6months ago? Propably not. Suddendly they got "good" and old "good" terrans stopped being good, for example strelok, cloud, naama, sjow and many others. Actually I knew about Vortix, and he was very solid before 1.5, but you probably don't know that a bit before 1.5 hit he started practicing for real. Slivko was topping ladder pre 1.5 as well. I give you points on Sortof though.
Your example of "old good" terrans is silly. Strelok was on a down hill ever since like 1 year after beta lol. Cloud was never good, I don't know what's he doing in the list. Naama's performance has always been dependent on his opponent's I feel, his play was plenty of times shaky with all the crazy shananigans he did. Sjow deserves to be buried in the past, he made SC2 look terrible with his 90 eapm.
One GOOD terran that was left behind is Brat_OK, but I think it's because he lost motivation. He used to stream a lot and commentate and during that time he was awesome. He always played very standard and had great micro(he was also one of the first terrans in SC2 to do splits, even before mkp).
The argument isn't silly, EU has shitty terrans.
|
On September 21 2012 22:10 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 22:05 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 22:02 rikter wrote:On September 21 2012 21:55 RaiZ wrote:On September 21 2012 21:40 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 19:17 shadymmj wrote: its not a troll thread, this is a legitimate balance thread because STATISTICS DON'T LIE
when you have 2.5x more zergs than terran in GM, in a server that caters to the United States (and no, im not american), you undeniably have got a problem.
most of the hardcore fan base this game has got left are the masters and maybe diamonds, sectors in which terran is vastly underperforming, they are the ones who keep the game active.
thank god I quit for counterstike and wow a long time ago, games which you can enjoy when you have a job and college papers to go through, instead of having to read up on the new terran nerf after i get home. Statistics "don't lie" - but there's no shortage of people who fail to interpret stats properly. Second, just because there are 2.5x more Zs than Ts in GM, it doesn't mean anything about race balance if we don't know what the base rates are to begin with. For example, if there are just 2.5x more zerg players than terran players to start out with, than this would be perfectly proportional. I've some doubts about the second part... I mean the GM league is filled with only 200 players, we aren't talking about the number of terran or zerg, but rather how much of them are reaching the tops. Do you really think that the more zerg than terran still applies ? I don't know about you, but i'd rather see a pretty balanced rate between all 3 races. And even so, don't you think that it should be the opposite ? Since terrans are facing way more zerg than zerg against terran, it means they got a lot more practice, yet that's not the case. That second part is in fact wrong. If the races were equal you would expect to see a more normal distribution, not necessarily dead even, but not what it is now. There is a reason for the disparity, I believe its because most people will naturally gravitate towards what is more effective. Rikter, see my previous message. I saw it, and I see the point you are trying to make. But you cant just say, oh the population is bigger so they should be more represented.
Explain why.
It's perfectly logical to say that. This is, in fact, the underlying logic behind this phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacy
IF the game is perfectly balanced, and one race is in general more played, then this would be reflected in GM as well. What this means is that without knowledge of the base rates, you can't make a judgement call on balance based SOLELY on the proportions (i.e., 100 zergs, 60 protosses, 40 terrans) in GM.
Ask yourself, why is the population so skewed in the first place?
I've already offered a more parsimonious explanation.
In every game I have ever played, watched, studied, whatever, over the past 20 years...
Unless you're collecting data in a systematic way, this isn't particularly convincing from an empirical investigation POV.
The population functions like a hive mind computer, and right now this 'computer' is saying that zerg is more effective
Again, this is one interpretation. It might even be true, but saying that there are disproportionately larger numbers of zergs in GM alone doesn't constitute damning evidence.
I should point out, at this time, that I am TA'ing a Research Methods course.
|
On September 21 2012 10:23 Chocobo wrote: Maybe reduce bunker build time by 5 seconds, that should fix things.
Of course! Reducing bunker build time will totally help you with your late game comp against Infestor/Brood Lord.
|
On September 21 2012 22:12 zyce wrote: I agree with those who are saying this reflects the relative size of each population, with plenty left for margin of error and limited sample size. I don't think this represents anything more than meets the eye, and that no conclusions can be made in regards to balance at this time.
Try not to think in terms of balance, just more effective vs less effective. Obviously it is possible to win with each race, I think the game is pretty balanced, excepting the queen buff.
Everyone saying those percentages mean nothing, what is your explanation for how they got so skewed in the first place? People have reasons for the things they do. This isnt flipping a coin or something where random chance can give you a skewed result in a small sample. This is the product of conscious decisions over a period of time.
|
Northern Ireland20747 Posts
On September 21 2012 21:15 Miotonir wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 21:11 Pulimuli wrote:On September 21 2012 21:08 Miotonir wrote: I don't remamber bitching when zerg had tought time and dont remamber quiting sc2 and changing race. Im zerg at heart thats what matters to me I have passion for zerg, that is the only reason I do play zerg.If terran changed because "its hard to win" then its an obv fail that shows terrans were always in for easy win, not for the race itself. Zerg might be the easier race i dont care which is the "better" i love zerg for what it is , mutated bugs queens lings banes speed weak fast units. Shitty units dying to tank fire vaporising in a second or ovewhelming in a second.
2 years ago everybody flamed players for playing terran, the rage and bm on the ladder was insane. As of now its pretty much as in BW, you didnt get to play many TvT's there either (although i get a fair amount of TvT's on sc2) But its still mostly TvZ and TvP. Flamed? only if u all inned super cheezy style, nobody(of healthy mind) dares to insult good macro terran ever. Must be a lot of unstable minds out there then!
|
On September 21 2012 22:10 shadymmj wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 21:58 whatevername wrote: I find this a little amusing coming from a bw perspective: The races were never ever even remotely similar in popularity in BW, that was never used as evidence of imbalance, or a consistent source of, you guessed it, whining. I'd be suprised if terran cracked the 20% barrier in BW, outside of Korea anyway. It was a very unpopular race, it required huge mechanical demands before you actually saw any progress, etc. Everyone knew and accepted that the skill curve wasnt even. That doesnt imply the game is unfair, it implies you need to play a competetive game harder-- and if your not willing to do that, than the game aint for you in the first place. No one has a right to complain that, hardly trying at all, putting no time into sc2, and playing mediocrely as fuck in Gold or diamond league--- that they cant win x match up. People will still do it, but that doesnt imply its intellectually valid.
The races are never going to be equally represented or equally difficult for newbies, move on. Koreans are better than the whiny terrans in the foreign community and you know what they say? TVZ is terran favoured and protoss is a tad op; we get totally opposite discussions here because we spend our time self consciously complaining about balance instead of practicing. the thing is, BW was made to ancient standards and if someone in Irvine said that one day BW will have TV channels showing nothing but BW, it would probably amuse the staff at blizzard very much. i dont know where ur from, but most people play to have fun, even in so-called "competitive games", because they have real life to worry about already. by competitive i mean the real thoroughbreds like quake 3, ut, cs, street fighter, tekken...not COD (lol) in this day and age, having a race heavily over-represented is never a good thing, except maybe in bronze where it can be forgiven, seeing that many beginners will naturally choose terran. just ask the 50% GM zergs, who likely play ZvZ more than anything else. I dont give a crap what standards BW was built to, and yes I'm aware people play to have fun even in competitive games-- they enjoy the competition, they enjoy the stress of the grind. You dont. Thats why you quit and moved onto css or w/e you said. You think zergs and protoss come home from work and just have energetic stress relieving pleasure from sc2? No. I pull my hair out, I am stressed constantly while playing; I find hyper competitive stressful games, perversely, fun. Thats why I liked bw, thats why I like sc2-- and thats why you dont.
Not a problem with the game, you just dont like it.
|
Less people play terran. I mean if terran is less than 30% in all divisions, isn't this terribly obvious?
|
On September 21 2012 22:22 hitpoint wrote: Less people play terran. I mean if terran is less than 30% in all divisions, isn't this terribly obvious?
This is a more parsimonious alternative explanation I have been advocating in the past several posts (e.g., http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=370419¤tpage=13#246).
Those who wish to rail against zerg choose to ignore this point because it would be more self-serving to whine about Terran being UP.
I'm not necessarily saying that there are in fact less Terrans, I'm just saying we can't jump to conclusions and say that the disproportionate race membership rates in GM are proof of imbalance.
|
On September 21 2012 22:13 Andr3 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 20:17 mazqo wrote:On September 21 2012 20:14 Andr3 wrote: I personally like that terran is having a hard time atm, tbh it's not that bad when 1.5 came out but still. It feels better when you win.
There's also the problem of no good EU/US terrans. Kas sometimes show some brilliance but it's not enough. Happy is just a one trick pony, always plays the same. Lucifron has showed some good games, but I doubt it he'll continue to. Saying "no good [insert race] in [insert continent]" is getting really old and its stupid. Did you know about slivko, vortix or sortof 6months ago? Propably not. Suddendly they got "good" and old "good" terrans stopped being good, for example strelok, cloud, naama, sjow and many others. Actually I knew about Vortix, and he was very solid before 1.5, but you probably don't know that a bit before 1.5 hit he started practicing for real. Slivko was topping ladder pre 1.5 as well. I give you points on Sortof though. Your example of "old good" terrans is silly. Strelok was on a down hill ever since like 1 year after beta lol. Cloud was never good, I don't know what's he doing in the list. Naama's performance has always been dependent on his opponent's I feel, his play was plenty of times shaky with all the crazy shananigans he did. Sjow deserves to be buried in the past, he made SC2 look terrible with his 90 eapm. One GOOD terran that was left behind is Brat_OK, but I think it's because he lost motivation. He used to stream a lot and commentate and during that time he was awesome. He always played very standard and had great micro(he was also one of the first terrans in SC2 to do splits, even before mkp). The argument isn't silly, EU has shitty terrans.
Hahaha you are being ridiculus. But if we play like this, why not? Mvp, MMA, MKP, Bomber, Taeja, Forgg, Puma, Ryung, Ganzi,... are all better then their Z and P counterparts; Korea just doesn't have good P and Z, hence TvX MUs should be balanced at 55%. Kthx.
|
On September 21 2012 22:14 Covariance wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 22:10 rikter wrote:On September 21 2012 22:05 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 22:02 rikter wrote:On September 21 2012 21:55 RaiZ wrote:On September 21 2012 21:40 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 19:17 shadymmj wrote: its not a troll thread, this is a legitimate balance thread because STATISTICS DON'T LIE
when you have 2.5x more zergs than terran in GM, in a server that caters to the United States (and no, im not american), you undeniably have got a problem.
most of the hardcore fan base this game has got left are the masters and maybe diamonds, sectors in which terran is vastly underperforming, they are the ones who keep the game active.
thank god I quit for counterstike and wow a long time ago, games which you can enjoy when you have a job and college papers to go through, instead of having to read up on the new terran nerf after i get home. Statistics "don't lie" - but there's no shortage of people who fail to interpret stats properly. Second, just because there are 2.5x more Zs than Ts in GM, it doesn't mean anything about race balance if we don't know what the base rates are to begin with. For example, if there are just 2.5x more zerg players than terran players to start out with, than this would be perfectly proportional. I've some doubts about the second part... I mean the GM league is filled with only 200 players, we aren't talking about the number of terran or zerg, but rather how much of them are reaching the tops. Do you really think that the more zerg than terran still applies ? I don't know about you, but i'd rather see a pretty balanced rate between all 3 races. And even so, don't you think that it should be the opposite ? Since terrans are facing way more zerg than zerg against terran, it means they got a lot more practice, yet that's not the case. That second part is in fact wrong. If the races were equal you would expect to see a more normal distribution, not necessarily dead even, but not what it is now. There is a reason for the disparity, I believe its because most people will naturally gravitate towards what is more effective. Rikter, see my previous message. I saw it, and I see the point you are trying to make. But you cant just say, oh the population is bigger so they should be more represented. Explain why. It's perfectly logical to say that. This is, in fact, the underlying logic behind this phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyIF the game is perfectly balanced, and one race is in general more played, then this would be reflected in GM as well. What this means is that without knowledge of the base rates, you can't make a judgement call on balance based SOLELY on the proportions in GM. I've already offered a more parsimonious explanation. Show nested quote + In every game I have ever played, watched, studied, whatever, over the past 20 years...
Unless you're collecting data in a systematic way, this isn't particularly convincing from an empirical investigation POV. Show nested quote + The population functions like a hive mind computer, and right now this 'computer' is saying that zerg is more effective Again, this is one interpretation. It might even be true, but saying that there are disproportionately larger numbers of zergs in GM alone doesn't constitute damning evidence. I should point out, at this time, that I am TA'ing a Research Methods course.
I went back and read it again, and the point I am hung up on is that you just accept as reasonable that the population is bigger for one race. Much bigger. Your parsimonious explanation is that the bigger total population results in a bigger GM population, with no explanation as to why the population got so big in the first place, where if the game is balanced you would expect roughly even distribution (since nothing is inherrently better/easier than anything else).
I understand that my statement is not systematic data collection (i got my B.S. in Molecular/Cell Biology, I've got some background in this too), its just to get people thinking about other games they have seen this phenomenon. Prolly the best way to check this data would be to compare the size of the population with each successive patch. ANyone know how to get that data?
But it is a fact that the sc2 population functions as a hivemind computer, dedicated to solving the game of starcraft. Whatever is imbalanced will be exploited until it is patched, I think we have all seen this, no?
Fwiw: I dont think terran is under powered so much as it is much harder atm to get the most out of the race. Both P and Z feature less micro intensive, more mobile, deathball compositions. I dont see how anyone could win TvP above plat without being able to handle a bio ball control group, a viking control group, and a ghost control group at the same time, all while macroing. Not the easiest thing to do, especially when the other dude is just amoving.
|
I pointed low amount of terrans on ladder like 3-5 month ago, my thread was closed. Srsly ladder balance directly reflects tournaments results, as we all see there are only few top terrans in eu/na that can do anything to zerg/toss in tournaments. I think one of biggest drop terrans was after ghost nerf, which basicly destroyed terran tvz late game(something similar would happen is blizzard randomly nerfed infestors, totaly new late game army compositions would need to be invented ). Then the next blow was probably queen buff, which really didnt effect pvz or anything else, except early marine presure and hellion harass. Basicly destroying terran early game builds. Forcing yet again for terrans to rediscover differnt build. These changes basicly removed really large chunks of upcoming/new terran players.. And now we see the results, new Prottoss and zerg players start to take over, yet we still have zero new terrans. Its not even about balance, its about blizzard screwing with terran builds, and forcing to rediscover buildorders again and again. It did happen to me to. I was finaly having some success in tvz after few month of sucking and i was doing so with agresive helion/banshee presure into mech(i was holding my own agains eu gm zergs), well queen buff totaly destroyed my opening(before patch i had 55%-60%winrate after, 30%winrate), shortly after that i lost any motivation to continue to play and basicly quit sc2 untill now.
|
so who wants to start the sad marine club?
it's pretty obvious that blizzard's attempt to "balance" the game isn't working, sure the game looks alright in korea, but we're not all pro-koreans who spend an avg. of 6 hours a day practicing our marine/marauder micro
|
On September 21 2012 22:29 rikter wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 22:14 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 22:10 rikter wrote:On September 21 2012 22:05 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 22:02 rikter wrote:On September 21 2012 21:55 RaiZ wrote:On September 21 2012 21:40 Covariance wrote:On September 21 2012 19:17 shadymmj wrote: its not a troll thread, this is a legitimate balance thread because STATISTICS DON'T LIE
when you have 2.5x more zergs than terran in GM, in a server that caters to the United States (and no, im not american), you undeniably have got a problem.
most of the hardcore fan base this game has got left are the masters and maybe diamonds, sectors in which terran is vastly underperforming, they are the ones who keep the game active.
thank god I quit for counterstike and wow a long time ago, games which you can enjoy when you have a job and college papers to go through, instead of having to read up on the new terran nerf after i get home. Statistics "don't lie" - but there's no shortage of people who fail to interpret stats properly. Second, just because there are 2.5x more Zs than Ts in GM, it doesn't mean anything about race balance if we don't know what the base rates are to begin with. For example, if there are just 2.5x more zerg players than terran players to start out with, than this would be perfectly proportional. I've some doubts about the second part... I mean the GM league is filled with only 200 players, we aren't talking about the number of terran or zerg, but rather how much of them are reaching the tops. Do you really think that the more zerg than terran still applies ? I don't know about you, but i'd rather see a pretty balanced rate between all 3 races. And even so, don't you think that it should be the opposite ? Since terrans are facing way more zerg than zerg against terran, it means they got a lot more practice, yet that's not the case. That second part is in fact wrong. If the races were equal you would expect to see a more normal distribution, not necessarily dead even, but not what it is now. There is a reason for the disparity, I believe its because most people will naturally gravitate towards what is more effective. Rikter, see my previous message. I saw it, and I see the point you are trying to make. But you cant just say, oh the population is bigger so they should be more represented. Explain why. It's perfectly logical to say that. This is, in fact, the underlying logic behind this phenomenon: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_rate_fallacyIF the game is perfectly balanced, and one race is in general more played, then this would be reflected in GM as well. What this means is that without knowledge of the base rates, you can't make a judgement call on balance based SOLELY on the proportions in GM. Ask yourself, why is the population so skewed in the first place?
I've already offered a more parsimonious explanation. In every game I have ever played, watched, studied, whatever, over the past 20 years...
Unless you're collecting data in a systematic way, this isn't particularly convincing from an empirical investigation POV. The population functions like a hive mind computer, and right now this 'computer' is saying that zerg is more effective Again, this is one interpretation. It might even be true, but saying that there are disproportionately larger numbers of zergs in GM alone doesn't constitute damning evidence. I should point out, at this time, that I am TA'ing a Research Methods course. I went back and read it again, and the point I am hung up on is that you just accept as reasonable that the population is bigger for one race. Much bigger. Your parsimonious explanation is that the bigger population results in a bigger GM population, with no explanation as to why the population got so big in the first place, where if the game is balanced you would expect roughly even distribution (since nothing is inherrently better/easier than anything else). I understand that my statement is not systematic data collection (i got my B.S. in Molecular/Cell Biology, I've got some background in this too), its just to get people thinking about other games they have seen this phenomenon. Prolly the best way to check this data would be to compare the size of the population with each successive patch. ANyone know how to get that data? But it is a fact that the sc2 population functions as a hivemind computer, dedicated to solving the game of starcraft. Whatever is imbalanced will be exploited until it is patched, I think we have all seen this, no? Explain to me why BW terran populations were so much tinier, yet the game was balanced-- hell, maybe even terran favoured, if population size is directly related to some "hive mind" attempt to win?
I have my alternative explanation: Terran is vanilla, people dont like playing the good guys or the humans. Terran doesnt stand out in any particular way and so more people are naturally drawn to the other races. Terran is very mechanicall demanding and therefore stressful, at lower levels you will see less obvious rewards for your efforts. Games still balanced, it just works to stress out the newbie terran more so than the masters or GM terran.
|
On September 21 2012 22:13 Andr3 wrote:Actually I knew about Vortix, and he was very solid before 1.5, but you probably don't know that a bit before 1.5 hit he started practicing for real. Slivko was topping ladder pre 1.5 as well. I give you points on Sortof though.
Your example of "old good" terrans is silly. Strelok was on a down hill ever since like 1 year after beta lol. Cloud was never good, I don't know what's he doing in the list. Naama's performance has always been dependent on his opponent's I feel, his play was plenty of times shaky with all the crazy shananigans he did. Sjow deserves to be buried in the past, he made SC2 look terrible with his 90 eapm.
One GOOD terran that was left behind is Brat_OK, but I think it's because he lost motivation. He used to stream a lot and commentate and during that time he was awesome. He always played very standard and had great micro(he was also one of the first terrans in SC2 to do splits, even before mkp).
The argument isn't silly, EU has shitty terrans.
What in god's name are you babbling about? If you have no idea about what you're talking about, don't just make up shit. You talk shit about incredibly good EU players based on moot? Just because their results has declined, that doesn't mean they've gotten worse. Have you ever thought that it could've been contributed due to patches and metagame? Please.
|
Ppl want to try diff things.
|
Given we're about to move from the terran expansion (WoL) to the zerg one (HoTS), i know a lot of people who have been switching to zerg in anticipation of the new units.
I think if you take a moment to look at the numbers, terran is underepresented in all of the brackets, indicating not that they are definitively worse (not that im arguing that they are/arent) but rather that there are fewer players playing terran now than the other races. I mean shit i remember watching GSL 12 months ago and you'd get to the RO16 and see like 10-12 terrans (at that time it was more due to balance) - but as you've said they're underrepresented the whole way down, it would appear this time that there are just fewer people playing terran at the moment.
just my 2c
also for any terrans out there on the QQ bandwagon, just try and remember that everyone sooner or later has their time in the sun, ultimately we all strive for a balanced game but with new expansions, new units and a constant flux of rebalances and metagame shifts changing tiny tiny things can have absolutely profound effects. (who'd've thought increasing the range of queens ground attacks would break TvZ for so long?)
|
|
|
|