Winrate for all 3 races in the entire LOTV expansion (2015-present):
Terran - 40 wins
Zerg - 69 wins
Protoss - 33 wins
World championships:
Terran - 2
Zerg - 7
Protoss - 0
source:
h ttps://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments
I think zerg needs couple more buffs and balance will be better than ever.
https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments
750+ posts and you canât s h a r e a link?
Preformatteed text CTRL+e, is one option.
Serral has 25 of them (excluding team tournaments) and has only been dominating since 2018.
In Before âitâs just serralâ.
That said, while I know that this point was likely made in response to a post made about Protoss earlier, the biggest reason that Protoss players donât win tournaments is, at this point, legitimately because they donât have the skill to do so. HerO and MaxPax are arguably the two best protoss players currently.
MaxPax doesnât compete offline, which immediately eliminates him from any potential offline championships.
HerO does compete offline, but is absurdly inconsistent to a fault and makes some of the most bizarre decisions both in the heat of the moment and outside of them that directly cost him games and series. Decisions that frankly, nobody in their right mind would make because it would be stupid to do so.
Stats, seemingly, is finally coming back to form, with GSL last season, but we have to take that with a grain of salt, because we havenât seen enough of him to really be certain of that return to form.
But perhaps the most damning evidence for Protossâ lack of skill is that weâve actively seen things players used to do disappear from the meta over the years. Things like consistently keeping oracles alive - which only Stats seems to do these days.
Things like pairing Storm with warp prisms, which used to be a common thing for protoss players to do at pro level, nobody does until Nightmare started doing it again recently. Literally only within the last couple of weeks.
Nothing changed to stop these things from happening either. EMP getting buffed (and then nerfed) didnât make any difference whatsoever to stop Prisms from protecting templar.
Nothing made it harder to keep oracles alive. They didnât get weaker, and their counters didnât get stronger. Protoss players just started throwing them away for one or two extra drones or SCVs. They didnât think to keep them alive for the utility that they provide; stasis wards, and revelation are two of the most powerful abilities in the game arguably. The ability to freeze half your opponentâs army, and the ability to see where your opponentâs army is or is made of for a full 20 seconds is not small.
Late-game DTs stopped being a thing in TvP literally out of the blue despite being one of the most powerful base-sniping tactics in the game, for literally no reason. The ability to blink in, kill a base in 2 swipes and then run away/blink away is huge. And neither Terran nor Zerg (Iâm aware it was never used against Zerg, but why???) really have the ability to deal with that as effectively, because neither race has recall to bring their army back fast enough to defend a literal 2 swipe kill. Terrans got better at defending it, sure, but that doesnât make it bad to do, nor does it make it impossible to do either. Planetaries and DTs are both the same strength as they were when the tactic started being used. And people just stopped doing it.
I really, really donât like saying it, but from where Iâm standing⌠Pro Protoss players have just gotten worse.
What do you mean i canât share a link ? You have to alter URL somehow, by putting space for example, to prevent automated censorship to reject your post if youâre not using formatting like you did.
Yes, he has 25 wins and 4 other zergs have 45 wins so ? What is your point ?
The reason why i created this thread is because i was bored and curious how many tournaments zerg won in LOTV. Since i was unable to find statistics somewhere else i searched Liquipedia and counted them all by myself (some sorting tool could prove useful).
And indeed zerg dominance blew my mind. 69 wins vs 73 wins. Zerg literally won as many premier tournaments as T and P combined.
How can they not see this ? If discrepancy was small (say 50 vs 40 vs 40) perhaps it would be normal to conclude zergs are slightly better, but this is literally a gap that canât be justified by skill alone. You have to be either biased or incompetent to keep it as it is. And donât forget Z is still receiving buffs (!)
My theory is people behind balance clearly are zerg players and they want to milk as much $$$ before game dies completely and their position is so strong nobody dares to dispute their decisions.
Yeah, thatâs a thing and has been for a while - you canât change the total number of victories Zerg has. That said, the total number of premiers never really mattered IMO. What did was the years that Zerg players were actively winning more than T and P combined - which isnât really the case now, as it used to be.
Even though P players donât win very much, T and Z players are winning fairly equally over the last year or two. Maybe slightly more for Z, but not by amounts that are as drastic as they used to be - 2019-2022 in particular Z used to win literally everything to the point where could have rolled a D6 and 4 of those sides would be Zerg while the other two would be T and P victors, and still be more even than what the Premier win rate was for Zerg.
Historically speaking, Zerg players have the most premier victories, the most premier runner-ups, the most unique victors, and the most unique runner up-players of every race.
Itâs never been âJust Serralâ (despite what every Zerg player would spout). Even if he accounts for a large amount of the victories, because there was almost always another Zerg waiting in the wings. Serral, Dark, Reynor, Rogue, soO, Solar, Scarlet (and those last two I wouldnât have considered premier contenders, except that they both actually won premier tournaments when historically theyâve been Ro16 at best - though Solar recently has actually been much stronger than that).
Having said that, I maintain that in the last year or so, Zerg has won significantly less than they used too (by which I mean they have won a more reasonable amount and other races have won more, not that zerg havenât won much and other races won everything), bringing them much more in-line with the other races. Or at least Terran.
you like numbers so much
ESL Open Cups https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/ESL_Open_Cups:
Toss: 1st: 273 2nd: 297 Total: 570
Terr: 1st: 266 2nd: 227 Total: 493
Zerg: 1st:142 2nd: 155 Total: 297
Rando: 1st: 0 2nd: 2 Total: 2
What do these numbers tell you now?
It tells me that the best Zerg players - aside from Dark and maybe Reynor since his competition in them is sporadic - donât compete in ESL weeklies. Also that the best Protoss players do. Which is part of the reason why I say that Protoss players complaining about premier wins is silly too; because their best players (maxpax) donât compete offline.
What does it mean tho? Really. Im completly clueless what anyone actually would want to accomplish with ESL OPEN CUP statistics.
Serral won esl open cup only 1 time. Maybe the only time he actually competed? But he has multiple global finals victories. WCS/GSL vs the world/IEM. You name it.
Does that mean its harder to win ESL open cup?
LOL are you kidding ?
Who gives a crap about ESL cup ? Clem can win 100 ESL cups in a row and it doesnât matter at all because this is âminorâ tournament which is played every week. Best players Serral, Reynor are not even interested in this type of tournament because prize pool is so low, winner gets like 100 or 200 $.
Remember as long as zerg has huge advantage in premier wins total, lower tier tournaments donât matter because 80 % of income for best players comes from premier tournaments and only premier tournaments should be indicator of balance, not just some silly weekly cups.
This is by the way stupidity of most zerg players still in the game. They canât even distinguish difference between âpremierâ , âmajorâ or âminorâ tournaments which vary GREATLY in prize pool and prestige. Here i created a thread which summarizes zerg imbalance at the highest level and guy comes with ESL cup as a response LMAO.
If you want to measure a correlation between two variables, you want a sample that isnât contaminated by other variables and other correlations. The way you would do this is by creating a correlation table. Here is an example of a correlation table I generated last night:
| Correlation Table | APM | SPM | SQ | SC % | Win-rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APM | 1 | 0.3972820423 | 0.1592339911 | 0.06030351115 | 0.1472005619 |
| SPM | 0.3972820423 | 1 | 0.2178002934 | -0.01173599178 | 0.1395159912 |
| SQ | 0.1592339911 | 0.2178002934 | 1 | -0.04863421117 | 0.2148042016 |
| SC % | 0.06030351115 | -0.01173599178 | -0.04863421117 | 1 | -0.09772619527 |
| Win-rate | 0.1472005619 | 0.1395159912 | 0.2148042016 | -0.09772619527 | 1 |
As you can see, everything has a correlation with win-rate so which one is causing the win-rate. It could be any combination of the three. Is it higher APM driving more screen movements, or is it more screen movements driving higher APM? This is called multicovariance. We canât tell which one is causing which. We donât know because the variable isnât isolated. If you were to perform this calculation on premier tournament win-rates, youâd find the same thing, but youâd find it correlates with player names. Obviously serral will have a high winrate and no-name-joe will have a low. So is it zerg or is it serral or is it a combination. You canât say.
This is what a correlation table would look like in a sample where the variable is isolated:
| Correlation Table | APM | SPM | SQ | SC % | Win-rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| APM | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.1472005619 |
| SPM | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| SQ | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| SC % | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Win-rate | 0.1472005619 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
In this case, itâs obvious that win-rate would be caused by APM and we could conclude that definitively because there are no other variables correlating with win-rate within the sample. Thatâs in essence what experimental studies try to do. They isolate the two variables that you care about and get rid of the rest. The experiment is carefully designed to do this. We canât do that in SC2, but we can judge data by how closely it adheres to similar standards and we can use a correlation table to see if it does.
This sort of issue shrinks if you can get a lot of data. Itâs called the central limit theorem. The errors average out to zero. The excess correlations will average out to zero. Serral can only play so many games so his impact on the sample will shrink if the sample size is large. So on and so forth. Thatâs why ESL cups are interesting. Itâs because they are more statistically valid than premier tournaments.
The largest predictor for premier tournament outcomes is the participant list, not the races that are picked. Thereâs a very small correlation between race and premier tournament victories. Itâs so small it would be hard to measure without years of data.
Thatâs exactly why premier tournaments should be ignored. The outcome will correlate with skill & effort, and not balance. When Serral enters an IEM, he has an 80% chance to win it. Take away Serral, and thereâs an 80% chance Maru or Clem win it. Balance doesnât affect premier tournaments to any significant degree. Thatâs an unpopular opinion but itâs factually correct.
Hence its rubbish to look at small cups because serral or mostly zerg in general doesnt participate but players like clem participate.
Clem has 93 wins!
Looking at equal/better zerg players compared to clem:
Dark:48
Reynor: 18
Rogue: 1
Serral:1
Meaning clem has more wins than those 4 top zerg players COMBINED.
Apart from solar who got 45 wins we have:
Scarlett with 5 wins
Lambo with 3 wins
Bly with 2 wins
Elazer with 1 win
Why do we care about esl open cups if 1 race isnt participating AT ALL?
For reference, players like showtime or heromarine got 17 and 58 wins and i would consider them somewhat equal to the zerg players above (scarlett lambo bly elazer). So its showing lack of effort and not lack of success per se. It would be cool to have a statistic where we see how often they participated.
Saying âits only serralâ has been completly wrong for anyone whose brain is greater than a peanut. At least in the sense of âonly serral is doing well but besides serral no zerg can winâ. Because if you take away the best player from zerg, they still have as much success as the other races. That would still include the best players of each race ofc. So if you eliminate the best player of each race, it would still show that zerg accomplishes much much more.
There have been 681 cups. Clem has won 93. Thatâs 14%. If you think thatâs bad, just wait until you hear about 1 guy winning 40% of premier tournaments and 3 guys winning 71% collectively. As I said, ESL cups are more valid. 
If you want an even better sample, look at Grandmaster. Grandmaster is a continuous tournament made up of pro players and their alt accounts, and a few odds and ends GMs here and there, and protoss dominate it perpetually. Theyâve held the most GM slots for 25 seasons which is equivalent to 25 rounds of the ladder tournament. They win it by massive margins, too. Weâre talking 47% of EU GM.
Here is a statistical test used on Grandmaster to show how bonkers insane it is:
Where 1 race is not participating.
Where every race and every pro is participating. The best of the best.
You see the difference?
Top 10 earnings, 5 of them are zerg. 3 of them are in top 5 
Excluding the pros is literally the point. If taking serral out of the equation shifts zergâs win-rate from 40% to 22% then thatâs proof heâs an outlier that shouldnât be included. Remember, you want to measure the correlation between race and performance, not serral and performance. If serral is in the sample, you arenât measuring balance, you are measuring serral. Itâs simply a fact.
They try to balance the game for pros.
Batzy: Lets exclude the pros and also balance has no effect on pros.
Wild takes.
And weâre seeing why you canât do that. Protoss dominance goes up and up and the number of active players goes down and down. If you donât prioritize the gaming experience of the player base, you kill the game. It turns out that people really donât like playing a rigged game. Who couldâve thought of that. Pro players knew it isnât fun to play a rigged game, they made a deliberate choice to prioritize their gaming experience over the player base. The SC2 world is a microcosm. We have corrupt elites using power to prioritize themselves at the expense of others. Tyranny is so inherent to power that anywhere you find power, you find tyranny. It even happens in SC2.
What the world needs is leaders with a sense of duty. Power exists to improve lives by fixing problems, not to line your pockets with free wins. Whether itâs a chinese company skimping on materials, leading to an apartment collapse, or sc2 pro players balancing the game around the pro scene and leading to the collapse of sc2 esports, itâs all the same. There is a lack of a sense of duty and morality in the leadership in the world. Power is viewed as a tool to help oneself get ahead. Itâs a bad place for the world to be.
Maybe protoss are winning PvT and PvZ because for the last 14 years terrans have been doing 1-1-1 and never learned to actually play starcraft. and zergs cant seem to play a normal game to save their lives. i mean honestly, every game is âwall in at chokeâ and âpush out with everything all at once and bring scvsâ or proxy hatch into x into x
its funny like if u go on the NA ladder, every terran one bases and every zerg just floods lings / some stupid timing they do every game. if you survive it, they are usually awful at the game. honestly, the majority of players canât play an actual best of 3 or best of 5 because they have no range and have been doing all ins for 14 years. and these are the players cr ying on the bnet forums about balance.
try expanding and defending before complaining. terran and zerg can both macro pretty fast, faster than protoss thatâs for sure. and safer too
Ah yes the âprotoss are more skilledâ theory. Skill metrics correlate with performance. APM, screen movements per minute, etc. You can predict the skill level for a group of people using these metrics and if you did that for protoss youâd consistently underestimate their performance, meaning protoss perform a lot higher for the same skill metric. This is the same test that astrophysicists use to figure out how far away stars are. There is a correlation between brightness and pulsation period. If you know the pulsation of many starts you can work out their brightness and that tells you distance. Itâs the same thing.
Toss lag in every skill metric ranging from APM to SPM to EPM to spending quotient to number of hotkeys used. This lag is so apparent you can even see it in the GSL. There was a toss using 1 army hotkey in the GSL and losing oracles because of it. The theory that toss are just better is definitely wrong.
The issue was that the balance designers decided to nerf high skill protoss units like stalkers and buff low skill protoss units like carriers and zealots. Obviously that will increase average protoss performance. Thatâs not what they needed to do. They needed to nerf low skill units and buff high skill units. Stalkers needed to be buffed, not nerfed, and carriers needed to be nerfed, not buffed. But the buffs shouldâve been designed to reward skill. You canât just give it a flat buff. You have to give it a variance buff, meaning in the right hands itâs a buff and in the wrong hands itâs a nerf. Thatâs whatâs required to fix protoss dominance in GM and it will also allow skilled protoss to win premier events.
The balance team wonât do this because they know toss lag in skill. If they buffed high skill mechanics and nerfed low skill mechanics, toss would never win another premier tournament. Thatâs because the people in premier tournaments who represent protoss are the exact people who would be hurt if the game rewarded high skill and punished low skill. We had a toss in the GSL throw away 2 oracles for free with an f2+amove. In the same move, he messed up an adept counter attack. If those kinds of mistakes cost games, like it does for terran and zerg, toss wonât win a premier. Thatâs just reality. Maybe that changes in the future with new skill or maybe protoss players adapt and improve. But right now a variance-buff would delete protoss from premier finals because they just arenât good enough.
This is what I suspect they will do. They will let toss win 2 or 3 premiers, and then it will be the nerf bazooka. Thatâs their likely trajectory. Personally I wonât be tuning in to these tournaments except to laugh at how bad balance is. But to each his own.