You are insulting the wrong group. Most of the whine posts about Protoss in this thread (at least from before your post in case it has changed in the posts afterwards) are from tehbatz and BerserkSword, both are Zerg players.
Their complaints about Protoss are unwarranted; but you should actually read the posts in the thread before attacking people.
Itâs never been debunked because it canât be debunked and PPP trolls have not even tried. They simply repeat, âad nauseumâ, that itâs already debunked while never actually debunking it. Case in point: your post, and the post you quoted.
Making adamant statements without backing your claims up with facts & logic proves quite clearly you have no facts nor any logic that can support your position, since an adamant person would include such facts & logic with his position if they existed, which they donât.
Merely stating something as true doesnât make it true - quite to the contrary, the lack of evidence & reasoning proves it is false.
Itâs kind of funny to say, but yeah, ladder is actually one of the best metrics we have. It doesnât mean itâs good, but nothing else is reliable. The games on Aligulac are between pros and literal gold league players, tournament winners is clown logic, and tournament winrates are way too small of a sample size.
But it can be very misleading on ladder too because people incorrectly think every race should be 33% in every league, and that argument has no logic behind it. The changes in ladder are all that matter.
Define âgoodâ mathematically.
Please explain to me why a race that is equal in every respect to another race could possibly have lower representation than another race in a tournament (the ladder system is a tournament system).
If you were somehow able to take winrates or representation and blindly apply them to balance, but you canât do that on ladder. Too many conflicting factors.
The fact that players can choose their race adds a lot of possibility for bias. Thereâs plenty of reasons for one race to be more or less popular than another, and at different levels of experience.
The only way to expect a 33% spread is if races were randomly assigned to players.
I canât keep up with who is who anymore. Their identity changes like a changeling switches to a marine/zergling/zealot. At this point they all fall under the TCF for me unless they are explicitly making a PvZ balance complaint.
Need a GSL win. 20. C
Why is it that the âoverall number doesnât matter,â if I can admit that Zerg is now likely the hardest race to get GM with, why is it that you canât admit that Terran doesnât have the overall lowest average MMR because all the skilled players just magically got together and decided they all preferred Zerg?
Protoss is underperforming based on high level tournament winrates.
Protoss does alright when their highest level players participate in tournament against lower-level players; but so would players like Maru, Serial, Rogue, etc in the same situation.
Anyway, if anyone spent the time to compile all of the arguments youâve used to claim Zerg is underpowered and the other races are overpowered over the years; they would find a mess of contradictions where your arguments shift based on whatever metric you think you can pull.
Your thread here is rather ironic.
Less players play that race.
The underlying player pool for each base is affected by its distribution, so you cannot logically claim that all races should have the same number of slots in tournaments if everything is balanced unless the racial distributions are also the same. There is a large variety of factors apart from balance that affect overall race distribution (which races people choose to play), so you cannot claim that the overall racial distribution should be 33.333% either.
The closest you can get to any such claim would be the following quoted assertion (and this assertion is unsupported, so I am not claiming it is correct):
âThe players of a race at a certain skill level (such as the pro level) make up a specific percentage of each race.â
If that quoted clause was supported, then it would follow that the representation at the pro level would roughly match the overall race distribution when the game is balanced, not 33%; but since the underlying clause has not been proven we canât claim to know what the representation of each race at the pro level should be. We cannot claim it should be 33% because the differences in racial distribution practically forbid that (the pool of players is not equivalent), but we also cannot say it should exactly match the racial distribution either.
How do you decide which games to add?
This question doesnât have an easy answer. We mostly decide this on a case-by-case basis. Generally we will add a round from a tournament if that round contains a significant number of already rated players. (Usually higher than 25% or so.) For the large regular cups this usually means somewhere around top 16 to 8.
One common exception to this rule is large national tournaments, which when rated would create a «rating bubble». We try to avoid this as best we can, but itâs a difficult thing to do. We are more lenient with tournaments where a significant proportion of the participants regularly compete internationally (Korea, Germany, Poland and Sweden), or if the tournament is significant in another way (such as TeSL).
If a tournament isnât in the database, it could either be because we felt it didnât cut it, or it could just be we have missed it or forgotten. This work is done on a voluntary basis, after all. You could try asking us about it, or [submitting it yourself].
The best way for the up-and-coming player to get an Aligulac rating is probably to play lots of open tournaments and LANs, and keep going at it until you reach a round with a fair number of notables.
Usually Aligulac data comes from around 500-600 players, so I doubt there is a lot of gold league players, and then there is the performance graphics that counts the mmr difference, it is mostly GM and master.
tehbatz and Berserksword are regular Zerg posters. Those are two you should remember.
That seems to be a psychological problem on your end. Take a break.
The OP did!
Nope, thereâs tons of players from silver to GM. The differences in skill on Aligulac are wayyyy bigger than on ladder.
Itâs not about what I feel like admitting or not. Without races being randomly assigned thereâs 0 basis for proportional representation.
Terran is the most popular race in lower leagues because itâs more familiar to new players, not because itâs âhardâ.
Yes and aliens may have intervened to make Protoss seem OP. I am sorry I even have to say this, but âmayâ happen is not âhasâ happened. Show that you are right, or put a cork in it with these âwhat ifâsâ. It is not my job to refute your claim, it is your job to prove your claim. If there is no proof, the claim goes right into the trash can.
Iâm not saying Protoss isnât OP, they are. Iâm just saying the winrates on ladder arenât a perfect representation of balance. They probably vary a ton from one league to another so which one would you take? All of ladder?
My point is that Protoss has been increasing mmr on ladder consistently since 4.0 and itâs obvious balance has been in their favour.
LOL, as if you donât know what the Trumpster BatZ will takeâŠ
Only those data that support his narrative.
If Protoss representation in GM would be 10% but in Masters 45%, the flaterather would yelp that GM is useless but Master representation is everything.
Dontâ waste your time with people that argue in bad-faith.
Itâs a relief that this clown is not a Protoss player. At min 2 the clown would boast in PvZ that he will build a Wall (like his daddy Trump would build The Wall with Mexican money), and no wall âŠ
Zerglings in Nat, Zerglings and Banelings in MainâŠ
Batzer in forum whinning about âŠthe wall.
Do you remember the one time you quoted aligulac stats? It was in January, when, Terran was 55%. TWO WEEKS LATER, aligulac was useless again.
You change your perception of what facts are pertinent shift to fit your perception that Zerg is persistently under-powered and that itâs the most difficult race.
Batz didnât really complain about Protoss until recently and the data shows Protoss is overperforming.