Why only HoTS, go all the way back to WoL for those archon toilets and infestor/BL.
We can go even further back than that, give ultras their ram attack back!
Did you understand his arguments?
No let’s ask you a simpler questions do you understand basic statistics?
3 Likes
LOL, pretending like Protoss was nerfed across the board lmao.
From random player perspective, it’s close. Hard to say which have been good or bad. Lots of things have changed for everyone but here’s a protoss nerfs off the top of my head.
- nexus - chrono and recall
- pylon - power radius reduced, no low->high power
- warpgate research - many times increased
- zealots - charge dmg removed
- adepts - dmg + shade vision
- sentries - dmg
- stalkers - attack speed , dmg
- high templar - amulet removed, feedback nerf
- warp prism - pickup range
- observers - gas cost increased, speed reduced
- immortal - hardened shield removed
- colossus - dmg
- disruptor - back and forth
- void ray - range, armor, infinite charge-up
- oracle - armor tag, pulsar dmg
- carrier - graviton catapult
- tempest - hp/shields
- mothership - vortex
3 Likes
All this 
know to do. Is post random nonsense and refuse to back it up… while he claim evidence does not make proof.
So what he speaks is true. Without proof. And what other prove with evidence is lie. To him. So he is very confused 
.
Batz prove it. But of bnet will never except it…
3 Likes
Suppose we can somehow measure nerfs and buffs as adding numbers. Suppose we have the following list of nerfs and buffs:
- buff + 8
- nerf -1
- nerf -1
- nerf -1
- nerf -1
- nerf -1
- nerf -1
- buff +8
- nerf -1
- nerf -1
Protoss posters will say: SEE PROTOSS BEEN NERFED SO MANY TIMES and they will list:
2,3,4,5,6,8,9,10
which amount to a nerf value of -8
and say the number of instances (note the keyword: instance NOT actual nerf value) nerfs outweight the number of buffs.
But this is reality:
The net nerf value is -8
while the buff value is +16 which amounts to a net value of +8 a tremendous buff.
In reality, this IS ACTUALLY the case. It is just not as simple as + or - but it is demonstrated in actual statistics of ladder games and tournaments. And many people fails to understand this and are mislead by the PPP.
4 Likes
Too bad when these basic statistics look useless when you compare them to situations in the past.Batz claims GM matters, he said P is overrepresented (it is) because the race is imba, but at the same time he say that Z being overrepresented in the past didn’t matter and the race was weak. Points to an overrepresentation of P that reaches the overall point a T has, but T is not OP and P is.Says P players are getting more mmr, but then also says that P players play more games than Z…with only 1% of extra winrate, which means an active P wins just more 8-10 games than a Z in 800-1000 games,what an insane difference, 10 games,the race is truly overpowered.
There are nerfs, buffs, and nerf/buffs (changes-redesigns).Overall P got limited (in the last couple of years), usually was some nerf/buff and nerfs , rarely a plain buff like the shield battery, but somehow people think the race was getting buffs for years when it was mostly nerfs.
2 Likes
HOTS is by far the worst iteration of SC2. I quit the game and only returned once LOTV came in and would quit it again if this happened. Huge no from me.
3 Likes
Hots was more popular. So blizzard cater to whiners minority. Who prefer bad of lotv. And alienating 9/10 of playerbase… lotv is dead game for reason…
of bnet have killed sc2…
3 Likes
Still waiting on that citation, by the way.
2 Likes
So popular they went damage control mode and started doing summits and getting feedback and then the game even got a new game director who brought new things and ideas, all of that because people were really happy about the state of the game.
1 Like
Then killed the game. With bad feedback. Which they recieving from forum cry force…
1 Like
This ask for citation. That water is wet…
4 Likes
Batz borrowing many argument. From BIG flack… any poster with memory knows it…
1 Like
Yes my friend, do you?
Wanna restate his argument and give it a try? Otherwise, I can help you out.
+ if you see Mr. barcode here never directly reply to me, you should have a grasp.
Aye, Mr. Birdbrain, so you do reply to me after all. Sorry about my incorrect statement.
+ by the way, birds are actually pretty smart, you know.
It was Flack who showed the Aligulac sample back in 2017 was IID using the Lindeberg condition (utterly destroying PPP whiner “Asamu” in the process).
The argument was basically that the number of tournaments won by Zerg mirrored the base rate of Zergs in the tournaments. E.g. 40% of each tournaments’ participants were Zerg, and Zerg won 40% of tournaments. That meant an individual Zerg was as likely to win a tournament as an individual Protoss or Terran, and that Zerg won more tournaments only because they had more players. Furthermore if you removed Serral’s wins, zergs actually won far fewer tournaments than what would be considered fair according to their base-rate, meaning, without serral, an individual zerg has a much lower chance of winning tournaments than an individual Terran/Protoss.
Obviously this contradicted the then narrative that Zerg was OP because Serral was winning everything in sight. Blizzard nerfed tf out of Zerg and now it’s the least played race and has the worst GM representation ever recorded. So in other words we were right about the current state of balance 3 years in advance (told you so).
That’s the power of data analysis. Flack is a
L I T E R A L G O D
4 Likes
LOL nah you had the insight in using CLT. You deserve a medal for all these analysis presented. No one even comes close to the amount of effort, analysis and insight you’ve provided on the forums to support your claims.
4 Likes
I am not sure if that’s a compliment or an insult 
2 Likes
Hmm…, Lindeberg uses expectation values and so normalizes out the influence by the “number of tournaments” though. Beside, what statistics is influenced by the “number of tournaments”, people are using averages since the first lesson in statistics.
And sure Serral is an outlier, which not be that impactful if Aligulac actually uses IID sampling (what’s the population it’s sampling anyways?).
It’s funny how you think Aligulac uses IID sampling though, haha, why do you think that? You can ask you most admired Flack if you like.
This is how you explain a rigorous mathematical criterion? Please just stop…It is literally an insult to for you to be even using the name of the condition.
“which not be that impactful”, “influenced”, using these adjectives are not arguments. In the world of mathematics/statistics, without any quantitative reasoning (i.e numbers + rigorous justification) this is complete and utter garbage.
You have utterly no idea what you are talking about. Go get an education first if you are even competent enough to do that.
2 Likes