People is always taling about units. Units is what win to their own units, but perhaps we have to start to see beyond. Perhaps is something structural like production.
I want to emphatize this great post of NewSchool:
The problem with the “let’s wait for the meta to develop” take is that the average winrates for Zerg in the last 3 years (!) according to aligulac data is ~55% in both ZvT and ZvP. If you show this to anyone with even a little knowledge of statistics he will tell you that this is extremely solid evidence for serious bias (especially if you show him the curve of winrates which is by large pretty flat with not a lot of big spikes.).
It could be the result of several things, maybe the balance team loves Zerg, maybe they don’t understand what are the problems with Zerg so they keep doing meaningless changes while Zerg still stays on top. Waiting for the Meta to settle is fine theoretically but if everytime the Meta seems to settle Zerg ends up on top there might be a serious problem with the race. My guess is that it has not a lot to do with units (of course Zerg casters are crazy good) and more to do with how the economy and production of Zerg work, it is so much more forgiving than the other 2 races. I think Zerg should have a substantially more difficult time getting their bases and production going than they have now. Midgame vs Zerg in lotv is basically non-existent.
Such as a whiny playerbase who refuse to accept that they lose because they were outplayed, not because of a grand conspiracy by Blizzard to make Serral filthy rich, and who have to come up with elaborate schemas to avoid having to admit to themselves that they, themselves, cause all their own problems?
I wonder why youve listed some things, but not the option, that the zerg pros aka serral and reynor are simply better than anybody else. My fault, that i suspect, that you want to move this thread in a… certain direction.
I just dont get it. There just habe been zerg nerfs happened. Is it really too much to ask for, to just wait to see a couple tourneys with the new patch? Seems like it. Even if there would be another zerg nerf every 2 weeks, people wouldnt be satisfied and demand nerfs every week.
First of all, you must have zero clue as to how statistics (or even just basic math) work if you think the compund games played by 2 players can skew the global winrates so hard.
Second of all, where was Reynor in 2018? Where was Serral in 2017?
they can, since they win against literally everyone who has to play against them. both are winning EVERY wcs for 2 years now. i addition, some gsl events (2 times gsl vs world) and a blizzcon. reynor never lost to someone else than serral at wcs. same goes for serral. losing against none other than reynor. so YES, both have a tremendous impact when it comes to winrates for zerg.
another way to argue that would be, that in the past 4-5 years, there were only 5 successfull and most of all - CONSTANTLY good zergs, so serral and reynor are two of 5 players, who influence the win ratio by a HUGE margin.
reynor was too young to compete. serral became rly good in 2018. i wonder what the winratio looks like, if you exclude 2018 and 2019.
You must have no idea how much they can impact results. Some fools say that winrates are based on “hundreds of thousands” of games when last period was literally less than 600 for TvZ.
yeah, with advantage through different patches with buffs and nerfs. some fool could be thinking, that they arent that depending on a single patch to be good. maybe especially terrans are used to have things like hsm or proxy raxes. once it got deleted, terrans fall off. thats really surprising! and btw, terran and toss DO have player, thats are constant in their performance. innovation and stats.
OMG, I swear I’m getting to new heights of skill at face palming. The data I took is from Aligulac and is available if anyone wants to double check me. It takes into account ~1000 games on average per month per matchup (it’s actually more towards ~1200 ish so i’m giving you a very generous lower bound) . Multiply that by 12 months per year for 3 years you get ~36000 games per matchup.
Anyone wanna double down on the claim that the sample size is too small and/or Serral/Reynor/Dark/Rogue are alone responsible for skewing the results? Be my guest, if you are really that determined to make a fool out of yourself there’s nothing I can say that will stop you.
I gave you the relevant numbers above and you should be able to calculate using only basic math like addition and multiplication that even if 5 Zergs are winning literally every non-mirror matchup it would have negligible effects (of the order of ~0.01%) on the total winrate percentages (little hint: top pro players play of the order of ~100 games per matchup per year).
This is by definition statistical bias. Think about what you are asking us to do. We should exclude the data from the entire 2 years just because it doesn’t sit well with your point of view and/or sentiments/beliefs? Nevertheless since you asked let me tell you what were the average winrates in 2017 alone, they were
46.9% PvZ / 48.5% TvZ
Next time you’re trying to cook up statistics that suit your opinions better do it yourself to make sure they really do match your agenda (batZ is a great example of this) otherwise they could accidentally reveal the truth and we wouldn’t want that.
Just in case anyone goes to aligulac to check for himself (which I doubt anyone would actually do) before he comes to berate me for skewing the stats let me add the exact average winrates I calculated now for the last 3 years combined (last time I only did an approximate calculation which apparently was pretty accurate):
i thought we were talking about pro matches/tournament winrates. if not, my bad. you can argue against aligulac, since it does include really every little tournament, even if its a diamond lvl tournament (or lets say mid masters). so obv, you can tell something about balance, but blizz themselves said, that a 45-55% winrate is still balanced.
so in 2017, winrates were pretty balanced.
for a combination of three years, it still looks pretty balanced regarding blizzard opinion. but what happened in the last patch? zerg got nerfed. so lets see, how the winrates will change in the next 1-2 months.
It’s one thing for forum crackpots like Dalai to think that a consistent 3-4% bias in winrates in the favor of a single race out of 3 should be considered “balanced”, but if Blizzard actually agrees with this I literally have nothing else left to add. I rest my case.
This game isnt coin toss tho. And 5% is one game in 20. Game that should be lost and is instead won. And remember that each % you get, you take from someone else.
just looked up that pvz and zvt graph on aligulac. winrates ARE fluctuating. yes, its between 44-50% in favor of zerg, but its still fluctuating and not like its going from 50% to 30% or so.
what i mean is, you dont feel a difference, if you have a 50% winrate or a 53% winrate in a mu. sure, numbers are numbers, but you wont ever achieve a perfect 50/50 its unfortunate, that its mostly in zerg favour, but again, its only a small margin.
If I told you for the next 3 years you’ll have to pay a 4% additional income tax for absolutely no reason at all would you think that’s fair? That’s kinda the situation for the non-Zerg pro players of this game. The audacity of looking at these numbers and not even flinch while saying everything is completely fine and the bias is “hardly noticeable” is something else. I could have understood if along with your “everything’s fine” attitude you would at least have added that something needs to be done to get us closer to 50/50, but you just casually being agreeable with the situation is speaking volumes towards your bias.