I showed him the tournament results and he kept going on about the central limit theorem and the base rate fallacy. It only lasted 20 minutes before I got bored and wanted to play more SC2.
This is a pernicious misrepresentation of balance because all players make mistakes. If you are claiming that you have to play perfectly in order for balance to be relevant, then you are claiming balance is never relevant ā you are saying balance doesnāt exist.
Balance, when properly defined, logically/mathematically, is equal winrate for equal skill/effort. If you analyze game data you will find that Protoss does not meet that standard. In GM, Protoss have ~300 mmr advantage in PvZ aka a 70/30% split in winrates. In the pro scene, they have ~60 elo advantage aka a 60/40% win-rate split. In the pro scene, a reduction from 50% ā 40% reduces your probability of making it from the round of 32 ā round 4 by a factor of ~5x. Itās just a fact of reality that balance favors Protoss and that this gives Protoss competitors a HUGE advantage in tournaments. Thereās a reason why they win twice as many ESL cups as Zerg does.
The only way this issue goes away is if the game is rebalanced on an equal win-rate for equal skill/effort basis. Until that happens, I will continue to highlight the failures of the balance counsel.
Showing how easy it is to dunk on grandmaster terrans or zergs with meme builds. By contrast, beating protoss with real builds is basically impossible on an equal skill / equal effort basis.
Grandmaster. Top 50 in rank. If you selected 2,000 players at random, the most skilled one that group would be me. You gonna try to flex on me? Think again bud.
The first thing you have to realize about SC2 is that the reason you are frustrated by it is because itās an incredibly easy game. Once you realize this, you craft a plan to make the game 100x harder. You swear an oath to never watch replays, to use only randomized build orders, to use absurd unit compositions & to win using unconventional win cons. For example, the restriction I gave my top 50 account is that I can NEVER take a third base & I must win by burrowing swarm hosts in their main. Yes, I am beating high ranked grandmasters with these strategies. SC2 is just too easy for guys like me. Gotta play the game on hard mode or winning is so flipping easy that the game is practically a sleeping aid.
Do you know how flipping hard it is to beat mutalisk-apes with only swarm hosts? I got high ranked GM streamers with their jaw on the floor because the things I do are so flipping impossible.
Toss abusers on the other hand pick the strongest race, abuse the strongest and lowest skill strategies to ever exist, and are still hard capped at 4800 mmr lmao. Those clowns and I couldnāt be more different. They gotta cheat to win, I gotta cheat to lose. If they discovered a second army hotkey, a 4800 toss would win the next esports world cup, and I am not joking on that matter at all. You got top protoss players with 1 army hotkey making it deep in tournaments. The moment they discover they can use 2 hotkeys they will literally never lose another game ever.
Beating mutalisk-apes in grandmaster requires 6 army hotkeys. 1 lings, 2 vipers, 3 nydus, 4 queens, 6 secondary ling hotkey, 7 mutalisks. You think a one hotkey f2 abuser is gonna do that? 
Iāll just have to put it into a video and post it on reddit. Might even launch a website with an interactive app that allows you to manipulate balance parameters and see how it changes Elo rankings and various Elo ranking charts. It will be blatantly obvious that Protoss is OP if they have a visual aid to understand whatās happening in the charts.
How does āIs the SC2 balance counsel filled with CHEATERS?ā sound for the video title? That outta get their attention lmao. The website could be called āFactCheckingTheBalanceCounsel.comā. Maybe I will make a desktop app that uses the bnet api to give live balance data and grade it from āAā to āFā like weāre back in the third grade. Balance counselās about to get a big fat āFā on PvT and a āD-ā on PvZ. Iād estimate TvZ to be a āBā or maybe a āB+ā.
This is why oligarchies donāt work by the way. The average joe schmoe could do a better job balancing SC2 than some high ranked European grandmaster. Really itās fascinating to see how the elite members of a society have a totally biased world view that makes their takes on reality sound like gibberish. They were born on 3rd base, landed on 2nd base, and thought they hit a home run. They click faster than the gold league players but ironically donāt understand the game at all because clicking fast is all you need to be a high ranked EU gm.
They do these long videos explaining how they won this game and that game and how smart they are because they are so high ranked at a video game. Except they overlook that you can spam literally any build order at any level and make it work as long as you click fast. So really they are just apm spammers concocting wild stories to justify the grand illusion of their own self importance. But the moment you ask them to read a graph their brain implodes. Make that one make sense, please. 
Frankly itās the same exact mechanism at play in the USA with regards to the FDA and USDA and CDC. They wanted to help the poor people with their dental cavities so they poured fluoride into the water ā oops, fluoride is a neurotoxin that knocks a whopping 5iq points off the children who drink it. They want to stop food poisoning, so they mandate that you gotta bake milk in an oven before you drink it, proceeding to chemically transform it into a totally different substance than the thing our ancestors drank for hundreds of years & are biologically dependent on in order to be healthy. They wanted to reduce chronic pain and so they made opiates, proceeding to kill hundreds of thousands of people in drug addictions. Thereās many more examples. These kinds of systems simply donāt work. They are counter productive. They arenāt just useless, they are actively making things worse. In fact it would be better if they did nothing at all or threw a dart at a board to make their decisions. One of the fun things that Trump will (likely) be looking at doing, should he be elected, is to reduce the FDA/CDC/USDA to labeling agencies. The only thing they will be able to do is make sure the label accurately informs the consumers of whatās inside the product they are consuming. Thatās it. āHereās the information, make your own decisions.ā Might even put a QR code on it that you can scan with your phone and pull open scientific data about it. Man, wouldnāt that be nice.
But to give credit where credit is due, they did do a nice job on the map pool, so props to whoever was in charge of that. Near perfection. 
1 Like
yeah conversation sure seems pointless with you
5 yo are better because they donāt know how to lie
then again, based on the other posts, neither do you
Mad cuz bad at debating, and balancing. I lied? Where is the lie. There is no lie. Only data and opinion. The data is objective, easily verified from third party sources, the opinion is subjective & isnāt subjected to fact checks. I do happen to think SC2 is a very easy video game. Thatās my personal opinion. On the matters of objective reality, things that can be defined via measurement, such as game balance, I believe protoss is favored because thatās crystal clear in the data.
I suspect you think I am lying about being a top 50 gm, but I am a top 50 gm. I am actually even higher than that. Top 50 is what I achieve with meme builds on a barcode account. The problem is that you have a very narrow world view that biases your game understanding in a way that makes it implausible for you to imagine me as a grandmaster. The things I say make no sense within the confines of your world view. And thatās the point I am making. European Grandmasters approach sc2 from the perspective of getting to an attack timing as fast as possible and spamming as much apm as necessary to get there. Thatās their entire understanding of SC2 in a nutshell. SC2 is much bigger and broader than the apm spammers in the pro scene, and these people have no clue how it works outside of their bubble. Their bubble is very small and their understanding of the game is very narrow.
Itās roughly equivalent to Marie Antoinette telling starving french peasants to just eat cake if they are hungry. She simply doesnāt understand why starvation happens because her bubble is too small. Thatās the balance counsel right now. āHow can protoss be overpowered ā serral keeps beating it!ā vs āHow can people be starving - why canāt they just eat cake of they are hungry?ā. Itās the same argument mutatis mutandis.
Asking yourself the question of āCan protoss be beatenā is the wrong question ā the correct question is āIs it typical for protoss to be beaten.ā You see, big difference. Thatās the problem with the balance counsel. They ask the wrong questions. They get the right answers but to the wrong questions and thatās how you end up in a giant mess like this. Yes, eating cake can solve starvation, that is totally true, but is it typical for a starving french peasant to have a cake sitting in their cupboard? No it is not.
In the most favorable interpretation of the balance counselās actions, they ask the wrong questions because they arenāt smart enough to know what questions to ask. In the least favorable interpretation of their actions, they deliberately use the misleading arguments to gaslight their competition while they rig game balance. Letās pray they are simply dumb & just donāt know what questions to ask.
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2243053440?t=1h58m30s
Just witnessed this gem on twitch. LMAO.
https://i.imgur.com/1iHSeKv.png
He traded his whole army and didnāt make a single supply dent in the protossā army. Protoss has a scaling issue. Did the protoss use some kind of legendary micro or immaculate positioning to achieve this efficiency? No, he simply a-moved, turned the void rays on, and cast t-click a couple times. Not only does Protoss have a scaling issue, anyone has access to this insane power with minimal skill or effort. If the balance counsel isnāt going to nerf this, they need to lock it behind a high skill floor bare minimum by increasing the micro requirements necessary to make it functional. When only MaxPax can achieve this level of insane efficiency, it will be balanced. Giving this kind of efficiency to an f2+amove abuser is the literal definition of a scaling issue.
Other thing: if this game drives you so unsatisfied, have you tried different games?
I thinks this could be influenced by the selective perception bias.
And, well, these games seemed not balanced in skills level, but maybe itās just my low skill player opinion.
My intention was not offending you, I am sorry if you felt this way. I am not gonna try to flex on anyone, I just wanted to give an advice.
Since I donāt know you (and you donāt know me) I thought, seeing the videos and the posts, that you have a lot of potential to improve. You know whether it is true or not.
Also, I donāt understand all of that confidence in calling me ābudā, since you donāt know me. If you felt attacked or criticized, well, thatās your choice to react to peopleās word. Even Grandmaster top 50 rank can learn from basics, everyone needs to learn something, always.
For the rest of the post, including calling people āapesā (that I donāt understand whether it is an insult or not, since apes are just animals, I donāt see nothing wrong in being compared to an animal), I donāt have energy for that, Iām sorry.
PS: I would like to ask you a serious question, not joking or offending.
Does playing this game make you happy?
Are you happy playing this game?
2 Likes
Nah, sc2 is way too easy man but itās the hardest one out there. If I played other games, Iād legit fall asleep.
My man, my opinion is derived from data harvested from every pro game ever recorded & analyzed using industry standard statistical tests. This is the definition of unbiased. Without doing a twins study where you take identical twins and make half of them play protoss and half play zerg, this is as accurate of a balance measurement as you will ever get: https://us.forums.blizzard.com/en/sc2/t/updated-balance-charts-for-pvz/29317
Please. You wanted to downplay the validity of my argument by attacking my rank. Unfortunately for you, I am not only an expert in game design & data analysis, I am also an expert at SC2 which means those sorts of gas lighting strategies simply arenāt viable.
As I said, ācan it be beatenā is a gross misrepresentation of game design theory because the proper question is āis it typical that it can be beatenā. The answer to that question with regards for protoss is simply ānoā. It not typical for protoss to lose on an equal skill/effort basis.
I love this game. If I could design it just for me, Iād nerf zerg some more. Iād legitimately delete the queen from the game. Iād get rid of zergling speed. When Zerg has a 10% win-rate on an equal skill and equal effort basis is when Iād be happy.
Unfortunately, I realize that my needs arenāt the same as everyone elseās. All the players in SC2 struggle against protoss. Thatās what the data says. For the health of the game, protoss needs to be nerfed. I am sorry but thatās what the data says, and as long as the data says that I will say it also. I am simply a realist. The data says āXā is true and I acknowledge that it says that āXā is true. Donāt get mad at me for noticing the truth.
Also, letās not pretend that itās hard to balance a video game. Itās extremely easy. We know an interceptor with 1,000 HP will be overpowered, and we know an interceptor with 1 HP would be underpowered. This means somewhere in the range of [1000, 1] there is a HP value for the interceptor that would result in a 50/50 winrate between a pair of identical twins (one playing protoss, one playing zerg).
Itās not hard. You just gotta do some testing and find the proper HP value. Weāre not building rockets here. This isnāt NASA. Weāre not colozing mars or curing cancer. You donāt need a PhD or 10 years experience. Weāre tweaking video game balance, aka the easiest job that has ever existed in the history of jobs.
The only job that is easier than balancing video games is being a professional wine taste tester. On a scale of āland a rocket on marsā to ātaste wine for a livingā, video game balance designers are barely distinguishable from tasting wine. This is not hard guys. I have no idea where all the drama and hullabaloo comes from. People act like game design is equivalent to performing open heart surgery. What planet are we on here because it sure isnāt planet earth.
In case you are wondering, this is how the balance counsel meets up to discuss game balance:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWTaMerfWug
Lmao. You know itās true.
All right, all of this for me is far more than considering a game āa gameā, so Iāll give up on this forum discussion.
I donāt have energy for all of this, since for me this is just a game, and I want to spend my energy in other parts of my life.
Have a nice day,
Marco
1 Like
You had me nodding up to here.
This is actually the worst possible thing you could do. If you donāt know what the changes are, you will randomly win or lose because you have assumed something is the same until after you commit to it. The game is too fast to let you flip through the help menu for unit stats, and strategies are too tight to get away without one.
First, due to, you know, basic brainpower, you can note that this will never work the way you anticipate, due to breakpoints.
Second, far more importantly, if you did this you wouldnāt actually balance the game. You just make players stop building the unit you nerf, unless no other strategy is actually good. At which point you are creating a new problem, that even though you do āthe right thingā, you arenāt favoured.
This is because if you make the Zealot only have 85 life as the way you ābalance PvZā, then itās entirely plausible that players simply build a strategy that has nothing to do with the affected unit. If thatās still balanced - then the actual issue was that Zerg didnāt have a proper answer to the Zealot. Now, the correct solution to that can be to still nerf that unit, but thereās three pairs to consider, and that change might be good for that one but bad for the other one that matters heavily.
Consider someone 12-pooling ā Their win rate is highly dependent on the safety/risk of the opponentās choices.
No, thatās computer troubles or real-life necessitating a hasty alt-f4.
I mean this description is like
How I would characterize Marines stimming.
Soā¦ eh?
If you actually read the post, that is not at all what got said.
If you want to be offended, please be offended at the fact that I am calling you illiterate right here; but StillLearnin never once insinuated anything about your rank.
and that this is simply not true
Yeah, no, not at all.
This is because youāre looking at one thing (win rate) and not interplay. TvT would obviously still be balanced if Widow Mines killed SCVs and Marines in an area, but the interplay of those mechanics would make the game be garbage for just about everyone.
Itās also the case that that interplay is extremely important because your examples have always been talking about nerfing a single unit ā and for every unit, youā¦ can simply almost not build that unit. Lowering a unitās vitals only affects that unitās performance if it actually takes army fights - Lowering the Zealotās health would make players want to avoid using Zealots except for run-bys and drops, because those situations are where its health isnāt as important.
As a fascinating case, Riotās observed multiple instances of nerfing someone actually causing that characterās overall success to increase - because the players have to use an actually good build and it turns out that the actually good build is really good but there are just so many bad players that were goofing off that even weighted, the average was dragged down.
This - or complete eradication - are summarily the issue I take with trying to balance the way youāve described.
Anyway, this post made, Iām going to do what I should have done months ago and just page down when I see youāve posted, because every minute I spend trying to tell you things about is a minute Iām not doing something more useful with myself and you are incapable of listening.
1 Like
Polo 
2 Likes
GG ez no RE
20 chars
youāve been pretty blind, donāt think you did
yeah you are stupid, good job
Thatās a good thing. Blinding the data makes it virtually impossible for bias to impact the result. There are three kinds of people who donāt want to blind their data:
- People who have no clue what they are doing.
- Researchers who need more diagnostic information and who take precautions to be aware of their biases & double check that their biases donāt affect the outcome.
- People who find the bias useful in some way, aka cheaters.
#2 definitely isnāt the case w/ the balance counsel. It takes years of objectivity training, and this skill is basically non existent outside of statisticians or lawyers. Statisticians know how insanely hard it is to get a good correlation, and they care only about the data and not what the data means ā assigning meaning to the data is the first step in introducing bias. Lawyers care about objectivity because they need to understand what arguments their opposition will make, and how jurors will perceive the those arguments, and this allows them to craft the best possible defense for a given situation. Lawyers are so objective that they can represent anyone and give them the best possible defense no matter how horrible of a human being they are defending. Both groups undergo objectivity training for years and years as it is the most basic skill that the entire field is based upon, it is quite literally baked into their brain on such a fundamental level that thinking objectively is as easy as drinking water.
Outside of these two fields, bias is rife and the way you eliminate it is through blinding and randomization. The only reason for the balance counsel to resist this is if they are idiots or if they plan to cheat.
A good example is the ego depletion effect. Psychology researchers wished a new cognitive behavior into existence from bad data interpretation from studies that were conducted so poorly that their data was basically useless. This didnāt stop the entire field of psychology from being tricked into thinking the ego depletion effect was real, spending millions of dollars & hundreds of thousands of man hours studying it, only for it to later be discovered to be a total hoax. The revelation was so shocking that it caused a more thorough review of the entire field of psychology. Upon review, it was discovered that 80% of papers made claims that werenāt substantiated by the data within those papers.
You think some high school dropouts who click fast at a video game are going to be immune to bias? Give me a freaking break. Toss was more OP than any race ever has been in the history of the game, and they buffed it more. Bias is -O B V I O U S L Y- an issue.
Nope, itās the best possible thing that can be done. Informing the user that the zealot was nerfed will bias the way the zealot is used and that affects the win-rate. You want to measure how the nerf to the zealot affects the win-rate, not how the gamerās perception of the unit affects the win-rate. By assigning an unsuspecting gamer to a balance patched version of the game, you measure the balance patchās impact on the win-rate and nothing else. In an ideal world, the battle.net matchmaker would randomly assign 250 or so games to a balance patched version of the game. From that, youād see if the win-rate within that group goes up or down compared to before and after the balance patch. Not only does this tell you if the nerf impacts the win-rates, it can also be used to estimate how large of a nerf would be needed to equalize the win-rate difference observed. If knocking 1 hp off the zealot caused a 0.5% chance in win-rate, then knocking 17 hp off the zealot could equalize a win-rate from 58.5% ā 50%. Not only that, it could be used to measure if this nerf would have any negative impact on other matchups. In the scenario where you are nerfing Protoss solely vs Zerg, you would want to find a nerf that has a -8.5% impact on PvZ win-rates but a 0.0% impact on other matchups. You could do that with this method.
No, thatās what your method would do and thatās exactly why the player canāt know that it was nerfed.
Thatās exactly what I am saying.
Youāre playing 1d chess an I am playing 4D chess sweetie. Shake your fist at Mount Olympus as much as you deem necessary, just realize that the ways of the Gods are beyond that of man to comprehend.
Objectively false. Implying he has the answers to my ladder problems speaks volumes about how he interprets the situation. He most definitely does perceive the situation exactly as I described, even if he isnāt brave enough to admit it to my face.
As Jung pointed out, the shadow of oneās psyche is a repression of oneās true self. To become a master of yourself, you must be prepared to confront the uncomfortable aspects of your personality that you have hidden away in an attempt to please other people ā to be a master of your own mind, you must become the man you fear you are. And Mr āStillLearninā is clearly scared to say whatās on his mind, so he hides it behind a facade of friendliness and compassion. But underneath the surface broils a an ocean of fear and resentment. To be the master of other people, you must first master your own mind. I found it ironic he thought he was my master -commanding me to explain why I played so poorly as to lose to a protoss, demanding I accept his help to fix my problems- when he clearly does not have a mastery of his own mind.
His views of me are a projection of his own repressed inner psyche. He cannot imagine someone saying protoss is imba unless that person is a raging nerd who is hardstuck in gold league, because thatās what he does when he gets hardstuck. His interpretation of the situation explains himself, not the objective reality of the situation itself.
While yes, it is very obvious that thatās not what actually got said?
No, this is very much not clear to anyone except you.
No, you donāt!
Your brain is entirely checked out.
Because if you change numbers on units, unbelievably enough, people will go and document that they are changed and change their strategies accordingly.
If you make a change, just because you donāt tell people about that change, they can still find out about that change, and they will still change their plans!
Yes - saying that āPlaying against Protoss is a waste of timeā is, in fact, very convincing about saying āI suck against Protossā and not as much towards the conclusion you want it to say.
You have no idea what youāre talking about, got it.
1 Like
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/2243802916?t=4h6m30s
This is exactly why Iād nerf the queen by the way. I hate this unit so much itās unreal. The least interesting unit in the game by far is the queen. You spam nothing but queens and drones and you automatically defend 100% of allins while affording so many drones that you auto win vs 99.9% of players by simply having more units than the other guy.
https://i.imgur.com/xP5wAiu.jpeg
This is how zerg would win games if I were in charge. Way more interesting than spamming queens, drones and defending on creep for 20 minutes. Zerg has a skill crisis much like Protoss, just of a different kind. Zerg players tend to be APM spammers with zero strategical ability. The only thing they do is optimize drone counts and thatās it. If you took away the queen, every grandmaster zergās brain would implode because they literally canāt win any other way.
I have the same criticism for skytoss and immortal based comps. The difference is, win-rates favor protoss so spamming carriers is a lot stronger than spamming drones. So from a balance perspective, protoss can be condemned while zerg cannot. From a game design perspective, they are both horrible. Itās really hard to find ways to criticize terran by comparison. I think terranās in a pretty good spot except that protoss likely has an advantage in PvT. But terran players have a lot of build order diversity and the players are very skilled in a range of ways. Drone spammers and carrier spammers should get giga-nerfed into the next dimension.
By the way, ācomplexā is a player called Kane with peak mmr of 5600. So heās pretty decent.
That awkward silence after balance counsel members lose an argument, try to ladder snipe you and get clowned on w/ a meme build.
https://sc2pulse.nephest.com/sc2/?type=character&id=55637&m=1#player-stats-mmr
Smurf detection 101: high ranked account that hasnāt been played on in 3 years magically becomes active only long enough to ladder snipe you once. Interestingly, he has GM level mmr for all three races for season 41. Itās just too flipping obvious, guys. I hope you learned your lesson. You canāt out-flex the flex-master. 
Imagine being a 6200 mmr balance counsel member, losing a debate to an NA player you think is inferior to you in every way, ladder sniping him to prove a point and then losing to swarm hosts in your main base. As I was saying, sc2 is just too flipping easy dude. Nerf zerg, please. I mean that quite literally.
To be clear, I have no interest in being a pro player, and never will. Pro sc2 is heavily infused with european culture, and europeans heavily discriminate against americans. I have absolutely no interest in being in a career path that would result in nothing but culture clash & discrimination against me. So when I analyze pro level balance, itās purely through an observational lens. I have no personal stake in the outcome, and never will.
European marxism has ruined the balance of SC2 because some players are more talented than other players and the european balance counsel members are nerfing entire classes of people based on the talent of the elite members of that class. Itās literally identical to the way marxists approach economics. Demographic X has too many billionaires therefore the system must favor X demographic and disfavor non-X demographics ā we need to use the system to nerf demographic X. Theyāve nerfed zerg under a delusional marxian lens. It is baked into european culture to view success and talent and merit in a negative way. In america, these attributes are celebrated. Serral is an incredible player and deserves every ounce of praise and gratitude that we can muster, not endless zerg nerfs that make the entire race unplayable for non-serral players.
Explaining data analysis to european marxists be like:
https://i.imgur.com/Kd0qLmP.jpeg
Time to wake up and smell the coffee. Youāve nerfed zerg because serral was too good and now itās unplayable for everyone else.
Just played this game: https://i.imgur.com/KO8YJjE.mp4
Starkiller is 5500 and beating him is unbelievably easy. Remember, in a ZvZ the only factor determining the outcome is skill. Same for PvP. Mcanning did a stream the other day titled āChecking in on the state of PvPā where he cried about PvP balance. Do you think itās a coincidence that the strongest matchup for Zerg players is universally ZvZ and the weakest matchup for Protoss is PvP? The reason toss think PvP is imba is because itās the one matchup where they donāt have a balance advantage. PvP shows their true skill level, and the same is true for ZvZ for zergs. Here is the elo distribution of PvP and ZvZ in the pro scene:
https://i.imgur.com/DNPCXtE.png
There is obviously a skill difference here. We could do a full statistical breakdown of this. The difference in the means as well as the differences in variance is absolutely fascinating. But instead I will provide a different way to visualize the PvP/ZvZ vs ZvP/PvZ matchup chart. We can take the difference between two normal distributions: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalDifferenceDistribution.html. This means we can subtract PvP from PvZ and get a normal distribution that represents the balance of PvZ with skill factored out of the equation. We can then convert this to a win-rate:
PvP ~ N(u=220.3887083, o=218.7852305).
PvZ ~ N(u=247.4351294, o=223.6184679).
PvZ - PvP = N(u=247.4351294 - 220.3887083, sqrt(218.7852305^2+223.6184679^2)).
PvZ - PvP = N(u=27.0464211, o=312.845)
Factoring skill out, Protoss are +27 elo. In a balanced scenario, this test should produce a mean of 0 (meaning there is no difference between PvP and PvZ performance). But we arenāt done yet because the Elo equation demands r1 - r2 which means we need zergās average rank (again, factoring out skill):
ZvZ ~ N(u=247.8041504, o=196.8285858).
ZvP ~ N(u=212.5082166, o=205.7349355).
ZvP - ZvZ = N(u=212.5082166 - 247.8041504, sqrt(196.8285858^2+205.7349355^2)).
ZvP - ZvZ = N(u=-35.2959338, o=284.72)
Amazing. Zergs underperform -35 and Protoss overperform +27. Now we have the r1-r2 required for the Elo equation:
WinRate=1 / (1 + 10 ^ ((r1-r2)/400))
WinRate=1 / (1 + 10 ^ ((27.0464211- -35.2959338)/400))
WinRate=0.41123278528085096009496267645499
There you have it: a 41.1% win-rate for Zerg in ZvP (when skill is factored out of the equation) using only basic statistics readily available here and here:
Difference between normal distributions: https://mathworld.wolfram.com/NormalDifferenceDistribution.html
Elo rating to win-rate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system#Theory
So, to evaluate the claim that āonly I, adventurer, notice how hard the ZvP matchup isā: absolutely not. Every zerg on planet Earth knows how hard ZvP is and every Protoss on Earth knows easy PvZ is because we can compare it to how hard PvP and ZvZ are. Winning a ZvZ is extremely easy, as I pointed out in the video clip where I beat a 5500 zerg with basic multiprong. I gave an example, also, for PvP with Mcanning crying that PvP is too hard. We can tell. Everyone can tell. The only people denying it are the balance counsel members.
This also explains my theory for why buffing protoss to the moon will never result in a protoss GOAT. The more imba protoss is, the more important PvP mastery is because you have to be able to make it through the avalanche of protoss in tournaments. In the last Aligulac āseasonā, PvP was 6x more common than ZvZ. It doesnāt matter if you buff toss to where they dominate every zerg and terran they face ā they will still bomb their PvP matches. You canāt balance patch a protoss into becoming a GOAT. The more you do that the more important PvP is and that is a severe obstacle to their ability to dominate. The point I am getting at is that it is absolutely useless to try to buff protoss to force them to win premier tournaments because you will never have a solution to the PvP problem. The only way a Protoss gains a mastery of PvP is through skill ā itās 100% a skill problem. Why FUBAR the balance of the game as a whole for a goal that is impossible to achieve anyway? People just havenāt thought this through. Buffing toss to the moon was a bad idea that serves no purpose except to harm the game.
1 Like
no i mean that you cannot see two metaphorical feet in front of you
idk how you could possibly misread that
and the game has public patch notes
you are literally arguing that players not having all the elements of the game available, when thatās the condition the game is played in, would let you draw balance conclhsions
youc anct get good meaningful daata that way.
you arenāt even plating āheads i win tails you loseā
like you are boxers on head the whole aprade here.
if one of them was here your massive walls of useless would scare them off
well, at least nobodyās stupid enough to like them
1 Like