[Tom]

PvP issue

Monk I think you're making the issue more complicated than it needs to be in relation to MLG Columbus. (If this gets too esoteric, we're going to leave everyone else behind, so I'll try and make it as simple as possible.)

In the brackets, you appear to have counted total PvPs, rather than PvP's per round. Obviously, some players advance to further rounds. Of the 56 Protoss players, many played multiple PvPs (that is, the same Protoss player may go on to play several PvPs - and this is actually what occurred in many cases). So by comparing the 56 Protoss players with 32 PvPs, you are comparing apples with oranges. You actually need to calculate PvPs as a proportion of all match ups if you're going to look at it this way.

Second, the reason why there ended up being a whole lot of PvPs in the losers bracket is because so many Protoss players got knocked down there.

Third, even accounting for the "more protoss players, hence more opportunity for mirror match ups" issue, it is still the case that Protoss went from being by far the most overrepresented race in qualifiers, to by far the most underrepresented race amongst those who qualified. There is substance to your point, but I tend to think it is not as important as you make out - you would expect slightly more attrition due to a higher number of PvP mirror match ups, but this cannot by itself explain the fact that the proportion of Protoss players halved whilst the proportion of Zergs and Terrans both increased by around 25%.

Other comments

In relation to your other comment that (a) basing this discussion off tournaments isn't a solid way to do it and (b) that MLG Columbus players arent "high level"):

(a) I also have looked at a wide range of GMs League data in my OP
(b) MLG Columbus is mostly NA Grandmasters with some Korean pro gamers.

[Benji]

Question:
Using MLG as the example, because it was the most recent event with a ton of data from high level play, which players do you think should have advanced from the open bracket?

July, Major, Thorzain and Fenix advanced, do you think imbalance allowed for them to advance over players like Axslav, Agh or Cruncher?

Same with the winners bracket, any players or games there that you think were lost due to balance?

I was honestly impressed with Naniwa's play this weekend, espec his series vs Moon.

I personally think Kiwikaki played poorly all weekend, Tyler has been in a little Slump lately and MC losing to Losira was in my opinion due to Losira playing very well.

[Tom]

@ Benji. I suppose the whole point of looking at the data is to avoid making subjective judgments about who I think should have advanced, who I think is the better player etc. I acknowledged in the OP that "player" is the key variable, not "race". But the point of looking at mass data (irrespective of the identity of the player) is to try and get an idea of the extent to which "race" might also be influencing the outcome.

The question of whether imbalance (if there is such a thing) allowed a particular player to advance really seems to me to be beside the point.

[nGenLight]

The way I am seeing it, MC and Naniwa are the only two that are contending for Protoss. I am seriously learning alot watching both of them play. But other than these 2, majority protosses has been just lackluster.

[nGenLight]

I agree with your points regarding the normal part of meta-game shift and having more bases = harder mechanically. Although I find it a bit silly that you are insinuating that I don't go beyond 2 bases in my 5000 or so ladder games, I won't defend that if I see an unsafe or bad build from my opponent, I won't just punish it. The case for the PvZ meta-game currently is a bit different though. Most professional/high tier Protoss are resorting to 2 base timing attacks because of the difficulty of securing a third base against Zerg, and even if the deathball was successfully built, Zerg has so much solution against it right now. However, that isn't to say trying to get a third isn't the right way to go, as Naniwa and MC has shown in the MLG weekend with relative success of holding their third. Playing 2 base timing attacks is by far not the way myself or any of these high tier Protoss players want to play - it isn't fun!

I spent like the last 100 games trying out new shit dropping from rank 1 to rank 30 or so don't tell me I don't try to come up with my own shit. Why are you having a go at me? I'm asking questions, your acting like I'm saying **** this I don't wanna play this game because its retarded. This is simply not true.

[BordZ]

Roz, you quoted me, thanks for that I realised I forgot to add 2 words that changed the meaning of my post entirely. I did not mean to advocate balance around mid tiers, I'm my haste I forgot to add top tier into the mix as well. Sorry about that.

[Benji]

My only issue with your post is that you have such a small sample size with your data. In the TL thread the Korean graph even has a note saying that it is a small data size. For reference, the PvZ graph on the Korean graph has a sample of 269 games over 6 months. That means theres around 45 games a month, meaning that the 30%/70% difference, which makes P seem amazingly weak is really misleading. If Protoss won 10 more games that month, it would be 50%/50%.

The other graph showing global trends has 10x the data, and the win% is within 1% which is acceptable in my opinion for game balance.

What about protoss do you think needs to be changed?

[Tom]

Both your points about the data are valid Benji, but I think you have not allowed for some of the other data I have presented.

Korean GSL data

The fact that the Korean April/May GSL sample size for was small and limited to the results of one tounrament is the reason why I wanted to wait and see what happened in the next GSL. If the April/May GSL results were an aberation, I would have expected to see some reversion to the mean (that is, I would have expected Protoss to "bounce back" to some degree in the GSL Super Tournament). However, it is already clear the opposite has occurred - Protoss has performed even worse. That is why I am concerned the results may be part of an overall trend rather than a "once off".

International tournament data and other international data

I have also been careful to look at a range of data sources, not just the results of GSL in Korea. These include various Grandmaster Leagues and International Tournaments.

As you say, the analysis of TLPD data on Team Liquid for international tournaments showed results approaching 50%. However, this analysis is almost 2 months old, and it is necessary to look at more recent results. It has been my suspicion that Korean results are generally a "leading indicator" in this area.

Sure enough, if you examine the results of NASL and MLG Columbus (see my earlier post/analysis in this thread), the results are now consistent with the possible trend we are seeing in GSL and in various Grandmaster Leagues. While there are a lot of Protoss players starting out, a disproportionately low number are qualifiying for higher rounds. The proportion qualifying for MLG nearly halved (in comparison, the proportion of Terran and Zerg qualifiers both increased by around 25%).

Looking at a variety of data sources

I agree that we cannot safely reach a conclusion the basis of one data set for one point in time. However, I think we can conclude that:

1. A variety of data sources now show the same apparent trend in poor Protoss results; and

2. The most recent data shows the trend is apparently accelerating.

My point is, if a whole lot of different data sources are starting to say the same thing, it is time to ask the question.

What do I think needs to be changed about Protoss?

I am flattered anyone would actually ask for my opinion on this question. Unfortunately, I feel I am unworthy to speak with much (if any) authority on the subject. I also feel that if I were to start talking about changes I think should be made, it would detract from the objectivity with which I am attempting to approach the data.

There are really two steps in balance:

1. See if there is a problem (look at the data)
2. If a problem is identified, try to find ways to correct it.

I am only really dealing with step 1. Step 2 is really hard, given the potential for an apparently small tweak to have a large and/or unexpected effect on balance.

[nGenLight]

I don't really think any units need changing as opposed to us Protoss just figuring out how to play. However, if there was something I could change, I would rework Ventral Sacs - Maybe actually showing if there is units in there. Floating an overlord just a little away from each Protoss mineral line just completely cripples our economy.

[crAzerk]

If the Ventral Sacs change was done, then wouldn't Medivacs have to be tweaked as well for fairness?

I understand how it's a complete mindf--- for Protoss to have something like that being a burden on your mind, but to express what I feel about this would warrant another thread.

[nGenLight]

There are some pretty significant differences between Medivacs and Ventral Sac'd overlords that makes me feel okay with the former but not the latter.

But as you said, let's not get into it because it was not my intention to discuss the balance of ventral Sac, nor get into a debate with yourself.

[Benji]

Light, Put a cannon down, it'll deter fake overlords as they will lose them, meaning they really don't gain much out of you losing 5 seconds of mining time (<100 minerals I would say), and also puts a timer on the baneling filled ones, as they generally can't keep following your probe line for long before they are killed.

Tom, Blizzard said in an interview during the HOTS reveal that they feel race balance is fairly balanced, and future changes will be regarding specific builds they feel are too strong (Can't remember which video it was). Which is why I ask where the issue is, if theres something Protoss have a glaring weakness for with regards to builds, it would be what needs to be addressed. I feel blizzard won't make any blacket changes for any of the races anymore, and looking at win %'s doesn't take any of this into account.

[Tom]

Benji could you please provide a source as I would be interested to read exactly what Blizzard said.

To say "race balance is fairly balanced" sort of begs a whole lot of further questions - do they mean across all skill levels etc (of course I am saying this in the absence of details of precisely what Blizzard said). Also, just because Blizzard say something doesn't necessarily make it true - I would assume they would relying on some sort of data of their own, which I hope they will make available.

[Benji]

Tom, I can't remember which interview it was, I will spend some time trying to find it, but they implied at the top level of play. They won't release numbers, they don't need to prove anything to us.

Light, Apart from baneling drops, what else do you need to see? Roach drops or Hydra drops and such you can scout, or react to. You need to be more specific on what you think is broken with regards to drops.

[nGenLight]

It's not just mineral line baneling bombs. Ventral sac is so good against Protoss in so many ways, I really can't be bothered to list them all.

[Monk]

@My last post giving MLG Colombus Mirrors, I have to correct myself. I only counted half of the mirrors instead of the full amount of mirrors and made an error in one of the countings. I can't get the numbers to match so let's ditch that last working.

@Benji I honestly can only think of 1 build that should be nerfed. And it's the MC 4-gate. It's hard to scout, and if you do scout it, it's generally way too late.

All-ins and any other form of dominant builds(2 rax, 4 gate, 7 roach rush) are easily scouted, and easily defended if you know what you're doing.

@Tom
Korean Protoss in GSTL(http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft...r_Tournament):
P__T__Z

Ro64
16_29_19
Ro32
7__17_8
Ro16
1__7__6

GSL - May
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft..._II_League_May

Look at this Tom. You can't deny that protoss aren't doing well. Using the above pattern.
Code A - Ro32
13_13_7
Code A - Ro16
3__9__4
Code A - Ro8
0__6__2

Terran dominating GSL Code A Zerg ain't even doing well. Let's see Code S. Using the same pattern (PTZ)

Code S - Ro32
10_14_8
Code S - Ro16
5__7__4
Code S - Ro8
3__3__2
Code S - Semi
1__2__1
Code S - Finals
1__0__1

How can protoss be underpowered if they are the highest retainers of Code S? 10 protoss at ro64, 50% retained to ro16 then 60% retained at ro8. Korean Protoss look at this thread and laugh, with that being said Code A still needs some work.

I just don't see why you're saying Korean Protoss don't know how to win with Protoss, where clearly they do.

[nGenLight]

Because units that have no food cost, very low cost creates a threat that requires about half your army to deal with. While the Zerg player subsequently throws cheap Roaches at your third and natural at the same time whilst they have baited your army to your main, goodluck getting that deathball up. With super high levels of insight, unit management and control, it is possible to defend well enough to get your deathball up before Zerg has a deathball busting unit composition, but this is ridiculously hard, especially on a map like XNC.

Medivacs can be dealt by mineral dumping on some zealots or making 4 stalkers to prevent a drop. Zealots against Zerg units? 4 Stalkers to target fire 20 overlords heading your way (with no idea if theres any units in there)?

I'm not saying Ventral Sac is OP or anything, but it is probably the one single feature of Zerg that drives me insane because it is ridiculously hard to really gameplan for it. I'm sure some Zerg players may have the same opinion about Blink or FF.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by nGenLight

Because units that have no food cost, very low cost creates a threat that requires about half your army to deal with. When the Zerg player subsequently throws cheap Roaches at your third and natural at same time whilst baited your army to your main. Goodluck getting that deathball up. With super high levels of insight, unit management and control, it is possible to defend well enough to get your deathball up before Zerg has a deathball busting unit composition.

Medivacs can be dealt by mineral dumping on some zealots or making 4 stalkers to prevent a drop. Zealots against Zerg units? 4 Stalkers to target fire 20 overlords heading your way (with no idea if theres any units in there)?

I would be looking at your macro if you're working towards a deathball and only have 4 stalkers when your opponent has 160 supply worth of overlords, unless you mean what you meant with the medivac.

[nGenLight]

^ Dude WTF? I was comparing about dealing with medivacs to dealing with overlords. That was my exact point, you have 20 overlords flying to your base, you need like 40 stalkers to defend that, and what if it was just a diversion? I just placed 40 Stalkers completely out of position to watch my expos get destroyed.

Maybe you could teach me some silver zerg macro.

[Monk]

Originally Posted by nGenLight

^ Dude WTF? I was comparing about dealing with medivacs to dealing with overlords. That was my exact point, you have 20 overlords flying to your base, you need like 40 stalkers to defend that, and what if it was just a diversion? I just placed 40 Stalkers completely out of position to watch my expos get destroyed.

Maybe you could teach me some silver zerg macro.

Everyone has to start from somewhere. And you should have game sense and scouting. There is a reason why Blizzard gave you observers and gave some maps xel'naga watchtowers. You see many units under mass overlords? Base defense, set your observer to follow which base has the most overlords heading. You see a ton of units and overlords heading to you? Could be a diversion or a small drop. I pull overlords to take the first few hits from stalkers giving my roaches and hydras time to get into position.

With the same thing being said about overlords and medivacs, a diversion medivac or a real drop, how do you know? You don't. That's where your scouting comes in. I'm pretty sure there is this thing called static defense. As Benji said, cannons work well. I find it's near impossible to micro a just dropped baneling from splashing on a cannon if it's placed in the mineral line. A simple probe pull and let the cannon take the hits.

You just sound like a complete whiner. Benji gave you a tip on how to stop it. You then come around saying ventral sacs is good overall? You have to spend 200/200 to get ventral sacs, and it takes forever for that to upgrade, and you have to upgrade overlord speed too. If it's against your 'death'ball then you have your 40 stalkers to target fire them down. Blink is pretty much a get upgrade in PvZ anyways, so just box blink if your micro isn't good. You're just giving excuses and looking for the easy way out.

Let's nerf Warp prisms so they can't warp in your base. Let's nerf Medivacs so they tell you what is in it and make it so it can't heal at all. Let's show what is inside an overlord too, and make it so they have no speed upgrade. Ohh wait, if we're doing supply giving units/structures let's do this. Pylons can only power things touching them. Supply depots cannot be lowered and have lower HP, Overlords cannot drop units and move slow. Man I should be in charge of SC2 balancing. I'd make you so happy.

I may just be some silver zerg(btw I'm not really silver any more, but let's roll with it) But I watch Tournaments, Replay and streams of high-level players to know some type of high-level game and ways to stop certain things, and ways to do certain things.

In the end, you've just gotta have eyes on your opponent. You should see a drop coming. Stop it. You see multiple drops coming? You should have cannons.

Instead of mineral dumping zealots why don't you mineral dump with cannons, giving you more supply and you don't essentially waste warpgate cooldowns.

TL;DR:
Get better.

Originally Posted by Tom

@Monk: Um, I'm not sure what point you're trying to make with your example. In one of your examples there were 1 Protoss, 7 Terran and 6 Zerg by the Ro16 and in another example there were 0 Protoss, 6 Terran and 2 Zerg in the Ro8. The third example shows the races "breaking even", with each race halving in number each round, until the Protoss/Zerg final.

In any event, arguing about the data at this level of specificity is a waste of time. The data you have referred to is included in the Korean Tournament Results data for May (which is accounted for in the Team Liquid graph). What you appear to have have done is revisited the data used for this graph, selected a segment that apparently suits your argument (or at least doesn't look as bad as the rest of the data), and then used this to assert there is no trend.

With the greatest of respect to you Monk, I am not going to debate the figures with you anymore. It is really not worth my time pointing out gross errors of arithmetic (eg overcounting mirror match ups) or trying to explain basic statistical principles such as "don't pick a small part of a data set that suits your argument and then ignore the rest of it". I also suggest it may be wise not to lecture nGenLight (possibly the best Protoss player in Australia) on his macro ;p

I don't care who's who. If they're whining about a thing they are obviously asking for help in dealing with it.

And in regards to the data, you said that everything I did before was around april, and you were meaning now so I pulled the most recent GSL results out. And I was meant to say you can't deny protoss aren't doing well* in regards to Code A. But in Code S the protoss were doing pretty well. I was having fun throwing data at you and receiving data back (:

So on topic: Is Protoss considered Underpowered in high-level play still?

Quick Comments

FaDeBadger:

You are lecturing Light on how to play the game when unless you are one of the best zergs on the server, you shouldn't be. Not to mention you are wrong on almost every point