[Tom]

UPDATED WITH LATEST DATA FOR JULY/AUGUST - SEE PAGE 9




Introduction

The worm has turned. It began almost impercetibly. Protoss players such as myself started questioning whether the balance complaints of other races were really justified in light of the results we were seeing at high level play.

I have previously said it would be unwise to jump to conclusions based on the results of a couple of high profile games or one tournament. I am still of that view. What I would like to discuss is the emergence of an apparent trend in poor protoss results in high level play. I say "apparent" trend because I think it is still too early to conclude that what we are seeing is actually a "trend".

Conscious of not jumping to a premature conclusion, it seems to me that the emerging data raises a legitimate question: is protoss currently underpowered in high level play?

Disclaimer

As a protoss player I have an interest in this debate. I will try to keep this to a minimum, but I am conscious that the very fact that I am raising it as a topic of discussion demonstrates an inherent bias on my part. I hope you will forgive me!

Some definitions

First, my discussion is limited to high level play. By "high level play", I mean top tournaments such as GSL, and Grandmasters league, with particular emphasis on the leagues in Korea, NA and Europe, which I suggest are the most competitive.

Second, I have carefully and deliberately used the word underpowered. By underpowered, I do not mean "unplayable" or "uncompetitive". Strong players will continue to perform well because their inherent skill allows them to overcome possible shortcomings with their race. Underpowered also involves questions of degree - it may be very slight, such that the effect on lower level players is low or almost negligible, but enough to have a significant effect at higher levels.

Third, the expression underpowered in high level play is important. It may also be legitimate to ask "is protoss overpowered in low level play?", having regard to the race's arguably simpler mechanics (I'll leave this for others to decide).

Why it is important to look at data

In any non-mirror match up, it seems to me there are three key variables that affect the outcome of the game. The first, and probably most significant, is the player (or more correctly, players). The second variable is race. The third is map. In examining the relative "power" of a race, we are trying to eliminate the "noise" that is created as a result of differences in player skill and different maps.

For this reason, I suggest (although you may disagree) it is virtually useless to examine anecdotal experience - ie a player's personal experience of the race and their recent games. This is because the key variable here is the player, not the map or race. But, when we look at the results of hundreds (or thousands) of games, the significance of the "player" diminishes drastically, whereas the importance of "race" (and "map") dramatically increases.

I acknowledge that the following data does not attempt to isolate "map" as a factor, and that this is a significant limitation. I apologise in that the data is simply not available.

Recent tournament results [SPOILERS]

In early May, an author on TeamLiquid performed an analysis of global and Korean tournament results. The thread is here: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=218558

In summary, what those results showed was that in global tournaments, the win rate for all match ups had begun to approach 50% (although I would be interested to see the current results more than one month (and 1 patch) later). However, the results showed Protoss was been getting absolutely murdered in recent Korean tournaments, with win rates of 33% of ZvT and 30% of ZvP. I said at the time I would be interested to see whether this was the start of an emerging trend (Korea tends to lead the field in all things Starcraft).

The results of the current GSL "Super Tournament" have been, if anything even more dramatic. 16 protoss players qualified for the round of 64. This represents 25% of the field, despite the fact that Protoss players make up approximately 35% of active 1v1 players in Korean. Of these, 6 advanced to the round of 32 (two of whom advanced in mirror match ups). Three Protoss players have so far played in the round of 32 (Genius, HongUn and Trickster) and all have been knocked out. I pray that at least one of the remaining three advances to the top 16, so that there is at least someone I can watch to pick up some tips on how to play the race at the moment. But I think there is a real risk at the moment that we will have a quarter final (or even round of 16) with not a single protoss player.

I note in passing that the number of Korean protoss players complaining about balance has (as of yesterday), overtaken zerg players for the first time in many months (see http://www.playxp.com/sc2/jingjing/ - red = zerg, green = terran, blue = protoss, purple = nothing). Of course, all this demonstrates is "sentiment" (what people think about balance) rather than an actual indicator of balance.

Grandmasters League statistics

The number of Protoss players in the Korean Grandmasters League has remained the same as when I last examined the data. 32% of Korean Grandmasters play protoss, compared to around 35% of all players. They remain slightly underrepresented amongst Grandmasters. (It should also be remembered that random is dramatically underrepresented in GMs League, and as a result (statistically at least) Zerg and Terran are both significantly overrepresented. Zerg is the most overrepresented. There is a similar trend in SEA: see my earlier thread at http://www.sc2sea.com/archive/index.php/t-1242.html).

There continues to be very few Protoss players in the top 10 of any of the regions. Based on my search this morning, of the top 10 players in each of the major regions, NA has 1 Protoss, EU has 0 Protoss, Korea has 2 Protoss and SEA has 1 Protoss. By contrast:

- 5 of the NA top 10 are Terran and 4 are Zerg;
- 6 of the EU top 10 are Terran and 4 are Zerg;
- 7 of the Korean top 10 are Terran and 1 is Zerg; and
- 3 of the SEA top 10 are Terran and 6 are Zerg.

Discussion

These results hardly provide a definitive answer to the question I have asked. But, I think, the data legitimately entitles me to ask the question: is Protoss currently underpowered in high level play?

I am very curious to see what Blizzard's overall data shows, and really wish they would release this (as they have done in the past). The most problematic scenario, I think, is one in which the data shows Protoss is overperforming in lower level play (whether that be overperformance in bronze, silver, gold, platinum, or overperformance all the way up to high Masters). At the moment I don't have any data and could only speculate on the position below Grandmasters. If this were the case, would raise the question, as many have already suggested, of who it is that Blizzard should be balancing the game for - professionals or the average player? Personally, I tend to think it should be balanced for high level play and everyone else should try and catch up by looking at what the professionals do. However, at the moment we do not have data to suggest any underperformance by Protoss below the parameters I have identified.

On a sad note, it will be difficult for me to pick up much to "imitate" from the GSL super tournament. Unfortunately, most of the Protoss games have been terribly one-sided and not really worth watching (for my part, it is starting to look brutal and somewhat bleak out there for the pros). However, I remain optimistic that one of the remaining Protoss players will show us something new and spectactular to stop the rot. My hopes are now pinned on SlayerS_Alicia (who, for those of you who don't know, more or less gave us the aggressive 3gate expand which revolutionised PvT a few months ago).

Tom please add at least one picture to your articles so it has a thumbnail!

Image Credit: http://sanggene.blogspot.com/

Quick Comments

	nirvAnA:
	Apth:
	EveRorschach:
	TCPLemminks:
	EveJeonSa:
	TAScarecrow:
	duanloves:
	Digby:

[Dispatcher]

Combining the last 3 post I will now add my thoughts to the state of protoss and possible but very subtle solutions the protoss balance.

I have noticed that most protoss victories come off of 3 types of play. One being the ever hated cheese. Two being the more popular early game all in. Three being the clever mid game 2 base well played timing attacks. Protoss late game suffers due to the lack of sentries, low mobility, costly (meaning resources) mistakes of imprecise micro and lack of scouting abilities.

Of these issues I feel that scouting any sort of air movement on the outer edges of the maps punishes protoss mineral lines and expansions. I also feel that the difficult micro of protoss punishes them late game.

Overall I feel that the game is very balanced but I think some slight changes towards protoss in the late game would balance things out for them. Some ideas that may possible rectify this would are listed below.

Observers are great scouting tools but they also take away from production of immortals and colossi. If they were included in a build option for gateways, with a change in cost and a requirement of a robotics facility I think this could help with evening the scouting playing field. Lets face it the scans and versatility of zerg and terran units and structure are far superior to that of protoss. Protoss just doesn't have a way of monitoring air movement like the others can.

Another idea I have had is to somehow allow movement through sentry forces fields for protoss units. The only fair solution I can think of is to have some sort of cancel all current force field option to sentries.

I also think a slight change to zealot A.I. would ease the micro required by protoss. I might be way out in left field on my micro topic and not saying that they need to totally change how protoss works but zealots constantly getting stuck in the back of the protoss ball just doesn't cut it some times.

My final thought and the worst thought of them all would be to have some sort of tech option perhaps in the robo bay to possibly exchange gas for mineral cost or even reduce the gas cost of sentries.

With that said feel free to correct anything that have improperly stated.

[Ryper]

Yes, I do think so, at early game i can say that protoss are equally balanced with the others race, but during mid game most protoss suffer especially against T, because most combination of protoss can be countered with the right unit from zerg and T, but not all combination from T and Z can be countered, it is ridiculously hard, especially with the 9-10 minute all in T push with svcs, ravens, banshees, mass rine and siege tanks, it's almost impossible to win something like that, if you notice, I've never seen a protoss hold off that kind of push even in top tier play like ogsmc or Huk. Something needs to be done with protoss.

[Monk]

Woah shit. You Protoss out there might need to take a page out of NsHoSeo.Sage's book. This random guy

+ [GSTL Spoilers] +

All-killed fOu's line up of a Zerg, a Terran, a Terran and a Zerg

. It was very impressive play even though is army control wasn't the best.. close to the worst too.

[porkchop]

Originally Posted by BadgerWatch

I agree with crAzerk. It's simply a matter of T and Z having figured out how to beat the way P is playing right now. We saw it not too long ago that people thought ZvP was unwinnable.

P just needs to figure out why they are losing, and a way to combat that.

i agree ... i thought for a while , from beta to early stages of s1 , toss was unbeatable , with the void rushes and the warping , plus the blink stalkers. it was imba until they figured out how to win against toss, i dont think any match up is imba,, i think the key is to create an early game push for toss, similar to terrans marine all in and roach all in..


we recently had the arcon range added, and it is considered a massive unit.

if we could like have the mother used as the weapon it should it be ,

[YJY]

you guys shuold also consider the fact that because protoss is immensely easy to play compared to the other races, the higher level skilled players dont actually have real skill compared to terran and zerg (as it requires a higher level to play these races). I know as a fact that a lot of terran / zerg players are much better than protoss players though the results dont say it, because they require much more macro/micro.

i think this is the most plausible reason why protoss are shit at high levels.

[YJY]

you guys shuold also consider the fact that because protoss is immensely easy to play compared to the other races, the higher level skilled players dont actually have real skill compared to terran and zerg (as it requires a higher level to play these races). I know as a fact that a lot of terran / zerg players are much better than protoss players though the results dont say it, because they require much more macro/micro.

i think this is the most plausible reason why protoss are shit at high levels.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by YJY

you guys shuold also consider the fact that because protoss is immensely easy to play compared to the other races, the higher level skilled players dont actually have real skill compared to terran and zerg (as it requires a higher level to play these races). I know as a fact that a lot of terran / zerg players are much better than protoss players though the results dont say it, because they require much more macro/micro.

i think this is the most plausible reason why protoss are shit at high levels.

Maybe this is trolling.

Lets test the thesis

Lets test this thesis. Assume arguendo:

1. protoss is the easiest race to play.

2. there is an equal distribution of "skill" accross players of all races.

If both premises 1 and 2 are correct, you would expect that protoss would be substantially out-performing all other races across the board. That is, if two players of equivalent skill play each other, but one is playing an "easier" race, you would expect the player using the "easy" race to win in the majority of cases.

On the other hand, if two players of equal skill play each other using different races, and have a win/loss ratio of 50/50 (over a significant number of games), in what sense can one race be seen to be "easier" than the other?


Are our premises correct?

The data I have seen suggests protoss are certainly not overperforming in high level ladder and tournament play.

Now, this tells us (at least) that premise 1 or premise 2 are incorrect. Which should we reject?

Premise 1

If premise 2 is correct, it follows that we should reject premise 1. This is because, were both 1 and 2 correct, we would expect to see significant outperformance by protoss players in high level play. This is not the case. Lets look at premise 2 then.

Premise 2

But is premise 2 correct? There is no data on the relative "skill" of the players who pick the different races, and I suggest that in the absence of data, the most reasonable assumption to make is that the skill distribution across all races is generally equivalent.

The absence of data on the "skill" of players picking the various races is of course why it is necessary to look at results to gauge the performance of a race. By balancing the game in this way, Blizzard effectively make the "most reasonable assumption in the absence of data" that I have set out above, and they are in my view right in doing so.

It seems to me highly improbablethat all the "bad" players decide to play Protoss, whereas the "good" players decide to pick say Terran or Zerg. The other problem with this is, of course, that even if the masses of Protoss players are generally terrible, it only takes a small proportion of "super gosus" to pick Protoss and you would expect to see equivalent results in top level play.

Summing up (or TL;DR!)

There is what I would call a "logical disconnect" between the premise "Protoss is the easiest to play" and the conclusion "therefore, high level Protoss players have no real skill".

I would have thought that if Protoss was truly the easiest race, professional players (who play the game with a view to winning big prize money) would all be switching to Protoss. This is because in a contest between a super-skilled player using a "hard" race, and a super-skilled player using an "easy" race, the super-skilled player using the easy race will generally triumph. And we would therefore be seeing the results of this in high level play, with Protoss taking the majority of big-money tournaments.

We are not seeing this, and this suggests to me that YJY's thesis is quite wrong. Just to stir things up a little bit, I think it could more plausibly be suggested that terran is the easiest race to play, given the saturation of terran players in high level, big money Korean tournaments (where players wish to obtain every (legal) advantage, no matter how small, in order to win).

Quick Comments

	psygoh:	Good systematic way of analysing
	TidaL:

[xceL]

I have to agree with the first page about Protoss forcefields needing a slight nerf, nothing drastic.
Perhaps something like 75 energy to cast FF so sentries have a max of 2.5 forcefields on full mana instead of 4 or something like that.

I feel that that at levels below GM that the 200/200 deathball of protoss is near unstoppable. While the top tier players can deal with it, I think the simplicity of executing an A-Move with storms or forcefields is what makes it so challenging for zergs and terrans to deal with it.

I would have agreed that protoss was underpowered early game before the time when they figured out 3 gate pressure with expand was really solid, but now I think it's even across the races early on.

Quick Comments

deL:

Gotta be GM level before you can comment on GM balance.

[Tom]

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/2878771457:

Overall balance has also proven to be an issue on Metalopolis -- even factoring in close position spawn issues. It’s among the least balanced maps currently in the ladder pool, and along with Scrap Station (also being removed) and Tal’darim Altar, has a heavy (60%+) bias toward zerg at the highest levels of play.

I find this post very interesting for a number of reasons.

First, I didn't realise Metalopolis was so biased towards zerg. I've personally found it to be a pretty good map. Obviously, as a Protoss player I have vetoed Scrap Station since early on in season 1, but its surprising Blizzard took this long to do something about it. I'm also quite surprised that Tal'Darim Altar is also a Zerg-favoured map at "the highest levels of play". I wonder why Blizzard didn't remove it as well?

Secondly, it suggests Blizzard are focused on trying to balance the game through map choice rather than making further changes to the races. This was the "third variable" identified in my post, which I said I didn't have any statistics on (which I thought was a significant limit to the conclusions). I suppose we need to wait and see what happens.

Finally, and most interestingly for me, this post confirms Blizzard are looking at data for different "levels" of play in balancing the game.

[Digby]

Originally Posted by YJY

you guys shuold also consider the fact that because protoss is immensely easy to play compared to the other races, the higher level skilled players dont actually have real skill compared to terran and zerg (as it requires a higher level to play these races). I know as a fact that a lot of terran / zerg players are much better than protoss players though the results dont say it, because they require much more macro/micro.

i think this is the most plausible reason why protoss are shit at high levels.

So then, you're saying if a Protoss player and a Terran player for example, switched race, neither having previous 1v1 experience with either, the Terran player playing as Protoss would win?

I beg to differ my misguided friend, (this is just something that I did, whether or not it provides any conclusive evidence is up for scrutiny) I played a 1v1 with my friend who is a very capable masters Terran player after a lovely balance dicussion, myself being a diamond Protoss player challened him to play Protoss and I would play Terran. The outcome, it was a long macro game on Xel Naga Caverns and in the end, I ended up winning with MMM Vikings and Ghosts. Going up against his "Unstoppable" deathball which i may add, included Carriers and a Mothership along with Colossi.

Vikings > Colossi AND Carriers
Ghosts and EMP > Protoss

[teKalarax]

I think protoss is okay in high level play, looking at current tournament results - HuK took out dreamhack and even drew TL in pylons in the middle of the field.

The TL Open for the past few weeks has consecutively been at least 40% protoss and Hwang Sin has won it most of the time, also a fellow brotoss.

MC continues to mind boggle me every time he plays with his fantastic use of the protoss race and I feel while some pushes from zerg and terran feel op against toss, there is definitely the need to use more race mechanics.

I barely see hallucination ever used in any kind of high level play, I assure you that it saved my ass so many times. HuK began to use the warp prism for multipronged attacks on several bases at once and often sometimes I question the logic behind pro's decisions. Why would you go DT's against terran?

Day9 covered it in his daily a week ago during protoss week, ghosts being one of the most prevalent issues for players. Sure, I speak with no high level experience and while it may feel like protoss is under represented (which it very may well be) I think there is a lot people haven't figured out about protoss yet.

So no, I wouldn't say it is up at all.

[Next_rim]

Why would you go DT's against terran?

Makes it hard for terran to push, buys time to catch up in macro, gives map control, opens HT tech path, drains OC energy. Overall, very cost efficient, if used correctly.

I barely see hallucination ever used in any kind of high level play

It's used a lot for scouting and proxy warp, when you put a pylon below cliff, and use hallucination for vision. And in battle, you need every precious bit of sentry energy for emergency forcefields, which obviously have much more impact on the battlefield than hallucinations. Besides, i play desert strike a lot, and a lot of people like doing sentries with illusions to tank damage. In short, it doesn't work that well.

Ghosts and EMP > Protoss

Agreed, I lost countless number of games to money EMPs. I think SC2 is macro-oriented, and should not be so unforgiving for mismicro in battle.

Brotoss needs better micro in addition no 100% usage of game mechanics. That is mommaship, carriers and warp prisms.

[Interdiction]

Originally Posted by Next_rim

Agreed with crazek, it is metagame.

There are 3 heavily underused units in the game right now - warp prism, carrier and mothership. If you don't use some of your race tools, how can you claim you are underpowered? High level players are starting to realize that. We even saw a mommaship in GSL.

There are good situational units that are designed to do very specific things, like phoenix. Phoenix is successfully used for it's purpose when the game goes a particular way, which is fine. Voidray is fine, DT is fine. But having NOBODY EVER use 3 units out of 15? 20% of potential right down the drain.

What concerns me is terran though. All they need to win is a marauder-medivac ball with optional ghosts and vikings. Never see BC, ravens. Occasional nuke to harass 6-th expansion 40 minutes into the game is not a good metagame for a game of starcraft magnitude.

You are absoulutly right! How can protoss attempt to win if they only use 75% of their arsenal? (( Im a protoss player =) ))

Also tom, I think you should take some mroe time ( your analysis is good ) and delve into facts a little more. With the gate tech being pushed back, protoss are finding that AGRESSIVE openings are no longer possible against CERTAIN builds from other races!

I think a lot of protoss players ( including myself and I think I saw it mentioned before) Need to figure out some new builds and tactics instead of holding onto " the old ways ". Mothership/carrier/warp prism all need to be used a lot more in conjunction with other stratagys. And I agree maps most certainly count in this factor, but maybe its up to the protoss player to realise he needs to be DEFENSIVE early game? A.K.A build a few sentries and relax =)

In anycase im not saying anyones right or wrong but i think there are a few more things to consider before people start crying UNBALANCED =)

[Interdiction]

Originally Posted by Next_rim

Agreed with crazek, it is metagame.

There are 3 heavily underused units in the game right now - warp prism, carrier and mothership. If you don't use some of your race tools, how can you claim you are underpowered? High level players are starting to realize that. We even saw a mommaship in GSL.

There are good situational units that are designed to do very specific things, like phoenix. Phoenix is successfully used for it's purpose when the game goes a particular way, which is fine. Voidray is fine, DT is fine. But having NOBODY EVER use 3 units out of 15? 20% of potential right down the drain.

What concerns me is terran though. All they need to win is a marauder-medivac ball with optional ghosts and vikings. Never see BC, ravens. Occasional nuke to harass 6-th expansion 40 minutes into the game is not a good metagame for a game of starcraft magnitude.

You are absoulutly right! How can protoss attempt to win if they only use 75% of their arsenal? (( Im a protoss player =) ))

Also tom, I think you should take some mroe time ( your analysis is good ) and delve into facts a little more. With the gate tech being pushed back, protoss are finding that AGRESSIVE openings are no longer possible against CERTAIN builds from other races!

I think a lot of protoss players ( including myself and I think I saw it mentioned before) Need to figure out some new builds and tactics instead of holding onto " the old ways ". Mothership/carrier/warp prism all need to be used a lot more in conjunction with other stratagys. And I agree maps most certainly count in this factor, but maybe its up to the protoss player to realise he needs to be DEFENSIVE early game? A.K.A build a few sentries and relax =)

In anycase im not saying anyones right or wrong but i think there are a few more things to consider before people start crying UNBALANCED =)

Quick Comments

TAScarecrow:

painfully ignorant

[Tom]

^ Hmm, yeah I never realised I need to be DEFENSIVE early game. You are right, I definately need to stop crying UNBALANCED and change my stratagys to include a few sentries! How to build?

In the future I will take some mroe time to delve into facts a little more before I post. I am grateful for your well-researched post, which I will use as a guide for my future posts.

(Apologies to others for lowering the tone of the debate, but this one was just too hilarious to resist.)

[TAScarecrow]

This needs to be closed, it was a great thread to begin with but the last few pages have gone to shit with trolls and clueless Protoss whiners.

[Tom]

^ agreed - please close!

[Interdiction]

Originally Posted by Interdiction

In anycase im not saying anyones right or wrong but i think there are a few more things to consider before people start crying UNBALANCED =)

Tom,

Never said you were wrong, and if you re-read my post it didnt even really conflict with your origanal post, and just gave my two cents. Please notice the amount of maybes and suggestions throughout my last post before you think I am trying to discredit your origanal post, which you obviously took a long time to construct.

Being a gold/platinum player at best I do not feel I have the right to tell ANYONE whether they are right or wrong, so please respect my last post as an addition to the discussion, not an attempt to piss on your work.

Regards,

Quick Comments

nGenLight:

hahahahahahahahaha

[nGenLight]

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=252090

New data. According to the data - The illusion that Protoss was surging back up against Zerg that a few of us were so hopeful of seems to have turned the other direction. & Terran players in general has been surging lately (Past month).

Discuss.

[Tom]

Updated data

Many thanks to Ray for drawing my attention to the latest data.

Here are the direct links to the charts

- International data: http://i.imgur.com/CPVub.png
- Korean data: http://i.imgur.com/bdP2e.png

International tournament data as at July

A few months back when I first noticed the distinct trend, people were quick to point out that one data set, International tournament results, appeared to show the races were generally balanced. This is no longer case.

The International data shows:

- Protoss have consistently performed at less than 50% in International tournaments since March 2011
- Protoss is currently the worst performing races across all International tournaments (as at July)
- PvT slightly favours Terran in International tournaments
- PvZ heavily favours Zerg in International tournaments

Korean tournament data

The trend that emerged in April 2011 has contined, indeed what we now see is a volatile (but consistent) downward trend in Protoss results in Korean since December 2010.

Obviously, as the author of these data sets point out, Korea is a smaller data set and should always be treated with caution. Nonetheless, it is not that small, and we can be more confident in our conclusions if we start to see the same thing over and over for several months.

The Korean tournament data shows:

- Protoss is by far the worst performer in Korean tournaments, batting around 41%, compared to Zerg at approximately 52% and Terran at approximately 56%.
- PvT heavily favours Terran (indeed, in July, Protoss won only one third of PvTs)
- PvZ heavily favours Zerg (Protoss won approximately 43% of PvZs)

[GSL August Spoilers follow]

The above data goes to July. The trend has, if anything, accelerated in August.

Nearly every Protoss player was annihilated in the opening round of the GSL in both Code S and Code A (like the games weren't even close, it just wasn't funny). I think one P player in code A got through (Smart) in a mirror match up, and one player got through in a non-mirror (Tassadar).

When we look at the race breakdown a little more closely (courtesy of TLPD), we see:
- Code A Protoss had a win rate of about 22% in PvZ (admittedly a very small sampe size)
- Code A Protoss had a win rate of about 38% in PvT (again, a small sample)
- Code S Protoss, round of 16 is not even worth mentioning as there were only two Protoss to start with and both failed to win a game.

Blizzard ladder data and recent map balances

Blizzard have been very hedgy since the start of this year about actually releasing any data. However, I have heard them say (eg the infamous David Kim interview) that the match ups are "generally balanced" but (and I paraphrase), there are a couple of match ups they are keeping an eye on.

However, in introducing Season 3, Blizzard noted they were removing Scrap Station and Metalopolis on the basis that these were heavily Zerg favoured maps (60%+). They also stated that Tal'Darim Altar is a heavily favoured Zerg map (60%+), but did not remove the maps.

What I want to know is, if the match ups are "generally balanced", how is it that we have such a significant number of maps with a very heavy Zerg bias. One explanation is that all the other maps favour Protoss and Terran, although we can infer the bias must not be very high, as Blizzard did not cite balance as the reason for removing those other maps.

What do the Koreans think?

Lets have another look at that Korean QQ chart: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=144269

Obviously, this chart measures what people "think" about balance (sentiment) rather than balance, but its an interesting measure of the "spirit of the times". As at today, it shows around 70% think Protoss is underpowered, 8% think Terran is underpowered, and 20% think Zerg is underpowered.

Summing up

More than two months on, the evidence that Protoss is underpowered in high level play has become compelling. There were two reasonable arguments against this being the case, the first being a "shifting metagame" argument (ie we just need to allow Protoss time to adapt, and results will improve) and the International tournament data (which appeared at an earlier time to be around 50%). In my view, neither of these arguments is persuasive any longer. Five months have gone by, and there is no evidence of any shift in the meta game back towards Protoss. Most recent GSL data shows another season of terrible Protoss performance. International data has gone the way of the Korean data, with Protoss now significantly underperforming across all International tournaments.

Blizzard appear not to recognise there is a problem, apparently viewing the match ups as generally balanced. However, Blizzard have not released the data to support this claim, and it appears to be at odds with what any person looking at the Season 2 GM League standings can observe - a clustering of Zerg and Terran at the top of the ladders on each server. (In relation to the current season, I would be careful not to read anything into the standings at this point as we are only a couple of days in.) At the same time as making this claim, Blizzard openly stated three maps were heavily Zerg favoured (no such claim is made in relation to any maps favouring the other races), which at seem at odds with any claim that the match ups are "generally balanced".

I for one would like to see Blizzard's current ladder data, broken down not just by race but also by cohort (eg MMR bands, from High GM, low GM, High Master etc all the way down). Quite frankly, I do not find Blizzard's claims that the match ups are "generally balanced" to be credible. To describe something as "generally balanced" also hides a multitude of sins. To me, it begs the questions - are the match ups are generally balanced because Protoss is overperforming at low level play but underperforming at high level play? Are the match ups generally balanced in the sense that the match ups other than PvZ and/or PvT are balanced? I don't know, and I want to see the data!

Quick Comments

nGenLight:

Really amazing how quickly you write these near-flawless reports.