|
Looking at the ELO charts of SC1 and SC2 players, it is visible that the chart of SC2 has less dynamics - the scores of the best players are close to those of the worst players, when compared to the chart of BW.
Different formula? different structure of tournaments or number of players(this one seems unlikely given low ranking players having equal ELO in both games), meaning the charts are mismatched? or is the diehard brood war fans' criticism of lack of skill curve/ceiling in sc2 really true? is the brood war pro player skill ladder really more dynamic than that of sc2?
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eAwaE.png)
While it is true that SC2 seems to have the dominant player - MVP - his Elo is not nearly as much differentiated from the bottom end players than that of BW dominating players Bisu and Flash. And perhaps more significantly, the top 20 players of BW seem to have a consistently bigger score over the low ranking players, compared to those of SC2.
  
|
Why is it that when I read
More proof of the elephant?
by someone named
BroodWarHD
I knew what was coming 
Do we really have to rehash the same arguments over and over again? The problem with using your example is that for a player to consistently dominate the game has to be relatively stable. This has not been the case with the constant patching and the newness of the game. It just hasn't been developed yet.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah yeah my bad, I wasn't thinking.
|
No it's just a matter of dilatation of the ELO ranks the more games are played (since everyone starts at 2000, you gain much points when you win compared to when you play against a 2200+ opponent (say when you are S-class BW level). You can check the ELO graph restricted to a map (so there will be a lot less games played) and you will see it is much more contracted. You can also see it in the ELO of the vX matchup: they are generally 100 points lower than the general ELO.
|
On November 28 2011 09:20 Probulous wrote:Why is it that when I read by someone named I knew what was coming Do we really have to rehash the same arguments over and over again? The problem with using your example is that for a player to consistently dominate the game has to be relatively stable. This has not been the case with the constant patching and the newness of the game. It just hasn't been developed yet.
is it? i would think a stable environment with less information asymmetry would imply more similar conditions for players to perform, leading to more equal results compared to the fluctuations and changes of sc2.
and is it a rehashed argument? the data in the chart is less than a hour old, surely not rehashed by itself, as the concept of its statistics based presentation would imply, compared to the more descriptive/winrate based style intrigue used in his article.
|
Stunning ad-hoc analysis based on eye-balling an excel chart. -_-
|
Top BW players play many more games than the other 90%, due to more PL appearances, having more games in individual leagues, etc.
|
Yeah BW rocks, SC2 sucks. Who cares man, SC2 is fun to watch and is competitive, or at least so it seems.
As more games are played in SC2 by each players, ELO ratings will start dispersing, I think.
|
gondolin, isnt that argument only relevant in very low sample sizes? given the 100s of games both league players have played, it should no longer be relevant, would it?
|
No-one cares.
User was warned for this post
|
He isn't arguing the volume of games of individual players but the duration of time elapsed since the games release.
|
What good can possibly come out of this?
|
On November 28 2011 09:28 BroodWarHD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 09:20 Probulous wrote:Why is it that when I read More proof of the elephant? by someone named BroodWarHD I knew what was coming Do we really have to rehash the same arguments over and over again? The problem with using your example is that for a player to consistently dominate the game has to be relatively stable. This has not been the case with the constant patching and the newness of the game. It just hasn't been developed yet. is it? i would think a stable environment with less information asymmetry would imply more similar conditions for players to perform, leading to more equal results compared to the fluctuations and changes of sc2. and is it a rehashed argument? the data in the chart is less than a hour old, surely not rehashed by itself, as the concept of its statistics based presentation would imply, compared to the more descriptive/winrate based style intrigue used in his article.
Yes, it would. As you say you would expect more equal results, thus someone with an above average skill level would be able to dominate more because all other things are more equal. The problem is right now good players can lose because of that "information assymetry". One player may have been able to practice more with the new patch simply because they haven't been travelling (or something). Thus they have more exposure to the current state of the game for no reason other than an outside influence (patch). This is not what you want in a competitive environment.
What you want is a stable environment where skill and imagination lead to wins, not outside influences.
I may be misunderstanging your argument. I am no statistics expert but surely a more equal playing field allows actual skill to determine wins.
Yes the argument is rehashed because it comes down to the same thing. You are comparing different games at different stages in their development. You are always going to get different results.
|
On November 28 2011 09:41 Probe1 wrote:
He isn't arguing the volume of games of individual players but the duration of time elapsed since the games release.
probe, that would appear to be incorrect as there doesnt seem to be general elo inflation - the low ranking players still have a similar score in both games.
and to give an example of sufficient number of games - it takes ~20 games with 70% winrate to go from 2000 to2300 elo, assuming tl uses 32 maximum K value. seems plausible number in the ladders
|
I'm curious what your intentions are of posting this.
I'm a 99% Broodwar 1% SC2 spectator/player, and I love BW to death, but there's really no good discussion going to come out of this blog.
You're probably one of those people that gets all crybaby and upset about people hurting the feeling of your preferred game, then turn around and try and make all sorts of arguments as to why SC2 is terrible compared to BW.
How about instead of trying to get back at the SC2 fans that are all about "lol shitty 95 graphics" "no MBS useless game" "terrible interface and controls", we ignore them and not become our own version of them.
|
Brood war out for over a decade, SC2 out for a little over a year...my head hurts
|
No, no he was directly saying "SC2 is in it's infancy and BW is a matured game with years upon years of knowledge and experience". Or if he's not saying that- I am.
Apples and Oranges. Of course Flash with a (# of month duration depending on how big of a KT Rolster fan you are) to practice would dominate SC2 in a way we can barely comprehend. Yes, the best player in SC2 is a lot closer to the lower player than in BW. But it's to do with many factors- one of them being bw has a long and deep history and SC2 is just starting its second year.
Regardless, thank you for compiling a few statistics.
|
I don't think "dynamic" is the word you're looking for... it means changing. If anything, you could say sc2 is too dynamic- susceptible to swings/upsets.
Given that, I agree with you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
