EPTShit. I should have majored in statistics
More proof of the elephant? - Page 2
| Blogs > BroodWarHD |
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
Shit. I should have majored in statistics | ||
|
Legatus Lanius
2135 Posts
| ||
|
Teddyman
Finland362 Posts
| ||
|
hifriend
China7935 Posts
On November 28 2011 10:29 bkrow wrote: So a decade old game that has been picked over, discussed, played and strategised over for so many years provides more dominant players than a new, constantly patched, somewhat erratic and volatile game? Shit. I should have majored in statistics bw has almost always had dominant players, not one per week but consistently dominant ones Plus I think it's pretty fair to say that sc2 has been more figured out in about a year than bw was for it's first 2-3 years at the very least. We have like 1000 pro's playing as a profession from the get go and more players overall, more discussion and more competitions. | ||
|
ColdLava
Canada1673 Posts
On November 28 2011 10:34 hifriend wrote: bw has almost always had dominant players, not one per week but consistently dominant ones Plus I think it's pretty fair to say that sc2 has been more figured out in about a year than bw was for it's first 2-3 years at the very least. We have like 1000 pro's playing as a profession from the get go and more players overall, more discussion and more competitions. Try more like 4 or 5 years. It took quite a while before players really started to realize how important macroing and multitasking was. It really wasn't until Nada that builds like fac-ccing became quite standard (it was a build used before Nada, but not used most games), and in TvZ, terrans often stayed on one base until the majority of their tech tree was filled out. Really, the way we think of SC2 now was far far far more advanced than even the way we thought of Sc1 when Boxer was the dominant player. Anyone who played both SC1 and SC2 will tell you that the skill discrepancies between the highest end players, the mid end players, and even the lower end players was a lot bigger in SC1 than it is right now in SC2, but I don't think that has anything to do with whether one is the better game or not at all. I don't even see the point in discussing it, as there's no real meaningful conclusions that you can make from that. | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
| ||
|
Kaal
Djibouti2570 Posts
The Elo rating system named after Arpad Elo, a chess grandmaster. Not the Electric Light Orchestra rating system. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
| ||
|
InToTheWannaB
United States4770 Posts
| ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On November 28 2011 10:54 InToTheWannaB wrote: Is there even a point to this thread? Was anyone arguing that SC2 was a better game or something? Anyone who followed BW knows it was a better game. I fail to see the purpose of this thread other then to tell us what we already know. alot of people find it cool to make fun of sc2 at every opportunity. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
There's so much noise in the "data" that you can't draw any conclusions at all from what you've presented. Not the least of which you need to prove that there is a connection between larger gaps in ELO between pro players and the skill required to play the game. There's so many other, logical explanations both for why such a gap would exist and why it would not exist that it doesn't clearly follow from your chart. Secondly you need to find a way to normalize the ELO between the two games to turn your apples and oranges comparison into an apples to apples comparison. Of course, finding this normalization is probably not easy and may not even be solvable. Thirdly, you'd be more intellectually honest to compare such ELO data 5-10 years ago for BW to see what, if any, effects time has had on such ELO graphs with just BW. It would be important to note if BW has gotten more distinguished, less, or stayed relatively the same. There's other issues, but this is a good start if you honestly want to try to prove something with your numbers. | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
| ||
|
mrafaeldie12
Brazil537 Posts
| ||
|
Primadog
United States4411 Posts
:D Of course not, you can't compare two set of Elo rankings that has zero interface. | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On November 28 2011 10:56 Takkara wrote: One major variable that is not being adjusted for in this "analysis" is the effect of the different league styles on the data. For BW we have PL, MSL, and OSL. For SC2 we have mostly GSL. The structure of PL in particular is vastly different than anything that exists in SC2. Because the ways that the gamers are amassing ELO is different, we can't directly compare the relative values of high and low ELO and assume the two games will be the same if they are equally skilled. There's so much noise in the "data" that you can't draw any conclusions at all from what you've presented. Not the least of which you need to prove that there is a connection between larger gaps in ELO between pro players and the skill required to play the game. There's so many other, logical explanations both for why such a gap would exist and why it would not exist that it doesn't clearly follow from your chart. Secondly you need to find a way to normalize the ELO between the two games to turn your apples and oranges comparison into an apples to apples comparison. Of course, finding this normalization is probably not easy and may not even be solvable. Thirdly, you'd be more intellectually honest to compare such ELO data 5-10 years ago for BW to see what, if any, effects time has had on such ELO graphs with just BW. It would be important to note if BW has gotten more distinguished, less, or stayed relatively the same. There's other issues, but this is a good start if you honestly want to try to prove something with your numbers. Oh please to do that was be purposely dishonest. Are you to say that SC2 began with no knowledge of all the modern BW management concepts? I'm sick and tired of people making the false equivalence between BW year 1 and SC2 year 1. On November 28 2011 11:03 Primadog wrote: If you also graphed the SC2 International Elos, it'll actually exceed the BW distribution. Does this mean SC2 have higher skill ceiling? :D Of course not, you can't compare two set of Elo rankings that has zero interface. The skill ceiling point is null and always has been... this isn't at all about skill "ceiling." | ||
|
PrinceXizor
United States17713 Posts
On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: Oh please to do that was be purposely dishonest. Are you to say that SC2 began with no knowledge of all the modern BW management concepts? I'm sick and tired of people making the false equivalence between BW year 1 and SC2 year 1. regardless of play style knowledge, year one and month 1-3 of BW and SC2 were really similar, alot of cheesy crap that takes no account for the late game, games always evolve this way, it's just natural. if you can win consistently with a 4 pool why would you 12 hatch until people start beating your 4 pool so much. same kind of thing happens in sc2 except it took less time to get past that point. And besides THAT year 1 BW and year 1 SC2 are very similar in that they are inconsistant in terms of the rules of the game, people kept having to adjust the patch changes in both year ones. but yeah only thing the chart showed me was that it's perfectly possible to be as dominant in sc2 as people are in bw, and that the player who has stayed out of teamleague more than anyone, has a higher ELO because he doesn't have a forced loss in his worst matchup like the teamleague currently forces on alot of very good players. but yeah the chart only proves to me that sc2 has the same potentials that BW has. so thanks op for proving it with data. and the minor difference in ELO in the top is likely due to the system of the sc2 team league. | ||
|
DystopiaX
United States16236 Posts
| ||
|
Primadog
United States4411 Posts
On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: Oh please to do that was be purposely dishonest. Are you to say that SC2 began with no knowledge of all the modern BW management concepts? I'm sick and tired of people making the false equivalence between BW year 1 and SC2 year 1. The skill ceiling point is null and always has been... this isn't at all about skill "ceiling." Plot: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t3Cib.png) | ||
|
ShadeR
Australia7535 Posts
On November 28 2011 11:09 PrinceXizor wrote: regardless of play style knowledge, year one and month 1-3 of BW and SC2 were really similar, alot of cheesy crap that takes no account for the late game, games always evolve this way, it's just natural. if you can win consistently with a 4 pool why would you 12 hatch until people start beating your 4 pool so much. same kind of thing happens in sc2 except it took less time to get past that point. And besides THAT year 1 BW and year 1 SC2 are very similar in that they are inconsistant in terms of the rules of the game, people kept having to adjust the patch changes in both year ones. but yeah only thing the chart showed me was that it's perfectly possible to be as dominant in sc2 as people are in bw, and that the player who has stayed out of teamleague more than anyone, has a higher ELO because he doesn't have a forced loss in his worst matchup like the teamleague currently forces on alot of very good players. but yeah the chart only proves to me that sc2 has the same potentials that BW has. so thanks op for proving it with data. and the minor difference in ELO in the top is likely due to the system of the sc2 team league. And you bring up bronze level tactics because professional play doesn't support you point or...? | ||
|
Shaok
297 Posts
On November 28 2011 09:10 BroodWarHD wrote: or is the diehard brood war fans' criticism of lack of skill curve/ceiling in sc2 really true? This statement right here insisted that I post here... I'd recommend that you take more time in wording your blog post. A lack of skill ceiling would imply that the game has an endless ceiling, therefore endless cap, therefore endless potential. Pretty sure they argue that the ceiling is much smaller than that of BW, not that it has a "lack of skill ceiling" (which would imply that sc2 has more skill). Like others have said your comparison of both games does not take into consideration the length of time both games have been around. | ||
| ||
