|
i'm assuming that blue dots means SC2 and pink dots means BW right?
|
On November 28 2011 11:12 Primadog wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: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." Plot: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/t3Cib.png)
I'm not aiming what I say at the quoted post, but merely co-opting the graph. To me, if you take out the outliers in the BW graph, then the three graphs look roughly the same to me, which would seem to prove nothing. If the only argument that survives this is that BW has more outliers at the top end of the ELO, I don't think that proves anything about the game itself. There's no direct link between the skill ceiling of a game and the quantity of outliers at the top of the rating system for that game.
The presence of a Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, or Flash should not speak to anything other than the fact that these individuals are brilliant in their field. It certainly doesn't speak to the difficulty of Basketball, Golf, or BW, at least.
EDIT:
On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +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
You assume too much. I wasn't saying to compare SC2 year 1 with BW (or SC more realistically) year 1. What I'm saying is that we should know what affects time has had on the graph of BW. If we know how the chart has evolved for BW over time, then we can perhaps begin to develop some expectations on what SC2 should and perhaps will look like over time. If BW has actually gotten less spread over time, then that's informative. If BW has gotten a larger spread over time, then that's informative too. If it's stayed relatively the same, then that's important in its own right.
You can't just throw up two sets of numbers and assume they will be equal. You need to prove WHY they should be equal first and foremost. There should not be this implicit acceptance that two completely arbitrarily pulled data sets should just happen to be the same.
|
I agree with you Takkara. The graphs themselves are completely meaningless even if two seperate Elo system are directly comparable. They're not.
It's completely disingenuous what was claimed in the OP. That can only come from either poor understanding of how a ranking system work, or intentional nitpicking of data to support his personal beliefs. This is why I re-plot the data - to point out that an extension of his logics actually counters his assertions.
|
United States7639 Posts
The highest point on the BW data is actually Bisu, not Flash. And as flamewheel pointed out in the last PR, his elo is artificially inflated due to the fact that he mostly pubstomps through PL, and does not face the tough competition found in the upper levels of individual leagues (damn you Hyvaa T-T). This is just one example of the point others have been trying to make: that you can't make direct comparisons between a record built from PL + OSL/MSL (or lack thereof) and one that is mostly just GSL.
|
ELO doesnt mean anything in SC2 because so many players play in small tournaments and get their wins there. BW had only OSL/MSL/PL so you were basically playing against players withing a certain skill range (super high)
|
Yes skill gap between top tier pros and lower tier pros is high in Brood War, and relatively low in SC2. It's high enough to not be a joke though. Don't worry too much about it.
I've watched more violations in game in Brood War, where one player just got completely pooped on than in SC2, that's for sure.
|
SC2 is all about mechanics like macro that are easily maxed out and strategy. In BW, extreme micro could highlight the difference between noobs and masters whilst also giving the masters a way to crush noobs despite a strategical disadvantage. In other words, BW gave a tool to the truly good players that the noobs couldn't use to crush them despite disadvantages. SC2 has no such tool.
Another facet of this issue is that SC2 is not where BW is, when a series of true masters have already fleshed out all facets of the game, leaving almost only mechanics to be mastered by pros. SC2 players are still learning new stuff, not to mention the patches and expansions coming out.
I suppose the biggest issue, though, is we have had none of the aforementioned "true masters" play this game. As such, the lack of skill gap is pretty understandable.
|
On November 28 2011 11:12 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 11:09 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: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. 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...?
... wat? i was using BW builds. specifically pointing out that a very very common BW strategy in year 1 was the 4 pool. didn't mention sc2 builds at all. sorry.
|
OP, I think there are some folks who just don't enjoy watching SC2. I don't know if you are one of them, but this is the impression of course everyone has gotten. I've gotta admit I find SC2 boring. The reason we find it frustrating that other people like something we don't like is because on our big BW site we see tonnes of content being generated for a game we don't care about. Whether it makes us wish those users were creating content for BW or we just don't want to have see stuff for which we are not part of the demographic I don't honestly know. But let's play nice in the sandbox because there are people who enjoy SC2, for whatever reason, and maybe they'd enjoy it even if there was no element of skill difference between pros too. In the end you can't really prove to someone why they shouldn't like different things from you. You can only say why you don't like it yourself (and unless someone asked, they probably don't want to hear it).
|
United States1719 Posts
Cmon man, even as an outspoken BW fan, what you're doing isn't classy. As an earlier poster said, no good can come out of a blog like this.
|
On November 28 2011 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 11:12 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 11:09 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: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. 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...? ... wat? i was using BW builds. specifically pointing out that a very very common BW strategy in year 1 was the 4 pool. didn't mention sc2 builds at all. sorry.
Are you deliberately missing the point here? I don't know, in fact after rereading your first paragraph it becomes more and more incomprehensible, what point are you trying to make what in my post are you replying to? 4pool very common BW start in year 1? Your just making things up now....
Your just continuing to peddle the misleading comparison between early BW and early SC2.
Edit: back on topic the OP is simply an analysis of data and you can disagree with his analysis and provide your own perspective, but i just get annoyed when a parallel gets drawn between early BW and SC2, it's simply wrong.
|
Could the OP maybe add a conclusion? It seems like you have an introduction, a few questions, and then a bit of data analysis. What exactly is your purpose and what exactly does the information mean? I think that would clear up a lot of confusion.
|
On November 28 2011 14:29 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:12 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 11:09 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: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. 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...? ... wat? i was using BW builds. specifically pointing out that a very very common BW strategy in year 1 was the 4 pool. didn't mention sc2 builds at all. sorry. Are you deliberately missing the point here? I don't know, in fact after rereading your first paragraph it becomes more and more incomprehensible, what point are you trying to make what in my post are you replying to? 4pool very common BW start in year 1? Your just making things up now.... Your just continuing to peddle the misleading comparison between early BW and early SC2. Edit: back on topic the OP is simply an analysis of data and you can disagree with his analysis and provide your own perspective, but i just get annoyed when a parallel gets drawn between early BW and SC2, it's simply wrong.
I said that the first three months of SC2 were like the first year of BW, in that cheesier strategies prevailed and both games had to deal with a changing metagame inn patches, how is that NOT a parallel.
in early BW, 4 pool was a dominant zerg strategy, its kind of a fact.
|
On November 28 2011 14:47 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 14:29 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:12 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 11:09 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: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. 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...? ... wat? i was using BW builds. specifically pointing out that a very very common BW strategy in year 1 was the 4 pool. didn't mention sc2 builds at all. sorry. Are you deliberately missing the point here? I don't know, in fact after rereading your first paragraph it becomes more and more incomprehensible, what point are you trying to make what in my post are you replying to? 4pool very common BW start in year 1? Your just making things up now.... Your just continuing to peddle the misleading comparison between early BW and early SC2. Edit: back on topic the OP is simply an analysis of data and you can disagree with his analysis and provide your own perspective, but i just get annoyed when a parallel gets drawn between early BW and SC2, it's simply wrong. I said that the first three months of SC2 were like the first year of BW, in that cheesier strategies prevailed and both games had to deal with a changing metagame inn patches, how is that NOT a parallel. in early BW, 4 pool was a dominant zerg strategy, its kind of a fact.
Certainly not. People knew all about and played macro games from beta.
You are also wrong about 4pool. And you have no means of proving your "fact" that 4pool was a dominant professional strategy. Your probably confused about when spawning pools were 150 minerals.
|
On November 28 2011 15:13 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 14:47 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 14:29 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:12 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 11:09 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: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. 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...? ... wat? i was using BW builds. specifically pointing out that a very very common BW strategy in year 1 was the 4 pool. didn't mention sc2 builds at all. sorry. Are you deliberately missing the point here? I don't know, in fact after rereading your first paragraph it becomes more and more incomprehensible, what point are you trying to make what in my post are you replying to? 4pool very common BW start in year 1? Your just making things up now.... Your just continuing to peddle the misleading comparison between early BW and early SC2. Edit: back on topic the OP is simply an analysis of data and you can disagree with his analysis and provide your own perspective, but i just get annoyed when a parallel gets drawn between early BW and SC2, it's simply wrong. I said that the first three months of SC2 were like the first year of BW, in that cheesier strategies prevailed and both games had to deal with a changing metagame inn patches, how is that NOT a parallel. in early BW, 4 pool was a dominant zerg strategy, its kind of a fact. Certainly not. People knew all about and played macro games from beta. You are also wrong about 4pool. And you have no means of proving your "fact" that 4pool was a dominant professional strategy. Your probably confused about when spawning pools were 150 minerals.
Please rewatch Open season 1 and look at the runner ups games throughout the event.
also please realize BW came out in 1998. year one was 1998-1999. when spawning pools were 150 minerals, and 4 pools were crazy relavent to play. now realize that professional BW didn't really take off until 2001, after the release of 1.08. now realize i didn't say a damn thing about professional BW when i said year one of BW. i meant year one of brood war, the horrible imbalanced, stupid to play year one of brood war.
|
On November 28 2011 18:05 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 15:13 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 14:47 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 14:29 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:12 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 11:09 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: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. 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...? ... wat? i was using BW builds. specifically pointing out that a very very common BW strategy in year 1 was the 4 pool. didn't mention sc2 builds at all. sorry. Are you deliberately missing the point here? I don't know, in fact after rereading your first paragraph it becomes more and more incomprehensible, what point are you trying to make what in my post are you replying to? 4pool very common BW start in year 1? Your just making things up now.... Your just continuing to peddle the misleading comparison between early BW and early SC2. Edit: back on topic the OP is simply an analysis of data and you can disagree with his analysis and provide your own perspective, but i just get annoyed when a parallel gets drawn between early BW and SC2, it's simply wrong. I said that the first three months of SC2 were like the first year of BW, in that cheesier strategies prevailed and both games had to deal with a changing metagame inn patches, how is that NOT a parallel. in early BW, 4 pool was a dominant zerg strategy, its kind of a fact. Certainly not. People knew all about and played macro games from beta. You are also wrong about 4pool. And you have no means of proving your "fact" that 4pool was a dominant professional strategy. Your probably confused about when spawning pools were 150 minerals. Please rewatch Open season 1 and look at the runner ups games throughout the event. also please realize BW came out in 1998. year one was 1998-1999. when spawning pools were 150 minerals, and 4 pools were crazy relavent to play. now realize that professional BW didn't really take off until 2001, after the release of 1.08. now realize i didn't say a damn thing about professional BW when i said year one of BW. i meant year one of brood war, the horrible imbalanced, stupid to play year one of brood war.
I mentioned professional scene several replies up and only now you take the time to clarify that you weren't talking about the pro scene at all? In the context of these types of discussions the pro scene is the only one relevant. Whatever I'm done.
|
On November 28 2011 18:16 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 28 2011 18:05 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 15:13 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 14:47 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 14:29 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 13:33 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:12 ShadeR wrote:On November 28 2011 11:09 PrinceXizor wrote:On November 28 2011 11:04 ShadeR wrote: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. 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...? ... wat? i was using BW builds. specifically pointing out that a very very common BW strategy in year 1 was the 4 pool. didn't mention sc2 builds at all. sorry. Are you deliberately missing the point here? I don't know, in fact after rereading your first paragraph it becomes more and more incomprehensible, what point are you trying to make what in my post are you replying to? 4pool very common BW start in year 1? Your just making things up now.... Your just continuing to peddle the misleading comparison between early BW and early SC2. Edit: back on topic the OP is simply an analysis of data and you can disagree with his analysis and provide your own perspective, but i just get annoyed when a parallel gets drawn between early BW and SC2, it's simply wrong. I said that the first three months of SC2 were like the first year of BW, in that cheesier strategies prevailed and both games had to deal with a changing metagame inn patches, how is that NOT a parallel. in early BW, 4 pool was a dominant zerg strategy, its kind of a fact. Certainly not. People knew all about and played macro games from beta. You are also wrong about 4pool. And you have no means of proving your "fact" that 4pool was a dominant professional strategy. Your probably confused about when spawning pools were 150 minerals. Please rewatch Open season 1 and look at the runner ups games throughout the event. also please realize BW came out in 1998. year one was 1998-1999. when spawning pools were 150 minerals, and 4 pools were crazy relavent to play. now realize that professional BW didn't really take off until 2001, after the release of 1.08. now realize i didn't say a damn thing about professional BW when i said year one of BW. i meant year one of brood war, the horrible imbalanced, stupid to play year one of brood war. I mentioned professional scene several replies up and only now you take the time to clarify that you weren't talking about the pro scene at all? In the context of these types of discussions the pro scene is the only one relevant. Whatever I'm done.
i never once mentioned the professional scene, actually you didn't either, until you said that i said it. which is weird. really a good thing you are done.
|
To quote my statistics teacher: "I don't believe in a statistic I myself haven't manipulated"
This proves nothing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
