EPTTvZ: 21-18 (53.8%)
ZvP: 18-8 (69.2%)
PvT: 14-17 (45.2%)
Please explain!
ZvP is imbalanced - Page 15
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Highways
Australia6098 Posts
TvZ: 21-18 (53.8%) ZvP: 18-8 (69.2%) PvT: 14-17 (45.2%) Please explain! | ||
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
| ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
On September 30 2009 13:56 Highways wrote: MST Prelims. TvZ: 21-18 (53.8%) ZvP: 18-8 (69.2%) PvT: 14-17 (45.2%) Please explain! Lets see....... no name players, on untested maps, too small of a population sample ie (not Representative of the past 10 or so years of zvp stats) hope that is good enough? | ||
|
lazz
Australia3119 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:00 Misrah wrote: Lets see....... no name players, on untested maps, too small of a population sample ie (not Representative of the past 10 or so years of zvp stats) hope that is good enough? Nah, try again. i couldnt think of a better sample to use than the MST prelims actually. it's pretty much perfect from a statistics point of view. only weakness is a small sample size but 30 matches per MU is about as good as you're gonna get. 69.2% ZvP? how is that not imbalanced? oh, and you realise that the maps for the MST were byzantium, desti and HBR, right? all of which are pretty balanced. | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:00 Misrah wrote: Lets see....... no name players, on untested maps, too small of a population sample ie (not Representative of the past 10 or so years of zvp stats) hope that is good enough? don't think the OP was arguing that the matchup has always been imbalanced | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
Yep, must be the maps. | ||
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:00 Misrah wrote: Lets see....... no name players, on untested maps, too small of a population sample ie (not Representative of the past 10 or so years of zvp stats) hope that is good enough? 1) No-name players How is this relevant? 2) Untested maps Destination, Heartbreak Ridge, and Byzantium are untested? 3) Too small a population sample True, but these new stats simply add to my overall argument | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:05 Avidkeystamper wrote: So maps that were balanced suddenly favor zerg in spite of no new strategical shifts. Yep, must be the maps. lol im tired of your sarcastic bullshit (that are 90% wrong). if it's not the maps that are affecting the MSL prelims, then what is it? imbalance in the matchup? i was trying to come up with a good reason why zergs are winning, but it seems like that's obviously not the reason. want to enlighten me? | ||
|
Avidkeystamper
United States8552 Posts
| ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:07 OneOther wrote: lol im tired of your sarcastic bullshit (that are 90% wrong). if it's not the maps that are affecting the MSL prelims, then what is it? imbalance in the matchup? i was trying to come up with a good reason why zergs are winning, but it seems like that's obviously not the reason. want to enlighten me? Remember the stat shift I posted on Destination? 56-54 ---> 61-44? That's evidence that it's not the maps, but something else. Also, remember how Byzantium used to be an absolute graveyard for Zergs against Protoss? Now it's favored towards Zerg. I know it's undergone updates... but IMO the change is a little too great for the minor balance changes to fully explain it. That's just my opinion. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:05 Avidkeystamper wrote: So maps that were balanced suddenly favor zerg in spite of no new strategical shifts. Yep, must be the maps. On September 30 2009 14:09 Avidkeystamper wrote: Yes, HBR, Byzantium, and Destination are imbalanced towards zergs. That's what you're arguing. ... | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:12 zulu_nation8 wrote: Either way, no matter how you look at it, there are infinite explanations which may "explain" this 7% that you have discovered. The B team tosses of Oz probably frequent more brothels than other progamers. Restaurants in Korea could've offered free meals to protoss players at one point which cut away at their practice time. The trend is insignificant, there is no reason why the first word you decide to use should be imbalance. Yeah, there are infinite explinations, but maybe only one or two that don't totally suck. | ||
|
Misrah
United States1695 Posts
Really the reality is- historically zvp is not imbalanced, and there are shifts (some times dramatically) over short periods of time when z>>p and p>>z. What i am trying to tell you is that if you look at the total zvp percentage of competition BW history you will find it quite balanced. You are looking at a fraction of a fraction of this time line, and find (at this particular moment in time) that z>>p. I can tell you with 100% certainty that history will indeed repeat itself, and p>>z at some point in the upcoming future. It has been like this since the conception of competitive BW and i can guarantee you it will happen again. Statistically the numbers are behind me. This is nothing but a small hiccup, and i am sure that if the best protoss minds but their heads together- they will come up with some new and revolutionary that will knock the zerg off the top. So until then, think of something yourself- or wait. remember savior in his prime? playing protoss against him was unplayable. no one could touch him, people lost faith z>>>>>>>>>p and suddenly bisu. and bam! that was over fast. then it was 6 dragons time p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>z- now it's 5 hatch dra.......it's just an endless cycle. | ||
|
zulu_nation8
China26351 Posts
| ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:20 zulu_nation8 wrote: you included too many variables in your sample size that showed, in my opinion a statistically insignificant trend, every explanation sucks. There's no "opinion." Either the change is statistically significant or it isn't. I'll look up the statistical test and run it. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:20 Misrah wrote: Really the reality is- historically zvp is not imbalanced, This isn't quite correct. Historically, it's always worked out something along the lines of T>Z>P>T, with some fluctuation due to metagame shifts, dominance of individuals/groups, etc. The overall race balance tends to work out because most individual leagues end up with players playing a good spread of their matchups, but matchup by matchup, it's never been balanced. On September 30 2009 14:20 Misrah wrote: remember savior in his prime? playing protoss against him was unplayable. no one could touch him, people lost faith z>>>>>>>>>p and suddenly bisu. and bam! that was over fast. then it was 6 dragons time p>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>z- now it's 5 hatch dra.......it's just an endless cycle. There are a couple things wrong with the analogies used here. 1) Savior was a single player. Middle and low-tier zergs were still winning/losing to protosses just the same as before. It's just that Savior had a rather singular dominance. It's not like Savior's style translated into drastically improved results for players like Chojja or Gorush, whereas the current developments have created two ZvZ finals. 2) Bisu brought down Savior. He did not bring down the entire race. Did it shift the entire matchup? Probably, but not as much as people say it did. The thing is, Bisu is Bisu. His actual build and play-style are hard to translate to players of middle-lower tiers of play, because it's so heavily dependent on his mechanics. The generally new style of play shook a lot of people up, but it wasn't really P>Z after people realized to stop going 3hatch muta. 3) The 6 dragons era was again, the product of a few players' singular successes. You can't translate that into an actual metagame shift. Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal did well because they are Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal, not because the metagame was favorable to protoss. The fact that a player like Best, who has downright terrible PvZ, is on that list only goes to further indicate that protosses were doing well IN SPITE of the PvZ matchup, NOT because of it. The MST statistic is useful, because it abstracts out singular player ability. The statistic there is not skewed by extremely strong players playing well anyway because there aren't extremely strong players on that list. | ||
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
3) The 6 dragons era was again, the product of a few players' singular successes. You can't translate that into an actual metagame shift. Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal did well because they are Bisu/Stork/Jangbi/Best/Free/Kal, not because the metagame was favorable to protoss. The fact that a player like Best, who has downright terrible PvZ, is on that list only goes to further indicate that protosses were doing well IN SPITE of the PvZ matchup, NOT because of it. I know you're agreeing with me, but this point doesn't make any sense. BeSt is bad vs zergs, yet was doing well 8 months ago, and this is supposed to mean that Z>P 8 months ago? What? | ||
|
Camlito
Australia4040 Posts
it's 59-38 in favor of zergs, around 60%, not 69% | ||
|
OneOther
United States10774 Posts
On September 30 2009 14:51 motbob wrote: I know you're agreeing with me, but this point doesn't make any sense. BeSt is bad vs zergs, yet was doing well 8 months ago, and this is supposed to mean that Z>P 8 months ago? What? He means that BeSt did well despite being losing against Zergs, not that he was beating them. | ||
| ||
