ZvP is imbalanced - Page 39

On October 21 2009 09:00 motbob wrote:
OK, my econometrics textbook says that my way is correct but I think it might be wrong and I think that thus I did the test slightly wrong. I can see why your method of getting the SD from the null hypothesis is better than the way I'm doing it. I'll keep doing research.

On October 21 2009 09:16 mahnini wrote:

you're doing a very simple stats equation. too simple to try and explain anything about ZvP except that it historically favors Z (if you got that part right i don't know) but that's it. it's not explaining anything. it's like if i went up and told you the sky is blue and then wrote up a giant equation and was like "yo bitch ur wrong sky's blue" and you were like "wtf kid i didnt say the sky isnt blue".

On October 21 2009 08:04 DyEnasTy wrote:
One thing i dont understand is why this is such a huge deal. It seems every race *at some point* goes through this. I think a large part of certain race dominance is the players. Ok, sure maps will definately tilt the favor even more. But saying the race is better, by itself, is not correct.
All yer math stuff hurts my simple brain.

On October 21 2009 09:41 infinity2k9 wrote:


Because its possible we are reaching a point in the metagame where almost the most effective strategy has actually been found and mechanics being at the high level they are, its hard for anyone to fight against it.

On October 21 2009 10:02 Black Gun wrote:



quite a hopeless point of view imho. it would imply that after 10 years of constant evolution and volatility around a very good balance, the metagame had stopped evolving and in the very end, sc remains imbalanced. (59:41 is a magnitude of imbalance that flaws the game if it stays like this in the long run.)


imho there will be a way to overcome the current problems in pvz, but im unsure about how long it will take until things get back to "normality" again. i really hope we dont need a metagame change as massive as bisus forge FE revolution.

On October 21 2009 10:05 Harem wrote:

That wasn't even the "revolution." The revolution was simply realizing how useful and important sairs are.

On October 21 2009 09:21 Matrijs wrote:


No. What his data show is that the recent trend of a higher than historical Zerg winning rate cannot be explained by purely random variation. He's demonstrated that a real trend exists, and now the only remaining question is the cause - what changed about seven months ago to cause this trend?

On October 21 2009 10:13 zulu_nation8 wrote:


build orders, maps, could be because bisu started throwing games for money, etc, etc. I don't think anyone disagrees progaming is in a trend that is "statistically significant" if you ignore every variable and assume the data of 855 games is over a normal distribution, its obviously not, so we need to control as many variables as possible and compare similar samples, until then all the z-tests are meaningless.

On October 21 2009 10:34 Matrijs wrote:


1) Build orders. You could be referring to one of two things here - bad luck in build orders (like the old ideas about ZvZ being a highly luck-based matchup due to build order victories), or a metagame shift wherein Protoss players haven't found an effective counter to the most recent Zerg innovations. The first is definitely out - that would be a random variable which is excluded by our test. The second is possible, but might either be a temporary problem, solved by Protoss innovation, or a permanent and inherent problem with the matchup that can only be solved through adjustment of maps to give Protoss players a better chance.
2) Maps. It's pretty clear that maps aren't the problem. Go back and look at motbob's list of ZvP records broken down by map. The major new maps (Heartbreak Ridge, God's Garden, and Outsider) aren't more Zerg favoring than the older ones (Destination, Byzantium, Medusa), which seems to indicate that some other factor is at work.
3) Outside influence (i.e. players throwing games). Again, highly unlikely. No one player could affect the matchup's statistics this much, and there's no reason to believe that Protoss players are more susceptible to outside influence than Zerg players.

The evidence, it seems to me, strongly points to a general, non-map-based strategic advantage that Zerg has developed in this matchup recently. If Protoss players can find a way to counter this advantage, there's no problem. If they can't, the maps should be adjusted to bring the matchup closer to a 50% win rate. A 6:4 advantage for one race over another over a long a period of time is just bad for the game.

On October 21 2009 12:20 mahnini wrote:

what about individual players? practice times? team makeup? map trends, style shifts, build order revelations? there are a lot of things aren't being taken into account that should be.

On October 21 2009 12:30 zulu_nation8 wrote:
yea skill level certainly doesn't affect the outcome of a game.

On October 21 2009 12:43 motbob wrote:

Skill doesn't affect one race over another, which means it doesn't have to be taken into account in a statistical analysis.

EDIT: unwise -_-

On October 21 2009 12:25 motbob wrote:

Nothing should be taken into account unless it would favor one race over another. There's no reason why any of those things would favor one race over another, except maps. And figuring out how things like "build order shifts" might affect the matchup is sort of the point of this thread O.o but it doesn't mean it has a place in any statistical analysis.