|
On May 17 2012 13:40 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 13:13 writer22816 wrote:
Honestly why Lightwip hasn't been banned yet is a mystery to me, he has been trolling and starting flame wars ever since I came to TL. I don't seem to remember him bitching about Terran at the start, I think he was just another annoying Bisu fanboy. Someone should check to see if he's another alternate account of AzureEye. You're advocating someone being banned because they saying facts about your race that you don't like. It wasn't a flame war until people like you came along; it's a legit discussion about bonjwas and their statistics. All the bonjwas have been Terrans except Savior, that's a fact, not an opinion. Thank you for trying to backseat moderate
Err...I get the feeling that this guy has known Lightwip for far longer and is not basing his complaints on this thread alone.
|
On May 17 2012 13:40 GhostOwl wrote:Show nested quote +On May 17 2012 13:13 writer22816 wrote:
Honestly why Lightwip hasn't been banned yet is a mystery to me, he has been trolling and starting flame wars ever since I came to TL. I don't seem to remember him bitching about Terran at the start, I think he was just another annoying Bisu fanboy. Someone should check to see if he's another alternate account of AzureEye. You're advocating someone being banned because they saying facts about your race that you don't like. It wasn't a flame war until people like you came along; it's a legit discussion about bonjwas and their statistics. All the bonjwas have been Terrans except Savior, that's a fact, not an opinion. Thank you for trying to backseat moderate
Check his post history. For someone with such high post count, he is definitely a bad example to newcomers + etc (not that the newbies are stupid enough to follow his example, but it's definitely irritating. Not to mention, the only reason I hate Bisu is because of Lightwip. Bisu's a great player, Lightwip is not doing a right job as a fan. I'm not going to argue against that. I can understand why he isn't being banned though, since he is active and his posts tend to stay near the borderline. By quantity of his trolling + flame baits, yes, it's a mystery.
"facts about your race that you don't like."
A fact? Look at the flaws of his so called "statistics." This is definitely an example of how NOT to use statistics.
Don't become Lightwip #2. You're dangerously close to becoming one.
|
While it's nice enough to hear others talk about me, I actually made this thread to discuss the issues that are addressed in the OP, not to have baseless flame wars, as a few of you are intent on having.
I would appreciate if you did not derail a legitimate discussion with flame wars.
|
On May 17 2012 13:13 writer22816 wrote:
Honestly why Lightwip hasn't been banned yet is a mystery to me, he has been trolling and starting flame wars ever since I came to TL. I don't seem to remember him bitching about Terran at the start, I think he was just another annoying Bisu fanboy. Someone should check to see if he's another alternate account of AzureEye.
Ironic that you post this when you come in here to try to trash my thread.
I bumped this to supplement my analysis after concerns about its effectiveness were brought up by Keone, Mortality, and the like. In any case, it's a legitimate analysis with proof for my position. You, on the other hand, come in here with the sole purpose of derailing a legitimate discussion.
Needless to say, I don't really appreciate that. If I made this in such a way that was an obvious flame bait, you might have had a point. But If you read my post, you'd see that I tried to make it as objective as possible.
|
I don't buy it. Sure the statistics sort of make sense, but I don't see how that shows that terran is imbalanced, that just shows that terran players have historically had higher winrates. And I know you said that outliers such as Flash would be irrelevant in thousands of games, but really if there are a lot of terran players with high winrates that could actually be because of 2 reasons: 1) terran is a better race or 2) the higher-skilled players happen to have chosen terran. And I don't think through a method like this you could show which of these two it could be. You also mention that you don't think its because of one unit that terran wins more, but because of a greater number of options that terran has. But you have shown no math to prove any such claim. I don't think you could either, unless you were to come up with some way of testing it and then watching thousands of VODS for data. But I don't know statistics, so maybe I'm just completely wrong.
|
Hmm... I wonder if adding Collosi and banelings would even out the winrates 
Just kidding! Don't hang me! Or if you do hang me, don't do it for that comment! Twas just a joke 
My main problem with the graph is metagame bias. For example, since flash is KT's ace player, he not only wins more games (as Terran) but he also gets sent out more often as the clutch play in Proleague. Whenever KT *needs* to send someone out there--they'll choose Flash if they can.
Also, there needs to be cut off points. Boxer, Nada, oov owning their metagames holds ZERO relevance to the current metagames. And vice versa. You kind of need to break up the stats into 4-5 different versions split by time periods, bonjwas, ace matches, etc....
|
United States8841 Posts
A lot of OSLs and MSLs were on crappy maps or Yellow and Reach would've had like 5 more titles between them. Terran imba only exists in maps, not inherently in the race.
I still cringe at the "broodwar's favored child" line. I know a lot of it is tongue in cheek but it's a thin veil for your true intention considering how much you hate terrans.
|
You bit off more than you can chew.
Your STA100 prof should have taught you biases better.
On March 29 2012 11:49 Lightwip wrote:
I won't deny that I'm pretty biased on this subject, but I will try to avoid bias and justify my position through facts and numbers, not bias.
Let's start with bias. Quite simply, there is none. We're not using any data that could be skewed by any form of human tendencies because all these numbers are a fact.
I'd like to hear your thoughts and criticisms. Perhaps my logic, analysis, or numbers are somehow wrong. Please, point this out.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherent_bias
The term "inherent bias" refers to the effect of underlying factors or assumptions that skew viewpoints a subject under discussion. There are multiple formal definitions of "inherent bias" which depend on the particular field of study.
In statistics, the term is used in relation to an inability to measure accurately and directly what one would wish to measure, meaning that indirect measurements are used which might be subject to unknown distortions.
By claiming there are no biases, your whole "analysis" is thrown out the window. It is quite frankly very lol-worthy. I was skimming until I saw that you claimed this "supreme objectivity" of yours. Anywhoo if I read any more I bet I could find more, it's pretty embarrassing at this point.
|
On May 18 2012 12:46 ThePurist wrote:You bit off more than you can chew. Your STA100 prof should have taught you biases better. Show nested quote +On March 29 2012 11:49 Lightwip wrote:
I won't deny that I'm pretty biased on this subject, but I will try to avoid bias and justify my position through facts and numbers, not bias.
Let's start with bias. Quite simply, there is none. We're not using any data that could be skewed by any form of human tendencies because all these numbers are a fact.
I'd like to hear your thoughts and criticisms. Perhaps my logic, analysis, or numbers are somehow wrong. Please, point this out. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inherent_biasThe term "inherent bias" refers to the effect of underlying factors or assumptions that skew viewpoints a subject under discussion. There are multiple formal definitions of "inherent bias" which depend on the particular field of study.
In statistics, the term is used in relation to an inability to measure accurately and directly what one would wish to measure, meaning that indirect measurements are used which might be subject to unknown distortions.By claiming there are no biases, your whole "analysis" is thrown out the window. It is quite frankly very lol-worthy. I was skimming until I saw that you claimed this "supreme objectivity" of yours. Anywhoo if I read any more I bet I could find more, it's pretty embarrassing at this point.
By "bias" I refer to bias in the data. The data itself is not skewed in any way by human tendencies, only potentially my interpretation of it. And I also noted every point at which I think Icould be wrong, but that isn't a statistical bias.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias_(statistics)
A statistic is biased if it is calculated in such a way that is systematically different from the population parameter of interest.
Since all my data was collected from records and not from a survey, that would not induce any statistical bias.
You can argue about the method I used for creating a new model. I agree, it's a controversial, potentially completely misleading measure of success. However, it's not a form of bias in the results gathered, only in the analysis. I think it's pretty clear that I myself am biased, but the data is not.
On May 18 2012 11:16 lorkac wrote:
My main problem with the graph is metagame bias. For example, since flash is KT's ace player, he not only wins more games (as Terran) but he also gets sent out more often as the clutch play in Proleague. Whenever KT *needs* to send someone out there--they'll choose Flash if they can.
Also, there needs to be cut off points. Boxer, Nada, oov owning their metagames holds ZERO relevance to the current metagames. And vice versa. You kind of need to break up the stats into 4-5 different versions split by time periods, bonjwas, ace matches, etc....
Don't forget that being used more often if they're better happens to all players of all races. Each race has enough players for it to balance out.
The bonjwa eras are actually relevant in that they help to show whether or not there is inherent terran imbalance. There's time periods that have gone T's way and times that have not. But over a long term, we can look at whether or not tendencies and trends exist.
|
On March 29 2012 12:18 1a2a3aPro wrote:There are several potential points to object your analysis on. I will name only a few of them. Firstly, you are taking historical data from the beginning of Brood War. This is simply not fair. Pre-savior ZvT is in no resemblance to post-savior ZvT. The same can be said for mutalisk micro and stacking. Or the popularization of forge fast expansion builds against Zerg. These changes revolutionized a matchup that before this, was heavily favoured towards one race. These older changes add skew to the %s and distribution. The second point I want to make, is that just because the best players have been Terran, does not mean that Terran is the best race. The players growing up idolize and want to be like BoxeR, like NaDa, like oov. This causes a heavier skew on the ladder towards these races. It also causes there to be very good coaching for those respected races, from some of these players (I'm looking at you, oov). Finally, how much skew is there, really? Winning 16 in a row is ridiculous, and is not a fair judge of a players ability. A player with 70% across all matchups would not only be S class, they would be as good as Flash. This means a player can do WWLWWLWWLW, repeat, for their entire career, and always win Bo3s and have a great win rate in proleague. Why is it necessary to have such ridiculous streaks? I feel that you have some selection bias here, you are selecting a statistic that will of course heavily favour Terran, due to the volatility of PvP and ZvZ maches. Overall, I think this is "see great Terran players, infer Terran bias, find a way to make statistics work to my conclusion." 1) Terran destroyed for a long time before players figured out different things, adds skew. 2) The %s we are talking about are very, very minute. Compare these to a game like WC3, and you will see what I mean (a couple of races come out clearly better). 3) Your criteria of large win streak is not the characteristic of a bonjwa. Someone with a consistent 70-75% winrate would simply completely dominate the game. I will re-evaluate my #1 if you can prove the validity of this statement: Show nested quote +
1. There can be no complaints of a lucky season or an outlier player. The Six Dragons era is statistically insignificant. Swarm Season is statistically insignificant. Flash, Boxer, Oov, and Nada are also all statistically insignificant.
Over ANY 3-4 year period, these numbers are about equal. Savior's innovations, Nal_rA's innovations, etc. are all insignificant over time because all the other races are, in the long term, able to compensate for these differences. These statistics are not a relic of a pre-Savior past.
This criticism is actually quite constructive, since you can then do binning of the results based on these "eras."
|
I appreciate the effort but one should do proper statistical/econometrical analysis to conclude anything and even then I would only take it as suggestive evidence.
There are many variable missing that one would like to control for. I think the best way to tackle the question would be running a probit regression: probability of winning a game on race, year, ability, age, team, experience. You want to control for the unobserved variables. Now we don't observe ability but maybe we can proxy for that using result in the first year of progaming or sth like that.
You want to control for year effect or at least allow for structural breaks. This is because as discussed a lot in this thread the balance definitely shitfs over time. I would expect that there would be significant difference pre- and post-savior.
|
On May 17 2012 10:46 Lightwip wrote:
I updated the OP with a lot more analysis and reasoning in response to the criticisms in here. I hope my argument is a bit more convincing now to those who weren't really sure before.
A few problems I have with the new sections (at least what I think are the new sections, I don't rightly remember what is new and old).
1) You seed your hypothetical starleague with data obtained from Proleague + Individual leagues. I would like to be convinced of the equivalence of the data.
2) Use of binomial distribution in the hypothetical starleague. Binomial distribution relies on the independence of the tests (events). This simply isn't so, aside from the fact that there are multiple players playing there's also the fact that what one player does in one game impacts the strategies used in the next. I can't tell you what to use instead, but I can tell you that you shouldn't use the binomial distribution.
3) While no bias was exercised in the calculations performed the choice of start date is a bias. If you start picking your data at a different points I would be exceptionally surprised if it always came back the same. 1.08 seems no more logical choice of a start date than any other paradigm shift in gameplay.
As for some additional comments:
You did attempt to move away from proleague to an analysis centered on individual leagues but otherwise you largely ignored my previous post (page 6). Disregarding balance as a function of time and player skill makes everything largely irrelevant. As an anecdotal parallel I contest that the current superpower of the world is the UK because they were the world superpower from 1600-1850, that's more time than the US has been founded! The time dependence I understand and can work on, but the player skill is a giant question mark.
Edit: Or Lebesgue could totally beat me to the punch.
|
Actually TvP is balanced. If competent TvP player is on the line, Protoss have a really hard time against Terran. I still argue that before inventing "modern style" late TvZ, play against a Zerg was quite balanced as well. Terran had advantage on mid game, but when late game started, the ultralisks and defilers came, and if terran was not carefull with his vessel cloud, he was easily raped by streams of cheap zerg units. Old time late TvZ was played with advantage of a zerg player. And we have many Zerg multi-champions like July, Savior, JD and some lesser champions like ggplay, Calm or Effort.
But than terrans started to "rebalance" the late game with much more mech-heavy style of late play, and additionally maps were not in Zergs favor as well. this put an end to quite balanced play and Zerg champions slauther has started. The culmination of this was Bigfile OSL, when all best Zergs of the Era- Effort, Calm and finally Jeadong were all brutally slauthered by terrans (3 terrans in semis with only 1 Zerg, and JD still had a really hard time with Light).
Still, Zergs remain the most overrepresented race in semi-finals in whole history of Brood War.
|
On May 18 2012 23:45 hitthat wrote:
Actually TvP is balanced. If competent TvP player is on the line, Protoss have a really hard time against Terran. I still argue that before inventing "modern style" late TvZ, play against a Zerg was quite balanced as well. Terran had advantage on mid game, but when late game started, the ultralisks and defilers came, and if terran was not carefull with his vessel cloud, he was easily raped by streams of cheap zerg units. Old time late TvZ was played with advantage of a zerg player. And we have many Zerg multi-champions like July, Savior, JD and some lesser champions like ggplay, Calm or Effort.
But than terrans started to "rebalance" the late game with much more mech-heavy style of late play, and additionally maps were not in Zergs favor as well. this put an end to quite balanced play and Zerg champions slauther has started. The culmination of this was Bigfile OSL, when all best Zergs of the Era- Effort, Calm and finally Jeadong were all brutally slauthered by terrans (3 terrans in semis with only 1 Zerg, and JD still had a really hard time with Light).
Still, Zergs remain the most overrepresented race in semi-finals in whole history of Brood War.
EVERY proleague since 2005 has had T advantage in TVZ.hardly a new thing. and i dont count older ones because of small sample size making it dubious to judge by, but probably was true then too.
|
On May 18 2012 23:50 storkfan wrote:
EVERY proleague since 2005 has had T advantage in TVZ.hardly a new thing. and i dont count older ones because of small sample size making it dubious to judge by, but probably was true then too.
So many Zerg golds in 2007-2010 are hard to explain other way that this matchup was quite balanced OR the maps were horrible for terrans. In 2009 we had a freaking marathon of ZvZ semis.
|
I'd be more interested in a statistical analysis of the first 1-2 rounds of each individual league.
Once you get past the first few rounds the winners of the early rounds start counting for double or triple the value of those who lost in the early round meaning a player like Flash would give +5-6 data points to terran but some guy who lost in the first round would only give one data point.
|
On May 18 2012 23:58 lorkac wrote:
I'd be more interested in a statistical analysis of the first 1-2 rounds of each individual league.
Once you get past the first few rounds the winners of the early rounds start counting for double or triple the value of those who lost in the early round meaning a player like Flash would give +5-6 data points to terran but some guy who lost in the first round would only give one data point. exactly. and this is why regular format proleague is the best metric of overall balance situation. And it tends to confirm - terran has had the upper hand over zerg consistently for the past 8+ years
|
On May 19 2012 00:11 storkfan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 18 2012 23:58 lorkac wrote:
I'd be more interested in a statistical analysis of the first 1-2 rounds of each individual league.
Once you get past the first few rounds the winners of the early rounds start counting for double or triple the value of those who lost in the early round meaning a player like Flash would give +5-6 data points to terran but some guy who lost in the first round would only give one data point. exactly. and this is why regular format proleague is the best metric of overall balance situation. And it tends to confirm - terran has had the upper hand over zerg consistently for the past 8+ years
But this also inclueds loses/wins in matches of horrible/mediocre players, what single handly crashes the statistics. And in my opinion it was 2010 that draw the line. 2009 was incredible for Zerg players.
And also Terran always had 1 major advantage over Zerg- he had much bigger variety of strats.
|
performance is performance.
|
A very interesting read. I think a lot of the feedback in this thread has also been on the nose. Of course, there's a bigger conceputal question beyond the statistics themselves - the final leap from "Terran players win more" to "Terran is imbalanced." I apologize of much of what follows seems self-evident, but I think it is important to explicate in terms of discussing the logic linking the statistical work to the ultimate conclusion.
A lot of this hinges on how one defines "imbalance," or, more properly, "balance." Imbalance is one of those wierd concepts (like darkness or evil) that is defined primarily in opposition to something that actually exists - i.e., balance. I think that, when most people talk about RTS game balance, they are talking about a game in which the player who exhibits the most skill in a particular match wins the match. RTS games are meant to be contests of skill, in which players pit their talent and training head-to-head, under the assumption that one player will play better than the other and thus win. Therefore, having a game that is balanced - that is, a game where when one plays with greater skill, one wins - is literally the entire point of having an RTS. Factors mitigating against such balance could be different sets of units (one race's units give the players of that race an unfair advantage, allowing those who play with less skill to overcome those with greater skill) or different maps (a certain map allows those who play with less skill to overcome those with greater skill). In any event, these elements of imbalance are ultimately bad for the game, since they mitigate against what ought to be the central issue - that is, the skill of the players involved.
This explication of what constitutes "balance" offers two challenges for the conclusion that Terran is imbalanced, aside from any questions of statistical validity. Assume for a moment that, laying aside all of the questions of history and trends and statistics, we accept the analysis that Terran players win more than non-Terran players. What remains, then, is to demonstrate that Terran players win more than non-Terran players because Terran units are more powerful than non-Terran units. In the end, it is this hypothesis that is the primary issue, and it is a hypothesis whose validity is nowhere addressed in the statistical analysis in question. Alternate hypotheses remain, with equal validity, to explain higher Terran winrates; to whit:
1) Terran players win more than non-Terran players because the map pool has consistently favored Terran players over non-Terran players
2) Terran players win more than non-Terran players because, on average, Terran players play with higher skill than non-Terran players.
Thus, even if Terran players win more than non-Terran players, it remains to be demonstrated that Terran players win more than non-Terran players because they play Terran. I look forward to seeing further analysis in the future to try to demonstrate this fact, if the OP decides it's worth pursuing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
