EPTAll-time Broodwar Most Balanced Maps Ranked - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On October 12 2016 22:44 Dazed_Spy wrote: Talking about balance using stats makes no sense. Top dominating players skew results, balance shifts month to month and often isn't total. A map can be imba in regards to a few timings, but be difficult for that race in other ways, positional matchups, etc. A map could be balanced at S level but skewed heavily for the avg pro gamer. Not many of these maps have significant amounts of games on them, especially in regards to certain time frames. All of these issues cloud the use of stats to the point of being completely unhelpful. Hence the bizarre outcomes for this map list. Bizarre is subjective, as I've never seen a list compiled for say 50 maps or more than was ever "better" than this, and even now, people like to point out what feels wrong and out of place, but nobody has took an honest attempt at ever ranking them properly, and people choose to pick out what they don't like instead. Often times people only have a recollection of a small number of maps, so seeing one map so high might make them think "ooh, no this map was awful to play on", without even considering the other stuff. I made it clear that there are plenty of issues with this method, but my opinion is that the person bias when trying to implement a map system is even worse than the one created by this (at least example has shown thus far), and hence I've chosen to go down this route. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4313 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On October 13 2016 14:15 FiWiFaKi wrote: No ones going to create a list because the entire notion isnt reasonable (not trying to sound dickish). What do you get out of this, even if you found a way around all the difficulties in interpreting the stats? You have a list of maps that were balanced when played. Which isnt important information. What matters is what features, combination of features, and actual maps, are balanced right this second. In any case, there is no way to actually create a methodology that will 'properly' show what maps are balanced, for the reasons I already gave.Bizarre is subjective, as I've never seen a list compiled for say 50 maps or more than was ever "better" than this, and even now, people like to point out what feels wrong and out of place, but nobody has took an honest attempt at ever ranking them properly, and people choose to pick out what they don't like instead. Often times people only have a recollection of a small number of maps, so seeing one map so high might make them think "ooh, no this map was awful to play on", without even considering the other stuff. I made it clear that there are plenty of issues with this method, but my opinion is that the person bias when trying to implement a map system is even worse than the one created by this (at least example has shown thus far), and hence I've chosen to go down this route. And bizarre is not that subjective, we have genuine, objective understandings of what constitutes balance, at least in some respects. I.e gas at natural for protoss, fe has to be possible, certain designs of naturals to deal with mutalisk harass, symmetry etc. Your list contains maps with asymmetry, with giant naturals, and so on. You have maps that are considered balanced that we knew then, and certainly know now, are not actually balanced. One of the most imbalanced maps ever designed, fantasy 2, is considered one of the most balanced by your system. Thats a bizarre result. edit: and I would put my trust in people who understood the meta game and what features of a map are beneficial in x context than someone who used this list, in an attempt to decide balanced maps. We can only determine balance through reasoned strategical discussions, not numbers. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On October 14 2016 00:29 Dazed_Spy wrote: No ones going to create a list because the entire notion isnt reasonable (not trying to sound dickish). What do you get out of this, even if you found a way around all the difficulties in interpreting the stats? You have a list of maps that were balanced when played. Which isnt important information. What matters is what features, combination of features, and actual maps, are balanced right this second. In any case, there is no way to actually create a methodology that will 'properly' show what maps are balanced, for the reasons I already gave. And bizarre is not that subjective, we have genuine, objective understandings of what constitutes balance, at least in some respects. I.e gas at natural for protoss, fe has to be possible, certain designs of naturals to deal with mutalisk harass, symmetry etc. Your list contains maps with asymmetry, with giant naturals, and so on. You have maps that are considered balanced that we knew then, and certainly know now, are not actually balanced. One of the most imbalanced maps ever designed, fantasy 2, is considered one of the most balanced by your system. Thats a bizarre result. edit: and I would put my trust in people who understood the meta game and what features of a map are beneficial in x context than someone who used this list, in an attempt to decide balanced maps. We can only determine balance through reasoned strategical discussions, not numbers. Yeah, sorry, I disagree with you 100%. Your argument just invalidates using numbers for everything, win rate for players? Completely meaningless according to you. If we went for your idea of achieving balance, ie. every map has to be symmetrical, every map has to be possible to forge fe on, etc... Then you know what would happen? We would never even learn about maps that allow Forge FE. The only effective way we are able to accurately assess balance is through watching games on these maps and seeing how they go, not through theorycrafting, because there's too many variables for us to accurately model. That's the fundamental thing we disagree on, you say the "balance when played doesn't matter", you claim that features matter, and hence to me, your argument is laughable to me. Constructing this was not meaningless from my viewpoint, as it allows easy sorting for which maps should and should not be considered for smaller tournaments (also for my own personal curiousity). We're using statistics here, so naturally, not all our data points are at their exact true value, there are outliers that are ranked higher or lower than they should be by some margins, but not completely unreasonable margins. Also, I can gladly name 200 maps less balanced than Fantasy II used in professional Korean BW, you are free to disprove every case on an individual basis. I'm not claiming that Fantasy is the 5th best balanced map ever, I agree that it's likely somewhat higher than what it should be. When looking at the numbers closely, the "issue" likely comes from most games played on it being from prelims, and I gave the same weighting to all the games (as taking this into account would take a tremendous amount of time). | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On October 14 2016 00:49 Acritter wrote: What on Earth even is this? You fail to give an account of the algorithm that you created and decided to apply to these maps, and then claim that it's "objective" or that "the numbers are saying this." Do you not realize how absurd that is? I'm not even angry. I don't have anything at stake here. This is just so far down the rabbit hole into bizarro-land that I'm not sure how to react to it. Do you seriously think that a secret algorithm that you created without making any sort of argument as to its ability to properly display actual balance statistics could possibly hold even the weight of a single person's reasoned speculation on various maps? I really, really hope not. This is perhaps the purest form of the bizarre fixation on mathematical justification that keeps on cropping up that I've ever seen. News flash: just because something has been mathematized doesn't make it good. Mathematical models are only used because they map very well to what we already know, and are then used to extrapolate. Newtonian physics wasn't created in a vacuum; it was carefully put together so as to model the movement of planets. What you're doing here might be getting to the very heart of what balance is, but we have no way of knowing whether it does because we don't know why it is the way it is and have no way to verify or critique its results. As you have laid it out so far, your algorithm and your list mean absolutely nothing. It's objective in the sense that every map is held to the same criteria, and there is no internal bias produced. Apologies, I should have listed the algorithm sooner, it is: Map Imbalance = (%TvZ winrate - 50)^2+(%PvT winrate - 50)^2+(%PvZ winrate - 50)^2 (standard Sum of squares error) Mirror Imbalance = 50[[(#TvT mirrors - #ZvZ mirrors)/#PvP mirrors]^2+[(#PvP mirrors - #TvT mirrors)/#ZvZ mirrors]^2+[(#ZvZ mirrors - #PvP mirrors)/#TvT mirrors]^2] Year multiplier: 2012 1 2011 1 2010 1 2009 0.95 2008 0.9 2007 0.85 2006 0.8 2005 0.7 2004 0.55 2003 0.4 2002 0.2 2001 0.1 2000 0.05 GamesPlayed: To give more value to the certainty of it being a good map, since played a lot makes the statistics have lower deviations, and implies people like to play the map KoreanTourneysUsed: This multiplier is a small effect as GamesPlayed is closely correlated, but tourneys used adds a bit of a bonus by being embraced by many various parties, and indicative of universal likeness. YearMultiplier: Explained on a previous page in this thread, older games bear less weight. Map Score = sqrt(1000*ln(GamesPlayed)*1.05^ln(KoreanTourneysUsed)*YearMultiplier/(Map Imbalance + Mirror Imbalance)) | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On October 14 2016 04:50 FiWiFaKi wrote: They arent all that meaningful, actually. You have to look at the numbers, the maps, the players they went against, and the events that actually unfolded-- in other words you'd have to understand the game and their career before you made random assumptions about the quality of their play. All you'd get by looking at their numbers is an aggregate across years, it gives you no comprehension greater than that.Yeah, sorry, I disagree with you 100%. Your argument just invalidates using numbers for everything, win rate for players? Completely meaningless according to you. If we went for your idea of achieving balance, ie. every map has to be symmetrical, every map has to be possible to forge fe on, etc Then you know what would happen? We would never even learn about maps that allow Forge FE. Hm? Are you trying to say that if we never deviated from what was assumed to be balanced we would of never experimented, and therefore never understood the game better? Thats not what you wrote but its my best guess. Well, trying to design maps based on our actual understanding of what constitutes a balanced map in theory, does not rule out experimentation, or the increase of knowledge (which itself would spur different map developments). It just means we design based on knowledge, and not just randomly pooling numbers together. The only effective way we are able to accurately assess balance is through watching games on these maps and seeing how they go, not through theorycrafting, because there's too many variables for us to accurately model. Yes...you would look at the games to see how they go, but you would also theorycraft. There clearly is not "too many variables" to theorycraft, because I can give you (and have) concrete features of maps that we know are important for balance, that we can know through theory, without observation. Observation confirms it, but I dont need to watch progamers play on a map with the original blue storm natural before I say 'actually, a natural like that will make 2 hatch mutalisk nearly impossible to stop, making it very ZVT favoured'. And we as a community didnt come to that conclusion because we pooled up thousands of games played on that map and looked at the total winrate, no, we simply discussed how the game plays, what advantages are accrued though x feature, and so on. Its theorycrafting and experience that brings about knowledge. Your just...grabbing numbers. Meaningless. Shallow.That's the fundamental thing we disagree on, you say the "balance when played doesn't matter", you claim that features matter, and hence to me, your argument is laughable to me. I honestly have no idea at all how you got that interpretation, I think there is a language barrier here. This simply isnt close to what I said.Constructing this was not meaningless from my viewpoint, as it allows easy sorting for which maps should and should not be considered for smaller tournaments | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
Have you ever thought that maybe there's many ways to play this game, and having an idea about how the game should be played is automatically not objective? Maybe it is a tougher map to play against 2 hatch muta, but you have stronger follow-ups, it might be a good map to do one base plays on, etc... Many variables balance out to even out. As an extreme example for the sake of an example, imagine you have a natural without a gas, but the map is an island map, do your initial statements hold, no. You can't isolate each map element individually, and there are too many elements to treat with relationship to one another. People cannot just look at a map and know "this will be a good map", unless they want the exact same playstyle they've seen on another map that is essentially the same. My argument is that there are some 250~ maps used in pro broodwar, and nobody in the world has the knowledge of all of these maps to be able to rank them all with any meaningful understanding. Heck, just watching ONE game that is 15 minutes long from each non-mirror match up would take 188 hours... And hence having a system to measure roughly how they stack up is meaningful. I agree that it's not a perfect list, but it provides useful guidance on which maps should be automatically disqualified due to imbalance, until you narrow your list to say 30 maps (from all the maps in existence, no errors due to omission or just not being familiar with a map)... And then do a more careful analysis such as: -What maps do the players like to play -What maps make for interesting games -Which maps will be most fair to all the races -Having enough variety: 2/3/4p maps, different tilesets, playstyles, etc Also keep in mind this list stops at 2012, so saying things have been like that for years is because all the Afreeca streamers just play the same 2-3 maps over and over again. Hm? Are you trying to say that if we never deviated from what was assumed to be balanced we would of never experimented, and therefore never understood the game better? Thats not what you wrote but its my best guess. Well, trying to design maps based on our actual understanding of what constitutes a balanced map in theory, does not rule out experimentation, or the increase of knowledge (which itself would spur different map developments). It just means we design based on knowledge, and not just randomly pooling numbers together. Yes, that is what I'm trying to say. In fact, most businesses operate by using numbers to analyze their decisions. For better or worse, the entire SC2 map-pool and entire race balance was done this way from the beginning of beta to up until recently, and we are talking about one of the largest video game companies and the most successful RTS of the recent generation. Not to mention, investors look at numbers when deciding things, companies look at numbers when deciding what projects to take on... Often times, the itty gritty details that the numbers don't show are too difficult to put into a data structure, and hence the numbers is the best we have. This is the case I believe we have with BW, players who play only play one race, and imo there's plenty of inherent bias with opinions on these kinds of things. Secondly, I play BW... And really, how many different maps do you play on a regular basis that you could comment on the balance of? As for watching, we have such a limited map pool now that 100 maps would be completely ignored as nobody thinks about them anymore, even though they are very good. And then there's people who have preconceived notions about what a map "should be". This list doesn't discriminate. It takes a list of the use and results of all the maps, and tells you which are playable and which are not (within a margin of error, because some factors are not internalized, and usually they are not significant, but they can be - but at least it prevents any human bias). The rest is up for you to decide. This is what I'm here for to provide. edit: Lastly, obviously this is for pro-level players, balance achieved across all levels is more or less impossible, so that should be a given, results may vary for your typical C- iccup player. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
On October 10 2016 17:47 b0lt wrote: I'm curious how low Central Plains ranked. A score of zero ^_^ 0 TvT, 1 ZvZ, 27 PvP... What more needs to be said, almost on the level of Battle Royal. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On October 14 2016 08:10 FiWiFaKi wrote: No, I said the original natural construction of Bluestorms natural was heavily Z favoured. Not modern bluestorm. Which is another problem of your list; why would you combine earlier versions of maps with newer ones? The whole point your trying to get at is balance, the difference between different versions of maps are...balance oriented. Just last page people were saying that Bluestorm is heavily T favored, and now you're claiming heavily Z favored? Have you ever thought that maybe there's many ways to play this game, and having an idea about how the game should be played is automatically not objective? There are many ways...and the best ways change week by week or month by month, but there are optimal ways to play, that players can be aware of, principles that extend year to year, consistent features of the metagame we can speak of with certainity. There is knowledge in this community, and it is not improved one whit by throwing numbers at it. Maybe it is a tougher map to play against 2 hatch muta, but you have stronger follow-ups, it might be a good map to do one base plays on, etc... Many variables balance out to even out. That was my original point in saying that this list is nonsensical...a map may have skewed results in favour of one race, while in reality its actually only hard to stop 'x' push on that map. Five months down the line that build may be totally unviable and the map actually quite bad for the race that once dominated it. The results of this rapid balance shift could give close to a 50% result. When you look at numbers all you see are results, not nuance.As an extreme example for the sake of an example, imagine you have a natural without a gas, but the map is an island map, do your initial statements hold, no. You can't isolate each map element individually, and there are too many elements to treat with relationship to one another. People cannot just look at a map and know "this will be a good map", unless they want the exact same playstyle they've seen on another map that is essentially the same. There are going to be certain constancies in playstyle if your looking for consistent and balanced results. Period. One base builds are not balanced, we've had years of experience to understand that. Protoss without access to gas late game can not compete with zerg late game, we've had years of experience to understand that. But island maps! Is not an argument against either of these features, its simply a different conditional scenario. In order words your confusing your own pedantry with an argument. My argument is that there are some 250~ maps used in pro broodwar, and nobody in the world has the knowledge of all of these maps to be able to rank them all with any meaningful understanding. Heck, just watching ONE game that is 15 minutes long from each non-mirror match up would take 188 hours... And hence having a system to measure roughly how they stack up is meaningful. Again...people dont need a list. Lists are not helpful. Your map has sin baekdu as one of the most balanced maps, but this map is a decade old, and with meta game changes is in fact ridiculously bad.I agree that it's not a perfect list, but it provides useful guidance on which maps should be automatically disqualified due to imbalance, No. It. Doesnt. What it shows are RESULTS, not balance. If you cant give any understanding for any of the myriad factors that could impact results, then simply looking at the data is shallow and meaningless. out of a 100 games that go 50-50 for either side, how many were between players of skill imbalance? Was there equal preparation between the players? What was the metagame like during that particular period, because overall racial metagame balance is obviously going to impact balance on particular maps as well, yes? How many of these games were cheese? How many of these cheeses were done due to the balance of the map, and how many succeeded or failed because of the balance of the map? What features are imbalanced, and why? In what way were they, and has the metagame since then already found a solution? and on and on and on and on. You have no answers for any of this, just the inane reply of "data!". Sorry, not good enough. Heres you top 20 "balanced maps"1 Blue Storm 20.670 <<< historically was very rigged z> t, then became very t>z favoured 2 Tau Cross 18.142 <<<< historically was alright for tvp, but when it came back a few years later was P >>> t 3 Fighting Spirit 14.826 <<<< horrible zvt map in the current metagame, was previously more balanced 4 Circuit Breaker 11.952 5 Fantasy II 9.920 <<<< positionally and racially imbalanced all over the place, unplayably bad. 6 Destination 9.897 <<< extremely abusive for p at the start, dominating for lategame for a terran turtle, was a good pure mech map in tvz but thats fallen out of favour, pure mech would likely get curb stomped now-- and its not a good map to open bio, so mech switch is going to be poor. 7 Neo Medusa 9.396 8 Colosseum II 8.781 9 Sin Peaks of Baekdu 7.545 <<<< very very imbalanced in the modern meta game, simply an out of date map 10 Match Point 7.285 11 Luna 6.992 <<<< very very imbalanced in the modern meta game, simply an out of date map 12 Katrina 6.942 <<< carrier hell intially that then got countered heavily by the 3/3 flash meta, not sure where how this map would end up in the modern meta game. 13 La Mancha 6.623 14 Eye of the Storm 6.513 15 Heartbreak Ridge 6.474 16 Python 6.442 <<<< very very imbalanced in the modern meta game, simply an out of date map 17 Arcadia 6.258 18 Neo Requiem 6.015 <<<< very very imbalanced in the modern meta game, simply an out of date map, also imba just generally p> t 19 Nostalgia 6.008 <<<< very very imbalanced in the modern meta game, simply an out of date map 20 Longinus 2 5.980 <<<< very very imbalanced in the modern meta game, and was never a balanced map, actually. Anyway, im done with this conversation. I've clearly repeated myself for three posts in a row, I dont think this is productive anymore. | ||
|
FiWiFaKi
Canada9858 Posts
Your entire argument is that not enough factors are internalized by the model, and hence the model has no value. I made some assumptions that I stated that will allow balance to predicted from results, and that's what I did. For example, TLPD uses an ELO system to rank player skill levels, once again, this doesn't internalize everything, but it's a good indication of how good a player is (does a better job than my model for maps anyway). People don't care about some subjective opinion ranking, and it's not useful or practical, unless it's for a very small sample size, such as what the BW PR was. All sports, whether its tennis, chess, golf, hockey... They all have a ranking system for how good a player or team has done throughout the season, and it's what goes. Yes, someone might have gotten hella lucky that their opponent got injured or something, and hence they got further they would otherwise, but it's how it is (people remember the outcome, not the performance). All your arguments are theorycrafting about whether they will work or not, even though you haven't seen these maps played in 5 years, that's like a civil engineer using only numbers on his paper before he constructs a bridge. You value the "current meta" too much, it's completely silly. The game is still the same as it's been for more than a decade, the game and its understanding really didn't change much compared to 2008-2009, where most of these maps were heavily used. If people like Jaedong, Flash, and Bisu were playing on these maps in 2008-2012, and after dozens or hundreds of games, if some of these things couldn't be figured out, chances are they aren't completely game breaking, or are very slight imbalances that can be overcome by a slightly superior player. Remember, ranking the most balanced map is the same as ranking the least imbalanced map, maybe that's a way to help you think about it. It's cool that you want to criticize all these maps, because apparently in your view all maps are bad (or you are welcome to go create your own list)... Anyway, easy to say what sucks, yes offer an alternative, so I'll take most of that with a grain of salt. I made this ranking because I've never seen something done like this before, and it had my curiosity. So I invested a bit of time and thinking in making this up, to give back just a little bit. I don't know of any other quantitative analysis of maps done before, so I thought that some people might appreciate it. Either way, nice talk, goodbye. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
On October 07 2016 18:27 Miragee wrote: The pinnacle probably started before 2010. Irrc I would at least include 2009 as well. Lost Saga (?) MSL in 2009 was the end of the old era, it was the last time that old school players (Savior and Nada in this case) got to the Ro8 of a major tournament. But the trend of old players being unable to keep up with a bunch of new macro monsters who all practiced 12-14 hours a day began in 2007 or so. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On October 14 2016 05:00 FiWiFaKi wrote: It's objective in the sense that every map is held to the same criteria, and there is no internal bias produced. Apologies, I should have listed the algorithm sooner, it is: Map Imbalance = (%TvZ winrate - 50)^2+(%PvT winrate - 50)^2+(%PvZ winrate - 50)^2 (standard Sum of squares error) Mirror Imbalance = 50[[(#TvT mirrors - #ZvZ mirrors)/#PvP mirrors]^2+[(#PvP mirrors - #TvT mirrors)/#ZvZ mirrors]^2+[(#ZvZ mirrors - #PvP mirrors)/#TvT mirrors]^2] Year multiplier: 2012 1 2011 1 2010 1 2009 0.95 2008 0.9 2007 0.85 2006 0.8 2005 0.7 2004 0.55 2003 0.4 2002 0.2 2001 0.1 2000 0.05 GamesPlayed: To give more value to the certainty of it being a good map, since played a lot makes the statistics have lower deviations, and implies people like to play the map KoreanTourneysUsed: This multiplier is a small effect as GamesPlayed is closely correlated, but tourneys used adds a bit of a bonus by being embraced by many various parties, and indicative of universal likeness. YearMultiplier: Explained on a previous page in this thread, older games bear less weight. Map Score = sqrt(1000*ln(GamesPlayed)*1.05^ln(KoreanTourneysUsed)*YearMultiplier/(Map Imbalance + Mirror Imbalance)) I greatly appreciate that you posted this. I'm not prepared to give a full critique of the exact algorithm at this point, so all I'll do is suggest that in situations with few points of concrete data and significant confounding factors, some of which are out of our ability to even measure, a statistical analysis is going to yield less valuable results than a well-considered expert analysis. This sort of follows (but is not exactly the same as) the whole black-swan issue that, as an economics major, I'm sure you've heard about. With Broodwar maps and balancing, we are confronted with a very small number of recorded games that aren't necessarily reflective of the balance of those maps, but rather reflect the individual skill and preparation of the similarly small number of humans engaging in them. Your system does a good job of generally weeding out the astonishingly terrible maps and nudging better ones up to the top, but it fails to account for many of the nuances that show up in actual play. Take, for example, a theoretical map that starts out as apparently overpowered for one race over another race by some small margin, with play lingering around there for a while (for whichever reason, the map stays in the pool for a long time). Then, all of a sudden, an innovation reveals a deep yet hidden imbalance in the map which sets the previously disadvantaged race at a massive advantage. A fairly small number of games are played here, and then the map is removed from the available pools because of its age and the imbalance. Your system might incorrectly rank this map as being quite balanced, when the reality is that it was removed from the pool for being so incredibly imbalanced. An expert observer would spot this instantly, being familiar with the history of the map. Your algorithm, then, is only as strong as your own observations and efforts to correct it in favor of what we already know - making it already dependent on the account of an expert observer for its own accuracy. This is a problem every time someone attempts a mathematical solution to a problem in the social sciences. In that way, it is literally impossible for your algorithm to be worthwhile, unless you somehow got access to a ton of ICCUP or Fish records and got around the data pool problem. That's what I wanted to point out. | ||
|
r33k
Italy3402 Posts
On October 13 2016 19:26 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Monty hall was tough for zerg Monty Hall, like most maps from that period of time was designed to make MJY lose. | ||
|
jalstar
United States8198 Posts
If P4ndemik or PoP still post they might know what I'm talking about. edit: It was at http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/balance_table.php and it's gone now.  | ||
|
b0lt
United States789 Posts
On October 15 2016 05:46 r33k wrote: Monty Hall, like most maps from that period of time was designed to make MJY lose. This post made me wonder if it's possible to create a map that guarantees victory in certain matchups. You can make a map that has an exactly 50% win rate for every matchup pretty easily, but it's not very interesting (just give one of the starting locations no minerals). Terran can be given a 100% win rate by giving none of the starting locations minerals, and adding an island with minerals. You can give zerg a 100% win rate by giving both starting points exclusive access to a cliff over the other starting point's minerals, with creep from neutral hatcheries blocking : ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Un3Esnj.png) Is it possible to give protoss a 100% win rate on a map? | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
OP I think the stats were interesting but as people have said, there are many imperfections in this method of analysis, akin to the problems faced in social 'sciences'. For that matter what you're analysing cannot be compared to sports because they only have one "map". So in BW, maps are a different dimension, which is absent in other sports.... except maybe rainy weather vs a sunny day or a football pitch at a high altitude. On October 15 2016 12:50 b0lt wrote: This post made me wonder if it's possible to create a map that guarantees victory in certain matchups. You can make a map that has an exactly 50% win rate for every matchup pretty easily, but it's not very interesting (just give one of the starting locations no minerals). Terran can be given a 100% win rate by giving none of the starting locations minerals, and adding an island with minerals. You can give zerg a 100% win rate by giving both starting points exclusive access to a cliff over the other starting point's minerals, with creep from neutral hatcheries blocking : Is it possible to give protoss a 100% win rate on a map? Very interesting thought experiment. I can't think of anything for protoss either. | ||
|
Letmelose
Korea (South)3227 Posts
On October 15 2016 12:50 b0lt wrote: This post made me wonder if it's possible to create a map that guarantees victory in certain matchups. You can make a map that has an exactly 50% win rate for every matchup pretty easily, but it's not very interesting (just give one of the starting locations no minerals). Terran can be given a 100% win rate by giving none of the starting locations minerals, and adding an island with minerals. You can give zerg a 100% win rate by giving both starting points exclusive access to a cliff over the other starting point's minerals, with creep from neutral hatcheries blocking : Is it possible to give protoss a 100% win rate on a map? This stuff was already discussed in Korean communities. Have a map that's similar to the one that gives zergs a 100% win rate, have the gas already depleted so that any other build paths are near obsolete, and remove the creeps on the cliffs, and design the cliff so that the minerals are out of range by marines but in range of photon cannons, and use the smaller size of the photon cannons so that the "sweet spot" that is in range of the minerals have the exact size that fits a photon cannon. In order to make defenses from the lower ground useless, have random objects all around the mineral field so that you cannot place any defensive towers. This way only protoss can harass the enemy through the cliffs, and any other build paths would be taken advantage of any capable player playing protoss. | ||
| ||
