EPTI don't think Protoss is the worst race - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
TMNT
3102 Posts
What sets him apart is mainly his skill set, notably the multi-tasking. That makes his corsairs never die which is vital in PvZ. That makes him able to pressure with zealots at different Zerg's bases (while at the same time still chasing lings in his main). A lot of Bisu's dominant PvZ comes down to that. His zealots got so much value in the early game and his corsairs just keep killing overlords that the Zerg can't recover economically and will just die to a midgame push. On the other hand, Bisu isn't as good as Snow with reavers, and isn't as good as Best at expanding and macroing like a mad man, hence his PvT is a little bit behind those two. PvZ and PvT are really different animals. An "overall skill" doesn't exist that makes a player good at a matchup also equally good at the other matchup. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On July 16 2022 03:23 TMNT wrote: Dude I have several counters to your points but dont really have time to elaborate them for now. But it seems like your methodologies are always flawed, even starting from the data collection. I will quickly point out this one in this post: Look at the distribution you found. You'd think there are more than 38 Protoss players in the history of Korean BW? That list from liquipedia is seriously lacking and all over the place: there are female BJs from the modern era listed there, but Snow, Mini, Shuttle, Rain,... etc. (all player during Kespa), for examples, are nowhere to be seen. So that distribution is probably way off the mark. Edit: okay after further checking, you forgot to click "Further" to expand to the full list. But keep in mind that it's literally the list of every player ever, including amateurs, fast map players, female BJs and whatnot. You can point out when I get something wrong, that's more than alright. But handwaving away my findings without providing or guiding to corrected data is not going to impress me. So what is the true ratio of T/Z/P players among Korean pros during the Kespa era, or any other era? Can you help me find the numbers? | ||
|
Rainalcar
Croatia422 Posts
This. | ||
|
Rainalcar
Croatia422 Posts
And this. To claim that P isn't lagging behind Z and T is simply not true. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
Terran: 44 (31.4%) Zerg: 58 (41.4%) Protoss: 38 (27.1%) To this: Terran: 117 (31%) Zerg: 148 (40.5%) Protoss: 104 (28.5%) I'll also note that I recognize almost 100% of the players' usernames from the Kespa era. This is not a list including post-Kespa girl streamers or anything of that sort. (almost) every single one of these players is a legit competitor. The conclusion remains the same. Protoss is underrepresented, which explains why a severe underrepresentation of protoss players has been observed in the individual leagues, which would obviously lead to fewer titles won. Especially when noting the observed Kespa era ZvP winrate of ~54%, it makes even more sense that the smaller pool of protoss players would end up winning a lot fewer titles. I don't see how my argument lacks validity in any reasonable sense. You can choose to keep believing in ZvP imbalance, but the data is undeniably biased against protoss. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On July 16 2022 03:43 TMNT wrote: I don't know about Bisu understanding PvZ so much more than other Protosses that even after looking at the replays or playing in the same team with him or talking with him that it didn't even shed some light on the others. What sets him apart is mainly his skill set, notably the multi-tasking. That makes his corsairs never die which is vital in PvZ. That makes him able to pressure with zealots at different Zerg's bases (while at the same time still chasing lings in his main). A lot of Bisu's dominant PvZ comes down to that. His zealots got so much value in the early game and his corsairs just keep killing overlords that the Zerg can't recover economically and will just die to a midgame push. On the other hand, Bisu isn't as good as Snow with reavers, and isn't as good as Best at expanding and macroing like a mad man, hence his PvT is a little bit behind those two. PvZ and PvT are really different animals. An "overall skill" doesn't exist that makes a player good at a matchup also equally good at the other matchup. I think your argument isn't perfectly sound. On the one hand you're saying "What sets him apart is mainly his skill set, notably the multi-tasking." On the other hand you're also saying "An "overall skill" doesn't exist that makes a player good at a matchup also equally good at the other matchup." If mainly his skill set sets him apart, and it's not a skill specific to PvZ, then it fails to explain his PvZ winrate, since it doesn't also explain his winrate in the other two matchups. You haven't pointed to a PvZ-specific skill, but instead to multi-tasking. Such a skill is roughly equally useful in every protoss matchup. The argument doesn't work. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On July 16 2022 03:43 TMNT wrote: I don't know about Bisu understanding PvZ so much more than other Protosses that even after looking at the replays or playing in the same team with him or talking with him that it didn't even shed some light on the others. Don't you think as a very top player you'd want to tell nobody at all about some of the keys of your plays in some match up? It's the only way to ensure the opponents don't know for sure how you approach the match up and etc. | ||
|
TMNT
3102 Posts
On July 16 2022 04:17 Magic Powers wrote: Alright, I've added the remaining names from the list, and now the stats went from this: Terran: 44 (31.4%) Zerg: 58 (41.4%) Protoss: 38 (27.1%) To this: Terran: 117 (31%) Zerg: 148 (40.5%) Protoss: 104 (28.5%) I'll also note that I recognize almost 100% of the players' usernames from the Kespa era. This is not a list including post-Kespa girl streamers or anything of that sort. (almost) every single one of these players is a legit competitor. The conclusion remains the same. Protoss is underrepresented, which explains why a severe underrepresentation of protoss players has been observed in the individual leagues, which would obviously lead to fewer titles won. Especially when noting the observed Kespa era ZvP winrate of ~54%, it makes even more sense that the smaller pool of protoss players would end up winning a lot fewer titles. I don't see how my argument lacks validity in any reasonable sense. You can choose to keep believing in ZvP imbalance, but the data is undeniably biased against protoss. First of all, this way of reasoning is fundamentally wrong. The bold part is only true if you consider every single player entering the competition is equally good and has the same chance of winning. You can add 100 another Britneys to the Protoss list and it'd increase 0 title for the race. As always, correlation doesn't imply causation. Using your way of thinking, I can explain the reason Asian teams have never won a world cup is under-representation. I hope now you can see the flaw in your logic. Secondly, this data is too raw. I performed the same filter that you probably did and got those numbers too - but this is literally a list of players who have an entry on liquipedia, regardless of era and level. Many have never played an "SL", and I still see some female BJs there. You might as well pull the player pool from ladder (in that case, Protoss overrepresenting at 50%). And the opposite also applies: there are progamers who played OSL/MSL who still don't have a liquipedia entry. A better approach would be to count the number of players for each race in each SL, but I doubt any of us have time to do that. But then again, even if you find an under-representation of Protoss, it goes back to point one. And tbh, I think if Protoss is under-represented at SLs, it actually supports the argument that Protoss is the worst race at the top level. You know why? Because a bigger proportion of them was wiped off in the qualifiers already. It also agrees with the fact that Protoss players account for like 50% of the ladder pool, but only like 40% in S rank. | ||
|
TMNT
3102 Posts
- P is the least successful race in Starleagues (all of them). See picture above. - There is no Protoss bonjwa - KCM created a league where the 3 races compete directly with each other. No mirrors. Only top players were selected to play (like, players in the top 5 of each race). Sometimes there were the odd appearances of a weaker player (like top 10/15), but it's for all 3, not just P. The result: after 20 seasons, P is the worst, by a HUGE margin. For me this is the strongest evidence. - Sponbbang: since the Afreeca era, results of thousands of games from every active player were recorded. And again, PvZ and PvT win rate are all less than 50% (both around 45% I think, which is really significant given the sample size is tremendous). - There is the data that shows P represents ~50% of the players on the ladder but only ~40% in S rank. (There is also the gameplay aspect. But let's not go down to that nightmare path) The thing is, with that many evidences, over that long of time, and that big of sample size, all pointing towards it. P is the worst race is the most likely explanation than any other theories. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28727 Posts
On July 16 2022 04:17 Magic Powers wrote: Alright, I've added the remaining names from the list, and now the stats went from this: Terran: 44 (31.4%) Zerg: 58 (41.4%) Protoss: 38 (27.1%) To this: Terran: 117 (31%) Zerg: 148 (40.5%) Protoss: 104 (28.5%) I'll also note that I recognize almost 100% of the players' usernames from the Kespa era. This is not a list including post-Kespa girl streamers or anything of that sort. (almost) every single one of these players is a legit competitor. The conclusion remains the same. Protoss is underrepresented, which explains why a severe underrepresentation of protoss players has been observed in the individual leagues, which would obviously lead to fewer titles won. Especially when noting the observed Kespa era ZvP winrate of ~54%, it makes even more sense that the smaller pool of protoss players would end up winning a lot fewer titles. I don't see how my argument lacks validity in any reasonable sense. You can choose to keep believing in ZvP imbalance, but the data is undeniably biased against protoss. You're citing a ZvP winrate of 54% in a post where you're arguing against ZvP imbalance? Nobody (reasonable) is claiming that the imbalance is insurmountable or whatever, certain players excel at PvZ (making them better at PvZ than they are at PvT or PvP), certain map designs favor P over Z, but overall, across most top players and across most maps the imbalance exists, and it manifests through Zerg winning roughly 54% of the time instead of the 50% they'd win if it was entirely balanced. https://sponbbang.com/race/ is a massive database of matches between progamers. Over slightly short of 43000 games of PvZ, we're left with these stats: 23087 wins for Zerg, 19577 wins for protoss, giving an overall win% of 54.1% for Zerg. (TvP is 20434 - 18319 - 52.7% win for terran, TvZ is 26581 - 21165, 55.7% win for terran. Terran has an overall win rate of 54.4%, Protoss has an overall win rate of 46.5%, Zerg has an overall win rate of 48.9%) | ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2298 Posts
https://sponbbang.com/race/ is a massive database of matches between progamers. Over slightly short of 43000 games of PvZ, we're left with these stats: 23087 wins for Zerg, 19577 wins for protoss, giving an overall win% of 54.1% for Zerg.  | ||
|
Avi-Love
Denmark423 Posts
All around terrible thread, the original post should have been locked instantly, the quality and 'discussion' it hoped to spark were doomed from the get go. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10012 Posts
edit: cap | ||
|
angryground
60 Posts
| ||
|
M3t4PhYzX
Poland4228 Posts
On July 16 2022 14:04 TT1 wrote: The Man has spoken edit: cap fr fr? | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On July 16 2022 06:27 TMNT wrote: First of all, this way of reasoning is fundamentally wrong. The bold part is only true if you consider every single player entering the competition is equally good and has the same chance of winning. You can add 100 another Britneys to the Protoss list and it'd increase 0 title for the race. As always, correlation doesn't imply causation. Using your way of thinking, I can explain the reason Asian teams have never won a world cup is under-representation. I hope now you can see the flaw in your logic. Secondly, this data is too raw. I performed the same filter that you probably did and got those numbers too - but this is literally a list of players who have an entry on liquipedia, regardless of era and level. Many have never played an "SL", and I still see some female BJs there. You might as well pull the player pool from ladder (in that case, Protoss overrepresenting at 50%). And the opposite also applies: there are progamers who played OSL/MSL who still don't have a liquipedia entry. A better approach would be to count the number of players for each race in each SL, but I doubt any of us have time to do that. But then again, even if you find an under-representation of Protoss, it goes back to point one. And tbh, I think if Protoss is under-represented at SLs, it actually supports the argument that Protoss is the worst race at the top level. You know why? Because a bigger proportion of them was wiped off in the qualifiers already. It also agrees with the fact that Protoss players account for like 50% of the ladder pool, but only like 40% in S rank. Your claim (bold part) is wrong. To illustrate this, if you have a field of 16 players which consists of 15 A and 1 B, with both A and B having a 50% winrate, the odds of winning a single-elimination tournament are 6.25% for B. If you even out the number of A and B to 8 each, the odds of winning are 50% for both A and B. So you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the representation of a race affects overall win probability in a tournament. In regards to the observed 54% ZvP winrate, people are using it as a gotcha, but this is fallacious. An observed winrate does not necessarily tell us something about balance. The reason is that the demonstration of skill in a given player pool is dependent on their knowledge of the game. As every veteran SC player knows, Bisu revolutionized PvZ back in 2007 or so. Without his findings, the ZvP winrate would likely be significantly >54% (for example it could be 57%). Demonstration of skill, even in a very large player pool over a large sample of games, is therefore not a perfect indicator of balance, because with hindsight we know that a 57% ZvP winrate would absolutely have to be a false representation of the true balance of the matchup. The same can (not must) therefore also be true for the 54% winrate. And since it's 4% removed from perfect balance, that means not too much improvement would be required to achieve a level of balance that is acceptable. Not only that, but the observed TvZ winrate favors terran almost to the exact same degree (~54%), but I don't hear zerg players complain about it. (And my suspicion why zerg players aren't complaining is that, due to their historic overrepresentation in tournaments, they've had their fair share of titles, unlike protoss) | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On July 16 2022 13:31 Avi-Love wrote: In this thread: People looking to balance whine to make up for their own short comings, people incapable of analyzing data, someone that thinks the kespa era is still the pinnacle of bw (and still relevant) and lastly only a couple of genuinely unbiased and reasonable people. All around terrible thread, the original post should have been locked instantly, the quality and 'discussion' it hoped to spark were doomed from the get go. Most people regard the years leading up to and including 2012 the most competitive era, because that's when the trio of Flash/JD/Bisu was dominating the scene. That era is almost always mentioned first. Today's standard of games is quite significantly lower, albeit still at a very high level. | ||
|
Rainalcar
Croatia422 Posts
On July 16 2022 16:15 Magic Powers wrote: In regards to the observed 54% ZvP winrate, people are using it as a gotcha, but this is fallacious. An observed winrate does not necessarily tell us something about balance. The reason is that the demonstration of skill in a given player pool is dependent on their knowledge of the game. As every veteran SC player knows, Bisu revolutionized PvZ back in 2007 or so. Without his findings, the ZvP winrate would likely be significantly >54% (for example it could be 57%). Demonstration of skill, even in a very large player pool over a large sample of games, is therefore not a perfect indicator of balance, because with hindsight we know that a 57% ZvP winrate would absolutely have to be a false representation of the true balance of the matchup. The same can (not must) therefore also be true for the 54% winrate. And since it's 4% removed from perfect balance, that means not too much improvement would be required to achieve a level of balance that is acceptable. This goes both ways. It could be the case that a demonstration of skill hasn't fully happened on the Z side, and the actual bslsnce is > 54%. This is all about what if. What really matters is what we witness, and historically, P is miles behind in terns of success. | ||
|
Magic Powers
Austria4478 Posts
On July 16 2022 17:19 Rainalcar wrote: This goes both ways. It could be the case that a demonstration of skill hasn't fully happened on the Z side, and the actual bslsnce is > 54%. This is all about what if. What really matters is what we witness, and historically, P is miles behind in terns of success. Yes, of course it could be the other way around, too. Maybe zerg is underperforming. That's why I'm not making the claim that PvZ is in fact balanced, but only denying that the evidence for imbalance is sufficient. The winrate of a population can definitely be off by a few %, because there are still biases. And pointing to titles is among the worst ways of proving imbalance. Chess is actually one of the best examples that proves that population performance (even at the top level) is not indicative of game balance. It's almost universally accepted that every perfectly played game of chess will end in a draw. However, that's not what we observe. The top players regularly win and lose games at a very high rate. This shows that observed winrates don't reflect the true potential. Even the world's best engines (performing at upwards of 3800 ELO) are unable to draw every single game. In SC:R, we don't even have any engines that could help us improve our understanding, so the expectation is that we win or lose a lot more games than what could be the case. | ||
| ||
Players/Full Players List![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/phGlO68.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/SdTJBmR.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/uGAOWNP.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wewkyas.png)
