EPTMore proof that BeSt's PvP is the greatest of all time.
All-time Elo ratings by matchup - Page 3
| Forum Index > BW General |
JWD
United States12607 Posts
More proof that BeSt's PvP is the greatest of all time. | ||
|
EtherealDeath
United States8366 Posts
On another note, what's up with Flash's TvZ? | ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
Would have edited this in rather than posting again, but I'm getting some kind of weird bug  | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On July 09 2008 23:06 oneofthem wrote: his point is not about absolute strength but relative dominance. Well, given that the system forces the rating of new players to 2000.0, and given that the average strength of a new player keeps increasing, the system is a better measure of absolute strength than relative, so we should expect player's peaks to be higher in the modern era. Although I'm not enough of an expert on these systems to say for certain what the balance between relative vs. absolute measurement is for this particular implementation. | ||
]343[
United States10328 Posts
| ||
|
JWD
United States12607 Posts
On July 10 2008 01:30 ]343[ wrote: This is cool! However, the TLPD sadly doesn't contain every game played in proleagues/starleagues/other competitions... so it could be slightly off :/ I'm almost positive TLPD contains every KeSPA-sanctioned game ever, and all games from major tourneys prior to the existence of KeSPA. | ||
|
LucasWoJ
United States936 Posts
I completely agree with the ELO peaks and it definitely reflects what I thought to be accurate. During Jaedong's great ZvT stretch, I reflected on how good he was relative to oov's peak and I decided that he was probably even with ovv. There was never any doubt about Savior being the #1 ZvP'er in the world at any stage. No one was as dominant as he was. | ||
|
InfeSteD
United States4658 Posts
 Sea's playhe is basically: #2(almost 1) TvT #3 TvZ #5 TvP wow ;o! and iloveoov's picture below is just ridiculous!this is his TvZ in his prime ![[image loading]](http://img299.imageshack.us/img299/9789/oovhe7.jpg) | ||
|
TheTyranid
Russian Federation4333 Posts
What place is he? | ||
|
No_eL
Chile1438 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On July 10 2008 03:19 TheTyranid wrote: Casy not in the TvZ rankings? Wierd. What place is he? 14th. It's a little surprising but there are a lot of good TvZ players and as far as I remember Casy was known more for his excellent M&M micro than for being super-dominant in the matchup altogether. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
If ELO compared relative dominance, then Boxer's ELO peak would be for sure top 10. Instead he is 22nd. He amassed 4 medals -- 3 gold -- with a truly awesome win record of 70% within his first 14 months as a progamer. He won with greater frequency than Flash (68% in his first 14 months) against the best of his era, but the difference in ELO is not even close. Oov had to win close to 80% for his first year in order to get close to Flash's ELO peak. Nada experienced peak ELO in IOPS, long after his skill had peaked. Player deflation is not a problem because 1. players tend to retire below 2000, 2. when good players crash they tend to struggle to ever get back up again. If you look at current ELO ratings for past champions, you find: Xellos - 2026 Ra - 2003 ggplay - 2058 casy - 1991 ...etc When a player falls from the top, the points they had gained get recycled back into the system. Meanwhile, points from players who are leaving at ELO below 2000 get permanently added to the system. Unlike in chess, dominance in Starcraft is short-lived, so ELO ratings change rapidly and new blood is cycled through very quickly. 2. A serious problem with ELO is that it assumes that you only win if you are the better player in absolute skill, but in Starcraft a lot depends on the map you play on and your playing style compared to your opponent's, not to mention luck. Having the right set of builds for the maps you play and/or facing off against the right set of opponents (your best match-up, styles you easily counter, etc) can lead to a string of victories that you wouldn't necessarily achieve on other maps or against other players. It's not that I don't appreciate your work. This is very interesting stuff and there is currently no way better than ELO to compare peak performance. But in the end, I think stats if used correctly give a more coherant picture since you can break things down to examine trends as well as specializations in maps and match-ups and styles. ELO cxannot tell you things like Oov > Nada > Xellos > Oov, which fans observed to be the case back around 2004. The ELO just gives one the highest peak. But if we consider a system of only those 3 gamers and hypotehtically assume that they win perfectly against the player they beat (Oov 100% vs nada, nada 100% vs xellos, xellos 100% vs oov), then the player who will achieve highest ELO would be the player who has the highest ration of games played against the person they beat relative to the number of games against the person who beats them. In this system where clearly no one is the best, a best is assigned. So while the stats may not be as absolute in terms of player ranking, the ELO ratings which do give us that also come with potentially serious flaws that CANNOT be unravelled. | ||
|
0z
Luxembourg877 Posts
On July 10 2008 02:37 InfeSteD[rA] wrote: These rankings explaing everything about Sea's playhe is basically: #2(almost 1) TvT #3 TvZ #5 TvP wow ;o! and iloveoov's picture below is just ridiculous!this is his TvZ in his prime wait, so oov won his FIRST 27 vsZ's ..oO | ||
|
ForAdun
Germany986 Posts
| ||
|
raga4ka
Bulgaria5679 Posts
| ||
|
trollbone
France1905 Posts
| ||
|
UnS)DeathTrap
Canada150 Posts
| ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On July 10 2008 01:12 EtherealDeath wrote: Dang Best is already the best PvPer ever. But I guess that is expected from someone who goes 23-5 these days....damn. Makes me wish that July had lost to Backho so Best could pump his elo up even higher :-P On another note, what's up with Flash's TvZ? Flash has always been good in TvZ, but never as dominant as other terrans have been. He's lost 3 of 5 series in the MSL/OSL in which he's played zergs. Bo3: Rumble - win, 2-0 Jaedong - win, 2-1 Luxury - loss, 0-2 Bo5: GGPlay - loss, 3-2 Jaedong - loss, 3-1 Mainly because of game trading with Jaedong, he really hasn't been able to get on any kind of streak. Meanwhile, Jaedong continued to win vT after winning the MSL and losing to Flash in the other leagues (plus he had streaks of 13 and 8, and was 33-8 ZvT for the 8 months before that). | ||
|
QibingZero
2611 Posts
On July 10 2008 21:59 UnS)DeathTrap wrote: something to notice is the good position of nal_ra in all rankings I was glad to see a few posts expressing that sentiment in this thread. Kang Min's position on these lists should spark quite a bit of attention from some of the more oblivious folk around here, too. The PvZ rankings especially seem to reflect reality, as Bisu is the only protoss I've seen that could handle zergs better than rA (albeit in a different and less dramatic fashion). It's especially noticeable that rA is so high on all the lists simply because he is among the old school gamers out there. An earlier posted noted how much harder it was for the older players like Boxer to get a high ELO. It's a shame he never got the respect he deserved on the power ranking. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1734 Posts
On July 10 2008 17:03 Mortality wrote: Player deflation is not a problem because 1. players tend to retire below 2000, 2. when good players crash they tend to struggle to ever get back up again. If you look at current ELO ratings for past champions, you find: Xellos - 2026 Ra - 2003 ggplay - 2058 casy - 1991 ...etc When a player falls from the top, the points they had gained get recycled back into the system. Meanwhile, points from players who are leaving at ELO below 2000 get permanently added to the system. Unlike in chess, dominance in Starcraft is short-lived, so ELO ratings change rapidly and new blood is cycled through very quickly. As the Wiki link I posted shows, there can still be deflation even in this situation, because more points are not injected into the system when players get better over time - the average for new players stays at 2000 even though new players are much better now than then. This may very well be more significant than the retirement effect. But it's true that it's hard to say exactly how much the system is inflated/deflated. 2. A serious problem with ELO is that it assumes that you only win if you are the better player in absolute skill, but in Starcraft a lot depends on the map you play on and your playing style compared to your opponent's, not to mention luck. Having the right set of builds for the maps you play and/or facing off against the right set of opponents (your best match-up, styles you easily counter, etc) can lead to a string of victories that you wouldn't necessarily achieve on other maps or against other players. Yes, this is an issue, as maps can have a big impact on balance. To get ideal accuracy, you'd actually want ratings for every matchup on every map, but unfortunately there isn't a large enough sample size - typically a player will only ever play a few games in a given matchup on a given map. ELO cxannot tell you things like Oov > Nada > Xellos > Oov, which fans observed to be the case back around 2004. The ELO just gives one the highest peak. But if we consider a system of only those 3 gamers and hypotehtically assume that they win perfectly against the player they beat (Oov 100% vs nada, nada 100% vs xellos, xellos 100% vs oov), then the player who will achieve highest ELO would be the player who has the highest ration of games played against the person they beat relative to the number of games against the person who beats them. In this system where clearly no one is the best, a best is assigned. So while the stats may not be as absolute in terms of player ranking, the ELO ratings which do give us that also come with potentially serious flaws that CANNOT be unravelled. Yes, the system does assume that skill is transitive (ie if a>b and b>c then a>c) and therefore doesn't directly account for circles like this. However, I don't think this is a particularly common situation over long time periods or for large numbers of games and therefore hopefully it doesn't have too much effect. You're right that it's possible for fans to observe trends that no simple numerical system can capture, but the Elo system does have the advantage of being consistent and unbiased. | ||
| ||
