[ASL21] Grand Finals - Page 49

On June 05 2026 04:43 FlaShFTW wrote:

Are Zergs winning because they are the best in the world, or are players the best in the world because they are Zergs?

On June 05 2026 14:43 FlaShFTW wrote:

ELOBoard is the defacto map tracker as the people on there track all the sponmatches, ASL, proleague, etc. It's extremely well kept and keeps very good stats.

Also, because FlaSh doesn't even play that much online like sponmatches or proleague, these stats aren't going to be influenced heavily by removing him. He's not like an online monster that's crushing everyone, so if you wanted to remove FlaSh's stats, you'd have to think about removing Soulkey and Snow's stats for their respective races too, as Snow is known for being an online beast.

10% either way is a massive swing. 55-45 is a very strong map for the favored side. To keep things balanced, the most optimal maps try to keep it within 53-47 or 52-48. Maps like Radeon succeed here, and plenty of 2p and 3p maps which keep it in line for every single matchup.

You're looking at extremely small sample sizes based on individual tournaments, which we cannot derive any meaningful data from. Pole Star on ELOBoard has a TZ winrate of 862-601 or 58.9% Terran favored. Why would I use a few games from an isolated tournament compared to 1500 games played? This reasoning doesn't make any sense.

Look at the sample size. It's massive for the most played maps. Of course new maps like Octagon and Attitude will have lower sample sizes, but we've established a pattern as well of consistent trends with rotational symmetry 4p maps. It's all there mate. But there's no reason to be "controlling for the various variables" because all the variables work both ways. Better Terrans play weaker Zergs, and better Zergs play weaker Terrans. If you're going to try to argue against tens of thousands of games and a historical pattern since these stats have been getting tracked, you're going to need to put up a better argument than wasting people's time saying you need to look at every single individual game lol. But sure, be my guest, make it a little side project for you.

On June 05 2026 22:25 TMNT wrote:
When we say a map pool is Terran favored it pretty much means the maps are made so TvP becomes easier. TvZ doesn't need to be touched. It automatically is T favored in most cases unless you significantly change the base layout or introduce some crazy map features.

They achieved that this season essentially just by throwing Octagon and Attitude into the pool - the two maps so boring and uninspiring, which are just some variations of Polypoid but modified in a way to make the 3rd 4th and 5th base even easier to be acquired for Terran.

Then the two maps which are supposedly not Terran favored, but at worst are still balanced for them, Sylphid and Matchpoint, are brought back so that Terran doesn't have to take time to "figure out" the map.

On June 05 2026 17:33 Biff The Understudy wrote:

I mean it’s a hard question, but it seems to me that, say, the top zergs like Soulkey, Soma, Effort, Jaedong, would all be favored in a bo7 against Light, who is an absolute tvz monster at that point. I am not sure that “imbalanced” map pool has solved that at all.

I might absolutely be wrong, I have a childish bias for terrans so I’m happy to be proven wrong.

On June 05 2026 14:43 FlaShFTW wrote:

ELOBoard is the defacto map tracker as the people on there track all the sponmatches, ASL, proleague, etc. It's extremely well kept and keeps very good stats.

Also, because FlaSh doesn't even play that much online like sponmatches or proleague, these stats aren't going to be influenced heavily by removing him. He's not like an online monster that's crushing everyone, so if you wanted to remove FlaSh's stats, you'd have to think about removing Soulkey and Snow's stats for their respective races too, as Snow is known for being an online beast.

10% either way is a massive swing. 55-45 is a very strong map for the favored side. To keep things balanced, the most optimal maps try to keep it within 53-47 or 52-48. Maps like Radeon succeed here, and plenty of 2p and 3p maps which keep it in line for every single matchup.

You're looking at extremely small sample sizes based on individual tournaments, which we cannot derive any meaningful data from. Pole Star on ELOBoard has a TZ winrate of 862-601 or 58.9% Terran favored. Why would I use a few games from an isolated tournament compared to 1500 games played? This reasoning doesn't make any sense.

Look at the sample size. It's massive for the most played maps. Of course new maps like Octagon and Attitude will have lower sample sizes, but we've established a pattern as well of consistent trends with rotational symmetry 4p maps. It's all there mate. But there's no reason to be "controlling for the various variables" because all the variables work both ways. Better Terrans play weaker Zergs, and better Zergs play weaker Terrans. If you're going to try to argue against tens of thousands of games and a historical pattern since these stats have been getting tracked, you're going to need to put up a better argument than wasting people's time saying you need to look at every single individual game lol. But sure, be my guest, make it a little side project for you.

But skill is the only variable that matters in BW. Without it in mind, you get a league of legends situation where they try to balance for shitty players who are playing wrong rather than letting them naturally learn how to play properly. You have to work with the smaller sample sizes for major tournaments because that should be when people are both in top form, playing well and approaching it very seriously, otherwise you start introducing other variables, other problems. And that's why the margin of error is so high. For 862+601 games, who are you looking at? Ladder players with a bar code? Up and coming pro players? We all know there is such a massive gap between qualifier players for the ASL and ASL regulars.

If PoleStar is such a Terran favored map, one begs the question why Terrans couldn't win a game on it the previous two ASL seasons.

If there's a clear bias or favoritism in the maps, you would expect it to manifest constantly or consistently.

What we need, for a statistics alone approach, is tracked by build (roughly). Or broken down by meta (year?) and filtered through versions.

This is always the problem with statistics. Terrans would have a much lower winrate on average if they all suddenly decided to 14CC vs Z.

But if you're suggesting that what happened in the individual games don't matter then there is a massive hole in your position here.

On June 05 2026 22:48 Xenixx wrote:


And th For 862+601 games, who are you looking at? Ladder players with a bar code? Up and coming pro players? We all know there is such a massive gap between qualifier players for the ASL and ASL regulars.

If PoleStar is such a Terran favored map, one begs the question why Terrans couldn't win a game on it the previous two ASL seasons. If there's a clear bias or favoritism in the maps, you would expect it to manifest constantly or consistently. What we need, for a statistics alone approach, is tracked by build (roughly). Or broken down by meta (year?) and filtered through versions.

This is always the problem with statistics. Terrans would have a much lower winrate on average if they all suddenly decided to 14CC vs Z. But if you're suggesting that what happened in the individual games don't matter then there is a massive hole in your position here.

What we need, for a statistics alone approach, is tracked by build (roughly). Or broken down by meta (year?) and filtered through versions.

no we don't need this at all, nor is it useful

This is always the problem with statistics. Terrans would have a much lower winrate on average if they all suddenly decided to 14CC vs Z.

But if you're suggesting that what happened in the individual games don't matter then there is a massive hole in your position here.

look up anecdotical evidence, again. a counterexample to the trend shown in a distribution does not refute or falsify it. on average, men are stronger than women. still, there are some women, who are stronger than some men. both can be true.

0%, 16.7% and 20% for TvZ in three consecutive seasons on PoleStar

On June 06 2026 02:09 Kraekkling wrote:
anecdotal evidence does not imply that *you* were the one playing.

any isolated observation from the data is anecdotal evidence.

the data for PoleStar are the 1400 games on elooard.


thus, this is anecdotal evidence

On June 05 2026 23:54 RJBTVYOUTUBE wrote:


You seem to misunderstand the data requirements/qualifications for Eloboard documentatoon/data inclusion.

1). can not be ladder
2). has to be livestreamed by both players if NOT an official tournament that broascasts/live streams it.
3). has to involve money, either from both players, from viewers, from tournament organizers, from sponsor organizations.

If a game does not meet the above requirements, the game will NOT be documented on Eloboard and NOT be included in the data set.

In addition, the skill difference between sometimes ASL qualified players, to ASL regulars, is much smaller than assumed.

About sample size: In small sample sizes variance in single data entries have a much greater effect on the total outcome of all entries due to the individual entry representing a larger percentage of the whole data set. 1/20 = 5% whereas 1/200 = 0.5%. Going by this fundamental aspect we get more reliable data intepretation the larger the number of entries in a data set is, because of replicability across similar data entries. This accounts for build order variance too.

If we have 10 games with 14cc vs zerg and the outcome is 60% win for zerg, we are forced to look at each individual game due variance in in-game actions and events having a much greater impact on the outcome. But if 14cc vs zerg has 56% over 100 games, we come much closer to the actual average outcome of the build order. And if we get to 55% at 1000 then that is the most likely most accurate representation.

On June 06 2026 02:22 Xenixx wrote:


That's fine, I'm not familiar with eloboard and never used it, but a lot of you are under the very mistaken idea(s) that you always get a representative sample size and that a statistic itself is inherently flawless. You very often don't, especially when you're not commissioning a study. You're quoting too much classroom statistics, not how it's often used in the real world. I understand the desire to want to use it like that but we do have limitations. And you have to work with what you have available.

One of the obvious variables here is including Proleague vs ASL. These are two very different competitions. Different format, often different players, different rules. Players often approach them differently than a prep-tournament, I know I did when I played this game back in the day.

I hold ASL players, especially past the Ro24, the top players, in far higher regard than anything else.

I don't see how any of that is unreasonable.

The question I'm sort of posing is what is more important for the topic of map balance, how the actual game(s) themselves were played or a compiled statistic of all games played without controlling for any variables. And if you're of the latter mindset then we will just have to agree to disagree but you are dead wrong if you think I'm the one misusing or misrepresenting the stats. I have a degree related to this and decades of experience in collection, analysis and compilation. I'm starting to resent the insinuation that you know more about this than I do when you're all making basic mistakes.