EPT[SC2B] View From the Top - Page 4
| Forum Index > News |
GHOSTCLAW
United States17042 Posts
| ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
| ||
|
skummi
Denmark5 Posts
| ||
|
zazen
Brazil695 Posts
Very nice article, thanks a lot. | ||
|
Essence
165 Posts
On March 18 2010 12:22 dhasenan wrote: A PvP match will always count as a Protoss victory. Likewise with TvT and ZvZ. So we expect the average win rate for each race to be 50% + 0.5 * percentage of people playing that race. For example, if only 10% of people played Zerg, we'd expect a 55% win rate for Zergs, if everything were perfectly balanced and Zerg players were equally skilled in comparison with their Terran and Protoss counterparts. Wrong, because it also counts as a loss. So in this example, where we examine the win rate of the top players, the more players play a given race, the the lower the winrate of that race will appear to be. E.g.: Protoss has a 70% winrate in PvZ and PvT but half the games they play is PvP, the overall Protoss winrate will appear as 60%. Since balance issues exist in non-mirror MUs, the more interesting numbers to look at are the winrate of top players' in these MU's. Given how there are less Terran players in the selected player pool, and assuming each MU is played as frequently as the total number of players suggest (E.g.: if we have a total of 35% Protoss and 9% random, then PvP is played 38% of the times by a P player) then the difference between the Terran win rate and the P/Z winrates is bigger than what these numbers show, but still not significantly, and it is hard to point out the exact reasons behind that, and if it has anything to do with balance issues. | ||
|
Roffles
Pitcairn19291 Posts
Interesting stats, but the lack of something in the intro was disappointing. =( | ||
|
Sosseres
Sweden41 Posts
On March 19 2010 03:09 GHOSTCLAW wrote: about the reigon thing - it seems like if we (teamliquid+people interested in competitive gaming, or people who are competitive) are faced with the choice between not being able to play with people on different continents, or needing to have 3 separate copies of sc2, most of us will buy 3 copies. We won't be happy about it, but blizzard will probably be okay with it. Hmm that is interesting, would you always want to play on the neutral server? If you don't always want to do that then there is no reason to own more than 1/2 copies depending on which server you decide is the competitive/friends server. You could even go so far as always play on the US server if that is the main server, even if you live in EU/Asia in order to get used to the latency issues. | ||
Heyoka
Katowice25012 Posts
On March 19 2010 00:24 Commodore wrote: This is a point on which I disagree with this article and the one titled "Battle.net - 1 Step Forward, 2.0 Steps Back." I don't have a beta key, but from what I've read, there's one thing that Battle.net 2.0 does very well. Moreover, as I will explain, this is really the only thing that matters. It puts you up against opponents of the same skill level after only 10 games. From experience, I can say that Iccup does a horrible job at this, especially at the D level. Furthermore, it's very frustrating and time consuming to find a game on Iccup, especially if you're behind a firewall. What Battle.net 2.0 doesn't do is provide you with a rank. But this isn't really the point, right? Battle.net 2.0 is a place to practice and have fun, and all that you need for practice is a good practice partner. Battle.net 2.0 does a good job of pairing you with one. Tournaments should provide plenty of opportunities for ranking in SC2. Aren't tournament rankings much more meaningful than Iccup rankings anyway? I do have a key and don't really agree with this - I find it still matches you up with people who are much better or worse (I would say so far it feels like WC3 AMM to me). HOWEVER, because its still beta with a much smaller player population there is no way anyone can make a final call on their matchmaking yet. The algorithms have come a long way in the past few years and this is probably an area the game will excel at. On March 19 2010 06:39 Roffles wrote: Hey hey heyoka. I'm disappointed, and you know why. I've been pumped for your articles ever since you hyped them, but once I read the intro and didn't see anything, I was totally let down. Interesting stats, but the lack of something in the intro was disappointing. =( hey mister that was for my upcoming proleague coverage, I wrote this days before I made that call On March 19 2010 02:10 chichom27 wrote: Personally, yes, there needs to be a way to play against people from different servers. As many people have said, Blizzard is thinking of implementing this post launch. But this is just a feature that will mostly fill in the need for friends across different continents to play with each other. Someone mentioned something of creating custom leagues. I don't know anything on the subject but I feel that would be fantastic. If it would allow the creation of a TSL for SC2, I don't think we could ask for more when it comes to features that support competitive play. But let's take a step back and take a look at the current setup. Being divided into different divisions and servers, well, I think it is a good thing. When I think of this I think of one of the biggest international sports: Soccer. Soccer world wide tournaments are arranged to specifically seed teams from different regions into one big world tournament. This holds true for national selections, and individual clubs ('08 club final was between Manchester United(England) vs Liga Universitaria de Quito(Ecuador)). Relating it back to SC2, I feel that being divided into regions will allow each region to develop their own quirks in gameplay and playstyle. Then top players of each region would bring their own personal styles, in addition to the regional styles into, say the world finals.I am not suggesting that strategies will vastly differ between regions, but there will definitely be differences. When it comes to dividing each league into different divisions, that will depend on the amount of players there are playing in each division. As the game currently is in beta, I imagine (please correct me if I'm wrong) the divisions are fairly small in relation to what they could possibly be once release hits. Another point of view that can be adopted is that from a viewer perspective. If divisions just randomly pop up to accommodate the population of the league, it would be hard to get spectators to have favorites. Divisions with more meaning behind them besides population could encourage a greater following. I'm not too big of basketball but I feel you can get a sense of that sort of following out of that sport. When you got big confrontations of east coast vs west coast for example. Imagine the regional finals of NA for example, and finally seeing starplayerA vs starplayerB finally duke it out, it might prove a little more epic than rank1player vs rank2player. TLDR: I feel divisions might be a good thing at the competitive level, but there has to be more meaning behind them besides to separate the population of a specific league. This is an interesting way to look at it, but I don't think it will be the case because we're talking about a smaller pool of active fans. Additionally, this is an internet based community where country lines matter to a much smaller extent (though I do agree think they matte to a degree). For actual ideology I do think a global community is much better for our 'sport' at this point in the game though, ESPORTS doesn't have nearly the fanbase yet to really support regional confrontations at the level I'd like for them to be. | ||
|
Erucious
Norway393 Posts
I do believe pairing into divisions is a good idea, in the sense that u actually feel that you are getting better/worse easily. Other than being #14500 one day, and a week later u are #14800 with no clue of knowing if theres 5 points difference in those places, or you just losing a lot. Currently, in WoW they have it fairly similar: divided into battlegroups (divisions). For tournament play, blizzard opens up a Tournament server for people to practice/play on, and get selected (say, top 16) for a real tournament. This tournament is then hosted again on a tournament realm, or a live-event with these people. Unsure, but it might be possible that they are going to do it this same way as in WoW. (Yay first post on TL!) | ||
|
bigjmachine
United States314 Posts
| ||
|
Metaspace
Austria670 Posts
Moreover, in times of increasing globalization, traditional concepts (like soccer leagues) are simply not fitting anymore - and even back then, they had flaws - you'd never see a club from Asia play one from Europe except a very few select ones during World Championship - much matchup diversity lost. To remain concrete, I myself regularly play with around a dozen people from all over the world, for years now, letting us to get to know each other in private, too. They have their own SC friends base, only partially overlapping with mine. The current concept of (many) separate servers would destroy these friendships. | ||
|
LaughingTulkas
United States1107 Posts
On March 19 2010 16:56 Metaspace wrote: I think a system like ICCup, with skill levels A to E in a global community is much more exiting for me than this segregation. How exactly is A/B/C/D/E different from Plat/Gold/Silver/Bronze/Copper? I mean, aside from it being a different naming that what you particularly are used to. Your score ranking is still comparable across different leagues. I just think they need some way to easily compare all people of one league, the divisions are a great way to allow people to feel a greater sense of achievement and also to seed tournaments. | ||
|
kyym
Germany13 Posts
| ||
|
NightmareX
New Zealand31 Posts
I'm Busting to get it like a 4 year old kid running to a candy shop Anyway...Cool Read. Very interesting! | ||
|
SwiftSpear
Canada355 Posts
| ||
|
crate
United States2474 Posts
On March 19 2010 08:23 heyoka wrote: I do have a key and don't really agree with this - I find it still matches you up with people who are much better or worse (I would say so far it feels like WC3 AMM to me). HOWEVER, because its still beta with a much smaller player population there is no way anyone can make a final call on their matchmaking yet. The algorithms have come a long way in the past few years and this is probably an area the game will excel at. The fact that it has AMM at all is a huge step up from a system like ICCUP (or SC's bnet) imo. From my experience as a D-level Zerg player in BW, I can say the skill variation at D level is ridiculous ... I'd have matches where I wonder how my opponent even stays at D level, and I'd have matches where I just get curbstomped without any hope ... even if you just look at my ZvT (which is 100% solid D level, something I can't necessarily say about my other matchups). | ||
|
SD-Spirit
Poland31 Posts
| ||
|
dextahr
United States47 Posts
| ||
|
us.insurgency
United States330 Posts
On March 18 2010 14:38 Depops wrote: I felt that with the release of the latest patch that this game is ready for launch. There are still some things I find annoying but it'll just take some getting used to and they're things that Blizzard aren't likely to change at this stage anyway. This might be a little of topic but i cant stand some of the voice animations, kerrigan drives me crazy. | ||
| ||
