|
[SC2B] View From the Top
March 18th, 2010 02:48 GMT
Hello, sports fans! It's time once again for the favorite pastime of the TL stat desk - to comb through spreadsheets and see if anything noteworthy pops up. With a new game comes 5new opportunities to look at numbers and convince ourselves they have meaning.
I wanted to answer basic questions like what the race breakdown is among players are at the top, and how it compares across servers. Player rankings is not public yet, but I was able to scrap together a mostly-whole picture thanks to some recent threads. I slapped it all into a spreadsheet and wrote a nice script that tallies up the availible statistics from the top users. The roundups I have seen so far seem to focus on the leader of each division, which is a little shortsighted as the top few ranks shift around frequently (excluding some people who are #1 by several hundred points). To get a more complete look at the 'top player' population as a whole, I made the cutoff the top 8 for each platinum division.
Keep in mind that this data is now a few days old and will not reflect current standings perfectly (data from March 9th). It is also important to note that the sample consists of the first 8 divisions in Asia, the first 13 in Europe, and the first 16 in the US, despite some of these having more divisions. I don't consider the other divisions mature enough to matter yet, as a lot of them have people in the top 8 who still have ratings of 1000.
Finally, before I begin, I'd like to emphasize that this is meant to be fun to look at; how you interpret the data is up to you.
Not all add up to 100% due to rounding This is a good starting point, it is the racial breakdown for each beta server. Protoss is definitely dominating the top of the ladder right now, but I suspect it is because toss was considered (and probably was) the best race to begin with, and we will see them lose ground in the coming weeks. It looks to me intuitively that the later created divisions have more non-protoss but I didn't run any hard analysis in these divisions.
It's interesting that US has a higher ratio of random players, but it is doubtful that it is telling of anything.
Here are the real meat and potatoes. It is pretty cool how close everything is, with most things hovering right around 63%. Nothing stands out in any big way, but there are a couple of spots that are worth mentioning.
USA seems to be the home to the best tosses, as their winrate is both higher than other races' within their region and also higher than other protoss players' in other regions. It seems that iNcontroL and IdrA's choice to pledge their allegiance to Aiur has swayed the statistics for their entire country (Smuft playing 450 games with nearly 80% of them won certainly doesn't hurt). The beginning of a new era? Only those from the future can know for sure.
In contrast, Asian zergs are the ones who appear to truly know what is what. Maybe they discovered some tricks with mutas tuat we don't have overseas yet, maybe they have a strong lineage of amateur zergs who are giving up on BW to follow their dreams in a new game. Maybe the real reason MuMyung is off SKT is because he is training a team of zergs in an underground sweatshop preparing for a conflict with North Korea. I don't have enough information to say, but it might be worth investigating.
Interestingly, Asia has the biggest disparity between races. It's the only server where the difference between their best race and worst race is nearly 10 points. With a huge percent of their highly ranked players choosing toss, it might just mean that ZvT hasn't quite been fleshed out or that zergs are really good at ZvP and terrans are overly bad at TvP.
Asia also has the lowest overall percentage, which I'd like to think confirms the common wisdom that in Asia the casual players aren't that much worse than the serious amateurs. Still, it's difficult to say with the limited sample size available.
The highest winrate in Europe is random, which is pretty cool, but as there are only 5 players sporting the R icon it means that the two of them who are performing the best (ret and MinD have about 75% ratios) go a long way towards bringing up the average.
All in all, I'd wager Blizzard has a more accurate way of quantifying this, and they are pretty pleased with the results. It is very impressive to achieve such symmetry within the top echelon of a game in the early stages of beta.
This is almost the same thing, but it shows us how the mystery point system rates the races/continents. Strangely enough, in Europe, the random players average a significantly lower point value than the other races, by over a hundred points (which seems significant but who knows with this system). Otherwise it's all rather even which I guess means the system is mostly working. We can say with confidence that the average "tournament qualifier" (as it is called in the interface) currently has 1700 points or more, isn't that neat?!
One last thing to mention is an incredible feat.
The player with the most games is Hyo of Asia with 845. This is especially impressive considering the numbers I'm working with from Asia are from about a day before EU/US. The highest on EU is Desis (788) while in the USA it is ReddoG (615).
Unsurprisingly, Asia as a whole seem to play more games. The average number of games played by a top player (those in the top 8) is a whopping 294 in Asia. With just under 3 weeks played, thats about 15 games a day which is no laughing matter. For comparison, the number in Europe is 246 and in US it's "only" 227. As HotBid put it:
HotBid: some of these asia server stats HotBid: 555-220 HotBid: THATS why asia is best server lol
Last week Yoren found something pretty cool by looking at the win-rates of the top players. His conclusion is that the pack is getting much narrower. Time will tell if that is a continuing trend or if the beta is settling and truly hitting its stride.
Overall, do these numbers say anything significant? Probably not, but they're interesting to look at and fun to speculate about. Realistically there are way too many variables to track, the game is changing on a weekly basis after all, as are the popular strategies, people's perspectives, their chosen race, and maybe even the matchmaking system.
There is, of course, a much more controversial issue regarding play at the top of the ladder. The new battle.net system has made us a lot of promises, but has fallen a bit short for the aspect of the game we all deeply love: the competitive circuit.
Hot Topic: Competitive Play Since the anouncement of SC2, Blizzard has told the world they are interested in keping the Brood War lineage alive by making its sequel the competitive RTS of the future. They went so far as to hire staff solely for the purpose of creating an internal e-sports (ahem-ESPORTS) team, which to my knowledge is an industry first. For the past year the talk has been vague promises about how the new battle.net system will blow all anything we currently have out of the water. With the advent of the beta, we have some concrete info and a taste of what is to come. Right now there are two areas of concern. Issue 1: No global rankings Its highly annoying that the best comparison any one player has is merely to the people in his division, and the aggregate number of points awarded or taken by the system is also dependant on the division itself. When broken into groups, the number of "what if" variables is absolutely huge. Sure there are 8 people in the who are 'on top', but how are we to compare anyone in one division to someone in another? Sure, we know some people are ahead of people in their divisions, but what does that tell us? What about people who are in the middle of their leagues? How can we tell how they would do against each other? In a serious competitive setting we absolutely need a way to compare any one player in a direct manner to another - something other than "is top 8 of his league" and "is not top 8 of his league". Its understandable to not want a gargantuan ladder ranking where people see themselves as ranked #14,678 in their region, but this division grouping doesn't cut it. Starcraft servers of the past have had a system of grade rankings, things like A through D which allows us to compare players of various skill levels quickly, easily, and without debate. A possible compromise would be to keep the division system, but make the points within each more straight forward. As of right now its not even possible to compare points across divisions, as the calculation takes into account relative levels of players within each grouping. Regardless, if SC2 wants to cater to the competitive circuit something of that calibur is a necessity. Issue 2: No cross-server capabilities Being able to compete with people around the world without hassle is one reason current BW is great. The recent twitter chat seems to say this is one feature that won't be available at launch. As GARIMTO said regarding the state of PvP, this is one step shy of a disaster. Being able to easily grab a 3v3 or 4v4 game will be an integral part of the game experience, this is one of the reasons the current scene is so tight knit across countries. With the community split between continents, not being able to do this effectively segregates the community. For tournaments this makes all kinds of competition essentially impossible. For people to play worldwide they would effectively need to own (and have installed) 3 separate copies of the game. Tournaments as of right now are a way to bring people together, TSL had participants from 13 countries fight on a level playing field to decide who is the best outside the Korean scene. It is not only annoying for players who want to know where they stand, but for viewers who want to see their favorite players duke it out mano-a-mano to find out who comes out on top. Satchel Paige never threw a ball to Babe Ruth, and to this day there is endless speculation on who would have won on the baseball diamond. This absolutely needs to be a capability of the game at launch. SC2 has a chance to fix one of our current problems in the BW community - that the Korean and Chinese scenes are outside the reach of anyone not living in those countries. The system in place right now is a bit of a step backwards, further dividing up communities when it is not needed. All in all, its too early to truly judge, but the details we have are not promising.
|
nice some of those stats look to good to be true. maybe blizzard got extremely lucky.
|
Oh my god I LOVE STATS.
Rolling in my own happiness atm.
Thanks!
|
USA majors Z while ASIA major P???
|
|
Surprising it's this balanced in beta. I know war3 wasn't even close to this kind of a breakdown this far into its beta. Blizzard sees to be doing a really good job.
|
I like racial profiling!
But yeah, "their own internal ESPORTS committee?" Wonder who the hell they're hiring for that position. They don't seem to be doing a very good job. It baffles me why blizz won't go out and look for very best talent for these areas of expertise instead of hiring employees (seemingly) not the best fit for the job. Finding proper talent isn't incredibly hard for a game that has over a decade legacy...
Too much reinventing of the wheel. This is like blizz's attempt at designing a hovercar fueled by bubble bath or someshit.
|
nice read, well written. thanks!
|
I don't understand how the average winrate of all races isn't 50%.
|
On March 18 2010 12:06 CynanMachae wrote: I don't understand how the average winrace of all races isn't 50%.
wondering that myself...
|
If every race has >60% win rate, who's losing?
|
On March 18 2010 12:10 Chairman Ray wrote: If every race has >60% win rate, who's losing?
Its kinda of misleading since these numbers only take into account the top 8 of each division.
So the people losing are below the top 8.
|
On March 18 2010 12:10 Chairman Ray wrote: If every race has >60% win rate, who's losing? That's what I'd like to know
|
"To get a more complete look at the 'top player' population as a whole, I made the cutoff the top 8 for each platinum division."
Hence the >50% winrates.
--oberon
|
On March 18 2010 12:06 CynanMachae wrote: I don't understand how the average winrace of all races isn't 50%.
The stats are for players at the tops of the divisions, the better players. They win most of their games and stay on top. The players with the losses are lower in the ladders and aren't up top where these statistics come from.
Very interesting, thanks for putting that together. The balance is pretty good, T is a little behind in players, I personally don't like how terran is now (bring back mech...), so maybe we'll see some tweaks to their game play style, rather than balancing, to draw in more players?
|
On March 18 2010 12:10 Chairman Ray wrote: If every race has >60% win rate, who's losing?
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.
|
If people would read the article it says at the begining that the stats were taking from the top players =D Obviously the top players will have stats above 50%.
very interesting! the lack of intercontinental play concerns me though. you would think that would be a no brainer for Blizzard! but then again, it was the same way with WC3...
|
Nice post. No cross-server functionality is a gripe of mine as well, and I'm not sure how, with the so-called esports analysts giving them advice, Blizzard managed to overlook how essential it is for a competitive gaming community to be able to pit these players against each other.
|
Ah top 8 only, make sense lol.
So yea, thanks for that, pretty interesting
|
I find it interesting that almost everyone is against "segregating" the continents to their own server clusters, but that also almost everyone is for localizing the individual divisions down to even cities.
Opening up cross-server capabilities for custom games is great, but to think for one second that it'd be good for the ladder is just a little ridiculous to me.
|
I dont mind the lack of cross server connections overly because it does segregate those who speak different languages, and also allows each server to develop a unique play style.
That being said, there definitely needs to be some way that top players can easily switch back and forth in order to participate in tournaments. Maybe making the pro league a combination off all of the servers?
|
i am not sure who is talking about localizing the individual divisions down to even cities...
what made sc great was the incredible amount of world play, and i think this is where WC3 was soundly defeated.
blizzard should have learned from this.
|
great article! 
100% agree about the seperation of communities thing too. As with all of bnet version2 so far...everything is a gigantic step backwards - the divisions, the no chat channels, the only being able to play on one server, the limiting to only one username. Very sad.
|
The one username thing I consider it a must have feature for online gaming. No more smurfing.
|
Really interesting stats thanks for the very informative post.
|
I hope they make terran have a better chance in TvP...especially better than in broodwar
|
Nice to see some stats! I also find it strange that they dont work towards merging the communities
|
Until Random is the standard for competitive play the cross-server and ranking issues are small potatoes.
|
On March 18 2010 14:09 fantomex wrote: Until Random is the standard for competitive play the cross-server and ranking issues are small potatoes. I don't think Random will be the standard for competetive play ever. If even allowed.
|
On March 18 2010 14:09 fantomex wrote: Until Random is the standard for competitive play the cross-server and ranking issues are small potatoes. dont be retarded
|
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.
|
- In the full (non-beta) version, we will have chat rooms under the social tab. - We will be able to create new leagues (pro leagues, invite only leagues) to see who is the BEST player. - And they are working on the way to make intercontinental matches available. And I seen in some interview that they will add this function after the release of the game. (Maybe it's just not working properly atm.)
Anyway nice work with the numbers!
|
Guys, I think the statement was widely misunderstood.
Let's recap the Q&A:
Q. Will we be able to play with our friends on other continents like we could in StarCraft's Battle.net?
A. Currently we do not have plans to integrate friends between regions for launch. In the long run that's definitely something we'll be looking at.
I think this is just a misunderstood question leading to a misconceived answer.
FRIENDING across realms will not be possible, meaning that you can't add players from Asia to your friends list if you play on Europe for instance as far as I understand the answer. I don't beleive he would have said friends if he really meant logging into different realms.
|
Frankly considering the admittedly small sample size, I'm surprised so many of these numbers came out as close as they did.
Could not agree more regarding the region locking, since you only get one Bnet account per copy of the game it's not going to be a matter as simple as editing a registry key
|
How is possible that win rate for server is 60%? I mean that if in a player there are 100 games i suppose there will be 100 winners and 100 loosers(so win rate should be 50%) anyone can explain? however great work i love this percentage speculation
|
Well written.
I really wonder how basic misdesign like dividing the community has been possible. From a software development point of view, this (like some other serious flaws) is simply grotesque.
I can only assume the reason is that they are building on top of WC3 technology for cost reasons.
Blizzard has such a potential from the existing community and their experience, I wonder why they did not (sufficiently) strive to profit from this - the return of investing here would surely outweigh any additional costs.
SC2 is having problems with things that people of community have long solved, for free (such as ranking, see ICCup).
If this game is to be successful in any way close to SC1, or even set standards for the e-sports of the future, they need to go all the way back and redesign parts of the game.
|
Latency is a real issue for cross continent competitive play online.
Even with 'fair" neutral server like in HoN top teams argue on what could be the best server to host so that all members of the team "enjoy" the same latency.
Playing with less then 100ms is not the same thing as playing with 300ms.
Sure we're not talking about a FPS where latency is vital but nevertheless it makes HUGE differences in response time (and if we come down to EMP vs Feedback, response time becomes gamebreaking)
|
On March 18 2010 12:22 dhasenan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2010 12:10 Chairman Ray wrote: If every race has >60% win rate, who's losing? 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. Wouldn't a pvp also account for a P loss? ;D
|
nice article and an interesting read
|
How is there this much confusion about the 60% win rate? He clearly tells you its for the top 8 players in each division. Christ.
|
Region thing is going to be massively annoying and I agree with what the article said. Really hope they fix it.
|
I like the devisions and leagues approach. Blizzard is thinking about a pro-league. It's quite possible that the best platinums will advance to that league, which could then be in turn world-wide. I think most people don't care if they are number 735.589 in the world's ranking, but it they rank top 20 in their division it makes a difference. Sure the top players need some way to compete globally, but e-sports should not just be about the few top players, but also include the casual player.
I'm also happy not to have to play constantly against some random guys from Korea with huge lags.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On March 18 2010 15:28 Maceifer wrote:Guys, I think the statement was widely misunderstood. Let's recap the Q&A: Show nested quote +Q. Will we be able to play with our friends on other continents like we could in StarCraft's Battle.net?
A. Currently we do not have plans to integrate friends between regions for launch. In the long run that's definitely something we'll be looking at. I think this is just a misunderstood question leading to a misconceived answer. FRIENDING across realms will not be possible, meaning that you can't add players from Asia to your friends list if you play on Europe for instance as far as I understand the answer. I don't beleive he would have said friends if he really meant logging into different realms.
I agree the Blizz response is somewhat ambiguous, but the question the guy asked is really, really clear. Its raises enough concern to warrant talking about it. There is a chance I'll look like an idiot when its revealed that the "pro league" ranking is a global thing that transcends countries but we'll see, this "we'll do it after launch" is dangerous talk as we all know how long it takes for them to patch things in (online replays was promised 'after launch' for WC3 lol!).
And yes the 60% issue is because its top 8 of each division.
haha way to read my mind Pupsilein
|
when i watch to asia terran game style, i have to cry... they play so like in sc1 and it just sux...
|
I wonder if the people that work on sc2 come to here to read the articles
|
On March 18 2010 20:06 TheMute wrote: I wonder if the people that work on sc2 come to here to read the articles Yes, they do, and they've said so before
|
they atleast should make it possible for player to switch between server like it was in scbw but they should keep 3 servers, because i see alot americans to complain about latancy issues, while i have perfect lan latancy on europe server and if all server merge this would be bad for lan latancy
so the best way is to give people the possibility to switch betwen servers for tournaments and they should make it possible to chat with people from other servers!!!!!!! (why do they make it possible to chat as sc2 player with a WOW player? what sense does it make? but you dont have a possibility to chat with sc2 friends who are on an other server .....)
|
On March 18 2010 11:57 HuskyTheHusky wrote: Oh my god I LOVE STATS.
Rolling in my own happiness atm.
Thanks!
I second that! I'm a stats junkie.
|
United States12607 Posts
heyoka delivers as usual!
|
Mmm, baseball references <3
|
Good post Really hope that we get to play on any given server at the launch and that there is something like a global ranking, or atleast continental ranking.
|
woah you cant play anyone from different continents with the full game? ugghhhhhh
|
Great read! I love this coverage! Keep up the good work!
|
On March 18 2010 11:48 heyoka wrote: The system in place right now is a bit of a step backwards, further dividing up communities when it is not needed.
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?
|
As a foreign man living in China, I wholeheartedly approve of this. We need to be able to play globally!
|
On March 19 2010 00:24 Commodore wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2010 11:48 heyoka wrote: The system in place right now is a bit of a step backwards, further dividing up communities when it is not needed. 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? A ladder is a competition, practice is practice. The word ladder implies you are climbing up/down ranks, which is useless if you don't even know your rank.
|
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.
|
I do so enjoy stat's and such.
I am pretty sure they'll be some form of cross community/region playing. One way or another it'll get done and I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard is already working on the issue now. I don't quite see them as the evil/bumbling types.
Honestly isn't the fact that if you're in plat top 8 you have a pretty good idea of where you happen to be in the standings? I mean sure it could be a tad better but it's not one is completely oblivious of his standing in the world. Thou I am sure given enough time plenty of math types will be so kind as to figure out some sort of way of telling you your 8,987th in the world if blizzard doesn't do it for them.
|
I don't get how the rating system is inaccurate. I am not completely sure, but I do not seem to be only playing the players in my division. At the very least, if the system is "expanding search" I get to play guys from different divisions and leagues. This means a division is by no means a closed system. Thus, the points should tell you enough about how good a player is (1495 Gold player should be equal to other 1495 Gold players, no matter what divisions they are in, even if their relative ranks inside their respective divisions differ). So, from what I unterstand, the only thing Blizzard needs to do is to make it possible to display an overall player list for each league without changing the ranking system in any way.
|
On March 19 2010 02:26 Slunk wrote: I don't get how the rating system is inaccurate. I am not completely sure, but I do not seem to be only playing the players in my division. At the very least, if the system is "expanding search" I get to play guys from different divisions and leagues. This means a division is by no means a closed system. Thus, the points should tell you enough about how good a player is (1495 Gold player should be equal to other 1495 Gold players, no matter what divisions they are in, even if their relative ranks inside their respective divisions differ). So, from what I unterstand, the only thing Blizzard needs to do is to make it possible to display an overall player list for each league without changing the ranking system in any way.
Yeah, that's how I understood it as well. I don't think there is any point adjustment for the "strength" of your division. How many points you get is determined by only three things
1. Your strength as a player 2. Your opponents strength as a player 3. Whether or not you win.
Oh, well then there's those resting points. So I lied, there's 4 things. But nowhere here is anything related to what division you are in. So as slunk said, whoever has the highest rating, is the best player. It means that they have beaten the most and best ranked other players. Regardless of division or anything else. Now the leagues definitely seem to be on different scales, but that's another matter.
|
United States17042 Posts
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.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
|
I know that world wide we need some more playing together but I would like to see some support for only playing vs own country (Im from denmark) and I just seem to find people not from denmark all the time. Would just be nice to chat with my first laugue from time to time when I play.
|
Every single kid in korea wants to be the SC2 Lee Jae Dong... Z seems to be trend even in BW right now...
Very nice article, thanks a lot.
|
On March 18 2010 12:22 dhasenan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2010 12:10 Chairman Ray wrote: If every race has >60% win rate, who's losing? 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
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. =(
|
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.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
On March 19 2010 00:24 Commodore wrote:Show nested quote +On March 18 2010 11:48 heyoka wrote: The system in place right now is a bit of a step backwards, further dividing up communities when it is not needed. 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.
|
Interesting read-up. Mostly commenting on the worldwide play aspect of the post.
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!)
|
|
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.
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.
|
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.
|
would be nice to see average game length
|
Hopefully I get beta soon I'm Busting to get it like a 4 year old kid running to a candy shop
Anyway...Cool Read. Very interesting!
|
Starcraft 2 is nearly finished. But Battlenet 2 is barely started. Have a little faith in blizzard. Battlenet is in functionality testing right now, it's not going to look anything like it does at the moment when it's finalized. They just had to have something up and running in order to betatest SC2.
|
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).
|
"solid D level" = hahahahahahaha
|
Thanks for posting the stats, very interesting.
|
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.
|
|
|
|