EPT+ Show Spoiler +
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aCIPnYm.png)
HotS Progame Mapstats
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Grapefruit
Germany439 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Kevoras
United States105 Posts
I was looking forward to seeing the Ultra even better. but their upgrade was removed. | ||
|
Tppz!
Germany1449 Posts
Also: these stats dont say anything since not everyone was training hots (or even playing it). thanks though for your effort | ||
|
bananafone
68 Posts
| ||
|
Zorgaz
Sweden2951 Posts
On February 24 2013 23:42 Kevoras wrote: I do think Protoss got the short stick in terms of designs, but Zerg draw the short one on strength. I was looking forward to seeing the Ultra even better. but their upgrade was removed. Ultras are fine, they are more then fine even. | ||
|
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
Also, just remember some of the MLG showdowns. Some of them were terrible in the way that one player had played quite a bit of HotS before while the other seemed to have not played any games in HotS at all yet (because they were busy with ongoing WoL tournaments). I am also not sure why the data is called "mapstats." In the presentation of the data, you chose to completely disregard maps. What is it you would like to discuss about the data you present?! | ||
|
Grapefruit
Germany439 Posts
On February 24 2013 23:57 JOJOsc2news wrote: This data is not very useful. The sample size was already mentioned. Also, just remember some of the MLG showdowns. Some of them were terrible in the way, that one player had played quite a bit of HotS before while the other seemed to have not played any games in HotS at all yet (because they were busy with ongoing WoL tournaments). I am also not sure why the data is called "mapstats." In the presentation of the data, you chose to completely disregard maps. I called it mapstats because it's the winrate per maps played. | ||
|
Tppz!
Germany1449 Posts
On February 24 2013 23:57 JOJOsc2news wrote: This data is not very useful. The sample size was already mentioned. Also, just remember some of the MLG showdowns. Some of them were terrible in the way that one player had played quite a bit of HotS before while the other seemed to have not played any games in HotS at all yet (because they were busy with ongoing WoL tournaments). I am also not sure why the data is called "mapstats." In the presentation of the data, you chose to completely disregard maps. What is it you would like to discuss about the data you present?! thanks for repeating my post. @grapefruit: but thats not the normal "mapstats". its winrate. mapstats is about the stats of maps. thats why it is called mapstats | ||
|
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On February 24 2013 23:59 Grapefruit wrote: I called it mapstats because it's the winrate per maps played. The point you are trying to make is winrate per match up though, isn't it? | ||
|
JOJOsc2news
3000 Posts
On February 25 2013 00:00 Tppz! wrote: thanks for repeating my post. @grapefruit: but thats not the normal "mapstats". its winrate. mapstats is about the stats of maps. thats why it is called mapstats I did not repeat your post. We do seem to have reached a similar conclusion from evaluating the OP. That doesn't mean it isn't worth posting. You might also notice quite a few differences in our posts. | ||
|
myRZeth
Germany1047 Posts
| ||
|
Gimpb
293 Posts
On February 24 2013 23:48 bananafone wrote: hardly relevant considering the small samplesize. when you get 1000 games you can start talking about tendencies. 150 games however is nothing. The sample size isn't so small that it can be discounted. It's borderline significant based on standard statistical methods. For example, let's say you wanted to know the chance that the true TvZ win probability is >60%. pi = .6 standard error = .0722 Z-obs = 1.329 prob value = 90.8% Read: There is a 90.8% chance that the true TvZ win percentage is greater than 60% Personally, I see the rapid development of strategies as a much bigger detractor than the sample size. | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
Apart from that Zergs with HotS experience are collecting a ton of free wins from Terrans and don't seem to have alot of problems against experienced Terrans. Though Terrans usually don't go for the do or die strategies that people deem almost unstoppable. Guess in 2 month data from tournaments will start to show more, right now its just "jep this race has the hardest time to adapt". | ||
|
wammyz
90 Posts
On February 25 2013 00:20 FeyFey wrote: Was expecting map stats and not tournament winrates. Not that one or the other is saying alot. There are still alot of punching bags in the tournament, that don't have enough HotS experience and especially Zergies as they often went the farthest in WoL tournaments. They hand out alot of free wins. Terrans and Toss can easily learn a do or die strat and get some wins even if they have no idea about HotS. But Zerg needs to learn how to stop all of them. They should be less hesitant to do their own ones, since they are really powerful against the new Terran standard openers. Apart from that Zergs with HotS experience are collecting a ton of free wins from Terrans and don't seem to have alot of problems against experienced Terrans. Though Terrans usually don't go for the do or die strategies that people deem almost unstoppable. Guess in 2 month data from tournaments will start to show more, right now its just "jep this race has the hardest time to adapt". This is the most in-cohesive post I have ever read. I don't understand what you are trying to say. | ||
|
Tppz!
Germany1449 Posts
On February 25 2013 00:45 wammyz wrote: This is the most in-cohesive post I have ever read. I don't understand what you are trying to say. Well I understand everything easily (even at the first read). What exactly is your problem? | ||
|
Loxley
Netherlands2480 Posts
| ||
|
wammyz
90 Posts
On February 25 2013 00:53 Tppz! wrote: Well I understand everything easily (even at the first read). What exactly is your problem? idk maybe it is because you are both German. | ||
|
wammyz
90 Posts
| ||
|
Stingart
122 Posts
On February 25 2013 01:06 Loxley wrote: This topic has done nothing than discuss the topic itself instead of the content. This topic has discussed how its content is flawed therefore not worth taking seriously. It begins with the fact that the author himself didn't even understand the difference between winrates and maprates, after that you see that the sample size is way to small and to top it off, these games where played on old patches and with strategy's that are no longer viable. What is it that you want to discuss again? | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
Yes sample size is rather small, but it show tendencies quite clearly. | ||
| ||
