|
On July 16 2010 06:34 Gescom wrote:
Scary how balanced these numbers look.
I wouldn't expect differently.
|
wow, wonder who u got it. The stats on the races are pretty similar so thats cool.
|
On July 16 2010 05:16 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 04:58 EccoEcco wrote:On July 16 2010 04:16 Chriamon wrote:
I think some of this data is going to be misinterpreted. Having similar overall win % doesn't mean much. You should only count games that are vs other diamond players, and go by specific matchups as well. While I'll agree that this isn't end all be all data (Certainly, the sample size is still small), actual data from aggregate results is a lot more significant than the anecdotal evidence that's been dominating the discussion thus far. A little induction would suggest it means each race has a success rate against the other two races that averages out equally. (TvP + TvZ)/2 = (PvT + PvZ)/2 = (ZvT + ZvP)/2 with a deviation of <2% at both diamond level and general play. That means that if Terran were truly overpowered against Zerg and dominating that match-up, then Terran would have to be equally underpowered against Protoss to generate such a close winning percentage to the other 2 races. Until that result is ruled out, its a possibility and Rock>Paper>Scissor is not the intended balance, but I for one, would be surprised if that were the case. Particularly because of how consistent the numbers are at both the general and top level. There's more to it than that because it assumes that all races are rated equally. The matchmaking system works to ensure 50% win ratios. If we want to use this kind of information it has to be based on things like average player ratings by race or some aggregate stat like average player rating/# of games
This.
You get ranked by the match making system, so that you will have around 50% wins (for obvious reasons higher for top players). So the results just show that the match making system works. If one race would be op, all players of this race would be higher ranked so that they will fight stronger enemies and should still have 50% win rate.
It's very difficult to get 'correct' results. There are too many unknowns I think. You could assume that the average (diamond) player of each race is equally strong (which blizzard is doing I think if I interpret their interviews correctly but obviously this assumption is not very strong).
I think its interesting that around 10.5% of all toss players are in diamond league, around 9.5% of all terran players and 11.5% of all zerg players are in diamond league (6.5% for random). So this could either mean that it's easier for zerg players to get into diamond league or that the average zerg player is stronger then the average player of the other races.
|
On July 16 2010 07:12 Hinni wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 05:16 Logo wrote:On July 16 2010 04:58 EccoEcco wrote:On July 16 2010 04:16 Chriamon wrote:
I think some of this data is going to be misinterpreted. Having similar overall win % doesn't mean much. You should only count games that are vs other diamond players, and go by specific matchups as well. While I'll agree that this isn't end all be all data (Certainly, the sample size is still small), actual data from aggregate results is a lot more significant than the anecdotal evidence that's been dominating the discussion thus far. A little induction would suggest it means each race has a success rate against the other two races that averages out equally. (TvP + TvZ)/2 = (PvT + PvZ)/2 = (ZvT + ZvP)/2 with a deviation of <2% at both diamond level and general play. That means that if Terran were truly overpowered against Zerg and dominating that match-up, then Terran would have to be equally underpowered against Protoss to generate such a close winning percentage to the other 2 races. Until that result is ruled out, its a possibility and Rock>Paper>Scissor is not the intended balance, but I for one, would be surprised if that were the case. Particularly because of how consistent the numbers are at both the general and top level. There's more to it than that because it assumes that all races are rated equally. The matchmaking system works to ensure 50% win ratios. If we want to use this kind of information it has to be based on things like average player ratings by race or some aggregate stat like average player rating/# of games This. You get ranked by the match making system, so that you will have around 50% wins (for obvious reasons higher for top players). So the results just show that the match making system works. If one race would be op, all players of this race would be higher ranked so that they will fight stronger enemies and should still have 50% win rate. It's very difficult to get 'correct' results. There are too many unknowns I think. You could assume that the average (diamond) player of each race is equally strong (which blizzard is doing I think if I interpret their interviews correctly but obviously this assumption is not very strong). I think its interesting that around 10.5% of all toss players are in diamond league, around 9.5% of all terran players and 11.5% of all zerg players are in diamond league (6.5% for random). So this could either mean that it's easier for zerg players to get into diamond league or that the average zerg player is stronger then the average player of the other races.
Good point. I wouldn't read that much into the win percentages either from a race vs race perspective; nevertheless it still tells something.
In any case, I added the US stats. The league distribution is clearly more sensible, probably because US has been up for a couple of days longer. The race and race&league distribution looks to be quite similar.
|
Looking at US data, it looks like 30/20/20/20/10-ish (meaning percent in bronze, silver,.....etc.)(and I know the numbers don't add up, it's just an estimate)
Nice find OP!
|
United States12240 Posts
On July 16 2010 07:27 Silu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 07:12 Hinni wrote:On July 16 2010 05:16 Logo wrote:On July 16 2010 04:58 EccoEcco wrote:On July 16 2010 04:16 Chriamon wrote:
I think some of this data is going to be misinterpreted. Having similar overall win % doesn't mean much. You should only count games that are vs other diamond players, and go by specific matchups as well. While I'll agree that this isn't end all be all data (Certainly, the sample size is still small), actual data from aggregate results is a lot more significant than the anecdotal evidence that's been dominating the discussion thus far. A little induction would suggest it means each race has a success rate against the other two races that averages out equally. (TvP + TvZ)/2 = (PvT + PvZ)/2 = (ZvT + ZvP)/2 with a deviation of <2% at both diamond level and general play. That means that if Terran were truly overpowered against Zerg and dominating that match-up, then Terran would have to be equally underpowered against Protoss to generate such a close winning percentage to the other 2 races. Until that result is ruled out, its a possibility and Rock>Paper>Scissor is not the intended balance, but I for one, would be surprised if that were the case. Particularly because of how consistent the numbers are at both the general and top level. There's more to it than that because it assumes that all races are rated equally. The matchmaking system works to ensure 50% win ratios. If we want to use this kind of information it has to be based on things like average player ratings by race or some aggregate stat like average player rating/# of games This. You get ranked by the match making system, so that you will have around 50% wins (for obvious reasons higher for top players). So the results just show that the match making system works. If one race would be op, all players of this race would be higher ranked so that they will fight stronger enemies and should still have 50% win rate. It's very difficult to get 'correct' results. There are too many unknowns I think. You could assume that the average (diamond) player of each race is equally strong (which blizzard is doing I think if I interpret their interviews correctly but obviously this assumption is not very strong). I think its interesting that around 10.5% of all toss players are in diamond league, around 9.5% of all terran players and 11.5% of all zerg players are in diamond league (6.5% for random). So this could either mean that it's easier for zerg players to get into diamond league or that the average zerg player is stronger then the average player of the other races. Good point. I wouldn't read that much into the win percentages either from a race vs race perspective; nevertheless it still tells something. In any case, I added the US stats. The league distribution is clearly more sensible, probably because US has been up for a couple of days longer. The race and race&league distribution looks to be quite similar.
So based on the initial US numbers, we have a distribution of approximately 9/18/23/23/27
A bit closer to my 10/15/20/25/30 estimate. Let's see how this evolves in the coming days =)
|
I read through most of the posts. Any explanation why every win % is over 50.... (which is impossible)?
|
How is it impossible? It's the average win% of X players.
|
Because diamons players gets to play against plat players from time to time and since they are higher ranked my guess is that they will win more games than they loose 
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 16 2010 07:34 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 07:27 Silu wrote:On July 16 2010 07:12 Hinni wrote:On July 16 2010 05:16 Logo wrote:On July 16 2010 04:58 EccoEcco wrote:On July 16 2010 04:16 Chriamon wrote:
I think some of this data is going to be misinterpreted. Having similar overall win % doesn't mean much. You should only count games that are vs other diamond players, and go by specific matchups as well. While I'll agree that this isn't end all be all data (Certainly, the sample size is still small), actual data from aggregate results is a lot more significant than the anecdotal evidence that's been dominating the discussion thus far. A little induction would suggest it means each race has a success rate against the other two races that averages out equally. (TvP + TvZ)/2 = (PvT + PvZ)/2 = (ZvT + ZvP)/2 with a deviation of <2% at both diamond level and general play. That means that if Terran were truly overpowered against Zerg and dominating that match-up, then Terran would have to be equally underpowered against Protoss to generate such a close winning percentage to the other 2 races. Until that result is ruled out, its a possibility and Rock>Paper>Scissor is not the intended balance, but I for one, would be surprised if that were the case. Particularly because of how consistent the numbers are at both the general and top level. There's more to it than that because it assumes that all races are rated equally. The matchmaking system works to ensure 50% win ratios. If we want to use this kind of information it has to be based on things like average player ratings by race or some aggregate stat like average player rating/# of games This. You get ranked by the match making system, so that you will have around 50% wins (for obvious reasons higher for top players). So the results just show that the match making system works. If one race would be op, all players of this race would be higher ranked so that they will fight stronger enemies and should still have 50% win rate. It's very difficult to get 'correct' results. There are too many unknowns I think. You could assume that the average (diamond) player of each race is equally strong (which blizzard is doing I think if I interpret their interviews correctly but obviously this assumption is not very strong). I think its interesting that around 10.5% of all toss players are in diamond league, around 9.5% of all terran players and 11.5% of all zerg players are in diamond league (6.5% for random). So this could either mean that it's easier for zerg players to get into diamond league or that the average zerg player is stronger then the average player of the other races. Good point. I wouldn't read that much into the win percentages either from a race vs race perspective; nevertheless it still tells something. In any case, I added the US stats. The league distribution is clearly more sensible, probably because US has been up for a couple of days longer. The race and race&league distribution looks to be quite similar. So based on the initial US numbers, we have a distribution of approximately 9/18/23/23/27 A bit closer to my 10/15/20/25/30 estimate. Let's see how this evolves in the coming days =)
I don't know this for a fact, but I've heard from several people in gold that then got immediately promoted to diamond - I wonder if this could have something to do with the European equality between plat/diamond....
(I'm still stuck in gold at 20-2 or 22-2 or whatever, while someone else got promoted to diamond at 17-11 or something like that - I really do not get the system, I guess there's a minimum game requirement?).
|
There seems to be a minimum loss requirement, as little sense as that makes. I haven't seen anyone get promoted to diamond with any less than 8 losses, regardless of having 90% win rates through 30+ games.
|
United States12240 Posts
On July 16 2010 07:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 07:34 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 16 2010 07:27 Silu wrote:On July 16 2010 07:12 Hinni wrote:On July 16 2010 05:16 Logo wrote:On July 16 2010 04:58 EccoEcco wrote:On July 16 2010 04:16 Chriamon wrote:
I think some of this data is going to be misinterpreted. Having similar overall win % doesn't mean much. You should only count games that are vs other diamond players, and go by specific matchups as well. While I'll agree that this isn't end all be all data (Certainly, the sample size is still small), actual data from aggregate results is a lot more significant than the anecdotal evidence that's been dominating the discussion thus far. A little induction would suggest it means each race has a success rate against the other two races that averages out equally. (TvP + TvZ)/2 = (PvT + PvZ)/2 = (ZvT + ZvP)/2 with a deviation of <2% at both diamond level and general play. That means that if Terran were truly overpowered against Zerg and dominating that match-up, then Terran would have to be equally underpowered against Protoss to generate such a close winning percentage to the other 2 races. Until that result is ruled out, its a possibility and Rock>Paper>Scissor is not the intended balance, but I for one, would be surprised if that were the case. Particularly because of how consistent the numbers are at both the general and top level. There's more to it than that because it assumes that all races are rated equally. The matchmaking system works to ensure 50% win ratios. If we want to use this kind of information it has to be based on things like average player ratings by race or some aggregate stat like average player rating/# of games This. You get ranked by the match making system, so that you will have around 50% wins (for obvious reasons higher for top players). So the results just show that the match making system works. If one race would be op, all players of this race would be higher ranked so that they will fight stronger enemies and should still have 50% win rate. It's very difficult to get 'correct' results. There are too many unknowns I think. You could assume that the average (diamond) player of each race is equally strong (which blizzard is doing I think if I interpret their interviews correctly but obviously this assumption is not very strong). I think its interesting that around 10.5% of all toss players are in diamond league, around 9.5% of all terran players and 11.5% of all zerg players are in diamond league (6.5% for random). So this could either mean that it's easier for zerg players to get into diamond league or that the average zerg player is stronger then the average player of the other races. Good point. I wouldn't read that much into the win percentages either from a race vs race perspective; nevertheless it still tells something. In any case, I added the US stats. The league distribution is clearly more sensible, probably because US has been up for a couple of days longer. The race and race&league distribution looks to be quite similar. So based on the initial US numbers, we have a distribution of approximately 9/18/23/23/27 A bit closer to my 10/15/20/25/30 estimate. Let's see how this evolves in the coming days =) I don't know this for a fact, but I've heard from several people in gold that then got immediately promoted to diamond - I wonder if this could have something to do with the European equality between plat/diamond.... (I'm still stuck in gold at 20-2 or 22-2 or whatever, while someone else got promoted to diamond at 17-11 or something like that - I really do not get the system, I guess there's a minimum game requirement?).
I had a theory about this but it's not concrete enough to post in the analysis thread. Basically either you haven't played enough games to reach a review checkpoint, or your win ratio against top-level players is too high which means your volatility is too high which means the system can't place you in a new league yet because it doesn't know where you belong.
Equally likely, I suppose, is Cauthon's idea that you need a minimum number of losses.
|
On July 16 2010 07:48 CauthonLuck wrote:
There seems to be a minimum loss requirement, as little sense as that makes. I haven't seen anyone get promoted to diamond with any less than 8 losses, regardless of having 90% win rates through 30+ games.
You may be right. Alot of people have been saying they went like LLLLLLWWWWWWWWWWL and got promoted^^
Also, a platinum player gets matched with gold and diamond to see if they are deserving of their rank.
If you are gold and beat many platinum players, you will get bumped up sooner then playing vs. more gold players.
|
There is data missing from this...data
Anyways...using good 'ol Excel...I managed to figure out some things....
From this data (US DATA), you have a total of 70959 wins, 68312 losses. There are 2647 losses missing. This makes no sense because there's a winner and a loser in every game. So if we assume the total avg. win percent of everyone INCLUDING people still playing placement matches is 50% and we keep the win % of the leagues, the win percentage of these people (placement match people) has to be 47%....may makes sense, may not.
*please put this in OP, assuming numbers my numbers are correct...*
|
keep it up plz.
any chance to get the asia server?
|
On July 16 2010 07:53 EliteAzn wrote:
There is data missing from this...data
Anyways...using good 'ol Excel...I managed to figure out some things....
From this data (US DATA), you have a total of 70959 wins, 68312 losses. There are 2647 losses missing. This makes no sense because there's a winner and a loser in every game. So if we assume the total avg. win percent of everyone INCLUDING people still playing placement matches is 50% and we keep the win % of the leagues, the win percentage of these people (placement match people) has to be 47%....may makes sense, may not.
*please put this in OP, assuming numbers my numbers are correct...*
Ties. Sometimes, in games where my opponent quits early, like 2 minutes in, before any action happened, I check my match history and it doesn't update as a win or lose until a day later.
But that number seems a bit too high. There are several possibilities.
1. Wins update faster than losses.
2. Data is missing from servers
3. Disconnects count as win and tie, but appears as a -0 loss
4. Placement matches do not count towards ladder ranking, so if you are in placement and you've played against someone in ladder, your loss is not recorded, but his win is. Or something of the sort. Seems the most plausible.
|
On July 16 2010 09:10 vica wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 07:53 EliteAzn wrote:
There is data missing from this...data
Anyways...using good 'ol Excel...I managed to figure out some things....
From this data (US DATA), you have a total of 70959 wins, 68312 losses. There are 2647 losses missing. This makes no sense because there's a winner and a loser in every game. So if we assume the total avg. win percent of everyone INCLUDING people still playing placement matches is 50% and we keep the win % of the leagues, the win percentage of these people (placement match people) has to be 47%....may makes sense, may not.
*please put this in OP, assuming numbers my numbers are correct...* Ties. Sometimes, in games where my opponent quits early, like 2 minutes in, before any action happened, I check my match history and it doesn't update as a win or lose until a day later. But that number seems a bit too high. There are several possibilities. 1. Wins update faster than losses. 2. Data is missing from servers 3. Disconnects count as win and tie, but appears as a -0 loss 4. Placement matches do not count towards ladder ranking, so if you are in placement and you've played against someone in ladder, your loss is not recorded, but his win is. Or something of the sort. Seems the most plausible.
The other possibility (which is what happened I believe) is that this doesn't include all players, this is just the players that have been crawled through.
|
matchup data would be useful. At least excluding mirror match from the win % statistics would be good.
|
On July 16 2010 04:14 jamesr12 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2010 04:11 DeckTech wrote:
Nice!
Any idea how many players there are in the diamond league in total?
350/3151 = 11% so diamond leauge is around 11% of all players
This should go down quite a lot upon release, it makes sense that a lot of the people who got a beta key would be really good players.
|
Something about this doesn't seem quite right. Only 437 Diamond players total on the US server? That number seems pretty low, and also makes it seem like there are only like 4 divisions lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
