|
On August 20 2010 06:18 andyrichdale wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 04:10 texmix wrote:
If every terran unit suddenly had +25% hit points (making them obviously overpowered), the original post methodology would still conclude the races are equal and have the same 2 pages of statistical garbage backing it up. What? If Terran units had 25% extra hit points then Terrans would win considerably more of their matches than they currently do. This would reflect in a win% increase to the point where it's in the "considerably higher than expected" region which would lead to the conclusion that Terrans are over powered.
No, there would just be more terran in the top 200/diamond league, but win % would not differ due to the match making process. The original post is 100.000% useless.
|
On August 20 2010 06:18 andyrichdale wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 04:10 texmix wrote:
If every terran unit suddenly had +25% hit points (making them obviously overpowered), the original post methodology would still conclude the races are equal and have the same 2 pages of statistical garbage backing it up. What? If Terran units had 25% extra hit points then Terrans would win considerably more of their matches than they currently do. This would reflect in a win% increase to the point where it's in the "considerably higher than expected" region which would lead to the conclusion that Terrans are over powered.
Not at all.
Let's assume that the current system is "perfectly balanced", that the MMR assigned to each player is accurate, that a 500MMR Terran is as skilled as a 500MMR Protoss is as skilled as a 500MMR Zerg. Let's also assume that there is a perfect distribution of players using each race and that random did not exist. Let's also assume that skills remain exactly the same in the observation period immediately following this change.
Now if every terran unit in this perfectly balanced game had 25% more hit points, the 500MMR Terran player will have a greater chance at winning against his 500MMR Zerg/Protoss cohorts. So obviously the 500MMR Terran will have to be readjusted upwards, and the Zerg/Protoss now having trouble against 1/3 of the matchups will be adjusted down. So to make it easier to follow, we make up some numbers and come up with the Terran who used to be 500MMR now having an easier time winning 2/3 of his matchups is bumped up to 600MMR, the Zerg/Protoss having trouble with 1/3 of his matchups is now down to 450MMR.
The former 500MMR Teran player no longer is considered the same "skill level" as the former 500MMR Zerg/Protoss. So who is considered his "peer" in the eyes of the AMM? Answer is the newly 600MMR Zerg/Protoss who would have been 660MMR Zerg/Protoss under the "old, perfectly balanced" game. Now that the MMRs have been adjusted in accordance with the game, the former 500MMR Terran players with their shiny new 25% HP buff now has a 50% win ratio against former 660MMR Zerg/Protoss players. This 50% win ratio is exactly what the data will show you, and no amount of fancy analysis will reveal an imbalance even if it is obvious there is one.
BTW, 25% is just a number, don't get hung up over it.. there of course will come a point where that number will utterly break the game and result in nobody being able to win against an OP race, but that would be so painfully obvious you would not need maths to show it to be so.
e.g. 200HP Marines with 5 armour, everything else stays the same. There is no way that a Terran would lose if he went 7 RAX Marine.
I keep saying this but it keeps getting ignored and people still go about wasting their time: using clean/smoothed data will result in no imbalance issues revealed! Seriously guys, stop wasting your time!
|
On August 20 2010 11:44 hdkhang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 06:18 andyrichdale wrote:On August 20 2010 04:10 texmix wrote:
If every terran unit suddenly had +25% hit points (making them obviously overpowered), the original post methodology would still conclude the races are equal and have the same 2 pages of statistical garbage backing it up. What? If Terran units had 25% extra hit points then Terrans would win considerably more of their matches than they currently do. This would reflect in a win% increase to the point where it's in the "considerably higher than expected" region which would lead to the conclusion that Terrans are over powered. Not at all. Let's assume that the current system is "perfectly balanced", that the MMR assigned to each player is accurate, that a 500MMR Terran is as skilled as a 500MMR Protoss is as skilled as a 500MMR Zerg. Let's also assume that there is a perfect distribution of players using each race and that random did not exist. Let's also assume that skills remain exactly the same in the observation period immediately following this change. Now if every terran unit in this perfectly balanced game had 25% more hit points, the 500MMR Terran player will have a greater chance at winning against his 500MMR Zerg/Protoss cohorts. So obviously the 500MMR Terran will have to be readjusted upwards, and the Zerg/Protoss now having trouble against 1/3 of the matchups will be adjusted down. So to make it easier to follow, we make up some numbers and come up with the Terran who used to be 500MMR now having an easier time winning 2/3 of his matchups is bumped up to 600MMR, the Zerg/Protoss having trouble with 1/3 of his matchups is now down to 450MMR. The former 500MMR Teran player no longer is considered the same "skill level" as the former 500MMR Zerg/Protoss. So who is considered his "peer" in the eyes of the AMM? Answer is the newly 600MMR Zerg/Protoss who would have been 660MMR Zerg/Protoss under the "old, perfectly balanced" game. Now that the MMRs have been adjusted in accordance with the game, the former 500MMR Terran players with their shiny new 25% HP buff now has a 50% win ratio against former 660MMR Zerg/Protoss players. This 50% win ratio is exactly what the data will show you, and no amount of fancy analysis will reveal an imbalance even if it is obvious there is one. BTW, 25% is just a number, don't get hung up over it.. there of course will come a point where that number will utterly break the game and result in nobody being able to win against an OP race, but that would be so painfully obvious you would not need maths to show it to be so. e.g. 200HP Marines with 5 armour, everything else stays the same. There is no way that a Terran would lose if he went 7 RAX Marine. I keep saying this but it keeps getting ignored and people still go about wasting their time: using clean/smoothed data will result in no imbalance issues revealed! Seriously guys, stop wasting your time!
Exactly. And the effect of that is a shift in race frequencies, where there are more terrans and fewer zerg and protoss as you move up the leagues. Since we don't see this happening for league play, we infer that the game is balanced.
|
I actually agree with your statistics and your method to show that SC2 isn't balanced is very impressive, because I did calculation of my own win-lose ratio and compared it to the one you have, and it seems pretty close together.
|
I think this thread is kind of funny. Because I distinctly remember the forum collectively yelling at Blizz's balance team when they had this information and we didn't that all they did was "balance using stats" and how "stats don't mean anything". And here we are, in their shoes, over analyzing stats that "don't mean anything".
This stat doesn't show much. However, we can conclusively draw these to points from it.
#1: Something in the games design is causing less players to play Zerg, which may or may not be a problem.
#2: Their is no game breaking imbalance that greatly detracts from the game on non-professional levels.
What it doesn't show is
Terran is balanced
Zerg is underpowered.
At all.
|
On August 20 2010 11:44 hdkhang wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 06:18 andyrichdale wrote:On August 20 2010 04:10 texmix wrote:
If every terran unit suddenly had +25% hit points (making them obviously overpowered), the original post methodology would still conclude the races are equal and have the same 2 pages of statistical garbage backing it up. What? If Terran units had 25% extra hit points then Terrans would win considerably more of their matches than they currently do. This would reflect in a win% increase to the point where it's in the "considerably higher than expected" region which would lead to the conclusion that Terrans are over powered. Not at all. Let's assume that the current system is "perfectly balanced", that the MMR assigned to each player is accurate, that a 500MMR Terran is as skilled as a 500MMR Protoss is as skilled as a 500MMR Zerg. Let's also assume that there is a perfect distribution of players using each race and that random did not exist. Let's also assume that skills remain exactly the same in the observation period immediately following this change. Now if every terran unit in this perfectly balanced game had 25% more hit points, the 500MMR Terran player will have a greater chance at winning against his 500MMR Zerg/Protoss cohorts. So obviously the 500MMR Terran will have to be readjusted upwards, and the Zerg/Protoss now having trouble against 1/3 of the matchups will be adjusted down. So to make it easier to follow, we make up some numbers and come up with the Terran who used to be 500MMR now having an easier time winning 2/3 of his matchups is bumped up to 600MMR, the Zerg/Protoss having trouble with 1/3 of his matchups is now down to 450MMR. The former 500MMR Teran player no longer is considered the same "skill level" as the former 500MMR Zerg/Protoss. So who is considered his "peer" in the eyes of the AMM? Answer is the newly 600MMR Zerg/Protoss who would have been 660MMR Zerg/Protoss under the "old, perfectly balanced" game. Now that the MMRs have been adjusted in accordance with the game, the former 500MMR Terran players with their shiny new 25% HP buff now has a 50% win ratio against former 660MMR Zerg/Protoss players. This 50% win ratio is exactly what the data will show you, and no amount of fancy analysis will reveal an imbalance even if it is obvious there is one. BTW, 25% is just a number, don't get hung up over it.. there of course will come a point where that number will utterly break the game and result in nobody being able to win against an OP race, but that would be so painfully obvious you would not need maths to show it to be so. e.g. 200HP Marines with 5 armour, everything else stays the same. There is no way that a Terran would lose if he went 7 RAX Marine. I keep saying this but it keeps getting ignored and people still go about wasting their time: using clean/smoothed data will result in no imbalance issues revealed! Seriously guys, stop wasting your time!
This deserves another quote so nobody misses it. Excellent Post!
|
On August 20 2010 12:04 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 11:44 hdkhang wrote:On August 20 2010 06:18 andyrichdale wrote:On August 20 2010 04:10 texmix wrote:
If every terran unit suddenly had +25% hit points (making them obviously overpowered), the original post methodology would still conclude the races are equal and have the same 2 pages of statistical garbage backing it up. What? If Terran units had 25% extra hit points then Terrans would win considerably more of their matches than they currently do. This would reflect in a win% increase to the point where it's in the "considerably higher than expected" region which would lead to the conclusion that Terrans are over powered. Not at all. Let's assume that the current system is "perfectly balanced", that the MMR assigned to each player is accurate, that a 500MMR Terran is as skilled as a 500MMR Protoss is as skilled as a 500MMR Zerg. Let's also assume that there is a perfect distribution of players using each race and that random did not exist. Let's also assume that skills remain exactly the same in the observation period immediately following this change. Now if every terran unit in this perfectly balanced game had 25% more hit points, the 500MMR Terran player will have a greater chance at winning against his 500MMR Zerg/Protoss cohorts. So obviously the 500MMR Terran will have to be readjusted upwards, and the Zerg/Protoss now having trouble against 1/3 of the matchups will be adjusted down. So to make it easier to follow, we make up some numbers and come up with the Terran who used to be 500MMR now having an easier time winning 2/3 of his matchups is bumped up to 600MMR, the Zerg/Protoss having trouble with 1/3 of his matchups is now down to 450MMR. The former 500MMR Teran player no longer is considered the same "skill level" as the former 500MMR Zerg/Protoss. So who is considered his "peer" in the eyes of the AMM? Answer is the newly 600MMR Zerg/Protoss who would have been 660MMR Zerg/Protoss under the "old, perfectly balanced" game. Now that the MMRs have been adjusted in accordance with the game, the former 500MMR Terran players with their shiny new 25% HP buff now has a 50% win ratio against former 660MMR Zerg/Protoss players. This 50% win ratio is exactly what the data will show you, and no amount of fancy analysis will reveal an imbalance even if it is obvious there is one. BTW, 25% is just a number, don't get hung up over it.. there of course will come a point where that number will utterly break the game and result in nobody being able to win against an OP race, but that would be so painfully obvious you would not need maths to show it to be so. e.g. 200HP Marines with 5 armour, everything else stays the same. There is no way that a Terran would lose if he went 7 RAX Marine. I keep saying this but it keeps getting ignored and people still go about wasting their time: using clean/smoothed data will result in no imbalance issues revealed! Seriously guys, stop wasting your time! Exactly. And the effect of that is a shift in race frequencies, where there are more terrans and fewer zerg and protoss as you move up the leagues. Since we don't see this happening for league play, we infer that the game is balanced.
Wrongly.
|
On August 20 2010 12:04 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 11:44 hdkhang wrote:On August 20 2010 06:18 andyrichdale wrote:On August 20 2010 04:10 texmix wrote:
If every terran unit suddenly had +25% hit points (making them obviously overpowered), the original post methodology would still conclude the races are equal and have the same 2 pages of statistical garbage backing it up. What? If Terran units had 25% extra hit points then Terrans would win considerably more of their matches than they currently do. This would reflect in a win% increase to the point where it's in the "considerably higher than expected" region which would lead to the conclusion that Terrans are over powered. Not at all. Let's assume that the current system is "perfectly balanced", that the MMR assigned to each player is accurate, that a 500MMR Terran is as skilled as a 500MMR Protoss is as skilled as a 500MMR Zerg. Let's also assume that there is a perfect distribution of players using each race and that random did not exist. Let's also assume that skills remain exactly the same in the observation period immediately following this change. Now if every terran unit in this perfectly balanced game had 25% more hit points, the 500MMR Terran player will have a greater chance at winning against his 500MMR Zerg/Protoss cohorts. So obviously the 500MMR Terran will have to be readjusted upwards, and the Zerg/Protoss now having trouble against 1/3 of the matchups will be adjusted down. So to make it easier to follow, we make up some numbers and come up with the Terran who used to be 500MMR now having an easier time winning 2/3 of his matchups is bumped up to 600MMR, the Zerg/Protoss having trouble with 1/3 of his matchups is now down to 450MMR. The former 500MMR Teran player no longer is considered the same "skill level" as the former 500MMR Zerg/Protoss. So who is considered his "peer" in the eyes of the AMM? Answer is the newly 600MMR Zerg/Protoss who would have been 660MMR Zerg/Protoss under the "old, perfectly balanced" game. Now that the MMRs have been adjusted in accordance with the game, the former 500MMR Terran players with their shiny new 25% HP buff now has a 50% win ratio against former 660MMR Zerg/Protoss players. This 50% win ratio is exactly what the data will show you, and no amount of fancy analysis will reveal an imbalance even if it is obvious there is one. BTW, 25% is just a number, don't get hung up over it.. there of course will come a point where that number will utterly break the game and result in nobody being able to win against an OP race, but that would be so painfully obvious you would not need maths to show it to be so. e.g. 200HP Marines with 5 armour, everything else stays the same. There is no way that a Terran would lose if he went 7 RAX Marine. I keep saying this but it keeps getting ignored and people still go about wasting their time: using clean/smoothed data will result in no imbalance issues revealed! Seriously guys, stop wasting your time! Exactly. And the effect of that is a shift in race frequencies, where there are more terrans and fewer zerg and protoss as you move up the leagues. Since we don't see this happening for league play, we infer that the game is balanced.
Only you have no starting point and no turning point to compare. Therefore to suggest the current distribution of racial "preference" being reasonably distributed in all leagues accounts for balance, which it clearly cannot, is simply incorrect. It also does not btw point to imbalance, how can it if it can't definitively account for anything other than the AMM system doing it's job?
|
On August 20 2010 12:28 Half wrote:
I think this thread is kind of funny. Because I distinctly remember the forum collectively yelling at Blizz's balance team when they had this information and we didn't that all they did was "balance using stats" and how "stats don't mean anything". And here we are, in their shoes, over analyzing stats that "don't mean anything".
This stat doesn't show much. However, we can conclusively draw these to points from it.
#1: Something in the games design is causing less players to play Zerg, which may or may not be a problem.
#2: Their is no game breaking imbalance that greatly detracts from the game on non-professional levels.
What it doesn't show is
Terran is balanced
Zerg is underpowered.
At all.
Completely agree.
People can choose their race for any number of reasons.
Also, say I devote 100 hours of training in 1 race, and then spend another 100 hours of training in another race, it does not necessarily result in my being equally proficient at both races, for all we know one race may have features which suit my skills/preferences/playstyle much better than another.
|
This is a really great post, but your thread title is just begging for controversy, haha.
Excellent information though, thanks.
|
On August 20 2010 12:43 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2010 12:04 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:On August 20 2010 11:44 hdkhang wrote:On August 20 2010 06:18 andyrichdale wrote:On August 20 2010 04:10 texmix wrote:
If every terran unit suddenly had +25% hit points (making them obviously overpowered), the original post methodology would still conclude the races are equal and have the same 2 pages of statistical garbage backing it up. What? If Terran units had 25% extra hit points then Terrans would win considerably more of their matches than they currently do. This would reflect in a win% increase to the point where it's in the "considerably higher than expected" region which would lead to the conclusion that Terrans are over powered. Not at all. Let's assume that the current system is "perfectly balanced", that the MMR assigned to each player is accurate, that a 500MMR Terran is as skilled as a 500MMR Protoss is as skilled as a 500MMR Zerg. Let's also assume that there is a perfect distribution of players using each race and that random did not exist. Let's also assume that skills remain exactly the same in the observation period immediately following this change. Now if every terran unit in this perfectly balanced game had 25% more hit points, the 500MMR Terran player will have a greater chance at winning against his 500MMR Zerg/Protoss cohorts. So obviously the 500MMR Terran will have to be readjusted upwards, and the Zerg/Protoss now having trouble against 1/3 of the matchups will be adjusted down. So to make it easier to follow, we make up some numbers and come up with the Terran who used to be 500MMR now having an easier time winning 2/3 of his matchups is bumped up to 600MMR, the Zerg/Protoss having trouble with 1/3 of his matchups is now down to 450MMR. The former 500MMR Teran player no longer is considered the same "skill level" as the former 500MMR Zerg/Protoss. So who is considered his "peer" in the eyes of the AMM? Answer is the newly 600MMR Zerg/Protoss who would have been 660MMR Zerg/Protoss under the "old, perfectly balanced" game. Now that the MMRs have been adjusted in accordance with the game, the former 500MMR Terran players with their shiny new 25% HP buff now has a 50% win ratio against former 660MMR Zerg/Protoss players. This 50% win ratio is exactly what the data will show you, and no amount of fancy analysis will reveal an imbalance even if it is obvious there is one. BTW, 25% is just a number, don't get hung up over it.. there of course will come a point where that number will utterly break the game and result in nobody being able to win against an OP race, but that would be so painfully obvious you would not need maths to show it to be so. e.g. 200HP Marines with 5 armour, everything else stays the same. There is no way that a Terran would lose if he went 7 RAX Marine. I keep saying this but it keeps getting ignored and people still go about wasting their time: using clean/smoothed data will result in no imbalance issues revealed! Seriously guys, stop wasting your time! Exactly. And the effect of that is a shift in race frequencies, where there are more terrans and fewer zerg and protoss as you move up the leagues. Since we don't see this happening for league play, we infer that the game is balanced. Wrongly.
Please elaborate. I can see one possible reason that just occured to me. I apologize if others have made this point and I missed it.
If we make a few assumptions, outlined elsewhere, I think it's clear that racial imbalance + AMM will cause weak races to be pushed lower in the leagues. However, I realize that it's not necessarily intuitive to me how the races will get pushed back.
In the figure below, I've assumed that there are two races. If the races are balanced, and we assume that race choice is influenced by factors other than player skill, then a graph of race use vs. placement should look like the one below (use of the two races may or may not be equal at 50%, but the proportion of players using each race won't change as a function of league placement).
As discussed above, we might predict that imbalance would lead to weak races being pushed down the ladder, but how would that manifest? Let's say the red race is stronger. Would the graph look like fig. A or fig. B? If it results in the pattern shown in A), that will be easy to detect. If it looks like the pattern shown in B), that will be hard to detect.
![[image loading]](http://i667.photobucket.com/albums/vv32/GagnarTheUnruly/hypoth-1.jpg)
|
Please elaborate. I can see one possible reason that just occured to me. I apologize if others have made this point and I missed it.
I don't think he was saying that basic premise of the post that was wrong
-that a races relative performance directly correlates to more players of that race being placed in a
relatively higher league-
Which is only logical.
Instead, he was saying
Exactly. And the effect of that is a shift in race frequencies, where there are more terrans and fewer zerg and protoss as you move up the leagues. Since we don't see this happening for league play, we infer Wrongly that the game is balanced.
That while the premise may be true, that alone cannot not conclude the game/race is balanced /imbalanced.
Statistics only go so far, as we've repeatedly told Dustin Browder. Lets just try to keep that in mind ^_^.
|
Useless thread IMO and abuse of the word "scientific", because every science should still involve common sense to know what affects its samples and differences of less than 1% are meaningless in such a complex game as Starcraft 2, where the daily form of the player has a MUCH greater impact than the actual abilities of the units (= the balance of races).
Many times there are effects which affect a "test" on a different scale, where one thing has a big effect on the test and completely dominates other, much weaker effects. Lets take a hot cup of tea for example, where you just put in the tea bag ...
- The smalles effect present is that of diffusion, where an atom (molecule) randomly changes place with a neighboring atom (molecule).
- If you stay on the earth you will also get convection flow of heat, you know the "hotter water is lighter and will go to the top and thereby stirs the tea" stuff. This is sooo much bigger that you almost cannot measure the diffusion effect on earth.
- If you take a spoon and stir the cup it would make convection immeasurable.
For any competitive game the daily form of the player is really really important and has a much greater effect than 1-2% and since Zerg players have pressured themselves with the "oh I cant win against Terrans because they are IMBA" propaganda they are at a psychological disadvantage to begin with IMO.
|
Balance is a question of available technology and strategies and their timing, and how these relate to ground- and air-travel distances on a given map. Balance is NOT a question of win percentage on the ladders. Your well-put-together study seems to ignore the simple fact that those games aren't all being played by the same two people. The statistical analysis of who wins most often in league games is really meaningless for determining balance--even if Zerg were winning 60% of their games, this could be explained by the behavior of individual zergs kicking ass rather than "imbalance." Okay, okay, it may not be MEANINGLESS, but it's definitely not a scientific basis for claiming imbalances exist.
|
On August 17 2010 07:18 StarcraftGuy4U wrote:
None of these stats are worthwhile because the matchmaking system does not assign people like they would in a blind study, instead it is actively adjusting the matches so that every player reaches 50%. The numbers you are pulling are worthless for this reason.
Exactly. You just can't extrapolate anything from the win ratios by race due to this.
|
I don't think the balance issue can simply be solved by looking at the stats.
Let me give you a simple example:
Suppose there is a very difficult manoeuvre (say some kind of reaper or hellion harass) that only 0.1% of the Terran players can pull it off consistently. If they manage to pull it off, they are almost guaranteed of a win against any Zerg.
While for the rest of 99.9% Terran players, they are not skilled enough to use this manoeuvre, and they have 49.9% chance of winning against Zergs by playing normally.
So in total, TvZ is about 50:50. But does this means TvZ is balanced? Of course not.
Because now TvZ is already flawed, as the 0.1% pros have a way to win against Zergs.
|
On August 20 2010 15:51 Drowsy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2010 07:18 StarcraftGuy4U wrote:
None of these stats are worthwhile because the matchmaking system does not assign people like they would in a blind study, instead it is actively adjusting the matches so that every player reaches 50%. The numbers you are pulling are worthless for this reason. Exactly. You just can't extrapolate anything from the win ratios by race due to this.
To the people saying the statistics is useless because of the matchmaking system, read the OP again.
Discussion: My data show that, within a league, each of the races has a rougly equal chance of winning a randomly selected game. This indicates that the balance of SC2 is probably pretty good. People have pointed out that matchmaking would cause this to happen, because it strives to set each player's win rate at 50%. That in turn would cause the win rate of each race to trend towards 50%. That being the case, poor balance would tend to result in 'weak' races getting pushed into the lower tiers of play. Because we don't see that happening either within or among leagues (data not shown), my data suggest both that the matchmaking system works well and that SC2 is inherrently pretty well balanced.
|
I'm a bit interested in that as I went on sc2ranks.com I saw that zerg fills 24.07% of Diamond global but has 19.78% playerbase. Wouldn't this indicate that zerg was doing pretty decently overall(even if you'd have to take a bit more microscope to see if they are all just filling the last 24.07% of diamond) as they have just over 4% more players in diamond than you'd expect(if we assume players of x race aren't straight better on avg than of y race).
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Fuck, there's even more facepalm than I originally suspected. This deserves a big ugh.
On August 20 2010 14:12 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:
As discussed above, we might predict that imbalance would lead to weak races being pushed down the ladder, but how would that manifest? Let's say the red race is stronger. Would the graph look like fig. A or fig. B? If it results in the pattern shown in A), that will be easy to detect. If it looks like the pattern shown in B), that will be hard to detect.
Your data has only FIVE DISCREET SKILL LEVELS buckets!
You also have no clue what the skill distribution looks like.
You can't assume a distribution for imbalance, show that the distribution doesn't exist, and claim that you proved imbalance doesn't exist or is small. FUCK THAT.
Please spare us all from more of that bullshit.
|
So lets do a little math game... Idra rages at least 3 times a week how imba terran is and that he loses due to that.
Statistics show that zerg lose 1.5 games in 1000 due to imbalance. That means Idra would have to play 2k games a week in order. Now Idra is a tough progamer and he plays 18 hours (even he needs 5 hours of sleep and another hour for food/hygiene) a day 7 days a week. Those are 7560 minutes. That means he is actually that pro, that he ends his average match in 3.76 minutes minus the time it takes to load up the game.
Now I know what I am doing wrong... moar 6pool ftw!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
