EPTzvp
Zerg • 42 wins • 35.29%
Protoss • 77 wins • 64.71%
based on: 119 replays
Didn't expect that.
race v race statistics based on 551 "top" replays - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
CruelZeratul
Germany4588 Posts
zvp Zerg • 42 wins • 35.29% Protoss • 77 wins • 64.71% based on: 119 replays Didn't expect that. | ||
|
LaLuSh
Sweden2358 Posts
On September 21 2010 22:38 kickinhead wrote: nah, the problems for Z in both MU's are legit, I rly don't undrstand hy no1 rly whines about toss... There's a pretty clear problem in ZvP and it's that zealots build too fast and don't allow zerg to power drones, ever (vs a good player). Even at high diamond this imbalance isn't noticeable. Only at the very top do you find Protoss players who abuse this properly, with well timed and thought out transitions. Of course, stalker/colossi are a huge problem too. But hopefully the extra 20 hydras you'll have due to not losing 10+ drones to early zealot pressure will help out in the first big battle. Or the extra 7-8 corruptors. In ZvT there's nothing specific you can pinpoint the imbalance on. | ||
|
Adeny
Norway1233 Posts
On September 21 2010 22:19 kickinhead wrote: pvz is just as bad as tvz, just cuz Terran is the topic Nr.1, noone talks about how bad pvz is. tvp is messed up as well: T is imba early to midgame and toss steamroll them in a macrogame... YESSSSSS THANK YOU THANK YOU SO MUCH. I thought I was the only one who had an easier time in ZvT than ZvP. Protoss is sooo much stronger early and mid game, only if they don't attack (read: stupid) until you have 3/3/3 upgrades and 200/200 pure ultras does zerg stand a chance. Oh and sorry for derailing. Regarding the stats though, I'm not really surprised however it doesn't really say much, more of an advert for your website which is fine I guess. Either way, happy patch day zergs, hope we get something nice. :3 | ||
|
bingobango
26 Posts
On September 21 2010 22:41 hmunkey wrote: Random replays don't mean anything. I disagree. In fact, my replays are decidedly non-random, which is the problem. If they actually were properly random, it would be much ore significant  On September 21 2010 22:44 bbulzibar wrote: Love the site, I would like to see a breakdown by map too! Also, is the same replay (uploaded to multiple sites) counted as unique games? If so, maybe there is a way to filter down to unique games based on map/players/game length. My aggregator has dupe detection (and successfully handles modified replays with chat-ads), so on whichever site I find the replay first gets the "credit", and the newer one goes into the bin. These 551 replays are unique. As for the actual site, yes, I have filters for seeing games by certain players, races, and matchups. I'm going to add game-length and map soon. | ||
|
lastmotion
368 Posts
On September 21 2010 22:41 hmunkey wrote: Random replays don't mean anything. That said, I do feel z is underpowered based on total ladder results and tournament placements. This. I am sure the OP was biased in picking out replays to make it seem like ZvP more skewed than ZvT and TvP. There is no way ZvP data is that bad, it's the most balanced SC2 matchup. Define the top players. From where? By top 550, do you mean consecutively without skipping? I have high suspicion about the way these replays were picked out / data was made. | ||
|
Rea
Germany88 Posts
On September 21 2010 22:29 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: 423 TvT and only 12 ZvZ and 118 PvP? that alone signifies imbalance i think , so many people wanting to play terran there are more P then T, not in top 551 but overall and yes, that makes this statistic even worse in terms of balance  | ||
|
bingobango
26 Posts
This. I am sure the OP was biased in picking out replays to make it seem like ZvP more skewed than ZvT and TvP. I didn't pick replays by hand. These are replays aggregated from 5 sites over the past several weeks that I chose because they had 1) good geographic coverage 2) frequent updates 3) top players. You can see the sites I used here: www.replayspider.com/about/ Being a bit of a replay junky, I'd say the selection of replays from these 5 sites has really good coverage of the entire "top player" replay scene. If there's replays missing or a site that has replays that I am missing, I'd love to know about it. There is no way ZvP data is that bad, it's the most balanced SC2 matchup. I agree with the first part, not so sure about the second part. The selection bias + small sample size makes it a bit squirrely, but it's better than nothing. Define the top players. From where? By top 550, do you mean consecutively without skipping? "top" player in this case means whatever the maintainers of the site in question mean by "top" when they upload their replays. You can look through the replays yourself and see what qualifies. I've put the rankings (and sc2rank regional ranks) by each replay. | ||
|
Sleight
2471 Posts
Before this debate turns into some kind of statistical pissing match, I thought I'd link a useful post I made so we can discuss this properly: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=153500 I would appreciate seeing actually statistical tests for significance on any of these values. My intuition is that most of these are statistically significant, but I can't be sure without someone actually doing the math. How does this data hold up to Chi-squared analysis? I suspect that it shows almost perfect balance of the 3 race's overall win percentages. | ||
|
Wihl
Sweden472 Posts
Round of 512: 144 Round of 256: 90 Round of 128: 43 Round of 64: 17 Round of 32: 5 Round of 16: 1 Round of 8: 1 Round of 4: 0 | ||
|
bingobango
26 Posts
On September 21 2010 23:01 Sleight wrote: Hey y'all, Before this debate turns into some kind of statistical pissing match, I thought I'd link a useful post I made so we can discuss this properly: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=153500 You can't blame me! I tried to put that fire out with my first 3 words I would appreciate seeing actually statistical tests for significance on any of these values. My intuition is that most of these are statistically significant, but I can't be sure without someone actually doing the math. How does this data hold up to Chi-squared analysis? I suspect that it shows almost perfect balance of the 3 race's overall win percentages. Doesn't this conversation start and end by saying the sampling isn't random? There's several really strong biases in this data, because the definition of "top" is inconsistent, humans are uploading these replays and considering them "good enough for upload" and so on. I've removed some of the noise by only including "top" replay sections of popular sites, but still, drawing serious statistical conclusions from this data is inadvisable. | ||
|
lastmotion
368 Posts
On September 21 2010 23:00 bingobango wrote: I didn't pick replays by hand. These are replays aggregated from 5 sites over the past several weeks that I chose because they had 1) good geographic coverage 2) frequent updates 3) top players. You can see the sites I used here: www.replayspider.com/about/ Being a bit of a replay junky, I'd say the selection of replays from these 5 sites has really good coverage of the entire "top player" replay scene. If there's replays missing or a site that has replays that I am missing, I'd love to know about it. But you picked out the sites by hand. List out the 5 sites you used and why we should take the data from those sites seriously. On September 21 2010 23:00 bingobango wrote: "top" player in this case means whatever the maintainers of the site in question mean by "top" when they upload their replays. You can look through the replays yourself and see what qualifies. I've put the rankings (and sc2rank regional ranks) by each replay. You need to look at tournament wins and professional gaming than wins by casual gamers. For example, you can collect thousands of ICCUP D+ games PvT Matchup and notice that Protoss has more wins than Terran but that doesn't say anything about balance. It just means that Protoss at D+ level is easier to play than Terran. One last important note: I noticed that your sample size for each matchup was different. This is a huge flaw. When sample size gets smaller and smaller, it is easier for the percentage to be heavily swung to one side. For example, compare a data with 4-10 win/loss ratio and compare a data with 745 - 1500. The latter is 49.6% while the former is 40%. That lack of measly 1 win game from the first data made a whooping 10% difference. So the higher the sample size is, the more it tends to equalize. And your website shows that you used the smallest sample size for ZvP and different sample sizes for all matchups. This data is bad. | ||
|
Drakmore
United States9 Posts
On September 21 2010 22:00 Krohm wrote: zvp Zerg • 42 wins • 35.29% Protoss • 77 wins • 64.71% based on: 119 replays WAT I find that hard to believe, I have a much easier time in ZvP than any other MU when I am zerg. The rest doesn't surprise me at all though. I thought the same thing, but im not a diamond player so these "top" statistics dont really apply to me so. | ||
|
bingobango
26 Posts
But you picked out the sites by hand. List out the 5 sites you used and why we should take the data from those sites seriously. I showed you the sites already. Unless you are ready to accuse them of only posting replays where zerg lose, it's probably safe to safe there's no conspiracy here to "prove" that zerg are underpowered. You need to look at tournament wins and professional gaming than wins by casual gamers. You can also thumb through the replay list yourself, and see the types of players in it. I'd describe the players, collectively, as many things, but I'm not sure "casual" would make the list. One last important note: I noticed that your sample size for each matchup was different. This is a huge flaw. When sample size gets smaller and smaller, it is easier for the percentage to be heavily swung to one side. The first statement is pretty much false. Different sample size is not a flaw, at all. Small sample size is, however. This was stated from the outset and this was posted now because v1.0 goes away. The sample size ain't getting any bigger. Starting today I'll be doing v1.1 replays and starting over. This data is bad. I don't want to get all theoretical on you, but data cannot be bad. It just is. Only bad conclusions can be drawn from data, and given the opening two words of my post, you can't say you weren't warned. I'd say you might be taking it a bit too seriously. | ||
|
Santi
Colombia466 Posts
| ||
|
refraxion
Canada88 Posts
On September 21 2010 22:38 kickinhead wrote: nah, the problems for Z in both MU's are legit, I rly don't undrstand hy no1 rly whines about toss... I agree, seems like everyone is happy to jump on the T bandwagon, yet there is still toss in the corner who is arguably just as OP in some respects. | ||
|
Rokk
United States425 Posts
On September 22 2010 00:02 Santi wrote: game is balanced imo, we just need better maps. I think the fact that patch 1.1 is coming out today proves you wrong. | ||
|
Triscuit
United States722 Posts
| ||
|
ooni
Australia1498 Posts
On September 22 2010 00:09 Rokk wrote: I think the fact that patch 1.1 is coming out today proves you wrong. maybe or maybe not or maybe so... or maybe Blizzard wants us to keep playing on steppes of war, and wants to balance the races to suit the current ladder pool. Yeah my blood just started boiling... then I started palming my face | ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
On September 21 2010 23:28 bingobango wrote: I don't want to get all theoretical on you, but data cannot be bad. It just is. Only bad conclusions can be drawn from data, and given the opening two words of my post, you can't say you weren't warned. I'd say you might be taking it a bit too seriously. i wouldnt say data cannot be bad. data either is appropriate for the purpose it is intended for or it is not. if a certain dataset is generally inappropriate for a certain statistical analysis, then u can say the data is bad (for this purpose). the biggest issue i got with ur analysis is that u excluded mirror matches. if one race is dominant, then this race is more likely to advance far into the tournaments, which results in a higher amount of mirror matches of this race compared to mirrors of the other races. i once again refer to the example of the bw map "battle royal": http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/maps/201_Battle_Royal on the other hand, the amount of players of a race also plays a role. for example: lets assume there were only 2 races, toss and terran. 2/3rd of all players play protoss, but terran has a 75% chance to win a tvp. then a tourney with 512 players will usually see terran-dominated final rounds, with lots of tvt going on there. but because there are initially more protoss players, there are overall more pvps in this tournament. so basically, a statistically sound analysis of replays would have to account for the difference between the amount of mirror matches and the amount of players of each respective race. but including mirror matches somehow would be a good start anyway. | ||
|
dudeman001
United States2412 Posts
Or maybe not, since a 49% to 51% MU could be enough to set off the imba trigger in whiner nerds. | ||
| ||
