|
Win % in Diamond (accounting for player skill)
49.6% win rate for Protoss when fighting Terran.
52.8% win rate for Protoss when fighting Zerg.
49.6% win rate for Terran when fighting Zerg.
Now I'm hoping we could have a brief discussion of what that actually means.
I'm reading it as based upon hidden elo (skill) what percentage of games are won against different races.
So these stats only show the difficulty of the match-ups RELATIVE to each other.
The only reason each race doesn't add up to 100% is because there are not an equal number of players playing each race.
In other words these stats show that ZvP is harder for diamond zergs than ZvT.
But they do not necessarily show that P > Z.
Nor do they necessarily show that Z > T.
Because these stats cannot show what elo(skill) a player would reach if he changed races, since this is obviously pretty impossible.
Thoughts? Am I wrong?
|
+/- 3% means matchmaking is doing its job and that these statistics are pointless?
|
They show what I suspected, that PvZ is the most imbalanced matchup right now.
|
On October 08 2010 07:31 Fa1nT wrote:
+/- 3% means matchmaking is doing its job and that these statistics are pointless?
Well I don't think they're pointless.
But I think they only show what matchups are more difficult for each race and don't give any indication of "true" balance.
|
Is it just me or are these statistics meaningless for many reasons
|
On October 08 2010 07:31 Fa1nT wrote:
+/- 3% means matchmaking is doing its job and that these statistics are pointless?
Exactly. I can't believe people still don't realize this.
The matchmaking is designed so that when you lose, you play people that are worse, and when you win, you play people that are better....every game. This basically makes your record pan out to 50% no matter what race and matchup you're playing. Add to that the extreme range of skill found in diamond league (from "remind me wat a build order is again?" to top players in the country) and you get a completely meaningless set of statistics
|
Yup. Everyone else has said it perfect. Stats are designed to show match making works, that's about it.
|
8748 Posts
Let's take a look at win percentages on a race-versus-race basis. This is something else we look at to see how matchups are faring over many games. These numbers take individual player skill into account, which helps to avoid the 50% win/loss percentage effect that the matchmaking system can impart on straight win/loss ratios.
Blizzard claims that they're able, to some extent, to avoid that pitfall.
|
On October 08 2010 03:46 Sakarabu wrote:Seems there are alot of illiterate people in this thread. The stats take the ladder system into accountFrom the blog: Show nested quote +Let's take a look at win percentages on a race-versus-race basis. This is something else we look at to see how matchups are faring over many games. These numbers take individual player skill into account, which helps to avoid the 50% win/loss percentage effect that the matchmaking system can impart on straight win/loss ratios. Yes, they probably won't be 100% accurate, and yeah they are kind of useless, since the percentage of new players picking Terran in the lower leagues and losing is probably higher than any other race (Since this is the Terran expansion). The list of problems with these stats goes on.. But the arguement that these stats don't take into account the 50% win ratio ladder balancing has already been accounted for, so stop bringing it up.
this guy got it right.
edit: in other words the stats here matter (in terms of matchmaking has been taken account for). Tyler also got it right. Of course, I agree these stats aren't 100% accurate. It's not possible to get exact stats.
|
I want to know how they are "accounting for player skill" when coming up with these numbers. Not really sure how you go about doing that.
|
8748 Posts
On October 08 2010 07:41 nemahsys wrote:
I want to know how they are "accounting for player skill" when coming up with these numbers. Not really sure how you go about doing that.
That's essentially the question that is on the table already, the whole point of this thread.
|
Someone needs to go into Blizzard, and kick everyone on the balance team out. If these are the numbers they use to balance the game, it makes perfect sense why they keep nerfing protoss.
I think TL needs to make it's own balance notes and force them down blizzards throat. What are they doing?
|
• We're increasing roach range. This will allow roaches to be more effective in large groups, giving the zerg more options in the mid to end game.
• Fungal Growth will now prevent Blink, which will give zerg a way to stop endlessly Blinking stalkers which can be very challenging to deal with in large numbers.
• The Barracks are going to require a Supply Depot, which will impact a lot of early terran reaper pushes.
• The reaper speed upgrade will require the Factory, which is meant to weaken a lot of the early terran reaper attacks that dominate so many matches, especially in team games.
• We're making a number of increases to the health of zerg buildings, which will make the very vulnerable zerg technology structures more resistant to raids. We don't expect these hit point changes to have a super significant impact on the game, but the current numbers felt way too low.
Gosh blizz thank you for letting me go 14 hatch every game against T.
|
On October 08 2010 07:41 nemahsys wrote:
I want to know how they are "accounting for player skill" when coming up with these numbers. Not really sure how you go about doing that.
I think they disregard any gimme matches where one player has significantly higher MMR than the opponent.
|
On October 08 2010 07:41 nemahsys wrote:
I want to know how they are "accounting for player skill" when coming up with these numbers. Not really sure how you go about doing that.
The people at Blizzard are probably smart enough to create an algorithm to do this. I hope so at least  .
|
It'd be interesting for player skill considering their metric for player skill is what they use to generate their matchmaking, it'd seem that if a super imbalanced race existed and someone won all the time with that, then they would appear "skillful" regardless of actual "skill". The fact that "skill" is actually a fairly subjective term alone makes it seem hard to compensate for it.
|
My problem with terran isnt much at a high lvl, its that any idiot can MMM and get to diamond and its much much harder to counter skill wise as protoss. I can just assume every game they are going MMM, be correct in that assumption, and still not have more than a 60% chance at winning, meanwhile if anyone else knows EXACTLY what a protoss and zerg is going from second 1, they have a very very very good shot at stopping it.
These are of course my experiences at my skill level (low level diamond)
My biggest complaint really is that as protoss, you CANT rush a terran period if they have half a brain, this doesn't mean i want to be able to GG them every time in the first 5 minutes, but there needs to be a THREAT of it so they cant just sim city away and not have to worry about it for 10 minutes.... Meanwhile i need to scout constantly to check for cheese and if they are doing certain timing pushs.
I still enjoy protoss of course because i enjoy FF micro and all the various builds i have open to me, but it's fairly irritating that i can go from playing just protoss for 100 games into diamond, and then be able to play terran for the 3rd time ever and be able to move up in ranks in diamond, while i have been stuck with protoss for a week
|
On October 08 2010 07:49 Cade)Flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 07:41 nemahsys wrote:
I want to know how they are "accounting for player skill" when coming up with these numbers. Not really sure how you go about doing that. I think they disregard any gimme matches where one player has significantly higher MMR than the opponent.
Is that just an assumption?
|
On October 08 2010 07:53 QueueQueue wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 07:49 Cade)Flayer wrote:On October 08 2010 07:41 nemahsys wrote:
I want to know how they are "accounting for player skill" when coming up with these numbers. Not really sure how you go about doing that. I think they disregard any gimme matches where one player has significantly higher MMR than the opponent. Is that just an assumption?
Yes, just trying to guess what Blizz are doing to get those stats.
|
On October 08 2010 07:44 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 07:41 nemahsys wrote:
I want to know how they are "accounting for player skill" when coming up with these numbers. Not really sure how you go about doing that. That's essentially the question that is on the table already, the whole point of this thread.
Yeah these stats are largely useless. It's like if i went to sc2ranks, grabbed the top 10, then stated the following facts:
In high-diamond, there racial ratios are:
10% random
20% zerg
20% protoss
50% terran
None of the above is incorrect, but completely useless and misleading if you don't know the context of how the stats were generated.
Thoughts on a pro-mod managed by TL (not released on 1. april)? I believe it's possible to make custom maps that store stuff between games, so a custom ladder could be possible? Then we'd have our own god damn stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
