EPTBlizzard's SC2 race stats - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TanukTanukTuk
United States40 Posts
| ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On October 08 2010 07:40 Liquid`Tyler wrote: Blizzard claims that they're able, to some extent, to avoid that pitfall. But it really doesn't because ultimately, a player is gonna go close to 50/50 regardless of what match up he's playing, unless he's some statistical deviant who excels at one match up but is absolutely terrible at another. The fact that the skill range in diamond is so massive pretty much ensures this. I don't think Blizzard realizes just how useless the divisions are at the moment. | ||
|
Hypatio
549 Posts
| ||
|
SubtleArt
2710 Posts
On October 08 2010 09:56 TanukTanukTuk wrote: I would like to point out that if you think about it, 3% isn't that big of an advantage. In particular I'm going with the assumption that the number of games played is large and thus the error in this statistic isn't unreasonably large (<10%). But even in chess, the general consensus is that white has about a 4% advantage over black (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-move_advantage_in_chess). Now I don't know about you, but when I play a game of chess, I don't necessarily stand up and yell "IMBALANCED!!!" whenever I happen to play black. So I would say that the 3% is the least troubling of the statistics. I am more curious as to why we hear so many Zergs complaining and yet the statistics don't seem to reflect this feeling very well... In chess it actually does matter, and for grandmasters the color they play is pretty important. In long series the goal is often to play an opening that sets you up in a position for a draw if you're black. | ||
|
Sayer
United States403 Posts
Eh, seriously though, I dont think these stats mean much as they account only NA, and considering ppl in diamond league are pretty skilled, such close numbers are sort of expected. It however may be an indicator that the balance isnt as bad ppl think. I personally find the percentage of Zerg players (23%?) more interesting. I am glad Blizzard will balance changes primarily focusing on improving the zerg on next patch. | ||
|
HiHiByeBye
Canada365 Posts
On October 08 2010 07:32 Pyrrhuloxia wrote: They show what I suspected, that PvZ is the most imbalanced matchup right now. \Then y do everyone cry about TvZ? | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On October 08 2010 08:31 Waxangel wrote: Why is anyone talking about variance when blizzard has THE ENTIRE FUCKING SAMPLE OF EVERY GAME PLAYED? ahahaha this is awesome, made me lol it's funny because it's so obvious when pointed out | ||
|
fdsdfg
United States1251 Posts
Because T can easily win against Z up until mid-diamond with very very simple play. Each action on a low-mid level requires a much more difficult response from Z. On high level, I believe Cool and Artosis both mentioned huge problems with PvZ - especially regarding the pylon+cannon block at the bottom of the Main ramp, and the huge economic advantage P can get with 2gate pressure. | ||
|
Caponed
United States46 Posts
1. Clarify what "accounting for player skill" means. I don't think we're getting the actual numbers here, I think we're getting modified versions. 2. How far back do the stats date? Launch? Terran were a lot worse at launch, and lots of newbies jumped on the terran bandwagon and brought the W/L ratio down. Not to mention, the number of terran builds and strategies has made them extremely diverse and hard to stop. | ||
|
Blueblister
Sweden321 Posts
Statements that statistics doesn't help in balancing gives me an uneducated impression. Logically you should be able to get a estimation of race balance through the game statistics Blizzard has at hand. Teddymans suggestion should be able to decide witch race need balancing. The first thing Blizzard needs to address is the unpopularity of the zerg race, wich is a balance issue in itself. Making it a more attractive race to play should be a top priority. Blizzard, please incubate a few staticians for further use in your nerdswarm! | ||
|
Titanidis
Greece132 Posts
Protoss are played 38.5% of the time. Terran are played 38.0% of the time. Zerg are played 23.5% of the time. Now, apart from this, a good measure for comparison is the distribution of the players of each race on the different leagues and the average points of the players of each race in each league, instead of the win ratio. | ||
|
eloist
United States1017 Posts
On October 08 2010 10:17 Blueblister wrote: I agree with Ansat that the numbers Blizzard has provided is of no use for us readers. I can't iron out weather Blizzard does a good job balancing. Not with this! Either they don't know what they are doing or they are consciously dumbing down the presentation of the data to manipulate us :-S Statements that statistics doesn't help in balancing gives me an uneducated impression. Logically you should be able to get a estimation of race balance through the game statistics Blizzard has at hand. Teddymans suggestion should be able to decide witch race need balancing. The first thing Blizzard needs to address is the unpopularity of the zerg race, wich is a balance issue in itself. Making it a more attractive race to play should be a top priority. Blizzard, please incubate a few staticians for further use in your nerdswarm! I don't think people as proficient at writing a match making system that works this well wouldn't be able to point out to their designer colleagues which factor are affecting the statistics in what why and how to filter it for reporting. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
They mention in the article that they are considering ways of nerfing Protoss to alter Protoss vs Terran late game. Although I do not cry of imbalance, I am open to changes in Protoss vs Terran that favor T when the game reaches what I call "macro stages". | ||
|
TheGiftedApe
United States1243 Posts
Maybe im jus a idiot...If anything It says, your general zerg player has more talent than your general terran player, protoss somewhere in the middle. | ||
|
lowercase
Canada1047 Posts
Balance based on the total dynamic of ALL players is going to be very difficult to see, you would have to be carefully watching percent changes of 0.001 percent or lower. For true balance, you need to look at the absolute top level of the playing field and make adjustments there. The effects will "trickle down" to the bottom of the ladder accordingly, where rushes and rage quits are the dominant effectors anyway. I want to see changes that make the game more dynamic and result in more options. Like Pokemon, which decided to make like 30 different status variables all of which have different advantages or disadvantages over others. A WILD HYDRALISK APPEARS! COLOSSUS USES THERMAL LANCE! IT'S SUPER-EFFECTIVE! No nerfs I say! If one races fares poorly, give it more options! I yearn for the day when Toss plays something other than Zealot/Stalker/Colossus every game. | ||
|
Adeny
Norway1233 Posts
On October 08 2010 10:22 Techno wrote: I dont see how people can say these stats are meaningless without also saying other stats like "4 hydras beat 3 marauders" is meaningless. These stats mean something. They mean that Zerg players are beating Terran players. Something I think most of us are learning to accept. Just a vocal minority left.... They mention in the article that they are considering ways of nerfing Protoss to alter Protoss vs Terran late game. Although I do not cry of imbalance, I am open to changes in Protoss vs Terran that favor T when the game reaches what I call "macro stages". They are meaningless because you don't know wtf they portray, it could literally be anything. 4 hydras beating 3 marauders is also completely meaningless without additional information and I don't think you could find anyone to disagree with that. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
On October 08 2010 10:02 Hypatio wrote: I'm zerg and my win ratio is about 53% at about 1k points. I win maybe 75% ZvZ's, win about 50% of ZvP and win maybe 25% of my ZvT's. You should work on your ZvT  On October 08 2010 10:30 Adeny wrote: They are meaningless because you don't know wtf they portray, it could literally be anything. 4 hydras beating 3 marauders is also completely meaningless without additional information and I don't think you could find anyone to disagree with that. They portray exactly what they say they portray. Race vs Race win/loss ratios at all the different leagues. What kind of statistic DOES mean something to you? To me this means that the game is pretty damn balanced, of course it isnt perfect, but its pretty damn balanced. How can anyone disagree? By disagree you would say that the game is very unbalanced, and to me that means that it is possible for a player to win 100% of his/her games by doing a particular thing which has no response. I'm sure players will say things like "MMM has no response", but that's getting really old and I will not waste my cyber breath on heathens such as that. | ||
|
Speight
Australia152 Posts
On October 08 2010 09:52 tianGO wrote: So, the barracks will require depot just because they want to delay "reaper pushes". Why don't just increase the reaper build time, or make them 2 food if that's the problem? This could affect things like early marauder pressure in tvp just because they want to change the reaper timings. I believe on the Korean server there is a double rax before depot build going around, which I'm lead to believe is ridiculous in ZvT. This could be a response to that. | ||
|
RoboBob
United States798 Posts
Did blizzard ever say why their "hidden rating" is hidden? | ||
|
knyttym
United States5797 Posts
PvZ has pretty defined periods of strength that most protoss can learn quickly Early game has 4 gate and void rays. Both have game ending potential but aren't too hard to stop once you play more ZvP. These will probably win you 60% PvZ at low low diamond. Then you move up a little and you have the colossus timing attacks. 4 gate still sort of works but I'm talking about 4gate 2 robo or something similar off 2 base. Very simple to learn and execute for your mid level players. Late game requires more of a learning curve but only those 2 stages of the game are really needed to heavily influence the win percentage. So what I take from that is protoss vs zerg is easier to learn then zvp. ZvT really is baffling. I don't even know what to say to those terrans in diamond that account for 51% loss. | ||
| ||
