EPTBlizzard's SC2 race stats - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Phayze
Canada2029 Posts
| ||
|
Adeny
Norway1233 Posts
On October 08 2010 10:32 Techno wrote: You should work on your ZvT  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. The disagreeing part was about 4 hydras beat 3 maraduers being a useless stat. So again, I'm NOT saying the game is imbalanced... What I am saying is that these stats are not worth much at all because there are variables invovled in their algorithm for generating those stats that we have NO idea what they are. Mainly what their "compensation" for play skill or whatever is, there's also the fact that we don't know if they include stats from the beta (it sounds ridiculous but Blizzard would obviously want to look good, so why not if they're telling the truth, right?), or if it includes the entirety of the stats from release or not. Worthy stats would be stats that have every variable and how much weight they carry released at the VERY least, preferably the entire algorithm would be released, but chances are Blizzard cannot do that. | ||
|
DoomSpirit
France46 Posts
On October 08 2010 07:48 Crabman123 wrote: • 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. When I first read this, I was like "haha, made my day especially the supply one, best troll ever ^^" Then I was like : Wtf, they are really thinking about doing this O_o I mean, I play zerg, and what I want is that blizzard gives me more openings, not that they cut terran openings down to bring it to our level >< | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On October 08 2010 10:48 DoomSpirit wrote: When I first read this, I was like "haha, made my day especially the supply one, best troll ever ^^" Then I was like : Wtf, they are really thinking about doing this O_o I mean, I play zerg, and what I want is that blizzard gives me more openings, not that they cut terran openings down to bring it to our level >< yeah wtf... terrans will feel so lame now that i won't have to worry about getting proxyraxed or shit :/ i thouroughly enjoy outmicroing noob terrans looking for ezwin :D | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4332 Posts
| ||
|
The Dice
Germany5 Posts
| ||
|
tGhOeOoDry
United States48 Posts
-Blizzard is "accounting for player skill." That means that they are using a basic regression analysis which everyone learns in every stats class that is worth a damn. After running the regression, they find the extent to which race is correlated with victory independent of player skill. Regression is how we can learn anything at all from statistics; I'm sure they did this correctly. -For those interested in what "player skill" is, there have been a wonderful series of posts regarding the ladder system that discuss the nature of the "hidden rankings" that determine match-ups and are different than the displayed ratings. -The key problem with the statistics has already been mentioned: the hidden player skill value is determined by your wins and losses. Thus, if a racial imbalance exists, Zerg players will lose more often to terrans and will appear to be less skillful. That means that there is correlation between the independent and dependent variables in the regression, which makes the conclusions of the regression suspect. -So what have we learned? Absolutely nothing. They have corrected for player skill to the best of their ability. But how can we really be sure if one race is more powerful than the other or if more talented player gravitate towards one race? Finally, for those of you paranoid about what this data means for future patches, etc., please remain calm. The Blizzard team is made up of professionals who know damn well that their data is flawed. They made it public as a PR thing to show that they care about balance. Of course, it didn't work because there's nothing nerds like better than to complain about how they're the victims of some big, strong athlete...err...I mean corporation, so people complain and complain anyways. The data doesn't mean anything. You know that, I know that, Blizzard knows that. What more is there to say? | ||
|
hdkhang
Australia183 Posts
On October 08 2010 10:32 Techno wrote: You should work on your ZvT 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. The stats only show that the Matchmaking system is working. The only stat that blizzard collects is the match outcome i.e. wins and losses. Based on your wins and losses vs other players wins and losses, you get somewhat ranked, this is their hidden rating. | ||
|
SlimeBagly
356 Posts
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/us/1/ The very clear correlation between increase in Diamond points and increase in Terran percentage means one thing: According to the match-making system, the arbitrary Terran player is more skilled than the arbitrary zerg player. This implies the race is stronger than zerg (and to a lesser extent, my brethren from Aiur). | ||
|
Archmage
United States169 Posts
| ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
| ||
|
Strutswell
Canada47 Posts
On October 08 2010 11:31 nickjpgeorge wrote: The first graph here is 100x more telling than any of Blizz's stats: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race/us/1/ The very clear correlation between increase in Diamond points and increase in Terran percentage means one thing: According to the match-making system, the arbitrary Terran player is more skilled than the arbitrary zerg player. This implies the race is stronger than zerg (and to a lesser extent, my brethren from Aiur). Well I dont know, when looking at those graphs it seems the "overall" race chosen in all leagues (besides bronze) is Protoss. What does that mean? Sure there are no high-level diamonds (2200+) using Protoss or Zerg, but how can you infer anything from that? Kudos on the link, I like seeing things in pretty graphs and colours! EDIT: Oh when I look at http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/us it shows the sample size, there are only 3 players above 2200 and 8 players above 2100. So these "top tier stats" aren't that really effective of convincing us of anything | ||
|
LordYama
United States370 Posts
| ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
On October 08 2010 07:48 Crabman123 wrote: • 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. Sorry, but wtf is this? This just has been randomly posted in this thread, and noone has mentioned wtf it is or where it's from. I just thought this guy was trolling. What is this shit? | ||
|
spiff.spaceman
United States10 Posts
On October 08 2010 12:29 Subversion wrote: Sorry, but wtf is this? This just has been randomly posted in this thread, and noone has mentioned wtf it is or where it's from. I just thought this guy was trolling. What is this shit? Developer's Corner: 1v1 Game Balance - StarCraft II http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/882511 | ||
|
Minus`
United States174 Posts
On October 08 2010 12:29 Subversion wrote: Sorry, but wtf is this? This just has been randomly posted in this thread, and noone has mentioned wtf it is or where it's from. I just thought this guy was trolling. What is this shit? It's posted at the bottom of Browder's blog post, linked from the front page on bnet. Or, at least it is on NA site: link Edit: Beaten to it. | ||
|
SlimeBagly
356 Posts
On October 08 2010 12:20 Strutswell wrote: Well I dont know, when looking at those graphs it seems the "overall" race chosen in all leagues (besides bronze) is Protoss. What does that mean? Sure there are no high-level diamonds (2200+) using Protoss or Zerg, but how can you infer anything from that? Kudos on the link, I like seeing things in pretty graphs and colours! EDIT: Oh when I look at http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/us it shows the sample size, there are only 3 players above 2200 and 8 players above 2100. So these "top tier stats" aren't that really effective of convincing us of anything True. But I'm more interested in the 1600-1900 range, where there are a statistically significant number of players. Protoss flops around a lot, so I don't think there's any inferrable trend, but Terran clearly goes up and zerg clearly goes down. | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
Also, why is there no thread on this? Or is there? O_o | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On October 08 2010 11:24 hdkhang wrote: The stats only show that the Matchmaking system is working. The only stat that blizzard collects is the match outcome i.e. wins and losses. Based on your wins and losses vs other players wins and losses, you get somewhat ranked, this is their hidden rating. Did you not even read the OP? The stats are adjusted for skill, insofar as the MMR system allows this to be done. It is possible to do this, with some degree of accuracy. | ||
|
Blueblister
Sweden321 Posts
On October 08 2010 10:21 eloist wrote: 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. Trust me, the "good" matchmaking system has more to do with good programing, which we already know they master, than with advanced statistical evaluation. Their method is basically like this: They rate all players based on a formula similar to the ELO system. The match-making system then force BattleNet to pair players based on their rating relative to other players. The larger the difference in rating between two players, the lesser likelihood of the two being paired. Voala! The WC3 match-making system was actually pretty bad, as it didn't track how large of an population was online at one time. This resulted in some higher rated players being "forbidden" to play as their was no-one around matching their rating. They seem to have fixed this for SC2. On October 08 2010 10:39 RoboBob wrote: This stuff is pretty interesting. Did blizzard ever say why their "hidden rating" is hidden? Well, probably because it would undermine the legitimity of their visible division-ranking systems. This second "superficial" ranking system is in place as they believe it is better at motivating people to keep playing. On October 08 2010 11:23 tGhOeOoDry wrote: -The key problem with the statistics has already been mentioned: the hidden player skill value is determined by your wins and losses. Thus, if a racial imbalance exists, Zerg players will lose more often to terrans and will appear to be less skillful. That means that there is correlation between the independent and dependent variables in the regression, which makes the conclusions of the regression suspect. Well, you can still come too a conclusion on which race is inferior if you assume the same distribution of skill or talent across all three races . On the other hand you can assume different distribution of skill or talent across the races. In this case you can still use the same method as long as future beginners of each race will follow the same race-specific skill distribution as the current ones. The issue isn't really the data, my concern is how Blizzard chose to present it. | ||
| ||
