|
aaah man im so glad you guys all see it. win% stats are doctored by the automatch system and are therefore meaningless. We are too smart for you blizzard, you cant pull that wool over our eyes :D I would suggest using racial distribution as a gauge to balance instead.
|
On October 08 2010 13:45 trueg0x wrote:
... I would suggest using racial distribution as a gauge to balance instead.
lol 
|
On October 08 2010 07:32 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
They show what I suspected, that PvZ is the most imbalanced matchup right now.
exactly what I expect from a 5k poster.
Wait what?
You know this has nothing to do with imbalance right, its matchmaking, showing nothing about balance.
|
On October 08 2010 07:31 Fa1nT wrote:
+/- 3% means matchmaking is doing its job and that these statistics are pointless?
Explain protoss 60% win vs T/Z everywhere but high diamond.
what excuse we gonna hear?
|
On October 08 2010 13:45 trueg0x wrote:
aaah man im so glad you guys all see it. win% stats are doctored by the automatch system and are therefore meaningless. We are too smart for you blizzard, you cant pull that wool over our eyes :D I would suggest using racial distribution as a gauge to balance instead.
On October 08 2010 13:50 Apexplayer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 07:32 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
They show what I suspected, that PvZ is the most imbalanced matchup right now. exactly what I expect from a 5k poster. Wait what? You know this has nothing to do with imbalance right, its matchmaking, showing nothing about balance.
I seriously want to strange all these kids who think they are smarter than everyone else posting this garbage not reading the fucking post carefully, or any of the responses in the thread. FDASJKLFSJKL. Here, kzn explains it.
On October 08 2010 13:11 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 11:24 hdkhang wrote:On October 08 2010 10:32 Techno wrote: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: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. 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. 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.
|
It's sort of obnoxious that people are discussing this and acting like they know what's going on and how to interpret this data, when we don't know anything about how it was calculated or the details of how the matchmaking system really works. All we can do for now is accept Blizzard's interpretations. It drives me crazy that so many internet experts think that they know what's going on and that Blizzard doesn't. It's also frustrating that the minute they release what could be helpful data, people jump down their throats.
|
I wonder if Terran was 52% vs x people would still be questioning the stats. Actually, I don't think I have to wonder: regardless of the truth (as proven by Blizzard, as proven elsewhere) the whiners will stick with the false narrative. Nothing will convince these folks otherwise -- repeating a lie long enough does that. But more and more we see that the game is very balanced and if any one race is OP, it is most certainly Protoss.
|
Hopefully no one has mentioned this. I read most of the posts but started skipping some once everyone started yelling at each other. One of the only accurate measurements of skill that would exclude race balance/imbalance would be to measure skill based on the percentage of wins of mirror matchups. So say if I am a 1000 platinum zerg who wins 60% of my mirro matchups. And then I beat a terran who only wins about 40% of their mirror matchups, then my hidden skill ranking (that blizzard says they are using) would not be as high as if I beat a terran who won 60% of their mirror.
I'm really tired so hopefully what I said isn't too confusing. But there really seems like very few ways if any that Blizzard can claim that those stats are adjusted for skill. There is just too many people with way too many variables.
The only other thing, I think they could use would be APM, but I don't think many people would agree that is a great indicator for skill.
Oh well. I am glad they are at least reading the forums and understand that people aren't happy with the way things are, even if the stats they give us are complete garbage.
|
On October 08 2010 13:51 klauz619 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 07:31 Fa1nT wrote:
+/- 3% means matchmaking is doing its job and that these statistics are pointless?
Explain protoss 60% win vs T/Z everywhere but high diamond. what excuse we gonna hear?
proof?
If this was a known fact im fairly certain there would be some outrage/discussion. As is theres nothing that says you didnt pull those numbers out of your ass.
Basically you show us proof that toss wins 60% of games out of high diamond, then maybe people will answer
|
On October 08 2010 14:31 Chen wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 13:51 klauz619 wrote:On October 08 2010 07:31 Fa1nT wrote:
+/- 3% means matchmaking is doing its job and that these statistics are pointless?
Explain protoss 60% win vs T/Z everywhere but high diamond. what excuse we gonna hear? proof? If this was a known fact im fairly certain there would be some outrage/discussion. As is theres nothing that says you didnt pull those numbers out of your ass. Basically you show us proof that toss wins 60% of games out of high diamond, then maybe people will answer
Wow did you even read the SC2 statistics dustin browder put up along with some of the patch notes?
|
One of the most interesting/important things I learned in economics is to look at what people do, not what people say. Obviously even Blizzard knows these statistics mean nothing or they would notsay they are going to make so many changes to zerg. (unless they truly don't care about balance, which I guess is possible as well)
|
On October 08 2010 13:57 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 13:45 trueg0x wrote:
aaah man im so glad you guys all see it. win% stats are doctored by the automatch system and are therefore meaningless. We are too smart for you blizzard, you cant pull that wool over our eyes :D I would suggest using racial distribution as a gauge to balance instead. Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 13:50 Apexplayer wrote:On October 08 2010 07:32 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
They show what I suspected, that PvZ is the most imbalanced matchup right now. exactly what I expect from a 5k poster. Wait what? You know this has nothing to do with imbalance right, its matchmaking, showing nothing about balance. I seriously want to strange all these kids who think they are smarter than everyone else posting this garbage not reading the fucking post carefully, or any of the responses in the thread. FDASJKLFSJKL. Here, kzn explains it. Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 13:57 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:On October 08 2010 13:45 trueg0x wrote:
aaah man im so glad you guys all see it. win% stats are doctored by the automatch system and are therefore meaningless. We are too smart for you blizzard, you cant pull that wool over our eyes :D I would suggest using racial distribution as a gauge to balance instead. On October 08 2010 13:50 Apexplayer wrote:On October 08 2010 07:32 Pyrrhuloxia wrote:
They show what I suspected, that PvZ is the most imbalanced matchup right now. exactly what I expect from a 5k poster. Wait what? You know this has nothing to do with imbalance right, its matchmaking, showing nothing about balance. I seriously want to strange all these kids who think they are smarter than everyone else posting this garbage not reading the fucking post carefully, or any of the responses in the thread. FDASJKLFSJKL. Here, kzn explains it. On October 08 2010 13:11 kzn wrote:On October 08 2010 11:24 hdkhang wrote:On October 08 2010 10:32 Techno wrote: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: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. 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. 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. If anyone familiar with regression could explain to me how you can perform regression when you have no idea what form any of the variables take even. As far as im concerned you just have a set of points that are a function of Race and True skill where true skill is not expressable as noone even knows what makes it up let alone how to quantify it. Then I think you have to know how the variables relate atleast loosely. I think it could be quite easy to make a bad regression to give you numbers you want to see. I think this is an interesting way to get a better understand of regressional analysis so I pose my challenge more as a way to hear a response from someone with more experience. Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 13:11 kzn wrote:On October 08 2010 11:24 hdkhang wrote:On October 08 2010 10:32 Techno wrote: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: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. 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. 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.
If anyone familiar with regression could explain to me how you can perform regression when you have no idea what form any of the variables take even. As far as im concerned you just have a set of points that are a function of Race and True skill where true skill is not expressable as noone even knows what makes it up let alone how to quantify it. Then I think you have to know how the variables relate atleast loosely. I think it could be quite easy to make a bad regression to give you numbers you want to see.
I think this is an interesting way to get a better understand of regressional analysis so I pose my challenge more as a way to hear a response from someone with more experience.
Edit: Someone above mentioned counting mirror matches as a way of finding true skill but that fails to account for some people being better at specific matchups. Someone could be terrible at the mirror and then be the best in the world at the other two matchups.
|
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.
I'd say it's simply not possible - believing it, is an illusion
just for the sake of argument, let's say protoss has a MASSIVE advantage over zerg; then a zerg-player must be of much higher skill to beat a protoss-opponent;
this basicly means, that in this case a 1k point zerg may have a 50/50 win-ratio vs a 1k point protoss, but will be much higher skilled; the system is designed to get you a 50/50 ratio, which means I seriously doubt that blizzard can "account for skill" in these statistics;
because it would just mean, forgetting about the system overall; if you have two players of different races with equal amount of points and equal amount of win-% there is NO WAY to tell, if not one of these two players is much higher skilled but ended up "lower" because of his racial disadvantage
|
On October 08 2010 07:31 Fa1nT wrote:
+/- 3% means matchmaking is doing its job and that these statistics are pointless?
well said
|
The only way to figure out balance is through many many many highest lvl games played in a competetive environment. Obviously there havent been enough tournaments yet so far, and the problem will always be that the samplesize is small by the definition of which data counts and which does not.
|
attention: "adjusted for skill level" means the stats posted compare only evenly matched opponents, i.e., opponents with same hidden skill level. this means the stats ARE NOT a reflection of the ladder system, which pits players against lower and higher skilled players to drive a player to 50% win ratio.
in sum, PLEASE STOP saying that the stats are only a reflection of the ladder system working.
|
Here's an easy way to determine player skill:
Count how many mirror matches the player wins = how skilled the player is =)
If the good zerg players (who win 60-70% of all mirror matches in diamond) then lose consistently to protoss, it would suggest PvZ is imbalanced in favour of P etc.
Note, I said suggest (it might also mean that people who are good at ZvZ are bad at ZvP!), but that seems less likely over a large enough sample.
|
On October 08 2010 07:51 TitleRug 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. The people at Blizzard are probably smart enough to create an algorithm to do this. I hope so at least  .
I takes much a priori information to make such an algorithm. One I could think of would be : for every race, the skill distribution is the same among the players. It would be very great though if they told us how they did it precisely, because as such the data is completely useless.
I can too tell number 1223 552 21.132 see ?
|
On October 08 2010 17:36 Svetz wrote:
Here's an easy way to determine player skill:
Count how many mirror matches the player wins = how skilled the player is =)
wtf why? I could be a good player but just suck at my mirror - or eg. I even start to cheese in PvP once in a while because it's SO annoying to get like the 5th mirror-matchup in a row, don't care anymore if I lose, just want to end it quickly
|
On October 08 2010 17:39 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 08 2010 17:36 Svetz wrote:
Here's an easy way to determine player skill:
Count how many mirror matches the player wins = how skilled the player is =)
wtf why? I could be a good player but just suck at my mirror - or eg. I even start to cheese in PvP once in a while because it's SO annoying to get like the 5th mirror-matchup in a row, don't care anymore if I lose, just want to end it quickly
Read the second half of the post, hence why you need a large sample =)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
