|
I don't think you can really infer anything about balance from ladder. The matchmaking system (or my understanding of it) doesn't take race into consideration when matching opponents. It just looks at relative score and tries to match you against someone who is close to your score, then adjusts your score after each match based on the outcome.
So a relatively low win % for any race could just be that the matchmaking system for those people is more accurate in matching opponents of similar skill levels, or that the matchmaking system for other races might just be placing those players into easy matches that they are likely to win.
To understand game balance it's far more useful to look at tournaments and individual games/tactics. For the game to be balanced, then at all points the two players must be able to combat each others strategies and tactics in such a way that the player who is better able to control his units, timings, and scouting will win. If there is any point in a game where race x can do y and win every game if he controls his units well, then that is imbalance and can't really be shown by a ladder system that will match opponents based on who they are likely to win/lose to.
|
On October 08 2010 18:04 Cashout wrote:
now when protoss/zerg leads in statistics everybody says its fine and its match making system fault but when Terran led marginally there were countless of whine posts and people claiming imba ...
Yeah thats quite ridiculous to say the least.. Even when the "almighty" FruitSeller explains that tvz is fine for him since 1.1, they still cry at imbaness.
Honestly its really boring, every RTS I played I always faced crazy talk on the forums and endless streams of whine everywhere.
If the MMR whatever force the 50% win, because like in chess lets say that terran (white) have a +Xpoints MMR due to racial imbalance, why do we see stats like 55-45 for zerg or 60-40 for toss in some leagues ? Could someone explain that ?
|
On October 08 2010 19:50 starckr wrote:Show nested quote +Surely it is better to go by aggregate tourney results rather than these dubious stats produced from a system that tries to auto-balance players. I have seen many absolutely atrocious (skill-wise) terrans getting reasonably high diamond (terrible, terrible macro compared to toss and zerg counterparts of the same matchmaking). Stats like Terran winning 12 consecutive Zotac cups is what should be looked at by blizzard. Balancing based on the highest level of play will hardly impact the OP's stats imo and seems like the better way to proceed. That's even worse IMO because then you start to balance around the handful of players that are capable of winning tournaments. And if you do that, you might as well say Zerg is fine because a Zerg player won the biggest Sc2 tournament to-date.
That's just wrong, is it just coincidence that more of the players capable of winning tourneys picked terran? If blizz doesn't balance based upon the pro's then SC2 will fail as an esport. Overall high-end tourney results do tend to show racial imbalance, particularly T>Z that completely invalidates the OP %'s (there is no way 50.4% is an indicator of current TvZ balance). A zerg winning GSL is an outlier and even then the top 4 had 3 T's.
|
If u talk about gsl most protoss played rly bad.
even tester vs itr messed up in both games - the first lost it when it was his by letting the 2-3 collossus slip into terran and been sloppy with attack overall , the second cause he screwed up in the opening.
for the other toss in the tournament , gosh i see ladder guys doing better
stats dont lie and if u have any clue from statistics or math you should have know it.
and if not 100% coreect their much better than random opinions.
Atm toss seems the strongest and just a noticed but koreans belive that as well.
also its evident that zerg actually can beat most of the times terran suprising as it sounds.
|
On October 08 2010 23:58 Burban wrote:
if the MMR whatever force the 50% win, because like in chess lets say that terran (white) have a +Xpoints MMR due to racial imbalance, why do we see stats like 55-45 for zerg or 60-40 for toss in some leagues ? Could someone explain that ?
Yea, I don't think people actually read the original post from blizzard. Look at the stats from Gold:
Win % in Gold (accounting for player skill)
61.0% win rate for Protoss when fighting Terran.
61.1% win rate for Protoss when fighting Zerg.
49.5% win rate for Terran when fighting Zerg.
However Blizzard got their stats, they attempted to remove the 50/50 match making phenomenon. How well they did it can be up for debate, but they did and thus I find the numbers meaningful. Though even Blizzard said they base a lot of their balancing on their own experience and not just on random statistics.
I do think there is a separate issue people are raising.Zerg, for example, may be more difficult to play. Meaning an equaled skilled Zerg player has to work harder for his victory. I personally don't have a problem with this. Given the same skill rating, I respect a Zerg player more than the other races, and a Random player the most (as they have to master many more match ups). Just my opinion, but I kinda like having that variety.
|
Since people are saying that there is no conceivable way that they could account for matchmaking, I shall attempt to present a conceivable one.
A = Estimated skill level determined by entire match history
B = Estimated skill level determined by only mirror matches
Delta = B - A
Player Win% for Matchup = Determined by player's matches in that matchup where the differential in MMR skill is ~ Delta
Win% for Matchup = Average of all Player's Win% for Matchup
Profit?
|
when you look at the diamond stats I think the game is alright as it is. that kind of level of balance is hard to achieve. whether this is representative is another thing, but surely all that mid diamond QQ (i'm mid diamond myself) has proven to be false.
|
On October 09 2010 11:24 eloist wrote:
Since people are saying that there is no conceivable way that they could account for matchmaking, I shall attempt to present a conceivable one.
A = Estimated skill level determined by entire match history
B = Estimated skill level determined by only mirror matches
Delta = B - A
Player Win% for Matchup = Determined by player's matches in that matchup where the differential in MMR skill is ~ Delta
Win% for Matchup = Average of all Player's Win% for Matchup
Profit?
You don't even really have to cut out all the games where there's not a big mismatch.
The fact of how MMR systems work is that the MMR (which Blizzard has access to and thus can quantify) determines how likely you are to win based on skill alone vs someone of another MMR.
Lets assume that a 100 difference in MMR means that the higher MMR is likely to win 60% of the time. (Obviously, equal MMR = 50% of the time). And this assumption is only an assumption in numbers - such a value=%wins number does exist.
So lets say you have a 1100mmr vs a 1000 mmr. If the record is not 60-40, that represents an imbalance of some other kind - maybe map based, maybe racial, whatever. The % imbalance it represents for a 50-50 skill matchup is harder to calculate, and the sigma value that describes the certainty of the MMR complicates things further, but nothing in the MMR system makes it impossible to do this.
The only inaccuracy possible is created by the assumption that MMR isn't already affected by racial imbalances, but that inaccuracy is not sufficient to wipe out a 10% discrepancy in win ratios (basically, the Diamond stats say fuck all, but the Plat/Gold/Silver/Bronze stats indicate a real imbalance at the skill level in question).
|
Whats the percent for Zerg vs Zerg?
:D JK
|
On October 08 2010 07:29 Klive5ive wrote:
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?
Just wondering where you got this from... looking for updated stats
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
