|
Blizzard just released their latest update for the Top 200 players on NA servers which can be found at top 200 list
I was really interested to see how the recent patch (1.1.2) changed the balance at the high levels of SC2. So I threw together the stats in a spread sheet so you guys can see the breakdown/ race distribution. (shows top 5, 10, 30, 50, 100, and 200) I also made graphs for the top 50, 100, and 200 so those of us more visually inclined can have an idea of how each race is represented.
That information can be found here: spread sheet analysis
Shameless self plug: There was a ton of shifting on the list and if you are one of the new players to the top 200 list make sure you check out the sponsored top 200 KOTH that I host : Thunder's Top 200 KOTH
But back to the original data... what do you TL'ers think?
Is patch 1.1.2 a step in the right direction (towards 'ideal' balance)?
Are we going to see more Zerg representation in the top 200 now that more and more people are seeing Zergs tear up recent tournaments (mlg, gsl, etc)?
|
I think we need to wait a bit longer before the patch affects the Terran/Zerg % numbers.
|
I'm on it finally! :D
Was thinking about posting it but wasn't sure if I should. Should see more zergs soon but I don't think it's a good way to tell balance.
|
United States12235 Posts
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
|
they forgot my name again... jeeeeez.. :D fu pokebunny, congrats :D
|
On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
Are you sure? The ordering of the list is not at all the same as the ordering of points.
How are divisions weighted? I thought MMR was equal across all divisions and that it determined your point win/loss.
|
Woo, more than 1 random! Thanks for the pie chart.
|
On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
Do divisions matter? I always thought divisions were artifacts and didn't affect who you play.
|
On October 26 2010 11:32 Pokebunny wrote:
I'm on it finally! :D
Was thinking about posting it but wasn't sure if I should. Should see more zergs soon but I don't think it's a good way to tell balance.
just missed top 100 suckaa
|
Definitely. It will take a while for things to settle and for a new set of 'standard' strategies to arise before we see how much this patch actually affected balance but I was surprised at how much the list actually changed from the pre-patch list. It will take people a long time to actually switch races if they were previously playing T or P because they felt Z was too hard/underpowered (plus time for them to get good with Zerg) but the distribution already shows we are headed towards more Zergs being represented.
|
hooray im on it, aiming for top 100 next week.
|
+ Show Spoiler +the counter to zerg is 12 rax+reactor core/hellion imo. try it out ahahah its gay but funny. just a side note a rax with reactor core = 2 barracks from sc1, so 12 rax+reactor is actually 24 rax, ive never tried this btw, just a theory.
i will be on this list one day!
|
And blizzard Top 200 lists are not purely point based like sc2ranks. They take into account win percentage. (not sure how elo/divisions are factored in but isn't just pure points)
|
On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
The top 200 lists are not generated based on points. It's based on your MMR.
|
|
|
I can't understand how Zerg players can be almost the same number as Terran and Protoss in top200 when distrubution of races is like Z: 23% P: 38% T:38%
And after only 2 weeks or something like that after the patch? Wtf o_O
|
United States7481 Posts
|
Well this data is at the very highest level. If we have thousands of people playings its not hard for the very best of the zergs to be at a similar level to the top terran and protoss players. It should be fairly independent of the actual total distribution.
|
This is the most imbalanced Patch to date. Roach are outrageously OP. Void Ray has been removed from the game which means BC and Thors have no counter (Blizzard insured this by removing feedback) , Ultralisks now have no counter. Patch 1.0 was more balanced than this shit. This is coming from someone whose consistantly been top 200, and went up 22 ranks this patch, but in terms of Real Skill level, i should have gone up 40+ but this patch handicaps my skill. This game has devolved into Uncounterable Ball 1a.
User was warned for this post
|
On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
Divisions don't matter whatsoever. This guy is a moran who just doesn't know what he's talking about.
The ratings are entirely based on MMR. That's the cross division, cross league, matchmaking rating that you don't get to see. Actual MMR is short term, taking into acount probably your recent 15-20 games, but for this purposes of this list, blizzard could easily look at a week or month.
|
honestly i feel one of the most balanced patches was during the end of beta, then they decided too buff stimpack, grenades and combat shield and it all went downhill from there.
|
I don't know for sure about that. Void rays are stronger with a level 1 charge. This means vs Z 2 void rays now beat 2 queens whereas prepatch i believe they lost. They gain some other advantages although I have yet to test them out fully. Roaches didn't change very much except for the range buff. This is a huge change mind you but they weren't liked very much prepatch. It drastically changes stuff like the cannon rush wall in and being able to put cannons 1 space behind your protoss buildings but I think the main difference that that zergs are now able to hatch first and build up a much stronger economy. Thus roach pushes can come earlier or with more forces, making the roach appear much stronger when it is really just that the race as a whole has changed fairly dramatically.
|
On October 26 2010 11:50 SaDGoWu wrote:
This is the most imbalanced Patch to date. Roach are outrageously OP. Void Ray has been removed from the game which means BC and Thors have no counter (Blizzard insured this by removing feedback) , Ultralisks now have no counter. Patch 1.0 was more balanced than this shit. This is coming from someone whose consistantly been top 200, and went up 22 ranks this patch, but in terms of Real Skill level, i should have gone up 40+ but this patch handicaps my skill. This game has devolved into Uncounterable Ball 1a.
no. are you one of those people that turn every thread into a whining balance thread?
every unit composition has a counter. its another evenly balanced unit composition.
|
On October 26 2010 11:50 SaDGoWu wrote:
This is the most imbalanced Patch to date. Roach are outrageously OP. Void Ray has been removed from the game which means BC and Thors have no counter (Blizzard insured this by removing feedback) , Ultralisks now have no counter. Patch 1.0 was more balanced than this shit. This is coming from someone whose consistantly been top 200, and went up 22 ranks this patch, but in terms of Real Skill level, i should have gone up 40+ but this patch handicaps my skill. This game has devolved into Uncounterable Ball 1a.
Open the top 200.
control+f SaD - DING NO RESULTS FOUND.
If you think counters exist then you probably aren't even in diamond.
If you think BC's don't still get owned by feedback, you aren't even in diamond.
If you can't beat an opponent with 3 BC's and zero ground army, you aren't even in diamond.
If you put all your units in one control group, you aren't even in diamond.
Ultras got nerfed in this last patch by the way, because their splash was reduced.
Learn to spell consistency.
Stop being a butthurt protoss. If you actually massed voidrays against battlecruisers, you must have never played someone who researched yamato. Voidrays are the most expensive unit in the game to be oneshot by yamato.
Be dumb somewhere else. Try GameFAQs.
User was warned for this post
|
nice to see mOOnGLaDe representing SEA at number 16 on the NA server now :O
|
The statistics speak of themselves, and I think we all know what needs to be done.
Buff random. 
I think 1.1.2 will turn out to be a good patch for balance, but as said before, we need to wait a bit longer before we jump to conclusions.
|
Even if a lot of players switched to zerg, it didnt have enough time to affect the numbers... Some of the top players havent been playing lately and they are still in the top 200...
I would rather look at a *since X patch* data, that removes every games played prior to the X patch.
|
haha. that would be interesting. someone should write a program that goes through the match history of the top X players since patch 1.1.2 and see how the data turns out.
|
Strifecro made a HUGE jump and I'm glad to see that  #1 ranked zerg in american now, and Axslav is right behind him at #6.
|
United States7166 Posts
rank15 zerg aloOla 123 - 39, still pulling off the impressive 3:1 ratio, anyone find out who this smurf is yet?
|
On October 26 2010 13:06 Zelniq wrote:
rank15 zerg aloOla 123 - 39, still pulling off the impressive 3:1 ratio, anyone find out who this smurf is yet?
from SEA top 200 , mOOnGLaDe got 183-39 
|
On October 26 2010 11:50 SaDGoWu wrote:
This is the most imbalanced Patch to date. Roach are outrageously OP. Void Ray has been removed from the game which means BC and Thors have no counter (Blizzard insured this by removing feedback) , Ultralisks now have no counter. Patch 1.0 was more balanced than this shit. This is coming from someone whose consistantly been top 200, and went up 22 ranks this patch, but in terms of Real Skill level, i should have gone up 40+ but this patch handicaps my skill. This game has devolved into Uncounterable Ball 1a.
Someone had a bad day? Shut the fuck up and take your crying elsewhere.
Annoying whiners.
User was banned for this post.
|
On October 26 2010 11:50 SaDGoWu wrote:
This is the most imbalanced Patch to date. Roach are outrageously OP. Void Ray has been removed from the game which means BC and Thors have no counter (Blizzard insured this by removing feedback) , Ultralisks now have no counter. Patch 1.0 was more balanced than this shit. This is coming from someone whose consistantly been top 200, and went up 22 ranks this patch, but in terms of Real Skill level, i should have gone up 40+ but this patch handicaps my skill. This game has devolved into Uncounterable Ball 1a.
I think Roach Range isn't the problem, but rather the supply requirement. It was just an easy fix to stop early cheese, but that makes this SOOO easy for the 14 hatch every time against terran. There is no fear of being attacked early while Terran has to fear 6pools (not saying it's valid, but they CAN still do it). The option that the Terran had for aggression in the beginning made it so that the 14 hatch was something that the Zerg had to take a chance on, and if proxied, then use skill to defend correctly.
Maybe it was more of an issue against Toss, but in TvZ I feel like this new addition takes away a lot of early game options for BOTH Terran AND Zerg.
|
|
|
Having all three races have an equal representation in the top 200 is bad IMO. I think Blizz should try to strive for proportional balance (i.e. if only 20% of people play Zerg, then we should expect 20% Zerg in top 200 rather than ~33%). If they try to balance it based on having equal representation and consequently buff/nerf somethings a bit much then it will lead to imbalances eventually as players get better.
Balancing matchups is more important to me than balancing the top 200.
|
On October 26 2010 13:11 kidcrash89 wrote:
Having all three races have an equal representation in the top 200 is bad IMO. I think Blizz should try to strive for proportional balance (i.e. if only 20% of people play Zerg, then we should expect 20% Zerg in top 200 rather than ~33%). If they try to balance it based on having equal representation and consequently buff/nerf somethings a bit much then it will lead to imbalances eventually as players get better.
Balancing matchups is more important to me than balancing the top 200.
Blizzard hasn't release any new data about the number of Zerg players yet.
Have you seen the amount of ZvZ we have on the ladder these days?
|
On October 26 2010 11:59 GraphsAndShit wrote:
Divisions don't matter whatsoever. This guy is a moran who just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Misspelling "moron" in this context is priceless.
|
On October 26 2010 13:13 Neeka wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 11:59 GraphsAndShit wrote:
Divisions don't matter whatsoever. This guy is a moran who just doesn't know what he's talking about.
Misspelling "moron" in this context is priceless.
HaHaHaHa
|
That graph in the OP looks pretty reasonable... Dare I say that 1.1.2 achieved almost complete balance? Only thing I can see is that P should be represented a little more, since # of P Players > #T > #Z (I believe)
Edit: Though I do not like the fact that reapers and marauders have been murdered by blizz
|
|
|
On October 26 2010 13:08 mikell wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 13:06 Zelniq wrote:
rank15 zerg aloOla 123 - 39, still pulling off the impressive 3:1 ratio, anyone find out who this smurf is yet? from SEA top 200 , mOOnGLaDe got 183-39
greatman 234-39 on LA servers
One upped!
|
On October 26 2010 13:21 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 13:08 mikell wrote:On October 26 2010 13:06 Zelniq wrote:
rank15 zerg aloOla 123 - 39, still pulling off the impressive 3:1 ratio, anyone find out who this smurf is yet? from SEA top 200 , mOOnGLaDe got 183-39 greatman 234-39 on LA servers One upped!
What's up with all the 39 loss people?
Is that the magic number? 39 losses and then BOOM you win every game.
|
On October 26 2010 13:22 dcemuser wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 13:21 Sfydjklm wrote:On October 26 2010 13:08 mikell wrote:On October 26 2010 13:06 Zelniq wrote:
rank15 zerg aloOla 123 - 39, still pulling off the impressive 3:1 ratio, anyone find out who this smurf is yet? from SEA top 200 , mOOnGLaDe got 183-39 greatman 234-39 on LA servers One upped! What's up with all the 39 loss people? Is that the magic number? 39 losses and then BOOM you win every game.
maybe. that is actually quite weird :O
*buys new ladder account*
|
haven't played any of these people in a while. i must be moving down the ladder D=
|
On October 26 2010 11:35 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Are you sure? The ordering of the list is not at all the same as the ordering of points. How are divisions weighted? I thought MMR was equal across all divisions and that it determined your point win/loss.
Everyone (including Excalibur) thought this up until Blizzcon. But at Blizzcon Excalibur asked the Blizz devs about the top 200, and they confirmed that the top 200 is done strictly on points without the division weighting factored in.
It's really bad news for competitive ranking and particularly sc2ranks 
On October 25 2010 03:12 Excalibur_Z wrote:
So after the Multiplayer panel yesterday, we asked the Doc some more specific questions. There are some things that we're not sure about now. We now know that divisions are not equal which adds a great deal of confusion because sites like SC2Ranks are specifically designed to ignore division weighting. It seems like they've gone out of their way to put emphasis on your own division rather than your league ranking, which sort of has a side effect of screwing up global point rankings like SC2Ranks.
The other concept that he introduced was a moving average which has a similar function as sigma. Basically, if you were to track player skill game by game, it would have a ton of sharp peaks and deep valleys. Blizzard chooses to use a moving average to slowly gauge where you belong. Once your moving average crosses a certain threshold (some kind of confidence buffer), that's when you get promoted. This means that if you bomb your initial placement matches and go down into Bronze, then rapidly improve to Diamond level, it will take a long time for your moving average to cross into Diamond level and cement that level of confidence for a promotion. We believe that the moving average only covers your last X games (maybe 100 for example) otherwise players with 4000+ games played would never get out of their league.
I'll be making more corrections to the original post later on today or tomorrow.
|
|
|
i have read that super post on mmr and ladder
what does division have anything to do with it top 200? afaik it doesn't matter even if you just look at points
|
On October 26 2010 13:19 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
That graph in the OP looks pretty reasonable... Dare I say that 1.1.2 achieved almost complete balance? Only thing I can see is that P should be represented a little more, since # of P Players > #T > #Z (I believe)
Edit: Though I do not like the fact that reapers and marauders have been murdered by blizz
Since when have marauders been murdered? We are still waiting for that patch
Are you blind? Do you not see the graph? How do Protoss player number outnumber Terran player number? The graph clearly says Terran players # > Protoss players # > Zerg players #
1.12 hardly achieved balance. They actually nerfed the crap out of Toss by slamming VRs hard. They also increased zealot time. Zerg was given a slight boost but they did not address the main problems of TvZ (MULE, Thors, Repair, MMM, Plantary Fortress imo) while Protoss has just been downgraded for no reason.
|
On October 26 2010 13:40 QuothTheRaven wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 11:35 Pokebunny wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Are you sure? The ordering of the list is not at all the same as the ordering of points. How are divisions weighted? I thought MMR was equal across all divisions and that it determined your point win/loss. Everyone (including Excalibur) thought this up until Blizzcon. But at Blizzcon Excalibur asked the Blizz devs about the top 200, and they confirmed that the top 200 is done strictly on points without the division weighting factored in. It's really bad news for competitive ranking and particularly sc2ranks Show nested quote +On October 25 2010 03:12 Excalibur_Z wrote:
So after the Multiplayer panel yesterday, we asked the Doc some more specific questions. There are some things that we're not sure about now. We now know that divisions are not equal which adds a great deal of confusion because sites like SC2Ranks are specifically designed to ignore division weighting. It seems like they've gone out of their way to put emphasis on your own division rather than your league ranking, which sort of has a side effect of screwing up global point rankings like SC2Ranks.
The other concept that he introduced was a moving average which has a similar function as sigma. Basically, if you were to track player skill game by game, it would have a ton of sharp peaks and deep valleys. Blizzard chooses to use a moving average to slowly gauge where you belong. Once your moving average crosses a certain threshold (some kind of confidence buffer), that's when you get promoted. This means that if you bomb your initial placement matches and go down into Bronze, then rapidly improve to Diamond level, it will take a long time for your moving average to cross into Diamond level and cement that level of confidence for a promotion. We believe that the moving average only covers your last X games (maybe 100 for example) otherwise players with 4000+ games played would never get out of their league.
I'll be making more corrections to the original post later on today or tomorrow.
then how come that the ranks on sc2ranks.com differ so much from the official top200? I'm pretty sure that the guys on the panel either misunderstood the question or that by points they actually meant your MMR. Otherwise this would make no sense at all, since all sc2ranks.com does is to count the points of each player and create a list.
|
On October 26 2010 11:47 Antoine wrote:
Idra 13
Jinro 62
Haypro 74
TLO 193
if you're saying idra is ranked 13th, jinro 62nd, etc etc. 13th is fruitdealer, idra is 51st, haypro is 78th, tlo is 87th, and i can't find jinro. btw boxer is 26th! :3 and if that is not what you meant, then i take all this back..
edit!: antoine linked last week's top 200, so all this means nothing! boxer is 61st right now i think :[
|
On October 26 2010 13:06 Zelniq wrote:
rank15 zerg aloOla 123 - 39, still pulling off the impressive 3:1 ratio, anyone find out who this smurf is yet?
I have a rep against him if anyone wants to try any sort of hotkey analysis lol
|
aloOla has quite the impressive record. Smurf account?
|
On October 26 2010 14:01 lastmotion wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 13:19 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
That graph in the OP looks pretty reasonable... Dare I say that 1.1.2 achieved almost complete balance? Only thing I can see is that P should be represented a little more, since # of P Players > #T > #Z (I believe)
Edit: Though I do not like the fact that reapers and marauders have been murdered by blizz Since when have marauders been murdered? We are still waiting for that patch Are you blind? Do you not see the graph? How do Protoss player number outnumber Terran player number? The graph clearly says Terran players # > Protoss players # > Zerg players # 1.12 hardly achieved balance. They actually nerfed the crap out of Toss by slamming VRs hard. They also increased zealot time. Zerg was given a slight boost but they did not address the main problems of TvZ (MULE, Thors, Repair, MMM, Plantary Fortress imo) while Protoss has just been downgraded for no reason.
+ Show Spoiler [post 1.1.2 tournaments] + 3rd and 4th at MLG, 1st and 3rd at blizzcon, DSRack SGS 1st and DSRack regular 2nd.
Right now protoss are performing the best at the highest level of play.
All in all as a personal opinion i feel like protoss have been set back a lot by naniwa winning those 3 zotacs. Because for half a year most of the protoss in the ladder have not evolved past X gating and as a result inhibited the development of advanced strategies.
|
United States12235 Posts
On October 26 2010 14:09 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 13:40 QuothTheRaven wrote:On October 26 2010 11:35 Pokebunny wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Are you sure? The ordering of the list is not at all the same as the ordering of points. How are divisions weighted? I thought MMR was equal across all divisions and that it determined your point win/loss. Everyone (including Excalibur) thought this up until Blizzcon. But at Blizzcon Excalibur asked the Blizz devs about the top 200, and they confirmed that the top 200 is done strictly on points without the division weighting factored in. It's really bad news for competitive ranking and particularly sc2ranks On October 25 2010 03:12 Excalibur_Z wrote:
So after the Multiplayer panel yesterday, we asked the Doc some more specific questions. There are some things that we're not sure about now. We now know that divisions are not equal which adds a great deal of confusion because sites like SC2Ranks are specifically designed to ignore division weighting. It seems like they've gone out of their way to put emphasis on your own division rather than your league ranking, which sort of has a side effect of screwing up global point rankings like SC2Ranks.
The other concept that he introduced was a moving average which has a similar function as sigma. Basically, if you were to track player skill game by game, it would have a ton of sharp peaks and deep valleys. Blizzard chooses to use a moving average to slowly gauge where you belong. Once your moving average crosses a certain threshold (some kind of confidence buffer), that's when you get promoted. This means that if you bomb your initial placement matches and go down into Bronze, then rapidly improve to Diamond level, it will take a long time for your moving average to cross into Diamond level and cement that level of confidence for a promotion. We believe that the moving average only covers your last X games (maybe 100 for example) otherwise players with 4000+ games played would never get out of their league.
I'll be making more corrections to the original post later on today or tomorrow. then how come that the ranks on sc2ranks.com differ so much from the official top200? I'm pretty sure that the guys on the panel either misunderstood the question or that by points they actually meant your MMR. Otherwise this would make no sense at all, since all sc2ranks.com does is to count the points of each player and create a list.
The Doc specifically said that he's the one that pulls the Top 200 and that it's based on points alone. I thought that was surprising. He clarified that points are not directly comparable across divisions. That means there's some unknown weighting behind each division. So, Medivac Alamo might have a couple hundred points over another division, for example. Obviously this totally screws over sites like SC2Ranks who operate based on equal points across divisions.
|
^ No, it was probably a miscommunication. idra has only about 2000 points and hes 13th in Korea in the top 200 list. Hence, top 200 is not based on points.
|
On October 26 2010 13:09 MusiK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 11:50 SaDGoWu wrote:
This is the most imbalanced Patch to date. Roach are outrageously OP. Void Ray has been removed from the game which means BC and Thors have no counter (Blizzard insured this by removing feedback) , Ultralisks now have no counter. Patch 1.0 was more balanced than this shit. This is coming from someone whose consistantly been top 200, and went up 22 ranks this patch, but in terms of Real Skill level, i should have gone up 40+ but this patch handicaps my skill. This game has devolved into Uncounterable Ball 1a. I think Roach Range isn't the problem, but rather the supply requirement. It was just an easy fix to stop early cheese, but that makes this SOOO easy for the 14 hatch every time against terran. There is no fear of being attacked early while Terran has to fear 6pools (not saying it's valid, but they CAN still do it). The option that the Terran had for aggression in the beginning made it so that the 14 hatch was something that the Zerg had to take a chance on, and if proxied, then use skill to defend correctly. Maybe it was more of an issue against Toss, but in TvZ I feel like this new addition takes away a lot of early game options for BOTH Terran AND Zerg.
Having Reapers and Hellions tear you a new one early game just meant that Zerg would ALWAYS be horribly behind once mid game rolled around. As long as you did decent damage (which was really as to do as Terran honestly) you were nicely set up while the Zerg would be forced to Drone hard in order to repair all the damage done to it's economy. Then it was just a matter of a-moving your ball of whatever into their base.
14 Hatch isn't that easy if your opponent delays it. There are alot of ways to do it. Whenever I Random Zerg people usually always do something to stop it, meaning I pool first anyway.
|
United States12235 Posts
On October 26 2010 15:14 WeeKeong wrote:
^ No, it was probably a miscommunication. idra has only about 2000 points and hes 13th in Korea in the top 200 list. Hence, top 200 is not based on points.
It was not a miscommunication. Divisions just aren't equal. His exact words were "it's just by points with the division part taken out". There is some kind of weighting or alteration in division points.
|
^ if that is the case, then why is idra 13?
|
|
|
On October 26 2010 15:29 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 15:14 WeeKeong wrote:
^ No, it was probably a miscommunication. idra has only about 2000 points and hes 13th in Korea in the top 200 list. Hence, top 200 is not based on points. It was not a miscommunication. Divisions just aren't equal. His exact words were "it's just by points with the division part taken out". There is some kind of weighting or alteration in division points.
oh yes, of course, that makes sense. MMR or points, either way by "points" they don't actually mean the "pure" points you see in your profile ingame, they still manipulate the numbers a little bit. I thought that was commonly accepted by now?
|
On October 26 2010 11:50 SaDGoWu wrote:
This is the most imbalanced Patch to date. Roach are outrageously OP. Void Ray has been removed from the game which means BC and Thors have no counter (Blizzard insured this by removing feedback) , Ultralisks now have no counter. Patch 1.0 was more balanced than this shit. This is coming from someone whose consistantly been top 200, and went up 22 ranks this patch, but in terms of Real Skill level, i should have gone up 40+ but this patch handicaps my skill. This game has devolved into Uncounterable Ball 1a.
HAHAHA no
i suggest you move on from your ball of "1a" and learn 2 play
|
The Blizzard employees behave like suppressing scumbags. I really have enough of their dumb number games. So the points scale also differs between the divisions. Then there is the growing bonus pool which makes people's points ever less convincive since people who get promoted late or start out late won't have the same amount or other people just went through a long period of being inactive. No map stats, no race stats.
Thanks for not allowing us to map everyone's performance, Blizzard.
|
|
|
Anyone with a shred of intelligence knows Zerg is OP -- Superfluous thread.
User was warned for this post
|
zerg gets one buff and its imba lmao. everybody needs to stop complaining. roach was sucha useless unit. died to maruders/stalkers/ everything else. you want us to go back to muta ling/ banelings?
|
On October 26 2010 11:50 SaDGoWu wrote:
This is the most imbalanced Patch to date. Roach are outrageously OP. Void Ray has been removed from the game which means BC and Thors have no counter (Blizzard insured this by removing feedback) , Ultralisks now have no counter. Patch 1.0 was more balanced than this shit. This is coming from someone whose consistantly been top 200, and went up 22 ranks this patch, but in terms of Real Skill level, i should have gone up 40+ but this patch handicaps my skill. This game has devolved into Uncounterable Ball 1a.
User was warned for this post
I know I shouldn't feed the troll but for someone in the top 200 this post of yours doesnt really prove you deserve that spot. I mean really, roaches gain 1 range and are suddenly OP? Also ultras now have no counter? Last time I checked they got nerfed this last patch.
Call me crazy but it sounds like a 4 warpgating toss who managed to 4 warpgate his way to diamond, suddenly had his game thrown off. And why are you complaining about going up in ranks? Obviously warpgating still works for you. Maybe just not all the time...
|
I also played Aloola. Somehow won. If someone can analyze message me.
|
On October 26 2010 12:04 thundertoss wrote:
I don't know for sure about that. Void rays are stronger with a level 1 charge. This means vs Z 2 void rays now beat 2 queens whereas prepatch i believe they lost. They gain some other advantages although I have yet to test them out fully. Roaches didn't change very much except for the range buff. This is a huge change mind you but they weren't liked very much prepatch. It drastically changes stuff like the cannon rush wall in and being able to put cannons 1 space behind your protoss buildings but I think the main difference that that zergs are now able to hatch first and build up a much stronger economy. Thus roach pushes can come earlier or with more forces, making the roach appear much stronger when it is really just that the race as a whole has changed fairly dramatically.
i can't use void rays vs ultras anymore, because their damage it absolutely terrible. it literally takes 20 seconds to kill an ultra with 2 void rays.
the only thing i can do is suicide my chargelots into them. and it takes forever to kill them with chargelots.
|
On October 26 2010 17:40 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 12:04 thundertoss wrote:
I don't know for sure about that. Void rays are stronger with a level 1 charge. This means vs Z 2 void rays now beat 2 queens whereas prepatch i believe they lost. They gain some other advantages although I have yet to test them out fully. Roaches didn't change very much except for the range buff. This is a huge change mind you but they weren't liked very much prepatch. It drastically changes stuff like the cannon rush wall in and being able to put cannons 1 space behind your protoss buildings but I think the main difference that that zergs are now able to hatch first and build up a much stronger economy. Thus roach pushes can come earlier or with more forces, making the roach appear much stronger when it is really just that the race as a whole has changed fairly dramatically. i can't use void rays vs ultras anymore, because their damage it absolutely terrible. it literally takes 20 seconds to kill an ultra with 2 void rays. the only thing i can do is suicide my chargelots into them. and it takes forever to kill them with chargelots.
Get 4 void rays?
|
how do people get into top 200 anyway, i know its been asked, or at least i am sure its been asked, but how? win ratio? wins? points? or all?
|
On October 26 2010 15:29 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 15:14 WeeKeong wrote:
^ No, it was probably a miscommunication. idra has only about 2000 points and hes 13th in Korea in the top 200 list. Hence, top 200 is not based on points. It was not a miscommunication. Divisions just aren't equal. His exact words were "it's just by points with the division part taken out". There is some kind of weighting or alteration in division points.
dude, no one is trying to tell you divisions are the same. Please read what people are saying, namely that the top 200 is not based on points. It's just a fact, look at sc2 ranks and try to find more than 2-3 people who have the same spot as they do on the top 200.
On October 26 2010 17:40 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 12:04 thundertoss wrote:
I don't know for sure about that. Void rays are stronger with a level 1 charge. This means vs Z 2 void rays now beat 2 queens whereas prepatch i believe they lost. They gain some other advantages although I have yet to test them out fully. Roaches didn't change very much except for the range buff. This is a huge change mind you but they weren't liked very much prepatch. It drastically changes stuff like the cannon rush wall in and being able to put cannons 1 space behind your protoss buildings but I think the main difference that that zergs are now able to hatch first and build up a much stronger economy. Thus roach pushes can come earlier or with more forces, making the roach appear much stronger when it is really just that the race as a whole has changed fairly dramatically. i can't use void rays vs ultras anymore, because their damage it absolutely terrible. it literally takes 20 seconds to kill an ultra with 2 void rays. the only thing i can do is suicide my chargelots into them. and it takes forever to kill them with chargelots.
lol dude, I am amazed at how much protoss is complaining about the VR nerf. There was no equivalent to them beforehand, no air unit was so immensely powerful against both air and ground. Just because VRs don't totally dominate everything in the game with an "armored" on them doesn't mean they suck.
On October 26 2010 17:55 wishbones wrote:
how do people get into top 200 anyway, i know its been asked, or at least i am sure its been asked, but how? win ratio? wins? points? or all?
hidden MMR
|
|
|
Immortals have always been a good answer to ultras and roaches, especially with zealots, not VRs. VRs are much more gas heavy than zealots and immortals which means protoss will have less gas to get HT and colossus to kill hydras/zlings/muta/bane.
To me VRs have always been just really strong harass units (except in beta when they were too strong), and I guess occasional support unit such as to take out bunker/spine, but that's kinda iffy. I never saw them as a real army unit, because I don't think that was ever their intended purpose.
Anyway, that said, I think the VR damage vs armored was knocked down too much for sure, and think that the damage buff vs non-armored was a bad idea.
|
On October 26 2010 17:40 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 12:04 thundertoss wrote:
I don't know for sure about that. Void rays are stronger with a level 1 charge. This means vs Z 2 void rays now beat 2 queens whereas prepatch i believe they lost. They gain some other advantages although I have yet to test them out fully. Roaches didn't change very much except for the range buff. This is a huge change mind you but they weren't liked very much prepatch. It drastically changes stuff like the cannon rush wall in and being able to put cannons 1 space behind your protoss buildings but I think the main difference that that zergs are now able to hatch first and build up a much stronger economy. Thus roach pushes can come earlier or with more forces, making the roach appear much stronger when it is really just that the race as a whole has changed fairly dramatically. i can't use void rays vs ultras anymore, because their damage it absolutely terrible. it literally takes 20 seconds to kill an ultra with 2 void rays. the only thing i can do is suicide my chargelots into them. and it takes forever to kill them with chargelots.
you can still use voidrays. ultas certainly can't attack them back. if you're being aggressive with VR's then you win. Otherwise you're trying to get a VR when ultra's are already pushing your base and that seems like you are already far behind. VR's still do nice plus dmg vs armor and have decent dps. Not like it was before but you also can't complain about it if your fighting them w/ zealots. Get a few immortals and you would be just fine. The VR is good vs armor but its an air harass unit with a cool ability. It is not meant to be a blanket solution to everything late game.
|
|
|
That's some interesting statistics;
2T
4P
4Z
in top 10. Seems to me that this only confirms what we already know; Z and P has more room for improvement. One thing to note though is that the Z on that list has a shitton of played games.
|
On October 26 2010 18:24 drlame wrote:
That's some interesting statistics;
2T
4P
4Z
in top 10. Seems to me that this only confirms what we already know; Z and P has more room for improvement. One thing to note though is that the Z on that list has a shitton of played games.
It doesn't confirm anything at all.
It's a completely arbitrary snapshot of a leaderboard that changes constantly. The sample size you're using is so small it's a joke. One or two guys having a bad week or even just not playing as much skews the ranking way more than any balance patching would.
|
On October 26 2010 18:09 Camlito wrote:
alOola is mOOnglade.
-.-;; do you understand the point of smurfing cam? come on it was fun watching some of the americans theorizing that glade was a korean pro .
But now that it's out, glade is both #15 and #16, LOL
|
On October 26 2010 18:58 Ftrunkz wrote:-.-;; do you understand the point of smurfing cam? come on it was fun watching some of the americans theorizing that glade was a korean pro . But now that it's out, glade is both #15 and #16, LOL
Yeh i wanted to edit my post, but glade deserves credit!
lol i felt bad saying it because i read the thread, but then i saw the rankings and saw that his actual main account was right near it so i just found it hilarious.
|
This thread is full of overreactions from toss players and stupid responses from toss haters. First of all, how can we discuss balance seriously if you make the assumption that any somewhat successful toss player 4gated his way to victory, just because day9 said you can do it (you can but its not common, at least not in the top 200 tosses ive played against.) doesn't mean every toss was just a cheesy noob, those assumptions give people the same OMG L2P arguments that were used by terrans on zergs for so long. Secondly, if you think the roach change doesn't have a huge effect on PvZ, you've never played the matchup at a decent level, the change made about 90 percent of toss openings extremely dangerous. At the moment, the game looks fairly balanced, but lets not ignore that all the signs are pointing towards toss struggling the most.
|
On October 26 2010 18:03 Red Alert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 15:29 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 26 2010 15:14 WeeKeong wrote:
^ No, it was probably a miscommunication. idra has only about 2000 points and hes 13th in Korea in the top 200 list. Hence, top 200 is not based on points. It was not a miscommunication. Divisions just aren't equal. His exact words were "it's just by points with the division part taken out". There is some kind of weighting or alteration in division points. dude, no one is trying to tell you divisions are the same. Please read what people are saying, namely that the top 200 is not based on points. It's just a fact, look at sc2 ranks and try to find more than 2-3 people who have the same spot as they do on the top 200.
Given he asked a Blizzard employee, he gets a tad more credibility than you do. It doesn't matter what you call it, whether it's points, MMR, rating or magic pony number, context is what what matters. It is done by points (which will now call magic pony number), it's just not done the same ones you see on SC2 or battle.net.
|
|
|
On October 26 2010 11:44 Ivanero wrote:
I can't understand how Zerg players can be almost the same number as Terran and Protoss in top200 when distrubution of races is like Z: 23% P: 38% T:38%
And after only 2 weeks or something like that after the patch? Wtf o_O
Appeal to the casuals is not the same as appeal to the pros. While you might have a 20/40/40 distribution among casuals, there might be a 40/30/30 distribution among the top 1000 players.
|
who the hell is ALTA, xùxù, Chronas, ThorZaIN o_0 ? never seen these guys before
|
Haha people, don't argue with Excalibur_Z, he knows the ladder system much better than you do
|
On October 26 2010 23:30 SmoKim wrote:who the hell is ALTA, xùxù, Chronas, ThorZaIN o_0 ? never seen these guys before
lolol smurfs?
Only Thorzain is familiar with me I think he was a human wc3 player back in the days (5-6 years?).
|
David Kim is #20 in US.
As Random.
What a fucking beast.
|
On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this.
[1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region.
[2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank.
ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players.
|
boxer grinding out games like a boss. hey that is the real boxer right? (talkin about #1 in kr 200)
|
lol
56 in SEA and my last week was spent losing games to 1base terran allin. Seems the top range of SEA is moving down from inactivity or something as they play other servers.
|
On October 27 2010 01:55 viraltouch wrote:
boxer grinding out games like a boss. hey that is the real boxer right? (talkin about #1 in kr 200)
i don't think so actually.... but not for sure. there was the 'boxer' in the gsl that isn't boxer and we've all seen the real boxer laddering as 'manofoneway' vs grack.
|
United States12235 Posts
On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players.
Except they're not. Consider these concepts:
1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League.
2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo.
3. Points aren't equal across divisions.
4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile.
Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points.
I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are.
|
On October 27 2010 01:55 viraltouch wrote:
boxer grinding out games like a boss. hey that is the real boxer right? (talkin about #1 in kr 200)
No, The real BoxeR is called "Manofoneway" and he is like nr 50-60 or something.
|
i can't win against zerg (i play terran), i don't think i'm affected by roach range that much but it's more that in combination with the terran nerfs, cus i find no way to do damage early in the game. or at least delay zerg expansion or dunno just do something to bother them other than unexpected banshees.
at the plat level everything zerg can do is scary, like you have to have the perfect micro to defend any possible thing they do, you must have perfect building placement, perfect macro. dunno, seems hard atm. although tbh i haven't played THAT many games vs. zerg to say i've tried everything.
|
On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
Stop spreading misinformation, please.
|
On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are.
Please find me a source quoting Blizzard telling us how they make the top 200 list. You are assuming something from nothing.
Also, divisions don't mean anything. Who cares if your division if 100 points on average higher than mine? How does even change anything? It doesn't matter where you are ranked in your division. It's merely a clever disguise to hide your real ranking. There is equal opportunity for points across all divisions because everyone has access to the same bonus pool and you do not just play players in your division.
edit I'm sorry about the double post. I thought I was editing my first post, but apparently not.
|
On October 27 2010 03:06 latan wrote:
i can't win against zerg (i play terran), i don't think i'm affected by roach range that much but it's more that in combination with the terran nerfs, cus i find no way to do damage early in the game. or at least delay zerg expansion or dunno just do something to bother them other than unexpected banshees.
at the plat level everything zerg can do is scary, like you have to have the perfect micro to defend any possible thing they do, you must have perfect building placement, perfect macro. dunno, seems hard atm. although tbh i haven't played THAT many games vs. zerg to say i've tried everything.
aww you platinum players and your perfect micro macro.
So cute.
|
On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are.
1. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever.
2. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever.
3. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever.
4. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever.
Blabla: Wrong. Blizzards fills the divisions over time with new/promoted/demoted players (i have a FAQ as evidence if anyone is interested). Average points dont mean anything.
|
8748 Posts
On October 27 2010 04:31 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are. 1. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever. 2. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever. 3. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever. 4. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever. Blabla: Wrong. Blizzards fills the divisions over time with new/promoted/demoted players (i have a FAQ as evidence if anyone is interested). Average points dont mean anything.
I don't know about #1 but #2 is fairly obvious to anyone who knows what elo is.
#3 has been stated by Blizzard probably 5+ times now.
#4 There actually is evidence for this now that smurfing is becoming more popular. If you win enough of your games, you can get MMR high enough to match against players in the top 50 within 30 games. You can win 70%+ of your 31st-60th games and continue to match against people in the top 50, probably never matching against someone below the top 200. And then the weekly top 200 comes out and you're not even in Diamond league, or you just switched to Diamond and you have like 1200 points, and of course you are not in the top 200. But it's clearly established that your MMR behaves just like the MMR of people who are in the top 50.
|
United States12235 Posts
On October 27 2010 04:20 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are. Please find me a source quoting Blizzard telling us how they make the top 200 list. You are assuming something from nothing. Also, divisions don't mean anything. Who cares if your division if 100 points on average higher than mine? How does even change anything? It doesn't matter where you are ranked in your division. It's merely a clever disguise to hide your real ranking. There is equal opportunity for points across all divisions because everyone has access to the same bonus pool and you do not just play players in your division. edit I'm sorry about the double post. I thought I was editing my first post, but apparently not.
After the SC2 Multiplayer Panel, Vanick and I spoke with Dr. Menke about this and those were his exact words. I hope the statistician in charge of developing the entire system is a good enough source for you. What would I have to gain by deliberately contradicting my initial theory? It's not misinformation, it's completely true, and I was as surprised by it as anyone here.
|
On October 27 2010 04:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:20 Uhh Negative wrote:On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are. Please find me a source quoting Blizzard telling us how they make the top 200 list. You are assuming something from nothing. Also, divisions don't mean anything. Who cares if your division if 100 points on average higher than mine? How does even change anything? It doesn't matter where you are ranked in your division. It's merely a clever disguise to hide your real ranking. There is equal opportunity for points across all divisions because everyone has access to the same bonus pool and you do not just play players in your division. edit I'm sorry about the double post. I thought I was editing my first post, but apparently not. After the SC2 Multiplayer Panel, Vanick and I spoke with Dr. Menke about this and those were his exact words. I hope the statistician in charge of developing the entire system is a good enough source for you. What would I have to gain by deliberately contradicting my initial theory? It's not misinformation, it's completely true, and I was as surprised by it as anyone here.
Fair enough. I just don't understand how points are not even across divisions on average? Is it just due to newer divisions having more ununsed bonus pool? And why would it even matter in the top 200? Your points should not be affected by which division you are in. Your points change when you win or lose and your division should not affect this, am I right?
|
|
|
United States12235 Posts
On October 27 2010 04:47 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 27 2010 04:20 Uhh Negative wrote:On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are. Please find me a source quoting Blizzard telling us how they make the top 200 list. You are assuming something from nothing. Also, divisions don't mean anything. Who cares if your division if 100 points on average higher than mine? How does even change anything? It doesn't matter where you are ranked in your division. It's merely a clever disguise to hide your real ranking. There is equal opportunity for points across all divisions because everyone has access to the same bonus pool and you do not just play players in your division. edit I'm sorry about the double post. I thought I was editing my first post, but apparently not. After the SC2 Multiplayer Panel, Vanick and I spoke with Dr. Menke about this and those were his exact words. I hope the statistician in charge of developing the entire system is a good enough source for you. What would I have to gain by deliberately contradicting my initial theory? It's not misinformation, it's completely true, and I was as surprised by it as anyone here. Fair enough. I just don't understand how points are not even across divisions on average? Is it just due to newer divisions having more ununsed bonus pool? And why would it even matter in the top 200? Your points should not be affected by which division you are in. Your points change when you win or lose and your division should not affect this, am I right?
Dr. Menke said that they want the emphasis to be on your division of 100 players, so they made divisions unequal. I don't really understand why this would be the design because everybody knows you play against people outside of your division far more often than you play intra-divisional matches. Nevertheless, it is what it is. For that reason, it screws up sites like SC2ranks, and although he said they didn't intentionally try to screw sites like that over, it had that effect =(
|
I'm glad that people are finally starting to believe that points arent equal across divisions. I dont know how many times I have had to say this and people have not believed me. Blizzard told us this during beta and very few people have believed it until now.
|
On October 27 2010 05:11 Mastermind wrote:
I'm glad that people are finally starting to believe that points arent equal across divisions. I dont know how many times I have had to say this and people have not believed me. Blizzard told us this during beta and very few people have believed it until now.
You see a lot of people think they are so gosu after they reach rank 1 in their division when they only have like 1500 pts.
It would be cooler if diamond wasn't the norm. Diamond would mean so much more to a person. My eyes are on top 200~ i hope to be there in a month or so.
|
These ranks are based on your MMR right? and if i'm playing some of these players on ladder does that mean my MMR is close to the top 200? Or is it still undetermined on how they do the ranks?
Still nice to see how these ranks compare to the SC2 ranks.
|
I've always thought there are fewer zergs because you don't get to play zerg in the single player.
|
I see there's still people that think balance = all races with equal representation.
This is incorrect. Balance is obtained by equal representation relative to total players who play that race. This assumes skill to be distributed evenly amongst players, which is the only assumption you can reasonably make.
Alternatively you can also look at race by race matchup win rates.
Based on the figures here, if backed up by Blizzard's numbers, Zerg is in for a nerf. 20% race represetation with ~30% in the top 200 after a week and a half? Unless a gigantic number of people changed to Zerg, the balance of power shifted heavily in the last patch.
|
Unless the representation has significantly changed since the last patch.
|
On October 27 2010 09:24 lowercase wrote:
I've always thought there are fewer zergs because you don't get to play zerg in the single player.
that has nothing to do with top 200 players, they don't pick terran because they liked it in campaign =/
|
On October 26 2010 18:09 Camlito wrote:
alOola is mOOnglade.
Haha, so mOOnGLaDe is #15 AND #16? That's kinda baller.
|
On October 27 2010 09:50 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 09:24 lowercase wrote:
I've always thought there are fewer zergs because you don't get to play zerg in the single player. that has nothing to do with top 200 players, they don't pick terran because they liked it in campaign =/
The racial distribution is the same in every league according to Blizzard's released stats. Or at least was.
|
On October 27 2010 09:33 Tray wrote:
I see there's still people that think balance = all races with equal representation.
This is incorrect. Balance is obtained by equal representation relative to total players who play that race. This assumes skill to be distributed evenly amongst players, which is the only assumption you can reasonably make.
Alternatively you can also look at race by race matchup win rates.
Based on the figures here, if backed up by Blizzard's numbers, Zerg is in for a nerf. 20% race represetation with ~30% in the top 200 after a week and a half? Unless a gigantic number of people changed to Zerg, the balance of power shifted heavily in the last patch.
Wrong.
What does "balance" mean? It means that between "equally skilled" players, the probability of winning any matchup is 50%. We would expect 20% of the top 200 to be Zerg only if the skill distribution were for some reason skewed away from Zerg. Now, the fact that only 20% of the entire SC2-playing community plays Zerg says very little about the true skill distribution amongst the races at the top level (we're talking 99.9th percentile). In fact, it's far more likely that the skill distribution is fairly even at the top level, which would mean the 66th best Zerg is about the same skill level as the 66th best Terran and 66th best Protoss. At least, I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case. This would lead to equal representation among the top 200.
It would actually be quite problematic if only 20% of the top 200 were Zerg. If that indicated good balance, it would imply the 40th-best Zerg was as skilled as the 80th-best Terran and Protoss. This doesn't sound likely to me.
|
On October 27 2010 10:18 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 09:33 Tray wrote:
I see there's still people that think balance = all races with equal representation.
This is incorrect. Balance is obtained by equal representation relative to total players who play that race. This assumes skill to be distributed evenly amongst players, which is the only assumption you can reasonably make.
Alternatively you can also look at race by race matchup win rates.
Based on the figures here, if backed up by Blizzard's numbers, Zerg is in for a nerf. 20% race represetation with ~30% in the top 200 after a week and a half? Unless a gigantic number of people changed to Zerg, the balance of power shifted heavily in the last patch. Wrong. What does "balance" mean? It means that between "equally skilled" players, the probability of winning any matchup is 50%. We would expect 20% of the top 200 to be Zerg only if the skill distribution were for some reason skewed away from Zerg. Now, the fact that only 20% of the entire SC2-playing community plays Zerg says very little about the true skill distribution amongst the races at the top level (we're talking 99.9th percentile). In fact, it's far more likely that the skill distribution is fairly even at the top level, which would mean the 66th best Zerg is about the same skill level as the 66th best Terran and 66th best Protoss. At least, I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case. This would lead to equal representation among the top 200. It would actually be quite problematic if only 20% of the top 200 were Zerg. If that indicated good balance, it would imply the 40th-best Zerg was as skilled as the 80th-best Terran and Protoss. This doesn't sound likely to me.
Come on man really? You being wrong about statistics is going to get me banned again.
You're right that we would expect evenly skilled players to beat one another 50% of the time. Of course. Where you're wrong is saying that you expect higher than race representaion at the top for zerg. Sadly, you don't even bother to try to explain why this is the case. You simply make the assertion "it's more probable skill is evenly distrubuted at the top." This is just wrong, and I will tell you why.
You're reverse extrapolating the data to say that everyone in the top 200 has about the same skill, therefore each race should have 33% of those top 200. But you're completely ignoring the fact that only 1/5 of players play Zerg. Take a simple example of 100 players. Doesn't matter their races. Lets divide up their skill into 5 groups and use the same ones as Blizzard divisons so there's 20 bronze, 20 silver, 20 gold, 20 plat, and 20 diamonds. If only 20% of those players play Zerg, how many would you expect to be in Diamond if the game was perfectly balanced? It's 4. 20% of 20. If 10 of the 20 diamond players were Zerg you would say that Zerg must be overpowered because everyone is the same skill, yet they represent 50% of all players in the top bracket.
I hope that helps clear things up for you. I don't get anymore polite than that so before you reply, you better make sure your stats are sound. Before they were not.
|
On October 27 2010 10:28 Tray wrote:
Come on man really? You being wrong about statistics is going to get me banned again.
You're right that we would expect evenly skilled players to beat one another 50% of the time. Of course. Where you're wrong is saying that you expect higher than race representaion at the top for zerg. Sadly, you don't even bother to try to explain why this is the case. You simply make the assertion "it's more probable skill is evenly distrubuted at the top." This is just wrong, and I will tell you why.
You're reverse extrapolating the data to say that everyone in the top 200 has about the same skill, therefore each race should have 33% of those top 200. But you're completely ignoring the fact that only 1/5 of players play Zerg. Take a simple example of 100 players. Doesn't matter their races. Lets divide up their skill into 5 groups and use the same ones as Blizzard divisons so there's 20 bronze, 20 silver, 20 gold, 20 plat, and 20 diamonds. If only 20% of those players play Zerg, how many would you expect to be in Diamond if the game was perfectly balanced? It's 4. 20% of 20. If 10 of the 20 diamond players were Zerg you would say that Zerg must be overpowered because everyone is the same skill, yet they represent 50% of all players in the top bracket.
I hope that helps clear things up for you. I don't get anymore polite than that so before you reply, you better make sure your stats are sound. Before they were not.
I'm not using "statistics." Statistics isn't going to help determine what skill distribution amongst the top 200 we should expect. Yes, out of a random sample of 200 SC2 players, we would only expect 40 zerg players. But the top 200 is not a random sample and I see no reason why we should assume it is representative of the rest of the population.
I'm not reverse extrapolating any data; in fact, I'm ignoring the current race distribution of the top 200. However, I am saying I would certainly expect the 66th best Z to be evenly skilled with the 66th best T and P, creating an equal distribution. I feel this is more likely than the 33rd best Z to be evenly skilled with the 66th best T and P, which is what you assume by stating we should only expect 20% of the top 200 to be Z.
Basically, the "true" top 200 is such a small and unrepresentative sample that we cannot conclude anything about their skill distribution based on global population stats (or even the population stats of Diamond league, which is itself fairly large).
Until you explain to me why twice as many of the truly best SC2 players would choose T and P over Z, then I'm more inclined to believe the skill distribution at the very top should be fairly even. The actual skill distribution, of course, is not something that can be objectively proven by statistics or anything like that. But it should at least fit with our expectations of how top players choose their races. And I see no reason to think the very best are more inclined to choose T and P over Z by such a wide margin.
|
On October 27 2010 10:18 domovoi wrote:
In fact, it's far more likely that the skill distribution is fairly even at the top level, which would mean the 66th best Zerg is about the same skill level as the 66th best Terran and 66th best Protoss. At least, I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case. This would lead to equal representation among the top 200.
It would actually be quite problematic if only 20% of the top 200 were Zerg. If that indicated good balance, it would imply the 40th-best Zerg was as skilled as the 80th-best Terran and Protoss. This doesn't sound likely to me.
It actually is true man. Think of it like this... if 20% of people play zerg and skill level is equal across all races then those smaller number of zergs will be spread out somewhat evenly over all the more common players of the other two races. Lets say #1, 2, 3 are terran, protoss and zerg respectively. You can't expect 4,5, and 6 to also be terran, protoss and zerg because there are just less people playing zerg (as an example). If there are less people playing a race and skill distribution is even across all races, the 50th best zerg will be worse than the 50th best terran.
Edit: I just want to say that what I said isn't true if you're trying to say that the best players switch races to what they think is the best. What I said is only true if the races truly have an even distribution of skill.
|
MementoMori, I understand that. What I am saying is that even though only 20% of several hundreds of thousands SC2 players play Zerg, this says very little about the skill distribution amongst the top 200, because the top 200 is such a small and unrepresentative sample. It's not at all apparent that the 50th best Z should be worse than the 50th best T simply because there are less Z players globally. We simply cannot conclude anything about the skill distribution amongst the races at the top 200 by looking at race distributions globally. We can only go by intuition, and I think it's more intuitive that the 50th best Zerg is around the same skill level as the 50th best Terran (or at least, certainly much better than the 100th best Terran, which would be the case if one thought there are only 20% Zerg at the very top).
It's rare for the highest percentile to ever be representative of the average.
|
How about you add numbers to the visual representation?
If you check the EU top 200 since patch 1.1.2 there are a lot more zerg now.
|
On October 26 2010 13:12 dazer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 13:11 kidcrash89 wrote:
Having all three races have an equal representation in the top 200 is bad IMO. I think Blizz should try to strive for proportional balance (i.e. if only 20% of people play Zerg, then we should expect 20% Zerg in top 200 rather than ~33%). If they try to balance it based on having equal representation and consequently buff/nerf somethings a bit much then it will lead to imbalances eventually as players get better.
Balancing matchups is more important to me than balancing the top 200. Blizzard hasn't release any new data about the number of Zerg players yet. Have you seen the amount of ZvZ we have on the ladder these days?
# of zvz's is RIDICULOUS.
Nevertheless, I needed work in zvz so this is one way of getting it. Hopefully some switch back to toss/terran, because it's really starting to get annoying when 3/5 games are zvz.
|
I see a lot of players on that top 200 with less than 200 games played....
Kinda feels to me like that is too small a sample for Blizz to be able to say that those guys belong there.
|
On October 27 2010 11:13 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 10:28 Tray wrote:
Come on man really? You being wrong about statistics is going to get me banned again.
You're right that we would expect evenly skilled players to beat one another 50% of the time. Of course. Where you're wrong is saying that you expect higher than race representaion at the top for zerg. Sadly, you don't even bother to try to explain why this is the case. You simply make the assertion "it's more probable skill is evenly distrubuted at the top." This is just wrong, and I will tell you why.
You're reverse extrapolating the data to say that everyone in the top 200 has about the same skill, therefore each race should have 33% of those top 200. But you're completely ignoring the fact that only 1/5 of players play Zerg. Take a simple example of 100 players. Doesn't matter their races. Lets divide up their skill into 5 groups and use the same ones as Blizzard divisons so there's 20 bronze, 20 silver, 20 gold, 20 plat, and 20 diamonds. If only 20% of those players play Zerg, how many would you expect to be in Diamond if the game was perfectly balanced? It's 4. 20% of 20. If 10 of the 20 diamond players were Zerg you would say that Zerg must be overpowered because everyone is the same skill, yet they represent 50% of all players in the top bracket.
I hope that helps clear things up for you. I don't get anymore polite than that so before you reply, you better make sure your stats are sound. Before they were not. I'm not using "statistics.
Then everything you say is invalid.
|
|
|
On October 27 2010 11:29 MementoMori wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 10:18 domovoi wrote:
In fact, it's far more likely that the skill distribution is fairly even at the top level, which would mean the 66th best Zerg is about the same skill level as the 66th best Terran and 66th best Protoss. At least, I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case. This would lead to equal representation among the top 200.
It would actually be quite problematic if only 20% of the top 200 were Zerg. If that indicated good balance, it would imply the 40th-best Zerg was as skilled as the 80th-best Terran and Protoss. This doesn't sound likely to me. It actually is true man. Think of it like this... if 20% of people play zerg and skill level is equal across all races then those smaller number of zergs will be spread out somewhat evenly over all the more common players of the other two races. Lets say #1, 2, 3 are terran, protoss and zerg respectively. You can't expect 4,5, and 6 to also be terran, protoss and zerg because there are just less people playing zerg (as an example). If there are less people playing a race and skill distribution is even across all races, the 50th best zerg will be worse than the 50th best terran. Edit: I just want to say that what I said isn't true if you're trying to say that the best players switch races to what they think is the best. What I said is only true if the races truly have an even distribution of skill.
The reason you have 20% of people playing zerg in the total population, is because you have things like, 70% playing terran in the bottom of the bottom in the bronze leagues, because it IS all they played. They did their five placement matches with the game, and are now finished with it.
This large population of casual players who will play less than 50 games in their lives (and probably, due to the campaign, picked terran), is throwing off a big chunk of this number.
I feel like if you took a poll of ACTIVE players, and compared race distribution, you'd see a more even spread.
And you have all the bronze and silver and gold guys riding terran to try to ride the "imba" wave they read about on the blizz forums, and are just flavor of the month kids from WoW. I'd say give it til just after Christmas / new years, and they'll all slowly gravitate back towards their cookie cutter rpgs and leave us be
|
Then everything you say is invalid.
Thanks for the worthless comment. Some things simply can't be proven by statistics, especially with limited data; anyone who knows a modicum about the subject could tell you that.
|
On October 27 2010 14:38 domovoi wrote:Thanks for the worthless comment. Some things simply can't be proven by statistics, especially with limited data; anyone who knows a modicum about the subject could tell you that.
Thankfully this is not one of them. This is how Blizzard balanced the races. You can sit there and say you have to do it off of intuition all day, but it will never be correct.
Take it or leave it but clearly you're done trying to learn, so I'm done trying to teach.
|
On October 27 2010 09:33 Tray wrote:
I see there's still people that think balance = all races with equal representation.
This is incorrect. Balance is obtained by equal representation relative to total players who play that race. This assumes skill to be distributed evenly amongst players, which is the only assumption you can reasonably make.
Alternatively you can also look at race by race matchup win rates.
Based on the figures here, if backed up by Blizzard's numbers, Zerg is in for a nerf. 20% race represetation with ~30% in the top 200 after a week and a half? Unless a gigantic number of people changed to Zerg, the balance of power shifted heavily in the last patch.
I think you're really missing a lot of important issues here that really have to be accounted for.
What population is important? Is Bronze population important? Is only Diamond population important? If only Diamond population is important, what if one race has an easier time getting in to diamond?
Couldn't the actual dynamics of a matchup have an impact on the top 200? What if one race has 2 coin flip matchups while another has 3 matchups where luck rarely plays a part?
Do you assume the activity of all the races is even? Does a patch make certain races more active? Regarding this most recent patch, I was practicing my Z on the ladder and I had to go back to Terran because there was just too many ZvZs.
I believe there has been a pretty large population shift to zerg over the last few weeks.
http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all/
That also doesn't account for players that are playing zerg now but are listed as something else because they haven't played enough games yet.
|
On October 28 2010 00:47 RivalryRedux wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 09:33 Tray wrote:
I see there's still people that think balance = all races with equal representation.
This is incorrect. Balance is obtained by equal representation relative to total players who play that race. This assumes skill to be distributed evenly amongst players, which is the only assumption you can reasonably make.
Alternatively you can also look at race by race matchup win rates.
Based on the figures here, if backed up by Blizzard's numbers, Zerg is in for a nerf. 20% race represetation with ~30% in the top 200 after a week and a half? Unless a gigantic number of people changed to Zerg, the balance of power shifted heavily in the last patch. I think you're really missing a lot of important issues here that really have to be accounted for. What population is important? Is Bronze population important? Is only Diamond population important? If only Diamond population is important, what if one race has an easier time getting in to diamond? Couldn't the actual dynamics of a matchup have an impact on the top 200? What if one race has 2 coin flip matchups while another has 3 matchups where luck rarely plays a part? Do you assume the activity of all the races is even? Does a patch make certain races more active? Regarding this most recent patch, I was practicing my Z on the ladder and I had to go back to Terran because there was just too many ZvZs. I believe there has been a pretty large population shift to zerg over the last few weeks. http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all/That also doesn't account for players that are playing zerg now but are listed as something else because they haven't played enough games yet.
If the population shift matches the increase in representation at the top, then that could be an indicator of correct balance. I doubt that many people have changed, but we will see when Blizzard releases the numbers eventually.
Of course the matchups impact the representation. We call it "balance." If a race is winning more than 50% we expect them to be highly represented and thus "overpowered."
You can also make an argument that the balance changes shift who plays what race, but that's covered in the first paragraph with overall racial representation.
Leagues don't matter. Blizzard has stated that race representation is almost the same across all leagues. If you were trying to figure out balance though you would only want to look at the Top "x" players where x is the threshold where you have decided that skill has nearly peaked out and racial imbalances make up most of the win rates. Blizzard has stated this point is Plat/diamond for an appropriate amount of data to mull over.
So yeah you bring up some good points and some stuff we've covered. It's never as simple as just population to representation, but with our limited data, and without Blizzard's extensive data, that's as close as we can come as outside observers.
|
The big thing worth pointing out the statistical noise in the top 200 is about sqrt(200), or 7%. So even if you have 33% Zerg in the top 200, that could be consistent with anything from 40% Zerg (OMG so OP!) to 26% (much closer to racial distribution).
Small number statistics can cause all sorts of spurious conclusions.
|
On October 28 2010 01:42 Dragar wrote:
The big thing worth pointing out the statistical noise in the top 200 is about sqrt(200), or 7%. So even if you have 33% Zerg in the top 200, that could be consistent with anything from 40% Zerg (OMG so OP!) to 26% (much closer to racial distribution).
Small number statistics can cause all sorts of spurious conclusions.
Haha correct. I just find it funny because when I said this exact same thing when everyone was saying T was overpowered because of their representation I kept hearing the invalid and incorrect argument that, "there is no variability! We're looking at the ENTIRE population!"
|
Really nice job by ReSpOnSe - hope to see top 20 soon!
I wonder what the cutoff for GM league will be.. ;o
|
Yes, it's a fine line between getting enough data to make statistically robust conclusions, while only including the top-level players from which the data is really relevent.
|
If we assume that every top player maximizes his amount of wins, players would be evenly distributed between the three races on top level. I think we could indeed apply such a model to the balance discussion, so I'd aim for equal racial distribution in tournaments since the quarter-finals and in top 200 ladder games.
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less?
|
On October 28 2010 02:58 Perscienter wrote:
If we assume that every top player maximizes his amount of wins, players would be evenly distributed between the three races on top level. I think we could indeed apply such a model to the balance discussion, so I'd aim for equal racial distribution in tournaments since the quarter-finals and in top 200 ladder games.
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less?
I'm pretty sure division doesn't matter at all, because Blizzard stated so ^^
|
On October 28 2010 02:58 Perscienter wrote:
If we assume that every top player maximizes his amount of wins, players would be evenly distributed between the three races on top level. I think we could indeed apply such a model to the balance discussion, so I'd aim for equal racial distribution in tournaments since the quarter-finals and in top 200 ladder games.
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less?
Why do you think assuming maximizing wins that each race would be equally represented at the top? That's entirely false. It should match ONLY the % of players who play that race, making the assumption skill is evenly distributed. See my very simple example on the previous page if you're having a hard time wrapping your head around this concept.
And no your division doesn't matter at all.
|
It does matter and was stated on page 5 and 6.
|
On October 28 2010 03:09 Perscienter wrote:
It does matter and was stated on page 5 and 6.
You're confusing division weight when calculating the top 200 with a normalizer that in theory (it doesn't exist) would change the point totals when people of different divisions play one another. This doesn't happen.
It's a direct MMR/Ratings comparison between the two players regardless of their individual divisions. Everyone gets the same bonus pool regardless of when you are placed.
|
Of course the matchups impact the representation. We call it "balance." If a race is winning more than 50% we expect them to be highly represented and thus "overpowered."
You missed my point. I wasn't talking about the win %, I was talking about the way a matchup plays. By coin flip I meant a BO game where skill doesn't play as much of a role in the outcome. If TvP/PvT was determined by flipping a coin then it would be a 50/50 matchup. However, in order to separate yourself from other players and climb the ladder you would have to do so in your other 2 matchups. If on the other hand zerg had no coin flip matchups then top zergs would be able to separate themselves from the field in all 3 matchups. This would impact the way the ladder shakes out even though all of the matchups could be 50/50 with regards to win %.
You can also make an argument that the balance changes shift who plays what race, but that's covered in the first paragraph with overall racial representation.
That can create a contradiction to your assumption that skill levels are evenly distributed. If players choose to play a race they perceive is strong or that they will win with, then you also have to factor in how perception is different among different players. If top players have a different perception than others, their racial distribution may reflect this.
|
On October 28 2010 03:23 RivalryRedux wrote:Show nested quote +Of course the matchups impact the representation. We call it "balance." If a race is winning more than 50% we expect them to be highly represented and thus "overpowered." You missed my point. I wasn't talking about the win %, I was talking about the way a matchup plays. By coin flip I meant a BO game where skill doesn't play as much of a role in the outcome. If TvP/PvT was determined by flipping a coin then it would be a 50/50 matchup. However, in order to separate yourself from other players and climb the ladder you would have to do so in your other 2 matchups. If on the other hand zerg had no coin flip matchups then top zergs would be able to separate themselves from the field in all 3 matchups. This would impact the way the ladder shakes out even though all of the matchups could be 50/50 with regards to win %. Show nested quote +
You can also make an argument that the balance changes shift who plays what race, but that's covered in the first paragraph with overall racial representation.
That can create a contradiction to your assumption that skill levels are evenly distributed. If players choose to play a race they perceive is strong or that they will win with, then you also have to factor in how perception is different among different players. If top players have a different perception than others, their racial distribution may reflect this.
Okay I follow your first part now. I guess you're saying that you need to see race by race matchups to see if one matchup is skewing the results. Makes sense.
As to your second paragraph - That's why we assume skill to be evenly distributed. Blizzard's numbers "take skill into account," which is more accurate, but we can't do that because we don't have access to the matchmaking algorithm.
|
On October 28 2010 02:58 Perscienter wrote:
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less?
I made a thread on this a while ago and I think that if your in a power division you will accumulate less points than you would in a weaker division.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=146009
When top 200's come out, if you thumb through them, you'll see how players in those power divisions tend to move up on the ladder relative to their total points and the opposite happens for players in weaker divisions.
When Excalibur_Z asked the guy at blizzcon he mentioned "and the skill of your division" when he was saying that you can't directly compare point among divisions. I wasn't entirely sure though if meant points or rank (everyone already knows rank).
|
On October 28 2010 03:34 RivalryRedux wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 02:58 Perscienter wrote:
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less? I made a thread on this a while ago and I think that if your in a power division you will accumulate less points than you would in a weaker division. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=146009When top 200's come out, if you thumb through them, you'll see how players in those power divisions tend to move up on the ladder relative to their total points and the opposite happens for players in weaker divisions. When Excalibur_Z asked the guy at blizzcon he mentioned "and the skill of your division" when he was saying that you can't directly compare point among divisions. I wasn't entirely sure though if meant points or rank (everyone already knows rank).
I read most of this, but I don't see why the answer isn't "Point changes are based on MMR, not rating." Since there's no way you can know what your opponents' MMRs are, I don't think you can disprove this possibility.
I still don't see how/why divisions should/would have weight. Who you play is not linked to your division at all so this implies that, if true, you are better off waiting to qualify for a week then playing your games after a reset. This would be a giant abusable bug if true.
|
On October 28 2010 03:34 RivalryRedux wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 02:58 Perscienter wrote:
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less? I made a thread on this a while ago and I think that if your in a power division you will accumulate less points than you would in a weaker division. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=146009When top 200's come out, if you thumb through them, you'll see how players in those power divisions tend to move up on the ladder relative to their total points and the opposite happens for players in weaker divisions. When Excalibur_Z asked the guy at blizzcon he mentioned "and the skill of your division" when he was saying that you can't directly compare point among divisions. I wasn't entirely sure though if meant points or rank (everyone already knows rank).
The way you word it might confuse somebody though: You don't actually get less points than people in worse divisions when playing the different categories of skill (even matched, slightly favoured etc.), you just get matched against better opponents than those in worse divisions, and as such, you end up with a lower total amount of points because you will reach your skill softcap of points faster than those of worse divisions.
OK saying this sounds a little vague, I guess explaining it with an example would be better:
Let Player A and Player B have the same skill-level.
Player A is in a really tough division and Player B is in an average-skilled division (basically meaning that the average point-level of the division of player A is higher than in that of player B).
Both have 1700 points. However, Player A will get "even matches" against other players of average divisions which have a rating of 1900-2100, while Player B will only get "even matches" against 1600-1800 rated players. Since the 1900-2100 players naturally are a lot better than the players that B faces, player A is more or less stuck at 1700 points since he can't win enough games to move up the ladder. Player B however still faces worse opponents and thus rises up to 2000 points or so until he too is even-matched against the 1900-2100 players and stops rising.
Both players are equally skilled, however, player A has 1700 points while player B has 2000 points.
|
the game is still far balance because theres still the expansion pack and maybe new units coming out. so enjoy the imbalances while it lasts.
|
Balance discussions based off the top200 always confuse me a bit. There's invariably someone that brings up the top10 or top20 (whichever makes them able to say X race is over/underpowered), and then someone berates them for taking an arbitrary number of people just to try to make their point. I don't see how the top200 is a much better number of people to choose from. I understand that it might be the largest sample for which we have data at a given point in time, and certainly think it's better than selecting the top 5, 10, 20, etc, but I'm just not sold on it being a much better number.
I assume that most people on this board are concerned with the balance between the races when they are played as well as possible, or as near to that as possible. I don't see many people concerned with how the latest patch ruins their bronze league matches. However, where is the sweet spot where your sample size is large enough and yet your player skill levels are still at the level you want them to be? Another problem I can think of is that a lot of the top pros are playing mostly custom matches, so how valid is the data that we're actually seeing?
In the end, when we're making so many assumptions, does any of this analysis really mean anything?
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
Excalibur_Z you have an incredible level of patience, I'm in awe.
|
United States12235 Posts
^^^^^^^^^^
On October 28 2010 04:20 Catyoul wrote:
Excalibur_Z you have an incredible level of patience, I'm in awe.
haha. Thanks. I have to admit it's pretty funny getting lectured by people who cite our initial theory, not realizing that I'm seeking to correct that theory. It's like if I were to say the Sun revolves around the Earth, then everyone started saying that, then I came back and said that there was new evidence that the opposite was true and people argued that it couldn't be true because it was obvious the Sun revolves around the Earth.
On October 28 2010 03:44 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 03:34 RivalryRedux wrote:On October 28 2010 02:58 Perscienter wrote:
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less? I made a thread on this a while ago and I think that if your in a power division you will accumulate less points than you would in a weaker division. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=146009When top 200's come out, if you thumb through them, you'll see how players in those power divisions tend to move up on the ladder relative to their total points and the opposite happens for players in weaker divisions. When Excalibur_Z asked the guy at blizzcon he mentioned "and the skill of your division" when he was saying that you can't directly compare point among divisions. I wasn't entirely sure though if meant points or rank (everyone already knows rank). The way you word it might confuse somebody though: You don't actually get less points than people in worse divisions when playing the different categories of skill (even matched, slightly favoured etc.), you just get matched against better opponents than those in worse divisions, and as such, you end up with a lower total amount of points because you will reach your skill softcap of points faster than those of worse divisions. OK saying this sounds a little vague, I guess explaining it with an example would be better: Let Player A and Player B have the same skill-level. Player A is in a really tough division and Player B is in an average-skilled division (basically meaning that the average point-level of the division of player A is higher than in that of player B). Both have 1700 points. However, Player A will get "even matches" against other players of average divisions which have a rating of 1900-2100, while Player B will only get "even matches" against 1600-1800 rated players. Since the 1900-2100 players naturally are a lot better than the players that B faces, player A is more or less stuck at 1700 points since he can't win enough games to move up the ladder. Player B however still faces worse opponents and thus rises up to 2000 points or so until he too is even-matched against the 1900-2100 players and stops rising. Both players are equally skilled, however, player A has 1700 points while player B has 2000 points.
That actually sounds really plausible. I think where things tend to fall apart is Diamond league, where the skill gap between pro-level Diamond and low Diamond is almost as wide as the gap between Platinum and Bronze. However, it's possible for high Diamonds to be in the same division as low Diamonds, so even if the overall skill-level of the division is the same, the range of actual skill within that division over time will spread over a wide amount. If that happened in any lower league, players would just get promoted or demoted.
|
I read most of this, but I don't see why the answer isn't "Point changes are based on MMR, not rating." Since there's no way you can know what your opponents' MMRs are, I don't think you can disprove this possibility.
I agree that you get points based on MMR versus your rating which is quite noticeable when playing an up and coming platinum or smurf account in platinum.
However I consider your rating to be relative to your division rather than just your league which I spent more time arguing later on in the topic.
I'm sure you've noticed that while your in platinum you get seemingly a LOT of points when you win against diamond players (20 something without bonus) and this changes when you go in to diamond.
Well, I think the reason for all those points is that game is saying "Ok Rivalry won a game against a guy with X MMR, how does that MMR compare to amount of points Rivalry has and how does that compare with the MMR of other players in his DIVISION (possibly league as well) ."
So if a player got transferred from a weak diamond division to Medivac Alamo for some reason I think it would be like the transfer from platinum to diamond but less severe.
This is kind of just applying the perceived differences in how you gain points according to your league and applying it to individual divisions. It is possible that there is also a league modifier as well.
I still don't see how/why divisions should/would have weight. Who you play is not linked to your division at all so this implies that, if true, you are better off waiting to qualify for a week then playing your games after a reset. This would be a giant abusable bug if true.
Well you might be better off waiting if you want to say "I'm X diamond rated" as a qualifying statement. However it's kind of like saying you have 4000 points in platinum. Sure you have a lot of points but your division probably sucks and where you stand relative to everyone else will be more noticeable when the real lists (top 200) are put out.
Blizzard has gone to great lengths to make a ladder system which hides your true rating and encourages division competition. If it was as simple as comparing your points among your league it would kind of defeat the whole purpose.
The Master's League I think will have comparable points though because Blizzard has to know that a lot of mid-high tier players at around that level want to know where they stand in the larger scheme of things.
|
On October 27 2010 22:34 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 14:38 domovoi wrote:Then everything you say is invalid. Thanks for the worthless comment. Some things simply can't be proven by statistics, especially with limited data; anyone who knows a modicum about the subject could tell you that. Thankfully this is not one of them. This is how Blizzard balanced the races. You can sit there and say you have to do it off of intuition all day, but it will never be correct. Take it or leave it but clearly you're done trying to learn, so I'm done trying to teach.
The ironic thing is that I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, and it appears you do not understand at all what I'm trying to say.
Basically, I take issue with this assumption:
"It should match ONLY the % of players who play that race, making the assumption skill is evenly distributed."
(I interpret "evenly distributed" to mean skill is distributed amongst the top 200 similarly to how it is distributed amongst the entire population.)
However, this is not an assumption you can prove is true by using statistics, because the top 200 is a small, non-random and unrepresentative sample.* It might be true, but my argument is that intuitively it does not appear to be true. Can it really be said that the 20th best Zerg is only as good as the 40th best Protoss and Terran? What about the 10th best Zerg (let's say someone like Dimaga)? Are there really 19 Terran and 19 Protoss players better than him? Or is it more likely that there are closer to 9 T and 9 P players better?
* Here's another example of this: 25% of the top 100 chess players are Russian. Russians most certainly do not make up 25% of the total number of chess players in the world. There are 5 American and 6 Chinese players in the top 100, but 40 million total chess players in the US and only 3 million in China. Maybe being Chinese is OP, but probably not significantly so, as average IQ in China is 100 and in the US, it's 98.
|
On October 28 2010 05:31 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 22:34 Tray wrote:On October 27 2010 14:38 domovoi wrote:Then everything you say is invalid. Thanks for the worthless comment. Some things simply can't be proven by statistics, especially with limited data; anyone who knows a modicum about the subject could tell you that. Thankfully this is not one of them. This is how Blizzard balanced the races. You can sit there and say you have to do it off of intuition all day, but it will never be correct. Take it or leave it but clearly you're done trying to learn, so I'm done trying to teach. The ironic thing is that I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, and it appears you do not understand at all what I'm trying to say. Basically, I take issue with this assumption: "It should match ONLY the % of players who play that race, making the assumption skill is evenly distributed." (I interpret "evenly distributed" to mean skill is distributed amongst the top 200 similarly to how it is distributed amongst the entire population.) However, this is not an assumption you can prove is true by using statistics, because the top 200 is a small, non-random and unrepresentative sample.* It might be true, but my argument is that intuitively it does not appear to be true. Can it really be said that the 20th best Zerg is only as good as the 40th best Protoss and Terran? What about the 10th best Zerg (let's say someone like Dimaga)? Are there really 19 Terran and 19 Protoss players better than him? Or is it more likely that there are closer to 9 T and 9 P players better? * Here's another example of this: 25% of the top 100 chess players are Russian. Russians most certainly do not make up 25% of the total number of chess players in the world. There are 5 American and 6 Chinese players in the top 100, but 40 million total chess players in the US and only 3 million in China. Maybe being Chinese is OP, but probably not significantly so, as average IQ in China is 100 and in the US, it's 98.
Yes, you're making an assumption you cannot make, that is why your posts are invalid. I'll explain in a subsequent paragraph why. The reason you can't prove it by statistics is beacuse it's not a valid measurement, you're just making things up.
The funny part is that your example proves my point but not yours. If those were the breakdowns of the top 100 chess players, you would say "Russians are better at chess than Americans." This is identical to if Zerg was overrepresented compared to the population. Same exact comparison. There's more Americans (Protoss), but there are more Russians (Zerg) in the top 200. Russians are OP. Same thing as you said about Chinese.
But I get what you're trying say. You think that Zerg players are just "better" than other players. While I agree this could theoretically be possible, you have presented no evidence that this is true, and you're using a circular argument to support your claim.
Saying that other factors contribute to which race is stronger is true, and I mentioned that earlier in this thread, but without Blizzard's data (they account for "skill", which is what you're getting at), the only assumption we can reasonably make is that skill is evenly distributed.
You should reread this a few times if you still don't get it. Stats aren't super easy and I'm not the most eloquent typer/speaker. If you're still struggling others will help.
|
On October 28 2010 06:02 Tray wrote:
Yes, you're making an assumption you cannot make, that is why your posts are invalid. I'll explain in a subsequent paragraph why. The reason you can't prove it by statistics is beacuse it's not a valid measurement, you're just making things up.
Please reread my posts, because the point is flying over your head.
The funny part is that your example proves my point but not yours. If those were the breakdowns of the top 100 chess players, you would say "Russians are better at chess than Americans." This is identical to if Zerg was overrepresented compared to the population. Same exact comparison. There's more Americans (Protoss), but there are more Russians (Zerg) in the top 200. Russians are OP. Same thing as you said about Chinese.
No, it doesn't prove your point at all. Your point was that a "true" top 200 should reflect 20% Zerg simply because the population is 20% Zerg. I gave you an example where race is "balanced," yet that is not true. Yes, you could say Russians and Chinese are better at chess than Americans (much like Koreans are better at SC2 than Americans), but that has nothing to do with any inherent advantages in being Russian or Chinese (it has more to do with governmental subsidies and infrastructure). Basically, in chess, whatever race you are has very, very little to do with your probability of winning (aka balance), yet you do not see the top 100 reflecting the racial makeup of the global population.
We must look to other things to determine why the top 100 is distributed the way it is (i.e. government subsidies, infrastructure, culture). You cannot look at the global population. My point is that when you look at the "other things" in SC2, there isn't anything there that would point to the very best SC2 players choosing T and P by such a wide margin. This is your opportunity to provide something, so please do.
But I get what you're trying say. You think that Zerg players are just "better" than other players. While I agree this could theoretically be possible, you have presented no evidence that this is true, and you're using a circular argument to support your claim.
No, I don't think Zerg players are "better." I said that amongst the top 200, it's more reasonable to expect 33% Zerg than 20% Zerg, because there isn't any reason why the very best would be attracted to T and P by such a wide margin. Yes, I'm going by intuition, and I've explained my reasons as to why I think this. Unfortunately, you have failed to address my reasons and instead dismiss it by making your own baseless assumptions that 20% of the top 200 should be Zerg, when I have already so clearly explained why that assumption cannot be made simply by looking at the global population.
In addition, there is nothing circular about my argument. That you think there is simply reflects your inability to comprehend my point.
Saying that other factors contribute to which race is stronger is true, and I mentioned that earlier in this thread, but without Blizzard's data (they account for "skill", which is what you're getting at), the only assumption we can reasonably make is that skill is evenly distributed.
No, that is not an assumption we can reasonably make. Nothing in statistics says the top 200 of a distribution is going to reflect the rest of the distribution. In fact, statistics says the opposite: you can't conclude anything. A small, non-representative sample cannot be used to conclude anything about the general population. The reverse is also true.
You should reread this a few times if you still don't get it. Stats aren't super easy and I'm not the most eloquent typer/speaker. If you're still struggling others will help.
The statistics principles we are using are actually fairly easy to comprehend, I've been familiar with them for over 10 years. Quit with the concern trolling, it simply makes you look foolish when I have to keep repeating the same points because you don't understand them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
