EPTBlizzard releases latest Win Percentages - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Wasteweiser
Canada522 Posts
| ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12042 Posts
I play Terran and literally everyone you find is a zerg now, it's hard not to get a lot of TvZ Practice and it's harder to get beaten by what seems to be the only race you come across.  | ||
|
TheGiftedApe
United States1243 Posts
On November 07 2010 17:42 Dommk wrote: They are only meaningful if they show that my race is UP! these are my exact feelings on the subject | ||
|
TERRANLOL
United States626 Posts
Here are the averages: PvT 51.25 PvZ 47.975 ZvT 50.35 PvT -> In Protoss Favor TvZ -> Very very miniscule zerg favor PvZ -> In Zerg favor I'm a little mixed up about these stats though. If anyone's taken care to note, Zerg went from composing 15% of daimond league to composing about 25%. This means that 10% of diamond league Zerg players are probably new zerg players and therefore bad zerg players. I think if we wait longer, Zerg will continue to pull ahead. Additionally, I would like to see win/loss ratios for the different point ranges. The sc2 ranks graph of race composition is nice but it doesn't say much. Race composition is a measure of how many players play each race and that is what it measures. It's not a measure of skill. Because of this, the fact that just plain more players play terran mean that terran is going to make up the most of each section. Additionally, toward the end you're measuring a very small pool of players. The second from last one is the top 10 players. Furthermore, this graph seems to pin the whole in Terran's favor, but if we look at average points: Average points R880 P978 T975 Z1,069 It's clearly in Zerg's favor. However, if you limit it to the top 1000, you get something different: Average points Random: 2,286 Protoss: 2,286 Terran: 2,303 Zerg: 2,283 Then the top 500 comes out completely even: Average points Random: 2,376 Protoss: 2,406 Terran: 2,408 Zerg: 2,401 I think that as you approach the top levels of play on the ladder, the races come out even. But even then, these stats are still skewed. I think Terran win most of their games with cheese, but is in general weaker in a macro based game. We don't really have access to statistics to prove that, though. This is why I'd rather leave the balancing job to Blizzard >.> | ||
|
Galaxy77
Hong Kong256 Posts
| ||
|
The_Voidless
United States184 Posts
| ||
|
Scila
Canada1849 Posts
| ||
|
ci_esteban
United States217 Posts
On November 07 2010 17:35 StarcraftMan wrote: The stats show that Zerg is OP in 3 out of 4 regions. Not surprising - this is something the community suspected aleady. You and your stupid posts is the reason why TL sucks. Stop bolding your stupid opinions.... | ||
|
SMoneyMonkey
Canada15 Posts
On November 08 2010 10:57 ci_esteban wrote: You and your stupid posts is the reason why TL sucks. Stop bolding your stupid opinions.... To be fair he probably meant to say zerg is winning I'm 3 out if 4 regions which isn't so much an opinion as a fact (only assuming he meant winning because the races can't really be OP in a single region, doesn't make sense.) I am in no way skilled enough to be able to tell if a race is OP, but, the top 1000 or so zerg might just be more skilled than the top 1000 toss, or something like that do you can't really lower the test group numbers too much, this is the best measure for now. Probably the best measure plausible without master and grandmaster leagues. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
| ||
Space Invader
Australia291 Posts
| ||
|
Shakes
Australia557 Posts
On November 08 2010 10:12 TERRANLOL wrote: Lol. I don't see how so many people can interpret these stats so differently. Here are the averages: You can't average them out by just adding them up and dividing by 4 like that, the server populations aren't equal. | ||
|
Space Invader
Australia291 Posts
| ||
|
Essentia
1150 Posts
| ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
| ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
On November 08 2010 10:18 The_Voidless wrote: I loled for a moment when I saw SEA, I was thinking why the hell does the principality of Sealand matter. But I digresses it looks pretty balance to me I guess without looking at the lower leagues. Probably because there are players playing on it, you dolt. | ||
|
ghostnuke1234
164 Posts
On November 08 2010 10:57 ci_esteban wrote: You and your stupid posts is the reason why TL sucks. Stop bolding your stupid opinions.... Quality post m8. Instead of flaming somebody outright, why don't you provide a constructive criticism and debate his points? It's garbage responses like yours that adds nothing to TL and lowers the overall quality of discussion. | ||
|
HughJorgen
Australia37 Posts
Think of it this way, if they nerfed Protoss into the ground by halving the shields and life points of every unit, then for a while Protoss would lose every match. Then, higher skilled Protoss players would start beating lower skilled Zerg and Terran players despite the massive handicap. Then Battle.Net looks at Huk and assign him a skill rating of :mid gold level:. Then Blizzard run the stats and find that Huk is a mid gold player winning 50% of his matches. Balance achieved! It's not just a matchmaking problem, it's a circular argument. Protoss win 50% of their matches at this skill level = A player's skill level is determined by where they start winning 50% of their matches. There are a few things that slightly improve the situation: 1) random players since they can maintain their 'skill level' by winning more with one or two of the races. 2) The very, very top since you can maintain a win% higher than 50% (there might be more of a particular race here) 3) The very, very bottom where you can maintain a win% below 50% (there might be more of a particular race here) 4) some other measure of player skill that doesn't entirely depend on wins vs losses (apm? resources? game score?) Just to reiterate: saying that they've removed the matchmaking bias is all well and good but unless Blizzard have a method of determining player skill that doesn't depend on wins/losses (e.g. apm, game score, whatever) you'll still get statistics that are heavily biased in favour of balance. | ||
|
Gigaudas
Sweden1213 Posts
On November 08 2010 09:57 Qikz wrote: I'm not suprised about Zerg in Europe. I play Terran and literally everyone you find is a zerg now, it's hard not to get a lot of TvZ Practice and it's harder to get beaten by what seems to be the only race you come across. Your post is a good example of why accurately talking about balance is hard. Those Zergs (if you're a high diamond player?) used to play ZvT in more than half of their games so they should be good at it - contradicting what you're saying. I used to play in the top 200 rating-wise (according to sc2ranks.com) on EU - statistics were showing that ~50% of the players at that level were Terran and I as a Zerg have to this date surely played more ZvT than ZvZ, ZvR and ZvP combined (haven't been playing since midish September and back then the Terran domination was pretty extreme ^^). The result was that I lost a lot of ZvP and ZvZ but won a lot of ZvT - but that still doesn't mean that ZvT was anything but the hardest match up even if my personal statistics said otherwise. There are so very many variables to take into account when discussing balance. Statistics shouldn't be completely disregarded but most important is analyses of single games on a huge scale imo. | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On November 07 2010 17:33 blade55555 wrote: I really wish they released these back before the first balance patch. Would have been interesting to see tvz win %. They did, TvZ is like 49.1% or something. | ||
| ||
