EPTGSL Match Statistics - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
| ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On January 10 2011 00:07 mutantmagnet wrote: No. Don't go there if you can't even remember what happened in GSL2. Most of the Protoss players were trying builds lower ranked players wouldn't even try if being serious to win. The rest made continually poor choices that was out of character when compared to season 1 and 3 level of unforced errors. exactly what i meant. poor performance of the P players. i do remember the terrible 1 cannon FEs on xelnaga&scrap and the half assed bad executed 4gates etc ~ On January 10 2011 00:14 hmunkey wrote: These are meaningless statistics as all skill isn't equal. Some of the players are absolute garbage compared to others. yep but when you have seen all/most of the actual games its nice to see some numbers behind the trends you already noticed. | ||
|
Odoakar
Croatia1837 Posts
On January 09 2011 23:26 teamsolid wrote: Thanks for getting these stats up. I'm curious about match length depending on the map being played, which shouldn't be that hard to find since you already have length for each game up. Oh, that's a good idea, I basically started doing this just for match durations, but somehow digressed into match statistics. Now that I have a spreadsheet done, I'll keep track of new GSL matches and update the thread with match data after every round. And people please don't take match statistics too seriously, as we all know the number of games is too low to exclude all the other contributing factors like individual players, map veto systems and other stuff. The focus will be on match durations, I'm really interested how the numbers break down for each map. | ||
|
Deekin[
Serbia1713 Posts
| ||
|
TeWy
France714 Posts
On January 10 2011 00:14 hmunkey wrote: These are meaningless statistics as all skill isn't equal. Some of the players are absolute garbage compared to others. Just because the skill isn't equal doesn't mean that these are meaningless statistics. If you consider that there is an approximately equal ratio of very good/bad Terran/Protoss/Zerg, and that these people are equally matched in the 3 MU, then the statistics are valid. | ||
|
MorroW
Sweden3522 Posts
| ||
|
SCC-Faust
United States3736 Posts
On January 10 2011 00:14 hmunkey wrote: These are meaningless statistics as all skill isn't equal. Some of the players are absolute garbage compared to others. Uhh it is a nice indication of map balance and a little insight into the match-ups though. This is how people did it in Brood War and it was pretty undisputed fact when one map had a huge racial advantage through proleague stats. I know SC2 is new and all and not everyone is at that level where they are close in skill, but I'd rather look at these statistics then read posts on the strategy forum concerning racial imbalances from low diamond players any day. This bandwagon of "Protoss ez" is sort of annoying, and yeah, Protoss is "ez" if you're playing against terrible players. But I think whether a race is hard or not is sort of subjective, although statistically GSL seems to be that of the opposite opinion of a good portion of TL members. Edit: Kind of like how Artosis and IdrA want to say how Zerg is the hardest, and as IdrA said many times how Terran and Protoss don't really take skill - but were terrible Terran/Protoss players in beta. How ironic, huh? | ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
On January 10 2011 00:44 TeWy wrote: Just because the skill isn't equal doesn't mean that these are meaningless statistics. If you consider that there is an approximately equal ratio of very good/bad Terran/Protoss/Zerg, and that these people are equally matched in the 3 MU, then the statistics are valid. I think he is right. We needed way more games played to come up with valid statistics due to the fact that the skill difference among the players is huge. | ||
|
shadymmj
1906 Posts
But, to tell the truth, it's not only just about the game length but also the quality of engagements and the control over the map. Games will only get interesting once we see a minimum of 3-4 bases each and at least 5 facs operational. Maybe I've been spoiled by SWL, but there we are. | ||
|
RyanRushia
United States2748 Posts
| ||
|
Black Gun
Germany4482 Posts
it also doesnt reflect major metagame shifts. nestea was able to overcome foxers 2rax aggressions in the gsl2 finals because foxer hadnt refined the strategy yet, but the seed was sown and the refined 2 rax strategies then went on to roflstomp zergs out of gsl3. | ||
|
DarthXX
Australia998 Posts
| ||
|
Odoakar
Croatia1837 Posts
| ||
Chill
Calgary26003 Posts
| ||
|
Fa1nT
United States3423 Posts
>> | ||
|
DarthXX
Australia998 Posts
| ||
|
Blurzz
United States33 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On January 10 2011 01:12 shadymmj wrote: Thanks for the info. There are an astounding number of under 10 minute matches, and having an average match length of 12 minutes is certainly very worrisome. No wonder viewership ratings are dropping! They just aren't very long or epic. I don't think enough action can be packed into 12 minutes for an RTS. But, to tell the truth, it's not only just about the game length but also the quality of engagements and the control over the map. Games will only get interesting once we see a minimum of 3-4 bases each and at least 5 facs operational. Maybe I've been spoiled by SWL, but there we are. Eh 12 isnt so bad, avg bw was 15 I think. Just needs less of th e 5 minute games and more evenly around 12-14 | ||
|
Odoakar
Croatia1837 Posts
![[image loading]](http://i54.tinypic.com/2eyg76q.jpg) Will keep the OP updated as I get new info | ||
| ||
