People who are pulling "statistics knowledge" out of nowhere, even though there arne't that many items we can tell with certainty that there is corellation, just due to the 75 percent.

Fa1nT

United States3423 Posts

January 16 2011 02:33 GMT

#22

A sample of 10 is too small, but the samples that the TC was posting are in the 70-80s, which will start to have accurate representations.

JBright

Vancouver14381 Posts

January 16 2011 02:34 GMT

#23

Hmm, I do like the idea of making the games longer by only generating cross positions, but then a lot of the 4-player maps will become 2-player maps and scouting becomes less important early in the game. Maybe that can be a good thing too, since it decreases the chances of a player losing due to scouting the opponent's base last on Meta and LT.

Wochtulka

Czech Republic66 Posts

January 16 2011 02:35 GMT

#24

I think 4 player maps should a) not be like DQ with awkward "symetry", b) should prevent spawning in closest locations by land. Spawning close by air is fine imo if walk distance is long.

Btw i really like Shakuras plateau because of it being big enough to actually play on how it is supposed to be played (zerg reactions etc.) and i think it is one and only completly balanced map so far. This might lead to a thought that 2v2 maps should maybe be used in 1v1 matches sometimes, maybe with some minor changes.

Sanguinarius

United States3427 Posts

January 16 2011 02:42 GMT

#25

Excellent work!

I think part of the terran close dominance is the prevalence of 2 rax play in the GSL.

Zarahtra

Iceland4053 Posts

January 16 2011 02:59 GMT

#26

On January 16 2011 11:42 Sanguinarius wrote:
Excellent work!

I think part of the terran close dominance is the prevalence of 2 rax play in the GSL.

Tbh what exactly is wrong with 2rax even cross position? It doesn't delay the cc that much and you can be pretty safe FEing. The only thing you loose is tech, where rine is pretty good very far into the game anyway it doesn't really matter for defending purpose, but you loose the chance to harras via hellions/banshees, which kinda defeats the "terran are playing wrong, they just need to macro more"-view.

Question is, is the random roll(if it were in a bit lesser degree) a bad thing? I mean that's for blizzard to decide, but it keeps the games a bit more... diverse. Obviously such huge differences are bad, but if it was say +/- 10%, would that be a bad thing?

If it isn't, how to combat it? Zerg ofcourse say make all spots cross position, toss lands somewhere in middle(long for PvT, short for PvZ) and terran close. I'd guess we're looking to approach the 50% mark a bit more, so cross seems to be to far and close to short.
So if blizzard feels the random roll is bad, I'd say either they needed to make 3player maps or limit spawning location to correct distance.

MnMOptimus

United States8 Posts

January 16 2011 04:20 GMT

#27

will they use these maps next week?

Elp

Netherlands86 Posts

January 16 2011 13:30 GMT

#28

What i find most interesting is the lower win rate on the 6 o clock. The other statistics are probably explained by strategies that are strong for certain races on certain positions, so the win rate is determined by race factors which are triggered by relative starting positions. I think its called 'mediation' in statistics, or 'moderation'.., its been a while

But a starting position which has a lower win rate across the board just shouldn't exist. The winrate of a starting position is (or should be) independent from relative positions (air/walk/cross) and/or race. Maybe its the shape of the starting base, or perhaps distance to gas/minerals. Or maybe the numbers are just insignificant due to a small'ish sample size. If there is someone here with expertise on statistics he/she could prove or disprove the significance of the numbers found.

Odoakar

Croatia1835 Posts

January 16 2011 15:08 GMT

#29

On January 13 2011 23:55 heyoka wrote:
I imagine Metal would be a lot better if it spawned only cross map. It would be cool to add in game length stats to the position stuff, seems likely that the games with cross map would be a lot longer (and probably qualitatively better for spectating).

I've just finished collecting game length data for all games played in GSL 2, GSL 3 and GSL 4, and this seems like a good next step to take. I might go through all the games again quickly, and just note whether the spawn positions are WALK, AIR or CROSS and then do some nice pivot tables to represent the data

Shorack

Belgium111 Posts

January 16 2011 18:51 GMT

#30

On January 16 2011 22:30 Elp wrote:
What i find most interesting is the lower win rate on the 6 o clock. The other statistics are probably explained by strategies that are strong for certain races on certain positions, so the win rate is determined by race factors which are triggered by relative starting positions. I think its called 'mediation' in statistics, or 'moderation'.., its been a while

i'd call it explanation.

Phanekim

United States777 Posts

January 16 2011 19:50 GMT

#31

people are pretty lame here. its not about sample size but its about confidence intervals. if you have a high percentage of something happening you don't need a huge sample size.

in this instance you might need slightly a few more samples to get a good p value.

however, just because something isn't within a confidence interval doesn't mean that the phenomenon isn't happening.

OldSC2Guy

United States8 Posts

January 17 2011 19:02 GMT

#32

Sample size is reasonable (p<<1). Calling player skill a factor is by definition subjective. The title itself limits the data to [GSL] (not ladders).

"David" Kim of Blizz stated publicly on the first day of the Jan 2011 [GSL] that Blizz intended "balance" to relate to the "highest level of competition." If there was any doubt about his meaning, note that he was standing on the set at the competition. Blizz sent him there to deliver that message (my interpretation - not a fact).

I can't see anyway this work by the OP could be more on point. Excellent meta-analysis. I hope you keep it up and you might think about doing this sort of thing for a living.

The real question this points to is: What role, if any, does play other than international competition have in "David's" "balance scheme?" Ladder players could use as much support from Blizz on this as [GSL] players. Work such as the OP may get Blizz to help us there with some ladder data.

Note: I am taking no position regarding the definition of "balance." I am a 92 rank Bronze. I don't care what Blizz does. I just want to know the landscape.

GagnarTheUnruly

United States655 Posts

January 17 2011 19:46 GMT

#33

I did some chi-squared tests and given the small sample size the results aren't significantly different from random -- but that doesn't mean that these results aren't meaningful. They coincide with anectodal impressions people have from logging thousands of games and also make rational sense. While it's still hard to know what Terran's 'actual' win probability is when spawning at close-by-ground positions, it's pretty crazy that they are winning 3/4 of their games in the GSL in that situation.

DarkRise

1644 Posts

January 17 2011 19:50 GMT

#34

those stats are pretty much expected
Hoping this will be change once the new maps are implemented

Odoakar

Croatia1835 Posts

January 17 2011 20:06 GMT

#35

I need an advice - should I only check stats for Lost Temple and Metalopolis since they have similar layout, or should I try to include DQ and Shakuras, even though I'm not sure one can break down the spawn points to fit the cross, air, walk scenario:/

Heyoka

Katowice25012 Posts

January 18 2011 21:08 GMT

#36

I looked at Shakuras when collecting the numbers and it wasn't very interesting, since it can only spawn cross or opposite side you end up looking at "is right or left side better". The game doesn't play out all that differently depending on spawns either, sometimes you get wacky shenanigans with breaking the rocks and doing backdoor stuff but even that has become less common. DQ has potential but the dynamic is very subtle, it effects things like where your third is and if you break the rocks and take that base or the front natural. By comparison, LT/metal it can directly change your build order (ie you're basically never opening void rays if you don't scout them with close flying distance).

For both of those maps it might be worth looking at, but the effects don't show in as many games so you would need a more clever way to slice it than what I did here.

Neivler

Norway911 Posts

January 19 2011 18:41 GMT

#37

The thing I want is maps where the distance does not matter that much in the early game. Different positions should make different games, but not that early as it is now, where you cant know anything before you will scout and then it is to late.