EPTDownvoting maps increasing chance of mirror match? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
peachsncream
United States289 Posts
| ||
|
koolaid1990
831 Posts
On January 18 2011 07:26 imareaver3 wrote: If I recall correctly, Blizz has confirmed that the player you face is chosen before the map is chosen, meaning that map downvotes have no effect on who you face. That agrees with my experience, as well. It does. Go zerg, take out scrap station, xel naga, and metalpolis/losttemple. You will almost never get a zvz. On the other hand, i took out Jungle Basin, delta, and steppes and i ALWAYS get zvz. Its quite simple, all the other zergs your level are taking out the same maps, and the terrans do NOT take out those maps, so you have less terrans to face. | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
On January 18 2011 07:28 koolaid1990 wrote: It does. Go zerg, take out scrap station, xel naga, and metalpolis/losttemple. You will almost never get a zvz. On the other hand, i took out Jungle Basin, delta, and steppes and i ALWAYS get zvz. Its quite simple, all the other zergs your level are taking out the same maps, and the terrans do NOT take out those maps, so you have less terrans to face. That's a general statement; I have Steppes, Delta, and JB knocked out and I never get ZvZ's. | ||
|
Essentia
1150 Posts
| ||
|
Lennon
United Kingdom2275 Posts
On January 18 2011 06:03 Razz wrote: Back in the beta i had a long period only getting TvT. So i removed Kulas Ravine and .. delta? Boom non TvTs, or at least fewer since all the zergs had KR downvoted. Delta was around in the beta? I don't remember that... I do, however, remember IZ  | ||
|
fraktoasters
United States617 Posts
On January 18 2011 06:11 Lobo2me wrote: It means more zerg games will be played on it, which doesn't mean more ZvZ. I can veto 3 out of 8 maps in the pool. Let's say there are 3 people searching, and each of them are perfect matches for each other. Player 1 vetoed JB, Steppes and DQ. Player 2 and 3 vetoed Blistering Sands, Scrap Station and Lost Temple. Player 1 has 2 out of 8 possible maps if he's up against Player 2 or 3, while 2 and 3 have 5 possible maps they can play on. Does it mean that Player 2 has 2.5 times higher chance of playing against player 3 than he has of playing against Player 1, because there's 5 possible maps instead of 2? Most likely not. I highly doubt the matchmaker goes "let's make a game on Jungle Basin, let's take the first player that searches for it and pair him up with someone else around the same skill level that also hasn't vetoed it". This is the correct line of reasoning. Suppose we have 7 maps in our pool and 3 vetoes per person. In a 1v1, how many unique maps can be vetoed in total? 6 if the two people all veto different maps. With 6 maps vetoed at the most, there will ALWAYS be at least a single map that is not vetoed by either player. Therefore for every 2 people on ladder, there will always be a map that they agree to play on, so there is no reason why any 2 people cannot be matched up, so your vetoes have nothing to do with who you play. On January 18 2011 07:24 _anansi wrote: About a month ago I got sick of some maps and finally downvoted them. Since I run sc2gears all the time I can get some hard data about my matchups: Downvoted: Steppes, DQ, Jungle. 122 replays: 1. ZvP: 38% 2. ZvT: 34% 3. ZvZ: 29% No downvotes. 144 replays 1. ZvP: 42% 2. ZvZ: 34% 3. ZvT: 24% So I got more ZvZ's and less ZvT's. My winrate ZvT went from 52% to 72% though  Full data: + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://anansi.tweakdsl.nl/downvotestats.PNG) Although my stats apparently were not even below 50% win on the downvoted maps, I still hate em... There difference here is 5-6 games. That doesn't mean enough. One daylast week I got 50% ZvP and yesterday I got 4 ZvZ, 3 ZvP and a single ZvT. Do those numbers hold any significance? No. Those numbers aren't conclusive. | ||
|
RodrigoX
United States645 Posts
| ||
|
SoulScream
Bulgaria44 Posts
| ||
|
Endymion
United States3701 Posts
| ||
|
ALang
Canada288 Posts
| ||
|
Sanski
United States57 Posts
downvoted blistering, steppes, and delta quad. still i get a lot of PvPs | ||
|
_anansi
Netherlands3 Posts
On January 18 2011 08:25 fraktoasters wrote: There difference here is 5-6 games. That doesn't mean enough. One daylast week I got 50% ZvP and yesterday I got 4 ZvZ, 3 ZvP and a single ZvT. Do those numbers hold any significance? No. Those numbers aren't conclusive. Yea, I guess you're right that a few games would make a lot of difference in the numbers. But it's the only real data I have before and after downvoting which isn't based on my impressions of which matchups I get. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
| ||
|
arthur
United Kingdom488 Posts
I never see Zerg on LT, JB or Delta Quadrant for some reason... so the majority of my games are vs T or P... I do believe downvoting maps is having a huge impact on race MU's... And someone said most T downvote scrap station? Why would I down vote scrap station. My natural is very easy to capture there, and the zergs third is very hard to capture. All I have to do is harrass, harrass, harrass and deny his third and I have an easy time there... | ||
|
fUddO
Canada197 Posts
On January 18 2011 08:25 fraktoasters wrote: This is the correct line of reasoning. Suppose we have 7 maps in our pool and 3 vetoes per person. In a 1v1, how many unique maps can be vetoed in total? 6 if the two people all veto different maps. With 6 maps vetoed at the most, there will ALWAYS be at least a single map that is not vetoed by either player. Therefore for every 2 people on ladder, there will always be a map that they agree to play on, so there is no reason why any 2 people cannot be matched up, so your vetoes have nothing to do with who you play. There difference here is 5-6 games. That doesn't mean enough. One daylast week I got 50% ZvP and yesterday I got 4 ZvZ, 3 ZvP and a single ZvT. Do those numbers hold any significance? No. Those numbers aren't conclusive. Best post in this thread. Honestly, this begs the question: Which maps are played on the most on ladder? My guess would be Zel'Naga and Metal. | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
| ||
|
Dimagus
United States1004 Posts
Could there also be a mechanic that tries to balance out what maps are played on over a given statistical period? Whether it's on a per-player basis or system-wide on the server, if it makes sure players are playing an equivalent number of games on each map then that can skew the percentages of racial matches as well. Say there's 9 maps, and conveniently there are no overlapping downvotes by race. You are Terran 3 maps you would never play on (0%/0%/0%)) 3 maps you would only ever play Terran and Zerg on (50%/50%/0%) 3 maps you would only ever play Terran and Protoss on (50%/0%/50%) Overall you would have a balanced map selection, but a 50%/25%/25% racial matchup ratio if there were an equal number of players for each race. Now imagine if there's a mechanic that makes sure every map gets an equal number of games on it, but there's an overlap between two races downvotes. Since the third race is the only one that allows playing on those 1-3 maps, and those maps are below quota, it will force the third race to play mirror matchups on those maps to make up the difference. It may not choose the exact map you play on until it finds an opponent, but it may be more inclined to find opponents based on what isn't vetoed. | ||
|
ggrrg
Bulgaria2717 Posts
| ||
|
Skank
United States329 Posts
This seems to defy the logic of the OP, which is why I think it's Blizzard's bugginess. | ||
|
shabinka
United States469 Posts
| ||
| ||
