EPTWhy are win rates so close to 50%? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
raf3776
United States1904 Posts
| ||
|
Treadmill
Canada2833 Posts
| ||
|
lolsixtynine
United States600 Posts
No single point in tennis can cost you the match, while a single moment in SC2 can. | ||
|
ClockToweR
United States61 Posts
The fact that the system is constantly trying to get you down to 50%, only the top player, in theory, would have a higher win rate than 50%. Obviously this isn't perfect though... | ||
|
boSeok
Canada177 Posts
Also because pros play so many games a 10 game win streak comes out as a 0.5% increase which is nothing | ||
|
kamicom
United States180 Posts
@Diader, hmm I have to disagree on that. I'm not too familiar with the ATP (men's tennis league) format but you need to have a repertoire of accolades from ATP-certified tournaments before trying to win qualifiers to get a spot on the Grandslams. Relative to the competitive scene in tennis, the players in a grandslam are a small fraction. Also, the ATP rank system is much like MMR and ELO rating for chess as winning many matches against lower players doesn't mean as much. @lolsixtynine starcraft has the similar increments as tennis. Each battle is a rally and while there might not be as many rallies as battles, there are also sets (Bo3, Bo5, Bo7) to eliminate a lucky game or point. EDIT Again, to those who say SC2 is new and match making system is too good-- even with those assumptions, there should be a few players who (hypothetically being the best) should just dominate their way up through ladder. It's at that skill level that top-level players are at that I didn't really understand why Player #1 out of top 200 did not have significantly more wins than player #112. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
| ||
|
morimacil
France921 Posts
The win-loss ratio is only decided by who you play against. Imagine for example, that there are 2 players that are insanely good compared to everyone else, but about as good as each other. What will their win-loss ratio be? Well you dont know. If the tournament is a 2 player tournament, these 2 guys that are insanely better than everyone else, will still have a 50% win-loss ratio. If its a 4 player tournament, then they will have 75% win-loss ration on average, and so on. Make a million player tournament, where the pros have to play against thousands of bronze level people before getting to the top, and suddenly, the pros will have a 99% win-loss ratio. | ||
|
BigPie
Canada6 Posts
| ||
|
kamicom
United States180 Posts
but I guess that does make sense that if 2 hypothetically good players had high MMR's, they'd only be playing each other on the ladder. ... but then, if one player just dominated the other which is plausible, he should be at a higher win loss and push the 2nd player down to win against the rest of the players. I think I made sense there... :x EDIT Also, general consensus sorta tells me there is a factor of ambiguity and lack of variance/repetition which can be considered luck in SC2. I'm a bit of a cynic when watching sports in that I pick things out which I consider flaws. Every sport in my opinion has flaws, many of them that cannot be changed due to the nature of the game. I'm not necessarily saying it's a problem that needs to be fixed however. Labeling this factor of ambiguity as a "flaw", I'm guessing it's just something people have to abide by? If so, it sorta saddens me that there won't be a "Federer" of SC2 in the near future (unless I made some wrong judgement somewhere in the assumptions).  | ||
|
jameschang112
28 Posts
Say you have a better builder order than the guy...what's that going to do for you? It'll give you an edge, if it's TvT, your better builder order maybe give you an extra marine or two, that might come into play later on. Or maybe you scouted better than him...it gives you an advantage, but it's a small one... In tennis; if you're both equally skilled, but you have a better first serve..you're dominating him. If you have a better slice, well that comes into play often. If you have a better topspin forehand than him, the game's over...in tennis, if the other player is better, however minor it may seem, gives that person a huge advanage. Say you're better in micro than your opponent in SC2...how often does that play out? 1, 2 maybe 3 battles in a game? But if you have a better topspin forehand than the other guy, you're using that forehand every point to set up, to finish, to tire your opponent out because he has to put even more topspin to counter your topspin... Just my 2cents... | ||
|
L3g3nd_
New Zealand10461 Posts
On March 15 2011 14:15 eXwOn wrote: I have a 75% win rate on ladder, and I suck balls. The trick of the game is to stay ahead of the metagame. If someone dooes the exact same thing everyone else does then it's a cointoss, and most people will copy the top players- so people will know how to deal with them when the time comes. but how many games have you played? under 100 i bet. either that or you are REALLY good, which you claim not to be. One doesnt simply know how to deal with the strat a pro does, if you 3gate sentry expand, which is what 95% of toss platyers do now days on the ladder, its not like. "oh i do X and insta win" the reason they are the strats the top players do, is because they are so solid against everything. @OP its because the MMR matches you against players at the same skill level as you, if you win a lot it matches you against better players untill you lose, and vice versa until you lose. Therefore unless you are one of the best on the ladder, or one of the worst, youll average at to about 50% | ||
|
eXwOn
Canada351 Posts
under 100 i bet. either that or you are REALLY good, which you claim not to be. I was at 160ish before I quit I think. But really, just stay one step of the metagame and put your opponents into new situations they've never been in. | ||
|
dtz
5834 Posts
Federer has 70 percent win rate because he plays against all sorts of opponents. From rank 500 plus to Nadal. If Federer only plays Nadal, Djokovic, Murray everyday, then his ratio will be closer to 50 percent than 70 percent given sufficient sample match sizes. This is what is happening in the ladder. Player rank 1 does not have statistically more wins than player 112 because player 1 plays against 2-10 everyday while player ranks 112 plays against 100-150 In BW, the nature of winner's league and proleague means Flash can play against anyone who is not close to his skill level. Proleagues makes the bulk of your appearance compared to individual leagues and thus you can get up to 60-70 percent win ratio. | ||
|
akalarry
United States1978 Posts
i think when sc2 gets to the point where players can 100 percent survive against 1 and maybe 2 base play, and transition into a big macro game, that's where skill will trump luck a lot more than this current metagame. | ||
|
L3g3nd_
New Zealand10461 Posts
On March 15 2011 14:50 eXwOn wrote: I was at 160ish before I quit I think. But really, just stay one step of the metagame and put your opponents into new situations they've never been in. Trust me, ive you play another 200 games, youll be sitting just above 50% | ||
|
Oxb
199 Posts
In football (soccer) 1 goal can be huge, and cost you the game, yet you see very high win/loss ratios there, because you have an 11 man team. If 1 fcks up u sometimes (depending on who fcks up) have 10 people to restore your mistake. I think in SC1/BW/SC2 mistakes can be punished much more severly because you can't make that 'many' mistakes. The fact that tenis players play weaker opponents in early rounds kinda makes 'sense'... but they are still pro's, they also train 8~10hours a day similar to Federer/Nadal any other tennis legend. It's kinda a silly arguement, same things happen in early stages of tournaments, at least, that's the general idea. Any tournament that has seeds works like that. Also GSL/MST/TSL kinda work like that. It's hard to say what the actual reason in, but I feel it has something to do with how severly 1 notable mistake can be punished compared to other (real life) sports | ||
|
Subversion
South Africa3627 Posts
| ||
|
SlapMySalami
United States1060 Posts
the federer is probably not playing all people of his equal skill level even if they are better than everyone else | ||
|
Durn
Canada360 Posts
In Starcraft, with VERY few exceptions, an advantage is inevitably a win. Going 30 food up on your opponent 10 minutes in will usually signify a victory within the next 10 minutes, whereas a 30 point lead in Basketball CAN be made up without consideration of this prior disadvantage. tl;dr the point I am making is that you are punished for smaller mistakes that extend across the length of a game. Dropping your racket in Tennis is a variable isolated to that one set. Forgetting to wall in and losing 5 probes will lose you the game. | ||
| ||
