Maybe, but I'd rather train in BoX and the physiology of the game. I'm done with trying to get to #1 on ladder. BoX really shows the better players, which may also be why the W:L are close with Bo1.

Clare

United States372 Posts

March 15 2011 06:03 GMT

#42

They're close to 50% because skill will only get you so far in SC. Just like in poker, there is some luck involved.

kamicom

United States180 Posts

March 15 2011 06:03 GMT

#43

I like L3g3nd's and Oxb's interpretations of it. I could see how variance is a significant factor (i.e. in poker, 40% odds to 60% of opponent could be ran twice for a more solid result)

Again, to the ppl who said it's due to MMR, you have to realize a really good player should still rip through the matches made by the system and eventually make it out on top. It's just the fact that noone does that puzzled me.

susySquark

United States1692 Posts

March 15 2011 06:04 GMT

#44

http://www.sirlin.net/articles/slippery-slope-and-perpetual-comeback.html

The good ol slippery slope doesn't exist nearly as much, if at all, in traditional sports when compared to SC.

dcemuser

United States3248 Posts

March 15 2011 06:04 GMT

#45

Because balance is really overrated. So much more of this game is in the mechanics and the strategies than the balance of the game.

People went for years without a patch in Brood War and the balance QQ was way less than what we have now.

jalstar

United States8198 Posts

March 15 2011 06:06 GMT

#46

Don't use ladder stats, use TLPD! Only counts official tournament games, much like tennis rankings or whatever, you wouldn't count Federer's practice games, so why are people acting like ladder stats matter? :p

http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/sc2-international

Top player Kas has a 66% winrate.

CecilSunkure

United States2829 Posts

March 15 2011 06:06 GMT

#47

It has to do with how the matchmaking works. MMR is a value that represents your raw skill that works with a rolling average. The matching system tries to match you to the closest rated MMR first, with a second priority of not making you wait hours on end in the event nobody with very close to MMR as you enters the matchmaking pool. The difference between the two MMR scores determines how many points you will win or lose from the match. So, you'll always have a near 50% chance of winning or losing with the way the system works. The only exception is when a single player hits the near 70% mark. The highest you are supposed to get ratio wise in a system like this is 60-65% win rate. Although, if a single player is better than everyone else it isn't too improbable that his ratio will be strangely high.

RivalryRedux

United States173 Posts

March 15 2011 06:11 GMT

#48

On March 15 2011 14:57 Subversion wrote:
Because ladder is a constant stream of BO1, and anyone can lose those pretty consistently.

I don't know a lot about tennis but this seems like the obvious answer to me. A tennis match seems much more comparable to BO5 matches as opposed to individual games in which case someone like Flash could easily have an 80%+ winning record.

CellTech

Canada396 Posts

March 15 2011 06:14 GMT

#49

That's because the game forces a 50% win loss ratio. The few exceptions are when you are so good, or so crap, there is Boone better or worse for you to play.

mindspike

Canada1902 Posts

March 15 2011 06:17 GMT

#50

Actually there is a VERY simple answer if you are looking to compare SC to Tennis.

If you think of 1 game in SC as a set in Tennis then an actual match in Tennis is actually a BO5 in SC.

When you do this you get a much higher win percentage for better players because you mitigate the extraneous variables that you are bound to come by in a short SC match.

I would bet that Federer's win percentage is much less if you use sets (or even games) instead of full matches.

Tippany

United States765 Posts

March 15 2011 06:18 GMT

#51

On March 15 2011 14:14 lbmaian wrote:
1) Intense multitasking will inevitably lead to mistakes and large mental strain - you don't need to multitask when playing tennis

I'm all for the proliferation of e-sports but this needs to be clarified. I'm not going to make any judgments but perhaps some people on the forum aren't familiar with what runs through your head as an athlete. I say this because anyone who has played any sports would balk at this statement.

More specifically, in tennis you need to be taking in consideration your opponent's positioning, be aware of where you are on the court, constantly on the move, etc. Of course these things become second nature with tons of experience, as is the case in SC. Sure Idra multi tasks really well but I'd imagine he's rarely in a novel position where his actions aren't like clockwork.

Lobo2me

Norway1213 Posts

March 15 2011 06:21 GMT

#52

One thing to remember is that in SC each game is included into your win/loss ratio, not just the series. So you can have a person that have never lost a BO5, but if he goes 3-2 in all of them he'll have a 60% win rate. If he never lost a BO3 but went 2-1 he'll still have 67% win rate in Starcraft.

Trang

Australia324 Posts

March 15 2011 06:21 GMT

#53

There's also the factor of how you're calculating win/loss ratio.

In pro SC win/loss ratios take into account every game played. In a Bo5 all 5 games are taken into account.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in a sport like Tennis, Federer's ~81% ratio is for matches, and not sets. I would be willing to bet that if win/loss ratio was worked out on the basis of sets, rather than matches, then Federer's ratio would be a significant amount lower than 81% --- but I can't find any stats set win/loss ratio.

Edit: hehe, poster above me talked about the same thing and posted on the same minute.

SwiftSpear

Canada355 Posts

March 15 2011 06:21 GMT

#54

Starcraft and Starcraft 2, because of their resource system, tend to force players into paper rock scissor scenarios. Even if you're really good and you play a paper to someone else's scissors, you're going to get behind, if not lose outright.

"But good players always scout, so their choices aren't blind!" Good players also deny scouting, and if you deny an opponents scouting you have costed them resources. To do a guaranteed scout the resource cost, at certain points in the game, can be very high. There are quite a few scenarios, where if you scout, you've spent quite a few resources to basically find out your opponent is doing something you didn't need to scout at all, and thus you basically played a small scale scissors to someone else's rock. Depending how far ahead or behind you are, that can make a big difference.

If there were no fog of war skill could be more absolute and you'd see better players win ratio raise, but the game would be so much less interesting then, and the skill ceiling would be much lower.

dextermilo

United States16 Posts

March 15 2011 06:23 GMT

#55

First off:

I tried looking up the forums and I don't have IRC cuz I have a mac

Colloquy is a good IRC client for Mac.

To the topic at hand:

It is easier to dominate in Tennis if you are the better athlete. Tennis takes a drastically longer amount of time to master than SC2 and nobody is created equal due to their natural athleticism or lack there of. While some natural talents come into play regarding SC2 they are drastically less pronounced than in any professional athletic sport. Also, a tennis match is a long drawn out affair. If, in SC2 we played best of 11 for each ladder match it would be much harder for the lesser player to win.

NovaTheFeared

United States7232 Posts

March 15 2011 06:37 GMT

#56

One factor is definitely the imperfect information from fog of war. I think top players' win rates would be much higher if both sides had complete vision. With imperfect information you can be outguessed, and it can lead to some silly results like gambling no robo in PvP only to get instantly killed by DTs a minute later. RTS games tend to boil down to a somewhat counter system, and the effects range all the way from instant death to small but noticeable disadvantage. Even the best players can't avoid being out build-ordered in the early game and this certainly makes it harder to achieve 80%+ winrates vs. top competition over a long period of time.

Penecks

United States600 Posts

March 15 2011 06:56 GMT

#57

Also think about who uses the ladder system, while at lower levels you might play a guy and not see him again for a long time (or probably never), top players are generally playing other top players. Maintaining a very high win rate in this environment would require you to be significantly better than those that are already at the top. And of course the mass gamers near the top of the ladder can take some games off pros, due to imperfect scouting, BO1s, plain bad luck, and other things already discussed.

Sanchez_

Australia40 Posts

March 15 2011 07:02 GMT

#58

Doesn't seem strange to me considering what you are comparing.

It seems more reasonable to compare one point or game in tennis to one game of starcraft. In these situations, like in a starcraft game 1 mistake or miss calculation will lose you the point or put you at a big disadvantage for the game. The best tennis players don't win 80 percent of their points/games though they might win that % of matches. If you played starcraft tournaments like tennis where first to 6 games wins a set in a best of 5 sets you would get higher win percentages since the better player would win more overall.

Also there are other factors like lack of scouting information, early game build orders, increased number of variables in starcraft etc etc.

Creegz

Canada354 Posts

March 15 2011 07:07 GMT

#59

If you look at higher tier players, playing higher tier players, the win loss ratio will adjust accordingly because they're more likely to lose. Also, through trial and error. How do you think these people got so good? Realistically, a lot of players don't play as well in practice games like they do when real numbers and rankings are on the line, people like myself. I can't play well if I'm doing practice because subconsciously I don't care as much, so I don't really give it a good honest try.

KillerPlague

United States1386 Posts

March 15 2011 07:11 GMT

#60

top players do have high win percentages. demuslim, idra, select all near 75% since the match making ladder places people even with you then obviously the majority will be near 50%