|
I think the answer to this question is blantly obvious.
The match making system keep searching for a player at your level. This means winning around 50% of your games and losing 50% of your games. ofc if you are so so good, match making system can no longer find a suitable player for you, thus you will suddenly have surplus of winning ratio (or surpuls of losing ratio if you are terrible terrible).
(I know some people who are way above 50% even though they are not even masters, this is because shit happens. Match making system is not perfect, even it was chance of finding a wrong matching player is still there since not everyone at your level can be online at any given time. That is to say for most it will be around 50%, unless you are at god tier, bottom feeder or you just happened to have high win rate by pure chance).
|
Having higher than 50% is not necessarily the fault of the matchmaking system. For example the players you're matched with could have played worse than usual. You will also accumulate some wins at the beggining, if you're better than average, since the system doesn't have enough info to know your skill level.
If you keep getting fair matches after accumulating more wins than losses, your extra wins will remain, since the system does not try to bring your ratio down to 50%, all it tries is to match you with someone you have a 50% chance of winning.
|
I read somewhere that a player that has a 55% chance of winning a game has a 95% chance of winng the match. A tennis match typically takes a couple of hours, while a typical Starcraft2 match takes 30 minutes. (BO3). If all Starcraft2 matches were BO9, we would probably have about as long matches and see the same kind of trend. (The same player winning more consistently).
In addition a really good SC2 player get studied a lot before a match, while the better player don't really have the same opportunity, especially in the current very fluid metagame. A BO9 would probably give the better player a chance to study the other player while in the match, and adjust his gameplay.
|
the matchmaking system is designed to give you a 50% winrate
|
If you are talking about 50% win rate on ladder, thats because the match making system is designed to make you go 50/50. The old saying "there is always someone better than you" applies, no matter how high you are on the ladder, there will always be players as good if not better than you, and on any given day you can beat them or they can beat you.
Even at the top the system is still trying to make you go 50/50 so unless you are insanely better than your potential opponents or abuse the fotm cheese you will rarely find anyone with over 60% winrate.
In tourneys, well anything can happen, nerves can get the better of you, the room might be too cold or hot for you to be confortable, blah blah blah.
|
Because the more you win the higher ur ELO gets and the higher your ELO gets the harder your opponents become.
Also, percent win ratio doesn't matter, its (wins - loses) that really determine skill
|
On March 15 2011 18:18 blackbrrd wrote:
I read somewhere that a player that has a 55% chance of winning a game has a 95% chance of winng the match. A tennis match typically takes a couple of hours, while a typical Starcraft2 match takes 30 minutes. (BO3). If all Starcraft2 matches were BO9, we would probably have about as long matches and see the same kind of trend. (The same player winning more consistently).
In addition a really good SC2 player get studied a lot before a match, while the better player don't really have the same opportunity, especially in the current very fluid metagame. A BO9 would probably give the better player a chance to study the other player while in the match, and adjust his gameplay.
You are bang on here, the longer the series the more chance for the better player to win. You see this in Tennis alot.
When men play 1set or 3 set matches there are often upsets, as you can play a blinding match for an hour before the better player can use their stamina advantage or skill advantage to wear you down. Thats why in smaller tounaments players like Federer sometimes go out in the early rounds but hardly ever go out in Early rounds of things like the US Open or Wimbledon where the matches are all 5 sets.
To beat Federer in a 5 set match you have to play at your best for 2-3 hours usually, he doesn't go down without a fight. On the other hand when Federer is playing a much weaker player he can finish them off in under 1hour 10 minutes (seen him do it at wimbledon, he lost about 3 games total), but when one of those weaker players has given him a good match they usually win the first set or two and then get stomped more and more as the game goes on.
|
I think I have a good explanation for you. I'm also a tennis player and I like to draw comparisons between tennis and starcraft. In tennis, the most similar thing to one game of starcraft is actually ONE point, and NOT the whole match. If you think about it, although one point is very short, nearly of the quick decision-making and skill happens for every individual point, and not as much throughout the match.
So with that in mind, if you take a look at the point split between pro tennis players in a match, you would actually find that the ratio is extremely similar to win/loss in sc2, it's only about 60/40 for a comfortable lead, and 55/45 for a good lead in a single set. So in actuality because the skills are so close (even with the greatest players) players are going to be trading points (or games) fairly evenly for the most part. The difference in tennis is that you need to string a lot more together than in sc2, which favors the player that is better more consistently (i.e. the one with more skill), and you get lopsided W/L rates for better players, which is how it should be.
Were starcraft games to be played with the amount like tennis points in a match (oh gosh that would be exhausting) then it is my belief that you would start to see more dominant players like what you see in tennis. However that's pretty much impossible, so the best players simply have to play as if everything were riding on one point, one game.
Hope that helps!  Sorry if it was super long or boring :/
|
On March 15 2011 15:03 kamicom wrote:
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.
You are comparing ladder to tournament play.
Let's see. You give the example of federer who has 80 percent win record against everyone in his wikipedia.But in ladder because of the matchmaking, Federer would only play against the big 3 ( nadal, murray,djokovic).
Their head to heads are
Federer-nadal 8 -14
Federer -murray 6-8
Federer-djokovic 13-8
total win-loss = 27 - 30 ( about 50 percent). Stats are from very quick googling so it might not be 100 percent accurate but i believe the point stands.
This is what is happeniing in the ladder. The MMR system makes the very good players only play against other very good players. That is why you dont see 70percent stats in ladder.
On the other hand, on tournament plays it is possible. MVP has 78 percent.
|
|
|
I think tennis is a particularly poor analogue to starcraft. One mistake in tennis only costs you 1 point. One mistake in starcraft can cost you the match. Tennis has so many chances for the better player to show he is better.
When federer or nadal makes a mistake, it may cost him a point, even a game, but there are a usually dozen more games before the match is over. His ability to consistantly outplay his opponent is rewarded. When IMmvp makes a single mistake in a BO3 in the GSL, it costs him the match. Two mistakes knock him out of the tournament.
I think a better analogy would be soccer. In soccer one mistake costs you the game, and the outcomes can be more unpredictable.
|
@ OP:
This is my answer for your question:
In computergames, you are very much limited to some point: e.g. You cannot mine faster than anybody else... you can play the exact same BO as MC and you will be exactly even the first few minutes until parameters like micro/game sense/decision making etc. start to make a difference
but in a sport like tennis, there are much more parameters on the one hand, and there is much more room for improvement for any of these parameters on the other hand
from the very beginning of any match, the skill gap in any parameter will kick in:
i don't know much about tennis but i think there are many factors how you approach to the ball, how you stand, how you hit the ball, how you aim etc... you can outplay your opponent in every single second unlike in a computer game
and even if you are unlucky or you make mistakes... that is not that bad because you just lost one point but there are many points to be won in tennis so the better player will most likely win in the long run of one match
also i think mindgames play a much bigger role in sports
|
Idra had a 70-80 win percentage on his NA account during beta.
|
because tennis games aren't best of 1/3/5/7 games, they are best of 3/5 sets of first to 6/7 games
if starcraft matches were the same, flash would be your federer.
|
I do enjoy all of the analogies being drawn to tennis in here though ^^. It warms my heart. Any college or former college players? :D
|
I'd be curious to see how dominant Federers numbers are if you calculate his Set win/loss ratio instead of his Match win/loss ratio. A Tennis volley might be comparable to a SC2 battle, and a Tennis Set comparable to a SC2 game, and finally a Tennis Match comparable to a SC2 BO5 or BO7.
So, I'd like to see Federers Set win/loss ratio, OR top SC2 players BO5 win/loss ratios
|
Also, players have thousands of games within months. Tennis players don't play that much, so they're less likely to lose due to little mistakes, exaustion, stress, etc.
//tx
|
Tournament vs ladder play, two completely different formats can partly explain the difference in win ratios. Add the fact that luck plays a bigger role in sc2 (happens more frequently and have a bigger impact on the outcome), and considering luck is evenly distributed over a large enough amount of games it's not hard to understand why the win ratios are much closer to 50% in sc2.
The reason why bw managed to produce players with a higher ratio is simply due to the fact that it's more skillbased and thus luck has smaller impact on the outcome.
|
On March 15 2011 15:18 moose162 wrote:Show nested quote +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.
doesn't really matter because there is still way more things to think about in a SC match vs. any sport. there are more variables in a SC game than in tennis that can cost the game.
and like you said with experience, things become second nature, with SC2 strategies are always changing and their are many different strategies out there, with something like tennis their are not as many ways to play it compared to the many ways of SC2 which means you can become accustom to the limited way to play tennis.
And by limited i mean that it doesn't change much and most likely will not change very much from how it is now
|
TLDR: Have a think about why MVP's ladder win percentage is lower than his GSL win percentage. How many games did he win when he won GSL? How many did he lose when he went out in the RO32?
I suspected that players competing in ladders, round robins, and tournaments would have intrinsically different win ratios, so I did an EXPERIMENT!
Consider 4 players with Elo ratings of 0, 50, 100, and 150 and pretend (heroically) that this is our population of pro gamers.
In a ladder where you only ever play people within 50 points of you, win percentages are as follows:
Mr 150: 57%
Messrs 100, 50: 50%
Mr 0: 43%
In a round robin tournament (everyone plays everyone else) win percentages are as follows:
Mr 150: 64%
Mr 100: 55%
Mr 50: 45%
Mr 0: 36%
In a seeded BO1 tournament where Mr 150 plays Mr 0 in the first round:
Mr 150: 66%
Mr 100: 54%
Mr 50: 43%
Mr 0: 32%
Note that in the case of the tournament, the percentages are not symmetrical! This is because good players tend to play more games (because they qualify for the finals) and tend to win them, but poor Mr 0 usually only plays 1 game per tournament and usually loses it!
Because of this, I suspect that if I expanded my population to 8 players and ran my seeded tournament again, or if I made it BO3, Mr 150's win percentage would be higher, but I don't have time just now. You get the idea, though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
