|
On March 15 2011 18:25 tetranoir wrote:
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
solid post first post, using bold and underline to highlight something that has already been said countless times in the same thread and then coming up with this ratio bullshit
win/loss contains the same info as win/matches, you can convert them into each other (matches = wins+losses)
|
I only read the first page of this so apologies if this has already been said, but the answer seemed obvious to me. The reason tennis is this way, is essentially because of sample size. Roger federer may have a 80-90% match win rate, but his rally win rate is nowhere near that. A game of starcraft is more like a rally than a match. If every time you laddered you had to play the guy first to 50 wins to get the points, i bet thered be very different win %'s. Its the same principle a why pros hate BO1 in tournaments. Imagine if in tennis you just played 1 game. Think roger federer would still have a 80-90% win rate?
|
Maybe MVP wasn't playing to win on ladder, but rather to practice certain things, or try/refine out new builds.
|
So many reasons, I'll keep examples tennis.
-For starters, blizzard ladder is not a good reference since players often use this to experiment with builds, it's like a tennis player having a hit up with another pro.
-I believe federer has a win rate of around 80% from around 2004-2009, but this statistic is a very specific point where his dominance came to reign. I'm sure flash had a period of dominance very similar but maybe not so long (2 years or so).
-Plays many more lower rank players. Grand slams are top 100 players + 28 wild cards compare this to GSL which is just top 32 players. In effect top players can get up to 2 free wins per tournament. Obviously upsets still occur on occasion (though not to a player like federer.)
-Federer became pro in 1998, and won his first grand slam in 2003 when he was 21. He probably started playing tennis when he was anywhere from 5-11, so he'd been playing for at least 10 years beforehand.
|
IdrA has something like a 75% win rate on the NA server with like 400 games played.
|
Assuming that OP isn't referring to ladder accounts (it doesn't sound like that's the point of the question): Doesn't the way that tournaments are structured (with highest seed playing against lowest) more or less guarantee that a good player will have a pretty high win percentage? For each tournament a player enters, he'll have at most one loss (the set in which he's knocked out), and as many wins as he manages to advance.
|
The more your win rate deviates from 50% the more skilled you are...at least on ladder. Average players have between 51-53% if they have played at least 1000 games already.
|
You can lose a game on one mistake.. or just based on build orders.
|
are you talking about on ladder or in tournaments? i mean its a reasonably balanced game, but the way the ladder works is that the system tries its hardest to keep you at a 50% win rate, and then im pretty sure it tries to spread your MU fairly evenely so i think that that could be part of the reason we see close to 50% across the board
|
there is a part of luck and postional imabalances on map depending on races.
Making it nearly impossible for a player to get a high win rate ratio.
The more the game get refined, and the map get positional balanced (no random close spots)
Basicaly, the more the game will be balanced, the more there are chances that high win rate exists.
As other said, the game is quite new and nobody has perfect solid plays on every match-up / maps right now. As the time progresses, I'm pretty sure the top players will have better win/loss ratio
|
On March 15 2011 21:04 CravenRaven wrote:
I only read the first page of this so apologies if this has already been said, but the answer seemed obvious to me. The reason tennis is this way, is essentially because of sample size. Roger federer may have a 80-90% match win rate, but his rally win rate is nowhere near that. A game of starcraft is more like a rally than a match. If every time you laddered you had to play the guy first to 50 wins to get the points, i bet thered be very different win %'s. Its the same principle a why pros hate BO1 in tournaments. Imagine if in tennis you just played 1 game. Think roger federer would still have a 80-90% win rate?
Read this. This guy is correct.
Laddering win percentages are entirely different than tournament win percentages and should not be used to determine skill or who is a better player.
That's why in competitive sports and e-sports (tournaments) it's rare to see a best of 1 in playoff brackets or championship matches.
The more games you play against your opponent, the less randomness affects the outcome overall/entire match; therefore, the higher chance of the 'true' better player coming out on top.
Let's say hypothetically if tennis matches were best of 21 sets instead of best of 5. I'm sure Federer's match winning percentage would be even higher. His rally win percentage would probably stay the same but those small percentages in each rally add up.
|
On March 15 2011 21:23 Hypatio wrote:
IdrA has something like a 75% win rate on the NA server with like 400 games played.
Yeah he's in my division lol. Id say that he would stay at a relatively high percentage but he doesn't have a lot of points currently so I'm not sure if he's playing top notch players.
|
In theory you should have a win % very higher undtill you get to rankings with equal skill where it will even out more.
This proces speedens up because of the 5 placement matches and the explosiveness of which you can escalate in the ladder.
|
because sc2 is so new noone has had a chance to show themselves to be "the greatest (so far). when we get our first flash or jaedong im sure they will have a 70-80% win ratio, atleast at lans.
another reason is that alot of pros try random stuff on the ladder, if it doesnt work out and they take a loss its not a big deal, but it does hurt their win ratios
in before this topic becomes about idra having a higher win percentage if he was protoss :D
|
Mh, close to 50? Top players usually get close to 60% on ladder?
Look at the tournament stats, last i checked tennis players didn't ladder and rarely tried new builds.
i'm pretty sure MC has something like a 80% win ratio for GSL.
edit: ok, its' 72% throughout, 80+ for pvp.
|
1.) For the most part BW pro-gamers continue playing long after everyone has caught up to them and they are past their prime, a lot of people comparing new gamers to old gamers forget this. Even  Flash will see his win rate fall quite a bit if he continues playing for 5 more years, goes to ACE, becomes a figurehead, etc. Guys like  Reach and Anytime used to enjoy dominant win rates when they were in the prime of their careers too, and guys like  sAviOr, Oov and NaDa used to be at or above 70% in their best match-ups for long stretches. Anytime is now below 50%, Reach is somewhere around there, and Oov, Nada, and Savior retired with a 57-60% win rate. EffOrt retired with a 60% win rate due to being his prime. For the best players it all comes down to playing long after you've lost your edge. If he's like his predecessors Flash will play for a long time after he is no longer able to qualify for a Starleague, or anchor a team in pro-league. Federer will most likely retire when he becomes unable to make quarterfinals appearances in slams anymore.
2.) Most importantly. Win rate is measured differently in Tennis and Starcraft. Flash's 70% win rate measures his success in winning individual games of Starcraft. It makes sense to do it this way as pro-league makes up the majority of his games and is just a series of Bo1 between members of a team. However there is no pro-league equivalent in Tennis. Every "win" that is measured by Federer's win rate is essentially a best of 5 (for slams) or a best of 3 (for every other tournament) in which he defeated his opponent. Flash's win rate in best of x? When is the last time he lost one? To Effort almost a year ago? That's almost like winning a calendar slam in Tennis. Something that hasn't been done in half a century.
It has nothing to do with how the tournaments are structured in Tennis and BW. There are qualifiers in Slams too, and most top players (Federer included) don't play in more than a couple tournaments outside of slams and masters each year so its not like Federer is constantly newbie bashing his way into the later rounds and Flash isn't. Winning in straight sets over a washed up Gilles Simon in the opening rounds of a slam isn't much different than rolling over Ssak and Classic on your way to yet another MSL..... Oh wait. Have we decided if we're just going to pretend that didn't happen?
EDIT: Ever went back to link to players in TLPD and just TLPDized the whole post against your better judgment? Who the fuck is WhO
|
There isnt the same genetical cap in starcraft. Thats about it.
|
I dunno about overall win ratios, but if you look at people like MC, Nestea and MVP right now, they got 80+% in their respective mirror matchups, showing how good they are at their own races.
|
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.[/QUOTE]
I think one of the issues is that as the game evolves and the players get more experienced they have in a sense seen it all. Then it comes much more down to execution than trying to throw your opponent of with a play they've never seen before. But I totally agree that not following the mainstream trends of playstyle is a smart thing
The game is so complex that there is a lot more different paths and factors that leads to victory then say tennis. If a guy is gonna be as dominant as Fedrer it wont do with just great multitasking abilitys. He needs great mental strenght, stratigic thinking, creativity, understanding, adaptivity etc.. And seeing this game is a bit more advanced than hitting a ball back and forth over a fence you need super human abilitys to excel at all the parts of the game at once I think.
|
Some of the game is rock/paper/scissors since you can't see what the other guy is doing.
The game is played at a pace where concentration often backfires because you have to multitask so much. Games like tennis need intense concentration at all times, I'd imagine.
I've heard that in Warcraft 3 a couple of guys dominated. I'm betting because it's played at a pace (and designed) to need more concentration and focus and less multi-tasking. But I never played war3 seriously, so somebody else should correct me if I'm wrong.
Plus Blizzard can't nerf real life people, but they can nerf the game. And since there are three races, they pretty much need to nerf/patch things because they might be imbalanced. It's tricky. But if all races were the same in the game... and bloodlust was over powered, but everybody had it, then it'd be fine... whoever could use bloodlust the best wins.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
