EPTRace balance last 6 months. - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Astronomancy
United States4 Posts
| ||
Poopi
France13018 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:05 phfantunes wrote: Whoa, look at the impact patch 1.3 had in the Korean chart. After it Protoss' winrates just sank. Is it the impact of poor balance changes or just Toss players not being prepared for it and adjusting accordingly? Did the patch hit after or before the code A qualifiers? | ||
|
HuHEN
United Kingdom514 Posts
On May 03 2011 lahey wrote: god you should be banned, typical fucking zerg troll... korean protosses are generally terrible? r u kidding me? and anypros void rays were to confuse julyzerg into thinking that he was doing a fast expand build and to kill off overlords which they did perfectly.... god you sound fucking stupid Hes got like 10 posts in the Idra fan club, if that doesn't tell you al you need to know I dont know what will. | ||
|
hi im new
Germany150 Posts
http://www.gomtv.net/records/index.gom?searchType=3&race=T&vsrace=Z&season=2011&leaguetype=20&leagueid=21581&gamever=0&mapid=0 hahaha oh wow it's even worse in the past except last month where protoss had somewhat of a good tourmament | ||
|
Ctuchik
Sweden91 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:00 Brutus wrote: Why is this thread named "race balance last 6 months"? Name it what it is, these are just win %. Name it "win rates last 6 months".These winrates say nothing about balance. Spoiler alert + Show Spoiler + Take Idra's wins vs Socke, kiwikaki and mana. You can't see the state of ZvP with just winrates. He did a series of allins vs both socke and kiwikaki and he just was way better then mana. This doesn't prove zerg is overpowered or anything. And no, I don't think Zerg is UP, I am just pointing out that win rates prove nothing. Well, how do you define balance? Are you talking about some kind of innate ability of one race to beat another? That one race "potentially" is stronger than what people are doing right now? So how would you measure that? It sounds extremely subjective to me. If you are going to draw any sort of conclusions on balance, you need to look at the numbers. | ||
|
Adicon
United States22 Posts
I would be interested to see what would happen to these differences if some measures against outliers were done. Maybe eliminate the players with top 10 and bottom 10 winning percentages and see how those graphs turn out. Also, since certain players are contributing more heavily to these figures (e.g. better players get farther in tournaments and thus play more games) it would be interesting to somehow normalize that data so that each player has an equally weighted contribution to the final differences. | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:00 Brutus wrote: Why is this thread named "race balance last 6 months"? Name it what it is, these are just win %. Name it "win rates last 6 months".These winrates say nothing about balance. Spoiler alert + Show Spoiler + Take Idra's wins vs Socke, kiwikaki and mana. You can't see the state of ZvP with just winrates. He did a series of allins vs both socke and kiwikaki and he just was way better then mana. This doesn't prove zerg is overpowered or anything. And no, I don't think Zerg is UP, I am just pointing out that win rates prove nothing. yep, stats means nothing when zergs are winning, only when they lose. | ||
|
Brutus
Netherlands284 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:14 Ctuchik wrote: Well, how do you define balance? Are you talking about some kind of innate ability of one race to beat another? That one race "potentially" is stronger than what people are doing right now? So how would you measure that? It sounds extremely subjective to me. If you are going to draw any sort of conclusions on balance, you need to look at the numbers. Well that's the point, there is no way to objectively say that "it's" balanced. If you use numbers from the top of the bill, the pro's in GSL and the biggest foreign tournaments, you have a problem. The problem is, that in the very top, there can be a skill difference big enough to overcome any balance. I think we can all agree that when Nestea won the GSL, Zerg was (slightly) UP. So in my opinion, win % from the pro's aren't the best one to use. If you take the win % from the ladder, the skill from the players are the same (if you have faith in blizzard ladder). The problem with these % are that those aren't the best of the best. So in my opinion it's very hard to safely determine something is balanced. edit: On May 03 2011 04:19 MrCon wrote: yep, stats means nothing when zergs are winning, only when they lose. You are the one that brings that up, not me. I am just pointing something out  | ||
|
hugman
Sweden4644 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:19 MrCon wrote: yep, stats means nothing when zergs are winning, only when they lose. Why don't respond to his argument instead of making snarky remarks | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:21 Brutus wrote: Well that's the point, there is no way to objectively say that "it's" balanced. If you use numbers from the top of the bill, the pro's in GSL and the biggest foreign tournaments, you have a problem. The problem is, that in the very top, there can be a skill difference big enough to overcome any balance. I think we can all agree that when Nestea won the GSL, Zerg was (slightly) UP. So in my opinion, win % from the pro's aren't the best one to use. If you take the win % from the ladder, the skill from the players are the same (if you have faith in blizzard ladder). The problem with these % are that those aren't the best of the best. So in my opinion it's very hard to safely determine something is balanced. edit: You are the one that brings that up, not me. I am just pointing something out Yep but you can point this out for every game. MVP roflstomped 2 zergs in code A, he was obviously the better player. That's what it is and that's why we need big samples and that's why korean graph should not even have been posted, because everyone who just want to talk imbalance will disregard the graph with meaningful data to use the ony that means nothing but shows imbalance. | ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
I still think it's odd that blizzard said a few patches ago that they will be doing smaller changes in the future, but the last patch and the next patch (currently on ptr) are two of the biggest balance changes since beta. | ||
|
GhostFall
United States830 Posts
Whats worrying about the Korean graph is that while it is a smaller sample size, you can't just flat out ignore it. Blizzard themselves have admitted that Korea is generally the forefront of strategies in SC2. Whatever trends are happening in Korea, the rest of the world follows suit in a month or two. This was made common knowledge at the blizzcon panel. | ||
p4NDemik
United States13896 Posts
On May 02 2011 23:57 hmunkey wrote: I posted on the Reddit post but I thought I'd post here too: even though these charts indicate balance (or lack thereof) in certain ways, they're taken only for certain time periods which basically means certain events or specific players have disproportionately larger impact on the data. For example, Naniwa's MLG run (I know it wasn't charted but it's a good example) or recent Losira domination in GSL would both skew results and make it seem like P is OP or Z is OP when really, neither can be conclusively decided as true. Basically, players who make deep runs play more games and skew it. So what we sometimes see are only the best of the best represented their races. For example, the GSL currently has 4 zergs in the RO16. These zergs are the absolute best when it comes to their race, as opposed to mediocre protosses and terrans who made it in. This makes it look like Zv* is insane when it may not truly be, because the fewer number of zergs and their comparative skill means they'll obviously win more games. Similarly, I imagine if IdrA continues his streak into NASL further and in other tournaments, he will single-handedly make zerg look OP in NA even if he's the only zerg playing major tournaments and getting far. The international stats are much less susceptible to the kind of skewing you are talking about than the Korean stats. One player's dominance in a certain matchup in one season of GSL can significantly sway the stats for that matchup in the Korean TLPD. One player's dominance in something like MLG will have an impact on the international TLPD, but due to a sample size that is 10x larger it's difference will not be significant. | ||
|
cujo2k
Canada1044 Posts
| ||
|
Brutus
Netherlands284 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:26 MrCon wrote: Yep but you can point this out for every game. MVP roflstomped 2 zergs in code A, he was obviously the better player. That's what it is and that's why we need big samples and that's why korean graph should not even have been posted, because everyone who just want to talk imbalance will disregard the graph with meaningful data to use the ony that means nothing but shows imbalance. Yes that is true. But if Terran has 5 MVPs and Zerg has 3 (all hypothetical), and the win rates are 50%, then there STILL is a problem in ZvT because T should win more. That's why I think win rates prove nothing. | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:25 hugman wrote: Why don't respond to his argument instead of making snarky remarks Please explain me the argument. The poison of his post is precisely that it's not an argument, it's an example. If the argument is the first phrase, aka why not call this winrate and not balance, yeah I agree but on what is balance determined on if not winrates ? Now that idra is roflstomping protosses left and right this doesn't count for balance because it's not macro into roach hydra corruptor into gg anymore or because he's better ? Wasn't he the better player too when he lost against the same players ? | ||
|
MrCon
France29748 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:30 Brutus wrote: Yes that is true. But if Terran has 5 MVPs and Zerg has 3 (all hypothetical), and the win rates are 50%, then there STILL is a problem in ZvT because T should win more. That's why I think win rates prove nothing. ok, I finally get what you want to say, and I can agree with that =) | ||
|
ehalf
408 Posts
From what i see, protoss is dominate everywhere Nerf terran and burf protoss? U definitely want your ladder games full of PvP, dont u? | ||
clownzim
Brazil267 Posts
expect for terrans:D j/k awesome work dude... | ||
|
windsupernova
Mexico5280 Posts
On May 03 2011 04:30 Brutus wrote: Yes that is true. But if Terran has 5 MVPs and Zerg has 3 (all hypothetical), and the win rates are 50%, then there STILL is a problem in ZvT because T should win more. That's why I think win rates prove nothing. Thing is that there is no way to reliably measure skill in a game of imperfect information. Besides skill its not all that determines whether you win a game of SC, yeah its a big part,but strategy,luck, mindset and many other things factor into that. I guess what I am trying to say its that we should not treat skill(something not measurable by any means) as if it was a power level in DBZ | ||
| ||
