|
On May 20 2011 15:00 avilo wrote:Just because someone made an incredibly long post does not make it mega awesome or even remotely accurate. The most obvious thing completely wrong with the "post" is to not look at pros for balance. In any RTS game or game you always look at the top level for balance because these are the people playing the game at the highest level and are actively trying to "break the game." Really all the OP is saying (but ironically not doing in many of his examples in the OP) is: "don't be biased with your balance judgements." Nothing new...and there's no need to go into "intricate mathematics" or math at all for any of this...the OP is overcomplicating things, and likely has not enough experience to legitimately comment on balance or imbalance in the first place. The most qualified people to talk about balance are the pro players and people high up on ladder that are playing the game everyday versus other good players. But 99% of these players are trying to practice and improve themselves and not even worry about balance in the first place, though everyone QQ sometimes. imo OP is just trying to re-invent the wheel on balance discussions aka having a discussion about how to discuss things lol...there's about one of these posts per month or so that pop up with some guy that thinks he's mega smart and mystical with "the maths" -_- there's just so many things wrong in the OP and ironically "biased." Do we really need another thread discussing how we should be discussing things and hordes of low post count people going, "wow you're so smart and amazing."  Nice effort sure...but i think a bit misplaced. Also, the entire premise of the thread doesn't work because there is no definitive model for imbalance. The model everyone uses for imbalance is...guess what? Their personal bias and opinion. Notice my use of italics for emphasis.
Why would you make such a terrible post. Did you even read what he wrote?
You sound like a politician who argues with a scientist because he just doesn't like the facts.
|
Top level data cannot be analysed using summary statistics. It requires a proper statistical analysis to draw any valid conclusions. Disregard any analysis that attempts to use data from high masters above the level where players begin to consistently have a 50% win/loss ratio since any conclusions they draw will likely be invalid.
There should be a gulf near GM/top masters where players experience a dip in their win/loss ratio below 50%. This should dispel the myth that win/loss ratios mean anything, even in master league.
The best place to take data is around this dip, where players begin to consistently have an overall 50% win/loss ratio. This is our upper statistical threshold. Above this point, statistical analysis is required.
Any effects of balance on racial win/loss ratios should be fairly consistent across leagues.
Imbalance doesn’t affect distributions in the silver, gold and platinum leagues.
How is this not saying that measuring balance should be taken at a level not at the top? The OP explicitly stated it in his conclusion, no one went out of their ways to disprove him.
Any effects on balance on racial win/loss ratios should be fairly consistent across leagues? Nope.
Imbalance doesn't affect distribution in the silver, gold and platinum leagues? Why does it suddenly matter at diamond and midmasters where the "dip" is? I'm high masters and I am in no way claiming that I play this game at even 50% of its maximum potential.
That upper statistical threshold is the most randomly made conclusion I've seen in my life. The OP went "ABC and therefore, Z."
|
I like the concept you put forth in the OP however, balance should always be based of the elite level of play. This is an e-sport it has to be competitive to base balance decisions off of anything but pro-level play will do nothing but harm the competitive nature and scene of the game.
|
On May 20 2011 14:08 Warble wrote:
Only masters/pros should talk about balance.
I am of the opinion that no player can truly talk about balance. Psychological studies have found that everybody has an inherent bias that favours themselves regardless of how unbiased they try to be. In other words, any balance suggestion by a pro will necessarily try to make his own race OP rather than to achieve objective balance, no matter how well-intentioned the pro is.
What about those that play random at one time, such as TLO or Nerchio, in what way would they be biased? If Tyler talked about ZvT-balance, would he be trying to favour him self?
On May 20 2011 14:08 Warble wrote:
This is often used by those who have learned a bit about statistics in high school.
You need a bigger sample size.
As this post uses no data at all, at best it proposes how data should be interpreted, this as no bearing on the matter.
On May 20 2011 14:08 Warble wrote:
We can only find imbalance by looking at the top level of play.
The problem here is that people tend to post simple summary statistics and graphs and call it a day. Consider, for example, if this game only had terran and no other races. Our statistics from GSL would show MKP and MVP winning most of their games against other terrans. Conclusion? It’s not terran that’s OP, it’s the players.
Now add the other races and players back in. When MKP plays against a protoss and wins, how much is a result of his race and how much of it is a result of his hard work and raw talent? The summary statistics do not show this.
I feel we should be talking about if imbalance can be found by looking at the statistics of top level play not the play in itself.
In general we could be looking at the statistics of the bottom, the top or the whole. The only thing that it should be noted is that the bottom or top should be large enough to reduce the variance of the data.
On May 20 2011 14:08 Warble wrote:
If everybody, especially pros, chooses a race, then that race must be imbalanced.
----
Maybe people choose a race because they have an affinity for it.
Here you posted a long analysis. However I didn't see a proposed remedy for sorting out the problems when differentiating affinities for races and imbalance.
The solution is this.
Get a huge number of players from the whole Blizzard-ladder randomly
Calculate how many Z, V, P and put them in three different lists -> stratified sampling.
Pick randomly (uniformly distributed) n items of each Z-, V-, P-list respectively, the number n must be smaller than the number of players of the least played race.
Now you can calculate imbalances without biasing your data.
On May 20 2011 14:08 Warble wrote:
The true numbers crop up when we compare them with each other. So out of 100 entrants, 40 are women and 60 are men. That means 150% more men enter college than women.
This is plain false, it is 50% more men.
Please, allay my following concerns or questions:
1. What education or experience do you have with statistics?
2. "I think it can’t be stated enough: GM and top masters is a bad place to be looking for racial imbalance." - No, it's perfectly viable as long as the sample group is large enough, what you can't do is take the player from 75-85% and use statistics on them.
You have to take an upper or lower x%, like the top 5% or GM-league.
3. What exactly does "Statistical analysis is the best way to analyse high level statistics." mean?
4. Do you believe it is impossible to the analyse imbalance without having Blizzard's data? Couldn't you have tried it with a ~100 random samples from the top of the league?
|
On May 20 2011 15:37 Mojar wrote:
I like the concept you put forth in the OP however, balance should always be based of the elite level of play. This is an e-sport it has to be competitive to base balance decisions off of anything but pro-level play will do nothing but harm the competitive nature and scene of the game.
Perhaps I interpreted this wrong, but I believe he is not arguing to what demographics the game out to balanced for with respect to choosing sample statistics, rather that regardless what you pick, using the elite or noobs own opinions would be both make it invalid due to biases. Also, even if you cater only to the elite, there are still many factors that need to be considered outside the game including individual player skill and other variables outside the objective race itself. So, uses lower skilled players could help isolate the fundamental game errors from the skill based QQ,
|
Like others have said before, a long post doesn't mean it is a good post. There is definitely merit to approaching things in a scientific and mathematical way but we must also be aware of all the assumptions that were made along the way and make sure that the conclusion and analysis aligh in with the actual methods or initial hypothesis.
The rationale for the study is admirable, and I agree with the type of basic mathematical techniques used, but the assumptions that skill levels are linear and that race choice by Starcraft 2 players is proof for balance (because of the human tendency to optimize, thus reaching race equilibrium?) are quite debatable. With these assumptions alone, this study cannot be considered the "end-all" research on balance. And no, this is not nit-picking on small flaws in a study, but you are making very major assumptions that should not be ignored.
Further, conclusions made at the end are not supported by any of the data and analysis in the sections previous. What part of the data proves that Master/Pro levels should not be used for balance analysis? Your point about trends in one region alone cannot be interpreted as imbalance makes intuitive sense, but what part of your methods actually proves that? And the part about your faith in Blizzard?
Your study would be a lot better if you just presented your results and your methods. Instead, much of your "myth-busting" is just your own opinions and experiences.
|
This is how day(9) looks at balance lol
P.S. Great Post!
|
On May 20 2011 14:10 usa11220 wrote:
best first post ever?
Definitely.
Dear OP
Most of the math you explained it in a way that's easy to understand. Thanks for this =)
|
On May 20 2011 15:44 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 15:37 Mojar wrote:
I like the concept you put forth in the OP however, balance should always be based of the elite level of play. This is an e-sport it has to be competitive to base balance decisions off of anything but pro-level play will do nothing but harm the competitive nature and scene of the game. Perhaps I interpreted this wrong, but I believe he is now arguing to what demographics the game out to balanced for with respect to choosing sample statistics, rather that regardless what you pick, using the elite or noobs own opinions would be both make it invalid due to biases. Also, even if you cater only to the elite, there are still many factors that need to be considered outside the game including individual player skill and other variables outside the objective race itself. So, uses lower skilled players could help isolate the fundamental game errors from the skill based QQ,
Yeah but i dont care if Protoss or Terran has 70% Winrate against the other races up until Masters. (which it has not). As long as it is balanced on top level, imbalances in the lower leagues doesn't matter.
|
So much truth, so little time. *golf clap* Well done.
|
On May 20 2011 15:00 avilo wrote:Just because someone made an incredibly long post does not make it mega awesome or even remotely accurate. The most obvious thing completely wrong with the "post" is to not look at pros for balance. In any RTS game or game you always look at the top level for balance because these are the people playing the game at the highest level and are actively trying to "break the game." Really all the OP is saying (but ironically not doing in many of his examples in the OP) is: "don't be biased with your balance judgements." Nothing new...and there's no need to go into "intricate mathematics" or math at all for any of this...the OP is overcomplicating things, and likely has not enough experience to legitimately comment on balance or imbalance in the first place. The most qualified people to talk about balance are the pro players and people high up on ladder that are playing the game everyday versus other good players. But 99% of these players are trying to practice and improve themselves and not even worry about balance in the first place, though everyone QQ sometimes. imo OP is just trying to re-invent the wheel on balance discussions aka having a discussion about how to discuss things lol...there's about one of these posts per month or so that pop up with some guy that thinks he's mega smart and mystical with "the maths" -_- there's just so many things wrong in the OP and ironically "biased." Do we really need another thread discussing how we should be discussing things and hordes of low post count people going, "wow you're so smart and amazing." Nice effort sure...but i think a bit misplaced. Also, the entire premise of the thread doesn't work because there is no definitive model for imbalance. The model everyone uses for imbalance is...guess what? Their personal bias and opinion. Notice my use of italics for emphasis.
This is so true.
|
One thing I think you may have neglected to mention when discussing problems with looking at the top of the ladder is the fact that blizzard has probability statistics on the expected results of each specific game played on bnet. This is the basis of the points we earn from our games. So while looking at win ratios for the top of the ladder is useless, point totals and the related data should be more accurate.
Also I'd love to see a graph of the matchup win percentages based on a moving average of the entire MMR spectrum. I'm sure blizzard has something like this, and I imagine you could make a lot of balance conclusions by seeing this data.
Lastly, your analysis dealt specifically with evaluating game results. Even if we can prove imbalance through your methods there is still the challenge of identifying the exact in game imbalance.
|
Yet these players with sub-50% win/loss ratios are both by rank and by nature superior players to their peers with 50% win/loss ratios. Their low ratios come from the fact that they’re so good they’re the only amateurs who get matched against professional level players. This low ratio comes from the assumption that there is a significant skill gap between amateur players and professional players. We know that at the top level, skill gaps can be huge because Idra has a huge win/loss ratio.
There are very few players (relatively) with 70-80% W/L ratios, so the best players outside those ratios will face ~50% ratio players most of the time, and if they're truly better they'll have a higher than 50% win rate against those. Over hundreds of games the better players should have a higher winrate unless 70-80% win ratio players are literally laddering all the time.
How much math have you taken, OP? By your post I'm guessing you're a second-year math undergrad, or maybe an engineering/science major.
|
Your analysis is seriously convoluted and you draw no apparently meaningful conclusions that I can infer. I don't think too many people at the moment put much faith in arguments about balance based on statistics. It's bothersome that something like this can actually get so much praise from people who've neither read nor understood it simply because they think it looks intelligent.
Coming from a math major, most of your points are only made more confusing by the math you attempt to justify them with and can be inferred without it far more concisely. It really feels that you've only included a lot of math for the sake of attempting to appear credible.
|
I am sorry, I dont quiet agree with your post.
In my opinion it lacks of data to back it up. In many cases you present some facts and present your opinion, while the same facts would lead others to another opinion.
Some of your conclusions are based on the concept of player skill, but "player skill" is subjective and can not be defined very well.
In my oppinion there are too much asumptions in this post, I think it would be better to break it down and focus on smaller practical details then to try and cover the whole balance discussion with assumptions and opinions.
|
On May 20 2011 15:44 Torpedo.Vegas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 15:37 Mojar wrote:
I like the concept you put forth in the OP however, balance should always be based of the elite level of play. This is an e-sport it has to be competitive to base balance decisions off of anything but pro-level play will do nothing but harm the competitive nature and scene of the game. Perhaps I interpreted this wrong, but I believe he is now arguing to what demographics the game out to balanced for with respect to choosing sample statistics, rather that regardless what you pick, using the elite or noobs own opinions would be both make it invalid due to biases. Also, even if you cater only to the elite, there are still many factors that need to be considered outside the game including individual player skill and other variables outside the objective race itself. So, uses lower skilled players could help isolate the fundamental game errors from the skill based QQ,
No.
The question is if you want the game to be balanced for the elite as a whole, everybody as a whole or both (you probably don't want too balance it for the bottom 5% in bronze league if it means sacrificing balance in another).
Here I mean balance as in the average win-ratio for a race.
So there is five viable options:
1. The imbalance is linear for every player with a win ratio between 0-100%, great you can balance the top 1%'s match-ups and bronze league will be balanced as well.
2. The balance is non-linear, so that people with different skill levels will be affected (in changed win rate) differently.What do you do then:
2a. You try to make the average win ratio 50% when considering all players.
2b. You try to cater for a specified percentage of players so that they achieve 50% win ratio amongst themselves
2c. You try to make balance changes which are the "inverse" to the non-linear balance, which could be practically impossible.
2d. A compromise between a,b,c
What is Blizzard's strategy? I don't know.
If the case is 1. or 2b. you only need to apply statistics to a elite percentage of players.
If the case is 2a, 2c, 2d you will have to sample the whole interval of players.
|
On May 20 2011 15:00 avilo wrote:
The most obvious thing completely wrong with the "post" is to not look at pros for balance. In any RTS game or game you always look at the top level for balance because these are the people playing the game at the highest level and are actively trying to "break the game."
.
The most obvious thing wrong with your post is you assume you're right.
Amazing OP. It seems the whole point of it is to look at the balance situation with a little less bias and to not automatically assume rumors of imbalance are actually true. If anything is to be assumed, its that you are wrong (this goes for everybody).
|
mind=blown
Good job dude. Enjoyed every second of reading your post
|
On May 20 2011 16:11 omisa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 15:00 avilo wrote:
The most obvious thing completely wrong with the "post" is to not look at pros for balance. In any RTS game or game you always look at the top level for balance because these are the people playing the game at the highest level and are actively trying to "break the game."
. The most obvious thing wrong with your post is you assume you're right. Amazing OP. It seems the whole point of it is to look at the balance situation with a little less bias and to not automatically assume rumors of imbalance are actually true. If anything is to be assumed, its that you are wrong (this goes for everybody).
Cool, so we have reached a conclusion that the OP is wrong despite also being amazing. Doublethink it is!
|
On May 20 2011 16:11 omisa wrote:Show nested quote +On May 20 2011 15:00 avilo wrote:
The most obvious thing completely wrong with the "post" is to not look at pros for balance. In any RTS game or game you always look at the top level for balance because these are the people playing the game at the highest level and are actively trying to "break the game."
. The most obvious thing wrong with your post is you assume you're right. Amazing OP. It seems the whole point of it is to look at the balance situation with a little less bias and to not automatically assume rumors of imbalance are actually true. If anything is to be assumed, its that you are wrong (this goes for everybody).
Ok, then explain why the game shouldn't be balanced around pro play/
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
