|
I faced two gold Terrans at MLG, and a GM Protoss.
my Zvt was 100% and Zvp was 0%
I contributed to skewing the open bracket results most likely. If anyone can join the OB, it seems as if it is a silly set to look at.
I don't get this use of win % in tournaments, other than as a cute number to check out. I mean looking at championship bracket, of the top 8, 4 were korean and 2 lived/trained in Korea. IT so happened 4 of these korean trained players were Zerg. Can't really conclude much about this really. Each player has good and bad matchups, and the better players win regardless of race.
|
On June 22 2011 17:41 lololol wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 15:00 Kralic wrote:On June 22 2011 13:02 two.watup wrote:On June 22 2011 13:01 Suc wrote:On June 22 2011 12:56 two.watup wrote:
I think the most impressive statistic is this:
Gret0rp: Loses every single match. 0-6 (2-12).
27th place.
Moonan: Loses every single match. 0-6 (3-12).
25th place. Because Moonan took 1 more game off someone in a bo3. The point is players losing every single match and placing higher than Anyone else in the tournament. You cannot be top 32 and not win a single bo3. That's just pathetic tournament structure. I can lose 6 bo3s too. I'm plat league. It is called a circuit. Each stop is one event in the season, as you play in more events you will see the weaker players fall lower. Don't think of MLG events as one tournament where the past results did not matter. Give it a year or two and you will see a insane pool in the top 32. So players constantly getting top 32 placement despite losing everything and playing much worse than a lot of the people placing significantly lower for a "year or two" sounds fine to you? Saying that it's called <insert bad format name here> as an excuse for it being a bad format is not really an excuse. It's the same as saying "it's called having a bad format", except this one has a clear meaning, while yours tries to make it seem like something else.
Let me see,  2011 MLG Pro Circuit/Rankings. Looks like the top 32 is getting to be more familiar to what we are used to seeing in the top 32 of any foreigner tournament. It won't take a year or two for the terrible people to be ousted, I am saying it will be a very deep pool of skilled players in the top 32 as time progresses. It is a season, when the last event on the circuit hits the top 32 should be a pretty amazing pool of players.
New tournaments will always have weaker players ranked the highest the first few events because the amount of skilled players competing is not as high. Look at the GSL opens in the past and tell me that the top 32 were all deserving of being in the top 32(unless you think scv all ins are pro skill).
edit: anyway I am done with discussing this in this topic because it is very off topic to something that was done for fun and neat little statistics. I can always discuss it in pm's.
|
On June 22 2011 12:56 two.watup wrote:
I think the most impressive statistic is this:
Gret0rp: Loses every single match. 0-6 (2-12).
27th place.
Qxc: Loses to ThorZain and SeleCT. 8-2
26th place.
Moonan: Loses every single match. 0-6 (3-12).
25th place.
I honestly see nothing too crazy about this. Gret0rp is playing people like Naniwa and Slush from the very beginning, while qxc gets to roflcruise through the open bracket, getting wins vs people like Ryze, Sadistx, and TrueRedemption only to get mangled when he has to play legit players like Thorzain and SeleCt. Should Gret0rp get a pool play spot next season? Heck no. But neither should qxc, tbh. Cruising through the open bracket shouldn't be that hard for a legit "top 32" player.
|
First thing I noted was that ViBe is the only non-Korean player (or not of Korean origin, before someone starts the whole SeleCT debate again) to have 300+ average APM. =P
|
On June 22 2011 09:06 Nik0 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 08:59 lilky wrote:so tl;dr, zerg > protoss and zerg > terran  i wonder how much worse the PvZ stats would be if you disregarded MC's games... This is what should happen when 4 of the 6 best players in the tournament are zerg.
And when maps are more or less rigged to give Zerg the advantage every game...
|
On June 23 2011 01:02 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 09:06 Nik0 wrote:On June 22 2011 08:59 lilky wrote:so tl;dr, zerg > protoss and zerg > terran i wonder how much worse the PvZ stats would be if you disregarded MC's games... This is what should happen when 4 of the 6 best players in the tournament are zerg. And when maps are more or less rigged to give Zerg the advantage every game...
You mean "rigged to give a fair and even game amongst all players". Sorry, but no close spawns is fair, not imbalanced.
|
Brazil163 Posts
Are there unit stats?
I was interested to see if theres any unit in the game that was never or rarelly used. Changelings? Carriers?
|
On June 23 2011 02:14 Flight wrote:
Are there unit stats?
I was interested to see if theres any unit in the game that was never or rarelly used. Changelings? Carriers?
Changelings were used frequently. Carriers were only built in one game.
|
On June 23 2011 01:42 Stiver wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 01:02 aksfjh wrote:On June 22 2011 09:06 Nik0 wrote:On June 22 2011 08:59 lilky wrote:so tl;dr, zerg > protoss and zerg > terran i wonder how much worse the PvZ stats would be if you disregarded MC's games... This is what should happen when 4 of the 6 best players in the tournament are zerg. And when maps are more or less rigged to give Zerg the advantage every game... You mean "rigged to give a fair and even game amongst all players". Sorry, but no close spawns is fair, not imbalanced.
Seeing as how Blizzard has confirmed time and time again that the ladder maps, even with close spawns in the mix, appear relatively balanced, removing close spawns is likely to give way to imbalances. In a tournament where over half of the top 16 were Zerg, it just so happens that many of the maps used took out close spawns, something the community agrees is unfavorable to Zerg. Statistically, removing close spawns seems to give Zerg an advantage.
|
On June 23 2011 02:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 01:42 Stiver wrote:On June 23 2011 01:02 aksfjh wrote:On June 22 2011 09:06 Nik0 wrote:On June 22 2011 08:59 lilky wrote:so tl;dr, zerg > protoss and zerg > terran i wonder how much worse the PvZ stats would be if you disregarded MC's games... This is what should happen when 4 of the 6 best players in the tournament are zerg. And when maps are more or less rigged to give Zerg the advantage every game... You mean "rigged to give a fair and even game amongst all players". Sorry, but no close spawns is fair, not imbalanced. Seeing as how Blizzard has confirmed time and time again that the ladder maps, even with close spawns in the mix, appear relatively balanced, removing close spawns is likely to give way to imbalances. In a tournament where over half of the top 16 were Zerg, it just so happens that many of the maps used took out close spawns, something the community agrees is unfavorable to Zerg. Statistically, removing close spawns seems to give Zerg an advantage.
Dude, seriously, there is no logic to this at all. Removing a map, balanced or not, in no way affects the balance of the other maps.
|
the zvt stats are insane. That figure + the fact idra had won the game but it counts towards a loss :p I'm not sure on the validity of people claiming to know how many matches were used in this calculation.
|
On June 22 2011 23:54 Kralic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2011 17:41 lololol wrote:On June 22 2011 15:00 Kralic wrote:On June 22 2011 13:02 two.watup wrote:On June 22 2011 13:01 Suc wrote:On June 22 2011 12:56 two.watup wrote:
I think the most impressive statistic is this:
Gret0rp: Loses every single match. 0-6 (2-12).
27th place.
Moonan: Loses every single match. 0-6 (3-12).
25th place. Because Moonan took 1 more game off someone in a bo3. The point is players losing every single match and placing higher than Anyone else in the tournament. You cannot be top 32 and not win a single bo3. That's just pathetic tournament structure. I can lose 6 bo3s too. I'm plat league. It is called a circuit. Each stop is one event in the season, as you play in more events you will see the weaker players fall lower. Don't think of MLG events as one tournament where the past results did not matter. Give it a year or two and you will see a insane pool in the top 32. So players constantly getting top 32 placement despite losing everything and playing much worse than a lot of the people placing significantly lower for a "year or two" sounds fine to you? Saying that it's called <insert bad format name here> as an excuse for it being a bad format is not really an excuse. It's the same as saying "it's called having a bad format", except this one has a clear meaning, while yours tries to make it seem like something else. Let me see, 2011 MLG Pro Circuit/Rankings. Looks like the top 32 is getting to be more familiar to what we are used to seeing in the top 32 of any foreigner tournament. It won't take a year or two for the terrible people to be ousted, I am saying it will be a very deep pool of skilled players in the top 32 as time progresses. It is a season, when the last event on the circuit hits the top 32 should be a pretty amazing pool of players. New tournaments will always have weaker players ranked the highest the first few events because the amount of skilled players competing is not as high. Look at the GSL opens in the past and tell me that the top 32 were all deserving of being in the top 32(unless you think scv all ins are pro skill). edit: anyway I am done with discussing this in this topic because it is very off topic to something that was done for fun and neat little statistics. I can always discuss it in pm's.
That had nothing to do with the tournament format of the GSL Opens, you even had to qualify all over again in all of them, there weren't any players going 0-5 and still getting top 32, while there are in MLG and the format is all that can be blamed for it.
|
On June 23 2011 02:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 23 2011 01:42 Stiver wrote:On June 23 2011 01:02 aksfjh wrote:On June 22 2011 09:06 Nik0 wrote:On June 22 2011 08:59 lilky wrote:so tl;dr, zerg > protoss and zerg > terran i wonder how much worse the PvZ stats would be if you disregarded MC's games... This is what should happen when 4 of the 6 best players in the tournament are zerg. And when maps are more or less rigged to give Zerg the advantage every game... You mean "rigged to give a fair and even game amongst all players". Sorry, but no close spawns is fair, not imbalanced. Seeing as how Blizzard has confirmed time and time again that the ladder maps, even with close spawns in the mix, appear relatively balanced, removing close spawns is likely to give way to imbalances. In a tournament where over half of the top 16 were Zerg, it just so happens that many of the maps used took out close spawns, something the community agrees is unfavorable to Zerg. Statistically, removing close spawns seems to give Zerg an advantage.
Rofl no. Removing the close positions is not favoring zerg, its changing the win percentages of zerg from 20% to 50% on this map.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
