|
On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch
And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else.
|
On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else.
Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players.
In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year.
|
On August 28 2014 22:50 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else. Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players. In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year.
But you're putting the cart before the horse. Race distribution doesn't prove anything other than the population subset of an arbitrary crosscut of the total census. When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing.
One can point to population distribution as a possible side effect of a possible imbalance, but nothing else. Much like sneezing doesn't prove you have allergies, simply suggest it. Population shifts doesn't prove imbalance, simply suggests it.
The post patch shift could be as much a metagame shift as an imbalance shift. It could be a practice regiment shift, increased/decreased travel shift, family problems, depression, secret girlfriends, etc... But to suggests that it was purely a patch that shifted one population shift is absolutely absurd.
|
On August 28 2014 22:50 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else. Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players.In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year.
"Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players."
I d like to see sources for this sentence
|
On August 28 2014 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 22:50 Hider wrote:On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else. Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players. In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year. But you're putting the cart before the horse. Race distribution doesn't prove anything other than the population subset of an arbitrary crosscut of the total census. When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. One can point to population distribution as a possible side effect of a possible imbalance, but nothing else. Much like sneezing doesn't prove you have allergies, simply suggest it. Population shifts doesn't prove imbalance, simply suggests it. The post patch shift could be as much a metagame shift as an imbalance shift. It could be a practice regiment shift, increased/decreased travel shift, family problems, depression, secret girlfriends, etc... But to suggests that it was purely a patch that shifted one population shift is absolutely absurd.
Secret girlfriends confirmed for ruining esports ! :D
|
On August 29 2014 00:19 LoneYoShi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 22:50 Hider wrote:On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else. Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players. In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year. But you're putting the cart before the horse. Race distribution doesn't prove anything other than the population subset of an arbitrary crosscut of the total census. When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. One can point to population distribution as a possible side effect of a possible imbalance, but nothing else. Much like sneezing doesn't prove you have allergies, simply suggest it. Population shifts doesn't prove imbalance, simply suggests it. The post patch shift could be as much a metagame shift as an imbalance shift. It could be a practice regiment shift, increased/decreased travel shift, family problems, depression, secret girlfriends, etc... But to suggests that it was purely a patch that shifted one population shift is absolutely absurd. Secret girlfriends confirmed for ruining esports ! :D
Terran players confirmed to be more sexy the last few months!
|
When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing.
This is some insane SC2 history revisionism, Terran was insanely strong, there was Terran everywhere, Zerg was carried by Nestea/FD, Protoss was carried solely by the boss toss MC.
http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/
You can also check individual periods.
|
On August 29 2014 00:15 Awin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 28 2014 22:50 Hider wrote:On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else. Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players.In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year. "Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players."I d like to see sources for this sentence
http://nios.kr/sc2/global/1v1/hots/
|
On August 29 2014 00:43 sibs wrote:Show nested quote + When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. This is some insane SC2 history revisionism, Terran was insanely strong, there was Terran everywhere, Zerg was carried by Nestea/FD, Protoss was carried solely by the boss toss MC. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/You can also check individual periods.
Which is why I kept saying making arbitrary cut offs in population size is ludicrous. GSL winners in 2010 was Zerg Zerg Protoss. GSL finalists in early 2011 were majority Protoss/Zerg.
Making arbitrary population cut offs will always make the game look imbalanced depending on which population you wish to focus on.
For example, most American prisoners are non-white, does that mean that whites are less prone to crime? Most women are paid less than men in America, does that mean all Americans are misogynist? One GSL distribution post patch shows an increase in terrains but no change in Zerg, are Protoss dying to widow mines? Those are all ludicrous statements, as ludicrous as saying that since Zerg won the first two GSLs and Protoss the Third, that that means Terran was weak in 2010.
|
On August 29 2014 00:44 Faust852 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 00:15 Awin wrote:On August 28 2014 22:50 Hider wrote:On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else. Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players.In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year. "Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players."I d like to see sources for this sentence http://nios.kr/sc2/global/1v1/hots/
Wait... You're correlating global race distribution on the ladder to show equal race representation amongst code a/s/b players in the GSL?
|
Ahh you meant to restrict your data to 2010? Terran won more tournaments (GSL's included) from 2010 to the end of 2011, you'd have to cut your population size by a lot and choose a very narrow time period and only look at a small amount of tournaments to not come to the conclusion that Terran was overpowered at that point in time.
|
On August 29 2014 00:26 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 00:19 LoneYoShi wrote:On August 28 2014 23:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 22:50 Hider wrote:On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else. Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players. In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year. But you're putting the cart before the horse. Race distribution doesn't prove anything other than the population subset of an arbitrary crosscut of the total census. When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. One can point to population distribution as a possible side effect of a possible imbalance, but nothing else. Much like sneezing doesn't prove you have allergies, simply suggest it. Population shifts doesn't prove imbalance, simply suggests it. The post patch shift could be as much a metagame shift as an imbalance shift. It could be a practice regiment shift, increased/decreased travel shift, family problems, depression, secret girlfriends, etc... But to suggests that it was purely a patch that shifted one population shift is absolutely absurd. Secret girlfriends confirmed for ruining esports ! :D Terran players confirmed to be more sexy the last few months!
That has always been the case tho (and I'm totally not saying this because I play terran ;-p )
|
On August 29 2014 00:59 sibs wrote:
Ahh you meant to restrict your data to 2010? Terran won more tournaments (GSL's included) from 2010 to the end of 2011, you'd have to cut your population size by a lot and choose a very narrow time period and only look at a small amount of tournaments to not come to the conclusion that Terran was overpowered at that point in time.
And Hider's argument cuts it down to only 2 Code S tournaments as opposed to over 1.5 years of Code S tournaments that I did--and yet I'm still saying that my analysis is wrong. It's wrong because correlation does not equal causation. Just because Zerg and Protoss were winning the best Starcraft 2 tournaments the first year and a half of this game, that does not mean Terran was weak.
|
On August 29 2014 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 00:43 sibs wrote: When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. This is some insane SC2 history revisionism, Terran was insanely strong, there was Terran everywhere, Zerg was carried by Nestea/FD, Protoss was carried solely by the boss toss MC. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/You can also check individual periods. Which is why I kept saying making arbitrary cut offs in population size is ludicrous. GSL winners in 2010 was Zerg Zerg Protoss. GSL finalists in early 2011 were majority Protoss/Zerg. Making arbitrary population cut offs will always make the game look imbalanced depending on which population you wish to focus on. For example, most American prisoners are non-white, does that mean that whites are less prone to crime? Most women are paid less than men in America, does that mean all Americans are misogynist? One GSL distribution post patch shows an increase in terrains but no change in Zerg, are Protoss dying to widow mines? Those are all ludicrous statements, as ludicrous as saying that since Zerg won the first two GSLs and Protoss the Third, that that means Terran was weak in 2010.
So you think it had nothing to do with balance that we had like 3 terrans in code s? It had nothing to do with balance that "b teamer" toss players were advancing over terran star players?
Yeah i am sure you are right /s.
|
On August 29 2014 00:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 00:44 Faust852 wrote:On August 29 2014 00:15 Awin wrote:On August 28 2014 22:50 Hider wrote:On August 28 2014 22:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 28 2014 20:09 mijagi182 wrote:On August 27 2014 08:37 usethis2 wrote:On August 24 2014 16:05 Svizcy wrote:
I still think we have preatty good balance atm, since we have such nice RO16 in GSL code S now. I don't even remmeber when it was the last time when we had 5-5-6 race distribution in RO16.
What do you mean by "good balance atm?" You must have said that in a good will, but I can't help but seeing the shallowness of this community from that line. I wonder if people will change their minds in two weeks when the distribution in RO8 becomes 5-2-1 or something like that? Then what? Blizzard fail? I would look more into the actual game plays. Its simply stupid to just look at roXX and draw conclusion from there given the GSL format. What seems more reasonable is to look at results of post patch GSL qualifiers : 11 P - 9 T - 5 Z to CODE A 13 - 6 - 5 to CODE S Looks pretty much how I see the balance now. I hope Zerg doesn't extinct before next patch And how does race distribution dictate game balance? That's like saying china is the dominant culture because there are more Chinese than anyone else. Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players.In terms of how well they perform, that has historically dependant on balance on the game with too many terrans gettting too far in 2010/2011, too many zergs in 2013 and too many protosses over the last year. "Except there are roughly the same amount of active protoss, terran and zerg players."I d like to see sources for this sentence http://nios.kr/sc2/global/1v1/hots/ Wait... You're correlating global race distribution on the ladder to show equal race representation amongst code a/s/b players in the GSL?
He wanted to know about active players, not code S players so I just gave him a source for that.
|
On August 29 2014 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Making arbitrary population cut offs will always make the game look imbalanced depending on which population you wish to focus on.
For example, most American prisoners are non-white, does that mean that whites are less prone to crime? Most women are paid less than men in America, does that mean all Americans are misogynist? One GSL distribution post patch shows an increase in terrains but no change in Zerg, are Protoss dying to widow mines? Those are all ludicrous statements, as ludicrous as saying that since Zerg won the first two GSLs and Protoss the Third, that that means Terran was weak in 2010.
You are being misleading. For example, we can come to many reasonable conclusions given the information that "Most women are paid less than men in America."
The first step would be to determine if the difference is statistically significant. If we are comparing 5 women to 5 men, then perhaps the numbers don't matter. If we are comparing the entire population of a country, we are forced to admit there is something significant going on. (But can make no conclusions regarding why)
Similarly, if we are looking at only three GSLs, the significance of the conclusion is in question. On the other hand your conclusion can be very significant if it comes from a combination of player earnings, representation, mirrors played, winrates, and a complete list of tournament winners. A basic binomial model will provide significant evidence against the hypothesis that all three races had a 33% chance to win a tournament in 2014.
People often throw around the words "not statistically significant" without knowing what it means. You can get significant results from very small sample sizes provided other conditions are met. Many clinical trials have a smaller sample size than the group stage of a small tournament.
It is factual that "Terran was weak in the beginning of 2014" because the entire population of games played shows it to be true. Frankly, the reason for the weakness isn't particularly important and is pretty much impossible to know definitively. Rationalizations such as "Terran players are just worse" are very difficult to refute without forcing everybody to switch race for a year.
What is up for debate is whether we should step in and make changes, or let the game sort things out on its own.
|
On August 29 2014 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 00:43 sibs wrote: When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. This is some insane SC2 history revisionism, Terran was insanely strong, there was Terran everywhere, Zerg was carried by Nestea/FD, Protoss was carried solely by the boss toss MC. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/You can also check individual periods. Which is why I kept saying making arbitrary cut offs in population size is ludicrous. GSL winners in 2010 was Zerg Zerg Protoss. GSL finalists in early 2011 were majority Protoss/Zerg. Making arbitrary population cut offs will always make the game look imbalanced depending on which population you wish to focus on.
For example, most American prisoners are non-white, does that mean that whites are less prone to crime?
Assuming a fair justice system: Yes. (in actuality the system is biased/racist i.e. "imbalanced")
Most women are paid less than men in America, does that mean all Americans are misogynist?
Assuming men are better than women: Not necessarily. (yet here again the system is actually sexist/imbalanced)
Really, the numbers can tell you that there is something wrong. They do in your examples, each forces you to have to accept something you might not want to, that either there is something wrong with the system or with the people in the system. Either terran players are worse or terran is weak. Pick your poison.
|
On August 29 2014 03:33 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 29 2014 00:43 sibs wrote: When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. This is some insane SC2 history revisionism, Terran was insanely strong, there was Terran everywhere, Zerg was carried by Nestea/FD, Protoss was carried solely by the boss toss MC. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/You can also check individual periods. Which is why I kept saying making arbitrary cut offs in population size is ludicrous. GSL winners in 2010 was Zerg Zerg Protoss. GSL finalists in early 2011 were majority Protoss/Zerg. Making arbitrary population cut offs will always make the game look imbalanced depending on which population you wish to focus on. Show nested quote +For example, most American prisoners are non-white, does that mean that whites are less prone to crime? Assuming a fair justice system: Yes. (in actuality the system is biased/racist i.e. "imbalanced") Show nested quote +Most women are paid less than men in America, does that mean all Americans are misogynist? Assuming men are better than women: Not necessarily. (yet here again the system is actually sexist/imbalanced) Really, the numbers can tell you that there is something wrong. They do in your examples, each forces you to have to accept something you might not want to, that either there is something wrong with the system or with the people in the system. Either terran players are worse or terran is weak. Pick your poison.
Which is my point. The population shows a symptom of something--but it's not proof of any one thing.
It takes specific tests to prove imbalance. Low Terran representation is merely a random data set that, with other evidence, can lead to something actually truthful. But to point at representation and automatically conclude it's something is foolish.
|
On August 29 2014 03:33 Grumbels wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 29 2014 00:43 sibs wrote: When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. This is some insane SC2 history revisionism, Terran was insanely strong, there was Terran everywhere, Zerg was carried by Nestea/FD, Protoss was carried solely by the boss toss MC. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/You can also check individual periods. Which is why I kept saying making arbitrary cut offs in population size is ludicrous. GSL winners in 2010 was Zerg Zerg Protoss. GSL finalists in early 2011 were majority Protoss/Zerg. Making arbitrary population cut offs will always make the game look imbalanced depending on which population you wish to focus on. Show nested quote +For example, most American prisoners are non-white, does that mean that whites are less prone to crime? Assuming a fair justice system: Yes. (in actuality the system is biased/racist i.e. "imbalanced") Show nested quote +Most women are paid less than men in America, does that mean all Americans are misogynist? Assuming men are better than women: Not necessarily. (yet here again the system is actually sexist/imbalanced) Really, the numbers can tell you that there is something wrong. They do in your examples, each forces you to have to accept something you might not want to, that either there is something wrong with the system or with the people in the system. Either terran players are worse or terran is weak. Pick your poison.
Right. The numbers can indicate there is a problem though they can't tell you what is causing the problem.
Maybe the reason Terran players were doing worse across the board was that they all agreed to throw games on purpose until Blizzard buffed Terran - you'd never know it from just looking at numbers. Obviously a ridiculous example but just making a point here.
|
On August 29 2014 03:56 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2014 03:33 Grumbels wrote:On August 29 2014 00:49 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 29 2014 00:43 sibs wrote: When zerg and protoss was the main race winning GSL in 2010 => 2011 was that a sign of underpowered terrans? Was it a sign that terran sucked when only MKP, MVP, and MMA would consistently do well amongst terran players only to have MC/Nestea/Fruitdealer get all the trophies? No, because making arbitrary population cross cuts proves nothing. This is some insane SC2 history revisionism, Terran was insanely strong, there was Terran everywhere, Zerg was carried by Nestea/FD, Protoss was carried solely by the boss toss MC. http://aligulac.com/misc/balance/You can also check individual periods. Which is why I kept saying making arbitrary cut offs in population size is ludicrous. GSL winners in 2010 was Zerg Zerg Protoss. GSL finalists in early 2011 were majority Protoss/Zerg. Making arbitrary population cut offs will always make the game look imbalanced depending on which population you wish to focus on. For example, most American prisoners are non-white, does that mean that whites are less prone to crime? Assuming a fair justice system: Yes. (in actuality the system is biased/racist i.e. "imbalanced") Most women are paid less than men in America, does that mean all Americans are misogynist? Assuming men are better than women: Not necessarily. (yet here again the system is actually sexist/imbalanced) Really, the numbers can tell you that there is something wrong. They do in your examples, each forces you to have to accept something you might not want to, that either there is something wrong with the system or with the people in the system. Either terran players are worse or terran is weak. Pick your poison. Right. The numbers can indicate there is a problem though they can't tell you what is causing the problem. Maybe the reason Terran players were doing worse across the board was that they all agreed to throw games on purpose until Blizzard buffed Terran - you'd never know it from just looking at numbers. Obviously a ridiculous example but just making a point here.
If population distribution does not conclude something, then talk about things that can conclude things. Test timings, case studies, build usage, etc... Talk about things that directu relate to the problems you perceive exists.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
