|
antiRW's method looks good. Might be the best way to get winrates. The only question is how define top players and how many you want. The more players the more winrates will be closer to 50% because of more % of games will be just better player winning thanks to big difference in skill.
|
On October 14 2014 03:14 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 03:11 antiRW wrote:On October 14 2014 02:49 Ghanburighan wrote:
This is a nice new data point. Although it's clear why the top 50 gives a weird result when you compare it to top100. It has people like Targa, Jaedong, Leenock, etc over people like Hydra, Dark, Curious.
I do dislike that both lists bring in Mvp, Kas and some guy called EnDerr. Perhaps it's possible to refine the search a bit more. Easy to refine in principle. For starters I just took the aligulac top X. Could be something like current GSL players or some mixed group instead. Agreed, players like Kas and EnDerr are why I personally prefer the top 50 over the top 100. It cannot be reduced much below 50 if we want to have a decent number of games (and thus valid statistics). Only GSL players sounds quite viable on paper. Does that yield anything different from Top50 or GSL games only?
Players from last GSL Code S: 'Stats', 'Flash', 'Hurricane', 'Reality', 'Stork', 'Maru', 'Rain', 'Avenge', 'EffOrt', 'PartinG', 'DongRaeGu', 'ParalyzE', 'Soulkey', 'Zest', 'TY', 'TRUE', 'soO', 'Dark', 'Rogue', 'Solar', 'Shine', 'Trap', 'INnoVation', 'Bbyong', 'MyuNgSiK', 'Classic', 'Hush', 'sOs', 'Cure', 'Terminator', 'Dear', 'Trust'
69 meetings between these players (not just GSL, but all aligulac games since Sep 01, 2014)
Total games: 204
PvT - 43.48% - 46
PvZ - 52.54% - 59
TvZ - 54.55% - 44
31 PvP, 12 TvT, 12 ZvZ
=> Similar directions in all three match-ups as with the Top 50/100 (obviously there is some player overlap as well).
|
On October 14 2014 03:44 antiRW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 03:14 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 14 2014 03:11 antiRW wrote:On October 14 2014 02:49 Ghanburighan wrote:
This is a nice new data point. Although it's clear why the top 50 gives a weird result when you compare it to top100. It has people like Targa, Jaedong, Leenock, etc over people like Hydra, Dark, Curious.
I do dislike that both lists bring in Mvp, Kas and some guy called EnDerr. Perhaps it's possible to refine the search a bit more. Easy to refine in principle. For starters I just took the aligulac top X. Could be something like current GSL players or some mixed group instead. Agreed, players like Kas and EnDerr are why I personally prefer the top 50 over the top 100. It cannot be reduced much below 50 if we want to have a decent number of games (and thus valid statistics). Only GSL players sounds quite viable on paper. Does that yield anything different from Top50 or GSL games only? Players from last GSL Code S: 'Stats', 'Flash', 'Hurricane', 'Reality', 'Stork', 'Maru', 'Rain', 'Avenge', 'EffOrt', 'PartinG', 'DongRaeGu', 'ParalyzE', 'Soulkey', 'Zest', 'TY', 'TRUE', 'soO', 'Dark', 'Rogue', 'Solar', 'Shine', 'Trap', 'INnoVation', 'Bbyong', 'MyuNgSiK', 'Classic', 'Hush', 'sOs', 'Cure', 'Terminator', 'Dear', 'Trust' 69 meetings between these players (not just GSL, but all aligulac games since Sep 01, 2014) Total games: 204 PvT - 43.48% - 46 PvZ - 52.54% - 59 TvZ - 54.55% - 44 31 PvP, 12 TvT, 12 ZvZ => Similar directions in all three match-ups as with the Top 50/100 (obviously there is some player overlap as well).
If you look only at Bo5 series and up, Terran becomes hugely favored both in GSL and outside vs Z.
|
If you look up only the series Terran won, Terran has a ridiculous map winrate.
|
The above were map scores, as obvious from # meetings < # total games. If we compare actual series results, i.e., only count BOX wins, we get:
Top 50 players: 'Solar', 'herO', 'YoDa', 'Sacsri', 'INnoVation', 'TaeJa', 'Zest', 'jjakji', 'Rain', 'Life', 'Flash', 'MMA', 'HyuN', 'Polt', 'Bomber', 'soO', 'San', 'sOs', 'Cure', 'Scarlett', 'First', 'Bunny', 'ForGG', 'Dear', 'Maru', 'KingKong', 'Soulkey', 'TY', 'Leenock', 'PartinG', 'Stats', 'Bbyong', 'Classic', 'StarDust', 'Heart', 'Jaedong', 'Patience', 'VortiX', 'Sora', 'Snute', 'viOLet', 'Hurricane', 'TargA', 'GuMiho', 'Happy', 'DongRaeGu', 'Ourk', 'Super', 'Pet', 'Mvp'
171 games between these players since 2014-09-01
Total games: 171
PvT - 44.19% - 43
PvZ - 58.33% - 36
TvZ - 63.64% - 33
10 PvP, 21 TvT, 27 ZvZ
Top 100 players: 'Solar', 'herO', 'YoDa', 'Sacsri', 'INnoVation', 'TaeJa', 'Zest', 'jjakji', 'Rain', 'Life', 'Flash', 'MMA', 'HyuN', 'Polt', 'Bomber', 'soO', 'San', 'sOs', 'Cure', 'Scarlett', 'First', 'Bunny', 'ForGG', 'Dear', 'Maru', 'KingKong', 'Soulkey', 'TY', 'Leenock', 'PartinG', 'Stats', 'Bbyong', 'Classic', 'StarDust', 'Heart', 'Jaedong', 'Patience', 'VortiX', 'Sora', 'Snute', 'viOLet', 'Hurricane', 'TargA', 'GuMiho', 'Happy', 'DongRaeGu', 'Ourk', 'Super', 'Pet', 'Mvp', 'ByuL', 'MajOr', 'Trap', 'Jim', 'Rogue', 'Lilbow', 'Dark', 'Hydra', 'MC', 'RagnaroK', 'TRUE', 'Impact', 'Center', 'Nerchio', 'Reality', 'KangHo', 'Golden', 'Petraeus', 'ShoWTimE', 'HeRoMaRinE', 'Pigbaby', 'Journey', 'Sen', 'EffOrt', 'MaNa', 'SuperNova', 'MaSa', 'Symbol', 'Avenge', 'Dayshi', 'Kas', 'Trust', 'Ryung', 'Hack', 'Check', 'HerO', 'EnDerr', 'Curious', 'Stork', 'FanTaSy', 'Starbuck', 'uThermal', 'Revival', 'Squirtle', 'ParalyzE', 'TLO', 'Spear', 'MorroW', 'HuK', 'Sorry'
466 games between these players since 2014-09-01
Total games: 466
PvT - 42.53% - 87
PvZ - 56.70% - 97
TvZ - 55.38% - 130
28 PvP, 48 TvT, 75 ZvZ
Players from last GSL Code S: 'Stats', 'Flash', 'Hurricane', 'Reality', 'Stork', 'Maru', 'Rain', 'Avenge', 'EffOrt', 'PartinG', 'DongRaeGu', 'ParalyzE', 'Soulkey', 'Zest', 'TY', 'TRUE', 'soO', 'Dark', 'Rogue', 'Solar', 'Shine', 'Trap', 'INnoVation', 'Bbyong', 'MyuNgSiK', 'Classic', 'Hush', 'sOs', 'Cure', 'Terminator', 'Dear', 'Trust'
69 games between these players since 2014-09-01
Total games: 69
PvT - 38.89% - 18
PvZ - 50.00% - 18
TvZ - 50.00% - 14
|
Guys, nothing to see here. Terran is at its rightful place. Let them feel they are the chosen ones as they are supposedly the most skilled players.
Last time it was Protoss' turn, now it's Terran. Some time in the future it is gonna be Zerg.
:ugly:
|
|
|
On October 13 2014 23:40 antiRW wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2014 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2014 23:16 Big J wrote:On October 13 2014 22:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2014 22:29 HEADD wrote:
I see TVZ strongly unbalanced right now.With recent Thor buff and widow mine buff without reverting hellbats buff.
I think this will balance the game:
1-revert helbatt buff-This prevent zerg from having good early economy+forcing him to banelings
2-revert thor buff-this is just stupid buff.Complete anti muta buff.Not necessary at all and pretty much forcing zerg not use mutas at all.
3-widow mine slightly nerf-Not in same state 3 moths ago, but slightly nerf, because i seen so many times 1 widow mine kills 20banelings in 1 hit.This is just not right.1 little mistake by zerg and ist game ending.
I think 70-80% of current splash damage would be OK.
Terrans will have still decent widow mines, but not that good that they can wipe 20 banelings with 1 hit and zergs still need micro.
Then why does Zerg win more often than Terran does according to aligulac? Sorry, but most of the stats of aligulac are not interesting for the highest level of balance. Even if it is only 50% it is a big problem if we judge balance by this. Here are the stats of all the tournaments minus WCS America that took place in the last two days: Seacraft Weekly #24: TvZ 7–1 (87.50%) Notable TvZs: ??? WECG Qualifier Korea Playoffs: TvZ 3–2 (60.00%) Notable TvZs: Dark vs Ty Gfinity 1v1 Cup #31 TvZ 0–0 (0%) Notable TvZs: --- go4sc2 Cup Europe #413 TvZ 8–9 (47.06%) Notable TvZs: YoDa 1-2 TargA Dragon 0–2 Tefel PxL-Lan #41 TvZ 1–4 (20.00%) Notable TvZs: ??? --> 25/35 (71%) games are not even worth mentioning when discussing balance on a high level in that periode of time. It's complete bonkers to watch aligulac stats and then make so exact statements as "Zerg is winning more than Terran because 48%". Yes, in the aligulac coverage it is. If we don't arbitrarily cut by tournament participation and take a different "arbitrary" cut, namely WCS Premier Leagues, this is what we get: WCS AM: 27-15 (64%) WCS EU: 25 - 21 (54%) GSL Code S: 19-13 (59%) And I do not like the practice of "these numbers that don't agree with my conclusions are wrong" bible thumper mentality. You take all of the data, all of the different degrees of the data, and have each aspect of the data inform different parts of the conclusion. Individual player performance shows what is possible. Totality of player performances shows what is happening. You have to integrate what is possible with what is happening to be able to make conclusions about anything. ... which was exactly his point. Namely that statements such as "nothing is broken because aligulac's 48%" are not useful, because aligulac along is not reflective of the full picture.
Please explain why zergs are still attacking from 1 direction with no flanks with muta/ling/bling; the fastest moving army comp in the game. That was how Scarlett beat Bomber with mass banes before mine-nerf was reverted (vs Z). That was how soO fought against Innovation, and lost after the patch.
Spoiled zergs are gonna have to take a few spanking before they learn to use their mobility to flank their opponents.
|
Good work antiRW, now to boost the number of games. Can you do the same with GSL, WCS (code S equivalent in Europe and NA) and Proelague players?
|
On October 14 2014 04:11 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2014 23:40 antiRW wrote:On October 13 2014 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2014 23:16 Big J wrote:On October 13 2014 22:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2014 22:29 HEADD wrote:
I see TVZ strongly unbalanced right now.With recent Thor buff and widow mine buff without reverting hellbats buff.
I think this will balance the game:
1-revert helbatt buff-This prevent zerg from having good early economy+forcing him to banelings
2-revert thor buff-this is just stupid buff.Complete anti muta buff.Not necessary at all and pretty much forcing zerg not use mutas at all.
3-widow mine slightly nerf-Not in same state 3 moths ago, but slightly nerf, because i seen so many times 1 widow mine kills 20banelings in 1 hit.This is just not right.1 little mistake by zerg and ist game ending.
I think 70-80% of current splash damage would be OK.
Terrans will have still decent widow mines, but not that good that they can wipe 20 banelings with 1 hit and zergs still need micro.
Then why does Zerg win more often than Terran does according to aligulac? Sorry, but most of the stats of aligulac are not interesting for the highest level of balance. Even if it is only 50% it is a big problem if we judge balance by this. Here are the stats of all the tournaments minus WCS America that took place in the last two days: Seacraft Weekly #24: TvZ 7–1 (87.50%) Notable TvZs: ??? WECG Qualifier Korea Playoffs: TvZ 3–2 (60.00%) Notable TvZs: Dark vs Ty Gfinity 1v1 Cup #31 TvZ 0–0 (0%) Notable TvZs: --- go4sc2 Cup Europe #413 TvZ 8–9 (47.06%) Notable TvZs: YoDa 1-2 TargA Dragon 0–2 Tefel PxL-Lan #41 TvZ 1–4 (20.00%) Notable TvZs: ??? --> 25/35 (71%) games are not even worth mentioning when discussing balance on a high level in that periode of time. It's complete bonkers to watch aligulac stats and then make so exact statements as "Zerg is winning more than Terran because 48%". Yes, in the aligulac coverage it is. If we don't arbitrarily cut by tournament participation and take a different "arbitrary" cut, namely WCS Premier Leagues, this is what we get: WCS AM: 27-15 (64%) WCS EU: 25 - 21 (54%) GSL Code S: 19-13 (59%) And I do not like the practice of "these numbers that don't agree with my conclusions are wrong" bible thumper mentality. You take all of the data, all of the different degrees of the data, and have each aspect of the data inform different parts of the conclusion. Individual player performance shows what is possible. Totality of player performances shows what is happening. You have to integrate what is possible with what is happening to be able to make conclusions about anything. ... which was exactly his point. Namely that statements such as "nothing is broken because aligulac's 48%" are not useful, because aligulac along is not reflective of the full picture. Please explain why zergs are still attacking from 1 direction with no flanks with muta/ling/bling; the fastest moving army comp in the game. That was how Scarlett beat Bomber with mass banes before mine-nerf was reverted (vs Z). That was how soO fought against Innovation, and lost after the patch. Spoiled zergs are gonna have to take a few spanking before they learn to use their mobility to flank their opponents.
It´s because we have so many different upgrades that we don´t have time to concentrate on engagements as upgrade management takes all of our limited attention.
|
On October 14 2014 04:11 plogamer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 13 2014 23:40 antiRW wrote:On October 13 2014 23:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2014 23:16 Big J wrote:On October 13 2014 22:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 13 2014 22:29 HEADD wrote:
I see TVZ strongly unbalanced right now.With recent Thor buff and widow mine buff without reverting hellbats buff.
I think this will balance the game:
1-revert helbatt buff-This prevent zerg from having good early economy+forcing him to banelings
2-revert thor buff-this is just stupid buff.Complete anti muta buff.Not necessary at all and pretty much forcing zerg not use mutas at all.
3-widow mine slightly nerf-Not in same state 3 moths ago, but slightly nerf, because i seen so many times 1 widow mine kills 20banelings in 1 hit.This is just not right.1 little mistake by zerg and ist game ending.
I think 70-80% of current splash damage would be OK.
Terrans will have still decent widow mines, but not that good that they can wipe 20 banelings with 1 hit and zergs still need micro.
Then why does Zerg win more often than Terran does according to aligulac? Sorry, but most of the stats of aligulac are not interesting for the highest level of balance. Even if it is only 50% it is a big problem if we judge balance by this. Here are the stats of all the tournaments minus WCS America that took place in the last two days: Seacraft Weekly #24: TvZ 7–1 (87.50%) Notable TvZs: ??? WECG Qualifier Korea Playoffs: TvZ 3–2 (60.00%) Notable TvZs: Dark vs Ty Gfinity 1v1 Cup #31 TvZ 0–0 (0%) Notable TvZs: --- go4sc2 Cup Europe #413 TvZ 8–9 (47.06%) Notable TvZs: YoDa 1-2 TargA Dragon 0–2 Tefel PxL-Lan #41 TvZ 1–4 (20.00%) Notable TvZs: ??? --> 25/35 (71%) games are not even worth mentioning when discussing balance on a high level in that periode of time. It's complete bonkers to watch aligulac stats and then make so exact statements as "Zerg is winning more than Terran because 48%". Yes, in the aligulac coverage it is. If we don't arbitrarily cut by tournament participation and take a different "arbitrary" cut, namely WCS Premier Leagues, this is what we get: WCS AM: 27-15 (64%) WCS EU: 25 - 21 (54%) GSL Code S: 19-13 (59%) And I do not like the practice of "these numbers that don't agree with my conclusions are wrong" bible thumper mentality. You take all of the data, all of the different degrees of the data, and have each aspect of the data inform different parts of the conclusion. Individual player performance shows what is possible. Totality of player performances shows what is happening. You have to integrate what is possible with what is happening to be able to make conclusions about anything. ... which was exactly his point. Namely that statements such as "nothing is broken because aligulac's 48%" are not useful, because aligulac along is not reflective of the full picture. Please explain why zergs are still attacking from 1 direction with no flanks with muta/ling/bling; the fastest moving army comp in the game. That was how Scarlett beat Bomber with mass banes before mine-nerf was reverted (vs Z). That was how soO fought against Innovation, and lost after the patch. Spoiled zergs are gonna have to take a few spanking before they learn to use their mobility to flank their opponents.
Personally, I'm just too stupid. I can barely remember to breath while typing!
|
@antiRW
That is fascinating work and greatly supports a lot of previous theories of Terran being the hardest race as it seems that the higher the percieve skill levels of the players, the higher the overall winrates is for Terran. Conversely, the lower the overall skill rate of the population, the better it is for non-terrans. I've never seen such definitive proof that it's a player skill problem and not a race problem. Thank you!
|
On October 14 2014 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@antiRW
That is fascinating work and greatly supports a lot of previous theories of Terran being the hardest race as it seems that the higher the percieve skill levels of the players, the higher the overall winrates is for Terran. Conversely, the lower the overall skill rate of the population, the better it is for non-terrans. I've never seen such definitive proof that it's a player skill problem and not a race problem. Thank you! Any system with 3 races with an imbalance would look like this with this method. This is not a proof of anything.
Not that I disagree with your claim though.
|
On October 14 2014 05:25 Tuczniak wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@antiRW
That is fascinating work and greatly supports a lot of previous theories of Terran being the hardest race as it seems that the higher the percieve skill levels of the players, the higher the overall winrates is for Terran. Conversely, the lower the overall skill rate of the population, the better it is for non-terrans. I've never seen such definitive proof that it's a player skill problem and not a race problem. Thank you! Any system with 3 races with an imbalance would look like this with this method. This is not a proof of anything. Not that I disagree with your claim though.
I guess I'm too stupid to see what you mean.
How can a race be too powerful if only the best players can use it?
|
On October 14 2014 05:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 05:25 Tuczniak wrote:On October 14 2014 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@antiRW
That is fascinating work and greatly supports a lot of previous theories of Terran being the hardest race as it seems that the higher the percieve skill levels of the players, the higher the overall winrates is for Terran. Conversely, the lower the overall skill rate of the population, the better it is for non-terrans. I've never seen such definitive proof that it's a player skill problem and not a race problem. Thank you! Any system with 3 races with an imbalance would look like this with this method. This is not a proof of anything. Not that I disagree with your claim though. I guess I'm too stupid to see what you mean. How can a race be too powerful if only the best players can use it?
I think the argument is that there will be more top players for that race.
|
On October 14 2014 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 05:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2014 05:25 Tuczniak wrote:On October 14 2014 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@antiRW
That is fascinating work and greatly supports a lot of previous theories of Terran being the hardest race as it seems that the higher the percieve skill levels of the players, the higher the overall winrates is for Terran. Conversely, the lower the overall skill rate of the population, the better it is for non-terrans. I've never seen such definitive proof that it's a player skill problem and not a race problem. Thank you! Any system with 3 races with an imbalance would look like this with this method. This is not a proof of anything. Not that I disagree with your claim though. I guess I'm too stupid to see what you mean. How can a race be too powerful if only the best players can use it? I think the argument is that there will be more top players for that race. I meant that Top100 will always have winrates closer to 50% than Top50. And that's because in Top100 there is a lot more games with big skill difference between players for example TLO vs Innovation. No matter the balance state, this game will most likely end up with Innovation winning. Those games are more common in top100 and naturally will push winrates towards 50%.
PS: sorry TLO
|
On October 14 2014 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@antiRW
That is fascinating work and greatly supports a lot of previous theories of Terran being the hardest race as it seems that the higher the percieve skill levels of the players, the higher the overall winrates is for Terran. Conversely, the lower the overall skill rate of the population, the better it is for non-terrans. I've never seen such definitive proof that it's a player skill problem and not a race problem. Thank you!
Well...
It might be true, that the Terrans are stronger at the highest level of play. But THAT's the level of play where it should be about even. And no, it's not at all a proof that it's a player skill problem, because the Zerg up there should be about even in skill - yet they still struggle quite hard.
|
352 Posts
On October 14 2014 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 05:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2014 05:25 Tuczniak wrote:On October 14 2014 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@antiRW
That is fascinating work and greatly supports a lot of previous theories of Terran being the hardest race as it seems that the higher the percieve skill levels of the players, the higher the overall winrates is for Terran. Conversely, the lower the overall skill rate of the population, the better it is for non-terrans. I've never seen such definitive proof that it's a player skill problem and not a race problem. Thank you! Any system with 3 races with an imbalance would look like this with this method. This is not a proof of anything. Not that I disagree with your claim though. I guess I'm too stupid to see what you mean. How can a race be too powerful if only the best players can use it? I think the argument is that there will be more top players for that race.
Or rather that when there are imbalances, there should be more imbalance between the best players since they are less subject to randomness due to skills.
|
352 Posts
On October 14 2014 05:51 10bulgares wrote:Show nested quote +On October 14 2014 05:44 Ghanburighan wrote:On October 14 2014 05:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 14 2014 05:25 Tuczniak wrote:On October 14 2014 05:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:
@antiRW
That is fascinating work and greatly supports a lot of previous theories of Terran being the hardest race as it seems that the higher the percieve skill levels of the players, the higher the overall winrates is for Terran. Conversely, the lower the overall skill rate of the population, the better it is for non-terrans. I've never seen such definitive proof that it's a player skill problem and not a race problem. Thank you! Any system with 3 races with an imbalance would look like this with this method. This is not a proof of anything. Not that I disagree with your claim though. I guess I'm too stupid to see what you mean. How can a race be too powerful if only the best players can use it? I think the argument is that there will be more top players for that race. Or rather that when there are imbalances, there should be more imbalance between the best players since they are less subject to randomness due to skills.
I mean imbalances without randomness gives 100% win for the imba race.
|
Huh, it looks like there's a lot of different ways to interpret the data set provided so it equally supports opposite conclusions. That sucks 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
