|
On October 15 2014 01:25 RaFox17 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 00:58 TheDwf wrote:On October 15 2014 00:47 sibs wrote:
The statistic of top50 players cannot be waved away like that Yeah, this top50 with KingKong and Ourk looks pretty legit What is something you would approve then? It´s not perfect but i would say it´s a lot better than just plain aligulac stats.
Gotta make a manual list
|
On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill.
Well, imagine this scenario for example.
One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy.
If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious?
When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it.
That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game.
|
Next week there will be the Korean qualifiers for IEM San Jose, you'll be able to feast upon dozens of high level TvX there!
|
On October 15 2014 01:25 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 01:03 sibs wrote:
It's not like statistics including only wcs am/kr/eu weren't showing the same thrend or just code S isn't the same thrend.
I know you've read it, why even make that comment? Because it's hilarious how you cling to a flawed tool—the Aligulac ratings have never been accurate for many players—to support your claim. If you want to analyze TvZ at the highest level, perfect! But at least use a proper tool for that, not some random list where half of the Zergs in the "top50" have nothing to do there in the first place. Or is this KingKong vs RunaMoK series what you're looking for when talking about "top50 TvZ" ?
wcs am/kr/eu are there to support the claim.
Also, for the games to count the games need to be between these 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'
KingKong has not played any of them. Ourk has played a PvP versus First.
Clearly this invalidates the statistic.
This is honestly the best statistic I've seen to gauge balance at high-level I actually suggested this feature on the aligulac thread many months ago.
|
On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me.
What's considered a mistake depends on someone's judgement, it's difficult to be objective about it. We've had multiple instances in the past of someone's supposed faultless play being figured out and exposed. This is one of the problems you run into when you want to use balance as more than a statistical concept. Not to mention that mechanically flawless play is impossible -- although the barrier constantly increases as players improve.
I think another dangerous assumption is to overestimate how easy it is to improve. The scope of improvement isn't very high for experienced players and to tell them that any balance ought to be irrelevant for them (unless they're top GM) as they can always improve isn't that fair imo.
I actually don't think Blizzard purely balances around top level players. They might make tiny adjustments specifically for the pro scene, but most of the changes in alpha / beta are meant to create a broadly balanced game for all players. As an example, Blizz made BL/infestor a lot weaker in HotS even though they could have used subtler means to make that strategy weaker on the pro level. I assume their reasoning was that they didn't want zergs to have a strategy that was too easy to execute (regardless of pro level).
I think if you want to be precise about balance then you have to say that:
Balance is a concept that depends at least on maps, match-ups, mechanics, meta. If you don't take all these factors into account then it's not specific enough. So there is not just one balance, there are many different versions of it depending on your parameters.
|
On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game.
In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be?
|
On October 15 2014 00:58 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 00:47 sibs wrote:
The statistic of top50 players cannot be waved away like that Yeah, this top50 with KingKong and Ourk looks pretty legit
Well, this is why we also looked at GSL Code S players only (~5 pages ago):
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
The fewer players one includes, the less games and the less reliable the statistics become, of course. 40-60 games per XvY is quite low.
Also there appear to be strongly differing opinions on whether only the top X, all aligulac, or all high level (=WCS or M/GM or ...) players are the best metric. Ultimately, one has to look at multiple data points at once (and agree at least roughly on what balance actually means).
Just for sake of better statistics, here is the data for all games on aligulac between Code S players since August 01:
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'
167 matches between these players since 2014-08-01
Total series: 167
PvT - 30.43% - 46
PvZ - 44.44% - 45
TvZ - 62.07% - 29
25 PvP, 8 TvT, 14 ZvZ
Total games: 449
PvT - 37.93% - 116
PvZ - 48.03% - 127
TvZ - 60.76% - 79
67 PvP, 26 TvT, 34 ZvZ
|
On October 15 2014 01:41 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 01:25 TheDwf wrote:On October 15 2014 01:03 sibs wrote:
It's not like statistics including only wcs am/kr/eu weren't showing the same thrend or just code S isn't the same thrend.
I know you've read it, why even make that comment? Because it's hilarious how you cling to a flawed tool—the Aligulac ratings have never been accurate for many players—to support your claim. If you want to analyze TvZ at the highest level, perfect! But at least use a proper tool for that, not some random list where half of the Zergs in the "top50" have nothing to do there in the first place. Or is this KingKong vs RunaMoK series what you're looking for when talking about "top50 TvZ" ? wcs am/kr/eu are there to support the claim. Also, for the games to count the games need to be between these 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' KingKong has not played any of them. Ourk has played a PvP versus First. Clearly this invalidates the statistic. This is honestly the best statistic I've seen to gauge balance at high-level
Yeah, a list that omits the likes of Dark, Rogue or Impact in favor of top non-Korean players is obviously the best for your agenda
|
On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game.
Scrub drivers absolutely would be able to tell that one is fasert. Maybe not if you only drove 100meters or so but top racers might also have trouble at that distance too, but after many laps 5% difference is huge. Your biggest scrub will theoretically make an equal number of mistakes driving both cars so user error balances out and we are left with one car being mathematically faster than the other.
|
On October 15 2014 02:29 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 01:41 sibs wrote:On October 15 2014 01:25 TheDwf wrote:On October 15 2014 01:03 sibs wrote:
It's not like statistics including only wcs am/kr/eu weren't showing the same thrend or just code S isn't the same thrend.
I know you've read it, why even make that comment? Because it's hilarious how you cling to a flawed tool—the Aligulac ratings have never been accurate for many players—to support your claim. If you want to analyze TvZ at the highest level, perfect! But at least use a proper tool for that, not some random list where half of the Zergs in the "top50" have nothing to do there in the first place. Or is this KingKong vs RunaMoK series what you're looking for when talking about "top50 TvZ" ? wcs am/kr/eu are there to support the claim. Also, for the games to count the games need to be between these 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' KingKong has not played any of them. Ourk has played a PvP versus First. Clearly this invalidates the statistic. This is honestly the best statistic I've seen to gauge balance at high-level Yeah, a list that omits the likes of Dark, Rogue or Impact in favor of top non-Korean players is obviously the best for your agenda
Under those filters from august 1st to now:
7 - 7 Impact 50%
15 - 7 Rogue 68% (very impressive, would like to see some of those games)
7 - 10 Dark 41%
Let me remind you that Bunny is also included for Terran, again the stats for wcs eu/am/kr paint the same picture, you're just grasping at straws at this point.
|
On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be?
Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg.
If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed.
The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level.
EDIT - I'm not saying all top Terrans have invincible micro. But I'm giving micro as an example of how top Terrans distinguish themselves from the others in a way that is relevant to a balance discussion. Micro allows you to be more cost efficient - if you can do this well enough you can beat any zerg.
Sure you might say the Zerg can micro as well. And micro does distinguish Zergs. But to the extent that the Zerg micro is easier/harder than Terrans to achieve the same results, you can argue there is imbalance.
|
On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level.
I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that.
|
On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that.
But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win.
The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at.
So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone.
|
On October 15 2014 03:37 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that. But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win. The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at. So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone.
But imagine if they balanced BW Terran off of flash with his 80%-90%, could you imagine how big a nerf Terran would have only balancing BW off of the top player in the game.
|
On October 15 2014 03:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 03:37 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that. But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win. The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at. So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone. But imagine if they balanced BW Terran off of flash with his 80%-90%, could you imagine how big a nerf Terran would have only balancing BW off of the top player in the game.
Well you have to look at how many players are hitting those kinds of results. Obviously if Flash is at 90% and everyone els is at 50% then Flash is a God and we just accept it and move on.
But if every top Korean Terran is 60% or higher in TvZ and top Korean Zergs are struggling to hit 50% (as is currently the case) then you know there's an issue.
You can balance it around the top... 50 or so players and be confident the game won't be broken beyond playability.
|
On October 15 2014 03:12 sibs wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 02:29 TheDwf wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 sibs wrote:On October 15 2014 01:25 TheDwf wrote:On October 15 2014 01:03 sibs wrote:
It's not like statistics including only wcs am/kr/eu weren't showing the same thrend or just code S isn't the same thrend.
I know you've read it, why even make that comment? Because it's hilarious how you cling to a flawed tool—the Aligulac ratings have never been accurate for many players—to support your claim. If you want to analyze TvZ at the highest level, perfect! But at least use a proper tool for that, not some random list where half of the Zergs in the "top50" have nothing to do there in the first place. Or is this KingKong vs RunaMoK series what you're looking for when talking about "top50 TvZ" ? wcs am/kr/eu are there to support the claim. Also, for the games to count the games need to be between these 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' KingKong has not played any of them. Ourk has played a PvP versus First. Clearly this invalidates the statistic. This is honestly the best statistic I've seen to gauge balance at high-level Yeah, a list that omits the likes of Dark, Rogue or Impact in favor of top non-Korean players is obviously the best for your agenda Under those filters from august 1st to now: 7 - 7 Impact 50% 15 - 7 Rogue 68% (very impressive, would like to see some of those games) 7 - 10 Dark 41% Let me remind you that Bunny is also included for Terran, again the stats for wcs eu/am/kr paint the same picture, you're just grasping at straws at this point.
Impact has actually a better TvZ record since August, but o magic of the top50 Aligulac filter, his wins against better opponents than the likes of Bunny, Happy or Mvp would not be recorded! But I'm sure it makes sense to arbitrarily state that Terrans like Journey or SuperNova don't belong to the top Terrans while 2 players who would never qualify to Code A do.
I linked a Rogue game earlier in the thread, not one of the Zergs who complained answered except one guy who seemed to labour under the delusion that GuMiho was a noname (lol). Well, he wasn't top50 on Aligulac at this time, so it's probably understandable.
I don't even care what the results of such a list of the respective top players from each race would be, by all means do it if it pleases you but at least do it properly. Until then your "but it matches the WCS trend!" (which joyfully mixes standard macro games with 80 drones vs 2b all-ins, defended all-ins and build order losses) has little meaning.
|
On October 15 2014 04:00 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 03:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On October 15 2014 03:37 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that. But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win. The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at. So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone. But imagine if they balanced BW Terran off of flash with his 80%-90%, could you imagine how big a nerf Terran would have only balancing BW off of the top player in the game. Well you have to look at how many players are hitting those kinds of results. Obviously if Flash is at 90% and everyone els is at 50% then Flash is a God and we just accept it and move on. But if every top Korean Terran is 60% or higher in TvZ and top Korean Zergs are struggling to hit 50% (as is currently the case) then you know there's an issue. You can balance it around the top... 50 or so players and be confident the game won't be broken beyond playability.
No, I agree with you. Was just showing that both extremes are bad. We can't say that the best player in the world should be nerfed until he's no longer the best player, nor should we say that we should buff bad players until they beat good players. The actual thing to do is hold back on ALL patches unless it becomes physically impossible to solve the problems with the tools at hand.
|
On October 15 2014 04:02 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 03:12 sibs wrote:On October 15 2014 02:29 TheDwf wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 sibs wrote:On October 15 2014 01:25 TheDwf wrote:On October 15 2014 01:03 sibs wrote:
It's not like statistics including only wcs am/kr/eu weren't showing the same thrend or just code S isn't the same thrend.
I know you've read it, why even make that comment? Because it's hilarious how you cling to a flawed tool—the Aligulac ratings have never been accurate for many players—to support your claim. If you want to analyze TvZ at the highest level, perfect! But at least use a proper tool for that, not some random list where half of the Zergs in the "top50" have nothing to do there in the first place. Or is this KingKong vs RunaMoK series what you're looking for when talking about "top50 TvZ" ? wcs am/kr/eu are there to support the claim. Also, for the games to count the games need to be between these 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' KingKong has not played any of them. Ourk has played a PvP versus First. Clearly this invalidates the statistic. This is honestly the best statistic I've seen to gauge balance at high-level Yeah, a list that omits the likes of Dark, Rogue or Impact in favor of top non-Korean players is obviously the best for your agenda Under those filters from august 1st to now: 7 - 7 Impact 50% 15 - 7 Rogue 68% (very impressive, would like to see some of those games) 7 - 10 Dark 41% Let me remind you that Bunny is also included for Terran, again the stats for wcs eu/am/kr paint the same picture, you're just grasping at straws at this point. Impact has actually a better TvZ record since August, but o magic of the top50 Aligulac filter, his wins against better opponents than the likes of Bunny, Happy or Mvp would not be recorded! But I'm sure it makes sense to arbitrarily state that Terrans like Journey or SuperNova don't belong to the top Terrans while 2 players who would never qualify to Code A do. I linked a Rogue game earlier in the thread, not one of the Zergs who complained answered except one guy who seemed to labour under the delusion that GuMiho was a noname (lol). Well, he wasn't top50 on Aligulac at this time, so it's probably understandable. I don't even care what the results of such a list of the respective top players from each race would be, by all means do it if it pleases you but at least do it properly. Until then your "but it matches the WCS trend!" (which joyfully mixes standard macro games with 80 drones vs 2b all-ins, defended all-ins and build order losses) has little meaning.
Sure Impact has a better record, but then look against who he is playing, PsiARC/mkp/tangtang/uthermal? Really? The "magic" of top 50 aligulac filter goes both ways, if we take that filter out we get a much stronger result for Terran if only taking the games by top50 players against whomever, but then we're counting a bunch of mismatches, which sort of hints that lesser Terrans have a much better chance against better zergs than the other way around (I'm sure you can interpret this statistic some other way, such as there's too many Zergs overrated on aligulac).
Players will play the strategy they feel is the most likely succeed, someone has already analyzed only macro games here with biomine vs lingbling, the results were pretty much what is expected, of course no one is going to analyze as many games as aligulac has on their database and I'd rather not get into rationalizations (which is what you like to do) or adding bias to the stats.
Whats your explanation for Terran winning 65% of premier tournaments since the patch, with many TvT finals?
|
On October 15 2014 03:37 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2014 03:27 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 03:19 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:41 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 01:29 DinoMight wrote:On October 15 2014 01:06 Big J wrote:On October 15 2014 00:57 DinoMight wrote:
Top players make fewer mistakes than lower tier players. Mistakes introduce randomness. Randomness skews things closer to 50%.
Therefore it's not at all surprising that the win percentages for TvZ favor better players.
The game should be balanced around top players. Lower tier players can always improve their win rate by reducing the number of mistakes they make. Top tier players make fewer mistakes and are more subject to game balance.
If (theoretically speaking) both players make zero mistakes and Terran wins every time, then Terran is imbalanced. If both players make tons of mistakes and Terran wins then you can't really make any conclusions about the game.
That's just common sense to me. Meh... randomness and randomness with 50% expectancy are two pairs of shoe. Without further information, it makes sense to assume equal suffering from mistakes for both sides in an average game. Hence the winrate should stil reflect the balance for as long as we assume equal skill. Well, imagine this scenario for example. One race car is 5% faster than the other when driven to its full potential on a track by the same guy. If you and I and a bunch of scrubs who've never raced before started driving - would you expect a 5% difference in speed? Or are we going to make so many mistakes that we won't be using the cars anywhere near their full potential. In which case the difference in speed won't be obvious? When the Stig drives a car, he can tell you with certainty that it's faster or slower than another. If I drive a car, it's based on my luck on that particular lap and how well I drove it. That's the argument for balance at the top level of the game. In your example you talk about a mechanism that only starts working when you are at the top. If we translate that back in starcraft terms this would mean that basically you assume that there is a mechanic that top Terrans can use but others cant which gets only unlocked at the top. What would that be? Well, micro, for example. If you're automaton 1000, and you can 100% split every marine so it takes 2 banelings to kill it, you'll beat every Zerg. If you see the way Heart pre-splits his units and micros his fights vs. the way that scrub Terrans do, it's night and day. I think it's possible to say that once a Terran gets to a certain splitting/micro ability, Zerg can not cost efficiently engage him with the way units are currently designed. The same way that a car that's 5% faster can't be beaten once the driver reaches a certain skill level. I can't get costeffocient at my level either. If I find myself 3base vs 3base or 4base vs 4base I lose 90% of the time. Low Masters micro vs low Masters micro seems to be sufficient for that. But there are things you could do to improve your play. Macro harder and you'd win. The reason you look at the top level is that there are FAR fewer other things they can do besides micro harder. Less variables to look at. So you can say with more certainty "it's too hard for Zerg to engage cost effectively." If they based the balance on my Zerg for example, then soO would just make twice as much stuff and annihilate everyone.
I think a lot of top level Koreans make massive macro and strategical mistakes. Too few workers, too many workers, not rebuilding workers. When talking Terrans in particular, many don't seem to have a clear plan when to take a 4th. And there are just massi e differences between Bomber constant macro and many others.
Edit: not to make it a dick-contest. Same goes for zerg players. Lots of strategical and macro mistakes. The point is that there is a lot to improve for everyone, besides and including micro.
|
Looking at what happens at top level is fine, but wouldn't it be a better way of spotting imbalances to actually check victories of lower level players against top players.
BL/infestors had it, with a culminating point of Sniper becoming a GSL champion.
Protoss had it, when guys coming from nowhere killed the best terrans in the world.
For the moment, all the terran titles went to the like of INnovation, MMA, Flash, Bomber, Taeja, who have been respected top terrans for many years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
7371
819
65
EPT
