|
On September 18 2013 10:38 archwaykitten wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 09:15 ChristianS wrote:
I mean, so tanks are in sufficiently low use that Blizzard could probably safely buff them without breaking everything (although it still might break TvT). That said, I'm not sure it's accurate to say that a Zerg approaching a marine/tank army was more interesting. The high range of the siege tank makes positioning and micro a great deal less important. For instance, if you want to protect your banelings from widow mines, you move them away from the mines and let them detonate on zerglings instead. But against tanks, you can't really do anything about it – there's no way to keep your banelings out of the 13 range, so the most you could do is split them. But unlike marine splits against banelings, you can't tell where the tank shots are going to hit, so you have to just keep all the banelings split up, rather than splitting away from strategic places. I would say the Zerg micro against MMMM is strictly more interesting and complex than that against marine/tank.
Here's the thing: I love siege tanks, and I'd really like them to get big buffs so they were a core army unit again. But I'm trying to come up with a reason why they'd be a better primary army unit to play with and watch than widow mines, and all I can come up with is because I like them. And I think that's just the nostalgia talking. Tanks were fun because they were a big, expensive target that the Zerg could easily pick off if they ever lured the marine escort out of position. Abuse the Terran's lack of mobility to force the marines out of position, sweep in with mutalisks and take out a tank or two, then escape with zero losses. It felt elegant, and it provided the duel satisfaction of outsmarting the Terran player and dealing a significant blow that hurt. And if you manage to pick off enough tanks, you could be reasonably assured that your banelings would make short work of the remaining marine based army. The action was easy to follow for the viewer too, because the tank is a highly visible unit, and its obvious when its marine escort was out of position. Until Zerg thinks of a better way to pick off mines, they're left trying to fight back with the same tactics that they used against tanks: lure the marine escort away and try to pick off some of the mines. Except everything is harder and less satisfying now. The targets are invisible without detection, and they can fight back. Even if you manage to pick some off, they're so cheap that it often feels like less of an accomplishment. And even if you do manage to pick off a great number of mines, there's less of an assurance that the rest of your army will fare well because the mine is so volatile: those few remaining mines still have the chance to hit big. The action is also hard to follow for the viewer. The mine is a small unit that is harder to keep track of. Also, since mines lack the vulnerabilities of tanks, it's less clear whether the Terran is getting caught out of position. Did Terran fail to escort his mines, or did he leave those mines behind on purpose, as a trap?
But with mines it's not so much about sniping them off as it is about pre-detonating them. So instead of getting the marines out of position and killing the mines, you get the marines out of position and then detonate the mines on individual lings. Then you've got 40 seconds to make a favorable engagement happen. The mine baiting thing is pretty common, and is also pretty intuitive to follow as a viewer.
Of course, back in the days of marine/tank the Zerg also had the option of just going in heavy instead of dancing around trying to snipe a couple tanks. That was less cost-efficient, but could give bigger rewards, and the threat of it kept Terran on his toes. This is more comparable to when Zerg just engages into the mine field, and tries to split zerglings as the battle happens, rather than beforehand. Like a lot of micro-intensive big engagements, this is definitely harder to follow as a viewer, but it does give more of a 'wow!' factor than positional play and dancing. You see zerg swarm in, if you have a good eye you can see some zergling splits, and then you see marines splitting and mines exploding. The whole battlefield blows up for a bit, and then in the aftermath you see whether enough Zerg survived to clean up the Terran and then sweep up the mines, or if the mines did their job and the marines can kill off anything remaining. This is really exciting as a viewer, though; I don't see why this is such a problem.
Also, you still have high-value targets to snipe, although they're harder to snipe now. Medivac kills are one of the surest ways to start getting an advantage ZvT, if you can get them.
|
Balance is cool...
Entertainment however holds a premium. ZvZ is dull. TvT is too volatile (i.e. not early game tricks/maneuvers decide pro-games), TvP is the same as WoL, and PvZ, well I guess it got better if the game gets past roaches v. P.
But balance...
Here is my 2 cents. Change back banshee cloak cost to 150/150 for TvT. Slightly buff infestors for TvZ and PvZ for ZvZ (better infested terrans or better speed),
|
On September 18 2013 15:55 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 12:07 saddaromma wrote:On September 18 2013 03:34 NarutO wrote:On September 18 2013 03:20 saddaromma wrote:On September 18 2013 02:03 NarutO wrote:On September 18 2013 01:46 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 01:08 Big J wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Terrans can already do that. They don't do it a lot because: - tanks are more expensive than mines, which means you have to cut/delay something else - the rax+techlab factory+reactor setup has to be swapped, therefore stim has to be delayed - tanks, though great against such ground allins are bad against aggressive mutalisk openings It's true that it would become safer, but it also comes with certain drawbacks and are still not a freewin against those allins. On September 18 2013 00:55 lolfail9001 wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? You would not be all that aggressive though, since siege tank openers sacrifice map presence most of time. that's not true, tanks are added after the standard hellions are out. You have exactly as much mappresence. On September 18 2013 00:47 Hattori_Hanzo wrote:On September 18 2013 00:38 RaFox17 wrote:
Wouldn´t buffing tanks mean that terran could just go 3 cc even more safely with just adding few tanks to defend against roach bane-all in? Which is why I recommend a compromise where there is a massive jump in damage for every vehicle weapons upgrade earned for the siege tank. This gives the siege tank a chance at the starting line up again after 20 min. Upgrades are standardized. Though the idea is interesting, it's meanless to discuss it because it's not going to happen. The closest thing to that would be some form of armory-requiring damage upgrade or something along those lines. On September 18 2013 00:55 Aiobhill wrote:On September 18 2013 00:46 MarlieChurphy wrote:So essentially lowering the apm/micro/finesse requirements for zergs and increasing the similar requirements for terran. Looking how Terran overperforms at the highest tournament level and underperforms on ladder, it's pretty safe to say that this is the exact opposite of what SC2 needs. From a balance (not entertainment) perspective it makes sense to either want terran simpler or the other races more difficult and stronger. why would I want to make the game simpler, or make balanced races stronger? The first idea goes against our idea of a skillintense game, the second one just imbalances the game in favor of the buffed races. Aligulac has 5 T in top 10, including 1, 2, 3. WCS Standings have 6 T in top 10, including 1, 3, 4, 5. TLPD has 7 T in top 10, including 1, 2. That's a godawful unlikely distribution if we start from your assumption of 'balanced races'. Hey man, instead of calling me out and telling me I do fake statistics and post statistics of a third rate tournament, what about you answer to my reply :-)? Did you suddenly realize nearly every name-pro took part and the qualifier in itself was as stacked as can be? Do you realize the statistics are not what you want them to be?  He has fair point. Everyone can provide 'convenient' statstics. Thats why I prefer if people kept it out of here. How are those statistics/winrates convenient? Its simply all Korean games (GSTL, WCS Season 3, GSTL, IEM Korea Qualifier) collected that were played since 1st September. I even did split the WCG stats from it, because it was before September. Its simple data that potentially can hint towards a trend, yet people complain and say I would fake those stats. Everyone can go and look it up themselves, truth is, most people are too lazy to make that effort. I'd look into top 8 of each tournament if I want to talk about balance. The lower levels are shaky, especially when bo1, where people use some crazy allins and surprises. - GSTL, nah. - WCS Season 3 group stage - maybe. But I'd rather watch for top-8. - IEM qualifier, nope. Everyone knows protoss performs well on mid-pro level. E.g. EU. But you're not gonna nerf them since protoss will go extinct in Korea's highest level. Therefore mid-pro level is kinda irrelevant for balance discussion. See what I did. I pulled off 'convenient' statistics. And btw, what do you think, Is TLPD ranking worth for balance discussion on the right sidebar? I see 6 terrans top 10 and 3 terrans top 4. Does it matter? First of all, while I believe that this might be a good indicator (talking about top 8 etc) I feel its highly volatile. You can take into account that INnoVation played against elfi at Dreamhack. While elfi is no bad player, he is vastly inferior to INnoVation and I dare to say he wouldn't beat him twice out of 100 games. This is no indication of balance. Ofcourse the sample size in a top8 where one player is as superior as INnoVation to elfi is the minority, but based on the Ro8, it will also be a lot less games so the single games / series have major influence on the statistics. Now to you trying to discredit me or trying to say I would put up convenient statistics. I took all Korean games (highest level) starting from 1st September. I did include all major tournament qualifiers and tournaments. It cannot be convenient to begin with, because I simply included all games. GSTL: You say no, trying to discredit the league because its best of 1. Truth is that while people may bring out cheese/allins in best of 1, they can also bring out cheese/allin in bo3. The chance of it working in a best of 1 is not more likely than in a bo3. The teamleague is the highest skill teamleague when proleague is not on and ofcourse has to be included in every balance statistic IEM NY Qualifier. The lineup is stacked. I broke it down to a guy in the German boards, where he was saying Dreamhack Groupstage 3 was more stacked. I explaind to him that the top finishers of Dreamhack (Finals, Semifinals, Quarterfinals, Ro16) all fell short either in Stage 1 already (Life) or Stage 2 even though they had an invite including TaeJa who went out in winnerbracket and loserbracket round 1 of Stage 2. Only INnoVation made it out to stage 3. Korean qualifiers are known to be as hard as it gets and often times harder than the main tournament. Saying this has no right to be taking into consideration while saying the top 8 of dreamhack can, is wrong. The lineup in the Ro64 was already top notch and only filled with good players while in Groupstage 3 of Dreamhack there was still trash (if you want to talk about highest level) WCS Korea: Code B is already good enough to make non-Korean players shiver. Code A are often times potential champions or former champions and overall very good players. I don't know why you would try to discredit any of WCS Korea, as its known to be the hardest league in the world. Thats my reason to include those, furthermore I did not exclude anything played in Korea. (if I did, please point it out as it was not on purpose). I was simply collection data for september and while you say its convenient, I say its complete. I didn't do it to balance whine but simply to point out current winrates that show Terrans are actually not doing that well vs Zerg and Protoss is currently doing worse than the previous month vs Terran (56 vs 58%). It merely suggests a trend and trying to discredit that is awful
Unless its mathematically proven, our assumptions - on how to use statistics to balance the game, will remain totally subjective.
Sorry for replying with one sentence.
|
You really should not reply in one sentence, especially if that sentence makes no sense. (first, please fix the punctuation, I can only hope I mean what it means). How do you mathematically prove assumptions? Any mathematical proof has assumptions. In fact, half of mathematics is discussion regarding valid assumptions. And as any discussion, it is subjective. But that's fine. It's subjective to believe that a car stops at a red light, yet we cross the street with impunity. It's subjective to think that the colour red is red, yet we trust ourselves to recognize a red light. It's subjective to say that "There's a cup on the table" is a true sentence when there is actually a cup on the table (because a cup could also refer to something else). All-in all, rewrite what you meant to say, because what you said now means nothing at all.
|
The overseer buff effectively made mines weaker, because mutalisks can more easily kill them now. Some terrans in DH started to use thors(!) to deter mutalisks, which they probably wouldn't have done a month ago (unless I'm uninformed).
Also, isn't it silly that widow mines get bonus damage to shields, specifically to make them useful vs protoss, but Blizzard would probably never consider giving tanks similar bonuses? I don't think that they like the siege tank very much, to be honest, they've always been more worried about the unit becoming too powerful than about it being playable. In the development of HotS, they were actually trying to design a unit to be a counter to siege tanks for terran, which was their idea of improving TvT. (the widow mine was initially a rocket launcher that could outrange a siege tank, to break siege lines)
|
On September 18 2013 17:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
You really should not reply in one sentence, especially if that sentence makes no sense. (first, please fix the punctuation, I can only hope I mean what it means). How do you mathematically prove assumptions? Any mathematical proof has assumptions. In fact, half of mathematics is discussion regarding valid assumptions. And as any discussion, it is subjective. But that's fine. It's subjective to believe that a car stops at a red light, yet we cross the street with impunity. It's subjective to think that the colour red is red, yet we trust ourselves to recognize a red light. It's subjective to say that "There's a cup on the table" is a true sentence when there is actually a cup on the table (because a cup could also refer to something else). All-in all, rewrite what you meant to say, because what you said now means nothing at all.
My punctuation sucks but I hope you get the idea. Naruto is assuming the numbers he's found show us race balance situation. All I say its very misleading and not proven.
I re-read my sentence and I think its fine. You're arguing just because you don't like my point of view.
|
When the statistics were in favor of Terran (and still are) they were used to claim imbalance in the match up. When I put up and collect the statistics from September suddenly people question them? The question for you now is; do you question those because I did collect them and put in effort or do you question them because you question statistics?
Case 1 - you question statistics:
If you question statistics , it goes without saying that you cannot accuse me of argueing against the balance commentary from Zerg, even though the percentage was in favor of Terran, I tried to explain why the percentage looked like that and why it was that high.
Case 2 - you question my statistics:
Fair enough, as I made a mistake in the past, not because I wanted to edge out the balance discussion my way, but simply because I was unaware how to 'manipulate' them in the correct way to illustrate my point. I have no touched the games in any way as I included every game played so if you either say:
Both statistics are relevant, or none is. If its none, my point about the match up is the same and we can see the Zergs are getting there. If you say one statistic is relevant, the other one is as well, showing a shift (displaying the current trend) in those match ups.
|
On September 18 2013 13:09 ETisME wrote:http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/9973127981?page=1So blizzard is releasing a balance patch note soon: Address mech issue Late game ZvT issues Low possibly of mine being nerfed No numbers and no details yet. Hopefully the patch won't hit bio mine too hard and make mech more viable.
That addressing of mech issue scares me.
Hopefully it's just that upgrade combine and/or transformation servos buff.
Balance is really not terrible right now and Blizzard has shown little idea of what to do with terran.
|
Make transformation servos required to transform vikings. Probably wouldn't be broken, and people would get it more often. 
|
On September 18 2013 19:04 NarutO wrote:+ Show Spoiler +When the statistics were in favor of Terran (and still are) they were used to claim imbalance in the match up. When I put up and collect the statistics from September suddenly people question them? The question for you now is; do you question those because I did collect them and put in effort or do you question them because you question statistics?
Case 1 - you question statistics:
If you question statistics , it goes without saying that you cannot accuse me of argueing against the balance commentary from Zerg, even though the percentage was in favor of Terran, I tried to explain why the percentage looked like that and why it was that high.
Case 2 - you question my statistics:
Fair enough, as I made a mistake in the past, not because I wanted to edge out the balance discussion my way, but simply because I was unaware how to 'manipulate' them in the correct way to illustrate my point. I have no touched the games in any way as I included every game played so if you either say:
Both statistics are relevant, or none is. If its none, my point about the match up is the same and we can see the Zergs are getting there. If you say one statistic is relevant, the other one is as well, showing a shift (displaying the current trend) in those match ups.
I'm questioning the relevance of statistics to balance. I have two reasons:
Reason 1. Small sample size.
Reason 2. Using statistics has never been defacto the best way to balance the game. Unless there is very clear indication of imbalance (major spikes in data).
In short. TvZ being 54/46 in a course of 3 tournaments means absolutely nothing in regards to balance. As you said some good players might not be present, or some have jetlag/wrist issues/headache etc...
|
Maybe widow mine costs of 75/50 or something would be a nice nerf to start with. It wouldn't be too influential either, but makes considering other tech than widow mines worth it.
|
On September 18 2013 18:57 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 17:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
You really should not reply in one sentence, especially if that sentence makes no sense. (first, please fix the punctuation, I can only hope I mean what it means). How do you mathematically prove assumptions? Any mathematical proof has assumptions. In fact, half of mathematics is discussion regarding valid assumptions. And as any discussion, it is subjective. But that's fine. It's subjective to believe that a car stops at a red light, yet we cross the street with impunity. It's subjective to think that the colour red is red, yet we trust ourselves to recognize a red light. It's subjective to say that "There's a cup on the table" is a true sentence when there is actually a cup on the table (because a cup could also refer to something else). All-in all, rewrite what you meant to say, because what you said now means nothing at all. My punctuation sucks but I hope you get the idea. Naruto is assuming the numbers he's found show us race balance situation. All I say its very misleading and not proven. I re-read my sentence and I think its fine. You're arguing just because you don't like my point of view.
I'm not arguing, I'm saying you forgot the second "-" as you did. And it gives people used to proper punctuation a headache to re-read things according to how you think it might be corrected.
And you didn't engage with any of the criticism I put forward. a) How do you mathematically prove race balance? b) How is the data misleading? (It clearly isn't, it's the highest level of competition) c) You shouldn't attack someone that actually does the work (unlike Mr. one-liner here) and puts forth new data, d) To answer point (a), you cannot PROVE race balance (it's not a bloody formula), but it can provide an indication. The more data you have, the better the indication.
|
No statistics is perfect, and because either sample size or sample quality is bad, people always find ways to complain and discredit whatever data presented, especially when their own race is said to be OP in the stats. They will never be happy no matter which numbers you take.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/REMzaZT.png)
|
On September 18 2013 21:31 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 18:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 18 2013 17:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
You really should not reply in one sentence, especially if that sentence makes no sense. (first, please fix the punctuation, I can only hope I mean what it means). How do you mathematically prove assumptions? Any mathematical proof has assumptions. In fact, half of mathematics is discussion regarding valid assumptions. And as any discussion, it is subjective. But that's fine. It's subjective to believe that a car stops at a red light, yet we cross the street with impunity. It's subjective to think that the colour red is red, yet we trust ourselves to recognize a red light. It's subjective to say that "There's a cup on the table" is a true sentence when there is actually a cup on the table (because a cup could also refer to something else). All-in all, rewrite what you meant to say, because what you said now means nothing at all. My punctuation sucks but I hope you get the idea. Naruto is assuming the numbers he's found show us race balance situation. All I say its very misleading and not proven. I re-read my sentence and I think its fine. You're arguing just because you don't like my point of view. I'm not arguing, I'm saying you forgot the second "-" as you did. And it gives people used to proper punctuation a headache to re-read things according to how you think it might be corrected. And you didn't engage with any of the criticism I put forward. a) How do you mathematically prove race balance? b) How is the data misleading? (It clearly isn't, it's the highest level of competition) c) You shouldn't attack someone that actually does the work (unlike Mr. one-liner here) and puts forth new data, d) To answer point (a), you cannot PROVE race balance (it's not a bloody formula), but it can provide an indication. The more data you have, the better the indication.
a) it was paraphrase. normal people understand that.
b) Misleading, because its not full data. It says 'hey guys I gathered some results from several matches' and TvZ is now X%/Y%. when in reality all matches weren't thoroughly examined.
c) Attack? Are you out you mind. You should check our (me and naruto's) conversation history, It comes from long time and we respect each other.
d) If it cannot be proven why do we use statistics, we better refer to more conventional ways like examining units, compositions and strategies.
You say relation of statistics to balance can't be proven but statistics can indicate the balance. WTF is that? And you blame me for wrongusing punctuation?
|
On September 18 2013 13:07 MarlieChurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 03:51 a176 wrote:
What is the difference between a widow mine and a siege tank? Basically a WM is a cheaper gas/mineral/supply/build time tank, that cloaks and shoots air, and is more mobile (as well as fits into dropships more efficiently) , but has shorter range and lower dps. But since both units are not really about dps and are about high burst damage and most zerg units in this matchup are going to be short range, it's infinitely better. Especially since the splash of tanks was nerfed a lot specifically because they ate up lings and shit so much (due to game engine unit clumping). The WM does spell damage and doesn't have a splash nerf as well as ignoring armor. I don't know if your question is rhetorical but it's really silly when you break it down and answer that question.
it was rhetorical, sorry  but feel free to contribute to the discussion its part of.
actually, i specifically posted that because of the lurker. for years blizzard has given us the bullshit response "no lurker because it overlaps with the baneling".
fast forward to 2013 and they introduce the widow mine which bares even more of a similarity to the siege tank, than the baneling-lurker comparison ever will.
|
On September 18 2013 21:45 Orek wrote:No statistics is perfect, and because either sample size or sample quality is bad, people always find ways to complain and discredit whatever data presented, especially when their own race is said to be OP in the stats. They will never be happy no matter which numbers you take.
i wish there was a "frustration factor" as part of the equation
|
On September 18 2013 22:01 saddaromma wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 21:31 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 18 2013 18:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 18 2013 17:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
You really should not reply in one sentence, especially if that sentence makes no sense. (first, please fix the punctuation, I can only hope I mean what it means). How do you mathematically prove assumptions? Any mathematical proof has assumptions. In fact, half of mathematics is discussion regarding valid assumptions. And as any discussion, it is subjective. But that's fine. It's subjective to believe that a car stops at a red light, yet we cross the street with impunity. It's subjective to think that the colour red is red, yet we trust ourselves to recognize a red light. It's subjective to say that "There's a cup on the table" is a true sentence when there is actually a cup on the table (because a cup could also refer to something else). All-in all, rewrite what you meant to say, because what you said now means nothing at all. My punctuation sucks but I hope you get the idea. Naruto is assuming the numbers he's found show us race balance situation. All I say its very misleading and not proven. I re-read my sentence and I think its fine. You're arguing just because you don't like my point of view. I'm not arguing, I'm saying you forgot the second "-" as you did. And it gives people used to proper punctuation a headache to re-read things according to how you think it might be corrected. And you didn't engage with any of the criticism I put forward. a) How do you mathematically prove race balance? b) How is the data misleading? (It clearly isn't, it's the highest level of competition) c) You shouldn't attack someone that actually does the work (unlike Mr. one-liner here) and puts forth new data, d) To answer point (a), you cannot PROVE race balance (it's not a bloody formula), but it can provide an indication. The more data you have, the better the indication. a) it was paraphrase. normal people understand that. b) Misleading, because its not full data. It says 'hey guys I gathered some results from several matches' and TvZ is now X%/Y%. when in reality all matches weren't thoroughly examined. c) Attack? Are you out you mind. You should check our (me and naruto's) conversation history, It comes from long time and we respect each other. d) If it cannot be proven why do we use statistics, we better refer to more conventional ways like examining units, compositions and strategies. You say relation of statistics to balance can't be proven but statistics can indicate the balance. WTF is that? And you blame me for wrongusing punctuation?
I do indeed respect you but with all respect I did offer to change the data I have gathered if you can point out the tournament or league I did miss. As far as your statement goes that it is missleading because its not complete - thats wrong. It is (was) complete data from korea since 1st September. Only the GSTL match that was played on that day wasnt included.
So either you point out what I did miss or your point is void my friend
|
Too many people here use stats to state a point when it should be used as and reference only.
Not to mention the level of ambiguity in the data. Which player is considered evenly matched, is the map favoring one race over the other, or even the style that the player is good at or how the games were won.
As a uni grad who took a number of units solely focusing on interpreting data, I should warn you guys about taking stats as the one true fact.
It is easy to say oh the number says x and so it is x because for a complicated matter, simple is what we want to have, easy to understand and make other understand.
But the real data analysis report would contain a tonnes of analysis to determine if those data should be trusted and to what degree should we make decisions based on the number.
UGH, So hard to type on my phone, hope you guys know what I mean
|
On September 18 2013 22:09 NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2013 22:01 saddaromma wrote:On September 18 2013 21:31 Ghanburighan wrote:On September 18 2013 18:57 saddaromma wrote:On September 18 2013 17:33 Ghanburighan wrote:
You really should not reply in one sentence, especially if that sentence makes no sense. (first, please fix the punctuation, I can only hope I mean what it means). How do you mathematically prove assumptions? Any mathematical proof has assumptions. In fact, half of mathematics is discussion regarding valid assumptions. And as any discussion, it is subjective. But that's fine. It's subjective to believe that a car stops at a red light, yet we cross the street with impunity. It's subjective to think that the colour red is red, yet we trust ourselves to recognize a red light. It's subjective to say that "There's a cup on the table" is a true sentence when there is actually a cup on the table (because a cup could also refer to something else). All-in all, rewrite what you meant to say, because what you said now means nothing at all. My punctuation sucks but I hope you get the idea. Naruto is assuming the numbers he's found show us race balance situation. All I say its very misleading and not proven. I re-read my sentence and I think its fine. You're arguing just because you don't like my point of view. I'm not arguing, I'm saying you forgot the second "-" as you did. And it gives people used to proper punctuation a headache to re-read things according to how you think it might be corrected. And you didn't engage with any of the criticism I put forward. a) How do you mathematically prove race balance? b) How is the data misleading? (It clearly isn't, it's the highest level of competition) c) You shouldn't attack someone that actually does the work (unlike Mr. one-liner here) and puts forth new data, d) To answer point (a), you cannot PROVE race balance (it's not a bloody formula), but it can provide an indication. The more data you have, the better the indication. a) it was paraphrase. normal people understand that. b) Misleading, because its not full data. It says 'hey guys I gathered some results from several matches' and TvZ is now X%/Y%. when in reality all matches weren't thoroughly examined. c) Attack? Are you out you mind. You should check our (me and naruto's) conversation history, It comes from long time and we respect each other. d) If it cannot be proven why do we use statistics, we better refer to more conventional ways like examining units, compositions and strategies. You say relation of statistics to balance can't be proven but statistics can indicate the balance. WTF is that? And you blame me for wrongusing punctuation? I do indeed respect you but with all respect I did offer to change the data I have gathered if you can point out the tournament or league I did miss. As far as your statement goes that it is missleading because its not complete - thats wrong. It is (was) complete data from korea since 1st September. Only the GSTL match that was played on that day wasnt included. So either you point out what I did miss or your point is void my friend
I'm too tired. I'll just agree with you
|
I didnt say we should look at what I have gathered and conclude balance from it. You can never simply look at statistics and judge only based on that. Ofcourse we can only work on minimizing error source but at some point we have to realize there is just so much we can do.
I tried to minimize error sources in player skill difference and player cosistency (both minimized as players from Korea usually more stable and the skill difference isnt as huge)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
