Designated Balance Discussion Thread - Page 904
Forum Index > SC2 General |
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
| ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 13 2014 00:19 SC2Toastie wrote: http://aligulac.com/players/29/results/?after=2014-01-23&before=2014-02-12&race=ptzr&country=all&bestof=all&offline=both&game=all&op=Filter In these games, jjakji is 62–17 (78.48%) in games and 30–6 (83.33%) in matches. On February 13 2014 00:22 Ghanburighan wrote: That's easy: List 103 includes 24 Jjakji v P games (17-7, 71%). There are 445 PvT games in the list, Jjakji contributed 5% of the games. List 104 includes 12 Jjakji vP games, (8-4, 67%). There are 226 PvT games in the list, Jjakji contributed 5% again. Thanks. Well, as usual, the amount of Koreans farming small cups distorts statistics anyway, so not much can be said. Still, the number of TvT so far in the last list is quite hilarious. | ||
Pirfiktshon
United States1072 Posts
| ||
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
| ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 13 2014 00:33 Pirfiktshon wrote: Actualy ForGG made some Serious Dent in those Stats as well... between Jjakji and ForGG if their stats were taken out of that we would see some serious IMBA hahahahaha But there are other Koreans, Zerg or Protoss, who similarly skew the ratios towards their respective races; that's the problem with those winrates. | ||
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 13 2014 00:35 TheDwf wrote: But there are other Koreans, Zerg or Protoss, who similarly skew the ratios towards their respective races; that's the problem with those winrates. The low count AND the fact it is still this imbalanced in PvT is indicative of a large balance problem. | ||
Glorfindel!
Sweden1815 Posts
| ||
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 13 2014 00:40 Glorfindel! wrote: Well if the stats had shown 50% and almost no TvTs atleast gone could argue its because fewer players play Terran or something. But the super low amount of TvT and still the imblanace in PvT is just.. Scary :/ No, they couldn't argue that with an incredibly low count of TvTs, you can only look at the relative amounts of games played by T and by the other races. | ||
TheDwf
France19747 Posts
On February 13 2014 00:35 Ghanburighan wrote: Btw, TheDwf, I updated my post with Jjakji's actual contribution in terms of win percentages while you were typing. Thanks. I initially asked this because out of curiosity, I had calculated my own impact in one of those periods and it was 0.7% or something, but the game count was probably quite low in December. With more games, 2% is quite an impact. It's a chance he sometimes loses cheeses or some macro games against other Koreans. On February 13 2014 00:38 SC2Toastie wrote: The low count AND the fact it is still this imbalanced in PvT is indicative of a large balance problem. Don't worry, you're preaching to a converted. And actually, I think those numbers fail to represent the extent of the problem, just like international winrates for TvZ were not as bad as the 35:65 in Code S at the end of WoL. | ||
Pirfiktshon
United States1072 Posts
Don't worry, you're preaching to a converted. And actually, I think those numbers fail to represent the extent of the problem, just like international winrates for TvZ were not as bad as the 35:65 in Code S at the end of WoL. I don't know my Fellow Terrans some days it feels like we are climbing MT. Everest where the mountain just keeps getting Taller and Taller as we climb it..... The Current system of Analyzing statistics seems lack luster.... Especially because SC2 Statistics and the way the system is built is almost always meant to give us the 50% winrate statistic in most situations.... I think analyzing performance of players vs the performance of the other taking into account what they have to go through in order to perform the same and accomplish the same results is the best way but having 3 different races and having them intentionally different mechanics makes that difficult..... | ||
Nebuchad
Switzerland11926 Posts
| ||
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
| ||
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 13 2014 01:35 Faust852 wrote: Belshir was a good map where blink wasn't totally broken. Cloud Kingdom was a good map where blink wasn't totally broken. | ||
Snusmumriken
Sweden1717 Posts
On February 13 2014 01:39 Big J wrote: Cloud Kingdom was a good map where blink wasn't totally broken. Cloud kingdom was the best map in sc2 history imo. As much as it hurts me to say, I think there are bigger issues atm than tvp which is pretty broken. The swarmhost is just terribad. I really hope they change its DESIGN, because tweaking balance wont fix that unit. | ||
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: I don't know my Fellow Terrans some days it feels like we are climbing MT. Everest where the mountain just keeps getting Taller and Taller as we climb it..... The Current system of Analyzing statistics seems lack luster.... Especially because SC2 Statistics and the way the system is built is almost always meant to give us the 50% winrate statistic in most situations.... I think analyzing performance of players vs the performance of the other taking into account what they have to go through in order to perform the same and accomplish the same results is the best way but having 3 different races and having them intentionally different mechanics makes that difficult..... The current system has a massive flaw in it; winrates go towards 50% at any time because imbalance just means less games -> the only way we can state there's an imbalance going on is by looking at a significantly lower count of games player by one race. The problem with finding another way is that you always need to use some sort of number to define the skill of a player. One way we could maybe do that is use the Aligulac's system of player performance; if a low Protoss beats a high terran, that influences statistics more than when a high terran beats a low protoss: call it an upset adjustment, I don't know. Problem with that is the fact Aligulac responds somewhat slow to a player falling behind in skill. All in all, the low count of games we currently see on top of a 10% imbalance in TvP indicate there's something very, very wrong with TvP, which I doubt will be solved easily with patches on the scale we currently see. | ||
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 13 2014 02:22 Snusmumriken wrote: Cloud kingdom was the best map in sc2 history imo. As much as it hurts me to say, I think there are bigger issues atm than tvp which is pretty broken. The swarmhost is just terribad. I really hope they change its DESIGN, because tweaking balance wont fix that unit. The problem in that is the fact you need about 2/3 remaxes just to beat one Void Ray Collosus Archon army. Zerg cannot go head to head with a Protoss army and needs 30 minute of chipping damage and making static defense and casters to be able to handle the Protoss army. Especially on the current maps, the third (and usually the forth too) are soo easy to take. | ||
Snusmumriken
Sweden1717 Posts
On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote: The current system has a massive flaw in it; winrates go towards 50% at any time because imbalance just means less games -> the only way we can state there's an imbalance going on is by looking at a significantly lower count of games player by one race. The problem with finding another way is that you always need to use some sort of number to define the skill of a player. One way we could maybe do that is use the Aligulac's system of player performance; if a low Protoss beats a high terran, that influences statistics more than when a high terran beats a low protoss: call it an upset adjustment, I don't know. Problem with that is the fact Aligulac responds somewhat slow to a player falling behind in skill. All in all, the low count of games we currently see on top of a 10% imbalance in TvP indicate there's something very, very wrong with TvP, which I doubt will be solved easily with patches on the scale we currently see. nah, the easiest way to spot imbalance is and has always been if one or two RACES dominate upper parts of the big tournaments. If protoss keeps on winning, but its not one or two protoss who does all the winning, then its a clear sign of imbalance (its ok if its just one or two since they may simply be much better than everyone else, see MVP 2011). This is what we see now with dear, sos, mc, san etc. winning. So its not one or two players who simply dominate regardless of race, its clearly the race that carriers whoever plays it to victory (exaggeration). Winrates are just poor guides for so many reasons some of which youve mentioned, that theyre next to useless. Only in conjunction with other data are winrates interesting. or rather one should say, if winrates are imbalanced then that is almost definately a sign of imbalance, but if winrates arent imbalanced that doesnt exclude imbalance. | ||
Snusmumriken
Sweden1717 Posts
On February 13 2014 02:26 SC2Toastie wrote: The problem in that is the fact you need about 2/3 remaxes just to beat one Void Ray Collosus Archon army. Zerg cannot go head to head with a Protoss army and needs 30 minute of chipping damage and making static defense and casters to be able to handle the Protoss army. Especially on the current maps, the third (and usually the forth too) are soo easy to take. You would have to tweak more than the swarmhost, sure, but its not as massive an endeavour as some might have you think. Also, the swarmhost can be roughly of equal strength to its current use without being a long range siege-unit with free units. The combination of long range and free locusts make for extremely dull and long games. Either make the swarmhost a short range siege unit, a more of a hit and run type and unit (faster sh movement and burrow/unborrow) or make locusts cost minerals, but have other benefits instead. Thats the only solution imo. | ||
SC2Toastie
Netherlands5725 Posts
On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote: nah, the easiest way to spot imbalance is and has always been if one or two RACES dominate upper parts of the big tournaments. If protoss keeps on winning, but its not one or two protoss who does all the winning, then its a clear sign of imbalance (its ok if its just one or two since they may simply be much better than everyone else, see MVP 2011). This is what we see now with dear, sos, mc, san etc. winning. So its not one or two players who simply dominate regardless of race, its clearly the race that carriers whoever plays it to victory (exaggeration). Winrates are just poor guides for so many reasons some of which youve mentioned, that theyre next to useless. Only in conjunction with other data are winrates interesting. or rather one should say, if winrates are imbalanced then that is almost definately a sign of imbalance, but if winrates arent imbalanced that doesnt exclude imbalance. If the upper echelons of Tournaments are filled with only 2/3 races, doesn't that automatically mean the amount of games played by the third race is significantly lower, and thus, we state exactly the same thing in different words :D? | ||
| ||