|
On February 13 2014 02:29 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 02:26 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 01:39 Big J wrote: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. 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. 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.
But once you start to meddle with Swarmhosts, ZvMech and ZvTurtletoss, there's A LOT of unitinteractions you'll have to take into account.
- Hosts must be able to chip at mech and force a high tank count so mutalisk can punish,
- Hosts Viper Spore is the only check to Skyterran
- Hosts are the only check to turtletoss lategame army,
- Hosts are the only cost effective lategame weapon Zerg can field.
It all comes down to Zerg AA being horrendously weak and easilly countered (Queens: mobility, PDD, Feedback, Tanks; Hydras: Tanks, HSM, PDD, Collosi, Storm; Corruptors: Viking Kite, Turrets, HSM, PDD, Archon, Void Ray, Storm; Mutalisk: low DPS, Thor, Turret, Archon, Phoenix, Storm, Widow Mine).
You need to nerf Hosts, buff Zerg AA WITHOUT affecting fast 3 base Protoss builds and buffing Queens early in the game, AND still make sure Zerg can go head to head with the Protoss deathball.
I guess the 'easiest' way to try to do this is either Scourges, or a Hive tech morph for Queens into for example Swarm Queens (campaign :D, the model is ready!)that makes them a strong and resilient 7-8-9 range AA unit somehow that can stand up to both the collosus and void ray decently.
After that you can try to make the Swarm host more of a targeted Strike unit.
The problem is that you will always need to take multiple steps of buffing and nerfing and you leave the races in an imbalanced state between those steps. Off season was THE opportunity for Blizzard to pull redesigns off, but they were to busy with a useless quality of life patch which messed TvZ up...
|
On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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).
Only one player doing the winning doesn't mean everything is fine. Mvp was very good at TvT, and as it happens most tournaments ended in TvT fest, so yeah he would win in the end. Doesn't mean the situation was different. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by setting terran domination apart and pretending it was just Mvp.
Anyway why are you (mostly Sc2toastie here) arguing about how it's difficult to notice imbalance? Everyone has noticed it, and they are attempting to patch it. I would say it was pretty easy to notice for everyone. Doesn't that make your discussion void?
|
On February 13 2014 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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). Only one player doing the winning doesn't mean everything is fine. Mvp was very good at TvT, and as it happens most tournaments ended in TvT fest, so yeah he would win in the end. Doesn't mean the situation was different. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by setting terran domination apart and pretending it was just Mvp. Anyway why are you (mostly Sc2toastie here) arguing about how it's difficult to notice imbalance? Everyone has noticed it, and they are attempting to patch it. I would say it was pretty easy to notice for everyone. Doesn't that make your discussion void?
It IS difficult to notice imbalance with winrates and I am trying to explain why.
|
On February 13 2014 02:30 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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. 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?
No, it's called an entailment.
Whenever you have a red apple, you have an apple. But that doesn't mean that apple and red apple designate the same thing, an apple could easily be green or yellow, or pink...
|
4713 Posts
On February 13 2014 02:53 SC2Toastie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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). Only one player doing the winning doesn't mean everything is fine. Mvp was very good at TvT, and as it happens most tournaments ended in TvT fest, so yeah he would win in the end. Doesn't mean the situation was different. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by setting terran domination apart and pretending it was just Mvp. Anyway why are you (mostly Sc2toastie here) arguing about how it's difficult to notice imbalance? Everyone has noticed it, and they are attempting to patch it. I would say it was pretty easy to notice for everyone. Doesn't that make your discussion void? It IS difficult to notice imbalance with winrates and I am trying to explain why.
I think its impossible to see imbalance trough pure win rates in a system that is designed to give players as close a match as possible as to result in them getting a 50% win record on average.
The best method is probably combining win rates with studying race distribution in GM, masters and in tournaments.
|
On February 13 2014 03:15 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 02:53 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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). Only one player doing the winning doesn't mean everything is fine. Mvp was very good at TvT, and as it happens most tournaments ended in TvT fest, so yeah he would win in the end. Doesn't mean the situation was different. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by setting terran domination apart and pretending it was just Mvp. Anyway why are you (mostly Sc2toastie here) arguing about how it's difficult to notice imbalance? Everyone has noticed it, and they are attempting to patch it. I would say it was pretty easy to notice for everyone. Doesn't that make your discussion void? It IS difficult to notice imbalance with winrates and I am trying to explain why. I think its impossible to see imbalance trough pure win rates in a system that is designed to give players as close a match as possible as to result in them getting a 50% win record on average. The best method is probably combining win rates with studying race distribution in GM, masters and in tournaments.
OH my god, this. THIS.
Protoss may be completely imbalanced versus Terran and Zerg. But the fact of the matter is if I win I will eventually play good enough people that they will beat me despite the imbalance. And my winrate will be 50%.
It's actually really hard to determine what is balanced and what isn't. I think for that reason you can only really look at the top top players because they're the only ones who are actually able to achieve win rates statistically significantly higher > 50% in the long run.
|
|
|
On February 13 2014 03:24 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 03:15 Destructicon wrote:On February 13 2014 02:53 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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). Only one player doing the winning doesn't mean everything is fine. Mvp was very good at TvT, and as it happens most tournaments ended in TvT fest, so yeah he would win in the end. Doesn't mean the situation was different. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by setting terran domination apart and pretending it was just Mvp. Anyway why are you (mostly Sc2toastie here) arguing about how it's difficult to notice imbalance? Everyone has noticed it, and they are attempting to patch it. I would say it was pretty easy to notice for everyone. Doesn't that make your discussion void? It IS difficult to notice imbalance with winrates and I am trying to explain why. I think its impossible to see imbalance trough pure win rates in a system that is designed to give players as close a match as possible as to result in them getting a 50% win record on average. The best method is probably combining win rates with studying race distribution in GM, masters and in tournaments. OH my god, this. THIS. Protoss may be completely imbalanced versus Terran and Zerg. But the fact of the matter is if I win I will eventually play good enough people that they will beat me despite the imbalance. And my winrate will be 50%. It's actually really hard to determine what is balanced and what isn't. I think for that reason you can only really look at the top top players because they're the only ones who are actually able to achieve win rates statistically significantly higher > 50% in the long run.
Yeah but Blizzard claims they have a formula that separates skill from race. Even now in Hots where you also have MMR decay.
|
The only way to do it would be to just have a month where the people you play on ladder are completely random MMR lol. And then at the end of the month Blizzard could collect statistics.
You would collect statistics from an equal number of non mirror games so as to avoid skewing because of # of players. If everything was completely random you'd expect 50% winrate for each race.
So any statistically significant skew over that would mean imbalance.
But this would also make most people quit the ladder altogether :D. I'd be down for it though. I played Neeb once and wasn't really THAT impressed 
|
On February 13 2014 03:29 Qwerty85 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 03:24 DinoMight wrote:On February 13 2014 03:15 Destructicon wrote:On February 13 2014 02:53 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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). Only one player doing the winning doesn't mean everything is fine. Mvp was very good at TvT, and as it happens most tournaments ended in TvT fest, so yeah he would win in the end. Doesn't mean the situation was different. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by setting terran domination apart and pretending it was just Mvp. Anyway why are you (mostly Sc2toastie here) arguing about how it's difficult to notice imbalance? Everyone has noticed it, and they are attempting to patch it. I would say it was pretty easy to notice for everyone. Doesn't that make your discussion void? It IS difficult to notice imbalance with winrates and I am trying to explain why. I think its impossible to see imbalance trough pure win rates in a system that is designed to give players as close a match as possible as to result in them getting a 50% win record on average. The best method is probably combining win rates with studying race distribution in GM, masters and in tournaments. OH my god, this. THIS. Protoss may be completely imbalanced versus Terran and Zerg. But the fact of the matter is if I win I will eventually play good enough people that they will beat me despite the imbalance. And my winrate will be 50%. It's actually really hard to determine what is balanced and what isn't. I think for that reason you can only really look at the top top players because they're the only ones who are actually able to achieve win rates statistically significantly higher > 50% in the long run. Yeah but Blizzard claims they have a formula that separates skill from race. Even now in Hots where you also have MMR decay.
Basically the only way to do that would be to track MMR for only your mirror matchup. I just don't see any other way.
So Protoss/Zerg stats are probably fucked lol because those MU are much more volatile than TvT.
|
On February 13 2014 03:29 Qwerty85 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 03:24 DinoMight wrote:On February 13 2014 03:15 Destructicon wrote:On February 13 2014 02:53 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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). Only one player doing the winning doesn't mean everything is fine. Mvp was very good at TvT, and as it happens most tournaments ended in TvT fest, so yeah he would win in the end. Doesn't mean the situation was different. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by setting terran domination apart and pretending it was just Mvp. Anyway why are you (mostly Sc2toastie here) arguing about how it's difficult to notice imbalance? Everyone has noticed it, and they are attempting to patch it. I would say it was pretty easy to notice for everyone. Doesn't that make your discussion void? It IS difficult to notice imbalance with winrates and I am trying to explain why. I think its impossible to see imbalance trough pure win rates in a system that is designed to give players as close a match as possible as to result in them getting a 50% win record on average. The best method is probably combining win rates with studying race distribution in GM, masters and in tournaments. OH my god, this. THIS. Protoss may be completely imbalanced versus Terran and Zerg. But the fact of the matter is if I win I will eventually play good enough people that they will beat me despite the imbalance. And my winrate will be 50%. It's actually really hard to determine what is balanced and what isn't. I think for that reason you can only really look at the top top players because they're the only ones who are actually able to achieve win rates statistically significantly higher > 50% in the long run. Yeah but Blizzard claims they have a formula that separates skill from race. Even now in Hots where you also have MMR decay.
Most people have that formula, not just Blizzard. They use it everytime they claim a player who lost deserved to win 
Separating skill from race implies that you're not using your race to achieve the results you're achieving, which is ludicrous. Of course you're using your race. Everyone is.
|
On February 13 2014 03:33 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 03:29 Qwerty85 wrote:On February 13 2014 03:24 DinoMight wrote:On February 13 2014 03:15 Destructicon wrote:On February 13 2014 02:53 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 02:47 Nebuchad wrote:On February 13 2014 02:26 Snusmumriken wrote:On February 13 2014 02:22 SC2Toastie wrote:On February 13 2014 01:11 Pirfiktshon wrote: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..... 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). Only one player doing the winning doesn't mean everything is fine. Mvp was very good at TvT, and as it happens most tournaments ended in TvT fest, so yeah he would win in the end. Doesn't mean the situation was different. I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by setting terran domination apart and pretending it was just Mvp. Anyway why are you (mostly Sc2toastie here) arguing about how it's difficult to notice imbalance? Everyone has noticed it, and they are attempting to patch it. I would say it was pretty easy to notice for everyone. Doesn't that make your discussion void? It IS difficult to notice imbalance with winrates and I am trying to explain why. I think its impossible to see imbalance trough pure win rates in a system that is designed to give players as close a match as possible as to result in them getting a 50% win record on average. The best method is probably combining win rates with studying race distribution in GM, masters and in tournaments. OH my god, this. THIS. Protoss may be completely imbalanced versus Terran and Zerg. But the fact of the matter is if I win I will eventually play good enough people that they will beat me despite the imbalance. And my winrate will be 50%. It's actually really hard to determine what is balanced and what isn't. I think for that reason you can only really look at the top top players because they're the only ones who are actually able to achieve win rates statistically significantly higher > 50% in the long run. Yeah but Blizzard claims they have a formula that separates skill from race. Even now in Hots where you also have MMR decay. Most people have that formula, not just Blizzard. They use it everytime they claim a player who lost deserved to win Separating skill from race implies that you're not using your race to achieve the results you're achieving, which is ludicrous. Of course you're using your race. Everyone is.
They can't even separate skill from no skill. How do they separate skill from race lol.
|
in order to avoid silly 2sec fights at 200/200 vs 200/200:
remove all attack/offensive upgrades and add a new 3 lvl defensive upgrades which apply to every unit from each race. (biological adaption (Zerg), glossy technology (Protoss) and survival training (Terran))
Generally I think the buildtimes from upgrades are way to short. How is this understandable that you have at 18min 3-3 upgrades.
My solution is: add another 60sec lvl1, 90sec to lvl2 and 120 to lvl3 upgrades.
|
On February 13 2014 03:37 Dingodile wrote:
in order to avoid silly 2sec fights at 200/200 vs 200/200:
remove all attack/offensive upgrades and add a new 3 lvl defensive upgrades which apply to every unit from each race. (biological adaption (Zerg), glossy technology (Protoss) and survival training (Terran))
Generally I think the buildtimes from upgrades are way to short. How is this understandable that you have at 18min 3-3 upgrades.
My solution is: add another 60sec lvl1, 90sec to lvl2 and 120 to lvl3 upgrades.
Well, problem with that is if a forge gets sniped or something similar you now have a 1:30 window where your opponent's units are doing like 15-20% more damage. So this will only make it worse.
|
On February 13 2014 03:44 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 03:37 Dingodile wrote:
in order to avoid silly 2sec fights at 200/200 vs 200/200:
remove all attack/offensive upgrades and add a new 3 lvl defensive upgrades which apply to every unit from each race. (biological adaption (Zerg), glossy technology (Protoss) and survival training (Terran))
Generally I think the buildtimes from upgrades are way to short. How is this understandable that you have at 18min 3-3 upgrades.
My solution is: add another 60sec lvl1, 90sec to lvl2 and 120 to lvl3 upgrades. Well, problem with that is if a forge gets sniped or something similar you now have a 1:30 window where your opponent's units are doing like 15-20% more damage. So this will only make it worse.
How many times do we see this? Maybe 1-2 games of 100.
|
On February 13 2014 03:37 Dingodile wrote:
in order to avoid silly 2sec fights at 200/200 vs 200/200:
remove all attack/offensive upgrades and add a new 3 lvl defensive upgrades which apply to every unit from each race. (biological adaption (Zerg), glossy technology (Protoss) and survival training (Terran))
Generally I think the buildtimes from upgrades are way to short. How is this understandable that you have at 18min 3-3 upgrades.
My solution is: add another 60sec lvl1, 90sec to lvl2 and 120 to lvl3 upgrades.
and toss will just chrono the shit out of his forge and lol at your 0-0 dudes for a minute.
but I see where you are going with this, it makes sense, but once again, you cant because protoss
|
On February 13 2014 03:37 Dingodile wrote:
in order to avoid silly 2sec fights at 200/200 vs 200/200:
remove all attack/offensive upgrades and add a new 3 lvl defensive upgrades which apply to every unit from each race. (biological adaption (Zerg), glossy technology (Protoss) and survival training (Terran))
Generally I think the buildtimes from upgrades are way to short. How is this understandable that you have at 18min 3-3 upgrades.
My solution is: add another 60sec lvl1, 90sec to lvl2 and 120 to lvl3 upgrades.
You're pointing out the wrong culprit.
|
4713 Posts
Well, due to imbalance what turns out happening in tournaments is this.
A lot of weaker representatives of their race qualify for a tournament due to their race being stronger at a time.
That's sign number one of imbalance, over representation in qualifiers if all else is equal.
Second thing that happens is that, in the lower parts of the main tournaments the masses of bad players that where carried by imbalance get slowly culled by the way better players of the other race, giving the false perception of balance by skewing win rates closer to 50%. This is another sign of imbalance but a much more subtle one.
Lastly when players of equal skill meet up in the higher up parts of the tournament then the imbalanced race starts dominating again and they occupy most of the podium spots. This is the last sign of imbalance.
You can observe all these signs of imbalance in all the previous periods of massive domination from one race or another.
|
On February 13 2014 04:43 Destructicon wrote:
Well, due to imbalance what turns out happening in tournaments is this.
A lot of weaker representatives of their race qualify for a tournament due to their race being stronger at a time.
That's sign number one of imbalance, over representation in qualifiers if all else is equal.
Second thing that happens is that, in the lower parts of the main tournaments the masses of bad players that where carried by imbalance get slowly culled by the way better players of the other race, giving the false perception of balance by skewing win rates closer to 50%. This is another sign of imbalance but a much more subtle one.
Lastly when players of equal skill meet up in the higher up parts of the tournament then the imbalanced race starts dominating again and they occupy most of the podium spots. This is the last sign of imbalance.
You can observe all these signs of imbalance in all the previous periods of massive domination from one race or another.
So i guess you could look at like... race ratio in first round / qualifier vs. race ratio in Ro16/8 vs. podium finishes. I don't know if there is enough data for something like this to be statistically significant though (in the academic definition of significant). You'd need a ton of tournaments and players.
You're right though, tournament win rates are kind of silly to look at for balance. Because Tajea is going to beat a mediocre Protoss regardless of whether or not the game is balanced. Taeja can even beat some top tier Protosses despite any imbalance that may exist, because he's really really good.
I think they should just take (non mirror wins for race x) / (non mirror games played by race x) and literally just do this for every single ladder game played total. You can't do it by league because the leagues are skewing the data to 50% intentionally.
Wouldn't that technically show balance or imbalance>?
|
4713 Posts
On February 13 2014 04:56 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2014 04:43 Destructicon wrote:
Well, due to imbalance what turns out happening in tournaments is this.
A lot of weaker representatives of their race qualify for a tournament due to their race being stronger at a time.
That's sign number one of imbalance, over representation in qualifiers if all else is equal.
Second thing that happens is that, in the lower parts of the main tournaments the masses of bad players that where carried by imbalance get slowly culled by the way better players of the other race, giving the false perception of balance by skewing win rates closer to 50%. This is another sign of imbalance but a much more subtle one.
Lastly when players of equal skill meet up in the higher up parts of the tournament then the imbalanced race starts dominating again and they occupy most of the podium spots. This is the last sign of imbalance.
You can observe all these signs of imbalance in all the previous periods of massive domination from one race or another. So i guess you could look at like... race ratio in first round / qualifier vs. race ratio in Ro16/8 vs. podium finishes. I don't know if there is enough data for something like this to be statistically significant though (in the academic definition of significant). You'd need a ton of tournaments and players. You're right though, tournament win rates are kind of silly to look at for balance. Because Tajea is going to beat a mediocre Protoss regardless of whether or not the game is balanced. Taeja can even beat some top tier Protosses despite any imbalance that may exist, because he's really really good. I think they should just take (non mirror wins for race x) / (non mirror games played by race x) and literally just do this for every single ladder game played total. You can't do it by league because the leagues are skewing the data to 50% intentionally. Wouldn't that technically show balance or imbalance>?
Actually no, about 4-5 tournaments over a period of 3 months is enough data usually. I'd say IEM Sao Paulo, ASUS RoG, and the Code B and Code A pooled data is nearly enough, Code S finishing would be even more conclusive evidence. WCS EU is kind of poor because we have a huge mix of different skill levels because Koreans out match most of the EU players.
And pooling all ladder data is useless since you'll see tons of low level plays. Data should only be collected from Masters and GM, Korean qualifiers or any qualifiers with lots of Koreans involved and premier tournaments with a lot of Koreans.
Edit: And again, by data I mean a combination of win rates and race distribution across ladder and tournaments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
