|
On September 23 2011 05:13 Heavenly wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:11 Bobster wrote:
Looks like Korea needs some better Protoss. Funny, because the best protoss from the rest of the world have gone there (Naniwa, Huk, Sase). Looks like North America needs some better zergs.
Actually I've always wondered why Foreign Terrans are so (relatively) terrible. Foreign toss /do/ have the rep for workin the hardest / great mechanics (Nani/Huk) so they're good results make sense. Foreign Terrans while quite a few have a rep for mechanical issues (Thor/Sjow/Goody slow players according to other pros from comments from HSC to SOTG) should concievably be doing much much better than they have in tournaments. If GSL wasn't so horrific I would be more sympathetic to how close balance might be even at the top level. (Ofc we could call all foreign terrans crap but that gets us no where and is just as bad as calling MC, Alicia and San crap).
|
On September 23 2011 05:17 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:13 Heavenly wrote:On September 23 2011 05:11 Bobster wrote:
Looks like Korea needs some better Protoss. Funny, because the best protoss from the rest of the world have gone there (Naniwa, Huk, Sase). Looks like North America needs some better zergs. Actually I've always wondered why Foreign Terrans are so (relatively) terrible. Foreign toss /do/ have the rep for workin the hardest / great mechanics (Nani/Huk) so they're good results make sense. Foreign Terrans while quite a few have a rep for mechanical issues (Thor/Sjow/Goody slow players according to other pros from comments from HSC to SOTG) should concievably be doing much much better than they have in tournaments. If GSL wasn't so horrific I would be more sympathetic to how close balance might be even at the top level. (Ofc we could call all foreign terrans crap but that gets us no where and is just as bad as calling MC, Alicia and San crap).
Probably because it seems they rarely timing attack and usually go for macro games. Same for most foreigners. Seems like if Koreans see you doing something slightly off (July being the extreme example) they know if they make so-and-so at so-and-so time they can just go and kill you, whereas a lot of foreign terrans are like "alright" then sit back and continue doing their own thing. Korean server looks pretty hyperaggressive and very punishing for small mistakes. Thorzain seems to do okay in Korea but maybe his speed is holding him back since he has around 180ish apm.
|
I don't get it. Shouldn't the matchmaker system make it so you play against players you have a 50/50 shot of beating? How can Zergs in GM/Masters on NA be winning only 43% of their games? Does that imply a bug in the whole matchmaking system?
|
On September 23 2011 05:07 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 04:54 andrewlt wrote:On September 23 2011 04:34 Geo.Rion wrote:
i wonder what Koreans do in ZvP, i lose like almost every "normal" game. And every game when i try to do some of the Korean builds i lose, like 100% It does sound like Zerg win percentage gets a huge drop in the mid skill levels (US/EU Masters and GM) when the early Zerg rushes are not as effective anymore. But their win percentage goes back up in the Korean Masters and GM level where players are better at managing their larva and that crucial balance between economy and unit production. PvT, on the other hand, is just a straight up drop the more skilled the players become. And you made that conclusion based on...? Well, you just made that conclusion, without any proof whatsoever. Zerg is the least rush-dependant race, making up such assumptions is just silly. And these stats are pre-patch if i understand correctly, and it's 57-57-48, now after protoss buffs and infestor nerfs i wonder how those will turn out.
It's a hypothesis, not a conclusion. The Blizzard graphs do clearly show a huge increase in PvZ win percentage when going from everybody to NA/EU Masters/GM then going back down when Korean Masters/GM is taken to account. What caused it is unclear. I'm just making a stab based on how I think people of different skill levels play.
|
On September 23 2011 05:20 meadbert wrote:
I don't get it. Shouldn't the matchmaker system make it so you play against players you have a 50/50 shot of beating? How can Zergs in GM/Masters on NA be winning only 43% of their games? Does that imply a bug in the whole matchmaking system?
You should read the text that goes along with those numbers.
Blizzard has all the intermediate numbers that the matchmaker uses so they can effectively backsolve.
|
On September 23 2011 05:20 meadbert wrote:
I don't get it. Shouldn't the matchmaker system make it so you play against players you have a 50/50 shot of beating? How can Zergs in GM/Masters on NA be winning only 43% of their games? Does that imply a bug in the whole matchmaking system?
They have a way to make it so the statistics aren't affected that way. It's a huge-ass formula shown at Blizzcon last year, and seems to be quite accurate.
|
finally, i knew i wasnt the only person feeling zerg is still the worst
|
so accoridng to blizzard only PvT in Korea is broken,in Europe and NA it is fine,lol.
|
On September 23 2011 05:14 polysciguy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:13 Heavenly wrote:On September 23 2011 05:11 Bobster wrote:
Looks like Korea needs some better Protoss. The best protoss from the rest of the world have gone there (Naniwa, Huk, Sase). Looks like North America needs some better zergs. kiwikakki would be scary if he went to korea
Not really, kiwikakki is a good western protoss but so is Naniwa and look at what happens, skill in korea is just so much higher, i see him doing medicure at most. If he stays longer like a Huk though who knows.
But thousands koreans vs the few foreigners that come over i never see a foreign player dominate or win a GSL tbh. % is just to low.
|
On September 23 2011 05:07 ale_jrb wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 05:01 figq wrote:
We got adjust-trolled again. I wish we had the access to the non-adjusted stats, because something tells me they are even more out of control.
For now I can only say good news for foreign zergs - they have room for improvement. DRG pretty much confirmed this on "Live on three". The non-adjusted stats (or stats taken from sc2ranks etc.) would be completely useless, because they'll have been adjusted by the ladder to be 50%. That's the whole point of matchmaking. The reason they can quote these stats is because they do realise they aren't working with raw data - they have to adjust the percentages from the ladder, because otherwise everything is equal. Of course, the data from just the GM league and tournaments is also useless, because the sample size is much, much too small to mean anything. In a statistical sample, if any individual element (i.e. one player) can have a noticeable effect on the final result, the final result is meaningless. Thus, in tournaments, the results are related much more to player skill than balance. The very top of the ladder is not 50%. But I get your point, it's actually useful for the all league analysis. As about tournaments, I agree that any system that isn't round-robin actually skews the results too much (snowball effect). Currently the closest to RR is probably NASL regular season, and last time they released the stats, everything looked pretty balanced. (Koreans incl.)
|
I think there is a serious misconpception in Blizzard's Side. If one has a match-making system that tries to make players get 50% win rate one can't use win percentages as an estimator of balance. A better estimator would be what percantage for players of each race are in what league.(Note: ESTIMATOR)
|
On September 23 2011 05:24 WarrickHunt wrote:
finally, i knew i wasnt the only person feeling zerg is still the worst
The worst on the generally bad NA server maybe. I have no idea how a lot of the people I face on the NA server get into masters. Ling/infestor seems to propel a lot of bad players into it because that's a particularly hard combo around NA diamond level, as well as various other ez-mode cheeses for the other races.
|
On September 23 2011 04:59 Wuster wrote:
I think you could argue that the bottom of Code S really isn't that different from the middle/top of Code A. And the balance in Code A has steadily gotten better, while before it was the opposite, with Code S having the better ratio and Code A being Terran dominant. So it make sense that Code S would eventually become Terran dominant, just like looking at Code A today gives hope that Code S will again diversify.
Well I'm not sure the "diversity" in code A will last long, we don't even know if there will be a protoss from code A in the up/down.
On September 23 2011 04:16 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 03:35 tyrless wrote:On September 23 2011 03:19 R3N wrote:On September 23 2011 03:07 tyrless wrote:On September 23 2011 02:42 headbus wrote:
7 Zergs, 5 Protoss in GSL code S. That should be enough to convince people that terran is stronger. Anybody who is convinced by those most meaningless numbers is in fact ignorant and uneducated to basic statistical analysis. Which most of the whiners in this thread are, not to mention the terrible reading comprehension I'm seeing (there are actually people here bringing up the matchmaking system in their arguments). Sometimes I forget that there are just a lot of uneducated/inexperienced kids posting here. Sorry haters but Blizzard does in fact have people who are much smarter/more experienced than you who work fulltime on this. can bet my left nut on you're a terran lol. Seriously the code S race balance shouldn't be the only important stat (well it actually isn't a stat  , but still it says something!) but it's definitely not useless. It's been going on for months now and this is just the result of it. Also you could present your ideas on how these numbers are void, I'd like to hear it. I hope you weren't attached to your left nut because you just lost it  Should probably take the other nut too for even suggesting that what race I play is relevant to the facts. As for methodology for interpreting GSL stats in the context of game balance, it's not really my job to educate you of basic statistics, your local community college can probably help with that. Since you've got such an arrogant attitude, you must be really confident that you're right, right? Prove it. Calculate the probability of there being at least 20 Terrans in Code S assuming the game is balanced, and show why this statistic is a "meaningless number" as you call it. Should be no problem for you since you are so well educated in basic statiscal analysis! Oh and it's a 30 day ban if you're unable to do it after posting with such a condescending tone.
I know I shouldn't post this but It seemed quite funny to caculate so I tryed.
If we consider that the game is balance means there is a uniform distribution on the code S spots for the 3 races (so basically we can toss a dice for each code S spot , so we throw 32 dices and look what is the result).
Now the probability that terran got k (20 here) spot in code S which have n players (32 here) is :
(n! 2^(n-k))/(k!(n-k)! 3^n).
It's quite ugly but I'm not sure it's possible to make a better formula (well at least it works for n=1 and n=2  )
This formula gives that the probability that there is 20 terrans out of 32 players is 0,05%.
In comparison the probability that there is 12 terran is 12% and 11 terran is 14%....
|
Well, balance doesn't matter as much in the lower tier of plays.
If you lose in Master or lower, it may be due to balance but then it is easy to compensate, you just have to practice a bit more or watch some replays. Where it matters is at the highest tier of play, where everyone puts countless hours per day into the game and do everything in their power to become the best. At that point, there is little you can do to compensate for the game balance. As such, it has been shown that currently Protoss cannot compete successfully while Terran is likely too strong. Where there are 20 Terran, 7 Zerg and 5 Protoss in Code S.
It is unjust and uninspiring to have people play professionally for 12 hours per day only to lose in tournaments because they picked the wrong race, as such, game balance at that level of play is of utmost importance. Currently, Terran is much more complete and safe than the other races, they have all the tools you could possibly want. I am not even sure what Blizzard could add to Terran in the expansion.
As for the adjusted stats, it is a bit odd to post them. The skill adjustment will make sure that a Protoss who loses a lot, is considered a worse player and as such is deserves a lower win %, even if he is called Alicia or MC. The adjustment simply leans all stats torwards 50%, making the game appear much more balanced than it is.
|
Son, im dissappoint. To me it also sounds like this is nothing but damage control, like it has been indicated in this thread multiple times. Noone with common sense can take these stats as indication of anything, and if Blizzard actually does, theres no hope for getting a game which is balanced at high level, and thats required for my viewing pleasure.
|
When it comes to "measuring" balance, Blizzard has some of the most ass-backwards logic I've ever heard in my life.
Every game that's played on battlenet is a function of two dependent variables: skill and balance. If you don't know one, it is mathematically impossible to calculate the other. This is an undeniable common sense fact.
If you don't know what the balance is, you can't calculate a player's relative "skill." After you've falsely and incorrectly assumed you know what a players skill is, you can't use that number to somehow assess the balance of the game. It makes no fucking sense!
Am I the only one who sees this? Let me break it down to kindergarten level for you...
Let's say Idra and MC play 10 games together. MC wins 6, Idra wins 4.
Now... did MC win more because of balance or because of skill? YOU CAN'T KNOW THAT SIMPLY FROM THE WIN/LOSS STATISTICS! No matter how many millions of games were played, it would be absolutely impossible to know if MC was winning more because of skill or balance. You cannot calculate EITHER with win ratios. And so long as they are both dependent and unknown variables, you won't ever, ever, be able to figure them out independently.
Is Blizzard really this stupid, or do they assume everyone else is?
|
On September 23 2011 04:48 Heavenly wrote:
Did Blizzard really just group me along with players like Kiwikaki in regards to balance for NA? Lol? And attempt to place numbers about Z balance in a map pool where close positions still exist?
I was thinking this exact same thing. It makes me really shake my head to think that I'm part of a statistic that's being used to justify game balance. I still lose half my games because of a bad forcefield or reacting too slowly to a drop. It's laughable to think that anything below GM is a factor in balance discussions.
To be honest nothing outside GM in Korea should be a factor.
|
these numbers are completely meaningless. Well the M+GM may hold some slight significance but even those are not completely usefull in regards to balance. In balance discussions the only thing that really matters is Top Of The Wolrd level of play, like gsl code S , maybe code A and some top noch Foreign tournaments. I would like to see those numbers..... hey...20+terrans in code S... thats a meaningfull number....
|
Why are people trying to argue against this when at least in Korea its pretty consistent with the GSL?
Lets see in GM in Korea
PvZ is at 43% which shows that the MU is T favoured by a huge amount, it may not be the 30 ish percent that the GSL shows but we have to remember that GSL has many many less games. Overall the same theme of the MU being T favoured.
PvZ is at 48% still shows that the MU now is Z favoured but to a lesser extent, which again is still consistent with the Z>P theme, but its still to a lesser extent.Well tbh this is the stat that diverges the most, but overall it seems correctish.
TvZ is at 52% which shows that T have a slightly easier time in the MU but overall the MU is not really imba. Still shows that T is doing well in both non mirror MUs.
And also they say this is not their final say on Balance(for all those who say that they should watch tourneys, gomtvtvtvtvtvtvtv, qq, etc..)
I get the feeling that some people saw "ladder" and winrates that don't spell doom and gloom(which again taking into account that Tourneys generally have much less games,which tends to make the stats seem more volatile) as they wanted them to be and get upset over it.
No comment on the all leagues I'm just looking at the GM ratings. And seriously people need to look up how the matchmaking works before making crap up. The matchmaking indeed wants you to have a GLOBAL 50% winrate, other than that it doesn't care much about what race it matches you.
But yeah yeah its "DC" I am sure they are happy to show that PvT is at 43% in Korea lol.
I am kinda glad about the korean stats because that means they know that P is having a hard time atm(especially against T) and that T could use a little slowing down as they are favoured in both of their MUs
|
On September 23 2011 05:41 mr_chapy wrote:
these numbers are completely meaningless. Well the M+GM may hold some slight significance but even those are not completely usefull in regards to balance. In balance discussions the only thing that really matters is Top Of The Wolrd level of play, like gsl code S , maybe code A and some top noch Foreign tournaments. I would like to see those numbers..... hey...20+terrans in code S... thats a meaningfull number....
They have said that they look at the results of top tournaments... several times they have said that Oh god why do people think they are balancing solely on this?
Its even on the Screenshot, they say that this is not the final say on balance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
