On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
You can find the formula, look for Blizzcon 2010 then search for part 3(?) of the panel section, AFAIK, then pause when they show the formula and take it down. Nope, it meant literally nothing to me either.
At 2.50.
It looks (to me) like a Bayesian-esque sort of analysis.
The basic process appears iterative; they start with a prior distribution (probably flat) and produce a posterior distribution by feeding it the result of a game, by using the win-percentage probability distributions for each player, for each race. Note that this doesn't need to know any true sense of skill, it just needs to know the outcome of the match and the predicted win percentages for those players - the latter of which are obviously accurate as it uses them for match-making.
The process is repeated over and over, adding the results of all the thousand (millions?) of matches taking place on Battlenet, with the previous posterior distribution becoming the new prior distribution each time the process is run. Eventually one hopes the distribution converges on a distribution from which the win percentages can then be simply extracted, as a simple function of league level.
I will have to think about this some more, but this makes sense and I think should work.
I don't think they are trying to 'scare' anyone away, as some other posters seem to imply. I think they don't want to have to wheel their math-guy out to give a series of long, dry seminars to explain Bayesian analysis. Personally, given how the match-maker seems to work pretty well, I'm inclined to take their word for this process working to the level of accuracy (+/-5%) that they claim.
it makes some sense...not the equation but the simple example that they gave....but it doesn't seem liek it would work in practice
they said they don't take into account how the player wins....perhaps the million zerg player have cheesed their way to victory.....that doesn't make the matchup balanced or say much about the skills of the player. 2 it doesn't take into account that some players are better against certain races or racial playstyles than others, meaning that there isn't a static "skill" that they can look at. example: idra is great at the long game, so if you play against him and play a macro game and lose, assuming races are balanced, that means hes better, however if you rush him early and he loses that doesn't mean that you are a better player, just better against that long view style. 3. it doesn't take into account pure build order losses, i don't really see how it could.
you can't take into account all the variables that affect a player and put them into a formula, its not possible. it also doesn't take into account that most of the pro's don't actually ladder for practice they ladder to refine a build or get a new build down.
On September 23 2011 06:34 Miller wrote: If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
You protoss players cry too much...."Oh shit, I can't A-move anymore now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
I think it's time for toss players to QQ less and play smarter
On September 23 2011 06:34 Miller wrote: If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
You protoss players cry too much...."Oh shit, I can't A-move anymore now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
I think it's time for toss players to QQ less and play smarter
On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
You can find the formula, look for Blizzcon 2010 then search for part 3(?) of the panel section, AFAIK, then pause when they show the formula and take it down. Nope, it meant literally nothing to me either.
It looks (to me) like a Bayesian-esque sort of analysis.
The basic process appears iterative; they start with a prior distribution (probably flat) and produce a posterior distribution by feeding it the result of a game, by using the win-percentage probability distributions for each player, for each race. Note that this doesn't need to know any true sense of skill, it just needs to know the outcome of the match and the predicted win percentages for those players - the latter of which are obviously accurate as it uses them for match-making.
The process is repeated over and over, adding the results of all the thousand (millions?) of matches taking place on Battlenet, with the previous posterior distribution becoming the new prior distribution each time the process is run. Eventually one hopes the distribution converges on a distribution from which the win percentages can then be simply extracted, as a simple function of league level.
I will have to think about this some more, but this makes sense and I think should work.
I don't think they are trying to 'scare' anyone away, as some other posters seem to imply. I think they don't want to have to wheel their math-guy out to give a series of long, dry seminars to explain Bayesian analysis. Personally, given how the match-maker seems to work pretty well, I'm inclined to take their word for this process working to the level of accuracy (+/-5%) that they claim.
it makes some sense...not the equation but the simple example that they gave....but it doesn't seem liek it would work in practice
they said they don't take into account how the player wins....perhaps the million zerg player have cheesed their way to victory.....that doesn't make the matchup balanced or say much about the skills of the player. 2 it doesn't take into account that some players are better against certain races or racial playstyles than others, meaning that there isn't a static "skill" that they can look at. example: idra is great at the long game, so if you play against him and play a macro game and lose, assuming races are balanced, that means hes better, however if you rush him early and he loses that doesn't mean that you are a better player, just better against that long view style. 3. it doesn't take into account pure build order losses, i don't really see how it could.
you can't take into account all the variables that affect a player and put them into a formula, its not possible. it also doesn't take into account that most of the pro's don't actually ladder for practice they ladder to refine a build or get a new build down.
First, they aren't looking at skill. They just use results of matches and probability distribution for winning a match for any two players. That's not skill, it's just how likely they are to win. And Blizz sure seem good at knowing that. Their matchmaker works, right?
Second, it's irrelevent whether or not people 'cheese', or suffer build order losses, or are better at playstyles.
If a 'cheese' is giving one race a 90% win rate against one race (of course I'm sure nobody claims such a build exists and writes guides on TL claiming so and how to do it...) then that's part of the game, and that race is OP because of that build. Same with having a more favourable build order lottery, or being better at early or late game.
That's how overpowered builds (or cheese) get nerfed. Why do you think it takes three pylons to wall off the bottom of a ramp now?
Another way is because cheese often indicates bad design if it's very powerful.
On September 23 2011 05:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: 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?
You're right, but then I have a question to ask you. How do you measure balance at all? So many people on TL talk about how BroodWar was perfectly balanced, but according to your logic, this would never be the case. And judging by what Artosis said on the last SOTG, none of that was dependent on player skill or racial balance, but map balance. "The Legend of the Fall" means Protoss win more in the Fall because there are more Protoss favored maps in the Fall? That doesn't sound particularly balanced.
I mean I understand the general principle that you cannot balance in a vacuum without maps, but if you are balancing around maps then doesn't racial balance become negligible? If there is a huge imbalance, then if you make a certain race favored on a map, then it might even things out so that players of equal skill will have a 50% win ratio. All of that assumes that you know what skill level everyone is, which you point we do not.
So what is the answer then? How do you do this when you can never accurately judge how much skill someone has?
Well, this community doesn't measure skill from a simple "how many games do they win" perspective. We look at very subjective things that can't be measured mathematically, such as game sense, micro, multitasking, mechanics, strategic thinking, etc. When looking at these these it's possible to get a rough idea of the relative skill of players, and that can be used to perhaps assess whether a player should/shouldn't be winning as much as they are/aren't. Of course it is a pretty subjective process, but when you've got more than a decade to study the game people start to reach a consensus on these issues.
On September 23 2011 06:34 Miller wrote: If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
You protoss players cry too much...."Oh shit, I can't A-move anymore now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
I think it's time for toss players to QQ less and play smarter
Great advice! Do you offer coaching?
I'm in diamond and have trouble executing such complex strategies as making motherships and throwing sentries in there.
On September 23 2011 06:34 Miller wrote: If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
You protoss players cry too much...."Oh shit, I can't A-move anymore now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
I think it's time for toss players to QQ less and play smarter
Quality first post man, welcome to the forums...
Yeah....it was a bad post, but I'm just tired of reading about toss complaining. I'm sure that there is many people that don't post that would agree with me as well.
On September 23 2011 06:34 Miller wrote: If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
You protoss players cry too much...."Oh shit, I can't A-move anymore now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
I think it's time for toss players to QQ less and play smarter
we've been complaining about emp since the beginning, and what happened, instead of emp dropping all energy it drops only 100.......awesome, such a huge change......i mean it still pretty much accomplishes the exact same effect it did before the change, unless you managed to keep a couple sentries alive from when you first made them and never used any energy on them. and if you play terran, i don't really think you are in a position to complain about a-moving an army.
On September 23 2011 06:34 Miller wrote: If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
You protoss players cry too much...."Oh shit, I can't A-move anymore now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
I think it's time for toss players to QQ less and play smarter
Great advice! Do you offer coaching?
I'm in diamond and have trouble executing such complex strategies as making motherships and throwing sentries in there.
I could write a novel but I really don't want to. No need to be sarcastic...this is a discussion isn't it?
On September 23 2011 05:40 jdseemoreglass wrote: 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?
I know this will probably be buried under piles of "ZOMG BLIZZARD IS BLIND AND WE'RE ALL SMARTER!" but there is a way to determine the value of 2+ unknown variables. It's called systems of equations. Here is a link:
In this case, Blizzard can take some variables to measure, like average skill, skill deviation, and racial balance. You combine these with knowns, like race, winner, and rating before game. The end equation USUALLY looks something like this:
Ax+By+Cz=Q
The capital letters are the numbers you know, and the small letters are the variables. You do this over a long period of time and you end up with a multitude of numbers for your knowns. Since this involves behavioral unpredictability and an imperfect system, you're going to get a bunch of equations that can't be solved by systems of equations. This is where things like linear algebra and statistics comes in with a least squares approach to determine the best fit approximations for each variable. The beauty of this approach isn't just that you can determine things like overall balance, but you can also track balance across skill levels and see learning curves of each race, or population/skill shifts as they occur.
In short, please shut up about stuff you don't know. The second you think something is "common sense," stop yourself and do a little research into the subject to make sure it really is common sense.
On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
You can find the formula, look for Blizzcon 2010 then search for part 3(?) of the panel section, AFAIK, then pause when they show the formula and take it down. Nope, it meant literally nothing to me either.
It looks (to me) like a Bayesian-esque sort of analysis.
The basic process appears iterative; they start with a prior distribution (probably flat) and produce a posterior distribution by feeding it the result of a game, by using the win-percentage probability distributions for each player, for each race. Note that this doesn't need to know any true sense of skill, it just needs to know the outcome of the match and the predicted win percentages for those players - the latter of which are obviously accurate as it uses them for match-making.
The process is repeated over and over, adding the results of all the thousand (millions?) of matches taking place on Battlenet, with the previous posterior distribution becoming the new prior distribution each time the process is run. Eventually one hopes the distribution converges on a distribution from which the win percentages can then be simply extracted, as a simple function of league level.
I will have to think about this some more, but this makes sense and I think should work.
I don't think they are trying to 'scare' anyone away, as some other posters seem to imply. I think they don't want to have to wheel their math-guy out to give a series of long, dry seminars to explain Bayesian analysis. Personally, given how the match-maker seems to work pretty well, I'm inclined to take their word for this process working to the level of accuracy (+/-5%) that they claim.
it makes some sense...not the equation but the simple example that they gave....but it doesn't seem liek it would work in practice
they said they don't take into account how the player wins....perhaps the million zerg player have cheesed their way to victory.....that doesn't make the matchup balanced or say much about the skills of the player. 2 it doesn't take into account that some players are better against certain races or racial playstyles than others, meaning that there isn't a static "skill" that they can look at. example: idra is great at the long game, so if you play against him and play a macro game and lose, assuming races are balanced, that means hes better, however if you rush him early and he loses that doesn't mean that you are a better player, just better against that long view style. 3. it doesn't take into account pure build order losses, i don't really see how it could.
you can't take into account all the variables that affect a player and put them into a formula, its not possible. it also doesn't take into account that most of the pro's don't actually ladder for practice they ladder to refine a build or get a new build down.
First, they aren't looking at skill. They just use results of matches and probability distribution for winning a match for any two players. That's not skill, it's just how likely they are to win. And Blizz sure seem good at knowing that. Their matchmaker works, right?
Second, it's irrelevent whether or not people 'cheese', or suffer build order losses, or are better at playstyles.
If a 'cheese' is giving one race a 90% win rate against one race (of course I'm sure nobody claims such a build exists and writes guides on TL claiming so and how to do it...) then that's part of the game, and that race is OP because of that build. Same with having a more favourable build order lottery, or being better at early or late game.
That's how overpowered builds (or cheese) get nerfed. Why do you think it takes three pylons to wall off the bottom of a ramp now?
Another way is because cheese often indicates bad design if it's very powerful.
A thing to note about overpowered builds is that even if they are rarely used, that doesn't stop them from being overpowered. I don't think something like 1/1/1 is performed with nearly the frequency or precision on NA as it is on KOR, and as such it won't affect the win percentages there as strongly, but that doesn't mean that it might not be overpowered.
On September 23 2011 06:34 Miller wrote: If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
You protoss players cry too much...."Oh shit, I can't A-move anymore now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
I think it's time for toss players to QQ less and play smarter
we've been complaining about emp since the beginning, and what happened, instead of emp dropping all energy it drops only 100.......awesome, such a huge change......i mean it still pretty much accomplishes the exact same effect it did before the change, unless you managed to keep a couple sentries alive from when you first made them and never used any energy on them. and if you play terran, i don't really think you are in a position to complain about a-moving an army.
Yeah because playing as a terran you A-move, right? I mean you have to micro vikings, spread units, emp, studder step, etc.
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
Its even on the Screenshot, they say that this is not the final say on balance.
They said just the opposite.
At Blizzcon they said, and I quote. "We don't tend to look too much at tournament results". They also said that, in regards to balance: "We play our game a lot. Everyone who works on balance is a diamond random player. So we get to see all the match-ups and all the maps."
The StarCraft II developers feel that it’s important to take a look at the various tools that are employed in defining balance. At first, each one of these tools looks like it could be the one answer you need -- but it becomes clear over time that no single tool provides the perfect solution to balance. Instead, it takes multiple tools and a complete understanding of what those tools tell the designers. So what tools do the developers use?
Player Feedback
Player feedback is perhaps the best tool available to the development team, as it allows for many voices to be heard across a variety of skill levels and experiences. This method also represents the largest pool of players. While data is a great tool, raw stats don’t qualify what players are experiencing from their perspectives. By reading the forums and getting feedback from the community team, the developers can gain insight into how the community is playing the game, what units they're using, and what difficulties or successes they're having.
There are drawbacks to utilizing player feedback exclusively. Sometimes the loudest of voices aren't portraying their experiences accurately, and the many can easily drown out a single voice that has different, yet important information the development team needs to make balancing decisions.
Pro Feedback
Pro players represent another important balancing tool to the development team. These players have a high skill level and understand the minute details of the game. They are also a great resource for critical feedback. On the downside, these players are generally very focused on one particular race and represent a very small subset of the community. When taking these players into account, it’s important to note that they may not know exactly why they lost a match -- whether it was due to their own error or an actual imbalance to the race, ability, or unit they are using.
Tournaments
Tournaments can be a great resource for observing games played at a very high skill level. When watching these matches, however, it’s important to look at the games individually and not just the end results. A talented player like Fruit Dealer may just be so good that he was going to win no matter what race he played. However, each game can give some insight into where the holes within the balance might lie. Players in these tournaments are generally very good at finding these holes and taking advantage of them, and it’s the development team’s job to keep an eye out and determine if something needs to be changed. The weakness in looking only at tournaments lies in knowing that there’s no way to be certain that matches are equal. All it really takes is a single poor performance to keep a top player from progressing.
Play the Games You Make
There’s no better way to see what players are experiencing firsthand than to play the game yourself. It’s a good way to get into the trenches, analyze gameplay, and find out what’s fun, what’s not fun, what tactics work and don’t work, and so on. However, while the development team consists of players of every skill level, the team is only so large -- and even with additional feedback from within the company, it can sometimes take time before the next new strategy gets to our team.
Spreadsheets
Spreadsheets are a great tool for looking at straight damage numbers, how fast or slow units are made, how often, what combinations of units are used, unit costs, and more. What spreadsheets don’t tell the developers is the how or why. While designers can take a look at the sizes of armies and make adjustments to building times , spreadsheets can’t really take into account pathing, terrain, micromanagement, unit size, random target acquisition, and other factors which only occur in a real game.
Make Combat
Make Combat is a great in-house simulation tool that allows the development team to run various scenarios with units to see how they stack up against each other, but running one simulation isn’t enough. Simulations need to be run multiple times before any sort of pattern begins to take shape -- if there’s even a pattern to be seen. Unlike a spreadsheet, Make Combat can take a look at unit pathing and can even allow micro to be employed if the developers wants to drill down a little bit more. What the simulation doesn’t do well is take into account all the myriad combinations of units or terrain. While it’s a handy tool, it’s only one of many, and results can’t always be taken at face value.
maybe you are misinterpreting stuff?
No, what you post is a summary by a community manager (Nethaera). You can find my quote at (8 minutes exactly into it).
On September 23 2011 06:34 Miller wrote: If Blizzard really feels PvT is balanced or that Protoss even close to OP then its time to make the dreaded switch to Terran... Sigh I wish they would post recent tourney stats... Its all about the Terrans that utilize EMP, the lower level even Masters Terrans don't. Seperate GM from Masters and lets see what it looks like because Masters is closer to diamond than GM as far as competition goes. Anyways, off to learn Terran now so sad =\ GL Protoss
You protoss players cry too much...."Oh shit, I can't A-move anymore now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
I think it's time for toss players to QQ less and play smarter
Great advice! Do you offer coaching?
I'm in diamond and have trouble executing such complex strategies as making motherships and throwing sentries in there.
I could write a novel but I really don't want to. No need to be sarcastic...this is a discussion isn't it?
I didn't think a line like "QQ less and play smarter" warranted serious response. These aren't the Blizzard forums where you can tell people to make certain units and consider it a legitimate contribution to the discussion.
On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
You can find the formula, look for Blizzcon 2010 then search for part 3(?) of the panel section, AFAIK, then pause when they show the formula and take it down. Nope, it meant literally nothing to me either.
It looks (to me) like a Bayesian-esque sort of analysis.
The basic process appears iterative; they start with a prior distribution (probably flat) and produce a posterior distribution by feeding it the result of a game, by using the win-percentage probability distributions for each player, for each race. Note that this doesn't need to know any true sense of skill, it just needs to know the outcome of the match and the predicted win percentages for those players - the latter of which are obviously accurate as it uses them for match-making.
The process is repeated over and over, adding the results of all the thousand (millions?) of matches taking place on Battlenet, with the previous posterior distribution becoming the new prior distribution each time the process is run. Eventually one hopes the distribution converges on a distribution from which the win percentages can then be simply extracted, as a simple function of league level.
I will have to think about this some more, but this makes sense and I think should work.
I don't think they are trying to 'scare' anyone away, as some other posters seem to imply. I think they don't want to have to wheel their math-guy out to give a series of long, dry seminars to explain Bayesian analysis. Personally, given how the match-maker seems to work pretty well, I'm inclined to take their word for this process working to the level of accuracy (+/-5%) that they claim.
it makes some sense...not the equation but the simple example that they gave....but it doesn't seem liek it would work in practice
they said they don't take into account how the player wins....perhaps the million zerg player have cheesed their way to victory.....that doesn't make the matchup balanced or say much about the skills of the player. 2 it doesn't take into account that some players are better against certain races or racial playstyles than others, meaning that there isn't a static "skill" that they can look at. example: idra is great at the long game, so if you play against him and play a macro game and lose, assuming races are balanced, that means hes better, however if you rush him early and he loses that doesn't mean that you are a better player, just better against that long view style. 3. it doesn't take into account pure build order losses, i don't really see how it could.
you can't take into account all the variables that affect a player and put them into a formula, its not possible. it also doesn't take into account that most of the pro's don't actually ladder for practice they ladder to refine a build or get a new build down.
You are partially correct. Cheese wont be take into consideration here. This winning percentage estimation system is only result based.
But I do believe they have another system to solve the strategy imbalance. In all, they have all the data. They can do whatever they want. And data dont lie. Yet here majority of the members just make conclusion based on their instinct.
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
Its even on the Screenshot, they say that this is not the final say on balance.
They said just the opposite.
At Blizzcon they said, and I quote. "We don't tend to look too much at tournament results". They also said that, in regards to balance: "We play our game a lot. Everyone who works on balance is a diamond random player. So we get to see all the match-ups and all the maps."
The StarCraft II developers feel that it’s important to take a look at the various tools that are employed in defining balance. At first, each one of these tools looks like it could be the one answer you need -- but it becomes clear over time that no single tool provides the perfect solution to balance. Instead, it takes multiple tools and a complete understanding of what those tools tell the designers. So what tools do the developers use?
Player Feedback
Player feedback is perhaps the best tool available to the development team, as it allows for many voices to be heard across a variety of skill levels and experiences. This method also represents the largest pool of players. While data is a great tool, raw stats don’t qualify what players are experiencing from their perspectives. By reading the forums and getting feedback from the community team, the developers can gain insight into how the community is playing the game, what units they're using, and what difficulties or successes they're having.
There are drawbacks to utilizing player feedback exclusively. Sometimes the loudest of voices aren't portraying their experiences accurately, and the many can easily drown out a single voice that has different, yet important information the development team needs to make balancing decisions.
Pro Feedback
Pro players represent another important balancing tool to the development team. These players have a high skill level and understand the minute details of the game. They are also a great resource for critical feedback. On the downside, these players are generally very focused on one particular race and represent a very small subset of the community. When taking these players into account, it’s important to note that they may not know exactly why they lost a match -- whether it was due to their own error or an actual imbalance to the race, ability, or unit they are using.
Tournaments
Tournaments can be a great resource for observing games played at a very high skill level. When watching these matches, however, it’s important to look at the games individually and not just the end results. A talented player like Fruit Dealer may just be so good that he was going to win no matter what race he played. However, each game can give some insight into where the holes within the balance might lie. Players in these tournaments are generally very good at finding these holes and taking advantage of them, and it’s the development team’s job to keep an eye out and determine if something needs to be changed. The weakness in looking only at tournaments lies in knowing that there’s no way to be certain that matches are equal. All it really takes is a single poor performance to keep a top player from progressing.
Play the Games You Make
There’s no better way to see what players are experiencing firsthand than to play the game yourself. It’s a good way to get into the trenches, analyze gameplay, and find out what’s fun, what’s not fun, what tactics work and don’t work, and so on. However, while the development team consists of players of every skill level, the team is only so large -- and even with additional feedback from within the company, it can sometimes take time before the next new strategy gets to our team.
Spreadsheets
Spreadsheets are a great tool for looking at straight damage numbers, how fast or slow units are made, how often, what combinations of units are used, unit costs, and more. What spreadsheets don’t tell the developers is the how or why. While designers can take a look at the sizes of armies and make adjustments to building times , spreadsheets can’t really take into account pathing, terrain, micromanagement, unit size, random target acquisition, and other factors which only occur in a real game.
Make Combat
Make Combat is a great in-house simulation tool that allows the development team to run various scenarios with units to see how they stack up against each other, but running one simulation isn’t enough. Simulations need to be run multiple times before any sort of pattern begins to take shape -- if there’s even a pattern to be seen. Unlike a spreadsheet, Make Combat can take a look at unit pathing and can even allow micro to be employed if the developers wants to drill down a little bit more. What the simulation doesn’t do well is take into account all the myriad combinations of units or terrain. While it’s a handy tool, it’s only one of many, and results can’t always be taken at face value.
yeah I have seen that. Maybe I am interpreting differently than you but what I got from that is that just don't base off on the results of the tourney, but on the games themeselves.I guess we will have to agree to disagree, maybe I am being too positive hahaha.
On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
You can find the formula, look for Blizzcon 2010 then search for part 3(?) of the panel section, AFAIK, then pause when they show the formula and take it down. Nope, it meant literally nothing to me either.
It looks (to me) like a Bayesian-esque sort of analysis.
The basic process appears iterative; they start with a prior distribution (probably flat) and produce a posterior distribution by feeding it the result of a game, by using the win-percentage probability distributions for each player, for each race. Note that this doesn't need to know any true sense of skill, it just needs to know the outcome of the match and the predicted win percentages for those players - the latter of which are obviously accurate as it uses them for match-making.
The process is repeated over and over, adding the results of all the thousand (millions?) of matches taking place on Battlenet, with the previous posterior distribution becoming the new prior distribution each time the process is run. Eventually one hopes the distribution converges on a distribution from which the win percentages can then be simply extracted, as a simple function of league level.
I will have to think about this some more, but this makes sense and I think should work.
I don't think they are trying to 'scare' anyone away, as some other posters seem to imply. I think they don't want to have to wheel their math-guy out to give a series of long, dry seminars to explain Bayesian analysis. Personally, given how the match-maker seems to work pretty well, I'm inclined to take their word for this process working to the level of accuracy (+/-5%) that they claim.
it makes some sense...not the equation but the simple example that they gave....but it doesn't seem liek it would work in practice
they said they don't take into account how the player wins....perhaps the million zerg player have cheesed their way to victory.....that doesn't make the matchup balanced or say much about the skills of the player. 2 it doesn't take into account that some players are better against certain races or racial playstyles than others, meaning that there isn't a static "skill" that they can look at. example: idra is great at the long game, so if you play against him and play a macro game and lose, assuming races are balanced, that means hes better, however if you rush him early and he loses that doesn't mean that you are a better player, just better against that long view style. 3. it doesn't take into account pure build order losses, i don't really see how it could.
you can't take into account all the variables that affect a player and put them into a formula, its not possible. it also doesn't take into account that most of the pro's don't actually ladder for practice they ladder to refine a build or get a new build down.
First, they aren't looking at skill. They just use results of matches and probability distribution for winning a match for any two players. That's not skill, it's just how likely they are to win. And Blizz sure seem good at knowing that. Their matchmaker works, right?
Second, it's irrelevent whether or not people 'cheese', or suffer build order losses, or are better at playstyles.
If a 'cheese' is giving one race a 90% win rate against one race (of course I'm sure nobody claims such a build exists and writes guides on TL claiming so and how to do it...) then that's part of the game, and that race is OP because of that build. Same with having a more favourable build order lottery, or being better at early or late game.
That's how overpowered builds (or cheese) get nerfed. Why do you think it takes three pylons to wall off the bottom of a ramp now?
Another way is because cheese often indicates bad design if it's very powerful.
A thing to note about overpowered builds is that even if they are rarely used, that doesn't stop them from being overpowered. I don't think something like 1/1/1 is performed with nearly the frequency or precision on NA as it is on KOR, and as such it won't affect the win percentages there as strongly, but that doesn't mean that it might not be overpowered.
The assumption is that if it is overpowered, you will see it used in almost exclusivity. Why wouldn't you want a free win?
On September 23 2011 05:52 ChriseC wrote: there are some things that i dont understand
ladder system tries to keep you to 50% win/lose ratio, so isnt it representitive at all?
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
There really should be a link that is required viewing for every new TL member to the Blizzcon in which they explain their way of taking away that. Oh, and the squillions of other posts that ask exactly the same question.
Basically, Blizzard has a fucking huge equation to remove the matchmaking system from the equation (allegedly), among other things. So NO, the 50% win/lose ratio SHOULDN'T have any impact.
Without the formula to examine, there's no fucking reason to believe that.
You can find the formula, look for Blizzcon 2010 then search for part 3(?) of the panel section, AFAIK, then pause when they show the formula and take it down. Nope, it meant literally nothing to me either.
It looks (to me) like a Bayesian-esque sort of analysis.
The basic process appears iterative; they start with a prior distribution (probably flat) and produce a posterior distribution by feeding it the result of a game, by using the win-percentage probability distributions for each player, for each race. Note that this doesn't need to know any true sense of skill, it just needs to know the outcome of the match and the predicted win percentages for those players - the latter of which are obviously accurate as it uses them for match-making.
The process is repeated over and over, adding the results of all the thousand (millions?) of matches taking place on Battlenet, with the previous posterior distribution becoming the new prior distribution each time the process is run. Eventually one hopes the distribution converges on a distribution from which the win percentages can then be simply extracted, as a simple function of league level.
I will have to think about this some more, but this makes sense and I think should work.
I don't think they are trying to 'scare' anyone away, as some other posters seem to imply. I think they don't want to have to wheel their math-guy out to give a series of long, dry seminars to explain Bayesian analysis. Personally, given how the match-maker seems to work pretty well, I'm inclined to take their word for this process working to the level of accuracy (+/-5%) that they claim.
it makes some sense...not the equation but the simple example that they gave....but it doesn't seem liek it would work in practice
they said they don't take into account how the player wins....perhaps the million zerg player have cheesed their way to victory.....that doesn't make the matchup balanced or say much about the skills of the player. 2 it doesn't take into account that some players are better against certain races or racial playstyles than others, meaning that there isn't a static "skill" that they can look at. example: idra is great at the long game, so if you play against him and play a macro game and lose, assuming races are balanced, that means hes better, however if you rush him early and he loses that doesn't mean that you are a better player, just better against that long view style. 3. it doesn't take into account pure build order losses, i don't really see how it could.
you can't take into account all the variables that affect a player and put them into a formula, its not possible. it also doesn't take into account that most of the pro's don't actually ladder for practice they ladder to refine a build or get a new build down.
You are partially correct. Cheese wont be take into consideration here. This winning percentage estimation system is only result based.
But I do believe they have another system to solve the strategy imbalance. In all, they have all the data. They can do whatever they want. And data dont lie. Yet here majority of the members just make conclusion based on their instinct.
id argue that they are making conclusions based on actual results
EPT
now I gotta micro and shit...cry me a river you idiots. Your race is a joke and it's easy to play. You bitch about zerg and infestors and they get nerfed instantly...and now that you're complaining about emp it will probably get nerfed. Quit your bitching, your race has so many different options on what they can do. Make a mothership, it's imba and has vortex, or go charge zealots and archon...most imba comp in the world...throw some sentry in there (spread them) and your army is basically imba as shit.
