|
Looking at the figures provided, it seems safest to assume that the 'truth' lies somewhere between the NA and Korean numbers - in other words, Zerg is a little too predictable and easy to blindside, Terran a little too safe, resilient and flexible (relatively speaking). PvZ domination could well be an artifact of transient PvT weakness pushing good Protosses way down, so that they do better against Zergs, but it's hard to know when Blizzard have already eliminated some factors.
QTF
User was warned for this post
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 23 2011 07:23 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 07:20 Umpteen wrote:
There was a very long and well-presented thread some time ago detailing the effects imbalance would have on the ladder. I can't find it, unfortunately, but here's the short version:
Take imaginary races A, B and C, and imagine we also have some magical way of knowing in advance exactly how 'skilled' all the players are so that when we place them in the ladder they are exactly where they should be (ie, where they should end up if the game were perfectly balanced). Then we let them play.
Now suppose A is inherently favoured versus B, all other matchups equal. From the start, As will win > 50% of their games, Bs will win < 50%, and Cs will win 50%. This pushes As up the ladder, and Bs down the ladder. This stabilises when the extra losses As have versus better Cs counteract the diminishing racial benefit As get facing MUCH better Bs, and the same in reverse for Bs.
At the point of stability, how does everyone feel?
If you're an average A, you win AvB more than 50% of the time. You might get the niggling feeling that you're not having to work as hard for those wins as your opponents are. You lose AvC more than 50% of the time, and you might get the feeling that you're being outplayed. If you blame imbalance, you'll think C is overpowered and B underpowered.
If you're an average B, you struggle against A, and might feel like they have an easier ride. You win BvC more than 50% of the time, and might feel like you're outplaying them. To the extent you blame imbalance, you'll think A is overpowered and C underpowered.
If you're an average C, you win more often against A's and lose more often against B's. How you feel about this is hard to say. You might feel like the extra wins and losses are justified, or you might think B is overpowered and A is weak.
In other words, everyone sees rock/paper/scissors, even though only one matchup is imbalanced.
Now suppose A is favoured against both B and C. From our initial 'perfect' situation, As will tend to rise and Bs and Cs fall, stabilising when A's inherent advantage is countered by the higher skill of the Bs and Cs he's facing.
At the point of stability, how does it feel?
Everyone wins 50% of the time. Bs and Cs might feel like they have to work harder than As, so Bs and Cs will whine a lot, while As point to their 50% win/loss ratios and say 'QQ more noobs'.
It's a similar situation if A is underpowered against B and C: everyone wins 50% of the time but As might feel like they have to work a bit harder. They'll whine a lot, and Bs and Cs will tell them to cut the QQ because the win/loss ratios are 50%.
You can also directly superimpose combinations. Say A is overpowered against B and C, but particularly so against B. What will everyone see? Paper/scissors/stone again.
Dealing with the extremes of the ladder
You might expect, if A were underpowered, that bronze leagues would be overstuffed with As. But there are good reasons why this might not manifest. Firstly, any imbalance sufficiently pronounced as to be detectable in Bronze could induce a relatively higher drop-out rate of A players, reducing the numbers in those leagues. Secondly, not all imbalances (or balances) manifest at every level of skill (eg marine splitting), softening the effect towards the bottom of the ladder.
The same reasoning applies if A is overpowered: we should not expect to see disproportionately fewer As in Bronze (more Bs and Cs might quit, and not all imbalances can manifest).
However, we should see the effects at the higher end of play. Yes, the reduction in sample size does make the 'Flash Effect' a problem for analysis at the very top level, but there ought to be a sweet spot around the GM/Master level where the numbers involved are still high enough to be significant, but where any anomalous 'buoyancy' can still be detected.
The Upshot
The existence of single-matchup imbalances can be detected statistically (via paper/scissors/stone win/loss ratios) throughout the leagues, although pinpointing which matchup is imbalanced can be tricky (the order of paper/scissors/stone narrows it down to one of three). The existence of an OP or UP race, however - I cannot see how that can be detected at low to mid levels of play, no matter what maths you apply, because it looks exactly the same as if the races were balanced: close to 50% win ratios all round.
It might sound daft, but very likely the only useful statistic for gauging balance below pro/gm/high masters is the amount of QQ coming from each race, because that exposes the sensations engendered by imbalance that are hidden by the matchmaking system.
Looking at the figures provided, it seems safest to assume that the 'truth' lies somewhere between the NA and Korean numbers - in other words, Zerg is a little too predictable and easy to blindside, Terran a little too safe, resilient and flexible (relatively speaking). PvZ domination could well be an artifact of transient PvT weakness pushing good Protosses way down, so that they do better against Zergs, but it's hard to know when Blizzard have already eliminated some factors.
In other words, no huge surprises. Even if the truth was somewhere between the Korean and NA results as you're suggesting. That still leaves it MOSTLY within the 5% ratio that Blizzard defines as acceptably balanced. No matter how you slice it, according to these stats the game is more balanced than the forum QQ would have you think.
The usage of statistics for this purpose is still flawed. You can't view balance in SC2 solely through quantitative results from the ladder. I would argue almost all of their obtained results should be viewed as irrelevant.
The game should be balanced at the highest level possible, and the number of players at the highest level is extremely, extremely small. I don't mean all of Code S, I mean smaller than that. On top of that, the ladder results are clouded by a relatively poor map pool that doesn't reflect competitive play, and simply the nature of playing a 1v1 ladder game is completely different than playing a 1v1 in competition.
If a strategy is truly broken on Taldarim Altar TvZ, you're going to see it applied in competitive play first and most of the results on ladder won't reflect that the strategy is broken. Even among results for the MVP's and Nestea's, they way they operate on ladder is completely different because you have a random map selection, unknown opponent and unknown opponent race. Much of what they do is improvised to a certain extent, whereas in the GSL finals everything is mapped out through the early portions of the game.
Not to mention these "stats" are a world of difference away from the type of useful quantitative measuring you would find in any sort of research, or even in other sports' statistical tracking such as Sabremetrics. There is always context to the numbers, and in this case they present none. I can only hope they're not relying on them too heavily.
|
I can't even discern between plat-master play half the time. Dunno why they didn't include a mmr cutoff instead of putting in general 'master + gm'.
Would much rather see the data for peak mmr.
edit:
Also meant to put in what the post above me said.
The fact they even include the lower leagues in statistics is bad for the game. Refer to my sig, it was an actual quote from blizzard.
|
So balanced. People need to stop believing everything the Protoss players on SOTG say.
|
Good play and bad play seems way too subjective.
Getting your templars emp'd is bad play but sniping templars while taking a swim in storm is apparently gosu.
|
On September 23 2011 08:38 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 07:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2011 07:20 Umpteen wrote:
There was a very long and well-presented thread some time ago detailing the effects imbalance would have on the ladder. I can't find it, unfortunately, but here's the short version:
Take imaginary races A, B and C, and imagine we also have some magical way of knowing in advance exactly how 'skilled' all the players are so that when we place them in the ladder they are exactly where they should be (ie, where they should end up if the game were perfectly balanced). Then we let them play.
Now suppose A is inherently favoured versus B, all other matchups equal. From the start, As will win > 50% of their games, Bs will win < 50%, and Cs will win 50%. This pushes As up the ladder, and Bs down the ladder. This stabilises when the extra losses As have versus better Cs counteract the diminishing racial benefit As get facing MUCH better Bs, and the same in reverse for Bs.
At the point of stability, how does everyone feel?
If you're an average A, you win AvB more than 50% of the time. You might get the niggling feeling that you're not having to work as hard for those wins as your opponents are. You lose AvC more than 50% of the time, and you might get the feeling that you're being outplayed. If you blame imbalance, you'll think C is overpowered and B underpowered.
If you're an average B, you struggle against A, and might feel like they have an easier ride. You win BvC more than 50% of the time, and might feel like you're outplaying them. To the extent you blame imbalance, you'll think A is overpowered and C underpowered.
If you're an average C, you win more often against A's and lose more often against B's. How you feel about this is hard to say. You might feel like the extra wins and losses are justified, or you might think B is overpowered and A is weak.
In other words, everyone sees rock/paper/scissors, even though only one matchup is imbalanced.
Now suppose A is favoured against both B and C. From our initial 'perfect' situation, As will tend to rise and Bs and Cs fall, stabilising when A's inherent advantage is countered by the higher skill of the Bs and Cs he's facing.
At the point of stability, how does it feel?
Everyone wins 50% of the time. Bs and Cs might feel like they have to work harder than As, so Bs and Cs will whine a lot, while As point to their 50% win/loss ratios and say 'QQ more noobs'.
It's a similar situation if A is underpowered against B and C: everyone wins 50% of the time but As might feel like they have to work a bit harder. They'll whine a lot, and Bs and Cs will tell them to cut the QQ because the win/loss ratios are 50%.
You can also directly superimpose combinations. Say A is overpowered against B and C, but particularly so against B. What will everyone see? Paper/scissors/stone again.
Dealing with the extremes of the ladder
You might expect, if A were underpowered, that bronze leagues would be overstuffed with As. But there are good reasons why this might not manifest. Firstly, any imbalance sufficiently pronounced as to be detectable in Bronze could induce a relatively higher drop-out rate of A players, reducing the numbers in those leagues. Secondly, not all imbalances (or balances) manifest at every level of skill (eg marine splitting), softening the effect towards the bottom of the ladder.
The same reasoning applies if A is overpowered: we should not expect to see disproportionately fewer As in Bronze (more Bs and Cs might quit, and not all imbalances can manifest).
However, we should see the effects at the higher end of play. Yes, the reduction in sample size does make the 'Flash Effect' a problem for analysis at the very top level, but there ought to be a sweet spot around the GM/Master level where the numbers involved are still high enough to be significant, but where any anomalous 'buoyancy' can still be detected.
The Upshot
The existence of single-matchup imbalances can be detected statistically (via paper/scissors/stone win/loss ratios) throughout the leagues, although pinpointing which matchup is imbalanced can be tricky (the order of paper/scissors/stone narrows it down to one of three). The existence of an OP or UP race, however - I cannot see how that can be detected at low to mid levels of play, no matter what maths you apply, because it looks exactly the same as if the races were balanced: close to 50% win ratios all round.
It might sound daft, but very likely the only useful statistic for gauging balance below pro/gm/high masters is the amount of QQ coming from each race, because that exposes the sensations engendered by imbalance that are hidden by the matchmaking system.
Looking at the figures provided, it seems safest to assume that the 'truth' lies somewhere between the NA and Korean numbers - in other words, Zerg is a little too predictable and easy to blindside, Terran a little too safe, resilient and flexible (relatively speaking). PvZ domination could well be an artifact of transient PvT weakness pushing good Protosses way down, so that they do better against Zergs, but it's hard to know when Blizzard have already eliminated some factors.
In other words, no huge surprises. Even if the truth was somewhere between the Korean and NA results as you're suggesting. That still leaves it MOSTLY within the 5% ratio that Blizzard defines as acceptably balanced. No matter how you slice it, according to these stats the game is more balanced than the forum QQ would have you think. The usage of statistics for this purpose is still flawed. You can't view balance in SC2 solely through quantitative results from the ladder. I would argue almost all of their obtained results should be viewed as irrelevant. The game should be balanced at the highest level possible, and the number of players at the highest level is extremely, extremely small. I don't mean all of Code S, I mean smaller than that. On top of that, the ladder results are clouded by a relatively poor map pool that doesn't reflect competitive play, and simply the nature of playing a 1v1 ladder game is completely different than playing a 1v1 in competition. If a strategy is truly broken on Taldarim Altar TvZ, you're going to see it applied in competitive play first and most of the results on ladder won't reflect that the strategy is broken. Even among results for the MVP's and Nestea's, they way they operate on ladder is completely different because you have a random map selection, unknown opponent and unknown opponent race. Much of what they do is improvised to a certain extent, whereas in the GSL finals everything is mapped out through the early portions of the game.
Pretty much this. Ladder statistics mean absolutely nothing tournaments are what matter and the statistics for those.
|
>>Do you feel this is an accurate depiciton of the current state of the game?
I feel SC2 is a very complex game and Blizzard does not have employees smart enough to balance it. These statistics are completely, absolutely, mega, super meaningless as the MMR score depends on the race balance. IMHO a better (not perfect) way is to look at APMs - what is the win rate of Protoss players with 135-140 APM against Terran players with 135-140 APM.
If Blizzard cares about community's view on balance they should publish the anonymized row data, then everyone can run his own analysis.
|
On September 23 2011 08:40 blade55555 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 08:38 Jibba wrote:On September 23 2011 07:23 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2011 07:20 Umpteen wrote:
There was a very long and well-presented thread some time ago detailing the effects imbalance would have on the ladder. I can't find it, unfortunately, but here's the short version:
Take imaginary races A, B and C, and imagine we also have some magical way of knowing in advance exactly how 'skilled' all the players are so that when we place them in the ladder they are exactly where they should be (ie, where they should end up if the game were perfectly balanced). Then we let them play.
Now suppose A is inherently favoured versus B, all other matchups equal. From the start, As will win > 50% of their games, Bs will win < 50%, and Cs will win 50%. This pushes As up the ladder, and Bs down the ladder. This stabilises when the extra losses As have versus better Cs counteract the diminishing racial benefit As get facing MUCH better Bs, and the same in reverse for Bs.
At the point of stability, how does everyone feel?
If you're an average A, you win AvB more than 50% of the time. You might get the niggling feeling that you're not having to work as hard for those wins as your opponents are. You lose AvC more than 50% of the time, and you might get the feeling that you're being outplayed. If you blame imbalance, you'll think C is overpowered and B underpowered.
If you're an average B, you struggle against A, and might feel like they have an easier ride. You win BvC more than 50% of the time, and might feel like you're outplaying them. To the extent you blame imbalance, you'll think A is overpowered and C underpowered.
If you're an average C, you win more often against A's and lose more often against B's. How you feel about this is hard to say. You might feel like the extra wins and losses are justified, or you might think B is overpowered and A is weak.
In other words, everyone sees rock/paper/scissors, even though only one matchup is imbalanced.
Now suppose A is favoured against both B and C. From our initial 'perfect' situation, As will tend to rise and Bs and Cs fall, stabilising when A's inherent advantage is countered by the higher skill of the Bs and Cs he's facing.
At the point of stability, how does it feel?
Everyone wins 50% of the time. Bs and Cs might feel like they have to work harder than As, so Bs and Cs will whine a lot, while As point to their 50% win/loss ratios and say 'QQ more noobs'.
It's a similar situation if A is underpowered against B and C: everyone wins 50% of the time but As might feel like they have to work a bit harder. They'll whine a lot, and Bs and Cs will tell them to cut the QQ because the win/loss ratios are 50%.
You can also directly superimpose combinations. Say A is overpowered against B and C, but particularly so against B. What will everyone see? Paper/scissors/stone again.
Dealing with the extremes of the ladder
You might expect, if A were underpowered, that bronze leagues would be overstuffed with As. But there are good reasons why this might not manifest. Firstly, any imbalance sufficiently pronounced as to be detectable in Bronze could induce a relatively higher drop-out rate of A players, reducing the numbers in those leagues. Secondly, not all imbalances (or balances) manifest at every level of skill (eg marine splitting), softening the effect towards the bottom of the ladder.
The same reasoning applies if A is overpowered: we should not expect to see disproportionately fewer As in Bronze (more Bs and Cs might quit, and not all imbalances can manifest).
However, we should see the effects at the higher end of play. Yes, the reduction in sample size does make the 'Flash Effect' a problem for analysis at the very top level, but there ought to be a sweet spot around the GM/Master level where the numbers involved are still high enough to be significant, but where any anomalous 'buoyancy' can still be detected.
The Upshot
The existence of single-matchup imbalances can be detected statistically (via paper/scissors/stone win/loss ratios) throughout the leagues, although pinpointing which matchup is imbalanced can be tricky (the order of paper/scissors/stone narrows it down to one of three). The existence of an OP or UP race, however - I cannot see how that can be detected at low to mid levels of play, no matter what maths you apply, because it looks exactly the same as if the races were balanced: close to 50% win ratios all round.
It might sound daft, but very likely the only useful statistic for gauging balance below pro/gm/high masters is the amount of QQ coming from each race, because that exposes the sensations engendered by imbalance that are hidden by the matchmaking system.
Looking at the figures provided, it seems safest to assume that the 'truth' lies somewhere between the NA and Korean numbers - in other words, Zerg is a little too predictable and easy to blindside, Terran a little too safe, resilient and flexible (relatively speaking). PvZ domination could well be an artifact of transient PvT weakness pushing good Protosses way down, so that they do better against Zergs, but it's hard to know when Blizzard have already eliminated some factors.
In other words, no huge surprises. Even if the truth was somewhere between the Korean and NA results as you're suggesting. That still leaves it MOSTLY within the 5% ratio that Blizzard defines as acceptably balanced. No matter how you slice it, according to these stats the game is more balanced than the forum QQ would have you think. The usage of statistics for this purpose is still flawed. You can't view balance in SC2 solely through quantitative results from the ladder. I would argue almost all of their obtained results should be viewed as irrelevant. The game should be balanced at the highest level possible, and the number of players at the highest level is extremely, extremely small. I don't mean all of Code S, I mean smaller than that. On top of that, the ladder results are clouded by a relatively poor map pool that doesn't reflect competitive play, and simply the nature of playing a 1v1 ladder game is completely different than playing a 1v1 in competition. If a strategy is truly broken on Taldarim Altar TvZ, you're going to see it applied in competitive play first and most of the results on ladder won't reflect that the strategy is broken. Even among results for the MVP's and Nestea's, they way they operate on ladder is completely different because you have a random map selection, unknown opponent and unknown opponent race. Much of what they do is improvised to a certain extent, whereas in the GSL finals everything is mapped out through the early portions of the game. Pretty much this. Ladder statistics mean absolutely nothing tournaments are what matter and the statistics for those.
clearly someone does not read, they ( and i mean blizzard) mentioned thats its one of the many methods they use to find out what the game balance is looking like. There is a blizzcon video where they went threw in detail over about 8 different things they use.
However i see why they post these results , Alot of idiots on the battlenet forums in lower leagues actually think balance affects them and trash the game at every instance . Look at protoss, so many NA players complaining Protoss is so much shit but in their league they rape terran and zerg ( talking about the average player on battlenet), yet the bandwagon is huge for the Protoss is so much crap arguement.
anyway, i dont care, balance makes no difference to me, for the top 1% of players maybe, but for the rest of us, mechanics /strategy execution /multitasking ability is our downfall.
|
gtfo with your Code S whining, yea 20 terrans we know its mentioned in every thread on TL.
I bet you guys didnt even look at the numbers because you already knew what you wanted to say.
So a perfect 1/3 distribution means perfect balance huh? 32 isnt even dividable by 3 so I guess its impossible might as well give up on balance.
What about the fact that everyone and their mother plays terran in Korea should we take that into account? Na that just proves the imbalance obviously.
There were only 6 korean terrans in code A but who gives a fuck they re low level scrubs lolol.
|
On September 23 2011 08:46 b0t wrote:
>>Do you feel this is an accurate depiciton of the current state of the game?
I feel SC2 is a very complex game and Blizzard does not have employees smart enough to balance it. These statistics are completely, absolutely, mega, super meaningless as the MMR score depends on the race balance. IMHO a better (not perfect) way is to look at APMs - what is the win rate of Protoss players with 135-140 APM against Terran players with 135-140 APM.
If Blizzard cares about community's view on balance they should publish the anonymized row data, then everyone can run his own analysis.
I think the new, objective APM measurement might also be one of many tools Blizzard could utilize to determines the balance. But I can't believe how many people are so negative about Blizzard's capability of balancing the games. They have explained many times the complicated nature of balancing. It's hard to imagine Blizzard not considering almost everything that's been said in this thread already. They can make mistakes, yes, but it's silly to think that Blizzard doesn't have the data/idea on how to balance as some make out to be.
|
On September 23 2011 02:02 QTIP. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:58 HubertFelix wrote:On September 23 2011 01:57 QTIP. wrote:
I think what we are looking at here is the trickle-down effect. Metagame transfer Korean -> EU/NA takes some time. Yeah but protoss players act like they have the sames issues as korean protoss on GSL. Same thing could be said for Zerg players when everyone but FD was winning. Pointless statement. I remember when the first game came out, Zerg's were quoting Idra in Platinum League.
Plat was the highest league in beta you retard.
|
On September 23 2011 09:04 .Sic. wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:02 QTIP. wrote:On September 23 2011 01:58 HubertFelix wrote:On September 23 2011 01:57 QTIP. wrote:
I think what we are looking at here is the trickle-down effect. Metagame transfer Korean -> EU/NA takes some time. Yeah but protoss players act like they have the sames issues as korean protoss on GSL. Same thing could be said for Zerg players when everyone but FD was winning. Pointless statement. I remember when the first game came out, Zerg's were quoting Idra in Platinum League. Plat was the highest league in beta you retard.
Considering that he mentioned FD first it would be normal to assume that when the game "came out" it means retail release. And yes after retail release my zerg opponents quoted Idra after a match back when I was gold league.
|
is it just me, or do these figures also seem to be ignoring the number of players representing each race? the fewer players there are playing one race, the more weight there is on the winrate of individual players.
|
On September 23 2011 06:05 flowSthead wrote:Show nested quote +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?
No one thinks BW was perfectly balanced. But it's so difficult that in every game any level of player will always make mistakes, so any advantages/disadvantages can be overcome. Maps are definitely what people look at more than racial, but it does follow a slight general pattern of Z > P > T > Z.
It never felt particularly unfair when you always felt you could play better.
|
On September 23 2011 09:07 yandere991 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 09:04 .Sic. wrote:On September 23 2011 02:02 QTIP. wrote:On September 23 2011 01:58 HubertFelix wrote:On September 23 2011 01:57 QTIP. wrote:
I think what we are looking at here is the trickle-down effect. Metagame transfer Korean -> EU/NA takes some time. Yeah but protoss players act like they have the sames issues as korean protoss on GSL. Same thing could be said for Zerg players when everyone but FD was winning. Pointless statement. I remember when the first game came out, Zerg's were quoting Idra in Platinum League. Plat was the highest league in beta you retard. Considering that he mentioned FD first it would be normal to assume that when the game "came out" it means retail release. And yes after retail release my zerg opponents quoted Idra after a match back when I was gold league.
Pretty sure idra was always in the highest league on ladder, as he was consistently making it through gsl open seasons and placing top 32 to top 8
|
On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:21 Soma.bokforlag wrote:
matchmaking doesnt mean that a platinum terran gets matched against diamond zerg and toss and gold terran.
if terran is OP this would show even in stats from lower leagues
this is of course in the case that balance works the same across leagues, which it doesnt. it is extremely hard for blizzard to balance the game on all levels. what do you do if its balanced for masters and lower? patch the game just for GM and e-sports? Misconception. What it really means to "balance for the highest level of play" is that the strongest play must be balanced, but this should automatically scale down to all levels because skill levels are relative. If it's balanced for players that have skill levels of 150, then it should automatically ensure balance for skill level 5.
Im glad somebody said this! I dont know where people get this false notion that balancing the game "at the highest level of play" (I don't even know what that means) is bad for everyone else. If the game is balanced at the highest level, it will logically be balanced at every level. Your skill/lack of skill is non-sequitur. This has been demonstrated in every competative game that has been patched, particularly broken "tiers" in fighting games.
|
I don't think BW had this kind of stat tracking even in the years it started to get popular, so those who read too much into the results need to think long and hard about what they really mean. It's possible to achieve very good balance w/o using too much statistics or even without having patches for years. Just observe games closely and tweak the maps.
|
I'm confused about something. What is the time period these stats are gathered from?
|
On September 23 2011 08:39 vict1019 wrote:
So balanced. People need to stop believing everything the Protoss players on SOTG say.
And never watch GSL.
|
I can't believe they keep releasing these statistics and acting like it shows the balance at the highest levels. I doubt doing this for the top of the GM ladder would still say anything close to the actual balance of the game. Either way it just looks like they are doing this so people in lower leagues still feel good about the overall balance of the game. I think most pros would take these statistics with a grain of salt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
