|
On September 23 2011 13:30 zanmat0 wrote:
60/40 is still "acceptable" for Blizzard? Do they realize that if 100,000 games per day are played within a 60/40 matchup, 10,000 of those games should have actually been won by the other player? They certainly have a strange definition of Balance.
Its called a statistical deviation. 10000 of those games by blizzards formula "should" have been won by the other player but no formula is perfect which is why any time you see a poll you will always see in the corner +-3% (sometimes more) because tehres always a deviation.
|
On September 23 2011 15:46 Brotocol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 15:32 K3Nyy wrote:On September 23 2011 15:08 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 14:54 K3Nyy wrote:On September 23 2011 14:09 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote: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. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels". I already addressed this. Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/ So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available). However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong. Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1). I find a lot of holes in your logic. You can't complain about the 1-1-1 in gold league because nobody at that skill level will ever do it right. How can you ever balance a game where lower level players can not execute builds correctly, have almost no micro and constantly float minerals? If a gold league Terran decides to 1-1-1 a Protoss, I am pretty sure the push will not come on time, nor will they have the number of units that they should've had. If the Protoss loses to that push, it is not because it's imbalance, because that push was NOT the 1-1-1. The Protoss would've stopped that push easily if he was any better. Yea, if he was much better than the T, such that the P player played properly and the T botches a 1-1-1. That doesn't sound balanced to me. Balance can affect lower leagues. It just doesn't consistently affect them. But it's possible to lose to an imbalance. No. If Terran messes up the 1-1-1, it's not the 1-1-1 anymore meaning it's not an imbalanced build. That means the Protoss can beat it consistently therefore it is not imbalanced. It doesn't make sense to me what you're saying. Nobody would ever blame imbalance over a botched 1-1-1 even if he won. By your logic, 6 pools would be imbalanced because nobody knows how to stop them in bronze league. Banelings vs Terran would be imbalanced for everybody lower than Grandmasters. Dark Templar openers would be overpowered and will insta-win vs anyone in lower leagues. Some things can't be balanced in the lower leagues. When lower league players completely mess up a build order, expand at 15 mins or make 20 workers throughout the entire game, the game simply can not be balanced. Not to mention a lot of lower league people just don't understand the game enough to understand what they're supposed to be doing or what to build. I didn't say that things should be balanced for the lower leagues. I've said several times that it should be balanced for higher leagues. Please go back and read my detailed explanations. I simply hold that balance can affect lower leagues. It's not consistent, because people mess up more; there's obviously degradation in skill and much more inconsistency. Nobody is saying that Blizzard should consider lower leagues for balance. However, balance is a problem that can be felt at any level. Even 1 unfair situation, however much rarer it may be at lower leagues, should not happen imho.
Maybe I understood it wrong but you said this:
+ Show Spoiler +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.
From what I read here, it seems you want balance at skill level 5, even though it should be balanced for skill level 150. If I misinterpret this, I apologize.
A bronze player can 6pool a gold player and still pull out a win, but that is not imbalance, even if there are gaps in skill.
|
On September 23 2011 16:14 K3Nyy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 15:46 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 15:32 K3Nyy wrote:On September 23 2011 15:08 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 14:54 K3Nyy wrote:On September 23 2011 14:09 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 10:18 NicolBolas wrote:On September 23 2011 09:38 Channel Pressure wrote:On September 23 2011 02:24 Brotocol wrote: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. Actually no, that does not logically follow. Let us assume that "skill" is a quantity that can be objectively measured. Now, let us say you have a game that is perfectly balanced if both players have 100 skill. This means that, in games that 100 skill players play, they will each win ~50% of the time. Let's suppose that one of the races in the game has a strategy that requires 50 skill to execute. The other races can defend the strategy, but defending it requires 75 skill. If you don't yave 75 skill, you will lose to the strategy ~70% of the time. Now, the game is still perfectly balanced at the 100 skill level, because the defending player has enough skill to defend the strategy successfully. But at the 60 skill level, if you put two 60 skill players together, the one who has access to the 50-skill strat will consistently beat any player up to 75 skill. You might say that this is an artificial problem. But it isn't; this is reality, and it always has been for StarCraft. Rushes are that kind of strategy. Defending rushes is always harder than executing them. Defending rushes requires more skill than executing them. Early game timing attacks are the same way: defending requires more work. You have to scout. You have to know that the strategy exists. You have to see signs of the strategy, so you have to know what to scout for. And then you have to execute a defense of it. For 100 skill players, that's easy. For 60 skill players, it's beyond their current abilities. Therefore, they will consistently lose to 50 skill players. This is why rushes in lower leagues are common: because they are the most effective way to win when you don't have much skill. So no, balance for high level play does not "automatically scale down to all levels". I already addressed this. Everyone is dwelling on the expression "scales down." The entire point was that lower skill levels can be affected by balance/ So, when someone says "I'm only in diamond, bro, so balance doesn't affect me," that's wrong. It just affects you less consistently, so Blizzard should not take it as a reference for balance (they should use the highest level available). However, if you lose to 1-1-1 in gold, you can't say "I'm in gold so I can't complain about 1-1-1," that's wrong. Please view my previous posts on this matter (one of them is on page 1). I find a lot of holes in your logic. You can't complain about the 1-1-1 in gold league because nobody at that skill level will ever do it right. How can you ever balance a game where lower level players can not execute builds correctly, have almost no micro and constantly float minerals? If a gold league Terran decides to 1-1-1 a Protoss, I am pretty sure the push will not come on time, nor will they have the number of units that they should've had. If the Protoss loses to that push, it is not because it's imbalance, because that push was NOT the 1-1-1. The Protoss would've stopped that push easily if he was any better. Yea, if he was much better than the T, such that the P player played properly and the T botches a 1-1-1. That doesn't sound balanced to me. Balance can affect lower leagues. It just doesn't consistently affect them. But it's possible to lose to an imbalance. No. If Terran messes up the 1-1-1, it's not the 1-1-1 anymore meaning it's not an imbalanced build. That means the Protoss can beat it consistently therefore it is not imbalanced. It doesn't make sense to me what you're saying. Nobody would ever blame imbalance over a botched 1-1-1 even if he won. By your logic, 6 pools would be imbalanced because nobody knows how to stop them in bronze league. Banelings vs Terran would be imbalanced for everybody lower than Grandmasters. Dark Templar openers would be overpowered and will insta-win vs anyone in lower leagues. Some things can't be balanced in the lower leagues. When lower league players completely mess up a build order, expand at 15 mins or make 20 workers throughout the entire game, the game simply can not be balanced. Not to mention a lot of lower league people just don't understand the game enough to understand what they're supposed to be doing or what to build. I didn't say that things should be balanced for the lower leagues. I've said several times that it should be balanced for higher leagues. Please go back and read my detailed explanations. I simply hold that balance can affect lower leagues. It's not consistent, because people mess up more; there's obviously degradation in skill and much more inconsistency. Nobody is saying that Blizzard should consider lower leagues for balance. However, balance is a problem that can be felt at any level. Even 1 unfair situation, however much rarer it may be at lower leagues, should not happen imho. Maybe I understood it wrong but you said this: + Show Spoiler +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. From what I read here, it seems you want balance at skill level 5, even though it should be balanced for skill level 150. If I misinterpret this, I apologize. A bronze player can 6pool a gold player and still pull out a win, but that is not imbalance, even if there are gaps in skill.
Hey, don't apologize! You're putting up some good points. I just don't claim that the lower leagues are "balanced" - simply that it's possible to experience imbalance in a lower league. The lower you go, the more unlikely it is to experience it.
And if Blizzard balances properly for the top levels, that should eliminate imbalanced situations at the lower levels too. They already don't happen consistently, and they would happen even less often if there were top-level balance.
In a nutshell: it can happen. It could happen even less often if high level balance were achieved.
Anyway, I feel like my "scaling down" comment is on the verge of derailing the thread. Let's take it into PMs please.
|
On September 23 2011 05:59 galivet wrote:
Most people define "game balance" as a condition where players of equal skill have an equal chance of winning. But I actually care about a different kind of balance: For e-sports to thrive, you need to have equal ratios of all three races competitive in tournament play -- meaning that each race gets a roughly-equal slice of victory pie in the major tournaments, whether it's fair or not.
This is purely about maximizing entertainment: a tournament is more entertaining if you have the full mix of matchups from beginning up through the Ro4. To understand the reason, consider the current GSL season: Almost all protoss have been eliminated very early in the season, so protoss fans aren't going to get much entertainment value out of the rest of the tournament. Even terran fans may get tired of the endless TvT and wish for a little more TvP and TvZ for the sake of variety.
To maximize the entertainment value of tournaments, you have to throw your "real" notions of game balance out the window; they don't matter. You have to compensate for factors that have nothing to do with game balance, such as:
1. One race may not have as many good players.
2. One race may not have as many players who entered the tournament.
Even under these circumstances, for the tournament to be entertaining for *all* of the fans, you have to ensure that the race with fewer players/fewer good players make it to the final rounds of the tournament -- even if you have to give them an artificial boost that allows the lesser skilled players to win.
To put it simply, I would be in favor of doubling stalker DPS if it meant that I got to enjoy watching more matches in a GSL season, even though that wouldn't be a fair change. I don't care about game fairness since I watch much more often than I play. I care about seeing the race I like to watch win an equal share of games to the players of the other two races, fairness be damned. If making the game completely fair accomplishes that, then great! If not, then fuck fairness -- just make it entertaining.
E-sports is about entertainment, pure and simple. Blizzard needs to do what it takes to keep the entertainment value high, even if it makes the game unfair.
e: A side-effect of this approach is that over time the game actually does become fair, and the fairness becomes easier to maintain. When pros don't need to all pick Terran to have the best chance of making money in tournaments, they spread out across the races, equalizing the race-skill and race-playercount gaps that we may currently have. After that has occurred, then just by ensuring roughly-equal win ratios at the top level of play Blizzard will be sure that the game really is skill-fair at that level, because skill will have evenly distributed across the races.
Wow...thank god you are not designing this game
|
Who really cares about these numbers? The nature of blizzard's system will force them close together anyway.... They are meaningless...
|
On September 23 2011 18:18 Brett wrote:
Who really cares about these numbers? The nature of blizzard's system will force them close together anyway.... They are meaningless...
I'm pretty sure Blizzard takes that into account, i mean if you can think of it in 5 seconds, you`d think the people analyzing the data know it. You are right that it is pushed torward 50% that is probably why they say match-ups are not imbalanced until 60/40 which seems way off to if you don't think about it.
|
On September 23 2011 18:26 gogatorsfoster wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 18:18 Brett wrote:
Who really cares about these numbers? The nature of blizzard's system will force them close together anyway.... They are meaningless... I'm pretty sure Blizzard takes that into account, i mean if you can think of it in 5 seconds, you`d think the people analyzing the data know it. You are right that it is pushed torward 50% that is probably why they say match-ups are not imbalanced until 60/40 which seems way off to if you don't think about it.
if P was immensely buffed, some better Ts would fall out of GM and some worse Ps would get in. Then - since those Ps would still suck compared to gosu-Ts - would probably end up with a win/loss-ration below 50%. Balanced?
I agree that Blizz "knows" it, but they use the data to "convince" the community, everything is right - when it's not.
|
United States22883 Posts
On September 23 2011 15:40 Vindicare605 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. 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. Well you're touching on exactly the problem. First off, the absolute top level is so incredibly small that it's almost impossible to use any sort of quantitative data to balance it. How then DO you balance it? Qualitatively? That's open to an incredible amount of bias. Second, if you're balancing around something other than quantitative data, you have to approach map balance in a very different way. Do you nerf a race just because of an abuse of a single map mechanic or do you adjust the map? This is the exact sort of way that Gom tries to balance its own tournament internally, which is what tournaments SHOULD do, but Blizzard's job isn't just to balance the game for tournament play but for as everyone as much as possible. Using quantitative data and methods makes the most sense. I don't really see how else you can do it. I think qualitatively is fine, but you move slowly and try to study the full effect that every change will have. Do they have the staff capable of doing it? No, not really. Blizzard should be balancing the game for tournament play, and the maps should be updated accordingly. This is all the ideal situation, of course, but instead what we have is just a mishmash of half casual, half competitive ideas and the outcome is somewhat lacking.
Even if they did incorporate quantitative data, it should be more detailed than just overall data. It needs to be stuff about who wins in what minute of the game, amount of minerals/gas needed, and a bunch of other measurements. The general statistics are including a bunch of low quality games that could easily be weeded out by adding those constraints.
|
Actually I don't really care what Blizzard is saying. If I am not enjoying high level play than it's their fault. They could go on and on that statistic on ladder show 50-50, if games are no fun than no sir.
And balance ideally should be verified on two perfect AIs. Since we don't have them we must go the very next best thing: Korean players.
|
Would be really interesting to see how these numbers change with game lenghts, example TvZ games onwards from 25min+ or so, how do those end up ?
|
On September 23 2011 19:19 Satiini wrote:
Would be really interesting to see how these numbers change with game lenghts, example TvZ games onwards from 25min+ or so, how do those end up ?
It actually doesn't matter how strong one race is in some stages of the game. If Zerg can't reach lategame because of imbalance or disadvantages there's no point in not adjusting the game. Ofcourse you have to take into account the Korean players.
Ofcourse NesTea with his individual skill makes for good games, but most Zergs for example still suffer and die easily. You have to take a look into the proscene, but do not take a few examples out of there that are probably outstanding.
If both races have even chances of reaching all stages of the game you can begin adjusting the strength of different units and aspects which will lead to hopefully - just the lategame. As in nerf broodlords in damage output etc.
I understand what you mean I think, but I still don't think I agree with what you are saying. And I do also hate TvZ Lategame. :o! I can imagine on absolute highest level TvZ 25+ will lead in insanely close games, as Zerg is sick powerful, but Terran with good control and upgrades as well as bases can make good use of the ghost.
|
Actually I didn't mean it would matter something, I was just curious. :D
|
On September 23 2011 19:24 Satiini wrote:
Actually I didn't mean it would matter something, I was just curious. :D
Haha :D! Sorry ... put too much into it then :-)
|
On September 23 2011 19:23 mTw|NarutO wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 19:19 Satiini wrote:
Would be really interesting to see how these numbers change with game lenghts, example TvZ games onwards from 25min+ or so, how do those end up ? It actually doesn't matter how strong one race is in some stages of the game. If Zerg can't reach lategame because of imbalance or disadvantages there's no point in not adjusting the game. Ofcourse you have to take into account the Korean players. Ofcourse NesTea with his individual skill makes for good games, but most Zergs for example still suffer and die easily. You have to take a look into the proscene, but do not take a few examples out of there that are probably outstanding. If both races have even chances of reaching all stages of the game you can begin adjusting the strength of different units and aspects which will lead to hopefully - just the lategame. As in nerf broodlords in damage output etc. I understand what you mean I think, but I still don't think I agree with what you are saying. And I do also hate TvZ Lategame. :o! I can imagine on absolute highest level TvZ 25+ will lead in insanely close games, as Zerg is sick powerful, but Terran with good control and upgrades as well as bases can make good use of the ghost.
I agree with you - and still I think if you only fix the "first" part of a respective match-up, then you may end up exacerbating a problem in the "second" part.
TvZ early/mid to lategame is perfect for that. If we assume (!) that early/mid is terran favoured, we can further assume that in those games that reach lategame, terran will have an advantage (unless they screwed up). Meaning, if terrans can't end the game, they at least will go into the lategame ahead. Now if statistics show that games that last longer have a higher zerg-win-ratio, then fixing the early-midgame will completely throw off the balance. Because if zergs even manage to win a good portion of games in lategame when they enter lategame being behind, then it can be expected that they will dominate in a unseen fashion if they have the potential to reach lategame on even footing.
Meaning, if these assumptions hold, Blizz can't possibly fix early/midgame scenarios without looking into the lategame scenarios at the exact same time.
|
Wow really surprised about these rates
Wonder what the overall world percentages are?
|
On September 23 2011 09:53 chadissilent wrote:Show nested quote +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. APM is a fucking terrible metric to base skill on. I have ~130apm in high masters. I beat dignitas.merz with his 400+ apm ZvT. Does that mean Zerg is imbalanced, I'm a better player than merz, or things just happened to go my way one game? Conversely, is a 200apm spammer (80 adjusted apm on 1.4) more skilled than a 120 apm (110 adjusted apm on 1.4) player?
In all studies I've seen, there is a very strong correlation between APM and skill. It isn't perfect but in many ways it is a better indicator than win ratio in a match made-scenario.
Using Dreamhack as an example. The average finishing position of the people with the top 10 highest APM was 16.5. The average position of the bottom 10 APM was 28. As such, there is a very strong correlation between APM and how far they got in the tournament.
So, to prove your point, please come up with a real life statistical analysis that shows that higher APM on average does not indicate a generally higher skill.
A thought experiment you can do on yourself is. If you got to choose who to represent you in a tournament out of two groups, would you rather randomly get one out of a group with very low APM (50) or out of a group with high APM (300)? The answer should be quite obvious, and it is obvious due to APM on average correlates to higher skill.
|
On September 23 2011 02:22 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I'm kind of interested why Blizzard wants us to know this. As far as I know, there's no pressure on them to release these numbers. No one is waiting on them. And no one in the community is going to use them for anything. Blizzard simply wants us to know them... why? To prove that the balance is not that bad as some guys believe.
|
This is only a snapshot. It's an end result stat. Therefore all the ingame 'balance' concerns is not considered, but just the resulting data. It is not determined how the data is correlated with other data
I certainly find this interesting. I don't know how useful showing these stats are, but it helps provide the general public a good indication that Blizzard do look at somes stats. Whether it can provide some significant analysis to balance issues, is the question.
The most important stat to me that is not shown is how have the wins occured? Are the percentage of types of wins balanced for each race? I'd like to see data (if even possible) for race % wins on all ins, late game battles, mid game battles, early battles, macro superiority, mistakes from opponent for particular match ups.
Even if the results are balanced, if a certain race requires more all ins to win than another is this really balanced, or just style of race?
Are these matches matched up on actualy skill level - If so how is this determined for a balanced result? wins/loss, MMR, apm, macro management, micro managaement. How are these data collected to determine equal skill level are paired against one another compared to race picked
Popularity of races - is there a skew in races in a certain direction, compared to demographic in top postions. If say the game is truly balanced and then surely the most popular race will take up the top positions. Compared to say if the most popular race, results in taking up lower positions, something would need to be addressed?
New strategies/build orders- as mention it can skew the results of data in this snapshot so I'm glad it was mentioned, if new strategies skew the results in a certain period in time, because a certain race may not of have worked out a good counter yet. The main cause of concern in this area, would be how to determine if the race can possibly counter this new strategy. When is it necessary to step in, rather than just letting the meta game catch up.
In game Unit composition - If all it takes is just one unit spamming one ability to address and hard counter a particular strategy, is that enough for the game to be balanced?
Question on accessibility of race? How does one determine the accessibility of a race, does one race take less skill to master compared to another, even if a mastered race vs a mastered race is balanced. The balance in lower skilled users can be skewed.
Sorry more questions than answers, as balance is a very hard to address. However I actually think Blizzard providing a snapsot of at least the results is very interesting for how balance analysis is reached.
The results is probably the most important data, but the other factors I've mentioned and probably lots I have missed could be just as important than just the results.
|
Wow the numbers look really bad for zerg. I am almost surprised by this because zerg is stronger than it used to be. I guess not enough though.
|
On September 23 2011 20:10 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:22 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I'm kind of interested why Blizzard wants us to know this. As far as I know, there's no pressure on them to release these numbers. No one is waiting on them. And no one in the community is going to use them for anything. Blizzard simply wants us to know them... why? To prove that the balance is not that bad as some guys believe.
Honestly the numbers look worse than I thought...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
