|
those numbers are useless !
Players are matched by skill so ofc it will be close to 50% win.
If we only take gm+ masters its terrible too!
There could be 1 Protoss, 1 zerg and 198 terrans in GM only and if those 2 players would win 70% of their matches you would think Zerg and Protoss are super overpowered, when in fact 99% of the players in that gm league are terran !
win % dont mean shit in that context. you would need z, t and P players of the exact same skill to play each others hundreds of times to get a meaningful win % statistics, but how u determine 100% equal skills of the players?
Those numbers are SHIT, screw this shit!
The best way to determine race balance in sc2 right now is to look at the very top positions of leagues and tourneys.
Just look what races place highly in tourneys or even better, look what races are present in the GSL code S.
GSL right now has the highest density of skill, if by a small or large margin can be debated, but not the fact that in the end it has.
So just watch gsl code s player list:
20 T , 7 Z and 5 P
Concluding we can say that Terran dominates at the highest skill level right now.
I am not saying for blizzard to nerf the shit out of terran now, this is a another topic, BUT those BULLSHIT numbers from blizzard presented here are a LIE.
God i got mad seeing those bullshit numbers, deceiving us and padding their shoulders the same time.
SHAME ON YOU BLIZZARD
|
Well, with a look at GSL and koreas GM I have to think, that their approach to achieve balance is flawed.. I agree with the posters above me.
You can't have a matchmaking system which keeps winrates at 50% and then look at the win ratios, that just sounds silly to me ^^
|
Italy12247 Posts
I'm not sure how accurate those numbers are, for various reasons:
1) we would need to know the math behind them as well as behind mmr calculations. Without this those are just meaningless numbers.
2) maps are widely different from those used in pro play
3) ladder counts less than actual tournaments since high level players practice and refine builds for tournaments mostly, more than playing to win.
|
What use are those all-league numbers anyway? The only numbers that matter are from Korean GM + high-skill tournaments with lots of Koreans.
Interesting nonetheless.
|
You can't look at masters/grandmasters and believe it indicative of balance. At least 90% of masters players do not play at a high enough level or have a good enough understanding of the game to bring out a true take on balance. Korean server is more skilled than foreign servers, and the numbers are different by a statistically significant amount in the masters/grandmasters region on this server because of this, but even looking at that doesn't give you a clear picture of balance, because low masters players simply don't understand the game well enough and can't execute well enough to show true balance.
|
Everyone complaining about the ladder shifting everyone to their 50/50 point, you're not thinking the math through enough.
I am Protoss. If PvZ is horribly imbalanced and we all start winning 100% of our games, we will indeed experience upward MMR pressure until we hit about a 50/50 ratio of wins and losses. However, if we assume that PvT is pretty balanced, the result will be that we've got something like an 80% win rate against Z, balanced out by a 20% winrate against the Terran players we're being matched up against (who are beating us in a balanced matchup because they're much better than we are). The overall result is that we stabilize at even numbers of wins and losses, but our matchup winrates will still be clearly skewed.
Of course, that means that the numbers Blizzard gives us aren't necessarily enough to see where an imbalance lies, even if it shows that there is an imbalance. If PvT shows Toss losing more than half their games, it could mean that Terran is OP in TvP, but it could also mean that Zerg is UP in ZvP and Toss are getting matched up against excessively skilled Terrans as a result.
|
On September 23 2011 02:10 RaGe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 01:55 Brotocol wrote:On September 23 2011 01:48 MisterFred wrote:
Terran IMBA. Just look at the Korean numbers. Now imagine eliminating Korean masters and just going with GM. The numbers would probably get worse. Professional Terran dominance isn't a fluke. The race is just better. And I'm not exactly the easiest sell on this... I play random and Terran is my worst race, but it's still clear to me.
Lower than high masters - don't make me laugh. MMR should keep everything near 50%. Everything else is metagame shift, but honestly, who cares, all those players will have about 50% win rate and the meta game will never be constant because they aren't good enough to smooth it out. Well said. I also want to point out that matchmaking makes all winrates tend toward 50%. * The only case where this does not apply is tournaments, where matchmaking is not done algorithmically. * The definition of balance means that, for 2 players of the same skill level, the game should be perfectly even. How do we isolate the skill level variable? We can't. But the closest we can do is make some assumptions: (1) There is less variability (lower std. deviation) in the highest tournaments and (2) The more up to date a given scene's metagame is, the more viable it is. Thus, we really should be looking at GSL for the closest picture of balance that we can get, as it's the closest situation in terms of reflecting equal skill levels (tapering off on the high end, and thus not as highly variable as other tournaments/scenes), and metagame advancement. PS. A common misconception of "balance for the highest levels" is that imbalance doesn't affect lower leagues. It affects any game with equal skill level players, where one has to work harder than the other to achieve the same result. The entire "balance only affects the highest leagues" is wrong. It affects high leagues consistently, but can also happen, albeit inconsistently, at lower leagues. Say, for instance, take 2 silver league players who are playing at skill levels 100 and 95, respectively (hypothetical values of course). Meaning that one is outplaying the other. And yet, the latter opponent wins. That is imbalance. Verdict: This looks like damage control, as it misrepresents these stats as "raw stats," whereas in reality, matchmaking has influenced them heavily. Yeah, I can't believe blizzard still hasn't understood that they're not working on raw data.
I don't want QQ about Blizzard being all corporate these days, but the more I think of it, the more I realize this is all PR.
Even on the official forums, people (including some professional statisticians!) discussed the flaws of using Blizzard's data model as an indicator of balance over the last year. But there's only so many times that it can be said, after which the reasonable people get sick of saying the same thing.
Then, Blizzard's statement wins out. I find myself starting from scratch, each time Blizz releases numbers, having to explain again how wrong the approach is.
|
On September 23 2011 02:13 Teejing wrote:
those numbers are useless !
Players are matched by skill so ofc it will be close to 50% win.
If we only take gm+ masters its terrible too!
There could be 1 Protoss, 1 zerg and 198 terrans in GM only and if those 2 players would win 70% of their matches you would think Zerg and Protoss are super overpowered, when in fact 99% of the players in that gm league are terran !
win % dont mean shit in that context. you would need z, t and P players of the exact same skill to play each others hundreds of times to get a meaningful win % statistics, but how u determine 100% equal skills of the players?
Those numbers are SHIT, screw this shit!
The best way to determine race balance in sc2 right now is to look at the very top positions of leagues and tourneys.
Just look what races place highly in tourneys or even better, look what races are present in the GSL code S.
GSL right now has the highest density of skill, if by a small or large margin can be debated, but not the fact that in the end it has.
So just watch gsl code s player list:
20 T , 7 Z and 5 P
Concluding we can say that Terran dominates at the highest skill level right now.
I am not saying for blizzard to nerf the shit out of terran now, this is a another topic, BUT those BULLSHIT numbers from blizzard presented here are a LIE.
God i got mad seeing those bullshit numbers, deceiving us and padding their shoulders the same time.
SHAME ON YOU BLIZZARD
If you are going to reference GSL, at least make an effort to note the race stats for Code A: 12 P 12 Z 8 T.
|
On September 23 2011 02:17 AmericanUmlaut wrote:
Everyone complaining about the ladder shifting everyone to their 50/50 point, you're not thinking the math through enough.
I am Protoss. If PvZ is horribly imbalanced and we all start winning 100% of our games, we will indeed experience upward MMR pressure until we hit about a 50/50 ratio of wins and losses. However, if we assume that PvT is pretty balanced, the result will be that we've got something like an 80% win rate against Z, balanced out by a 20% winrate against the Terran players we're being matched up against (who are beating us in a balanced matchup because they're much better than we are). The overall result is that we stabilize at even numbers of wins and losses, but our matchup winrates will still be clearly skewed.
Of course, that means that the numbers Blizzard gives us aren't necessarily enough to see where an imbalance lies, even if it shows that there is an imbalance. If PvT shows Toss losing more than half their games, it could mean that Terran is OP in TvP, but it could also mean that Zerg is UP in ZvP and Toss are getting matched up against excessively skilled Terrans as a result.
That doesn't make these numbers any less useless and flawed, though.
|
Why would you have cut off the first couple paragraphs of the blog post in your OP? It's just as important, especially considering how many people aren't reading the link.
One of the many tools that are used to assess balance in StarCraft II are the relative win rates for each race versus the others called adjusted win percentages. What's an adjusted win percentage? While the math behind calculating an adjusted win percentage is extremely complex, an adjusted win percentage can be summed up as the 'true' win percentage of a given race, produced by removing the skewing effects of the matchmaker and factoring in player skill. Combining information from millions of games being played, hundreds of thousands of players, their hidden skill rating, and a little math, we can generate reasonably accurate figures to compare how successful each race really is versus the others.
We can then categorize these stat by league, region, specific stretches of time, or any other way we might want to arrange the data for analysis. The end result is the information that we use (in combination with many other resources) to piece together a picture of what current StarCraft II balance looks like.
While it's impossible to say whether or not their math behind "factoing in player skill" is complete BS or not, it's important that they're at least trying, apparently.
|
On September 23 2011 02:18 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2011 02:13 Teejing wrote:
those numbers are useless !
Players are matched by skill so ofc it will be close to 50% win.
If we only take gm+ masters its terrible too!
There could be 1 Protoss, 1 zerg and 198 terrans in GM only and if those 2 players would win 70% of their matches you would think Zerg and Protoss are super overpowered, when in fact 99% of the players in that gm league are terran !
win % dont mean shit in that context. you would need z, t and P players of the exact same skill to play each others hundreds of times to get a meaningful win % statistics, but how u determine 100% equal skills of the players?
Those numbers are SHIT, screw this shit!
The best way to determine race balance in sc2 right now is to look at the very top positions of leagues and tourneys.
Just look what races place highly in tourneys or even better, look what races are present in the GSL code S.
GSL right now has the highest density of skill, if by a small or large margin can be debated, but not the fact that in the end it has.
So just watch gsl code s player list:
20 T , 7 Z and 5 P
Concluding we can say that Terran dominates at the highest skill level right now.
I am not saying for blizzard to nerf the shit out of terran now, this is a another topic, BUT those BULLSHIT numbers from blizzard presented here are a LIE.
God i got mad seeing those bullshit numbers, deceiving us and padding their shoulders the same time.
SHAME ON YOU BLIZZARD If you are going to reference GSL, at least make an effort to note the race stats for Code A: 12 P 12 Z 8 T.
And then how many of these 12/12 are advancing to Ro16, compared? l0l
|
The only number that should matter is the High master/GM in korea (since the AMM match you to better players to even out your win% since there are no better players duh). Well they should include a GM - only korea but meh, master + GM in korea are pretty good I guess.
And according to that PvZ and TvZ is both balanced (+- 2% is quite a good number to achieve), while PvT seems broken.
The changes in the patch though are ridiculous compared to the percentages.
also:
I want to see the Ps/Ts that cry about Z... 57 and 59% wratio guys and you cry? Really?
|
That's quite the disclaimer by Blizzard. "Here are the numbers, but remember that THEY DON'T MEAN ANYTHING!"
|
PvZ
TvZ
on NA/EU
is just.. 
NA/EU zergs are bad? P isn't as terrible as we think? No good KR P players? What is the madness.
also, fuck terran. ;e
|
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?
|
Numbers for PvZ make sense. Lower league Protoss struggle against Zerg because they don't know how to use sentries properly, I suppose.
|
Masters is irrelevant for balance discussion, since I'm in masters and I'm pretty sure me and my opponents are so behind in skill from the top players that our games don't deserve to be looked for balance too. Maybe only top 1-3 masters and gm players should be taken into consideration.
|
The only place where we can somewhat isolate the skill variable is korean GM, otherwise it fluctuates just too much and then we have the issue of maps. I'm glad that they say that they don't balance only based on this. But still, when you see T with higher supply than 1gate expo toss 10 minutes into the game, for example, it feels ... off.
Yeah, and I'm masters and that league should be ignored maybe with the exception of top3
|
I don't get their balancing process sometimes
|
8751 Posts
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?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
