EPT[GSL] Race Winrate Graphs - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Zio
United States48 Posts
| ||
|
Clog
United States950 Posts
On October 14 2011 08:15 happyness wrote: Uh with that example, isn't that because most of those are TvT's? Well that was assuming they aren't playing mirror matchups. You obviously don't count those. A better example would be Open Season 1 with Zerg. For that season, Zerg has around a 50% win rate as shown on the OP's graph. But if you average out every zerg's win percentage from that season (I went through and did the calculations myself), ignoring mirror matchups, it came out to around 33%, which I feel is much more representative of the balance of zerg at that time. The little hypothetical scenario I made up was just to show how a skilled player that gets far into the tournament can overshadow a large number of players of the same race getting crushed in terms of the race's overall win - loss. | ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
On October 14 2011 01:29 Roxy wrote: Very Interesting It is a shame that all of the skilled players chose terran.. wish i could see some protoss innovate new strategies but alas all of the protoss players are scrubs I guess they just pick terran because it is the hardest race to play and we all know koreans love high APM Yeah, too bad that only good players pick terran, and all the zerg and toss players are just bad, right? I think it's fascinating that the game was near balanced at one point in the middle. | ||
|
koolaid1990
831 Posts
Most of the players choose terran because its a good race. Not because they are skilled and they just happened to be terran so there are many skilled terrans but less skilled zergs/tosses. Nestea in one interview even mentioned that Losira's Terran is actually stronger than his zerg. | ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
On October 14 2011 01:22 Fleebu wrote: Maybe you should also look at the percentage of people in Korea who actually play Protoss... Thankfully that is easy to check. In Korean GM there are Protoss: 34.1% Terran: 38.6% Zerg: 26.5% Overall in Korea across all leagues there are 34% Terran. The race distribution is fairly even between P and T, there are less Z however. One thing you can be sure of is that there is nothing magical about people who pick Terran than makes them more skilled (even though some like to think so). From sc2ranks. | ||
|
Treadmill
Canada2833 Posts
On October 14 2011 08:36 Clog wrote: Well that was assuming they aren't playing mirror matchups. You obviously don't count those. A better example would be Open Season 1 with Zerg. For that season, Zerg has around a 50% win rate as shown on the OP's graph. But if you average out every zerg's win percentage from that season (I went through and did the calculations myself), ignoring mirror matchups, it came out to around 33%, which I feel is much more representative of the balance of zerg at that time. The little hypothetical scenario I made up was just to show how a skilled player that gets far into the tournament can overshadow a large number of players of the same race getting crushed in terms of the race's overall win - loss. I think you're right, a normalized win rate would be much better in that it would represent all players equally, rather than select for the very best. A big part of the reason that terran is doing so well is Mvp, MMA, Polt, Bomber, MKP - a very small selection of very skilled terrans. Not saying that this is the only reason for terran success but a normalized graph would certainly give a better image of the situation. The other thing is it would be nice if maybe results from the qualifiers were used, where the brackets are known. Add in ESV/iCCup weeklies and GSTL and maybe you'd get a much better picture - you'd have yo use normalized statistics again, because otherwise outliers would screw things up again (eg terran would be super strong in recent ESV weeklies mainly because of one player, Taeja's, accomplishments). | ||
|
Paladia
802 Posts
On October 14 2011 03:05 FeyFey wrote: well the korean winrates will be t favored for some time unless you buff the other races into an overpowered state. The game evolves still and with that many terrans the chance is super high for a new strat. And as there are only a few protoss and zerg players you have to face ... you don't have to fear to much surprises and don't have to train 2 or 3 different zerg players styles. That makes no sense. If anything it should be the exact opposite. The P and Z should have the advantage as they pretty much only have to practice PvT or ZvT. | ||
|
Narxes
Belgium11 Posts
On October 14 2011 08:36 Clog wrote: Well that was assuming they aren't playing mirror matchups. You obviously don't count those. A better example would be Open Season 1 with Zerg. For that season, Zerg has around a 50% win rate as shown on the OP's graph. But if you average out every zerg's win percentage from that season (I went through and did the calculations myself), ignoring mirror matchups, it came out to around 33%, which I feel is much more representative of the balance of zerg at that time. The little hypothetical scenario I made up was just to show how a skilled player that gets far into the tournament can overshadow a large number of players of the same race getting crushed in terms of the race's overall win - loss. I agree Clog, it would be nice if someone can remake the graphs using the same amount of data points for every player in a season because I'm sure it will give a better picture of the balance. | ||
|
DMII
Germany92 Posts
Which means if a race is insanely good in one matchup and absolutely dead in the other, it can be at about 50% overall. A really good example are the protoss numbers for January: Overall: 46,25 vZ: 65,2 vT: 27,3 How many Terrans would try to make Protoss players who complain shut up by saying that 46,25 doesn't look like there is a problem? Also if one matchup is looking really good, the other can screw up the image in the overall winrate. Best example for this are the Super numbers: TvZ and PvZ are nearly 50% (TvZ actually hits it on the spot.) and PvT looks absolutely horrible. The overall winrates are: Z: 51,1 T: 62,1 P: 36,8 I ask you, how many would use the overall winrates to backup the statement, that Protoss is up in PvZ? These threads should just cut out the overall winrate or post it after the individual matchups so possible distortions won't be the first impression of everyone. On October 14 2011 08:24 BronzeKnee wrote: I am always shocked when I read this. Not watching the GSL means you aren't watching SC2 at the highest level, and if you are involved with balancing SC2, it is a travesty that you do so without watching the GSL. It would be the same thing as if the people who decided on what the rule changes should happen next season in the NFL didn't actually watch the NFL last season, and only watched High School and College Games (provided all three had the same set of rules). I wonder if he wonders why all these Koreans come over to MLG and win everything... or why a Korean from the Open Bracket took on a Korean in the NASL Finals... yet he isn't balancing the game based on their play... He said he doesn't really watch them which means he watches some games but not a lot. Also there is no imbalance which you can only use at the absolute highest level. If there is some it will also be used on the level european or north american pros are at. Koreans are imbalanced because of their high dedication and loads of practise which lead to a consistent high level of play, not because of imbalances in the game only they can use. | ||
|
Jemesatui
Australia94 Posts
Take the Olympic for example. Countries with a higher population e.g china and the U.S always finish with the highest medals. Yes ofcourse talent and training is a factor, but also largely the large population allows for greater numbers of talented trained individuals hence greater results. The stats are useless because they are bias. The Korean Terran population is far greater than Protoss. This means that if the game is perfectly balanced, there will be more Terran winning than Protoss. That's just how it works. HOWEVER this also doesn't mean Terran isn't overpowered. The only way you could get close to an unbiased result would be collecting a RANDOM sample of THE SAME amount of each race, and seeing the results. Now let's say blizzard knows this, and that's why they hesitate on making buffs and nerfs. You cannot base balance based on win and loss rates alone, because doing so is a complete statistical failure. Personally I DO think terran is overpowered, but my opinion isn't really important here. If you want to use statistics as a reference point, you're going to have to get a lot more complicated before any reasonable observations can be made.... | ||
|
Zealot Lord
Hong Kong744 Posts
On October 14 2011 03:14 Fig wrote: I believe that the main problem with protoss is just how obvious it is to play. Think back to the beginning of the game. The races that did well were the ones that were most intuitive. Zergs were learning to spit larva perfectly, and Terrans stuck to mmm, because it was found to be super powerful. Tosses showed their trump cards (colossi, voidrays, and HTs) much sooner than the other races. Because they were ahead of the game with using their other units, the other races started losing a ton and protoss seemed too powerful. Therefore HTs and voidrays were nerfed, and only after that did we start to see spellcasters from the other races. These nerfs plus change in strategy from the other races acted to add insult to injury, and now the result is what we see now. I have to agree with this - even though there are quite a few new metagame builds that protoss now use which they didn't in the first few months, protoss players generally used almost all their units they had (aside from warp prism/carrier) pretty much from the beginning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say that terran/zergs didn't try to innovate, but they had their focus on other things. Back when Terran players only used nothing but MMM, yes templars with amulet looked too strong; but what about now though? Its quite clear to me that some of the things which used to be considered imbalanced are most likely no longer overpowered with pro players improving at such a fast rate, as they change the effectiveness of different units. I am 100% sure that had the game begun with players that could use snipe as well as they could with ghosts now, they would have never taken out khydarian amulet. | ||
|
theBizness
United States696 Posts
On October 14 2011 01:22 Alejandrisha wrote: He doesn't really watch the GSL I've talked to him about it haha Because after all there's no point in balancing the game based on high level play... sigh. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On October 14 2011 01:24 Daralii wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9rI09.png) Indeed... So sad. | ||
|
AndreiDaGiant
United States394 Posts
| ||
|
Reborn8u
United States1761 Posts
On October 14 2011 09:54 Jemesatui wrote: Wow a serious lack of understanding of statistics here. First off, ofcourse the number of players playing a race matters in these stats. If you have a pool of 100 terrans, 20 Zergs and 10 protoss in a tournament, and a Protoss doesn't finish in the top 10, does that mean terran imba? No, it doesn't. Take the Olympic for example. Countries with a higher population e.g china and the U.S always finish with the highest medals. Yes ofcourse talent and training is a factor, but also largely the large population allows for greater numbers of talented trained individuals hence greater results. The stats are useless because they are bias. The Korean Terran population is far greater than Protoss. This means that if the game is perfectly balanced, there will be more Terran winning than Protoss. That's just how it works. HOWEVER this also doesn't mean Terran isn't overpowered. The only way you could get close to an unbiased result would be collecting a RANDOM sample of THE SAME amount of each race, and seeing the results. Now let's say blizzard knows this, and that's why they hesitate on making buffs and nerfs. You cannot base balance based on win and loss rates alone, because doing so is a complete statistical failure. Personally I DO think terran is overpowered, but my opinion isn't really important here. If you want to use statistics as a reference point, you're going to have to get a lot more complicated before any reasonable observations can be made.... Wait a second, isn't the GSL full of terrans because they knocked out the protoss players over time? It's not a random sample group we're talking about. And GM in Korea is pretty evenly spread between races, last time I checked. It's just that the top it is full of Terran. "The stats are useless because they are bias" no actually your post is useless because it is bias. The fact that every stat and graph I've ever seen shows Terran dominance since release is statistically significant. Any graph I've ever seen shows terran having higher peaks and less severe valleys. This whole "better players pick terran" is moronic and I've seen 0 proof of that. Plenty of former BW pro's didn't pick terran but get smashed no name terrans. This whole "balance doesn't affect lower levels" is crap too. If it is imbalanced at the very top, that imbalance would ripple through most mid-high level play. Meaning that a player picking the overpowered race will do better than he would as the other races. Especially when most of those less skilled players are watching the top players and copying there strategies and play styles. In starcraft 2 the dissemination of ideas is very fast. | ||
|
SafeAsCheese
United States4924 Posts
On October 14 2011 01:24 Daralii wrote: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3Ww6P.jpg) | ||
|
Goshdarnit
United States540 Posts
Protoss dropped off in wins about the same time MC did ahhahaha. Also open 2, nesteas undefeated stretch did wonders to help the already unusual high for zergs. | ||
|
sopporku
13 Posts
| ||
|
Goshdarnit
United States540 Posts
On October 14 2011 10:11 Reborn8u wrote: Wait a second, isn't the GSL full of terrans because they knocked out the protoss players over time? It's not a random sample group we're talking about. And GM in Korea is pretty evenly spread between races, last time I checked. It's just that the top it is full of Terran. "The stats are useless because they are bias" no actually your post is useless because it is bias. The fact that every stat and graph I've ever seen shows Terran dominance since release is statistically significant. Any graph I've ever seen shows terran having higher peaks and less severe valleys. This whole "better players pick terran" is moronic and I've seen 0 proof of that. Plenty of former BW pro's didn't pick terran but get smashed no name terrans. This whole "balance doesn't affect lower levels" is crap too. If it is imbalanced at the very top, that imbalance would ripple through most mid-high level play. Meaning that a player picking the overpowered race will do better than he would as the other races. Especially when most of those less skilled players are watching the top players and copying there strategies and play styles. In starcraft 2 the dissemination of ideas is very fast. I don't agree with the lower levels are as affected by the specific balances people are talking about, especially when you can overcome those imbalanced easily by simply training more. The game simply plays differently at lower levels, terran mules are much better lower level even though they are great higher level. The protoss deathball is much more effective at lower levels. And zergs... I think the only thing they might have going for them at lower levels is the inability of other players to deal with the roach unit, or at least over-compensate for it. Maybe at mid-levels the lack of effective protoss strats that are copied from pros could diminish because the pro builds aren't seen as much due to their being less protoss pros in general i guess. But not as much as your comment makes it seem. You have to be decent to do most pro builds and not only are lower level players not "decent", but it seems your entire point might only be valid about the 1-1-1 so I am assuming you are whining about that. Also I am only addressing this point. | ||
|
Daralii
United States16991 Posts
On October 14 2011 09:58 Zealot Lord wrote: Back when Terran players only used nothing but MMM, yes templars with amulet looked too strong; but what about now though? Its quite clear to me that some of the things which used to be considered imbalanced are most likely no longer overpowered with pro players improving at such a fast rate, as they change the effectiveness of different units. I am 100% sure that had the game begun with players that could use snipe as well as they could with ghosts now, they would have never taken out khydarian amulet. Flux Vanes is another thing. It was removed because void ray all ins were too good in 2v2, but with the 6 second spore crawler burrow time and the incredible strength of fungal, I have to think Blizz could afford to bring it back. | ||
| ||
