EPTStatistics behind map balance - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Sea_Food
Finland1612 Posts
| ||
|
Lumi
United States1612 Posts
| ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
Also it would be nice to note at what time certain map changes went into efffect. I can imagine that most map changes were accustomed by a patch as well so shifting match ratio's could partly be the result of patches as well. | ||
|
Randomaccount#77123
United States5003 Posts
| ||
|
Mista_Masta
Netherlands557 Posts
| ||
|
Primadog
United States4411 Posts
| ||
|
Dodgin
Canada39254 Posts
On November 25 2011 05:02 Psychobabas wrote: I am sorry but the sample is way too small for some maps, as you state. Also, the most recent statistics include all the games from before, therefore is not as accurate since multiple game changing nerfs and buffs have occured over time. What I think would be a better study, and with more meaning, would be to look at the balances on each patch. I dont mean to be annoying but I think there is little point to this, since those factors (patch changes) are far more important in my eyes than maps, which are certainly not as decisive (at least not as much as Brood War). you're actually just completely wrong, sorry. maps are a big deal. | ||
|
RoboBob
United States798 Posts
The Shattered Temple results weren't that surprising. I think one thing you didn't consider about the original Lost Temple was the influence of BitByBit. (and to a lesser extent, Rax before Depot) He taught us how to auto-kill Zergs on close-by-ground spawns. By the time Shattered Temple came out, all the changes to the cliff, island, and center didn't matter. They certainly made mid-lategame TvZ better for the Zerg, but because all the Terrans learned they could kill the Zerg in the early game, it just didn't matter. I'm not sure why the current version of Shattered Temple TvZ is still Terran favored. I'm not a big believer of Gold expansions automatically making maps imbalanced for Terran, but maybe there is a case for that here. I also thought it was a bit silly to look at Bel'Shiar and Antiga when they haven't had enough play yet. Maybe that was the point you were trying to make, but I feel kinda bad that you went to all that effort for nothing =/ | ||
|
Kira__
Sweden2672 Posts
| ||
|
Mirosuu
England283 Posts
We'll see. Hopefully they are still balanced in a few years, but I severely doubt that even tal'darim would be balanced across all three races in a few years once everyone has fleshed out a lot of their races and the matchups. | ||
|
Madera
Sweden2672 Posts
| ||
|
Micket
United Kingdom2163 Posts
| ||
|
Hassybaby
United Kingdom10823 Posts
On November 25 2011 05:05 Andreas wrote: Are you sure that's the original Tal'darim with the gold bases? I was sure that was NASL's version. It's an old version that the NASL accidentally used. They fixed it pretty quickly, and subsequent matches were played on the right version @ those talking about sample size. That's exactly my point. A number of map changes have been made with little data backing them up, but mostly general opinions. Antiga Shipyard hasn't even been out for 6 months, but there are 3 main versions of it. Bel'Shir Beach has only seen play in the competitive scene, and yet there are numerous changes to it. 40 non-mirror match-ups were played before they released version 1.1! How can there be any seriously justification of this many variations when other factors have not been given a chance to have an affect on the win rates? @ those mentioning Blizzard data: Blizzard balances maps at the higher levels. Their concern across the board comes more from units then maps, and even there they favour the higher ranks. It was the professional scene that pushed for changes to Lost Temple to remove that high ground. It was the pros that noted now truly brutal Terran pushes could be through Shakuras using the back rocks. While I agree that using the bigger sample would be useful, at the same time we would have to reject the same data because it's not relevant to what the motives were. On November 25 2011 05:18 shaldengeki wrote: Yeah, patch changes over time undoubtedly influence win rates on maps. That's a really good point, and I feel like it strengthens the OP's point wrt sample sizes - you've got all these variables that are changing over time, so it's even more important that maps be held static for awhile to accurately measure map balance - see what works and what doesn't. Otherwise we're just flailing about in the dark. Pretty much what i was going for. The only map that we can safely say has been given a fair chance in terms of severity of changes is Tal'Darim Altar, and that was a tournament map to begin with. On November 25 2011 05:26 Psychobabas wrote: This opens another can of worms actually. Then we would wonder: Is Blizzard balancing maps for the masses or just the higher players? I personally think it's for the masses. So I think a study like this has great potential, as a statistic that includes bronze play (no offence to the bronze people out there!) is meaningless to me. Can't comment, despite how hard i wanted to. If we take the number on face value, some cases they are trying to balance it at the high levels, and failed. Other cases, they are trying and they succeeded in one area, and caused more problems in another. We can't say, because the balances outside maps are constantly changing. That's why I want stability, as opposed to constant changes. @ those thinking that I should have compared stats by patch and overall win-rates as well: Firstly...I'm actually going to do that later, for each individual map  Secondly, the fact that we would be dividing up the small sample even more, as there have been many patches, would cause statistical errors to be even greater than they are right now, and then there would be even more reason to disregard the data. Not enough time was given.... On November 25 2011 06:24 RoboBob wrote: I also thought it was a bit silly to look at Bel'Shiar and Antiga when they haven't had enough play yet. Maybe that was the point you were trying to make, but I feel kinda bad that you went to all that effort for nothing =/ It was, and i don't think it's a waste of time for me. Anyone who regularity goes into the GSL LR knows that I love writing out stats, and I enjoyed doing it On November 25 2011 05:05 shaldengeki wrote: A slight nitpick though: IIRC if your confidence intervals overlap at all, you have to say that you can't reasonably tell whether these numbers are actually different or not. There were a few instances in which you seemed to acknowledge the overlaps but then continued to say that the winrates were actually distinguishable and attributable to changes. If you could point out where they are, I'd love to change it around to make the necessary changes. Hope that cleared up some misconceptions | ||
|
Zaphid
Czech Republic1860 Posts
You also completely disregard practice games, which are essentially untrackable, but you can bet your ass that especially for the GSL, they outnumber the tournament ones. When a pro tells you a map x sucks, it's usually because they figured out a way to exploit and they are having a hard time working around it. Anyway, I think the time of big balance patches has passed, so now it should be perfect time to ditch most of the old ladder pool and introduce some great macro based maps so we can get the most out of the game. Also Antiga has so many versions because of positional imbalances on the ladder version and you can hit main's gas from the third, at least originally you could. Playing a map with those "features" in tournaments would be a joke. | ||
|
arioch
England403 Posts
 | ||
|
Nymbul
United Kingdom127 Posts
The GSL has removed gold expansions but i'm wondering if there's going to be map changes to make them safer due to the lessening of Reward > Risk | ||
|
ogion
New Zealand79 Posts
| ||
Antoine
United States7481 Posts
also bottom of main ramp changed to prevent 2-bunker block iirc | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
On November 25 2011 06:55 Nymbul wrote: After looking at the original i'm only now remembering how bad Shakuras used to be. I knew there was backdoor rocks which is an evil that must be purged but I completely forgot about the middle rocks The GSL has removed gold expansions but i'm wondering if there's going to be map changes to make them safer due to the lessening of Reward > Risk I think gold was a slight mistake in sc2. The idea is nice of a high risk high reward expansion where the option of where to expand starts to matter more but it's very hard to balance racewise. Zerg have the least dependance for their bases being close together because of fast units and them not relying on static defense so much so they can probably use golds the best, terran can use all mules on gold and take golds quite fast by means of a planetary as well. Protoss on the other hand cna hardly use gold well at all, if anything they tend to have oversaturation already most of the time so they are not that interested in a base with less patches. Those principle differences between the races make gold very hard to balance I think. | ||
|
SpiZe
Canada3640 Posts
On November 25 2011 07:05 Antoine wrote: 1.1 for antiga is no horizontal spawns. (same for shakuras) also bottom of main ramp changed to prevent 2-bunker block iirc Shakuras 1.1 also included the fix to the invisible buildings, or was it 2.0 ? | ||
| ||
