TLPD Winrate Charts: December - Page 10

On January 03 2012 05:03 secretary bird wrote:


If anyone doesnt take ladder seriously at all ean GM players though.

International winrates are pointless because they include the most ridiculously pointless games with incredible skill gaps. Let's look at International PvT versus Korean PvT in December and you tell me what's a better indicator of balance.

International:

Brat_OK (T) vs. Pomi (P)
Polt (T) vs. MaNa (P)
MVP (T) vs. BlinG (P)
MVP (T) vs. Cobo (P)
MVP (T) vs. Splendour (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Wern (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Babyknight (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Hui (P)


Korean:

Clide (T) vs. JYP (P)
Bomber (T) vs. Creator (P)
Bomber (T) vs. MC (P)
Noblesse (T) vs. Sage (P)
MarineKing (T) vs. Squirtle (P)
ASD (T) vs. Genius (P)
NaDa (T) vs. HuK (P)
Polt (T) vs. Naniwa (P)

On January 03 2012 05:26 Let it Raine wrote:
these stats =/= balance

to elaborate here's a quote:

On January 03 2012 04:05 Badfatpanda wrote:


But there's a very high chance it will be considering the previous posts >.> OK, that's valid but since I look at ELO as a measure of skill in all matchups, mirror does come into account. So considering the fact that mirror matchups will dilute whatever potential imbalance there is, the resulting calculations will be a more accurate indication of performance as a whole. Regarding imbalance, any cries of imbalance relating to these graphs is relating to a fear that eventually if trends continue imbalance would exist.

These numbers aren’t static. They shift almost constantly with the metagame as newly discovered strategies spread through the community, and that heavily influences how they’re interpreted. Also, due to the way the math works out we will almost never see ratios of 50:50; we expect a variance of +/- 5% in these results. So, if a win/loss ratio is approximately 55%:45%, this would indicate that the matchup is well balanced—we expect those numbers to fluctuate within that range to some degree. Ratios just outside of that range are still within acceptable boundaries. It is only after win/loss ratios exceed 60%:40% that there is an indication that a potential imbalance might exist. We keep a sharp eye on these variations from day to day and week to week, staying constantly alert for where the numbers are changing and what the possible causes could be. It’s fairly common, for example, for a new strategy or build order to skew the numbers in favor of a particular race for a brief period, until the metagame catches up and the counter strategies spread through the community.

From the balance team, source: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/3551858/StarCraft_II_Balance_Snapshot_-9_22_2011#blog

So disregarding April, the game has been in a state of overall balance. And even the April turn only reinforces the point of the article I provided. Directly after the amulet removal toss were in a depression, 1 month later with no balance patch the MU magically was buffed up 14%.

So I feel ELO up to this point is determined more from player skill than it exists from a state of imbalance in the game overall.

On January 02 2012 23:45 Ermac wrote:
I wonder what TvP statistics would look like if you took out the all ins. Imho the matchup is balanced terribly at the moment. Protoss dominates most straight up games while Terran keeps crushing them with all ins.

On January 03 2012 05:26 Let it Raine wrote:
these stats =/= balance

to elaborate here's a quote:

On January 03 2012 04:37 SeaSwift wrote:


Interesting. It looks like on ladder, at least, Zerg is underrepresented in almost every league. Is the race just not appealing to play as or something?

On January 03 2012 08:26 Scila wrote:
What I think most people in this thread don't realize is that balance does not = good design and a good game. Sure, by looking at these statistics of roughly 50% win ratios at the top level (which is how it should be measured) you can say that the game is "balanced". However, this doesn't look at the real issues of game design. For example, in TvP, Terran tends to win much more before the "late" game. Also, Terran tends to use all-ins like the 1 base or 2 base 1/1/1 a lot to achieve these wins. Protoss, on the other hand, tends to have much higher win ratios in the late game.

You could see a similar situation in pretty much every match up. In PvZ, Protoss tends to win with either a big 2 base all-in, or a super late game situation where the Zerg can't handle the deathball.

In TvZ, Terran also tends to lose much more in the late game, and win much more in the early and mid game. It's no big secret that Terran overall is weaker in the late game than the other races, and instead tends to rely on gimmicky aggression-based builds and timings to win a lot if not most of their games.

I like the fact that most match ups are going towards 50% balance, but that doesn't look at the issue of different races struggling at different points in a game, like Terran in Late game TvP, or Protoss fast expanding versus Zerg. Every race should win and lose at ANY point of the game resulting DIRECTLY from the skill and decisions of the player. THAT is good design, and what I think was almost achieved in Brood War.

On January 03 2012 05:58 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
TvZ is getting closer, PvZ is just looping around, and TvP is just lol.

::shrugs:: 10% off 50/50 is supposedly concerning, right? I wonder if Terran is going to get nerfed again.

On January 02 2012 21:10 HowardRoark wrote:
Korean stats are the only that ought to matter, and fairly balanced. Zerg having the worst winrates, but with the highest skill ceiling for Z I do not see any problem with this. Zerg will in some month's come up on top without patches.

On January 03 2012 09:36 Big J wrote:

until there are any statistics for this (which there wont be because it's simply not true... the game has been designed for each race to have achievable composition in the lategame that can at least be even with your opponents) this is nothing but the usual "races i dont play are imba"-crap paired with a little bit of "bw is better"-crap.