Why are Starcraft 2 tournaments so unpredictable? - Page 13

Mentalizor

Denmark1596 Posts

February 03 2012 12:54 GMT

#241

For the same reason when you play on ladder you can get some players you can straight up outplay... And just next game you can get roflstomped extremely onesided. When you don't have more than 1/3/5 games to find the better player - the worse player can often times win due to build order / luck.

Well.. That... And what Greg said

DropTester

Australia608 Posts

February 03 2012 13:05 GMT

#242

players wont be able to experience every possible thing, and when in a tournament say like the gsl where you have time to prepare people can spring new builds or styles against you. Due to this it can make the game much more unpredictable but the players who are at the top have been fairly consistent in their own way.

As mentioned probably before winning 3 gsls would be consider quite consistent.

Ysellian

Netherlands9029 Posts

February 03 2012 13:10 GMT

#243

On February 03 2012 21:22 karpo wrote:

Show nested quote +

That must be one of the most stupid statements i've heard. Statistics is a completely nessesary science, it's just that there's misuse. We rely on statistics for alot of things and just because you can find cases where people have misunderstood statistical data doesn't mean it's crap.

Meh you are right. I just hate statistics so goddamn much

There is just so much misuse.

Herculix

United States946 Posts

February 03 2012 13:14 GMT

#244

it has nothing to do with sports in general. it comes down to the talent distribution, which is completely random from sport to sport. in sports like judo where most of the best competitors are japanese, and japanese know all of the trade secrets, japan wins olympics almost every time. in american football, where very few things are understood by one team that aren't by another, you see an extreme amount of randomness in winning. every team has a few great players that give them victories, and being clean that day is all that matters. same with basketball.

starcraft 2 is actually not completely random. see nokz88's post. the people who have the upper hand in knowledge and skill win more still. but the amount of skill they have is not tremendously higher like in judo, or for example, starcraft 1, because they aren't as refined as those sports. they aren't refined because there is simply a lack of experience.

Wildmoon

Thailand4189 Posts

February 03 2012 14:11 GMT

#245

On February 03 2012 19:47 Hazzah wrote:

Show nested quote +

IdrA is right this game is no way near broodwar. In SC2 lower tier player can win vs higher tier player. Some recent results are for example Gumiho vs MVP...

Are you serious? Did you even watch MVP vs Gumiho match? as much as I like MVP but Gumiho outplayed MVP so hard with impressive viking play.

Shikyo

Finland33997 Posts

February 03 2012 14:24 GMT

#246

Well...

A starcraft game is basically a best of 1.

A tennis game is basically a bunch of best of 7s inside a bunch of best of 13s inside a best of 3 or best of 5.

Dont you think the "better" player would win more often in SC2 if it was a best of 31 or whatever that would add up to?

Also in the case of chess, well... I guess that's such a game that if you're better you will almost always win .-. The players have memorized most variations precisely and the gameplay in general is far more advanced there than in SC2. That one I wouldn't compare to SC2 unless you precisely talk about the early 1400-1500s chess that was more feel-based

lorkac

United States2297 Posts

February 03 2012 14:56 GMT

#247

So the conclusion is of this thread is this so far.

Liquibet and win/loss records suggests that SC2 is as consistent as BW. Which means both Liquibets and win/loss records must be wrong.

Am I right or am I wrong?

Ogww

Finland224 Posts

February 03 2012 15:06 GMT

#248

In a tennis match u have to play atleast 48 "balls" (i dont know tennis nor tennis terms, so forgive me if im wrong). Now imagine Starcraft 2 tournament with only Bo48's...

It's just the tournament format.

cgerrr

Ukraine47 Posts

February 03 2012 15:27 GMT

#249

SC2 has much lower skill celling than its predecessor or any other pro sport, thus making overall skill level on pro level quite similar. By adding way to much luck SC2 involves we have this much unpredictability in (tourney) results.

Tl:dr: What Idra said basically "the game is shitty".

JimmyJRaynor

Canada16710 Posts

February 03 2012 15:32 GMT

#250

Major League Baseball's BO7s are far more unpredictable than SC2's BO3's and Baseball has an extremely high skill ceiling.

When Kyle Drabek can come out of nowhere and out pitch Roy Halladay does this mean there is a low skill ceiling for MLB Pitching.. nah.

and you'll never hear Roy Halladay whine about baseball being a "shitty game" and having a low skill ceiling.

I guess that is why Roy Halladay makes $20+ million and year and....

well you know the rest.

Wrathsc2

United States2025 Posts

February 03 2012 15:35 GMT

#251

I'm really getting sick of the "the game is shitty and luck based post". It's because of the low Bo format and because players have bad days. Plus since sc2 is so young, new strategies can easily be used to trick opponents. But all it is is a trick and will only work till figured out

Knalldi

Germany50 Posts

February 03 2012 16:13 GMT

#252

I have made a small calculation. If a player wins a BO3 to like 70%, his chances to win 4 subsequent rounds of BO3 Elimination are ~24%, doesnt seem that much.
When he has a win chance of 80%(!) in a BO3 to EVERY(!) other of the 15 players, he has a chance of winnig a 4 Round Tournament of like 35%. When said player has a bad day everything can happen...

Just to throw some numbers in this discussion based on "statistics..".

That said, the unpredictability of tournaments lies within the math, not the player , nor the game. Embrace the game or dont, but PLEASE dont make up wacky arguments to a not proven point of the OP.

Figgy

Canada1788 Posts

February 03 2012 16:19 GMT

#253

It only appears more volatile compared to tennis because sets are often Bo3. In tennis there are a hundred serves a match, it's almost the same as having a Bo100, although in tennis individual volleys are MUCH shorter. In SC2, we don't have 20 second volleys. We have 10-15 minute games on average, and due to scheduling there will be quite a bit of change due to random variation alone.

The better players will still advance more often than not, however in a BO3 it's very possible for the worse player to win.

zefreak

United States2731 Posts

February 03 2012 16:28 GMT

#254

What is happening in this thread is pretty sad. Its as if someone created a thread saying 'why are tall people so stupid?' And people respond with 'maybe gravity has some effect!', 'tall people have less schooling?', 'i think it has to do with social standards..'

My point being is that there is no evidence that sc2 is more random and thus harder to predict than other games including brood war, and yet people come into the thread, read only the op and not the following discussion, and post their theories based on the unproven assumption that the op is true! Humans are funny animals.

Caladbolg

2855 Posts

February 03 2012 16:34 GMT

#255

Cause all-ins are less punished/punishable than in BW. Which is why the stats don't really state what you see because everyone cheeses here and there, but the fact remains that a good player who primarily cheeses is likely 50/50 vs a good player who primarily plays safe despite being less prepared for a multitask-oriented game.

This is why Polt is still relevant.

s4life

Peru1519 Posts

February 03 2012 17:13 GMT

#256

On February 03 2012 19:53 zefreak wrote:

Show nested quote +

On February 03 2012 19:48 s4life wrote:

On February 03 2012 19:17 karpo wrote:

On February 03 2012 18:54 Hinanawi wrote:

On February 03 2012 18:49 lorkac wrote:

On February 03 2012 18:47 Hinanawi wrote:

On February 03 2012 18:44 lorkac wrote:

On February 03 2012 18:33 Hinanawi wrote:

On February 03 2012 16:52 Sinensis wrote:

On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote:
It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.

Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.

Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W

Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L
Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L
Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W
Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)

Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W
MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W

MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W
Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W

Kind of fascinating actually...

Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.

If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.

Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.

See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.

You're obviously right!

When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns

You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.

Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.

He didn't say he trusted the statistics fully. There's a difference between acknowledging a similarity in winrates and being all "STATISTICS LIE, totally irrelevant!".

Sure i think most will agree that Flash winrate are more impressive, considering the competition, but it still shows that SC2 doesn't have as volatile a setting as many claim. If that volatility will be worse if better players comes along is nothing more than speculation at this point.

If I am playing against scrubs all the time and somehow I get a 90% w.r. it doesn't mean the game isn't volatile, it just means that my win rate is inflated. The proof of the game's volatility is that there is a minimal chance of Flash losing in a round of 32 in a OSL, but MPV, MC and Nestea losing in a round of 16 or 32 happened multiple times.

How can you 'inflate' your winrate in a volatile game? Do you know what the word means? Can you teach me so I can 'inflate' my winrate in poker beyond my true winrate and make more money?

Well, you can inflate your rate under any circumstances by just play against the right opposition... happens with chess quite often for example see.
http://www.chessbanter.com/rec-games-chess-misc-chess/49723-how-bloodgood-did.html

s4life

Peru1519 Posts

February 03 2012 17:16 GMT

#257

On February 04 2012 01:28 zefreak wrote:
What is happening in this thread is pretty sad. Its as if someone created a thread saying 'why are tall people so stupid?' And people respond with 'maybe gravity has some effect!', 'tall people have less schooling?', 'i think it has to do with social standards..'

My point being is that there is no evidence that sc2 is more random and thus harder to predict than other games including brood war, and yet people come into the thread, read only the op and not the following discussion, and post their theories based on the unproven assumption that the op is true! Humans are funny animals.

There is statistics evidence.. top players losing left and right in early stages of VERY important tournaments is damning evidence.

windsupernova

Mexico5280 Posts

February 03 2012 17:36 GMT

#258

LOL, I see a lot of people talking about sports and BW but from what they say I can barely believe that they actually watch them.

Upsets exist in all sports, all of them, even with his godliness Flash doesn´t win everything. good players lose against unknowns(Savior lost against FBH, and yeah I am still butthurt about that

), same in sports. The thing about consistency in any sport or game is that it doesn´t mean a consistent player will win everything, it means that he will do well consistently.

Sports are volatile by nature and that is part of what makes them exciting.

But please guys, do explain me why so few players have gotten so consistently lucky for so many tournaments, I want the secret of consistent luck.

eits

United States210 Posts

February 03 2012 17:48 GMT

#259

On February 04 2012 00:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote:
Major League Baseball's BO7s are far more unpredictable than SC2's BO3's and Baseball has an extremely high skill ceiling.

When Kyle Drabek can come out of nowhere and out pitch Roy Halladay does this mean there is a low skill ceiling for MLB Pitching.. nah.

and you'll never hear Roy Halladay whine about baseball being a "shitty game" and having a low skill ceiling.

I guess that is why Roy Halladay makes $20+ million and year and....

well you know the rest.

Man, I've played baseball with Kyle Drabek since I was 5 years old. We are both from the Woodlands, TX, and when i was 12-14 years old he was on my tournmaent teams roster (teams have to have a national roster if they want to go to national tournies, he came to the championships with us, lol ringer much?) It is SO disapointing to see him completely fucking suck balls up there in toronto man. More walks than strikeouts, beer gut, the guy really let himself go. Hell, we were in on the save football teams growing up in jr high and high school the kid was a freak, it is funny to see how HIGH the skill ceiling is in their respected areas becasue this kid COULD NOT BE TOUCHED in our town, then hit 18, got drafted, and got a taste of how men play the game its supposed to be played and started not doing so hot.

when you go to play with the big boys, you better bring your big guns

Kfcnoob

United States296 Posts

February 03 2012 17:49 GMT

#260

On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote:
cuz its a shit game

rofl

Prev 1 11 12 13 14 15 17 Next All

Please or register to reply.

Why are Starcraft 2 tournaments so unpredictable? - Page 13

Completed

Ongoing

Upcoming