|
On February 04 2012 15:34 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 15:31 -orb- wrote:On February 04 2012 15:10 ETisME wrote:
There are some errors of statistics to be honest:
the pylon gateway cybercore one doesn't show what the toss is going for and what match ups.
it is the most consistent protoss opening that is done (but not showing what tech route and what comes next, for all we know, it isn't a nexus first or FFE) and since toss has one of the worst matchup win rate, obviously this opening, be it 4 gate, 3 gate robo expo that the opening leads to, will have the highest rate of losing.
and since 2 gate is an opening designed to win right off, it shows the actual build can win games, unlike the one above which only shows what opening he is doing and what comes next (the rest of the build that is designed to win the game) would never get a winning rate as high as the 2 gate one You should notice the 2nd gas is included in that winrate, so the build is for double gas P on 1 base. You can be sure it ISN'T a nexus or forge FE after this... dunno how you could possibly think a protoss is going to open double gas and then forge FE LOL I open double gas and get a Nexus with 1 Gate (MC's Gate-Nexus-Gate-Stargate-Gate) opener vs Zerg all the time. I also like doing 3 Gate Expands vs Terran, which open double gas, get 3 Gates then expand. So there are plenty of expand builds that come of double gas openers.
Sorry, it's just something I rarely see. Even if MC did it one time, it happens almost never. I just did an analysis in sc2gears of every single korean replay I have (and I don't remember deleting any, though maybe some really old ones aren't in there), and of the 72 replays that start with "Pylon, Gateway, Assimilator, Pylon, Cybernetics Core, Assimilator," only 1 of them has the next building as a nexus (which lost). Only 7 have a nexus after another pylon, and the record there is 3-4.
So okay, perhaps ~10% of the time people will expand immediately after going double gas, but it's not common, and it is a build that doesn't win very much.
On February 04 2012 15:49 ProBot wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 15:31 -orb- wrote:On February 04 2012 15:10 ETisME wrote:
There are some errors of statistics to be honest:
the pylon gateway cybercore one doesn't show what the toss is going for and what match ups.
it is the most consistent protoss opening that is done (but not showing what tech route and what comes next, for all we know, it isn't a nexus first or FFE) and since toss has one of the worst matchup win rate, obviously this opening, be it 4 gate, 3 gate robo expo that the opening leads to, will have the highest rate of losing.
and since 2 gate is an opening designed to win right off, it shows the actual build can win games, unlike the one above which only shows what opening he is doing and what comes next (the rest of the build that is designed to win the game) would never get a winning rate as high as the 2 gate one You should notice the 2nd gas is included in that winrate, so the build is for double gas P on 1 base. You can be sure it ISN'T a nexus or forge FE after this... dunno how you could possibly think a protoss is going to open double gas and then forge FE LOL so judging by that is it safe to say thats very indicative of 1 base stargate play? for the most part? If not can you explain why? I suck at the game so try not to flame if i'm way off pwease. want to keep my pillow tear free tonight :D
Depends on many, many factors. First off you have to take into account matchup:
PvP - could mean anything. Double gas on 1base is very standard. For the most part you can rule out 4gate, though sometimes people will fake you with 2nd gas and still 4gate. In PvP specifically you can probably also rule out 1gate nexus for the mast part as you'd do that build with 1 gas. Could be standard robo build into immortals or colossi, could be stargate build, could be blink+obs, could be blink, could be dt, could be 3gate expand. The list goes on, because double gas is pretty much required for toss especially in that matchup.
PvT - could be 3gate voidray, could be blink+obs, could be 4gate blink, could be 3gate sentry expand, could be 1 gate robo sentry+obs expand, could be a phoenix build, could be DT, could be a wacky templar rush, could be double gas 4gate. I'm sure there are some I am missing
PvZ - well you know they're not forge FEing. The most common occurrence is probably 3gate sentry expand, but of course it could still be 1gate sentry expand, some 1-base blink build, DT expand, 1gate voidray expand, some weird robo warp prism + sentry build, and of course there are plenty of other alternatives that are less common like 1-base colossus or something silly like that.
There are so many more factors that go into what build your opponent is doing than just if they get double gas or not, but it certainly helps narrow it down. Keep tabs not only of gas but other indicative elements such as the amount of chrono saved, where the chrono is being used, and how many sentries are made early game. If your opponent gets double gas and you scout a low number of sentries, you better prepare for the possibility of DT or stargate (or blink if u see a high number of stalkers).
|
Pros say map stats are bullshit until they are in tournaments.
Maps goes into tournaments, pros say it's bullshit because it's not Koreans pros.
Maps go into Korean tournaments, pros claim it's bullshit because they need thousands of games.
Playhem released stats with thousands of games. Pros claim it's bullshit because it's not thousands of games with only the very highest level of players.........
Sigh...............
But then they applaud tournaments for using Blizzard maps that go no pro testing whatsoever and are not designed for tournament play....
This is an endless circle I swear. They could probably release stats with 15,000 games between MvP and NesTea and pros would say it's bullshit because it's not Flash vs. Jaedong..............
|
Interesting statistics indeed.
|
On February 04 2012 16:13 Diamond wrote:
Pros say map stats are bullshit until they are in tournaments.
Maps goes into tournaments, pros say it's bullshit because it's not Koreans pros.
Maps go into Korean tournaments, pros claim it's bullshit because they need thousands of games.
Playhem released stats with thousands of games. Pros claim it's bullshit because it's not thousands of games with only the very highest level of players.........
Sigh...............
But then they applaud tournaments for using Blizzard maps that go no pro testing whatsoever and are not designed for tournament play....
This is an endless circle I swear. They could probably release stats with 15,000 games between MvP and NesTea and pros would say it's bullshit because it's not Flash vs. Jaedong..............
This isn't anything new. Pros want to play on old maps because that's what they've already practiced.
The only problem here is that the community tends to listen to pros. In this particular instance (furthering the map scene), listening to pros is actually hugely detrimental to progress.
As you have said before diamond, pros were adamantly fighting against the removal of steppes of war for quite some time (just as an example). If we listen to pros we get absolutely nowhere with mapmaking.
|
On February 04 2012 16:05 RoboBob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 15:53 KawaiiRice wrote:On February 04 2012 15:46 ProBot wrote:On February 04 2012 15:07 KawaiiRice wrote:these stats don't really reflect balance and random masters players don't even play the game right anyway. i.e.: Metal should be way more z favored, and antiga should be incredibly terran favored. Dual Sight and Shakuras should be more T favored TvZ too. Can't really comment on the other matchups. Regardless, nice post. <3 Playhem  Define "playing the game right." Not to be a dick just want to understand your point of view a bit better. I suck so i'm not going to get into anything with you but i would assume Most masters players and above have a decent idea of how to play the game hence why they're in said league. Generally speaking. But i'm silver so what do i know. you can get into masters without having deep knowledge of what exactly you're doing and just macroing. your assumption is false because most masters don't really know and masters itself doesn't actually mean anything, it's just a stupid label blizzard decided to place on people to make them feel good. if masters players knew how to play properly then top players wouldn't mow down ladder with ridiculous winrates. It would very stupid of Playhem to balance their maps according to the top 0.0001%. They don't have the prize money to draw those kinds of players anyway. Balancing their maps to the 0.0001% would unbalance all the maps for the 99.9999% Now, if this were a thread about GSL then I'd certainly agree with you, because everyone in the GSL is at that highest level. But I believe that attitude is too elitist for a tournament like playhem.
Haha I thought that was an awesome response. You're right, these games are for the rest of the players at the top levels besides that group of top ~~300 players that take this game as a job. And sometimes that's much more interesting anyway.
Edit: And anyway, there have been COUNTLESS times I've seen top GM players losing to players who are in the Masters league on streams.
|
This is awesome!!! <3 Ben and playhem!!
|
Interesting work! Some win rates changed my perception of particular maps' balance.
Thanks for the work!
|
verryyyy sick post, reading it now. you should do more analysis if possible =]
|
Antiga mains are so vulnerable to drops, which is probably why TvP is so favored there. Tal-Darim's awesome racial balance is offset by its stupidity in the PvP matchup, and to a lesser extent, ZvZ.
|
I really want to know who this Maynard is and just an absolute on whether it's for sure not Maynard from BW. Surely he hasn't picked back up.
|
Awesome post! Love entering Playhem tourneys everyday, and it's good to know that most matchups are balanced on all maps.
|
On February 04 2012 16:05 RoboBob wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 15:53 KawaiiRice wrote:On February 04 2012 15:46 ProBot wrote:On February 04 2012 15:07 KawaiiRice wrote:these stats don't really reflect balance and random masters players don't even play the game right anyway. i.e.: Metal should be way more z favored, and antiga should be incredibly terran favored. Dual Sight and Shakuras should be more T favored TvZ too. Can't really comment on the other matchups. Regardless, nice post. <3 Playhem Define "playing the game right." Not to be a dick just want to understand your point of view a bit better. I suck so i'm not going to get into anything with you but i would assume Most masters players and above have a decent idea of how to play the game hence why they're in said league. Generally speaking. But i'm silver so what do i know. you can get into masters without having deep knowledge of what exactly you're doing and just macroing. your assumption is false because most masters don't really know and masters itself doesn't actually mean anything, it's just a stupid label blizzard decided to place on people to make them feel good. if masters players knew how to play properly then top players wouldn't mow down ladder with ridiculous winrates. It would very stupid of Playhem to balance their maps according to the top 0.0001%. They don't have the prize money to draw those kinds of players anyway. Balancing their maps to the 0.0001% would unbalance all the maps for the 99.9999% Now, if this were a thread about GSL then I'd certainly agree with you, because everyone in the GSL is at that highest level. But I believe that attitude is too elitist for a tournament like playhem.
Regardless of how a map is balanced for the highest level it will most likely not affect lower level play, as seen by some of the stats here...... I don't see how trying to make a map 50% win/loss (which btw would amaze me if this ever gets accomplished) is going to "unbalance" a map for the 99%. That's an extremely large stretch. I argue it would have little to no effect at all to winrates for other players.
The reason I'm being sort of critical here is because playhem is trying to use these stats to represent some sort of statement about map balance when they also include thousands of games where people lose because of millions of mistakes that have nothing to do with map balance because they aren't as good.
On February 04 2012 16:06 hipsterHobbit wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 15:53 KawaiiRice wrote:On February 04 2012 15:46 ProBot wrote:On February 04 2012 15:07 KawaiiRice wrote:these stats don't really reflect balance and random masters players don't even play the game right anyway. i.e.: Metal should be way more z favored, and antiga should be incredibly terran favored. Dual Sight and Shakuras should be more T favored TvZ too. Can't really comment on the other matchups. Regardless, nice post. <3 Playhem Define "playing the game right." Not to be a dick just want to understand your point of view a bit better. I suck so i'm not going to get into anything with you but i would assume Most masters players and above have a decent idea of how to play the game hence why they're in said league. Generally speaking. But i'm silver so what do i know. you can get into masters without having deep knowledge of what exactly you're doing and just macroing. your assumption is false because most masters don't really know and masters itself doesn't actually mean anything, it's just a stupid label blizzard decided to place on people to make them feel good. if masters players knew how to play properly then top players wouldn't mow down ladder with ridiculous winrates. So what do you have to gain from reading TL? And how is your brain more suited to apply what you learn from here than said lowly "masters"?
stfu
|
Ahh so protoss is the worst race.
|
On February 04 2012 15:53 KawaiiRice wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 15:46 ProBot wrote:On February 04 2012 15:07 KawaiiRice wrote:these stats don't really reflect balance and random masters players don't even play the game right anyway. i.e.: Metal should be way more z favored, and antiga should be incredibly terran favored. Dual Sight and Shakuras should be more T favored TvZ too. Can't really comment on the other matchups. Regardless, nice post. <3 Playhem Define "playing the game right." Not to be a dick just want to understand your point of view a bit better. I suck so i'm not going to get into anything with you but i would assume Most masters players and above have a decent idea of how to play the game hence why they're in said league. Generally speaking. But i'm silver so what do i know. you can get into masters without having deep knowledge of what exactly you're doing and just macroing. your assumption is false because most masters don't really know and masters itself doesn't actually mean anything, it's just a stupid label blizzard decided to place on people to make them feel good. if masters players knew how to play properly then top players wouldn't mow down ladder with ridiculous winrates.
fair enough, that does make sense. Yeah had to assume cuz the only thing i've been close to top tier at was fps and the leagues were generally a good representation of skill. So the main thing to master doing first is macro and mechanics and then tactics and what not after you got that down? Is that fair to say?
|
Haha, I expected bm to be bigger in the world cloud @_@
|
Nice post, interesting results!
|
Nice, really cool to see the stats. I guess PvP 4 gates on TDA really put the average down.
|
On February 04 2012 16:34 KawaiiRice wrote:
The reason I'm being sort of critical here is because playhem is trying to use these stats to represent some sort of statement about map balance when they also include thousands of games where people lose because of millions of mistakes that have nothing to do with map balance because they aren't as good.
The underlying meaning behind the analysis was more along the lines that map design can have an impact on balance, and that neither maps nor patches alone will lead to a perfect game but that changes have to be made in order to eventually find the best balance. Everyone knows how different BW was in the earliest days compared to now, and change is the only thing that will facilitate SC2's progress toward a better game.
While you're right that mistakes are factored in just as the map balance is, with a large enough sample size you should have mistakes factoring in roughly evenly for all maps/matchups unless something else is influencing some races to be more prone to game-losing mistakes. That might be an entirely different/interesting issue about how the racial mechanics work in SC2.
tl;dr, Tournaments should try out some new stuff and not just cling to old maps.
By the way, here's a picture of what a big pile of replays looks like
http://i.imgur.com/eRMGH.png
|
On February 04 2012 16:34 KawaiiRice wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 16:05 RoboBob wrote:On February 04 2012 15:53 KawaiiRice wrote:On February 04 2012 15:46 ProBot wrote:On February 04 2012 15:07 KawaiiRice wrote:these stats don't really reflect balance and random masters players don't even play the game right anyway. i.e.: Metal should be way more z favored, and antiga should be incredibly terran favored. Dual Sight and Shakuras should be more T favored TvZ too. Can't really comment on the other matchups. Regardless, nice post. <3 Playhem Define "playing the game right." Not to be a dick just want to understand your point of view a bit better. I suck so i'm not going to get into anything with you but i would assume Most masters players and above have a decent idea of how to play the game hence why they're in said league. Generally speaking. But i'm silver so what do i know. you can get into masters without having deep knowledge of what exactly you're doing and just macroing. your assumption is false because most masters don't really know and masters itself doesn't actually mean anything, it's just a stupid label blizzard decided to place on people to make them feel good. if masters players knew how to play properly then top players wouldn't mow down ladder with ridiculous winrates. It would very stupid of Playhem to balance their maps according to the top 0.0001%. They don't have the prize money to draw those kinds of players anyway. Balancing their maps to the 0.0001% would unbalance all the maps for the 99.9999% Now, if this were a thread about GSL then I'd certainly agree with you, because everyone in the GSL is at that highest level. But I believe that attitude is too elitist for a tournament like playhem. Regardless of how a map is balanced for the highest level it will most likely not affect lower level play, as seen by some of the stats here...... I don't see how trying to make a map 50% win/loss (which btw would amaze me if this ever gets accomplished) is going to "unbalance" a map for the 99%. That's an extremely large stretch. I argue it would have little to no effect at all to winrates for other players. The reason I'm being sort of critical here is because playhem is trying to use these stats to represent some sort of statement about map balance when they also include thousands of games where people lose because of millions of mistakes that have nothing to do with map balance because they aren't as good. Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 16:06 hipsterHobbit wrote:On February 04 2012 15:53 KawaiiRice wrote:On February 04 2012 15:46 ProBot wrote:On February 04 2012 15:07 KawaiiRice wrote:these stats don't really reflect balance and random masters players don't even play the game right anyway. i.e.: Metal should be way more z favored, and antiga should be incredibly terran favored. Dual Sight and Shakuras should be more T favored TvZ too. Can't really comment on the other matchups. Regardless, nice post. <3 Playhem Define "playing the game right." Not to be a dick just want to understand your point of view a bit better. I suck so i'm not going to get into anything with you but i would assume Most masters players and above have a decent idea of how to play the game hence why they're in said league. Generally speaking. But i'm silver so what do i know. you can get into masters without having deep knowledge of what exactly you're doing and just macroing. your assumption is false because most masters don't really know and masters itself doesn't actually mean anything, it's just a stupid label blizzard decided to place on people to make them feel good. if masters players knew how to play properly then top players wouldn't mow down ladder with ridiculous winrates. So what do you have to gain from reading TL? And how is your brain more suited to apply what you learn from here than said lowly "masters"? stfu
someone lost to a masters player who proxy 2 gated.
Aren't you like 16 years old? Seems like hanging around that angry nerd picnic is having an adverse effect on your impressionable mind.
User was banned for this post.
|
On February 04 2012 16:41 godulous wrote:Show nested quote +On February 04 2012 16:34 KawaiiRice wrote:
The reason I'm being sort of critical here is because playhem is trying to use these stats to represent some sort of statement about map balance when they also include thousands of games where people lose because of millions of mistakes that have nothing to do with map balance because they aren't as good.
The underlying meaning behind the analysis was more along the lines that map design can have an impact on balance, and that neither maps nor patches alone will lead to a perfect game but that changes have to be made in order to eventually find the best balance. Everyone knows how different BW was in the earliest days compared to now, and change is the only thing that will facilitate SC2's progress toward a better game. While you're right that mistakes are factored in just as the map balance is, with a large enough sample size you should have mistakes factoring in roughly evenly for all maps/matchups unless something else is influencing some races to be more prone to game-losing mistakes. That might be an entirely different/interesting issue about how the racial mechanics work in SC2. tl;dr, Tournaments should try out some new stuff and not just cling to old maps.By the way, here's a picture of what a big pile of replays looks like http://i.imgur.com/eRMGH.png
agree I really liked playing in the NASTL and IPTL new maps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
