EPTIf toss does a blink stalker all in and terran holds then toss loses at 10 min but stays in for another 10 min because he got storm and terran can't attack. There are tons of examples of all the races essentially losing the game but sticking around for 10 min longer. So the graphh should show the averages accurately, Also techinaclly you dont lose if 11/11 rax fails or any of the other examples you provided, terran could do enough damage to transition smoothly and then lose 10min later.
Win Rates by Race & Length of Game - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
-Duderino-
United States80 Posts
If toss does a blink stalker all in and terran holds then toss loses at 10 min but stays in for another 10 min because he got storm and terran can't attack. There are tons of examples of all the races essentially losing the game but sticking around for 10 min longer. So the graphh should show the averages accurately, Also techinaclly you dont lose if 11/11 rax fails or any of the other examples you provided, terran could do enough damage to transition smoothly and then lose 10min later. | ||
|
ChriseC
Germany440 Posts
On February 05 2012 13:10 -Duderino- wrote: ^^ this can be said of all the races idk why you pick on terran. So I think they cancel each other out. If toss does a blink stalker all in and terran holds then toss loses at 10 min but stays in for another 10 min because he got storm and terran can't attack. There are tons of examples of all the races essentially losing the game but sticking around for 10 min longer. So the graphh should show the averages accurately, Also techinaclly you dont lose if 11/11 rax fails or any of the other examples you provided, terran could do enough damage to transition smoothly and then lose 10min later. i hope u are not serious User was warned for this post | ||
|
GhostOwl
766 Posts
| ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
asked for comment, idra stated "no fucking kidding terran is op at the beginning; zerg cant scout" | ||
|
erazerr
Australia86 Posts
| ||
|
NeMeSiS3
Canada2972 Posts
A more correct response is not to insinuate a facetious remark, but simply tell him why he's wrong and explain your point of view... What he said, in a vague sense is true, where a Protoss may 7gate a zerg and not do substantial dmg but stay around praying the zerg will make a mistake because simply he is dead at that point... It imo doesn't show the averages correctly for this point, but actually skews them. | ||
|
Forbidden17
666 Posts
On February 05 2012 14:00 NeMeSiS3 wrote: A more correct response is not to insinuate a facetious remark, but simply tell him why he's wrong and explain your point of view... What he said, in a vague sense is true, where a Protoss may 7gate a zerg and not do substantial dmg but stay around praying the zerg will make a mistake because simply he is dead at that point... It imo doesn't show the averages correctly for this point, but actually skews them. That's why you need a large sample size to eliminate such games... By the same argument say a Zerg 6 pools and manages to kill every single Terran unit and the Terran flies buildings and starts bm'ing while the Zerg takes the entire map and does nothing and lets the game drag on for 3 hours. This happens once in awhile, but is eliminated in the total picture by simply having a large enough sample size. A 4gate could fail and the toss could be completely screwed but manages to stick around for another 10mins. Yes, this could happen, but how often? Not enough to deter the general statistics imo. | ||
|
faulty
Canada204 Posts
I've always wondered if it was just me that thinks TvP is on a clock for terrans. Especially in lower leagues. | ||
|
Orracle
United States314 Posts
On February 05 2012 10:48 emc wrote: Then we wouldn't have a big enough sample size and one race winning over another could skew results in favor of that race just by one game alone. I don't care if we see bronze vs grandmasters, I think the larger the sample size the better. Of course out of those 31.5k games it would be nice to see the Top 8 only analyzed, or even the just the 2nd and 3rd rounders and above because most 1st rounders who lose will be very bad players. That is a good suggestion actually. Incorporate the top 8, 16, etc depending on tournament size. Would provide a halfway decent sample size, and at least decent skill level players. | ||
|
Corsica
Ukraine1854 Posts
| ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
Thing is I don't know if anyone's mentioned this yet, but it's hard to accurately get this information, because replay length is not always the same as "time to win". For instance, once a major winning game move was done at 4 or 10 minutes into the game, the game may go on for another 10 minutes before the other player either surrenders or gets destroyed. One could maybe also consider on the other hand the rare(?) case(s) of premature "GG"s (surrender). edit: I see this is being discussed. On February 05 2012 10:23 Roxy wrote: I dont find these enharantly useful yet. Edit: nvm, thanks oracle http://i.imgur.com/8Wfcc.png ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Wfcc.png) Thanks, as I suspected, this information is a lot more useful than the overview one, which is kinda meaningless aside from strategies that apply to both match-ups. It will be interesting to see with larger sample size and finer/more levels of game durations what —if anything— changes. Oh also, I'm not sure if it provides useful information (I think it does?), but what about weighing the win-rate values based on the number of games played, essentially multiplying the win-rate % by the % of games at that duration. That way, one could see the durations where players win most of their games for each matchups. In addition, I believe it would provide overall win-rate information if you took the "integral" (volume) of the graph (albeit very rough information, but still would probably give a visual indicator if X race was favored overall in all the match-ups or not). Alternatively, but [in my opinion] much more confusing, a <number of games> vs <game duration> graph could be superimposed with the win-rate vs duration graph to get a similar effect. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
And including mirror matches is redundant IMO | ||
|
shuurai
75 Posts
| ||
|
Phays
Sweden162 Posts
| ||
|
solidbebe
Netherlands4921 Posts
| ||
|
Neelia
Germany599 Posts
On February 05 2012 08:11 skeldark wrote: ps: the overall in the graph is total misleading ^ This And I'd love if the guy with the 30k playhem replays could do a similar analysis  | ||
|
gurrpp
United States437 Posts
| ||
|
Roxy
Canada753 Posts
On February 06 2012 05:09 gurrpp wrote: Anyone interested in going through GSL vods and recording game lengths manually? how many internets are you willing to pay? | ||
|
gurrpp
United States437 Posts
You can have all the internets. But in all seriousness I'm really curious about game length/win rate stats of top korean players, since they play a lot tighter early game. It could be from any korean tournament with good players, but replays are so hard to come by and GSL has the possibly the largest collection of Korean vods. It wouldn't take a group of people too long to go through a couple months worth of games, since you just need to record the game length and result. It'd be really tedious, and I don't have a GSL subscription anymore. | ||
|
CounterOrder
Canada457 Posts
On February 05 2012 19:41 Corsica wrote: TvT is so short because people know how fckin long it would be so they just cheese each other xD What? TvT is the longest match-up. Should pay more attention. | ||
| ||
