EPTNow Zerg just someone to save them in that matchup.
Top Tier Korean ZvT and TvZ TLPD statistics - Page 16
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TheButtonmen
Canada1403 Posts
Now Zerg just someone to save them in that matchup. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:03 Fubi wrote: Looks like 56.9% chance for TvZ still to me, what's your point? There is a higher discrepancy for ZvP in favor of Z on that exact same graph, what do you have to say about that? Just look at it. Not in February 2012. go look at it again. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:04 neoghaleon55 wrote: 57, 53, 58,53,53, 57 IS NOT the definition of slowly deminishing Yea hey, lets ignore the other half of the graph that shows that it's diminishing so I can say that it's not!! *edit, also, if you were to put a best fit line with those 6 points you listed above, it would be a downward slope. That is the definition of diminishing. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:06 Fubi wrote: BUT by your logics, n = 12 which is less than 20, which means sample size too small!!! so it doesn't mean anything! kk thx. I'm going to ignore you from now on. You're just gregarious and attention seeking while adding nothing to the debate. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:06 neoghaleon55 wrote: Not in February 2012. go look at it again. O hey, lets look at one of the months and ignore 90% of the rest of the graph, including that one month with Z having over 70% winrate vs P! | ||
|
LoliSquad
Norway45 Posts
On March 16 2012 12:53 Mr. Nefarious wrote: Solution: Examine ways to make the other races more "micro-able". While some micro is needed for Z/P at the moment, it is not nearly as beneficial as extreme micro is for T. Instead of playing with damage numbers, analyze the unit design. Make units attack twice as fast but do the same overall DPS. Allow more units to cancel their attack to move away while still doing damage similar to the marine. These types of changes are obviously targeted solely at the highest level. A-moved roaches will do the same overall DPS in bronze as they will Korea GM, however if they shot twice as quickly they would be a hell of a lot more microable, despite doing the same overall DPS. This would allow additional functionality from players that have the APM to micro their army while maintaining production while not effecting the lowest leagues in the slightest as overall damage output stays the same. Halving attack damage and doubling attack speed of units actually has (at least) 3 rather drastic effects. First, weapon upgrades and enemy armor upgrades become far more relevant for the unit (units with +2 or more damage per upgrade would be fixed by scaling them down, but armor would still be twice as strong against them (not just upgrades, base armor as well)). Second, units with projectiles (such as roaches) which as of today overkill a ton (would be cool to have "wasted damage from overkill"-statistics in the game) would overkill a lot less, making them a lot more effective. Lastly, it would lower burst damage which would let more units counterattack after the first volley and change unit dynamics a lot (hard to predict exactly how). I think the lowered overkill would make the biggest impact. And it would do so in all leagues, not just Korea GM. @Overkill, i do not only mean the wasted 3 damage 3 roach shots (16dmg) have against a 45hp marine (0 armor). In addition to this, a lot of roaches can attack the same marine as it dies only when the 3rd shot hits it, leaving other roaches open to attack it while the 3 projectile is in the air, potentially making marines "tank" over 100 hp worth of attacks. A possible "micro trick" zergs can employ is to make roaches spread fire instead of letting them automatically acquire targets and potentially wasting hundreds of damage. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
Wait so I used real logics to prove you wrong and you didn't like it, and now I used your own logics to prove you wrong and you STILL don't like it? =( | ||
|
Heimatloser
Germany1494 Posts
64% is so good that winning a bo5 3:2 actually lowers his winrate. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:12 Heimatloser wrote: why are you considering 64% winrate bad? 64% is so good that winning a bo5 3:2 actually lowers his winrate. It's lowering his overall winrate. a huge jump to 72% and 80%. | ||
|
zefreak
United States2731 Posts
The worst thing is when you combine condescension with ignorance. His response to the variety of critiques is to copy and paste an explanation of standard deviation and gaussian distribution from wikipedia, as if people don't know how it works. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
<3 | ||
|
karpo
Sweden1998 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:12 Heimatloser wrote: why are you considering 64% winrate bad? 64% is so good that winning a bo5 3:2 actually lowers his winrate. It's horrible compared to his other matchups. Disregarding the fact that his ZvZ percentage is based on 10 matches total and he's played 35% more ZvT's than ZvP's. | ||
|
ETisME
12740 Posts
On March 16 2012 22:30 ajabberwok wrote: The error in on the winrate measurement is proportional to the Sqrt(1/n), where 'n' is the number of games played. So, the error for different total number of games played: 50 games: 14% 100 games: 10% 200 games: 7.1% 1000 games: 3.2% There is diminishing returns on error reduction for increasing the total sample size. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_of_error#Calculations_assuming_random_sampling except that the sample here is not chosen by simple random sampling and even if it was, I don't know anyone who would think an error larger than 14% would be statistically valid. which kind of completely destroyed his whole "analysis" lol OP failed right at the very basic, beginning yet fundermental part, which pretty much sums up the whole thing doesn't work. | ||
|
Fubi
2228 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:14 neoghaleon55 wrote: It's lowering his overall winrate. a huge jump to 72% and 80%. So you just basically showed that ZvP is more imbalanced than ZvT, cuz having a 72% winrate in one seems more imbalanced than 64% in the other matchup. | ||
|
Roynalf
Finland886 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:06 TheButtonmen wrote: Sounds like BW. Now Zerg just someone to save them in that matchup. so you are saying that Zerg needs a savior, who could that be? | ||
|
True_Spike
Poland3433 Posts
| ||
|
Elp
Netherlands86 Posts
If i run those numbers through the margin of error formula. Sqrt((p*(1-p))/n) * Z (1.96), i get a range of 13%. Wouldnt that mean there is a 95% (Z=1.96) chance of the actual winrate to lie within 13% of 64%? That's still a pretty large range, large enough for those numbers not to mean anything? Let me know if I used the formula correctly. I might be wrong, but if you claim to have found a certain winrate through statistical means, shouldn't you always mention the confidence interval? | ||
|
zefreak
United States2731 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:26 Elp wrote: So if I use the DRG vs T statistics as an example: vT: 32-18 64.00% If i run those numbers through the margin of error formula. Sqrt((p*(1-p))/n) * Z (1.96), i get a range of 13%. Wouldnt that mean there is a 95% (Z=1.96) chance of the actual winrate to lie within 13% of 64%? That's still a pretty large range, large enough for those numbers not to mean anything? Let me know if I used the formula correctly. I might be wrong, but if you claim to have found a certain winrate through statistical means, shouldn't you always mention the confidence interval? Not if it doesn't support your balance whine. | ||
|
kckkryptonite
1126 Posts
July's GSL winrate for his 24 most recent vT's is 70.8% http://www.gomtv.net/records/playerInfo.gom?option=view&playerid=10173 Nestea's sits at 63.9% for his most recent 36 http://www.gomtv.net/records/playerInfo.gom?option=view&playerid=22681 DRG has risen to 72% in his recent 25 Remember when 2rax was new and like, every Zerg was dying to it? Now you have Zergs like July who consistently crush it. Zergs in general die to it much less to it than before. And how about how much more useful the FG buff made Infestors? Thing's like this are what the overall statistics don't and can't account for, patches, meta-game shifts, maps, and because T/Z players of today are > T/Z players of yesteryear; increases in player skill. Just look at the Curious of early 2011 and Curious now. Look at Fruitdealer then and now/most recently. In any case, statistics like these shouldn't be read into too much. For instance, they make Squirtle look like a PvZ savante (vZ 71%) , but then you look at his match history and he is just not facing the top-tier Zergs. If you go off the percentages alone, it looks like Squirtle should teach MC (vZ 53%) some PvZ, but then you look at the Zergs MC has been facing. | ||
|
neoghaleon55
United States7435 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:29 kckkryptonite wrote: http://www.gomtv.net/records/playerInfo.gom?option=view&playerid=10791 July's GSL winrate for his 24 most recent vT's is 70.8% http://www.gomtv.net/records/playerInfo.gom?option=view&playerid=10173 Nestea's sits at 63.9% for his most recent 36 http://www.gomtv.net/records/playerInfo.gom?option=view&playerid=22681 DRG has risen to 72% in his recent 25 Remember when 2rax was new and like, every Zerg was dying to it? Now you have Zergs like July who consistently crush it. Zergs in general die to it much less to it than before. And how about how much more useful the FG buff made Infestors? Thing's like this are what the overall statistics don't and can't account for, patches, meta-game shifts, maps, and because T/Z players of today are > T/Z players of yesteryear; increases in player skill. Just look at the Curious of early 2011 and Curious now. Look at Fruitdealer then and now/most recently. In any case, statistics like these shouldn't be read into too much. For instance, they make Squirtle look like a PvZ savante (vZ 71%) , but then you look at his match history and he is just not facing the top-tier Zergs. If you go off the percentages alone, it looks like Squirtle should teach MC (vZ 53%) some PvZ, but then you look at the Zergs MC has been facing. Very good post... Thank you. Highlighted in OP | ||
| ||
