EPTTop Tier Korean ZvT and TvZ TLPD statistics - Page 17
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
| ||
|
Zarahtra
Iceland4053 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:11 LoliSquad wrote: 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. The balance would obviously need to be addressed, but his point is still very sound. Without being able to truly micro their units, zerg and protoss don't gain nearly as much out of skill increase compared to terran. This both makes balance a nightmare through different skill levels aswell as balance being a moving target for Blizzard, from day to day in vT MUs. Sadly I think Blizzard has realized that, and instead of making z/p more microable, they are making terran mech in HotS and probably reduce the terran micro potential to be onpar with z/p, which although will solve this issue, is a wrong move. If you call making a concave and attack moving your roaches micro, then... yeah.. I don't really know what to say about that. | ||
|
Antisocialmunky
United States5912 Posts
Also: MMA vZ: 21-5 80.77% Yeah, Boxer's Heir indeed. | ||
|
paintfive
785 Posts
| ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
On March 16 2012 22:54 Fubi wrote: 1) It's a common misconception that higher rank players should have ungodly win ratio: you're forgetting the fact that the better you are, the further you advance in tournaments, and therefore the better your opponents are as well. Most of the % are inflated above 50% simply due to all the lower level players they've played, but as you can see, it gets harder and harder to climb higher: it isn't a linear increase relative to your skills 2) 64% win rate is VERY VERY good, it means you win 2/3 of your matches, so you win most of you Bo3's, so I don't know what you mean "only" 64% 3) Where did you read from the OP's post that "most" of the zergs have less than 50% win rate vs T? He listed like 5 out of 50... 4) There is more than your two possible reason to explain this; one of them being "by pure chance". If you flip 20 fair coins, in theory you should get 10-10 head/tails, but in reality, it's not rare to get 9-11 or 8-12 or even some more variations. This is simply due to chance: something the OP didn't take into consideration at all, and the whole point of statistics is to prove your results to be actually true due to real variables and not simply by chance. Ok, I don't understand why are you giving me all these points. I was merely stating why balance discussion was relevant to this thread. To answer your 3rd question There were other statistics in this thread which showed that top zergs are generally doing poor against terran than other matchups. I'm not gonna bother to bring that post here, it seems you're not reading thread carefully. I went through all you your post in this thread, it seems you're in some kind of denial and try to prove everyone wrong. I won't argue with you anymore. | ||
|
Otolia
France5805 Posts
That being said, the tendency is certainly clear and intriguing. But I suspect the environment to be largely responsible for this as it's evident that Terran is the most represented race in Korea. Maybe you could compare your results with the playhem database to have a larger sample. Did you consider that the time span of your sample might just be too big (too many patches) for your results to be relevant ? | ||
|
bokeevboke
Singapore1674 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:59 Otolia wrote: @OP : I am starting to question the quality of your education when you decide that 20 is a relevant number. Try to write a paper on the behavior of 20 electrons in a cold plasma (random example) and the world will laugh at you. And that's because 20 is a ridiculously small number for a system where a mole contains 10E23 more atoms. I could argue that 100 games is a better number and none of us would be wrong but neither of use would be right either. Unless you can somehow prove that beyond a certain number micro-phenomenon (in this case : mis-micro, illness etc) do not have a relevant influence on the outcome, you will have a hard time convincing anyone that what you have is proof. I agree that 20 is good arbitrary limit in case of binary system but games are hardly binary. 1 loser / 1 winner doesn't make the game of equal probability. That being said, the tendency is certainly clear and intriguing. But I suspect the environment to be largely responsible for this as it's evident that Terran is the most represented race in Korea. Maybe you could compare your results with the playhem database to have a larger sample. Did you consider that the time span of your sample might just be too big (too many patches) for your results to be relevant ? I think OP didn't present data that well. Plus sample size was too small. But my general impression is Zergs are not great against terran in GSL. I mostly notice it when games are starting and there are some information about the players going on. And whenever there is ZvT you see that zerg has smth like 5-7 record and terran has like 10-3 record. I've never seen a match where Z had better w/l ratio. | ||
|
CluEleSs_UK
United Kingdom583 Posts
Their play ends up being a lot less predictable, and often zergs have been lagging behind to try and figure out what to do. This would account for both the time discrepancy in winrates, and even recent win rates. Terrans are like the exam paper, and zergs are the students: they have to figure out the answers before they get the win. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:32 TheBB wrote: In BW, 64% was about as good a winrate as anyone could hope to have in a single matchup, barring a select few outliers. Now all of a sudden it's "not really that good." That's exactly what I was thinking. Watch all those percentages drop and even out. Wait for it.... Wait for it... Wait for it.. | ||
|
Cosmos
Belgium1077 Posts
| ||
|
1st_Panzer_Div.
United States621 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:32 TheBB wrote: In BW, 64% was about as good a winrate as anyone could hope to have in a single matchup, barring a select few outliers. Now all of a sudden it's "not really that good." And in BW there were more top level players and the difference in skill between top players was smaller. It's also a different game. I could say in Football 64% is not that great, so what's the big deal? | ||
|
Veldril
Thailand1817 Posts
On March 17 2012 02:26 1st_Panzer_Div. wrote: And in BW there were more top level players and the difference in skill between top players was smaller. It's also a different game. I could say in Football 64% is not that great, so what's the big deal? It's the big deal because BW will always be closer to SC2 than football and it shows that even an extremely good player still have around 65% win rate. Hell, even Flash only has 71% win rate right now (which is extremely good).64% is not bad at all considering that DRG had to play a lot of top tier players. And statistic means nothing without a context. I can have a 100% win rate against bronze league players. Does this mean I am really good at SC2? Of course not. Same goes here. DRG losses in ZvT mostly come from a lose against MMA (who is very good at TvZ) or other Code S players. Someone like Taeja has a high TvZ win rate because he played against players in code A and B. It's like comparing someone who is in Master league that has 64% win rate against other Master league players with another player who has 64% win rate against players in Diamond league. And when you take the time factor into the statistic, the statistic even becomes more out date because of balance change, players' improvements, etc. | ||
|
m0ck
4194 Posts
| ||
|
Raid
United States398 Posts
There are more skilled players that play Terran? I mean, Code s has a ridiculously stacked Terran arsenal.. And none of em see like jobbers that abuse anything to me.. The game is just designed well for Terran atm, we can't really change anything until HOTS releases. There needs to be more high skill reward play for zerg and protoss. I mean really probably the largest reason why protoss aren't doing as well is because their skill cap isn't high enough for their relative race. You can only improve so much as a toss player in comparison to how much terran improvement can help in a matchup. | ||
|
Talack
Canada2742 Posts
| ||
|
ELA
Denmark4608 Posts
On March 17 2012 02:37 m0ck wrote: Is there really any doubt that, at the very highest level, TvZ is T favored? Early and midgame, perhaps - Thing is, that Terrans are often forced into timings, because of how powerful lategame ZvT is - In my oppinion, alot of Zergs are just very focused on getting the best possible lategame, because thats where they get their really big advantage, that they leave themselves open for timings in the early and midgame. As a player that has played both T and Z, I admit that T has alot of tools to abuse greedy Z's, but playing against a lategame Zerg as Terran, is really really hard on alot of maps - So no, I don't believe that you can just say that TvZ is T favoured because of game balance - I do believe that Zerg still has alot of options to explore in terms of how to get through the early and midgame to deny the vast amounts of presure that Terrans throw at them at the moment | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On March 16 2012 19:43 neoghaleon55 wrote: Ugh why do I feel like everytime I bring up stats in teamliquid, I need to teach a whole course of statistics to satisfy the whiners. This is the reason why I didn't want to spend time explaining earlier...but here goes. Ok here's the breakdown: The argument: The sample size is not large enough... We have to understand why this is a problem in the first place. This is related to the coin flip test...which is a comparison between True theoretical probability and actual probability. Everyone knows that in a truly balanced coin (yes I know tails land more because head is heavier, but let's assume that the coin is fully balanced) the chances of heads or tails is 50/50. However, if you flip the coin 8 times, you might get 5 heads and 3 tails, or even 7 heads and 1 tails. The reason this happens is because the actual outcome does not approach the theoretical outcome until very high number of samples are gained. This is related to the question at hand: Are the number of games played by these top koreans high enough for their theoretical skill level to show? I answer yes, 20 coinflips or greater tend to be the magical number in which the standard deviation improves significant enough for the gaussian distribution to be acceptable. Thus 20 games or greater is enough to probe how well a pro-gamer is skilled at a single matchup, as the chances of random deviation should decrease significantly when we attain 20 games or more. All these statistics presented in the opening post has more than 20 games. We are pretty safe to say that they matchup well with the player's capabilities. So here are some pictures Number of Tails 8 coinflips ![[image loading]](http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/figures/bd8.png) 16 coinflips ![[image loading]](http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/figures/bd16.png) 32 coinflips ![[image loading]](http://www.fourmilab.ch/rpkp/experiments/figures/bd32.png) As you can see, the gaussian distribution gets "slimmer" the more coinflips there are. This sliming down of the curve can be numerically expressed by the standard deviation. The bigger the sample size, the slimmer the standard deviation, which means the closer the actual probability approaches the theoretical probability. The calculation for standard deviation is dependent on the inverse of sample size N... The greater the N samples, the less fluctuations one is likely to see (meaning the standard deviation is smaller...which is what we want) So why 20? Because anything greater than 20 is great, but the total impact of N, itself, to the statistics decreases significantly over 20. Call it diminishing returns. Those of you who are telling me to go calculate the confidence interval have no idea what you're talking about. So a 95% confidence interval is the range of percentages that take up 95% of the area under the curve. As you can see, even for 32 coinflips, it's something like +/- 6, which means that 95% of the time, if you flip a coin 32 times, you will get between 10 and 22 heads. That's a huge range. So when you have people with between 60-70% win rates in a given matchup, with a small dataset, the 95% confidence intervals overlap, making it effectively impossible to know if there is actually a difference in their true skill at the matchup. | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
On March 16 2012 23:32 Antisocialmunky wrote: BW players play against each other in multiple leagues and rack up tons of games. Speaking from a statistical point of view its probably too early to tell what the relative win rates will be. Also: MMA vZ: 21-5 80.77% Yeah, Boxer's Heir indeed. I think the first point is very important when casting some doubt on the results OP. If you just go by Korean TLPD, these top tier players (aside from Life really) are virtually only getting results from GSL. Also known as GomTvT. Why is this important? Because unless you're going deep every season, you are much more likely to lost to a Terran than not. It's simple math, you end up playing more Terrans than not. In fact the 3 seasons previous DRG lost to MMA (finals), group stages with Bomber, Happy, and Gumho; then to Supernova (Ro16). Granted, this already might be enough to cast doubt on his ZvT prowess. By contrast there are plenty of Terrans in GSL who are just abysmal at certain match-ups, because all they ever face are Terrans (notice that MMA has a sub-.500 vP despite being a multiple GSL winner? MVP was also famously weak vP even if his winning percentage isn't bad). Lastly, when we talk about players being good at a matchup, should we really be talking about their Set winning percentages as opposed to Match winning percentages? | ||
|
Wuster
1974 Posts
| ||
|
LaM
United States1321 Posts
 Interesting stats tossed around. I'm not sure what we can draw from them but it is something to keep an eye on I think. | ||
| ||
