EPT[June] win rates are now here! - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KrazyTrumpet
United States2520 Posts
| ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:33 SeaSwift wrote: Yeah, ignore the mistake. My apologies. I didn't say that. I didn't say that I "expect a 25% winrate in TvZ in order for the MU to be imbalanced". That is just putting words into my mouth. I said that there was so much whine - to the extent that the MU seemed to be literally impossible - and MKP etc were coming out with "10% winrate in practice" or 20% and the like in interviews. Comparatively, 41% is not bad at all. I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count. Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference. | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:01 canikizu wrote: I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count. Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference. I agree with everything you have written, it is all very logical. But what I don't agree with is the thinking that 41% is horrific. My earlier example was bad (because it was wrong) but I'm fairly sure about this one  Protoss had a <40% winrate in March this year. Nobody thought of Terran as being OP in TvP this year. In fact, most of the whine was from the Terran side, astoundingly. 41% can easily be attributed to fluctuations - I don't think it is, I do think that TvZ is Zerg favoured. But I don't think it is as bad as people are claiming. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:57 one-one-one wrote: maybe. that is not the point. the point is that the data is inconclusive. now, would you enlighten us and tell me in what way I was cooking numbers? 3 people besides me has already called you out on it. edit: and it is likely NOT between 25% and 75%. you just cooked those numbers up, lol. First off, I am at work, so I must make this brief. The way that you applied the numbers was as if they were being used in a poll, which would later be applied to a larger population. If you said that these number show that Korean ladder as between a 46%-60% win rate for TvZ based on these numbers, your statement would have been very accurate. However, if you take the numbers for what they are, matches played in specific tournaments, there is little mathematical interpretation to be made. It is a set number of matches with a fix population, which will not be applied to a larger population. The numbers only show the number of games won by terran players vs zerg players, but does not attempt to use that data any other purpose than showing how many games were won an lost. To put it another way, if the Red Sox won 50% of their games, you could not say they won 46-60%. of their games. However, you could say that a team in the America League would likely win 46-60% based on the Red Sox numbers. I don’t disagree with your math, just how you worded the results. You made is seem as if the numbers were inaccurate, rather than simply a small population. It also left out that the small population is made of some of the best players available. | ||
|
Drowsy
United States4876 Posts
On July 02 2012 22:26 Aocowns wrote: lol yeah, that's what happens when you live in a team house and not a frat house f'kin lol, kinda true. Both protoss matchups are pretty much balanced in both Korea and internationally. Seems about right. | ||
|
one-one-one
Sweden551 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:10 Plansix wrote: First off, I am at work, so I must make this brief. The way that you applied the numbers was as if they were being used in a poll, which would later be applied to a larger population. If you said that these number show that Korean ladder as between a 46%-60% win rate for TvZ based on these numbers, your statement would have been very accurate. However, if you take the numbers for what they are, matches played in specific tournaments, there is little mathematical interpretation to be made. It is a set number of matches with a fix population, which will not be applied to a larger population. The numbers only show the number of games won by terran players vs zerg players, but does not attempt to use that data any other purpose than showing how many games were won an lost. To put it another way, if the Red Sox won 50% of their games, you could not say they won 46-60%. of their games. However, you could say that a team in the America League would likely win 46-60% based on the Red Sox numbers. I don’t disagree with your math, just how you worded the results. You made is seem as if the numbers were inaccurate, rather than simply a small population. It also left out that the small population is made of some of the best players available. ok, thanks for elaborating. but sadly you are wrong. I never said that I wanted to apply anything to a larger population. or I sort of did, but the main point is that the games played were not completely deterministic. Sc2 is a game of incomplete information and humans act random in the sense that our mechanics and minds act more or less random over a game of starcraft. view the 114 games as a simulation where each game is a "coin-flip" with a biased coin. call the bias factor x. now determine x by flipping the coin 114 times. 95% of the times you will get a number x between 42% and 60%. for this to work you have to make the assumptions I made. the assumptions are flawed, but the method of just taking 114 games and drawing any conclusions from the actual win percentage. if you increase the sample size to 335 you get more reliable result under the same assumptions. how bad the assumptions are is subjective and up for discussion. but it is hard to interpret the numbers better than this. and I clearly declare that you have to work under some assumptions so it is clear that I didn't try to mislead anyone which you claimed. if there actually was such a number x it would be highly dependant on the map. if you include several maps, the interpretation of this is not clear. huge map-specific imbalanced might be obscured for example. in the real world things are very complex. games can not even be considered to be independent of each other. when examining things further I see that the creator of the graphs has actually included confidence intervals in the black and white graphs. | ||
|
Dalavita
Sweden1113 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:42 Flonomenalz wrote: What evidence could you POSSIBLY use to make this claim? Following the scene since release. Playing all races. Knowing what all races have to do during all stages of the game. Listening to what pro players say. Reading up on discussions. Asking random players. Asking people who off race. There might not be any mathematical formula that will give you an unquestionable answer, but everything points to the fact, and making the claim is not sensational at all. I will even go so far as to say that Terran being more mechanically demanding has turned the best terran players into the best players in the world, since they've constantly been improving at a pace that outweighs their Zerg and Protoss counterparts, who due to limited race designs will have to depend on Blizzard to buff them mathematically constantly to compensate. Unless Zerg/Protoss design changes dramatically, this will be the continuing trend throughout SC2s life. Terran gets nerfed, terran players get better, the other races get buffed to compensate. This'll eventually lead into Terran being nigh unplayable anywhere outside the absolute top level of play. It's a problem of shit design in essence. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:30 Dalavita wrote: Following the scene since release. Playing all races. Knowing what all races have to do during all stages of the game. Listening to what pro players say. Reading up on discussions. Asking random players. Asking people who off race. There might not be any mathematical formula that will give you an unquestionable answer, but everything points to the fact, and making the claim is not sensational at all. I will even go so far as to say that Terran being more mechanically demanding has turned the best terran players into the best players in the world, since they've constantly been improving at a pace that outweighs their Zerg and Protoss counterparts, who due to limited race designs will have to depend on Blizzard to buff them mathematically constantly to compensate. Unless Zerg/Protoss design changes dramatically, this will be the continuing trend throughout SC2s life. Terran gets nerfed, terran players get better, the other races get buffed to compensate. This'll eventually lead into Terran being nigh unplayable anywhere outside the absolute top level of play. It's a problem of shit design in essence. Pretty much this. It's worth noting that for a long time we Protoss players did nothing but 2base (partially because we had to, but still) and Zerg players did nothing but play like Idra. Over time, Protoss players have gone into a much more varied style. There are 4 or 5 different ways of playing Protoss against Terran now, for example. What about ZvP, though? Everyone seems to bandwagon onto the strat of DRG or Stephano (or, lately, Symbol) because those are the only Zergs that actually innovate and have good mechanics. The rest of them are so inconsistent, but even they are playing the exact same style as everyone else. Just saying, there's so much more variety from Toss and Terran players, just in style. This leads to a lot more top players because they're all top in a different manner. With Zerg, you have a bunch of people trying to be DRG, or Idra, or Stephano, or Nestea, depending on what time frame you're looking at. | ||
|
Bluerain
United States348 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:27 Lord_J wrote: If you look at the race matchup statistics, they routinely vacillate between fairly extreme opposite positions from month-to-month, even when there were no intervening balance changes to account for the change. So, I don't think they are very persuasive evidence of imbalance or the lack thereof. except that looking at the korean statistics, terran has been consistently winning throughout the history of sc2 minus a short period in TvP and of course current state of TvZ. given the consistent dominance of korean terrans, we can either assume that: 1. korean terrans are overall better players and/or 2. koreans are more skilled than foreign players and this skill is better utilized by the terran race and/or 3. we cant draw any conclusion because of the small sample size | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:30 Dalavita wrote: Following the scene since release. Playing all races. Knowing what all races have to do during all stages of the game. Listening to what pro players say. Reading up on discussions. Asking random players. Asking people who off race. There might not be any mathematical formula that will give you an unquestionable answer, but everything points to the fact, and making the claim is not sensational at all. I will even go so far as to say that Terran being more mechanically demanding has turned the best terran players into the best players in the world, since they've constantly been improving at a pace that outweighs their Zerg and Protoss counterparts, who due to limited race designs will have to depend on Blizzard to buff them mathematically constantly to compensate. Unless Zerg/Protoss design changes dramatically, this will be the continuing trend throughout SC2s life. Terran gets nerfed, terran players get better, the other races get buffed to compensate. This'll eventually lead into Terran being nigh unplayable anywhere outside the absolute top level of play. It's a problem of shit design in essence. The shit design in its fundamental is called deathball and "good pathing (pretext of Dustin Browder)". | ||
|
mrtomjones
Canada4020 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:07 MysteryTerran wrote: I love you for this post. This is 100% accurate also. I played a game the other day where I outplayed a Protoss completely and still lost. Like someone said earlier they just need a few Archons and to continuously warp in Chargelots and eventually you will overrun the Terran Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah...... | ||
|
Bluerain
United States348 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:30 Dalavita wrote: Following the scene since release. Playing all races. Knowing what all races have to do during all stages of the game. Listening to what pro players say. Reading up on discussions. Asking random players. Asking people who off race. There might not be any mathematical formula that will give you an unquestionable answer, but everything points to the fact, and making the claim is not sensational at all. I will even go so far as to say that Terran being more mechanically demanding has turned the best terran players into the best players in the world, since they've constantly been improving at a pace that outweighs their Zerg and Protoss counterparts, who due to limited race designs will have to depend on Blizzard to buff them mathematically constantly to compensate. Unless Zerg/Protoss design changes dramatically, this will be the continuing trend throughout SC2s life. Terran gets nerfed, terran players get better, the other races get buffed to compensate. This'll eventually lead into Terran being nigh unplayable anywhere outside the absolute top level of play. It's a problem of shit design in essence. i agree with what you said. it does seem that terran is the race that best utilizes good mechanics and naturally the terran players will just get better and better while zerg/protoss players stagnate in the mechanical aspects of the game and will be buffed in order to keep up. but i was talking about skill in my post which i was meaning as a general term for the ability to win. and winning takes more than just mechanics. many games are lost due to bad decision making as well as limiting mechanics. edit: oh the other guy actually said terran players are not the most mechnically sound but the most creative too. LOL guess i cant argue against such heavy bias you win  | ||
|
Bluerain
United States348 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:42 mrtomjones wrote: Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah...... well since korean terrans have always been tearing it up, they use the excuse (somewhat valid i suppose) that as terran, you have to be more skilled (mechanically im guessing) to win than your opponent which is unfair in their eyes. but then you have to balance according to the highest level for the sake of esports which i think the community generally agrees with. but then u got the masters players saying yeah balance to the highest level but balance for masters too. and ive even heard diamond players suggesting that you balance to diamond which is really hilarious. i guess all this proves is that ppl like to whine about something | ||
|
Romitelli
Brunei Darussalam566 Posts
On July 03 2012 02:39 Integra wrote: Looking forward to seeing all Terran players turning this thread into another wine and bitch thread. Wine and bitch? Sounds like a delightful evening. On topic: terran is adapting to the recent zerg buffs, and has gotten better at handling certain protoss builds. This reflects on the MU data, I don't know why so many people are bewildered. ._. | ||
|
nkr
Sweden5451 Posts
"terran needs to be more creative, try using the raven" | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:01 canikizu wrote: I don't think it will ever reach 25%, no matter how imbalance the MU is. Like anything else, it gets harder and harder to reach higher/lower percent. People will notice that it is not working (GSTL stop sending Terran out), or Terran will fail to qualify for tournaments (qualifier stat doesn't appear on TLPD). So if there're no Terran, there're no stats to count. Also Korean stats has small size, so one or two games mean so much more. For example, Teaja went 7-2 vs Zerg last month, so Teaja alone contribue 5+% of the winrate. With Korean TvZ 50.9%-49.1%, I'd say Teaja streak make all the difference. Well you also have to realize for all of june Symbol went 8-2 zvt as he has been crushing players in general almost no matter the race in GSTL/GSL. | ||
|
Bruky
Czech Republic161 Posts
| ||
|
zhurai
United States5660 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:42 mrtomjones wrote: Are you honestly trying to argue that a Terran CAN'T beat a Zerg now dude? Seriously? Want to know why you didn't beat that Protoss? Because you did not outplay him in every way like you claim. Stop thinking you are perfect or mechanically better than your Zerg and Protoss counterparts and start thinking about what you can do better instead. Man.. the whine is ridiculous. Want to know why Terran whiners are the most disliked? Because for some reason they seem to all think they are better than Protoss and Zerg players. When Protoss or Zerg complain they complain about their units sucking or whatever. Terrans complain about that and then say that they are better than the P's and Z's and can't ever win any games ever even though they are the superior player and never make mistakes... yah...... nope back in the day that zerg complained the most (especially idra), they said that terran players sucked. although this was back when I was playing z, and already thought the game was balanced already so /shrug | ||
|
hzflank
United Kingdom2991 Posts
On July 03 2012 03:07 SeaSwift wrote: I agree with everything you have written, it is all very logical. But what I don't agree with is the thinking that 41% is horrific. My earlier example was bad (because it was wrong) but I'm fairly sure about this one Protoss had a <40% winrate in March this year. Nobody thought of Terran as being OP in TvP this year. In fact, most of the whine was from the Terran side, astoundingly. 41% can easily be attributed to fluctuations - I don't think it is, I do think that TvZ is Zerg favoured. But I don't think it is as bad as people are claiming. I think that a lot of players/posters are just whining the vast majority of the time, and I do not play terran, so I do not think I am biased in terran favour here... But 41% would be very bad. With a large sample size, 41% is low enough to say that there is definitely a balance problem. Look at it this way: you have to play pretty damn well to maintain a 59% win rate on ladder over a large number of games. However, I do not see 41% on those graphs, I see 45%. It is not fair to compare different data sets on the same graph (TLPD one month and TLPD plus extras the next). In addition, I think you need at least two months (if not 3) of consistant statistics after a patch hits before you can make a good assumption. But if a winrate was to stay below 45% for 3 months in a row then I was consider there to be a balance problem. | ||
|
Tuczniak
1561 Posts
On July 03 2012 04:38 zhurai wrote: Since beta terrans defended their domination saying that terran players are naturaly better than everyone else. That's where it came from and some of them are still using it in their rhetorics.nope back in the day that zerg complained the most (especially idra), they said that terran players sucked. although this was back when I was playing z, and already thought the game was balanced already so /shrug | ||
| ||
