|
On July 03 2012 00:41 Charon1979 wrote:
This Thread is very interesting...
last month:
"look how imbalanced it is in Korea!"
"The sample is too small and doesnt include all..."
"Doesnt matter! Zerg imba!"
"Look at the international graph, it got a bigger sample size and is pretty balanced"
"International doesnt matter!"
This month:
"wtf Korea balanced... you must have made this up!"
"its the same like every month..."
"no you made it up and besides the sample size is too small and doesnt cover all tournaments!"
"but last month you said...."
"Shut up! Just look at international!"
"but last month..."
"Doesnt matter, zerg imba!"
People will always turn statistics into their favour, but this is something I've been think about before, what games are counted and which are not.
Not saying that these graphs needs to be remade, but that everyone should consider what games are represented.
Also one should consider the various game lengths and build orders on how it influences the statistics.
|
I don't believe that considering TSL4 shows 1T 1P and 8zergs in top10 finals, and if u look at top20 its over 15 zergs
|
|
|
Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics?
There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data.
Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread.
+ Show Spoiler +see what I did there? 
Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers?
Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are.
I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games.
If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins.
+ Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114
Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level.
Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game.
Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games.
Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen.
+ Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced".
Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%.
The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %.
Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor.
If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of
335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins.
The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %.
Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%.
The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty.
+ Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!!
The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them.
Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance.
And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today.
It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games.
Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance.
After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ?
This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience.
I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point.
Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!!
+ Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common.
Oh, don't forget to check out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
edit: and play around a little bit with different confidence intervals and other parameters on the statistics page I linked to above.
|
On July 03 2012 00:03 rysecake wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 00:01 Ctuchik wrote:On July 02 2012 23:53 IshinShishi wrote:
I don't trust this OP considering his posts, where* is the guy that normally does this?Which games were considered here?GSL+GSTL post patch is showing terran being ravaged without soothing. Good on you for being skeptical, but these are indeed legit. =P You can always check my twitter for the originals. Here is the TVZ Korea data for reference: June TvZ: 58-56 GSL and GSTL TvZ: 29-32 Proleague TvZ: 3-6 Kespa Exhibition TvZ: 3-4 KSL Finals TvZ: 3-1 ESV Korean Weekly 5,6,7 TvZ: 20-13 That being said TLPD is flawed. If they counted Code A qualifiers and TSL qualifiers it would skew the winrates heavily in Zergs favor and both of those tournaments are much harder then the ESV tournament but neither is in the TLPD database. Todays OSL qualifiers won't be in the database either and those qualifiers were brutally hard. Code A qualifiers TvZ (not counting amateurs or teamless Koreans): 14-36 TSL4 KR qualifier #1 TvZ: 26-42 TSL4 KR qualifier #2 TvZ: 25-38 TSL4 KR qualifier #3 TvZ: 16-24 Thank you for posting the actual data. That graph is missing roughly another 200 games... not to mention the osl qualifiers
Well, let's forget the OSL qualifiers, as this should be about the winrates in June, but the TSL qualifiers should definitely be included.
|
On July 03 2012 01:15 sieksdekciw wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 22:29 Tsubbi wrote:On July 02 2012 22:26 Asha` wrote:On July 02 2012 22:23 Whole wrote:
Seems that Korean Terrans were busy figuring out the new TvZ while International Terrans were busy complaining about balance. All the korean Terrans complain about TvZ =p but they're just much better players so still win games. oh you! ofc they complain about z, 51% winrate must feel underpowered after 2 years of dominating They complain because it is ridiculous to be more mechanically skilled than your opponent and yet have no real chance of winning unless your opponent messes up.
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
|
On July 03 2012 01:33 playa wrote:
I still don't get how 1-sided the tvp whines are. They flat out win more games every month. Yet, I'm only supposed to hear about how the late game is in favor of the protoss. I've never once in my life played a game where I just magically ended up in the late game; there was no such thing as an early game. So, the question is, if toss has an imbalanced part of the game in their favor, then just how imbalanced are the other stages of the game that you can't avoid? I've never heard anyone say "I'm stronger at every part of the game but the late game, and that game design bothers me."
Then I hear interviews with David Kim where he is talking about analyzing the late game and noticing the stats are a lot more balanced than people are letting on to... (correct me if I'm wrong). Terran players are either imbalanced when it comes to crying, or they are just really good players that earn their > than Toss win percent, every day.
New player and biased, sure, but something doesn't add up for me. I think it's a bs matchup and it's gay that nothing in the stargate is worth making in the mu and there's 10000 god damn things to research and 100000 timing windows to kill you. Meanwhile, being able to stay on tier 1 all game sounds real hard.
Reading this gives the idea that you think these statistics have any impact on your level of play("tier 1 all game"?You deserve the sanctimony), they don't, korean terrans can exploit the windows with great agression, foreign terrans have shown multiple times throughout sc2 history( winning a major tournament once a year) that they aren't good enough to do that, all the way down to the lower levels, not because the worse foreign players happened to pick terran, and their counterparts just happen to be awesome, that's retarded, but because it's freaking hard to execute your game plans, whilst death balling and playing to the late game is not hard at all if people don't know how to kill you effectively with early/mid game maneuveurs, anyone can smoothly max in sc2, pretty easy to understand really.
|
On July 03 2012 01:55 one-one-one wrote:Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics? There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data. Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there? Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers? Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are. I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114 Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced". Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%. The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %. Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor. If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%. The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty. + Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!! The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them. Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance. And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience. I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common. Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval
Wow, that is some amazing word smithing you did there. I like how you over complicate basic statistics in an effort to cook the numbers toward proving terran is underpowers. It falls directly in line with your previous post history in the "terran is having a hard time" threads in the past. I also like how you talk down to the readers and tell them they are not qualified to post about the stats unless they UNDERSTAND your findings.
Highlight quotes below:
"Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. " - clearly we cannot assume that anyone in NA is playing to win.
"It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread." - Clearly we have been living our lives wrong all along. Time to leave my well playing job and go back to highschool.
"Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common." - This has a ton to do with win rates.
"Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance.
After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ?" I don't really know what this means or what it has to do with over all win rates. If a terran loses a game before 17 minutes, does that no count either?
This man has a future in cooking numbers. I work for some pretty large banks and they would love to employee someone like him.
|
Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg.
|
On July 03 2012 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:55 one-one-one wrote:Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics? There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data. Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there? Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers? Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are. I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114 Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced". Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%. The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %. Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor. If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%. The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty. + Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!! The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them. Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance. And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience. I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common. Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval Wow, that is some amazing word smithing you did there. I like how you over complicate basic statistics in an effort to cook the numbers toward proving terran is underpowers. It falls directly in line with your previous post history in the "terran is having a hard time" threads in the past. I also like how you talk down to the readers and tell them they are not qualified to post about the stats unless they UNDERSTAND your findings. Highlight quotes below:"Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. " - clearly we cannot assume that anyone in NA is playing to win. "It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread." - Clearly we have been living our lives wrong all along. Time to leave my well playing job and go back to highschool. "Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common." - This has a ton to do with win rates."Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ?" I don't really know what this means or what it has to do with over all win rates. If a terran loses a game before 17 minutes, does that no count either?This man has a future in cooking numbers. I work for some pretty large banks and they would love to employee someone like him.
I don't think you understand that many times win rates are used in balance discussions.
|
On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote:
Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg.
Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either.
|
On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote:
Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either.
Some posts above, someobdy claimed that the Code A qualifiers were also neglected, but they do have a limitation on your bnet rank, so shouldn't they at least be included?
|
On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote:
Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either.
http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217
Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me.
The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked.
|
Kind of expected, outside Korea terrans aren't changing their builds fast enough for the meta game shift but in Korea they adapted pretty quickly and its balanced out.
|
On July 03 2012 02:18 SniXSniPe wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote:
Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either. http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me. The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked.
If they don't include the qualifier for other tournaments, why would they include this one? Just because there are good players does not mean its a tournament.
|
On July 03 2012 02:09 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:55 one-one-one wrote:Am I the only one in here that is annoyed by the poor level of knowledge about basic statistics? There is a lot of herpeteederp going on here about the interpretation of the presented data. Here is what this all means. It will be quite long, but this is why you should have been paying attention during the statistics lectures in high school. If you didn't do that you are definitely 100% not qualified to discuss in this thread. + Show Spoiler +see what I did there? Ok, so people have mentioned the "small" sample size being an issue. There seems to be some consensus that a larger sample is better. But how big does it have to be to give reliable answers? Imo. the creator of these graphs should do a more thorough presentation and also specify how reliable the numbers are. I will take the Korean TvZ numbers as an example. The data from June is based on 114 games. If you do the maths you will realize that there are 58 Terran wins and 56 Zerg wins. + Show Spoiler +58/114 = 0.50877.. 56/114 = 0.49122.. 56+58=114 Now, let us assume that there is an actual imbalance in the sense that over many games one of the races will win x% of them for players above some (high) skill level. Furthermore, we assume that the koreans were good enough to be above this skill level and that they played to win each game. Now we want to determine x using only a small sample of games. Imagine that we reversed time and played those 114 games again. It is unlikely that every game has the exact same outcome as before because of random stuff that might happen. + Show Spoiler +To make the problem more clear. Flip a coin twice. With a 50% likelihood you will get either tails-tails or heads-heads. From the sample size of 2 coin flips alone it is then hard to say that the coin-flip game is "balanced". Fortunately this problem is already solved in the world of statistics. We can calculate a so called confidence interval from the data. To do this, go to: http://www.mccallum-layton.co.uk/stats/ConfidenceIntervalCalcProportions.aspx and enter the numbers 114 as sample size and 50.9 as Observed Proportion. Set the confidence interval to 95% and calculate to get a confidence interval of 9.18%. The interpretation of this number is: with a certainty of 95% the number that we seek , x , is in the interval 50.9 ± 9.18 %. Now, this doesn't tell us very much does it ? It could be as bad as good (from a T perspective) as a 60.1% TvZ favor or as bad as a 41.7% disfavor. If we do the calculation with a larger sample size with data from TSL4 Code A qualifiers we get a sample size of 335 games with 139 Terran wins and 196 Zerg wins. The observed proportion is now: 139/335 = 41.5 %. Going back to the site above and entering these numbers gives us a 95% confidence interval of 5.28%. The number x would then lie in the interval 41.5 ± 5.28% , i.e. between 36.2% and 46.78% with a 95% certainty. + Show Spoiler +- But hey! You just proved that the game IS imbalanced. + Show Spoiler +- No N00B, I did not! l2maths !!! The problem is that my assumptions are a bit flawed. It is nice to idealize things to make the maths more clear, but in the real world Starcraft 2 is a constantly developing game. It only takes one game to revolutionize TvZ by abusing some timing or some other innovative play. People study each others games and learn from them. Only if these numbers persist over several months we can begin to talk about some kind of imbalance. And even if the numbers somehow finds their way into the 50±5 % interval that Blizzard wants it doesn't have to mean that the game is any better than today. It has been stressed so many times by clever individuals in this forum that one has to look subjectively on the games. Maybe Terran wins 90% of their games before minute 17 and Zerg shows equal figures thereafter which is a horrible kind of balance. After all, Blizzard wants an E-sport , right ? This means both a balanced and fair game and a nice viewer experience. I'll conceal some kind of balance whine in a spoiler to illustrate my point. Don't click this if you are a sensitive individual!! + Show Spoiler +Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common. Oh, don't forget to check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval Highlight quotes below:"Today, most TvZs I watch as a spectator are either some bio or marine tank bullshit that make the games go completely apeshit once brood lords are out on the field, or long stalemate games with mech where it is all about not getting your ravens fungaled. All ins are also quite common." - This has a ton to do with win rates.
He actually wasn't discussing win rates, but his opinion on balance. I think you should edit that portion out cause it sounds like your pitch forkin
|
Winrates have nothing to do with current metagame/trends or even balance or even design problems. So if people are honestly looking at this graph and saying "oh, all is fine" think again!
edit: not to mention these statistics conveniently leave out a ton of games @_@ lying with statistics eh?
|
On July 03 2012 02:08 IshinShishi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 01:33 playa wrote:
I still don't get how 1-sided the tvp whines are. They flat out win more games every month. Yet, I'm only supposed to hear about how the late game is in favor of the protoss. I've never once in my life played a game where I just magically ended up in the late game; there was no such thing as an early game. So, the question is, if toss has an imbalanced part of the game in their favor, then just how imbalanced are the other stages of the game that you can't avoid? I've never heard anyone say "I'm stronger at every part of the game but the late game, and that game design bothers me."
Then I hear interviews with David Kim where he is talking about analyzing the late game and noticing the stats are a lot more balanced than people are letting on to... (correct me if I'm wrong). Terran players are either imbalanced when it comes to crying, or they are just really good players that earn their > than Toss win percent, every day.
New player and biased, sure, but something doesn't add up for me. I think it's a bs matchup and it's gay that nothing in the stargate is worth making in the mu and there's 10000 god damn things to research and 100000 timing windows to kill you. Meanwhile, being able to stay on tier 1 all game sounds real hard. Reading this gives the idea that you think these statistics have any impact on your level of play("tier 1 all game"?You deserve the sanctimony), they don't, korean terrans can exploit the windows with great agression, foreign terrans have shown multiple times throughout sc2 history( winning a major tournament once a year) that they aren't good enough to do that, all the way down to the lower levels, not because the worse foreign players happened to pick terran, and their counterparts just happen to be awesome, that's retarded, but because it's freaking hard to execute your game plans, whilst death balling and playing to the late game is not hard at all if people don't know how to kill you effectively with early/mid game maneuveurs, anyone can smoothly max in sc2, pretty easy to understand really.
My level of play? Well, I'm in Masters and apparently TvZ is impossible, so the terrans I'm playing are probably good at winning the matchup that the stats seem to show that... they win at. It's not hard to exploit timing windows when every minute offers you a new window to hit. I just don't know what's so hard about hitting timing windows or dropping, when you can press 1 key to bring up all your rax's. You gotta do something in your spare time.
|
On July 03 2012 02:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 03 2012 02:18 SniXSniPe wrote:On July 03 2012 02:15 Plansix wrote:On July 03 2012 02:13 SniXSniPe wrote:
Why did they not include the TSL4 KR qualifiers? It would put Terran at around 41%ish win-ratio against Zerg. Because it is a qualifer, so anyone could sign up? I am pretty sure they did not include qualifers for other tournaments either. http://www.teamliquid.net/tournaments/admin/?action=bracket&id=3217Go through that list, and point out any subpar players for me. The fact is, every single TSL4 KR qualifier is completely stacked. If they don't include the qualifier for other tournaments, why would they include this one? Just because there are good players does not mean its a tournament.
Because then you will have ignorant individuals claiming the statistics "prove" that match ups like TvZ are just fine, when in reality it is the opposite.
|
These look supriseling balanced. I wonder if the zvt difference is due to the skill gap between Korean terrans and foreign terrans, sample size, or something else? All in all a lot better than i expected to see.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
