EPTthank you
Ladder-Balance-Data - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
thank you | ||
|
VyingsP
France174 Posts
| ||
|
LgN.EijZrA
United States38 Posts
| ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
On July 11 2012 07:57 Psychobabas wrote: skeldark, thank you your welcome  On July 11 2012 08:00 VyingsP wrote: I might not understand because it is late, and I am quite tired, but isn't that well known already ? Sc2ranks has shown a deficit of Terran in the upper leagues for months now, and a surplus of Terran in the lower leagues. And MMR is related to the league, isn't it? So the Terran MMR is gonna be lower. Am I missing something ? mmr is not related to leagues. Leagues are related to mmr. ^^ Less population dont have to mean less avg mmr. But it is an indicator. Just wanted to show a new method that is more reliable than win/loose ratio. | ||
|
desarrisc
Canada226 Posts
On the other note, excellent work skeldark! | ||
BluemoonSC
SoCal8907 Posts
i could cheese my way to a better MMR, but does that mean that the game is balanced? uncertain. i could use one build to get a better MMR, but does that mean that the game is balanced? uncertain. you take the average MMR of players across gold-GM (if i read correctly), yet somehow this is an indication of balance? that is absurd. balance can only be determined under ideal conditions at the highest level of play and even then, humans are all capable of mistakes. these are just a few of the problems i have with anyone using MMR (calculated skill) as a means of attempting to prove balance. watch some high level gameplay if you want to figure out whether or not the game is balanced bc, in my opinion, this study is completely irrelevant. | ||
|
sage_francis
France1823 Posts
| ||
|
Account252508
3454 Posts
| ||
|
BluemoonSC
SoCal8907 Posts
updated my post to provide clarity. MMR is quite literally a rating assigned to you based on how well you play and takes in no other factors except the wins and losses you have against other players with comparable MMRs and adjusts based on those wins and losses. it has nothing to do with balance and has been that way since the beta. i honestly dont understand why we're still looking at it. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 11 2012 08:38 BluemoonSC wrote: updated my post to provide clarity. MMR is quite literally a rating assigned to you based on how well you play and takes in no other factors except the wins and losses you have against other players with comparable MMRs and adjusts based on those wins and losses. it has nothing to do with balance and has been that way since the beta. i honestly dont understand why we're still looking at it. Come on, man, at least read his post. He went out of his way to explain this. | ||
|
BluemoonSC
SoCal8907 Posts
On July 11 2012 08:40 Shiori wrote: Come on, man, at least read his post. He went out of his way to explain this. i read his post. MMR is a number based on wins and losses, nothing more. anything could happen in those games. i could play 10 games vs cheese and lose all 10, thus my MMR drops. i could use one build that the metagame hasn't caught up with for 10 games and win all 10, thus causing my MMR to rise. these are just a few examples (as i explained above) that make this post relatively unbased. | ||
|
JmpEax
Australia6 Posts
| ||
|
Neurosis
United States893 Posts
Yes. Absolutely. If a race is dominating another because a strategy or timing or micro trick or whatever hasn't been figured out, that doesn't mean it's broken and needs to be fixed by Blizzard. However, that's what has ended up happening since launch and they step in any time players get stuck on something for too long. The result has left us with....a rather strange game. All rushes and timing attacks and openers have been nerfed into the ground which has seriously screwed terran as I believe the race was literally built around them. So in short, I do believe the issues we see these days are all very real balance problems but it's only because the game has changed so much from what it was originally meant to be. | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On July 11 2012 08:31 BluemoonSC wrote: you had me until you claimed that MMR has something to do with balance - MMR is an indication of skill, not balance. i could cheese my way to a better MMR, but does that mean that the game is balanced? uncertain. i could use one build to get a better MMR, but does that mean that the game is balanced? uncertain. you take the average MMR of players across gold-GM (if i read correctly), yet somehow this is an indication of balance? that is absurd. balance can only be determined under ideal conditions at the highest level of play and even then, humans are all capable of mistakes. these are just a few of the problems i have with anyone using MMR (calculated skill) as a means of attempting to prove balance. watch some high level gameplay if you want to figure out whether or not the game is balanced bc, in my opinion, this study is completely irrelevant. You and the likes are outliners, which should represent an insignificant minority that will barely affect the overall number of accounts. Majority of people will play the game as it is, yes, some Terran might only use ladder to practice builds, but so do some Zergs, and some Protoss. Overall in the bigger picture where we have a lot of data, those small spikes should be smoothen, and balance out. | ||
|
BluemoonSC
SoCal8907 Posts
On July 11 2012 08:52 canikizu wrote: You and the likes are outliners, which should represent an insignificant minority that will barely affect the overall number of accounts. Majority of people will play the game as it is, yes, some Terran might only use ladder to practice builds, but so do some Zergs, and some Protoss. Overall in the bigger picture where we have a lot of data, those small spikes should be smoothen, and balance out. you can throw as much math as you want at the problem, it doesn't change the fact that you're looking at data that is dependent on player skill and doesn't look what actually happens inside each individual game. MMR only looks at wins and losses. | ||
|
Shiori
3815 Posts
On July 11 2012 08:57 BluemoonSC wrote: you can throw as much math as you want at the problem, it doesn't change the fact that you're looking at data that is dependent on player skill and doesn't look what actually happens inside each individual game. MMR only looks at wins and losses. Skill can easily be inferred from wins and losses. | ||
|
BluemoonSC
SoCal8907 Posts
On July 11 2012 09:01 Shiori wrote: Skill can easily be inferred from wins and losses. that is not necessarily true, as blizzard's matchmaking system on the ladder is designed to give you a 50% win ratio. | ||
|
snively
United States1159 Posts
| ||
|
Solarsail
United Kingdom538 Posts
| ||
|
Forikorder
Canada8840 Posts
obviously your races are not split like that but my point is, since you have no way to tell that the games you used in your data had equal level opponents you cant say you made a formula for determinding balance | ||
| ||
