EPTLadder-Balance-Data - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
ErAsc2
Sweden256 Posts
| ||
|
IshinShishi
Japan6156 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:15 ErAsc2 wrote: What a pointless thread, you call Terran underpowered just because they're higher populated in bronze. People pick Terran when they start the game because it's the standard race, the race from the campaign. WTF does that have with balance to do? i gree protoss players very smart players pick protoss because they already skilled thats why terran only bronce, if you look bitbybit win many game when lurker under land. | ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
Nevertheless, good job OP very nice of you to gather this data for us. | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:15 ErAsc2 wrote: What a pointless thread, you call Terran underpowered just because they're higher populated in bronze. People pick Terran when they start the game because it's the standard race, the race from the campaign. WTF does that have with balance to do? I just dont understand people like you. You come in this thread have no idea what it is about. obvious did not read the op and if did not understand a single word but still you think you have to post how pointless it is.... On July 11 2012 11:16 BuddhaMonk wrote: I would just like people to keep in mind that when Blizzard talks about statistical balance analysis they do account for skill. I don't know how they do that, but when they say 50/50 win rates etc., according to their statements they do adjust for skill, something that OP has not done. Nevertheless, good job OP very nice of you to gather this data for us. I account only for skill not for winratio! blizzard does the same. The point is the guys that give the interviews are not the guys who calculate it and most of the time just repeat the few words they can remember from last meeting. | ||
|
sevencck
Canada705 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:17 skeldark wrote: I just dont understand people like you. You come in this thread have no idea what it is about. obvious did not read the op and if did not understand a single word but still you think you have to post how pointless it is.... Meh, don't worry about posts like that. This thread is above my head, but I've enjoyed thinking about it all. I'm sure lots of others have as well. I'm glad you posted it. | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:17 skeldark wrote: I just dont understand people like you. You come in this thread have no idea what it is about. obvious did not read the op and if did not understand a single word but still you think you have to post how pointless it is.... I account only for skill not for winratio! blizzard does the same. The point is the guys that give the interviews are not the guys who calculate it and most of the time just repeat the few words they can remember from last meeting. How are you adjusting for skill? MMR/Average MMR is not what Blizzard is talking about when they say adjusting for skill. | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:24 BuddhaMonk wrote: How are you adjusting for skill? MMR/Average MMR is not what Blizzard is talking about when they say adjusting for skill. Yeah i know they do it with white rabbit blood. oO I use the blizzard skill calculation system. You perhaps know it under the name MMR... On July 11 2012 11:20 sevencck wrote: Meh, don't worry about posts like that. This thread is above my head, but I've enjoyed thinking about it all. I'm sure lots of others have as well. I'm glad you posted it. cant... cant hold it. The totalbiscuit in me wants out  | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
| ||
|
Jimmeh
United Kingdom908 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:24 BuddhaMonk wrote: How are you adjusting for skill? MMR/Average MMR is not what Blizzard is talking about when they say adjusting for skill. What is MMR other than (relative) skill? | ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:28 skeldark wrote: Yeah i know they do it with white rabbit blood. oO I use the blizzard skill calculation system. You perhaps know it under the name MMR... cant... cant hold it. The totalbiscuit in me wants out Blizzard has stated that they do additional adjustments for skill beyond MMR. Is it really so inconceivable that Blizzard would do that? They do have access to way more data than you after all... | ||
|
BuddhaMonk
781 Posts
It's one measure of relative skill, not the only one. I'm only telling you what Blizzard has stated in the past. | ||
|
Iron_
United States389 Posts
It's funny to see some zergs come in here and yell at you with nonsensical crap  | ||
|
_Search_
Canada180 Posts
Is he comparing the win rates of races where players have different MMRs? As in, Zerg is overpowered because players with lower MMRs are beating players with higher MMRs? If so, the conclusions are laughably overreaching. Despite all the esteem given to MMR, it's a terrible indicator of skill because it's based on win rates and averaged across the race. To put it concisely: balance dictates win rates, which dictate MMR, which the OP is using to determine balance. It's totally circular. Also, certain races are just plain easier to win with using lower skill. Some races rely more on luck. How many Protoss wins can be attributed to a lucky DT timing? How many TvZs have been won by getting one medivac in the right place at the right time? Its widely accepted that Protoss is the easiest race to play and Zerg is the hardest. How does that factor into the OPs findings? Naniwa, for one, has said that the immortal sentry PvZ allin is far easier to execute than it is to stop, (though I think this description could be applied to most Protoss attacks, and to attacking in general, which helps Protoss the most since they have the strongest attacks). It's also easier to cheese with certain races, and, assuming that a cheese win is a non-skill based win, that would give Protosses another undeserved boost in win rates, since they are doubtless the biggest cheesers. The OP treats all wins as equally legitimate, when many are clearly bullshit. I play Terrans on the ladder all the time who refuse to guard against a 6 pool, saying they'd rather lose. They go for a super greedy opening that plain straight up loses to a potential counter build. Others refuse to guard against DT openings. How are those games legitimate? These players will never be able to win against the same opponent twice! I also totally reject the notion that each race receives an equal degree of skilled and unskilled players. Heck, just comparing the Korean to the foreigner Terrans one can see a readily apparent skill gap, one that isn't there with Protoss and Zerg. Even then, most newcomers gravitate to Terran or Protoss (because of the campaign/because of the instant easiness). I have more than one friend who has abandoned SC2 entirely because Zerg was just too difficult to play. Last, Zerg recently received a fairly significant buff, which means that, if the buff did what it was supposed to do, Zergs SHOULD be winning over higher MMR opponents right now. That was the point of the buff! To move Zergs up the ladder and give them higher tournament representation! In other words, something would be wrong if Zergs WEREN'T winning more! Did the OP take this into account? Did he calculate the win rates before and after the patch separately? These are the issues I have the OPs method. Edit: I would also love to see how this relates to the maps. Many of the maps in the pool have severe balance issues, which always affect Zerg most heavily. But those maps are being slowly weeded out and as more balanced maps enter the pool we see Zergs winning more. Most recently Korhal Compound and Metalopolis were removed (both of which were terrible for Zerg if they spawned close positions on Metalopolis). Every season the map changes have been a subtle buff to Zerg. How do the recent map changes affect the OPs findings? | ||
|
balosan
Poland232 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:35 Iron_ wrote: Wow impressive amount of work done. I was so sick and tired of hearing how most races are 50% win rate knowing that is completely meaningless. MMR actually means something. It's funny to see some zergs come in here and yell at you with nonsensical crap We cant let other races think that we are too strong, there is no other choice left for us but to throw crap ! But many users of teamliquid helps us to disguise our crap in tons of their. | ||
|
VediVeci
United States82 Posts
I do have some questions about your methods though, and please forgive me if you have already addressed these. If I have found the correct formulas you are using, you appear to be assuming an ELO rating system? I was under the impression, after listening to speech from Josh Menke at UCI, that the MMR is actually a determined using Gaussian Density Filtering? Is there a source that someone can point me to clearing this up? Regardless, your method should provide a decent approximation of MMR anyway, and ELO is certainly a valid ranking system in its own right. You also seem to have ignored the possibility of confounding factors (again, just say so if I missed it). EDIT: Also, you mentioned in a comment that you don't know if players are normally distributed, but doesn't ELO assume normal distribution? Assuming a similar distribution I don't think it would affect it too significantly though | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:38 VediVeci wrote: Hi, great post! I found this to be very informative and interesting, very well done. I do have some questions about your methods though, and please forgive me if you have already addressed these. If I have found the correct formulas you are using, you appear to be assuming an ELO rating system? I was under the impression, after listening to speech from Josh Menke at UCI, that the MMR is actually a determined using Gaussian Density Filtering? Is there a source that someone can point me to clearing this up? Regardless, your method should provide a decent approximation of MMR anyway, and ELO is certainly a valid ranking system in its own right. You also seem to have ignored the possibility of confounding factors (again, just say so if I missed it). if you are interested in the mmr calculation: Here you find a lot of information about how to calculate DMMr from ladderpoints. (DMMR = mmr not cleaned from his division yet) http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=332391 confounding factors : i tryed to prove with the random runs that they, if exist are smaller than the "imbalance" Its most likely not the best way to do so but the first and fastest way that come to my mind. EDIT: Also, you mentioned in a comment that you don't know if players are normally distributed, but doesn't ELO assume normal distribution? Assuming a similar distribution I don't think it would affect it too significantly though Exactly. the player/mmr base is normal by definition: have a look at my program: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9Ag8n.jpg) If this race data is , i dont know but i think so. Someone can test it. | ||
|
Murlox
France1699 Posts
On average, protoss have +20 MMR, zerg have +40 MMR and terran have -30 MMR. Which is, in fact, a very small difference (1 or 2 games). Yet if you include lower leagues, then the terran get further behind. But it is claimed that many new comers will auto-pick the terran, thus pulling the whole race down MMRwise. Well... sigh. I wanted to very subtly use these data to legitimately cry about how hard it is to play terran (am gold...) and feel better about myself. Not this time apparently. Still, FU protoss and zerg mid-game AOE. FU with your T3 too. | ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2356 Posts
| ||
|
sCCrooked
Korea (South)1306 Posts
On July 11 2012 11:50 XenOsky- wrote: you don't have to be a genius to figure out that Terran is really under powered.... keep nerfin terran blizzard, i haven't played a TvT in ages... Uh... this is a *woosh* if I ever saw one. Read the OP at least before you post. | ||
| ||
