|
hi guys, i am awared that the Korean version of august TLPD win rates is missed so I calculate my own(to my curiosity, I just want to know how awesome protoss can be).
Procedure,
use RSS to export the data during August,
then mark wins by race one by one.
Add total and calculate,
then it is the winning ratio.
Also I found that, some taeja games are not displayed in TLPD but you can see that in RSS.
+ Show Spoiler +
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgJGz0YwL1yTdHNMeXNfdWIzc0hMODE3Q29JUUVwdmc
Above is my work.
Then here is the stats.
PvZ 60%
PvT 61.42%
ZvT 46.8%
Edit: found that WCS Korea is missed, working on them. WCS Korea stats added.
|
|
|
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran..
|
zerg truly is overpowered.
|
in b4 all the sad qq tosses from international thread come here and say that korean winrates mean nothing
|
On September 15 2012 23:58 VPVanek wrote:
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran..
I'd say a 60% win rate in pvz is indicative of zerg struggling with protoss...
|
|
|
On September 16 2012 00:02 syriuszonito wrote:
in b4 all the sad qq tosses from international thread come here and say that korean winrates mean nothing
Aren't you saying the same thing about the international statistics?
A whopping 28 PvZs says tonnes.
This sample size is ridiculously small.
|
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but you've completely missed out WCS Korea.
|
On September 16 2012 00:05 Yonnua wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but you've completely missed out WCS Korea.
And PvZ was already 60%....
|
On September 15 2012 23:58 VPVanek wrote:
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran..
So we're back at people having a problem with statistics, drawing balance conclusions out of ridiculously small sample sizes flawed with skill discrepancy between some of the players.
|
I feel bad for Zerg players...
|
On September 16 2012 00:08 TommyP wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:05 Yonnua wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but you've completely missed out WCS Korea. And PvZ was already 60%....
Twenty. Eight. Games. 17-11. You really think that says much? Literally one player winning a single tournament would be enough to skew this in the complete opposite direction.
|
Oh man 250 games. This looks promising.
|
On September 16 2012 00:09 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:58 VPVanek wrote:
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran.. So we're back at people having a problem with statistics, drawing balance conclusions out of ridiculously small sample sizes flawed with skill discrepancy between some of the players.
I was just reading from the thread. Chill dude.
|
|
|
On September 16 2012 00:05 Yonnua wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but you've completely missed out WCS Korea.
sorry for that, i will try to work on that, but its already high = =
let's see what it finally be
|
On September 16 2012 00:11 thezanursic wrote:
I feel bad for Zerg players...
Why, no one is doing anything remotely impressive or unique with the race. Korean protoss are just using their race better right now.
|
On September 16 2012 00:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:08 TommyP wrote:On September 16 2012 00:05 Yonnua wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but you've completely missed out WCS Korea. And PvZ was already 60%.... Twenty. Eight. Games. 17-11. You really think that says much? Literally one player winning a single tournament would be enough to skew this in the complete opposite direction.
when u add in wcs korea expect it to have like fifty games with protoss winning 35 or something
|
I wonder how many of those PvZs are immortal sentry allins so ez.
|
On September 16 2012 00:18 X3GoldDot wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:12 Shiori wrote:On September 16 2012 00:08 TommyP wrote:On September 16 2012 00:05 Yonnua wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but you've completely missed out WCS Korea. And PvZ was already 60%.... Twenty. Eight. Games. 17-11. You really think that says much? Literally one player winning a single tournament would be enough to skew this in the complete opposite direction. when u add in wcs korea expect it to have like fifty games with protoss winning 35 or something
Which would still be a minuscule sample. You do realize how tiny that is, right? Winning one game is 2% in a 50 game sample...
|
On September 16 2012 00:24 CajunMan wrote:
I wonder how many of those PvZs are immortal sentry allins so ez.
P players wouldn't 2 base all in with Immortal/Sentry if they weren't forced to do so.
|
updated with WCS korea added, interesting that PvZ is still 60%
|
well,korean zergs are lacking progress in the past months so its normal,i think now there are many EU zergs who are better than most of the Koreans and only DRG seems to keeps his game up.But im certain that they will catch up in 1 ot 2 months.
I've watche Life's games and his micro was really bad and made other significant mistakes and im wondering if the korean zergs were relying only on their pure multytasking and macro thus far,but now they need to step it up because we can see that with good micro and flangs you can go head to head with terran and protoss efficianci.
So i think balance has nothing to do with those winrates its all about training and skill level its just that korean zergs have some flaws in their styles and gameplay and korean protosses are better than EU/NA and KOrean terran should be the 4rth race because they are playing so much better than the rest of the world!
sry for my english
|
I think no patches are needed for WoL anymore. Metagame shifts rather wildly already even without patches.
|
terran did well then zerg, not quite as dominant, now protoss, is it balance or coincidence or just the natural shift in the metagame changing the matchup, I dont know but I suppose its some of all 3.
|
On September 16 2012 00:44 HaiFiSCH26 wrote:
well,korean zergs are lacking progress in the past months so its normal,i think now there are many EU zergs who are better than most of the Koreans and only DRG seems to keeps his game up.
I know there are many strong EU zergs (can think of 5-6 sick good ones), but do people really believe that EU zergs are better than Korean zergs?...Just wondering.
But yeah low number of games...still interesting I guess
|
Perfect balance I like it. Btw wheres the chart?
|
This is why Protoss needs a unit that completely negates Fungal in HoTS, in addition to a Siege unit with 15 range that does additional damage to Broodlords.
|
Ahah, love the posts saying Korean Zergs are losing because they're not as good as Euro Zergs... Comedy gold right there!!
|
Um, this sample size is so so small. I always disagree with the people who say that but its really, really true. You have less then 60 per matchup which is nowhere near close enough to make balance comments.
|
|
|
On September 16 2012 00:24 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:18 X3GoldDot wrote:On September 16 2012 00:12 Shiori wrote:On September 16 2012 00:08 TommyP wrote:On September 16 2012 00:05 Yonnua wrote:
Hate to burst your bubble dude, but you've completely missed out WCS Korea. And PvZ was already 60%.... Twenty. Eight. Games. 17-11. You really think that says much? Literally one player winning a single tournament would be enough to skew this in the complete opposite direction. when u add in wcs korea expect it to have like fifty games with protoss winning 35 or something Which would still be a minuscule sample. You do realize how tiny that is, right? Winning one game is 2% in a 50 game sample...
While that is true it is also the top of the world so i rather take a low sampling rate from there then a massive one from people that are not the top since that portrays balance even worse.
|
|
|
On September 16 2012 00:03 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:02 syriuszonito wrote:
in b4 all the sad qq tosses from international thread come here and say that korean winrates mean nothing Aren't you saying the same thing about the international statistics? A whopping 28 PvZs says tonnes. This sample size is ridiculously small.
No, it is not...
With a size of 30 you already reached the sweet spot, where the results are fairly representative. Thus 28 is absolutely OK to do a monthly statistic on.
And inb4 source/link/you liar/selfmade statistic on the spot bla bla: HERE
Edit: I also just checked the data and 28 is just the PvZ losses... add the 42 wins in PvZ and you got a whopping 70 sample size.
|
check kespa games, zerg is underperforming pretty much at highest level ..
|
On September 16 2012 00:24 CajunMan wrote:
I wonder how many of those PvZs are immortal sentry allins so ez.
Well if maybe more ppl went mutas or so
|
On September 16 2012 02:21 smileface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:03 Shiori wrote:On September 16 2012 00:02 syriuszonito wrote:
in b4 all the sad qq tosses from international thread come here and say that korean winrates mean nothing Aren't you saying the same thing about the international statistics? A whopping 28 PvZs says tonnes. This sample size is ridiculously small. No, it is not... With a size of 30 you already reached the sweet spot, where the results are fairly representative. Thus 28 is absolutely OK to do a monthly statistic on. And inb4 source/link/you liar/selfmade statistic on the spot bla bla: HEREEdit: I also just checked the data and 28 is just the PvZ losses... add the 42 wins in PvZ and you got a whopping 70 sample size.
Just so you know, with a sample size of ~30, a perfectly balanced game will see statistics ~67% of the time to be anywhere from 33% to 66% win rate. So as long as the win rate is between those two values, you can't distinguish it from a perfectly balanced game. The other ~33% is going to be even larger than that! That is why everyone says the sample size of 30 is way too small.
|
On September 16 2012 00:44 HaiFiSCH26 wrote:
well,korean zergs are lacking progress in the past months so its normal,i think now there are many EU zergs who are better than most of the Koreans and only DRG seems to keeps his game up.But im certain that they will catch up in 1 ot 2 months.
I've watche Life's games and his micro was really bad and made other significant mistakes and im wondering if the korean zergs were relying only on their pure multytasking and macro thus far,but now they need to step it up because we can see that with good micro and flangs you can go head to head with terran and protoss efficianci.
So i think balance has nothing to do with those winrates its all about training and skill level its just that korean zergs have some flaws in their styles and gameplay and korean protosses are better than EU/NA and KOrean terran should be the 4rth race because they are playing so much better than the rest of the world!
sry for my english
No.
EU Zergs haven't seen the true taste of 2 base Korean toss timings barring Stephano and Nerchio.
Korean toss attack timing>>>>>>>>>>EU Toss attack timing.
Korean toss timings whether it is 2 base or 3 base are very sharp and precise.
Top Korean zergs are still generally better than their EU counterpart.
They are Code S for a reason.
|
On September 16 2012 00:30 superstartran wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:24 CajunMan wrote:
I wonder how many of those PvZs are immortal sentry allins so ez. P players wouldn't 2 base all in with Immortal/Sentry if they weren't forced to do so.
Of course they would. If a build provides good winrates, it's going to get used a lot, no matter if it is an allin or not.
I guess we have to be waiting until the full winrates are up, to see how the stats really are.
|
Stats should be looked at over a 4-6 month period at least, I think. Taking stats from just 1 month is such a low sample size.
|
People placing what too much importance on such a tiny sample size
|
On September 16 2012 02:21 smileface wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:03 Shiori wrote:On September 16 2012 00:02 syriuszonito wrote:
in b4 all the sad qq tosses from international thread come here and say that korean winrates mean nothing Aren't you saying the same thing about the international statistics? A whopping 28 PvZs says tonnes. This sample size is ridiculously small. No, it is not... With a size of 30 you already reached the sweet spot, where the results are fairly representative. Thus 28 is absolutely OK to do a monthly statistic on. And inb4 source/link/you liar/selfmade statistic on the spot bla bla: HEREEdit: I also just checked the data and 28 is just the PvZ losses... add the 42 wins in PvZ and you got a whopping 70 sample size.
30 is a good sample size when you're making a predictive model or a function when dealing with a divisible value.
30 Absolutely sucks if you're recording Yes/No or some binary result.
So if you took 30 months of Stock movement, you'll get a pretty good standard deviation and model.
But if you go Ask 30 people if they're voting for Romney or Obama, your poll sucks.
This is especially true in cases where you're looking for small deviation from a desired rate. So if you're expecting 50/50 then you want 15Wins, 15 loses...but 16 wins 14 loses is 3.33% off, a single record distorts you by a large amount.
This is even worse in rare cases, you couldn't use 30 people to determine if Carrots cause Diabetes, because the expected rate is too low. 1 in 30 people won't be expected to have Diabetes at all, let alone caused by Carrots.
So in these cases you must raise the Sample size to look for Deviation cases. If you're seeing a 10% variation in Win/Loss, that only takes 3 records to deviate by that amount. The idea is to create a sample size large enough that the deviation pool is 30, not the total sample size.
|
On September 16 2012 03:13 NotSorry wrote:
People placing what too much importance on such a tiny sample size
International may have more sample size but it has a lot more no name joes playing pro's. Hard to take it seriously, also all the games in korea are from top players where as international a lot of them are not from top players  . That's why korean stats are looked at more seriously then international.
|
Well, now it's pretty pretty clear that the ppl who make the winrate chart must be PROTOSS.
|
I've stopped paying attention to these winrates... sample sizes are too small to be relevant at all
|
On September 16 2012 03:32 ProxyKnoxy wrote:
I've stopped paying attention to these winrates... sample sizes are too small to be relevant at all
Yup, all these winrates seem to do is give more fodder to balance whiners.
|
On September 16 2012 00:02 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:58 VPVanek wrote:
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran.. I'd say a 60% win rate in pvz is indicative of zerg struggling with protoss...
hahaha ya.
But imo ZvP is pretty straight forward and ez... for both sides.
It should not reallly be that one sided for either race.
|
4860 Posts
On September 16 2012 00:02 bo1b wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:58 VPVanek wrote:
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran.. I'd say a 60% win rate in pvz is indicative of zerg struggling with protoss...
Haha true.
Zerg: always manage to stay underpowered since 2010.
|
You need to calculate confidence intervals and do hypothesis testing before drawing any conclusions.
|
Zerg is severely missing their overlord.
DRG is still the best zerg atm but he is no taeja/mvp that's for sure. Protoss have been trading tops frequently. Squirtle, seed, mc, parting.
|
On September 16 2012 06:17 stangstang wrote:
Zerg is severely missing their overlord.
DRG is still the best zerg atm but he is no taeja/mvp that's for sure. Protoss have been trading tops frequently. Squirtle, seed, mc, parting.
By "Squirtle, Seed, Mc, parting" I assume you mean: "Creator."
|
protoss low winrates -> omg imbalance
protoss high winrates -> omg tiny sample size
|
On September 16 2012 03:10 Grampz wrote:
Stats should be looked at over a 4-6 month period at least, I think. Taking stats from just 1 month is such a low sample size.
That's funny because alot of balance changes were done on a complete whim.
|
On September 16 2012 07:10 nkr wrote:
protoss low winrates -> omg imbalance
protoss high winrates -> omg tiny sample size
Yep, only protoss players do that, surely not all players of their respective race try to argue identically the same as that? I guess at least this time protoss can finally use the age old argument: Protoss is the highest skill race, look at how foreign protoss are stuggling but korean protoss are doing incredibly well. Guess protoss just benefits the most from good mechanics/micro/macro.
|
On September 16 2012 07:10 nkr wrote:
(X Race) low winrates -> omg imbalance
(X Race) high winrates -> omg tiny sample size
Fixed.
|
You should include the number of games rather than just the percentage in the OP. It's misleading to just say PvZ 60%.
Korea
PvT: 43-27 (61.4%)
ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
ZvP: 28-42 (40%)
International
PvT: 259-301 (46.3%)
ZvT: 290-278 (51.1%)
ZvP: 364-322 (53.1%)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B9Rww.jpg)
Note: I calculated the # of games for each matchup using the winrate * total games on the international graph; they might not be 100% accurate.
These statistics, especially the korean ones, are pretty meaningless. Even 1 game has a significant impact on the winrates. For example, if Jaedong beat MarineKing 2-0 rather than losing 1-2 in GSL, then ZvT would be 50%.
|
By that logic TLPD in general is meaningless since you almost never get a much bigger sample anyway.
The reason Korean numbers matter is because the top plays there, and the top will never get a much bigger sample.
Also, i don't see how it is misleading when its a fact its 60%
|
On September 16 2012 08:37 lysergic wrote:
You should include the number of games rather than just the percentage in the OP. It's misleading to just say PvZ 60%.
Korea
PvT: 43-27 (61.4%)
ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
ZvP: 28-42 (40%)
International
PvT: 259-301 (46.3%)
ZvT: 290-278 (51.1%)
ZvP: 364-322 (53.1%)
All I needed to see were those sample sizes. Thanks
|
On September 16 2012 01:30 LuckyMacro wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 00:44 HaiFiSCH26 wrote:
well,korean zergs are lacking progress in the past months so its normal,i think now there are many EU zergs who are better than most of the Koreans and only DRG seems to keeps his game up.
I know there are many strong EU zergs (can think of 5-6 sick good ones), but do people really believe that EU zergs are better than Korean zergs?...Just wondering. But yeah low number of games...still interesting I guess
Nobody believes this except hardcore Stephano fanboys. No foreign zerg could ever win Code S (inlcuding Stephano) while DRG+ NesTea have 4 GSLs together to their name.
|
On September 16 2012 08:37 lysergic wrote:You should include the number of games rather than just the percentage in the OP. It's misleading to just say PvZ 60%.
Korea
PvT: 43-27 (61.4%)
ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
ZvP: 28-42 (40%)
International
PvT: 259-301 (46.3%)
ZvT: 290-278 (51.1%)
ZvP: 364-322 (53.1%)
Note: I calculated the # of games for each matchup using the winrate * total games on the international graph; they might not be 100% accurate.These statistics, especially the korean ones, are pretty meaningless. Even 1 game has a significant impact on the winrates. For example, if Jaedong beat MarineKing 2-0 rather than losing 1-2 in GSL, then ZvT would be 50%.
International games are meaningless stats because its not the top tier play.
|
On September 16 2012 13:31 TommyP wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 08:37 lysergic wrote:You should include the number of games rather than just the percentage in the OP. It's misleading to just say PvZ 60%.
Korea
PvT: 43-27 (61.4%)
ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
ZvP: 28-42 (40%)
International
PvT: 259-301 (46.3%)
ZvT: 290-278 (51.1%)
ZvP: 364-322 (53.1%)
Note: I calculated the # of games for each matchup using the winrate * total games on the international graph; they might not be 100% accurate.These statistics, especially the korean ones, are pretty meaningless. Even 1 game has a significant impact on the winrates. For example, if Jaedong beat MarineKing 2-0 rather than losing 1-2 in GSL, then ZvT would be 50%. International games are meaningless stats because its not the top tier play.
You need to have some statistics to base balance. With the korean statistics having +/- 10% (which makes it impossible to determine balance), you need to either look at korean over the past ~3 months, or you have to use international statistics. In either case, foreign tournaments still have some very high level players, e.g. stephano, socke, thorzain, grubby, nercio, mana, vortix, lucifron, ... If you care about recent balance, then you have to use internation statistics or you will never be able to determine balance outside of a very long integration periods.
|
On September 16 2012 13:29 TommyP wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 01:30 LuckyMacro wrote:On September 16 2012 00:44 HaiFiSCH26 wrote:
well,korean zergs are lacking progress in the past months so its normal,i think now there are many EU zergs who are better than most of the Koreans and only DRG seems to keeps his game up.
I know there are many strong EU zergs (can think of 5-6 sick good ones), but do people really believe that EU zergs are better than Korean zergs?...Just wondering. But yeah low number of games...still interesting I guess Nobody believes this except hardcore Stephano fanboys. No foreign zerg could ever win Code S (inlcuding Stephano) while DRG+ NesTea have 4 GSLs together to their name.
Sorry, what? Nestea had been slumping hard lately, even since the Zerg patch. Your example with him is like saying the Cetics are the best team in basketball currently because they have 17 championships. Korean Zergs are better as a whole than their European counterparts but if you think Nestea had a better shot at a GSL championship in his current form.then Stephano you're insane.
|
On September 16 2012 13:53 Stutters695 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 13:29 TommyP wrote:On September 16 2012 01:30 LuckyMacro wrote:On September 16 2012 00:44 HaiFiSCH26 wrote:
well,korean zergs are lacking progress in the past months so its normal,i think now there are many EU zergs who are better than most of the Koreans and only DRG seems to keeps his game up.
I know there are many strong EU zergs (can think of 5-6 sick good ones), but do people really believe that EU zergs are better than Korean zergs?...Just wondering. But yeah low number of games...still interesting I guess Nobody believes this except hardcore Stephano fanboys. No foreign zerg could ever win Code S (inlcuding Stephano) while DRG+ NesTea have 4 GSLs together to their name. Sorry, what? Nestea had been slumping hard lately, even since the Zerg patch. Your example with him is like saying the Cetics are the best team in basketball currently because they have 17 championships. Korean Zergs are better as a whole than their European counterparts but if you think Nestea had a better shot at a GSL championship in his current form.then Stephano you're insane.
round of 8 during a slump....
|
People keep talking about the small sample size making the korean stats useless (which is the highest level of play and imho should be taken more seriously), whilst the international numbers include players like Hyun, Violet and Nerchio stomping all sorts of random NA/EU GM players in online cups left and right?
|
Korean ZvT Statistic: ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
47 games lol. It's absolutely worthless statistic due to such a little sample size.
|
On September 16 2012 17:12 Huragius wrote:
Korean ZvT Statistic: ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
47 games lol. It's absolutely worthless statistic due to such a little sample size.
But because of the level of play it's still worth more than international statistics where they include random GM/masters players that aren't even sponsored or that are on no name semi pro teams that wouldn't even win 1 game in code B.
|
Italy12246 Posts
Small sample size to the point where it's not very meaningful statistically, but holy crap Protoss did well :O
|
IMO immortal sentry needs a nerf.ouch hardest imbalances ever since 2010
|
On September 17 2012 02:34 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 17:12 Huragius wrote:
Korean ZvT Statistic: ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
47 games lol. It's absolutely worthless statistic due to such a little sample size. But because of the level of play it's still worth more than international statistics where they include random GM/masters players that aren't even sponsored or that are on no name semi pro teams that wouldn't even win 1 game in code B.
Can you explain why a small sample size is more relevant than a bigger one? I'm confused.
|
On September 17 2012 02:45 Gladiator333 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 02:34 hunts wrote:On September 16 2012 17:12 Huragius wrote:
Korean ZvT Statistic: ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
47 games lol. It's absolutely worthless statistic due to such a little sample size. But because of the level of play it's still worth more than international statistics where they include random GM/masters players that aren't even sponsored or that are on no name semi pro teams that wouldn't even win 1 game in code B. Can you explain why a small sample size is more relevant than a bigger one? I'm confused.
Because he plays Zerg and the statistics would favour his race.
By the way, International statistics include a tonne of Kr vs KR games, like at MLGs, IPLs, and so on. Yes, there are some less-skilled players, but most unknowns aren't even in TLPD. Further, weak players get eliminated early in tournaments, which means that their results are naturally less relevant to the overall statistics than the results of, say, Leenock when he wins an entire MLG from the open bracket.
The margin of error in the stats we have here is incredibly huge. What's more, people don't realize that these are only like 3 tournaments. That's a big deal because a lot of notable players opted not to participate in some of them (MC, MVP dropping out of WCS, for example).
|
On September 17 2012 02:44 DontNerfInfestors wrote:
IMO immortal sentry needs a nerf.ouch hardest imbalances ever since 2010
Were you around when every terran would build a barracks, a factory, a starport, add another barracks, pull all SCV's and just kill protoss? It's a strong timing attack, not a freewin.
Stats look fairly okay, especially considering last GSL finals was PvP.
|
sample size kinda small bro
|
On September 17 2012 03:34 Amui wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 02:44 DontNerfInfestors wrote:
IMO immortal sentry needs a nerf.ouch hardest imbalances ever since 2010 Were you around when every terran would build a barracks, a factory, a starport, add another barracks, pull all SCV's and just kill protoss? It's a strong timing attack, not a freewin. Stats look fairly okay, especially considering last GSL finals was PvP.
I didnt ladder,but i tried it and got a good w/l.
us.battle.net
I guess this is what i get from posting these winrates and i just deleted all my posts if they where going to be dorks.
|
I really wish TL would put in a rule to stop posting these.
They dont represent balance in any way, shape, or form.
You either have a large sample size that has a huge range of skill forms, or a small sample size of the tip top.
Neither help in determining balance. Id rather see only KR statistics in 3-6 month intervals, and even then, it still wouldn't represent balance that much.
|
On September 17 2012 02:37 Teoita wrote:
Small sample size to the point where it's not very meaningful statistically, but holy crap Protoss did well :O
you mean MC did well ?
its no coincidene that the months where protoss did well in the past are only those were MC wins games.
|
On September 17 2012 03:53 ohampatu wrote:
I really wish TL would put in a rule to stop posting these.
They dont represent balance in any way, shape, or form.
You either have a large sample size that has a huge range of skill forms, or a small sample size of the tip top.
Neither help in determining balance. Id rather see only KR statistics in 3-6 month intervals, and even then, it still wouldn't represent balance that much.
*sigh*
|
On September 17 2012 02:45 Gladiator333 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 02:34 hunts wrote:On September 16 2012 17:12 Huragius wrote:
Korean ZvT Statistic: ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
47 games lol. It's absolutely worthless statistic due to such a little sample size. But because of the level of play it's still worth more than international statistics where they include random GM/masters players that aren't even sponsored or that are on no name semi pro teams that wouldn't even win 1 game in code B. Can you explain why a small sample size is more relevant than a bigger one? I'm confused.
Because bias.
User was warned for this post
|
On September 15 2012 23:58 VPVanek wrote:
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran..
46% is pretty balanced man...
The variations we are seeing atm, both in and outside of korea, are partially due to metagame anyways, like with many of the past statistics. But there are always a bunch of dramaqueens who misread the stats in these kinds of threads.
Its pretty balanced people, just a few minor tweaks can be made here and there, but not much.
|
As a player who is terrible at PvZ I'd love to see a breakdown of build orders the Korean protoss's are using against zerg. Also, it seems like the foreign scene is dominated by a handful of players who are good enough to take wins from some of the best koreans, while the GSL is just stacked with so much talent in every race. We end up with a small sample of the highest level play from Korea and a huge sample of international events with a lot of players who get steamrolled by Korean level talent.
|
On September 16 2012 13:31 TommyP wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 08:37 lysergic wrote:You should include the number of games rather than just the percentage in the OP. It's misleading to just say PvZ 60%.
Korea
PvT: 43-27 (61.4%)
ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
ZvP: 28-42 (40%)
International
PvT: 259-301 (46.3%)
ZvT: 290-278 (51.1%)
ZvP: 364-322 (53.1%)
Note: I calculated the # of games for each matchup using the winrate * total games on the international graph; they might not be 100% accurate.These statistics, especially the korean ones, are pretty meaningless. Even 1 game has a significant impact on the winrates. For example, if Jaedong beat MarineKing 2-0 rather than losing 1-2 in GSL, then ZvT would be 50%. International games are meaningless stats because its not the top tier play.
MLG isn't top tier? IPL4 wasn't top tier?
|
On September 17 2012 04:52 Femari wrote:Show nested quote +On September 16 2012 13:31 TommyP wrote:On September 16 2012 08:37 lysergic wrote:You should include the number of games rather than just the percentage in the OP. It's misleading to just say PvZ 60%.
Korea
PvT: 43-27 (61.4%)
ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
ZvP: 28-42 (40%)
International
PvT: 259-301 (46.3%)
ZvT: 290-278 (51.1%)
ZvP: 364-322 (53.1%)
Note: I calculated the # of games for each matchup using the winrate * total games on the international graph; they might not be 100% accurate.These statistics, especially the korean ones, are pretty meaningless. Even 1 game has a significant impact on the winrates. For example, if Jaedong beat MarineKing 2-0 rather than losing 1-2 in GSL, then ZvT would be 50%. International games are meaningless stats because its not the top tier play. MLG isn't top tier? IPL4 wasn't top tier?
And yet GSL is one tier higher. We have never seen so far a whole MLG/IPL of code level S players.
|
On September 17 2012 04:58 Assirra wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 04:52 Femari wrote:On September 16 2012 13:31 TommyP wrote:On September 16 2012 08:37 lysergic wrote:You should include the number of games rather than just the percentage in the OP. It's misleading to just say PvZ 60%.
Korea
PvT: 43-27 (61.4%)
ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
ZvP: 28-42 (40%)
International
PvT: 259-301 (46.3%)
ZvT: 290-278 (51.1%)
ZvP: 364-322 (53.1%)
Note: I calculated the # of games for each matchup using the winrate * total games on the international graph; they might not be 100% accurate.These statistics, especially the korean ones, are pretty meaningless. Even 1 game has a significant impact on the winrates. For example, if Jaedong beat MarineKing 2-0 rather than losing 1-2 in GSL, then ZvT would be 50%. International games are meaningless stats because its not the top tier play. MLG isn't top tier? IPL4 wasn't top tier? And yet GSL is one tier higher. We have never seen so far a whole MLG/IPL of code level S players.
Yes but that's like saying a player like Symbol isn't a top tier player because he hasn't won GSL when IM is hogging all the titles.
There is definitely top tier competition there, and it even outdoes a lot of the stuff in the Korean TLPD. Aren't weeklys in the K-TLPD? Saying that there's no top tier competition internationally because the marquee competition took place in Korea is simply incorrect.
|
I think if we had win/loss stats of just the top 32 from international + korea, we'd get a more relevant picture of things.
|
We'll probably see actual august results next month since we have singificantly smaller sample at this this time. For Korean graph its like 4-5 time less games than in last two months.
|
On September 17 2012 02:45 Gladiator333 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 02:34 hunts wrote:On September 16 2012 17:12 Huragius wrote:
Korean ZvT Statistic: ZvT: 22-25 (46.8%)
47 games lol. It's absolutely worthless statistic due to such a little sample size. But because of the level of play it's still worth more than international statistics where they include random GM/masters players that aren't even sponsored or that are on no name semi pro teams that wouldn't even win 1 game in code B. Can you explain why a small sample size is more relevant than a bigger one? I'm confused.
You didn't even read the post you quoted did you? Korean sample is much more meaningful despite the size difference because of the huge skill difference. In the international scene there are tons of games in IPL, MLG, NASL, etc.. that have pros vs semi pros, pros vs ametures, koreans vs foreign ametures/semi pros, makes for skewed data because while some of the same top players from the korean scene might be in international, the bottom skill level in it is significantly lower.
The international statistics include games of very varied skill levels, therefore skewing the results. Wheras in korea most of the games are played by players of similar standing thanks to GSL doing a fairly good job of sorting players based on performance. Obviously your response was a troll and most likely flame baiting and not a serious question, but there you go.
|
On September 17 2012 03:53 ohampatu wrote:
I really wish TL would put in a rule to stop posting these.
They dont represent balance in any way, shape, or form.
You either have a large sample size that has a huge range of skill forms, or a small sample size of the tip top.
Neither help in determining balance. Id rather see only KR statistics in 3-6 month intervals, and even then, it still wouldn't represent balance that much.
The idea is to take the stats as a part of the larger picture. Roll these results in with ladder representation, qualifier results, individual games, and top 4 results from major tournaments and you have a good idea which race is worth betting on.
On September 17 2012 04:27 []Phase[] wrote:Show nested quote +On September 15 2012 23:58 VPVanek wrote:
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran.. 46% is pretty balanced man... The variations we are seeing atm, both in and outside of korea, are partially due to metagame anyways, like with many of the past statistics. But there are always a bunch of dramaqueens who misread the stats in these kinds of threads. Its pretty balanced people, just a few minor tweaks can be made here and there, but not much.
Of course it's metagame. Even unbalanced streaks show up as metagame. The question is if the metagame will correct itself.
|
On September 17 2012 18:34 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 03:53 ohampatu wrote:
I really wish TL would put in a rule to stop posting these.
They dont represent balance in any way, shape, or form.
You either have a large sample size that has a huge range of skill forms, or a small sample size of the tip top.
Neither help in determining balance. Id rather see only KR statistics in 3-6 month intervals, and even then, it still wouldn't represent balance that much. The idea is to take the stats as a part of the larger picture. Roll these results in with ladder representation, qualifier results, individual games, and top 4 results from major tournaments and you have a good idea which race is worth betting on. Show nested quote +On September 17 2012 04:27 []Phase[] wrote:On September 15 2012 23:58 VPVanek wrote:
So we're back at terran having a problem with Protoss, and zerg having a problem with terran.. 46% is pretty balanced man... The variations we are seeing atm, both in and outside of korea, are partially due to metagame anyways, like with many of the past statistics. But there are always a bunch of dramaqueens who misread the stats in these kinds of threads. Its pretty balanced people, just a few minor tweaks can be made here and there, but not much. Of course it's metagame. Even unbalanced streaks show up as metagame. The question is if the metagame will correct itself.
The only way to find out if the metagame will correct itself is by giving it a lot of time, not yelling at blizzard to "fix this and that" like many people seem to be doing. I'd say right now the game itself needs to be left alone and the balancing must happen with a bunch of new tournament maps, not by balancing stats and spells and whatnot. We have hots beta for that.
|
i like the korean graph it shows which race is on the role with a new strat, atleast if i am not on top of whats going on in korea. And its really funny to see that balance changes only throw up some players and affect winrates that way, while the true changes in Winrates come with new playstyles (often triggered by balance changes though)
|
Well I'll be damned. Looks like Blizzard were on the money with letting the metagame evolve in ZvT. Hah.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
