EPTIPL5, winratios by race. Calculations ! :) - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
.kv
United States2332 Posts
On December 03 2012 05:08 Jebediah wrote: The stats might not be spot on, because Bomber vs Polt distracted me while counting :D I looked through the Nov premier tournaments on Liquipedia and took the map wins, not the match wins. Mirrors weren't counted. Code S: TvZ: 24-39 PvZ: 10-17 TvP: 16-14 Code A: TvZ: 4-8 PvZ: 5-3 TvP: 21-12 ESWC: TvZ: 7-8 PvZ: 5-3 TvP: 21-12 MLG: TvZ: 26-28 PvZ: 38-36 TvP: 26-18 BWC: TvZ: 5-5 PvZ: 41-28 TvP: 5-8 IEM: TvZ: 14-14 PvZ: 29-30 TvP: 14-8 DHW: TvZ: 11-7 PvZ; 33-26 TvP: 17-13 WCG: TvZ 3-2 PvZ: 33-26 TvP: 6-10 IPL5: TvZ: 29-49 PvZ: 31-41 TvP: 26-21 Overall: TvZ: 123-160 -> 43,5% / 56,5% PvZ; 246-224 -> 51,3% / 48,7% TvP: 137-111 -> 55,2% / 44,8% TvX: 531 Games, 260 Wins -> 49% PvX: 708 Games, 347 Wins -> 49% ZvX: 748 Games, 384 Wins -> 51,9% Again, this might not be completely accurate. But even if I missed a couple of games, it shouldn't make much of a difference. Idk if there that many games played in WCG since most of it was BO1 and even the playoffs including the finals was BO3 Also I added all your Protoss wins in PvZ and only got 225 yeah just did IPL real quick for PvZ and got 30-39... | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On December 03 2012 06:24 achan1058 wrote: No, since if we talk about player's actual race, it's going to be like 95% Korean, 5% foreigner or something. I did not suggest that all BW maps are balance, but rather that you can skew balance one way or another by putting in certain maps, and that's what I am suggesting SC2 tournaments do as well. Throw away all the bigger maps, and put in some that's really small, small enough to guarantee a Terran favorite. If Terrans are too good after that, switch a few maps back. Heck, even if we just throw away every single map other than Antiga, the game's balance would change already. Aside from balance, there are good reason to throw away some maps, namely that the game is getting stale because of the lack of map changes already. (of course, this only works for tournaments, and will suck for anyone on ladder) 1. I knew what you were saying. 2. We do not skew balance in that way by putting in certain maps. It's a silly suggestion and that's why I was rolling my eyes at you the first time. 3. We need better maps and we need tournaments to update their map pools regularly. That has nothing to do with skewing balance. We need maps that all players would be happy to play on. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On December 03 2012 08:36 Emzeeshady wrote: Look at the ones from all of november. They are remarkably close to 50 percent even though every matchup is imbalanced because Z beats T T beats P P beats Z is this the way the game should be balanced? that's funny, it's like the exact opposite of BW lol | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On December 03 2012 08:44 Doraemon wrote: that's funny, it's like the exact opposite of BW lol Can we try to avoid generalizations please? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 03 2012 07:43 Entirety wrote: Yes, exactly! I don't think anyone really cares about the IPL 5 statistics themselves, all they show is that Zerg did well at this particular tournament. The larger unknown population we're interested in is the population of all possible games, the matchup itself... so we extrapolate IPL 5 TvZ statistics into the parameter of the TvZ matchup as a whole. IPL 5 ZvT = 70%? No problem. ZvT = 70%? HUGE problem. So, if we say something like Zergs win 70% of their games versus Terran, just look at IPL 5! That would be flat-out wrong because we didn't include the error... Now, with error, we can say something along the lines of "we are 95% confident that Zergs win between 55%-85% of their games against Terran based upon the data from IPL 5" (yes I'm making the numbers up, but we can calculate the actual numbers, I'm just too lazy to do so right now) Yes, exactly. While the OP is not wrong in the litteral sense, it is increadible misleading for the majority of the readers, which is just as bad. All the imba-shouters that does not have both understanding in statistical errors and a critical mindset (which I'd estimate to at least 99% of them) will take these numbers as an argument that zerg is overpowered. As we have seen in the replies. The truth is that the sample is too small to say much about balance on itself, which would be clear if the OP had included a little bit of error analysis. OP asks for no balance whine, while at the same time providing misleading (and overly sensational) information.  | ||
|
Emzeeshady
Canada4203 Posts
| ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On December 03 2012 08:48 StarStruck wrote: Can we try to avoid generalizations please? how am i wrong? it's been pretty much accepted that BW was T>Z>P>T | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
| ||
|
NaEjeOn88
United States134 Posts
| ||
|
blug
Australia623 Posts
| ||
|
playa
United States1284 Posts
If there's anything to be learned, it's probably to enjoy having a 55-56 win percentage instead of acting like a poor, helpless victim. You know your race had it good when it's even possible to moan over such a thing. Toss players are guilty, too. Everyone singles in on one or two things that seem to be glaring imbalances; meanwhile, they miss all of the subtle imbalances that add up, ending up with players that aren't even whining about the right mu that is most "unfair." It's a circus. | ||
|
Skyblueone
Belgium155 Posts
| ||
|
ShotgunMike
Sweden241 Posts
| ||
| ||
