On February 02 2013 00:23 Filter wrote: This does a lot to highlight some of the issues sc2 is facing right now. The way the races are designed is a huge issue and it really shows in these statistics. Zerg really only players the game one way. The way most Zerg games play out is so predictable that it is very easy for Zergs to focus their practice. Protoss players are similar in that they rely the most on the current metagame to win, so they tend to play very close to each other. Protoss players do have more potential strats to choose from though. Terran players really dont have a catch all style and instead rely heavily on extremely well practiced build orders and timings to exploit their opponents, something Zerg can't do and Protoss can only do if the current meta conditions are right for it.
This leads to a lot of the extremely skilled Terran to be able to compete in tourneys like Code S/Code A where you have time to prepare for each opponent. Terran benefits the most from being able to carefully devise a plan to exploit something their opponent might be doing either intentionally or unintentionally. The reason the list is so top heavy with Zergs is because in tourneys without long gaps between games Zergs are at an advantage as everything will be played "as is" with the games being a lot more generic in terms of potential strats.
This table does little to show imbalance or even skill, but it does expose some of the core design flaws sc2 is currently showing (and HoTS doesn't seem to offer much in the way of improving that)
Why do you think this is a design flaw? I think it's fine if every race has his own style, Z being more predictable and passive-macro oriented, Protoss trying to abuse metagame as much as possible and Terran being more of a timing oriented race.
On February 02 2013 00:23 Filter wrote: This does a lot to highlight some of the issues sc2 is facing right now. The way the races are designed is a huge issue and it really shows in these statistics. Zerg really only players the game one way. The way most Zerg games play out is so predictable that it is very easy for Zergs to focus their practice. Protoss players are similar in that they rely the most on the current metagame to win, so they tend to play very close to each other. Protoss players do have more potential strats to choose from though. Terran players really dont have a catch all style and instead rely heavily on extremely well practiced build orders and timings to exploit their opponents, something Zerg can't do and Protoss can only do if the current meta conditions are right for it.
This leads to a lot of the extremely skilled Terran to be able to compete in tourneys like Code S/Code A where you have time to prepare for each opponent. Terran benefits the most from being able to carefully devise a plan to exploit something their opponent might be doing either intentionally or unintentionally. The reason the list is so top heavy with Zergs is because in tourneys without long gaps between games Zergs are at an advantage as everything will be played "as is" with the games being a lot more generic in terms of potential strats.
This table does little to show imbalance or even skill, but it does expose some of the core design flaws sc2 is currently showing (and HoTS doesn't seem to offer much in the way of improving that)
A really interesting theory, and in my opinion a good writeup of how the game plays out.
That Protoss are so relient on metagame trends is something I do dislike. I much prefer Terran's much more varied approach to the game. To me, it looks like this is something I will get more of for Protoss in HotS, where Protoss air is given some more/better options.
I think there are far too many 'Code S level' players out there. In Tennis, out of the last 40 premier tournaments, there are only five players that have won. The second place finishes are mostly these same players also. The number of players that are legitimately competitive in any given era is about a dozen. In Starcraft II it's rare to repeat a victory, it's even not unusual for the Ro8 to completely differ from tournament to tournament. I think there are about a hundred players that all can take Bo3's off each other. If you look at the full list in the OP, there are just so many good players out there, it's kind of insane.
I won't say it's always like this: there have been times where especially high level zergs were really stable and dominant, for instance DRG, Symbol, Leenock and Life have all had runs where they seemed unstoppable. MVP, MMA, Taeja have had similar runs. And that's a good thing to have for the game, but I don't think it happens often enough, and those players are still vulnerable. I don't think we'll ever see the same amount of consistency that Flash and Jaedong could achieve in Brood War. (unless Blizzard changes the game) I think in the future we will continue to see one-hit wonders.
On February 01 2013 23:51 HumpingHydra wrote: My question is has anyone used this to determine their voting pattern in Liquibets? What would the result be?
TheBB should write a bot that uses aligulac for liquibets and fantasy proleague. :D
I've considered it. Well, not a bot, but just doing it manually.
My gut instinct is that a good liquibetter would probably do better, but that the ratings are for sure more accurate than the people who write the TL predictions.
Not that hard since the TL predictions writers are almost as biased as Tastosis .
"Code S level" means you're in Code S. It includes the people who lose in ro32 but get back to Code S.
I think the difficult concept to grasp is that it is a fluid and dynamic label. Jjakji is not Code S level. He WAS, and he won the GSL, but he isn't right now. On the other side, Losira is Code S level. He wasn't for a long time, but he's back.
Stephano is in a strange position because he didn't "earn" his Code S spot, it was given to him as a seed. So the only test of whether he is a Code S level player is if he can get back in. If he can't, then he's not Code S level. You can make up excuses for him, but the same standard gets applied to everyone else, even beloved players like MVP and Leenock.
On February 02 2013 01:17 Grumbels wrote: I think there are far too many 'Code S level' players out there. In Tennis, out of the last 40 premier tournaments, there are only five players that have won. The second place finishes are mostly these same players also. The number of players that are legitimately competitive in any given era is about a dozen. In Starcraft II it's rare to repeat a victory, it's even not unusual for the Ro8 to completely differ from tournament to tournament. I think there are about a hundred players that all can take Bo3's off each other. If you look at the full list in the OP, there are just so many good players out there, it's kind of insane.
I won't say it's always like this: there have been times where especially high level zergs were really stable and dominant, for instance DRG, Symbol, Leenock and Life have all had runs where they seemed unstoppable. MVP, MMA, Taeja have had similar runs. And that's a good thing to have for the game, but I don't think it happens often enough, and those players are still vulnerable. I don't think we'll ever see the same amount of consistency that Flash and Jaedong could achieve in Brood War. (unless Blizzard changes the game) I think in the future we will continue to see one-hit wonders.
You forgot wc3, ~80% of all premier tournaments were won by Grubby, Moon, ToD, Lyn or Sky since 2004 until sc2 release. I really miss this consistency in sc2. sc2:wol is really super random..
On February 02 2013 01:25 coverpunch wrote: "Code S level" means you're in Code S. It includes the people who lose in ro32 but get back to Code S.
On February 02 2013 01:33 AimlessAmoeba wrote: I think "Code S level" doesn't mean anything at all - You're either Code S, or you're not. It really is that simple.
Code S currently contains 32 players, including people such as Huk who are generally agreed upon by many not to belong there. Nevertheless he is there. These 32 players will be our benchmark group.
As far as I'm concerned, if you're in Code S, you're definitely a Code S player. I guess I pretty much go by the definition in that regard. You've earned the title, since you're in Code S. The only exceptions perhaps would be if you received a free seed into Code S and then dropped out rather quickly, showing that perhaps you didn't deserve the spot in the first place.
Now, certainly many Code A players have the potential to be in Code S, and perhaps the only thing holding them back was the fact that they had a tough bracket or bad draw or some unfortunate luck. And that's where it gets a bit subjective and gray for me, but I feel that within two or three seasons, they'll either get to Code S anyway (thus proving they deserve it) or they'll remain in Code A/ drop out, (thus proving they don't deserve it).
I think it's important to reserve judgment for some players. Some who are on the cusp don't need to be "clearly" declared as Code S (or anything) just yet.
On February 02 2013 00:18 Hiea wrote: The problem with this "ranking" is that some players play against really really high level players all the time, while some don't and others don't really ever play against the top, but are still higher.
Yes i agree. Taking the current 32 Code S Paricipants as a benchmark is pretty random imo and leads to some strange rankings like Scarlett far above Taeja for example. The benchmark should be something like what is a average win/loss rate in combination with the amount of appearences in Code S. Because being Code S-Level means to be able to repeat success in this league over a certain period of time.
Taeja didnt do very well in the past few month (injury). In the OP, it is said the statistics are more influenced by recent results than by old ones. I guess the Taeja dominance of this summer does not matter anymore in those stats.
It was just an example... Taeja is participating Code S since s2 2012 and he is still in. He advanced from the first group stage in every season except season 5. He is clearly a Code S player. What did Scarlett (or other players) in GSL? The lack of longterm stats in this project makes its validity uncertain... in a year it will be better i think, but at the moment you cant determine if a player is code s level or not.
Another awesome post from our swiss, math-savvy nostradamus. Give this man a star already. :D
In my opinion, there are 3 possible "labels" you can give a player based on Code S:
(i) the first one is a "Code S player", i.e., one that currently competes in Code S, regardless of if he "deserves it". HuK, for instance, was a Code S player a couple of weeks ago, even though some question whether his skill is actually up to par.
(ii) the second one is a "Code S level player", which, to me, is a generic way of saying that a player has all the capacities (mainly mechanical and mental) to be paired against the best (korean) SC2 players in the world. This does not mean, however, that a player must advance from the ro48 or win in the U&D to prove his skill, especially if we consider that SC2 is a highly volatile game that harshly punishes the smallest of mistakes or build order choices.
(iii) the last one is a "Code S title contender", which is what a lot of people consider to be "Code S level". Having a chance to win it all takes a lot of korean-style preparation (oft overlooked by foreigners who participate in the GSL), but, while a very useful skill to have and master, I don't think it actually factors in how solid a player's overall skill level is. So, if a player isn't determined enough to put in the hours and prepare for his matches, it's safe to say he'll never be a title contender, but that doesn't mean his isn't "Code S material", to put it that way.
Pity it's mostly interpreted as anyone who is in code S, has been in code S recently, and anyone who has looked competent against the above, unless you're not Korean, then it doesn't count due to lack of opponent preparation
On February 02 2013 00:23 Filter wrote: This does a lot to highlight some of the issues sc2 is facing right now. The way the races are designed is a huge issue and it really shows in these statistics. Zerg really only players the game one way. The way most Zerg games play out is so predictable that it is very easy for Zergs to focus their practice. Protoss players are similar in that they rely the most on the current metagame to win, so they tend to play very close to each other. Protoss players do have more potential strats to choose from though. Terran players really dont have a catch all style and instead rely heavily on extremely well practiced build orders and timings to exploit their opponents, something Zerg can't do and Protoss can only do if the current meta conditions are right for it.
This leads to a lot of the extremely skilled Terran to be able to compete in tourneys like Code S/Code A where you have time to prepare for each opponent. Terran benefits the most from being able to carefully devise a plan to exploit something their opponent might be doing either intentionally or unintentionally. The reason the list is so top heavy with Zergs is because in tourneys without long gaps between games Zergs are at an advantage as everything will be played "as is" with the games being a lot more generic in terms of potential strats.
This table does little to show imbalance or even skill, but it does expose some of the core design flaws sc2 is currently showing (and HoTS doesn't seem to offer much in the way of improving that)
Why do you think this is a design flaw? I think it's fine if every race has his own style, Z being more predictable and passive-macro oriented, Protoss trying to abuse metagame as much as possible and Terran being more of a timing oriented race.
Races having their own styles is great for the game, the problem is that only one race is really capable of showing any real character and flair for players. Even then Terran is being pushed away from that are the game gets more and more figured out. MKP, MVP and MMA used to all have very distinct and different styles. This creates fans and makes games a lot more interesting. All Zergs look exactly the same when they play, Protoss players all look the same with some variations in execution being evident but nothing stylistic showing up anymore. This leads to a very stale games to watch, and even more stale games to play.
When you look past the pro game at the ladder games that you and I probably play, this starts to show up more and more. I remember being absolutely inspired watching MMA play and trying to integrate his builds and moves into my own play on ladder, and having a blast failing and succeeding. Zerg and Protoss players don't really have hero's to emulate and create passion. You could pick any of the top ten Zergs in the world and try to emulate their styles and end up at exactly the same point.
The difference is not in racial mechanics, it's simply a huge design problem and something that has not been addressed at all in HoTS. Terran builds/styles are based on extremely careful resource allocation and smoothly transitioning from one unit to the next. The most extreme example is going with a 1/1/1 banshee expand into a quick medivac drop with very early stim. Every building chains to the next and each unit has a very specific purpose on the field. Miss something by 30 seconds and the entire build is basically thrown out. The build has a very clear plan from start to finish and everything links together in a very clean manner. You dont have the ability to suddenly go cloaked banshee, or go for a heavy mech army because you won't have the gas to support it. Your entire infrastructure is based on a bio transition after the initial banshee and practice/execution is vital to having success with this type of build.
I'm okay with differences in how the races handle, I don't expect Zerg to be making addons to roach warrens and producing roaches out of them. At the same time though Zerg units do not link together at all, and this is a huge problem. Nobody uses hydra's because they're expensive and only situationally useful. If hydra's were capable of being morphed into something else once you researched the upgrade, they would see a lot more play. Zerg can quite literally shift through the units with no thought up front and simply make whatever suits them at the time. This leads to almost no reactive play from a Zerg player, and lets them dictate how the game will be played to his opponents. That in turn leads to stale "best" strategies that are used by all Zergs in pro play and on the ladder. Even things that you would think would have synergy and lead into each other do not. Zerglings and Zergling upgrades don't nudge a player in the direction of ultra's, in fact Zerg melee upgrades are more effective on broodlords than they are on ultra's so most people go that route. With no linking of techs Zerg players are free to just make the best units available instead of having to choose between something they have the research/units for already and something that might be better for their current situation but that they don't have the upgrades to use to it's full potential. Zerglings and their upgrades are effective for both T3 units. Roaches don't need +attack to be effective and hydra's get railed by everything that's in the game to kill marines + they have no followup synergy to help them out. This means that a zerg can quite comfortably make whatever units he wants/needs no matter how he has chosen to handle his upgrades.
Protoss players are forced to play the metagame, or lose. If you go for an oldschool 3rax (2tech,1reactor) against toss players on ladder you'll win 80% of your games because in order to keep up with what most Terran players do they have to 1gate expand or go Nexus first. Do anything but forge expand against Zerg and you lose. Things are more interesting in PvP but at the same time that matchup is basically rock paper scissors followed by war of the worlds. If a Protoss player doesn't play what is the current meta in PvT and PvZ and they face a standard player they lose. If they face somebody who players with older meta's and they player current they lose. Ever wonder why I haven't gone near Toss for some tutorial videos? that's why. I wouldn't go near the race if a I was a competitive player because the amount of control I would actually have over winning and losing would basically be zero. MC is the perfect example of this, for the last two years he's changed his style 3 or 4 times per year. He wins a tourney then he loses one in the first round with such consistency it's amazing. MC has also changed his style over and over because he simply has to to stay competitive. Some players come and have huge showings then drop off the map to never be seen again and the biggest reason is they bring some awesome new style that nobody can deal with, then it gets figured out and they fail to adapt to the new meta.
On February 02 2013 02:10 Figgy wrote: Also, based off your points system only the top 16 should only have even a tiny bit of a chance of being above a 16 rating (because that's half the games played vs Code S players and the only amount possible to make it out), and no one below the top 32 should have above a .5 rating (1 in 32 chance of winning a game). I seriously don't even know how you came up with this BS because the statistics are completely whack. Your current statistics is comparing all 150 people against all 150 people, instead of the top 32 against the rest. Honestly, who cares how many people crush TLO or Johnnyrecco. We are talking about Code S
You can't possibly have read anything I wrote. The numbers compare all 150 people against the current code S players. Not the top 32 and not the full 150. This is spelled out clearly in the OP. Take the average of the code S players, you should get 16 exactly.
Some of your other concerns are legitimate and some are ridiculous. That's fine, but you can take your attitude and stuff it.
Wow I always knew this guy's rating system was bad, but this just proves it. No matter how defensive he gets defending his stats cause well he designed it, doesn't change the fact that his system is bad and you can't rank players by a statistical system that easy in sc2.
On February 02 2013 02:55 Canucklehead wrote: Wow I always knew this guy's rating system was bad, but this just proves it. No matter how defensive he gets defending his stats cause well he designed it, doesn't change the fact that his system is bad and you can't rank players by a statistical system that easy in sc2.
I think the idea is neat on paper (having a system that can help predict results) but in practice it isn't as efficient. For example, Innovation was predicate to have a 75% chance to get 3rd or 4th, basically not getting out of the group. Yet he managed to get second.
The system of course doesn't take into account stuff such as amount of practice / how they practice (stephano said he just massed ladder games to train for GSL, compare and contrast that with the GSL method of studying an opponent's playstyle / ect).
EPT
.
