EPTTvZ Winrates with Mass Widow Mine - Page 10
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
megid
Brazil142 Posts
| ||
|
govie
9334 Posts
| ||
|
kafkaesque
Germany2006 Posts
Pro tip: use your toes and double those math skills. | ||
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
On April 08 2013 23:03 megid wrote: I want to know the statistic of matches where Terrans did less than 137 marines. lol wt? The zergs are really good crying, not this exp, not this exp ... huehuehuehueheuheu gibe moni plos or I repart. I cant wait for next round of GSL to see how the Koreans zergs will deal with T atm  This thread seems to be just another balance-rant. User was warned for this post | ||
|
CamoPillbox
Czech Republic229 Posts
Rather something with medivacs. Longer cd or energy cost speed burst. | ||
|
dsjoerg
United States384 Posts
To make the next discussion more productive and a little less flaming:
| ||
|
paddyz
Ireland628 Posts
| ||
|
tenklavir
Slovakia116 Posts
On April 08 2013 23:25 dsjoerg wrote: This has been lots of fun and I will be doing more stats posts at some point. To make the next discussion more productive and a little less flaming:
Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set. | ||
|
govie
9334 Posts
For example : Which Zerg strategy wins most against a terran playing MMMM on Master and GM level? But my guess is that this information is not hidden in the statistics? | ||
|
shaldengeki
United States104 Posts
On April 08 2013 10:44 Defenestrator wrote: Your arguments are reaching, at best. How about the most obvious explanation: that T players who base their strategy around widow mines win more in TvZ than those who don't? To me, the main message from the data provided is that if you're losing in TvZ and you're not making widow mines, then maybe you should start. It's too early IMO to delve too deep into balance anyway at this point; widow mines are a pretty strange/novel unit, and I don't think people have had enough time to figure them out. Also, to critics: care to suggest a better way of measuring this? He's not reaching - accounting for confounding variables such as these is critically important when you're trying to determine whether or not there's actually a relationship between two variables in a dataset. If you were to try to publish a paper where all you did was calculate the correlation between, say, instances of piracy and global average temperatures to claim that there was a meaningful relationship between the two things, you'd be laughed out of the academic community. Anyone with even a basic grasp of the proper usage of statistics knows this. Not attempting to find and control for confounding factors is silly and usually caused by ignorance (or, less-frequently, ill intentions). It's a straightforward process which requires very little time and effort. | ||
|
shaldengeki
United States104 Posts
On April 08 2013 23:55 tenklavir wrote: Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set. Well, this is overly-harsh IMO. The OP clearly has energy and interest that can be productively directed at improving SC2 discourse; all he needs is a little advice and training on how to make these sorts of inquiries more rigorous. No need to try to shut him up forever, hah. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On April 08 2013 23:55 tenklavir wrote: Please don't do any more of these so-called "stats posts". Cherrypicking a single random variable and attempting to correlate it with winrate flies in the face of basic statistics and common sense. More troubling is that you post all of this "data" with no statistical analysis of any kind and no conclusion, because hopefully you understand that no analysis or conclusion can be drawn from such a poorly sampled, cherrypicked data set. He posts it because it is interesting and it should lead to a discussion, and that we what we do on a forum, discuss things. Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that much of criticism they give is connected with their own personal experience. In this specific case those people who rely on Widow Mines a lot, are trying to discredit and/flame the OP with one liners because they don't want the Widow Mine nerfed. BaaL (5th post in this thread) is the clearest example of this. Look at this link posted in the OP: Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes . And guess who's name pops up in many of these games? BaaL's! So there is a conflict of interest, and much of criticism may be because of that. It certainly isn't the OP's fault that people can't look at data objectively. | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
On April 09 2013 01:03 BronzeKnee wrote: + Show Spoiler + He posts it because it is interesting and it should lead to a discussion, and that we what we do on a forum, discuss things. Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that it is connected to their own personal experience. Those people who rely on Widow Mines a lot, are trying to discredit and/flame the OP with one liners because they don't want the Widow Mine nerfed. BaaL (5th post in this thread) is the clearest example of this. Look at this link (posted in the OP Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes . And guess who's name pops up in many of these games? BaaL's! So there is a conflict of interest, and much of criticism may be because of that. No, you're right. It isn't. It's probably Thomas Bayes' fault. He's to blame. | ||
|
JustPassingBy
10776 Posts
On April 08 2013 23:05 kafkaesque wrote: Pro tip: use your toes and double those math skills. Technically, you can count up to 2^10 on ten fingers, by using your fingers to represent numbers in base 2. An easier way to count over ten on your fingers is counting the segments of your index to little finger (use your thumb to point at the current segment). That's 12 for each hand. And if you're really pro, you can use a mix of the two above to count to 3^8. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On April 09 2013 01:09 Ghanburighan wrote: No, you're right. It isn't. It's probably Thomas Bayes' fault. He's to blame. Thanks for catching my mistake. And just as physics existed before humans were around to name it, the ability to look at data objectively was too. So blame it on the big bang or God or whatever. | ||
|
tenklavir
Slovakia116 Posts
On April 09 2013 01:03 BronzeKnee wrote: He posts it because it is interesting and it should lead to a discussion, and that we what we do on a forum, discuss things. Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that it is connected to their own personal experience. Those people who rely on Widow Mines a lot, are trying to discredit and/flame the OP with one liners because they don't want the Widow Mine nerfed. BaaL (5th post in this thread) is the clearest example of this. Look at this link posted in the OP Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes . And guess who's name pops up in many of these games? BaaL's! So there is a conflict of interest, and much of criticism may be because of that. It certainly isn't the OP's fault that people can look at data objectively. No no no, there is no meaningful discussion that can be had based on the "statistics" posted here. I keep using quotes because they are garbage and anyone that has taken even high school stat understands why. You, BronzeKnee, appear particularly ignorant to any kind of analysis. For instance you asked the OP to add the Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00 data to the OP, describing it as "revealing". What does it reveal, exactly? Especially when one page before that I show you that the Rsq of unweighted correlation between WM% and Win rate is 0.097. From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. What else could you possibly want to discuss from that? I also take particular exception to Anyway, I'd love to see a lot more data without conclusions. Then we can work out the data and add in more data to understand balance. As I mentioned before, people on TL seems to have an affliction to data, and my hunch is that it is connected to their own personal experience. Data without meaningful analysis lets people who don't know any better draw faulty conclusions and stir shit up for no reason. It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining. | ||
|
dsjoerg
United States384 Posts
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: Data without meaningful analysis lets people who don't know any better draw faulty conclusions Yes, which is why I'm suggesting a peer review process. This brouhaha started when someone on Reddit asked a question and I, curse my soul, answered it. Requiring that nobody post/publish anything until they've rigorously analyzed it needlessly limits the number of people who can interact with the data to only those who have pre-publication access (currently only me). I hope there is a way for the community to share and discuss stats, even those that haven't yet been published in the New England Journal of Starcraft Analysis, and thereby learn from them, improve them, and perhaps even establish some standards for how these things should be done. For example, I liked the actuary's suggestion of looking at % army resource value, and I think that clarified the picture considerably. | ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: It is not that we have a problem with data...we have a problem with garbage data and people that use it to attempt to justify their balance whining. Data is defined as "values of qualitative or quantitative variables, belonging to a set of items." In this instance what the OP showed fits the definition of data. And then there are things which aren't data which people sometimes call data. I assume this is what you mean regarding garbage data. This is akin to the fact that people have been calling themselves Christians for thousands of years and using that to justify terrible deeds which are decidedly against the Christian faith. People have and will try and abuse something of authority in order to convince others of something, science and statistics are not immune to this. But just because someone calls it Christianity, statistics, science or whatever, doesn't mean it actually is. The solution to this problem is not the that Christianity, statistics or science are bad and shouldn't be used because people have abused them, the problem lies in the people that abuse them. And we need to call them out and correct them, which is what I've been trying to do the whole time. | ||
|
dsjoerg
United States384 Posts
On April 09 2013 01:19 tenklavir wrote: From this you can effectively conclude that WM% has no effect on Win rate. Hey, look, you just drew a conclusion from the data. That's pretty cool. That's the point of sharing stats. | ||
|
shaldengeki
United States104 Posts
On April 09 2013 01:25 dsjoerg wrote: Requiring that nobody post/publish anything until they've rigorously analyzed it needlessly limits the number of people who can interact with the data to only those who have pre-publication access (currently only me). Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, this I don't really agree with at all, at least in the context of a public forum in which it is well-known that the vast majority of members are largely statistics-illiterate. In a situation like this, I think it's a really good idea for people who are statistics-literate to know not to publish any findings until they've made at least a basic attempt at controlling for confounding variables. Otherwise, you are knowingly running the (almost-certain) risk of the general public taking your preliminary, untested results as more-certain than they really are, and that seems pretty inexcusable to me. It undermines the entire field of statistics when people do things like this. | ||
| ||
