|
So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please 
OP obviously had an agenda, regardless of how good/bad/accurate the statistics are.
I think we all invite him to do a similar statistical analysis for vipers, and oracles from the other races.
See, the thing is, it's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you only show one perspective.
The only thing people should take from this is that all of the new units have had an impact on the game, which was quite obvious and it's quite unnecessary to present an entire set of statistical data to make such a common sense statement.
What people should not take from this thread? "Widow mine is OP." As I said, any math majors or people willing to put time into such statistics such as this, go ahead and do one for the viper, for the oracle, the new DT, and the myriad of other new units. You'll probably find a similar set of conclusions that "the new units have impacted their respective races win percentages."
I love looking at statistical data, what I do not love is when there is an agenda behind it. It's quite obvious this thread is capitalizing on all of the recent "T OP" hysteria.
|
You don't want math majors to get involved here. I guarantee you it will be even more incomprehensible and inaccessible to the layperson. 
|
On April 09 2013 02:31 eecs4ever wrote:
Im pretty sure if you ran the stats for any many other units, you would see a similar %
for example, try games where T makes 10+ medivacs vs T makes less than 10 medivacs. I bet it shows 10+ medivacs will have a higher win %.
or 10+ tanks, or 10+ ravens, or 10+ BCs
Not necessarily. In WOL the longer the game went the worse it was for Terran, so making more than 10 medivacs probably did not mean Terran was more likely to win, probably just the opposite. Now, Terran late game, at least against Z, is a bit improved because of how efficient WMs are against most Z compositions in addition to buffed ravens so perhaps Terran win rates have improved in the late game. You still have to look at the data.
Also it's very easy to make 10 widow mines. You can do so in a normal rax-expand build at around the 12-13 minute mark. It is not easy at all to make 10 ravens or 10 bcs. If you look at those statistics you're comparing Terran in the ultra late game to all other games. The two are not comparable.
W/r/t the statistics the OP posted, I would like to see the same stats but have them further broken down by the length of games -- e.g., in games over 15 minutes: players who made >10 WM won 5X% of the time v players who made <10 WMs won 4X% of the time.
Edit: In response to the balance complains and balance defenses that are sprinkled throughout this forum, I note that the OP's data means almost nothing since balance is defined by the best players in the world. This data needs to be collected and analyzed for the GSL, proleague and for the top foreign tounaments, and these tournaments have just barely gotten underway. GM is generally too large a class of players to draw any balance conclusions from unless the data scream imbalance (e.g., in the beginning phases of WOL, there were periods where 19 of the top 20 players on KR GM server were T as measured by win rates; HoTS appears to be far better balanced.). Also the game needs to be played for at least a few more months before anyone can conclude that any composition is OP or any unit needs nerfing.
|
On April 09 2013 02:26 shaldengeki wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 01:50 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 09 2013 01:49 shaldengeki wrote:On April 09 2013 01:44 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 09 2013 01:39 tenklavir wrote:On April 09 2013 01:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 09 2013 01:32 tenklavir wrote:On April 09 2013 01:27 BronzeKnee wrote: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. It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue? Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again: 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? Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP. No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk. I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim. So you said: "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." What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference). So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z). Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart. Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that: - Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
- The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
- A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence Let's us be really clear. I didn't say anything, the chart said it. I am just repeating it. If I wasn't on this forum right now, it would still say exactly the same thing. It is independent of me. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8Y75XGl.png) This isn't you versus me or him or whatever, this is us trying to understand the data and the game. Now the chart didn't answer any of the questions you asked, but maybe we can get some answers, because it would sure be useful. Just make sure there isn't any bias here in the questions you are asking. We aren't trying to show everything is or isn't balanced, we are trying to find out if things are balanced or not. The problem with this is that the chart doesn't say that T wins more against Z. It says that these games happened, not that they're representative of (or generalize-able to) any larger superset of games between players. So you see, what you're specifically claiming when you say "T wins more than Z" is really important, because it's clearly a more general statement than what the chart indicates!
Alright, you're right, I left room for error in what I said. I should have said that T wins more than Z according the statistics collected from GGtracker . Naturally we know that GGtracker statistics are not representative of all SC2 game, but that should be a given.
Nor it is a reason to simply dismiss GGtracker statistics as wrong though! They should be explained. It is probably safe to assume that GGtracker statistics themselves have no agenda if they are being report correctly. Finally, it is important to note that there is very few examples of statistics that are representative of all cases for anything.
So with the error cleared up, can we finally move toward explaing the GGtracker statistics properly?
On April 09 2013 02:29 Applesmack wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 01:50 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 09 2013 01:49 shaldengeki wrote:On April 09 2013 01:44 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 09 2013 01:39 tenklavir wrote:On April 09 2013 01:35 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 09 2013 01:32 tenklavir wrote:On April 09 2013 01:27 BronzeKnee wrote: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. It's garbage because of sample size, noise, attempts to correlate random variables on arbitrarily chosen parameters...shall I continue? Odd that you want to call people out when you conveniently ignored my questions, so I'll try again: 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? Adding the chart to the OP made what you just described above clear to everyone. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP. No it doesn't. None of the very-basic correlation analysis I posted was added to the OP which would immediately tell anyone looking at it why it's all bunk. I can't tell if you're intentionally being dense or you truly lack the mathematical background to understand what is being discussed here. It also showed a different problem, Terran is winning a lot than Zerg in TvZ. That is why it should be added to the OP On what basis are you concluding this? Please point to the exact metric and parameters you are using to make this claim. So you said: "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." What your saying (correct me if I am wrong) is you found that that WM% has no effect on Win rate. And the chart basically shows that (though there is some deviation, but I haven't calculated whether or not it is a significant difference). So you're asking me what the chart reveals that your calculation didn't. And I answered that (T wins more than Z). Then you just ask on what basis am I concluding that T wins more than Z. That is based on the chart. Well, let's be more specific. When you say "T wins more than Z", what do you really mean? Are you saying that: - Terran players, when playing against Zerg players, win more than 50% of the time across the entire population of SC2 players?
- The above statement, for only the top N% of players with regards to skill*?
- A Terran player, when playing Zerg player of equal skill*, will win more than 50% of the time?
* note that skill in SC2 is still very much ill-defined, so it's going to be very tough for you to claim that this sort of conclusion is supported by any extant evidence Let's us be really clear. I didn't say anything, the chart said it. I am just repeating it. If I wasn't on this forum right now, it would still say exactly the same thing. It is independent of me. This isn't you versus me or him or whatever, this is us trying to understand the data and the game. Now the chart didn't answer any of the questions you asked, but maybe we can get some answers, because it would sure be useful. Just make sure there isn't any bias here in the questions you are asking. We aren't trying to show everything is or isn't balanced, we are trying to find out if things are balanced or not. Looking at that chart, I see absolutely no correlation that would suggest that Widow Mine is imbalanced. Your data is all over the place and generally hovers in the mid-50 % winrate, which is perfectly fine.
And that is exactly what I was saying. But that it does state is that Zerg wins more than Terran in games from GGtracker. That warrants a discussion in my opinion.
On April 09 2013 02:47 avilo wrote:So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please
Oh look the Opterown discussion all over again! Again so if we decide to do this for Tempests, Vipers and Void Rays, suddenly then the data becomes okay? But if we don't, the data is somehow skewed?
Guess what, the data doesn't change either way. Those other things are unrelated. Should we collect data for those? Sure.
I think I will write something up about how what we decide to test is subjective, but the testing process if done correctly, is always objective. That applies here.
|
On April 09 2013 01:27 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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.
By the definition you quoted I could write a statement about why Ultras are overpowered(not my opinion just an example) and fill it with rage and bad arguments and it would still be considered data. Would this statement be a good point to start a discussion from? Of course not and neither is the "data" in the OP it's biased and not true to statistical standards it's just random data which is invaluable for proper analysis.
|
On April 09 2013 03:05 Baum wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 01:27 BronzeKnee wrote: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. By the definition you quoted I could write a statement about why Ultras are overpowered(not my opinion just an example) and fill it with rage and bad arguments and it would still be considered data. Would this statement be a good point to start a discussion from? Of course not and neither is the "data" in the OP it's biased and not true to statistical standards it's just random data which is invaluable for proper analysis.
Okay, so let me fix the definition... and then all my arguments stand... which has nothing to do with whether or not the OP is biased or true to statistical standards. Find an actual problem with the statistics instead of a problem with the semantics. So why is the data invaluable for proper analysis? How can we improve it? Seems to me like you guys aren't interested in that, you're interested in protecting Widow Mines (Avilo...)
I'll find a better definition later, I have to go to work.
|
you should do that for infestor , templar , collosus , dt , tank , broodlord .
im sure if you got more of one realy strong unit you win more game !! if you got only 1 collus vs 10 im sure you win more game , same for infestor , broodlord and so on ....
zerg whiner get more creative ,
|
EDIT:
Here are winrates for Master 1v1 Ladder TvZ, grouped by what % of the Terran's Active Army resources were devoted to Widow Mines at 15:00
Hmm dont disproove these winrates your whole asumption?
Looking at these winrates i cant see anny advantage in making more widdow mines, the results look rather random with the 2 highest winrates even at a low percentage of resources spend on wm.
|
On April 09 2013 02:47 avilo wrote:So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please OP obviously had an agenda, regardless of how good/bad/accurate the statistics are. I think we all invite him to do a similar statistical analysis for vipers, and oracles from the other races. See, the thing is, it's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you only show one perspective. The only thing people should take from this is that all of the new units have had an impact on the game, which was quite obvious and it's quite unnecessary to present an entire set of statistical data to make such a common sense statement. What people should not take from this thread? "Widow mine is OP." As I said, any math majors or people willing to put time into such statistics such as this, go ahead and do one for the viper, for the oracle, the new DT, and the myriad of other new units. You'll probably find a similar set of conclusions that "the new units have impacted their respective races win percentages." I love looking at statistical data, what I do not love is when there is an agenda behind it. It's quite obvious this thread is capitalizing on all of the recent "T OP" hysteria.
While I agree with you, you were one of the vocal leaders of the "Z OP" hysteria. Forever.
|
I dont really understand people saying these stats mean nothing. I know mines are great, D Kim said in an interview they would nerf them, just don't know how at the moment, and statistics prove that too.
|
You could just as easily have done research into games where Terran opens rax fe into hellions compared to terran who go rax fe > more raxes and find that terran using hellions as an opening vs z would be doing statistically better, it doesn't mean anything except that hellions fare better than marines as an opening against the average masters player.
|
Regardless of how these stats are made and interpreted, can we even take the ladder as a good showcase of the current state of balance ? GM players practice on battlenet, they try stuff, they do not compete.
|
On April 09 2013 02:59 BronzeKnee wrote:
Oh look the Opterown discussion all over again! Again so if we decide to do this for Tempests, Vipers and Void Rays, suddenly then the data becomes okay? But if we don't, the data is somehow skewed?
I really think the criteria picked is flawed on another level of meaning. You basically throw away the timestamps, therefore 2 mines build every 5 minutes in a long game is equal to massing those in early stages of the game which just leads to fundamental flaws in the logic used to make a conclusion.
Even more so about the "Masters TvZ Widow Mine % of Active Army @ 15:00", you should be able to see that the highest winrates are related to the 5-15%[60-65%] with a peak at 30%, which is most likely caused by the surprize more than anything.
Moreover, the topic name is vastly different from the content inside. Which makes me think about the real purpose behind making it in the first place.
|
I did it for SCVs once, and yup, SCVs are OP and should be nerfed.
|
On April 09 2013 03:38 IPA wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 02:47 avilo wrote:So, now do this for vipers, tempests, void rays, and oracles in early game TvP openings please OP obviously had an agenda, regardless of how good/bad/accurate the statistics are. I think we all invite him to do a similar statistical analysis for vipers, and oracles from the other races. See, the thing is, it's easy to lie with statistics, especially when you only show one perspective. The only thing people should take from this is that all of the new units have had an impact on the game, which was quite obvious and it's quite unnecessary to present an entire set of statistical data to make such a common sense statement. What people should not take from this thread? "Widow mine is OP." As I said, any math majors or people willing to put time into such statistics such as this, go ahead and do one for the viper, for the oracle, the new DT, and the myriad of other new units. You'll probably find a similar set of conclusions that "the new units have impacted their respective races win percentages." I love looking at statistical data, what I do not love is when there is an agenda behind it. It's quite obvious this thread is capitalizing on all of the recent "T OP" hysteria. While I agree with you, you were one of the vocal leaders of the "Z OP" hysteria. Forever.
Pretty sure he still is, he did it throughout all of WoL even when zerg was doing god awful and terran was still dominating he said zerg OP and I highly doubt he's done doing that in hots.
|
this might also prove that buildings are also OP
Terran win rate with building at least 1 barracks is higher then the terrans who dont build any
|
On April 09 2013 03:08 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 03:05 Baum wrote:On April 09 2013 01:27 BronzeKnee wrote: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. By the definition you quoted I could write a statement about why Ultras are overpowered(not my opinion just an example) and fill it with rage and bad arguments and it would still be considered data. Would this statement be a good point to start a discussion from? Of course not and neither is the "data" in the OP it's biased and not true to statistical standards it's just random data which is invaluable for proper analysis. Okay, so let me fix the definition... and then all my arguments stand... which has nothing to do with whether or not the OP is biased or true to statistical standards. Find an actual problem with the statistics instead of a problem with the semantics. So why is the data invaluable for proper analysis? How can we improve it? Seems to me like you guys aren't interested in that, you're interested in protecting Widow Mines (Avilo...) I'll find a better definition later, I have to go to work.
There already were enough people in this thread telling you why there is a problem with the data from a perspective of statistical analysis but you keep ignoring that. I am not emphasizing on semantics I am trying to point out the flaws in your line of thinking. There is nothing wrong with the definition from my point actually it's just that data is not always valuable for discussion or analysis.
|
Widow mines is just broken vs Zergs. They need a new design re haul
|
On April 09 2013 04:08 triforks wrote:
this might also prove that buildings are also OP
Terran win rate with building at least 1 barracks is higher then the terrans who dont build any
Suggested Barracks Nerf
Barracks now require a Supply Depot and an Armory
|
On April 09 2013 03:50 Cheerio wrote:
I dont really understand people saying these stats mean nothing. I know mines are great, D Kim said in an interview they would nerf them, just don't know how at the moment, and statistics prove that too.
Fundamentally, this analysis is a simple correlation between two variables: percentage composition of widow mines in army and winrate for Terran players. There are several critical problems with the analysis performed on the data in this thread.
First, there is exactly zero attempt made at finding confounding variables; that is, variables that correlate with both of the variables being investigated. For instance, incidents of software piracy over time correlates with global average temperature over time, but this doesn't mean that software piracy is meaningfully related to global warming. There are confounding variables here - technological development, population, etc - that each influence both of these things and cause them to appear related upon first glance.
Second, the sample sizes presented in this thread are small, and as a result there are doubts with regards to the representativeness of the dataset and to what degree we can generalize the findings from this dataset to larger sets that we're actually interested in, like all professional players. These need to be addressed, and can be done so by simply acquiring more data.
There are further methodological issues that others have brought up, but these are the two biggest problems with trying to conclude anything meaningful about the general state of game balance from the analysis performed in this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
