|
doesnt really mean anything. games been out a month. more time is needed to develop new builds and strategies to evolve the meta game and deal with new units like the mine.
its at the very least, an interesting statistic for the time being.
|
On April 08 2013 11:26 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:21 ETisME wrote:On April 08 2013 11:11 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:10 sibs wrote:This was true for 2010 and 2011 but after all the terran early game nerfs and the queen buff on top of it terran had the worst early game rushes which was proven statistically. is this a troll post? Zerg has by far the worst early game cheeses, from 2010 to 2013, I don't see how this is even arguable, protoss doesn't have much either, I think terran has had best early game shenanigans throughout all the patches. i dno, post-patch, any combination of 2-base roach, ling, bane pressure against greedy terrans does a heck of a lot more damage than terran all-ins against greedy zergs who defend with 6 queens. I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy... hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote:[quote] Well there ya go. OP is either wrong or obvious. Or both!  In other news, here's the >10 mutas stats: well with the muta analysis, have we not reached a similar conclusion for ZvP? 49% with less than 10 mutas, 63% with more than 10 mutas for master level. the GM level is even greater (but with less sample size, of course). so we should also discuss how mutas are very strong in ZvP, stronger than widow mines are in TvZ nice stats, btw :D commend you on that! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid. EXACTLY! Thank you! But remember this, those conclusions that argue that Widow Mines are not overpowered now have to be independent of the statistic presented! Otherwise they are invalid! and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them. You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack. no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong"
You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say:
On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats
Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?"
The fact that you could find statistics like that other units has nothing to do with this thread. Those statistics are better left for another thread.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On April 08 2013 11:33 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:26 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:21 ETisME wrote:On April 08 2013 11:11 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:10 sibs wrote:This was true for 2010 and 2011 but after all the terran early game nerfs and the queen buff on top of it terran had the worst early game rushes which was proven statistically. is this a troll post? Zerg has by far the worst early game cheeses, from 2010 to 2013, I don't see how this is even arguable, protoss doesn't have much either, I think terran has had best early game shenanigans throughout all the patches. i dno, post-patch, any combination of 2-base roach, ling, bane pressure against greedy terrans does a heck of a lot more damage than terran all-ins against greedy zergs who defend with 6 queens. I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy... hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:
[quote]
well with the muta analysis, have we not reached a similar conclusion for ZvP? 49% with less than 10 mutas, 63% with more than 10 mutas for master level. the GM level is even greater (but with less sample size, of course). so we should also discuss how mutas are very strong in ZvP, stronger than widow mines are in TvZ
nice stats, btw :D commend you on that! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid. EXACTLY! Thank you! But remember this, those conclusions that argue that Widow Mines are not overpowered now have to be independent of the statistic presented! Otherwise they are invalid! and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them. You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack. no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong" You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say: Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?" The fact is it true for other units has nothing to do with this thread, or the statistics.
don't put words into my mouth, i said what i have said, and that's apparent to the other posters in this thread, thanks.
that's enough for this conversation, i'm not going to reply anymore
|
On April 08 2013 11:34 opterown wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:26 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:21 ETisME wrote:On April 08 2013 11:11 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:10 sibs wrote:This was true for 2010 and 2011 but after all the terran early game nerfs and the queen buff on top of it terran had the worst early game rushes which was proven statistically. is this a troll post? Zerg has by far the worst early game cheeses, from 2010 to 2013, I don't see how this is even arguable, protoss doesn't have much either, I think terran has had best early game shenanigans throughout all the patches. i dno, post-patch, any combination of 2-base roach, ling, bane pressure against greedy terrans does a heck of a lot more damage than terran all-ins against greedy zergs who defend with 6 queens. I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy... hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP.
However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win.
when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid. EXACTLY! Thank you! But remember this, those conclusions that argue that Widow Mines are not overpowered now have to be independent of the statistic presented! Otherwise they are invalid! and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them. You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack. no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong" You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?" The fact is it true for other units has nothing to do with this thread, or the statistics. don't put words into my mouth, i said what i have said, and that's apparent to the other posters in this thread, thanks.
Well, you could have chose to commend him and say nice stats and give the little smile, but you didn't... and that says what it says too. That statement you gave doesn't foster further discussion, it just discredits what the OP is trying to show by saying other things can be shown in the same light. That is what the statement does.
|
|
|
This doesnt really saying anything. I mean, 10 is a random number in the first place to do a cutoff. Second, you could get this same data by arbitrarily picking random units Terran does or does not make. At best it's simply saying widow mines are an effective unit in the matchup. Just as are marines, marauders, medivacs, etc. It means nothing.
|
Okay, here's how to improve this analysis and control for some more variables.
1. Early-game shenanigans.
We need to control for these. How would we do that? Well, I would recommend finding the minimum time in all of the replays that 10 Widow Mines was achieved. Then, remove any games under this time from the sample. So, if it takes 10:00 to build 10 Widow Mines at the minimum, remove all those 4:30 11/11 games.
2. Already existing advantages.
Simply check each game and at the time when 10 Widow Mines were produced, check if the Terran was up in supply by 20 or more. If the Terran was already far ahead in supply, it is likely that Widow Mines did not contribute significantly to the Terran's victory.
3. Check the distribution of Widow Mine usage within Masters.
Notice that the proportion of Widow Mine games increases as you move up through the leagues? This may be because Bronze players cannot effectively control Widow Mines, whereas Masters players are proficient with them. Is it possible that such a gradient also exists within Masters (High Masters players use Widow Mines more often than Low Masters players). If so, then see if this is a cause (more skilled players use Widow Mines, leading to higher win rates) or an effect (Widow Mines are OP, so Terrans that use them are ranked higher).
4. Examine why Widow Mines were not used.
Maybe the Terran didn't go for Widow Mines because the Zerg had mass Ultralisks and the Terran thought that going Widow Mines would not help at all. In this case, the Terran's subsequent loss does not prove that Widow Mines would have fared any better.
5. Look at professional games.
|
|
|
On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote:On April 08 2013 10:48 Emzeeshady wrote:
Also, we already knew Widow Mines are really good vs Zerg. This isn't all that informative. Well there ya go. OP is either wrong or obvious. Or both! In other news, here's the >10 mutas stats: well with the muta analysis, have we not reached a similar conclusion for ZvP? 49% with less than 10 mutas, 63% with more than 10 mutas for master level. the GM level is even greater (but with less sample size, of course). so we should also discuss how mutas are very strong in ZvP, stronger than widow mines are in TvZ nice stats, btw :D commend you on that! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid. EXACTLY! Thank you! But remember this, those conclusions that argue that Widow Mines are not overpowered now have to be independent of the statistic presented! Otherwise they are invalid!
Here's a conclusion for you: Widow mines are not OP because Terran winrates aren't ballooning out of control. Master Terrans are winning ~52.5% of their TvZs with that very same data, and the assumption with the game is that everything is "balanced" until proven otherwise. To conclude anything along the lines of "widow mines OP" is to show an inherent bias against Terran, as well as balance in general.
The topic itself is a goddamn farce because of what others have mentioned. It's a limited analysis, based on a very specific statistics, which leaves out a TON of context. Even context which can be provided by the source, GGTracker, is strangely absent, like winrates at other thresholds of widow mines, winrates for other units of Terran at different thresholds, and winrates of other units from other races at various thresholds.
|
Epic findings. And not in a good way.
|
On April 08 2013 11:41 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 10:57 dsjoerg wrote:On April 08 2013 10:48 Emzeeshady wrote:
Also, we already knew Widow Mines are really good vs Zerg. This isn't all that informative. Well there ya go. OP is either wrong or obvious. Or both! In other news, here's the >10 mutas stats: well with the muta analysis, have we not reached a similar conclusion for ZvP? 49% with less than 10 mutas, 63% with more than 10 mutas for master level. the GM level is even greater (but with less sample size, of course). so we should also discuss how mutas are very strong in ZvP, stronger than widow mines are in TvZ nice stats, btw :D commend you on that! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid. EXACTLY! Thank you! But remember this, those conclusions that argue that Widow Mines are not overpowered now have to be independent of the statistic presented! Otherwise they are invalid! Here's a conclusion for you: Widow mines are not OP because Terran winrates aren't ballooning out of control. Master Terrans are winning ~52.5% of their TvZs with that very same data, and the assumption with the game is that everything is "balanced" until proven otherwise. To conclude anything along the lines of "widow mines OP" is to show an inherent bias against Terran, as well as balance in general. The topic itself is a goddamn farce because of what others have mentioned. It's a limited analysis, based on a very specific statistics, which leaves out a TON of context. Even context which can be provided by the source, GGTracker, is strangely absent, like winrates at other thresholds of widow mines, winrates for other units of Terran at different thresholds, and winrates of other units from other races at various thresholds.
"...i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid."
You can draw whatever conclusion you want, but what I quoted above is what I was arguing and what I think of your conclusion. The statistic is what it is, and I think Entirety is on the right path.
This statistic shows what could be an issue, and we should look into it more before deciding it is or it isn't. Simply stating it is or isn't a problem is not a valid conclusion, and is the problem is thinking those kind of conclusions are valid.
|
I predict this thread will devolve into an all out balance war soon.
|
This is a terrible thread who will obvioulsy, and one more time, lead to zerg tears against terran and wm.
|
So, it was a disguised whine thread ! Never think that would happens.
|
ive never seen a more useless stat
gz
|
On April 08 2013 11:33 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:26 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:21 ETisME wrote:On April 08 2013 11:11 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:10 sibs wrote:This was true for 2010 and 2011 but after all the terran early game nerfs and the queen buff on top of it terran had the worst early game rushes which was proven statistically. is this a troll post? Zerg has by far the worst early game cheeses, from 2010 to 2013, I don't see how this is even arguable, protoss doesn't have much either, I think terran has had best early game shenanigans throughout all the patches. i dno, post-patch, any combination of 2-base roach, ling, bane pressure against greedy terrans does a heck of a lot more damage than terran all-ins against greedy zergs who defend with 6 queens. I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy... hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:00 opterown wrote:
[quote]
well with the muta analysis, have we not reached a similar conclusion for ZvP? 49% with less than 10 mutas, 63% with more than 10 mutas for master level. the GM level is even greater (but with less sample size, of course). so we should also discuss how mutas are very strong in ZvP, stronger than widow mines are in TvZ
nice stats, btw :D commend you on that! So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP. However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win. when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid. EXACTLY! Thank you! But remember this, those conclusions that argue that Widow Mines are not overpowered now have to be independent of the statistic presented! Otherwise they are invalid! and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them. You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack. no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong" You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say: Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?" The fact that you could find statistics like that other units has nothing to do with this thread. Those statistics are better left for another thread.
Bronze, you do realise that you just accused opterown of backtracking and when he shut down your bad logic you went and backtracked yourself to attack his first post?
Also, I get that you were trying to defend the OP here, but you kinda made a complete fool of yourself by berating opterown for dismissing the OP and commending "the Mutalisk guy" because.. + Show Spoiler +OP is "the Mutalisk guy"!
|
It's probably also true Terran has a higher win rate with >7 SCVs produced in a game vs. <7 SCVs. I chose 7 because I didn't want to choose 10. This doesn't really prove that SCVs are OP though...
|
These are potentially interesting statistics, although people are right that we shouldn't be too quick to draw conclusions from them. As some others mentioned, it would be valuable to control for games that end very early. And just to have some idea what these numbers even mean, there should be similar analyses for a number of existing units — ones from WoL that most people can agree are probably not imbalanced in HotS. For example, win rates in games with >10 tanks, win rates with >8 infestors, win rates with >6 battlecruisers, etc.
I'd predict games with >10 tanks don't vary that much from the overall winrate, games with <8 infestors are significantly higher, and games with >6 battlecruisers have win rates above 70% (since any game that allows the Terran to safely transition into air Terran is probably a game that Terran was winning).
|
On April 08 2013 12:09 Myrddraal wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 11:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:26 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:21 ETisME wrote:On April 08 2013 11:11 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:10 sibs wrote:This was true for 2010 and 2011 but after all the terran early game nerfs and the queen buff on top of it terran had the worst early game rushes which was proven statistically. is this a troll post? Zerg has by far the worst early game cheeses, from 2010 to 2013, I don't see how this is even arguable, protoss doesn't have much either, I think terran has had best early game shenanigans throughout all the patches. i dno, post-patch, any combination of 2-base roach, ling, bane pressure against greedy terrans does a heck of a lot more damage than terran all-ins against greedy zergs who defend with 6 queens. I don't think opening with 6 queens should be considered as greedy... hatch first into pool into no gas and a third base, then six queens off three base is pretty greedy :D On April 08 2013 11:25 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:19 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:17 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:14 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:13 BronzeKnee wrote:On April 08 2013 11:06 opterown wrote:On April 08 2013 11:04 BronzeKnee wrote:
[quote]
So, you just admitted that his analysis of Widow Mines was correct. And this also explains why every Zerg build Mutalisks in ZvP.
However, the reasoning is pretty simple. In WoL, Storm would eat away at Mutalisk packs, while in HotS a single storm isn't crippling because they can move off and regen. Thus Protoss players are forced more and more into Phoenixes, which is similar to when a Protoss player forces a Zerg into Corrupters, you can switch quickly into ground units and just win.
when did i say it was correct? i said: if you claim that widow mines are strong against zerg, i expect a similar claim for zvp. no such claim has come out. the fact that mutas, another tier 2 unit has even a greater differential in stats should be a bigger concern. therefore by following your line of reasoning, we need to nerf mutas before we nerf widow mines :D i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion I'm going try and explain this as simply as possible. Reading the OP, we find that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics. That is the analysis and the conclusion. Though the OP states "Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ" It basically says nothing. So now you state: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats And then someone states such statistics. You commend the work and effort. By commending the work and effort, you are basically saying "hey look you did a good job collecting statistics" and that is opposed to doing a bad job, in which the statistics are basically wrong. Thus, since the analysis and conclusion were based entirely on the collection of statistics and he makes no inference on whether or not Widow Mines are OP, and then you commend the very same process of statistical collection, you have agreed to the conclusion of the OP which is: "that people who make 10+ Widow Mines in TvZ have a 10% high winrate based on GGtracker statistics." cool, so you get some winrates. i'm not attacking those numbers, i'm saying the conclusions that a lot of people are going to make are invalid. EXACTLY! Thank you! But remember this, those conclusions that argue that Widow Mines are not overpowered now have to be independent of the statistic presented! Otherwise they are invalid! and whenever did i say the statistics were wrong? i claimed that a) analysis of over/under 10 of other units would get similar stats b) you cannot conclude anything significant from this so i don't quite get why you are specifically talking to me about this I caught you in an logical inconsistency and I'm pressing it to prove my point, that statistics don't lie, only those who abuse them. You stated the conclusion of the OP was wrong "when did i say it was correct?... i commend his work and effort, not his analysis or conclusion", but the conclusion was the statistics. Now your trying to backtrack. no, i never said it was wrong or right, go read the posts. "when did i say it was correct" does not mean "it is wrong" You could have come in here and said "nice stats I commend the effort" like you did with the Mutalisk guy, but you didn't you choose to come in and say: On April 08 2013 10:30 opterown wrote:
i bet if you compared games with over/under ten mutalisks, or over/under ten high templar, etc you would get similar stats Now what is that? Well, it is an attempt to discredit the person who made the thread by saying "well of course, you could find statistics like that other units, who cares?" The fact that you could find statistics like that other units has nothing to do with this thread. Those statistics are better left for another thread. Bronze, you do realise that you just accused opterown of backtracking and when he shut down your bad logic you went and backtracked yourself to attack his first post? Also, I get that you were trying to defend the OP here, but you kinda made a complete fool of yourself by berating opterown for dismissing the OP and commending "the Mutalisk guy" because.. + Show Spoiler +OP is "the Mutalisk guy"! .
The fact the Mutalisk guy is the OP doesn't change anything regarding the conclusions of what was said or done. I could be the Mutalisk guy and the OP, still nothing would have changed.
And I didn't backtrack to attack his first post, re-read the whole chain.
|
On April 08 2013 11:41 aksfjh wrote:
Here's a conclusion for you: Widow mines are not OP because Terran winrates aren't ballooning out of control.
Simple ladder winrates have been soundly debunked as an indicator of balance. The reason being that the ladder MMR machinery ensures a ~50% winrate in aggregate. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=393423 and especially this comment from reddit.
The topic itself is a goddamn farce because of what others have mentioned. It's a limited analysis, based on a very specific statistics, which leaves out a TON of context. Even context which can be provided by the source, GGTracker, is strangely absent, like winrates at other thresholds of widow mines, winrates for other units of Terran at different thresholds, and winrates of other units from other races at various thresholds.
If people are interested in being able to generate these kind of stats for themselves I can add some pages to the GGTracker site to let them do that. I'd probably make it a GGTracker Pro thing because it's pretty punishing on the database at the moment.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
