|
On May 02 2013 02:56 Blezza wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:54 Faust852 wrote:
Without WCS EU Qualifers, TvZ would be much more even I think. Well the EU quals are in there becuase they actaully happened? That's like saying Hitler was a nice guy if it wasn't for the holocaust.
Ahh Godwin's law hard at work. But seriously, you can't just pretend some result didn't happen.
On May 02 2013 02:59 PanzerElite wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:56 Blezza wrote:On May 02 2013 02:54 Faust852 wrote:
Without WCS EU Qualifers, TvZ would be much more even I think. Well the EU quals are in there becuase they actaully happened? That's like saying Hitler was a nice guy if it wasn't for the holocaust. Sorry but Korean Terrans destroying foreign zergs =/= a balance indicator.
What? So Shuttle alone is causing those results? Is that really what you are arguing?
|
Qualifier games (especially western ones) in my opinion should not be included. Balancing the game around the level of second tier westerners would indeed be a horrible idea.
|
On May 02 2013 02:52 Alryk wrote:Any reasoning for that lol? 52/48 is almost definitely within margin of error, although we don't know exactly what the margin of error is. I don't know if including qualifiers was a good idea because of the potential for amateur vs pro matches, but there should be so few of them included that they get drowned out in the sample anyways. Kind of interesting statistics, and I'm not too too surprised by what I see. Even 55/45 is potentially close to margin of error, although in this case it's unlikely. I hope we see buffs to zerg and not nerfs to whatever is necessary - it's usually a much more entertaining way of doing the game.
Because it's bullshit, nor sample size, how relevant the sample size or that the numbers actually are showing "balance" are determined or properly explained.
How do we know that the sample size is represental for the game a a whole, how accurate does it reflect the MU's on other leagues such as gold, plat, diamond etc, How does it compare to different regions, like EU, NA and KR etc.
How do we know that these numbers only relate to race balance issues, it could just as well showing bad designed maps, people with actual lower skill meeting other players with better skill or just the fact that certain players are better at playing on high latency and that just happens to be Terran players, or maybe Terran players ARE easier to play during latency compared to the other races.
No methodlogy for data collecting has been determined and no attempt has been made to actually isolate the important variables for proving if one race is better than another, we don't even know what those variables are
People will only start to speculate and make their own shit up as of why this has happened, and depeding of their personal bias they will either confirm or reject the statistics.
|
ZvT looks a bit wrong, then again it's the less played matchup.
|
These kinds of threads always have the same issues.
Your N is too small. You drew N from a pool that includes a VERY WIDE SKILL GAP between the very best and the very worst. There are many people for example that played in WCS qualifiers that aren't capable of playing a macro game without floating 3k minerals in the same data set as innovation.
Data like this needs to be weighted based on player skill and that's complex and would lead to much debate on. Some players regardless of race are just better than others. By weighing skill you isolate down to map and race which is still not perfect, but far better than comparing some dipshit 600 masters player to a guy that makes a living playing sc2.
I'm not saying your data doesn't say anything at all, but it says very little, and what it does say may or may not be relevant to anything at all.
|
and the protosses are complaining.... lol
|
And yet, Zerg has the most HoTS tournament wins so far.
Also, TvZ WAS imbalanced in the first half of the ladder season, but it seems to have evened out much more lately. I think May will be more balanced, especially if you include only premier and major tournaments (WCS qualifiers are NOT places to determine balance).
|
Why the fuck does this include stuff like zotac and Go4sc2
Seriously, we should ONLY be looking at KR win rates.
|
On May 02 2013 02:54 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:52 Alryk wrote:
52/48 is almost definitely within margin of error, although we don't know exactly what the margin of error is.
Nice job of saying absolutely nothing =) If the sample size is large enough, then 52/48 could be a significant difference.
Not really. We weren't given the margin of error, so nobody can be 100% sure, but unless this is a perfect sample (it isn't), 2% is within MoE 95% of the time. So it's a pretty reasonable assumption to make. I'm just not acting like I know everything, lol.
|
I think the numbers look pretty good. It's so early in the games life span and the meta is so volatile right now that trying to read anything from these numbers is foolish. Hopefully we don't slip back into the WoL days of making hasty nerfs. Focus on making the game fun and if there are glaringly bad balance isues you can deal with them.
|
On May 02 2013 03:05 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:52 Alryk wrote:On May 02 2013 02:45 synd wrote:
I don't trust this statistics at all Any reasoning for that lol? 52/48 is almost definitely within margin of error, although we don't know exactly what the margin of error is. I don't know if including qualifiers was a good idea because of the potential for amateur vs pro matches, but there should be so few of them included that they get drowned out in the sample anyways. Kind of interesting statistics, and I'm not too too surprised by what I see. Even 55/45 is potentially close to margin of error, although in this case it's unlikely. I hope we see buffs to zerg and not nerfs to whatever is necessary - it's usually a much more entertaining way of doing the game. Because it's bullshit, nor sample size, how relevant the sample size or that the numbers actually are showing "balance" are determined or properly explained.How do we know that the sample size is represental for the game a a whole, how accurate does it reflect the MU's on other leagues such as gold, plat, diamond etc, How does it compare to different regions, like EU, NA and KR etc. How do we know that these numbers only relate to race balance issues, it could just as well showing bad designed maps, people with actual lower skill meeting other players with better skill or just the fact that certain players are better at playing on high latency and that just happens to be Terran players, or maybe Terran players ARE easier to play during latency compared to the other races. No methodlogy for data collecting has been determined and no attempt has been made to actually isolate the important variables for proving if one race is better than another, we don't even know what those variables are People will only start to speculate and make their own shit up as of why this has happened, and depeding of their personal bias they will either confirm or reject the statistics.
That sc2 statistics guy did the exact same thing for about 2 years and nobody complained. And obviously we aren't looking at gold etc. statistics because it takes too much work. The majority of people however are interested in balancing the game at the pro level, not for bronze players. And while you don't want it to be impossible for a bronze zerg to win, it doesn't make sense to make changes FOR them.
Badly designed maps are a fact of life - there's no way around them. The statistics aren't trying to show that. They're simply showing game balance as is. If you notice, the OP didn't actually bring his opinions into the actual statistics. For what they're intended to represent, they work well. Are they perfect? no not really. But pointing out the things you did makes no sense; the survey doesn't aim to address map balance.
Also, the low vs high latency games are so few and far between that they're drowned out by normal games. Things like that. I don't really feel like explaining all of statistics though lol. You point out bias, but it isn't relevant bias. It's not something they can prevent. How would you gather statistics that determined how good a map was? That's almost entirely subjective.
|
always nice to see people with demands and complaints on the data and a lack of commitment to actually provide "better" data or analysis.
|
On May 02 2013 02:50 sixfour wrote:Flawed methodology with small sample sizes.
Anytime someone says "bla bla bla... the sample size isn't big enough..."
I hear, "I have never taken a university level statistics course."
See Statistical hypothesis testing, sample size determination
|
On May 02 2013 03:05 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:52 Alryk wrote:On May 02 2013 02:45 synd wrote:
I don't trust this statistics at all Any reasoning for that lol? 52/48 is almost definitely within margin of error, although we don't know exactly what the margin of error is. I don't know if including qualifiers was a good idea because of the potential for amateur vs pro matches, but there should be so few of them included that they get drowned out in the sample anyways. Kind of interesting statistics, and I'm not too too surprised by what I see. Even 55/45 is potentially close to margin of error, although in this case it's unlikely. I hope we see buffs to zerg and not nerfs to whatever is necessary - it's usually a much more entertaining way of doing the game. Because it's bullshit, nor sample size, how relevant the sample size or that the numbers actually are showing "balance" are determined or properly explained.How do we know that the sample size is represental for the game a a whole, how accurate does it reflect the MU's on other leagues such as gold, plat, diamond etc, How does it compare to different regions, like EU, NA and KR etc. How do we know that these numbers only relate to race balance issues, it could just as well showing bad designed maps, people with actual lower skill meeting other players with better skill or just the fact that certain players are better at playing on high latency and that just happens to be Terran players, or maybe Terran players ARE easier to play during latency compared to the other races. No methodlogy for data collecting has been determined and no attempt has been made to actually isolate the important variables for proving if one race is better than another, we don't even know what those variables are People will only start to speculate and make their own shit up as of why this has happened, and depeding of their personal bias they will either confirm reject the statistics.
There is a very simple argument for only using professional games and ignoring ladder. Ladder automatically correct win rates to 50%. Thus if the game favors Zerg, a medicore Zerg player will play a good Terran, yet the ladder win rates will not show this entirely.
Using professional games shows how the game is played at the highest level. While a 4 Gate might seem overpowered in Gold, a Platinum player might have the skills to hold it easy. And a Gold player could learn those skills, and then the 4 Gate doesn't seem overpowered. Thus the only way to balance the game is at the top, everyone below simply needs to learn the skills necessary to get to the top before they can complain about balance.
Map balance is related to racial balance. The statistics show that with the current balance and maps, Terran has an advantage over Zerg. Perhaps it is balance, perhaps it is the map. Unfortunately, these two variables are intertwined and can be difficult to seperate. In other words, since Starcraft games have to be played on a map, and strategies are developed based on the map and the strengths and weaknesses of each race the go hand in hand. Remember the Stephano 200 Roach push in PvZ? It lead to the creation of a map pool where thirds were easy to defend because it was easy to deny a Protoss third with that push on some maps.
Furthermore because strategies are developed over a period of time, you can't just use random maps as the independent in determining balance unless tournaments began using random maps (meaning people wouldn't be able to plan strategies for maps and would have adjust on the fly).
Finally, the methodology used is fine. Looking at the win percentages of each race in professional tournaments and comparing them is very useful. Are there uncontrolled variables? Of course. Player skill and latency are huge problems that would be very difficult to control for (though we did control for player skill by picking from tournament games). Also differing map pools between tournaments might lead to different win rates. However, with a large enough sample size, latency and player skill be should evenly effect all races and it is probably worth controlling l for the map pool to some extent.
|
Honestly Sc2 feels the most balanced as it has even been in my opinion. The only thing I really think needs a looking at is Hellbat drops. As for the percentages it really does look about right. Zerg feels like they need help but they rarely use any of the new tools given to them. Yet they are still winning on the pro level. So give them time to play, I think within a few months Zerg Win Rate should jump.
|
On May 02 2013 03:22 Alryk wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 03:05 Integra wrote:On May 02 2013 02:52 Alryk wrote:On May 02 2013 02:45 synd wrote:
I don't trust this statistics at all Any reasoning for that lol? 52/48 is almost definitely within margin of error, although we don't know exactly what the margin of error is. I don't know if including qualifiers was a good idea because of the potential for amateur vs pro matches, but there should be so few of them included that they get drowned out in the sample anyways. Kind of interesting statistics, and I'm not too too surprised by what I see. Even 55/45 is potentially close to margin of error, although in this case it's unlikely. I hope we see buffs to zerg and not nerfs to whatever is necessary - it's usually a much more entertaining way of doing the game. Because it's bullshit, nor sample size, how relevant the sample size or that the numbers actually are showing "balance" are determined or properly explained.How do we know that the sample size is represental for the game a a whole, how accurate does it reflect the MU's on other leagues such as gold, plat, diamond etc, How does it compare to different regions, like EU, NA and KR etc. How do we know that these numbers only relate to race balance issues, it could just as well showing bad designed maps, people with actual lower skill meeting other players with better skill or just the fact that certain players are better at playing on high latency and that just happens to be Terran players, or maybe Terran players ARE easier to play during latency compared to the other races. No methodlogy for data collecting has been determined and no attempt has been made to actually isolate the important variables for proving if one race is better than another, we don't even know what those variables are People will only start to speculate and make their own shit up as of why this has happened, and depeding of their personal bias they will either confirm or reject the statistics. That sc2 statistics guy did the exact same thing for about 2 years and nobody complained. And obviously we aren't looking at gold etc. statistics because it takes too much work. The majority of people however are interested in balancing the game at the pro level, not for bronze players. And while you don't want it to be impossible for a bronze zerg to win, it doesn't make sense to make changes FOR them. Badly designed maps are a fact of life - there's no way around them. The statistics aren't trying to show that. They're simply showing game balance as is. If you notice, the OP didn't actually bring his opinions into the actual statistics. For what they're intended to represent, they work well. Are they perfect? no not really. But pointing out the things you did makes no sense; the survey doesn't aim to address map balance. Also, the low vs high latency games are so few and far between that they're drowned out by normal games. Things like that. I don't really feel like explaining all of statistics though lol. You point out bias, but it isn't relevant bias. It's not something they can prevent. How would you gather statistics that determined how good a map was? That's almost entirely subjective.
So by other words, it could mean ANYTHING, and thus is just useless statitsics with no real intent or clear focus or aim.
@BronzeKnee; thank you for proving my point regarding speculation and making their own shit up regarding what it it could mean.
|
On May 02 2013 02:54 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:52 Alryk wrote:
52/48 is almost definitely within margin of error, although we don't know exactly what the margin of error is.
Nice job of saying absolutely nothing =) If the sample size is large enough, then 52/48 could be a significant difference.
Well, 52/48 even with 1000 games would not be considered significant. Many of the games will not be completely independent from each other because it will be the same player playing. If you have 5 Korean Code S Terrans and 5 American Zergs play 200 matches each, then the statistics do not mean much at all ^_^. (Obvious extreme example).
Statistics in SC2 are very hard to do "properly" due to how many factors there are and how hard it is to get "good data". The general statistics are about as good as we can get, I'm afraid.
I actually think Bo1's (ladder matches) should be ignored. If you count a Bo3 as 1 win for whatever race, then you will likely get better statistics. You will obviously have a smaller sample size to use, but as we all know a Bo3 is a better representation than a Bo1. And a Bo5 > Bo3, and Bo7 > Bo5!
|
On May 02 2013 02:56 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On May 02 2013 02:47 Blezza wrote:
Tbh that ZvP stat looks fine, only ZvT is a problem right now the problem is that zerg hasn't adapted to the new metagame
Excuse me for a second.
+ Show Spoiler +ahahahahhahahahahahahahahahah
|
Maybe zerg players need to use new units, I am sure there are undiscovered builds/army compositions. Remember when no one used the infestor then when Stephano popularized it, people were whining that zerg was imba?
|
I was baffled by the TvZ. Thought zerg won way more actually.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
