|
On July 02 2013 07:17 Lunareste wrote:
I don't understand why everyone is so quick to try and toss out the Proleague results and say they skew balance or don't count, because the matchups are BO1 and there are a ton of Protoss?
In my opinion, Bo1 counts every bit as much as a Bo3. If Protoss wins with tricky builds or specific timing attacks, isn't that part of the game, each race and their viable tactics over the course of a game?
I can see people disagreeing whether or not that's what Protoss most potent tools should be, but ultimately that's opinion and conjecture; Protoss clearly has the ability to compete with Terran and Zerg in the mid and late game, as well as the ability to switch up their builds and use a variety of timing attacks or all-ins just as well as Terran and Zerg can.
I mean every series may as well be a Bo7 between both players, and we may as well start the game off with each player having 3 bases and max'd armies if nothing but 200/200 macro games should count towards balance. Metagaming and understanding your opponent are important, and it isn't like Protoss are the only players capable of doing those two things even if it's a bo1 setting.
Wowow, get your logic out of here, stats show that the game is actually pretty well balanced, that doesn't match my 'Oh my god terran is so broken they win everything' image.
Jokes aside, not sure why people are claiming Chaosterran isn't reliable, previous months showed terran having the highest winrate and he posted those aswel all the same.
|
On July 02 2013 06:52 Zarahtra wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 06:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2013 06:27 TheDwf wrote:On July 02 2013 06:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 02 2013 05:18 Yorbon wrote:
a bunker change would be appreciated That's what I'm thinking. Although I still don't understand why hellbats can be healed by a medivac, when they can already be repaired as mech units. Was there ever an official statement as to why it has both recovering abilities? I don't know about their reasoning for that, but at any rate it is of precious help against Zealots with superior upgrades coming from super quick Forges. Yeah I know  lol. They're already hellbats though, which are made to counter zealots and other mass melee units via funneling. Not sure why they need the medivac healing them too. But I can live with that in PvT I guess. Watching TvT hellbat vs. hellbat has just become boring to me, because it seems like it's not much of a risk to go hellbats... even one good drop out of four seems to deal huge damage. Hellbats are healable for the simple reason that archons can actually kill them. If it wasn't for that, protoss didn't really have a good way to deal with them(atleast vs mech). As a mech terran, I'd consider it a huge buff for myself if hellbats were no longer bio. Medivac healing in the great scheme of things is imo very minimal if the protoss is not playing very greedy. Ofcourse medivac healing in TvZ is completely different.
yeah, even with bio, I would consider Hellbats without bio trait as a buff, because a real buffer vs archons would help A LOT in TvP and they would still tear apart every mineral line, they can find.
|
Taking the PvT stats globally it is 52.3% winrate with about 250 games played.
95% Confidence interval based on the normal approximation is then:
0.523 +- 1.96 * sqrt(1/250 * 0.523 * (1-0.523)) which is roughly:
0.461 - 0.585
In other words this means quite little, some interpret that as saying balance as just fine others interpret as saying just not enough data. There is also the added problem of course that this is not a proper sample as many if not most of the games come from tournaments with qualification which automatically force the winrates towards 50/50, afterall if a race is underpowered fewer but better players will qualify but they will have better than expected results for their race on average.
Simply put, these stats are relatively useless for balance judgement. Maybe they aren't posted with that intent (but what else really?) but using it is lousy.
Ladder stats are really the only proper way to judge balance but unfortunately we don't really have them. Proportion of races in leagues like given by sc2ranks is probably the best substitute but more difficult to judge as popularity of races is a large factor too. Aligulac stats come close and at least have a bit more games but it's still not much too judge with.
|
Great balance overall.Protoss still lacks clutch performers at the professional level.Hellbats are fine but anti-fun.Maybe just buff the banshee and not nerf hellbat.I don't think that banshee buff will make terran op
|
Well at least seeing my race's rates not particularly high makes me feel better about my recent losses 
|
Wow, pretty balanced
That's pretty great
|
|
|
Balance between 1-2% is fucking incredible. Looking really good.
|
Looking pretty good across the map.
|
Problem with using this as a balance thing...is...protoss has highest win %...yet what has protoss won lately? 
|
On July 02 2013 11:41 HuKPOWA wrote:Problem with using this as a balance thing...is...protoss has highest win %...yet what has protoss won lately?
Dreamhack. 2nd at WCS Grand finals.
|
On July 02 2013 11:47 Lunareste wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 11:41 HuKPOWA wrote:Problem with using this as a balance thing...is...protoss has highest win %...yet what has protoss won lately? Dreamhack. 2nd at WCS Grand finals.
1ST PLACE at one event while others races have 2-3 like i said,,,
|
Protoss just got a buff and yet, in Korea, they are over 55% winrate in both matchups already.
|
United States97276 Posts
On July 02 2013 12:28 HuKPOWA wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 11:47 Lunareste wrote:On July 02 2013 11:41 HuKPOWA wrote:Problem with using this as a balance thing...is...protoss has highest win %...yet what has protoss won lately? Dreamhack. 2nd at WCS Grand finals. 1ST PLACE at one event while others races have 2-3 like i said,,,
WCS America as well
|
On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
Exactly as MasterOfPuppets said, you don't know what blackmail means.
This statement I made, is not blackmail:
More interesting is the fact that a guy named "ChaosTerran" came up with the statistics saying that Terran has a losing winrate in both mirrors... conflict of interests?
Yeah I'm sorry I misused the word blackmail. It's actually defamation, you are basically implying that the person has skewed the statistics out of personal interest. Before making such accusations though shouldn't you be presenting at least some evidence? And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart. The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias. That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are. Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%. But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?)
Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother?
Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid.
Let's go back briefly to GSL October 2011, Code S. This was the height of GomTvT, where the final four were all Terrans. But if we go back, we see that the winrate looks okay, and if we look at the games in Code S, we see that in the 19 matches between Terran and Zerg, Terran won 10 and Zerg won 9. Looks great right?
But 20 of the players in Code S were Terran, while only 7 were Zerg. And those 7 Zergs were an elite group (for the time). Nestea, Leenock, Losira, DRG, July, Coca and Zenio (Zenio was knocked out 0-2 in the group stage too, winning nothing).
So we have elite Zergs taking on lesser Terrans and winning, which keeps the win rate close. But when the elite Zergs hit the elite Terrans, they were swiftly knocked out. In fact, of the 5 who made the round of 16, only two advanced, and one was against a Protoss opponent. None of them made the round of 4.
So where were all the lesser Zergs, who's elimination would show the imbalance in the winrate? They didn't even qualify! And that is why filtering qualifiers can lead to problems!
So looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest, and this example shows how filtering can skew results.
Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered.
http://aligulac.com/reports/
And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error.
|
On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
Exactly as MasterOfPuppets said, you don't know what blackmail means.
This statement I made, is not blackmail:
More interesting is the fact that a guy named "ChaosTerran" came up with the statistics saying that Terran has a losing winrate in both mirrors... conflict of interests?
Yeah I'm sorry I misused the word blackmail. It's actually defamation, you are basically implying that the person has skewed the statistics out of personal interest. Before making such accusations though shouldn't you be presenting at least some evidence? And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart. The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias. That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are. Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%. But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this: Show nested quote +
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error.
That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones.
|
On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
Exactly as MasterOfPuppets said, you don't know what blackmail means.
This statement I made, is not blackmail:
More interesting is the fact that a guy named "ChaosTerran" came up with the statistics saying that Terran has a losing winrate in both mirrors... conflict of interests?
Yeah I'm sorry I misused the word blackmail. It's actually defamation, you are basically implying that the person has skewed the statistics out of personal interest. Before making such accusations though shouldn't you be presenting at least some evidence? And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart. The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias. That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are. Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%. But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones.
The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better.
Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming in SC2 compared to the other races, and right now high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level players from other races, than high level Terrans or Zergs do.
|
On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
Exactly as MasterOfPuppets said, you don't know what blackmail means.
This statement I made, is not blackmail:
More interesting is the fact that a guy named "ChaosTerran" came up with the statistics saying that Terran has a losing winrate in both mirrors... conflict of interests?
Yeah I'm sorry I misused the word blackmail. It's actually defamation, you are basically implying that the person has skewed the statistics out of personal interest. Before making such accusations though shouldn't you be presenting at least some evidence? And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart. The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias. That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are. Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%. But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming, meaning that high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level Terrans and Zergs.
Don't see how that is relevant to you making a massive error picking protoss, though. omg imba terran stealing my ladder points =(
As long as it's balanced in Korea, then I'm somewhat satisfied. Would still encourage a slight nerf to hellbats though.
|
On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
Exactly as MasterOfPuppets said, you don't know what blackmail means.
This statement I made, is not blackmail:
More interesting is the fact that a guy named "ChaosTerran" came up with the statistics saying that Terran has a losing winrate in both mirrors... conflict of interests?
Yeah I'm sorry I misused the word blackmail. It's actually defamation, you are basically implying that the person has skewed the statistics out of personal interest. Before making such accusations though shouldn't you be presenting at least some evidence? And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart. The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias. That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are. Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%. But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming in SC2 compared to the other races, and right now high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level players from other races, than high level Terrans or Zergs do.
But evidence show the contrary. Sorry but -11 says nothing to me, and aligulac has admitted that it isn't perfect, (see forgg nearly being #1, Soulkey not even top #10. Not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon, but nice try anyways.
|
On July 02 2013 13:51 Thrillz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 13:46 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 13:40 Thrillz wrote:On July 02 2013 13:33 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:59 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:43 BronzeKnee wrote:
Exactly as MasterOfPuppets said, you don't know what blackmail means.
This statement I made, is not blackmail:
More interesting is the fact that a guy named "ChaosTerran" came up with the statistics saying that Terran has a losing winrate in both mirrors... conflict of interests?
Yeah I'm sorry I misused the word blackmail. It's actually defamation, you are basically implying that the person has skewed the statistics out of personal interest. Before making such accusations though shouldn't you be presenting at least some evidence? And I won't reply to MasterOfPuppets anylonger, because his argument simply doesn't hold water. "They are at least master and thus relevant to pro level statistics". I'm sorry but I am high master and my level of play is absolutely not relevant to the pro level play, they are world's apart. "At least master" is such a terrible parameter to use to decide wether or not a game is relevant because pro level (even low GM) and masters are worlds apart. The question mark is there for a reason. If the digging that Plansix did is correct, then he indeed does have a Terran bias. That is incredibly important, because he "filtered" the games. He filtered out qualifiers for tournaments, but used the tournament statistics. That is really important. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are. Actually, the parameters used were the same as in every other month. In the first two months they showed Terran as the most winning race, this month they didn't. SAME PARAMETERS 100%. But you missed my point. If Terran is truly OP, then they'll dominate the qualifiers and will let in a lot of "bad " Terran players. Then those bad Terrans will lose to good Protoss and Zerg, and there we have the reason why the statistics are the way they are.
That could completely explain the statistics. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. Time to go to work. Ok? But that's exactly what would happen every month, regardless of what the person compiling these statistics does? Not only these statistics, the same logic could be applied to aligulac's win rates too. So then I ask, why even bother in the first place? (and the effect could be even amplified in aligulac's statistics seeing as they include all kinds of low level matches and qualifiers?) Ah, we reached a consensus. Why should they bother? Both ChaosTerran and Aligulac have a filtering process that may actually render their data invalid. Looking purely at winrates is silly to be honest. Which is why I suggested this:
What would really be a worthwhile exercise (and I'll probably contact the Aligulac guy about this later) would be to use the Aligulac rating of each player, and then compare winrates by race. Thus if a heavily favored Protoss player like Dear defeated QXC, it wouldn't necessarily show that Protoss was imbalanced. However if QXC (who is a big underdog) defeated Dear, it might indicate imbalance, especially if Terran underdogs were defeating Protoss favorites on a regular basis when they normally did not.
And TheBB delivered. http://aligulac.com/reports/And now we can see that when I selected Protoss I made a massive error. That doesn't say Protoss is horribly bad right now at all..........not to mention there are a few problems with that method, just like the previous ones. The method is far better than the old one, because it somewhat correct for player skill, while the old one does not. Perfect? No. But better. Anyway, I like your edit from Protoss isn't bad at all to Protoss isn't horribly bad right now. Protoss has been massively underperforming in SC2 compared to the other races, and right now high level Protoss players are losing more to lower level players from other races, than high level Terrans or Zergs do. But evidence show the contrary. Sorry but -11 says nothing to me, and aligulac has admitted that it isn't perfect, (see forgg nearly being #1, Soulkey not even top #10. Not jumping on the hysteria bandwagon, but nice try anyways.
You literally just posted nothing.
And I just said Aligulac wasn't perfect either. Why are you telling me it isn't?
And where is this evidence?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
