|
On July 02 2013 02:34 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:24 SlixSC wrote:
The obvious answer is to filter out all amateur games and bottom of the food chain pro level games. Aligulac does a much worse job at that, simply because they include every game that could possibly be included. There is no filtering and if there is it is purely subjective and not based on set parameters.
It's important to note that a bigger sample size is sometimes detrimental to accuracy of your results. If you include samples that do not accurately reflect the data you are trying to compile, you are effectively wasting time because you are polluting your own data set with samples that of a different data set.
You don't look at BMW's to determine what the average acceleration rate of a Mercedes is. Likewise you don't look at amateur games to determine which race wins more games at the pro level.
Blackmailing the person responsible for these statistics is absolutely pathetic and you people should be ashamed for that, this is the 3rd time these win rates were released (april, may, now june) and the person is blackmailed now for the first time because the results do not match the expectations of the community, which is largely the result of communal reinforcement and the use of factoids which replaced actual facts a long time ago, especially on teamliquid. Slow down here buddy. The source of the statistics is incredibly important. If you go to the NRA's website for information on gun control you're going to get different information than the Mayors Against Illegal guns. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, which is why people who are interested in the truth often look to bi-partisan government studies and the ATF. So I didn't blackmail anyone. I noted that we have two different sets of statistics for the same thing that show different results. I then stated that there could be a bias, as ChaosTerran is a Terran player, and his results show a low winrate for Terrans. This means that ChaosTerran might have an agenda, and the way he filters games could reflect that. Aligulac doesn't seem to have an agenda. Finally, this has nothing to do with community expectations (unless you were saying that the expectation of the community is for results of the same statistic to be the same when looked at by two different people, as they should be).
ChaosTerran released the win rates for April and May too and they showed Terran as the most winning race, but in the 1 month the stats don't show Terran as the most winning race he has all of a sudden developed a Terran bias? Sounds fair.
And why aren't we focusing on the methodology used to compile these stats? Including only pro level games is obviously a far superior method to including random games based on subjective evaluation. You haven't said anything to address this point, to no surprise I might add since you seem far to busy trying to blackmail the person responsible for these statistics.
If you think they are wrong what you should do is go out and prove them wrong and not make baseless accusations,which make you look pretty bad. You got it so backwards.
|
nerf random please, the charts are imbalanced
|
On July 02 2013 02:33 VmY wrote:
Could you please show some of these huge upsets? Because the games I'm seeing aren't exactly like the era of zergs in WoL, if it was we would be seeing 4+ terrans in every RO8 and TvT finals everywhere.
Absolutely friend. From WCS America Season 1 Qualifiers:
Drunkenboi defeats Miya 2-0.
Demuslim defeats Jaedong 2-0.
Xenocider defeats Zenio 2-1.
I can find more if you really want. But the "era" of Zergs was nothing like the "era" of Terrans (I play Protoss).
Terran had the most GSL participation for every season in the GSL in for 2011 and 2012. And in a few seasons, they had half (32 of 64) the players. There has only been two seasons (since the Open Seasons ended) where Zerg had the most participations, and they are the last two seasons.
|
On July 02 2013 02:39 SlixSC wrote:
And why aren't we focusing on the methodology used to compile these stats? Including only pro level games is obviously a far superior method to including random games based on subjective evaluation. You haven't said anything to address this point, to no surprise I might add since you seem far to busy trying to blackmail the person responsible for these statistics.
How about you take the time to read my post on the previous page before continuing with the same misguided ramblings?
Also, like Plansix pointed out, you don't quite understand what "blackmail" means. ^^
On July 02 2013 02:41 BronzeKnee wrote:
Xenocider defeats Zenio 2-1.
Now now, that's not too much of an upset..
|
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?
|
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. You are implying that they might have done something unethical with no evidence presented whatsoever. 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.
|
On July 02 2013 02:41 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:33 VmY wrote:
Could you please show some of these huge upsets? Because the games I'm seeing aren't exactly like the era of zergs in WoL, if it was we would be seeing 4+ terrans in every RO8 and TvT finals everywhere. Absolutely friend. From WCS America Season 1 Qualifiers: Drunkenboi defeats Miya 2-0. Demuslim defeats Jaedong 2-0. Xenocider defeats Zenio 2-1.
You should probably consider that the Koreans are playing from Korea on North America, for both games too.
Here are some foreign Zerg wins vs Koreans. From WCS Season 1 America: Premier League -
Suppy defeats Heart 2-0.
Suppy defeats Ryung 2-0.
mOOnGLaDe defeats Apocalypse 2-0.
mOOnGLaDe defeats TheStC 2-1.
Terran is very clearly not dominating.
|
On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +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.
On July 02 2013 02:50 SomethingWitty wrote:
...Terran is very clearly not dominating.
Suppy and Moonglade are really, really good, and were before the release of HOTS. Suppy beat Polt in the CSL in WOL. Moonglade had often taken games off Koreans in WOL. Xenocider and Drunkenboi weren't names before HOTS. That was always the argument for the "patch Zerg" era, was that no name Zergs were coming up and defeating Korean Terrans.
But I'm not going to go into this anymore, it is subjective.
|
On July 02 2013 02:41 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:33 VmY wrote:
Could you please show some of these huge upsets? Because the games I'm seeing aren't exactly like the era of zergs in WoL, if it was we would be seeing 4+ terrans in every RO8 and TvT finals everywhere. Absolutely friend. From WCS America Season 1 Qualifiers: Drunkenboi defeats Miya 2-0. Demuslim defeats Jaedong 2-0. Xenocider defeats Zenio 2-1.
Had to dig around on liquipedia, turns out that most korean terrans stayed in korea.
From the same qualifier:
Hendralisk 2-0 Center
Tilea (as zerg) 2-1 Drunkenboi (#Patchterran)
And from EU:
Dimage 2-0 Mvp (Korean>EU lag might have helped here)
Kespa MLG qualifier:
Sacscri 2-1 Innovation
Upsets tend to happen, and while I agree that zerg is going to be in a tough spot if terran gets away with the extremely greedy style (Like Innovation), to compare it to WoL zerg dominance is pretty silly, as said earlier I haven't exactly seen all the finals being TvT.
Edit: Mind you that Chaosterran posted winrates many times now, even in April when TvZ was 55,7% for terran. To accuse him of being biased in the winrates seems...weird.
|
On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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%.
Are you implying that he is some kind of nostradamus and set the parameters this way 3! months ago, knowing that in June, exactly these parameters would show Terran as the least winning race? Do you have some sort of paranoia?
|
From what I've seen many Protoss resorted to all ins on 2 base once again. I don't blame them at all, it's very hard for toss to take 3rds on some maps, and it also seems very difficult to deal with harass after 2 bases (3 or more) while trying to get the deathball built. Map pools can easily be all it takes over a month or two to shift things one way or the other. Interestingly enough, we haven't yet seen the terrans resorting to the heavy all ins that were so common in wol. I'm not really sure if they haven't got around to perfecting them yet, or the game mechanics just make them less successful.
However, hellbats are a big crutch for terrans right now. Now that many players are learning they need to play a little safer and prebuild worker protection, terran is slightly falling off.
The winrates seem very reminiscent of BW, where P seemed to struggle against Z and T struggled vs P. While the overall rates in the op don't seem too out of whack, if they continue for another month or two without any shifts or swings, it will be more possible to start drawing some conclusions.
It seems like overall a disproportionate number of protoss players make it deep (round of 16) but then they get knocked out a lot more at the very highest level (into the round of 8,4 and finals).
Looks pretty good, zerg had a nice boost when they started all ining terrans and going for heavy tech switches vs toss. Terrans started getting more defensive when taking 3rd CC's (getting tanks, mines and a second row of bunkers) and it seems like the tech switching vs protoss became a lot less common. It maybe because the games aren't going as long in PvZ. See a lot of void ray, or 2 base immortal sentry type timings from toss now.
I am happy to see things hanging around 55/45 or better, and some natural movement withing these margins, that aren't direct results of balance changes. However, overall winrates can be very deceptive, considering how close pvz was in win rates at the end of WOL, but how horrible it was spectating or playing that matchup.
Edit: also wanted to note how big group matches can play over the short terms. When you have one race spread more evenly through groups, while another race is drawing a bunch of mirrors, it can skew the rates quite a bit. That's why so many people are wary of short term winrates. Maps and Group draws (or group selection) can really skew the numbers in the short term. I am glad to see protoss pulling ahead for at least a little while, they've had a tough time up until very recently.
|
On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:
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.
-_-
You don't seem to understand. Our purpose is not to provide statistics or winrates, but to determine which players are the best and how good they are when compared to one another.
Plus, here's the thing, if you make statistics based solely on WCS, MLG and DreamHack, there simply won't be enough games to draw any reasonable conclusion. The winrates will most likely be skewed towards whichever race won more championships, which I guess is a good thing if you're one of those nutjobs who wants to "prove" that Terran is OP no matter the cost or logic. (or should I say lack thereof? ^^) Also, it is completely arbitrary and subjective too, there are quite a few "lesser" lans and online tournaments that would shit all over the early MLGs and DreamHacks in terms of competitors, just saying.
|
On July 02 2013 02:55 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +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 for this month. And it shows that having such a small sample size is bad. I'll go through and add in the qualifier data later. If it changes the data greatly, would you admit that I am right?
Time to go to work.
|
On July 02 2013 02:56 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:
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. -_- You don't seem to understand. Our purpose is not to provide statistics or winrates, but to determine which players are the best and how good they are when compared to one another.
Then why try and use your statistics to disprove these statistics, when the parameters are completely different and they serve a completely different purpose? That just doesn't make sense.
|
On July 02 2013 02:52 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:50 SomethingWitty wrote:
...Terran is very clearly not dominating. Suppy and Moonglade are really, really good, and were before the release of HOTS. Suppy beat Polt in the CSL in WOL. Moonglade had often taken games off Koreans in WOL. Xenocider and Drunkenboi weren't names before HOTS. That was always the argument for the "patch Zerg" era, was that no name Zergs were coming up and defeating Korean Terrans. But I'm not going to go into this anymore, it is subjective.
Thanks for informing me, I had no idea.
|
On July 02 2013 02:57 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +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?)
|
On July 02 2013 02:57 SlixSC wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:56 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:
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. -_- You don't seem to understand. Our purpose is not to provide statistics or winrates, but to determine which players are the best and how good they are when compared to one another. Then why try and use your statistics to disprove these statistics, when the parameters are completely different and they serve a completely different purpose? That just doesn't make sense.
I'm not, you're the one who started harping on Aligulac for whatever reason, as if we had anything to do with this thread's topic. All I did was correct your blatantly incorrect and misguided nonsense.
|
On July 02 2013 03:00 MasterOfPuppets wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2013 02:57 SlixSC wrote:On July 02 2013 02:56 MasterOfPuppets wrote:On July 02 2013 02:49 SlixSC wrote:
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. -_- You don't seem to understand. Our purpose is not to provide statistics or winrates, but to determine which players are the best and how good they are when compared to one another. Then why try and use your statistics to disprove these statistics, when the parameters are completely different and they serve a completely different purpose? That just doesn't make sense. I'm not, you're the one who started harping on Aligulac for whatever reason, as if we had anything to do with this thread's topic. All I did was correct your blatantly incorrect and misguided nonsense.
Hell did I do. Read the post again, someone else brought up aligulac trying to refute these statistics. I only pointed out what you confirmed, that your statistics don't intend to reflect the pro level balance, but are focused on predictions and individual players.
|
One question for op, what is the time frame of these numbers? Since release or just last month or two? (maybe it's there and I'm just blind)
edit: nvm I'm dumb it's for June. I read the post like three times, and didn't look at the title. FML
|
On July 01 2013 22:17 Plansix wrote:
Arg, taking data from Proleague is always weird for this stuff. I wish people didn't include it. But it looks ok beyond that.
Hmm... why's that? I mean, I suppose there might be some kind of certain sampling bias from the format Proleague uses, but then, balance data always has a little sampling bias. I wrote a blog a little while ago about how a luck-based mirror matchup can push a race's winrate lower in the non-mirror balance metrics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
