|
On September 04 2013 03:17 bduddy wrote:
Everyone here debating 45/55 winrates over 100 games is a complete moron. None of you know even the tiniest amount about statistics if you believe that these numbers say anything about the state of balance other than that it's pretty good.
this
|
Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues:
NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%)
KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random
EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random
source: http://nios.kr/
|
On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/
GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend.
|
On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend.
The statistics are pretty similar in masters as well, I do however agree I don't know why GM still exists in its current state.
|
On September 03 2013 03:53 ImperialFist wrote: Also maybe rebuff the infestor? Infested Terrans getting their upgrades back,
*heavily snipped*
Yes, please.
|
Greenei
Germany1754 Posts
On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend.
There still needs to be SOME reason why Terrans are often times so underrepresented there. I still think, that in the higher leagues until high GM or something like that T is still the hardest race and only after that, when you can micro like Innovation, it's actually strong.
|
On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend.
i'm still looking for a good reason of why there's so much protoss and so little terran in higher leagues. yours doesnt explain it, in my opinion.
is it really because terran is the hardest race to play? i guess that's plausible...
btw, i dont like how much weight MC's statement gets, just because he's MC. there's many people who talked about terran possibly being underpowered, but of course that won't be looked at as long as terrans are winning at the highest level 
|
On September 04 2013 11:15 beg wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend. i'm still looking for a good reason of why there's so much protoss and so little terran in higher leagues. yours doesnt explain it, in my opinion. is it really because terran is the hardest race to play? i guess that's plausible... btw, i dont like how much weight MC's statement gets, just because he's MC. there's many people who talked about terran possibly being underpowered, but of course that won't be looked at as long as terrans are winning at the highest level :(
Sigh.
Stick to the gameplay not being fun or interesting. It's meaningless to have people who were shit when the game was broken in favor of terran (large swaths of 2010-2011; hence gomtvt and Polt's relevance) to complain about the game being imbalanced now. Meanwhile, no one would bed on a protoss at the top level.
Besides, we would expect a gradual decrease once protoss began to figure out a way to manage no-risk drops. We'll see more hellbats in the lategame and more greed and a switchback.
|
On September 04 2013 11:26 Sabu113 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 04 2013 11:15 beg wrote:On September 04 2013 06:11 Plansix wrote:On September 04 2013 06:07 Nibbler89 wrote:Somewhat related if people are curious. Current Race break downs in GM leagues: NA: 47 Terran users(24%), 63 Zerg users (32%) 83 Protoss users(43%) 2 Random (1%) KR: 56 Terran users(28%), 66 Zerg users (33%) 77 Protoss users (39%) 0 Random EU: 45 Terran users(23%), 66 Zerg users (34%) 82 protoss users (43%) 0 Random source: http://nios.kr/ GM has never been a good measurement of anything, since it gets locked at 200 and its almost impossible to knock someone out(or at least it was last time I checked). Its first come, first served and then you have to wait till next season or until one of the players in GM computer explodes or they get a really demanding girlfriend. i'm still looking for a good reason of why there's so much protoss and so little terran in higher leagues. yours doesnt explain it, in my opinion. is it really because terran is the hardest race to play? i guess that's plausible... btw, i dont like how much weight MC's statement gets, just because he's MC. there's many people who talked about terran possibly being underpowered, but of course that won't be looked at as long as terrans are winning at the highest level :( Sigh. Stick to the gameplay not being fun or interesting. It's meaningless to have people who were shit when the game was broken in favor of terran (large swaths of 2010-2011; hence gomtvt and Polt's relevance) to complain about the game being imbalanced now. Meanwhile, no one would bed on a protoss at the top level. Besides, we would expect a gradual decrease once protoss began to figure out a way to manage no-risk drops. We'll see more hellbats in the lategame and more greed and a switchback.
i think TvP is extremely fun and interesting, so nothing to talk about there. it's just my personal opinion that TvP is a little bit broken. and i think the majority of terrans believe the same. we just dont have a big spokesman like MC. 
|
Isn`t imbalance in monthly winrates what sc2 needs right now?
Everyone complains about the stale gameplay, because people stick with what works. Now If we don`t repeat mistakes of the past and ask Blizzard to fix it for us, won`t players have to come up with a solutions and hence advance the meta?
Just saying, perfect balance would be terrible, since everyone could just stick with what they know best, and we see the same game over and over again.
|
On September 03 2013 03:57 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:28 Psychobabas wrote:
TvP as broken as usual. SCV pull and pray. When you have to rely on the first two combat units you can build for your damage all game, this is the result... if Zerg or Protoss make it to end game without a deficit, the game becomes very hard for Terran. Blizzard needs to fix Mech. Give the Tank an expensive tech lab upgrade that requires an armory where it does a minimum of 45 damage to all non-armored units (including Immortals), remove the Mine and remove the Viper.
Remove the Viper?! That's basically the only interesting new unit of HoTS!
|
On September 04 2013 21:27 YumYumGranola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2013 03:57 BronzeKnee wrote:On September 03 2013 03:28 Psychobabas wrote:
TvP as broken as usual. SCV pull and pray. When you have to rely on the first two combat units you can build for your damage all game, this is the result... if Zerg or Protoss make it to end game without a deficit, the game becomes very hard for Terran. Blizzard needs to fix Mech. Give the Tank an expensive tech lab upgrade that requires an armory where it does a minimum of 45 damage to all non-armored units (including Immortals), remove the Mine and remove the Viper. Remove the Viper?! That's basically the only interesting new unit of HoTS!
Hey. I love the versatility of all my new Protoss units.
|
Fun fact that some people are judging balance from 100 matchs per match up as 1win difference will make a 1% percent difference. 55%/45% => 55 wins to 45. it means that 5 more matchshave been won by a Terran in a TvZ.
Oh and for the TvZ Bomber vs Jaedong 4-0 means , if it counts as a kr winrate, +4% for TvZ winrates and +2% for TvZ int. winrates.
Same thing for TvP.
|
TvP made me stop laddering quite a while ago, I see things aren't changing much :/
|
TvP is so frustrating at the moment. If the Protoss is not completely bad and gets to the lategame I feel he is always lightyears ahead. I guess thats why so many Pros do the SCV Pull allin. Blizzard needs to do something to make the game more interesting.
|
Edit: Fixed. Thank you.
http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1ljux8/winrates_august_source_liquipedia/
Sample size is actually bigger than what the graph at the bottom right says.
While checking the data, I have found some errors in ChaosTerran's original work at
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E&usp=sharing
If you go to the August one, 24 tournaments are used for winrates, but "games played per matchup" is calculated from only 15 tournaments. Therefore,
Wrong Corrected
TvZ: 283 313
TvP: 335 385
ZvP: 356 434
Cells needs to be fixed as following to prevent similar situations in future
M2 cell =SUM(A2:B16) =SUM(A:B)
M3 cell =SUM(C2:D16) =SUM(C:D)
M4 cell =SUM(E2:D16) =SUM(E:F)
April had 15 tournaments, that is, 16 rows were used, 14 tournaments in May, and 16+ since June. Therefore, Sample sizes in June, July and August data are all wrong. It's just a copy paste problem that is easy to fix. Otherwise, please keep up the good work, ChaosTerran and Wingblade!! Also, it would be nice if the links to both International and Korean google doc spreadsheets (ofc. view only) are attached to the original reddit posts from September so that those who are interested like me can check the original data by themselves. (I want to check Korean only version if available.)
+ Show Spoiler [Sidenote 1] +Also, "I" /ai/ column 1~6 should be fixed in a similar mannner in case there are more than 35 tournaments per month in future.
I6 cell =SUM(E2:E36) =SUM(E:E)
etc.
+ Show Spoiler [Sidenote 2] +
Maybe it is intentional, but for example, 60% in TvP and 70% in TvZ don't necessarily mean that Terran has 65% winrate. In fact, when sample sizes of two matchups are different, (60+70)/2 formula can't be used.
Example:
TvP 5 games played, T wins 1 game, P wins 4 games
TvZ 9 games played, T wins 2 games, Z wins 7 game
ZvP 11 games played, Z wins 3 games, P wins 8 games
T winrate: (1+2)/(5+9) = 3/14, NOT {(1/5)+(2/9)}/2 = 19/90
P winrate: (4+8)/(5+11) = 3/4, NOT {(4/5)+(8/11)}/2 = 42/55
Z winrate: (7+3)/(9+11) = 1/2, NOT {(7/9)+(3/11)}/2 = 52/99
Distribution of win percentages
T: (1+2)/(5+9+11) = 3/25, NOT (19/90)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}=428/2970
P: (4+8)/(5+9+11) = 12/25, NOT (42/55)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1512/2970
Z: (7+3)/(5+9+11) = 10/25, NOT (52/99)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1040/2970
That said, when sample sizes of 3 matchups are very different, race winrates and distribution get skewed in this way. Maybe that's why ChaosTerran took "average" of two winrates, though it doesn't mean much IMHO. Personally, I feel that cell I7~9 and J7~9 need adjustments. At the same time, race winrates and distribution of win percentages are difficult to interpret when sample sizes are different anyways.
|
@Sated Im pretty sure that from protoss perspective you find TvP very balanced and requireing equal amount of skill. I dare you to play terran in 1v1s for 2 weeks, you can only play TvP if you want. See how hard it is. The problem in my opinion is that storms kill shit rapidly and if they dont zealots clean up with 1 swipe. EMP cannot kill units, even worse - they dont even damage the unit for more than 40% (at its best) and after emping theyre useless unless P doesnt have obs or gets it sniped and doesnt have a back up one right behind his army (which shouldnt be happening on pro level). Snipe should be buffed vs light units and ghosts in general should do more damage to light units because right now marine has the same if not more. That will make ghosts fill the role in TvP that hellbats were supposed to but were nerfed for obvious reasons and we dont touch TvZ.
There has to be sth done about mothership core - it can harras terran early, scouts, recalls after doing a stupid commitment that every other race upon doing would just lose the game, buffs all stupid all ins from protoss, defends protoss from any early agression early game and that the most annoying when protss gets completle cought with pants down I mean I wish I didnt have to scout for protoss all in in time and have intel 40 secs earlier (at least) to build all 3 of my additional bunkers and instead I could just activate turbo protoss anihilator on my CC.
As to TvZ:
I hate widow mines. Theyre used because tanks just dont cut it. Mines are faster, cheaper, more mobile and produce way faster and you can reactor them. Why use tanks then?
I want to see tanks in TvZ again with mines used on the outskirts of the map to be a pain in the ass for the zerg and to control runbies. Tanks need a faster siege and sth else I feel (and currently no tank buff would hurt TvP). Also the problem with tanks is that they just suck vs ultras on all those flat maps, so I guess mayby buff damage vs massive?
- buff Thors AA vs mutas and vs void rays (thors melt) it simply put sucks and with new muta regen mech just gets rofl stomped by mutas as soon as it leaves the. It would be really awesome to see mech in TvZ again and Thor tank marine medevac composition. Do it for the viewers - that composition is just amazing to watch (Blizzard Cup 2011 Grand Finals MMA vs DRG)
I totally feel like zerg should be allowed to get the hive and 33 in ZvT but as soon as they get ultras the game just sucks for terran because ultras just chew through everything making ground armies from terran look funny.
as to PvZ I will only say that I feel that zergs win only after huge muta switch since ultras are yummy meal for immos (MC didnt mention that hmm I wonder why) and hydras are so squishy vs storms. I also feel that void rays are too good with prismatic allignment vs both bunkers and corruptors. But thats my thought on PvZ you dont have to take it seriosuly since I play terran.
In TvZ I want to see games like the mentioned Blizzard Cup 2011 Grand Finals MMA vs DRG (link to youtube). They were awesome to watch, the are awesomse to play and theyre awesome to commentate. Go ask your selves dear David Kim balance squad when was last time you heard Tastossis commentate with such passion?
To sum up, what I would like balanced:
- Ghosts attack buff dmg vs light, buff snipe vs light units (zealot takes like 7 or 8 snipes to die? lets be serious + no influence on TvZ)
- Mines changed to more of a map control - runby denial unit that originaly shredder was supposed to be (but I would assume thats going to be hard to accomplish)
- Tanks buffed for TvZ to finally replace the boring widow mine (faster siege, more dmg to massive (ultras), then ultras could stay as they are right now and we will see how it turns out.
- Thors AA buffed
- MSC made strictly defensive. Keep the recall to safety after I made a stupid mistake and commited thing but make it less helpfull when protoss is all inning and it cannot be insta defense for 1 minute after protoss failed at scouting and had no idea that sth was coming. Make photon overcharge able to be casted only when MSC is attached to the nexus with the attaching process taking 15 seconds that way protoss will have to scout and their lack of scouting could get punished with delayed cannon and when they want to push out make it detach for 15 secs so that they can still use recall.
|
On September 08 2013 19:59 Scoobers wrote:@Sated Im pretty sure that from protoss perspective you find TvP very balanced and requireing equal amount of skill. I dare you to play terran in 1v1s for 2 weeks, you can only play TvP if you want. See how hard it is. The problem in my opinion is that storms kill shit rapidly and if they dont zealots clean up with 1 swipe. EMP cannot kill units, even worse - they dont even damage the unit for more than 40% (at its best) and after emping theyre useless unless P doesnt have obs or gets it sniped and doesnt have a back up one right behind his army (which shouldnt be happening on pro level). Snipe should be buffed vs light units and ghosts in general should do more damage to light units because right now marine has the same if not more. That will make ghosts fill the role in TvP that hellbats were supposed to but were nerfed for obvious reasons and we dont touch TvZ. There has to be sth done about mothership core - it can harras terran early, scouts, recalls after doing a stupid commitment that every other race upon doing would just lose the game, buffs all stupid all ins from protoss, defends protoss from any early agression early game and that the most annoying when protss gets completle cought with pants down I mean I wish I didnt have to scout for protoss all in in time and have intel 40 secs earlier (at least) to build all 3 of my additional bunkers and instead I could just activate turbo protoss anihilator on my CC. As to TvZ: I hate widow mines. Theyre used because tanks just dont cut it. Mines are faster, cheaper, more mobile and produce way faster and you can reactor them. Why use tanks then? I want to see tanks in TvZ again with mines used on the outskirts of the map to be a pain in the ass for the zerg and to control runbies. Tanks need a faster siege and sth else I feel (and currently no tank buff would hurt TvP). Also the problem with tanks is that they just suck vs ultras on all those flat maps, so I guess mayby buff damage vs massive? - buff Thors AA vs mutas and vs void rays (thors melt) it simply put sucks and with new muta regen mech just gets rofl stomped by mutas as soon as it leaves the. It would be really awesome to see mech in TvZ again and Thor tank marine medevac composition. Do it for the viewers - that composition is just amazing to watch ( Blizzard Cup 2011 Grand Finals MMA vs DRG) I totally feel like zerg should be allowed to get the hive and 33 in ZvT but as soon as they get ultras the game just sucks for terran because ultras just chew through everything making ground armies from terran look funny. as to PvZ I will only say that I feel that zergs win only after huge muta switch since ultras are yummy meal for immos (MC didnt mention that hmm I wonder why) and hydras are so squishy vs storms. I also feel that void rays are too good with prismatic allignment vs both bunkers and corruptors. But thats my thought on PvZ you dont have to take it seriosuly since I play terran. In TvZ I want to see games like the mentioned Blizzard Cup 2011 Grand Finals MMA vs DRG (link to youtube). They were awesome to watch, the are awesomse to play and theyre awesome to commentate. Go ask your selves dear David Kim balance squad when was last time you heard Tastossis commentate with such passion? To sum up, what I would like balanced: - Ghosts attack buff dmg vs light, buff snipe vs light units (zealot takes like 7 or 8 snipes to die? lets be serious + no influence on TvZ) - Mines changed to more of a map control - runby denial unit that originaly shredder was supposed to be (but I would assume thats going to be hard to accomplish) - Tanks buffed for TvZ to finally replace the boring widow mine (faster siege, more dmg to massive (ultras), then ultras could stay as they are right now and we will see how it turns out. - Thors AA buffed - MSC made strictly defensive. Keep the recall to safety after I made a stupid mistake and commited thing but make it less helpfull when protoss is all inning and it cannot be insta defense for 1 minute after protoss failed at scouting and had no idea that sth was coming. Make photon overcharge able to be casted only when MSC is attached to the nexus with the attaching process taking 15 seconds that way protoss will have to scout and their lack of scouting could get punished with delayed cannon and when they want to push out make it detach for 15 secs so that they can still use recall.
How is your fix to TvZ, where Terran is correctly solidly ahead, to buff 5 underutilized terran units?
None of that addresses the problem with parade pushing.
Atleast attempt to fix the problem first...
|
On September 03 2013 03:28 Psychobabas wrote:
TvP as broken as usual. SCV pull and pray.
this
|
On September 08 2013 18:08 Orek wrote:I have found some errors in the data. Can someone contact ChaosTerran, the original poster @Reddit?And let him know about this post so that the community can have correct data from September on? I don't have a reddit account and I don't know if he has a TL account http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/1ljux8/winrates_august_source_liquipedia/Sample size is actually bigger than what the graph at the bottom right says. While checking the data, I have found some errors in ChaosTerran's original work at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At0PE4rdhsI9dDE0cEprWkwwMGxQdTczTTlLNW1qX1E&usp=sharingIf you go to the August one, 24 tournaments are used for winrates, but "games played per matchup" is calculated from only 15 tournaments. Therefore, Wrong CorrectedTvZ: 283 313TvP: 335 385ZvP: 356 434Cells needs to be fixed as following to prevent similar situations in future M2 cell =SUM(A2:B16) =SUM(A:B) M3 cell =SUM(C2:D16) =SUM(C:D)M4 cell =SUM(E2:D16) =SUM(E:F)April had 15 tournaments, that is, 16 rows were used, 14 tournaments in May, and 16+ since June. Therefore, Sample sizes in June, July and August data are all wrong. It's just a copy paste problem that is easy to fix. Otherwise, please keep up the good work, ChaosTerran and Wingblade!! Also, it would be nice if the links to both International and Korean google doc spreadsheets (ofc. view only) are attached to the original reddit posts from September so that those who are interested like me can check the original data by themselves. (I want to check Korean only version if available.) + Show Spoiler [Sidenote 1] +Also, "I" /ai/ column 1~6 should be fixed in a similar mannner in case there are more than 35 tournaments per month in future.
I6 cell =SUM(E2:E36) =SUM(E:E)
etc.
Maybe it is intentional, but for example, 60% in TvP and 70% in TvZ don't necessarily mean that Terran has 65% winrate. In fact, when sample sizes of two matchups are different, (60+70)/2 formula can't be used.
Example:
TvP 5 games played, T wins 1 game, P wins 4 games
TvZ 9 games played, T wins 2 games, Z wins 7 game
ZvP 11 games played, Z wins 3 games, P wins 8 games
T winrate: (1+2)/(5+9) = 3/14, NOT {(1/5)+(2/9)}/2 = 19/90
P winrate: (4+8)/(5+11) = 3/4, NOT {(4/5)+(8/11)}/2 = 42/55
Z winrate: (7+3)/(9+11) = 1/2, NOT {(7/9)+(3/11)}/2 = 52/99
Distribution of win percentages
T: (1+2)/(5+9+11) = 3/25, NOT (19/90)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}=428/2970
P: (4+8)/(5+9+11) = 12/25, NOT (42/55)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1512/2970
Z: (7+3)/(5+9+11) = 10/25, NOT (52/99)/{(19/90)+(42/55)+(52/99)}= 1040/2970
That said, when sample sizes of 3 matchups are very different, race winrates and distribution get skewed in this way. Maybe that's why ChaosTerran took "average" of two winrates, though it doesn't mean much IMHO. Personally, I feel that cell I7~9 and J7~9 need adjustments. At the same time, race winrates and distribution of win percentages are difficult to interpret when sample sizes are different anyways.
The numbers in the graphs (TvZ, TvP, PvZ) are actually accurate. I think the "games played per matchup" has a different algorithm, it's a mistake but it just a display error if you will and not connected with the results per matchup.
edit: The last graph (games per matchup) has M2:M4 as the set value and M2 - M4 have B2:16, C2:16 and D2:16 as their respective values. Which is why the number of matches played isn't displayed properly.
However, the winrates work with a different algorithm they include all of x:y. So all matches were included in the win rates.
edit: But yeah, nice find, I'm sure it'll be fixed for september.
edit:
Maybe it is intentional, but for example, 60% in TvP and 70% in TvZ don't necessarily mean that Terran has 65% winrate. In fact, when sample sizes of two matchups are different, (60+70)/2 formula can't be used.
Where did you get this from? When the sample sizes are different you actually have to use this formula, because you are calculating an average between two different sample sizes, not the total of both samples. Take an abstract (and rather extreme) case. Zergs wins 500 out of 800 games in PvZ (62.5%), but only wins 20 out of 50 games in TvZ. (40%). Does Zerg really have a 61%+ win rate across both matchups? It's a meaningless number and very misleading. Because while they are losing to Terran, by virtue of there being more PvZ matches and wins their win rate is 60%+ across both matchups. So PvZ is weighed heavier than TvZ by a factor of 16. It just doesn't work that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
