EPTAnother thing imo is that the game is young, the metagame is basically changing from tournament to tournament.
How come SC2 results are so unpredictable? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
NEEDZMOAR
Sweden1277 Posts
Another thing imo is that the game is young, the metagame is basically changing from tournament to tournament. | ||
|
TheFlexN
Israel472 Posts
On December 12 2013 01:34 Lunareste wrote: go watch some of the last WOL GSL. Innovation was showing a new level before HOTS. So I probably missed those  , I personally saw him for the 1st time in HotS. | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
| ||
|
PanzerElite
540 Posts
| ||
|
SAFenix
Canada439 Posts
| ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
Win percentages Vitali Klitschko 95.7% Novak Djokovic (2013) 90.2% Taeja 68.28% Innovation 67.4% Dear 67.35% Jaedong 61.8% Soulkey 60.7% Maru 58.0% Most top level SC2 players have win percentages between 60 and 70 %. If all have more or less the same win ratio then the results will be random when they play each other. There is no one player that is standing out. I guess Innovation came closest to that before the patch. | ||
|
mewo
United States221 Posts
For the last 5-6 tourneys that close this season the play was really good all around and made it hard to get a real champion. Well, at least for Koreans. | ||
|
QzYSc2
Netherlands281 Posts
and even if sc2 doesn't have many RNG factors other then lucky map spawns, it still has many build order wins which makes dota 2 (with many RNG mods like crit%, miss% etc.) seem like the better player/team would win on a more regular basis. just think about blind nexus first, blind hatch first, blind 6 pool, build X having an advantage over build Y. that said, i think all those factors combined make sc2 unpredictable and not fun to play. | ||
|
JimmyJRaynor
Canada17705 Posts
On December 12 2013 02:21 urboss wrote: Just to put it into perspective: Win percentages Vitali Klitschko 95.7% Novak Djokovic (2013) 90.2% Taeja 68.28% Innovation 67.4% Dear 67.35% Jaedong 61.8% Soulkey 60.7% Maru 58.0% Most top level SC2 players have win percentages between 60 and 70 %. If all have more or less the same win ratio then the results will be random when they play each other. There is no one player that is standing out. I guess Innovation came closest to that before the patch. Golf has the exact same issue as SC2. Tiger Woods is clearly the best player in the world. He rarely wins a tournament. Phil Mickelson clearly a top 5 golfer took forever to win just 1 major. Do you really think the 1980 Team USA was better than the 1980 Team USSR in the Olympics? Did Canada really prove it was 'the best hockey nation on earth' in 2010 because of 1 lousy over time goal where the referee interfered in the play? Do we now redesign hockey and golf because the "truly best" does not win? Do we now question the validity of Golf and Hockey as sports? | ||
|
figq
12519 Posts
95% of match ups in Starcraft 2 95% of 6... makes so much sense xDPart of it is that the game is new and changing. It probably needs years of being solid (no major balance patch), in order for mastery to overcome trickery. | ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 12 2013 02:21 urboss wrote: Just to put it into perspective: Win percentages Vitali Klitschko 95.7% Novak Djokovic (2013) 90.2% Taeja 68.28% Innovation 67.4% Dear 67.35% Jaedong 61.8% Soulkey 60.7% Maru 58.0% Most top level SC2 players have win percentages between 60 and 70 %. If all have more or less the same win ratio then the results will be random when they play each other. There is no one player that is standing out. I guess Innovation came closest to that before the patch. urboss, is that per match win, or per game win? | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
On December 11 2013 23:04 Drake wrote: oh god ... a thread full of whiners and "blizzard so bad sc2 so bad" posts  god save us allfor my part, i always see the same guys in top and simply winning if they hit their good matchup and loosing if they hit their bad matchup (like inno just lose if he hits a tvt ... simply as that) also some of the players are extremly close what skill means, so its always 3-2 2-3 2-3 3-2 etc not meaning its to easy they simply very similar ... as for alot wcs tournaments, the players who won the first really seems to take it easier the next tournaments, because of the points they already gained, while the others trained even harder ... which makes it pretty obvious ... in the main tournaments of the year, we have what ? jaedong 5 times 2nd now winning ? taeja winning like so many of them ? i really see the same big names who train always on the top ... the only difference to broodwar is, that there are simply so much more players in the pool of that caliber and we have not even reached the 3rd add on ... you guys EVER watched broodwar in the early years ? you act like we have every month another top20 and thats not the fact, and in broodwar the guys from 2002 was all retired or bad in 2005 ... and same for 2008 ... themarine or gorush was fast bad and then there was iloveoov and nada and later we had savior (aka idiot you throw your career away) and then jaedong and flash ... it wasnt always the same ... AALSO we had alot t and z there and only 8 good protoss guys  and they did not win much so even the win balance for races is better in sc2 ..everything nowadays is so hyped about the past which WASNT always blue and clear ... and all the whines are just incredible hard to read every week again i know some people having an 85+% accuracy for win betting in tournaments ... if its so unpredictable why can they ? because it simply isnt if you know more then the names and the last games ... you have to know more details, you cant predict soccer games just by knowing results too you need to know who is injured what form etc oh thank god i take this bad post as example: like i ever saw a top grandmaster would ever lose in a tournament bo5 etc to a master ... it will happen like NEVER EVER ... the skill gap between a high master and a high grandmaster is so extremly high its like bronce vs diamond ... and all ins make game fun and comes to alot good games and you tell me that wasnt possible in sc1 ? in broodwar ? dude i was a B- in broodwar on iccup who only went b- by winning a god damn tournament (c+ average) and i did win clanwars vs A- and even i beat a god damn 73-5 A+ progamer in a god damn tournament on iccup ... by fuckn 4pooling him ... i did dt rush, dt sair rushs, offgate dragons, offgate zealots, and won SO many games on bwcl vs A- B+ by only cheesing ... sorry i even tell you that cheesing in broodwar was easier then it is in sc2, because when you did it right in broodwar there was NO coming back for the better player possible ... as i said, looking in the past and see the blue sky, not mentioning the bombers flying trough it also in bw there was like a handfull of tournaments a year for the progamers and that was it ... and in proleagues they had nearly all 40-60% winratios which was not really predictable ... there are just 10 times as much tournaments now edit: sry if i offend anyone with this long post i am just so tired of all the whine threads every week again and again Read my post again please. I said there is nothing that SC2 progamers do that can't be done by a masters player. I never said anything about beating X and Y. There is no such thing here such as mutalisk micro, marine spread vs lurkers, reaver micro, defiler + dark swarm etc etc. It's all pretty much amove with one or two spells. But since you mention it, I would believe that a SC2 progamer can lose games easier to random allins by random players than Brood War progamers. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Once again, by his argument dota 2 has problems because Alliance and Navi don't gave 05% win rates at events. | ||
|
mewo
United States221 Posts
On December 12 2013 02:44 Psychobabas wrote: Read my post again please. I said there is nothing that SC2 progamers do that can't be done by a masters player. I never said anything about beating X and Y. There is no such thing here such as mutalisk micro, marine spread vs lurkers, reaver micro, defiler + dark swarm etc etc. It's all pretty much amove with one or two spells. But since you mention it, I would believe that a SC2 progamer can lose games easier to random allins by random players than Brood War progamers. Decent players could do that stuff in bw as well. Just not as well. A masters player in sc2 has some of the skills of a pro but none of them are on the same level and he can't do as many at once. | ||
|
Caladan
Germany1238 Posts
On December 12 2013 00:21 DinoMight wrote: Except Taeja who won 5 tournaments this year and destroyed everyone's face in the last three tournaments he played in. And Jaedong who took 5 2nd places and 1 st place this year. Or MVP who was undisputed king of the world for quite some time. People need to realize that even in BW these "bonjwas" had their ups and their downs. So, why are you quoting me, when you disagree with the whole thread? You should rather quote OP. I'm not trying to prove OP's point (that should be obvious for everyone who watched both BW and SC2 for years) but rather trying to give an explanation for why is that. Edit: Just to clarify: The thread is "Why are sc2 results so unpredicatable" but your post is "Are sc2 results really unpredictable?". So you should make a new thread for this, if you want to take a step back. | ||
|
urboss
Austria1223 Posts
On December 12 2013 02:41 marvellosity wrote: urboss, is that per match win, or per game win? The SC2 percentages are per game win from TLPD. Per match win might be a better predictor. Does anyone have that info? | ||
|
SpaceCow
Germany21 Posts
| ||
|
marvellosity
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 12 2013 02:51 urboss wrote: The SC2 percentages are per game win from TLPD. Per match win might be a better predictor. Does anyone have that info? Just to throw a couple of things to think about at you. Let's say Djokovic won 100% of his matches by a score of 6-3 6-3 He would still only have a 66.7% game-win percentage. Kinda in the SC2 ballpark! Obviously that's pretty silly, but if you average it out, he probably actually wins less games than that (given he does lose, given he loses sets). If you look at points won in any single match, even in quite one-sided matches, 55-45% is really lopsided in a tennis match for points. 52-48% usually translates into a really convincing victory. During the most recent Dreamhack, I believe it was mentioned (and not disputed?) that Life had not previously lost an offline BO5+ series in his career (of course he then lost to Taeja). So while Life may have a 60-70% game win ratio, he clearly has an extremely high set-winning ratio in BO5+ matches. This all ties in to my original post about length of series as well. | ||
|
Deleted User 26513
2376 Posts
| ||
|
qotsager
Germany585 Posts
On December 12 2013 02:59 Pr0wler wrote: It's because the game is even more balanced than chess. End of story. chess is totally imba. white op. | ||
| ||
