|
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.
Are you using their match win rates or their game win rates? I feel like match win rates would be more appropriate. Imagine if Tennis was played only to a single set. The game would be considerably more random and even small mistakes could cost you the game- or even something outside of your control, like a bad wind or the sun in your eyes. A single game of SC2 is like that as well; a moment of lag screw up your ling bling micro? Get a build order loss on Star Station? Wasn't watching your army and it got fungalled, so now you can only watch as it dies?
|
your Country52798 Posts
SC2 consistency is lower currently because we haven't learned to see literally everything going on yet
|
On December 12 2013 02:55 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 02:51 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 02:41 marvellosity wrote: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? 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.
If you we want to compare SC2 and tennis then one game of SC2 equals one set in tennis (both are bo3, or bo5 mostly).
Counting only sets, then Novak Djokovic's win percentage shrinks to 81.5%.
You are right, when we compare the matches it's not so clear anymore.
It would be interesting to see some statistics on that.
|
I think it is a very valid question to ask.
One of the best first posts that I have read in a long time, very clean and pretty much spot on:
On December 11 2013 21:46 papaz wrote:
My opinions:
- Depth of micro is not enough
- Whoever wins the first big fight tend to win the game - comebacks are virtually non existent
- Units die too fast so it doesn't matter if you are Flash/Jaedong/Soulkey. If you happen to not pay attention for a sec enough units can be killed so that you more or less already have lost
- Games reach max limits very fast. Macro is easy and not rewarding so players like Flash "can't outmacro" the opponent just as easy because the difference between the worst pro and best pro at macro isn't that big
So I guess it's a combination of not enough depth and the volalite units vs too much dps.
|
Point 1: It's not more unpredictable than other sports in general.
Point 2: Kespa switch shook up 2013.
Point 3: HotS shook up 2013.
|
What is interesting to note is that Magnus Carlsen's win percentage for 2012 was only 54.1%.
Still, he did win almost every tournament he entered.
The reason for this is that the tournament structure in chess is different than the one for SC2.
In chess, they have one giant group stage and everyone plays against everyone else.
In the end, the one with the most points wins the tournament.
SC2 has a single elimination format after an early group stage.
What would you think of the idea of having round-robin tournaments in SC2?
This would ascertain that the best player also wins the most tournaments.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On December 12 2013 03:30 Big J wrote:
Point 1: It's not more unpredictable than other sports in general.
Point 2: Kespa switch shook up 2013.
Point 3: HotS shook up 2013.
Reading this post made me realize how far we've come in a year, so awesome.
2014 is hopefully going to be super stable.
|
your Country52798 Posts
On December 12 2013 03:31 urboss wrote:
What is interesting to note is that Magnus Carlsen's win percentage for 2012 was only 54.1%.
Still, he did win almost every tournament he entered.
The reason for this is that the tournament structure in chess is different than the one for SC2.
In chess, they have one giant group stage and everyone plays against everyone else.
In the end, the one with the most points wins the tournament.
SC2 has a single elimination format after an early group stage.
What would you think of the idea of having round-robin tournaments in SC2?
This would ascertain that the best player also wins the most tournaments.
The difference between chess and sc2 matches is that there are a lot of ties in chess, so 54% win rate is actually really really good if you tie about 1/3 of your games.
|
Games can be build-order wins because scouting is too ineffective. That's one.
Games can be decided by instant, terrible, terrible damage like single baneling hits. That's two. (See Jaedong vs Scarlett for some great examples, ASUS ROG)
Games can be decided by weird metagame stuff, again a scouting issue mostly, but also strategic. That's three.
...
The only really really consistent players are Jaedong (6 top-2 finishes in a year) and Soulkey.
|
On December 12 2013 03:33 The_Templar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 03:31 urboss wrote:
What is interesting to note is that Magnus Carlsen's win percentage for 2012 was only 54.1%.
Still, he did win almost every tournament he entered.
The reason for this is that the tournament structure in chess is different than the one for SC2.
In chess, they have one giant group stage and everyone plays against everyone else.
In the end, the one with the most points wins the tournament.
SC2 has a single elimination format after an early group stage.
What would you think of the idea of having round-robin tournaments in SC2?
This would ascertain that the best player also wins the most tournaments. The difference between chess and sc2 matches is that there are a lot of ties in chess, so 54% win rate is actually really really good if you tie about 1/3 of your games.
The 54% win rate of Magnus Carlsen is calculated without the ties:
39 wins
33 losses
|
United Kingdom36161 Posts
On December 12 2013 03:35 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 03:33 The_Templar wrote:On December 12 2013 03:31 urboss wrote:
What is interesting to note is that Magnus Carlsen's win percentage for 2012 was only 54.1%.
Still, he did win almost every tournament he entered.
The reason for this is that the tournament structure in chess is different than the one for SC2.
In chess, they have one giant group stage and everyone plays against everyone else.
In the end, the one with the most points wins the tournament.
SC2 has a single elimination format after an early group stage.
What would you think of the idea of having round-robin tournaments in SC2?
This would ascertain that the best player also wins the most tournaments. The difference between chess and sc2 matches is that there are a lot of ties in chess, so 54% win rate is actually really really good if you tie about 1/3 of your games. The 54% win rate of Magnus Carlsen is calculated without the ties: 39 wins 33 losses
? Something is wrong, there's no way Carlsen's record is 39-33. Like, not a chance. My e-money says you're misreading some stat or something :/
Don't see why you'd make a set of tennis into a game of SC2 either, that's a funny analogy. A set of tennis contains a further subset of games, which contains a further subset of points, whereas an SC2 game has no such breakdown of competition. (ergo, once you win a point in a game of tennis, you have a new one, you start over)
Seems pretty obvious to me that a BO5 tennis match is WAY more rigorous than a BO5 SC2 match.
If we take tennis from the point of view of the "favourite" - If you fuck up once, you lose a point. Fuck up a few times and you lose a game. You have to fuck up a load of times to lose a set, and then you have to repeat that massive fuckup repeatedly to actually lose a match.
You only have to fuck up a few times in a BO5 SC2 series and you've lost the whole match. The margin for error is much much lower...
|
your Country52798 Posts
On December 12 2013 03:42 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 03:35 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 03:33 The_Templar wrote:On December 12 2013 03:31 urboss wrote:
What is interesting to note is that Magnus Carlsen's win percentage for 2012 was only 54.1%.
Still, he did win almost every tournament he entered.
The reason for this is that the tournament structure in chess is different than the one for SC2.
In chess, they have one giant group stage and everyone plays against everyone else.
In the end, the one with the most points wins the tournament.
SC2 has a single elimination format after an early group stage.
What would you think of the idea of having round-robin tournaments in SC2?
This would ascertain that the best player also wins the most tournaments. The difference between chess and sc2 matches is that there are a lot of ties in chess, so 54% win rate is actually really really good if you tie about 1/3 of your games. The 54% win rate of Magnus Carlsen is calculated without the ties: 39 wins 33 losses ? Something is wrong, there's no way Carlsen's record is 39-33. Like, not a chance. My e-money says you're misreading some stat or something :/ Don't see why you'd make a set of tennis into a game of SC2 either, that's a funny analogy. A set of tennis contains a further subset of games, which contains a further subset of points, whereas an SC2 game has no such breakdown of competition. (ergo, once you win a point in a game of tennis, you have a new one, you start over) Seems pretty obvious to me that a BO5 tennis match is WAY more rigorous than a BO5 SC2 match. If we take tennis from the point of view of the "favourite" - If you fuck up once, you lose a point. Fuck up a few times and you lose a game. You have to fuck up a load of times to lose a set, and then you have to repeat that massive fuckup repeatedly to actually lose a match. You only have to fuck up a few times in a BO5 SC2 series and you've lost the whole match. The margin for error is much much lower...
yeah, hell, he went 4-0-7 or something in the world championship, does that mean he got in with a 35-33 record?
|
I'd say it's because of cheese. It can end the game in the first five minutes. In a game like tennis, we can safely bet that Djokovic will win because some noob can't beat him by winning the first point.
|
Skewed stat is Skewed.
Look at Djokovic's record for instance. In 2013 he went 24 - 3 (88.89%) in head to head match. But each head to head consists of sets which he went 75 - 19 (79.79%), and each set consists of games which he went 543 - 360 (60.13%). This is even before considering each points in any given game.
So you see, Taeja is much more dominant in SC2 than Djokovic is in tennis.
Edit: For the sake of an argument, one SC2 game most closely resembles one point in tennis game, imo.
|
SC2 is more complicated than box or tennis,therefore it has so various results.
|
On December 12 2013 03:42 marvellosity wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 03:35 urboss wrote:On December 12 2013 03:33 The_Templar wrote:On December 12 2013 03:31 urboss wrote:
What is interesting to note is that Magnus Carlsen's win percentage for 2012 was only 54.1%.
Still, he did win almost every tournament he entered.
The reason for this is that the tournament structure in chess is different than the one for SC2.
In chess, they have one giant group stage and everyone plays against everyone else.
In the end, the one with the most points wins the tournament.
SC2 has a single elimination format after an early group stage.
What would you think of the idea of having round-robin tournaments in SC2?
This would ascertain that the best player also wins the most tournaments. The difference between chess and sc2 matches is that there are a lot of ties in chess, so 54% win rate is actually really really good if you tie about 1/3 of your games. The 54% win rate of Magnus Carlsen is calculated without the ties: 39 wins 33 losses ? Something is wrong, there's no way Carlsen's record is 39-33. Like, not a chance. My e-money says you're misreading some stat or something :/ Don't see why you'd make a set of tennis into a game of SC2 either, that's a funny analogy. A set of tennis contains a further subset of games, which contains a further subset of points, whereas an SC2 game has no such breakdown of competition. (ergo, once you win a point in a game of tennis, you have a new one, you start over) Seems pretty obvious to me that a BO5 tennis match is WAY more rigorous than a BO5 SC2 match. If we take tennis from the point of view of the "favourite" - If you fuck up once, you lose a point. Fuck up a few times and you lose a game. You have to fuck up a load of times to lose a set, and then you have to repeat that massive fuckup repeatedly to actually lose a match. You only have to fuck up a few times in a BO5 SC2 series and you've lost the whole match. The margin for error is much much lower...
You are right, the 54% win rate of Magnus Carlsen includes rapid and blitz games.
For classical games his win rate is 57.8%.
For statistic's sake you need to take the common divisor,
i.e. in a bo5 one match equals 3 won SC2 games or 3 won tennis sets.
|
On December 11 2013 21:47 marvellosity wrote:
You'll probably get a load of different responses about the nature of the game, but in part it's simply because series are so short. BO3s and BO5s are really incredibly volatile things.
It's kinda like playing only one set in tennis.
In chess, you get tournaments where it's all play all (usually) so everyone has the whole tournament to perform. In FIDE's short knockout world championships in the 90s and 2000s, there were a lot of "random" chess 'world champions' - Khalifman, Ponamariov, Khazimdzhanov (spelling) - random, quite strong GMs, but not actually world class. These tournaments are a pretty good equivalent of how SC2 tournaments are structured tbh, and the outcome is STILL really unpredictable, even though chess is a game of perfect information/much less (if any) luck.
Yeah, this is probably the best answer.
Again, it would be interesting to have SC2 round robin tournaments to counteract this randomness.
The question is, does anyone wanna watch that?
|
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.
Guys, very important.
In other sports, namely Tennis, there is SEEDING. Meaning the best players play against the worst players in the first few rounds of a bracket.
In StarCraft, there is no seeding. So we frequently end up with "groups of death" (Taeja, Innovation, sOs ForGG in one group at DH Winter, for example).
If we had seeding, more of the best players would advance further in each tournament, giving them a higher chance of winning it all in the end.
In Tennis, The Joker rarely has to play anyone good until the quarter finals at least. In StarCraft, it's not uncommon for top players at a tournament to end up in the group stage together and eliminate each other early, freeing up spots for other players to take.
EDIT - Also,
In other major sports, all the top pros travel to every event. In e-Sports this isn't always the case as budgets are a lot more limited. So sometimes this is a factor too. Not everyone is always competing with each other because of the WCS system as well.
If we had just 5 tournaments a year that every single pro went to, and the entrants were seeded based on perceived skill ahead of time, I think you'd find a lot more consistency in the top 3-4 finishers.
|
On December 12 2013 04:04 DinoMight wrote:Show nested quote +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. Guys, very important. In other sports, namely Tennis, there is SEEDING. Meaning the best players play against the worst players in the first few rounds of a bracket. In StarCraft, there is no seeding. So we frequently end up with "groups of death" (Taeja, Innovation, sOs ForGG in one group at DH Winter, for example). If we had seeding, more of the best players would advance further in each tournament, giving them a higher chance of winning it all in the end. In Tennis, The Joker rarely has to play anyone good until the quarter finals at least. In StarCraft, it's not uncommon for top players at a tournament to end up in the group stage together and eliminate each other early, freeing up spots for other players to take.
Interesting point!
The next question would be:
Why is there no seeding?
|
On December 12 2013 04:06 urboss wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 04:04 DinoMight wrote: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. Guys, very important. In other sports, namely Tennis, there is SEEDING. Meaning the best players play against the worst players in the first few rounds of a bracket. In StarCraft, there is no seeding. So we frequently end up with "groups of death" (Taeja, Innovation, sOs ForGG in one group at DH Winter, for example). If we had seeding, more of the best players would advance further in each tournament, giving them a higher chance of winning it all in the end. In Tennis, The Joker rarely has to play anyone good until the quarter finals at least. In StarCraft, it's not uncommon for top players at a tournament to end up in the group stage together and eliminate each other early, freeing up spots for other players to take. Interesting point! The next question would be: Why is there no seeding?
Because we like our finals sucking for the most part, so when we watch one that is good we call it the match up of the century.
On a more serious note, it is because it´s just unfair (since there is no system on sc2 to handle this seeding).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
