EPTSeriously, there are some leaps of logic going on in this thread some times. Some valid complaints from some,(like dwf, who has stepped up his balance arguments), but some of these boil down to "this number for Protoss is higher, so Terran must be underpowered. Just ignore Korea, please. They are magic."
Ending my protoss journey - Page 27
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Seriously, there are some leaps of logic going on in this thread some times. Some valid complaints from some,(like dwf, who has stepped up his balance arguments), but some of these boil down to "this number for Protoss is higher, so Terran must be underpowered. Just ignore Korea, please. They are magic." | ||
|
Crownlol
United States3726 Posts
On December 18 2013 03:57 Plansix wrote: That is some creative math right there. The win rates show a nearly even split, yet there are fewer terrans. The only possible outcome, Zerg and Protoss are OP. Sure, the current terrans are winning at the same rate as everyone else. Clearly the only way true balance can happen is if we have perfect 33/33/33 split. Seriously, there are some leaps of logic going on in this thread some times. Some valid complaints from some,(like dwf, who has stepped up his balance arguments), but some of these boil down to "this number for Protoss is higher, so Terran must be underpowered. Just ignore Korea, please. They are magic." Was wondering when you'd show up, slingin' that logic. I love the rallying cry of the Balance Whiners: "Ignore XYZ, they're just really good!" | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
| ||
|
dani`
Netherlands2402 Posts
On December 18 2013 03:42 Hider wrote: You don't understand statistics at all. Just look at this information from Aliguac; PvT = 55% favour of protoss. 985 games played TvZ = 50%, 942 games played PvZ = 50%. 1525 games played [ ... ] Source: http://aligulac.com/reports/ The numbers were indeed worse during the Broodlord/infestor area, however it isn't actually that far away today. If you are going to use sourced statistics, at least don't round them up in your favor. It says right there PvT is 54.01%, any unbiased rounding would yield 54% and not 55%. I am not saying this is the hugest deal, but conveniently rounding up to 55% shows the bias which really does not help your case here. | ||
|
Breach_hu
Hungary2431 Posts
| ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:41 dani` wrote: If you are going to use sourced statistics, at least don't round them up in your favor. It says right there PvT is 54.01%, any unbiased rounding would yield 54% and not 55%. I am not saying this is the hugest deal, but conveniently rounding up to 55% shows the bias which really does not help your case here. For his defense, I think there were some changes recently, IIRC it was something like 44,73% few days ago. Maybe they added a few matchs. I might be wrong tho. | ||
|
Lazzi
Switzerland1923 Posts
On December 18 2013 03:47 Ben... wrote: Ding ding ding ding ding. We have a winner! That is exactly what is bugging me. Is Protoss strong on ladder right now? Yeah it appears to be. But that does not mean that everyone who plays Protoss only plays it to get easy wins. I've played it since 2010. I suffered through the 1/1/1 era, through the mass infestor beating every Protoss composition era (you know, when we saw 30+ infestors in a few GSL games), through immortal/sentry or die to infestor/broodlord era, why would I stop now? I've seen other people (and have been myself) personally insulted by Terran players just for playing Protoss. There needs to be a line drawn somewhere. Yes there were personalities promoting this attitude in the past about races (especially Idra) but it felt like back then people ignored it for the most part. Now that isn't as much the case and has been like this for a while. Are there people who switched to Protoss just because they are good on ladder right now? Probably. They are likely the same people who switched to Zerg during the infestor/broodlord era. They are probably the same people who did blind hellbat drops against every race near the end of the HOTS beta. They want the path of least resistance to winning, simple as that. I don't like that they do it but it's not like there is anything we can do to stop it. This is so true... I am getting really tired of some players answering to my "gg gl hf" by " STFU FUCKING PROTOSS". I do agree that maybe P is a bit too strong right now, but it is our fault? | ||
|
Crownlol
United States3726 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:41 dani` wrote: If you are going to use sourced statistics, at least don't round them up in your favor. It says right there PvT is 54.01%, any unbiased rounding would yield 54% and not 55%. I am not saying this is the hugest deal, but conveniently rounding up to 55% shows the bias which really does not help your case here. Actually, that 1% is very important when you're only talking about +- 5% fluctuations. Good eye. | ||
|
keglu
Poland485 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:44 Faust852 wrote: For his defense, I think there were some changes recently, IIRC it was something like 44,73% few days ago. Maybe they added a few matchs. I might be wrong tho. December 2nd PvT (55.05%) 812 games PvZ (49.72%) 1265 games TvZ (48.63%) 769 games | ||
|
Ignorant prodigy
United States385 Posts
My proposal would be to poll those indiscriminate and unbiased, underappreciated halo’s of knowledge that go undervalued- our Random brethren. They not only play all sides of the coin (er- dice in this case) they can tell you that at equal MMR levels if a disproportionate level of skill is needed for any given matchup. You guys I’m sure will dismiss this post as mere schumuckleydoo because there’s no professional random players and we’re all labeled as committed cheesers… but I assure you the opinions are valid.. and should hold more weight in my humblest of opinions than those of who are die-hard racists pigs. Random players are the Mariah Carey’s of starcraft.. we can play either race card whenever it’s convenient. | ||
|
dani`
Netherlands2402 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:44 Faust852 wrote: For his defense, I think there were some changes recently, IIRC it was something like 44,73% few days ago. Maybe they added a few matchs. I might be wrong tho. Well he does mention the 985 games played, which is the same for the 54.01% I see. So I'm pretty sure it was just a sneaky rounding up to make Terran look a tad weaker, which really is just kinda sad >_< | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
On December 18 2013 03:57 Plansix wrote: That is some creative math right there. The win rates show a nearly even split, yet there are fewer terrans. The only possible outcome, Zerg and Protoss are OP. Sure, the current terrans are winning at the same rate as everyone else. Clearly the only way true balance can happen is if we have perfect 33/33/33 split. Seriously, there are some leaps of logic going on in this thread some times. Some valid complaints from some,(like dwf, who has stepped up his balance arguments), but some of these boil down to "this number for Protoss is higher, so Terran must be underpowered. Just ignore Korea, please. They are magic." Its actually basic math/statistics, and I don't think you understand how either the Aliguac w/r works or the Blizzard ladder statistics works. Basically, they will (regardless of balance) always go towards 50/50. To see the intuition behind this, imagine that one race gets buffed in a patch and thus becomes OP. Let's imagine that a player was high master before the path, and afterwards his race benefits from a little buff which is enough to put him into GM. Thus postpatch, we will see a change in distribution favoring the new OP race. Shortly after the launch of the path, there will be changes in w/r but after the MMRs of the players have adjusted to the new "balance", w/r will go towards 50-50 again. This is due to the expectations of him now being evenly matched up against players that prepatch were slightly superior to him. So the only thing that has changed is the distribution. Aliguacs stats works in a similarly way (though there is a bigger lag-effect with those stats relatively to ladder-stats). In order to play competitively, you need a certain level of skills. If your race gets buffed, your chance of playing competitively increases. However, long-term W/R are still 50-50% since players of "even skill" are being matched up against each others. But in the case where there are (almost) twice as many protoss players playing competitively as terran players, its a clear indicator of a balance problem. Besides balance, there can be two other explantions for this outcome; 1) The average terran player is alot worse than the average protoss player 2) There are more protoss players than terran players Now we know that the latter is true too some extent, however, it doesn't fully explain the asymmetric distribution (one can easily do this math btw). The former explanation seems like a very debateable explanation, but one that can not easily be disprooven. When that is said, lying all your faith in the fact that terran players are just worse than protoss players seems pretty "creative". Regardless, these stats are simply the best indication of balance we can get. Make no mistake, they aren't perfect, but they are much more usefull than W/R that over time won't really matter. | ||
Darkhorse
United States23455 Posts
 | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
If you are going to use sourced statistics, at least don't round them up in your favor. It says right there PvT is 54.01%, any unbiased rounding would yield 54% and not 55%. I am not saying this is the hugest deal, but conveniently rounding up to 55% shows the bias which really does not help your case here. I actually didn't really check for the PvT numbers as someone else said 55% so I only looked for games played. Anyway, my entire point is that these numbers really doesn't matter that much (which is also why I didn't double-check). Its the amount of games played that is the clear sign of imbalance here. Too many people are simply looking isolated at the w/r ratio's (that are almost irrelevant) and basing balance off this. This has led too so much propaganda over time from someone like Plansix (who obviously doens't understand basic statistics). I think that is very bad for the Sc2-scene if we can't get closer to a balanced game to misinterpretation of the numbers. Prediction In a couple of months from now, the Aliguac numbers will have gone closer to 50%, and we will have biased protoss players telling us all how balanced the game is and how all the terran "whiners" have been proved wrong. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Rather than focus on how many Protoss are in GM or who has a 3.5% lead in the win rate, we should focus on real discussion, like early game scouting for Terran. I have always said that more scouting is good and if Terran need more, thy should get it. | ||
|
Hider
Denmark9388 Posts
On December 18 2013 05:34 Plansix wrote: I knew we were going to the mini novel from Hider once I challenged his logic. Of course his logic boils down to "it makes sense for me and the way i see this data. Therefor, Protoss players are worse than there an players." Spinning the numbers to favor your argument is so well used in every form of politics and by anyone pushing their own agenda. Yet we give it so much weight here on TL, when most of them come from a data mining site. Rather than focus on how many Protoss are in GM or who has a 3.5% lead in the win rate, we should focus on real discussion, like early game scouting for Terran. I have always said that more scouting is good and if Terran need more, thy should get it. I am fine with you preferring a qualitiative balance discussion. From my post it should also be quite obvious that there can be problems with basing it only on quantitive statistics as it is based on one crucicial assumption (equally skilled). In an optimal balance discussion you combine qualitiative analysis with quantitive numbers, however my problem with your post was that you dismissed my analysis as "creative math", which is absolutely nonsense, since that's the absolute only number that tells us something about balance. But if you feel your strenght is in the qualitiative analysis and not quantitive numbers I won't bother you about that anymore as long as you don't reply to post related to interpreting statistics. Therefor, Protoss players are worse than there an players." One last quote to (hopefully) end the discussion. Please reread my post, because that was not what I said at all. In fact I actually said that the opposite could be the case ( terran players worse than protoss players). When one is analyzing the game quantitively, and is coming to the conclusion that terran isn't UP, there is an implicit assumption (behind the conclusion) that terran players on average are worse than their protoss counterparts. But under the assumption that the average protoss is equally as skilled as the average terran player, it is simply a mathematical law that superior terran players are being faced up against inferior protoss/zergs on both the ladder. | ||
|
Sapphire.lux
Romania2620 Posts
 | ||
|
9-BiT
United States1089 Posts
On December 18 2013 04:26 Plansix wrote: I can only handle silly arguments for so long. People should just take Dwfs approach and focus on specifics, like Terran scouting in the early game. Rather than the less than compelling arguments of "look at GM!!!! Do you se all those Protoss? Justify them to me, because that looks like some imbalance right there." It's not the numbers that are telling of how frustrating the matchup is though, I don't think many people think it's imbalanced, and if they do they are wrong, it's just frustrating as hell and you have no room for error as terran. Obviously, at higher levels this is less of a problem because of the skill of the players, but at lower levels it's just like bashing your head against a wall. Especially because that besides harassment tools (widow mines and kind of hellbats) the matchup is entirely unchanged from both perspectives. The matchup is pretty much the same composition vs. the same composition for 3 years now. It's getting really stale. | ||
|
dreamseller
Australia914 Posts
without giving a 4th year unit summary in statistics, can i just underline the most important point about the aligulac data which was made by another poster above; the sample size being so much larger for protoss games, which would at first glance suggest an enormous imbalance towards protoss. the order of difference in the protoss games is no small amount! statistically it is humongous and should be the focus of discussion and hypothesis when it comes to the game balance. so then, the question should be, why do we have such a huge supply of protoss? is it really credible to believe that it is simply because the terran players are worse at the game to such a massive degree? remember we are talking about under-representation to the degree of HUNDREDS with such a small sample, so if it was the case, as some posters suggest in this thread, that it is terran playing the game incorrectly, the degree to which this is happening would be truly extraordinary, bizarre even, considering how quickly other terrans can copy successful styles. | ||
| ||
