|
i play within a little starcraft club. every one in the club has a full time job.
the players range from Silver to Diamond. 7 of the 15 people in the club have 2 accounts or more. they usually got this 2nd account from a friend abandoning the game long ago.
all 7 people have the following experience:
their lowest ranked account is always their Terran account.
in our little group we think its pretty clear Terran takes more skill than the other 2 races.
none of us really care because we are just playing for fun.
obviously, 7 people is not enough to "prove" terran requires more skill.
and this says nothing about what it takes in the GM league and the pro ranks.
pros could have a right to be pissed off about the current state of balance. But, any one diamond and below should just relax and enjoy the explosions and cool graphics.
i don't care what little balance adjustments DK makes, the game is fun as is and will probably be fun after a patch.
|
On January 11 2014 01:16 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 00:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 00:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:38 Hider wrote:On January 11 2014 00:28 Satiinifi wrote:
I guess it all depends on how you measure balance, if you take the best player of each race and make them duke it out the game is probly balanced, has always been, but if you take 100-1000 top players of each race, its extremely extremely fucking imbalanced. Its same as saying that the wealth in the world is fairly balanced, if you take 3 of the richest fuckers out there, but if you include the couple of billion people who are fucking starving, it doesnt look too fair anymore does it. David kim is just a fucking delusional guy living in his very own world, far from realism. But there is also another problem wiht using only the very top... Its not evenly matched. Proleague is still something like this: - Top 30 protoss - Top 10-15 terran - Top 20 zergs Eventually we will also expect that these win-rates go towards 50-50, because the terran players that play in proleague is of a lower decimil (they are the top-top-top while the protoss players are "just" top-top). David Kim simply fails to see that all of the metrics that he use to balance the game, eventually goes towards 50-50. That's just the mechanics of the competitive and the ladder system. Yeah right, he doesn't understand it, i am sure he got the job at blizzard for his looks or something. And yeah the protoss players in proleague are only "top-top", pls name me 5 protoss players that are better than herO, sOs, Rain, Parting that aren't in Proleague right now. Look at the numbers above, if you have 8 T in total, that means is that most likely you have only top 10 T in the world in proleague (minus Taeja and Innovation, Bbyong and Polt can be contentious if you're generous), but if there are 22 P in proleague, you cannot necessarily have only top 10 P in proleague. These statistic is completely useless cause you don't have all the top players for each race playing in proleague. Protoss has most of the top players in there, terran and zerg not so much. If you aren't happy with counting the "lesser tosses" into the winrates, then just take the top matches, shouldn't be too hard. Let me explain why that's a bad idea: Let's only take top 3 of both races, ok? We have easy access to that data: Top 3 T winrate against P: 86% Top 3 P winrate against T: 100% I am saying if you aren't satisfied with the winrates cause of variance in skill, just look at top terran vs top toss.(and even that is not that usefull, but yeah) What would be more important to look at is the rosters of the proleague teams and how many toss, terran and zegr players there are overall. And maybe try to look at the overall skilllevel of the races. First, this game of threads is played such that you make a claim and show proof. What you're doing is just making claims, and then having me show the FALLACY of your claims. That's rude and lazy. Still, let me do that again. Top P versus top T only? That's entirely arbitrary because we're basically asking for those with recent wins only. That takes out TY's win against sOs as sOs has lost 3 games in a row and has no wins. It also takes out Zest who I think is excellent, but who has a terrible winrate. That leaves the following games. And even those are pretty damn arbitrary. Rain>Dream Sora>Flash As for rosters, they show NOTHING about balance because the rosters are decided a year in advance and are not flexible enough to respond to meta game shifts and balance patches. This should be obvious. So, instead of throwing out ridiculous claims, try to figure out something sensible that survives some empirical evidence coming close.
I will only address the rosters, all i am saying is, that if you have a team with mostly toss players and they are in average better than their counterparts, it is not really surprising if you will have more toss playing.
You look at the number of races being played and make the assumption this has anything to do with balance, it has not.
|
On January 11 2014 00:43 Falling wrote:
Subtracting player skill seems a bit weird because how do quantify it besides their ladder results? However, I wonder if it has to do with their internal mmr. For instance, at the top level, GM, which is what they would be most concerned about, there is a smaller population base to play on. So they might be playing down as much as they are playing up or their own skill. But if Blizzard knows the mmr, they can drop the weight a bit on wins over opponents with less mmr as well as losses vs opponents with higher mmr. After all, auto-match making must find you an opponent at some point and if it a slow day/ night and has to expand search all the time, the wins and losses might be affected that way.
I'm probably wrong because I have only a foggy notion on how their mmr stuff works, but that's what came to mind when I read this thread.
I said it way earlier in the thread, but this is exactly what I thought of as well. MMR is their rating of a player's skill, and by only looking at games where it's identical (or almost) between the two players, you remove skill as a potential reason for one player winning because theoretically a game between two equally skilled players is 50/50. And if skill wasn't the reason for a win, it must have been something else, such as race balance.
Of course, that approach assumes that MMR is an accurate enough indicator of skill, and I severely doubt that's the case. But if it wasn't the best Blizzard could do, they wouldn't be using it.
Also, there are an astounding amount of people ITT who are confusing balance and design. Whether or not the game is balanced has nothing to do with your notions of what makes a fun game or a boring one, so stop trying to claim the game is imbalanced because you don't like how the game is played. I do think the game isn't designed as well as it could be, but that doesn't make it imbalanced.
However, I do agree that David Kim/Blizzard should be spending more time trying to make the game better designed instead of chasing a 50/50 winrate. The process should be that they make a fun game, and then they balance it. This is probably what they're doing, but Blizzard believes they have a fun game and have moved on to balancing it, whereas we here aren't as confident.
|
On January 10 2014 12:18 beesinyoface wrote:
Ah yes David Kim, it seems you and your team still just don't GET it, do you?
Oh well.
What is there to get? Enlighten me.
|
I wonder how many posts Plansix has written in this thread, would not surprise me if he is close to 100 posts in this thread alone, I have never seen anyone be as passionate about balance as him, Plansix literally makes Avilo seem disinterested in balance.
I've always wondered about his race and level :D
|
On January 11 2014 01:03 Faruko wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 20:34 fx9 wrote:On January 10 2014 20:17 Faruko wrote:"but Protoss players have lost at a noticeable clip in that tournament. As of this writing, they’ve recorded only 11 wins in 35 non-mirror matchups" Like i said, just look at the higher level protoss, they are doing fine on Proleague (except sOs  !!!), proleague are full of protoss players that dont even have 50% of Parting/Rain/Jilla skills, they are pretty much thinking that the race is far more important and powerful than the player itself But even Rain and Jilla lost last week. So your point is??? Oh come, they lost 1 match Jilla lost to Sniper which is a really good Zerg and Rain to Byul which, again, its a damn good Zerg (4-0 actually) So my point is, Protoss players which are GOOD players are getting the results they deserve, the other ones... not so much. So the problem comes from Proleague which are just abusing Protoss even though they have better players in other races
The problem is you are implying that other than those 4, the rest of the protoss players are scrubs.
Even 3 out of 4 players that you quote are losing in non-mirror MU. Last time I checked, Sora, herO, Trap are pretty darn good players too. So your argument holds no water.
What happened last week in PL has nothing to do with good players vs bad protosses as you are trying to prove. Just shifting of meta.
Well, last week's games are still just a very small sample size, but it's up to the protoss players to adapt to the new meta. No need to cry about imbalance.
|
The percentages are not worth much without looking at the balance of total numbers of terrans, protos and zergies..... If they too show a stable then its looking ok
|
On January 11 2014 01:20 Sapphire.lux wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:12 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 01:07 Big J wrote:On January 11 2014 00:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:38 Hider wrote:On January 11 2014 00:28 Satiinifi wrote:
I guess it all depends on how you measure balance, if you take the best player of each race and make them duke it out the game is probly balanced, has always been, but if you take 100-1000 top players of each race, its extremely extremely fucking imbalanced. Its same as saying that the wealth in the world is fairly balanced, if you take 3 of the richest fuckers out there, but if you include the couple of billion people who are fucking starving, it doesnt look too fair anymore does it. David kim is just a fucking delusional guy living in his very own world, far from realism. But there is also another problem wiht using only the very top... Its not evenly matched. Proleague is still something like this: - Top 30 protoss - Top 10-15 terran - Top 20 zergs Eventually we will also expect that these win-rates go towards 50-50, because the terran players that play in proleague is of a lower decimil (they are the top-top-top while the protoss players are "just" top-top). David Kim simply fails to see that all of the metrics that he use to balance the game, eventually goes towards 50-50. That's just the mechanics of the competitive and the ladder system. Yeah right, he doesn't understand it, i am sure he got the job at blizzard for his looks or something. And yeah the protoss players in proleague are only "top-top", pls name me 5 protoss players that are better than herO, sOs, Rain, Parting that aren't in Proleague right now. Well, he is not a statistician by his CV qualification and I'm pretty sure he isn't the guy who makes those statistics or the MMR and all the ladder calculations. He is probably that guy that gathers all the balance information from the intern and extern statistics, gathers the feedback from pros and the guys responsible for community feedback and plays the game a lot himself at a high level, and then has to make the decisions. Well yeah obviously, but i am pretty sure he has better understanding of these things than 99% on teamliquid. I just can't stand all these people who think they would do such a good job and preach that DK/Blizzard has no idea about anything, it is just so damn stupid to think. There is a problem with transparency i think. If people knew how some of those stats were calculated it would be a lot better. Showing a 6 day period doesn't help credibility either. It's easy to get the impression that they are only showing what makes them look good, especially with the WOL winfestor precedent and the denial of imbalance we had back then.
Using a 6 day period is enough to discredit the stats by itself. Blizzard has said that the ladder stats are different every day depending on who logs on. There is also the issue of adjusting to the meta and the new maps. They can't possibly show a 6 day sample and act like it's representative for the balance of the past two or three months.
On January 11 2014 01:32 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:24 ImperialFist wrote:
I wonder how many posts Plansix has written in this thread, would not surprise me if he is close to 100 posts in this thread alone, I have never seen anyone be as passionate about balance as him, Plansix literally makes Avilo seem disinterested in balance.
I've always wondered about his race and level :D I think he feels the need to balance out the huge amount of biased balance-whiners on TL. His points are for the most times reasonable, though when you always try to take the one side (aka defends Blizzard in every situation), then you overdo it in some situations.
Plansix is a bit monomaniacal about the issue though, hence his reputation. I don't mind usually his posts so much, but I think that sometimes he goes overboard and his posts become both mean-spirited in tone and predictable.
|
On January 11 2014 01:24 ImperialFist wrote:
I wonder how many posts Plansix has written in this thread, would not surprise me if he is close to 100 posts in this thread alone, I have never seen anyone be as passionate about balance as him, Plansix literally makes Avilo seem disinterested in balance.
I've always wondered about his race and level :D
I think he feels the need to balance out the huge amount of biased balance-whiners on TL. His points are for the most times reasonable, though when you always try to take the one side (aka defends Blizzard in every situation), then you overdo it in some situations.
|
On January 11 2014 01:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:16 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 01:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 00:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 00:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:38 Hider wrote:On January 11 2014 00:28 Satiinifi wrote:
I guess it all depends on how you measure balance, if you take the best player of each race and make them duke it out the game is probly balanced, has always been, but if you take 100-1000 top players of each race, its extremely extremely fucking imbalanced. Its same as saying that the wealth in the world is fairly balanced, if you take 3 of the richest fuckers out there, but if you include the couple of billion people who are fucking starving, it doesnt look too fair anymore does it. David kim is just a fucking delusional guy living in his very own world, far from realism. But there is also another problem wiht using only the very top... Its not evenly matched. Proleague is still something like this: - Top 30 protoss - Top 10-15 terran - Top 20 zergs Eventually we will also expect that these win-rates go towards 50-50, because the terran players that play in proleague is of a lower decimil (they are the top-top-top while the protoss players are "just" top-top). David Kim simply fails to see that all of the metrics that he use to balance the game, eventually goes towards 50-50. That's just the mechanics of the competitive and the ladder system. Yeah right, he doesn't understand it, i am sure he got the job at blizzard for his looks or something. And yeah the protoss players in proleague are only "top-top", pls name me 5 protoss players that are better than herO, sOs, Rain, Parting that aren't in Proleague right now. Look at the numbers above, if you have 8 T in total, that means is that most likely you have only top 10 T in the world in proleague (minus Taeja and Innovation, Bbyong and Polt can be contentious if you're generous), but if there are 22 P in proleague, you cannot necessarily have only top 10 P in proleague. These statistic is completely useless cause you don't have all the top players for each race playing in proleague. Protoss has most of the top players in there, terran and zerg not so much. If you aren't happy with counting the "lesser tosses" into the winrates, then just take the top matches, shouldn't be too hard. Let me explain why that's a bad idea: Let's only take top 3 of both races, ok? We have easy access to that data: Top 3 T winrate against P: 86% Top 3 P winrate against T: 100% I am saying if you aren't satisfied with the winrates cause of variance in skill, just look at top terran vs top toss.(and even that is not that usefull, but yeah) What would be more important to look at is the rosters of the proleague teams and how many toss, terran and zegr players there are overall. And maybe try to look at the overall skilllevel of the races. First, this game of threads is played such that you make a claim and show proof. What you're doing is just making claims, and then having me show the FALLACY of your claims. That's rude and lazy. Still, let me do that again. Top P versus top T only? That's entirely arbitrary because we're basically asking for those with recent wins only. That takes out TY's win against sOs as sOs has lost 3 games in a row and has no wins. It also takes out Zest who I think is excellent, but who has a terrible winrate. That leaves the following games. And even those are pretty damn arbitrary. Rain>Dream Sora>Flash As for rosters, they show NOTHING about balance because the rosters are decided a year in advance and are not flexible enough to respond to meta game shifts and balance patches. This should be obvious. So, instead of throwing out ridiculous claims, try to figure out something sensible that survives some empirical evidence coming close. I will only address the rosters, all i am saying is, that if you have a team with mostly toss players and they are in average better than their counterparts, it is not really surprising if you will have more toss playing. You look at the number of races being played and make the assumption this has anything to do with balance, it has not.
And once again, a ridiculous claim.
The rosters have been announced here:
http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/26408-full-rosters-for-proleague-13-14-announced
From the representation of P in Proleague, you'd expect Proleague teams to have 3x the P compared to T and 2x the P compared to Z. Let's look at ratios:
P: 32
T: 19
Z: 27
Were the prediction correct, we'd expect there to be 9-10 T less than there are, and about 15 Z less than there are.
If you look at some of the major teams:
KT: 3P & 3T
SK Telecom: 4P & 4 T
CJ Entus: 4P & 3T
In fact, it's Samsung that's lacking T and IM. But they don't really have that many top P, so they are considered Z dominated teams.
Also, there are questionable P in the list, such as Prime's Barbie. If she's fielded, ever, I'll eat my hat (and I have a nice hat).
|
On January 11 2014 01:24 fx9 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:03 Faruko wrote:On January 10 2014 20:34 fx9 wrote:On January 10 2014 20:17 Faruko wrote:"but Protoss players have lost at a noticeable clip in that tournament. As of this writing, they’ve recorded only 11 wins in 35 non-mirror matchups" Like i said, just look at the higher level protoss, they are doing fine on Proleague (except sOs !!!), proleague are full of protoss players that dont even have 50% of Parting/Rain/Jilla skills, they are pretty much thinking that the race is far more important and powerful than the player itself But even Rain and Jilla lost last week. So your point is??? Oh come, they lost 1 match Jilla lost to Sniper which is a really good Zerg and Rain to Byul which, again, its a damn good Zerg (4-0 actually) So my point is, Protoss players which are GOOD players are getting the results they deserve, the other ones... not so much. So the problem comes from Proleague which are just abusing Protoss even though they have better players in other races The problem is you are implying that other than those 4, the rest of the protoss players are scrubs. Even 3 out of 4 players that you quote are losing in non-mirror MU. Last time I checked, Sora, herO, Trap are pretty darn good players too. So your argument holds no water. What happened last week in PL has nothing to do with good players vs bad protosses as you are trying to prove. Just shifting of meta. Well, last week's games are still just a very small sample size, but it's up to the protoss players to adapt to the new meta. No need to cry about imbalance.
Sora and Trap have not lost to a T.
|
On January 11 2014 01:19 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 00:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:38 Hider wrote:On January 11 2014 00:28 Satiinifi wrote:
I guess it all depends on how you measure balance, if you take the best player of each race and make them duke it out the game is probly balanced, has always been, but if you take 100-1000 top players of each race, its extremely extremely fucking imbalanced. Its same as saying that the wealth in the world is fairly balanced, if you take 3 of the richest fuckers out there, but if you include the couple of billion people who are fucking starving, it doesnt look too fair anymore does it. David kim is just a fucking delusional guy living in his very own world, far from realism. But there is also another problem wiht using only the very top... Its not evenly matched. Proleague is still something like this: - Top 30 protoss - Top 10-15 terran - Top 20 zergs Eventually we will also expect that these win-rates go towards 50-50, because the terran players that play in proleague is of a lower decimil (they are the top-top-top while the protoss players are "just" top-top). David Kim simply fails to see that all of the metrics that he use to balance the game, eventually goes towards 50-50. That's just the mechanics of the competitive and the ladder system. Yeah right, he doesn't understand it, i am sure he got the job at blizzard for his looks or something. And yeah the protoss players in proleague are only "top-top", pls name me 5 protoss players that are better than herO, sOs, Rain, Parting that aren't in Proleague right now. Eh... There are more protoss players in proleague than terrans. This means that they are of a relatively lower quality (like top 0.0001% of all terran players and top 0.0002% of all protoss players). David Kim certainly didn't get his job for his understanding at statistics btw - That's really my main issue w/ him. What I want for Blizzard is to explain us how they make these adjustments. Their statistic-guy needs to come out and write a post detailing how adjusted win-rates can be 50-50 despite terran being so hugely underpresented. Show nested quote +
Well yeah obviously, but i am pretty sure he has better understanding of these things than 99% on teamliquid.
I just can't stand all these people who think they would do such a good job and preach that DK/Blizzard has no idea about anything, it is just so !@#$%^&* stupid to think.
99% ppl on TL doesn't complain about his lack of understanding of statistics. I do, and fair to say my level of education of statistics is at a higher level than David Kim's (giving his education background).
What? there is no correlation between the number of players of each race in proleague and their average skilllevel.
Not only that, you have to look at each roster seperately cause every team can only send out a maximum of 5 players (more like 4 though).
Well yeah but he doesn't do the job as someone else stated before, he is just the one that speaks to us.
I don't know what you do, but i am pretty sure that blizzard has guys that know their stuff, it is at least brave to say that you think they do this wrong only cause you don't understand how they do it.
|
It's quite funny watching people even mention statistics, apparently people do not watch the games and do not care anything about actual design. Everything is not about statistical balance.
|
On January 11 2014 01:22 templar rage wrote:
However, I do agree that David Kim/Blizzard should be spending more time trying to make the game better designed instead of chasing a 50/50 winrate. The process should be that they make a fun game, and then they balance it. This is probably what they're doing, but Blizzard believes they have a fun game and have moved on to balancing it, whereas we here aren't as confident.
And of course this is where Blizzard calls "BS". Why? Because here you are in this forum talking about a game that is essentially just the 4th expansion of a game that came out in 1998, over 15 years ago.
Starcraft isn't a subscription model like WoW. They don't have to constantly placate to the base to maintain a revenue stream. They have other brands they can focus on, and even new ones (Heroes of the Storm, Hearthstone, etc) They are proud of the brand and the massive tournaments and fan LOVE for the game they seen over the years, so they choose to make a commitment to it, period. If it really wasn't a fun and beloved product, they could dump it like the thousands of junk games you never heard of sitting on a Gamestop shelf right now. Far contrary to your implication of them not not having a 'fun game', they have one of the most fun games of all time .... that's why this website exists, and that's why you're on said website talking about it.
Much of this is standard human behavior, so there are no surprises here, but always worth acknowledging. Just a bunch of fat people in a candy store complaining to everyone in line how terrible that platter of free chocolates they just finished off was.
|
Why not make all top players contribute?
Lets say all premiere players in all regions have to to fill out a form (ie a cpl times per year/each season)
and contribute with their experience and thoughts regarding all aspects? That would be the normal business solution.
(must say esport also has to become much more "professional" in general and improve a lot).
I also believe in letting the meta play out over a little longer period.
The changes earlier made for Terran seems now to have been somewhat hasty i.e.
(even though blizz were under a lot of pressure from the community to nerf Terran at the time).
It's great, at least for us viewers, that players are almost forced into finding new tactics and adopting different play styles,
developing better knowledge and testing out a lot, becoming more versatile etc. Hate to see same stuff over and over :-)
|
On January 11 2014 01:23 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On January 10 2014 12:18 beesinyoface wrote:
Ah yes David Kim, it seems you and your team still just don't GET it, do you?
Oh well. What is there to get? Enlighten me.
What he doesn't get is that balance isn't purely represented by win-rates with skill factored out over a 6-day period. Also, he doesn't get the actual complaints people are making about certain match-ups if he thinks that they need more time to look at numbers. Long story short, he doesn't get it; you know... the game.
It makes sense that PvT is the match-up with the most glaring issues, because he understands them the least. To not realize that Protoss has too much AoE while Terran is forced into a high-DPS, low HP, volatile army composition with very little early-game damage potential and no late-game seems pretty ridiculous. For the match-up to have undergone such a gigantic transformation from what it was in Broodwar it should make a person wonder what they've done wrong, but no... They seem to think it's all perfectly fine for the time being.
|
Stats from aligulac for the WCS Korea Code A qualifiers:
PvT 32–30 (51.61%)
PvZ 47–43 (52.22%)
TvZ 35–37 (48.61%)
35 PvP, 11 TvT, 40 ZvZ
It's the same pattern: terran is slightly disadvantaged in both non-mirrors and there is a general lack of terran players to begin with.
|
On January 11 2014 01:41 ImperialFist wrote:
It's quite funny watching people even mention statistics, apparently people do not watch the games and do not care anything about actual design. Everything is not about statistical balance.
It's a balance discussion. make a blog if you want to discuss design.
|
On January 11 2014 01:35 Ghanburighan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 01:16 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 01:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 00:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 00:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:38 Hider wrote:On January 11 2014 00:28 Satiinifi wrote:
I guess it all depends on how you measure balance, if you take the best player of each race and make them duke it out the game is probly balanced, has always been, but if you take 100-1000 top players of each race, its extremely extremely fucking imbalanced. Its same as saying that the wealth in the world is fairly balanced, if you take 3 of the richest fuckers out there, but if you include the couple of billion people who are fucking starving, it doesnt look too fair anymore does it. David kim is just a fucking delusional guy living in his very own world, far from realism. But there is also another problem wiht using only the very top... Its not evenly matched. Proleague is still something like this: - Top 30 protoss - Top 10-15 terran - Top 20 zergs Eventually we will also expect that these win-rates go towards 50-50, because the terran players that play in proleague is of a lower decimil (they are the top-top-top while the protoss players are "just" top-top). David Kim simply fails to see that all of the metrics that he use to balance the game, eventually goes towards 50-50. That's just the mechanics of the competitive and the ladder system. Yeah right, he doesn't understand it, i am sure he got the job at blizzard for his looks or something. And yeah the protoss players in proleague are only "top-top", pls name me 5 protoss players that are better than herO, sOs, Rain, Parting that aren't in Proleague right now. Look at the numbers above, if you have 8 T in total, that means is that most likely you have only top 10 T in the world in proleague (minus Taeja and Innovation, Bbyong and Polt can be contentious if you're generous), but if there are 22 P in proleague, you cannot necessarily have only top 10 P in proleague. These statistic is completely useless cause you don't have all the top players for each race playing in proleague. Protoss has most of the top players in there, terran and zerg not so much. If you aren't happy with counting the "lesser tosses" into the winrates, then just take the top matches, shouldn't be too hard. Let me explain why that's a bad idea: Let's only take top 3 of both races, ok? We have easy access to that data: Top 3 T winrate against P: 86% Top 3 P winrate against T: 100% I am saying if you aren't satisfied with the winrates cause of variance in skill, just look at top terran vs top toss.(and even that is not that usefull, but yeah) What would be more important to look at is the rosters of the proleague teams and how many toss, terran and zegr players there are overall. And maybe try to look at the overall skilllevel of the races. First, this game of threads is played such that you make a claim and show proof. What you're doing is just making claims, and then having me show the FALLACY of your claims. That's rude and lazy. Still, let me do that again. Top P versus top T only? That's entirely arbitrary because we're basically asking for those with recent wins only. That takes out TY's win against sOs as sOs has lost 3 games in a row and has no wins. It also takes out Zest who I think is excellent, but who has a terrible winrate. That leaves the following games. And even those are pretty damn arbitrary. Rain>Dream Sora>Flash As for rosters, they show NOTHING about balance because the rosters are decided a year in advance and are not flexible enough to respond to meta game shifts and balance patches. This should be obvious. So, instead of throwing out ridiculous claims, try to figure out something sensible that survives some empirical evidence coming close. I will only address the rosters, all i am saying is, that if you have a team with mostly toss players and they are in average better than their counterparts, it is not really surprising if you will have more toss playing. You look at the number of races being played and make the assumption this has anything to do with balance, it has not. And once again, a ridiculous claim. The rosters have been announced here: http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/26408-full-rosters-for-proleague-13-14-announcedFrom the representation of P in Proleague, you'd expect Proleague teams to have 3x the P compared to T and 2x the P compared to Z. Let's look at ratios: P: 32 T: 19 Z: 27 Were the prediction correct, we'd expect there to be 9-10 T less than there are, and about 15 Z less than there are. If you look at some of the major teams: KT: 3P & 3T SK Telecom: 4P & 4 T CJ Entus: 4P & 3T In fact, it's Samsung that's lacking T and IM. But they don't really have that many top P, so they are considered Z dominated teams. Also, there are questionable P in the list, such as Prime's Barbie. If she's fielded, ever, I'll eat my hat (and I have a nice hat).
-.- You have to look at every team separately, cause there are only a maximum of 5 players that are able to play each match (4 if we stay serious).
If you wanna tell me that most teams have terrans that are in the top 4 of each team, then so be it, but i would say that is ridiculous to claim.
But whatever, you don't even try to think about it for a second cause you are biased (at least you act like that)
|
On January 11 2014 01:46 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2014 01:35 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 01:21 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 01:16 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 01:01 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:58 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 00:51 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:48 Ghanburighan wrote:On January 11 2014 00:45 The_Red_Viper wrote:On January 11 2014 00:38 Hider wrote:
[quote]
But there is also another problem wiht using only the very top... Its not evenly matched. Proleague is still something like this:
- Top 30 protoss
- Top 10-15 terran
- Top 20 zergs
Eventually we will also expect that these win-rates go towards 50-50, because the terran players that play in proleague is of a lower decimil (they are the top-top-top while the protoss players are "just" top-top).
David Kim simply fails to see that all of the metrics that he use to balance the game, eventually goes towards 50-50. That's just the mechanics of the competitive and the ladder system. Yeah right, he doesn't understand it, i am sure he got the job at blizzard for his looks or something. And yeah the protoss players in proleague are only "top-top", pls name me 5 protoss players that are better than herO, sOs, Rain, Parting that aren't in Proleague right now. Look at the numbers above, if you have 8 T in total, that means is that most likely you have only top 10 T in the world in proleague (minus Taeja and Innovation, Bbyong and Polt can be contentious if you're generous), but if there are 22 P in proleague, you cannot necessarily have only top 10 P in proleague. These statistic is completely useless cause you don't have all the top players for each race playing in proleague. Protoss has most of the top players in there, terran and zerg not so much. If you aren't happy with counting the "lesser tosses" into the winrates, then just take the top matches, shouldn't be too hard. Let me explain why that's a bad idea: Let's only take top 3 of both races, ok? We have easy access to that data: Top 3 T winrate against P: 86% Top 3 P winrate against T: 100% I am saying if you aren't satisfied with the winrates cause of variance in skill, just look at top terran vs top toss.(and even that is not that usefull, but yeah) What would be more important to look at is the rosters of the proleague teams and how many toss, terran and zegr players there are overall. And maybe try to look at the overall skilllevel of the races. First, this game of threads is played such that you make a claim and show proof. What you're doing is just making claims, and then having me show the FALLACY of your claims. That's rude and lazy. Still, let me do that again. Top P versus top T only? That's entirely arbitrary because we're basically asking for those with recent wins only. That takes out TY's win against sOs as sOs has lost 3 games in a row and has no wins. It also takes out Zest who I think is excellent, but who has a terrible winrate. That leaves the following games. And even those are pretty damn arbitrary. Rain>Dream Sora>Flash As for rosters, they show NOTHING about balance because the rosters are decided a year in advance and are not flexible enough to respond to meta game shifts and balance patches. This should be obvious. So, instead of throwing out ridiculous claims, try to figure out something sensible that survives some empirical evidence coming close. I will only address the rosters, all i am saying is, that if you have a team with mostly toss players and they are in average better than their counterparts, it is not really surprising if you will have more toss playing. You look at the number of races being played and make the assumption this has anything to do with balance, it has not. And once again, a ridiculous claim. The rosters have been announced here: http://www.gosugamers.net/starcraft2/news/26408-full-rosters-for-proleague-13-14-announcedFrom the representation of P in Proleague, you'd expect Proleague teams to have 3x the P compared to T and 2x the P compared to Z. Let's look at ratios: P: 32 T: 19 Z: 27 Were the prediction correct, we'd expect there to be 9-10 T less than there are, and about 15 Z less than there are. If you look at some of the major teams: KT: 3P & 3T SK Telecom: 4P & 4 T CJ Entus: 4P & 3T In fact, it's Samsung that's lacking T and IM. But they don't really have that many top P, so they are considered Z dominated teams. Also, there are questionable P in the list, such as Prime's Barbie. If she's fielded, ever, I'll eat my hat (and I have a nice hat). -.- You have to look at every team separately, cause there are only a maximum of 5 players that are able to play each match (4 if we stay serious). If you wanna tell me that most teams have terrans that are in the top 4 of each team, then so be it, but i would say that is ridiculous to claim. But whatever, you don't even try to think about it for a second cause you are biased (at least you act like that)
You were the one who said we should look at rosters. I said it's ridiculous and then showed you that it also doesn't support your claim. Now you want to move back to what I suggested, which is who the coaches choose to play. Which shows 3x the P getting picked rather than the T.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
