|
On January 23 2014 18:35 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 18:29 samurai80 wrote:On January 23 2014 18:26 Chaggi wrote:On January 23 2014 18:22 samurai80 wrote:On January 23 2014 18:12 Chaggi wrote:On January 23 2014 18:10 samurai80 wrote:On January 23 2014 18:07 Chaggi wrote:On January 23 2014 18:06 samurai80 wrote:On January 23 2014 17:54 plogamer wrote:On January 23 2014 17:48 samurai80 wrote:
[quote]
This is precisely what I meant in my previous post. Where were you when they nerfed hellbats and widowmines? But they did buff mech/air upgrades. which has done absolutely nothing for the MU that people care about, TvP. Yay! Mech is becoming a thing. But, I was actually against the hellbat nerf. I liked PvT when terrans had the allmighty hellbats much more to be fair (even if they looked op sometimes  ). Mech is never going to become a "thing" in TvP unless some massive changes happen. Hence what I said about hellbats. I'm not sure a unnerfed hellbat would be the massive changes that need to happen. The thing is the m-u actually WAS better before the nerf, which led me to the conclusion that it should be unnerfed for TvP (and the fix was aimed at TvT). I'm not sure it was simply just that. It was partially better cause Protoss was still struggling to defend stuff like boosted medivacs, and you had interesting compositions like marauder/hellbat that ForGG was known for.
Well maybe you're right, tbh I dunno how things should be fixed.
|
On January 23 2014 16:08 GolemMadness wrote:
Let's all go crazy over a small sample size of games from the GSL! Meanwhile, terran has a 64% win rate in Proleague, while protoss has a win rate of 44%.
Not sure if serious. Of the 55 players to participate in Proleague so far, only 12 are Terran. And only 3 of those 12 are actually winning a significant amount of games.
|
I know it's rude to auto-quote, but I'd like to have some comments on this :
On January 23 2014 04:55 hfsrj wrote:
Btw I don't know if they noticed that most way to "correct for skill" actually hide the imbalance, especially if the most powerfull race is more represented than the two other.
It's quite easy to show : let's say it's 25%A, 25%B, 50%C, for the sake of the argument. If C is favored, and you are A, you loose most of your games versus C, for equal skill (say 100% for simplicity, the argument is still valid for lower). Then you proceed to loose 50% of your games against A and B (same skill). You therefore lost 75% of your games, and your MMR (perceived skill) goes down untill you reach 50% win ratio, i.e. your perceived skill is lower than actual skill.
Things are more complicated in truth, but the statistics still apply. If they count skill by MMR, the figure they show are erroneous. This phenomena exist if C is not overrepresented, but it is obviously smaller, and much harder to correct for.
Anyone knows how the skill correction is made ? It's a bit hard not to be biased in doing it, so I'd really like to know more. I'm a physicist and quite comfortable with statistics, btw, and I think it'd be nice in this topic to have more arguments than "small sample size" and "corrected win percentage", that are actually not very informative.
|
And now, make it four ST players in Code S. 
|
On January 23 2014 21:00 Daswollvieh wrote:And now, make it four ST players in Code S.
ahm... still a game to be played...
|
On January 23 2014 21:00 Daswollvieh wrote:And now, make it four ST players in Code S.
He still has to overcome the biggest obstacle of them all: a protoss.
|
On January 23 2014 21:03 Bagi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 21:00 Daswollvieh wrote:And now, make it four ST players in Code S. He still has to overcome the biggest obstacle of them all: a protoss.
You heard it hear folks, zerg under powered vs terran. Blizzard please nerf.
|
lol, it is so funny to see Protoss players try to justify TvP balance by saying all the Terrans that haven't played KR protosses are actually TvP bonjwas. You know, MMA, ForGG, MKP, Ensnare , Virus, TOP, Goody, Thorzain, IMHappy, Ganzi etc... If only they were playing in GSL, we would have balance race ratios. They are all much better than Innovation!!!
Protoss were actually trying to build Hack, SuperNova up as tier 1 terrans...
|
4713 Posts
On January 23 2014 21:00 Daswollvieh wrote:And now, make it four ST players in Code S.
Startale refusing to die even though they have lost their most iconic player and coaching staff, fighting spirit right there. Come on Hack, you can do it!
|
On January 23 2014 18:26 Chaggi wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 18:22 samurai80 wrote:On January 23 2014 18:12 Chaggi wrote:On January 23 2014 18:10 samurai80 wrote:On January 23 2014 18:07 Chaggi wrote:On January 23 2014 18:06 samurai80 wrote:On January 23 2014 17:54 plogamer wrote:On January 23 2014 17:48 samurai80 wrote:On January 23 2014 17:46 ejozl wrote:IMO balance today is at it's worst it ever was. At least during BL inf times timings could be hit to deny that zerg deathball. Bit by bit every viable timing of terran has been nerfed out of the game, so that protoss and zerg dominate anything past 15 minutes. 1 month of Terran not knowing what to do in PvT does not equal the Broodlordwar Era. RTS is almost self-balancing in the way that players who do worse, because of their race or certain "imbalances," figure out something new, in order to win. I don't like the approach of buffing units like the Ghost to tell players how they should play. This is precisely what I meant in my previous post. Where were you when they nerfed hellbats and widowmines? But they did buff mech/air upgrades. which has done absolutely nothing for the MU that people care about, TvP. Yay! Mech is becoming a thing. But, I was actually against the hellbat nerf. I liked PvT when terrans had the allmighty hellbats much more to be fair (even if they looked op sometimes ). Mech is never going to become a "thing" in TvP unless some massive changes happen. Hence what I said about hellbats. I'm not sure a unnerfed hellbat would be the massive changes that need to happen.
Actually, unnerfed hellbat would be a huge deal... Because PO actually doesn't hurt hellbats much... Protoss would actually need to build up an army before going AoE. This game is always about timing. There is no way for Protoss to get an easy third with minimal army if the old hellbats were here.
RTS be nature are snowball-y... Just having a 60 sec window where terran can do damage is a HUGE deal... That is why the Queen change made BL/infestors so strong. Pros are so good that even a 30 second advantage can be enough for them to snowball to a win.
|
On January 23 2014 20:22 z0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 16:08 GolemMadness wrote:
Let's all go crazy over a small sample size of games from the GSL! Meanwhile, terran has a 64% win rate in Proleague, while protoss has a win rate of 44%. Not sure if serious. Of the 55 players to participate in Proleague so far, only 12 are Terran. And only 3 of those 12 are actually winning a significant amount of games.
Because Proleague coaches don't want to win and Protoss are better in Bo1? Except they are dominating Bo3s as well?
|
On January 23 2014 20:39 hfsrj wrote:I know it's rude to auto-quote, but I'd like to have some comments on this : Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 04:55 hfsrj wrote:
Btw I don't know if they noticed that most way to "correct for skill" actually hide the imbalance, especially if the most powerfull race is more represented than the two other.
It's quite easy to show : let's say it's 25%A, 25%B, 50%C, for the sake of the argument. If C is favored, and you are A, you loose most of your games versus C, for equal skill (say 100% for simplicity, the argument is still valid for lower). Then you proceed to loose 50% of your games against A and B (same skill). You therefore lost 75% of your games, and your MMR (perceived skill) goes down untill you reach 50% win ratio, i.e. your perceived skill is lower than actual skill.
Things are more complicated in truth, but the statistics still apply. If they count skill by MMR, the figure they show are erroneous. This phenomena exist if C is not overrepresented, but it is obviously smaller, and much harder to correct for. Anyone knows how the skill correction is made ? It's a bit hard not to be biased in doing it, so I'd really like to know more. I'm a physicist and quite comfortable with statistics, btw, and I think it'd be nice in this topic to have more arguments than "small sample size" and "corrected win percentage", that are actually not very informative.
The only way (that we know of anyway) that Blizzard can measure skill is the mmr system. So most likely what they are doing is similar to how they update the mmr of players, some kind of Bayesian update. When two players play a game the result gives us more information about the skill or mmr of each player. Bayes' rule tells us how to compute this. It is kind of like a weighting, if player A is much more skilled then player B and player A wins then the system does not change very much because the outcome was expected with high probability. However, if player B wins then that is not expected and a larger change to the players mmrs would occur.
You can do a similar thing with race match ups. If a masters Zerg plays a masters Terran then the system knows the skills of each player and so it has some kind of idea on what the expected outcome is. So if the Zerg player has a much higher mmr than the Terran and the Zerg wins then the system would not consider that very good evidence that Zerg has a higher win rate than Terran at a similar skill level in the masters league, ie skill is getting factored out. You can actually make this mathematically rigorous pretty easily.
The problem with this is that imbalance in the game gets incorporated into a player's skill or mmr after they play some games. If you give marines like 10 range, after all the Terran's play a bunch of games their mmr or "skill" is going to go up because they will start beating better players. We as people know this is imbalance but the system doesn't differentiate because it can't know the difference. So basically when they say they are factoring out skill they are most likely factoring out imbalance at the same time.
If this is actually what they are doing I find it pretty comical that they use this along with Proleague results to justify anything. The results from Proleague are basically just as statistically ridiculous because there are so few Terrans in Proleague and a huge number of the Terran wins come from only a couple players so it says basically nothing about TvP statistically.
|
On January 23 2014 17:46 ejozl wrote:Show nested quote +IMO balance today is at it's worst it ever was. At least during BL inf times timings could be hit to deny that zerg deathball. Bit by bit every viable timing of terran has been nerfed out of the game, so that protoss and zerg dominate anything past 15 minutes. 1 month of Terran not knowing what to do in PvT does not equal the Broodlordwar Era. RTS is almost self-balancing in the way that players who do worse, because of their race or certain "imbalances," figure out something new, in order to win. I don't like the approach of buffing units like the Ghost to tell players how they should play.
1 month??? WTF are you smoking?
Fine, let's play all code S PvZ games be played on Daedulus and see how the protoss pros self-balance?
Do you think WoL was self balanced? WoL Thor nerf, ghost nerf, bunker nerf, BFH nerf. HoTs, mine nerf, hellbats nerf...
No buffs? Why were oracles buffs? Why were immortals buff? Protoss upgrade buffed?
|
I have seen the thing!
LotV is a toss based expansion, and what is more natural than having P overpowered before the release? Maybe there will be som nerfs right before the release like with Zerg before HotS.
Also, if we are all happy, why should we ever buy LotV? That is Blizzards main concern now. However, there is a big risk, LotV better be absolutely amazing and put SC2 into the history books with amazing game design and balance, the way BW did...
|
4713 Posts
On January 23 2014 21:16 Phobos_ wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 20:39 hfsrj wrote:I know it's rude to auto-quote, but I'd like to have some comments on this : On January 23 2014 04:55 hfsrj wrote:
Btw I don't know if they noticed that most way to "correct for skill" actually hide the imbalance, especially if the most powerfull race is more represented than the two other.
It's quite easy to show : let's say it's 25%A, 25%B, 50%C, for the sake of the argument. If C is favored, and you are A, you loose most of your games versus C, for equal skill (say 100% for simplicity, the argument is still valid for lower). Then you proceed to loose 50% of your games against A and B (same skill). You therefore lost 75% of your games, and your MMR (perceived skill) goes down untill you reach 50% win ratio, i.e. your perceived skill is lower than actual skill.
Things are more complicated in truth, but the statistics still apply. If they count skill by MMR, the figure they show are erroneous. This phenomena exist if C is not overrepresented, but it is obviously smaller, and much harder to correct for. Anyone knows how the skill correction is made ? It's a bit hard not to be biased in doing it, so I'd really like to know more. I'm a physicist and quite comfortable with statistics, btw, and I think it'd be nice in this topic to have more arguments than "small sample size" and "corrected win percentage", that are actually not very informative. The only way (that we know of anyway) that Blizzard can measure skill is the mmr system. So most likely what they are doing is similar to how they update the mmr of players, some kind of Bayesian update. When two players play a game the result gives us more information about the skill or mmr of each player. Bayes' rule tells us how to compute this. It is kind of like a weighting, if player A is much more skilled then player B and player A wins then the system does not change very much because the outcome was expected with high probability. However, if player B wins then that is not expected and a larger change to the players mmrs would occur. You can do a similar thing with race match ups. If a masters Zerg plays a masters Terran then the system knows the skills of each player and so it has some kind of idea on what the expected outcome is. So if the Zerg player has a much higher mmr than the Terran and the zerg wins then the system would not consider that very good evidence that Zerg has a higher win rate than Terran at a similar skill level in the masters league, ie skill is getting factored out. You can actually make this mathematically rigorous pretty easily. The problem with this is that imbalance in the game gets incorporated into a player's skill or mmr after they play some games. If you give marines like 10 range, after all the Terran's play a bunch of games their mmr or "skill" is going to go up because they will start beating better players. We as people know this is imbalance but the system doesn't differentiate because it can't know the difference. So basically when they say they are factoring out skill they are most likely factoring out imbalance at the same time. If this is actually what they are doing I find it pretty comical that they use this along with Proleague results to justify anything. The results from Proleague are basically just as statistically ridiculous because there are so few Terrans in Proleague and a huge number of the Terran wins from only a couple players so it says basically nothing about TvP statistically.
Yeah, I agree completely, their methods of measuring skill just gets entangled with balance changes to the point its impossible to determine if a player is better because of his skill or race, and its hard to even measure the impact changes can have.
I think they need to look a combination of win rates, race distribution on ladder and in tournaments, race representation deep into tournaments as well as just some old fashioned watching as many games as possible and seeing how the game actually plays out.
|
On January 23 2014 21:05 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 21:03 Bagi wrote:On January 23 2014 21:00 Daswollvieh wrote:And now, make it four ST players in Code S. He still has to overcome the biggest obstacle of them all: a protoss. You heard it hear folks, zerg under powered vs terran. Blizzard please nerf.
Are being facetious/trolling or just not reading?
|
On January 23 2014 21:24 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 21:16 Phobos_ wrote:On January 23 2014 20:39 hfsrj wrote:I know it's rude to auto-quote, but I'd like to have some comments on this : On January 23 2014 04:55 hfsrj wrote:
Btw I don't know if they noticed that most way to "correct for skill" actually hide the imbalance, especially if the most powerfull race is more represented than the two other.
It's quite easy to show : let's say it's 25%A, 25%B, 50%C, for the sake of the argument. If C is favored, and you are A, you loose most of your games versus C, for equal skill (say 100% for simplicity, the argument is still valid for lower). Then you proceed to loose 50% of your games against A and B (same skill). You therefore lost 75% of your games, and your MMR (perceived skill) goes down untill you reach 50% win ratio, i.e. your perceived skill is lower than actual skill.
Things are more complicated in truth, but the statistics still apply. If they count skill by MMR, the figure they show are erroneous. This phenomena exist if C is not overrepresented, but it is obviously smaller, and much harder to correct for. Anyone knows how the skill correction is made ? It's a bit hard not to be biased in doing it, so I'd really like to know more. I'm a physicist and quite comfortable with statistics, btw, and I think it'd be nice in this topic to have more arguments than "small sample size" and "corrected win percentage", that are actually not very informative. The only way (that we know of anyway) that Blizzard can measure skill is the mmr system. So most likely what they are doing is similar to how they update the mmr of players, some kind of Bayesian update. When two players play a game the result gives us more information about the skill or mmr of each player. Bayes' rule tells us how to compute this. It is kind of like a weighting, if player A is much more skilled then player B and player A wins then the system does not change very much because the outcome was expected with high probability. However, if player B wins then that is not expected and a larger change to the players mmrs would occur. You can do a similar thing with race match ups. If a masters Zerg plays a masters Terran then the system knows the skills of each player and so it has some kind of idea on what the expected outcome is. So if the Zerg player has a much higher mmr than the Terran and the zerg wins then the system would not consider that very good evidence that Zerg has a higher win rate than Terran at a similar skill level in the masters league, ie skill is getting factored out. You can actually make this mathematically rigorous pretty easily. The problem with this is that imbalance in the game gets incorporated into a player's skill or mmr after they play some games. If you give marines like 10 range, after all the Terran's play a bunch of games their mmr or "skill" is going to go up because they will start beating better players. We as people know this is imbalance but the system doesn't differentiate because it can't know the difference. So basically when they say they are factoring out skill they are most likely factoring out imbalance at the same time. If this is actually what they are doing I find it pretty comical that they use this along with Proleague results to justify anything. The results from Proleague are basically just as statistically ridiculous because there are so few Terrans in Proleague and a huge number of the Terran wins from only a couple players so it says basically nothing about TvP statistically. Yeah, I agree completely, their methods of measuring skill just gets entangled with balance changes to the point its impossible to determine if a player is better because of his skill or race, and its hard to even measure the impact changes can have. I think they need to look a combination of win rates, race distribution on ladder and in tournaments, race representation deep into tournaments as well as just some old fashioned watching as many games as possible and seeing how the game actually plays out.
I am pretty sure David Kim just watches PL atm... One week after Ts do well, he posts. He had been silent for so long and since. Basically, he cherry picks... Honestly, if he wants to comment on balance, he should have a regular schedule to talk about state of the game and balance (every 2 weeks)?
Honestly, he should have a schedule where he posts on his balance thoughts because then everyone would get a fair treatment. He shouldn't post just because the recent data supports his decisions.
Btw, David Kim, what are you seeing in Code A right now? I would like to see you make a post on that? Maybe you should teach the Code A terran what they are doing wrong? I am sure they just aren't getting it... Meanwhile, I would suggest making all Code S PvZ games played on Daedulus since that is the map I enjoy most as a Terran, I want to see how Protoss pro will adapt.
|
Czech Republic12133 Posts
On January 23 2014 21:35 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2014 21:24 Destructicon wrote:On January 23 2014 21:16 Phobos_ wrote:On January 23 2014 20:39 hfsrj wrote:I know it's rude to auto-quote, but I'd like to have some comments on this : On January 23 2014 04:55 hfsrj wrote:
Btw I don't know if they noticed that most way to "correct for skill" actually hide the imbalance, especially if the most powerfull race is more represented than the two other.
It's quite easy to show : let's say it's 25%A, 25%B, 50%C, for the sake of the argument. If C is favored, and you are A, you loose most of your games versus C, for equal skill (say 100% for simplicity, the argument is still valid for lower). Then you proceed to loose 50% of your games against A and B (same skill). You therefore lost 75% of your games, and your MMR (perceived skill) goes down untill you reach 50% win ratio, i.e. your perceived skill is lower than actual skill.
Things are more complicated in truth, but the statistics still apply. If they count skill by MMR, the figure they show are erroneous. This phenomena exist if C is not overrepresented, but it is obviously smaller, and much harder to correct for. Anyone knows how the skill correction is made ? It's a bit hard not to be biased in doing it, so I'd really like to know more. I'm a physicist and quite comfortable with statistics, btw, and I think it'd be nice in this topic to have more arguments than "small sample size" and "corrected win percentage", that are actually not very informative. The only way (that we know of anyway) that Blizzard can measure skill is the mmr system. So most likely what they are doing is similar to how they update the mmr of players, some kind of Bayesian update. When two players play a game the result gives us more information about the skill or mmr of each player. Bayes' rule tells us how to compute this. It is kind of like a weighting, if player A is much more skilled then player B and player A wins then the system does not change very much because the outcome was expected with high probability. However, if player B wins then that is not expected and a larger change to the players mmrs would occur. You can do a similar thing with race match ups. If a masters Zerg plays a masters Terran then the system knows the skills of each player and so it has some kind of idea on what the expected outcome is. So if the Zerg player has a much higher mmr than the Terran and the zerg wins then the system would not consider that very good evidence that Zerg has a higher win rate than Terran at a similar skill level in the masters league, ie skill is getting factored out. You can actually make this mathematically rigorous pretty easily. The problem with this is that imbalance in the game gets incorporated into a player's skill or mmr after they play some games. If you give marines like 10 range, after all the Terran's play a bunch of games their mmr or "skill" is going to go up because they will start beating better players. We as people know this is imbalance but the system doesn't differentiate because it can't know the difference. So basically when they say they are factoring out skill they are most likely factoring out imbalance at the same time. If this is actually what they are doing I find it pretty comical that they use this along with Proleague results to justify anything. The results from Proleague are basically just as statistically ridiculous because there are so few Terrans in Proleague and a huge number of the Terran wins from only a couple players so it says basically nothing about TvP statistically. Yeah, I agree completely, their methods of measuring skill just gets entangled with balance changes to the point its impossible to determine if a player is better because of his skill or race, and its hard to even measure the impact changes can have. I think they need to look a combination of win rates, race distribution on ladder and in tournaments, race representation deep into tournaments as well as just some old fashioned watching as many games as possible and seeing how the game actually plays out. I am pretty sure David Kim just watches PL atm... One week after Ts do well, he posts. He had been silent for so long and since. Basically, he cherry picks... Honestly, if he wants to comment on balance, he should have a regular schedule to talk about state of the game and balance (every 2 weeks)? Honestly, he should have a schedule where he posts on his balance thoughts because then everyone would get a fair treatment. He shouldn't post just because the recent data supports his decisions. Btw, David Kim, what are you seeing in Code A right now? I would like to see you make a post on that? Maybe you should teach the Code A terran what they are doing wrong? I am sure they just aren't getting it... Meanwhile, I would suggest making all Code S PvZ games played on Daedulus since that is the map I enjoy most as a Terran, I want to see how Protoss pro will adapt.
For the start - don't build vikings to counter hallucinated colossus? 
|
Anyone who refuses to see that TvP is completely broken now is delusional. Pro-league means nothing. I can't remember the last time a terran even remotely won a set easily against protoss. Winning usually involves 3 pronged attacking and a protoss walking their colossus or templars into a small unit of bio and losing the game due to poor control. Whenever there's army clashing terran dies.
This has simply happened because one by one every terran timing has been nerfed out of the game. What do you want to achieve playing TvP these days? What are you going for? What's the aim? Deny a third? Deny a 4th? Get to lategame ghost viking? What? 2-2 pushes? None of it remotely works. All it is now is surviving whatever massive attack protoss throws at you and then stay in the game hoping protoss will somehow mess up their control and throw away their aoe damage.
I don't think TvZ has been played enough yet post mine nerf to call it balanced. There seems to be way more mech play because the mines feel close to useless against mutas these days, as well as the hits vs bane ling feel completely random. Zerg have figured out mines, and even if the nerf was undone I think they could still handle them and results would be the same.
Now I understand balance team addressing mines, at times they felt devestating and change a game within 1 second. Why TvP hasn't been addressed in 2 years of protoss dominating the matchup is utterly beyond me.
Someone tell me if were to bet money on starcraft between pro players, would anyone right now bet on the terran when up against the protoss if you knew nothing about the players? Are you putting your money on the protoss or the terran? Be honest.
That is not balance. It's not even remotely close. 95% will honestly put their money on the protoss.
|
Russian Federation125 Posts
So now we have final stats regarding TvP in Cod A
Terrans won only 1 bo3 and lost 15...
If we are talking about sets: 32-7 only 18% winrate.
Tomorrow 2terrans will have a chance to get into code S simply because there are no toss in that group.
And by the way BByong and SuperNova got in Code S only because they have won Zerg or Terran players.
So we gonna have 3-5т terrans in Code S out of 32 it is 9-15% of terrans.
Nice job D Kim.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
