|
On August 24 2014 21:17 Taf the Ghost wrote:There's a funny bit where the Terran in 2013 is caused by Taeja, while the Zerg for championships are caused by Jaedong & soO.  That's the problem with sample size as it gets small.
lol I just realized that. 2013 zerg drop off might be mainly because of jaedong and his 5 second place finishes.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On August 24 2014 03:53 Big J wrote:
Na, Zerg is pretty good guys. It still has zhe most second places. It just lost a lot of tournament finals, but there are and were definitely carrying players like Jaedong, Soulkey or soO. The low amount of final wins is probably just a random occurence.
In BW, Zerg had a really long history of amassing a great number of 2nd places (always losing to the current Terran king pin - i.e boxer -> nada -> oov etc), while the 'worst race' of protoss actually had managed to win a few times.
Of course eventually shit evened out with the savior zerg revolution and bisu etc.
|
The amount of Z in the early rounds of tournaments is probably just an after-effect of the Brofestor era, with more Z being seeded into various tournaments.
|
On August 24 2014 22:08 Ghanburighan wrote:
The amount of Z in the early rounds of tournaments is probably just an after-effect of the Brofestor era, with more Z being seeded into various tournaments.
I think this is not true. The ro64 is not primarily where seeding occurs, I think it just happens to be that zerg is a popular race. The "brofestor era" might have made people more likely to get serious about the game if they played Z, but seeding I think is completely unrelated.
|
On August 25 2014 01:30 hewo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2014 22:08 Ghanburighan wrote:
The amount of Z in the early rounds of tournaments is probably just an after-effect of the Brofestor era, with more Z being seeded into various tournaments. I think this is not true. The ro64 is not primarily where seeding occurs, I think it just happens to be that zerg is a popular race. The "brofestor era" might have made people more likely to get serious about the game if they played Z, but seeding I think is completely unrelated.
As the graphs take all of 2014 and all of HOTS into account, they include code S, and other tournaments where prior results mattered, and those were still full of Z players. This means that at least some tournaments were in the data were influenced by the brofestor era.
|
Maybe its because the sample is small but if you compare with race distribution data, it gets funny. Check http://www.sc2ranks.com/
Protoss is the least popular race with zerg and terran about even. But in GM protoss is the most common followed by zerg and terran in last.
Then somehow zerg qualifies more often for tournaments but wins less.
I suppose terran is actually strong in the pro level, but too hard to master if you cannot dedicate yourself a lot. While zerg is not as hard to get into GM but weak for top pro play (and top pro level play only). Protoss is in good shape in all levels, top pro, GM and climbing up.
|
I guess the only conclusion is, in retrospect, SC2 races are Protoss , Zerg and Taeja
|
On August 25 2014 02:47 HomeWorld wrote:I guess the only conclusion is, in retrospect, SC2 races are Protoss , Zerg and Taeja
Polt wins as much as Taeja. Innovation, Bomber, Maru to name some other champions.
|
I don't know if these statistics are important for balance. It just shows that the club of tournament winners affects tournament outcomes.
If we assume that players care about their early round matches then we can conclude that they play at nearly-their-best every match. So, since every match is their best play, the overall winrate is the better representation of which race is doing better or worse. Worrying about who goes deeper in a handful of tournaments is a way of heavily weighting the later round games over the early round games.
Maybe you could check balance by ignoring tournament winners' games, see if their performance is skewing results because of their gosu-ness?
You could break that winrate down by aligulac rank I guess: which races get to the top 40?
Among the top 40 players on aligulac, we have:
14 T
12 P
13 Z
1 race switcher
(Weird seeing Europeans on there who lose to the koreans all the time)
|
If we actually look at the 2014 graph, Terran would honestly appear to be more balanced. They have the fewest entrants into tournaments, and roughly the same percentage of winners. If we were to see a big spike for Terran winners(i.e. 2013), or a dropoff then we would have something. But it's level. You say Taeja is holding the line for Terran, but why can't anyone hold the line for Zerg?
|
On August 25 2014 07:55 Wingblade wrote:
If we actually look at the 2014 graph, Terran would honestly appear to be more balanced. They have the fewest entrants into tournaments, and roughly the same percentage of winners. If we were to see a big spike for Terran winners(i.e. 2013), or a dropoff then we would have something. But it's level. You say Taeja is holding the line for Terran, but why can't anyone hold the line for Zerg?
"fewest entrants" might mean "fewest qualifiers". Apparently the best Zerg players are professional chokers/silver specialists/Storkitis
|
On August 25 2014 07:12 CutTheEnemy wrote:
I don't know if these statistics are important for balance. It just shows that the club of tournament winners affects tournament outcomes.
[...]
Maybe you could check balance by ignoring tournament winners' games, see if their performance is skewing results because of their gosu-ness?
You could break that winrate down by aligulac rank I guess: which races get to the top 40?
Among the top 40 players on aligulac, we have:
14 T
12 P
13 Z
1 race switcher
Of cource what you are saying is interresting, and probably right. Tournament winners are best and would probably have been the best even if they had played another race for the whole of their career.
One of the things I think is ineterresting however when you lok at the graphs is the difference from to 2013 to 2014 when you look at Ro16 alone.
![[image loading]](http://puu.sh/b73mg/5828f98e7c.png)
in 2013 the ro16 is almost perfectly balanced, while in 2014 it seems that zergs are eliminated (alot by other zergs though) while protoss is overrepresentated and terran underrepresentated.
I never said these graphs or the statistics point out imbalance in the game, I just posted to hear you guys' take on the information you might be able to pull out of the data.
On August 25 2014 07:55 Wingblade wrote:
If we actually look at the 2014 graph, Terran would honestly appear to be more balanced. They have the fewest entrants into tournaments, and roughly the same percentage of winners. If we were to see a big spike for Terran winners(i.e. 2013), or a dropoff then we would have something. But it's level. You say Taeja is holding the line for Terran, but why can't anyone hold the line for Zerg?
I think it's kinda important to point out that most of what has been said about Taeja carrying his race goes for 2013. He won what, 5 big tournaments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
