EPTDecember Aligulac Balance Report - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
Dingodile
4133 Posts
On January 02 2016 17:56 Areanon wrote: When Aligulac begins to count maps in balance? The main problem of today's balance is imbalanced map pool I prefer imbalanced mappool than imbalanced race-strenghts. I hope Blizz stops soon with race and only focus on maps with slightly favored for each race. Another thing I see the problem with those stats. They dont show if games were good. For me, the quality of the games have been worse form patch to patch (WoL and HotS). If they show 50-50, okay it looks balanced but did we see good matches? | ||
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
That's not to say that there isn't an early indication of a problem in PvZ. Let's look at the actual data: 26.11-09.12 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/OzI9niy.png) 10.12-23.12 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iYkwQhA.png) 24.12-02.01 ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RtswPRZ.png) While it looks all impressive that the periods have 2060, 2124 and 438 games played, together 4622 games, if you look at a MU, there are very few games indeed. PvZ is at only 550-731, together 1281 games and the winrate is 43%. This indicates an issue, but I wouldn't jump to conclusions yet. It's useful to ask how representative the sample size is, i.e., how many people would need to have a bad day to change the result by a percentage point. The answer is 4. If 4 Z players during the month had a bad day, for example a hangover during their game, and they lost 2-0 instead of winning 2-0, the result would be 44%. That's a scary low number. That basically says that the balance from acceptable short-term winrate of 45% is 8 people, and for perfect balance 45 matches should have gone differently. One should also look at the number of mirrors, btw, as that indicates how many representatives of a race do well at tournaments (although population sizes for the race play a role). It's noteworthy that P has the fewest mirrors currently, while historically T has had fewer by a significant margin. This also indicates a possible problem for P. In conclusion, we can keep an eye on balance over the following months, but I wouldn't jump to any firm conclusions before we see how the winrates fluctuate over the coming months. Hopefully there will be more games. The other MUs look to be statistically well balanced based on the stats. Of course, Aligulac lists are not the only source of data. We should also compare this with other sources such as premium tournament data, but there the sample size is still so very low that I cannot find it in me to do the work at the moment. | ||
|
weikor
Austria580 Posts
They are stronger before people figure out what units hold which all in - but then, their winrates suffer from beeing cost inefficient / easy to pull apart in the lategame. Then blizzard comes, does some significant change - and were back to balance whines about protoss. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 02 2016 20:26 Ghanburighan wrote: It's useful to ask how representative the sample size is, i.e., how many people would need to have a bad day to change the result by a percentage point. The answer is 4. If 4 Z players during the month had a bad day, for example a hangover during their game, and they lost 2-0 instead of winning 2-0, the result would be 44%. That's a scary low number. That basically says that the balance from acceptable short-term winrate of 45% is 8 people, and for perfect balance 45 matches should have gone differently. Having to change 8 bo3s that zerg won 2-0 to a 2-0 win for toss to move it only from 43% to 45% sounds like a pretty strong signal to me. Doing p-values, 45% winrate has a 7% p-value (single sided binomial, assuming maps independent), 46% is below the "magic" 5%, and 50% is super low. This is maps though, and the maps in a bo3 are correlated, so reducing effective sample size from 1281 to 500 (a bit more than a factor 2, which is about the number of games in a bo3), the 5% significance hits between 46% and 47% instead. 45% winrate gets a 17% p-value. The above is only a back-of-the-envelope calculation of course, but I think we need to acknowledge that there is a significant probability that the true ZvP winrate is below 45%. | ||
|
todespolka
221 Posts
On January 02 2016 18:04 Topdoller wrote: More stats which mean nothing, when you consider the maps currently in use. Also the word "Balance" is misleading in the title of the OP. Shouldn't it say "Win Rate" or something or are you trying to promote your agenda here? Aligulac is nothing to do with balance, it never has and it never will, especially when the matchmaking system is designed to match player v player People have no idea what balance means ;-) It means that every race has the same chance to win which means winrate is 50%. How else would you measure balance? These stats are really nice. | ||
|
cheekymonkey
France1387 Posts
Let's say there was a lot of uneven matches skill-wise, e.g. a few Zergs had some easy opponents through a couple of tournaments, while the rest were more or less evenly matched. Then Zerg would generate a high winrate, though they were favored to win because of their superior skill level. Weighting by the ELO ranking would even out such discrepancies. Or maybe it would cancel out any meaningful winrate stats in total, in that one would statistically expect a 50% winrate for all matchups. I'm not sure. | ||
|
GreenMash
Norway1746 Posts
On January 02 2016 21:32 cheekymonkey wrote: Does the stats account for ELO rankings as well, or is this just a flat average winrate? Let's say there was a lot of uneven matches skill-wise, e.g. a few Zergs had some easy opponents through a couple of tournaments, while the rest were more or less evenly matched. Then Zerg would generate a high winrate, despite the fact they were favored to win because of their superior skill level. Weighting by the ELO ranking would even out such discrepancies. just flat average. Which tbh doesnt mean anything | ||
Inflicted
Australia18228 Posts
On January 02 2016 21:32 cheekymonkey wrote: Does the stats account for ELO rankings as well, or is this just a flat average winrate? Let's say there was a lot of uneven matches skill-wise, e.g. a few Zergs had some easy opponents through a couple of tournaments, while the rest were more or less evenly matched. Then Zerg would generate a high winrate, though they were favored to win because of their superior skill level. Weighting by the ELO ranking would even out such discrepancies. Or maybe it would cancel out any meaningful winrate stats in total, in that one would statistically expect a 50% winrate for all matchups. I'm not sure. The database is available, maybe someone can filter for XX points difference | ||
|
Topdoller
United Kingdom3860 Posts
I have checked out the web site and no data-set is included, just graphs and how to download said graph in a particular format such as a PDF | ||
|
Arvendilin
Germany1878 Posts
On January 02 2016 19:22 Cascade wrote: I am increasingly realising that the reception of these threads is 99% depending on presentation, not quality or relevance of the analysis. Not 80% as I previously thought. Next month, better write up a smooth presentation with 50 paragraphs of nonsense organised in chapters with random images, and everyone will love it.  anyway, thanks for keeping it up aligulac ppl!  I always thought it was more like this: Thread gives a reason to whine about Protoss? Awesome great work, Aligulac shows us how the balance currently is. Thread doesn't give us a reason to whine about Protoss? Meh, but the graphs look really nice and game design guys! Thread shows Protoss looses a bunch more than winning? Why the fuck are you even posting it here you biased little c***?! Tho that might be my biased view on it that is heavily tarnished by reddits reaction to these threads =P | ||
|
CheddarToss
534 Posts
On January 02 2016 22:46 Arvendilin wrote: I always thought it was more like this: Thread gives a reason to whine about Protoss? Awesome great work, Aligulac shows us how the balance currently is. Thread doesn't give us a reason to whine about Protoss? Meh, but the graphs look really nice and game design guys! Thread shows Protoss looses a bunch more than winning? Why the fuck are you even posting it here you biased little c***?! Tho that might be my biased view on it that is heavily tarnished by reddits reaction to these threads =P I think you are right. When was the winrate for any of the 3 races this low in one MU? 40% in PvZ points to quite a huge imbalance, yet people keep suggesting how top Protoss players need to adjust and learn to play. If it was Zerg having a 40% in ZvP, TeamLiquid's server would crash due to excessive whining.  But no matter, I look forward to the Protoss nerfs and the winrate dropping below 40% in PvZ. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11978 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On January 02 2016 22:46 Arvendilin wrote: I always thought it was more like this: Thread gives a reason to whine about Protoss? Awesome great work, Aligulac shows us how the balance currently is. Thread doesn't give us a reason to whine about Protoss? Meh, but the graphs look really nice and game design guys! Thread shows Protoss looses a bunch more than winning? Why the fuck are you even posting it here you biased little c***?! Tho that might be my biased view on it that is heavily tarnished by reddits reaction to these threads =P Sounds like bias to me at first glance, but then again I main zerg, so I guess it's not for me to say. I'd be happy with zerg nerfs for the record, and you've seen me argue that the signal is real and important in this thread. Those balance tweaks don't really matter at gold anyway, compared to having proper mechanics.... A nerf maybe will push me from gold rank 40 to gold rank 55, but who the fuck cares.Anyway, I was also thinking of race-independent OPs, like all the story with the economy, the macro mechanics and so on. | ||
|
EatingBomber
1017 Posts
| ||
|
StateSC2
Korea (South)621 Posts
On January 03 2016 01:15 EatingBomber wrote: The game is balanced for the top of the practical skill ceiling - is it possible a filter could be applied to exclude all non-Korean matches not in the GSL or SSL? Thanks. Sure. Here are the stats for GSL 2016 and SSL 2016. | ||
|
HellHound
Bulgaria5962 Posts
On January 02 2016 23:47 CheddarToss wrote: I think you are right. When was the winrate for any of the 3 races this low in one MU? 40% in PvZ points to quite a huge imbalance, yet people keep suggesting how top Protoss players need to adjust and learn to play. If it was Zerg having a 40% in ZvP, TeamLiquid's server would crash due to excessive whining. But no matter, I look forward to the Protoss nerfs and the winrate dropping below 40% in PvZ. Every races but mine whines the most my race makes valid complaints. The reason people don't take this stats seriously is because they don't really show us anything Note how zerg is by far the highest between JAN 2014 and july 2014 that was the blink era where protoss won 9 tournaments in a row and half of them had pvp finals. On the otherhand broodlord infestor had around 50% zvp winrate | ||
|
ApBuLLet
United States604 Posts
LOTV is a new expansion and people are still figuring it out. The statistics you provided do show that Protoss players aren't doing well in PvZ at the moment, and one possible cause may be balance, but it is ignorant to assume that it is the only reason for them performing poorly. Maybe part of the reason is that many Protoss players on ladder just deathballed for 5 years and now that style is no longer viable. I don't mean to imply that the players who played this way aren't skilled because I know many of them are, it was just the way Protoss had to play for a while. But maybe the changes made for LOTV are causing Protoss players to relearn the matchup to an extent. Part of this is that the ravager has given Zerg some early/mid game timings that are being abused a lot on ladder right now. Blizzard has acknowledged that they think these timing attacks are too strong and plan to address it in the next patch by increasing the ravager morph time. So my point is yes there may be some balance issues and yes these statistics may reflect that, however, it is naive to assume that balance is the ONLY factor driving those statistics because there are many other factors at play. | ||
|
EatingBomber
1017 Posts
Ah, thank you so much. BTW, aren't you that American player who travelled to South Korea to train? | ||
|
Elentos
55458 Posts
On January 03 2016 02:16 EatingBomber wrote: Ah, thank you so much. BTW, aren't you that American player who travelled to South Korea to train? He even still lives in Korea. | ||
| ||
