Vacated, but still have to count them for the sake of the analysis - trying to prove the best players dominated, and despite his morals, savior was one of the best.

Also, where dat MMA retirement article at? :p

ZigguratOfUr

Iraq16955 Posts

January 25 2016 06:23 GMT

#24

Consistency is an interesting metric to measure.

It varies wildly from sport to sport. Some (like Tennis) have players that are incredibly dominant to an almost oppressive extent, while others (most team sports) have very different results each year.

Starcraft does seem to be less consistent than most individual sports, which does make it more disappointing to root for a single player for those that like to do that.

edit: Also aren't these articles supposed to be 1000 words or less?

This kinda defeats the (fairly arbitrary) theme.

lichter

1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts

January 25 2016 06:23 GMT

#25

On January 25 2016 15:21 Bagration wrote:

Show nested quote +

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/500530-footprints-in-the-snow-a-hscxii-christmas-miracle

he said he'd come back tho so this is more like a really long hiatus

Heyoka

Katowice25012 Posts

January 25 2016 06:25 GMT

#26

TL revealing inside info that MMA is actually heading up the next incarnation of ACE and won't be leaving. Fitting because he was Boxer's prodigy and all that.

SetGuitarsToKill

Canada28396 Posts

January 25 2016 06:25 GMT

#27

On January 25 2016 15:23 lichter wrote:

Show nested quote +

http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/starcraft-2/500530-footprints-in-the-snow-a-hscxii-christmas-miracle

he said he'd come back tho so this is more like a really long hiatus

if he actually does MMA is the most based player off all time I swear.

Dungeontay

126 Posts

January 25 2016 06:27 GMT

#28

nice article!

munch

Mute City2363 Posts

January 25 2016 06:28 GMT

#29

On January 25 2016 15:23 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
Consistency is an interesting metric to measure.

It varies wildly from sport to sport. Some (like Tennis) have players that are incredibly dominant to an almost oppressive extent, while others (most team sports) have very different results each year.

Starcraft does seem to be less consistent than most individual sports, which does make it more disappointing to root for a single player for those that like to do that.

Starcraft's format is much more susceptible to variation than other sports though. Each tennis tournament is determined over hundreds of points, while going from Code S Ro.32 to winner takes anywhere from 19 to 37. When you consider that a single mistake in a BO3 could put you at immediate risk of elimination, compared to the inherent buffer the tennis scoring system provides, it's no wonder there's more variety

Makro

France16890 Posts

January 25 2016 06:31 GMT

#30

i like when there is a lot of numbers

lichter

1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts

January 25 2016 06:33 GMT

#31

tbh i never understood the desire for dominance. having one winner all the time is fucking boring and has no relation to the 'legitimacy' of a sport. if anything, dominance over an excessive period of time is what turns a sport into a farce. having short periods of dominance is okay though.

people can be fans of any player, so it works both ways. your player always winning is fun, but your player never winning sucks even more. everyone knows that for sports fans losing hurts more than winning feels good.

munch

Mute City2363 Posts

January 25 2016 06:35 GMT

#32

On January 25 2016 15:33 lichter wrote:
tbh i never understood the desire for dominance. having one winner all the time is fucking boring and has no relation to the 'legitimacy' of a sport. if anything, dominance over an excessive period of time is what turns a sport into a farce. having short periods of dominance is okay though.

people can be fans of any player, so it works both ways. your player always winning is fun, but your player never winning sucks even more. everyone knows that for sports fans losing hurts more than winning feels good.

I'm a sucker for sports pain though. Why else would I keep thinking INno's gonna deliver on the big stage

lichter

1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts

January 25 2016 06:40 GMT

#33

i'm an arsenal fan i know sports pain more than anyone

stuchiu

Fiddler's Green42661 Posts

January 25 2016 06:41 GMT

#34

I've been pretty happy watching Marineking lose.

ZerOCoolSC2

9009 Posts

January 25 2016 06:43 GMT

#35

Good write up Stu. Been hitting it out of the park with these lately.

RKC

2848 Posts

January 25 2016 07:05 GMT

#36

I think time should be a factor too. BW had less tourneys over the course of the same time period as SC2. Champions usually win because they hit their peak. So if there were more tourneys in a small period (like SC2), BW players could've perhaps won more tourneys when they hit their peaks. As it is, multiple BW champions generally took 4-5 years to capture >2 championships. So for BW, sustained or recurring dominance across 4-5 years is key to winning multiple championships.

Point is, if SC2 had fewer tourneys like BW, maybe players like MC, Nestea and Zest (who grabbed most of their championships in a short period) wouldn't have gotten as many championships. Conversely, if BW had as many tourneys as SC2, maybe top players would've gotten more championships under their belt.

Maybe Plexa's suggestion of taking account other major BW leagues would balance this 'time-quantity disparity' issue between BW and SC2.

RKC

2848 Posts

January 25 2016 07:16 GMT

#37

Another factor is patches. Patches may help or hurt a player's chances of winning. Patches occur more in SC2. This, in turn, could add more volatility in the game, and consequently variance in SC2 champions. So maybe if there had been less patches in SC2, we would've seen less one-time champions and more repeat champions.

(I know it's hard, if not impossible, to quantify patches into the data or any form of formula. Which perhaps just leads to the conclusion that it's hard, if not impossible, to analyse raw numbers from both games to compare their consistency rates. But good article and attempt, nonetheless!)

Wildmoon

Thailand4189 Posts

January 25 2016 07:17 GMT

#38

I have always argued against the BS that SC2 is "inconsistent" and BW is consistent. Considering the context of competition in SC2, it's really not inconsistent at all. Most of the time, players who won were the ones who were expected to go far.

Hier

2391 Posts

January 25 2016 07:19 GMT

#39

On January 25 2016 15:09 NiHiLuSsc2 wrote:
doesnt sAviOr technically have 0 championships

No, he still has them.

Cascade

Australia5405 Posts

January 25 2016 07:22 GMT

#40

Oh, wow, this is one confused analysis. I have no intention to go into detail, as I would essentially have to rewrite the article for you, but some of the first few things you should have done if you wanted to study consistency of bw or sc2 is to

- check if results are different from random.
- source data from aligulac.

instead you just calculate all these random percentages and number, without really talking about what number you would expect for a consistent or non-consistent game, or why. No direction or solid conclusions, just random numbers right and left... It's like reading a sc2 strategy article in Men's Health by a bronzie saying how massing hydras is the best way to success in ZvP.

But well, 99% of the readers won't be able to tell the difference, it is on a black background, you got pretty pictures, sexy title (with authors name in it ofc) and it's a featured news, so enjoy all the compliments you'll get for the great article.