EPTMMR per opponent's race - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
xongnox
540 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On March 14 2018 00:57 xongnox wrote: Maybe another good solution is to actually balance the game. That doesn't work on lower levels and vice versa. On lower levels you can play almost anything anyway. To give you an example - from WoL times I am very good at TvP. I can read the game very well and have good guesses unless meta rapidly changes. But PvZ is by far my worst MU. It's not about balance, but if I see a spire and a hydra den, I have to decide(well, in LotV it's already decided by that time  ). It's not about balance, it's my problem of reading Zerg. | ||
|
seopthi
391 Posts
On March 14 2018 00:57 xongnox wrote: Maybe another good solution is to actually balance the game. I think the issue stems from the impossibility of balancing the game across all levels at the same time. The game is (rightly) balanced for the pros, which then creates imbalance among races for lower levels. In different tiers and for different races, scouting, fast reactions, macro mechanics, etc. have different weights. | ||
|
xongnox
540 Posts
So i think we see more very unbalanced MU ratios per individual in masters and diamond than in gold. Still, i agree that the balance for even top masters or low GM players is not the same than at pro level, but maybe not that much away neither. In fact if we read this tread and others it's nearly always the same story : P wining vs T and loosing vs Z. Well, it's kinda the same bias at pro level... | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
Nakajin
Canada8989 Posts
On March 14 2018 00:57 xongnox wrote: Maybe another good solution is to actually balance the game. Well no, having a balance game dosen't mean you are suppose to be equally good in every match up. Plus LOTV has been pretty balance in the last two years. | ||
|
Cyro
United Kingdom20303 Posts
It's possible for the MMR of a player to continually rise for months while their winrate in their weakest matchup actually drops. If (example made up matchups and numbers) PvZ is far more common than PvT on the ladder, having a 35% winrate against terran and a 65% winrate against zerg actually results in a continually rising MMR since there are far more zerg games. You'd play 100 games, beat 35% of terrans and at the end of it you'd be at a higher MMR, playing against harder terrans and now winning fewer terran games because of being unable to improve at PvT as fast as your MMR rose; a slight strength against the popular race paired with a massive weakness against the unpopular one would artificially and incorrectly balance each other out and the system would aim to keep both matchups unfair forever. It's also only natural that you'd improve more in 45 games of PvZ than you would in 25 games of PvT when you've played 100 games total on the ladder. This isn't a weakness in any player, it's just math. Playing a matchup more often is correlated with being better at it; playing it less with being worse - this situation is mathematically encouraged so not something that only some bad players may slip into. If you played 1 protoss for every 1 zerg for every 1 terran on the ladder it would be far less of an issue (Being weak in 1/3'rd of games will hold you down much more than being weak in a matchup that only shows up in 1/5'th of games so the problem can't get so big so easily) but still worth closely looking at IMO. In the current state i think it severely compromises the competitive gameplay experience at times. A fix could tighten up the relative winrates in different matchups on average - giving each player around a 50% overall as well as 50% in PvZ, PvT and PvP winrate - and could be a notable benefit on average but a huge benefit for edge cases where people reach 60%+ in a certain matchup. | ||
|
xongnox
540 Posts
So with gold level players playing like 30 games a month, the incertitude will already be super-high, and dividing the number of game per MMR account by 3 will not help at all. So this could only be really useful for 1/people with lots of game 2/people with spectacular different level MU. I think another solution could be to let the player choose the preferred opponent possible(s) race(s) while matchmaking. I know this could lead to some unbalance (more people wanting to play TvZ than ZvT for example) but it's probably kinda manageable. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
I have had trouble in both TvZ and ZvT, but not in any other match up. There is no balance patch that can fix that. Me making choices about which race I want to play will need to be adjusted to which race I'm getting for myself. Maybe I don't want to play ZvT and TvZ (not true, but see it hypothetically). Which order will the match up have? 1. I get my own race and then the match making system starts looking for opponents 2. I get matched with an opponent and get assigned a fitting race. Option 2 will be a bit of a problem if we both are random. There would be a need for a second control to assure that we both get a fitting match up. If MMR is vs race dependent, will I get 9 MMRs for my random? If so, I would have to get my race assigned before the system starts looking for an opponent. There would also be a really long time of uncertainty about MMR for new random players. Assuming you play each mu equally often (highly unlikely) it would take 9 times as many games to assert each specific MMR. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
| ||
|
seopthi
391 Posts
But the extend and the details would be up to the team which has more XP and mainly data. But generally, there only seems to be upsides and virtually no downsides to a change of this kind. | ||
|
TheKhyira
115 Posts
| ||
| ||
