|
On April 09 2013 07:03 NerrZ wrote:
The problem is you are trying to imply causation from an observational study, and you are not accounting for lurking variables. What if better players know they need to make more widow mines, so then they do and they are better so they win. You should randomly assign some different players builds and see there winrates. With an experiment like that, you could in fact imply causation.
That's just a mistake in his phrasing. Don't crucify the man for a small slip up.
He's just correlating more than 10 widow mines with a higher win rate. He shows that point, especially since he gathered data across all leagues.
TL;DR. 10 widow mines or more correlates with an increased win rate of ~10%.
|
yes please dispose of the evidence. are you a cigarette lobbyist or some shit?
User was banned for this post.
|
I also hear that building more than 1 overlord makes your winrate go up
or drones
or pylons
or marines (mech?)
or depots
so?
|
On April 08 2013 15:03 hastur420 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote:Someone on Reddit asked: I'd be interested to see winrates vs T once there are large numbers of widow mines out. Watching GM streams, it feels like the rate is around 10%, and the mines are allowing (relatively) mediocre players to beat Top8 Zergs nearly every time..... I thought the answer would be of interest to you all. GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. In 616 of those, the Terran produces 10 or fewer widow mines, and wins 49% of the time. In the other 345 games, the Terran produces more than 10 widow mines, and wins 59% of the time. Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ. More stats: + Show Spoiler +Interesting findings from the above stats: - mass widow mines is much more prevalent in TvZ than in TvT or TvP
- in TvZ, mass widow mine usage increases with league
Here are Masters 1v1 TvZ gamesAnd here are Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes flaws in this analysis: sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games. sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc. we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all. bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else. does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO
exactly
the OP doesn't really prove anything.. and the sample is extremely small -,,-
|
On April 09 2013 07:16 WhiteSatin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 15:03 hastur420 wrote:On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote:Someone on Reddit asked: I'd be interested to see winrates vs T once there are large numbers of widow mines out. Watching GM streams, it feels like the rate is around 10%, and the mines are allowing (relatively) mediocre players to beat Top8 Zergs nearly every time..... I thought the answer would be of interest to you all. GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. In 616 of those, the Terran produces 10 or fewer widow mines, and wins 49% of the time. In the other 345 games, the Terran produces more than 10 widow mines, and wins 59% of the time. Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ. More stats: + Show Spoiler +Interesting findings from the above stats: - mass widow mines is much more prevalent in TvZ than in TvT or TvP
- in TvZ, mass widow mine usage increases with league
Here are Masters 1v1 TvZ gamesAnd here are Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes flaws in this analysis: sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games. sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc. we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all. bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else. does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO exactly the OP doesn't really prove anything.. and the sample is extremely small -,,-
I don't want to sound like a broken record, but his sample sizes aren't that small. Also he's not showing proof. I can confidently tell you as a physicist that no 'study' ever shows 'proof'. They only ever show correlation. In my field the sample sizes run as small as 12 for PUBLISHED and PEER reviewed papers.He did show data for all leagues. That is important information to know.
Give some credit to the OP for demonstrating his point. Maybe his methods weren't the best and we should re-investigate, but it is interesting information.
|
On April 09 2013 07:16 WhiteSatin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 08 2013 15:03 hastur420 wrote:On April 08 2013 09:59 dsjoerg wrote:Someone on Reddit asked: I'd be interested to see winrates vs T once there are large numbers of widow mines out. Watching GM streams, it feels like the rate is around 10%, and the mines are allowing (relatively) mediocre players to beat Top8 Zergs nearly every time..... I thought the answer would be of interest to you all. GGTracker has 961 Masters TvZ HotS 1v1 Ladder replays. In 616 of those, the Terran produces 10 or fewer widow mines, and wins 49% of the time. In the other 345 games, the Terran produces more than 10 widow mines, and wins 59% of the time. Of course this doesn't exactly prove that Widow Mines are OP, but at the very least it suggests that getting/preventing mass widow mines is an important part of TvZ. More stats: + Show Spoiler +Interesting findings from the above stats: - mass widow mines is much more prevalent in TvZ than in TvT or TvP
- in TvZ, mass widow mine usage increases with league
Here are Masters 1v1 TvZ gamesAnd here are Masters 1v1 Ladder TvZs with at least 10 widow mines at 15 minutes flaws in this analysis: sample size too small- 59 games at gm level? laughable sample doesn't represent the community- do you actually know how many different people played those games? out of those 650ish games Idra could have played like 60 games, who has very particular skill characteristics that distinguish him from the other players. statistics don't work that way. this was just an example to prove why it's flawed. a player could build 100000 thousand widow mines if he can't use them well he won't win more games. sample not homogene- the games are very varied in terms of length, player skill, etc. we don't actually know if they kill anything at all with those mines, they could be just for muta defense etc. in a significant portion of these games widow mines probably didn't achieve anything at all. bottom line, what does this little research prove? that in the sample players who build more than 10 widow mines, they won more games. in that sample and nowhere else. does it prove that widow mines make you win more? NO exactly the OP doesn't really prove anything.. and the sample is extremely small -,,-
That's inaccurate--he proves there is correlation which is the first step in making any hypothesis. Proving the hypothesis will require actual evidence but he isn't technically inaccurate.
For example.
I've seen the sun rising every morning since I was a child. Correlation => the sun rises each morning.
After (arbitrary length of time) study, I find out that the earth rotates on an axis and the sun remains stationary.
Correlation is proven false => sun does not rise, the earth spins.
Without the false correlation => there would never have been a study to prove it wrong.
|
I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though!
A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
The siege tank's one advantage I can think of is its much better range which can zone out the enemy, but I think it's preferable to be able to kill the zerg army rather than keep it away until it decides to get in your face and kill yours.
|
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote:
I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though!
A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
This is a really great point. I am really sad personally that siege tanks are becoming a relic in TvZ. They are a classic unit that's pretty enjoyable to watch. You do have to admit that the widow mine seems like more 'bang' for your buck. Forgive the pun.
|
Mutalisks in ZvP are not a good unit to analyze like this because they are used to finish off a Protoss that opened on robo tech, either trying to take a third or 2-base allin. When Protoss does an immortal/sentry allin and fails, or you break a third base with roaches or swarm hosts, you transition to mutas to finish him off so he can't just go for colossi and still have a chance at winning. The mutas are made to secure a game you've already won, not to win the game itself.
|
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote:
I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though!
A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
Actually... what made Siege Tanks good was long range+attack overlaps.
2-3 Siege Tanks are terrible. 20 siege tanks are a menace.
The opposite is true for Widowmines.
What made tanks strong is that their long range after reaching critical mass allowed them to wipe out an large enough chunk of the enemy force before they could engage. Their damage, however, was too low and was something always criticized.
|
Come back in 6 months and tell me that the current zerg players are dealing with mass widow mines in a good way.
|
"That's inaccurate--he proves there is correlation which is the first step in making any hypothesis. Proving the hypothesis will require actual evidence but he isn't technically inaccurate."
No he doesnt lol, there are these stats ay the end of his post wich show there is not even a correlation. (at least not a statistically relevant one, and the correlation you could find (ignoring sample seize and all) would show that your winrate improves slightly the less % resources you spend on mines lol)
|
I don't see why this can't be plotted on a graph. # of widow mines against win %. We'd get a much better idea of the correlation (if any).
|
I think its just to early to have these kind of balance questions, i think it makes alot of sense that t would have the higher winrate so shortly after expo release vs z because most z play a highly reactionary style and this style is vulnerable till they figure out all the various timing attacks/all ins of the other races. Since T has a huge toolkit in tvz it would make sense that z needs time to figure out ho to safely take the game into late game. Also if i would like to see some stats about terran win rates when 10+ultras are produced since i think that if z get into late game right now with their super powerful ultras t is in deep trouble, its just right now we dont see many games were z stabilizes on big enough econ to mass ultras and saftley push. Also you have to remember that most z for the past year have mostly practiced turtle hive styles in tvz wich relyed on the fact that infestor bl was op so they need time to adapt.
|
On April 09 2013 07:50 Rassy wrote:
"That's inaccurate--he proves there is correlation which is the first step in making any hypothesis. Proving the hypothesis will require actual evidence but he isn't technically inaccurate."
No he doesnt lol, there are these stats ay the end of his post wich show there is not even a correlation. (at least not a statistically relevant one, and the correlation you could find (ignoring sample seize and all) would show that your winrate improves slightly the less % resources you spend on mines lol)
Don't mistake me for someone who wants widowmines nerfed--I love them myself  (I am a terran player after all)
His last stat showed widow mine usage at the 15:00 min mark.
His others showed window mine presence.
Both are good ways to show correlation as a stepping point to start experimentation. Experiments have been started on less grounds than that.
He still doesn't prove anything--and extensive testing will show that widow mines are balanced (I'm assuming). But there *is* a correlation; but a correlation and $4 can get me a starbucks coffee so that's not really that impressive.
|
On April 09 2013 07:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote:
I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though!
A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army. Actually... what made Siege Tanks good was long range+attack overlaps. 2-3 Siege Tanks are terrible. 20 siege tanks are a menace. The opposite is true for Widowmines. What made tanks strong is that their long range after reaching critical mass allowed them to wipe out an large enough chunk of the enemy force before they could engage. Their damage, however, was too low and was something always criticized.
Yeah I edited the range thing in, but that doesn't make them viable in TvZ because mines will still more effectively kill off the engaging zerg army, including any mutas the zerg would have gotten to combat 20 siege tanks.
And you don't need 20 widowmines to better achieve what 20 siege tanks could do, even at their lower cost, supply and production time—10-14 will do to steadily retreat your MMM over if the zerg decides to engage.
As more terran players get the timings of this tactic down—not allowing the zerg to kill off any mines in the army before they've done maximum damage and even targeting key units of the zerg composition whilst they retreat their MMM—we will see zergs get utterly annihilated.
Using zerglings and infested terrans to trigger mines is cute and all, but it doesn't work if the terran player properly defends their mines. The annihilation may reverse however once more zerg players understand that infestor fungal is still quite good after all, ensnaring the MMM on the mines and making them trigger on them.
They won't be able to do this unless they're able to get to hive and get vipers and or ultras though, because lings and blings will probably melt to a mid-game stimmed MMM before they and the mines are able to do decent damage.
Maybe vipers will become the first T3 tech choice, allowing lings and blings to close and decimate a fungaled MMM sitting on a minefield.
The meta-game seems to all add up inevitably settle into what we had in HoTS: zerg are tested in the early and mid-game and get a good advantage if they're able to make it to T3 with an economy to sustain it. Only instead of MMM+tanks into MMM+tanks/vikings against ling/bling/muta into ling/bling+BL/infestors/corruptors we will see MMMM perhaps into MMMM+ghosts and/or ravens against ling/bling/muta into ling/bling/muta+infestors/vipers/ultralisks.
|
On April 09 2013 08:03 Giriath wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2013 07:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote:
I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though!
A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army. Actually... what made Siege Tanks good was long range+attack overlaps. 2-3 Siege Tanks are terrible. 20 siege tanks are a menace. The opposite is true for Widowmines. What made tanks strong is that their long range after reaching critical mass allowed them to wipe out an large enough chunk of the enemy force before they could engage. Their damage, however, was too low and was something always criticized. Yeah I edited the range thing in, but that doesn't make them viable in TvZ because mines will still more effectively kill off the engaging zerg army, including any mutas the zerg would have gotten to combat 20 siege tanks. And you don't need 20 widowmines to better achieve what 20 siege tanks could do, even at their lower cost, supply and production time—10-14 will do to steadily retreat your MMM over if the zerg decides to engage. As more terran players get the timings of this tactic down—not allowing the zerg to kill off any mines in the army before they've done maximum damage and even targeting key units of the zerg composition whilst they retreat their MMM—we will see zergs get utterly annihilated. Using zerglings and infested terrans to trigger mines is cute and all, but it doesn't work if the terran player properly defends their mines. The annihilation may reverse however once more zerg players understand that infestor fungal is still quite good after all, ensnaring the MMM on the mines and making them trigger on them. They won't be able to do this unless they're able to get to hive and get vipers and or ultras though, because lings and blings will probably melt to a mid-game stimmed MMM before they and the mines are able to do decent damage. Maybe vipers will become the first T3 tech choice, allowing lings and blings to close and decimate a fungaled MMM sitting on a minefield.
You don't seem to understand a very important feature of Tank's range which is to force pressure.
10-14 widow mines are great at holding back an advance but it doesn't allow you to push for pressure the way 20 tanks does.
Now--this doesn't mean tanks are better than mines. This means Tanks have a very different use than mines. One that mines can't do--but is currently unnecessary with today's metagame.
|
On April 09 2013 07:37 Giriath wrote:
I really don't understand people who claim they're positive the widow mine is not imbalanced. It may or may not be, and even Blizzard aren't sure.
Fun thing though!
A widowmine costs 75/25 40sec and 2 supply, has 90 health, a small surface area and can burrow. It can be reactored and has true spell damage unaffected by armor upgrades, immortal hardened shield and blinding cloud. This spell damage is capable of one-shotting any <=125 hp (<=160 if shielded) target ground or air unit and up to a ~dozen of <=40 hp surrounding units.
A siege tank costs 150/125 45 sec and 3 supply, has 160 health and a large surface area, and requires a tech lab to produce. It does far less target damage, and less splash damage against all non-armored units and in a much smaller radius; damage which is also affected by armor upgrades. It one-shots only target zerglings and banelings if they don't have an armor upgrade advantage, oh and it can't damage air.
Man holy shit siege tank sure must have sucked in WoL when you had to research siege mode to even do that comparatively minimal, more expensive, more vulnerable ground-only splash damage.
Yes...siege tanks can do higher sustained dps but in sc2 that don't really matter, especially in TvZ where you had better do as much burst damage you can before shit hits you in the face and starts killing your army.
The siege tank's one advantage I can think of is its much better range which can zone out the enemy, but I think it's preferable to be able to kill the zerg army rather than keep it away until it decides to get in your face and kill yours.
Actually, in a late game scenario, A terran should better get 10 tanks instead of widowmines. Widow mines are crap against ultralisk while tanks deal with them pretty well. I do think hellbat are way better than mine in TvZ, except for covering some key locations
|
Widow mines are an interesting new unit that everyone is using. Players are still learning to adjust to all
of the new tactics and strategies.
Why is this any more useful than say looking at win rates for terrans that get more than, lets say, 20 marines.
Or if you want to stick with things that are new, how about zergs that get more than 10 swarm hosts or protoss that get more than 10 void rays. I do not see this providing any actually useful insight.
It is a new unit, there are plenty of ways to deal with them, just give it time.
|
Good widow mine usage shuts down zergs' main strengths, mobility and map control.
Of course higher widow mine count is going to correlate with higher win %, higher count means higher chance terran has map control, and any zerg player knows that if a terran gets map control off you its pretty much gg.
Even though I am a terran player now and do enjoy using mines, I don't agree with their implementation as it means that zerg has to be much more careful with their armies so I see much less multi pronged attacks etc which was the entire appeal of ZvT for me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JIgXeQb.png)
