EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/VJorg.png)
Original Post
Do you feel this is an accurate depiciton of the current state of the game? Certainly the results and representation in korea doesn't match up with these numbers.
Blizzard Blog: Balance Snapshot
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
jexxto
United Kingdom284 Posts
Original Post Do you feel this is an accurate depiciton of the current state of the game? Certainly the results and representation in korea doesn't match up with these numbers. | ||
|
Psychobabas
2531 Posts
In PvT for example, Terrans on low leagues struggle bigtime against protoss. But once you figure out TvP on Masters it becomes far easier. And also micro for the 1-1-1 allins of course hehehe | ||
|
chadissilent
Canada1187 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6259 Posts
On September 23 2011 01:34 jexxto wrote: Blizzard recently posted a blog with numbers regarding the current balance of the game: Original Post Do you feel this is an accurate depiciton of the current state of the game? Certainly the results and representation in korea doesn't match up with these numbers. I highlighted "representation in korea" because your impression of korea is the GSL. In reality, I would suggest that the balance on the korean ladders may be quite different to GSL. Elsewhere in the world, protoss have always been doing ok, this is because the defence against the gimmicky protoss style have been figured out by the koreans (but not the rest of the world yet). | ||
|
MisterFred
United States2033 Posts
Lower than high masters - don't make me laugh. MMR should keep everything near 50%. Everything else is metagame shift, but honestly, who cares, all those players will have about 50% win rate and the meta game will never be constant because they aren't good enough to smooth it out. | ||
|
ch4ppi
Germany802 Posts
On September 23 2011 01:38 chadissilent wrote: Nerf Fungal Growth. nice first thought, that came to my mind  | ||
|
QTIP.
United States2113 Posts
| ||
|
R3N
740 Posts
| ||
|
Andreas
Norway214 Posts
| ||
|
lim1017
Canada1278 Posts
| ||
|
Drunken.Jedi
Germany446 Posts
I would be very interested in how Blizzard gets those "adjusted" win percentages. As far as I can see, the only way to determine player skill accurately and objectively is to look at match results, but match results are already influenced by balance and if those numbers are based on that, they aren't useful for assessing balance. | ||
|
Shewklad
Sweden482 Posts
On September 23 2011 01:51 R3N wrote: PvZ 57% on both NA and EU. I thought 'toss is UP? Yes, the people on Sotg might want you to think that. | ||
|
Klipsys
United States1533 Posts
| ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7031 Posts
| ||
|
R3N
740 Posts
On September 23 2011 01:52 Shewklad wrote: Yes, the people on Sotg might want you to think that. You mean Inc  It's really only him xD | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
| ||
|
eleaf
526 Posts
| ||
|
Enhancer_
Canada320 Posts
It's as if they released a specific snapshot that they felt would justify to the community the changes they made in 1.4, though the correlation isn't entirely clear. | ||
|
Brotocol
243 Posts
On September 23 2011 01:48 MisterFred wrote: Terran IMBA. Just look at the Korean numbers. Now imagine eliminating Korean masters and just going with GM. The numbers would probably get worse. Professional Terran dominance isn't a fluke. The race is just better. And I'm not exactly the easiest sell on this... I play random and Terran is my worst race, but it's still clear to me. Lower than high masters - don't make me laugh. MMR should keep everything near 50%. Everything else is metagame shift, but honestly, who cares, all those players will have about 50% win rate and the meta game will never be constant because they aren't good enough to smooth it out. Well said. I also want to point out that matchmaking makes all winrates tend toward 50%. * The only case where this does not apply is tournaments, where matchmaking is not done algorithmically. * The definition of balance means that, for 2 players of the same skill level, the game should be perfectly even. How do we isolate the skill level variable? We can't. But the closest we can do is make some assumptions: (1) There is less variability (lower std. deviation) in the highest tournaments and (2) The more up to date a given scene's metagame is, the more viable it is. Thus, we really should be looking at GSL for the closest picture of balance that we can get, as it's the closest situation in terms of reflecting equal skill levels (tapering off on the high end, and thus not as highly variable as other tournaments/scenes), and metagame advancement. PS. A common misconception of "balance for the highest levels" is that imbalance doesn't affect lower leagues. It affects any game with equal skill level players, where one has to work harder than the other to achieve the same result. The entire "balance only affects the highest leagues" is wrong. It affects high leagues consistently, but can also happen, albeit inconsistently, at lower leagues. Say, for instance, take 2 silver league players who are playing at skill levels 100 and 95, respectively (hypothetical values of course). Meaning that one is outplaying the other. And yet, the latter opponent wins. That is imbalance. Real life example: 1-1-1 happening at lower leagues. That is imbalanced if an inferior player beats a superior one. Verdict: This looks like damage control, as it misrepresents these stats as "raw stats," whereas in reality, matchmaking has influenced them heavily. | ||
|
Keula
Germany157 Posts
| ||
| ||
