|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
We've had significant discussions over the course of this year about how certain maps have distinct advantages for certain races over others, and statistics have been thrown around left and right to reinforce points on either side. Sometimes we have seen no changes, other times we have seen developers change considerable aspects of a map to compensate. My question is; have these changes worked?
Specifically I want to look at 5 maps that have been at the forefront of balance for significant periods of their lifespan in SC2: Bel'Shir Beach, Tal’Darim Altar, Antiga Shipyard, Lost/Shattered Temple, and Shakuras Plateau. Hopefully, having looked through the statistics linked to these maps, we can gauge a reasonable conclusion about map fixes, and their effects on the win-rates of races.
A few notes before we start though:
- All data written in this post is taken from TLPD. I know the site is run by a few dedicated guys who update it as much as they can, so some data may be missing at the time of writing this. However, to the best of my knowledge, this data is as accurate as possible at this moment. And by that, I mean at the end of GSL November’s Code S Ro8 Day 2 (specific, I know)
- Data of updates are taken from Liquipedia. Again, a few dedicated guys updating the data there, and it is accurate at the time of writing
- For convenience, we are only looking at win-rates based on versions of map. While there are outside factors, the complications of discussing game patches, player ability, location, fatigue etc. will make this outrageously complicated.
- A lot of these maps have such a low amount of games played that it is difficult to have an accurate percentage comparison about changes. However, the fact that changes happen quite frequently means that one has no choice but to take the statistics as they are.
- Don't turn this into a race balance debate please.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
First up,  Bel&
![[image loading]](http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/images2/thumb/a/a5/Bel%27shir_Beach_1.1.jpg/400px-Bel%27shir_Beach_1.1.jpg)
Original:
+ Show Spoiler +
1.1
+ Show Spoiler +
- Added a fourth base along the top and the bottom of the map
- Added Xel'Naga watchtowers in the middle
- Added rocks blocking the base of the gold expansion
- Removed pathway between the natural and third
1.2
+ Show Spoiler +
- Removed high-ground at the choke between main and natural
- Removed smaller path into natural
- Narrowed path into natural (can now be blocked by three large buildings)
- Enlarged the main slightly
Winter
+ Show Spoiler +
- Tileset changed to emulate an ice environment.
- Gold expansion changed to normal expansion with 8 mineral patches and 2 geysers. Rocks also removed.
Firstly, the initial results showed that:
TvZ: 6-10 (62.5% ± 15% to Zerg)
ZvP: 6-5 (54.55% ± 20% to Zerg)
PvT: 5-8 (61.54% ± 17% to Terran)
Eurgh…the statistical errors are disgusting for small samples. There isn’t a significant indicator of imbalance in the data since the sample size is so small. Those few changes can easily be caused by playing a favoured player. Please don’t forget that Bel’Shir Beach game into play with the GSTL, so it was regularly used as a snipe-map.
The changes in 1.1 were made due to the nature of base trading on the original, as well as the fact that, due to the number of pathways and attack options, it was apparently Zerg favoured. 1.1 implementation showed minor improvements in the match-up vs Terran, but damage the matchup vs Protoss. PvT seemed to have improved slightly. However, not enough games were played until the next version was released:
TvZ: 21-31 (59.62% ± 8.8% to Zerg)
ZvP: 17-10 (62.96% ± 12% to Zerg)
PvT: 17-15 (53.13% ± 12% to Protoss)
1.2 saw more removals of pathways, reductions of the natural's ramp, plus the loss of the high ground at the choke into the main. Arguments stated that Nydus worms were too easy to place on the high ground uncontested, plus the large ramp at the front, coupled with the extra path, made it very difficult to defend. The win ratios, however, showed a different story:
TvZ: 4-5 (55.56% ± 22% to Zerg)
ZvP: 11-3 (78.57% ± 12% to Zerg)
PvT: 8-3 (72.73% ± 16% to Protoss)
So once again, we see a possible improvement for Terran, but a major blow to ZvP balance, as well as early indications of PvT Imbalance brewing. However, before we could find out the answer, Bel’Shir Beach Winter was released
The final version? Removal of the gold minerals was widely considered a Terran nerf, due to the ability to MULE high-yield bases for amazing returns. The effect?
TvZ: 5-2 (71.43% ± 20% to Terran)
ZvP: 2-4 (78.57% ± 24% to Protoss)
PvT: 3-5 (72.73% ± 22% to Terran)
TvX with gold patches: 42.86% ± 5.7% (57-76)
TvX without gold patches: 66.67% ± 15% (10-5)
So far, the exact opposite has happened. However, PvZ has totally reversed. But with only 6 games, it’s way too early to make a decent comparison, but alarm bells may be ringing.
Conclusions for Bel’Shir Beach? It’s hard to gauge some, because generally the games have been small in number, so useful percentages are not as easy to obtain. Early indications have me worried though. The map balancers made significant changes to the map with imperfect data (small samples, speculation on imbalance as opposed to actual proof) and we’re left with another version that seems to have opposite effects to their intentions, if any. This is a case where I am hoping that the sample used is an error, and not a good representation of results to come.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
Next, Tal’Darim Altar
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/8z6X8.jpg)
Original
+ Show Spoiler +
1.0
+ Show Spoiler +[url=http://imgur.com/fbbaL] ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/01V5Y.jpg) [/url
- Removed centre gold bases.
- Removed rocks blocking expansions.
- Removed rocks constricting the entrance to the main and made this choke unbuildable.
- Moved one of the natural geysers away from the cliff edge where it could be sieged from low ground.
- Narrowed the ramp at the third.
LE
+ Show Spoiler +
- Widened the natural choke to prevent walling with e.g. two barracks and one depot.
- Made the entrance to the main buildable.
- Added an area of low ground between the main and third accessible only by cliff-walking, etc.
- The third now has a full 8×1500 mineral patches and 2×2500 gas geysers and is blocked by destructible rocks.
Please note: While there was a version 1.1, it was never used in competitive play, and was instead updated and used as the Ladder Edition (LE)
Oh om nom NOM sample size! Over 2000 games have been played on this monster of a tournament map! Very few games were played on the original compared to versions 1.0 and LE, due to it being basically a test map to try out the concept. Therefore we will ignore the original and focus on the 2 main versions used in tournaments (can you imagine a Terran with that many high-yield expansions to MULE? Q_Q)
TDA 1.0 had the ratios as follow
TvZ: 101-111 (52.36% ± 4.7% to Zerg)
ZvP: 80-88 (52.38% ± 5.3% to Protoss)
PvT: 124-104 (54.39% ± 4.5% to Protoss)
Pretty balanced across the board, with Protoss taking a marginal lead. The theory behind it is that your first 3 bases are quite easily defended, so Protoss can “turtle” easier and get a powerful force, in the hope of one massive attack. However, again this could easily be down to a few guys having a good day, that is to say, there’s not sufficient evidence to say that there is a favour
Move forward to the LE version, the third now has more minerals (from 8x750 patches to 8x1500) and gas that lasts longer (2500 gas from 1250). Adding a wider choke to the natural and the low ground behind the third changed the match-ups a fair bit, due to higher risks of early expansions (harder to defend wider chokes with buildings.) The result?
TvZ: 244-236 (50.83% ± 3.2% to Terran)
ZvP: 205-220 (51.76% ± 3.3% to Protoss)
PvT: 228-255 (52.80% ± 3.1% to Terran)
Suddenly all three match-ups are slightly closer. TvZ is almost perfectly 50%, and both ZvP and PvT have come closer to the magic 50/50 mark. This looks like they’ve improved it, but the argument is whether it was necessary or not. At hasn’t hurt at least :D
Conclusions? This is an amazing example of minor changes making enough of a difference to bring the balance of the game closer to where it should be. However, one could argue that version 1.0 was close to that mark already. Terran seems to have taken an advantage in TvP, but not a significant enough advantage to declare that more changes are needed. However, once again we cannot forget that there could be statistical errors affecting the original data. People could have just had a good day, and that’s why the numbers were slightly on one side. However, we can conclude that, while it may not be a case of the changes making it better, they have not made it worse.
Now we see that the 2000 games and only one extra version seem totally justified!
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
Now, we have the new kid on the block, Antiga Shipyard
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EYQ3C.jpg)
Original
+ Show Spoiler +
1.1
+ Show Spoiler +
1.2
+ Show Spoiler +
- Neutral supply depot added to prevent wall-ins at the foot of the main ramp
- Gold expansion changed to normal expansion with 8 mineral patches and 2 geysers.
TE
+ Show Spoiler +
Seriously, I feel like I’m getting trolled when I talk about this map. It’s been, what, 3 months since it came out? And there are already 4 versions? What the….
What’s worse is that I can’t see any reason that 1.0 became 1.1. At all. Anyone wants help me out with a patch note? Because I can’t find any reason they’ve done it. At least 1.2 has the gold bases changed, and the Tournament Edition has the addition of neutral supply depots, as well as it being impossible to siege the main’s gas from the opposing third….but why is there another version?
I’ll save an area if someone can point out the difference between the original and 1.1, and unfortunately there have not been enough games in the Tournament Edition of the map, so that will be left out too. However, 1.2 has some interesting changes that we can observe.
First, let’s look at the stats before 1.2 was introduced (combined results of the original and 1.1 versions)
TvZ: 39-46 (54.12% ± 7.4% to Zerg)
ZvP: 44-30 (59.46% ± 7.4% to Zerg)
PvT: 30-38 (55.88% ± 8.1% to Terran)
As always, a few guys could have had good days. The neutral supply depot was introduced to prevent the 3-pylon block that Zerg players detest so much, plus Terran wall-ins with bunkers with the same effect. On top of this, the high-yield base was removed, as not only was it thought that a Planetary Fortress, with decent defence mean a Terran would have too much map control in the centre of the map, but it was considered almost impossible to prevent a Zerg taking a fast gold base against an expanding Protoss. However, after the changes, we see that:
TvZ: 15-8 (65.22% ± 12% to Terran)
ZvP: 3-4 (57.14% ± 25% to Protoss)
PvT: 3-7 (70.00% ± 17% to Terran)
Firstly, the statistics say pretty the exact opposite of what people thought in some cases. Despite the problems, there are no indications that Zerg were disfavoured in either match-up. However, the high-yield aspect seems to be reinforced by the stats. Zerg did have an advantage in ZvP, and Terran enjoyed a lead in both matchups.
Now, looking at the change…it almost seems like none of the issues have been addressed. Of course, we need to take these results with a pinch of salt, since the sample size is pretty small, but initial views seems like the changes have made it worse in most of the match-ups. Despite the lack of a gold base, Terran has managed to take a bigger lead in the percentages. ZvP may be fixed, but with such a small sample size, we can’t make a reasonable conclusion.
Conclusion? The really needed to play more games before changing the map like they have, because that this point, there was no reason from these statistics to warrant a change. While 1.2 has only been implemented in Korea so far, the fact that there have only been just over 200 non-mirrored games played before 1.2 was implemented (and that’s with 1.0 and 1.1 merged) means that they should have considered waiting a while longer before implementing these changes.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
Next, a classic map, Shakuras Plateau
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/23XX3.jpg)
Original
+ Show Spoiler +
1.1
+ Show Spoiler +
2.0
+ Show Spoiler +
- Backdoor into the main removed.
- 12 and 6 o’clock expansions now accessible by ramps (blocked by destructible rocks) leading down into the middle of the map.
- Inside expansions moved back away from the watch towers.
- Destructible rocks in the centre removed.
Another map with a massive sample size, but unlike Tal’Darim Altar, we’ve had Shakuras Plateau since the beginning of SC2, dating back to the beta. Like certain versions of Antiga Shipyard, there seems to be no difference between versions 1.0 and 1.1 (again, please correct me if I’m wrong) so we will focus on the difference that version 2.0 has made.
A brief look at the results before version 2.0 came out shows:
TvZ: 179-198 (52.52% ± 3.6% to Zerg)
ZvP: 180-186 (50.82% ± 3.7%to Protoss)
PvT: 179-222 (55.36% ± 3.3% to Terran)
While there is possible evidence that there’s probably a slight favour to Terran in the TvP matchup, in general the map seems quite balanced.
However, there were complaints. The backdoor rocks into mains were widely considered an issue, especially in the TvZ matchup, because of the strength of pushes that were capable, as well as the ability to defend the expansion in the same corridor. It also offered a relatively safe third in the case of cross spawns. Moving the inside expansions from the watchtower makes it easier to defend any workers currently mining from said expansion, and removing the rocks added a new path for Zerg to attack into, making Protoss and Terran “turtling” harder. The effect?
TvZ: 356-292 (54.94% ± 2.6% to Terran)
ZvP: 257-269 (51.14% ± 3.1% to Protoss)
PvT: 263-333 (55.87% ± 2.7% to Terran)
In an attempt to balance the map, they’ve managed to statistically make the map more imbalanced. The TvZ match-up has swung in a different direction. A slightly harder inside expansion to defend from Zerg counters has made the win-rates for Zerg fall in both match-ups.
Conclusion for this one seems pretty straight forward. This is a classic case of out of the frying pan and into the fire. In an attempt to make the map closer to a balanced meta-game, they’ve managed to make it worse. All 3 matchups are worse off than before. We can almost definitively make a conclusion as well, since we have over 1700 non-mirror match-ups played in version 2.0 and over 1100 games beforehand.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
We finally come to the one map I slightly dreaded to compare: Lost Temple/Shattered Temple
Original:
+ Show Spoiler +
Shattered Temple
+ Show Spoiler +
-Island expansion is now connected to the mainland, with the pathways blocked by destructible rocks
-The high ground next to natural expansions has been removed
-The 2 Xel’Naga Towers have been replaced by a single Tower in the centre of the map. The high ground around the initial towers has also been removed, replaced with depressions that cannot be crossed.
Shattered Temple 1.1
+ Show Spoiler +
-Close spawns removed
Combining total numbers of non-mirror matches, we have over 3000 samples to work with! Both sides have over 1400 results each, and even the different versions of Shattered Temple have enough games between them to gauge some credible results. This is a statistician’s dream sample for SC2, but is it a balance dream? Let’s have a look.
(One quick note; there are officially 2 versions of Lost Temple: the GOM version and the SC2 version. The differences are in the name only)
Initial results for Lost Temple were as follows:
TvZ: 218-155 (58.45% ± 3.3% to Terran)
ZvP: 186-196 (51.31% ± 3.6% to Protoss)
PvT: 302-347 (53.47% ± 2.7% to Terran)
Initial analysis shows a slightly alarming favour in the TvZ match-up. We must remember that this was when close spawns were allowed, plus the high ground near the natural provided and amazing area for siege tanks to hold, giving a near-impenetrable platform if allowed to set up. Holding the Xel’Naga towers gave a complete view of the main attack paths, and was easier to hold than most.
Because of these issues, Lost Temple was dropped as a map from the ladder, as well as most popular competitions. However, it was to be replaced by Shattered Temple, with the changes mentioned above. The result?
TvZ: 97-41 (70.29% ± 4.6% to Terran)
ZvP: 59-48 (55.14% ± 6.5% to Zerg)
PvT: 67-77 (53.47% ± 5.7% to Terran)
70%?!?!? Even with adjustment to the error that’s huge! How is it possible that the map was changed to help Zerg players in the ZvT match-up, and yet still cause such a massive shift? At least ZvP was fixed though, with Zerg winning more. However, the improvement is so much that now Zerg are favoured, and the match-up is even further from the magical 50/50 mark that is so desired. Pvt? Exactly the same.
With such concerns, a change was definitely needed to balance the map more. Therefore 1.1 came out quite quickly. The changes? Close spawns are now disabled. And that’s about it. One change, but a significant one:
TvZ: 308-226 (57.68% ± 2.8% to Terran)
ZvP: 231-150 (60.63% ± 3.2% to Zerg)
PvT: 213-252 (54.19% ± 3.1% to Terran)
We see another massive shift in the TvZ match-up, but this time in the positive. After all of the changes, the final result is a 0.81% drop in Terran win-rates. However, ZvP has now shifted even further in the favour of the Zerg, with a steady increase of approximately 5% per change. The only consistent part is the PvT, but even that match-up is slowly getting further from 50/50 as time goes.
Conclusion? Maybe it’s time we retire the map. Blizzard has clearly tried many things to fix the balance of the map, but has been met with a Whack-A-Mole effect; hammering one problem has raised another one. Competitions in Korea have replaced Shattered Temple with the likes of Crossfire and Bel’Shir beach. Maybe it’s time the international scene does the same.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
Overall Conclusion
I came into this discussion picking a group of maps that I thought would give a good representation of map changes, and their effects on the balance that may or may not have been on previous versions. While I wasn’t exactly sure what I was going to find, it is amazing how broad the results have been, in terms of the success that map changes have seen.
I think we can all agree that the hero in this story is Tal’Darim Altar. It came into the pool and instantly achieved critical acclaim (not the original test version, silly gold bases.) Small changes were implemented, and the map because even closer to the balance point that it was close to already. Does it need any more? I’d like to say no, because any small changes now may ruin the balance that it has so beautifully achieved. Did it need it before? Maybe, maybe not. However, the fact that small changes have made the map seem like it is down to the player is fantastic in my eyes. Well done guys
On the opposite side though are the classic maps Shakuras Plateau and Lost/Shattered Temple. While LT/ST has demonstrated clear map imbalance, changes made to it have only seemed to make it worse. Shakuras seemed statistically close to balance, but changes have possibly made it worse. I think that these results point more to the fact that people’s perception of balance changes are different to what is actually the case at the moment. I cannot give a recommendation to solve this, since I don’t have the in-depth game knowledge that is needed. However, I do feel something has to be done to both maps still, if we want to continue using them. I hate to lose cornerstones of StarCraft 2 competitive play though, so I hope that they can be fixed, instead of simply disappearing.
And then we see the third, and in my opinion worse, map balancing concept out there. Both Antiga Shipyard and Bel’Shir Beach have suffered from multiple changes in short periods of time, without a change to truly test the problems, or to objectively see the results. Removing high-yield minerals because they were apparently Terran favoured? Terran takes a lead in the match-ups. Prevent total wall-ins at the bottom of your main ramp, so Zerg don’t get pylon/bunker blocked? Zerg start losing more. For once, I hope that the results are just wrong, and we’re just looking at statistical errors for these maps. Maybe in a year, we’ll look back and see that the changes HAVE worked, but right now there are indications that they have not.
And that leads me to my main point. We just don’t have enough information. Adding Antiga Shipyard and Bel’Shir beach together, there are fewer than 500 games between them, but there are 8 versions. Shattered Temple was changed before 400 games were played on it. How can there be a decent gauge of how the effects have…affected the map balance, if not enough games have been played on it to give an accurate conclusion?
I agree that there are a number of cases where the community has detected significant problems before the statistics have been able to reinforce their points, so you don’t see them really represented as well (the Terran push through the rocks back in original Shakuras comes as a good example,) and in those cases I totally agree that there have to be changes, so we don’t ever see it in TLPD. However, my concern is that, with the amount of changes we see, and the constant shifts in the meta game, changes in maps as well causes great volatility in proper analysis of results. Maybe if we can stagger changes a bit more we can improve on our samples, but that is difficult considering how many changes happen. Also, when there’s a clear problem, we as a community are very quick to notice it. Khaydarin Amulet was spotted as a problem early, as was the Roach supply issue. It’s the smaller problems that I wish we don’t instantly try to fix.
I ask you, map balancers of the world, please leave the current maps alone for a while. There may be problems, but there is not enough data to prove that there is right now. Let us as a community get enough results under our belts, and then we can give a reasoned argument for and against changes. And once the changes are in place, please give us enough time to show the true effects of the changes in place. Then, and only then, can we have a map pool that we can truly state is balanced.
And then we leave it to the players
Ty to Cascade and Asha’ for helping proof read what I wrote and pointing out my many mistakes!
|
I am sorry but the sample is way too small for some maps, as you state.
Also, the most recent statistics include all the games from before, therefore is not as accurate since multiple game changing nerfs and buffs have occured over time.
What I think would be a better study, and with more meaning, would be to look at the balances on each patch. I dont mean to be annoying but I think there is little point to this, since those factors (patch changes) are far more important in my eyes than maps, which are certainly not as decisive (at least not as much as Brood War).
|
Are you sure that's the original Tal'darim with the gold bases? I was sure that was NASL's version.
|
It's good that you ran the numbers on this. Not enough people are aware of the fact that the sample sizes for maps (and race balance issues in general) aren't large enough to make conclusive statements yet. Even fewer care enough to make reasoned statistical arguments about it.
A slight nitpick though: IIRC if your confidence intervals overlap at all, you have to say that you can't reasonably tell whether these numbers are actually different or not. There were a few instances in which you seemed to acknowledge the overlaps but then continued to say that the winrates were actually distinguishable and attributable to changes.
|
On November 25 2011 05:02 Psychobabas wrote:
I am sorry but for all the maps apart from Shakuras, the sample is way too small.
Also, the most recent statistics include all the games from before, therefore is not as accurate since multiple game changing nerfs and buffs have occured over time.
I'm going to have to agree with this post.
It's not uncommon to take a sample and run tests to determine the facts stated within, but the sample is too small, not only because of the nature of the game, but because the numbers are extremely small. I commend your effort, but the best solution would to be to somehow derive a much larger sample to test and provide a conclusion from. Maybe Blizzard has this data?
|
I think the fact that the sample sizes are really small is actually part of the point that OP is trying to make; it's way too early for anyone to really talk meaningfully about map balance, and he does actually get at this in his conclusion.
|
On November 25 2011 05:07 shaldengeki wrote:
I think the fact that the sample sizes are really small is actually part of the point that OP is trying to make; it's way too early for anyone to really talk meaningfully about map balance, and he does actually get at this in his conclusion.
Yes he does.
But still, I think that map changes dont nearly enough influence a matchup as much as patch changes. Therefore, seeing a 70% winrate in a matchup with say, 300 games, means that this match up has evolved through numerous patches and reached that result.
So, it could be that 250 of those were played during an early patch and the map possibly is not played as much as before, so the statistic cannot change as much.
I hope I am clear with what I am trying to say.
In essence 2 factors have to be looked at for a study like this:
1. Patch "periods", ie what was the balance on this specific map during patch 1.4.0 for example
2. Frequency of map played in later patches, since data of a year ago is not that relevant (infestor nerf/buffs, ghost changes, tank changes and so much more have occured since)
|
On November 25 2011 05:07 shaldengeki wrote:
I think the fact that the sample sizes are really small is actually part of the point that OP is trying to make; it's way too early for anyone to really talk meaningfully about map balance, and he does actually get at this in his conclusion.
The sample size is small because it's from TLPD. The best data to use for this kind of statistical analysis would be to use data that Blizzard uses to balance in-house.
|
On November 25 2011 05:14 Psychobabas wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 05:07 shaldengeki wrote:
I think the fact that the sample sizes are really small is actually part of the point that OP is trying to make; it's way too early for anyone to really talk meaningfully about map balance, and he does actually get at this in his conclusion. Yes he does. But still, I think that map changes dont nearly enough influence a matchup as much as patch changes. Therefore, seeing a 70% winrate in a matchup with say, 300 games, means that this match up has evolved through numerous patches and reached that result. So, it could be that 250 of those were played during an early patch and the map possibly is not played as much as before, so the statistic cannot change as much. I hope I am clear with what I am trying to say.
Yeah, patch changes over time undoubtedly influence win rates on maps. That's a really good point, and I feel like it strengthens the OP's point wrt sample sizes - you've got all these variables that are changing over time, so it's even more important that maps be held static for awhile to accurately measure map balance - see what works and what doesn't. Otherwise we're just flailing about in the dark.
|
On November 25 2011 05:18 shaldengeki wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 05:14 Psychobabas wrote:On November 25 2011 05:07 shaldengeki wrote:
I think the fact that the sample sizes are really small is actually part of the point that OP is trying to make; it's way too early for anyone to really talk meaningfully about map balance, and he does actually get at this in his conclusion. Yes he does. But still, I think that map changes dont nearly enough influence a matchup as much as patch changes. Therefore, seeing a 70% winrate in a matchup with say, 300 games, means that this match up has evolved through numerous patches and reached that result. So, it could be that 250 of those were played during an early patch and the map possibly is not played as much as before, so the statistic cannot change as much. I hope I am clear with what I am trying to say. Yeah, patch changes over time undoubtedly influence win rates on maps. That's a really good point, and I feel like it strengthens the OP's point wrt sample sizes - you've got all these variables that are changing over time, so it's even more important that maps be held static for awhile to accurately measure map balance - see what works and what doesn't. Otherwise we're just flailing about in the dark.
Totally agree with that.
|
On November 25 2011 05:16 stevarius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 05:07 shaldengeki wrote:
I think the fact that the sample sizes are really small is actually part of the point that OP is trying to make; it's way too early for anyone to really talk meaningfully about map balance, and he does actually get at this in his conclusion. The sample size is small because it's from TLPD. The best data to use for this kind of statistical analysis would be to use data that Blizzard uses to balance in-house.
Well, as true as it is that optimally Blizzard would be actively conducting and publishing map balance results for all maps (including non-Blizzard ladder maps), I honestly don't see it happening with any frequency in the near future. The fact that Blizzard undoubtedly has more data on this doesn't necessarily imply that carrying out third-party studies is a totally useless endeavour, IMO.
|
On November 25 2011 05:22 shaldengeki wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2011 05:16 stevarius wrote:On November 25 2011 05:07 shaldengeki wrote:
I think the fact that the sample sizes are really small is actually part of the point that OP is trying to make; it's way too early for anyone to really talk meaningfully about map balance, and he does actually get at this in his conclusion. The sample size is small because it's from TLPD. The best data to use for this kind of statistical analysis would be to use data that Blizzard uses to balance in-house. Well, as true as it is that optimally Blizzard would be actively conducting and publishing map balance results for all maps (including non-Blizzard ladder maps), I honestly don't see it happening with any frequency in the near future. The fact that Blizzard undoubtedly has more data on this doesn't necessarily imply that carrying out third-party studies is a totally useless endeavour, IMO.
This opens another can of worms actually. Then we would wonder: Is Blizzard balancing maps for the masses or just the higher players? I personally think it's for the masses. So I think a study like this has great potential, as a statistic that includes bronze play (no offence to the bronze people out there!) is meaningless to me.
|
Yeah, that is a good point. I do remember seeing Blizzard presenting stratified map win rates by division at a recent event, so they're definitely keeping a pulse on map matchup balance at all levels.
|
This is great, but you really need to be factoring in overall changes in the metagame. If the Sunken/Shattered temple changes coincided with the development of blue-flame hellion play that let Terran dominate Zerg for a brief period, then you'd see massive swings that have nothing to do with the map.
If you are careful, you should be able to do this using the win-rate statistics thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/468_Bel'shir%20Beach.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/483_Bel'shir%20Beach%201.1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/492_Bel'Shir%20Beach%201.2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/images/maps/498_Bel'Shir%20Beach%20Winter.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/YA8gd.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JMwvx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/B0cUI.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/z7b2f.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/LZMxp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/QOVw8.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2RIsZ.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6F1j2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/GV9UQ.jpg)
