|
THREAD IS DEAD... feel free to PM me if you'd like access to the docs with the purpose of continuing the study! Have a good night!
UPDATE! As of 6/13/12 ~11.44pm
The new benchmark phase of this undertaking is partially completed. I have some new crunch for you all, and new startling statistic.
In all but one circumstance thus far, the winning team never falls 7% or more behind their opponent.
I'm currently in the process of compiling stats every 3minutes for every single game available on VOD by MLG. You can check the spreadsheet with the information here.
The chart of just the percentile information from which you can make your own charts is here.
From this raw information hopefully we'll develop an action plan to get a more tangible grip on just how snowbally LoL is.
Continuing on to the original post...
Orig Post:
Hey TL,
Long time lurker here who is trying to get into watching League of Legends. I've been watching tournaments for a long time but I began to notice a pattern that just really rankled me. If any team takes a lead by 12min, they are much much more likely to win said game. The game is setup in such a way that any early lead is basically insurmountable except by human error and throwing a game with sub-standard play.
To chart this information, I setup a reddit post I've been updating for two days. It can be found here. I'll copy and paste highlights, but basically over two days the results have been remarkable. The team that takes as little as a 10% gold lead by 12 minutes wins over 90% of the time. I wasn't expecting it to be so marked. Imagine watching game 7 tonight and seeing the Celtics go up 45-40 late in the second quarter and being able to say with 90% certainty that they are going to the finals.
Please please do give me suggestions and feedback either here or on reddit.
The raw data will be pasted below! Thank you for your views and time!
The Current Tally: 12min leaders are 34-1-3
The leader in gold at 12min wins over 90% of the time.
Losses are games in which an early lead was blown.
Ties are games that were even for the majority of the game.
Here's a link to the Google Doc with all the information: updated as of 8:33EST!
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1494qN0iu9SA6DCyqbpeG-nZp10M19_4cS-93tTLAfmY/edit
And the original reddit post: (this will always be as current as my data intake)
http://www.reddit.com/r/leagueoflegends/comments/utge5/the_snowball_experiment_day_2_charting_mlg/
|
uuuugh... anyone know how to make tables on the forums? that data does NOT transfer clearly there....
|
that is fantastic information
nice work compiling this
i think that says a lot for early game comps, way more than anecdotal evidence
|
On June 10 2012 06:38 gtrsrs wrote:
that is fantastic information
nice work compiling this
i think that says a lot for early game comps, way more than anecdotal evidence
aww shucks! Thank you sir. Hard data doesn't get much traction on LoLreddit sadly, so I'm kinda thirsty for feedback.
|
hey thats good to know, i do enjoy LOL a little bit, but games are to long and boring to watch. If i can watch the first 12 mins and have a 90% chance to guess the victor hell ill watch every 12 mins of any Pro game!!. Then of course sc2 right after till next game !
|
Good work on this. I don't say this to cast a shadow on your work, but for the numbers to support the notion that a 10% gold lead at 12min is a predictor of success, you need to adjust for the skill differences in the teams. You're implicitly assuming that each team is evenly matched.
Basically you've shown that the leader at 12 mins has been winning the game, but it doesn't really do much to prove that leading at 12 mins won them the game.
|
On June 10 2012 07:09 Takkara wrote:
Good work on this. I don't say this to cast a shadow on your work, but for the numbers to support the notion that a 10% gold lead at 12min is a predictor of success, you need to adjust for the skill differences in the teams. You're implicitly assuming that each team is evenly matched.
Basically you've shown that the leader at 12 mins has been winning the game, but it doesn't really do much to prove that leading at 12 mins won them the game.
this, the better team is gonna be the better team from minute 1 to minute 35 to minute x... probably about 90% of the time 
|
Maybe you could put the tables on Google Docs (guessing you're using Excel?) and post the link here.
|
Yea, it is impossible for me to account for "skill" of a team given that that metric is entirely subjective. You could make the argument seeds are important, but that's odd too. Ultimately, the numbers should work out closer as the brackets progress. But, I'm speculating if they won't. Even split series have shown the snowball effect. It's just a matter of who gets the lead first. In series which go to 3 games, you'd think that the snowball factor wouldn't play as large of a factor though too because the "skill" factor would be more evenly matched.
this, the better team is gonna be the better team from minute 1 to minute 35 to minute x... probably about 90% of the time
No, not necessarily. That just means that the sport you're watching is designed in such a way that any lead is a foregone conclusion. That is a problem for your sport because it is inherently predictable (and therefore boring). In any other sport it's possible to come back from an early deficit through skill and game elements. I'm currently hunting for soccer and basketball statistics for some comparison, but even DOTA functions differently. Gold and xp changes in dota happen very frequently.
Watching any other sport or esport there is give and take. Leads are lost and gained. Like the basketball example above, if a sport becomes that predictable there's something very very wrong.
|
On June 10 2012 07:17 Jaso wrote:
Maybe you could put the tables on Google Docs (guessing you're using Excel?) and post the link here.
Ooooh, good idea. I'll try that out!!
|
|
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 10 2012 07:16 BreakfastBurrito wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 07:09 Takkara wrote:
Good work on this. I don't say this to cast a shadow on your work, but for the numbers to support the notion that a 10% gold lead at 12min is a predictor of success, you need to adjust for the skill differences in the teams. You're implicitly assuming that each team is evenly matched.
Basically you've shown that the leader at 12 mins has been winning the game, but it doesn't really do much to prove that leading at 12 mins won them the game. this, the better team is gonna be the better team from minute 1 to minute 35 to minute x... probably about 90% of the time
This is arguably a bad thing. Good games do come from teams that are well-matched, but these are relatively infrequent. Far more frequent are lopsided games, and a good spectator game has mechanics allowing those lopsided games to be entertaining.
More frequently in other games (Starcraft for example), the really good matches come from a somewhat lopsided matchup, where the team that is weaker in terms of fundamental skill can create a back-and-forth game through the use of innovative strategies, or good foresight into the "better" team's playstyle. Some of Flash's most entertaining games come from games in which the weaker player (i.e. anyone else) approaches Flash with an innovative early game build, and we see Flash either deflect it with maphack-like game sense, or slowly claw his way back into the game after having an astronomical disadvantage.
A game that is so deterministic, even in scenarios with lopsided matchups signifies a problem. Even lopsided matchups between a clearly stronger and clearly weaker team should produce close or back-and-forth games at least some of the time, due to the "cheese" or "special preparation" factor.
|
On June 10 2012 08:12 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 07:16 BreakfastBurrito wrote:On June 10 2012 07:09 Takkara wrote:
Good work on this. I don't say this to cast a shadow on your work, but for the numbers to support the notion that a 10% gold lead at 12min is a predictor of success, you need to adjust for the skill differences in the teams. You're implicitly assuming that each team is evenly matched.
Basically you've shown that the leader at 12 mins has been winning the game, but it doesn't really do much to prove that leading at 12 mins won them the game. this, the better team is gonna be the better team from minute 1 to minute 35 to minute x... probably about 90% of the time This is arguably a bad thing. Good games do come from teams that are well-matched, but these are relatively infrequent. Far more frequent are lopsided games, and a good spectator game has mechanics allowing those lopsided games to be entertaining. More frequently in other games (Starcraft for example), the really good matches come from a somewhat lopsided matchup, where the team that is weaker in terms of fundamental skill can create a back-and-forth game through the use of innovative strategies, or good foresight into the "better" team's playstyle. Some of Flash's most entertaining games come from games in which the weaker player (i.e. anyone else) approaches Flash with an innovative early game build, and we see Flash either deflect it with maphack-like game sense, or slowly claw his way back into the game after having an astronomical disadvantage. A game that is so deterministic, even in scenarios with lopsided matchups signifies a problem. Even lopsided matchups between a clearly stronger and clearly weaker team should produce close or back-and-forth games at least some of the time, due to the "cheese" or "special preparation" factor.
This is exactly my point, and why I set out to compile this info. Much more articulate than i am :-)
|
On June 10 2012 06:38 gtrsrs wrote:
that is fantastic information
nice work compiling this
i think that says a lot for early game comps, way more than anecdotal evidence
Exactly this. Had a pretty exhausting discussion with my friends about exactly this but they still are like "meh so why do early game oriented comps not work so reliably when playing ranked 5's". This OP backs me up, thanks for the work.
So all in all I think one has to remember that this statement is only true for high level coordinated play we are used to see during big events.
On June 10 2012 08:12 TheYango wrote:
A game that is so deterministic, even in scenarios with lopsided matchups signifies a problem. Even lopsided matchups between a clearly stronger and clearly weaker team should produce close or back-and-forth games at least some of the time, due to the "cheese" or "special preparation" factor.
I don't think that's a bad thing, because playing at the very top level is a pro players profession so I don't really see a problem with a small kill lead or dragon advantage influencing the winning chances so early.
Ofc there are some really boring stomps from time to time, but there are also people that love games that are decided by playing "less perfect" than the opponent. This it at least why I watch those tournaments: I want to see what it is like at the very top level where every little advantage like FB, sneaky dragon or outplay counts because this is what I will never experience myself when playing with friends or randoms in solo q.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 10 2012 08:29 little fancy wrote:
I don't think that's a bad thing, because playing at the very top level is a pro players profession so I don't really see a problem with a small kill lead or dragon advantage influencing the winning chances so early.
By design there's an issue if 2/3 of the average game time is spent only determining 10% of the final outcome.
If 90% of games take 12 minutes to decide, then why should games take longer than 20 minutes? It kills the tension for the spectator when in 90% of games, the latter 2/3 of the game aren't contributing to the final outcome.
On June 10 2012 08:29 little fancy wrote:
Ofc there are some really boring stomps from time to time, but there are also people that love games that are decided by playing "less perfect" than the opponent. This it at least why I watch those tournaments: I want to see what it is like at the very top level where every little advantage like FB, sneaky dragon or outplay counts because this is what I will never experience myself when playing with friends or randoms in solo q.
It's essentially the WC3 vs BW argument. I understand there's a certain appeal to the "everything hangs on a razor-thin-wire so the first mistake often decides the entire game", but at the same time, you should also recognize how games being astronomically back-and-forth even at the very top level creates a fantastic spectator experience as well.
|
This doesn't apply at all to solo queue though. Basically it's too easy to play with perfect information in LoL, whether due to the map design or how easily the winning team can have vision of the entire map.
|
This information does a better job of explaining why I grew bored of watching competitive LoL very quickly after getting into it, then I ever could.
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 10 2012 08:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:
This doesn't apply at all to solo queue though.
Who gives a shit about solo queue?
|
On June 10 2012 08:44 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 08:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:
This doesn't apply at all to solo queue though. Who gives a shit about solo queue?
calm down
|
United States47024 Posts
On June 10 2012 08:46 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 10 2012 08:44 TheYango wrote:On June 10 2012 08:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:
This doesn't apply at all to solo queue though. Who gives a shit about solo queue? calm down
lol that came out a bit more aggressive than I wanted it to
Can't convey tone of voice on the internet, I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
