|
While we mostly agree on the fact, that Alligulac has its caveats, it s still a usefull tool to display overall Performance from players within the same Player population. In general it makes less sense to compare the ratings of 2 players, that play in two completly different player pools.
I just noticed a small detail today: When lookiong at the Top 3, Top 6 and Top 9 in KR, the races are perfectly balanced and its allways one of each race together, followed then by the next 3 of each race. I would even say, that the ranking within the races is also pretty acurate, with Maru, Dark and Trap on the top.
http://aligulac.com/periods/276/?page=1&sort=&race=ptzrs&nats=KR
|
For foreignland, sadly it looks way worse, its Reynor/ Serral closely together, than a gap, then Clem/ Gabe closely together, than another gap and then Showtime and Neeb together.
|
We all know that Maru,Inno,Trap, Stats, Rogue and Dark aren't patch abusers. We've seen them win in multiple different metas, and Trap has bloomed where all flowers wilted. The question is who will get the patchzerg title when all is said and done? Someone is winning their fair share of the pie, but someone has to be a race abuser when a race wins 80% of tournaments.
Who is Life and who is Sniper?
|
On September 21 2020 16:39 Morbidius wrote: We all know that Maru,Inno,Trap, Stats, Rogue and Dark aren't patch abusers. We've seen them win in multiple different metas, and Trap has bloomed where all flowers wilted. The question is who will get the patchzerg title when all is said and done? Someone is winning their fair share of the pie, but someone has to be a race abuser when a race wins 80% of tournaments.
Who is Life and who is Sniper?
The good old a rhetorical question who allows to not directly state his idea. When it serves the purpose of attacking certain people, it becomes the way of the cowards and the vicious.
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On September 21 2020 16:39 Morbidius wrote: We all know that Maru,Inno,Trap, Stats, Rogue and Dark aren't patch abusers. We've seen them win in multiple different metas, and Trap has bloomed where all flowers wilted. The question is who will get the patchzerg title when all is said and done? Someone is winning their fair share of the pie, but someone has to be a race abuser when a race wins 80% of tournaments.
Who is Life and who is Sniper? Rogue "zerg op, need monies, gonna win them tournies" - Rogue isn't a patch abuser uh... :D
editus: also rogue was called a patchzerg by the famous TL article. C'MON!
|
United States1542 Posts
When are people going to realize that in a scene as small as Korean StarCraft (you're talking about 9 people when only 24 make code s and the 25th highest ranked player is Creator) the top rated players are going to be the most skilled players rather than the ones playing the best race. You can buff zerg as much as you want, but rag god or impact (i know he's in military) won't be top 5 players. Same goes with protoss for someone like patience or terran for bunny.
|
On September 21 2020 21:29 Mizenhauer wrote: When are people going to realize that in a scene as small as Korean StarCraft (you're talking about 9 people when only 24 make code s and the 25th highest ranked player is Creator) the top rated players are going to be the most skilled players rather than the ones playing the best race. You can buff zerg as much as you want, but rag god or impact (i know he's in military) won't be top 5 players. Same goes with protoss for someone like patience or terran for bunny. It s 28 in Code S, but I absolutly agree and that was the point of this thread.
|
On September 21 2020 21:45 dbRic1203 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 21:29 Mizenhauer wrote: When are people going to realize that in a scene as small as Korean StarCraft (you're talking about 9 people when only 24 make code s and the 25th highest ranked player is Creator) the top rated players are going to be the most skilled players rather than the ones playing the best race. You can buff zerg as much as you want, but rag god or impact (i know he's in military) won't be top 5 players. Same goes with protoss for someone like patience or terran for bunny. It s 28 in Code S, but I absolutly agree and that was the point of this thread.
That also kind of points out the problem though. It may look balanced because at the very top top level the best players will always beat lesser skilled players. I watch for example GM Hikaru (a top 3.2k blitz chess player) beat players in the top 200 without a queen to start with just because hes on such a higher level.
This is why to accurately assess balance you can't focus on these players but look at a much larger picture and it's clear there is some sort of imbalance when it comes to zerg dominance but it's a small advantage and due to the volatility of the game and differing skill levels of players its actually hard to prove in any meaningful way. What i mean is that if 1 race has a 5% edge over another (a bit like card counting in blackjack) you will not see it from tournament to tournament but over the course of a long time that 5% will show itself by more of a particular race winning over a long average. Just like when you card count you don't play to win every hand. You play to win the long game. there is also the added compleixty that zerg might be 5% stronger than protoss, but protoss is 1% stronger than terran and terran is 1% stronger than zerg which makes analysis harder.
the problem is you have people lobbying and screaming about an event or a player which is not a scientific approach so a consensus is hard to reach.
|
On September 21 2020 23:49 La1 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 21:45 dbRic1203 wrote:On September 21 2020 21:29 Mizenhauer wrote: When are people going to realize that in a scene as small as Korean StarCraft (you're talking about 9 people when only 24 make code s and the 25th highest ranked player is Creator) the top rated players are going to be the most skilled players rather than the ones playing the best race. You can buff zerg as much as you want, but rag god or impact (i know he's in military) won't be top 5 players. Same goes with protoss for someone like patience or terran for bunny. It s 28 in Code S, but I absolutly agree and that was the point of this thread. That also kind of points out the problem though. It may look balanced because at the very top top level the best players will always beat lesser skilled players. I watch for example GM Hikaru (a top 3.2k blitz chess player) beat players in the top 200 without a queen to start with just because hes on such a higher level. This is why to accurately assess balance you can't focus on these players but look at a much larger picture and it's clear there is some sort of imbalance when it comes to zerg dominance but it's a small advantage and due to the volatility of the game and differing skill levels of players its actually hard to prove in any meaningful way. What i mean is that if 1 race has a 5% edge over another (a bit like card counting in blackjack) you will not see it from tournament to tournament but over the course of a long time that 5% will show itself by more of a particular race winning over a long average. Just like when you card count you don't play to win every hand. You play to win the long game. there is also the added compleixty that zerg might be 5% stronger than protoss, but protoss is 1% stronger than terran and terran is 1% stronger than zerg which makes analysis harder. the problem is you have people lobbying and screaming about an event or a player which is not a scientific approach so a consensus is hard to reach. When I discuss balance I think I am talking about a whole different kind of balance than you. It seems from your post that you are looking at straight up the win % and while I agree that its the most reasonable perspective when looking at the ladder as a whole its different when looking at the pro scene.
Well why is the pro scene important? Because the progames we watch, the players we look up to and the entertainment value of its esport is also important.
I don't care if the winrates is 50% in TvP overall if terran is scv pulling >50% of the games. Of course there is always the perspective of "let time solve the problem, it worked in broodwar" well time has proven to not fix most balance issues. Sc2 needs continues patches and I really don't think it is because the winrates are skewed its because the balance is bad even if the winrates are close.
Stat lovers like you is going to hate this opinion but I really do believe that we need to look at the games as well when are dsicussing if this game needs a patch or not. Who cares if all terrans gets knocked out super early two code S seasons in a row if the games are varied and close overall. However if every terran gets knocked out byh protoss doing links stalker all in with msc maybe we have a problem, even if one or two tournaments isn't enough to draw any real conclusions from in your opinion.
|
It's important to note that the logistic curve used in aligulac is less steep than in chess. In (offline) chess, a 200 ELO advantage corresponds to a 75% win rate. In aligulac a 200 rating advantage gives a 59% win rate, you need ~600 rating difference to get 75% win rate. Of course this will be amplified the more games you play in a Bo5 or Bo7.
|
Dominican Republic587 Posts
what i see on this chart is, Terran on top 10 needs to be really good at TvZ look at every terran in this list they are super good vs Zerg. if they had this as their worst match up they probably would not be there.
|
Cool how each set of three starts with a Terran, but doesn't necessarily end with a Protoss. All balance talk aside, that shit is pretty neat.
|
On September 21 2020 16:22 dbRic1203 wrote: For foreignland, sadly it looks way worse, its Reynor/ Serral closely together, than a gap, then Clem/ Gabe closely together, than another gap and then Showtime and Neeb together. If it's any consolation, Clem won a bo5 against Reynor and Serral in the past week and a half.
|
On September 21 2020 16:39 Morbidius wrote: We all know that Maru,Inno,Trap, Stats, Rogue and Dark aren't patch abusers. We've seen them win in multiple different metas, and Trap has bloomed where all flowers wilted. The question is who will get the patchzerg title when all is said and done? Someone is winning their fair share of the pie, but someone has to be a race abuser when a race wins 80% of tournaments.
Who is Life and who is Sniper?
Life was definitely not a patch zerg. Sniper and Roro were though.
Your argument about tournament wins by race makes no sense though. At the very top it's the talent of the players that matters, not the race they play. Terran was considered weak when Maru won three straight GSLs. Savior (before the matchfixing) was beating everyone with zerg at a time when no other zergs were winning in Broodwar. The truly great players win regardless of circumstance.
|
Czech Republic12115 Posts
On September 22 2020 05:49 esReveR wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 16:39 Morbidius wrote: We all know that Maru,Inno,Trap, Stats, Rogue and Dark aren't patch abusers. We've seen them win in multiple different metas, and Trap has bloomed where all flowers wilted. The question is who will get the patchzerg title when all is said and done? Someone is winning their fair share of the pie, but someone has to be a race abuser when a race wins 80% of tournaments.
Who is Life and who is Sniper? Life was definitely not a patch zerg. Sniper and Roro were though. Your argument about tournament wins by race makes no sense though. At the very top it's the talent of the players that matters, not the race they play. Terran was considered weak when Maru won three straight GSLs. Savior (before the matchfixing) was beating everyone with zerg at a time when no other zergs were winning in Broodwar. The truly great players win regardless of circumstance. Yeah, that's why like 75 % of tournaments have been won by Zerg in the past 3 years, right? Dark, Rogue the Patchzerg*, soO, Serral, Reynor - all of them suddenly got godlike. In the meantime the only non Zerg who got godlike was Maru. It's not about the race while we have 5 zergs and 1 terran. C'mon, at least check the results page.
* I willl use it, I like it and the article shouldn't have been released
Edit> funnily enough, when Rogue got godlike the first time, he was called a patchzerg. When Rogue got godlike again, he called zerg OP. Now, either I can trust you or a pro player with multiple WC titles who plays the game at the top level. Or I can trust the TL writers
Edit 23141> It would have been different if there were like 1 or 2 players dominating. Flash/JD style from BW. But that's not happening, it's zergs and 1 terran. What a coincidence when the majority of tournaments are won by Zergs and plenty of finals were ZvZs. But no, sir! It's not about the race they play. It just happened all the WC holders since ByuN/TY are Zergs.
|
On September 22 2020 00:46 Shuffleblade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2020 23:49 La1 wrote:On September 21 2020 21:45 dbRic1203 wrote:On September 21 2020 21:29 Mizenhauer wrote: When are people going to realize that in a scene as small as Korean StarCraft (you're talking about 9 people when only 24 make code s and the 25th highest ranked player is Creator) the top rated players are going to be the most skilled players rather than the ones playing the best race. You can buff zerg as much as you want, but rag god or impact (i know he's in military) won't be top 5 players. Same goes with protoss for someone like patience or terran for bunny. It s 28 in Code S, but I absolutly agree and that was the point of this thread. That also kind of points out the problem though. It may look balanced because at the very top top level the best players will always beat lesser skilled players. I watch for example GM Hikaru (a top 3.2k blitz chess player) beat players in the top 200 without a queen to start with just because hes on such a higher level. This is why to accurately assess balance you can't focus on these players but look at a much larger picture and it's clear there is some sort of imbalance when it comes to zerg dominance but it's a small advantage and due to the volatility of the game and differing skill levels of players its actually hard to prove in any meaningful way. What i mean is that if 1 race has a 5% edge over another (a bit like card counting in blackjack) you will not see it from tournament to tournament but over the course of a long time that 5% will show itself by more of a particular race winning over a long average. Just like when you card count you don't play to win every hand. You play to win the long game. there is also the added compleixty that zerg might be 5% stronger than protoss, but protoss is 1% stronger than terran and terran is 1% stronger than zerg which makes analysis harder. the problem is you have people lobbying and screaming about an event or a player which is not a scientific approach so a consensus is hard to reach. When I discuss balance I think I am talking about a whole different kind of balance than you. It seems from your post that you are looking at straight up the win % and while I agree that its the most reasonable perspective when looking at the ladder as a whole its different when looking at the pro scene. Well why is the pro scene important? Because the progames we watch, the players we look up to and the entertainment value of its esport is also important. I don't care if the winrates is 50% in TvP overall if terran is scv pulling >50% of the games. Of course there is always the perspective of "let time solve the problem, it worked in broodwar" well time has proven to not fix most balance issues. Sc2 needs continues patches and I really don't think it is because the winrates are skewed its because the balance is bad even if the winrates are close. Stat lovers like you is going to hate this opinion but I really do believe that we need to look at the games as well when are dsicussing if this game needs a patch or not. Who cares if all terrans gets knocked out super early two code S seasons in a row if the games are varied and close overall. However if every terran gets knocked out byh protoss doing links stalker all in with msc maybe we have a problem, even if one or two tournaments isn't enough to draw any real conclusions from in your opinion.
Mate, firstly, you are not talking about balance, but "game state" / "entertainment value". Balance is having 50% win rate for equal skilled player, regardless of whether the game is fun, enjoyable to watch etc. If ZVT end with 50% win rate with 100% of the games being drone rush, it is balance. Of course it is not going to be enjoyable for the player or the viewer.
The elephant of the room where almost no one talk about is the required sample size (power of calculation if you like). We do not have an agreement on how many (or what) games/ series / tournaments are required to determine if there is imbalance or not, nor any scientific / statistic analysis to determine the (minimum) number required. We have different people using different method to justify whether there is, or there is not imbalance, but ultimately, they reverse engineer the analysis after they formed the conclusion.
|
Maru who got 1 RO8 and RO16 finish are ranking higher than TY who got 1 win and 1 RO4 finish, or Innovation who got 1 RO4 and 1 RO8 finish.
This is totally accurate
|
All this whining, in pretty much every Starcraft related thread on TL... it's getting old.
Anyone wanna sig bet that next GSL winner isn't a Zerg?
|
On September 22 2020 18:13 mounteast0 wrote:
Mate, firstly, you are not talking about balance, but "game state" / "entertainment value". Balance is having 50% win rate for equal skilled player, regardless of whether the game is fun, enjoyable to watch etc. If ZVT end with 50% win rate with 100% of the games being drone rush, it is balance. Of course it is not going to be enjoyable for the player or the viewer.
Well firstly, the "50% winrate for equal skilled players" is pretty much impossible to measure because what really is equally skilled players. MMR is not an accurate measure of skill, especially not when we take into account that you can have one really strong matchup. The argument if zerg is op at the higest level or if many zerg players in general are just higher level that players of other races is an argument you simply cant disprove. Even if Zerg has a higher winrate overall it can be due to skill disparity, in theory.
Secondly in that case what is even the point in discussing balance. By your definiton balance simply doesn't matter. If ZvT has 50% winrate 100% due to drone rush then that matchup will soon have a winrate way below 50% because terran players will learn to defend drone rush. When looking at the state of the game right now it is actually important to look at the state of the game longterm, it is fine if the winrates are bad right now if we can reasonably assume they will stabilize down the road. Equally if the winrates are perfectly balanced right now because of drone rush we should definitely discuss right now what we can do to fix the problem that is game state/entertainement but also the coming balance problem.
So for what purpose are we even talking about this theoretical balance if it is overall unimportant to the state of the game and the future of the game.
On September 22 2020 18:13 mounteast0 wrote: The elephant of the room where almost no one talk about is the required sample size (power of calculation if you like). We do not have an agreement on how many (or what) games/ series / tournaments are required to determine if there is imbalance or not, nor any scientific / statistic analysis to determine the (minimum) number required. We have different people using different method to justify whether there is, or there is not imbalance, but ultimately, they reverse engineer the analysis after they formed the conclusion.
Yeah, sounds really important to find some kind of universal measurement of useless data.
|
France12463 Posts
Yeah, Blizzard don't just use ladder winrates % and pro games winrates %. They study the balance both quantitatively (with metrics such as ladder winrate %, pro games winrates %, and probably early game winrate %, etc.) and qualitatively (how are the games won/lost? how are the interactions between units, etc.).
They will especially look at balance issues qualitatively for new patches, ie. I'm pretty sure they are focusing on void rays in PvT as well as PvZ to see if it went according to their plan and if it improved things. Qualitative analysis is very important in complement to quantitative analysis because it helps you understand what is really going on and how you can improve it.
|
|
|
|