|
I think artosis gets too excited about players and becomes a bit of a fanboy. The latest example was innovation. By Artosis hype, he seemed to be leagues above the competition. He beat DRG convincingly in ro16, but was trounced in the ro32. This doesn't tell us innovation is miles better than DRG. It tell us these two are about the same level, and one of them having a not so good day is enough to snowball into a crushng defeat.
The same goes for Innovation vs Symbol. The final score was 3-2, but the 1st map was really close, Symbol could have won. If Symbol had won, the final score would be a 3-0 for Symbol. That wouldn't mean Symbol is miles better either.
In short, Artosis is a bit passional in his predictions.
|
On February 23 2013 01:12 Veriol wrote: I dont get what you are complaining about. Its not like they are loosing to some random guys in GSL. They are playing vs the very very very best. As all, in this thread, mentioned there are so many factors - and so easily distrubable ones that its very hard to have yours consitency at level to not loose at such high level for extended periods of time.
Because it seems like on this level it comes down to luck. Or how do you explain that every tournament there is another Korean winning? It is as if on this level theres not enough skill difference anymore between these people so you can predict the outcome of a game. That's just a bad spectator sport and should be fixed.
Edit: In 2012 we didn't had a single player winning the GSL twice and we will have another champion again. You actually have to go back 9 GSL seasons until theres MVP winning two GSLs.
|
On February 23 2013 00:49 fer wrote: You go on to mention win rates of Mvp and Life in Starcraft as they compare to Federer in tennis. A literally 5 second Google search on Federer's lifetime win rate returns 69%, so I literally have no idea what you're on about here.
"McEnroe won 13 of 15 tournaments that year and though he "only" won two grand slams, in terms of pure statistics, his exploits put him top of the tree, with a 96.47% win-rate. That puts him just ahead of Connors, who won 93 of 97 matches in 1974, including three grand slams, with a win rate of 95.88%.
Federer compiled an 81-4 record in 2005, with two grand slams and nine other titles, to place third at 95.29%. In 2006, when the Swiss won three grand slams, the ATP World Tour Finals and eight other tournaments, his 92-5 record gave him a win rate of 94.85%. Djokovic goes into London with a 69-4 record, at 94.52%, fifth on the all-time list. Even if he wins all five matches in London, the best he can do is fourth."
Nobody in Starcraft gets close to these numbers.
On February 23 2013 00:49 fer wrote: To me the real gross assumption here is that you can even properly determine who the better on any 1 on 1 match is. Starcraft is inherently a vastly more complex game than say football, tennis, swimming, sprinting, whatever. Through statistics, we can formulate predictions on who is maybe the best player overall over some period of time, but I really don't think we can accurately predict any given pairing with very strong confidence.
Starcraft is not more complicated than football or any other team sport. Tennis also hardly comes down to pure athleticism, someone like Federer is as good as he is because he understands the game on a higher level than his opponents. He often starts out losing the first few games to physically superior opponents, only to devise a way to counter them and crush them.
--
Another thing that people mention with regards to tennis is that a typical tennis match can last two hours and that a typical starcraft series is maybe an hour, so it's an unfair comparison. I would say in response that even if you let tennis play out with only one set it would still be way less volatile. Top players often slip up and accidentally lose a set, but that also has to do with underestimating the competition and knowing that even if you lose the first set it doesn't really matter. Top players can't afford to spend all their energy on the opponents early in the tournament, they have to use them for training pretty much.
--
In case someone has seen the Jjakji vs Dream match in the GSTL last week, it was a constant back-and-forth TvT game that lasted 48 minutes. I think that it was pretty obvious that the best player had won in that game, and that if all games were like that, we would be able to have Bo1 for the majority of tournaments. But it's not possible because games are so varied, some are way less eventful than others.
|
On February 23 2013 01:16 roym899 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 01:12 Veriol wrote: I dont get what you are complaining about. Its not like they are loosing to some random guys in GSL. They are playing vs the very very very best. As all, in this thread, mentioned there are so many factors - and so easily distrubable ones that its very hard to have yours consitency at level to not loose at such high level for extended periods of time.
Because it seems like on this level it comes down to luck. Or how do you explain that every tournament there is another Korean winning? It is as if on this level theres not enough skill difference anymore between these people so you can predict the outcome of a game. That's just a bad spectator sport and should be fixed. Edit: In 2012 we didn't had a single player winning the GSL twice and we will have another champion again. You actually have to go back 9 GSL seasons until theres MVP winning two GSLs.
Not enough skill difference? Parting got totally outplayed for example..
Its more about the mental state and physical feel. I think any sportsman could loose to lets say anyone in top32 if he felt shitty.
|
On February 23 2013 01:10 roym899 wrote: fer what you are saying is pretty dumb and ignorant to be honest. Referring to the 69% of Federer shows that you have no idea about the Tennissport. So please stop taking some no-sense stats from google. Federer isn't nearly in form anymore and Djokjovic is the current top player. Top 4 players in the world ranking list also in the top4 of the australien open shows how great of a sport it is.
They're not non-sense. That's his lifetime win rate. I thought it was fair to use his lifetime win rate if he was talking about Mvp's lifetime win rate, don't you agree?
|
What you call random number generation is what I call "a game which has an average of one metagame change every three weeks." The "metagame" of football hasn't changed since the rise of Barcelona in 2006-2007 and their new brand of "total football". The period of Michael Schumacher's dominance of Formula One came at a period where Ferrari had by far and away the best cars apart from McLaren. The metagame of tennis has not evolved in fifteen years, with the only changes in the metagame of tennis coming in rules against shouting on court and racket developments.
The only reason BW stabilised is because they stopped patching it. In the process they left half the units in the game completely useless. Starcraft 2 is constantly getting rebalanced and the metagame shifts ever so slightly every single time someone discovers a new build.
I'm going to nail this (and Idra's) complaint with one final bit of statistics:
Football - metagame hasn't changed in 20 years. Manchester United, the most dominant club in English football. They have survived at least four challengers rising to meet them, all under one manager. All those challengers are better funded than they are.
What's their win rate?
59.77%
Goal difference of +2014. 2199 games played. 1245 won. 486 drawn. 408 lost.
Football is a completely skill based game. There is no random number generation involved beyond simple physics. The most dominant club in the HISTORY of English football has a win rate of just under 60%.
If you genuinely think someone should have a 90% win rate to be dominant, you don't know what you're talking about.
|
I can tell you as a spectator it makes it really really difficult for me to have a favorite player. And because of that I am not as engaged in the community as I want to be. I am not a fan of anyone in particular. I am a fan of my favorite race. (protoss)
In BW Stork, Bisu and Flash were my boys. I was a stork and bisu fanboy. I would try to watch all their games. And that's because BW had some consistency with winners.
SC2 every season or patch brings someone new. And I can't keep up.
|
On February 23 2013 01:28 fer wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 01:10 roym899 wrote: fer what you are saying is pretty dumb and ignorant to be honest. Referring to the 69% of Federer shows that you have no idea about the Tennissport. So please stop taking some no-sense stats from google. Federer isn't nearly in form anymore and Djokjovic is the current top player. Top 4 players in the world ranking list also in the top4 of the australien open shows how great of a sport it is.
They're not non-sense. That's his lifetime win rate. I thought it was fair to use his lifetime win rate if he was talking about Mvp's lifetime win rate, don't you agree? Life only has 66% winrate over the last six months, where he is the strongest player at his peak.
It's true, we do need better presentation of data for these topics, but I would suggest you actually contribute instead of just sniping on other people's comments.
|
On February 22 2013 15:49 Kennigit wrote:Show nested quote + Is there something inherently wrong with a game where the supposed best players so often lose to players who are widely considered weaker than them? Like, is the skill ceiling not high enough? Is it too luck based? Why don't the best players beat the slightly less good players more often?
This has been suggested by pros, writers, community figures since 2008 when we started playing alpha builds. It has been consistently complained about (especially by idra) for years now.
I agree with this. They also got rid of the early/mid game (sort of) with the economy boosters that they gave each race, so they eliminated the early game which is a place where the truly talented would gain an edge in the game. They would use their small army as efficiently as possible, while macroing up economy and upgrades. With no early game, if it is just max or a solid army vs solid army battle, one mistake can win a lesser player a game, where in the past a truly talented BW player would have capitalized on those mistakes.
|
I've been thinking what the OP has been thinking since mid-2011.
Balance patches may have been too drastic during the Wings of Liberty phase, throwing things out of wack for many players, but that doesn't explain a solid player just falling off the face of the earth (Danger Days of Code A - the abyss).
It may be a very mental game and it may involve lots of preparation time between games in some tournaments, but a mechanically superior player getting crushed because of some lucky spells in the last game of a close series is actually pretty disgraceful. There is way too much volatility and the metagame of Wings is ridiculously stagnant. We'll have to see if HotS sees a little more consistency, but my mind is made up about Wings. Now, if only I could log on and play some games...
|
On February 23 2013 01:33 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 15:49 Kennigit wrote: Is there something inherently wrong with a game where the supposed best players so often lose to players who are widely considered weaker than them? Like, is the skill ceiling not high enough? Is it too luck based? Why don't the best players beat the slightly less good players more often?
This has been suggested by pros, writers, community figures since 2008 when we started playing alpha builds. It has been consistently complained about (especially by idra) for years now. I agree with this. They also got rid of the early/mid game (sort of) with the economy boosters that they gave each race, so they eliminated the early game which is a place where the truly talented would gain an edge in the game. They would use their small army as efficiently as possible, while macroing up economy and upgrades. With no early game, if it is just max or a solid army vs solid army battle, one mistake can win a lesser player a game, where in the past a truly talented BW player would have capitalized on those mistakes.
This is complete nonsense. The reason we have no more early game vs early game mistakes is because the community has forced the maps to be continent sized (since they want more macro games) and the standard is now 3 base 200 supply macro games.
When you have maps that are continent sized you are ALWAYS going to have room for error. That's why the only race capable of punishing early mistakes is Protoss now, which is why TvP and ZvP are so punishing if the Protoss all ins and you aren't prepared for it. It is no longer true the other way around. Why do they have this ability? THEY CAN SPAWN THEIR UNITS 6 FEET FROM YOUR BASE.
Rather than acknowledging this as a good part in the game (the part everyone wants to see), instead we have amateur game designers trying to remove warpgate from the game because it "punishes diversity". No, just make the fucking maps smaller so terrans and zerg can put on some basic pressure without requiring hellions or zergling/roach speed.
On February 23 2013 01:36 dUTtrOACh wrote: I've been thinking what the OP has been thinking since mid-2011.
Balance patches may have been too drastic during the Wings of Liberty phase, throwing things out of wack for many players, but that doesn't explain a solid player just falling off the face of the earth (Danger Days of Code A - the abyss).
It may be a very mental game and it may involve lots of preparation time between games in some tournaments, but a mechanically superior player getting crushed because of some lucky spells in the last game of a close series is actually pretty disgraceful. There is way too much volatility and the metagame of Wings is ridiculously stagnant. We'll have to see if HotS sees a little more consistency, but my mind is made up about Wings. Now, if only I could log on and play some games...
No, it completely explains it. The fact that Mvp fell through Code S into Code A is proof alone that the ability to play at your best matters hugely in WoL. The guy's not well. Players get found out, players adjust their builds. Maps change, they get bigger and smaller. Dodgy little bits of geometry get abused. Occasionally there is an overpowered unit (infestor) but usually most of it is that someone hasn't figured out how to play against a unit.
Maybe their "dominance" as you ascribe to believe they have, is mostly down to coming out with a new tactic no one had seen before and then playing an absolute fuckton of games. It takes time to adapt to something and some people do it quicker than others. In Code S for example, Life played a really unique style of zerg that was super strong. The only person who really adapted to it was Mvp, in the finals. Same with Rain. Really strong style of defensive Protoss. Who beat it? Mvp.
Those players get found out. Some get found out sooner rather than later. HuK was really strong until people got used to defending protoss early pressure builds, at which point HE was found out. Thorzain is still the most mechanically strong foreigner we had, but Koreans and zerg take advantage of his lack of aggression to overrun him with units.
The only truly dominant players we have had are Mvp and Nestea and of those two, why Mvp? Well, look at who adapted to Life and Rain first.
HoTS, I anticipate a fantastic blow for blow rivalry between a healed Mvp and Flash, who is increasingly looking like God again.
|
On February 23 2013 01:30 Evangelist wrote: What you call random number generation is what I call "a game which has an average of one metagame change every three weeks." The "metagame" of football hasn't changed since the rise of Barcelona in 2006-2007 and their new brand of "total football". The period of Michael Schumacher's dominance of Formula One came at a period where Ferrari had by far and away the best cars apart from McLaren. The metagame of tennis has not evolved in fifteen years, with the only changes in the metagame of tennis coming in rules against shouting on court and racket developments.
The only reason BW stabilised is because they stopped patching it. In the process they left half the units in the game completely useless. Starcraft 2 is constantly getting rebalanced and the metagame shifts ever so slightly every single time someone discovers a new build.
I'm going to nail this (and Idra's) complaint with one final bit of statistics:
Football - metagame hasn't changed in 20 years. Manchester United, the most dominant club in English football. They have survived at least four challengers rising to meet them, all under one manager. All those challengers are better funded than they are.
What's their win rate?
59.77%
Goal difference of +2014. 2199 games played. 1245 won. 486 drawn. 408 lost.
Football is a completely skill based game. There is no random number generation involved beyond simple physics. The most dominant club in the HISTORY of English football has a win rate of just under 60%.
If you genuinely think someone should have a 90% win rate to be dominant, you don't know what you're talking about.
60% winrate, because soccer has ties. Their percentage of either tying or wining is about 80%. You're comparing a game with ties to a game that for the most part is exclusively win-lose
|
On February 23 2013 01:30 Evangelist wrote: Football - metagame hasn't changed in 20 years. Manchester United, the most dominant club in English football. They have survived at least four challengers rising to meet them, all under one manager. All those challengers are better funded than they are.
What's their win rate?
59.77%
Goal difference of +2014. 2199 games played. 1245 won. 486 drawn. 408 lost.
Football is a completely skill based game. There is no random number generation involved beyond simple physics. The most dominant club in the HISTORY of English football has a win rate of just under 60%.
If you genuinely think someone should have a 90% win rate to be dominant, you don't know what you're talking about. A team wins 1245 times, loses 408 times, and you manage to present that as "only 59% winrate"?
And football is too volatile anyway, it's a common complaint there as well, so even if you used your statistics properly it would still be meaningless for Starcraft 2.
|
Okay, how old is this game? 3 years. Then if you want you can count in the 12 years of BW... still only 15 years and in that period we had 2 Games and countless patches. Now take your consistent sport ( tennis, or whatever) and change the size of the field, bring in new rules about clothing or the raquet and so on... consistency = gone. Think about swimming when they introduced the full body suits: everything changed in a very short time! Also I don´t think you really can build order counter a pro tennis player...
|
On February 23 2013 01:39 Supert0fu wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 01:30 Evangelist wrote: What you call random number generation is what I call "a game which has an average of one metagame change every three weeks." The "metagame" of football hasn't changed since the rise of Barcelona in 2006-2007 and their new brand of "total football". The period of Michael Schumacher's dominance of Formula One came at a period where Ferrari had by far and away the best cars apart from McLaren. The metagame of tennis has not evolved in fifteen years, with the only changes in the metagame of tennis coming in rules against shouting on court and racket developments.
The only reason BW stabilised is because they stopped patching it. In the process they left half the units in the game completely useless. Starcraft 2 is constantly getting rebalanced and the metagame shifts ever so slightly every single time someone discovers a new build.
I'm going to nail this (and Idra's) complaint with one final bit of statistics:
Football - metagame hasn't changed in 20 years. Manchester United, the most dominant club in English football. They have survived at least four challengers rising to meet them, all under one manager. All those challengers are better funded than they are.
What's their win rate?
59.77%
Goal difference of +2014. 2199 games played. 1245 won. 486 drawn. 408 lost.
Football is a completely skill based game. There is no random number generation involved beyond simple physics. The most dominant club in the HISTORY of English football has a win rate of just under 60%.
If you genuinely think someone should have a 90% win rate to be dominant, you don't know what you're talking about. 60% winrate, because soccer has ties. Their percentage of either tying or wining is about 80%. You're comparing a game with ties to a game that for the most part is exclusively win-lose
Other people are comparing it to golf which has absolutely no comparison to Starcraft 2 AT ALL. What about tennis, where the players play maybe 4-5 games in total, usually taking the best part of a day and are seeded based upon previous performance or qualifiers.
Simply put, Manchester United are the most dominant team in the history of English football. They have won around one in six of all potential top flight trophies since the English football league was instituted. There are very few sports where one person, one team will be completely dominant for over twenty years. It just doesn't happen. That's why United are rare.
The draws are also potentially counted as either wins or losses because some of them came in cup competitions (and thus counted towards either statistic). Even then, assuming a half and half split you still have them only winning 70% of their potential bouts, which considering some of those draws have come against Norwich, most United fans would be gutted at.
Even they do not dominate all the time. Even they lose championships, go out to League One cup sides in the FA Cup. Even they lose to no name European teams, teams that United SHOULD score 6 against.
Fluke results happen. They happen a fuckload more often if you play 20 games on different maps in a single day.
Please do not tell an avid football watcher how my own game works, thanks. Nevermind a Manchester United fan from OId Trafford. I know what it is I am talking about.
A team wins 1245 times, loses 408 times, and you manage to present that as "only 59% winrate"?
And football is too volatile anyway, it's a common complaint there as well, so even if you used your statistics properly it would still be meaningless for Starcraft 2.
This is just a thread for whining about why we haven't had Flash or someone else win 90% of games so they can name a bonjwa. Everyone parroting this viewpoint has already decided what they think and no evidence will convince them otherwise. Some of them are even parroting Idra, who knows about as much about statistical analysis or sample sizes as I do about build order timings.
BW had a much more stable metagame spread over a longer period of time with maps specifically designed to balance out issues - again, leaving half the units completely useless. SC2 balances both at the same time, aiming to make units useful while keeping the maps in balance. There is a fundamental difference in the way that alters balance - when a unit changes, tactics that allowed the unit to function change. When maps change, tactics and timings that previously worked change.
When a team introduces a new player, it changes the dynamic of the team. United without Kagawa and Van Persie are a different side to United with those players. Tell you what. Go into the pro history of a single pro and see if there is a correlation between the matchups and maps they won on and the matchups and maps they lost on. Using that information, try and determine whether they will win their next map based on an equivalent analysis of their opponent and a head to head of recent matches.
Only when you do this for every single player will you be able to properly predict how well they will do. Thus, 40-60% is about as good as most people will EVER be able to do. To think otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of analysis.
|
On February 23 2013 01:38 Evangelist wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 01:33 NoobSkills wrote:On February 22 2013 15:49 Kennigit wrote: Is there something inherently wrong with a game where the supposed best players so often lose to players who are widely considered weaker than them? Like, is the skill ceiling not high enough? Is it too luck based? Why don't the best players beat the slightly less good players more often?
This has been suggested by pros, writers, community figures since 2008 when we started playing alpha builds. It has been consistently complained about (especially by idra) for years now. I agree with this. They also got rid of the early/mid game (sort of) with the economy boosters that they gave each race, so they eliminated the early game which is a place where the truly talented would gain an edge in the game. They would use their small army as efficiently as possible, while macroing up economy and upgrades. With no early game, if it is just max or a solid army vs solid army battle, one mistake can win a lesser player a game, where in the past a truly talented BW player would have capitalized on those mistakes. This is complete nonsense. The reason we have no more early game vs early game mistakes is because the community has forced the maps to be continent sized (since they want more macro games) and the standard is now 3 base 200 supply macro games. When you have maps that are continent sized you are ALWAYS going to have room for error. That's why the only race capable of punishing early mistakes is Protoss now, which is why TvP and ZvP are so punishing if the Protoss all ins and you aren't prepared for it. It is no longer true the other way around. Why do they have this ability? THEY CAN SPAWN THEIR UNITS 6 FEET FROM YOUR BASE. Rather than acknowledging this as a good part in the game (the part everyone wants to see), instead we have amateur game designers trying to remove warpgate from the game because it "punishes diversity". No, just make the fucking maps smaller so terrans and zerg can put on some basic pressure without requiring hellions or zergling/roach speed. Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 01:36 dUTtrOACh wrote: I've been thinking what the OP has been thinking since mid-2011.
Balance patches may have been too drastic during the Wings of Liberty phase, throwing things out of wack for many players, but that doesn't explain a solid player just falling off the face of the earth (Danger Days of Code A - the abyss).
It may be a very mental game and it may involve lots of preparation time between games in some tournaments, but a mechanically superior player getting crushed because of some lucky spells in the last game of a close series is actually pretty disgraceful. There is way too much volatility and the metagame of Wings is ridiculously stagnant. We'll have to see if HotS sees a little more consistency, but my mind is made up about Wings. Now, if only I could log on and play some games... No, it completely explains it. The fact that Mvp fell through Code S into Code A is proof alone that the ability to play at your best matters hugely in WoL. The guy's not well. Players get found out, players adjust their builds. Maps change, they get bigger and smaller. Dodgy little bits of geometry get abused. Occasionally there is an overpowered unit (infestor) but usually most of it is that someone hasn't figured out how to play against a unit. Maybe their "dominance" as you ascribe to believe they have, is mostly down to coming out with a new tactic no one had seen before and then playing an absolute fuckton of games. It takes time to adapt to something and some people do it quicker than others. In Code S for example, Life played a really unique style of zerg that was super strong. The only person who really adapted to it was Mvp, in the finals. Same with Rain. Really strong style of defensive Protoss. Who beat it? Mvp. Those players get found out. Some get found out sooner rather than later. HuK was really strong until people got used to defending protoss early pressure builds, at which point HE was found out. Thorzain is still the most mechanically strong foreigner we had, but Koreans and zerg take advantage of his lack of aggression to overrun him with units. The only truly dominant players we have had are Mvp and Nestea and of those two, why Mvp? Well, look at who adapted to Life and Rain first. HoTS, I anticipate a fantastic blow for blow rivalry between a healed Mvp and Flash, who is increasingly looking like God again.
You sound pretty salty which doesn't help anyone make their point, only sound angry. Huge maps doesn't make the early game last longer. Again a full economy is easier to obtain than in BW, so windows for pressures are closed almost completely. That doesn't mean they cannot work, but that they are less profitable. If I destroy an expansion worth of workers, but sacrifice my own economy to do so, then chances are my opponent is still going to have the same economic force that I have. Then after the early game is done, both players just work on upgrades and maxing their armies which comes very quickly in this game.
|
As I said, tennis is really a BO 20 something, sinc each game is made up of many sets. SC2 would not be random if it is also a BO21.
|
Well, I guess comparing tennis to starcraft is really difficult. First of all, tennis would always be a mirror match and the longest the match goes, more chance the better player have to win.
How many games or sets do Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and etc. lose each match? I bet they don't win 95% of them.
|
On February 22 2013 16:42 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On February 22 2013 16:24 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2013 16:18 Gatesleeper wrote:On February 22 2013 16:04 Jibba wrote:On February 22 2013 15:38 Gatesleeper wrote: The number 1 ranked person on liquibet, a fellow by the name of SpiZe, has 157 points. He has predicted the correct winner 64.9% of the time. There are 3 people tied for second (aznball123, Arla, and quannump) at 152 points, or 62.8%.
Don't those numbers seem low to you? No. Even regardless of balance, take a look at the numbers for professional sports betters. They usually post 55-58% win rates and occasionally 60%, but not for very long. DRG's highest matchup is 70% but his average is 66%, and he's your most reliable player (besides the really bad ones, who don't play much.) http://www.professionalgambler.com/Winperct.htmlWe'll ignore money line bets here for the sake of clarity, and address only those bets wherein the player must risk as much as 11 to win 10; - pointspreads and over/under bets. Against this type of bet, anyone at all can expect to win 50 percent. After all, the only thing required is to flip a coin and pick a side. The bookmakers' profit comes from the difference between what a bettor must risk and what a bettor expects to win. Every time a player wins, the bookmaker withholds slightly more than 9 percent of the winnings ($1 for every $11 risked). Consequently, a bettor winning only half his bets will ultimately go broke.
Professional sports bettors, by comparison, rarely sustain a long term winning percentage higher than 57 or 58 percent, and it's often as low as 54 or 55 percent. Now's a good chance to learn about binomials and how you only have a 54% chance of winning 65 or more out of 100, on a 65% bet. This is really interesting, I haven't heard of any of this stuff before. There could still be skill ceiling/variance issues in the game, I'm just saying the evidence isn't in the win rates of bettors. Just as an example, this is a quick look (which is why so many seasons are missing, you can find those posts yourselves ) at the Liquibet numbers from BW. Year - Liquibet Edition - Highest Liquibet Winning % 2003 - Season 1 - 68% 2004 - Season 3 - 64.5% 2005 - Season 5 - 61.5% 2006 - Season 6 - 69.5% 2007 - Season 9 - 67% 2007 - Season 10 - 64.35% 2008 - Season 11 - 64.5% 2008 - Season 12 - 70.54% 2009 - Season 14 - 67.9% There's probably some correlation there with bonjwas but it kind of shows this season's numbers probably shouldn't be taken as "low" since having an absolutely dominant player like prime-sAviOr, prime-Jaedong and prime-Flash isn't the norm.
Okay ... so OP says: 64.9% is too low! Whereas archives tell us: it's pretty average!
Conclusion? We are pretty fine were we are considering the youth of the game.
|
On February 23 2013 01:58 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 23 2013 01:38 Evangelist wrote:On February 23 2013 01:33 NoobSkills wrote:On February 22 2013 15:49 Kennigit wrote: Is there something inherently wrong with a game where the supposed best players so often lose to players who are widely considered weaker than them? Like, is the skill ceiling not high enough? Is it too luck based? Why don't the best players beat the slightly less good players more often?
This has been suggested by pros, writers, community figures since 2008 when we started playing alpha builds. It has been consistently complained about (especially by idra) for years now. I agree with this. They also got rid of the early/mid game (sort of) with the economy boosters that they gave each race, so they eliminated the early game which is a place where the truly talented would gain an edge in the game. They would use their small army as efficiently as possible, while macroing up economy and upgrades. With no early game, if it is just max or a solid army vs solid army battle, one mistake can win a lesser player a game, where in the past a truly talented BW player would have capitalized on those mistakes. This is complete nonsense. The reason we have no more early game vs early game mistakes is because the community has forced the maps to be continent sized (since they want more macro games) and the standard is now 3 base 200 supply macro games. When you have maps that are continent sized you are ALWAYS going to have room for error. That's why the only race capable of punishing early mistakes is Protoss now, which is why TvP and ZvP are so punishing if the Protoss all ins and you aren't prepared for it. It is no longer true the other way around. Why do they have this ability? THEY CAN SPAWN THEIR UNITS 6 FEET FROM YOUR BASE. Rather than acknowledging this as a good part in the game (the part everyone wants to see), instead we have amateur game designers trying to remove warpgate from the game because it "punishes diversity". No, just make the fucking maps smaller so terrans and zerg can put on some basic pressure without requiring hellions or zergling/roach speed. On February 23 2013 01:36 dUTtrOACh wrote: I've been thinking what the OP has been thinking since mid-2011.
Balance patches may have been too drastic during the Wings of Liberty phase, throwing things out of wack for many players, but that doesn't explain a solid player just falling off the face of the earth (Danger Days of Code A - the abyss).
It may be a very mental game and it may involve lots of preparation time between games in some tournaments, but a mechanically superior player getting crushed because of some lucky spells in the last game of a close series is actually pretty disgraceful. There is way too much volatility and the metagame of Wings is ridiculously stagnant. We'll have to see if HotS sees a little more consistency, but my mind is made up about Wings. Now, if only I could log on and play some games... No, it completely explains it. The fact that Mvp fell through Code S into Code A is proof alone that the ability to play at your best matters hugely in WoL. The guy's not well. Players get found out, players adjust their builds. Maps change, they get bigger and smaller. Dodgy little bits of geometry get abused. Occasionally there is an overpowered unit (infestor) but usually most of it is that someone hasn't figured out how to play against a unit. Maybe their "dominance" as you ascribe to believe they have, is mostly down to coming out with a new tactic no one had seen before and then playing an absolute fuckton of games. It takes time to adapt to something and some people do it quicker than others. In Code S for example, Life played a really unique style of zerg that was super strong. The only person who really adapted to it was Mvp, in the finals. Same with Rain. Really strong style of defensive Protoss. Who beat it? Mvp. Those players get found out. Some get found out sooner rather than later. HuK was really strong until people got used to defending protoss early pressure builds, at which point HE was found out. Thorzain is still the most mechanically strong foreigner we had, but Koreans and zerg take advantage of his lack of aggression to overrun him with units. The only truly dominant players we have had are Mvp and Nestea and of those two, why Mvp? Well, look at who adapted to Life and Rain first. HoTS, I anticipate a fantastic blow for blow rivalry between a healed Mvp and Flash, who is increasingly looking like God again. You sound pretty salty which doesn't help anyone make their point, only sound angry. Huge maps doesn't make the early game last longer. Again a full economy is easier to obtain than in BW, so windows for pressures are closed almost completely. That doesn't mean they cannot work, but that they are less profitable. If I destroy an expansion worth of workers, but sacrifice my own economy to do so, then chances are my opponent is still going to have the same economic force that I have. Then after the early game is done, both players just work on upgrades and maxing their armies which comes very quickly in this game.
Huge maps make the early game shorter. Huge maps give safety. They allow players to cut corners, cut units, get more expansions earlier, get earlier upgrades.
On some of the continent sized maps you have now, the early game for TvZ biotank ends as soon as the zerg has enough zerglings to force away whatever number of hellions the terran is taking map control with. That's it. Sometimes they'll get in and do damage, but they're not actually going to DO anything more than economical damage. There are no game ending mistakes that a zerg can make which means 6 hellions will destroy their whole base.
Reduce the size of the map by half and all of a sudden six hellions are followed up by a 2 tank marine push three minutes later. All of a sudden getting an actual early defense up is important. That third might have to wait.
The reason protoss are unique in this is because if the toss wants to, they can pile on pressure continually due to having a near zero travel time between their unit spawn and the battle itself. I am not complaining about toss when I say this, btw. I am just stating that their method of spawning units is uniquely suited for all ins to some of the enormous maps that exist atm.
If you want an early game filled with fun and mental micro heavy defenses then lobby to have maps made smaller. If you want a big 3-4 base 200 200 macro war then lobby to make maps bigger. Or you do what HoTS has done - make harassing units much, much stronger.
|
|
|
|