NeoGame-i maps/balance statistics - Page 4
Forum Index > BW General |
sv14
Russian Federation66 Posts
| ||
tfeign
United States2977 Posts
On July 19 2004 16:56 sv14 wrote: And here is rating scope statistics. All maps were taken into consideration. Seems dividing it into the maps has no sense because the extract would be too small. Enjoy! rating scope = (900,1000) total matches = 158915 Z>T 51.0 P>T 51.4 Z>P 53.8 rating scope = (1000,1100) total matches = 148730 Z>T 50.5 P>T 51.9 Z>P 54.9 rating scope = (1100,1200) total matches = 75779 T>Z 50.5 P>T 50.5 Z>P 55.8 rating scope = (1200,1300) total matches = 40319 T>Z 54.5 P>T 54.2 P>Z 51.1 rating scope = (1300,1400) total matches = 19421 T>Z 51.2 P>T 52.3 Z>P 55.3 rating scope = (1400,1500) total matches = 10671 T>Z 53.6 P>T 53.6 Z>P 61.8 rating scope = (1500,1600) total matches = 4924 Z>T 51.7 P>T 62.9 P>Z 58.4 (!!!) rating scope = (1600,1700) total matches = 2304 Z>T 55.8 T>P 57.5 (!!!) Z>P 60.3 HAHAH What did I say? STIMEY Look at the top 100 of ng-i. Count the number of zergs and then count the number of tossses...yeah..there are about 5 times as many z's than p's. And so logically, if you take into account players with 1300+, you will realize that the zvp %gap will be even worse. Am I right or what? Also at (1600,1700), T > P 57.5% is surprising. Yeah..the only reason why there are few protoss on the top ladder is because there are alot of Zerg players, and we know Z is imbalanced vs P. Don't try to think otherwise. | ||
tfeign
United States2977 Posts
| ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
An intriguing explanation for toss near the 2 highest ranks could be that ZvP and TvP imbalances cause the best toss to be forced down mainly into the 1500-1600 bracket, where they annihilate the competition. My other guess is that the %s were just randomly higher/lower -- which is why we need a statistician. Neither seems too likely, but those are the only explanations I can think of =\. | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
On July 19 2004 17:41 tfeign wrote: sv14 is there a way to make an update to the launcher and configure it in a way that the launcher will randomnly pick a map for you and force you to play that map, and then once you've played on that map it will randomnly pick another map for you again? This will really make people familiarize themselves with all the maps. Why the hell would he do that? nGi isn't some kind of dictatorship where the admins force players to familiarize themselves with all the maps. If the random map thing required both players' consent (i.e. to play on a randomly-chosen map no matter what), then that might be useful, but your suggestion is ridiculous. | ||
PuertoRican
United States5709 Posts
On July 19 2004 07:36 Hoops wrote: Neo is so much more balanced then 2.3... i wouldnt know, i play gamei version of LT, glad neo gamei added it to the maps | ||
MPXMX
Canada4309 Posts
Other interesting trends to notice include the fact that as level of play increases, terrans gradually and unmistakably do better against zergs, until the highest ranks 1500,1600,1700 where zergs once again find their terran-killing prowess. Is zerg a stronger race at the highest level of play? Another statistical anomaly which may have already been pointed out is P>Z 51.1 at 1200, 1300. For that I have little explanation except maybe that that is the range of most of the top foreigners who are better at pvz than your generic good korean player. | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
-_- | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
rating scope = (1500,1600) total matches = 4924 Z>T 51.7 P>T 62.9 P>Z 58.4 (!!!) ^0^ | ||
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 19 2004 19:34 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: really tfeign may have a point sort of. the difference between the proportion of zergs in the top 100 and the proportion of zergs in the entire server should be more significant than these stats which include.. well. all games? They include last 300 000 games And yeah, LT is not balanced at the very highest levels - something I've repeated so many times -_-;;; However it's in no way imbalanced in the lower levels -_- Imbalance doesn't come into effect then - at all! | ||
Hoops
417 Posts
| ||
STIMEY d okgm fish
Canada6140 Posts
sv14 the new info is interesting but could u show just the temple results since most games are on temple anyways? or instead of showing every range why not just.. everyone 1300+ or over for each of the versions of temple? that would be interesting too | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 19 2004 19:49 STIMEY d okgm fish wrote: FA ur last few posts in this thread have indicated u should read more carefully or stop posting. if this kind of shit bores you then leave, we've already heard ur "opinion" several times now Uh? It's 5 am but I don't think I've misread anything.. Or I might have lol t.t And no this kind of discussion doesn't bore me, what bores me is tfeign not answering to a single post of mine except when he wants to nitpick -_- I just hate people whining (yes yes I know, pot calling the kettle black considering what I'm typing now) about balance and then only play LT -_- Btw, sv14 we love you for providing us with these stats | ||
NormalGeek
United States81 Posts
There is an odd bump in the 1200 - 1300 range. Hmm. (These stats really are cool. Thanks sv14) | ||
sv14
Russian Federation66 Posts
| ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On July 19 2004 20:17 NormalGeek wrote: But FA, in the low levels (900 - 1200) it isn't balanced. I don't consider 54%, 55%, or 56% to be fair because then the Z has a 12% higher chance to win (in the 1100 - 1200 level) than the P (in PvZ, of course). I don't really consider that to be fair. There is an odd bump in the 1200 - 1300 range. Hmm. (These stats really are cool. Thanks sv14) That's because P's at that level suck PP (like me, however I'm stuck there because I can't win tvp and pvt games not because of losing pvz). I think I said that: on the highest levels of play LT isn't balanced, once toss gets good it's pretty even and on the lower levels of play P's are mostly fucked because of bad timing. I sincerely doubt balance would matter at low levels of play -.- | ||
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
| ||
tfeign
United States2977 Posts
On July 19 2004 19:56 FrozenArbiter wrote: Uh? It's 5 am but I don't think I've misread anything.. Or I might have lol t.t And no this kind of discussion doesn't bore me, what bores me is tfeign not answering to a single post of mine except when he wants to nitpick -_- I just hate people whining (yes yes I know, pot calling the kettle black considering what I'm typing now) about balance and then only play LT -_- Btw, sv14 we love you for providing us with these stats A single point? What kind of point do you have? Wtf are you trying to say? You have your shit all over the place. You try to use personal insults to prove your point...AKA: Good players have no problems. Now everyone (tfeign) who disagreed with me can go sit in a corner FA it seems to me that you have minimal intelligence to make decent posts. I have posted the same shit over and over and over again and I have read nothing you posted to counter it. Let me put the thoughts down here for you again in case you did not read them: 1. Look at the top 100 of ng-i. Count the number of zergs and then count the number of tossses...yeah..there are about 5 times as many z's than p's. 2. Look at the statistics. Statistics=proof. What proof do you have? "play better! you'll win?" 3. Why do not alot of people play protoss? Because protoss is extremely hard to win when the opponent is a good zerg. 4. The game should be balanced on a map where most players play on. Give 1 reason why anyone can disagree with this. Is a 20% win difference doesn't make a difference to you? I seriously don't get wtf are you trying to say in your posts -- how the hell do you want me to respond? Stuff like: At the very top it isn't balanced. Good players have no problems. Wtf is this? at the top it's not balanced and good players have no problems? What the hell do you mean? That's 2 contradicting sentences back to back. What the hell are you trying to say? However it's in no way imbalanced in the lower levels -_- Imbalance doesn't come into effect then - at all! rating scope = (900,1000) Z>P 53.8 rating scope = (1000,1100) Z>P 54.9 rating scope = (1100,1200) Z>P 55.8 rating scope = (1200,1300) P>Z 51.1 rating scope = (1300,1400) Z>P 55.3 rating scope = (1400,1500) Z>P 61.8 rating scope = (1500,1600) P>Z 58.4 rating scope = (1600,1700) Z>P 60.3 Z>P in almost every skill level there is, except for (1200,1300) -- which 51% is hardly imbalance at all, and (1500,1600). Open your eyes? At the extreme (1400,1500) that's a 61.8%-38.2%. At the lower skill levels (1000-1200), it's about 55.5%-45.5%. I really don't see what the hell your point is because the stats do not relate to your comments | ||
sv14
Russian Federation66 Posts
1) The only "clear" Lost Temple (%emple%) matches without disconnects, more than 4 minutes long have been taken into account. 2) For each score more than 900 up to 1680 with the step of 20 points, the percentile of victories in each matchup has been counted. 3) The Red graph is approximated percentile of win in matchup, where the loser had rating more than indicated at horizontal axe (cumulative percentile). 4) The Blue graph is the overall quantity of games played in particular matchup. What can be inferred from these diagrams: 1) ZvP is hardly imbalanced at any skill level. 2) P>T at levels less than 1540, and vice versa at higher levels. 3) ZvT is a litle imbalanced in favor of Zerg at low levels. But at very high ones it has unpredictable character. If you want to count additional statistics, extracted data in csv-format is available here: http://neogamei.net/files/stats/acc_stats.txt | ||
| ||