Also, due to the way the numbers shake out, we expect a variance of +/- 5% in these results; win/loss ratios that are +/- 5% suggest balance between those races. So, if a win/loss ratio is approximately 55%:45%, then that’s still within acceptable boundaries
oh hey look… I’m not the only one who thinks within 5% is balanced
(sorry, had to)
1 Like
I still need the source. That means a link ; otherwise we do not know the author of your quote. 
NP, I know why you had to. 
There is no ‘‘Korean’’, there are koreans and koreans. The kr scene is really small, not everyone of them is a top player, go past top10 and you will struggle to find an unbeatable korean even if he plays against foreigners.During kespa era even mid tier koreans were good enough to get titles outside of kr.
It is the fact of it. That korean have 70% rate of winning. Against the foreign player. So a tournament of foreign players. Is not highest skill. It is lowest skill… most premier tournaments. Are lowest skill…
Okay, I solved the 
case :
At one side we’ve got the ±5% = balanced side (supposedly written by the devs) who finally gave a quote but persistently avoided to provide the source :
At another, we’ve got another devs quote, who say the winrates are unsatisfactory at a moment where they were mostly < that 5% threshold.
And the reason of that apparent contradiction is : 
… because that ±5% referred about a period of a single day (lol) :
Now that you might have a clearer idea regarding what they are, we’d like to share some recent adjusted win percentages from November 11th for several regions around the world. Before you review these numbers, we’d like to prevent some common misconceptions. First, these numbers shift fairly rapidly as newly discovered strategies spread through the community and they’re changing all the time. Also, due to the way the numbers shake out, we expect a variance of +/- 5% in these results; win/loss ratios that are +/- 5% suggest balance between those races. So, if a win/loss ratio is approximately 55%:45%, then that’s still within acceptable boundaries. By contrast, win/loss ratios exceeding 60%:40% could indicate that a small imbalance might exist and merit further investigation.
In any case, these numbers aren’t the last word in, nor the only component of, our balance analysis. It’s best to consider them a point of interest and one step along the path to fine tuning balance, rather than the final destination. It’s also interesting to note how the races fare versus one another from region to region as well.
That’s also why they say those vary wildly, because from one day to another one’s result can indeed change by a lot. They aren’t referring to Aligulac’s monthly, which are 30x longer, explaining why a 5% variation would be a lot for Aligulac’s balance graph and small for a single day.
So there is no contradiction, just a quote referring to other winrates, with the period edited out from it. 
1 Like
LOL, it is that a turkey being chased and arrested by a police-car? I guess place is on the table rather then prison.
1 Like
It’s a very special, particularly big kind of turkey. It requires extra-careful treatment for its detention, and won’t be interrogated until Christmas. 
2 Likes
https://i.imgur.com/qZXWE9O.png
https://i.imgur.com/buxlClU.png
1 Like
Blizzard has explicitly stated that a +/-5% win-rate is acceptable when in reference to a single day of ladder’s games, which is in excess of 250,000 in number. Trias said the +/- 5% win-rate is unacceptable because the sample is larger than what Blizzard used when talking about that metric. As proof, he then lists Blizzard saying August’s “winrates” were too low for Protoss during a period when the winrates were less than +/- 5% which would seem to indicate +/- 5% isn’t “balanced” like Blizzard originally claimed. He is arguing that Blizzard has changed their mind since the post when they said +/- 5% is acceptable.
It is rather inconvenient for him that the number of games played in August (and months prior) are fewer in number than the ones he’s denounced as too small. In other words, Trias “logic” concludes 250k games is too large, 12k games is both too few and too large simultaneously, and 30k games is just the right size. Why? Because it’s what’s necessary to shoe-horn Blizzard’s logic into invalidating their statement that +/- 5% is acceptable.
Meanwhile Goba is parading around as if he “won” the argument. You have one of the worst cases of BDS I have ever witnessed. Your brain completely shuts off the moment you see my name.
1 Like
No, i am not parading anything here. The main personalities here are You, Spiunk and Trias, i am just a spectator.
Divorce between the goba and tehbaitz?
He also has no clue what “winrates” Blizzard referenced in the most recent post he cited, so he willfully attributed them to Aligulac’s monthly win-rates which were in direct contradiction to everything he was claiming. +/- 5% is an unacceptable metric for 12k games because 12k is too large. 250k ladder games that Blizzard referenced is too small because “they are a single day” but simultaneously “too large” because Aligulac’s June-August sample of 30k is the right size. It’s a complete train wreck that he could have avoided with some simple fact-checking.
It is a fact that +/- 5% is the standard Blizzard has explicitly stated is an acceptable win-rate variation to consider the game “balanced”. It is a fact that premier event win-rates are within that tolerance with exception of PvT, which favors protoss. If win-rates of premier events are your golden standard for balance, which 99% of forumites have vehemently stated is the case, then they must accept the fact that PvZ is balanced and the fact that Protoss needs nerfs in PvT.
1 Like
Oh woav, you even crafted some images just to reply me. I’m flattered ! 
Calm down, BatZ, calm down. First I’d like to remind you that you’re supposed not to believe in winrates. So you don’t need to put half a page in bold, we’re just discussing here. No need to stigmatize Goba either, I think he just likes when some contenders do provide a good show, and you’ve been one of those many times.
Now, I don’t know if it’s deliberate but there’s a lot of confusion in your post. Let’s put things simply :
- What the (first) game designers have said, is that the daily winrates of the whole ladder varied swiftly, and so that they considered ±5% to be acceptably balanced for those.
- They didn’t said that ±5% was considered balanced for longer periods than one day, nor for high level samples, such as Aligulac’s winrates. In fact they didn’t said anything regarding but ladders daily winrates, and that’s a fact. You like facts, don’t you ?
- From 1 + 2 we cannot say that that ±5% “acceptable” threshold applies to Aligulac monthly, nor that it doesn’t applies.
Pure facts here. We cannot conclude those from just that specific 2010 quote from the designers.
Now :
- The devs recently said that the winrates weren’t satisfactory at a period where Aligulac’s winrates where well inferior to that ±5% threshold. That either means that they don’t share that 10 years ago politically correct point of view of a ±5% balance being acceptable, or that they refer to winrates that aren’t disclosed (like the whole ladder’s one). We cannot say, and that’s a fact as well.
However :
- You and your mentioned that only the highest of the highest level were to be even considered, and for you that would be only the Koreans’ one.
- However, you and your also desperately seem to cling on that ±5% threshold being acceptable balance, which refers… to a single day of a whole ladder sample including many times more bronze, gold and silver players than there would ever be Koreans in Premier Tournament.
- That’s a contradiction, Batz. Either you consider Koreans Premier tournament players to be the only standard, either you consider that ±5% whole ladder threshold to apply. But you cannot do both. Pick one.
Lastly, you seem quite flustered about those winrates matters, while you explicitly said you didn’t take those in account. That’s also a contradiction (I’m gonna need a stamp of this phrase 
).
Anyway, some final, honest words about what I really think. No debate here, just a sincere opinion that is only entitled to its author. Not sure you’re able to reciprocate that kind of exercise, nor that it’d even interest you, but at least you’ll have witnessed it.
I’ve played Terran since many years now, with PvT being most of the time slightly Protoss favored, and TvZ more variable but with long slightly Terran favored periods. And, that with PvT often being around 51%. So for me, that means that ≥1% on Aligulac means slightly favored/disfavored… and that that wasn’t comparable to the record-setting 43% PvZ the Protoss had to go through at some point.
If ten years ago some officials presenting a new game under its better day said that for monthly winrates ±5% was perfect, ±10% was slightly imperfect, and ± 20% was maybe a bit worse than slightly imperfect, well good for them but I think differently. But that isn’t what they said, and with the devs, strong of 10 more years of experience, taking action with visible thresholds well lower than that, one could suppose current balance team also does.
2 Likes
???
Accepting of what?
XD XD XD
You have diarrhea. Of nonsense… pls do not share. It is not polite… find the nearest room of rest…
1 Like
Wait till Christmass.
1 Like
LOLO LOL LOL, i can’t type from laughter after seeing/hearing your second video.
Where did you find that gem?
It’s so fitting to describe the Big
???
Big 
is confused…