Let me get this right. EU tournaments that don’t allow the world’s best players meet your criteria of “the highest skill levels of play” but the other events which do have the world’s best players don’t meet that criteria? Again your contradiction is unsolved. You’ve clearly catered your sample to a conclusion.
…and garbage at worst.
Finally BatZ has found his Nemesis.
1 Like
It’s insulting that you’d even consider his arguments to be in the same realm as mine. His are a logical trainwreck.
ZtAbhEt,
No. All tournaments containing many of the world’s best players meet my criteria of the highest skill levels of play. This includes e.g. GSL, and e.g. Dreamhack Masters Europe. For my analysis I included all premier tournaments listed by liquipedia under premier tournaments. There may be an argument to be had that major tournament results should be included as well, though I believe the 1625 games are sufficient to draw a conclusion from. The tournaments of the type you included in the other post “Reality Check:…” often do NOT meet my criteria. As I pointed out, the winner of the first Protoss tournament you listed was Vyse, who barely made the top 400 players. This is not top tier play, by my standard. And, I believe, the standard of most readers of this forum.
1 Like
Then you lied in the other thread. You said minor events don’t meet that criteria. I am glad we have this worked out. Minor events are valid and as such Protoss is overpowered since they win 36% of tournaments.
ZtAbhEt,
There is no contradiction in maintaining that many of the minor tournaments like the ones you presented in your previous post are not of the same tier of play as GSL and Dreamhack Masters Europe. Just because Dreamhack is region locked does not mean it is of the same tier of play as the Cuban-only tournament that Vyse won, and other such minor and inconsequential tournaments containing relatively low-level players.
Claiming that Dreamhack is of the same caliber as those minor tournaments is completely irrational.
1 Like
There is no contradiction that you can see, which is the problem. You said premier events are preferable over major/minor because they have “the highest skill levels of play”. Yet many premier events ban the world’s best players, yet you refuse to remove those tournaments from your sample. Furthermore, many minor tournaments have higher skill representation than the premier tournaments you refuse to remove, yet you do not admit these tournaments are valid despite clearly having “the highest skill levels of play”.
You flip-flop your logic to preserve your conclusion. In the case of major/minor events with high skill representation, they’re still invalid because “muh reasons”. In the case of premier events with poor skill representation, they’re still valid because “muh reasons”.
You do not care about “the highest skill levels of play”. You care about catering your sample to a conclusion.
Let’s get down to specifics.
You’ve said this tournament is valid:
https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/ESL_Pro_Tour/2020/21/Masters/Summer/NA
1st: Neeb (Rank #19 worldwide).
2nd: Astrea (Rank #38 worldwide).
3rd: Future (Rank #55 worldwide).
You’ve said this tournament is invalid:
https://liquipedia.net/starcraft2/Netease_Esports_X_Tournaments/2020/Summer
1st: Rogue (Rank #8 worldwide).
2nd: Solar (Rank #14 worldwide).
3rd: PartinG (Rank #12 worldwide).
ZtAbhEt,
We are not getting anywhere, unfortunately, so this will be my final rebuttal to you.
You said premier events are preferable over major/minor because they have “the highest skill levels of play”.
Yes. I have clearly and consistently maintained this throughout both threads.
Many premier events ban the world’s best players, yet you refuse to remove those tournaments from your sample.
I believe I have convincingly showed that just because a premier event is region locked does not mean it doesn’t represent the highest skill levels of play. I think most would agree that Dreamhack Masters Fall Europe falls into the category of a premier tournament which shows top tier play.
Many minor tournaments have higher skill representation than the premier tournaments you refuse to remove, yet you do not admit these tournaments are valid despite clearly having “the highest skill levels of play”.
I did not exhaustively search your list of minor events presented in the other thread. It is possible that some few of them represent top tier play and it may be beneficial to include them in the analysis. It is clear from a simple cursory glance that very many of them are not, and represent a tier of play objectively lower than that of the tournaments included in the analysis of this thread. I think most would agree with this point.
You flip-flop your logic to preserve your conclusion
My reasoning is very consistent to the unbiased reader. You seem to enjoy twisting my posts into something I didn’t say and then attacking that point, which is known as a straw man fallacy.
In the case of major/minor events with high skill representation, they’re still invalid because “muh reasons”.
Here is an illustration of you using the straw man fallacy against me. You claim that I am arguing that major events with high skill representation are invalid, where I clearly say above that I am open to considering major events with high skill representation, but it seems the current data might be sufficient.
You twist my posts purposefully, just as you twist the data you present purposefully to promote your own narrative. You have not even responded to the point that your data showing qualifier finalists as equivalent to tournament winners is misleading. Nor have you defended why you think minor tournaments with objectively low levels of play should be included, like many in your data. Not to even mention the fact that in this thread you present “All premier tournaments” while excluding the ones that disprove your point, and only bringing up the region lock nonsense once called out for it, and acting as if I should exclude them by my logic.
I clearly say throughout that minor tournaments generally are not of the same tier of play as premier tournaments. There may be exceptions to this, but they are never of the same scale. I give an example from your own data that illustrates the low-level of play included from your minor tournaments. Simply selecting one high-level minor/major tournament doesn’t amend the fact that many, many tournaments you include only contain relatively low-level play.
In the case of premier events with poor skill representation, they’re still valid because “muh reasons”.
You argue that Dreamhack has “poor skill representation” simply because it is region locked, and despite the fact that many of the top 10 players of each race participate in it. I maintain that it has top tier skill representation, and I think most would agree with me. I also say that GSL is de-facto region locked, and despite this you seem to agree that it is a top tier premier tournament.
I did not present this analysis with a predetermined conclusion in mind. I was actually surprised to see TvZ being as balanced as it was shown to be by the winrates.
1 Like
Define a heavy nerf. And tgat alone isn’t going to right the ship.
That is factually and demonstrably false. You have repeatedly stated that your criteria is highest skill representation. You did this despite refusing to remove low-skill tournaments from your sample. You’ve only recently started to admit that major/minor events can even have high skill and prior to your most recent post claimed vehemently that they didn’t.
Also factually and demonstrably false. It is not possible for a tournament to be the highest levels of skill when that tournament has banned the most skilled players from even participating.
Thank you for finally admitting that you’ve lied repeatedly about the skill level of the tournaments in my analysis.
That is factually and demonstrably false. You continue to refuse to remove low-skill tournaments from your sample, despite vehemently claiming your criteria is “highest levels of skill”. You continue to assert that an analysis on high-skill tournaments is invalid, despite those tournaments having higher skill representation than the ones you refuse to remove from your sample.
That’s not an instance where I have straw manned you. That is an instance where you are lying. You said specifically that premier tournaments are the only valid tournaments. You blanket-labelled all premier tournaments as high-skill and all non-premier tournaments as not high-skill. You did this repeatedly. I gave you over a dozen chances to back down. Now you’ve finally realized you are wrong and are backtracking and saying I straw manned you. That is a blatant lie. You do this even though I’ve directly quoted your own words. It’s fine if you want to change your mind, just be mature about it.
Premier events don’t automatically have the highest skill representation. Major/minor events don’t automatically have low skill representation. It’s a demonstrable fact that some premier tournaments have low skill representation. It’s a demonstrable fact that some major/minor tournaments have high skill representation.
If you honestly do care about measuring balance around the highest skill representation, then region-locked events MUST be removed from your sample and all the major/minor events with high skill representation MUST be added.
Yes it is factually impossible for a tournament to have the highest skill representation when the most skilled players aren’t even allowed in the tournament.
I decided to add Dreamhack to the statistic as you requested even though it was originally your request that only the “highest skill level” be in the sample (which many dreamhack tournaments ARE NOT) and despite how you accused me of cherry picking when I was only simply following your request. I have decided to kindly oblige your secondary request of adding Dreamhack to my sample.
As you can plainly see, the conclusion in my original post is strengthened further and your claim that I cherry picked is clearly false. The only matchup that is imbalanced according to premier event win-rates is TvP, which is the same conclusion found in the other thread based on the analysis of all tournaments which you vehemently denounced as “wrong” and which you slandered me as many names such as “cherry picker”. This statistic includes every game played in every premier event as recorded and extracted from Aligulac’s database.
Furthermore, I will point out that Korean vs Foreigner matchups have a 60-70% win-rate for the Koreans. This puts to rest any doubt as to whether region locked events can be considered “the highest skill representation”. They absolutely can not be said to have the highest skill representation unless it is a region-unlocked event, period.
All vs All:
Terran vs Terran: 0.500000 (1402)
Terran vs Protoss: 0.445863 (1958)
Terran vs Zerg: 0.490471 (1784)
Protoss vs Terran: 0.559638 (1987)
Protoss vs Protoss: 0.500000 (2376)
Protoss vs Zerg: 0.472342 (2079)
Zerg vs Terran: 0.518883 (1827)
Zerg vs Protoss: 0.527658 (2079)
Zerg vs Zerg: 0.500000 (1920)
Foreigner vs Foreigner
Terran vs Terran: 0.494624 (837)
Terran vs Protoss: 0.454243 (1202)
Terran vs Zerg: 0.473328 (1181)
Protoss vs Terran: 0.550082 (1218)
Protoss vs Protoss: 0.500000 (1602)
Protoss vs Zerg: 0.483193 (1428)
Zerg vs Terran: 0.532110 (1199)
Zerg vs Protoss: 0.516807 (1428)
Zerg vs Zerg: 0.500000 (1502)
Foreigner vs Korean
Terran vs Terran: 0.443609 (133)
Terran vs Protoss: 0.278912 (147)
Terran vs Zerg: 0.234694 (98)
Protoss vs Terran: 0.357143 (84)
Protoss vs Protoss: 0.336634 (101)
Protoss vs Zerg: 0.298701 (77)
Zerg vs Terran: 0.369048 (168)
Zerg vs Protoss: 0.507463 (134)
Zerg vs Zerg: 0.379310 (87)
Korean vs Foreigner
Terran vs Terran: 0.619565 (92)
Terran vs Protoss: 0.632911 (79)
Terran vs Zerg: 0.638554 (166)
Protoss vs Terran: 0.690476 (126)
Protoss vs Protoss: 0.663366 (101)
Protoss vs Zerg: 0.492537 (134)
Zerg vs Terran: 0.690141 (71)
Zerg vs Protoss: 0.701299 (77)
Zerg vs Zerg: 0.620690 (87)
Korean vs Korean
Terran vs Terran: 0.501247 (401)
Terran vs Protoss: 0.425760 (559)
Terran vs Zerg: 0.506667 (375)
Protoss vs Terran: 0.578761 (565)
Protoss vs Protoss: 0.500000 (572)
Protoss vs Zerg: 0.461364 (440)
Zerg vs Terran: 0.511568 (389)
Zerg vs Protoss: 0.538636 (440)
Zerg vs Zerg: 0.500000 (244)
1 Like
He’s extremely biased. Even when presented with crystal clear evidence it seems that his eyes just does not want to see that ZvP winrate and instead search for an excuse. There is no excusing ZvP. The matchup is terrible for toss and has been for 2+ years.
2 Likes
-Abduct not being instant and having a small casting time like ghost snipe,that would open a window to snipe them/feedback/kill them
-If the unit that is going to be abducted moves out of range, the abduct gets cancelled like the snipe that is cancelled when taking damage.
That would lead to abduct being used in direct fights and not used at every chance at max range even when chasing the enemy and still would be useful against tanks. To get results like current viper the new one would need to get closer to the enemy before launching the spell instead of just clicking on the unit.
3 Likes
I noticed that a long time ago. Fortunately, type of people like Velitey and Thebatz already turned to be meme on the bnet forums.
3 Likes
that ZvP winrate is insane. I do think an abduct nerf is the best thing to start with since it wont affect tvz that much. although it could potentially make mech op in tvz.
1 Like
yeah but part of the problem is that protoss pretty much has to adept all in every game. thus my point - simply nerfing the viper alone won’t fix the issue.
Why is thread still active? It was shown. To be complete nonsense…
As a simple spectator I would also love to see Viper yoink changed in some way. I like the idea of a small delay. I’ve noticed that sometimes feedback and yoink seem to happen simultaneously with the effect of the Viper sitting at half health and no energy and a carrier launching into 20 corruptors. I’m not sure I fully agree that nerfing it wouldn’t affect TvZ, but it’s hard for me to judge.
Can you please. Provide the list of pages. From where the rate of win come from. Another poster has shown. Every premium event has. A very different rate of winning. Than what you claim. And he provide the source for his information.