|
On July 02 2012 07:33 howLiN wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 07:15 EnE wrote:
This is very relevant . Having 6 terrans in top 10 is COMPLETELY different from having 38 in top 200. Just simply worlds apart.
The GM means whoever had the HIGHEST MMR. It's literally the top 200 highest MMR who are put in the league. Therefore if only 38 of the top 200 HIGHEST MMR are terran it says infinitely more than some of the top 200 winning a few more games than other people in the top 200.
@Elldar:
Yeah......you seem extremely ignorant, just from how you act like GM is like another league or even like masters. Here is the difference: GM is the top 200 mmr. You can't compare it to another league because there can ONLY EVER BE 200 people with top 200 MMR. The more skiled the people are, the higher the top 200 MMR ceiling will be, but it will always be an OBJECTIVE STATISTIC.
This matters because the fact is, even if the GM players arent all doing good tournament results, they ARE all top 200 players on ladder. Therefore, they are the best by the most and only objective standard we have. Also, European ladder is the most relevant ladder... why? It's the most competitive ladder apart from Korea and Korea is a far more isolated system with a mere 50 million people living in it... 19% being terrans in GM is bad.
The GM promotion system has been proven time and time again that it doesn't work as well as you describe, with factors like the order of players playing when GM opens being seemingly determinant for someone to get into GM.
This would mean that the ladder would be pulling from a slightly wider sample and therefore be an even better indicator, as it could help to dispell, say, 15 phenoms winning with an awful race because they're genuises.
|
Don't worry they ll fix legendaries and Pvp is coming soon.
Sorry, but this had me almost crying laughing.. xD so good.
|
On July 02 2012 07:32 EnE wrote:
It's relevant when talking about 200 people which is easily a large enough sample (think of it as 20x as large as top 10.)
can you tell me about power analysis you conducted to prove that the sample is large enough to detect the effect size you're looking for? (for the record i ran a one dimensional chi-squared and both the sets of data you present are significant, but that doesn't address what variable is being measured)
|
The biggest problem is that there isn't any good terran in EU except for the Empire terrans.
|
|
|
On July 02 2012 07:21 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 07:10 Elldar wrote:
Number of players in certain leagues, doesn't say squat about balance. It doesn't take into account factors if some race has more players playing it, and skill of the players playing that race.
Win rates between equally skilled players is more significant than how many that plays a certain race.
How can you say that when their skill (MMR) is determined by who they win against? Imagine for the sake of the argument the ladder had only two races: A: Terran B: Terran with 90% health People playing A will stabilize with an MMR which gives them a 50% winrate against both A and B. The reason is that any mirror matchup necessarily will be 50% for each player on average, so the other matchup (A v B) will 50% for each player on average as well in order to maintain a total of 50% winrate for each player. So we end up with the situation where some proportion of players are playing Terran, and some are playing Terran with a severe disadvantage, while the race winrates are 50-50. So people playing B will be more skilled at the game than people playing A even though they have similar MMR. The same principle applies (in a more complicated manner) where we have three races A,B and C and some races are more powerful than others. However, what is symptomatic for the situation described above with only A and B is that the higher leagues would have an underrepresentation of B players because of the racial imbalance.
I overall agree with you, that's a very good point, and well explained. However, the GM league is really the place where the match making 50% system shows its limit. Top players don't have many players better than them, contrary to random ladder noobs, so they have a much higher winrate than 50% usually. So unless B players are magically globally better than A players, I'd have to venture that you would find many more A players in the top of GM than B players.
Best counter argument to the OP is just to observe that only about 25% of active players or so are Terrans, and this is across all leagues above silver. You can't really expect a full 33% Terran in GM.
Did people switch because Terran is too weak? Did they switch out of interest in the playstyle of the race? I sure did that (but from Protoss to Terran lol, Terran seemed so much more fun and challenging :D), but we can't know for sure if it's a general trend.
|
I c that some of u simply dont get it. The game is not supposed to be balanced on all stages. It should be balanced for the top tier players, which it is fairly well right now IMO. If they wouldve buffed T because some poor european GM T's are struggling, top tier Korean T's would own it up?
|
On July 02 2012 06:58 stillborn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 06:51 Cokefreak wrote:
So how exactly are these numbers "interesting"? Some balance whining and "recent terrans performances" hardly qualifies as an argument. It is an argument in it self that the game is imbalanced. Where the number of Terran progamers is highest, and thre amount of participation in Grand Master League is lowest. When Demuslim looses to some random zerg twice in the WSC qualifyer ...
Will people stop thinking this is an argument? A single change does not make a game imbalanced, first off if anything if you're goign to argue the game is imbalanced you'd be better off arguing that queens were just an underused tactic in zvt and because of the increase in range zergs are now realizing that massing 5 or 6 queens is really good at holding off early all-ins, while their range increase is a buff it's not THAT huge.
Or better yet people could think critically and see this as what it is, a change that likely uncovered an under used tactic in a match up all along that a certain race is currently struggling with. This doesn't mean imbalance, it means that terrans have yet to adapt (assuming that there is a way to adapt) and are struggling, if there is no way to adapt to what zerg does then fine people can scream imbalance all they want. Until that day citing a months worth of statistics with no reference points, small sample sets, and then completely ignoring the fact that a change will have effects and people may not have actually discovered and explored how to combat it and exploit it, is silly, for lack of better words.
I'm not saying that the match up isn't imbalanced, I am however saying that you can't point to a simple change and a month's worth of results and datas as definitive proof of imbalance. Knee jerk reactions like that are what cause games to go down hill because if developers do listen they change the game every month, most times unnecessarily. Terrans complaining that reactor hellion (and other builds that are now obselete) isn't working isn't imbalance, it's terrans being unwilling to put in however long it takes to find the weakness in the builds.
|
meanwhile mvp still keeps winning. anyways i just think terran needs to transition out of the mmm and try something else like mech. and just not use that the whole game
|
|
|
On July 02 2012 07:40 Diizzy wrote:
meanwhile mvp still keeps winning. anyways i just think terran needs to transition out of the mmm and try something else like mech. and just not use that the whole game
hihi nice one. didn't mvp just lose to violet and it did involve mech totally getting raped
|
If those numbers represented balance then Terran would of been OP race all the way up until the last patch. Didn't terrans cry after the protoss upgrade patch?? Somehow after no balance changes it's all fine because top terrans made the necessary adjustments which is what all the terrans who whine should be doing.
|
Of course Terrans are all gone now...
|
I find it very funny that there are 4 Terrans in current top 35 EU. But also 4 in top 10, and 2 in top 2. So you know, doesn't seem that relevant to me.
And wait, 17 in top 100. So...not very far from 33%, right? :D
|
On July 02 2012 06:58 stillborn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 02 2012 06:51 Cokefreak wrote:
So how exactly are these numbers "interesting"? Some balance whining and "recent terrans performances" hardly qualifies as an argument. It is an argument in it self that the game is imbalanced. Where the number of Terran progamers is highest, and thre amount of participation in Grand Master League is lowest. When Demuslim looses to some random zerg twice in the WSC qualifyer ...
Not supporting or defending any race here, but everyone loses on ladder. Whether Demuslim loses to random zergs in a tournament or on ladder, it doesn't matter, it's going to happen. You don't have to be on a well known team (or on a team at all) to be of skill to take down higher-end players.
|
youd need to look at overall % of players playing each race... not just % in gm.
& tbh I dint really feel bad given t has reigned supreme for tge most part since release :p
|
well it doesn't mean alot that there are no terrans in gm or masters. Since there are no terrans on the ladder in general  . And due to the ladder system, you will not notice if a race is easier to play or harder. The ladder does tell you the most and least rewarding to play race though. And Terran right now is by far the least rewarding race. Though if you know what you are doing you can easily win with terran right now. With so many terrans gone I went quiet up in rank, because people have no training against terran anymore.
Especially the terrans downvote maps are easy wins.
|
Interesting numbers for an interesting thread.
|
So this thread has proven that there are more protoss and zerg players than terran players. Is that it?
|
It's cute that the terrans are only now realizing that balance means their race is not more powerful than the others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
