Some interesting ladder numbers from sc2ranks.

On July 02 2012 06:53 Ambre wrote:
Don't worry they ll fix legendaries and Pvp is coming soon.

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.

On July 02 2012 07:15 EnE wrote:

@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.

On July 02 2012 07:19 Cokefreak wrote:

What about all the pro's that don't sink countless hours into laddering but instead practice in custom games and therefore are not in GM? GM doesn't really mean anything, it's just a way to show off for some not that popular players.

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. Ladder is the only thing everyone plays. It has enough players for the top 200 mmr in the ladder by race to be very relevant.

On July 02 2012 07:21 monkybone wrote:


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.

On July 02 2012 07:12 darkness wrote:
I don't think Blizzard care about "interesting" numbers too. Back when MC was complaining, there were, I think, 6-8 terrans in top10 gm in KR. Nothing happened.

On July 02 2012 07:21 EnE wrote:
they are the best by the most and only objective standard we have.

On July 02 2012 07:28 buckKeefe wrote:


ladder ranking is not a measure of skill, which is the relevant variable for considering game balance. any data you draw from the ladder is confounded by in-game race anyway. i'd go so far as to claim that you can't use this tiny subset of the ladder to measure balance at all. imbalance would presumably be defined as something like "differences in win % by race controlling for skill." the problem is that the ladder's measure of skill would be mediated by race to begin with if the game were imbalanced, so you'd never get an accurate answer. BTW i play terran so i should be relatively unbiased here.

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.

On July 02 2012 07:30 DarkInfinity wrote:
This has no statistical meaning, there are countless reasons why this doesn't represent the balance of the game.

On July 02 2012 07:33 howLiN wrote:

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.

Don't worry they ll fix legendaries and Pvp is coming soon.

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.)

On July 02 2012 07:21 monkybone wrote:


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.

On July 02 2012 06:58 stillborn wrote:


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 ...

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

On July 02 2012 06:58 stillborn wrote:


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 ...

On July 02 2012 07:36 Otolia wrote:
The biggest problem is that there isn't any good terran in EU except for the Empire terrans.

On July 02 2012 07:58 CScythe wrote:
It's cute that the terrans are only now realizing that balance means their race is not more powerful than the others.

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.

If you see to the fact that less players is in gm or m you can just argue that terran players is more unskilled as you can argue that is the other races that is imbalanced, so it is a poor measurement for imbalance.

On July 02 2012 08:11 biology]major wrote:
gm is a very good indication of skill, if you are good enough you will be promoted and if you are not you won't. When you see that the top 200 players from each region have a disproportionate number of terrans accross the board, you can draw the conclusion that terran players are not as good as protoss and zerg players (on ladder + foreign only). Since we are dealing with a very high sample of players pooling into gm, it is possible to infer that terran is indeed the weakest (ladder + foreign).

On July 02 2012 08:00 Huragius wrote:


Yes and every single EU Zerg/Protoss are amazing.

When someone said (or even says now) that about korean Terrans, you all start bitching and crying about other races being UP. Where's the consistency? Stop being such fucking hypocrites.

On July 02 2012 07:43 Ouija wrote:
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.

On July 02 2012 08:14 WarrickHunt wrote:
QUICK!! someone alert Dustin Browder, Terran doesnt have a positive win ratio against both other races!!

On July 02 2012 08:00 FuzzyJAM wrote:
Terran is in a bit of trouble right now but new styles will develop. This whining is stupid.

Terran has dominated most of SC2; time to suck it up and go through a tough patch. Yeah, if you're a pro I can see the frustration, but outside of that stop crying.

On July 02 2012 08:21 RUFinalBoss wrote:
i think the new unit queendrilisk is scary