EPTRacial Distribution in Patch 1.0 - Diamond Ladder - Page 11
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
JarL
United States19 Posts
| ||
|
funk100
United Kingdom172 Posts
ps. i did a statisticks corse BIATCH | ||
|
Winter_mute
Germany40 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:33 Deadlyfish wrote: I dont like these useless statistics. You need so much more data to make this usefull. How many players play the different races? How many players are even 1400+? You cant just pick the top 5 and go, "well there are 3 terrans so terran is OP". You need info across all brackets, not just the top 2% or whatever. I'd like for someone to do that, unfortunately i'm just too lazy :D These statistics are not useless at all. First of all the number of players is written underneath each column. And somebody in this thread (to lazy to search) already did the statistics on the data. You would expect 33% to be terran, if the races were randomly distributed. If your sample size is small, you need a higher divergence from these 33% to be significant and statistic tests factor that already in. In the highest braket you got 60% (!!!) terran out of 20 players. Lower ratio in the lower brackets, however you got a larger amounts of players making this maybe even more significant. In conclusion: There is no doubt, that the distribution of terrans is not random at the top. Why so many terrans are at the top everyone can answer for himself. Maybe it is imbalance, maybe it is because zergs don't know to play their race aka "abuse mobility, morph 60 food counter army in seconds and nydus ultras into enemy mineral line". Chose what ever reason you like. :D | ||
|
red.venom
United States4651 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:33 Deadlyfish wrote: I dont like these useless statistics. You need so much more data to make this usefull. How many players play the different races? How many players are even 1400+? You cant just pick the top 5 and go, "well there are 3 terrans so terran is OP". You need info across all brackets, not just the top 2% or whatever. I'd like for someone to do that, unfortunately i'm just too lazy :D I'm pretty sick of reading posts like this in the thread as it's been explained: The system is basically keeping potentially good zerg/protoss users down at the lower levels making the groups seem more evenly distributed when the reality is that the better players of those races are being artificially held down by imbalance. Just scrolling through the top 200 reveals that wayyy more terrans have 66% wins or higher(which suggest upward mobility is possible for the player) so as the ladder goes on at the top this will just get worse as Zerg/Protoss users just grind out points on vs P/Z matches and continually lose to Terrans. | ||
|
Booshack
Denmark15 Posts
On September 02 2010 08:21 MamiyaOtaru wrote: I don't know how anyone can read this as anything but evidence that Terran is OP. Automatic match making keeps everyone at around %50 win ratio everywhere but the very top. The only way to tell balance with AMM around is by looking at the very top, and that's what this graph does. Terran is way overrepresented at the top, hence it is OP. And I can't agree with people saying that the graph only shows imbalance at the top so it's fine everywhere. As has been said many times the top is the only place it *can* be showed with AMM in the mix. And it's there. And for all the zerg players lower in diamond, this graph doesn't show that it's balanced for them at their level. They might be at a higher level (increasing their representation on the right side of tthe graph) if they weren't underpowered. Same for zerg in silver. They are getting %50 wins thanks to AMM but some of the higher ones might be in gold if it were more balanced. With an even distribution of skill this isn't going to show until you look at the very top. This graph does, and the result is there plain as day. This point needs to be repeated until everyone understands it. Thanks for explaining it in a clear way. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4383 Posts
bring on patch 1.1 (and more terran nerf patches) | ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:48 Winter_mute wrote: These statistics are not useless at all. First of all the number of players is written underneath each column. And somebody in this thread (to lazy to search) already did the statistics on the data. You would expect 33% to be terran, if the races were randomly distributed. If your sample size is small, you need a higher divergence from these 33% to be significant and statistic tests factor that already in. In the highest braket you got 60% (!!!) terran out of 20 players. Lower ratio in the lower brackets, however you got a larger amounts of players making this maybe even more significant. In conclusion: There is no doubt, that the distribution of terrans is not random at the top. Why so many terrans are at the top everyone can answer for himself. Maybe it is imbalance, maybe it is because zergs don't know to play their race aka "abuse mobility, morph 60 food counter army in seconds and nydus ultras into enemy mineral line". Chose what ever reason you like. :D 20 players doesnt mean anything. Thats why the 1400+ and 1500+ data is useless. Would be better to do 1200+ as the max because atleast then you'd have more than 20 people. And no, you wouldnt expect 33% to be terran since there are way more terrans than zergs overall. Also, you cant just pick the top 1 or 2% and stop there. You have to take races across the divisions to get a clear picture. Lets say there were 100% protoss in plat, but 60% terran in diamond. You wouldnt get a clear picture by just using diamond as your sample would you?  I agree that Terran is too good, and i like the new patch, but people need to relax and realise that there isnt as much unbalance as they think. I hope that everyone agrees that Terran is too good and zerg is abit weak, but that doesnt make this graph correct. | ||
|
Viruuus
Germany451 Posts
On September 02 2010 08:21 MamiyaOtaru wrote: I don't know how anyone can read this as anything but evidence that Terran is OP. Automatic match making keeps everyone at around %50 win ratio everywhere but the very top. The only way to tell balance with AMM around is by looking at the very top, and that's what this graph does. Terran is way overrepresented at the top, hence it is OP. And I can't agree with people saying that the graph only shows imbalance at the top so it's fine everywhere. As has been said many times the top is the only place it *can* be showed with AMM in the mix. And it's there. And for all the zerg players lower in diamond, this graph doesn't show that it's balanced for them at their level. They might be at a higher level (increasing their representation on the right side of tthe graph) if they weren't underpowered. Same for zerg in silver. They are getting %50 wins thanks to AMM but some of the higher ones might be in gold if it were more balanced. With an even distribution of skill this isn't going to show until you look at the very top. This graph does, and the result is there plain as day. I will quote this one too. One example of this was watching Morrow vs Dimaga play yesterday in ESL, and as a long time fan of broodwar/warcraft 3/etc it just made my sad how Dimaga was playing at least one level above Morrow and still lost. | ||
|
TheAmazombie
United States3714 Posts
Just an idea for another way to aggregate the numbers to get some stats and results that could be interesting. | ||
|
Jermstuddog
United States2231 Posts
Its kinda funny looking at the top 20, where the smallest domination is terran in the US with 9, there's 13 terran in the top 20 for europe and even korea went from 7 to 10. Top zergs have gone down from 5 to 3 world wide, and have taken considerable drops at all levels, even in zerg-run korea zerg went from 8 to 5 in the top 20. Across the board, Protoss hasn't really moved except in north america, there's 9 top protoss there, up from 7 (only 1 zerg in the US top 20). Meanwhile, Terran has become more popular among all diamond players while both zerg and protoss becomes less. The game really is moving towards TvT all day. I can post my numbers if somebody wants to turn them into graphs. | ||
|
Winter_mute
Germany40 Posts
On September 02 2010 18:05 Deadlyfish wrote: 20 players doesnt mean anything. Thats why the 1400+ and 1500+ data is useless. Would be better to do 1200+ as the max because atleast then you'd have more than 20 people. And no, you wouldnt expect 33% to be terran since there are way more terrans than zergs overall. Also, you cant just pick the top 1 or 2% and stop there. You have to take races across the divisions to get a clear picture. Lets say there were 100% protoss in plat, but 60% terran in diamond. You wouldnt get a clear picture by just using diamond as your sample would you? I agree that Terran is too good, and i like the new patch, but people need to relax and realise that there isnt as much unbalance as they think. I hope that everyone agrees that Terran is too good and zerg is abit weak, but that doesnt make this graph correct. 20 players does mean something. Again: statistic tests already take the amount of players into acount. It is not that we randomly pick 20 people out of a gigantic pool, we specifically pick the top players. And yes, you would expect 33% to be terran. Yes there are way more terrans than zerg (in fact more terran than there should be, if it were a random distribution). But even if you normalize the data to the overall percentage of terran players, because you think people just choose terran for reasons of familiarity or design, you still get a significant divergence from the expected outcome. You got roughly 25% zerg players and in the top bracket there are only 10%. Also, you HAVE to pick the top x% to see this imbalance => see match making system. (In fact we are already picking the top 10% (??) of all players, because we only look at diamond.) If all terran players were shifted by, lets say 50-100 points towards the top, then you would only see this in the top and in the bottom. And regarding your example, if you just look at diamond you will get a clear picture ... for diamond. This data is for diamond players, noone said it was valid for non-diamond players. Edit: typo | ||
|
_ContempT
United States35 Posts
| ||
|
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
On September 02 2010 18:05 Deadlyfish wrote: 20 players doesnt mean anything. Thats why the 1400+ and 1500+ data is useless. Would be better to do 1200+ as the max because atleast then you'd have more than 20 people. And no, you wouldnt expect 33% to be terran since there are way more terrans than zergs overall. Also, you cant just pick the top 1 or 2% and stop there. You have to take races across the divisions to get a clear picture. Lets say there were 100% protoss in plat, but 60% terran in diamond. You wouldnt get a clear picture by just using diamond as your sample would you? I agree that Terran is too good, and i like the new patch, but people need to relax and realise that there isnt as much unbalance as they think. I hope that everyone agrees that Terran is too good and zerg is abit weak, but that doesnt make this graph correct. It has been said numerous times already in this thread, but I guess I'll summarize it for you: A. The matchmaking engine equalizes everybody expect the top, because you are matched with better players. Example: If you're in bronze and win 5 times in a row you will be paired with silver players. once you start beating them you get matched with gold. The top of diamond doesn't have this mechanism so the balance between races become more clear there. B. THIS ISN'T A SAMPLE, it is the observation of reality, the whole population so to speak. A sample in statistics is a fraction of the population, and then you indeed have to adhere to certain rules like random distribution to be able to say that the sample indeed reflects the population as a whole. Since this isn't a sample, it basically isn't statistics to begin with, just an observation of reality. So your statement about 20 players not meaning anything is false, they mean everything, since they are everything... on topic: I checked this out on sc2ranks too but back when the max was 1300+. The race distributions are still more or less the same. It would be interesting to see the development over time around patches to see how they affect the top of the league | ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
1. protoss does 4gate pressure and wins (almost) regardless of the protoss' skill level, the 4gate can only be done/improved so much and it caps skill roof for protoss very early. higher up it doesn't work and there goes the entire protoss gameplay out the window protoss is truly a terribly designed race atm 2. terran is very strong 3. zerg is very frustrating to play good post by OP i must say btw | ||
|
Foomnz
New Zealand36 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:24 Tasonir wrote: If there were only 4 starcraft 2 players in the entire world, and you took data on the entire population, your sample size is 4. It doesn't matter that it's the entire population, it's still a very small sample size. While the data at 600, 700, etc points seems robust, the sample size of 1500+ players is laughably small to do any statistics on. It doesn't matter that he used every 1500+ player reported; there are simply too few 1500+ players in the world to get meaningful data about. It's also entirely unproven that people pick the race they feel is strongest. Some players may pick their race more for style, or on a whim. Others may try to pick the strongest race, but be wrong about it, and actually pick a weaker race. Granted the top of the top are less likely to be mistaken, but I'd say it's still pretty common. dude... did you just say there is no valuable information to be interpreted from these numbers? IF there were only 4 SC 2 players in the world, which there is not. (why start supposing hypothetical's to prove a point that is evident in the actual situation) data in regards to the race selection and performance would still be of some use for balance discussion... its like there are Terran police officers in this thread telling us to "move along, Nothing to see here" your last paragraph completely misses the point..i am invoking Occam's Razor to best explain why we are seeing this data and these anecdotal evidence trends I'm starting to know how Copernicus must have felt.........."guys, guys... the earth actually revolves around the sun"< " not the other way around". "Dont be stupid Copernicus" "but guys the evidence clearly points to this being a fact and it explains a lot of stuff" "stop whining Copernicus your just a baby, shut up take your burning at the stake" | ||
|
nihoh
Australia978 Posts
On September 02 2010 07:46 cup of joe wrote: it means absolutely nothing because the sample size is tiny at the right end of the graph Uhhhh sample size? That isn't a sample size. That's POPULATION. If you have 10 people in the world you don't take a sample of 9, you look at all 10. EDIT: If population is available, you don't take samples. Samples are representative of the population. Here the population is small enough that taking a smaple isn't warranted. | ||
|
Earll
Norway847 Posts
| ||
|
Winter_mute
Germany40 Posts
On September 02 2010 19:28 Earll wrote: I hate be beating this dead horse more, but how can people say that the 'sample size' at the top does not matter? (nothing wrong with using the word samplesize even though its.the entire top population.) Now Im not saying.this chart is wrong or that terran is perfectly balanced or whatever but looking at the top 60 it looks like terran suddenly gains a HUGE edge. But as far as we know 20 terrans might be at 1401 points and 20 z at 1399 points then 1 day later all t lose 1 game and all z win one and the graph would look hugely different. It's like If there was only 1 player above 1500 and that was say a p ( I know both huk and ttone have been top rated lots) then 1500+ would just be a huge yellow bar. Would people still say sample doesn't matter and that p is obviously op at top level play? A dead horse indeed. See: On September 02 2010 08:34 StarDrive wrote: There are 360 players 1200+. The null hypothesis is that 1/3 of them prefer Terran. We observe around 1/2 of them preferring Terran. Doing some basic statistics with normal approximation of the binomial distribution, the z-score is 6.7. We would observe this Terran favored skew with probability far less than one in a billion. The probability that this Terran favored skew is purely by chance is less than the probability a randomly chosen person has an IQ > 200. | ||
|
makoplux
88 Posts
| ||
| ||
