EPTRacial Distribution in Patch 1.0 - Diamond Ladder - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Oogje
Netherlands30 Posts
| ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4383 Posts
On September 02 2010 19:48 makopluxx wrote: Anyone else read this thread title and expect the options to be Asian, Caucasian, African, etc.? errm no? | ||
|
Modular1
26 Posts
On September 02 2010 17:57 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: excellent graph , couldn't be clearer bring on patch 1.1 (and more terran nerf patches) Unfortunately, this is also going to bring on unnecessary Protoss changes as well. : ( | ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
On September06 Modular1 wrote: Unfortunately, this is also going to bring on unnecessary Protoss changes as well. : ( not to mention the changes to terran are not good.... siege tank nerf is a mistake, what they should have done was change the splash damage mechanic back to how it was in the start of beta (splash damage originates from impact site rather than target unit), this change would have the effect of making zerglings and upgraded zealots good against tanks again.. BC change was just wtf out of the blue zealot change will have to wait and see, possibly leaves protoss volnurable to early pool rush (yet another side effect from blizzards crap&tiny maps causing problems in gameplay) reaper change just makes people not go reapers, removing depth from gameplay bunker change was not what was needed, they needed to change salvage not build time... | ||
|
Handuke
Sweden48 Posts
The hidden factor here is skill. We should assume that skill is evenly distributed between races. This assumption might be false, but without it there's nothing to discuss. We cannot measure skill directly. Points are calculated from wins and losses and are an attempt to measure skill. If skill is equally distributed between races then points should be evenly distributed between races. Looking at the race distribution in the graph we see that the ratios are skewed at the top. The points are not evenly distributed between races. That means race is a factor that affects player points. Points are earned from winning and lost from losing. This means race is a factor that affects whether players win or lose. That's another way to say racial imbalance. Our sample is the entire population of diamond players, the probability that the graph is representative of that population is 100%. (And just to clarify: that probability wouldn't be noticeably lower if the sample was 1/10th of the population). Blizzard cares about balance in their games. They do take their time though, I suppose it's the downside of their quality focused stance to development. Even though the game is still young and tactics are evolving I'd love to see somewhat faster patching. Some of their announced changes for 1.1 are not huge but they would improve the current situation. For SC2 as an e-sport imbalance is a big threat, there's big money and even careers on the line. Making faster smaller changes would show the world that Blizzard is on the ball about balancing SC2. That said I'm still confident that Blizzard will make SC2 an even better game as time goes by, it just feels slow at times. | ||
|
IPS.Mardow.
Germany713 Posts
-______________- Srsly, everyone knows T's imba, esp. vs Z. Everyone who denies it, plays terran himself or is stupid -,- | ||
|
carwashguy
United States175 Posts
| ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On September 02 2010 20:56 carwashguy wrote: This graph doesn't, by itself, mean that Terran is better than the rest. It means Terran is simply more popular among the top. To actually judge racial parity, you'd need to do something like this: keep a win/loss record of all 1000+ diamond players' games and what race they played on each game, then find the total win ratio for Terran, Protoss, and Zerg among all of those games. This will tell you how well those races fair among the top--not how popular they are. It sure doesn't mean that way, in the sense that it makes certain that notion, but it does a fair bit to suggest so. It strongly supports the hypothesis that it is easier to get to the top by playing terran, and harder when you play zerg. Again, it doesn't prove in a definite sense that conclusion, but it supports it. | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On September 02 2010 20:56 IPS.Mardow. wrote: Terrans are just the better players! Why cant you understand it?? -______________- Srsly, everyone knows T's imba, esp. vs Z. Everyone who denies it, plays terran himself or is stupid -,- Yeah, well-said. I really don't have a problem with people playing terran, what I have a problem with is people who play Terran who blatantly denies any imbalance, and tries their best to explain away any statistics and evidence that suggests so. | ||
|
Pekkz
Norway1505 Posts
| ||
|
imbecile
563 Posts
That global average represents the race popularity for each race. In different regions it represents the popularity in the regions. But when split by league/points, it doesn't represent popularity in the leagues. Because you end up in different leagues by winning or losing, not just by picking your race. The most interesting numbers regarding balance are, how the race distribution diverges from the overall average in the different leagues. Now we can say, there a re less terrans than average in the lower ranks, and more terrans than average in the upper ranks. This has nothing to do with popularity. Because in a balanced game, every league would have abot the same distribution as the overall average. In an imbalanced game the different winning percentages for the races skew the numbers. And in exactly the way that can be observed: higher percentage of that race in the uper ranks, lower percentage of that race in the lower ranks. | ||
|
Daxten
Germany127 Posts
I accept that Terran needs some Balance changes, but please dont take this as a free ticket to qq when you are losing. The imbalance is very small on the skill level of most of the players here around, and most of the time when you lose to terra, it will be some mistake u made. | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On September 02 2010 21:40 Daxten wrote: How much player are 1400+? or even 1500+? This only means that there are more high skilled terrans then other races. Graphs like this say nothing about balance I accept that Terran needs some Balance changes, but please dont take this as a free ticket to qq when you are losing. The imbalance is very small and on the skill level of most of the players here around, and most of the time you lose to terra it will be some mistake u made It can also mean it is easier to get to the top with terran, and hard with zerg. It can also mean players are switching to terran because it is simply easier to win with. imbalance is very small and only at the top? Sorry but you are quite wrong in that regard. ZvT is a lot harder than TvZ, for reasons I shall not name for fear of sidetracking this thread, but that is fact and is recognisable from middle platinum onward. *Sorry I know this is not the place to discuss this in depth but it is the sort of terran attitude that contributes nothing to a statistical discussion | ||
|
DarkSeerTurbo
United States105 Posts
| ||
|
hdkhang
Australia183 Posts
On September 02 2010 09:07 imbecile wrote: 1. If you win a lot, you are removed from the lower rankings and promoted to the higher rankings. 2. To be in the highest rankings, you must consistently win a lot. 3. In the highest ranking tiers, there are more terrans than all other three races combined 4. The percentages also differ greatly from all other ranking tiers and from the overall average in favor of terran. So those tiered percentages not only represent a current state, but a development, a history. There are only 2 explanations for the discrepancies: a) the best players like playing terran a lot more than all other players b) Playing terran gives you consistently more wins compared to the other races, especially at the highest level. And it seems to be consensus, that everyone below 1000 points is more or less a casual player. And it also should be noted that if the lower ranks have balanced winning percentages per race, it doesn't mean that much. Because those that benefit from imbalances quickly disappear from the lower ranks. The process of promotion and demotion enforces balanced outcomes in the lower ranks. The discrepancies are passed upwards, until there is no upwards anymore where it can be passed to, and there they start to accumulate. Your username is very very misleading :p . I've been saying something along these lines for some time now and still people refuse to understand it. Balance for the sake of fair gameplay is not even my biggest concern regarding this game, I'm actually more concerned with insufficient skill caps, lack of innovative play due to poor race design, map hackers and GOMtv charging too much! | ||
|
ReplayArk
Germany23 Posts
I actually took the time to take a look at the sc2ranks link you posted and it prooves you either made a mistake while making the graphic or you manipulated the information. @West or you simple forgot that the time I posted it there was another racial distribution that is now. You also got the CSV with the data at the time I took the values from sc2ranks.com If you compare it with another time and look at the differences you are doing what I suggested in my post, still if you do the math your pic looks quite the same as my values are. Furthermore I want to highlight again, if you measure things at different times you could get different results, since something could increase, for example the distribution of really large NBA player's is way different than fourthy years ago. You forgot to include total number of players for each sample. @Jarl No, I don't know why I should include it to each sample. The data is in the post, if you want to further add the total numbers of players for each sample (which is partly written above the point intervall) you are free to do so, the CSV data is available and I like it if people check my results. But if you think something is missing you are free to make graphics better and findings more solid. | ||
|
Goxinatic
41 Posts
On September 02 2010 13:14 petzergling wrote: people in this thread absolutely infuriate me, the terran imbalance bullshit is seriously to a point where i cant believe it. im not saying anything regarding balance of the game, but for fuck sake just stop fucking whining, maybe if P and Z players learned how to play the fucking game instead of spending their entire fucking day writing garbage on teamliquid they would get somewhere. lets look at a few very basic facts that require absolutely no data to be proven #1 the first game released is from the terran campaign #2 every fucking post in every god damn starcraft 2 forum says something about OMFG TERRAN IMBALANCED WAT 2 do OMNFG. these 2 factors alone are going to encourage a ton more people playing terran. more people playing a race is going to lead to a greater development in strategies, leading to a more developed race lets look at some very basic statistics for all of the illiterate 12 year old retards who dont understand how to interpret anything that doesnt tell them UR A GOOD PLAYER U JUST LOST CUS THE GAME IS IMBALANCED number of players at a given level of play does not correlate with balance. AT ALL. lets say fayth made a post in sc2 strategy saying he would give 1000$ to every player who earned 1500 rating as zerg. boy these graphs would look alot different wouldnt they. does that mean that zerg is all of a sudden overpowered and stronger then terran? no. the dumbest thing by far in this thread is the 1600 and 1500 rating level graph, by far. anyone whos done anything in statistics (or has half a brain) knows that a sample size of 19 (YES THERE ARE 19 PLAYERS ABOVE 1500) is not an adequate sample size to judge something as complex as game balance. IM A MORON, WHY IS THIS PETZERGLING? each 1 person on the graph represents over 5% of the total population. lets say a T player with 1501 rating plays a Z player with 1499 rating and the Z player wins (LOL CANT HAPPEN TERRAN OP) this brings an adjustment to our graph of over 10% relative data. considering people at this level play upwards of 10 games a day. proof that this sample size is retarded? here i just re calculated the numbers courtesy of sc2ranks.com and put them on a graph ![[image loading]](http://img830.imageshack.us/img830/9837/lolimbalanve.jpg) OMFG PROTOSS UPSWING NOW PROTOSS IS IMBALANCED. no the race of players in the top 1500 fluctuates this much on a daily(hourly?) basis k im done see you idiots in disneyland User was temp banned for this post. Heh, it's pretty clear you're a losing Terran player frustrated because nerfs will make you lose more. Everyone knows there are some balance issues with Terran. | ||
|
Poobah
England91 Posts
On September 02 2010 14:33 WeSt wrote: This graph is ridiculous I mean... there are like 20 players in the world above 1500 points AND out of those 20 there are 9 protosses, 7 terrans, 3 zergs and 1 random. I actually took the time to take a look at the sc2ranks link you posted and it prooves you either made a mistake while making the graphic or you manipulated the information. here I show u picz: ![[image loading]](http://img683.imageshack.us/img683/6386/71096862.png) I'm afraid that the much linked Race Distribution Graph which you can see on SC2Ranks is not up to date. That's where you're getting your "lol only 7 terrans" from. If you actually look at the raw data on the main page you will see the following: 10 Protoss above 1500 (3 above 1600) 11 Terran above 1500 (2 above 1600) 4 Zerg above 1500 (1 above 1600) +1 Random in the form of David Kim also above 1500. It is however rather easy to drop even 100 points with a few losses, when at these high ranks you lose a lot of points for losing and win very few for winning. It would probably better to amalgamate everyone above 1400 or even everyone above 1300. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
Obviously there wont be a lot of 1600+ players. That's the point. | ||
|
Viruuus
Germany451 Posts
First, as has been stated many many times, it is no sample, it IS THE ACTUAL population. Second (i learned this from playing poker): If you are to play a game of flipping coins, and you are allowed to flip the coin once before the game starts, and it is heads, would you rather chose heads for the duration of the game or tails? Given no other information, the obvious answer would be heads, since even though the sample is (very) small in this case, the best prediction you can make is use that information instead of stupidly claiming it is obsolete and it doesnt matter what side you chose. | ||
| ||
