|
On September 03 2010 00:38 ReplayArk wrote:
@kunstprodukt if you present this data as scv I would like to see it, I thought about doing a little crawling myself, maybe we can work together. Do you want to do a little query at your database and look at the matchups, I have not done so because I am not suceeding in getting enough profiles (also it increses the possibility of spam prevention ban a lot).
*Edit: I would like to see the data as CSV, not as SCV though I would look at a SCV with the data written on it.*
Sure.
Just let me know in which format you need the datas.. I will format them like that.
|
If you run the stats on Sc2ranks.com it shows 977720 players and 6.72% are in diamond. There are 188% more terrans than Zerg in the entire population, but only 128% more in diamond. Based on the entire population there are 123% more Zerg in diamond than there should be based on the number of Zerg playing and that 6.72% of all players are in diamond. Terrans have only 84% in diamond. Protoss are actually pretty close at 98%. I am not suggesting Zerg are op, or that Terran are up. I posted this to point out that numbers taking only a single factor into account don't give you a big picture. The graph is interesting and is something to be contemplated, but once you start adding other factors you get different results. With constantly changing strategies you can't take a snapshot of data and say it is how it always is.
|
On September 03 2010 00:42 BlackIce81 wrote:
If you run the stats on Sc2ranks.com it shows 977720 players and 6.72% are in diamond. There are 188% more terrans than Zerg in the entire population, but only 128% more in diamond. Based on the entire population there are 123% more Zerg in diamond than there should be based on the number of Zerg playing and that 6.72% of all players are in diamond. Terrans have only 84% in diamond. Protoss are actually pretty close at 98%. I am not suggesting Zerg are op, or that Terran are up. I posted this to point out that numbers taking only a single factor into account don't give you a big picture. The graph is interesting and is something to be contemplated, but once you start adding other factors you get different results. With constantly changing strategies you can't take a snapshot of data and say it is how it always is.
You do realize Plat and below doesn't even have the basics down right?
Stuff like "build a supply depot before you're supply capped" is stuff they're still trying to get the concept of.
|
Some of the first posters are correct. The data of the top-top diamonds is statistically insignificant because of the very small number of players at this level.
Basically the graph becomes less representative of reality the higher you go up the point score. It 'could' be accurate, but this data does not prove that, so the people QQing about Terran so OP should probably learn a little statistics. Doesn't matter that it's the "entire population." If that's your reasoning you have no clue what you're talking about here.
|
If twice as many people play Terran we can expect there to be more terrans than Zerg in diamond.
|
On September 03 2010 01:06 Tray wrote:
Some of the first posters are correct. The data of the top-top diamonds is statistically insignificant because of the very small number of players at this level.
Basically the graph becomes less representative of reality the higher you go up the point score. It 'could' be accurate, but this data does not prove that, so the people QQing about Terran so OP should probably learn a little statistics. Doesn't matter that it's the "entire population." If that's your reasoning you have no clue what you're talking about here.
There will always be a very small number of players at high levels. You're as good as saying that it's impossible to use statistics to measure anything significant, since the match-maker will by definition even out populations at more casual levels.
|
On September 03 2010 01:40 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 01:06 Tray wrote:
Some of the first posters are correct. The data of the top-top diamonds is statistically insignificant because of the very small number of players at this level.
Basically the graph becomes less representative of reality the higher you go up the point score. It 'could' be accurate, but this data does not prove that, so the people QQing about Terran so OP should probably learn a little statistics. Doesn't matter that it's the "entire population." If that's your reasoning you have no clue what you're talking about here. There will always be a very small number of players at high levels. You're as good as saying that it's impossible to use statistics to measure anything significant, since the match-maker will by definition even out populations at more casual levels.
At the top level, with small playerbase, yes it is impossible. That's exactly the point. You need to have a decent number of players before you're getting a clear view of the actual situation.
For example there are only 25 players in the WORLD over 1500 points. If you think that's a sufficient number to base balance on because 11 of those players happen to play terran, then you have a very elementary understanding of statistical analysis.
|
On September 03 2010 00:28 Zombo Joe wrote:
Terran just has more options, which means that higher level players will be able to exploit them much more efficiently than lower level players.
Thats my hypothesis of why there are more Terran wins at higher levels.
I think Zerg, Protoss should be buffed by giving them more options, possibly new units but realistically new abilities. It would not affect lower levels too much due to the APM requirement and would help tremendously in the higher levels.
Something as simple as giving Warp Prism Energy Fields a boost to attack speed for Protoss units. Or adding an upgrade to make Transfuse AoE and also give a big speed increase for Queens. How often do you see Queens used on the offensive?
Queens were used offensively in beta at one point. They were nerfed as a result. Apparently Blizzard didn't like Zerg having more than one offensive caster unit. I don't see Blizzard going back on that, either... it's surpassingly rare for them to ever roll back changes once they're made, even if the reasons for those changes have stopped existing. Maybe in an expansion, but definitely not in a regular patch.
|
Racial Distributions at the Diamond level: Nerdy Asians and Whites lolol
|
On September 03 2010 01:44 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 01:40 Karkadinn wrote:On September 03 2010 01:06 Tray wrote:
Some of the first posters are correct. The data of the top-top diamonds is statistically insignificant because of the very small number of players at this level.
Basically the graph becomes less representative of reality the higher you go up the point score. It 'could' be accurate, but this data does not prove that, so the people QQing about Terran so OP should probably learn a little statistics. Doesn't matter that it's the "entire population." If that's your reasoning you have no clue what you're talking about here. There will always be a very small number of players at high levels. You're as good as saying that it's impossible to use statistics to measure anything significant, since the match-maker will by definition even out populations at more casual levels. At the top level, with small playerbase, yes it is impossible. That's exactly the point. You need to have a decent number of players before you're getting a clear view of the actual situation. For example there are only 25 players in the WORLD over 1500 points. If you think that's a sufficient number to base balance on because 11 of those players happen to play terran, then you have a very elementary understanding of statistical analysis.
You're taking the absolute extreme to support your point. Even if you just stop at 1200, the differences are sufficiently obvious. Trends among the top players are also important because one faction mirror matches do not make particularly good media entertainment for tournaments.
|
On September 02 2010 07:55 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
As far as I know, sc2ranks is pretty damn comprehensive of Diamond, especially high Diamond (where it seems some people have a problem with the "sample size"). Yeah, the number of people in the 1500+ group is small but that doesn't mean that there is a problem with the sample size. These numbers aren't extrapolated from a small population of the 1500+ Diamond group. These numbers directly represent that group.
Warning: This post is irrefutable.
This graph is terribly misleading and is a great example of how statistics can be used improperly to support an agenda.
Total Sample size = 27862
number of people in 1200-1300 range = 180
number of people in 1300-1400 range = 101
number of people in 1400-1500 range = 38
number of people in 1500+ range = 20
Sum of 1200+ = 339
Percentage of 600+ diamond players that are 1200+
= 339/27862 = 1.2%
Displaying a total sample size of 28k then attempting to draw trending conclusions from a trend that only appears once you've reached outliers that make up 1.2% of the sample size is just terrible statistics work. If this was done in industry you'd lose your job in a day and potentially face a lawsuit. You just DON'T draw conclusions based on statistical outliers. Thats like saying it snows a lot in Texas based on one inch of snowfall every 3 years.
|
I think a lot of people in this thread are missing a logical connection. No one is really trying to say that Terran is imba because more people picked them at a high level. People are using that graph as further evidence that Terran might be imba because it indicates not that Terran is more chosen by high level players, but that you're more likely to be a high rate player if you choose Terran (as a product of everyone being around a 50% win rate at the level you're supposed to be at).
|
I enjoy the references by people of the "sample size being too small", when the sample size is equal to 100% of the population.
For example there are only 25 players in the WORLD over 1500 points. If you think that's a sufficient number to base balance on because 11 of those players happen to play terran, then you have a very elementary understanding of statistical analysis.
Everyone was previously saying we should only be balancing at the top of the game, as if you're not near the top, you can advance by getting better. Looking at 1200+ Diamond, a clear pattern is emerging. Terran's are dominating the top 400 players.
That being said, this graph proves what has already been said multiple times, Terrans have an advantage at the top and Zerg is weak. That's why Blizzard is releasing Patch 1.1
|
On September 03 2010 01:38 BlackIce81 wrote:
If you run the stats on Sc2ranks.com it shows 977720 players and 6.72% are in diamond. There are 188% more terrans than Zerg in the entire population, but only 128% more in diamond. Based on the entire population there are 123% more Zerg in diamond than there should be based on the number of Zerg playing and that 6.72% of all players are in diamond. Terrans have only 84% in diamond. Protoss are actually pretty close at 98%. I am not suggesting Zerg are op, or that Terran are up. I posted this to point out that numbers taking only a single factor into account don't give you a big picture. The graph is interesting and is something to be contemplated, but once you start adding other factors you get different results. With constantly changing strategies you can't take a snapshot of data and say it is how it always is.
How about this, roughly 30% of diamond players are terran (according to sc2ranks.com). In the NA, EU and KR top 200 rankings blizzard releases terran are over 40%, meanwhile protoss and zerg both are underrepresented in top 200 compared to their presence in diamond league.
Good players will reach diamond no matter what race they play. Looking at race %-ages in lower leagues can be iffy, especially since terran is MASSIVELY overrepresented in bronze league (33.32% in silver, 43.59% in bronze), likely due to campaign being terran which makes most new players play terran, you couldn't play zerg at all in campaign which is likely why zerg is slightly underrepresented in bronze league. Bronze also has the highest numbers of players by far which further messes up your %-ages, something like 40% of the total terran population is in bronze.
|
Your rating is not determined by how skilled you are directly. It is determined by wins and losses exclusively.
A 1600 rated diamond zerg player might be more skilled than a 1600 rated diamond terran player. They are only the same rating because they win a near equal amount.
You can't use ratings to judge skill in this way.
There are two problems with trying to analyze things statistically in this game:
A) 99.9% of players lack the skill to be used as an example of balance.
B) .1% of players are too small a number to tell if it's a fluke or if it's legitimate.
Btw, when people say "sample size" they are actually correct. 20 players are not a good sample size of the game as a whole. Even though those 20 players are 100% of the 1500+ group, they are only a VERY SMALL fraction of the total population of the game. So their size is not a good sample of the entire game's population.
You might say "that doesn't matter, because they are the skilled ones". Yes, they are the skilled ones, but their race choice can't be seen as something significant. For example, Idra says Zerg is underpowered vs. Terran. Yet he still plays Zerg. That throws the entire data set out the window.
That half of players who are Terran at 1500+ might play Terran JUST BECAUSE THEY PREFER THAT RACE, and the same probably goes for the rest of the players there.
Therefor, balance can't be determined by population. It makes no sense.
|
Just because the data is exactly what you would expect to see if there was an imbalance...
Just because the game developer has come out and admitted there IS an imbalance...
Just because the game developer has already scheduled a patch to address the imbalance...
DOES NOT MEAN THERE IS AN IMBALANCE!!!
Terran are just better players. Zerg doesn't get it, Protoss doesn't get it, Pros don't get it, Blizzard doesn't get it...
They are all scrubs who need to L2P and there is ZERO evidence that would sway my opinion.
If anything Terran is underpowered and the patch is a liberal conspiracy by the Obama administration.
I will now reinsert my ear plugs, blinders and go back to my fantasy world where all things are shiny and happy and SC2 is perfectly balanced.
|
27k is a sample size. The actual data contains close to a million records. This graph ignores 93% of the data. When twice as many people play Terran you are going to end up with more terrans in diamond. I am not saying terrans don't need nerfed. I am saying this graph does not directly support the fact that terrans are strong right now. If you use the same data but break it down by 50 points instead of 100, the top three has one of each race.
|
something like 40% of the total terran population is in bronze.
34% total Zerg are bronze as well. 8% are diamond compared to terrans which only have 5.5%.
|
these graphs are assuming that there are an equal number of zergs, terrans, and protoss's in diamond league to begin with.
|
On September 03 2010 02:11 Buddhist wrote:
Therefor, balance can't be determined by population. It makes no sense.
Relative population combined with trends gives a pretty good idea though. As I pointed out terran is overrepresented in the top 200 compared to population, in addition terran is also trending upwards while both zerg and protoss are trending downwards in top 200 lists.
Personal preferences and skill will always skew the statistics one way or the other though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
