|
On September 03 2010 02:11 Buddhist wrote:
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.
Your first point is wrong because imbalance plays a role even in matches between less skilled players. Your second is wrong because, among other reasons, you don't have to look at .1% of the chart to see the trends.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
Percentages aren't all that helpful when there is uneven numbers at all levels of diamond.
You want to see where there is mass. Histograms would serve a better purpose. Log scaling on the side would also be necessary since the buckets vary so much in magnitude.
BTW. This is much improved over previous analysis (lol @ only five skill buckets). Are we really suppose to think that all platinum players are all the same or that there is no overlap between leagues.
It still has some the flaws of any sc2ranks analysis in that you only know a player's favorite race (most played race.)
|
On September 03 2010 02:25 biology]major wrote:
these graphs are assuming that there are an equal number of zergs, terrans, and protoss's in diamond league to begin with.
These graphs are assuming that players who win the most are at the top.
Strangely enough they are...
Why are they winning more?
That is the question that has already been answered and is currently being addressed by the developers.
|
On September 03 2010 01:53 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 01:44 Tray wrote: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.
Even in the 1200+ the stats are still probably not statistically relevant. As someone posted, that's less than 1.5% of all diamond players. I'm not gonna do the math, just trying to enlighten some people on stats here because there's a lot of sheep jumping to horribly retarded conclusions.
|
On September 03 2010 01:58 Fraud wrote:I enjoy the references by people of the "sample size being too small", when the sample size is equal to 100% of the population. Show nested quote +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
This is not true and the person who posted this is not very smart. Please don't post on statistics if you don't understand it.
|
On September 02 2010 07:57 Mikilatov wrote:
Pretty eye-opening, it seems.
I'm glad that this graph pulls up an interesting point though, Terrans aren't really that overpowered except at high levels in the hands of 1000+ point diamond players.
I am sorry but you are a moron. All being overpowered does is say ok if your terran and you play enough games you are going to be 100 points higher rated then if you're protoss and another 100 points higher then if your zerg. Of course the percentages will even out Terrans are just higher ranked then their skill would otherwise allow them to be. Terrans will have roughly the same win percentages too because as a result of winnings games they couldnt with zerg they now have to play harder opponents.
|
On September 03 2010 02:51 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 01:53 Karkadinn wrote:On September 03 2010 01:44 Tray wrote: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. Even in the 1200+ the stats are still probably not statistically relevant. As someone posted, that's less than 1.5% of all diamond players. I'm not gonna do the math, just trying to enlighten some people on stats here because there's a lot of sheep jumping to horribly retarded conclusions.
Good luck convincing all the 'sheep' of your pov when your methodology consists of declaring all information beyond an arbitrary self-determined point completely meaningless.
|
Perfect representation of how race representation represents the overall race population at the lower levels. As you get toward the higher levels where it is no longer a matter of better Z/P hanging with inferior T, the data skews HEAVILY in favor of T.
Thanks for the data. Statistically speaking we can now say "with confidence  " that Terran is out of whack.
|
So much denial. Yeah, there might only be a few guys in the top 0.1%, making the last bars more inaccurate than the earlier ones.
But, the TREND of the data speaks volumes.
|
On September 03 2010 02:51 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 01:53 Karkadinn wrote:On September 03 2010 01:44 Tray wrote: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. Even in the 1200+ the stats are still probably not statistically relevant. As someone posted, that's less than 1.5% of all diamond players. I'm not gonna do the math, just trying to enlighten some people on stats here because there's a lot of sheep jumping to horribly retarded conclusions.
Dude. This isn't a survey about what color you like. Top players KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, whereas lower level player DO NOT (as much). You're trying to say that 98.5% of people think that the moon is made of cheese and that 1.5% of people who actually know what the hell they are talking about are irrelevant. This isn't statistics, it's logic.
|
On September 03 2010 00:18 Sentient wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 00:05 Sleight wrote:
Hey y'all...
Look at the graph again and the n values at the bottom of each graph. The rightmost bar as TWENTY people in it. This will barely be statistically significant when referencing a bigger population that is known not to be perfectly balanced. The trend holds over 160 players (the top 3 groups, more if you count the decline in Protoss). 20 players is a decent sample size, contrary to the random assertions otherwise. I will see if I have time tonight to actually do the numbers. You can draw statistics from these, and my intuition says there is a fair chunk of significance to them.And this deserves reposting: Show nested quote +TT: People who don't know statistics throwing around jargon like 'sample size'.
"Terran players make up the majority of 1300+ Diamond ladder players" - FACT. This is a population census. It is fully comprehensive in what it measures. There is no confidence to consider. These are the exact numbers for the moment in time when they were collected.
Here is an example of a poster with only the most basic understanding of Statistics. I will just show how this is both wrong and embarrassing.
To this first bolded bit:
Twenty people cannot be significant in a population of 28K. In fact, as Buddhist (i believe) pointed out, the top 3 tiers amount to 160 people, which still remains just over 1 Percent of the population. 1% sample size is not a useful sample size in this kind of sampling analysis unless it is a truly random assortment. The term we are referring to by "sample size" is the "power" of said sample. When you have a small sample, you have less power unless the different you are looking for is HUGE. Actually being involved in professional population anaylses as part of my medical degree, I can say that this sample size LACKS SUFFICIENT POWER to obtain any result given the overall population.
Furthermore, by simply picking the TOP you are eliminating a random element. This is stratified sampling and is inclined to a number of kinds of bias and is not viable unless you can demonstrate that the method is necessary to create a balanced population, This is not the case and is therefore not an acceptable sampling method.
To the second boldded bit:
Based on the graphs presented, of the population of diamond players > 600, Protoss is actually the most prevalent. In fact, a MAJORITY do NOT play Terran. A PLURALITY may play Terran, though not in this sampling, meaning the largest group less than 50%, but over 50% of players, which is the definition of majority, do not play Terran. Not in this graph, not anywhere. Just count them. So to say the number of players >1300 play Terran means nothing unless this is a sampling with adequate power and sample size to demonstrate statistical significance. I have already explained to you that it does not.
Furthermore, you cannot assume TRENDS from a CROSS-SECTIONAL analysis. This type of study only can look at "prevalence" or the actual state of people at this moment. It cannot tell if people are moving up, down, or dying, for all it matters. You can only say "In the 20 person sample size at the highest tier, there are 12 Terran." Or, "in the top 3 tiers of 120 people, Terran comprises a larger than expected statistically significant portion by chi-squared analysis, WITHIN THIS POPULATION." If we try to compare the results to larger populations, we find that they lack statistical significance.
Conclusion:
Sorry, Sentient, one course in community college does not qualify you to be a statistical analyst. And you are wrong. A double whammy. Stop being thick and study harder.
|
On September 03 2010 02:53 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 01:58 Fraud wrote: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 This is not true and the person who posted this is not very smart. Please don't post on statistics if you don't understand it.
I wrote it before, but I guess I have to write it again:
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.
Since you obviously understand statistics, you can check for yourself and provide your numbers. And of course you are allowed to normalize the null hypothesis to account for all these players who just play terran for the looks or because they played them in the campaign. Just tell us the corrected null hypothesis numbers.
|
Yeah, terran seems a bit over-represented.
|
On September 03 2010 03:08 Winter_mute wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 02:53 Tray wrote:On September 03 2010 01:58 Fraud wrote: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 This is not true and the person who posted this is not very smart. Please don't post on statistics if you don't understand it. I wrote it before, but I guess I have to write it again: Show nested quote +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. Since you obviously understand statistics, you can check for yourself and provide your numbers. And of course you are allowed to normalize the null hypothesis to account for all these players who just play terran for the looks or because they played them in the campaign. Just tell us the corrected null hypothesis numbers.
You people are so retarded. You're not even accounting for the number of people that play terran relative to the other races. Do you really think your stats are even close to relevant? Wow. Go back to school.
|
On September 03 2010 03:08 Winter_mute wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 02:53 Tray wrote:On September 03 2010 01:58 Fraud wrote: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 This is not true and the person who posted this is not very smart. Please don't post on statistics if you don't understand it. I wrote it before, but I guess I have to write it again: Show nested quote +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. Since you obviously understand statistics, you can check for yourself and provide your numbers. And of course you are allowed to normalize the null hypothesis to account for all these players who just play terran for the looks or because they played them in the campaign. Just tell us the corrected null hypothesis numbers.
No one is disagreeing that Terran represents a greater than expected portion of the >1300 population. The argument runs that THIS SAMPLE lacks enough POWER to have STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE to the rest of the WHOLE POPULATION.
I capitalized the important words. The null hypothesis here should be "Terran is equally represented as within the greater population" and the same for the other 2 races. We KNOW the greater population, so we can compare BOTH populations directly and see that this population lacks statistical significance when compared to the greater population.
Compute confidence intervals and you will see that there is overlap. If you wouldn't get published, your data is not conclusive.
|
On September 03 2010 02:56 Karkadinn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 02:51 Tray wrote:On September 03 2010 01:53 Karkadinn wrote:On September 03 2010 01:44 Tray wrote: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. Even in the 1200+ the stats are still probably not statistically relevant. As someone posted, that's less than 1.5% of all diamond players. I'm not gonna do the math, just trying to enlighten some people on stats here because there's a lot of sheep jumping to horribly retarded conclusions. Good luck convincing all the 'sheep' of your pov when your methodology consists of declaring all information beyond an arbitrary self-determined point completely meaningless.
Who do I have to convince? The burden of proof is on you to prove to me that Terran is imbalanced because of this. Statistically, that has not been shown.
1200+ is just as arbitrary as any other cutoff. You really think diamonds 800-1200 should be ignored? I think Idra falls into that category...
Seriously you people are too dumb to even discuss this topic with at an adult level. I'm guessing none of you have even taken a stats class, let alone graduated high school.
|
On September 03 2010 03:04 whateversclever wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 02:51 Tray wrote:On September 03 2010 01:53 Karkadinn wrote:On September 03 2010 01:44 Tray wrote: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. Even in the 1200+ the stats are still probably not statistically relevant. As someone posted, that's less than 1.5% of all diamond players. I'm not gonna do the math, just trying to enlighten some people on stats here because there's a lot of sheep jumping to horribly retarded conclusions. Dude. This isn't a survey about what color you like. Top players KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON, whereas lower level player DO NOT (as much). You're trying to say that 98.5% of people think that the moon is made of cheese and that 1.5% of people who actually know what the hell they are talking about are irrelevant. This isn't statistics, it's logic.
Hey champ, it's 1.2% of DIAMOND players. Not 1.2% of all bnet players. That's why it's not significant. Learn to read before you post. I'm diamond 800 with a 70% win rate. By your logic my stats are irrelevant to the balance discussion. I hope you realize the faults in your logic, but you probably don't.
|
I imagine when a fanatical cult sect comes charging into his hometown in order to lynch all of the non-whites in the place, Tray will be standing there, arms crossed, telling them the burden of proof is on them to show that all the non-whites need to be lynched.
They're going to believe what they want to believe until you give them a good reason to believe otherwise. If you genuinely don't care what they believe, then why are you just shouting and screaming at people that they're wrong? If you do care, why are you too lazy to do the math?
That's just textbook trolling right there.
|
On September 03 2010 03:07 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 00:18 Sentient wrote:On September 03 2010 00:05 Sleight wrote:
Hey y'all...
Look at the graph again and the n values at the bottom of each graph. The rightmost bar as TWENTY people in it. This will barely be statistically significant when referencing a bigger population that is known not to be perfectly balanced. The trend holds over 160 players (the top 3 groups, more if you count the decline in Protoss). 20 players is a decent sample size, contrary to the random assertions otherwise. I will see if I have time tonight to actually do the numbers. You can draw statistics from these, and my intuition says there is a fair chunk of significance to them.And this deserves reposting: TT: People who don't know statistics throwing around jargon like 'sample size'.
"Terran players make up the majority of 1300+ Diamond ladder players" - FACT. This is a population census. It is fully comprehensive in what it measures. There is no confidence to consider. These are the exact numbers for the moment in time when they were collected. Here is an example of a poster with only the most basic understanding of Statistics. I will just show how this is both wrong and embarrassing. To this first bolded bit: Twenty people cannot be significant in a population of 28K. In fact, as Buddhist (i believe) pointed out, the top 3 tiers amount to 160 people, which still remains just over 1 Percent of the population. 1% sample size is not a useful sample size in this kind of sampling analysis unless it is a truly random assortment. The term we are referring to by "sample size" is the "power" of said sample. When you have a small sample, you have less power unless the different you are looking for is HUGE. Actually being involved in professional population anaylses as part of my medical degree, I can say that this sample size LACKS SUFFICIENT POWER to obtain any result given the overall population.
Since you deal in 'professional population analyses' in medicine, just out of interest, how many drugs passed by the FSA or indeed any other international body have been trialed on more than 1% of the population?
Your conclusion is also wrong. You need sample variances to determine power. Sample size is insufficient.
Notwithstanding that, nobody is actually claiming that the 'top X' is representative of the whole population. All the claims refer to balance within the 'top X'. In which case, the sample size is the whole population. Still, to make any claims about 'power' you need sample variances.
|
On September 03 2010 03:20 Bibdy wrote:
I imagine when a fanatical cult sect comes charging into his hometown in order to lynch all of the non-whites in the place, Tray will be standing there, arms crossed, telling them the burden of proof is on them to show that all the non-whites need to be lynched.
They're going to believe what they want to believe until you give them a good reason to believe otherwise. If you genuinely don't care what they believe, then why are you just shouting and screaming at people that they're wrong? If you do care, why are you too lazy to do the math?
That's just textbook trolling right there.
No what I'm doing is telling people why they're wrong. What YOU'RE doing is trolling. You're great at it. You've been doing it since the beta in the bnet forums. I have a job, so I don't have all day to crunch numbers in excel to prove to you that your sample is statistically irrelevant. Go do a little google search on stats, confidence intervals, and the like. You might learn something.
Cool story though, bro.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
