|
On September 03 2010 03:22 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:07 Sleight wrote: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.
Yes there are people making that claim.
Edit - see the post just below this one.
|
Terrans imbalance has been "proven" by other means, these statistics are not going to make them any more imbalanced or give more weight to an already case closed argument.
Now...
Does this chart correlate with what we already know?
Is the Terran imbalance, which is already confirmed by Blizzard, the reason we have so many Terran at the top?
What will be interesting is if post patch 1.1 these charts change and show a different result.
This is just partial data for an overall experiment.
The experiment is "Is the most powerful race also the most common race at 1500+"
So far it looks that way, but we will need to have a different race be confirmed as imbalanced and run this test again.
Once we run this test numerous times with all the different imbalanced races over the course of many patches we can confirm or deny that these charts mean anything.
Right now it is only partial data that appears to correlate with imbalance, but doesn't truly mean that it does.
|
On September 03 2010 03:22 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:07 Sleight wrote: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.
You are an idiot. The reason drug trials, only phase 3 are truly random, are acceptable is a) MEDICAL NECESSSITY and b) TRULY RANDOM populations.
They succeed because of TRUE RANDOMNESS. They don't pick the tallest population, they don't pick white people, they just take PEOPLE. The population at the TOP OF A GAME cannot be random BY ITS NATURE.
EDIT;
If you separate a population BASED ON SKILL and then test those groups to determine SKILL, you will find out that, WOW, the better groups are better. If you separate groups on SKILL and try to determine something that SKILL is directly dependent on, it introduces BIA into a study. Biased data = biased conclusion.
|
On September 03 2010 03:14 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 02:56 Karkadinn wrote: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.
Have fun maintaining your facade of maturity while simultaneously insulting everyone who disagrees with you. If this is the level of civility I can expect when debating with you, I'm not interested in further interaction.
|
On September 03 2010 03:24 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +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.
No, you're telling people they're wrong, retarded, stupid, haven't got a high school education and whatever other insults you thrown out prior to just the last page alone, without actually saying why.
Just a lot of "Wow, how could you POSSIBLY be this stupid? Me and my high horse are going to keep hanging out with you idiots, though".
Oh and you're the same Tray? Someone still needs to take a chill-pill I see. Remember how 'wrong' I was about Marauders? 
|
I can't understand why people continue to make these efforts to show that terran is op or that terran is perfectly fine. You are not going to convince anyone who started out with a different opinion than you, and since you aren't trying to convince blizzard, I can't figure out what else you are trying to do. Every single "statistical" analysis gets called out for incorrect methods, incorrect assumptions, or some other failure.
I play zerg at the diamond level, and I feel that terran has too many options and zerg has too few options early on, but I can see myself convincing a single person who doesn't already think that way.
Thats my 15.5 cents.
|
Think of this graph as merely a peice of evidence. No one bit of evidence should be used to declare something like "imbalance" but taken in addition to other evidence people can start to make conclusions. For example, I have a friend who plays Terran, is missing some very basic understanding of the game, and has 1 build order no matter what the circumstance; 3 rax mm. I've tried teaching him 1-1-1 with very mixed results. He has ridden terran and mmm all the way to 500+ diamond with minimal effort. Combining that with the graph, my own experiences at ~900 diamond, and a basic understanding of the game, I can come to the conclusion that Terran currently is either easier to play well or allows you to play above your skill level, backed up by the trending scene in the data.
Now, I personally don't think this is a huge deal. I can play against Terran well, and I like the idea of small nerfs for specific things over time. But this is one piece of a volume of evidence, nothing more, nothing less.
|
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. 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.
sigh...
Imagine you want to examine the color of the ultra rare mexican swamp tree frog (mtf). Now because this frog is soooooo ultra rare you can look at the whole population of MSTFs. 60% are yellow, 30% are blue and 10% are red. You got 360 of these frogs and do a test to see the propability of the colors being randomly distributed. The tests says: No, with a propability of x% these numbers are not random. (see previous post). Congratulations, you found out something!
Now imagine people are coming and telling you that the MSTF only makes up much less than 1% of all the frogs and start talking about random samples blablabla. But you dont care. You said that your results are valid for this one type of frog (or only valid for all people >1200). And your results are pretty clear and significant. And it absolutely does not matter even the slightest how many other frogs there are. NOT EVEN A TINY BIT.
To go back to SC2: even if 200 million billion people were playing zerg in bronze would not mean that the data for the top players (>1200) is wrong. Fact is: there is a disproportional amount of terrans at the top.
Now if you think what would you expect if there was an imbalance: You would expect that the players for race x are shifted by y amount of points and this would be most apparent at the absolut top and the bottom. Hintedi hint hint.
But feel free to do another nice ad hominem and tell me that my university classes sucked and that I also have to study harder. Alternatively you could read about cognitive biases and discover, that people do not modify their views of the world to fit new information but rather fit the information into their views and beliefs. With hillarious results.
|
I want to see this graph not in % but in ACTUAL NUMBERS, the % can really screw with perception of what people see in a graph, actually all graphs can be easily tweaked just to show what people want to see. Ignoring the "terran is op omg" debate, I think its important we see the actual figures behind these graphs.
|
On September 03 2010 03:28 Bibdy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:24 Tray wrote: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. No, you're telling people they're wrong, retarded, stupid, haven't got a high school education and whatever other insults you thrown out prior to just the last page alone, without actually saying why. Just a lot of "Wow, how could you POSSIBLY be this stupid? Me and my high horse are going to keep hanging out with you idiots, though". Oh and you're the same Tray? Someone still needs to take a chill-pill I see. Remember how 'wrong' I was about Marauders?
"Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov"
I back up my calling you stupid because you are and don't understand stats, and I explain to you why your analysis is incorrect. You counter with hyperbole and consider that a logically sound argument. Only one of us is a troll, guess which one?
Also you were wrong about marauders. Notice how they haven't been nerfed? I mean, are you serious? You're proving my points for me.
|
On September 03 2010 03:26 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:22 theSAiNT wrote:On September 03 2010 03:07 Sleight wrote: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. You are an idiot. The reason drug trials, only phase 3 are truly random, are acceptable is a) MEDICAL NECESSSITY and b) TRULY RANDOM populations. They succeed because of TRUE RANDOMNESS. They don't pick the tallest population, they don't pick white people, they just take PEOPLE. The population at the TOP OF A GAME cannot be random BY ITS NATURE.
Your initial emphasis was on the small size of the sample.
Nobody is actually saying that the top percentage are randomly selected. Nobody is saying they are representative of the whole population. The claim is that 'at the top level of play, there is evidence of imbalance'.
And to answer my question, no. Drug trials are often passed with sample sizes less than 50. Not anywhere even close to 1% of the population. 1% of a population is a lot.
|
On September 03 2010 03:28 icedragon wrote:
I can't understand why people continue to make these efforts to show that terran is op or that terran is perfectly fine. You are not going to convince anyone who started out with a different opinion than you, and since you aren't trying to convince blizzard, I can't figure out what else you are trying to do. Every single "statistical" analysis gets called out for incorrect methods, incorrect assumptions, or some other failure.
I play zerg at the diamond level, and I feel that terran has too many options and zerg has too few options early on, but I can see myself convincing a single person who doesn't already think that way.
Thats my 15.5 cents.
In theory, people are supposed to start out from a point of being persuadable and are then persuaded by the presented arguments on either side. That's, depressingly, just theory. In fact, most people will cement their loyalty to an ideology or faction and will refuse to be persuaded from it regardless of evidence. So what complaining comes down to online is really just plain venting and attempting to get emotional validation for what you feel are your grievances. In a perfect world, maybe someone could actually convince someone else of something with a logical argument, but in this one... meh... it's mostly people yelling at each other. And we keep doing it anyway, because we need to vent, and we need validation. This is readily observable in gaming communities, but you can see it in anything, especially politics and theology. I'm not sure if there's any real way to 'fix' this. If you ban people for being close-minded, you'd end up banning everyone eventually.
|
On September 03 2010 03:33 theSAiNT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:26 Sleight wrote:On September 03 2010 03:22 theSAiNT wrote:On September 03 2010 03:07 Sleight wrote: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. You are an idiot. The reason drug trials, only phase 3 are truly random, are acceptable is a) MEDICAL NECESSSITY and b) TRULY RANDOM populations. They succeed because of TRUE RANDOMNESS. They don't pick the tallest population, they don't pick white people, they just take PEOPLE. The population at the TOP OF A GAME cannot be random BY ITS NATURE. Your initial emphasis was on the small size of the sample. Nobody is actually saying that the top percentage are randomly selected. Nobody is saying they are representative of the whole population. The claim is that 'at the top level of play, there is evidence of imbalance'. And to answer my question, no. Drug trials are often passed with sample sizes less than 50. Not anywhere even close to 1% of the population. 1% of a population is a lot.
Yes they are. On this page of the thread in fact. Read it.
And no the claim that at the top levels of play that there is some imbalance is exactly what we're proving is not true. This is not evidence. That's the entire point. Try to keep up.
|
On September 03 2010 03:32 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:28 Bibdy wrote:On September 03 2010 03:24 Tray wrote: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. No, you're telling people they're wrong, retarded, stupid, haven't got a high school education and whatever other insults you thrown out prior to just the last page alone, without actually saying why. Just a lot of "Wow, how could you POSSIBLY be this stupid? Me and my high horse are going to keep hanging out with you idiots, though". Oh and you're the same Tray? Someone still needs to take a chill-pill I see. Remember how 'wrong' I was about Marauders? "Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov" I back up my calling you stupid because you are and don't understand stats, and I explain to you why your analysis is incorrect. You counter with hyperbole and consider that a logically sound argument. Only one of us is a troll, guess which one? Also you were wrong about marauders. Notice how they haven't been nerfed? I mean, are you serious? You're proving my points for me.
“When an argument flares up, the wise man quenches it with silence” - Anonymous
See, I can google a quote and sound smart, too.
Oh and 'cept for that whole Conc Shell upgrade thing, yeah. No nerfs at all.
|
On September 03 2010 03:32 fert wrote:
I want to see this graph not in % but in ACTUAL NUMBERS, the % can really screw with perception of what people see in a graph, actually all graphs can be easily tweaked just to show what people want to see. Ignoring the "terran is op omg" debate, I think its important we see the actual figures behind these graphs.
I believe there is actually a link for what you're asking for in the original post.
|
On September 03 2010 03:12 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:08 Winter_mute wrote: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: 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.
You Sir are the retard, if you think you can call all the people disagreeing with you retarded. There are two questions to be asked. First: "Why are so many people favoring T over Z?". Second which partly answers the first: "Why are they performing better?"
|
On September 03 2010 03:35 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:33 theSAiNT wrote:On September 03 2010 03:26 Sleight wrote:On September 03 2010 03:22 theSAiNT wrote:On September 03 2010 03:07 Sleight wrote: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. You are an idiot. The reason drug trials, only phase 3 are truly random, are acceptable is a) MEDICAL NECESSSITY and b) TRULY RANDOM populations. They succeed because of TRUE RANDOMNESS. They don't pick the tallest population, they don't pick white people, they just take PEOPLE. The population at the TOP OF A GAME cannot be random BY ITS NATURE. Your initial emphasis was on the small size of the sample. Nobody is actually saying that the top percentage are randomly selected. Nobody is saying they are representative of the whole population. The claim is that 'at the top level of play, there is evidence of imbalance'. And to answer my question, no. Drug trials are often passed with sample sizes less than 50. Not anywhere even close to 1% of the population. 1% of a population is a lot. Yes they are. On this page of the thread in fact. Read it. And no the claim that at the top levels of play that there is some imbalance is exactly what we're proving is not true. This is not evidence. That's the entire point. Try to keep up.
You can put away the patronizing tone. Even if they are, they're not reaching that claim with a 'statistical' statement that the top X% is a randomly selected, representative sample of the whole population which is the basis of your refutation.
For example:
On September 03 2010 03:32 Winter_mute wrote:
Now if you think what would you expect if there was an imbalance: You would expect that the players for race x are shifted by y amount of points and this would be most apparent at the absolut top and the bottom. Hintedi hint hint.
|
Was TL this way the whole time? Or is it just the newfags trolling, hating and spamming these forums about imbalance when they know shit about the game? yo
|
On September 03 2010 03:39 Perkins1752 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:12 Tray wrote:On September 03 2010 03:08 Winter_mute wrote: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: 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. You Sir are the retard, if you think you can call all the people disagreeing with you retarded. There are two questions to be asked. First: "Why are so many people favoring T over Z?". Second which partly answers the first: "Why are they performing better?"
I am? Look in the mirror. People probably play Terran because the campaign is terran. A hugely disproportionate number of NA players play Terran. To find a true statistical inaccuracy you would have to compare the % of players who play terran to the % of Terran players in the top X bracket. In this case you don't have enough of a sample to prove any disparity.
To answer "Why are they performing better?" They aren't. Pretty simple.
|
Doesn't this about match the overall spread of the races until about 1200? Can't find the numbers, atm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
