|
On September 03 2010 03:32 Winter_mute 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. 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.
Agreed with this guy.
Tray you are embarrassing yourself.
|
On September 03 2010 03:43 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:39 Perkins1752 wrote: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.
I don't particularly care, but I'm pretty sure that more people play protoss than terran. You should probably check that out before arguing about it (even with the word PROBABLY in front of the argument)
|
On September 03 2010 03:55 ploy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:32 Winter_mute 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. 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. Agreed with this guy. Tray you are embarrassing yourself.
Haha no I'm not. You are. So is the guy you quoted. Not the same situation at all.
|
Ouch, 60% at high end? What. That's pretty dumb.
|
On September 03 2010 03:59 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:55 ploy wrote:On September 03 2010 03:32 Winter_mute 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. 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. Agreed with this guy. Tray you are embarrassing yourself. Haha no I'm not. You are. So is the guy you quoted. Not the same situation at all.
Embarassment is a social situation and/or a mental state based on a view of reality. Neither of you can decide that the other is embarrassing themselves.
|
On September 03 2010 03:43 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:39 Perkins1752 wrote: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.
Dude everybody knows you are wrong. You don't give any evidence, yet you are insulting people. Weirdo.
|
The trend starting at 1200+ (180 pop) of increasing terran dominance flows very nicely right up to 1500+ (20 pop). This heavily supports the credibility of the 1500+ data, even though the population is lower.
Also, the growth of terran dominance from 1200 to 1500+ fits perfectly with how automatic match making gradually loses it's leveling effect when nearing the extremes.
Sorry if this was already mentioned.
|
On September 02 2010 07:46 cup of joe wrote:
it means absolutely nothing because the sample size is tiny at the right end of the graph
sample size is close to 100% lol...
|
yes indeed, cognitive bias in its finest, makes for very entertaining read 
|
This actually makes me want to play Zerg. =P
|
The amount of people on here that don't understand basic statistics is astounding.
|
This is basically just 3 different 1 tail distributions that have an offset because of what I'll kindly call "racial differences in overall level of play".
|
is there some kind of international prize for the most hilarious statistics argument? This thread would win that without question.
|
And again, the numbers speak the truth, though the graph itself is terrible.
Unless you're playing at a very high level, blame your own fail rather than imbalance Z/P/T for your loss. If you are playing at a high level, it will be very exciting to see the effect of the next patch on balance there.
Regarding the graph... please draw it to scale. It is VERY misleading. I feel like the number of each bracket is in fine print... oh wait-.-
|
On September 03 2010 05:02 Emperor_Earth wrote:
And again, the numbers speak the truth, though the graph itself is terrible.
Unless you're playing at a very high level, blame your own fail rather than imbalance Z/P/T for your loss. If you are playing at a high level, it will be very exciting to see the effect of the next patch on balance there.
Regarding the graph... please draw it to scale. It is VERY misleading. I feel like the number of each bracket is in fine print... oh wait-.-
You want to see it to scale such that the bars on the left reach the top, and the bars on the right are about a pixel tall?
They're written by % with the axes clearly labeled. Just clicking on the image gives you a larger one to look at if you have to squint to read it.
|
On September 03 2010 03:32 Winter_mute wrote:
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.
Great, this is an example of the misunderstanding.
Everything posted about the Tree Frog are dead on. Absolutely, if this was a random sampling of a rare population, this could not be more correct.
Here is what I said and still am saying:
"The discrepancy at the top has no statistical significance relative to the rest of the Diamond population."
My argument has been, and always will be, that The >1300 population HAS clearly has a statistically significant distribution in favor of Terran. HOWEVER, this does NOT show correlation to the REST OF DIAMOND.
People are crying OBVIOUS Terran imba. Now, clearly at the super Diamond level, there is statistical support to Terran being overrepresented; HOWEVER, their is no statistical support to the rampant cries of Terran imba form the 300-1000 level Diamond players. That has been my argument and will remain my argument.
CLEARLY THE TOP IS SKEWED. I have yet to say anything otherwise. I have only said that there is NO EVIDENCE to support that this population's distribution is CONSISTENT with the rest of Diamond.
Conclusion: You can cry Terran imba as a 900 player, but you lack evidence to support it from this graph. In fact, this graph suggests, at lower levels, Protoss is more prevalent and overrepresented up to the "super Diamond" level. NOW, if you try to say "IMBA at the top means IMBA everywhere" I can explain why selecting for the most skilled players biases the results when part of the categorical selections MAY impact skill.
Thank you for reading closely how I said that THE TOP OF DIAMOND does not represent DIAMOND, in 4 posts, so you can stop generalizing.
I don't need to insult anyone's classes after all, because your inability to read my actual words proves how poor your education was.
|
I saw some people saying that the reason that Terran was so prevalent in some of the upper leagues was due to many people playing Terran because of the campaign and cries of imba. I hypothesized that if Terran was indeed more popular overall, then it would be shown in a listing of all players' race percentages. If Terran overall was at around 40% and higher than both Protoss and Zerg, then that suggestion might be somewhat founded. I went to sc2ranks.com to check the statistics of all players through all leagues. I will admit, I did not count each individual one by one, but counted 100 people on each page and multiplied the total page count by it, so my raw numbers could be off by up to 99. Here are the results, copypasted from Notepad:
p: 358600 35.9%
z: 193300 19.4%
t: 365200 36.6%
r: 80800 8.1%
+: 997900 100.0%
So, unsurprisingly, Random is at the bottom of the pack by far, Zerg is behind by an incredible 15%, and Terran and Protoss are neck and neck for the lead. This clearly does not support the hypothesis that Terran is more prominent in all leagues due to the campaign and the T IMBA cries. Whether it says anything about the top players individually choosing to play the "better" race is up for debate. No matter what, I would be willing to posit that the game is not balanced at all levels of play, as a huge margin of players feel that Zerg is either underpowered or not fun to play.
If anyone has any problems with my data or my conclusions, please, I'm willing to take criticism.
EDIT: To the above poster, your analysis is slightly incorrect. You assume that players of similar ranking are automatically of similar skill. This is not necessarily true. For example, let's imagine that Zerg was overpowered, so that Zerg players had a significantly easier time beating opposing Protoss and Terran players. A Zerg player of less skill would make it into a higher league of play than they would if Zerg was not overpowered, with a Zerg buildup pooling at the top because there are no higher level players to play against. The lower-level players could certainly complain of imbalance, as the Zerg players who they split about 50-50 with are at a much lower level of skill. This appears to be happening with Terran at the moment, with a buildup of Terran at the top and a more average layout through the rest.
|
On September 03 2010 05:04 Sleight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 03:32 Winter_mute wrote:
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. Great, this is an example of the misunderstanding. Everything posted about the Tree Frog are dead on. Absolutely, if this was a random sampling of a rare population, this could not be more correct. Here is what I said and still am saying: "The discrepancy at the top has no statistical significance relative to the rest of the Diamond population." My argument has been, and always will be, that The >1300 population HAS clearly has a statistically significant distribution in favor of Terran. HOWEVER, this does NOT show correlation to the REST OF DIAMOND. People are crying OBVIOUS Terran imba. Now, clearly at the super Diamond level, there is statistical support to Terran being overrepresented; HOWEVER, their is no statistical support to the rampant cries of Terran imba form the 300-1000 level Diamond players. That has been my argument and will remain my argument. CLEARLY THE TOP IS SKEWED. I have yet to say anything otherwise. I have only said that there is NO EVIDENCE to support that this population's distribution is CONSISTENT with the rest of Diamond. Conclusion: You can cry Terran imba as a 900 player, but you lack evidence to support it from this graph. In fact, this graph suggests, at lower levels, Protoss is more prevalent and overrepresented up to the "super Diamond" level. NOW, if you try to say "IMBA at the top means IMBA everywhere" I can explain why selecting for the most skilled players biases the results when part of the categorical selections MAY impact skill. Thank you for reading closely how I said that THE TOP OF DIAMOND does not represent DIAMOND, in 4 posts, so you can stop generalizing. I don't need to insult anyone's classes after all, because your inability to read my actual words proves how poor your education was.
And again a nice ad hominem about my poor education. Thank you very much. Obviously well educated people take your side, because you are always right. And we all know that people with the "best" education are always right. I mean in science we do not actually discuss stuff and interpretate data, we just ask the guy with the most years as a scientist and his opinion is the truth.
What are you talking about random sampling? There is no random sampling in the frog example. You sample all of them. You cannot generalize your drug testing stuff to everything.
Now lets look at the data again. Ask yourself: would you expect to see a clear imbalance in the diamond population if you consider the match making system? In fact you will not see an imbalance in the rest of the diamond population, because the MMS compensates by matching people with unequal skill: i.e. a skilled player of race a will play an unskilled player of race b. There would have to be a massive, massive imbalance. And consider, that the third race will smooth the imbalances further out.
Just do a graph for yourself. For example you can use a gaussian distribution with 3 different races all at 33% with a small standard deviation. (Maybe even adjust these numbers because you tell yourself, that everone plays terran, because of the campaign.) And now introduce the imbalance. Shift all the players of race1 by 50 or 100 points into 1 direction. Look at what you see. More importantly look in which area you will see the imbalance.
And if you do not have enough statistical evidence, just look at the last tourneys. Look at the last zotac cups, viking cups, Go4SC2 etc. I remeber so many nice cups where there were only terrans in the semi finale. Hell, just watch the ESL stream now. There was 1 (!) single zerg in the best of 8 (dimaga). And he got kicked out in the first round.
However if this is too much work for you, feel free to just question my character or education instead.
|
With Starcraft, it's not so obvious that x race should account for x % of the population at high levels. With such a small sample size at the top of Diamond, the percentages of Terran don't hold as much value, you just need more people at the top before you can make an analysis.
With something simple, such as flipping a coin where there are only two outcomes,it's easy to see when a sample size becomes representative of the whole population. Say there are 1 billion flipped pennies, you should see a probability almost exactly 50% for heads/tails.
Flip 10, and you could easily get 7/10 heads so an inaccurate representation. Flip 100 and It becomes much closer to 50, flip 500 and you are bound to be close to 50% almost every time. So in this case flipping 500 coins is representative of 1 billion coin flips,, less than a thousandth of a percent of the whole population.but this would still hold true for even an infinite amount of coins. (in which case the average would be exactly 50%). Another example is political polls, they contain an extremely small percent of the population but are incredibly accurate.
With Starcraft it's much more complicated, 300 at the top isn't enough to accurately determine if a race is overpowered, All of Diamond yes, but not the top level. Statistics alone won't tell you if a race is overpowered at this point. I'd go on to say that even looking at the entire populations race distribution isn't accurate at the higher levels, because a disproportionate amount of people play Terran as their race because they are used to it. At higher levels of play, many of these people are from Brood War and already have a preferred race because of it's style. We don't know if the reason there are so many ____ is because they are overpowered and it's easier to get there, or because it's a more popular race for higher level players because it fits their style more.
Looking at win percentages isn't enough either, since the match system tries to keep you close to 50%, and will pair you with someone of a higher skill level if you keep winning. In order to know if a race is truly overpowered or not, you would have to rely on individual experiences or knowing the hidden rating in the ladder (which Blizzard obviously knows). If there was a trend emerging where Terran players, on average, were put up against higher level opponents and were still winning, while other races were evenly matched at equal ratings, you could make the conclusion that Terran were overpowered.
Of course this graph is still useful, but it alone will not prove anything.
|
On September 03 2010 05:43 phant wrote:
With Starcraft, it's not so obvious that x race should account for x % of the population at high levels. With such a small sample size at the top of Diamond, the percentages of Terran don't hold as much value, you just need more people at the top before you can make an analysis.
With something simple, such as flipping a coin where there are only two outcomes,it's easy to see when a sample size becomes representative of the whole population. Say there are 1 billion flipped pennies, you should see a probability almost exactly 50% for heads/tails.
Flip 10, and you could easily get 7/10 heads so an inaccurate representation. Flip 100 and It becomes much closer to 50, flip 500 and you are bound to be close to 50% almost every time. So in this case flipping 500 coins is representative of 1 billion coin flips,, less than a thousandth of a percent of the whole population.but this would still hold true for even an infinite amount of coins. (in which case the average would be exactly 50%). Another example is political polls, they contain an extremely small percent of the population but are incredibly accurate.
With Starcraft it's much more complicated, 300 at the top isn't enough to accurately determine if a race is overpowered, All of Diamond yes, but not the top level. Statistics alone won't tell you if a race is overpowered at this point. I'd go on to say that even looking at the entire populations race distribution isn't accurate at the higher levels, because a disproportionate amount of people play Terran as their race because they are used to it. At higher levels of play, many of these people are from Brood War and already have a preferred race because of it's style. We don't know if the reason there are so many ____ is because they are overpowered and it's easier to get there, or because it's a more popular race for higher level players because it fits their style more.
Looking at win percentages isn't enough either, since the match system tries to keep you close to 50%, and will pair you with someone of a higher skill level if you keep winning. In order to know if a race is truly overpowered or not, you would have to rely on individual experiences or knowing the hidden rating in the ladder (which Blizzard obviously knows). If there was a trend emerging where Terran players, on average, were put up against higher level opponents and were still winning, while other races were evenly matched at equal ratings, you could make the conclusion that Terran were overpowered.
Of course this graph is still useful, but it alone will not prove anything.
You sir win this thread.
/endthread
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
