|
On September 02 2010 08:01 Backpack wrote:
Popularity does not equal strength.
The fact that people have this *idea* that terran might be OP and that zerg might suck will make them play terran more. You see terran all the time at high levels simply because there are more terran than zerg. The more people cry "terran OP," the more people will switch over to it.
The top players are there because they are the best players. Not because of their race. The reason there are so many terrans at the top is because there are so many terrans overall.
Your post is completely misinformed, and while this logic might hold true for the lower ranges (where terran is actually NOT overly popular, protoss is the most popular. Your logic is actually very flawed when concerning top level players
And the bold sentence is completely and utterly fallacious.
|
What i see from this graph is that at lower levels -before 1200- (meaning not with a PERFECT control over the game) people tend to win more with Protoss . After 1200(pros are here) lets say all players are of the same skill ( none is better than the other ) which must mean terran has some advantage with increase in macro/micro . Hope i made my point clear
id schtrudel
code 678
|
ITT: 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.
"Terran players make up a disproportionate amount of 1300+ Diamond ladder players in a way that can't be attributed to random chance." - Fact? You can't readily see this from the data. You must use something like a chi-square test to determine the confidence you can attach to this statement. I think it would be a good thing if someone did this with the raw data. Preferably someone with a more sophisticated background than one year of college statistics (moi).
"Terran players make up a disproportionate amount of 1300+ Diamond ladder players and it is because Terran is imbalanced." Fact??? This would be very hard to determine conclusively, and you can't even ascribe a confidence to this claim with the data available. However, under reasonable assumptions, it is a reasonable claim.
Other claims, like "Terran is more prevalent in higher leagues because more people play it because of the campaign" are more readily testable, but require sampling of campaign play data with respect to skill level.
|
I don't think people get it.
The higher the rating, the more weight it has as variables such as player skill is minimal since they are all pros. Nobody cares about statistics in the lower levels, there are way too many variables to account for.
|
You also have to keep in mind there are a lot more protoss players in general and a lot less zerg.
A little off topic but damn DeMuslim is just eating away the competition, is he really that good that he can have a win percentage of 83.3% and still be at the top of standings? Maybe he has an awesome build against each race with little counters? Maybe he started late and plays during off hours also?
|
United States10774 Posts
On September 02 2010 08:10 Cade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 07:55 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
As far as I know, sc2ranks is pretty damn comprehensive of Diamond, especially high Diamond (where it seems some people have a problem with the "sample size"). Yeah, the number of people in the 1500+ group is small but that doesn't mean that there is a problem with the sample size. These numbers aren't extrapolated from a small population of the 1500+ Diamond group. These numbers directly represent that group. This post states perfectly the idea that everyone seems to be missing when complaining about sample size. I hope people read it and attempt to understand it.
lol yeah, this is correct. people don't seem to understand what "sample" size means
|
The sample size is not too small for the top end, to be sure someone can just do a t-test and see if it's statistically significant that ~50 something % of the top 340 players are Terran, I'm pretty sure that'd be pretty significant. 60% for the top 20 players is also pretty significant, someone should do a t-test or a chi-square
|
On September 02 2010 08:01 Backpack wrote:
Popularity does not equal strength.
The fact that people have this *idea* that terran might be OP and that zerg might suck will make them play terran more. You see terran all the time at high levels simply because there are more terran than zerg. The more people cry "terran OP," the more people will switch over to it.
The top players are there because they are the best players. Not because of their race. The reason there are so many terrans at the top is because there are so many terrans overall.
Uh huh, you just keep thinking that. Meanwhile every tournament except MLG in the past 2 months are being won by Terrans. In reality, there aren't THAT many race switchers. I can't think of any known SC players who have switched over to Terran, but still they keep winning everything.
|
The upcoming patch is a joke. A JOKE. Zerg needs more toys, more viable strats. They could use another spell caster. Or a speed upgrade for Hydras.
None of those would make the game imbalanced.
|
On September 02 2010 08:20 Gigaudas wrote:
The upcoming patch is a joke. A JOKE. Zerg needs more toys, more viable strats. They could use another spell caster. Or a speed upgrade for Hydras.
None of those would make the game imbalanced.
Or they just need to learn how to play. (dont ban me)
|
I don't know how anyone can read this as anything but evidence that Terran is OP. Automatic match making keeps everyone at around %50 win ratio everywhere but the very top. The only way to tell balance with AMM around is by looking at the very top, and that's what this graph does. Terran is way overrepresented at the top, hence it is OP.
And I can't agree with people saying that the graph only shows imbalance at the top so it's fine everywhere. As has been said many times the top is the only place it *can* be showed with AMM in the mix. And it's there.
And for all the zerg players lower in diamond, this graph doesn't show that it's balanced for them at their level. They might be at a higher level (increasing their representation on the right side of tthe graph) if they weren't underpowered. Same for zerg in silver. They are getting %50 wins thanks to AMM but some of the higher ones might be in gold if it were more balanced.
With an even distribution of skill this isn't going to show until you look at the very top. This graph does, and the result is there plain as day.
|
Not quite. He means that there are so few players at the highest point levels that you can't use that information reliably.
But why not?
If being a top end player means you have the top ends points, you are taking into consideration 100% of the top end population. Sample size is irrelevant. for example if the average top player (major tournament caliber) player has 1400+ points, then by taking into account that group you have looked at 100% of the top player population.
people saying it should balance for all levels of play dont understand that its like saying the rules/balance of a sport at the professional level should take into consideration the weekend warrior who goes to play football on sundays.
edit: misquote
|
being a 1100+ zerg player this makes me sad in the pants. Honestly these numbers do go to show that a trend is emerging among top level players... This isn't really big news though. The longer a patch isn't out the more those numbers will grow for terran and decrease for zerg and slightly for toss.
|
if you include 1600+
then Protoss is the highest, with 3 protoss, 2 terran and 1 zerg being in the 1600's.
also note, the top 5 go zerg protoss terran protoss protoss terran, so i really dont think theres any imbalance other than how you can go semifast reaper and only be 1-2 scv's behind your opponent and have an awesome, often endgaming tool to harrass with. which is getting nerfed soon. so quit whining everyone terran is not OP.
|
On September 02 2010 08:08 Doomrok wrote:Terran is perfectly balanced, I mean, look at my Terran vs Zerg win rate! http://www.danrok.com/stats/ r r:r
Always said that the best way to evaluate balance is to look at the win rates of the different matchups of the random players. Removes the "the terrans are simply better players" argument.
Any idea how to get this kind of data for all randoms on b.net?
|
On September 02 2010 08:01 Backpack wrote:
Popularity does not equal strength.
The fact that people have this *idea* that terran might be OP and that zerg might suck will make them play terran more. You see terran all the time at high levels simply because there are more terran than zerg. The more people cry "terran OP," the more people will switch over to it.
The top players are there because they are the best players. Not because of their race. The reason there are so many terrans at the top is because there are so many terrans overall.
If this was true, then wouldn't you expect more Terran at every level, rather than steadily increasing amounts of Terran up to the very top? Or are you saying that the better the player, the chances that he just happens to enjoy Terran more increases?
Yes, there are lurking variables, for things like people-sticking-to-the-campaign-race or as you mentioned switching-to-Terran-out-of-fear. However, I wouldn't expect those variables to have such a large effect, and again, it would be even per level of Diamond, not steadily increasing.
I think Terran is simply easier to play, and because this is a game that requires a great deal of concentration/apm/macro/micro, a race that's easier will also be better, and thus imbalanced.
On September 02 2010 08:14 blacktoss wrote:
ITT: 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.
"Terran players make up a disproportionate amount of 1300+ Diamond ladder players in a way that can't be attributed to random chance." - Fact? You can't readily see this from the data. You must use something like a chi-square test to determine the confidence you can attach to this statement. I think it would be a good thing if someone did this with the raw data. Preferably someone with a more sophisticated background than one year of college statistics (moi).
"Terran players make up a disproportionate amount of 1300+ Diamond ladder players and it is because Terran is imbalanced." Fact??? This would be very hard to determine conclusively, and you can't even ascribe a confidence to this claim with the data available. However, under reasonable assumptions, it is a reasonable claim.
Other claims, like "Terran is more prevalent in higher leagues because more people play it because of the campaign" are more readily testable, but require sampling of campaign play data with respect to skill level.
Thank you for this post.
P.S. to any zerg players out there, this might be amusing... I'm a bronze leaguer, and at my level of play, Terran suck!!! Ever since I switched my main to Zerg, I've beat every Terran I've met
|
Just shows that on the very top , terran > toss and zerg. And people saying its just more terran players thats why they are more on top... Then why is it suddently increasing so much after 1100 points?
That cant be because the best players all play terran...
I saw game between madfrog(z) and fuzer(t) today on go4sc2. Fuzer went banshee harass that failed first time. Madfrog had allmost won the game right there, but fuzer got planetery fortress expand with few towers around that was impossible to break without heavy loss. From there he got couple cloaked banshee into the widly spread expos of madfrog, and killed 30+ drones. Then a massed thor+hellion army destroyed the ultra/ling/muta army of madfrog, not even close.
This was on fuzers stream it it looked like he had like 70 apm, and wasnt even macroing, letting his energy on orbital command get to 100 etc.
Couple games later fuzer meets morrow, and morrow makes him look like a total newbie.
Another example was a terran that made it to the quarter finals in todays go4sc2. He went all in every game with mass reaper into reaper/marauder and sent all his scv, EVERY single game. That got him to the quarter finals...
These people who cant see that terran are very very strong now, from all the evidence provided in numberous of threads are the bad terran players, who still get raped.
|
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
thats like saying that oil CEO's are not really wealthy because sample size is too small.
|
Dominican Republic463 Posts
You guys still dont get that theres no sample, its stats from the whole population? Stop saying sample size. ITT Terrans coming to the rescue to deny their race is OP, they've been shown stats, analysis, everything. but nope, we just still need to l2p!
|
On September 02 2010 08:01 Backpack wrote:
Popularity does not equal strength.
The fact that people have this *idea* that terran might be OP and that zerg might suck will make them play terran more. You see terran all the time at high levels simply because there are more terran than zerg. The more people cry "terran OP," the more people will switch over to it.
The top players are there because they are the best players. Not because of their race. The reason there are so many terrans at the top is because there are so many terrans overall.
Actually only 30% of diamond players are Terran, the most popular race for diamond players is Protoss with 35%. Zerg is at 24% and Random is at 10%.
Source: http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
