|
It means that at the highest level of play, there are more terrans than all other races combined.
If you are looking at the whole population, for instance, let's say that population is "Highest level of play", then there is no need to speak of sample size... you're looking at the whole population, there is no estimate.
Is this totally indicative that there is imbalance? No. But it supports that idea.
- If many experts are saying terran is imba, it again supports it.
- If blizzard says terran is imba and will tweak in 1.1, it again supports it.
- If experts in other races do not refute that terran is imba, it again supports it.
So, saying that at the top level of competitive play, terran is imbalanced is supported by:
- Data above.
- Experts opinion (Idra, Sheth, Morrow, etc. etc.).
- Designers opinion (Blizzard Patch 1.1 status update).
Whether it's true or not, I'm not really vested in or against... as I dont play starcraft 2, but these three sources all point toward the same idea and that gives the idea weight.
|
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.
You would think people would realize this. It makes me cringe when they cry about sample size when ITS THE ENTIRE POPULATION.
|
I hate graphs. People always misread them and use them to prove their ideas when they really have no idea how to read said graph.
|
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.
|
Lol at the misinformed "sample size" people. What matters is the TREND. Look at the trend: as we increase in points in the diamond league, the number of Zerg players dwindle and the number of Terran players increase.
|
For those who think the Korean server is different.... (sry no pretty graph)
901-1000: 73z/112t/109p
1001-1100: 39/66/68
1101-1200: 19/30/40
1201-1300: 8/23/14
1301-1400: 9/11/12
1401+ : 4/9/2
|
this is highly misleading, as there are only very few people who are in 1500 region, its unfair to do a % comparison. It can vary quite drastically, which is shown in your graphs. This applies to 1200 and up. There are simply too few players to do a % comparison.
|
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.
We have a winner. Someone who actually knows the most basic stats calculations while other people ramble on about "sample sizes".
|
On September 02 2010 08:35 biology]major wrote:
this is highly misleading, as there are only very few people who are in 1500 region, its unfair to do a % comparison. It can vary quite drastically, which is shown in your graphs. This applies to 1200 and up. There are simply too few players to do a % comparison.
There are 360 people in the world 1200 and up. This is plenty to do statistical analysis. See my post above.
|
On September 02 2010 08:32 Wr3k 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. You would think people would realize this. It makes me cringe when they cry about sample size when ITS THE ENTIRE POPULATION.
so lets say im inventing a new pill to cure something, and i test it on a handful of ppl, lets say 5.. then those 5 ppl i gave my pill to make up the whole "population" the pill was ever tested on. so lets say the test showed no adverse reaction for any of the 5 ppl. given that information, would u like to go ahead and try my new pill?
btw: t is slightly imbalanced. they are going to fix it.
|
Maybe a suggestion, can we have numbers instead of percentages? Then less people will be complaining about how small the "sample" is....and by sample, i mean complete, raw, data.
|
On September 02 2010 08:32 Alou wrote:
I hate graphs. People always misread them and use them to prove their ideas when they really have no idea how to read said graph.
The problem is, people on the internet will attempt to use ANYTHING to prove their ideas, and will attempt to disprove ANYTHING that denies their ideas. As this thread is an obvious example of. People refuse to be scientific and accept statistical evidence, and instead fight to the death for whatever they WANT to be correct.
|
so lets say im inventing a new pill to cure something, and i test it on a handful of ppl, lets say 5.. then those 5 ppl i gave my pill to make up the whole "population" the pill was ever tested on. so lets say the test showed no adverse reaction for any of the 5 ppl. given that information, would u like to go ahead and try my new pill?
btw: t is slightly imbalanced. they are going to fix it.
And those five people would be the "sample". Here the people above 1200 are not the sample, they are the entire population of people above 1200.
|
Run a chi square first to see if this is disproportionate. I really don't have much time... but if I could get this data I could run it:
% of Tarran at x points and above (maybe 1000?)
% of Tarran for the whole population
I can deduce from that what the % is for the rest. A chi square would tell you how likely this distribution would occur randomly in the population, and something tells me the top has a disproportionate amount.
If the chi square determines it to be less than an alpha of 5% (there is less than a 5% chance of this distribution to occur), then we can concur that there is a real imbalance. What attributes to this imbalance is not given by the test. It would just say one exists.
Now, the common response would be "but everyone still has close to a 5% win rate!". This is true and this is actually what would cause this. The match making system places you in the spot where you are most likely to get a 50% win rate. If you do better, then you are placed higher. If the Tarrans doing better, the system would just place them higher so they would still have a 50% win rate. The end result would be Tarrans being over represented in the higher end of the population.
Remember, this takes into account that Protoss and Zerg are not played as much. This asked the question "are these two the same population?", meaning, do Tarrans make up the same percent at the top as they do for the rest taking into account random variance. Therefore, any argument from "oh, but less play Zerg and Protoss" does not even matter because this measures the difference between the amount of players (in percent) between the populations, not the amount itself.
Just get me the data, PM me when it's here, and I'll run the test. Someone else can do it with me to double check.
|
Hmmm really makes you think. I wonder whats going to happen after patch 1.1, will the reaper and tank nerf really make a difference?
Hopefully more zerg throughout the diamond league by the end of September.
|
On September 02 2010 08:39 StarDrive wrote:Show nested quote +
so lets say im inventing a new pill to cure something, and i test it on a handful of ppl, lets say 5.. then those 5 ppl i gave my pill to make up the whole "population" the pill was ever tested on. so lets say the test showed no adverse reaction for any of the 5 ppl. given that information, would u like to go ahead and try my new pill?
btw: t is slightly imbalanced. they are going to fix it.
And those five people would be the "sample". Here the people above 1200 are not the sample, they are the entire population of people above 1200.
exactly. This data is like giving the pill to everyone in the world, not just those 5 people...and the graph shows the result.
*edit/suggestion: OP, at the top of the post, state in all caps (I'll do this for you): THE DATA COLLECTED CONTAINS ALL DIAMOND PLAYERS WITH >600 POINTS.
|
On September 02 2010 08:38 GoBackToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 08:32 Wr3k wrote: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. You would think people would realize this. It makes me cringe when they cry about sample size when ITS THE ENTIRE POPULATION. so lets say im inventing a new pill to cure something, and i test it on a handful of ppl, lets say 5.. then those 5 ppl i gave my pill to make up the whole "population" the pill was ever tested on. so lets say the test showed no adverse reaction for any of the 5 ppl. given that information, would u like to go ahead and try my new pill? btw: t is slightly imbalanced. they are going to fix it.
I don't know if you actually read all the text on the graph before you typed this post, but you should have.
The numbers represent ALL >600 Diamond players across ALL realms. There are no other people to include in the graph. There's no more diamond players because the graph already accounts for ALL of them >600.
|
On September 02 2010 08:27 arthur wrote:
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.
exactly, don't know why no one noted that. the OP is withholding info to make it look like a trend.
|
On September 02 2010 08:21 MamiyaOtaru wrote:
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.
Mhm, i read that thread about why everyone HAS to be around 50% win ratio because of match making, but no one could explain me, why all races also have nearly the same average points. Maybe you can, i would like to hear your reasoning.
Also i want to point out, that the op coincidentally forgot to include the 1600+ column:
Protoss: 40%
Terran: 40%
Zerg: 20%
Oh, and there are 52 players between 1400 and 1600 (someone asked). And everyone talking about chi square and stuff is wrong, you cant do this kind of calculations for pure statistics like this, because we only have one measurement. You need more than one. What we could do is compare the different regions and calculate a chi square, standard derivation or whatever you want, but then you would have an answer to a different question (are the regions equal or not).
What we would need are those statistics for different point of times. Then we were at least able to say if terran has a significant dominance over time.
|
On September 02 2010 08:44 TitleRug wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 08:27 arthur wrote:
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. exactly, don't know why no one noted that. the OP is withholding info to make it look like a trend.
Because if the group only 5 people in it, if you run it through some basic test for statistical significance it would not show anything due to extremely high variance.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
