|
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 it is a trend. All those proportions, even the ones that are not 1300+ are statistically significant*. If you divided 1600+ out from 1500-1599, then that last group would not be conclusive either way. The others still would be.
*I have not done the math, but someone did in a previous post and got significance to a high degree of confidence for one aspect of the data.
|
1: If the discrepancy we see at the high end was just a factor of too small a data set then we would expect the graph to "jump around" a bit between each step. Instead we are seeing what appears to be a gradual shift which is highly uncharacteristic of a "too small" data set.
2: I'm absolutely not in a position to determine if one race is stronger than the others but if this was the case then this type of graph is exactly what you would expect to see. Let's say one race was buffed to be grossly OP, then in general the players of this race might end up with a rank a few hundred points above where they would otherwise be. So on average the players of this race would get "bumped up" the ladder. For most of the ladder you would not see a change at all since these players are all shifted upwards and so to speak taking each others places. The only place where it would be really noticable is at the top, since these players can't really get much higher they will accumulate and dominate the top of the ladder.
Again, I'm not saying there is an imbalance, that's for people far more knowledgeable than me to say, just that statistically this kind of graph is exactly what you would expect.
|
wow so much fail in the people posting about sample size holy cow
|
On September 02 2010 08:46 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Actually we have 52 measurements for players between 1400 and 1600. It is sound to do a chi-squared test of goodness of fit to assess the fit of the observed distribution to a theoretical distribution.
|
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.
So you're saying that if we included the 1600+ point region, that would nullify any trend that could be inferred from the graph? Sigh, please reevaluate your statement.
Here's a hint: a trend is the general movement or tendency to move in one direction. The trend wouldn't change if we added the 1600+ region.
|
Okay, I'm looking at various groupings of the Top Players in the world, and these are the stats (excluding random):
Top 5000 Players in the World - 33.57% (1687) Terran, 25.19% (1266) Zerg, 36.22% (1820) Protoss
Top 2500 - 36.38 (911) T, 23.80 (596) Z, 36.50 (914) P
Top 1000 - 39.80 (398) T, 21.30 (213) Z, 36.90 (369) P
Top 500 - 43.63 (219) T, 20.72 (104) Z, 34.06 (171) P
Top 250 - 51.20 (128) T, 18.80 (47) Z, 28.00 (70) P
Top 100 - 50.50 (51) T, 16.83 (17) Z, 29.70 (30) P
This is essentially the same information the graph shows (supports the same idea) just presented in a manner that the lesser-minded might understand.
Regardless of what the balance issue is at the moment, it is very obvious that Terran is dominating at the highest level, and only an idiot would try to dispute that.
Can we attribute these statistics to overall popularity of the race? Extremely doubtful, considering out of the ~65,000 players in Diamond (Global) Protoss is the most popular with 35%, while Terran is second at 31%. If there were a direct correlation between popularity and overall rank, Protoss should be at the very least tied with Terran at the higher levels, if not leading.
|
On September 02 2010 08:41 Flipluck wrote:
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.
Only in TvT 
I really dont think that the patch will make a huge difference. The bio ball will be unchanged, and a 5 sec later zealot will ruin the ZvP matchup, and maby even TvP. How will they defend a zergling rush on two player maps that are really hard to defend now. It will be standard to go 10 gate i suppose..
|
What I was trying to say is technically if the graph continued it would be at 1600-1700 40% and than at 2000-2100 0% while zerg is 100%
|
On September 02 2010 08:53 TitleRug wrote:
What I was trying to say is technically if the graph continued it would be at 1600-1700 40% and than at 2000-2100 0% while zerg is 100%
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlier
|
On September 02 2010 08:52 Pekkz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 08:41 Flipluck wrote:
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. Only in TvT I really dont think that the patch will make a huge difference. The bio ball will be unchanged, and a 5 sec later zealot will ruin the ZvP matchup, and maby even TvP. How will they defend a zergling rush on two player maps that are really hard to defend now. It will be standard to go 10 gate i suppose..
I'm kinda annoyed by this "omg I can't stop 6 pool anymore b/c of the 5 seconds" (sorry if you were refering to that, but there has been so many people QQ'ing about it). If you see a 6 pool, you WILL chrono your gate....so omg, your zealot will come out a second later...Really? (I want someone to elaborate more on this...)
|
On September 02 2010 08:53 TitleRug wrote:
What I was trying to say is technically if the graph continued it would be at 1600-1700 40% and than at 2000-2100 0% while zerg is 100%
You're trying to infer a trend based on one sample? Sigh.
|
On September 02 2010 08:48 StarDrive wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 08:46 Grummler wrote: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. Actually we have 52 measurements for players between 1400 and 1600. It is sound to do a chi-squared test of goodness of fit to assess the fit of the observed distribution to a theoretical distribution.
What did you measure then? Because if you measure the race distribution, its only one measurement. Sure its 52 players, but only one race distribution. Sure you could count them several times, but then you would have answers to different questions, like i already said.
I mean, srsly ( i made those numbers up):
Terran: 55%
Protoss: 25%
Zerg: 20%
whats the standard deriviation? chi sqare? If anyone can tell me, i would be pretty surprised (cause you cant)
Just in case: if someone calculates the average and its variance, i will ignore him.
It is sound to do a chi-squared test of goodness of fit to assess the fit of the observed distribution to a theoretical distribution.
Yeah. Someone would think you know what you are talking about, if he never heard about statistics. But i REALLY would like to see how you compare a fit of the observed starcraft 2 race distribution to a theoretical starcraft 2 race distribution. Never heared about one.
|
On September 02 2010 08:59 seiferoth10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 08:53 TitleRug wrote:
What I was trying to say is technically if the graph continued it would be at 1600-1700 40% and than at 2000-2100 0% while zerg is 100% You're trying to infer a trend based on one sample? Sigh.
edit: nvm, I read something incorrectly.
On September 02 2010 09:11 Antisocialmunky wrote:
I would be more interesting in win/loss statisics in each match for players in diamond. All this shows are general trends in race popularity at various points.
|
Alternative interpretation of the data: zerg is really boring to play. For the high level, Terran has a lot more options making it more fun for skilled players, thus the better someone is, the more likely they are to play Terran, and less likely to play zerg. Similarly, mildly skilled players will find protoss the funnest because they are fairly straightforward, easier to control (read: larger units = easier to click on), but still have a reasonable amount of variety.
Summary: Currently more skilled players are less likely to zerg as their race than any other race.
|
On September 02 2010 08:58 EliteAzn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 02 2010 08:52 Pekkz wrote:On September 02 2010 08:41 Flipluck wrote:
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. Only in TvT I really dont think that the patch will make a huge difference. The bio ball will be unchanged, and a 5 sec later zealot will ruin the ZvP matchup, and maby even TvP. How will they defend a zergling rush on two player maps that are really hard to defend now. It will be standard to go 10 gate i suppose.. I'm kinda annoyed by this "omg I can't stop 6 pool anymore b/c of the 5 seconds" (sorry if you were refering to that, but there has been so many people QQ'ing about it). If you see a 6 pool, you WILL chrono your gate....so omg, your zealot will come out a second later...Really? (I want someone to elaborate more on this...)
7-8 pool allready can be a bitch to deal on two player maps. Watch madfrog vs whitera game 3 from esl.
|
|
|
Grummler, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Also I like how you ninja edited your previous post. At first, you actually had measurements, and now you have only percentages, which are meaningless. Yes, good job. You still have no idea what you're talking about.
This data is exactly analagous to the following experiment:
I have a coin, I want to see if it is fair or not. I flip the coin 50 times and record the results. I get:
Heads : 35
Tails : 15
Can I make any inference about the fairness of the coin?
You say I can't. But obviously I can. I can test the hypothesis that the coin is fair. You are full of it. The exacty same reasoning tools can be applied to the data about racial distribution at the top level. Can I ask and get a statistical answer to the question "Are the racial disparities solely due to random chance?", yes.
|
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.
The problem with this analysis is an incorrect null hypothesis. Why should we be assuming that 1/3 of the people prefer terran? Yes that is the random chance amount. However there is no reason to assume that. Terrans do have a reputation right now as being the easier race to learn and win with so it also is logical to skew their percentage higher.
All this graph shows is that there are more terrans in the higher diamond point range. This could be due to imbalance of course. It could also be that terran is just easier to learn (which btw is not imbalance since it just means that a Z/P player has to play for longer and train more than a terran to hit a skill cap). Could be that more people just like terran.
It requires more research.
On September 02 2010 09:06 blacktoss wrote:
Grummler, you have no idea what you are talking about.
Also I like how you ninja edited your previous post. At first, you actually had measurements, and now you have only percentages, which are meaningless. Yes, good job. You still have no idea what you're talking about.
This data is exactly analagous to the following experiment:
I have a coin, I want to see if it is fair or not. I flip the coin 50 times and record the results. I get:
Heads : 35
Tails : 15
Can I make any inference about the fairness of the coin?
You say I can't. But obviously I can. I can test the hypothesis that the coin is fair. You are full of it. The exacty same reasoning tools can be applied to the data about racial distribution at the top level. Can I ask and get a statistical answer to the question "Are the racial disparities solely due to random chance?", yes.
^^ to this post. You can test it against random chance. But that does not allow you to make the conclusion that the disparity is due to racial imbalance. Obviously this is a possibility, and likely, but it doesn't prove anything.
|
1. If you win a lot, you are removed from the lower rankings and promoted to the higher rankings.
2. To be in the highest rankings, you must consistently win a lot.
3. In the highest ranking tiers, there are more terrans than all other three races combined
4. The percentages also differ greatly from all other ranking tiers and from the overall average in favor of terran.
So those tiered percentages not only represent a current state, but a development, a history.
There are only 2 explanations for the discrepancies:
a) the best players like playing terran a lot more than all other players
b) Playing terran gives you consistently more wins compared to the other races, especially at the highest level.
And it seems to be consensus, that everyone below 1000 points is more or less a casual player.
And it also should be noted that if the lower ranks have balanced winning percentages per race, it doesn't mean that much. Because those that benefit from imbalances quickly disappear from the lower ranks. The process of promotion and demotion enforces balanced outcomes in the lower ranks. The discrepancies are passed upwards, until there is no upwards anymore where it can be passed to, and there they start to accumulate.
|
On September 02 2010 08:51 ryanAnger wrote:
Okay, I'm looking at various groupings of the Top Players in the world, and these are the stats (excluding random):
Top 5000 Players in the World - 33.57% (1687) Terran, 25.19% (1266) Zerg, 36.22% (1820) Protoss
Top 2500 - 36.38 (911) T, 23.80 (596) Z, 36.50 (914) P
Top 1000 - 39.80 (398) T, 21.30 (213) Z, 36.90 (369) P
Top 500 - 43.63 (219) T, 20.72 (104) Z, 34.06 (171) P
Top 250 - 51.20 (128) T, 18.80 (47) Z, 28.00 (70) P
Top 100 - 50.50 (51) T, 16.83 (17) Z, 29.70 (30) P
This is essentially the same information the graph shows (supports the same idea) just presented in a manner that the lesser-minded might understand.
Regardless of what the balance issue is at the moment, it is very obvious that Terran is dominating at the highest level, and only an idiot would try to dispute that.
Can we attribute these statistics to overall popularity of the race? Extremely doubtful, considering out of the ~65,000 players in Diamond (Global) Protoss is the most popular with 35%, while Terran is second at 31%. If there were a direct correlation between popularity and overall rank, Protoss should be at the very least tied with Terran at the higher levels, if not leading.
Can you add the number of randoms to that please? Then I can run a statistical test on it. I want the actual number observed, or where would I find it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
