|
On January 19 2011 09:38 Toxigen wrote:
I doubt this is the case. Zerg is comparatively unpopular (EDIT: though not on TL.net...).
Nor is it on the EU server!
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=184091
Terran is about as popular as Zerg at the highest division! If you assume people who enter tournaments are:
a) Statistically representative of the Masters Division
b) No more or less likely to enter a tournament given their race
then your explanation just can't hold.
Of course, I don't know the NA or Korean numbers. Maybe nobody there plays Zerg...
|
On January 19 2011 09:29 haffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:15 Exxo wrote:On January 19 2011 09:06 haffy wrote:On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world. Yeah well done. When presented with a larger number of statistics you chose to use a smaller sample to discredit them. When using numbers you always use the larger sample size because it is less likely to be effected by variance. Also I play Zerg and I don't think they're UP. But I think your arguement is pretty badly flawed. Right, cause if there's an exception to a rule we should just completely ignore it, right? That's a great way to gather statistics. We see a trend, and ignore all the results that don't follow the trend. Your argument (yes, it's spelled that way, "A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T"), is pretty badly flawed as well. Fact is, they're different. Until all the races are exactly the same, you won't see 33.3/33.3/33.3 numbers. How about this; have you looked into how many players played in the competition? If only 5 zergs entered each tournament, it's no wonder there were so few winners. You're extending your theory too far. I play Toss, and I'll admit, the fundamentals for zerg aren't easy. Creep Spread, Larva Inject, Expanding, etc. It may be the most difficult race to play, which means there's a skill gap between pros and Code B and below. 2 Zergs won GSLs because they mastered the race (at that time), and played great with the understanding of a master. It isn't conclusive either way. Rather than produce a theory out of the results, just post the results and let the community formulate their own theories. Why are you trying to argue with me over balance? I already said in my post I don't think it's unfair. I said your argument was flawed. And thanks for taking such an effort to correct my spelling I guess. Yes there is exceptions to rules. Like one player could just be better and could win with any race he wanted. But since we don't have all day to list every single variable I think it's simpler to look at statistics the way they were meant to. Not taking one specific example and using them to form a biased arugment. Or if you want I can just state that Terran havn't won a GSL yet so obviously Terran need some serious buffs.
No, you can't state that. That doesn't even make sense. Because the better players choose to play other races, doesn't make it "bad", or "imbalanced". Popularity =/= balance. You're right, we don't have all day to list every single variable, but that doesn't mean you can ignore data when it's presented.
|
On January 19 2011 09:44 Exxo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:29 haffy wrote:On January 19 2011 09:15 Exxo wrote:On January 19 2011 09:06 haffy wrote:On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world. Yeah well done. When presented with a larger number of statistics you chose to use a smaller sample to discredit them. When using numbers you always use the larger sample size because it is less likely to be effected by variance. Also I play Zerg and I don't think they're UP. But I think your arguement is pretty badly flawed. Right, cause if there's an exception to a rule we should just completely ignore it, right? That's a great way to gather statistics. We see a trend, and ignore all the results that don't follow the trend. Your argument (yes, it's spelled that way, "A-R-G-U-M-E-N-T"), is pretty badly flawed as well. Fact is, they're different. Until all the races are exactly the same, you won't see 33.3/33.3/33.3 numbers. How about this; have you looked into how many players played in the competition? If only 5 zergs entered each tournament, it's no wonder there were so few winners. You're extending your theory too far. I play Toss, and I'll admit, the fundamentals for zerg aren't easy. Creep Spread, Larva Inject, Expanding, etc. It may be the most difficult race to play, which means there's a skill gap between pros and Code B and below. 2 Zergs won GSLs because they mastered the race (at that time), and played great with the understanding of a master. It isn't conclusive either way. Rather than produce a theory out of the results, just post the results and let the community formulate their own theories. Why are you trying to argue with me over balance? I already said in my post I don't think it's unfair. I said your argument was flawed. And thanks for taking such an effort to correct my spelling I guess. Yes there is exceptions to rules. Like one player could just be better and could win with any race he wanted. But since we don't have all day to list every single variable I think it's simpler to look at statistics the way they were meant to. Not taking one specific example and using them to form a biased arugment. Or if you want I can just state that Terran havn't won a GSL yet so obviously Terran need some serious buffs. No, you can't state that. That doesn't even make sense. Because the better players choose to play other races, doesn't make it "bad", or "imbalanced". Popularity =/= balance. You're right, we don't have all day to list every single variable, but that doesn't mean you can ignore data when it's presented.
Right lets keep this simple because your keep talking about balance for some reason. I used Terran as an example because it is using the same logic a superstitious person would use. Which is the same thing you are doing.
For statistics to be accurate you need them to be clear what they're showing and a big sample size. The stats Blizzard have right now arn't the best because of patch changes. It needs to show a long length of time with a lot of games with no changes to be considered accurate.
Go on a poker forum and explain to them your a good player because you made a good profit in 10k hands. You'll just get laughed at.
|
Easy to conclude that for whatever reason, Zergs are both weaker and less plentiful right now. I'm sorry you went through all that trouble when you could have just asked.
|
On January 19 2011 09:42 Dragar wrote:
If you assume people who enter tournaments are:
a) Statistically representative of the Masters Division
b) No more or less likely to enter a tournament given their race
then your explanation just can't hold.
Yes, but the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the OP. He's the one presenting evidence and I'm pointing out that it's lacking. We're only working off assumptions here and that's as good as hearsay (i.e., it's meaningless).
Unless he can provide the representation of Zergs in those tournaments and show, statistically, that number of Zerg winners are statistically divergent from what we would expect given the overall representation, then any discussion of these numbers is about as productive and conclusive as pissing into the wind. Sorry.
Note I say "winners," not "first-place finalists," because I still think that the first-place sample size might be a bit too small. Just look at the GSLs -- if you didn't consider runner-ups, you might take the conclusion that Terran underperforms in that tournament, thought that's clearly not the case.
EDIT: Fixed like 5 comma splices.
|
While we're at it, why not mention the fact that ~1/3 of the master league players are zerg even though only 1/5 players on the BNet servers are Zerg.
So a Zerg player is 5/3~ 2 * more likely to become excellent compared to Protoss and Terran, kind of absolutely destroys the so-called fact that Zerg has the highest skill ceiling.
|
On January 19 2011 09:35 Toxigen wrote:
I don't understand how this is possible.
85 tournaments... 54 terrans, 39 protoss, 7 zergs...
54+39+7=100, not 85...
Am I missing something here?
Either way, it doesn't change the percentages a lot. For this to be more significant, you'd need the proportion of all the progamers in the tournaments as well. Who's to say that Zerg weren't the minority in overall representation (and therefore the 7% would be more normal than if 1/3rd of the players were Zerg)?
Just sayin'.
lol thanks for catching that. I accidentally subtracted the 54 and 7 from 100 instead of from 85, and that's why the numbers are off. After making th proper subtraction and also subtracting the two random winners, we have 22 protoss wins. The OP has been updated.
|
How long ago was the 85th tournament? The results are pointless if some of them are before patch 1.1 or the removal of Kulas Ravine.
Less people play Zerg because a)they are icky while Terrans are human and Protoss have lasors and invisible snipers and b)since the beta Zergs have whined and whined and whined and whined about how UP they are, so who wants to play a "UP" race even if the complaints are untrue?
|
On January 19 2011 10:16 TeWy wrote:
While we're at it, why not mention the fact that ~1/3 of the master league players are zerg even though only 1/5 players on the BNet servers are Zerg.
So a Zerg player is 5/3~ 2 * more likely to become excellent compared to Protoss and Terran, kind of absolutely destroys the so-called fact that Zerg has the highest skill ceiling.
Actually it reinforces the theory... The weaker players would tend to avoid the more difficult race with the higher skill ceiling, and the stronger players who can recognize some of the advantages of a higher skill ceiling will choose that race, therefore skewing the masters league to have a higher percentage of Zerg's than the proportions would suggest. And because there are more weaker players than strong, that also explains why the total number of zerg's is smallest of the three races.
|
On January 19 2011 10:34 Geovu wrote:
How long ago was the 85th tournament? The results are pointless if some of them are before patch 1.1 or the removal of Kulas Ravine.
Less people play Zerg because a)they are icky while Terrans are human and Protoss have lasors and invisible snipers and b)since the beta Zergs have whined and whined and whined and whined about how UP they are, so who wants to play a "UP" race even if the complaints are untrue?
The 85th tournament took place on October 29, 2010.
Patch 1.1.0 went live on September 21, 2010.
|
On January 19 2011 09:06 haffy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:57 Silidons wrote:
but yet zerg has won 2 GSL's, which if you wanted to win any tournament, you would want to win that one.
sorry but zerg UP isn't going to work, GSL has the best players in the world. Yeah well done. When presented with a larger number of statistics you chose to use a smaller sample to discredit them. When using numbers you always use the larger sample size because it is less likely to be effected by variance. Also I play Zerg and I don't think they're UP. But I think your arguement is pretty badly flawed.
Because it doesn't matter how average joe schmoe beat another average joe schmoe. Players even in Ro64 GSL are NOT considered equal in ANY matter to the any or near top if not the top players in ANY other tournament. The statistics are not equal in weight, so they should not be represented together.
Please tell me who 75% of the players are on the link in the OP, because I have NEVER heard of them. WHY? Because they are not top tier players so it really doesn't matter.
|
It may have a lot to do with map pool. Winning as Zerg on DQ,JB,SoW, LT (against Terran), and Metalopolis close positions is tough. I don't think Zerg as a race is imbalanced, but I think many of the maps are unfair to Zerg. If the tournament scene gets away from blizzard maps or blizzard starts taking the bad ones out and putting in new ones (that aren't such an uphill battle for Zerg) I think the results will start to even out.
I think a reason Zerg players can perform well on the ladder and compete for top 200 spots is because they can veto 3 maps.
|
T gets further because they have 'safe' builds and are less likely to get knocked out by different forms of rushes. (mainly, assuming high skill level T is much more likely to get through BO1's)
As for the zerg stats/comments it's more my opinion that korean zergs are on a much higher level.
your data is a little skewed from the intl tlpd
|
How long ago was the 85th tournament? The results are pointless if some of them are before patch 1.1 or the removal of Kulas Ravine.
While this may not necessarily be relevant, it does remind me of the fact that diamond's race distribution used to look significantly different before the roach buff (Zerg never really broke above 24% representation in diamond). This might affect some of the other comments that appeal to the assumption that the distribution of tournament participants should mirror the current distribution of the master league. It's hard to really understand how significant this information is without considering the fact that these tournaments occurred over a long period of time, within which there have been large changes to race distribution in all leagues.
It's not as clear cut as people think.
Less people play Zerg because a)they are icky while Terrans are human and Protoss have lasors and invisible snipers and b)since the beta Zergs have whined and whined and whined and whined about how UP they are, so who wants to play a "UP" race even if the complaints are untrue?
Proof? That's what I thought. Let's try to keep the discussion about evidence and less about YOUR personal opinions about which race is "icky" and which race is "cool." Thanks.
|
There's a serious issue with looking at tournaments in general without considering both the map pool and the map system.
If zergs can veto certain maps, then (arguably) they have a better chance of success, but if you can't veto maps, and are forced to play even the unbalanced maps which heavily favour non-zerg races, then the outcome of a tournament could be significantly different.
Ignoring all the other things which also impact results.
|
New stats just mean TL scrubs are not as good as they think.
DEW LAWD Teh insult !
User was banned for this post.
|
On January 19 2011 10:12 Toxigen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:42 Dragar wrote:
If you assume people who enter tournaments are:
a) Statistically representative of the Masters Division
b) No more or less likely to enter a tournament given their race
then your explanation just can't hold. Yes, but the burden of proof isn't on me, it's on the OP. He's the one presenting evidence and I'm pointing out that it's lacking. We're only working off assumptions here and that's as good as hearsay (i.e., it's meaningless).
This burden of proof notion is daft. I don't know who came up with it.
We're not working off assumptions any more than usual, and nobody throws out everyday reasoning simply because we don't know everything. Whatever the reason, there's clearly something different happening with Zerg to the other two races, and that alone is interesting.
Unless he can provide the representation of Zergs in those tournaments and show, statistically, that number of Zerg winners are statistically divergent from what we would expect given the overall representation, then any discussion of these numbers is about as productive and conclusive as pissing into the wind. Sorry.
I'd be quite surprised if it differed much from the masters division distributions; the real issue is that I suspect this varies geographically quite considerably.
Note I say "winners," not "first-place finalists," because I still think that the first-place sample size might be a bit too small. Just look at the GSLs -- if you didn't consider runner-ups, you might take the conclusion that Terran underperforms in that tournament, thought that's clearly not the case.
The nice part about statistics is you can work out your errors. GSL first place finalists is a very small sample size, and you'd be an idiot to conclude anything from that sample beyond it's consistent with...well, everything. Winners of 100 tournaments starts to be quite a decent sample, certainly large enough to pick up glaring trends. Top four would increase the sample size even more, nothing wrong with that - though you might expect any effect to be less pronounced if you include too much. You're reducing both signal and noise...
Personally I would like to see Blizzard release some more of their win percentages, but only including data since the patch where reapers got nerfed and roach range got buffed.
|
Zerg is played less than the other races, it's obvious that they're going to have less winnings in tournaments than the other races. If Zerg was played less and they still won 1/3 of the time, they'd be horrendously overpowered.
And no, that has nothing to do with balance - even when Zerg was God-mode in beta with 1pop armored roaches, Zerg was still the least played race.
|
Zerg gained huge popularity because they are the underdog race. Everyone always likes being the underdog.
|
Is it true zerg is played less than other races?
You can look for yourself at Sc2 ranks, on their stats page.
EU and NA has similar numbers of diamond and master league Zergs and Terrans. There are actually marginally more Z than T in master league!
Korea has about 10% more Terrans than Zergs at the top leagues, and zerg seems less popular overall in all leagues, compared to NA and EU.
At platinum level, zerg numbers plummet in all regions, compared to the other two races.
So, in NA and EU, it looks like Terran and Zerg are played in similar amounts by anyone who puts the time in to learn enough about the game to get into diamond.
Korea is another story. But the claim that Zerg is played less than Terran and Protoss is, in America and EU, false, and barely true at a global level (there are many more NA and EU players than Koreans, as Korea is quite a small country rather than half a continent).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
