| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
But the claim that Zerg is played less than Terran and Protoss is, in America and EU, false http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all What are you talking about? Zerg is the least-played in every single league. What I said was 100% correct. I don't care to argue how much less it is or in what region or what league or blah blah blah. What I said wasn't false. | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:09 iEchoic wrote: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all What are you talking about? Zerg is the least-played in every single league. What I said was 100% correct. I don't care to argue how much less it is or in what region or what league or blah blah blah. What I said wasn't false. Take a look at Master's league, where this distribution matters. You will see that the zerg numbers are only slightly behind the other races. If that is the case, and the game is balanced, we'd expect that zerg tourney winners would only be slightly under the 1/3 ratio, which is not the case. Clearly, there is no lack of 'skilled' players playing zerg, yet there is a lack of those who are succeeding. How could anyone deduce anything but imbalance from these statistics is unconvincing to any neutral observer in the very least. | ||
|
Cambam
United States360 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Quick recap: you feel cognitive dissonance when new information isn't consistent with your current worldview or self-view. You don't like to feel dissonance so you try to either change your view or ignore the new information. In this case: Terran and Protoss players think they're good and deserve all their wins against zerg. These data cast doubt on that view. This makes T and P players feel dissonance. A few might admit that zerg is UP, but most will ignore the data and just think "Man, Zerg sure QQ a lot." | ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:09 iEchoic wrote: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all What are you talking about? Zerg is the least-played in every single league. What I said was 100% correct. I don't care to argue how much less it is or in what region or what league or blah blah blah. What I said wasn't false. I'm sorry; by played I meant 'played competently'. You're right that if you just add up everyone without a care, zerg aren't as popular. It's trivial to see that's not relevent though, and I figured you saw that obviously wasn't important as well. And even on a global level, in the top leagues there's hardly a difference. Very close to 30%. | ||
|
Cambam
United States360 Posts
Overall winrate = 59.2% *vZ winrate = 69.2% | ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
| ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
| ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:30 Dragar wrote: I'm sorry; by played I meant 'played competently'. You're right that if you just add up everyone without a care, zerg aren't as popular. I don't see how that's relevent though, and I figured you didn't think it important either. And even on a global level, in the top leagues there's hardly a difference. Very close to 30%. It shows that the ratio of zerg players who will enter master's league is higher than the ratio of players of other races who will enter master's league. In order to equal out the lower leagues you'd have to add enough zerg players that they'd be way over-represented in Master's. That's why the ratio of lower leagues is important as well. | ||
|
dogabutila
United States1437 Posts
Is it because zerg is more difficult to play that they decide not to play it? or because people inherently just like zerg less (because they are the badguys in the campaign maybe?) Who knows, the numbers can only tell you what (and only then sometimes.) They can never really tell you 'why' | ||
|
Galaxy77
Hong Kong256 Posts
| ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:44 iEchoic wrote: It shows that the ratio of zerg players who will enter master's league is higher than the ratio of players of other races who will enter master's league. In order to equal out the lower leagues you'd have to add enough zerg players that they'd be way over-represented in Master's. That's why the ratio of lower leagues is important as well. Could you explain that another way? I'm totally not following what you just said. The first sentence makes sense (and is true for diamond league as well) but the rest I don't understand at all. The only two reasons I can imagine the higher leagues having far more Z representation in the higher than the lower leagues, is that Zerg is grossly overpowered at diamond or higher skill levels, or that there are a lot more people who play Terran and Protoss in a very casual fashion, while if someone wants to play zerg, they'll play enough to learn (and at the higher skill levels, it's fairly balanced). We can test that last idea, not just assume it. The average number of games played by a zerg should be higher than the average Terran or Protoss, over all leagues. I wonder if SC2 ranks has that information? | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:54 Dragar wrote: Could you explain that another way? I'm totally not following what you just said. The first sentence makes sense (and is true for diamond league as well) but the rest I don't understand at all. The only two reasons I can imagine the higher leagues having far more Z representation in the higher than the lower leagues, is that Zerg is grossly overpowered at diamond or higher skill levels, or that there are a lot more people who play Terran and Protoss in a very casual fashion, while if someone wants to play zerg, they'll play enough to learn (and at the higher skill levels, it's fairly balanced). We can test that last idea, not just assume it. The average number of games played by a zerg should be higher than the average Terran or Protoss, over all leagues. I wonder if SC2 ranks has that information? a) Why do more zergs end up in master's league by percentage than other races? b) If the answer to your question relates to the skill level of the players playing those races (i.e. zerg players are more skilled), why can't you apply that same answer to results from tournaments (i.e., terran/protoss is more skilled)? Why does that answer only apply when Zerg does well? | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:44 iEchoic wrote: It shows that the ratio of zerg players who will enter master's league is higher than the ratio of players of other races who will enter master's league. In order to equal out the lower leagues you'd have to add enough zerg players that they'd be way over-represented in Master's. That's why the ratio of lower leagues is important as well. Why do you need to "equal out the ratio of players in the lower leagues"? Taking into account the race choices of bronze and silver league players, who are just learning the game, contributes nothing to why zerg isn't doing so well at the top level, in spite of the fact that there is no shortage of good players playing zerg at that level. Many players switch races when they are through with learning the game, and some players switch to zerg after they feel like they have a deeper understanding of the other races. The fact remains: 1. At Master's league racial representation are approximately equal, albeit slightly less for zerg. 2. Zerg wins significantly less than their racial representation in tournaments. 3. Adding in numbers from any league other than Masters only distort this data. It sounds like you are desperately trying to find ways to explain away these facts using tedious arguments that are not convincing at all. My question to you is: Why bother? | ||
|
iEchoic
United States1776 Posts
This is the essence of your argument: - When zerg does disproportionately well (Zerg players reach master at a higher ratio than other races, Zerg winning 2/3 GSLs), it is because the people playing Zerg have more skill - When zerg does disproportionately badly, it is because of imbalance, not because the T/P players have more skill It's a really annoying and common double-standard. | ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
On January 19 2011 09:06 haffy wrote: 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. That's naive logic, and not something an actual statistician would say. You use the larger sample size if both sources of data are of the same quality and relevance... if they aren't you have a legitimate debate over which to use, if any. | ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:59 iEchoic wrote: a) Why do more zergs end up in master's league by percentage than other races? b) If the answer to your question relates to the skill level of the players playing those races (i.e. zerg players are more skilled), why can't you apply that same answer to results from tournaments (i.e., terran/protoss is more skilled)? Why does that answer only apply when Zerg does well? I suspect it's because if someone plays Terran, they are more likely to play very few games. Same with Protoss. It's not that Terran's are generally better, it's just that there's a lot of people who don't compete at competent levels at all. These all appear in the platinum and lower levels of play. I'm going to try and compute the numbers to test this, based on the achivements panel. We could indeed apply the same to tournaments. It could just be that if someone plays Zerg, they are less likely to enter tournaments. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On January 19 2011 13:02 iEchoic wrote: ^^^ This is the essence of your argument: - When zerg does disproportionately well (Zerg players reach master at a higher ratio than other races, Zerg winning 2/3 GSLs), it is because the people playing Zerg have more skill - When zerg does disproportionately badly, it is because of imbalance, not because the T/P players have more skill It's a really annoying and common double-standard. its not like this is some theoretical situation watch the games from the 2 gsl's zergs won. fd was head and shoulders above all his opponents, still should have lost to top and still felt the need to allin inca. he was way better than everyone, he got a relatively easy draw, and he got lucky a number of times on top of it all. nestea got 2 zvz's in ro16 and 8, not a comment on balance, and then he held off a series of retarded cheeses from boxer and mk. and has since proven hes a really good player who has a special knack for holding off cheesy stuff. not only was he better than his opponents, he won games that werent very meaningful at all in terms of balance, poorly executed undeveloped cheeses. zerg has never done proportionately well on the whole, besides qualifications or season 3 where every z dropped out in the first 2 rounds anyway. its always been a very very few z's having success and you can watch the games, they quite clearly were more skilled than their competition. | ||
|
Dragar
United Kingdom971 Posts
| ||
|
dcberkeley
Canada844 Posts
On January 19 2011 12:22 Cambam wrote: Cognitive dissonance my friends. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance Quick recap: you feel cognitive dissonance when new information isn't consistent with your current worldview or self-view. You don't like to feel dissonance so you try to either change your view or ignore the new information. In this case: Terran and Protoss players think they're good and deserve all their wins against zerg. These data cast doubt on that view. This makes T and P players feel dissonance. A few might admit that zerg is UP, but most will ignore the data and just think "Man, Zerg sure QQ a lot." The irony in this post is delicious. | ||
|
5unrise
New Zealand646 Posts
On January 19 2011 13:02 iEchoic wrote: ^^^ This is the essence of your argument: - When zerg does disproportionately well (Zerg players reach master at a higher ratio than other races, Zerg winning 2/3 GSLs), it is because the people playing Zerg have more skill - When zerg does disproportionately badly, it is because of imbalance, not because the T/P players have more skill It's a really annoying and common double-standard. When zerg wins, I can guess all the possible candidate zergs on the five fingers of my left hand. Sen, IdrA, Dimaga, Ret, Haypro and that kind of concludes all reasonable possibilities on the foreign scene. The fact that so few carries the meagre chances of so many is why I believe they are just way more skilled than their opponents. Their history in bw also indicates that, with Ret IdrA and Sen being some of the most dominant foreigners in the sc1 scene for the last 2 years. When terran or protoss wins, it would often be very different players than the ones who had won before, or somebody who isn't considered as top-notch. You have a whole list of terran and toss winners whose names nobody has even seen before, and this is possible because they win so much more often. I'm not saying that they all win because of imbalance, because they can very well be legitimately good and better than the zergs they were facing. To say that they win so much more often because these players are just superior every time to their zerg opponents, when the win ratios are so lop-sided, however, is just ignorant. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
The PondCast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
WardiTV European League
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Classic vs Cure
FEL
OSC
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
