Let me quickly apologize for my poor english in advance. I do not live in an english talking country and never found the motivation to learn the language well.
Lately I've been wanting to get certain questions answered. I've tried to on my own but been unsuccesful at answering them with anything but "imbalance". I write here in hopes of expanding on my insight in the game by having people with superior knowledge englightening me. I want to point out that this is not a crytopic, but a topic in which I make a series of observations and ask myself a logical question.
Firstly, I want to point out that I'm taking a mathematical approach to my question. This is not based on personal experinces but on observations and statistics.
The only available source to do statistic on at this moment is www.sc2ranks.com. The site updates the ladder standings constantly.
I decided to base my statistics on the most skilled players as the gap between the level of play by these players and what can be described as optimal play is the smallest.
With the newly introduced Grand Master League, it seems logical to base my statistics solely on grandmaster players. This should ensure a reasonable high avarage skilllevel
Top 10; 7 terrans, 2 zergs, 1 protoss Top 20; 12 terrans, 4 zergs, 4 protoss Top 30; 18 terrans, 6 zergs, 5 protoss, 1 random
For the point rankings, terran is taking; 70% of top 10 60% of top 20 46.66% of top 30
For the win% rankings, terran is taking 70% of top 10 65% of top 20 56.66% of top 30
My first hypothesis was that more people were playing terran in GM league. That would be a logical explanation, as there will naturally be a clear correlation between the amount of players playing each individual race and the percentages of each individual race in the top rankings. However, is this not the case. Here is the race distribution by league graph taken from sc2ranks.com:
There currently is 1638 players listed in GM. The distribution is: 2.6% random 38% protoss 30.3% terran 29% zerg
For those 1638 players, the avarage win% are: Random: 52% Protoss: 56.6% Terran: 57.8% Zerg: 56.3%
For those 1638 players, the avarage amount of points is: Random: 249 Protoss: 325 Terran: 353 Zerg: 335
Looking at the same distributions of only top 100 players in GM we now have; 1 random 33 protoss 41 terrans 26 zergs (You might recognize these numbers from before)
For those 100 players, the avarage win% is: Random; 74.1% Protoss; 66.6% Terran; 68.8% Zerg; 66.5%
For those 100 players, the avarage amount of points is: Random: 657 Protoss: 661 Terran: 683 Zerg: 668
As you can see, terran is once again dominant in every area.
Based on the above statistics, I feel safe to make the conclusion that terran is dominating the top of GM League in every way I could think of (if you have alternative angles to observe from, let me know). I want to point out that this is not a topic about balance/imbalance. I am looking at the statistics with objective eyes in hopes of finding an ALTERNATIVE answer to that.
Why does terran crush the top ladder?
EDIT: Replaced what should have been images with links. If anyone can tell me how to post pictures it would be nice.
they are the most resilient race to random strategies / attack timings?
Does this apply specifically to ladder games? In that case, how does the ladder map differ from those being used in tournaments like TSL, GSL, Dreamhack, NASL etc?
On April 26 2011 02:02 Shaetan wrote: You can't claim to do statistical analysis then just throw out numbers and claim that X is true, you have to do the analysis.
Can you examplify? I thought I did a decent job at showig a trend based on every aspect of the top of the ladder I could think of. I even specifically pointed out that I'd gladly look into more if anyone got ideas.
Well, from a Protoss perspective, if you are in GM and you get a lot of PvP matches in one day, it seems you could really either skew your score or drop in points dramatically because the matchup is very volatile (coinflip BO loss people tend to say).
To be a top player you have to be dominant in every matchup, not just 2/3, and since PvP isn't figured out yet, top players might still go 50/50 in that matchup, whereas a Terran player can be really strong in their mirror and can win them most of the time? It seems that the Terran mirror is the best mirror because of the differing ways it can be played and still won.
On April 26 2011 02:04 JJH777 wrote: Nestea said this: Terran you can be good after only playing a little, protoss you have to work hard but once you do you are unbeatable race, zerg sad.
I think that fits those statistics decently.
I believe you are referring to this interview by Artosis;
As much as I like the quote, it does not have much relevance as I'm specifically seaching for alternative aswers to "imbalance".
On April 26 2011 02:04 JJH777 wrote: Nestea said this: Terran you can be good after only playing a little, protoss you have to work hard but once you do you are unbeatable race, zerg sad.
I think that fits those statistics decently.
Prob true, you would think that for a race "so op" that there would be more pro players tearing it up, but no, the only people at the top right now are people who have been playing this race since the dawn of time. Too much stuff to learn to play it well.
On April 26 2011 02:06 tehemperorer wrote: Well, from a Protoss perspective, if you are in GM and you get a lot of PvP matches in one day, it seems you could really either skew your score or drop in points dramatically because the matchup is very volatile (coinflip BO loss people tend to say).
To be a top player you have to be dominant in every matchup, not just 2/3, and since PvP isn't figured out yet, top players might still go 50/50 in that matchup, whereas a Terran player can be really strong in their mirror and can win them most of the time? It seems that the Terran mirror is the best mirror because of the differing ways it can be played and still won.
In other words you're stating that for any given TvX matchup, the terran player will be much more likely to win asuming slightly superior skilllevel than what would be the case for PvX and ZvX matchups? Can you elaborate on this?
On April 26 2011 02:08 lilky wrote: So basically... Races in order of most played to least played: Protoss, Terran, Zerg
Races in the Top (Insert any number here) in order of most to least: Terran, Zerg, Protoss
TLDR: Protoss is underpowered.. WHAT?!?!?!!?!?!?
Correct, that's my overall conclusion based on the observations I made and I'm open for expanding on those observations if anyone thinks I'm being biased.
they are the most resilient race to random strategies / attack timings?
Does this apply specifically to ladder games? In that case, how does the ladder map differ from those being used in tournaments like TSL, GSL, Dreamhack, NASL etc?
Well yea these would apply mostly to ladder games. MVP said that terran was the weakest race in GSL maps because of the large rush distances and lack of early game aggression which is where the terran race excels at.
On April 26 2011 02:06 tehemperorer wrote: Well, from a Protoss perspective, if you are in GM and you get a lot of PvP matches in one day, it seems you could really either skew your score or drop in points dramatically because the matchup is very volatile (coinflip BO loss people tend to say).
To be a top player you have to be dominant in every matchup, not just 2/3, and since PvP isn't figured out yet, top players might still go 50/50 in that matchup, whereas a Terran player can be really strong in their mirror and can win them most of the time? It seems that the Terran mirror is the best mirror because of the differing ways it can be played and still won.
QFT. I think this explains a lot towards terran being ahead in terms of all races, since it has the most explored and least volatile mirror matchup. In TvT, moreso than any other mirror, the better player tends to win.
In tournaments you usually have a bo3 or bo5 format, whereas on the ladder almost all games are bo1 with minimal metagame or knowledge of your opponent. A terran may excel in a bo1 format (for whatever reason), whereas a protoss or zerg may be stronger in a bo1 < bo[x] format?
On April 26 2011 02:00 buldermar wrote: Firstly, I want to point out that I'm taking a mathematical approach to my question.
(...)
Based on the above statistics, I feel safe to make the conclusion that terran is dominating the top of GM League in every way I could think of.
If you really want to take a mathematical approach, you should work out some p-values before coming with a conclusion, or nobody will take you seriously.
On April 26 2011 02:02 Shaetan wrote: You can't claim to do statistical analysis then just throw out numbers and claim that X is true, you have to do the analysis.
Can you examplify? I thought I did a decent job at showig a trend based on every aspect of the top of the ladder I could think of. I even specifically pointed out that I'd gladly look into more if anyone got ideas.
You need to show that the difference you see is statistically significant and not just due to chance. You said yourself when looking at a sample size of ~1600 win rates were much more even so it's possible decreasing your sample size artificially created the disparity. Also not sure why you wouldn't look at the full 200 or at least all GM league top 100.
EPT
