|
On April 26 2011 02:12 Cryllic wrote:
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.
This is true. Especially if some people try to imitate builds that they are going to play on the bigger GSL maps on the smaller ladder maps, it can be very easy to randomly lose games against Terran.
|
On April 26 2011 02:10 buldermar wrote:Show nested quote +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?
He's saying TvT more dynamic than other mirror matchups. Although I'd say ZvZ is similar. PvP is pigeonholed into 4gate.
But I'd say mirrors moreso than other matchups let the best player win since "imbalance" is nonsensical.
|
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.
That's how MC has above 90% win rate in PvP, right?. For sure it isn't 50/50, the best player will have the upper hand. A good player must be good in all matchups, and you can't say that PvP win is based on luck. Even then it's only 1/3 of all the matchups, even if it puts the win ratio closer to 50% it shouldn't affect as much as we see. Protoss from being the most played race, yet having the least players in top.
|
|
|
First, the sample size of [top10] or [top30] is not big enough that you would expect it to be equal in the absence of imbalance. Over a thousand players, you can safely assume that the distributions of skill and race choice are independent. However, with ten players it's not unreasonable that there are just more Terran players of high skill.
Additionally, this assumes that winning enough on ladder to get into the top ten is dependent only on skill and game balance, whereas I think that luck is also involved; it's easy to imagine a player whose skill is #3 losing a lot of points in a BO loss to a player whose skill is #150.
Honestly OP, I just don't think you have enough data to say anything here.
|
On April 26 2011 02:20 Apolo wrote:Show nested quote +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. That's how MC has above 90% win rate in PvP, right?. For sure it isn't 50/50, the best player will have the upper hand. A good player must be good in all matchups, and you can't say that PvP win is based on luck. Even then it's only 1/3 of all the matchups, even if it puts the win ratio closer to 50% it shouldn't affect as much as we see. Protoss from being the most played race, yet having the least players in top.
MC is an extraordinarily good player, and outlier one may say :D. PvP is still very volatile in say low masters vs. high masters or even above that.
|
On April 26 2011 02:00 buldermar wrote:As you already might notice, top 6 spots is being occupied by terran players. However, a larger samplesize is required to show trends: Top 10; 7 terrans, 2 zergs, 1 protoss Top 20; 12 terrans, 4 zergs, 3 protoss, 1 random Top 30; 14 terrans, 7 zergs, 8 protoss, 1 random Top 40; 16 terrans, 12 zergs, 11 protoss, 1 random Top 50; 23 terrans, 12 zergs, 14 protoss, 1 random Top 60; 27 terrans, 14 zergs, 18 protoss, 1 random Top 70; 31 terrans, 17 zergs, 21 protoss, 1 random Top 80; 34 terrans, 19 zergs, 26 protoss, 1 random Top 90; 37 terrans, 22 zergs, 30 protoss, 1 random Top 100; 41 terrans, 26 zergs, 33 protoss, 1 random http://img853.imageshack.us/i/ranksracestop100gm.png
So based on this graph, over the course of the top 10 through top 100 players it actually seems fairly linear to me, the ratio of terran to protoss to zerg players at the top is consistent through these intervals which doesn't seem to suggest imbalance at all but would rather suggest that there are just more terran players.
I'm not sure why you're reading "more terran at every level" as "imbalanced" when its a linear progression at a relatively consistent ratio for all races through the top 100...
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: http://img687.imageshack.us/i/racedistributionbyleagu.png
I don't like that you jump from "I'm going to only going to look at GM league because its the most accurate representation" to make your first point then switch straight to "looking at all the leagues to disprove a reasonable hypothesis".
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.
All the win %'s are very close. The average number of points is very close, 15 points isn't a lot and as you've already stated, a large amount of top 10 is terrans which would easily skew this.
In short I'm not sure how these numbers give you the impression that terran is dominating in every area, a 2% higher win ratio isn't statistically significant even across 1638 players and all in all this last set of data actually looks pretty even across the board to me.
|
On April 26 2011 02:24 strongandbig wrote:
First, the sample size of [top10] or [top30] is not big enough that you would expect it to be equal in the absence of imbalance. Over a thousand players, you can safely assume that the distributions of skill and race choice are independent. However, with ten players it's not unreasonable that there are just more Terran players of high skill.
Again, some genuine statistical analysis would quantify this for you. There's no need to go around guesstimating which sample sizes are big or small enough.
|
My opinion is that there are simply more pro terran players, nothing else and thus there are more of them in top 100. I mean just look at the EU ladder for GM league, there are like 15 terrans who are all top class players, and there is like only 4 top zerg players.
Honestly i can name like 20 terrans and like 10-15 protosses who are considered top players but only like 5-6 zergs outside Korea.
|
as a zerg player who likes to say x is op
ladder doesn't mean much.
|
I dont think the number of points is a good thing to analyze simply because the amount of points you get for a victory is somewhat undefined. Too much depends upon your opponents stats and the win-ratio is a much clearer stat which says more or less the same.
Generally I dont think any result of "more players of race X at the top" says anything about the state of the balance of the game. Even the top players chose their race a year ago and not many of them change race, so any of those who do change race will need some time to get to the top of the new race. Practice and experience keeps the same players at the top.
|
Can someone explain to me why there are 1638 players in GM? I wasn't even aware there were 8 servers total.
|
On April 26 2011 02:04 buldermar wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 02:02 udgnim wrote:Why does terran crush the top ladder? 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 the ladder people tend to do random weird stuff that they come up with themselves alot more than what happens in tournaments. Sure there are some things in tournaments such as foxers mass marine, thorzains thorbuild, guineapigs void ray collosus etc, but in ladder there are a bunch more random attack timings, and if you're playing a resilient race that's easier to defend with, you're gonna come out on top alot more often.
Also on the ladder you face new opponents every time, so a weird 15 minute proxy hatch (to make an example) can be very successful, whereas in a tournament bo5, you're simply not gonna win 3 games with the same cheesy (cheesy as in out right cheese, or just not solid) strategy.
TL;DR, Ladder = cheese, and terran's good at stopping cheese.
The same cheddar doesn't work in a bo5.
|
On April 26 2011 02:25 HardCorey wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 02:20 Apolo wrote: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. That's how MC has above 90% win rate in PvP, right?. For sure it isn't 50/50, the best player will have the upper hand. A good player must be good in all matchups, and you can't say that PvP win is based on luck. Even then it's only 1/3 of all the matchups, even if it puts the win ratio closer to 50% it shouldn't affect as much as we see. Protoss from being the most played race, yet having the least players in top. MC is an extraordinarily good player, and outlier one may say :D. PvP is still very volatile in say low masters vs. high masters or even above that.
MC's micro is on an entirely different level than pretty much every other Protoss out there. As a Protoss player, I think Terran dominance has a lot to do with both the stability of Terran in regards to cheese and in regards to a mirror.
A Terran can wall in, repair the wall in, and defend the wall easiest of the three races. All their units are ranged, SCV repair is extremely powerful and efficient, and they can remove the wall with no cost.I think being the closest to cheese proof is a huge boost given the nature of ladder and those that play in it.
ZvZ and PvP are hugely oriented toward the Early to Mid (rarely) game. And even if they get past T1, the timings are thrown way off compared to standard play. TvT is helped by the weakness of the Marine against bunkers/an early Siege tank. All in all, I don't think Terrans are necessarily OP or any race UP, but as the metagame is figured out atm, they are definitely the most stable and able to play a diverse style.
|
There currently is 1638 players listed in GM. The distribution is:
2.6% random
38% protoss
30.3% terran
29% zerg
being a protoss player myself, it's a little hard to ignore how many protoss actually made it in to GM. considering this is the top 200 cumulative for each region it feels like your statistics are biased to make terran seem worse than they are. however, this may be due to the simple fact that more people play protoss? as far as terran dominating the ladder, i think it is due to the relative safety they have. zerg players must scout like hell, protoss players must adapt their composition, terran players can do the same build over and over again vs either race with relative safety. things like salvageable bunkers add to this, as many good players will opt for them when they are not sure.
|
On April 26 2011 02:20 Apolo wrote:Show nested quote +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. That's how MC has above 90% win rate in PvP, right?. For sure it isn't 50/50, the best player will have the upper hand. A good player must be good in all matchups, and you can't say that PvP win is based on luck. Even then it's only 1/3 of all the matchups, even if it puts the win ratio closer to 50% it shouldn't affect as much as we see. Protoss from being the most played race, yet having the least players in top.
Its not a coinflip par say unless youre of similar skill
MC is obviously leagues ahead in PvP similar to Jaedong vs Zerg or Flash vs Terran
|
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 don't know about the terran part but the protoss part is true. When you have good enough forcefields you can make ZvP nightmare for Z
|
France13023 Posts
I think it has to do with :
- the mappool is not as disfavored for terrans on ladder as the GSL/tournament's one is.
- in BO1 that doesn't matter much, aka ladder, I'm sure a ton of ppl try some agressive / risky or even all-in strategies, and terrans are relatively safe in tvz, not so much in tvp (like the void ray pushes we have seen MC or Alicia do, and other stuff), and they can themselves do strats they can't do in bigger maps.
- not sure about this one, but I heard pvp is volatile, and zvz a bit, whereas tvt is much much less volatile.
- THIS IS LADDER (what I mean : MarineKing would be REALLY really happy if being 1st on ladder for the longest period a time gimmes you a title...)
|
Poopi has a lot of good reasons. Also, the best ladder players are not necessarily the best players in general. Winning a large number of Bo1s denotes skill, but not the most accurate measure of skill (which would probably be tournaments with bo3s and larger).
Terran is also probably the best race for Bo1s. They can easily adapt and can easily be aggressive. Someone said "most resilient to cheese," which is a good insight, too.
You can use this data to argue that Terran is the best race for the ladder, but the ladder is not the benchmark for ultimate skill, I think. Perhaps Protoss and Zerg are better for BoX matchups for some reason?
|
On April 26 2011 02:11 buldermar wrote:Show nested quote +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.
So what you're saying is this is a balance QQ with a clever 'statistical look' to it?
Someone lock this sham of a thread, you're not even using statistics correctly just listing out the fact there is more terran on top then toss or zerg. For any statistic to be truly significant the deviance needs to be high enough. Not to mention GM doesn't even represent loads of the actual top players, just the top players who ladder a lot. So there is plenty of margin for error in any statistical breakdown of the GM league.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
