|
Nice work,
We need more people like you, and less idiots that talk about shit they don't know.
|
On July 11 2012 03:06 Ambre wrote:
Nice work,
We need more people like you, and less idiots that talk about shit they don't know.
Unfortunately the way the world works, we're getting less of the former while the latter are breeding like rats.
|
On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table.
No, but the ladder throws coins (edit: or rather the users of the ladder). I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right?
|
On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right?
Except there's absolutely no evidence that this is occurring.
|
On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right?
As his data is already biased to the users of his MMR calculation (and their opponents), we can rule out the "I'm so new I know only terran crowd". If that's not enough for you, a cut-off eliminating all data points below diamond league should do it, right?
|
On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum?
It's only taken from Diamond, Masters, and Grandmasters of US/EU, he said that in his conclusion.
|
On July 11 2012 03:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right? Except there's absolutely no evidence that this is occurring.
Do you really mean that I need evidence for that new players who just bought the game often choose terran as their first race?
|
I think ladderbalance is important. It really lowers the amount of fun I have when I play against clearly worse players and still only have 50% WR.
|
Is it possible to create a graph displaying your balance data/figures vs skill level (MMR is a nice blizzard proxy for that or perhaps per level [bronze, platinum, etc])?
|
On July 11 2012 03:16 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 03:12 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right? Except there's absolutely no evidence that this is occurring. Do you really mean that I need evidence for that new players who just bought the game often choose terran as their first race?
You need evidence for new players who just bought the game and choose Terran as their race only to switch a few months into playing and contrast it with evidence showing that players who pick P/Z after buying switch less or not at all.
|
On July 11 2012 03:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right? Except there's absolutely no evidence that this is occurring.
The point is valid. that would lower the terran avg mmr.
But
A) http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
B) And even if, i have so few bronce - gold users and they dont ladder much = i have even less bronce - gold opponents.
I think i could filter them and dont loose much accounts.
C) i still get the right imbalance data. because this would be inbuild imbalance!
to show you this point: imagine you are not allowed to play z anymore if are top 1k on kr ladder once.
We would not see any zerg players in big tournament. = the game would be imbalanced!
Its impossible to calculate this factors out correct. Impossible for every system not only the one i use. No method could do somthing against this, because it valid imbalance data.
|
Hmm this is pretty interesting. I'm still a little bit skeptical because you didn't get the data from an SRS from all battle.net players. However, the sample data is probably going to be good enough.
I completely agree that the "race x has better players" argument doesn't hold in high sample sizes.
|
On July 11 2012 03:12 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right? Except there's absolutely no evidence that this is occurring.
There is not a lot of evidence to chew on in the OP either. I see a ton of numbers with no league basis or any grounded data for me to latch on to. The MMR stats do not even tell me who is in what league or any information on the players themselves, beyond their primary race. It does not even show if they were off racing in that specific match. The data itself has is filled with players who have only play one game in a specific time frame.
I am not sure what to think of the findings, but my efforts to dig into his methods have not yielded the results I was expecting.
|
On July 11 2012 03:15 furerkip wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? It's only taken from Diamond, Masters, and Grandmasters of US/EU, he said that in his conclusion.
Mainly not only!
On July 11 2012 03:17 archonOOid wrote:
is it possible to create a graph displaying your balance data vs the skill level (MMR is a nice blizzard proxy for that or perhaps per level [bronze, platinum, etc])?
need more dataaaaaaaaaaa.
Help me and send it:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=351748
|
On July 11 2012 03:14 Thrombozyt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:
The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right? As his data is already biased to the users of his MMR calculation (and their opponents), we can rule out the "I'm so new I know only terran crowd". If that's not enough for you, a cut-off eliminating all data points below diamond league should do it, right?
No, we can't rule that out. His data includes all leagues. And as I already said, if there is a bias for beginners to choose terran, there is no easy way to tell how high this bias persists. My gut feeling tells me if we include only masters and up any remaining bias would be utterly negligible, but that's only a feeling. I have no numbers to back it up. It depends on how often people race switch, for example.
|
I must say that this is some impressive work!
|
On July 11 2012 02:31 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. We can't just dimiss it. Imagine, for whatever reason, that there is a strong bias for new players to automatically choose Terran. The remaining players try all the races and determine which of the three fit their styles, making them more likely to win. Because you can imagine a situation where Zerg and Protoss average win rates are higher than Terran it must be addressed.
how about the fact that, this season, Terran is the least represented race in GM in the history of the league? Isn't GM purely based on MMR?
|
On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table.
Wait. Was this supposed to make me laugh?
Cuz I did.
I laughed real hard.
|
On July 11 2012 03:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 03:12 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right? Except there's absolutely no evidence that this is occurring. There is not a lot of evidence to chew on in the OP either. I see a ton of numbers with no league basis or any grounded data for me to latch on to. The MMR stats do not even tell me who is in what league or any information on the players themselves, beyond their primary race. It does not even show if they were off racing in that specific match. The data itself has is filled with players who have only play one game in a specific time frame. I am not sure what to think of the findings, but my efforts to dig into his methods have not yielded the results I was expecting.
The data is linked.
if you want the full data over all games you find it here : http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=334561
I show you the mmr.
This is way more accurate and correct than the blinking league icons that comes with an mmr range of over +- 600
I dont show single games! i show sc2 accounts not games in this analyse!
How many games one player have is total unimportant! The mmr show the skill of the account
On July 11 2012 03:23 TsGBruzze wrote:
I must say that this is some impressive work!
Thank you!
On July 11 2012 03:28 danl9rm wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:18 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 02:17 Chill wrote:On July 11 2012 02:03 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 01:34 skeldark wrote:
The chance that -race independent- stronger players pick a specific race is near 0.
That's an unsupported statement. I don't know where I've heard it, but I'm pretty sure some Blizzard representative, maybe Josh, has explicitly stated that there is a preference for low level players to choose terran. Does it look the same if you exclude for example everyone below masters? Agreed. The whole basis for this project is defeated by one realistic (in my eyes) claim that is dismissed. Also, why do we care about average balance? If Zerg is easier than Terran from Bronze - Masters, does it really matter to the members of this forum? The fact that low level players might have a preference to choose Terran is not the same as saying that low level talented players have a tendency to choose Terran. If it's just low level players in general choosing Terran, then the average will be sustained by the fact that more untalented and more talented players will be choosing Terran. So the OP's claim is correct, because he qualified it by saying "stronger" players aren't more likely to choose Terran in the sense that they're no more likely to choose it than weak players. I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. Wait. Was this supposed to make me laugh? Cuz I did. I laughed real hard.
depends about the part that let you laugh 
@mendel
http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all
so we can end this discussion. the all terran in low leagues was in the first 6 month of sc2. Not any more.
|
On July 11 2012 03:17 Shiori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 11 2012 03:16 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 03:12 Shiori wrote:On July 11 2012 03:09 Mendelfist wrote:On July 11 2012 02:58 skeldark wrote:On July 11 2012 02:51 sevencck wrote:On July 11 2012 02:40 Mendelfist wrote:
I don't follow you here. The point is that new players choose terran because of the campaign, and some of them later in their career switch race. The switch is important, because that WILL cause an over-representation of terrans at lower MMR. It has been known for a long time, for example by looking at sc2ranks statistics. There is no easy way to remove these types of biases from any data that we have. We also don't know how far up the leagues this bias persists. Is it only in bronze/silver? I have no idea. The bias you're addressing is (presumably) independent of skill. The over representation of Terran at lower MMR has no bearing on an analysis correlating skill by race with MMR. He's not taking a snapshot of race at all skill levels and saying the Terran average MMR is lower (that would be easy to do, and wouldn't prove anything since the ladder is biased for 50% anyway), he's analyzing winrates between races but factoring in the "hidden" MMR rating. In other words, a 50% TvZ winrate may at face value appear balanced, but if the average MMR of the Terrans in that sample is statistically significantly higher than that of the Zergs, it suggests imbalance. OP please correct me if I'm mistaken. No. thats basic it. Mendelfist i dont throw this coins. What i do is: take the avg weight of the 70% head coins and the avg weight of the the 30% tail coins . And than i say : the coins that show head are 10g heavier than the coins that show tail. I don't care how many of each are on the table. No, but the ladder throws coins. I don't understand how you can't see this. Imagine that when you buy the game you don't even have a choice. You are forced to choose terran. Then when you have played for a month the other choices open up. It's pretty clear then that low MMR's will be over-represented by terrans, right? Except there's absolutely no evidence that this is occurring. Do you really mean that I need evidence for that new players who just bought the game often choose terran as their first race? You need evidence for new players who just bought the game and choose Terran as their race only to switch a few months into playing and contrast it with evidence showing that players who pick P/Z after buying switch less or not at all.
There is no need for P/Z switching less for this phenomenon to occur. Try the experiment with the coins. If there is an initial bias for whatever reason, and people then randomly switch race for whatever reason, it's unlikely that the switches will preserve the initial bias. This will cause a change of race distribution over time. That's all it takes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
