|
On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic.
I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races?
edit:
On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc)
So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...?
|
On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw.
Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters.
edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks.
On September 13 2013 02:57 zezamer wrote:
200 deathball a-move is the ez way to play the game. People want it easy so they don't play terran.
Right. The first thing they did when they started playing was not trying out the races or playing the game, but googling the easiest race and picking it exclusively for that reason alone.
On September 13 2013 02:55 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:50 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. On September 13 2013 02:30 ArchAngelSC wrote:On September 13 2013 02:26 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:20 ( bush wrote:On September 13 2013 01:51 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 01:46 9-BiT wrote:On September 13 2013 01:39 9-BiT wrote:On September 13 2013 01:35 Big J wrote:
[quote]
I'm talking about the race picking process and that (most) people don't pick a race because it is "easier" or "harder". I don't care what they pick. I'm talking about the best starcraft players. Yes, but if Protoss or Zerg or Terran was op, they would be overrepresented in gm. But that is not the discussion at hand. Once again, each reason has its own set of players and it does not come out to a 33/33/33 split. As featured on Meta last week, Australia only has one really good protoss, a few terrans and the rest are zergs at the highest level. The protoss in Australia(Light) has a GM account in Korea and in SEA. Because people can have more than one account, GM cannot be used to prove anything, because one players can have several accounts in several regions. so what is your point? A race being underrepresented in GM is explained by the fact that people have more than one account? That the difficult of a race cannot be assessed by the number of people in GM, as there are numerous reasons that the specific race has a large number of GM players. That people cannot point to one set of evidence and then say "this means terran is more difficult than the other two races". Agree completely with this. It's common knowledge that Terran is the hardest race to play, but you cannot just point to GM numbers to prove/disprove it. If enough terran players say it enough times, its must be true. I'm not a Terran and I sympathize with the sentiment that Terran has a pretty high mechanical ceiling, and at the very least, has some pretty steep learning curves en route to GM level. Of course, if neither the Terran player nor the non-Terran player have played all three races at a Korean level, then theres pretty much no way to offer an objective answer. I will say that good studder stepping is hard to learn and splitting effectively on the fly is can be challenging. However, I don't think it is any more difficult than really good blink stalker management or splitting zergling or muta control. Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:53 andrewlt wrote:
It's pretty obvious. Foreigners love 200/200 deathballs way more than Koreans do. Too many foreigners have the term "macro-oriented" attached to them. In SC2 terminology, that denotes a player who doesn't attack until they hit 200/200. I think that also has to do with the fact that Korean play on their own server on really low latency, while other the other regions have much more "variable" latency(EU is a big play, same with NA). Being on such low latency, having good micro can be a much more consistent way to win.
Well no, in all non-mirrors it is the Terran setting the tempo of the game. They aren't just splitting and studder stepping, they're micro'ing one engagement as they do several other things. Anyone can just stare at a fight and control very well regardless of race.
|
On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic. I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...?
It could be any number of things that cause the drop off which are not related to the difficulty of the race. Maybe more players start with terran in bronze, but then switch over or the other two races are simply more popular other reasons that are not difficulty.
The point is that although it might be a factor, the difficult of a specific race does not dictate the number of people playing that race.
|
On September 13 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic. I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...? It could be any number of things that cause the drop off which are not related to the difficulty of the race. Maybe more players start with terran in bronze, but then switch over or the other two races are simply more popular other reasons that are not difficulty. The point is that although it might be a factor, the difficult of a specific race does not dictate the number of people playing that race.
Well if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race.
But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few.
|
On September 13 2013 03:57 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic. I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...? It could be any number of things that cause the drop off which are not related to the difficulty of the race. Maybe more players start with terran in bronze, but then switch over or the other two races are simply more popular other reasons that are not difficulty. The point is that although it might be a factor, the difficult of a specific race does not dictate the number of people playing that race. Well if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race. But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few.
The problem is mostly that you can't use representation to be causal with execution
Even if a tournament had infinite players you still can't make the causal link until you prove a causal link.
|
On September 13 2013 03:57 JustPassingBy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic. I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...? It could be any number of things that cause the drop off which are not related to the difficulty of the race. Maybe more players start with terran in bronze, but then switch over or the other two races are simply more popular other reasons that are not difficulty. The point is that although it might be a factor, the difficult of a specific race does not dictate the number of people playing that race. Well if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race. But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few.
The argument about difficult stemmed out of the initial discussion, claiming that terran was the most difficult, therefore there were fewer players, which leads to there being fewer total terran pros. Its a pretty far leap of logic, requiring a lot of steps.
As for the the OPs topic, I think that an interesting theory is that because Koreans end up practicing in such a low latency environment(Korean Internet is dope) they are able to take greater advantage of the snappy micro that terran units have. I don't think it is 100% the reason why, but I can see that a lot of korean terrans get better practice in low latency environments and are able to take better advantage of it than foreign terrans, who use the ladder(which EU has a much wider range of pings) for the majority of their practice.
|
On September 13 2013 04:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:57 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic. I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...? It could be any number of things that cause the drop off which are not related to the difficulty of the race. Maybe more players start with terran in bronze, but then switch over or the other two races are simply more popular other reasons that are not difficulty. The point is that although it might be a factor, the difficult of a specific race does not dictate the number of people playing that race. Well if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race. But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few. The argument about difficult stemmed out of the initial discussion, claiming that terran was the most difficult, therefore there were fewer players, which leads to there being fewer total terran pros. Its a pretty far leap of logic, requiring a lot of steps. As for the the OPs topic, I think that an interesting theory is that because Koreans end up practicing in such a low latency environment(Korean Internet is dope) they are able to take greater advantage of the snappy micro that terran units have. I don't think it is 100% the reason why, but I can see that a lot of korean terrans get better practice in low latency environments and are able to take better advantage of it than foreign terrans, who use the ladder(which EU has a much wider range of pings) for the majority of their practice.
Parting is a good case study to back this claim, a player who, for the most part, wins with protoss using micro and mechanical skills moreso than build orders choices.
Few players can do what Parting does as consistently as parting does it. There's a reason Parting alone was able to choo choo his way through tournaments--because his execution was phenomenal.
Korea producing non-terran SC2 players that also win due to micro is revealing about the latency.
|
Regarding #s of players as race X in GM:
No, you can't say its clear proof. But it counts as evidence. Another thing I've been thinking about is the fact that most serious players try to play "macro games". Historically, terrans lategame army is just straight up weaker than P/Z's, and I think we all can agree that bio-play is simply more fragile than P/Z's armies. Terran needs to babysit etc.
But back to my point, since a lot of people play kinda turtley, T gets "punished" while P/Z thrives in lategame on multiple bases. There are also match up specific problems in playing a macro game as terran.
TvP:
Having to react to the different compositions P has - Know when to engage and how to do it. Protoss doesn't really need to change things up in a standard bio vs deathball game. I also think Terran is straight up harder to control. I think storming is basically the one very important thing P needs to remember, while terran needs to snipe, spread out, focus fire and kite while macroing mid battle. Protoss ofcourse gets to instantly remax with WG tech.
Protoss also has better harass options in DT's (cloak and huge dmg output), zealots (good dmg output, high HP). DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.
Medivac dropping simply isn't that good with cannons and HTs for feedback, with very fragile units inside the medivacs.
Another problem is the fact that Terran needs to tailor his build to account for a aggressive Protoss, neglecting upgrades in the process. Protoss on the other hand is so safe that they can get 2x forge and get an upgrade advantage which put T at a disadvantage.
TvZ:
Neglecting the fact that Terran is favored in this MU these days, and biomine being extremely cost efficient, there are some trouble here as well. Terran needs to be the aggressor and keep zerg at home while securing expands (and safeguarding them against mutas/runbys), and here too Terran needs to be vary of tech switches. Zerg doesn't really fear this from Terran. Oh you went shitloads of marauders? Luckily MLB crushes marauders. Again going back to the "turtle/macro"-mindset of a lot of people, this puts T at a disadvantage if you don't know how to be aggressive at the appropriate timings and having the mechanical strength to execute it.
I'm sure similar things can be said about the other races, but I look at the games objectively and this is what I see. I simply believe Terran is more unforgiving than P/Z, more mechanically demanding and that's why there are so few good foreigner Terrans. A lot of people just switch away from Terran or give up because the learning curve is simply too steep. Remember that the pro's used to just wish to reach masters. A lot of people just give up before that with Terran because of the sheer amount of losses where its not "what could I've done better" but "I just don't have the skill to do this".
|
On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked.
I just corrected information you used that is false (its fact not opinion). Your opinion i know and im not gonna try to change it. Just stop using false information.
|
On September 13 2013 04:20 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:57 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:47 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:On September 13 2013 03:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On September 13 2013 03:16 Swift118 wrote:On September 13 2013 03:00 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Once again: correlation =/= causation There is no proof that the number of players playing terran is related to their difficulty compared to the other two races. None. People keep citing it, like a broken record and people keep pointing out that the two are not directly linked. A lot of people think that Terran requires more refined mechanics to reach the higher levels with. No amount of harassing other posters (which you do a lot of on this forum tbh) and thinking your opinion is the truth and nothing but the truth is going to change what a lot of people happen to think about this matter. He's telling the truth though. People are assuming causation without evidence, which is ridiculous. The evidence on this thread is race ratios, which is absurd because that assumes that everyone switches races all the time to specifically match game difficulty. The ratios on the races are what they are because of player preference, stubborness, difficulty, admiration, etc... Some people play it because of graphics, some want to be their favorite player, others do it because it fits them, others because they liked the story, others because they hated the story, etc... To create the direct causal relationship of race ratios and race difficulty is logically problematic. I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...? It could be any number of things that cause the drop off which are not related to the difficulty of the race. Maybe more players start with terran in bronze, but then switch over or the other two races are simply more popular other reasons that are not difficulty. The point is that although it might be a factor, the difficult of a specific race does not dictate the number of people playing that race. Well if the difficulty of a race would correlate to the player numbers (which I also believe to be not the case), then clearly zerg is the hardest race to play, followed by terran, followed by protoss. That is according to sc2ranks. So even if somebody believes there to be a correlation, it would not imply terran being the hardest race. But I thought this thread is about the lack of good foreign terrans (in relation to the other good foreigners). The statistics of the European Premier league is quite clear on that, though one could argue that the sample size is too few. The argument about difficult stemmed out of the initial discussion, claiming that terran was the most difficult, therefore there were fewer players, which leads to there being fewer total terran pros. Its a pretty far leap of logic, requiring a lot of steps. As for the the OPs topic, I think that an interesting theory is that because Koreans end up practicing in such a low latency environment(Korean Internet is dope) they are able to take greater advantage of the snappy micro that terran units have. I don't think it is 100% the reason why, but I can see that a lot of korean terrans get better practice in low latency environments and are able to take better advantage of it than foreign terrans, who use the ladder(which EU has a much wider range of pings) for the majority of their practice.
sc2 has a hardcoded latency. you'll literally not feel the difference between 5ms or 150ms. you LITERALLY won't feel it.
so your argument is invalid. what's your next best bet? 
|
On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc)
a) in short, in average worse players play Terran.
b) there was always bump between plat and master league especially plat and diamond where T population was around 25% which is around 20% less then expected. I assume you meant they are switching to Terran(not from) in bronze.
|
Probably because they spent most of their time in these forums complaining about how hard/superior their race is than practicing. Who knows? I think there are a lot of good foreign terrans/zergs/protosses. It's not only the foreign terrans that arent winning anything, foreign Z/P havent won anything in HoTs either.
|
On September 13 2013 03:45 rd wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters. edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks.
http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race - more Terrans than Zergs
Also 30,24 % T in general with 8.75% random players
27,45% in Masters with 2,44% random players. So expected would be about 32% Terrans, instead of 27%
|
On September 13 2013 03:39 JustPassingBy wrote:I don't see the problem with the race ratios, aren't 65k players per race enough to assume that the skill is at least somewhat equally distributed amongst all three races? edit: Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) So in your opinion terrans are picked more often by casual players and less often by players who want to play the game competitive? But... isn't that also something that would support the theory of the people here who claim that terran is the harder race to play successfully (or at least looks like the harder race to play successfully)...?
No, you missunderstand me. I believe in their first multiplayer games, people are/were more likely to pick Terran for one reason or another. Then they play the game some more and try the other races and make their final race choice, which is not influenced by the reasons why the first picked Terran a little more and only by their personal preferences.
At that point "how hard" it is to play a race may be part of the reason what race to pick, but I don't believe that is the main reason when there are arguments like "ALIENS!!!"(so race-thematic/lore), "LAZORZ"(visuals) or "IDRAAAAAAAAA"(idols) around. Not to mention that "how hard" it is to play a race is still made up by a small sample of games with Bronze strategies! I don't think I'm an expert for Bronze-play, but from what Husky has showed me, I don't think you can easily argue that any race is mechanically more difficult at that level, as the game is just played so differently and just having a plan (as many offensive PFs it may include) seems to be more than you can expect.
|
On September 13 2013 04:32 krooked wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
Regarding #s of players as race X in GM:
No, you can't say its clear proof. But it counts as evidence. Another thing I've been thinking about is the fact that most serious players try to play "macro games". Historically, terrans lategame army is just straight up weaker than P/Z's, and I think we all can agree that bio-play is simply more fragile than P/Z's armies. Terran needs to babysit etc.
But back to my point, since a lot of people play kinda turtley, T gets "punished" while P/Z thrives in lategame on multiple bases. There are also match up specific problems in playing a macro game as terran.
TvP:
Having to react to the different compositions P has - Know when to engage and how to do it. Protoss doesn't really need to change things up in a standard bio vs deathball game. I also think Terran is straight up harder to control. I think storming is basically the one very important thing P needs to remember, while terran needs to snipe, spread out, focus fire and kite while macroing mid battle. Protoss ofcourse gets to instantly remax with WG tech.
Protoss also has better harass options in DT's (cloak and huge dmg output), zealots (good dmg output, high HP). DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.
Medivac dropping simply isn't that good with cannons and HTs for feedback, with very fragile units inside the medivacs.
Another problem is the fact that Terran needs to tailor his build to account for a aggressive Protoss, neglecting upgrades in the process. Protoss on the other hand is so safe that they can get 2x forge and get an upgrade advantage which put T at a disadvantage.
TvZ:
Neglecting the fact that Terran is favored in this MU these days, and biomine being extremely cost efficient, there are some trouble here as well. Terran needs to be the aggressor and keep zerg at home while securing expands (and safeguarding them against mutas/runbys), and here too Terran needs to be vary of tech switches. Zerg doesn't really fear this from Terran. Oh you went shitloads of marauders? Luckily MLB crushes marauders. Again going back to the "turtle/macro"-mindset of a lot of people, this puts T at a disadvantage if you don't know how to be aggressive at the appropriate timings and having the mechanical strength to execute it.
I'm sure similar things can be said about the other races, but I look at the games objectively and this is what I see. I simply believe Terran is more unforgiving than P/Z, more mechanically demanding and that's why there are so few good foreigner Terrans. A lot of people just switch away from Terran or give up because the learning curve is simply too steep. Remember that the pro's used to just wish to reach masters. A lot of people just give up before that with Terran because of the sheer amount of losses where its not "what could I've done better" but "I just don't have the skill to do this".
The fuck? Your post defines the antonym of objectivity.
The Protoss doesn't have to change things up in a standard bio vs colossus/ht game, and neither does the Terran. The openings vary, but the end-game composition is the same every single time.
The only thing Protoss has to worry about is storming. Getting EMP'ed, landing feedbacks, spacing blink stalkers with ghosts and vikings, and spreading are nothing to worry about -- below diamond.
Protoss gets to instantly remax with warpgates. Terran remaxes faster in an even game where he doesn't A) Lose an engagement horribly or B) Somehow fall behind in bases and income to a Protoss.
DT/Zealot runbys demand respect and attention to a Terran who is probably freaking out about winning the main engagement.. Protoss players are not freaking out about winning the main engagement. They're probably leaning back in their chair smoking a cigar while their army follows the amove command towards the Terran main.
On September 13 2013 04:59 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:45 rd wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Not sure where you get your numbers from, but its points shaved off of a percentage less terrans in masters compared to the overall race ratio. There are just a LITTLE less Terrans than the other races, and consequently, there is a SLIGHTLY less than a little less Terrans in masters. edit: infact, lets just settle this right now so that we're straight on the numbers. Where are you getting yours from? Cause I'm pulling them from SC2Ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/stats/race - more Terrans than Zergs Also 30,24 % T in general with 8.75% random players 27,45% in Masters with 2,44% random players. So expected would be about 32% Terrans, instead of 27%
Unless you want to assume the difference comes from the huge spike of Terrans in Bronze, the only league Terran has 32% players in is silver -- 38% in bronze. Everywhere else it's consistently 29%, barring masters, where it dips to 27%. GM is where it dips significantly.
You'd have to be able to explain why Bronze has 38% Terrans, and why it dips from 38% in bronze to 29% in gold, before you can claim masters is a difference of 5% and not 2%.
|
On September 13 2013 04:44 keglu wrote:Show nested quote +On September 13 2013 03:34 Big J wrote:On September 13 2013 02:51 keglu wrote:On September 13 2013 02:36 Plansix wrote:On September 13 2013 02:32 Faust852 wrote:
If we look at masters leagues, they are still way under epresented, and it's a much bigger sample. Which still proves nothing beyond the fact that there are fewer terrans playing, which could be for any number of reasons. I could simply point to the number of tournaments that protoss has won and said "Look, protoss wins the least, that means they must be the hardest to play, because it is so difficult for the top players to win events." The argument that there are fewer terran players, therefore the race must be the most difficult holds about as much water. You are like broken record, there is no less Terrans playing, there is less Terran which are in Master league in comparable to other races overall population of players. I checked and Zerg is still least played race on ladder like since beginning of sc2. You seem to like to downplay every statistical data btw. Yes, and where are those Terrans? In bronze (34%). Silver to Master, Terran has a very constant 27-29.5 percentage (GM being only a tiny bit lower with 25%). So what's more likely: a) There is a/multiple) reason/s why bronzies pick Terran more often than on average... like (example), I don't know, maybe the SC2 campaign making it so that when you hit that "search game" button for the first 5times you rather take Terran (and get placed into bronze because you are a noob), which does not represent the players that actually put time into playing the game. b) Players switching away from Terran in bronze and masters AND IN THESE LEAGUES ONLY, because those are the only (small) bumps in Terran distribution, because it is too hard for them. In my opinion it's a) (even if the example may be wrong), and therefore the Terran distribution is simply lower, which of course leads to less Terran progamers as well. With Korea being the exception because of fanboyism (Boxer, etc) a) in short, in average worse players play Terran. b) there was always bump between plat and master league especially plat and diamond where T population was around 25% which is around 20% less then expected. I assume you meant they are switching to Terran(not from) in bronze.
nope
a) if you want to have it short: players that dont want to invest a lot of time into the game are more likely to pick Terran than people that want to invest a lot of time into learning something new like the other races they haven't played in the campaign.
b) You are using the statistical average for your expectation, which is a very statistical inrobust methode. You should use the median, or the alpha-cut averages instead as expectation as they are robust against statistical outliers. Well, that gives you the very stable 27-29% as expectation you find in ALL leagues apart from GM and Bronze (the outliers).
And you are using old data, when you refer to 25% (which were that low due to imbalance at the end of WoL).
|
why are all the parodies and fan art about  or  ?
think about it.
|
Foreigners don't want to practice 10 hours a day... It's been a problem for a long time, the gap between foreign terrans and (the best) korean terrans has always been huge..
|
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Premier_Tournaments
Foreigners in general aren't winning any tournaments in HotS, so I don't really see why you would limit the argument to just Terran. Koreans are dominating pretty much every tournament, it's not just foreign terrans that are losing, foreign protosses and zerg are doing pretty much just as bad. It's just a testimony to how big the skill gap between foreigners and koreans is nowadays, it really has very little to do with race.
We haven't seen a foreigner win a premier tournament in 10 months and looking at the next few events there is no chance (at least in my mind) that will change in the near future. No chance.
|
On September 13 2013 05:33 DusTerr wrote:why are all the parodies and fan art about or ? think about it.
Stop it with your empirical data! Stop it! You might douse this thread's argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
