|
On September 12 2020 12:26 NinjaNight wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On September 12 2020 12:06 Monochromatic wrote:![[image loading]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/382780801164771331/754174529198227456/unknown.png) It's very interesting that there's an inflection point in the lower side of the zerg curve that's not present on the terran/toss curves. Is this the point where players learn to inject? I also think this indicates the "just serral" theory is likely untrue. It definitely appears that zerg is the most successful race by a significant margin. We need more info to draw conclusions - would love to see sample size! Also, is there no random statistics? As a random player, I want to know how my race is doing!  Of course its untrue, Serral can't carry zerg all by himself. As icing on the cake when he runs into fellow good zerg Reynor he loses a lot of series against him, but not versus other good terran/protoss EU players
He has also lost to Elazer and soO a few times. I think it only shows that zvz is a volatile matchup.
|
I dont know how much work it is but can you provide the same for korea. Zerg was always pretty popular in EU and I want to see if KR looks similar or if better players tend to chose Terran more over there.
|
On September 12 2020 12:06 Monochromatic wrote:I also think this indicates the "just serral" theory is likely untrue. It definitely appears that zerg is the most successful race by a significant margin. We need more info to draw conclusions - would love to see sample size!
What do you mean, sample size ? This is the entire EU population so it's no "sample".
There is no drawing conclusions from this however. First, there can be many reasons why zerg is underrepresented in lower leagues. But more importantly, looking at the bell curve only highlights the middle of the curve where most people are, and I hope we can all agree the 2.5k - 3k mmr range has nothing to do with competitive play and should be disregarded when thinking about balance. This has 0 bearing on the "just serral" debate. What you don't see with this range is that zerg % declines heavily and across all servers from diamond to GM.
https://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=2&l=6
OP, if you're truly unbiased like you claim to be, please post the same curve but with a filter on only diamond+ players. Spoiler alert : it will look like the exact opposite.
|
I think one explanation could be, that casual Players, that Don t have any SC Background, just Don t like playing Zerg.
Their mechanics are quite different from what you know from your usual rts experience.
For example when I introduced my older Brother to sc2, Who had some Basic wc3 and other rts experiences, he said, je doesn t care if he plays T or P (for 2v2 with me) but he doesn t want to Play Z, as he doesn t understand them.
If there is a signifikant amount of people, that shy away from that less typical mechanics without different Produktion buildings, it would explain, why less casual Players choose Zerg
|
Like dbRic1203 says, Zerg plays a bit different than the more traditional rts styles, like T and P. The inflection point might be the point where zerg players "understand" how to play zerg and suddenly get a higher win ratio. Later on the curve it is more and more just good players, so it evens out more, no matter the race.
When I was a T player on gold league many years ago, I struggled a lot versus Zerg players that understand how to take many bases early on versus Zerg players that played on equal bases as T, because the former would just flood me with units and prevent me to take any more bases.
|
I also have to say that it is easy to forget what kind of games are played at 2,6 and 2,9k MMR.
At 2,6, players tend to have their very own and generally very ineffective style, based on playing the campaign or fooling around with units. I doubt many of them have ever seen a pro-game or looked up a build to see what 1v1s are supposed to look like.
Even at 3k+, terrans make planetaries in their mains and go for proxy ghost rushes, while zergs are still one-trick-ponies relying on a single attack to win with no clue about transitioning.
It takes one to know one. I just legitimately brought my offrace Zerg to Plat 3, which would make me contribute to the peak of the curve. Even with just very basic understanding about expanding and making drones, upgrades and roaches, I feel I had a very easy time in most games, even ZvZs.
|
dbRic1203 has mentioned a pretty interesting point there. This reminds me of when new players bought WoL and I'm pretty sure lots of them kind of chose terran by default (as it was the campaign race for WoL). The dominant race in competitive play is probably a big factor as well, what with GomTVT and literal god Mvp dominating the entire scene for the first couple of years. Race selection is probably a combination of these factors and some others. All things considered, the numbers speak for themselves and the ratio of players is approximately:
36.5% Terran
29.5% Protoss
25.5% Zerg
8.5% Random
(stats taken from https://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=2&l=-2)
Had a similar experience at the time myself. T and P was always "easier" to get used to, and it took almost a year before I even thought about playing zerg at all. The mechanics of injecting, spreading creep and making things out of hatcheries is just so different from RTS principles that are present in wc3, CnC and wh40k - Terran and Protoss follow basic principles like "make units one at a time" and "building A spits out unit A, B and C". There's probably a large proportion of new players who default to T and P, and I assume there is some correlation between being new and having low mmr as well. Just food for thought, of course.
|
you guys are missing the important part of the graph. the right side of the graph.
|
On September 12 2020 21:00 Alejandrisha wrote:
you guys are missing the important part of the graph. the right side of the graph.
what's interesting there? Serral + Reynor taking spots 1+2? With Protoss players following them (Showtime, Neeb, etc) and then some Terrans (HM, Clem, Soul)
All in all, this graph basically just shows that until the 3k MMR range, there are a bit more Zergs than Protoss/Terran.
If we take a look at how the amount of Zerg players grows from about 2k MMR, and considering, as someone mentioned, "what games are played" around this region (cheese) it's a pretty good indicator that from 2k MMR going towards 3k MMR, Zergs learn how to allin, while Protoss/Terran players struggle to defend that (e.g. building proper walls).
Going closer to and onward from ~4k MMR, it shows that the races converge and have equal MMR very quickly, because cheese stops working, while people learn to defend it and actually start understanding how to play SC2 better (macro, build-orders, strategy, etc)
|
On September 12 2020 21:38 suriel- wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2020 21:00 Alejandrisha wrote:
you guys are missing the important part of the graph. the right side of the graph. what's interesting there? Serral + Reynor taking spots 1+2? With Protoss players following them (Showtime, Neeb, etc) and then some Terrans (HM, Clem, Soul) All in all, this graph basically just shows that until the 3k MMR range, there are a bit more Zergs than Protoss/Terran. If we take a look at how the amount of Zerg players grows from about 2k MMR, and considering, as someone mentioned, "what games are played" around this region (cheese) it's a pretty good indicator that from 2k MMR going towards 3k MMR, Zergs learn how to allin, while Protoss/Terran players struggle to defend that (e.g. building proper walls). Going closer to and onward from ~4k MMR, it shows that the races converge and have equal MMR very quickly, because cheese stops working, while people learn to defend it and actually start understanding how to play SC2 better (macro, build-orders, strategy, etc)
yes! a thousand times yes !
|
I am suspicious of a graph that has negative percentage on its y-axis instead of starting at 0%.
Anyways quick takeaways:
Difference in peak between Terran (the lowest) and Zerg (the highest) is 370. So the difference is Gold 2 and Platinum 2 as the mode of those races. What does balance or skill particularily matter about those ranks?
Master MMR is about 4400 mmr to get into masters, where all the difference seemingly disappears. Possibly because of scaling. From the graph, if you can't get into Masters, this "statistic" isn't the reason why.
Zerg is the least popular race. So presumably coronavirus being a boost to gaming numbers means less proportionately of a large influx of new players are playing Zerg. This large influx of gaming is seen to be affecting the ranking systems of many games.
A graph taken in isolation without thinking behind how this is proper representation is usually biased. This graph is not a statistical representation of "effort" or "skill" needed to attain MMR.
|
On September 12 2020 21:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I am suspicious of a graph that has negative percentage as one of its x-axis instead of starting at 0%.
Anyways quick takeaways:
Difference in peak between Terran (the lowest) and Zerg (the highest) is 370. So the difference is Gold 2 and Platinum 2 as the mode of those races. What does balance or skill particularily matter about those ranks?
Master MMR is about 4400 mmr to get into masters, where all the difference seemingly disappears. Possibly because of scaling. From the graph, if you can't get into Masters, this "statistic" isn't the reason why.
Zerg is the least popular race. So presumably coronavirus being a boost to gaming numbers means less proportionately of a large influx of new players are playing Zerg. This large influx of gaming is seen to be affecting the ranking systems of many games.
A graph taken in isolation without thinking behind how this is proper representation is usually biased. This graph is not a statistical representation of "effort" or "skill" needed to attain MMR.
so, given that a race has a 'skill' factor to get it closer to the mean, we get
zerg = x(jasbean) + 500
protoss = x(jasbeantwins) + 700
terran = x(janbeandoooods) + 800
we can get a graph that matches a player's effort, x, and just add points as we go along.
|
so this graph essentially shows that there are more zerg platinum players right?
|
On September 12 2020 21:59 sparklyresidue wrote:
so this graph essentially shows that there are more zerg platinum players right?
i think that is the conclusion, yes.
|
Very few people begins with Z because of the specific mechanics of the race.
They generally switch to Z after having played a bit with the 2 other races before going for Z which means they are more experienced and stronger.
|
On September 12 2020 21:57 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2020 21:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I am suspicious of a graph that has negative percentage as one of its x-axis instead of starting at 0%.
Anyways quick takeaways:
Difference in peak between Terran (the lowest) and Zerg (the highest) is 370. So the difference is Gold 2 and Platinum 2 as the mode of those races. What does balance or skill particularily matter about those ranks?
Master MMR is about 4400 mmr to get into masters, where all the difference seemingly disappears. Possibly because of scaling. From the graph, if you can't get into Masters, this "statistic" isn't the reason why.
Zerg is the least popular race. So presumably coronavirus being a boost to gaming numbers means less proportionately of a large influx of new players are playing Zerg. This large influx of gaming is seen to be affecting the ranking systems of many games.
A graph taken in isolation without thinking behind how this is proper representation is usually biased. This graph is not a statistical representation of "effort" or "skill" needed to attain MMR. so, given that a race has a 'skill' factor to get it closer to the mean, we get zerg = x(jasbean) + 500 protoss = x(jasbeantwins) + 700 terran = x(janbeandoooods) + 800 we can get a graph that matches a player's effort, x, and just add points as we go along.
Well, no. That's an assumption that every race uses the same skill to attain their own mode (not mean, mean isn't in the graph, good luck calculating that from lack of data, though I suppose you can just eye it inaccurately, but it seems more liekly from your later reply that you just don't know the difference between mean and mode), or that the mode is particularily meaningful. Afterall, can you tell the difference in skill between gold 2 and plat 2? I can't, they both just look randomly bad. Players of that skill level are inconsistent and prone to wide swings in skill. Which is only to be expected when in those ranks you should be learning and accumulating experience rapidly.
Nevermind that I cannot see the datapoints. Where is the table that shows the data? For all I know there could be only 7 datapoints, 1 for each league, for each race which makes the people talking about inflection points seem particularily naive as it is just an artifact of a smoothing algorithm from Microsoft Excel or whatever.
In anycase, it seems odd to choose EU in particular. I assume NA and Korea would look different.
Edit: Judging from your later reply, you don't have the education or experience in interpreting graphs, so I think you shouldn't try to make any judgements.
|
On September 12 2020 22:00 Alejandrisha wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2020 21:59 sparklyresidue wrote:
so this graph essentially shows that there are more zerg platinum players right? i think that is the conclusion, yes.
Wrong. It doesn't show what the ranges of MMR is. You'll have to take the area under the curve for the MMR range to interpret it as a population group. For instance, if you interpret the graph to show that most protoss players are Gold, you would be wrong, as the most protoss are in Diamond according to https://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=0&l=4. You cannot interpret the mode as the most of a league.
See? That's what I am saying about interpretating graphs.
The more I look at the graph the more nonsensical it become in terms of presenting data. Such a graph, judging from the axis should be presented as a column graph.
|
On September 12 2020 22:27 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2020 22:00 Alejandrisha wrote:On September 12 2020 21:59 sparklyresidue wrote:
so this graph essentially shows that there are more zerg platinum players right? i think that is the conclusion, yes. Wrong. It doesn't show what the ranges of MMR is. You'll have to take the area under the curve for the MMR range to interpret it as a population group. For instance, if you interpret the graph to show that most protoss players are Gold, you would be wrong, as the most protoss are in Diamond according to https://www.rankedftw.com/stats/races/1v1/#v=2&r=0&l=4. You cannot interpret the mode as the most of a league. See? That's what I am saying about interpretating graphs. The more I look at the graph the more nonsensical it become in terms of presenting data. Such a graph, judging from the axis should be presented as a column graph.
true
|
On September 12 2020 22:11 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2020 21:57 Alejandrisha wrote:On September 12 2020 21:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
I am suspicious of a graph that has negative percentage as one of its x-axis instead of starting at 0%.
Anyways quick takeaways:
Difference in peak between Terran (the lowest) and Zerg (the highest) is 370. So the difference is Gold 2 and Platinum 2 as the mode of those races. What does balance or skill particularily matter about those ranks?
Master MMR is about 4400 mmr to get into masters, where all the difference seemingly disappears. Possibly because of scaling. From the graph, if you can't get into Masters, this "statistic" isn't the reason why.
Zerg is the least popular race. So presumably coronavirus being a boost to gaming numbers means less proportionately of a large influx of new players are playing Zerg. This large influx of gaming is seen to be affecting the ranking systems of many games.
A graph taken in isolation without thinking behind how this is proper representation is usually biased. This graph is not a statistical representation of "effort" or "skill" needed to attain MMR. so, given that a race has a 'skill' factor to get it closer to the mean, we get zerg = x(jasbean) + 500 protoss = x(jasbeantwins) + 700 terran = x(janbeandoooods) + 800 we can get a graph that matches a player's effort, x, and just add points as we go along. Well, no. That's an assumption that every race uses the same skill to attain their own mode (not mean, mean isn't in the graph, good luck calculating that from lack of data, though I suppose you can just eye it inaccurately, but it seems more liekly from your later reply that you just don't know the difference between mean and mode), or that the mode is particularily meaningful. Afterall, can you tell the difference in skill between gold 2 and plat 2? I can't, they both just look randomly bad. Players of that skill level are inconsistent and prone to wide swings in skill. Which is only to be expected when in those ranks you should be learning and accumulating experience rapidly. Nevermind that I cannot see the datapoints. Where is the table that shows the data? For all I know there could be only 7 datapoints, 1 for each league, for each race which makes the people talking about inflection points seem particularily naive as it is just an artifact of a smoothing algorithm from Microsoft Excel or whatever. In anycase, it seems odd to choose EU in particular. I assume NA and Korea would look different. Edit: Judging from your later reply, you don't have the education or experience in interpreting graphs, so I think you shouldn't try to make any judgements.
mean is the mathematical average. mode is the most prevalent data point. what does this have to do with this graph
i don't think figuring out the difference between plat and gold 2 is going to bring you any epiphany
|
Ok, you tell me where the mean of anything is from that graph. Go on.
Hint: it's not at 2610, 2680, 2980.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
