EPTTerran
60 (24%)
Protoss
94 (38%)
Zerg
74 (30%)
Random
23 (9%)
edit: Europe:
Terran
71 (28%)
Protoss
84 (34%)
Zerg
81 (32%)
Random
15 (6%)
The Korean ranks aren't available on that site unfortunately.
The proportion of each race at top level
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
Terran 60 (24%) Protoss 94 (38%) Zerg 74 (30%) Random 23 (9%) edit: Europe: Terran 71 (28%) Protoss 84 (34%) Zerg 81 (32%) Random 15 (6%) The Korean ranks aren't available on that site unfortunately. | ||
|
aseq
Netherlands3992 Posts
| ||
|
Snaiil
Sweden312 Posts
Would be nice to see one for Europe as well, if it isn't too much of a hassle. | ||
|
nedsat
27 Posts
| ||
|
Erucious
Norway393 Posts
I know a lot of people arent bothered to ladder much anymore since the issues with account resetting, so it might be a bit skewed (albeit, this counts for all races) | ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
| ||
|
rhap
Brazil136 Posts
| ||
|
zealing
Canada806 Posts
| ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 03 2010 22:26 aseq wrote: That would be cool, is it a lot of work? I also wonder how things are in Korea, still wondering why there is such a difference still, I had expected Korea and the rest of the world to integrate more for the sc2 beta. Nope, I made small script so it's easy. They don't have the Korean ladder on that site, so here's Europe: Terran 71 (28%) Protoss 84 (34%) Zerg 81 (32%) Random 15 (6%) Looks like the races a are a bit more balanced there. | ||
|
einohr
Germany45 Posts
On May 03 2010 22:26 aseq wrote: That would be cool, is it a lot of work? I also wonder how things are in Korea, still wondering why there is such a difference still, I had expected Korea and the rest of the world to integrate more for the sc2 beta. Here's a link with the Top 100 from asia (4/18) http://sc2.17173.com/content/2010-04-19/20100419160405006.shtml More than 1800 points Terran 25 (24.3%) Protoss 41 (39.8%) Zerg 33 (32.0% Random 4 (3.9%) 2000 or above Terran 6 (15.8%) Protoss 13 (34.2%) Zerg 18 (47.4%) Random 1 (2.6%) | ||
|
Sent
United States120 Posts
| ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
US: ![[image loading]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4012/4574930478_64e018d34d_o.jpg) Europe: ![[image loading]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4026/4574338513_32de33146b_o.jpg) Asia: ![[image loading]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4054/4574991228_54b3c9e254_o.jpg) | ||
|
TheMick
Great Britain164 Posts
| ||
|
Tenn
Sweden12 Posts
So sure, statistics can be misleading, but they most often show you something.. That's how insurance companies makes money.. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On May 03 2010 23:12 Tenn wrote: Takkara: You're right that you can present almost what you want with statistics. But you can still draw some conclusions though. E.g. that it seems to be a trend that Protoss is in fact more used than the other races, in exception for the Top 10 occasion. So sure, statistics can be misleading, but they most often show you something.. That's how insurance companies makes money.. Yes, numbers are important. But if you're going to throw a number of people around as significant, there should be a justification. For example, someone broke down the Asia numbers by people above 2000 rating and people above 1800 rating. Those are more meaningful breakdowns than just 250. Because, if you look at the data, for some weird reason it's REALLY prone to runs. So sometimes stopping at 245 instead of 250 means that you lopped off like 5 protoss, which would really change the number distribution. Case in point: The OP says that based on Euro Top 250, things look balanced there. If he did the same thing with the Top 100, he'd see Zerg as BADLY overrepresented. Same thing with the US and Protoss. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 03 2010 22:57 Takkara wrote: Here's the thing about numbers, they can say anything you want it to say. The first question, even before "why is Terran so low" is "why the Top 250?" Is that somehow the most representative amount? Is that where you ran out of effort to do more? Is it a somehow important percentage of top players? It's so meaningless. To prove it, I compiled the Top 10, and all the numbers at values of 25 thereafter. You can see it shows completely different results depending on where you decide to draw your arbitrary cutoff. So I don't think your numbers show anything. I chose 250 because AFAIK it's the smallest number that would be considered reasonably valid for a political poll. Obviously it's a bit different because we don't expect an even distribution as the number of players included increases. Depending on what rating/rank you consider good you might want to include even more. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On May 03 2010 23:19 gravity wrote: I chose 250 because AFAIK it's the smallest number that would be considered reasonably valid for a political poll. Obviously it's a bit different because we don't expect an even distribution as the number of players included increases. But taking the Top 250 isn't representative of the population. The Top 250 is a very particular subset of the population. If you wanted to see what the makeup of races was for all of SC2, then you'd need a random sampling of the population. You're not doing that. You're trying to show what the makeup of the competitive scene is to find imbalance. That's fine. I'm just saying if you stop at 10, 50, 100, 250, or even go farther to 500, 1000, the numbers are different. So I'm saying that whatever conclusions you'd draw from 250, you'd draw different ones at either 100 or 500. So the numbers are interesting, as numbers always are, but they don't really prove much that you can truly stand on. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to stop a lot of people using these types of tabulations as Grand Proof that X race is OP or Y race needs a nerf. | ||
|
gravity
Australia1988 Posts
On May 03 2010 23:24 Takkara wrote: But taking the Top 250 isn't representative of the population. The Top 250 is a very particular subset of the population. If you wanted to see what the makeup of races was for all of SC2, then you'd need a random sampling of the population. You're not doing that. You're trying to show what the makeup of the competitive scene is to find imbalance. That's fine. I'm just saying if you stop at 10, 50, 100, 250, or even go farther to 500, 1000, the numbers are different. So I'm saying that whatever conclusions you'd draw from 250, you'd draw different ones at either 100 or 500. So the numbers are interesting, as numbers always are, but they don't really prove much that you can truly stand on. I'm not trying to be argumentative. I'm just trying to stop a lot of people using these types of tabulations as Grand Proof that X race is OP or Y race needs a nerf. Well, it's just a matter of choosing what you consider a good enough player that they can be taken into account when consider race popularity, then including all of them. But I agree, it's too soon and too little information to be claiming serious imbalance based on numbers like these. At best it gives a starting point for further investigations (along with other stats like matchup win percentages). | ||
|
gavss
Turkey94 Posts
Terran needs to have 4 or 5 types of units and abilities to deal with an army that has almost no unit diversity. It is ridiculous. Terran always has lower production than spawn larva or warpgate production. Terran doesn't have an endgame unit. Thors and battlecruisers are support units. Terran needs to build production buildings while zerg just spawns larva. Terran needs to build walls if he doesn't reaper rush. Terran needs to build air units to counter some ground units like collossus. Terran doesn't have a viable pure mech build. | ||
|
FarbrorAbavna
Sweden4856 Posts
On May 03 2010 23:31 gavss wrote: I am not surprised. Terran requires higher apm, skill and game iq right now. Terran needs to have 4 or 5 types of units and abilities to deal with an army that has almost no unit diversity. It is ridiculous. Terran always has lower production than spawn larva or warpgate production. Terran doesn't have an endgame unit. Thors and battlecruisers are support units. Terran needs to build production buildings while zerg just spawns larva. Terran needs to build walls if he doesn't reaper rush. Terran needs to build air units to counter some ground units like collossus. Terran doesn't have a viable pure mech build. Or they can just go with mmm  | ||
| ||
