You’ll find that Zerg and toss player are actually 1 league below their displayed rank. (-400 MMR atleast)
Pasting other post - Look at how many Terran players are in lower leagues % wise compared to other races. Other races have a linear progression whereas Terran is bottom heavy. Don’t let Z and P gas light terran, they are honestly easy races to play with .
Z and P have the highest % of above platinum players, despite having the lowest player base. It’s kinda sad that they still don’t think it’s easy race
You sent me those stats from Nephest, in the middle of arguing that Terran players were “casual.” So my question is: if the data had shown that Terran players played fewer games than average, rather than more, what conclusions would you have drawn from that?
If the activity deviates too much from the population i would suggest it as “evidence” or “indication”. Yes. But we see that the activity matches the population (sometimes they are more active, sometimes they are less active and sometimes it matches perfectly). Meaning we cannot draw any meaningful message out of the activity.
your all demented, yall need to find a hobbie if SC2 causes you this much greif as terrans, that or switch races and prove to the rest of us laughing at you guys that terran is harder to play.
In a sense, yes it would support that they are more casual.
However, as always, we dont get a definitive answer for anything by just looking at 1 thing.
As i have demonstrated to you: A zerg and a terran have nearly the same mmr in the bottom 50% mmr range Meaning yes, there are indeed more casual terrans then there are casual zergs in that area.
They are not “in the same league” as you said. This is plain wrong. They are in the same range of 50% of the bottom players, meaning from bronze to gold(low plat).
It means that they their respective % of population is distributed in a similar way, so they average out to the same mmr.
It means, no, zerg does not get magically more mmr in the sense, that you start playing zerg and BAM you get +200 mmr. In the same sense it means, no, terran is not harder than any other race. There are simply more terran players in the bottom 50% but they achieve the same avg mmr.
It means that if you look at casual/average players (bottom 50%), z and t score equally well
Ohhh, someone gave up and admits defeat (just saying that to use your words because you have no counter argument)
I did not state that.
Please demonstrate that for all history of sc2 terran players played significantly more games. Because you use that activity stat since forever and everytime in every argument but it was just 1 sample from 1 time. Right now according to nonapa the playerbase of terran is at 36.9% and their activity according to nephest is 37% (its rounded and we cant see any further digits). So all i can see that right now it matches it pretty good.
I stated: if we see a deviation in either direction that is actually significant, it could mean something. But then again it would be 1 observation. And we need to think about what the stat actually means. It just means if someone played more or less games (slightly). We then need a valid view on how it actually influences mmr.
But we can bypass that and it should be enough to state that the avg mmr for z and t is the same for casual/bad players (bottom 50%) to see that t is indeed not harder than z.
Already answered your stupid post. You split people up by MMR then, shockingly, showed they had the same MMR.
You did, in effect. Yes. You posted evidence with the clear goal that if it showed you the answer you wanted, it was conclusive. Because it didn’t give you the answer you wanted, it was inconclusive. That’s delusional. Like the literal definition of it: "false fixed belief that is not amenable to change in light of conflicting evidence. "
The only “answer” we want is to show that youre jumping to conclusions (which, you know, you are.) Certainly proving you definitively wrong is one way of doing that, but all we really need to do are provide alternate scenarios to explain why the data looks the way it does, which we have, and which you have ignored because you are trying to work backwards from a conclusion to make it fit the data.
For example, you completely ignored the entire meat of his post to talk about how you dont like Sentry instead of actually addressing what he said.
