The metric ? The amount of Players in very Low leagues.
Definition Casual: relaxed and unconcerned
In gaming: Bad/uncompetitive Gamer.
Silver and Bronze Players are Casual Gamers. Drawing conclusions based on Them would be fallacy of composition.
2 Likes
Why are they disproportionate in the lower leagues? Because they’re casual. How do you know they’re casual? They’re in lower leagues. #definitelynotcircularlogic
Why Else ? Because terran is so hard ? Please prove that 
Oh, you make the Claim that t is too hard based on the Population in silver and Bronze ? If that doesnt Sound Like fallacy of composition i dont what does
2 Likes
It’s in the data, homey. The data speaks for itself. You can be mad at me, but I’m just the messenger. The fact that you get this defensive when I ask you a simple question about metrics is very telling.
No they don´t. Maybe you have some points. We can´t know because you can´t prove anything you are saying. I asked you to prove what you are saying and show us evidence but you can´t. You showed us data and that´s great but it´s just data. We need some expert to analyze these data else they are useless. You are like “the fool on the hill” (in the beatles song)
1 Like
Except it doesnt.
The data is the data. Nothing more nothing less. What we do with the data is up to us. We can conclude its rubbish because we identify critical flaws with it (quality of data, bad testing merits, influences like preference, bias due to design, marketing, etc. etc.).
The data itself tells us nothing. We still need to validate it. We need to trust the data.
Correlation is not causation. By your logic smoking would lower the iq of the smoker because of causation. Which is obviously false. Yet there is a strong correlation.
1 Like
You want me to prove something that’s, by its very nature, purely subjective. You fell all over yourself just yesterday cheering on Kelthar’s “the data is on our side,” now you’re just like the other two, unable to even define what Terran casuals or Terran being more difficult or Terran being easier, for that matter, even looks like.
If you won’t accept any amount of data, just say that. “Terran isn’t harder, no amount of data will satisfy me.”
Yes, you now see how incredible difficult it is for you to prove something that subjective.
And your best guess is: avg mmr is lower because of those bronze and silver guys therefore terran must be harder for everyone.
Well played mate.
What we are doing: Maybe dont rush yourself and conclude things from biased dataset and maybe think about 1 or 2 things.
What you are doing: Wow cool this dataset says terran is much much harder if we use mental gymnastics.
YOU need to prove something. We dont need to since we basically say no please dont draw conclusions out of thin air.
There is just one data, Buddy. Its actually the other way round: You wont accept any amount of counter arguments and we have given you plenty. Because in your eyes every counter argument is washed away with “you cant prove it”…but somehow you dont have to prove your view 0o somehow you dont need to prove the validity of your data. Then its “just hard to prove because everything is subjective” and we just have to believe you because “trust me bro”.
Weird.
2 Likes
I want you to admit that what you is trying to do here is imposibble with the data we have. You can´t prove it so withdraw your claim. Ofcourse none can prove “Terran is Harder” with the data we have. Maybe it´s because they aren´t. I don´t know and you don´t know. I think we can agree then that we disagree and that fine but please stop making all these claims without evidence.
You have no valid evidence and you can´t prove your claims. You lost this discussion face it.
1 Like
And they play more… and they’ve been playing for longer. Classic strawman again. All you do is fall into one bias trap after another. You even know you directly had to admit to using circular logic, but it doesn’t stop you from repeating it.
So, it always comes back to this
Things don’t mean things. Because if things mean things, then your feelings are hurt.
They dont.
Please prove in Numbers how that affects mmr
Oh you cant ? Then it surely means nothing right ? It certainly wouldnt Count as an Argument If i would use that.
Please prove that the Data is valid and without flaw. Then i would agree with you.
2 Likes
Dude, if there was ever a chance of that, you would have already. You would have shifted the first time when I initially proved that Terran players weren’t new. Now you’re angry at me because I’m asking you to even tell me what even makes a player casual, and you refuse to do that.
Thats a very Long Response for simply saying:" i cant prove the Quality of the Data."
2 Likes
So, is your stance that IF we could prove that Terran players played slightly more games and had moderately more seniority and substantially lower MMR, that THEN you would believe that Terran was harder. But you think the data is flawed or BS and that’s why you don’t believe Terran is harder?
Just clarify that that’s what you’re telling me first.
Why do you believe Terran is harder?
1 Like
Relative to what? Youre starting with the premise that they “should” have X MMR and are concluding that its harder based on it not matching that, but theres nothing that says their MMR is in any way incorrect.
2 Likes
If you want to know the truth, I didn’t think Terran was the hardest. I talked with a former pro player streamer about it once on stream and he’s the one who convinced me. I’ve since asked several others and they tend to confirm what was initially told to me. This has been true for professional players of all 3 races.
You have to be very careful when you make claims and assumptions, they must be backed up with evidence, even if some of what you say should be true, we still need evidence. It is possible that there are professional streamers who share your opinion, but I still need to see some evidence for that claim as well.
1 Like
No, that is not the case.
More explicitly, that, generically, is just not how that works.
You can be casual and not be inferior, these are not the same axis of existence.
I personally have a trend with this point, because for most games, I play casually, for the purpose of enjoying myself. This makes my displayed level of skill below my actual skill level, because I’m not trying that hard to win, because I both do not get high joy from just winning and am capable of enjoying losses and would rather lose more often doing something I find enjoyable than win a lot.
Now, let’s cycle this back to something reasonable.
How does the number of hours that a given player has played correlate to their skill level? Very high, I think we can all agree on that one. People who have played 1,000 hours of an RTS are going to be much better than those who have played for 100.
Remember that leagues naturally indicate this.
What we know, for certain, include the following - even if these aren’t perfectly true, I hope they are agreeable summaries of the information we have at hand.
1a- There is a huge Terran population.
1b- As the game’s aged, the percentage of players who are Terran has increased.
2- Approximately, the percentage of Terrans in a ladder rank decreases as the ladder rank increases.
Let’s note something.
1a and 1b heavily imply,
1c- Proportionately less Terrans stop playing than Zerg and Protoss,
1d- The number of mean-average hours that Terran players have played for is going to be higher than that number for Zerg and Protoss.
But 1d is not a good conclusion for multiple reasons. First, the mean average of hours played means that we’re still counting all the upper-echelon players and comparing them to the fresh meat. Now, logically, this should not be a problem because we’re doing that for all the races.
The very thing that Sentry posted earlier is the argument that demonstrates that that logic doesn’t hold -
3- The average MMR of players of each race in Grandmaster, Masters, Platinum and Diamond; does not favor one race. The same is true for the average MMR of each race’s players in Gold, Silver, and Bronze.
What this means is that, despite there being a very low average MMR of Terrans, this is because there is a high number of Terrans who have a bottom 50% MMR, but Terran players do not have an lower overall MMR.
Which makes sense in context of the argument: More players who are bad play Terran, more players who are casual players play Terran, etc., something that has been backed up by random Terran mains showing up to these arguments multiple times in the past. This, very importantly, doesn’t say that Terran is the more casual race, it is that Terran is more comfy and has more players who don't try very hard.
Wow. I actually cannot believe you said this. After saying “that would be lazy and racist,” no less. But generically, I have actually heard this only from men. (:
Probably something about how people really suck at debating their opposite, as opposed to something actually specific to either gender.
This is wholly unrelated to everything you have been screaming about.
Also, I think that Zerg’s the hardest.
To follow your statements, I would then ask you to prove that Terran is harder than Zerg, but not actually offer up any evidence as to why I think Zerg is the hardest, and then when you don’t do it to my arbitrary satisfaction, complain.
Do you understand why that’s frustrating? I literally just had to abandon this thread for a week because of this that you moronic dance you two are doing.
This is a good claim. However, as far as I can tell, nobody is arguing against this. There is a critical difference between
“There are more casual players who play Terran, there are more bad Terran players”
and “Terran players are bad, Terran players are casual.”
The former is what people actually said. A bad player is bad regardless of race, there is just a very large number of bad players who are also Terran players.
Now, that itself is weird and worthy of discussion, but the balance approach of SC2 has always been to focus towards higher ranks when things are not ridiculous, so it makes sense - Terran is the race whose army benefits the most from heavy micro due to their high number of squishy ranged high DPS units. But Terran is also the race punished the most for not being consistent and good with their macro, due to their build mechanics not having any way to inherently introduce slack (larva stocking and chrono boost are these kinds of ‘slack’).
Therefore, the skill required to play Terran at a level where you start needing to succeeding at both tasks consistently and simultaneously, is higher, because your race mechanics disfavor intermediate solutions like the ever-recommended “build more production” as compared to the other races’ equivalent. Dropping more Gateways or Hatcheries is slightly easier to handle than building more Barracks is because of the way the respective unit building processes work.
this hurts to read, you know
but fortunately i did this already, and in one of these threads; way back in July:
The example you used about male and female heights is a good example as well, since in that example we would not observe the dramatic difference.
For example with made up statistics, let’s say men are 5% taller than women because I don’t want to do research.
Then we take top 50% of male heights and compared it to top 50% of female heights; and see “males are 5% taller on average.”
If we then take the bottom 50%, and we see “males are 4% taller on average,” what that tells us is that the height difference decreases as height decreases, but that the axiom holds true.
The entire point Sentry had made was that the base axiom does not hold true when you change the subset of the population, which demonstrates that an average of the whole data doesn’t show that Terran is overall weaker / denied MMR by race / whatever argument we put here; what it shows is that at both high and low levels, the races have roughly equal strengths.
For the rest of this point I will use entirely made up and arbitrary numbers, so let’s say MMR ranges are between 1,000 and 6,000.
If we look at MMR 1,000 ~ 3,500, and see that the average MMRs of the races are
Terran 2200 - Zerg 2300 - Protoss 2250
And then we look at 3,500 ~ 6,000 and see the averages on that range are
Terran 4750 - Zerg 4700 - Protoss 4800
But, when we look at the whole population, we instead see
Terran 3050 - Zerg 3260 - Protoss 3270
That looks suspicious. But the information these nine numbers tell us is that there are a very large number of bad Terrans; and nothing else. And that lines up with its high popularity!
That’s the entire point. If we divide a group into subsets and the trend line vanishes or reverses, that says something suspect about using the whole set.
First, never do this, it’s literally just spewing words based on what words people have used in the past.
Second, the third bullet posted by the language model is almost verbatim the point that people have been trying to tell you and that you refuse to listen to.
you are reading it this way because you want that to be what got said
it is not what got said
please stop strawmanning
your biggest opponent in this argument is the fact that as you keep talking i want you to stop saying words because every time you open your mouth i want you to be wrong because you demonstrate that you are a rear end in a top hat
you are doing the same thing.
no, it does not (one is input one is output); but your actual point here requires controlling more variables that we cannot control.
you are reading the post this way because you want to and not because it’s what it said
Anecdotes have value. While they are not extremely scientific individually, consider that it has happened multiple times over the last five or six months. Once or twice is a coincidence, five times is a pattern.
after {correction}, yes
just completely unironically. this is an extremely believable statement based on the … bit over 200 people i personally know who play quite a bit of RTS
Why does Terran having a larger number of lower league players demonstrate that Terran is harder? Quantify that.
Oh, wait, you can’t! Because we don’t have the data to back that up either!
You are holding others to a higher standard of data than you are holding yourself to, which is the thing Kelthar was complaining about.
like
i’m just done
which is why my post got more terse and quote-reply as i went down
i just can’t handle this
3 Likes
I don’t think it’s worth continuing the argument. That it’s already gone on for 340 posts as it is is rather absurd considering that A) no middle ground was achieved, B) the points being made were ignored by Bourne or straight up dismissed despite being quite clearly explained multiple times, in detail, and C) the points ended up being rehashed over and over and over again by both sides.
For my money, Terran players are not more casual, but there does seem to be more casual players who also play Terran. This has been the take-away for me. It’s not necessarily something I 100% agree with, but I can only say that off gut feeling, and gut feeling isn’t evidence, so if I’m wrong then I’m wrong.
4 Likes