This is true only if the trend line doesn’t change. If the same trendline appeared when we subsection the data then that shows something different than when the trendline vanishes.
nobody is saying this
trying really hard doesn’t always correlate to improved skills, it is true
the relevance is not the degree of casualness - note that the inverse of your statement is also equally possible, that a random silver 2 protoss is incredibly tryhard and does their absolute best all the time but is still hard stuck at that rank, while there’s silver 1 terran who’s comfortable and relaxing without exerting themselves much at all.
OK, this is a good bullet.
Why do you think this? What draws you to this conclusion?
Is this a rank-regardless hypothesis ie. is the average masters 1 terran less casual than the average masters 1 protoss/zerg?
I mean you could’ve stopped ages ago. The fact that continue to attack me with pejoratives and get upset about facts does more to characterize you than it does me. The fact that I will literally link evidence of Sentry or Kelthar calling me out for data, then instantly reacting emotionally to said data then continue to support them, rather than their arguments, shows you’re more possessed by ideology than logic.
Because if you stratify the number of games played by league, they always stay almost exactly the same.
No. Well, kind of.
My contention is, that all things being even, Terran would be 36% of bronze, 36% of silver, etc. (actually, I don’t find this quite to be the case - if all things were even, I think Terran would be roughly 36% across all leagues over time, but that you’d see significant variance from season to season and league to league – you don’t see that, you see Terran with consistently lower league placement).
For Terran specifically, there seems to be a significant barrier to entry at around Gold/Platinum, at which point things even out more. Zerg is greatly overrepresented in these mid leagues. Later, Protoss has massive overrepresentation from about mid Masters through to top GM.
Then we get into tournament statistics. Protoss players do quite well… Then you get to Premier Tournaments… And you might notice a fairly steep drop off lol
Yes ok now I also bit on your hook. You can´t stick to one topic for long you keep changing topic and keep making claims and assumption. You try to split people that is exactly what a troll does.
Despite your constant juvenile derisions, you may notice that I’m the only person who’s brought up data at all. You triplets are the ones getting angry at the data.
I think your contention is that I should just be quiet and “accept that I’m wrong” despite not one piece of evidence to convince me to do so.
If anything I’m giving you someone to be united against. You’re all on the same team. And so profoundly comfortable with being consistently wrong.
There is no team against you. You have done this to yourself. When you keep denying everything and won´t listen people gonna get hard on you. I feel sorry for you, but I can´t help you should get some professional help.
Just stop talking. Discuss my arguments rather than getting all emotional. It’s not an attack on you personally. It’s just data. Data the 3 of you resent.
You might be heterosexual. I wouldn’t call you a “man.”
You absolutely do. The implications are obvious. Know how I know they’re obvious? because those were the arguments from your daddies (that Terran players were new and that they played less) that I dismantled with facts. Facts I was then attacked for presenting.
Now, you’re here joining in on the butthurt. It’s hilarious to me.
I do not understand how this is an elaboration on the point laid out in
which is what I was asking so I am a stuck child.
So I am stuck repeating the question, because the extra words here are not helpful: Yes, I have observed the data of which you speak, but I do not understand how those words correlate to the asked question:
is the average masters 1 terran less casual than the average masters 1 protoss/zerg?
a. no, by the time you get to masters, the difference is effectively nil
b. yes, the rank of the players being compared makes no difference in how the terran has to play harder / try more in order to be of the same rank
c. something else.
Going to answer for specifically that MMR. Protoss is the easiest by far (HUGE over-representation from about M2 to GM), Zerg is the most difficult (generally about a 5% or so discrepancy in GM), Terran is middle of the road.
For macro mechanics, I would establish a coefficient for the amount of time it takes for a particular task that’s averaged out across the population multiplied by the number of times it happens per, say, 10 minutes of gameplay, on average. For instance switching a building on to an add on. Then for micro I would create a system of precision of clicks necessary, determined by the hitboxes of the units selected and speed of their clicks (I know that non-macro APM requirements are highest for Terran, but that’s a subset of what I would study).
In the judgment above, I merely took an MMR and compared it to their average portion of the population.
I get annoyed when people use scientific speak (such as claiming the “data agrees with them”) then continue to never provide even a single ounce of data and only seek to do everything in their power to prove that no data available is valid.
You mean Like saying avg mmr must mean terran is harder? Without any Proof or further explanation.
So dont be annoyed by yourself.
You mean Like bottom 50% and top 50% is meaningless? Familiarity is meaningless? Design is meaningless (and thus also the Statements of lead Designers are meaningless)? Advertisement is meaningless? The Tutorial (terran) or campaign of the Game is meaningless? The Population disparity between all races is meaningless? Its meaningless that we cannot Draw conclusions about the Population when we dont know the Players preferences?
Dont you realize that you are denying way way way way way more Things than we do? We basically say: you cant Draw conclusions based on that Data because of those flaws. You are basically saying: all your Points are irrelevant and the only valid Thing Here is that terran is Harder because of avg mmr.
Science means doubting. You only can say Something definitive when you have proven Something. So far we havent Something definitive. And thats your Problem.
They were your metrics. Yours. I just proved you wrong on all of them and then you got butthurt.
I said “indicates.” You said it indicates “nothing.” But only after the metrics you devised came back to prove me right.
Again. You and Sentry came up with the metrics. Both of you. Kelthar, you literally said that Terran players were newer within this very thread. You’re only both upset that you were proven dead wrong and then immediately lashed out at me for it. I’m not the source of your pain. The information is. I just provided the information.
Cute.