I enjoy how you have decided to not interact with the entire body of the post, as if this disproves any point I have made in it.
Particularly, because for what is now the sixth time, I get the lovely privilege of saying that stratifying the data in the way Sentry demonstrated does demonstrate something valuable that is, in fact, contradictory with your assertion, and that looking at part of a piece of data is, in fact, a valuable tool in the statistician’s arsenal.
Something that you have repeatedly denied despite me expending a large amount of effort on demonstrating examples of when this is an important thing to use.
Looking at part of the data gives you information that may not be present from the whole of the information, and vice-versa; and the same is true of false leads. In this particular instance, if we actually had Terran MMR is lower as a real fact, the average MMR of Terran would stay lower when we divide the population into large groups.
Goal posting, in the fallacious sense, is not “offering new explanations when a previous one is overturned”, it is when the evidence is rejected and followed by a demand for additional evidence, claiming that it isn’t sufficient - without disproving it.
Does this sound familiar? Because it’s what you did.
The Problem is you actually dont know what Things mean when you write Them Out.
You dont actually adress anything anymore. You are Just Standing there saying Things Out of spite.
Its funny that you accused me of trapping into fallacy of composition. Which is literally what you were doing all along
Also, you are Missing the Point. Im complaining about you making an assumption without any explanation or Proof while we have to prove everything to you. While you only got your one Point we have dozens.
You Claim that there is Something wrong with the Game because all 3 races on average dont have the Same mmr. Thats a Claim. An assumption. You have to convince US with evidence/Arguments. Yet you state literally 0 reasons why we should believe you.
We are writing Paragraphs of reasons or explanations and yet you only respond to a tiny fraction of it and Most of the time what you are then stating is completly wrong, Missing the Point or you try to Twist the words around.
For example since the beginning of the Argument idk 1.5 years ago i told you that there might be more Casual terran Players (Bronze and silver Players) and ive actually underlined that i dont mean by that that all terrans are more Casual. Yet you throw this Statement around Like No tomorrow. You Always act Like we would say Things, while we never actually have Said Them.
Out of curiosity, when the game went free to play in 2017, why was there no huge influx of Terran players? Since they’re so popular among newer players? It actually took a noticeable dip after the game went F2P in November, while the total population grew.
I look forward to how this evidence again, changes literally nothing in the defective minds of room temperature IQs I find myself arguing with.
I grew tired of proving idiots wrong only for them to get around and circle jerk about how “that doesn’t mean anything.” It didn’t matter how many times I proved any of you wrong, you’re all going to believe what you’re going to believe. It’s like trying to argue with someone about how their religion is BS.
But you didnt prove anything. The only notable Thing was pointing Out that terrans dont Play less. But actually i did that because i was the one actually providing Data. But still dozens of Arguments stand Strong.
Basically your whole Point is Just an assumption. While we Need to prove all our assumptions (and Despite having actual facts and Proof of concepts you still Turn Them down because you want to believe what you believe because of delusion) you basically say: terran is Harder because of lower mmr.
Good Job. I Just think you are trying to cope. You act Like you got the highground while several people (that also includes terrans) came Up and pointed Out the flaws of your thinking.
At least we dont believe that terran is Harder because silver and Bronze is 50% terran.
Zero is inaccurate. The mean average of racial MMRs is lowest for Terran. That’s a fact no matter what website you pull statistics from, and that fact is one that is congruous with the claim.
Second, as was also pulled in, as the percentage of Terrans playing the game has increased, that probably indicates that they’ve been playing longer. This is pretty sound, since the proportion of the turnovers is wholly divorced from that of the incoming population, and the amount of incoming players is fairly low.
Third, it is extremely weird how the skill distribution of the population works - as in, what percentage of each rank is what race; as a bad example, if of bronze players 50% are Terran, but of Masters players 25% are Terran - because no matter how you slice it up, it can’t be made to line up sensibly with the population of Terran players.
That is an interesting point and I was unable to be sure I found what data you are discussing here. What I did find was a 2% decrease of Terrans between November and January, which might be what you meant.
But what I was able to find was that the population, overall, decreased mildly between November and January, but skyrocketed between February and May, especially for players that played only a few games per week.
This makes sense since the people who already play will not be affected by it going free-to-play, and will take some time to propagate and disseminate across the various conversational groups.
Additionally, feeding into the whole point, what I found said that between February and May when the population actually grew 3,000 odd players, Terran went to 35% from January’s 33%.
Source nephest, specifically; I pulled its data on 2017 season 3 (32), 2017 season 3 (33), 2017 season 4 (34), 2018 season 1 (35), 2018 season 1 (36); linked here is the page I pulled the overview stats from its Games played by race as my main source (though I looked at the others to make sure they aligned).
And that Terran players have been playing longer on average.
Did that one deter you even for a moment? The fact that they play more “indicates nothing” at all whatsoever, right?
Fair enough, misread that one. Just skimmed. Interesting that Terran would dip just below the mean during that time. 35% is still lower than average as Terran is usually around 36%.
The only evidence I have seen offered for this point of view is that the Terran population has risen with time,
Which is likely but not definite that the median Terran is more experienced than the median Protoss or Zerg.
However, we should also note that this same average creates a massive flaw when looking at the other data, because the median game Terran is silver while the median for the other races given a random game is Diamond.
Not in this thread, but yes, we went over that it’s particularly strange,
But also very critically, note that I also went over how the multiplicity of factors means that moving one doesn’t make a convincing argument that it’s not the factors because there’s still more of them to discredit that have yet to be.
Sure it can. It can indicate something, as in there is literally a cause for it somewhere, somehow, but also nothing by virtue of not giving us anything to actually go off of or helping us to reach an actual conclusion. Data analysis gets weird sometimes.
Please quantify what exactly that means. And if you cannot quantify that, please explain what that should indicate at all, especially after 13 years of sc2.
They indicate that something is weird and suspicious, I agree.
But they do not indicate that the thing that is weird and suspicious must be that Terran is hard to learn, that Terran is a weaker race, that Terran has worse players, that Terran is the hardest race to play, or any of that -
Despite all four of those thoughts also lining up with the data that does exist; the fact that the thought’s expected reality matches with the actual reality is not proof of the thought.
rushed breakdown example
If Terran has a strong skill curve, we expect a significant “git gud” cutoff somewhere in the data below which a disproportionate number of Terrans fall.
If Terran is a weaker race than Protoss or Zerg, we expect the percentage of successful Terrans to have low relation with the game’s Terran population.
If Terran has overall worse players, we expect the average rank of Terran to be lower than the other races.
If Terran is the hardest to play, we expect people who switch races to gain rank, which we can’t track very well.
We observe three of these four and the last is both the reverse of the thread hypothesis and also is something we’ve anecdotally noted with a small number of examples.
But that’s not proof of anything because from the very same data we can construct counterarguments:
If Terran has a strong skill curve, we should see a V-shape in our population’s MMR graph somewhere, where there’s a significant decline in Terrans above X point until Y point, when they have mastered the skill in question and therefore have a disproportionate climb. This isn’t as strong a point as I’d like, since if we expect the population to equalize skill distribution which would be the main way to cause this sort of slump, then we’d also expect to see the reality of population-relative fewer Terrans in the highest leagues, for instance, as a direct counter-argument to this idea being a sound rebuttal.
If Terran is a weaker race than Protoss or Zerg; or has overall worse players; we expect them to see reduced success at each level - but Terran MMR does not lag behind within a given subset.
If Terran is the hardest to play, we expect the number of Terrans to plummet until you get to the top, which it does; but it does not then jump up, which is something we would expect as players reach a skill cap of sorts, since then the race’s hardness stops being a factor.
It’s not that it “must” prove that Terran is harder. It indicates that Terran is harder. Proving something as subjective as difficulty would be fruitless and nearly impossible (as you are more than happy to agree with).
But there are a dozen other possibilities why things are as they are.
Terran is simply harder is a possibility. Terran having more casual players as it is the starting race is a possibility.
Even that all terran players in general are worse is a possibility, but a very unlikely one.
You need to understand that there is no ONE INDICATION. You can still come up with a dozen of reasons, a dozen of possibilities why we see what we see.
And while there are a dozen of possibilities what is going on we try to figure out the most likely one. That terran is simply much much harder and therefore those bronze and silver guys cant advance is simply very unlikely. Its also very unlikely that this means that terran is much harder in general. It is possibile, but its very unlikely.
Yeah you came up with a million different explanations. What you didn’t do, was present any evidence for why you made those explanations. The best thing you did after 2 years was to stratify the data by MMR, then be flabbergasted by what you found: people with similar MMR have similar MMR.
Then you paraded it to the other PPP idiots and celebrated like it meant something.
You presented a possibility (and you decided it was the only possible explanation and think its factual) and we presented possibilites (but backed them up with tons of other explanations).
The difference is: we presented explanations and facts. You didnt.
Meaning this is pretty much false and a lie:
I see, you STILL dont understand the point being made and why its important. There are multiple people here on this forum who actually understood the point and agreed that its an important point.
You STILL cant come up with any counter argument. Both arguments you used, actually proved my point of view, that its a pretty important obersavtion that t and z have similiar mmr. Because like your height example would demonstrate: if there was a factual difference between height, then we would see it (like we see it in reality). In sc2 we dont see the difference, meaning we only have the difference in mmr caused by distribution. This is a very obvious fact that you cant grasp. Same goes for your bmi argument. Would we see the SAME body if we look at bmi of 25? no ofc not.
One of the most important conclusion we can draw from that: people with high skill (top 50%) and people with low skill (bottom 50%) get EXACTLY the same result on avg. This is pretty much perfect balance.
The only difference is: there are more terrans in bottom 50%. And in your own words (fallacy of composition) it would be false to draw any conclusions out of that (despite the obvious flaws with that: meaning not equally distributed players implying heavy bias. plus ofc terran being campaign race, lead design choices, marketing, familiarity, etc. etc. you know the drill already).
In short: you have 0 reason to believe what you want to believe.
And there is 0 reason to believe that your possibility should outweigh our possibility.
Then please present any kind of counter argument.
Only because you dont understand something doesnt mean its wrong.
I see your favored debate tactic is baseless accusations and saying things that were already refuted.
You do understand that you haven’t proven anything from the opening post’s data, that the hilarious strawman in this post is impossible to take seriously, and that ignoring it entirely and digging your heels in on the matter just makes you look foolish?
