Thats Data. But where is the evidence that it means what you think it means ?
How do you know those players are “bad?”
A player with low MMR is a bad player.
Terran players have lower MMR because they’re bad.
We know they’re bad because they have lower MMR.
#definitelynotcircularlgoic
You can’t point to anything they do that makes them bad. They don’t play fewer games. They aren’t newer players. They just “are.”
How do you know the data concludes to terran is harder?
You dodged my question.
Please provide a study or something.
Yes, you have correctly identified the purpose of MMR. Congratulations.
ETA: That isnt circular logic, you just restated the first clause in reverse.
2 Likes
Indeed, if you incorrectly represent things, you come to the belief that the logic is circular.
You asked me two questions and I answered them. Choosing that my answers to those two questions are themselves an argument is entirely on you.
Do you think I’m - or anyone else reading this thread is - stupid? Or that, because you can mangle words, you have proven or disproven something?
No. Not dissimilar to “Anyone can sit on a throne”, all this actually demonstrates is that “you [are] an arse”.
The reason why you observe “The mean average MMR is low for Terrans” is very simple - that there are a lot of “bad Terrans who have low MMR”.
When you then ask “what metric are you using to say they’re bad”; and I say “their MMR”; that doesn’t… mean anything. The question to ask is why are there so many bad Terrans.
To which, of course, we note that Terran is the race whose campaign most looks like its ladder counterpart; that Terran is the most intuitive race since it’s designed ‘typically’ for an RTS; that Terran’s units being all ranged, Terran’s heavy defensive focus ie. Bunker, Siege Tank, Planetary Fortress; etc, increase its appeal to lower skill players.
Well, yes, that is the point of MMR. That is what that means.
Here, let’s use a different example.
If we take the mean average of the ages of each ethnicity across the world, the one with the highest mean average age has the longest life expectancy, right?
No. Of course not. That makes no sense.
3 Likes
Holy sh-
The amount of times you have had this explained to you and you still manage to misrepresent the argument is mind boggling. How do you not understand this yet?
It’s not “Terran players are bad.” It’s “Low level players are bad. A disproportionate number of those are Terran, and these are possible reasons why that might be the case.”
There is a HUGE difference, and one that you seem incapable of understanding and separating from it. You are, again, literally the only person who has said this.
4 Likes
Yes, there are. And you and your PPP homey have provided literally zero evidence for this to be the case… THAT’s what I’ve been arguing this whole time. Now, either provide some, or just admit you were wrong. It’s not the end of the world.
Firstly, I’m a terran player. Secondly, you’re completely ignoring what I was saying, and thirdly, you are the one who’s making a claim that “Terran is harder.” Your data does not back up your statement, and as the one who’s making the claim, the onus is on you to provide sufficient evidence, eliminating all possibilities until that is the the most likely, most realistic reason behind why the data is the way it is.
We have given a number of different possibilities. Our job isn’t to provide evidence, our job is to question the (extremely limited) data you have given. Stratifying the data is one such way to do so, and as people who are far more knowledgeable on the subject of stats than I am have said above, if your conclusion was actually the case, then we would see a trend in both parts of the data set. This is not actually the case!
Pot, Kettle. I literally have no stake in this debate - personally speaking, I win either way. Either “Terran is the harder race” and that makes my main the harder race, or you’re wrong and Terran is just another race, which means I win anyway because that’s what literally everyone other than you is arguing.
Again, the point is that “bad players are bad, and low league players are by definition bad players”. This is even something you agreed on earlier!
This is astronomically different from your misrepresentation of the argument against you which you, for some reason, continue to misconstrue as:
“Terran players are bad.”
As I said before the onus is on you as the one making the claim. All we’re doing is providing possible other reasons why the data might be the way it is.
What you need to do is provide evidence why none of the above is a potential reason for why there are more Terrans in lower leagues. Which you haven’t actually done yet.
4 Likes
We have. But you didnt provide any Proof at all. Where is the evidence that based on that particular dataset you can Draw the conclusion that you want to Draw?
Exactly. There is no evidence for that.
Firstly, you’re not. I can look at you’re games played, lol. You’re roughly split between T and P, heavily on the P side last I checked.
Are you braindead? We are both making claims. I’m making the claim that Terran players are roughly similar to other players. You 3 are claiming that Terran players are somehow inferior.
I’m okay with exploring the idea that Terran players are inferior, whether it’s that they’re newer, or less active, or more “casual” (whatever that means). Just provide evidence of that claim.
Stratification of data isn’t evidence, short bus. It took you TWO YEARS to come up with “look, I separated people by MMR and they have the same MMR.”
Not to keep parroting the same refutation, but that’s literally what your argument came down to. It’s literally the stupidest thing I’ve heard.
I am. Literally all of my ranked games are Terran. Those games you say I was playing Protoss? They were all Random. And all team games.
No, we’re not. Again, that is you either misconstruing the counter-argument (which, again to be clear boils down to: “Bad players are Bad”), or either deliberately misrepresenting (read: straw-maning) it.
All we are doing is providing other plausible reasons as to why players may be in those low leagues, and why a (admittedly weirdly) disproportionate number of them seem to be Terran. I even provided counters to some of those same reasons earlier:
Again, we’re not making any claim, we’re counter-pointing your own claim with other propositions as to why the data may be the way it is. It’s on you to prove your claim/hypothesis, as you have the burden of proof having been the one to make the claim, since you have aptly demonstrated that you have not removed all the other variables.
Frankly, I don’t really think you can remove all the variables without other pieces of evidence anyway, but you haven’t provided any to do so.
2 Likes
Inferior from a gameplay standpoint, not an intrinsic standpoint.
They have lower MMR on average. There’s only 2 feasible explanations: Terran is harder, or Terran players are inferior players.
Again, this can mean they’re newer on average, or that they’re playing fewer games or some other 3rd factor <========(THIS IS THE ONE I’M OPEN TO EXPLORING).
Instead all I ever receive is: “they’re a bunch of noobs, deal with it.”
Yes, the fact that 3 bottom leagues are dominated by terrans might be very solid argument to conclue terran is harder.
Simply those low level terrans don’t know how to get out of gold because they struggle to deal with Z/P AOE units/abilities. In bronze - gold you can spam MMM to win, but that will not work in plat and above.
From my own personal experience i would say that terran is hard because of following reasons
- bio armies are very micro-intensive. You need god-like control to succeed in higher leagues (master/GM)
- bio armies are extremely fragile which means you are not allowed to take your eyes off your army even for a second. Otherwise, banes, disruptors, storms will decimate your army in an instant.
- playing terran requires production from all 4 facilites WHILE still micro-ing your army. This might be a reason why terran gets supply blocked more often that the other two races and why we have orbital depots to compensate for that.
- SCV management. Construction of every terran building requires individual SCV which then must be sent back to minerals with SHIFT click. If you forget to send couple of SCVs back to mining just for a minute you will lose hundreds of minerals.
- every terran production facility must be manually added to control group. We dont have feature like “select all warpgates” plus it requires an add-on to produce efficiently. If you forget to add your structure to control group or forget an add-on, you will lose probably like 20-30 supply before noticing it. Not to mention that these stupid add-ons often time cause units to stuck in between them which may literally lose you the game if you do not fix it in time.
So these are my arguments why i think terran is harder than the other races.
That is the only point that is obvious.
Miro is a Terran player.
default answer from Miro:
to T units: are necessary, must not be changed.
to Z/P units: bad design.
This is exactly how it works in Plat and above. Only that you have to maybe use Ghosts If you fail.
What you fail to understand is that there are multiple multiple possible reasons. You strawman Like there is no tomorrow.
You fail to understand that those people in Bronze and silver drag down the avg mmr so much thus concluding Something Out of that is pretty nuts (in your own words: fallacy of composition)
1 Like
That’s a point that I find difficult.
Because I have tried it the other way: Zerg is the beginner friendly race.
and i came to the conclusion, what is considered easy and what is hard, what can i expect from the different mmr (rapid fire/ shift-click/ game knowledge/ etc).
i understand your points and would agree (except for exaggerations like bio god like for m/gm).
You can now list what is important about each race and how hard in comparison.
As an example to your list you can say Terran has many safe aspects: easy wall, long range, versatile units.
List them? Provide evidence for them?
Fallacy is assuming that what’s true of parts is true of the whole. I adopt the exact opposite. I assume that without clear evidence, Terran players are not somehow inferior (casual, in your words) as players.
We listed them 10 times before.
Players choices, advertisement, design choices, campagin, tutorial, familiarity etc etc. These are POSSIBLE reasons of more casual/newer people choosing terran. And if i need to exactly prove that these are possible explanations, then maybe you should prove that there are only 2 possible explanations? Why do you always want other people to prove something while you never actually do it yourself? Your claim is one big of a questionmark that you never provided any proof or evidence for. Yet, you always want proof and evidence when we counter your claim.
Now please provide evidence for your claim that because of avg in that dataset we can conclude terran is harder.
Then maybe prove that? Oh wait. you have 0 proof. You just try to come up with an assumption (terran is harder).
You contradict the reality (there are just more terrans in low league) and try to justify it with the assumption that its because terran is harder.
Which is what you are doing if you say terran is harder. Because it only seems harder for the very low league, but terran representation at plat or above is perfectly fine. So, because you use average you basically say: because of the low level players, high level players struggle too.
1 Like