Because there’s no measurable difference at any point in stratification. Meaning that Terran activity is mostly evenly distributed. There’s not as much “variance” as you say there is. It’s most likely that there’s slightly more activity at every stratification. In fact it’s almost certain, otherwise there would be an outlier League where all the additional activity was concentratd.
These are not “metrics” sweetheart. They’re not variables and unquantifiable. This is why you go to them. They’re subjective and they allow you to make yourself feel better.
For every explanation you’ve given, I’ve given you one in return. Sure, you could say that Terran was the “tutorial race.” People played that tutorial 15 years ago. All of these are explanations for why players might be newer or less active. The evidence shows the opposite. Terran players are both slightly more senior and slightly more active.
The only Thing i did was mentioning that Bronze League Players Play less than silver League and so on. Which is correct. Meaning those terran Players in Bronze or silver are rightfully in Bronze or silver. Thus dragging AVG mmr down.
They are Not subjective. These are facts. And also have Proof of concept behind. Ofc i cannot prove Them 100% with data but the implications of These facts are pretty clear.
The evidence also Shows that those Players in silver and bronze Just Play less and therefore are rightfully in there
Not at all. For example you still struggle with the Most obvious and biggest Point that you have never adressed: you have No Baseline to Draw any conclusions. Where is your Proof that unequal income still should have Equal Outcome. Why should the average mmr of terran with 37% Playerbase should be the Same as zerg with 27% of the Playerbase? There is simply No Point in thinking your Made Up conclusions should be carved in Stone. Im sorry. You didnt Come Up with any Proof or evidence or Argument why you can do that.
I mean, this one at least has substantial backing on fairly reasonable basic principles.
Roughly speaking, for each X bad players any race has, they should have around Y good players. This is because, in an ideal circumstance, each race equally attracts players of all skill levels, which should mean that you end up with approximately equal mean average rating for all three races.
This, I will note, is the same reasonable - but also not true - logic that also says that each race should comprise between 31.67 and 35.00% of the ladder - an equal split (33.33%) with a 5 percent margin of error (1.67% population).
Yes. Usually i would say the Same. If everything is Equal and random and there is no reason to assume Something is unequal i would say that every Race also should “achieve” equally as much.
Yeah exactly. Because the distribution (also worth noting that the Playerbase is Split into “four” races; terran protoss zerg and random) is deviating so much i wouldnt assume Equal Outcome anymore.
To be fair, even if you assume that skill works that way, there may still be clustering at certain leagues based on the game’s balance at “that particular level”.
I suppose the best way to explain that is that a match-up can swing from favoring one faction to another after one of the players reaches a certain level of skill. The skill of both players can be exactly the same, and this kind of swing could still happen because of differences between the mechanics of each race.
Anti scientific trope. If protoss is the cause then it must affect all protoss excluding 1% as outliers. If performance of protoss varies by level, then that’s a rejection of tge idea that protoss is the cause.
The problem is that there is noise in the data. Subtract out the impact of practice / activety level, player age, and duplicate accounts, and you’d come pretty close to measuring the correlation between race and performance.
Or you could look at winrates inside gm which bypasses most of those issues. Spoiler alert: zerg sucks vs protoss, lmao:
ZvP in GM: 56%.
PvZ in Masters: 54%.
So Masters 3, 2, and 1 have almost the same chances of beating a Zerg as Zergs in GM have of beating a Protoss.
Which issues does it bypass exactly? There are plenty of duplicate accounts, GM is filled with pro alts and you would be hard pressed to prove that GM is homogenous in age and activity among all actual people, rather than accounts.
GM is very homogeneous in age according to research done by a computational biologist on github. The same is true for practice level. The way it bypasses alts is that win-rates don’t count duplicate accounts. Whether a GM protoss wins on this account or that account doesn’t matter – it’s all counted the same. 100 games on 1 account with a 60% win-rate is the same as 50 games on 1 account, 30 games on another, and 20 games on another. It makes no difference. GM level ZvP is within 2 points of Masters 2 PvZ. Flipping wild. By contrast, GM level PvZ is 64%. There are two types of people on Earth: those who know protoss is busted, and those who need to take an intro class on statistics.
The only caveat to gm winrates is that the ladder demotes/promotes to equalize the win-rates. What that means is that, if P is advantaged over Z, Z gms will face easier T/Z opponents as a result of having reduced mmr, and that creates a counter-pressure that fights against the insane PvZ win-rates. The same is true for Protoss who are pushed upward by PvZ (they face tougher P/T opponents). Basically you have two matchups pushing zergs up and one pushing them down, two matchups pushing Protoss down and one pushing protoss up, and PvZ is still so busted to that the 1 matchup is putting almost 2 protoss into GM for every 1 zerg.
Due to how the ladder behaves, the PvZ win-rates equalize as a balance between the advantage of Protoss and the counter-pressure that other matchups create. Ergo Zerg performance is ZvZ + TvZ + PvZ = 1 which if rearranged creates -(ZvZ + TvZ) + 1 = PvZ.
It’s a little more complicated than even this because you have to account for how common each race is on the ladder. The previous equation becomes:
So PvZ win-rates are under-estimated by a factor of ~1.8x. That means PvZ in GM, which has a difference of (63-56=7) is a 14% win-rate difference after demotion is accounted for. That’s a 69/31% win-rate split. This is an approximation, because to have the exact number you’d have to build a full probabilistic model and make sure it fits the ladder data etc. But this will be pretty close. We can do a sanity check on this figure using the Elo algorithm:
It’s important to note that PvZ is only 1/3rd of protoss’s ranking. So if their PvZ performance is reduced by 300, then their total ranking will go down approximately 100. That gives us another way to validate this prediction. We take the demotion threshold of GM, add 100 mmr, and count how many toss it would demote. On EU the demotion threshold is 5100. There are 12 protoss with <5100+100 which means, if nerfed, toss gm representation would go from 80 to 68. 68 divided by 200 is 0.34. In other words, we’ve perfectly estimated how big of an advantage toss has. It’s 300 mmr aka about a 69% winrate vs an equally skilled zerg.
What’s crazy about you’re going to make before you make them. You start with the conclusion, then work your way backwards. It takes no time at all.
One would have to be seriously brain damaged to look at a wide variety of statistics (avg MMR per game, massive over-representation in GM, and massive under-performance at the highest tier pro level) then give credence to only that which has literally the lowest possible sample size.
