Fix MMR range for Toss and Zerg

General Discussion
1093

Nope. I initially stated multiple things that i still state today. Such as terran is the most adverted race, most familiar, is the tutorial race, is the campaign race and is the race that is most familiar to any other generic rts faction.

I stated that there can be dozens of reasons and because this is by no means a controlled environment or a scientific research its pretty much nonsense to look at 1 metric and call it a day. Especially because its a game with 3 very very very different races.

You then asked for proof and then collected concrete data/proof/evidence.
Dont get me wrong, i got some of them beforehand - like the average person does. On average you have a lot of opinions based on not-so-concrete proof or just fortified “feelings” and only if you have to really argue about them you start to actually collect concrete proof. Which is more or less exactly what i did. I had an idea beforehand but i didnt have that much waterproof evidence behind that. Now we have the evidence which pretty much proves you wrong.

I mean do you actually think i had the feeling that i someday need to convince someone that NO, you cannot state that terran is the hardest race because the majority of people in bronze/silver are terran?

I dont know what you want to say with this paragraph. The topic is mainly about “is terran the hardest race?” which is actually rather transformed into “can we say terran is the hardest race based on avg mmr?” because thats what its comes down to. This is your only “valid” point. And obviously we cannot say that (neither did you present any kind of argument or logic why we actually can assume that all races MUST have equal average mmr).

And certainly i am not the one saying that protoss is definetly the hardest on every stage in the game in every matchup in every level of play. Im just the one saying that you cannot outright say that terran is the hardest because of avg mmr.

Protoss has problems in top pro scene. Thats pretty much considered a fact or at least its what the pros are stating and what they are trying to fix. But that doesnt mean i think protoss is the hardest overall or every game that a protoss loses is because of imbalance or because protoss is so hard to play. I do think (like nearly everyone ) that the cyclone rework was dumb and negates pretty much everything a protoss can to in the early game. This is pretty much true, but its not imbalanced. Its lame, its dumb, its bad design, but its not imbalanced and certainly not “too hard” to play against. It just limits the things protoss can do in the early game.

Im not the one making weird assumptions here. Im not the one who needs to prove something. You are the one.

You are the one who is guilty of what you are accusing me. You come here with your pure hatred without any logical facts at all and you try to change everything into: terran is harder. You are the one claiming that, you are the one changing every little fact into terran is harder and everything you cannot prove wrong you just state its “dumb”. Like splitting mmr into 2 groups or analysing clusters or analysing everything else besides taking average.

I think its showcasing pretty weak character from both of you, bourne and wheasy, that you state the most ridiculous statements ever without giving an inch of explanation or proof.

1 Like
1094

No, see I actually get swayed by things, simple Jack. Different statistics mean different things to me. Protoss under-performing for literal years means something. Protoss making 40+% of GM means something. Low MMR for Terran across the board means something.

To you and your little girl squad, only one of those statistics is relevant.

1095

Something like five people across a thousand posts in this thread alone have done a pretty comprehensive study proving that is definitely not true.

2 Likes
1096

Something that 5 people all ignored the evidence in favor of, then concluded that they understand the game better than the professional player of their own race.

1097

You completely disregarding their counter-arguments and evidence does not, in fact, make those arguments incorrect, nor does it mean that they ignored the evidence either.

Additionally, pro-players are fallible too; they’re just as human as everyone else is, and their opinion should not be taken as gospel.

4 Likes
1098

They actually did ignore evidence and moved the goalpost many times. It’s ok to admit youre on the wrong side buddy

Yea and we should take your word and sentrys word huh

2 Likes
1099

I dont know which evidence we ignored. Honestly. I think we adressed everything Like 50 Times already.

Oh yes abusing a quote from 6 years ago is such a high Quality Argument and definetly means terran is in every instance much Harder and explains the mmr gap / explains why terran Players are flooding Bronze/silver. Are you that delusional?

Or we should rather Take wheasypeasys word ? Who Claims you get 400 mmr by playing the Other races but cant Deliver any evidence on His own? Go ahead. Show US how its done. Put your Money where your mouth is and get 4400 mmr with zerg and protoss.

I actually can only See you two goalposting a Lot. For example i asked If its OK to use akrij build to get 4.5k mmr. You Said its OK. I proved many Times that i can easily get 4.5k mmr with that build and even beating a 5.2k Player. But you didnt acknowledge anything and Just goalpost.

Same with Bourne. He Said multiple Times He would agree If we can give him evidence by any metric why terran Players should be more often in silver/Bronze. I did. I gave him the Activity stats of Bronze silver and gold.

But Hes still complaining and Not acknowledging and rather Goalposting.

Its Just sad that your Points are getting ripped apart but you cant acknowledge being wrong.

1100

Did you play a new account and not anchor your MMR yet ?

What a funny take kinda exteremist dont you think?

1 Like
1101

Nah it Takes 10 daily wins to unlock a new Account. Im done soon.

I will also continue to Play on my Main Account tho.

Still: i have Shown you 2 Accounts where ive done Something that you Claim is Impossible and to this day you have Shown us nothing. Where is your 4400 zerg and protoss Account? You even havent Them ranked yet.

Why? Do you honestly think its a valid Thing to do? Abusing a quote in a completly different context and somehow Claim it as Proof ? He even completly ignores its anectodical.

1102

Your posts have zero credibility because you feel the need to say these things. Stop doing it.

And, Sentry, you too.

This is an incorrect expansion of the fact it leans on. This is why semantics are important: Anyone who reads this sentence will not understand that you are being a worm.

“Mean average Terran MMR is lower” does not mean “across the board Terran MMR is lower”. Suppose the following groups:

5 Zerg, with 1500, 2000, 2500, 3000, and 3500 MMR. Their average MMR is 2500.
7 Protoss, with 1500, 1750, 2000, 2500, 2500, 3000, 3000, and 3500 MMR. Their average MMR is ~2465.
10 Terran, with 1500, 1500, 1500, 1750, 2000, 2000, 2000, 2500, 3000, and 4000 MMR. Their average MMR is 2175.

This does not indicate that there is some problem with Terran. It indicates that Terran has a larger number of bad players.

Now, let us be clear. This also does not indicate that there is not a problem with Terran, nor does it indicate that there is nor is not a problem with any other race.

You assert that because their average MMR is so low, there is a problem. What the thread’s opening post was about was that a player’s Terran MMR will always be their lowest.

And you are also ignoring the refutation of why your evidence does not back your claim instead of demonstrating why the refutation is invalid. We observe, factually, that Terran has the lowest mean average MMR. We can all agree on that.

We also, factually, observe that Terran has the highest number of players in bronze and silver by a fairly large margin. From basic knowledge, since there are such a huge number of these bad Terrans, it is obvious how the influence of the higher MMR Terrans is not as strong as it is for the other two races on their mean averages MMRs.

Because of that, the argument is very simple: the fact that the mean average of Terran is lower is meaningless, because it’s just because there’s so many bad ones.

But that’s weird, we shouldn’t see a big pile of bad Terrans like that. So we need to do something to make sure that we aren’t missing something.

This is why Sentry went to cut the groups: If the average of either the top or bottom isn’t equal, then that much more strongly indicates that something is wrong, because we have now accounted for how there are so many more awful Terrans.

This is why I so vehemently posted rhetoric to the effect of “not inferior”; because my point is that a Bronze Player is more likely to pick Terran stems from the fact that I’ve observed in every non-professional RTS player I’ve met - Terran is the race with things that appeal to players who are bad at RTS or who are still learning the game. To me, the fact that there are tons of bad Terrans isn’t suspicious because of these things -

So, if Sentry’s group cutting is accurate, then we have accounted for both “Why Terran average MMR is so low” and also for “Why Terran has so many bad players”, which together are the refutation to “Terran average MMR being low means Terran has a problem”.

2 Likes
1104

No one said that. No one but you.

And what about the actual quantifiable activity stat for bronze/silver/gold/plat/ and so on? This is evidence.

Have you asked them for their evidence? Knowing you, you will dismiss every thing someone says that isnt backed up by a ton of evidence.

Also its pretty important in which context they say that because in nearly every circumstance pro gamers will refer to pro gaming scene and dont care at all about regular folks.
The bare fact that someone said xyz in a very brief moment is pretty meaningless if we dont know the context. Why does someone think that way? Proof/examples with unit interactions. On which level is this true? For all? Only at the top? In which matchup? Which style? For example mech can be very very very hard to deal with in lower leagues for protoss and zerg but outside of battlemech in tvz its the inferior style at pro level. Thus saying mech is inferior in general would be a false statement/misleading statement.

You see? The reality is often very complex. Very easy assessments/answers are just mostly lazy and false.

If there is something obviously wrong on literally all levels we can be almost certain that it gets a) acknowledged and b) changed nearly instantly.

For example warhounds for terran or the initial cyclone rework. Both units traded better vs every other unit in every occasiion. It was so apparent and broken that those changes didnt get implemented.

1 Like
1105

And the fact that you keep saying this shows exceedingly clearly that you don’t understand - to this very day - why the argument both makes sense and is important - even though it has quite literally been explained to death through the breadth of a thousand posts from multiple different people.

Again, you are the only one who has said, and continues to say that.

It sounds like the only one who believes that “all terrans are trash” is you, Bourne.

Then stop acting like it. Statements like this:

They just make you look like a moron. And an as$hole. They don’t help anyone reading the thread take you seriously whatsoever, and actively turn away anyone who might be inclined to have sided with you previously based off what little evidence you have actually given.

3 Likes
1107

By the way, speaking of ice, the new conspiracy theory, fresh out of the oven, is the “ice wall”. It goes something like this: if you follow the edge of Antarctica, you will eventually trace your way back to your starting point, meaning it’s a circle. This is ambiguous because without any more information it’s impossible to tell if you are inside the circle or outside of the circle. Why does this matter? If you are outside the circle, that means the world contains Antarctica, but if you are inside the circle it means Antarctica contains the world. Thus the the theory of the ice wall was born, which begs the question of why nobody had discovered this yet (naturally, it’s because the elites are hiding it from us!).

Listening to platinum protoss whine about zerg on a patch that heavily favors toss is frankly indistinguishable from your typical conspiratorial logic, you know, the “moon landing was faked” type of reasoning (“pvz winrates aren’t real, apm charts are fake” etc). That’s why I mention the new ice wall theory. Gotta love it. But, unlike the platinum protoss patrol’s arguments, this one is actually interesting because it is a common problem that you run into in math and computer science, and the way to solve it is remarkable.

One of the ways I recently ran into it is that I had a grid which represents terrain. I was programming an MMO game engine. Each grid point is assigned a true or false value depending on if the terrain is passable by a vehicle. I want to cluster connected grid points together and find a boundary that contains them all, sort of like a fence. This is useful because to stay in the passable area simply requires avoiding the fence. So you are making a closed loop around an area that contains some points, and it’s remarkably hard to decide what is the inside and what is the outside of the boundary. When building a boundary, you have to move to the next boundary segment and you can choose left or right, and so you have to decide if left is outside or if right is outside. From a mathematical standpoint, they look identical.

The way you can distinguish between them is if you take a point not on the boundary and you cast a ray through the center of a boundary segment to the point inside the boundary. You extend this ray off to infinity in one direction. You do an intersection test between this ray and all boundary segments, you count the intersections, and if you count an odd number of intersections then this point is inside the boundary. Any ray works, so you can use (+x, 0, 0) and then all the Y and Z components cancel out which makes the test very fast and simple. Once you know the orientation of one segment, you know the orientation of all the segments in the boundary.

So these “ice wall” theorists just don’t know their math. There is a way to solve this issue knowing only “left turn vs right turn” which is the only information you’d have if you were sailing a ship around Antarctica. It’s an interesting theory because the guy who came up with it was actually able to recognize that tracing a circle creates an ambigous scenario where you can’t tell if you are inside the circle or outside the circle. He’s head and shoulders above forum conspiracy theorists who think Serral wins every premier because of zerg voodoo.

1108

That’s hillarious and incredibly stupid because it’s a conspiracy theory who’s evidence is a single type of map of the world, generally focused around north America, and the fact that some people can’t figure out that a circle is in fact, a circle.

That people believe this even to this day with all the evidence against it will always be sheer insanity to me.

2 Likes
1109

It’s an interesting mathematical question because, when you have a boundary, how do you decide which is the inside and which is the outside? It’s totally arbitrary. If you have a circle within a circle, one circle denotes the inside and the other subtracts, and it’s totally arbitrary which one does what. The outer circle could be the valid space & the inner circle subtracts, or inner circle is the valid space and the outer circle subtracts (which means the exterior of the outer circle is also valid space). So boundaries are very tricky to handle and you run into them in a variety of places in computer science. You might want to know the boundary around a person in a photo for example.

From the typical conspiracy theorists point of view, their understanding is nowhere near as deep and nuanced as this. You are right, they base their wonky conclusion entirely off of a weird map projection.

George Carlin said it best:

1 Like
1110

Berrycrunch is playing toss and zerg. He’s 4900 with protoss (he’s almost as good with toss as he is with terran; he’s played terran for years and toss only recently). Guess where his zerg is at. 4300. Yeah. Waiting for the balance counsel to fix eztoss:

https://i.imgur.com/dvrJxai.gif

He was playing a ZvZ and a ling runby killed all his drones before the game even notified him that his units were under attack. Literally half a second. Three seconds later his third hatch is dead. Welcome to zvz. Terran and protoss have tools to deal with zerglings but zerg gets to deal with zerglings using zerglings. Isn’t that just great. Yeah, zerg bases are totally open and have no defense whatsoever vs a lightning fast unit that can be upgraded to +5 attack. Oh and they are basically free so you’re going to be defending 2-3 or these attacks basically 24/7 all game long. Get comfortable because that’s just how zvz works. Don’t even get me started on mutas.

1111

Omg this is now the topic with the Most replies. Good Job Guys :slight_smile:

1112

The fact that this is a contentious topic means battle.net has fallen. Back in the day if you made a post about Terran being the most difficult race most people wouldn’t bat an eye and be in agreement. Even David Kim made the record clear without much fuss. Oh how things have changed since the PPP took over.

1113

Siege and forget micro made multitasking easier than hots, and the siege tank simplified bio micro compared to bio+mine. Biomine could kill your whole army if controlled improperly, and the short range of mines required them to be actively repositioned in response to enemy army movements. Now it’s you siege the tanks and forget about the possibility of an attack from that angle.

I saw this the other day on berrycrunchs stream. As terran, he can ignore what happens at home and focus on his drops. When playing a zvz, he put his focus on offensive mutalisk micro and in a split second a runby evaporated his thirds mineral line.

Terran multitasking isn’t anywhere near zergs anymore, and the same is true for difficulty in micro. Modern bio micro is stimming and retreating toward tanks. Split micro is for zergs who don’t want their roaches vaporized the instant they enter tank range. Terrans generally still stutter step but it’s not uncommon for them to forget to siege their tanks.

Oh and don’t forget smart fire. Tanks won’t target the same baneling, but every baneling on the map will blow up on 1 marauder. Clearly one is designed to punish no micro and the other rewards no micro. God forbid a tank waste a shot but let’s go ahead and let a one time use unit try to waste itself every waking second. I remember how mind blowing it was thaf MMA had the APM to focus fire banelings with his tanks AND to splot micro at the same time. The glory days are over for sc2.

It’s clear each race was designed to target different skill levels. Zerg is the hardest, then terran, and protoss lags a a mile behind even terran.

This is why the nydus is so powerful by the way. It makes it harder for terran to siege and forget. His defense has to be more active and that puts strain on his multitasking. He has to choose between putting his attention on offense or defense where, without the nydus, he can give his undivided attention to his offense.

1114

It should be explicitly pointed out here that Banelings do not “waste shots” on dead units like you are suggesting. They may attack a target that doesn’t maximize their splash or that they don’t kill efficiently, but they aren’t going to just blow themselves up on a dead target as you are suggesting that Siege Tanks should.

1 Like