I’m seriously not trying to avoid anything. I have no earthly idea why you’d split them by MMR. If i was trying to prove who’s taller, men or women, I wouldn’t split them by height, then say “the men above/below 5’4” and the women above/below 5’4" are the same height. Men and women are the same height. I would just line them all up, measure them, then show the results…"
Did you have those arguments, then immediately change them once you were proven wrong? It’s goal posting.
Because its not only split by mmr but also population. BOTTOM 50% and TOP 50%. And I already gave the explanation why i did that. Because looking at bottom 50% of population of 1 race would be identical with the identical flaw of 100 % of the population. I actually calculated that too…
How dare i ? How dare i looking at the avg mmr for bottom and top 50% to see if they are really doing worse than their direct counterparts??!!
Really?
You keep avoiding this.
Except it wasnt immediately. Only after we looked at some data. And in fact that data said terrans didnt play more or less. It was the same. Point taken down. Its all ok and chill. But there were other arguments still intact. Thats what a discussion is about. Why do i think xyz? Because of abc or def and if abc is not a valid argument then def is still intact. This is not goalposting its a discussion.
Again…
Why would you split them by MMR? I have no idea what that’s supposed to represent? It’s harder for Terran to get into the top 50%, but once you’re there it’s about the same?
It’s weird.
It was absolutely instantaneous.
You never said “oh, hey, good point, but what about blah blah” you went straight into “they’re more casual”
How they Play Out compared to Other races. The Same. This is a Huge finding because they dont do worse or better compared to Other races.
And also because lining them Up by Population has a critical flaw that you once again Dodged. I asked multiple Times by now.
Please respond to that.
What? Yes, they do? If you split people up by their MMR, they will have the same MMR. I don’t see how this is some groundbreaking discovery you’ve made lol. WTF?
Dude, you’re literally just like “here, let me cut out exactly half the data…” OOOoooOO Terran has the same MMR as Protoss and Zerg now…
Like, could cherry pick any more?
Let me ask you:
Men are: 5 -1 5-7 5-8 5-9 5-10 and 5-11
Women are: 4-10 4-11 5-0 5-1 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-5 and 6-9
Who’s taller on average?
Sentry: well, if we pick all the people above 5-6 the average for both is 5-9, and below 5-6 the average and is 5-1, so they’re the same height…
i didnt
i split them into 2 parts. those are still pretty large. its called creating labels. nothing wrong with that.
not cherry picking. do you even know what that means? you seem to be very desperate not to answer to the flaw.
apparently cherry picking is looking at 2 times 50% of the population 
hahahaha 
in terms of men and women you would still see that women are on average smaller than men. i see that you have literally 0 clue about what you are talking and you are trying to get out of this misery.
you would still see that within the same height range women tend to be on the lower end of the height range and men tend to be on the higher end IF you have a large enough sample size.
again:
" a little explanation why this is so misleading: if you say every race is exactly the same and t, p and z are just skins (in that example its because those skins dont have an impact on the game = every race is doing equally on ladder, having same avg mmr) and there is a skin thats getting picked much much much more often because its just looking super badass cool and therefore it gets picked much much much more often in lower leagues and lets say because it doesnt get picked that often anymore in higher leagues we could make the assumption that because of that distribution of picking the skin and avg them on the leagues, the badass skin performs worse. it has somehow worse stats to it…which is false (and this is exactly the conclusion of bourne)"
do you find any reasonable flaw in what i stated? even a skin could be appear worse if you only look at the distribution of the population.
you try so hard to avoid that.
Why would the cool or badass skins only be popular among lower leagues?
Bro this makes zero sense.
So… The men and women ARE the same height?
What are you on about? This is not the point that is being made. Stop avoiding that.
Instead of saying cool or badass skins lets change it to: one skin is selected in lower range more often and less often in other higher ranges. the basic principle of that argument doesnt change. you happy now? the skin would still appear to be worse.
maybe learn to read:
Again: you have therefore proven that you have 0 clue about what you are talking. You would STILL see that men are on average taller than women.
(btw that doesnt need to be true, but its true for the same population. women in scandinavia could be taller than men in phillipines…avg women in norway: 166 cm, avg men in philipp 165 cm…)
so yes you STILL need to look at similiar groups if you want to compare men and women. checkmate
1 Like
Your argument still doesn’t make any sense.
But they aren’t skins… I get that it’s a simplifying assumption, but it still makes no sense. You split them by MMR, then showed that their MMR is similar. I have no idea why you would think that this is your “smoking gun.”
Please state any valid reason instead of: its wrong.
How? Skins does not impact the gameplay. When we compare to bottom 50% and top 50% with skins you would also see that there is no difference in performance. However if you use 100% you see difference in “performance”. in other words: you perceive a difference…but there is none…maybe like with terran/zerg/protoss??
I dont have the slightest clue why you arent capable of understanding that. I split them in bottom and top 50% (very large groups) if you suspect terran actually doing worse in bottom 50% they would have a different mmr. But they dont. Again: It is not like im saying hey look everyone in gold has about the same mmr. Im saying hey look every race from bronze to gold is actually doing the same.
Its the same with your bs height argument that is pretty much false. Even if you put a 2 height labels on it you would still see that on average women are smaller than men. I think you are just completly clueless
And its showing.
There’s IS no argument. It’s just the same as my height analogy. All you proved was that there’s an uneven distribution (which is normal).
I’m gonna go watch Money heist, I’ve no clue what you’re even trying to get at.
Maybe try to explain it Eliwan see if he can make heads or tails out of WTH you’re on about.
But it was plain wrong tho you said we will see that they have the same height. But…they…dont…
This is literally whats happening: We can see the difference of height of men and women for ALL on earth and see a difference and we can see the difference of height of men and women for a certain group. meaning norway, italy, japan. you name it. You know? these are labels. All of those people are in a certain group and even within the group the height difference is apparent. Smaller than all men to all women, but still existant. Same would be if we create further labels, but ofc if you use too many labels, then yes, the difference would diminish.
So you mean like you have no argument left and just go away?
How lame of you.
The sad thing is: its pretty easy to see what i am doing but hey…dont be too hard on yourself.
In summary:
Skins do not impact the gameplay. When we compare to bottom 50% and top 50% with skins you would also see that there is no difference in performance. However if you use 100% you see difference in “performance”. in other words: you perceive a difference…but there is none…maybe like with terran/zerg/protoss??
And this is because of the uneven distribution. I told you that since the beginning of you using the avg mmr. Only because the average mmr across the population is not equal for all races that doesnt mean that terran is doing worse or doesnt achieve as much
Not necessarily. Updated information, altered views, different evidences can lead people to drop an argument without necessarily agreeing on the same point.
1 Like
Because you asked;
Sentry’s point is that if the hypothesis “All Terrans have less MMR” (I’m paraphrasing I’m tired) has merit, then when you subdivide the population, you should still see some of that effect.
But; according to Sentry, if you look at GM+Masters+Diamond+Platinum; the average MMR of Terrans is equal to the average MMR of all other races; and the same is true when you look at Gold+Silver+Bronze.
What that, in turn, means to Sentry, is that there’s not a gameplay issue that means that Terran the race is bad; but that the number of Bronze-to-Gold Terrans is abnormally high - and that they fill that whole range.
Anyway, both of you drain all the enjoyment out of this because you two keep talking past each other, bringing up old things, and just generally refusing to listen. Please just stop.
He jumped straight from one argument to the next. Once I proved Terran players weren’t newer, he tried to prove that they were casual because they didn’t play as many games. Once I proved the played more, he immediately stated that, sure, they play more games, but those games are lower quality. In what way are they lower quality? no clue, but they are (source: trust me, bro).
Side note: do you have any idea what Sentry is getting at?
Yeah and I don’t dispute that, but I’m actually curious as to how that’s representative of difficulty in any way. I could see how it would be indicative of a difficulty spike that occurred at the bottom half of MMR, that once past said hump, they were more competitive.
Fair enough, but I just want new data. If we were to, say, find average play times, and determine that PVZ was, on average, an incredibly long match up, and therefore Terran players played significantly less play time, then I’d be forced to admit he had a point.
Its freaking not. Thats the point. MMR and relative player ratios are NOT indicative of difficulty, thats just something youve asserted without being able to actually prove.
3 Likes