It is obvious. You cannot admit the loss. Of the debate… does not matter how lost it is… you think you still win. Have ego size of freight train… very funny… but poster who knowledge of the subject. Know ego is empty shell… most person with ego. Have ego for good reason. Very talented etc… not this small bird… he puff up his feather. To look big! 
but is small…
The PPP and their whining bring out the worst in the SC2 community.
2 Likes
I did statistics for a living and your examples make no sense and your analogies don’t either.
If we make the assumption that there is no link between skills and the race you choose and since the number of people is big enough in low leagues we should be seeing a re partition that matches the total number of players.
We don’t.
We see terrans are over represented in low leagues (which would be consistent with the idea they are harder to play or possibly slightly weaker).
We see protoss (who used to be over represented in lower leagues and GM but under represented in diamond and master) now represented almost equally in all leagues except GM (which is a small subset but the difference is significant).
We see zergs who used to be widely under represented at low leagues and over represented at higher leagues (stronger race?) now still more present in master, diamond and platinum but less so than before the patch and much less common in GM than before the patch.
If we were to assume skills and the choice of a race is completely uncorrelated then Terrans is hardest but can consistently achieve great results, protoss is mostly balanced except at the very top there are more GMs but they still don’t win all that many tournaments (surprisingly) while Zerg would be overall easiest to play at least up to master but possibly also weakest at high level after last patch (yet still wins tournaments, surprisingly).
1 Like
Buddy, that isn’t even statistics. That’s primary school math.
What the hell are you smoking LOL? PvZ, the zerg is COMPLETELY on the timer of Protoss deathball after the infestor change, just like HOTS. Zerg has to do much more to beat Protoss before that point and has to completely outplay Protoss. Protoss is extremely favoured right now in PvZ. Please stop posting, member of PPP.
These kinds of posts are exactly the reason Protoss has broken sc2. I saw this years ago. The only way this could have been prevented, is if everyone actively attacked PPP posters on these boards, sadly, there were just too many PPP and not enough opposition.
2 Likes
What killed the game:
- Broodlord infestor meta (+ range for the queens) from 2012 until HotS.
- Hellbat party in early HotS. MsC introduction, protoss started to feel stupid here.
- Blink all in era.
- Swarm host x Raven x mass tempest 2015.
- Broken adept. Invincible ultras with 6 armor. Flying siege tanks. Stupid proxy reapers. My god the game was a mess until 2016.
- Pylon rush and mass oracle PvT and PvZ meta. BS as f.
- Removal of MSC bs and buffing protoss to oblivion in late 2017.
- A year (2018) of protoss getting deserved nerfs and ppp crying.
- Mass raven bs meta. Proxy Maru winning everthing.
It’s hard for a fan to continue playing 1v1 ranked with all those stupid balance metas and with a balance team that is so slow at solving those issues. Most of the playerbase died with broodlord infestor era.
1 Like
“If we assume less skilled players aren’t more likely to pick terran, then the only explanation is that Terran is harder to play.”
Aka
“If we assume I am right then I am right.”
1 Like
I don’t think the game has been killed but generally, I think the balance team and the design team neglected the ease of use vs ease of counter relationship which caused a lot of frustration over the years. Combined with long periods of inaction, that drove away a lot of players.
At the very first of the post you claimed to do “statistics for a living” but you clearly don’t understand a pareto distribution. A pareto distribution occurs from a random process where there is a minimum threshold that must be maintained. It’s used in economics because people engaging in trade is a random process, but anyone who reaches 0 in terms of wealth is basically out of the game and stuck at 0 forever. People pile up at zero, while a few people amass enormous hoards of wealth.
The SC2 ladder is the same. People pile up at the bottom after strings of many losses, at which point they are very likely to quit the game for good. The fact that the fewest low skill players play zerg shows that of the people piled to the bottom, Zergs are much more likely to quit the game. This is corroborated by the fact that Zerg is the least played race on the ladder, period.
If Zerg were overpowered, and Zerg were to shove people to higher leagues, then low ranked Zerg players would be the least likely group to quit the game and Zerg would be the race that dominates the lower leagues. This is obvious if you understand the pareto principle.
2 Likes
It is good to see you, “WildWolf”. It’s been awhile since you’ve graced the forums with your BIGBRAIN posts.
The balance team has balanced the game around Serral and as a result the game is unplayable for 99.9% of players. Balance is so incredibly exclusive to the absolute top that not even GML, which is the top 0.2% of players, is able to achieve it (with Protoss dominating GML at 45%). Players are abandoning the game in record numbers. The game has the fewest number of active players anytime in its history.
1 Like
I’d have to see those numbers from a reputable source to believe that, sorry!
I’m very happy that sometimes zerg player can talk like human!
Angry queen noises
2 Likes
Nope that is not the pareto principle, not even close.
Also obviously false. If a race is easier players rank up more easily and are therefore less present in the lower leagues. Being able to rank up does not guarantee you like the game better or that you keep playing the race where you get better results rather than the one you like to play more.
Let’s say it otherwise though: let’s say the races are so different that comparison is only meaningful with other players of your own race. Then at a given MMR a terran player is higher than more terrans playing (in ratio) than a protoss player who is better relatively to more toss players than a zerg player and that for all leagues … except GM for toss (which is currently a few hundreds of players).
In particular at 1st October the last platinum player would have been exactly at the middle overall (or if you were protoss) but among the last 40% of zerg players. Compared to other terrans you’d be in the top 43%.
The differecen was similar if you consider diamond and up and still for master and up (a bit less obvious). So relatively speaking to other players playing the same race a terran IS more skilled than a zerg up to master MMR (and to a lesser extent protoss are too).
1 Like
What killed the game is lack of revenue nothing to do with MP balance. NCO was the last large scale content drop and it seems like that did not make them enough money to continue doing more. Coop commanders was the last thing that made Activision Blizzard money from continued development.
Now that they are scraping that part its all just balance changes and maybe some bug fixed which is all there is left to do. I’m surprised you guys or so up in arms about this, MP is practically the least effected by this change.
A lot of the MP competitive whining stems from the fact that they’re salty about Blizzard taking a back seat and going into maintenance mode while stating that they will only so balance changes when warranted like in Brood War aka no more whining to get their races any more buffed. Oh and also salty that Blizzard said that their wins/loss depends on themselves instead of saying “X race is OP” in order to appease their confirmation bias and echo chambers.
Being less present in lower leagues is only one effect that is occurring. Your theory can’t explain even that properly and certainly can’t explain the other effects. Zerg being easier does not predict fewer people in lower leagues. It predicts more people in lower leagues in addition to more people in higher leagues. This is obvious if you understand the pareto principle.
Zerg is less present on the ladder in general, which your theory contradicts, and is more rare in higher leagues like Grandmaster than it is in lower leagues, which your theory contradicts, and the history of ladder rankings proves beyond doubt that zergs are being pushed to lower leagues where they then quit the game, which your theory contradicts.
Your theory is that Zergs are moving up the ladder, but zergs are moving down the ladder. Your theory is that Zerg will be over-represented in GM/Masters, but they are under-represented. Your theory is that Zerg will be the most played race, especially in lower leagues, but it is the least played race.
Your theory is closer to fact-denial than it is to a theory.
1 Like
The pareto principle is the 80-20 principle (80% of a country’s wealth is generated by 20% of its people, you can achieve 80% of a performance with 20% of efforts and the remaining 20% would be way more time consuming …)
I do not know what notion you confused it with but it is not and in this discussion Pareto has no place so please stop throwing it as a random buzz word.
Next: you confuse popularity and strength. A race very popular is more played, a race more powerful will win more matches at similar abstract skill level. Zerg is not popular (fewer people overall) yet people with it wins more and therefore rank up (hence even fewer zergs in lower leagues). Being strong does not make a race necessarily popular (terrans have been the most played race for years and I’d argue they are neither strong or especially easy especially below master).
Zerg are over represented up to master (included), it is only among the top 600 sc2 account worldwide (including smurfs and alt account) that they are fewer.
Now again if you believe comparison is unfair with other races do take zergs only for example. You can even do your own custom leagues by comparing yourself only with other players of your own race and then see how you fare. Typically a platinum zerg player has as many zerg players lower than him (in ratio) as a gold terran player would. If zergs were to rank only against other zerg players then they would rank lower than their current mmr in all leagues but GM, the terrans would rank higher everywhere and the toss would be mostly unaffected currently except some of the GM would be master 1.
This is not merely a theory since you can do the distribution yourself going on rankedftw and taking each race separately to compare how many players are below or above other players of the same race at any given league. It is easy to do and the experience can be done and proven by any one who wants to check it.
2 Likes
You have my respect Sir NoobIsHere.
TheBatz, can you provide me a link to your May’s work please?
1 Like