|
Statistically speaking master's league represents 1% of all players.
Let me give everyone a little perspective.
Let's assume that the mean mmr for everyone is 1500 with a 400 point standard deviation (standard for chess). Using a normal distribution, this represents the diamond league.
Diamond
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/Upsl7.png)
As you can see, diamond league is freaking huge. It has people rated as low as 1800 MMR. In chess this would be someone ranked Class A. This is easily achievable by practice alone by most people.
Ok, now let's look at masters league
Masters
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/lCwDN.png)
This looks a little more promising. The lowest rating is around 2320. In chess this would be a senior master. These people can be great teachers, but most likely you have never heard of them. They cannot be considered a source of knowledge in the chess world at all.
So how does grandmaster league compare?
Grandmaster
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/DTZPS.png)
For grandmaster league it is the top 200 in the server. Since there are almost 1 million players in NA, this represents 0.02% of all players. The lowest rating is about 2912. These would be considered grandmasters in chess and are a good source of information. The different between a master and a grandmaster is about 600 points. At that difference, if these two were to play a game, the grandmaster would be likely to win 97% of games using ELO.
If you are losing 97% of games against someone in the top 200, I can assure you that you sir are not a baller.
The difference between the lowest diamond and the lowest master is about 500 points, so I would say as bad as people in masters are, diamond is significantly worse.
It is possible given the volatility of the game that these numbers are closer, however, it is possible that the range is even greater.
So before saying stuff like "I'm a 2500 master" consider the possibility that statistically speaking, you are still really bad compared to the pros.
Credit to http://davidmlane.com/hyperstat/z_table.html for the awesome graphs.
Edit; This isn't an insult. I am a diamond player, but I wanted to give everyone a little perspective on the differences between players and to hopefully ward off any new "hi i'm a 2500 master protoss and my opinion in godlike" threads.
updated to reflect 2% instead of 1% as they said initially.
  
|
While the numbers are nice and everything, people can still say "I'm a Master of Zerg" which, in my eyes, is still resoundingly baller (sounds that way, at least).
|
It doesnt make them a baller because it doesnt mean shit, you have a retarded bonus pool, lose hardly any points for a loss, good job ou go into masters, youre still horrible!
Whereas on iccup you could say "yeah i got to C rank" and it would be something along the lines of "Congrats youre better than 90+% of all starcraft players"
tldr; lol @ sc2 rankings meaning something
|
Wow well done, haha. You were one of those kids who didn't ask 'what am I possibly going to use this for in the real world' when you took your statistics course!
|
On January 12 2011 07:55 GreatFall wrote:
Wow well done, haha. You were one of those kids who didn't ask 'what am I possibly going to use this for in the real world' when you took your statistics course!
haha i got a degree in math and I've yet to use it. I also got a degree in computer science which i use every day.
|
On January 12 2011 07:51 arb wrote:
It doesnt make them a baller because it doesnt mean shit, you have a retarded bonus pool, lose hardly any points for a loss, good job ou go into masters, youre still horrible!
Whereas on iccup you could say "yeah i got to C rank" and it would be something along the lines of "Congrats youre better than 90+% of all starcraft players"
tldr; lol @ sc2 rankings meaning something
C+ would be better than 99.99% of all starcraft players :p
Really, nothing has changed with the creation of Masters. People who mass game and make Masters are still gonna think they are hot-shit, just as they did before when they were #1 Diamond.
|
On January 12 2011 08:01 emperorchampion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 07:51 arb wrote:
It doesnt make them a baller because it doesnt mean shit, you have a retarded bonus pool, lose hardly any points for a loss, good job ou go into masters, youre still horrible!
Whereas on iccup you could say "yeah i got to C rank" and it would be something along the lines of "Congrats youre better than 90+% of all starcraft players"
tldr; lol @ sc2 rankings meaning something C+ would be better than 99.99% of all starcraft players :p Really, nothing has changed with the creation of Masters. People who mass game and make Masters are still gonna think they are hot-shit, just as they did before when they were #1 Diamond.
At least it will be significantly harder to be #1 in your division in master compared to diamond. There will probably be like 25 master leagues total.
|
|
|
I don't know why people care about numbers so much. It's not a personal attack on you but its incredibly ignorant to say something like master league in sc2 is equivalent to B+ and higher on iccup.
All the people I know in masters, including myself, could not hope to ever make B+ on iccup. Not to mention its broodwar and its a much harder and more refined game. Let's ignore all other practical aspects and just somehow come to the conclusion that master league = B+ iccup.
Then there's people who are artificially B+ [ or whatever ] based off motw or playing one matchup etc.... The fact is, if you are in masters in sc2 you probably know what you're doing, just like if you were in the top of diamond. Its much better than have no discrimination at all. Of course we all hope there was 1 unified ladder with an elo system or something but I think your efforts should be put towards other things [ NOT NUMBER RELATED ] that show how being masters or diamond actually means very little if that's all you say.
|
Also, the majority of ICCUP users were more competitive..... Far less than 20% of all Starcraft players ever played on ICCUP..... However, ALL SC2 players have to use Battle.net 2.0 when they play. It's not even close to a good representation, unfortunately.....
|
I somehow doubt some of the garbage ive played on SC2 could ever make B+
im sorry but ic ant believe that for a minute
|
On January 12 2011 08:24 Ack1027 wrote:
I don't know why people care about numbers so much. It's not a personal attack on you but its incredibly ignorant to say something like master league in sc2 is equivalent to B+ and higher on iccup.
All the people I know in masters, including myself, could not hope to ever make B+ on iccup. Not to mention its broodwar and its a much harder and more refined game. Let's ignore all other practical aspects and just somehow come to the conclusion that master league = B+ iccup.
Then there's people who are artificially B+ [ or whatever ] based off motw or playing one matchup etc.... The fact is, if you are in masters in sc2 you probably know what you're doing, just like if you were in the top of diamond. Its much better than have no discrimination at all. Of course we all hope there was 1 unified ladder with an elo system or something but I think your efforts should be put towards other things [ NOT NUMBER RELATED ] that show how being masters or diamond actually means very little if that's all you say.
You have to consider that iccup had 80,000 active competitive players and that sc2 has 1,000,00 players just in the US. There are almost as many people in diamond alone in the US as that played on iccup in total, but remember that distribution works at all levels. I'm not saying that master league is the same achievement as B+, but that based on the # of active players, the distribution is equal to B+. Obviously getting B+ in starcraft was harder, but the distribution % is equivilent because of the high competitive nature of iccup.
|
I don't really see a point to this blog. You're just saying what everyone already knows.
Still, it's fun having a Masters League.
Also, please note,
They're still baller as fuck.
Sorry!
|
So basically you're telling people no new information?
If someone didn't play bw/iccup, then it doesn't matter to them what B+ or whatever arbitrary ranking you decide to make a distribution % equivalent of.
If you don't play sc2, then you already know that B+ is hard as fuck.
Master league may not make you a ' baller ' but its still hard to get into [ relatively ]. If your original point was to actually show what is a baller [ not just what isn't ] then you could do that without redundant graphs and numbers.
|
Canada13389 Posts
The only problem with this is that the sc2 population is not distributed as a normal distribution. Not only that but you assume that points are necessarily equated with MMR and make assumptions based upon that. IMO while yes people shouldn't get on a high horse, the statistics you are using aren't entirely valid.
Should MMR be point related then yes you can say that the 2900 point people have a 2900 point mmr as you assume in your write up. Though we know this isn't true.
|
I always thought being good at basketball made you a baller.
|
On January 12 2011 09:57 ZeromuS wrote:
The only problem with this is that the sc2 population is not distributed as a normal distribution. Not only that but you assume that points are necessarily equated with MMR and make assumptions based upon that. IMO while yes people shouldn't get on a high horse, the statistics you are using aren't entirely valid.
Should MMR be point related then yes you can say that the 2900 point people have a 2900 point mmr as you assume in your write up. Though we know this isn't true.
The entire rating system relies on the ratings being normally distributed. Points are not equated to MMR, however, divisions are. The statistics I am using are approximations. I'm using numbers from chess in order to give everyone an approximation, but the fundamentals are still the same and the difference in skill, if you based it on deviation, are exactly the same. As we cannot see MMR we can only rely on points - bonus pool used as a moderate way of guessing what MMR is, but the mmr distribution is the same regardless.
|
On January 12 2011 10:07 kainzero wrote:
I always thought being good at basketball made you a baller.
That's very true.
|
On January 12 2011 08:29 arb wrote:I somehow doubt some of the garbage ive played on SC2 could ever make B+ im sorry but ic ant believe that for a minute
D iccup = diamond
D+ iccup = master's
sounds about right
|
On January 12 2011 11:10 blabber wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 08:29 arb wrote:I somehow doubt some of the garbage ive played on SC2 could ever make B+ im sorry but ic ant believe that for a minute D iccup = diamond D+ iccup = master's sounds about right
Yes, in terms of rts skill perhaps, in terms of distribution of players who play on iccup and those who play sc2, no.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
