|
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.
|
masters league is a joke I got promoted out of my diamond division that had idra, select, drewbie, tt1 and now I'm with a bunch of nobodys it sucks.
|
On January 12 2011 08:27 Impervious wrote: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.....
Yes, I think its a little rash as well to make such comparisons. For players to not just know about ICCUP, but actually compete there is something else entirely. So, I really wouldn't make such parallels; however, your charts do paint an accurate picture for SC2, but 95% sounds awfully misleading too, based on the U.I., maps, and unit compositions. :/
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 12 2011 11:15 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 11:10 blabber wrote: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.
Well that's apples and oranges. ICCUP is already a competitive gaming community, whereas most SC2 players are not competitive gamers. The CS equivalent would be comparing CAL-i people, CAL-m people and pubbers. CAL-m people were probably in the top 1% of CS players, when pubbers were part of the comparison, but probably only 1% of that was of a comparable level to CAL-i.
Also keep in mind that the Blizzard system is weighted so that there will be that type of distribution, whereas ICCUP wasn't rated at all. I may be mistaken, but I think it's comparing cardinal and ordinal numbers.
|
On January 12 2011 11:16 LuckyFool wrote:
masters league is a joke I got promoted out of my diamond division that had idra, select, drewbie, tt1 and now I'm with a bunch of nobodys it sucks.
They were all promoted to Masters League too most likely..
Just because you're not with the same people doesn't make it a joke. That doesn't even make sense.
|
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
Sounds about right to me
|
Not even remotely true.
iCCup itself represents the top of the starcraft community. You can think of iCCup as basically diamond league
|
On ICCUP, the distribution was more like an f distribution than a normal distribution. It's probably similar for SC2.
If you used that as an assumption instead of a normal distribution, it would show how much of a joke diamond, and it would be even clearer.
EDIT - f distribution:
![[image loading]](http://www.visualstatistics.net/statistical%20distributions/F-Distributions%207.jpg)
|
On January 12 2011 11:15 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 11:10 blabber wrote: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.
Yes, the thing is we care about the skill. The distribution will always be the same whatever the skill of the players, as it is maintained by Blizzard algorithm, so it doesn't mean anything. Plus the fact that 90+% of SC2 players are casual players.
You want to make a comparison with iccup ? Instead of using distribution, lets just count the players from the top, as the huge mass of casual players doesn't impact on this. Grandmaster league is top 200 of each server, so basically 800 players. If you only take foreigners on BW, we never had 800 B+ and above players. And even including koreans -- who were a lot above everyone else in BW -- we are barely above 800 players and that accounts for a lot of smurves (from your own link http://www.iccup.com/content/news/Rank_Distribution_on_iCCup..html , interesting link btw  )
So B+ would be equivalent to the Grandmaster league for sure, not the masters league.
|
On January 12 2011 12:02 endy wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 11:15 darmousseh wrote:On January 12 2011 11:10 blabber wrote: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. Yes, the thing is we care about the skill. The distribution will always be the same whatever the skill of the players, as it is maintained by Blizzard algorithm, so it doesn't mean anything. Plus the fact that 90+% of SC2 players are casual players. You want to make a comparison with iccup ? Instead of using distribution, lets just count the players from the top, as the huge mass of casual players doesn't impact on this. Grandmaster league is top 200 of each server, so basically 800 players. If you only take foreigners on BW, we never had 800 B+ and above players. And even including koreans -- who were a lot above everyone else in BW -- we are barely above 800 players and that accounts for a lot of smurves (from your own link http://www.iccup.com/content/news/Rank_Distribution_on_iCCup..html , interesting link btw ) So B+ would be equivalent to the Grandmaster league for sure, not the masters league.
That's fairly accurate (at least for outside of Korea). Most top foreigners had some difficulty getting past B+, though the very top managed to keep A- (only a handful). That 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
Eh, I would definitely say that D-/E players consistently make up the diamond ranks these of days - plenty of 30 apm players who have a cutesy all-in attack copy + pasted build to get them a few free wins occasionally.
|
from a poker standpoint:
bronze-platinum = free play
low diamond = NL2
high diamond = NL5/NL10
masters = NL25/NL50
|
Cool blog, at least I find it somewhat warm to be in masters, being in diamond was way too easy an achievable by anyone. Master is a bit harder...
In terms of skills, I was C- on iccup. A 'B+' ICCUP player can be top 50 ezpz IMO
|
On January 12 2011 14:25 jalstar wrote:
from a poker standpoint:
bronze-platinum = free play
low diamond = NL2
high diamond = NL5/NL10
masters = NL25/NL50
it would probably go more like this
bronze to plat ~ nl2-nl5
low diamond ~ nl10
mid diamond ~ nl50
high diamond ~ nl100
masters ~ nl200+
grandmasters ~ nl1k
edit - that's going by regs at each level
|
Um, I'm 2800 z and I didn't get placed in Master's League... Pretty sure your points scale are off.
|
no one cares if you play poker
|
On January 12 2011 11:55 xxpack09 wrote:Not even remotely true. iCCup itself represents the top of the starcraft community. You can think of iCCup as basically diamond league
This is true.
logging onto iccup alone put you above a ridiculously high percentage of the total SC population let alone actually achieving a good rank.
|
My rebuttal to your argument: There is a new icon for Masters league. Therefore, baller.
|
On January 12 2011 11:15 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 11:10 blabber wrote: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.
You've already fucked up here since the SC2 ladder system involves everyone with the game while iCCup only included a bit of the competitive portion of the BW community.
|
On January 12 2011 11:57 Impervious wrote:On ICCUP, the distribution was more like an f distribution than a normal distribution. It's probably similar for SC2. If you used that as an assumption instead of a normal distribution, it would show how much of a joke diamond, and it would be even clearer. EDIT - f distribution:
The iccup date is terribly unreliable.. including people with 0-0 stats(or even anyone with less than ~20 games which is minimal for any kind of statistical relevance), so certainly that cant be claimed..
Also the games have different base groups which the statistics are based on, which makes them not comparable.
|
|
|
On January 12 2011 11:57 Impervious wrote:On ICCUP, the distribution was more like an f distribution than a normal distribution. It's probably similar for SC2. If you used that as an assumption instead of a normal distribution, it would show how much of a joke diamond, and it would be even clearer. EDIT - f distribution:
Yeah, i only posted the iccup information if they wanted to know about a distribution of skill between players. Imagine if 800,000 noobs joined iccup. Then it would be basically the same. The only thing I really care about is that people see the difference between diamond/masters/pro players.
As far as ICCUP goes, their ranking system is terrible and does not accurately reflect the rating distribution. The problem with iccup is the cutoff and how the points system works. The entire system works for itself to keep like 80% of people in D, whereas the one on battle.net breaks people up into divisions of 20%. The distribution of skill is always normal (or assumed to be normal) in any game. The fact that their rating system had a terrible distribution is an example of how bad their system is.
|
On January 12 2011 11:16 LuckyFool wrote:
masters league is a joke I got promoted out of my diamond division that had idra, select, drewbie, tt1 and now I'm with a bunch of nobodys it sucks.
I guess you'll fit right in then with your new friends. Master's is still the microstakes of SC2.
|
On January 13 2011 02:30 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 11:57 Impervious wrote:On ICCUP, the distribution was more like an f distribution than a normal distribution. It's probably similar for SC2. If you used that as an assumption instead of a normal distribution, it would show how much of a joke diamond, and it would be even clearer. EDIT - f distribution: Yeah, i only posted the iccup information if they wanted to know about a distribution of skill between players. Imagine if 800,000 noobs joined iccup. Then it would be basically the same. The only thing I really care about is that people see the difference between diamond/masters/pro players. As far as ICCUP goes, their ranking system is terrible and does not accurately reflect the rating distribution. The problem with iccup is the cutoff and how the points system works. The entire system works for itself to keep like 80% of people in D, whereas the one on battle.net breaks people up into divisions of 20%. The distribution of skill is always normal (or assumed to be normal) in any game. The fact that their rating system had a terrible distribution is an example of how bad their system is.
i don't get how the system works to keep the majority of people in D. you only need to win 1/3rd of your games to make it to C- since you get -50 for a loss and +100 for a win, and even less than than that if you play only on MOTW.
|
Well the numbers for iCCup D accounts may be skewed because it may include every unplayed smurf or otherwise unplayed account.
|
On January 13 2011 03:56 EchOne wrote:
Well the numbers for iCCup D accounts may be skewed because it may include every unplayed smurf or otherwise unplayed account.
In the thread it explicitly says that it did not include unplayed accounts.
|
On January 13 2011 03:27 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 02:30 darmousseh wrote:On January 12 2011 11:57 Impervious wrote:On ICCUP, the distribution was more like an f distribution than a normal distribution. It's probably similar for SC2. If you used that as an assumption instead of a normal distribution, it would show how much of a joke diamond, and it would be even clearer. EDIT - f distribution: Yeah, i only posted the iccup information if they wanted to know about a distribution of skill between players. Imagine if 800,000 noobs joined iccup. Then it would be basically the same. The only thing I really care about is that people see the difference between diamond/masters/pro players. As far as ICCUP goes, their ranking system is terrible and does not accurately reflect the rating distribution. The problem with iccup is the cutoff and how the points system works. The entire system works for itself to keep like 80% of people in D, whereas the one on battle.net breaks people up into divisions of 20%. The distribution of skill is always normal (or assumed to be normal) in any game. The fact that their rating system had a terrible distribution is an example of how bad their system is. i don't get how the system works to keep the majority of people in D. you only need to win 1/3rd of your games to make it to C- since you get -50 for a loss and +100 for a win, and even less than than that if you play only on MOTW.
Simple - the frequent resets, coupled with the large number of people who simply don't play a lot of games, and people who use a few different accounts, and you have a disproportionately high number of "D" accounts. Even if they are active accounts.
|
On January 13 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 03:27 rauk wrote:On January 13 2011 02:30 darmousseh wrote:On January 12 2011 11:57 Impervious wrote:On ICCUP, the distribution was more like an f distribution than a normal distribution. It's probably similar for SC2. If you used that as an assumption instead of a normal distribution, it would show how much of a joke diamond, and it would be even clearer. EDIT - f distribution: Yeah, i only posted the iccup information if they wanted to know about a distribution of skill between players. Imagine if 800,000 noobs joined iccup. Then it would be basically the same. The only thing I really care about is that people see the difference between diamond/masters/pro players. As far as ICCUP goes, their ranking system is terrible and does not accurately reflect the rating distribution. The problem with iccup is the cutoff and how the points system works. The entire system works for itself to keep like 80% of people in D, whereas the one on battle.net breaks people up into divisions of 20%. The distribution of skill is always normal (or assumed to be normal) in any game. The fact that their rating system had a terrible distribution is an example of how bad their system is. i don't get how the system works to keep the majority of people in D. you only need to win 1/3rd of your games to make it to C- since you get -50 for a loss and +100 for a win, and even less than than that if you play only on MOTW. Simple - the frequent resets, coupled with the large number of people who simply don't play a lot of games, and people who use a few different accounts, and you have a disproportionately high number of "D" accounts. Even if they are active accounts.
that's hardly how the system itself is actively attempting to keep players in D.
|
masters league is top 2%???
and really this all just depends on what your definition of baller is doesn't it. We're also assuming normal distribution which is a bit dodgy but if we take it as correct the numbers are useful =]
To put this another way, regardless of what distribution we're actually looking up, we're all tightly wrapped up here in our ball of ignorance communicating with other people who are ACTUALLY GOOD AT THE FRIGGING GAME. Masters league is still what it says on the tin, it is the top 2% of ACTIVE MULTIPLAYER players in your region. Being a player on starcraft who is active in multiplayer already puts you above a lot of people who own starcraft and the majority of the general population (not that that's relevant.) Being in the top skilled 2% of THAT is a further acheivement, whether it makes you a baller or not is down to discretion; here? (on teamliquid) probably not. Socialising with your RL friends that play starcraft? nearly definetely. In your *insert nerdy subject* lecture group? Absolutely.
|
On January 12 2011 07:46 darmousseh wrote:
Statistically speaking master's league represents 1% of all players.
...
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.
...
Yeah wow, you really hit the nail! Nobody has been sucessful in stopping players from posting their rank but surely this time you have brought down forum justice and hard as well,
I guess I just didn't realize that even tough I've played alot and owned loads of people, I am still really bad compared to the pros. Man I should kill myself how could I not realize this!! I thought I was the zerg master god of an entire galaxy in space but no, i'm really bad. Compared to the pros.
Really, you are correct because since grand master is so giga-large, it serves no purpose! There really should be a single noob league, and when you move to Korea and are at 20.000 victorious glorious games against progamers, you will get promoted to pro league. It's the only way.
|
On January 13 2011 06:23 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 13 2011 05:36 Impervious wrote:On January 13 2011 03:27 rauk wrote:On January 13 2011 02:30 darmousseh wrote:On January 12 2011 11:57 Impervious wrote:On ICCUP, the distribution was more like an f distribution than a normal distribution. It's probably similar for SC2. If you used that as an assumption instead of a normal distribution, it would show how much of a joke diamond, and it would be even clearer. EDIT - f distribution: Yeah, i only posted the iccup information if they wanted to know about a distribution of skill between players. Imagine if 800,000 noobs joined iccup. Then it would be basically the same. The only thing I really care about is that people see the difference between diamond/masters/pro players. As far as ICCUP goes, their ranking system is terrible and does not accurately reflect the rating distribution. The problem with iccup is the cutoff and how the points system works. The entire system works for itself to keep like 80% of people in D, whereas the one on battle.net breaks people up into divisions of 20%. The distribution of skill is always normal (or assumed to be normal) in any game. The fact that their rating system had a terrible distribution is an example of how bad their system is. i don't get how the system works to keep the majority of people in D. you only need to win 1/3rd of your games to make it to C- since you get -50 for a loss and +100 for a win, and even less than than that if you play only on MOTW. Simple - the frequent resets, coupled with the large number of people who simply don't play a lot of games, and people who use a few different accounts, and you have a disproportionately high number of "D" accounts. Even if they are active accounts. that's hardly how the system itself is actively attempting to keep players in D.
The players themselves are part of the system..... A ladder cannot exist without players.....
If everyone played 1k+ games in a season on every one of their accounts, there'd be a shitload of people in the blue ranks. A basic understanding of how the ladder works would lead you to that conclusion.
But they don't.
You can make multiple accounts to spread your games around, you can clear your stats to start at the bottom again, and you don't have to play 1k+ games either..... Those rules/abilities help leads to the system having a lot of D players.
|
On January 14 2011 00:20 osten wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 07:46 darmousseh wrote:
Statistically speaking master's league represents 1% of all players.
...
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.
... Yeah wow, you really hit the nail! Nobody has been sucessful in stopping players from posting their rank but surely this time you have brought down forum justice and hard as well, I guess I just didn't realize that even tough I've played alot and owned loads of people, I am still really bad compared to the pros. Man I should kill myself how could I not realize this!! I thought I was the zerg master god of an entire galaxy in space but no, i'm really bad. Compared to the pros. Really, you are correct because since grand master is so giga-large, it serves no purpose! There really should be a single noob league, and when you move to Korea and are at 20.000 victorious glorious games against progamers, you will get promoted to pro league. It's the only way.
hahaha, the sarcasm is well received. Out of personal experience though there are plenty of people who think they are "the bomb" or "baller" or any other number of phrases used to describe something but in reality it's not very good. Here's a good example.
Let's say there are 40 million americans who have played baseball at some point in their life.
The major leagues has 1280 players
The minors has roughly 1500 players
2% of 40 million is 800,000. Are those 800,000 people baller? No, are they good? Yes. Will they ever make the majors? maybe a few hundred of them at most.
The problem exists that people who are directly below semi-pro think they are baller. There are men's baseball leagues that exist and they all think they are good enough to be pro. The same thing happens in sc2. There are tons of people who are in masters league now and they will use that as an excuse to be BM and say dumb things like "Terrans basically already exhausted all of the options for attempting macro management play...to no avail." without having competed at the top level. If a minor league player said something like "the strike zone is too large" would anyone take him seriously? No.
Everything is about perspective and yes I think being in masters is a huge accomplishment. I hope to be in masters and realize the amount of practice it will take to get there, but for me it is a personal accomplishment, I wouldn't go spewing out on the forums my achievement and write terrible strategy ideas.
Note: I need to revise my graph since they upped it from 1% to 2%. Will be doing that.
|
United Kingdom3685 Posts
On January 14 2011 00:20 osten wrote:
There really should be a single noob league, and when you move to Korea and are at 20.000 victorious glorious games against progamers, you will get promoted to pro league. It's the only way.
I realize your post was sarcastic, but in all honesty, this might be a good idea. Especially the 'glorious' part. Winning with 4-gate isn't glorious and therefore doesn't count towards the 20,000 victories.
|
Ok I updated the graph from 1% to 2% and that really widened the league by over 25% of the std dev (or about 100 points). Masters league is a lot bigger that I thought.
|
lol seeing the stats, when i got a stats exam 2morrow better get revising. -_-
|
Still looks like a bunch of sour grapes.
Honestly if I were in master league I'd be feeling pretty fucking badass. Calling the top 1% "terrible" because they can't hold a candle to people who play 6 hours a day every day for money is ridiculous.
|
Using arbitrary numbers proves nothing.
I can tell you that you can get into masters league with less than 2.3k points, it just depends on your ell
for example, I know of an account that went from roughly 30-20 win-loss ratio to 80-30, which boosted the ell enough to start regularly facing top 200 players. This account had a very low point total, but a high ELL.
Obviously its not special to be in masters league, if it really is 2%, of the TOTAL, that just means theres a fuckton of players on the ladder throughout all the divisions.
You used a few too many assumptions in the numbers if you ask me, and quite frankly, I know where I stand in SC2 and I'm not going to say, yeah I can kick *Insert Progamer here* in a BO9 just because of the fact I'm in masters league, rather, I'll say I can beat them if I fucking match up and face them and beat them on the ladder.
On January 12 2011 11:40 Raeleigh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 11:16 LuckyFool wrote:
masters league is a joke I got promoted out of my diamond division that had idra, select, drewbie, tt1 and now I'm with a bunch of nobodys it sucks. They were all promoted to Masters League too most likely.. Just because you're not with the same people doesn't make it a joke. That doesn't even make sense.
Thats not his point, his point is that going from a diamond league where you could actually compare yourself was nice because thats the only ladder division you'll regularly see. That and the top 200 listings which goes by players ELL meaning he'll regularly face people in that division or people in the top 200.
Now he gets moved into masters league and its filled with 85 nobodies who won't be in the top 200 and will never ladder against him because the matchmaking won't make up that skill differential so easily. When there are 85+ of those people in the ladder, it means that the basis of comparison is noticeably worse.
Amirite Luckyfool?
On January 14 2011 06:04 Newbistic wrote:
Still looks like a bunch of sour grapes.
Honestly if I were in master league I'd be feeling pretty fucking badass. Calling the top 1% "terrible" because they can't hold a candle to people who play 6 hours a day every day for money is ridiculous.
I don't think that the OP was calling masters league terrible, if they were then whats it matter, the odds (see what I did there) of the OP being in masters league is pretty fucking low. They know some statistics and finds it growing of thy holy e-peen by saying that the top 2% is bad. Which is kinda ironic, since being in the top 2% still means you're better than 98% of the fucking population of SC2 lol, obviously theres a lot of people who are bad, but being in 2% is still meaning you get 99 people you're better than 98 of them.
|
On January 14 2011 07:30 ZlaSHeR wrote:Using arbitrary numbers proves nothing. I can tell you that you can get into masters league with less than 2.3k points, it just depends on your ell for example, I know of an account that went from roughly 30-20 win-loss ratio to 80-30, which boosted the ell enough to start regularly facing top 200 players. This account had a very low point total, but a high ELL. Obviously its not special to be in masters league, if it really is 2%, of the TOTAL, that just means theres a fuckton of players on the ladder throughout all the divisions. You used a few too many assumptions in the numbers if you ask me, and quite frankly, I know where I stand in SC2 and I'm not going to say, yeah I can kick *Insert Progamer here* in a BO9 just because of the fact I'm in masters league, rather, I'll say I can beat them if I fucking match up and face them and beat them on the ladder. Show nested quote +On January 12 2011 11:40 Raeleigh wrote:On January 12 2011 11:16 LuckyFool wrote:
masters league is a joke I got promoted out of my diamond division that had idra, select, drewbie, tt1 and now I'm with a bunch of nobodys it sucks. They were all promoted to Masters League too most likely.. Just because you're not with the same people doesn't make it a joke. That doesn't even make sense. Thats not his point, his point is that going from a diamond league where you could actually compare yourself was nice because thats the only ladder division you'll regularly see. That and the top 200 listings which goes by players ELL meaning he'll regularly face people in that division or people in the top 200. Now he gets moved into masters league and its filled with 85 nobodies who won't be in the top 200 and will never ladder against him because the matchmaking won't make up that skill differential so easily. When there are 85+ of those people in the ladder, it means that the basis of comparison is noticeably worse. Amirite Luckyfool? Show nested quote +On January 14 2011 06:04 Newbistic wrote:
Still looks like a bunch of sour grapes.
Honestly if I were in master league I'd be feeling pretty fucking badass. Calling the top 1% "terrible" because they can't hold a candle to people who play 6 hours a day every day for money is ridiculous. I don't think that the OP was calling masters league terrible, if they were then whats it matter, the odds (see what I did there) of the OP being in masters league is pretty fucking low. They know some statistics and finds it growing of thy holy e-peen by saying that the top 2% is bad. Which is kinda ironic, since being in the top 2% still means you're better than 98% of the fucking population of SC2 lol, obviously theres a lot of people who are bad, but being in 2% is still meaning you get 99 people you're better than 98 of them.
Actually I make no assumptions that the ladder rating system doesn't already make which is a somewhat normal distribution of players. The only question that remains is how much better the top 2% is compared to the other 98%.
I haven't played any games since the patch came out, i was in diamond with 1600 bonus points and a 800 rating so I have no idea if i'm good enough, but most likely not. I would love to be in masters league and would definitely be proud of my accomplishment, but I would still think I was really bad. I have a somewhat negative view of things, but I consider anyone not in the top 10 of the region bad. So far there are few if any players who can really play the game effectively. Everyone else seems to make a ton of mistakes that cost them the game. Eventually I think players will get to the point where they only lose by the strategic decisions they make because of their amazing execution, but that time is a long way away.
As far as I'm aware, there is no division offset so as long as you have no bonus pool and your points has reached the level of your MMR, then you can compare, but if you don't mass hundreds of games, the system is still completely obscure.
In the end, 2% is still a HUGE range of skill. 2% of players in baseball would be the difference between alex rodriguez and a guy who plays in a sunday league for the local city. I think we should cheer for each other's accomplishments and that everyone should strive for it, but like all competitive sports, everyone needs to keep perspective. If you are in masters league and you are trying to qualify for the TSL and you get crushed, it's because of the difference in skill. The amount of practice needed to get you from the top 2% to the top 200 is insane.
So yeah, like i said before, be proud to be in masters, but don't make terribad threads about strategies claiming authority because you are in masters.
|
While I can agree, Most people will use master league as a way to "epeen" alot about there prowess as a baller sc2 player. However an achievement is still an anchievement and you gotta realize there are people who are still unable to break out of silver/gold/plat and they make up the majority of the gamers out there. Same thing with chess. There are ALOT of 1500ish chess players. Im so they would feel good having made it to 2.3k after months of practice if not in the case of chess years. Why bother making these statements people who want to use it as a dick measuring stick will and will do so without your permission. Let the dog have his day 
|
Pretty interesting post, I was curious about the numbers and you represented it clearly here. I still think it's pretty baller to get into Master though. You don't have to be the best of the best to be baller. 
|
Hehe, I like your style darmousseh, could you give me the number at which a guy turns 'baller', and also I would like to know at which point that guy can say stupid crazy stuff like "Terrans basically already exhausted all of the options for attempting macro management play...to no avail." and it is considered valid?
|
I'm basically like you OP. Im in Masters but I'm still realistic enough to say that I suck imo and so do the majority of the Master league players. 2% is still freaking huge compared to the rest but it's nothing compared to the top200 guys (again in my opinion). I'm not proud to be in Master but I would if I were in Grand Master League.
When I see top level players play then I drool and see how good they are even if they lose. But these players obviously deserve to be there because of their years and years of playing at the top. I hope that I could be atleast in the top200 in the next few years which I would then consider pretty amazing to be able to do that. Most players do expect to be godlike or be pro when they are in masters league which will be a dissappointment when they see themselves play against the better players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
