EPTOver a very large # of games it may even out, but until you get to that point the #s aren't comparable. They may also never become comparable since you will have multiple opportunities to win points from someone who's 1000 platinum, but really should be 750 platinum or in Gold.
Stop saying "I'm rank 5 platinum". - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Logo
United States7542 Posts
Over a very large # of games it may even out, but until you get to that point the #s aren't comparable. They may also never become comparable since you will have multiple opportunities to win points from someone who's 1000 platinum, but really should be 750 platinum or in Gold. | ||
|
Chriamon
United States886 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On May 08 2010 03:18 BroOd wrote: I wasn't suggesting he was wrong, but that he may have explained it incorrectly. Why would every division exist in a bubble? It seems so non-sensical. Basically, if I have 1400 points, and someone else has 1400 points, and we both beat identically ranked players, I might get more points than him because I'm in a different division (disregarding any bonus)? What possible purpose could that serve? (I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying that it makes no sense for that to be the case) It doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying their system is good, in fact it's pretty retarded. If anything we need to ask them to change it, instead of saying "Oh well it would be so stupid if ranks (*edit: I meant ratings here) between divisions weren't comparable... so let's just assume they are!" I think we have to take it at face value that the ratings aren't comparable and ask them to change it. We can't just put our hands over our ears and pretend ratings are comparable because they "should" be. Basically I'm operating under the assumption that what the Blizzard representative said is true, rather than what ought to be true. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 08 2010 02:49 shinosai wrote: Oh does it? http://forums.battle.net/thread.html?topicId=23766800567&sid=5000&pageNo=2 Post 35 such that the rankings in one division don't directly translate to the other divisions. On May 08 2010 02:34 bodysnatcher21 wrote: If you want to give an indication of your skill, use your rating. Ranking =/= Rating The more you know! | ||
Thug[ro]
Romania340 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On May 08 2010 03:59 Half wrote: =/= The more you know! So you couldn't compare division 10 to division 48 and compare one player's points to another points 0_0 | ||
|
Snowfield
1289 Posts
On May 08 2010 04:01 ThugTerran wrote: it's only beta who cares about ranks lol We are beta testing the game and bnet 2.0, obviously we should beta test the ladder aswell and say what we think about it Yet when you first enter platinum you're still going to get set to 1000 platinum points. You sure? last time i went up rank was form silver 2v2 to gold 2v2, and we started at 1200 points | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
| ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 08 2010 04:01 shinosai wrote: 0_0 Either Browder isn't intelligent enough to make a sequitur sentence, or points refered to your ranking point. I believe #2 is more likely. Don't be hatin on Browder. | ||
|
BlasiuS
United States2405 Posts
On May 08 2010 03:57 Chriamon wrote: none of the beta rankings/ratings matter. Bonus pool causes so much inflation of points. They need to get rid of bonus pool and go to a straight up ELO system. here's another common mistake I see all the time. Bonus pool doesn't cause any inflation: On May 06 2010 07:41 BlasiuS wrote: The bonus pool doesn't cause inflation. It's for people who don't start laddering until late in the season, to catch up with people who have been massgaming since day 1. your rating should be determined by skill, not by how early in the season you decided to start massgaming =/ That's the whole reason why the bonus pool exists. | ||
|
Zedd
Czech Republic107 Posts
On May 08 2010 02:34 bodysnatcher21 wrote: If you want to give an indication of your skill, use your rating. E.G I am 1400 platinum, or I am 1200 gold. Now I am rank 1 platinum, but I'm only 1500 rating, so it's actually not that great. In one of the older divisions, 1500 rating would only get me to rank 20 or something. So for me to go around telling people I am "rank 1 platinum" would be extremely misleading. Ratings allow you to compare people in different divisions. Rank's do not. So yeh, if you want to give an indication of your skill level, please use your rating instead of rank! IMO, THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG. For example, if you are 10th in your platinum division with 1500, why should someone who has 1800 and is also 10th in his division should be better? Because he started playing earlier so he get bigger benefit from infamous point inflation? Due to bonus pool(which cause point inflation), you cannot judge people between divisions only by rating. People who got their beta key later never cant compare their rating to those who got it earlier, if they are on same skill level. I agree with you that judging by rank also isnt accurate, but I think its more accurate than judging by rating. Blizzard should definitely implement some sort of ELO system, I hope they will do. | ||
|
Snowfield
1289 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On May 08 2010 04:04 Half wrote: Either Browder doesn't understand how to make a sequitur sentence, or points refered to your ranking point. I believe #2 is more likely. If that were the case then there would be no issues comparing divisions between each other, despite the claim that there were. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 08 2010 04:06 shinosai wrote: If that were the case then there would be no issues comparing divisions between each other, despite the claim that there were. He claimed you couldn't compare RANKING points to each other. As in the subject of this OP. His entire post elaborates WHY you can't compare RANKING points to each other. If he said "points" later in the sentence, unless he specifically meant RATING points it would refer to RANKING points. If his entire post referred to rankings, and comparing divisions together is impossible, his entire post would make no freaking sense in the english language. | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On May 08 2010 04:09 Half wrote: He claimed you couldn't compare RANKING points to each other. As in the subject of this OP. His entire post elaborates WHY you can't compare RANKING points to each other. If he said "points" later in the sentence, unless he specifically meant RATING points it would refer to RANKING points. His post was about why they couldn't do direct comparisons between divisions. And why they don't have a global ladder right now. Look at the context of the thread. It's about having a top 100/1000 ladder. He's explaining why there isn't one. | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
On May 08 2010 04:11 shinosai wrote: His post was about why they couldn't do direct comparisons between divisions. And why they don't have a global ladder right now. but there are issues, such that the rankings in one division don't directly translate to the other divisions. How does this mean "impossible"? It means that it is doable, but their are issues. | ||
|
Bob300
United States505 Posts
On May 08 2010 02:36 Chill wrote: i agree but i dont think you need to make a thread about this/ Agreed | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
but not AS necessary As people that theorycraft/post suggestions starting with "I don't have the beta, but I've watched a lot of streams..." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On May 08 2010 04:13 Half wrote: How does this mean "impossible"? It means that it is doable, but their are issues. Yes, there are issues. Issues that are probably not resolved by saying "lol rating points" despite the desperate desire to believe that the solution is truly that easy. I'm off to get some food before the razer domination starts. =) I'll continue believing that there is an actual reason there is no ladder right now, you continue to believe that the reason there's no ladder is blizzard is too lazy to just rank people by points. | ||
|
goswser
United States3548 Posts
this thread is true and necessary but not AS necessary As people that theorycraft/post suggestions starting with "I don't have the beta, but I've watched a lot of streams..." NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO This, of course I don't know why everyone without beta keys doesn't just pre-order it and get them. | ||
| ||
