EPTStop saying "I'm rank 5 platinum". - Page 8
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
CagedMind
United States506 Posts
| ||
|
Failsafe
United States1298 Posts
| ||
|
jimbobdwayne
United States53 Posts
| ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
| ||
|
Sansucal
Germany259 Posts
| ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
On May 08 2010 07:23 Failsafe wrote: i'm top 5 platinum and i'm not sure that i support what you're trying to do here. if blizzard wanted it to work in a sensible way they probably wouldn't have designed the ladder like they did. uhhh can you plz take a moment and think, the OP is 100% objectively right :| | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
Why is it not necessary to make a thread that clears up a huge misconception about how SC2 ladder works when ladder is the only basis for gauging someone's skill that we have, outside of playing several games against someone? | ||
|
Issor
United States870 Posts
The division system is a sample of the entire population of the league in which you place. This means that your rank in your division is, OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, indicative of your rank as a whole compared to everyone in your division by PERCENTILE. That means if you play 300 games and you're rank 89 in your division... You're as good as 89% of the other people in your league. I'm not sure if that wording was really very clear. What I mean to say is that someone who, over time, becomes #1 and holds it is very likely in the top 1% of the league as a whole, and someone who is consistently and over time rank #2 is very likely in the top 2%, etc. The division system is NOT perfect, but it is a MUCH better indicator of actual skill than a more traditional "everyone's in the same ladder" style of ranking. Edit: I suppose this means that, over many many many thousands of games played (in total - perhaps a few hundred per person), division rank is in fact a VERY good indicator of skill. For now, though, due to the small population size (relative to the number of people that will play when the game is released) and constant ladder resets, rating IS a better indicator of skill. | ||
|
ColorsOfRainbow
Germany354 Posts
| ||
|
Issor
United States870 Posts
edit: Oh. I see what you're saying. As I said, the division are created chronologically and so division 70 is newer than anything with a lower number - given time (and a large volume of games played), the ranks will be the same rating and will be comparable to each other - div 70 rank 1 will be very near to the skill level of division 1 rank 1. | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
Granted, I am assuming that this rating system works vaguely similarly to ELO systems or Blizzard's arena system (from what I've seen at least, it operates much as I would expect it to in the arena system). Given that assumption, ratings will be inflated in divisions with higher than average populations relative to those with lower than average. A rating of 1500 in a division with 100 people is worth a lot more than a rating of 1800 in a division with 500. This is especially true with the bonus pool system, which is in effect guaranteeing that all players will increase in rating unless they manage less than 50% wins for a long stretch of time. | ||
|
RumZ
United States956 Posts
"ELO =/= DIVISION RANK." | ||
|
Chairman Ray
United States11903 Posts
On May 08 2010 02:36 FortuneSyn wrote: It's a much better indication, but 1400 plat div54 still does not equal 1400 plat div1. More or less it does. The matchup system does not take your division into account. | ||
|
Issor
United States870 Posts
On May 08 2010 08:32 kzn wrote: Technically rating is no better for comparisons between divisions than ranking. Granted, I am assuming that this rating system works vaguely similarly to ELO systems or Blizzard's arena system (from what I've seen at least, it operates much as I would expect it to in the arena system). Given that assumption, ratings will be inflated in divisions with higher than average populations relative to those with lower than average. A rating of 1500 in a division with 100 people is worth a lot more than a rating of 1800 in a division with 500. This is especially true with the bonus pool system, which is in effect guaranteeing that all players will increase in rating unless they manage less than 50% wins for a long stretch of time. Isn't the population cap for every division 100? | ||
|
stork4ever
United States1036 Posts
| ||
|
deth
Australia1757 Posts
 | ||
|
kzn
United States1218 Posts
On May 08 2010 08:32 Issorlol wrote: Isn't the population cap for every division 100? Oh. Well in that case ratings are rather more comparable, but there's still the possible issue of different divisions being full of much higher quality players than another. Basically divisions by their very nature cast doubt on rating comparisons. The pop cap removes most of the issue though. | ||
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On May 08 2010 04:04 BlasiuS wrote: here's another common mistake I see all the time. Bonus pool doesn't cause any inflation: The bonus pool is also arguably there to combat one of the problems in WoW, which was that those at the top of the ladder would stop playing more than the minimum number of games, for fear of losing their current rating. The bonus pool combats this by letting a player who's using up his bonus pool steadily edge out a player who isn't playing games. For example, if two players have leveled out at the same rating, but one is playing more games, the one who is using up his bonus pool will steadily pull ahead in rating, because even though he's not gaining win/loss points faster, he's using up more of his bonus pool. | ||
|
Mindcrime
United States6899 Posts
On May 08 2010 08:32 kzn wrote: Given that assumption, ratings will be inflated in divisions with higher than average populations relative to those with lower than average. A rating of 1500 in a division with 100 people is worth a lot more than a rating of 1800 in a division with 500. This is especially true with the bonus pool system, which is in effect guaranteeing that all players will increase in rating unless they manage less than 50% wins for a long stretch of time. No. Divisions are capped at 100. But it would not matter if they weren't; no one is confined to playing only people in their own division. I doubt that what division players are in even factors into matchmaking. | ||
|
Sentient
United States437 Posts
On May 08 2010 08:24 Issorlol wrote: The division system is a sample of the entire population of the league in which you place. This means that your rank in your division is, OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME, indicative of your rank as a whole compared to everyone in your division by PERCENTILE. That means if you play 300 games and you're rank 89 in your division... You're as good as 89% of the other people in your league. This post makes me wonder: Why doesn't Blizzard list your percentile for both your league only and all leagues combined. A player could see he or she is rank #3 platinum, 95%ile overall, but only 50%ile for platinum league. It would make this whole mess a lot better overnight. By listing percentiles, you avoid the despair of seeing #13525/1345829 total players, and the system still has the intended psychological effect of competing out of 100 people. | ||
| ||
