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!
Edit: Alot of people are saying that we should focus on the validity of someones argument, rather then their rank/rating. I actually agree with that.
What I am saying in this post is that IF you want to give an indication of your skill level, it is better to use rating instead of rank.
Whether it is a good idea to use someones rating/rank (authority) to support claims is an entirely different debate.
the whole ladder doesn't mean much imo, except that platinums are generally better than gold, apart from that, it's really really bad.... 150 platinum divisions lol "NICE I GOT PROMOTED TO PLAT... not"
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.
1400 = 1400. You're not playing people in only your division so it is roughly the same. I mean some guy could hypothetically randomly get all the extremely good people, but it's honestly roughly the same.
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.
Yes it does.
What the man said.
EDIT: Rating shows you how good you really are, rank and divisions just give you a more remote and 'ral' goal to aspire to. It's easier to gun for no1 spot in your division, and strive to achieve that, it's also a bit more 'personal', than it would be to strive for let's say 1700 rating, or trying to be top 10 when you are in spot 2000.
I haven't been able to check my points rating since the last time my account got reset. It still says that I have 5 placement matches to do despite me being 14th or so in my division
I'm a 32nd rank Wifflebat in the Grand Order of Plastics (known as G.o.o.p for short) and because of this I get to wear a fez. Be jealous!*
*The above statement was brought to you by pointless beta ladder ranks and pointless threads coalition. Building a better tomorrow at the sacrifice of today.
Sorry I misunderstood what the OP was referring to. I didn't mean to imply that one division is ranked better than the other, but simply explaining the basics of divisions. As far as comparison across divisions it's certainly something we've considered but there are issues, such that the rankings in one division don't directly translate to the other divisions.So you couldn't compare division 10 to division 48 and compare one player's points to another.
I'm sure there will be websites on the internets collecting data and thus establishing continental rankings. You will never have to be unsure of your rank ever again.
Ironically, it seems the purpose of your thread is calling attention to your rank and rating (....LOL?) Which, worse yet, is more annoying than people parading their top 5 platinum ranking.
The "lower division = better" comes from the early days of beta, where many good players got keys first and were placed in the low divisions. Since the resets, this is largely irrelevant.
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.
1400 = 1400. You're not playing people in only your division so it is roughly the same. I mean some guy could hypothetically randomly get all the extremely good people, but it's honestly roughly the same.
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.
Yes it does.
What the man said.
No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
I don't think this will catch on. That's like saying you good to a prestigious school, but telling everyone that you're not that exceptional (because very few have a really high rating, realistically, even though they might have a high rank). People would rather just say that they go to a prestigious school.
It's definitely a step up from just stating your ranking, but to be perfectly honest, I don't think your rank in beta should really bolster your credentials or add support to your argument. At the end of the day, everything should just be supported with good analysis, facts, and logic. Especially in beta with such a small pool of players, most inexperienced.
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.
1400 = 1400. You're not playing people in only your division so it is roughly the same. I mean some guy could hypothetically randomly get all the extremely good people, but it's honestly roughly the same.
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.
Yes it does.
What the man said.
No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
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.
1400 = 1400. You're not playing people in only your division so it is roughly the same. I mean some guy could hypothetically randomly get all the extremely good people, but it's honestly roughly the same.
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.
Yes it does.
What the man said.
No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
On May 08 2010 02:52 FortuneSyn wrote: No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
I think the Blizzard poster in there may have mis-spoken.
Can you explain why they would be different? I can't figure it out. The only thing I can think of that would separate the divisions would be the length of time one player has over another in accruing bonus points. Apart from that, why wouldn't their rankings be basically relative to one another? Everyone plays outside his own division, so why would 1400 points earned in division 53 not be similar to 1400 points earned in division 54?
Your point about whether you are "even" with your opponent is irrelevant, as the favored system is almost certainly broken at the moment.
I am sure eventually the idea of referring to one's skill level in the sense of rating over rank will be main stream. At the moment, though, people simply like being able to say to themselves that they are a "top 5 platinum" player as it sounds much better. It shouldn't last though. I suppose if the community begins criticizing people for using their rank as an indicator of skill level, we will eventually see it the other way.
On May 08 2010 02:52 FortuneSyn wrote: No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
I think the Blizzard poster in there may have mis-spoken.
Can you explain why they would be different? I can't figure it out. The only thing I can think of that would separate the divisions would be the length of time one player has over another in accruing bonus points. Apart from that, why wouldn't their rankings be basically relative to one another? Everyone plays outside his own division, so why would 1400 points earned in division 53 not be similar to 1400 points earned in division 54?
Your point about whether you are "even" with your opponent is irrelevant, as the favored system is almost certainly broken at the moment.
I don't see why we would assume the Blizzard poster would be wrong. They usually give us pretty accurate information, and if they don't, they generally correct it.
They would be different if every division existed in its own bubble, and gave points based on how well you were doing in comparison to your division rather than comparing yourself to the player base as a whole. Which is precisely what the blue poster implies when he says that points are not directly comparable between divisions.
People have this pathological need to be ahead of whoever they perceive to be in front of them. In reality there's always a bigger fish. You're being controlled and you don't even know it. Relax a little bit.
On May 08 2010 02:52 FortuneSyn wrote: No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
I think the Blizzard poster in there may have mis-spoken.
Can you explain why they would be different? I can't figure it out. The only thing I can think of that would separate the divisions would be the length of time one player has over another in accruing bonus points. Apart from that, why wouldn't their rankings be basically relative to one another? Everyone plays outside his own division, so why would 1400 points earned in division 53 not be similar to 1400 points earned in division 54?
Your point about whether you are "even" with your opponent is irrelevant, as the favored system is almost certainly broken at the moment.
I don't know the correct answer. All I know is that when you play somebody "even" with you, you often dont have similar points.
I don't know exactly what you mean about "even" with opponent being irrelevant. "Even" implies you lose/win equal amount of points (12), so if a 1400 and 1600 guy play each other infinite times, they will always have a 200 pt difference between each other despite being "even".
On May 08 2010 02:52 FortuneSyn wrote: No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
I think the Blizzard poster in there may have mis-spoken.
Can you explain why they would be different? I can't figure it out. The only thing I can think of that would separate the divisions would be the length of time one player has over another in accruing bonus points. Apart from that, why wouldn't their rankings be basically relative to one another? Everyone plays outside his own division, so why would 1400 points earned in division 53 not be similar to 1400 points earned in division 54?
Your point about whether you are "even" with your opponent is irrelevant, as the favored system is almost certainly broken at the moment.
I don't see why we would assume the Blizzard poster would be wrong. They usually give us pretty accurate information, and if they don't, they generally correct it.
They would be different if every division existed in its own bubble, and gave points based on how well you were doing in comparison to your division rather than comparing yourself to the player base as a whole. Which is precisely what the blue poster implies when he says that points are not directly comparable between divisions.
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)
On May 08 2010 02:52 FortuneSyn wrote: No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
I think the Blizzard poster in there may have mis-spoken.
Can you explain why they would be different? I can't figure it out. The only thing I can think of that would separate the divisions would be the length of time one player has over another in accruing bonus points. Apart from that, why wouldn't their rankings be basically relative to one another? Everyone plays outside his own division, so why would 1400 points earned in division 53 not be similar to 1400 points earned in division 54?
Your point about whether you are "even" with your opponent is irrelevant, as the favored system is almost certainly broken at the moment.
I don't know the correct answer. All I know is that when you play somebody "even" with you, you often dont have similar points.
I don't know exactly what you mean about "even" with opponent being irrelevant. "Even" implies you lose/win equal amount of points (12), so if a 1400 and 1600 guy play each other infinite times, they will always have a 200 pt difference between each other despite being "even".
When I said it's irrelevant, I meant because as far as I can tell, it's functioning incorrectly at the moment. Opponents who are ranked lower than me in lower divisions have been "favored" or "slightly favored" vs me often, when they clearly shouldn't be.
wow, Grubal uses his mother's death to beg for a key. Then a couple hours later he validates somebody's claim, thereby telling us that you indeed have had a key for a long time already.
So we have basically established that your word means shit around here huh.
wow, Grubal uses his mother's death to beg for a key. Then a couple hours later he validates somebody's claim, thereby telling us that you indeed have had a key for a long time already.
So we have basically established that your word means shit around here huh.
On May 08 2010 02:52 FortuneSyn wrote: No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
I think the Blizzard poster in there may have mis-spoken.
Can you explain why they would be different? I can't figure it out. The only thing I can think of that would separate the divisions would be the length of time one player has over another in accruing bonus points. Apart from that, why wouldn't their rankings be basically relative to one another? Everyone plays outside his own division, so why would 1400 points earned in division 53 not be similar to 1400 points earned in division 54?
Your point about whether you are "even" with your opponent is irrelevant, as the favored system is almost certainly broken at the moment.
I don't know the correct answer. All I know is that when you play somebody "even" with you, you often dont have similar points.
I don't know exactly what you mean about "even" with opponent being irrelevant. "Even" implies you lose/win equal amount of points (12), so if a 1400 and 1600 guy play each other infinite times, they will always have a 200 pt difference between each other despite being "even".
When I said it's irrelevant, I meant because as far as I can tell, it's functioning incorrectly at the moment. Opponents who are ranked lower than me in lower divisions have been "favored" or "slightly favored" vs me often, when they clearly shouldn't be.
I don't know it's suppose to be functioning this way. But the fact is that because of these inconsistencies, 1400 div1 does not equal 1300 div59. But hey, it's the best we got right now.
If you played WoW arenas the system blizzard uses for the SC2 ladder is not drastically different. They have added the idea of leagues and divisions, but their point system is almost exactly the same. A Few facts: 1) The rank in your division is not at all comparable to other divisions, as most people know. 2) The points people have is a better indication to compare people across divisions but its still rough if people haven't played 75-100+ games. These points you have change relatively slowly over time from 1-30 points based on how close the match-up is. 3) There is a hidden 'skill level' blizzard has of every player. This rating changes drastically from wins and loses, and if compared to the shown point system jumps around a lot to try and better determine your skill in a short window.
Blizzard uses the points I describe in #3 to match people up, and its how they determine who is favored or not. The idea behind this hidden fast changing points system is if you are in a slump (or doing really well) the system wants to quickly match you up to people of your current skill level. Using the slow changing points system from #2 wouldn't do that as it changes very slowly over time. When people have played 100+ games though the points from #2 and #3 will be close to each other. This is because the system will start really learning your true 'skill level' (which may slowly change) and #3 will start changing very slowly, and #2 will eventually catch up and they will even out.
Blizzard uses this exact same point system in WoW, they also 'hid' this true skill number for a long time but eventually made it available to see. The biggest difference between WoW and SC2 is that SC2 has everyone split up into divisions and leagues. WoW is split up in a different way in which people can't be compared at all because they have completely different player pools.
SHORT VERSION: If both players have played 100+ games on the ladder, the rating points shown in game is probably a very good comparison across divisions, otherwise it can be quite off.
EDIT: Also over time because of BONUS points that will cause inflation a 1400 points early in a season is a lot more impressive than 1400 points at the end of a season.
Not that rating means anything anyway. You win like 30-50 points if you win and lose 5? Whoever plays most and isn't completely retarded will lead the rankings.
On May 08 2010 03:13 FortuneSyn wrote: I don't know the correct answer. All I know is that when you play somebody "even" with you, you often dont have similar points.
That is because every player has 2 ratings: a public rating that is shown to everyone, and a hidden AMM rating. The hidden rating is what is used to determine who's favored in a match.
This has nothing to do with the points system. The points system works the same across all divisions.
Winning a game against a favored opponent gives the same amount of points whether that opponent is in division 2 or in division 479.
Same for slightly favored, same for you being favored, same for you being slightly favored, same for even teams.
What division you are in has no bearing on the points system.
On May 08 2010 03:08 zealing wrote: lol i love how many noobs on here are like "divisions mean nothing kekeke, div 1 is the same as 100"
no its not, stop saying it is, your wrong accept it and F10 S.
rofl you know that new divisions are created only as current divisions fill up right?
so you if you did your placement matches within 2 or 3 hours after a reset (putting you in division 1 or 2), and NonY decided to wait a week before doing his placement matches (putting him in division 100), you would say you're better than NonY?
On May 08 2010 03:47 HeyheyLBJ wrote: Not that rating means anything anyway. You win like 30-50 points if you win and lose 5? Whoever plays most and isn't completely retarded will lead the rankings.
This isn't really true. At first you may experience something like this, but as you play more games you will find that losses will mean more. You have to really play a lot of games (probably 100+ range) to really start 'evening' out.
.. This has NOTHING to do with WoW.. Point totals are the EXACT same in different divisions. 1400 in div 1 is equal to 1400 in div 163, because you play EVERYONE in platinum, not just in your division.
I am in some shitty division, like 70 or something, and ive played Incontrol, LZgamer, etc etc where most of my division isnt even above 1200 yet.
And to show how pointless this rank system is.. For me, I am about 200 pts above 2nd place, so its not even a challenge really, and I find I play less games because I have no competition in this shitty division, where if there was a REAL ladder, I wouldnt even be ranked 100 on US east right now, which would make me want to play more to get it. (part of that is due to time constraints, but still, its not as desirable to play when you are so far ahead of a weak division)
On May 08 2010 03:08 zealing wrote: lol i love how many noobs on here are like "divisions mean nothing kekeke, div 1 is the same as 100"
no its not, stop saying it is, your wrong accept it and F10 S.
So, because you got placed in platinum faster / sat up all night waiting for the reset patch to come out to instantly play your games means your better then a guy who has teh same W/L and same points as you that did his placement matches a couple of days later or a player who started in copper but has played and played much more then you and eventually become a platinum player?
yeah ok, makes sense :S
I just wish everyone would be placed in gold and had to make your way to plat, because right now, theres some really bad players in plat
Won't the path you take to get to platinum affect your rating? Getting placed into platinum initially means you're going to start at 1000 platinum points and playing probably anyone else that's in platinum with a lower hidden rating. Working your way up from Bronze/Silver/Gold means your hidden rating is much more accurate, and likely much higher. Yet when you first enter platinum you're still going to get set to 1000 platinum points.
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.
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.
On May 08 2010 02:52 FortuneSyn wrote: No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
I think the Blizzard poster in there may have mis-spoken.
Can you explain why they would be different? I can't figure it out. The only thing I can think of that would separate the divisions would be the length of time one player has over another in accruing bonus points. Apart from that, why wouldn't their rankings be basically relative to one another? Everyone plays outside his own division, so why would 1400 points earned in division 53 not be similar to 1400 points earned in division 54?
Your point about whether you are "even" with your opponent is irrelevant, as the favored system is almost certainly broken at the moment.
I don't see why we would assume the Blizzard poster would be wrong. They usually give us pretty accurate information, and if they don't, they generally correct it.
They would be different if every division existed in its own bubble, and gave points based on how well you were doing in comparison to your division rather than comparing yourself to the player base as a whole. Which is precisely what the blue poster implies when he says that points are not directly comparable between divisions.
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.
Sorry I misunderstood what the OP was referring to. I didn't mean to imply that one division is ranked better than the other, but simply explaining the basics of divisions. As far as comparison across divisions it's certainly something we've considered but there are issues, such that the rankings in one division don't directly translate to the other divisions.So you couldn't compare division 10 to division 48 and compare one player's points to another.
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.
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.
Well, you get them if you are not playing, some WoW dragover (rested exp) its completely pointless but blizzard wants players to feel like the achieve soemthing in the game even when they are not playing
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Bonus Pool inflates everyone's points the same, and I'm pretty sure its been scaled back a lot since earlier builds. I hadn't played for about a week and had like 200 bonus pool sitting and waiting in earlier stages of the Beta. After a week of not playing 2v2 RT I only have like 40 right now.
On May 08 2010 04:19 phamou wrote: Ok, so can someone CONFIRM me, is 1400 Gold division 2 = 1400 Gold Division 60? All the past 5 pages some say yes, some say no.
therefore, YES or NO?
It's the same. The reason is because you play people who aren't in your division. The only difference is that 1400 div 2 will likely to only be around rank 15 while 1400 div 60 could easily be top 5 ranks.
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.
With all respect, you dont have any idea what point inflaiton is. You were talking about reason, why bonus point system was implemented, but that doesnt mean it doesnt caused point inflation in the system.
Point inflation means, that the people in earlier created division have more points than people in recent created division. It also means, that sum of all player ratings should be different from division to division. You can easily prove that the sum varies between the divisions.
On May 08 2010 04:19 phamou wrote: Ok, so can someone CONFIRM me, is 1400 Gold division 2 = 1400 Gold Division 60? All the past 5 pages some say yes, some say no.
therefore, YES or NO?
Its the same.
DIVISION means nothing. Its just an arbitrary list of people you get lumped with. Getting moved from Division to Division is just Bnet's way of evening out the distribution of people within all of the divisions.
RANK within that division is therefore meaningless, because an average player lumped in with a bunch of bads (and its not hard getting into plat if you get placed against 5 noobs in your placement games) is going to have a high rank. Rank therefore becomes meaningless when there's no way to distinguish between 'king of the noobs' and 'king of the pros'.
RATING (the 1000+ number) is important, because its a numerical measure of how successful you are against everyone within that bracket.
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.
With all respect, you dont have any idea what point inflaiton is. You were talking about reason, why bonus point system was implemented, but that doesnt mean it doesnt caused point inflation in the system.
Point inflation means, that the people in earlier created division have more points than people in recent created division. It also means, that sum of all player ratings should be different from division to division. You can easily prove that the sum varies between the divisions.
Your last sentence isn't the case, though. People who joined the beta shortly after a reset started with bonus pool already sitting there waiting for them. Bonus Pool accumulates even for accounts that haven't been created, yet. Make one today and you'll start with bonus pool.
On May 08 2010 04:19 phamou wrote: Ok, so can someone CONFIRM me, is 1400 Gold division 2 = 1400 Gold Division 60? All the past 5 pages some say yes, some say no.
therefore, YES or NO?
It's the same. The reason is because you play people who aren't in your division. The only difference is that 1400 div 2 will likely to only be around rank 15 while 1400 div 60 could easily be top 5 ranks.
Alright thanks, however, why is it so? How do you get placed in division 2 then?
If i am understanding correctly, when I played my placement matches i was placed in Gold div 30. Does this mean that they just place the players by order of whoever did their placement matches first? (ie: this means that 100 people got placed in div29 just because they did their placement matches a few days before me?)
Can we therefore conclude that div2 vs div30 is either more active and have better players?
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.
With all respect, you dont have any idea what point inflaiton is. You were talking about reason, why bonus point system was implemented, but that doesnt mean it doesnt caused point inflation in the system.
Point inflation means, that the people in earlier created division have more points than people in recent created division. It also means, that sum of all player ratings should be different from division to division. You can easily prove that the sum varies between the divisions.
Your last sentence isn't the case, though. People who joined the beta shortly after a reset started with bonus pool already sitting there waiting for them. Bonus Pool accumulates even for accounts that haven't been created, yet. Make one today and you'll start with bonus pool.
Yep, I started out a while after the reset when I got my beta key and had a big fat 63 point pool just waiting for me.
All point inflation means is that over time, the average rating of the entire population will keep on going up and up and up. If the current exact system continues for, say, a year, people would have like 4000 rating, because the bonus pool just keeps adding to scores.
I don't think scores are too accurate though. When i got promoted to Platinum from my Gold i started with 933 points. So unless someone knows why that happened I do not approve of the points system in its current state.
On May 08 2010 04:28 Bibdy wrote: Your last sentence isn't the case, though. People who joined the beta shortly after a reset started with bonus pool already sitting there waiting for them. Bonus Pool accumulates even for accounts that haven't been created, yet. Make one today and you'll start with bonus pool.
Well I wrote my previous post bad, my apologies. Still if there is no point inflation in system, sum of all ratings for one division should be the same every time. That isnt true, because you get more bonus points as time goes by, so the sum is growing.
EDIT: Also I know you get some bonus points when starting later, but I am not sure if you get same amount as someone, who started collecting them right after reset.
On May 08 2010 02:51 BroOd wrote: The "lower division = better" comes from the early days of beta, where many good players got keys first and were placed in the low divisions. Since the resets, this is largely irrelevant.
Wrong. This phenomena still exists currently. When was the last reset? And then keys became as easy as candy to get from GS. That's why all these upper divisions sprang into existence almost overnight. Many of these new beta key players are playing the placements at the same time as others and go 5-0 and are placed into plat. (And yes, for some reason you play against other new players in your placements, my 2nd account I used to test this got placed into plat going 5-0 ezpz against pretty much silver level players)
If they did a reset right now, and then everything got mixed up again the leagues would have meaning. As it stands, the upper divisions are pretty terribad. I'm gold in a lower division (deserved since i am not gosu) but I destroy my friends who recently got keys and all somehow placed into plat.
On May 08 2010 04:40 SichuanPanda wrote: I'm up to rank 9 division 45 and still climbing quickly/not facing much competition, so clearly there is vast differences from division to division.
In rank, yes. Which is the entire point of the thread.
You sure? last time i went up rank was form silver 2v2 to gold 2v2, and we started at 1200 points
No I'm not actually. It does seem like your rating in the new ladder is the result of some sort of magic, some magic that doesn't seem like it's going to immediately put you at the right score in your new level of play.
I mean think about it; If you get promoted from 1400 gold -> platinum what should your rating be? There's just no way to accurately tell unless there's a direct function of hidden rating -> division score. But we know that division score inflates while hidden rating shouldn't and that 2 people at the same hidden rating can be in different leagues with different points. Hell if hidden rating DOES inflate then we have a much much bigger problem than any of this other crap.
And then keys became as easy as candy to get from GS. That's why all these upper divisions sprang into existence almost overnight
Actually keys were available before the last reset. I got my key on day 1 of the offer, played 1 day, got wiped, then had to make a new account.
On May 08 2010 03:08 zealing wrote: lol i love how many noobs on here are like "divisions mean nothing kekeke, div 1 is the same as 100"
no its not, stop saying it is, your wrong accept it and F10 S.
So, because you got placed in platinum faster / sat up all night waiting for the reset patch to come out to instantly play your games means your better then a guy who has teh same W/L and same points as you that did his placement matches a couple of days later or a player who started in copper but has played and played much more then you and eventually become a platinum player?
yeah ok, makes sense :S
I just wish everyone would be placed in gold and had to make your way to plat, because right now, theres some really bad players in plat
it makes sense that the first people to play got in the first divisions are better then people in the really high divisions like 100+ because people like me who got the key are not as good as people who got the key 2 months ago.
cause of the ladder reset its kind of hard to tell because ya i coulda just done what you said but the bottom line is that most new players are placed in higher divisions because the division before that one was full, which means that the higher the divison goes the more newer players are, that doesn't mean their bad but i would bet any amount of money that if everyone in my divison which is 124 vs the first 50 divisons, mine would get owned, why? because people are still getting keys and new divisions are being made.
so in conclusion the higher the division goes the more new players you meet. not saying all the people are bad, but most are new and less experienced then the players who have been playing since the first opt in. making higher divisions more nub.
All that happens by saying what rank you are is trying to see who has the bigger e-peen ^_^. Just say your in platinum or w/e.. but honestly ladder doesn't even mean anything.
On May 08 2010 04:46 skYfiVe wrote: All that happens by saying what rank you are is trying to see who has the bigger e-peen ^_^. Just say your in platinum or w/e.. but honestly ladder doesn't even mean anything.
When you're trying to convince people, telling them your ELO does mean something. It differentiates and tells you if the player is rank 5 in his 5 man division, or if the player has played, and won a lot of games, and has alot of experience. Doesn't automatically mean the player is good, but at the very least they're not too naive. There's no need to try to interpret ELO in a super-duper accurate way either, at least not for the purposes outlined in the OP
On May 08 2010 05:02 XXXSmOke wrote: Or people could just actully listen to the ideas of people and judge off of that....
Hmmmmm.
Theres two possiblities with this : - You're already amazingly good at the game and don't need to read advices on forums. - You're not good enough to correctly judge most ideas.
On May 08 2010 05:02 XXXSmOke wrote: Or people could just actully listen to the ideas of people and judge off of that....
Hmmmmm.
I would agree with this. That the validity of the argument doesn't matter who its coming from. This is the same as someone saying "Marines are a good idea against Immortals"... and then someone else- just attacking the person: "You're an idiot"... rather than attacking the argument.
Hitler was a vegetarian. This does not mean that its a bad idea, just because the person was. Arguments should be considered separate from their presenter.
Supporting arguments involving replays of Pro-Gamers or tourny play vs Bronze League is another thing. Obviously, seeing things done correctly is going to take a skilled player. But, anything nonsense you spout isn't correct just because you are platinum... and likewise a Bronze player might have a really good idea- that he just cant execute. But if say, White-rA were to do it- it would be deadly.
And then keys became as easy as candy to get from GS. That's why all these upper divisions sprang into existence almost overnight
Actually keys were available before the last reset. I got my key on day 1 of the offer, played 1 day, got wiped, then had to make a new account.
Most of the people got keys significantly after they became available. Word of mouth takes a little time to get around, esp for the people that arnt as interested. Which is the exact same type of people in the higher numbered divisions.
On May 08 2010 04:19 phamou wrote: Ok, so can someone CONFIRM me, is 1400 Gold division 2 = 1400 Gold Division 60? All the past 5 pages some say yes, some say no.
therefore, YES or NO?
It's the same. The reason is because you play people who aren't in your division. The only difference is that 1400 div 2 will likely to only be around rank 15 while 1400 div 60 could easily be top 5 ranks.
Alright thanks, however, why is it so? How do you get placed in division 2 then?
If i am understanding correctly, when I played my placement matches i was placed in Gold div 30. Does this mean that they just place the players by order of whoever did their placement matches first? (ie: this means that 100 people got placed in div29 just because they did their placement matches a few days before me?)
Can we therefore conclude that div2 vs div30 is either more active and have better players?
Divisions are basically made as people need them. In other words, divisions are more or less filled in the order people finish their placement matches.
In the early days of the beta, people who were good generally got their keys earlier. As such, the lower numbered divisions usually had a higher skill cap. However, since the resets, all skill levels across divisions are roughly equal.
@systema: People's rank matters when they're theorycrafting or saying certain things about the game. Someone who has 1800 elo in plat would likely have better, more relevant, and more accurate things to say than someone with 900 elo in copper.
On May 08 2010 05:14 systema wrote: People need to stop caring what their rank is and just play the damn BETA.
obviously people want to lend credibility to their gameplay discussions, which is where rank/rating comes in.
The issue that the OP brought up is that rank is more or less meaningless when compared with rating.
If you weren't sure how good someone is, which of these gives a better indicator of how good they are?
"I'm rank #1 platinum" "I'm 1950 platinum"
Obviously the rating gives a more accurate view of how well someone is doing at the ladder.
There are plenty of rank 1 plats out there (1 for every division in fact), but there AREN'T many people with 1950+ rating (< than 20 I would guess).
Hell if you were unranked and hopped on b.net right now and went 10-0 or 15-0 you would easily be #1 plat of a new division. That doesn't mean you're good or even decent by any means.
Hell if you were unranked and hopped on b.net right now and went 10-0 or 15-0 you would easily be #1 plat of a new division. That doesn't mean you're good by any means.
Soooo not true, 15-0 gets you nowhere near 1950, someone in my division is like 28-4 and he is 15th.
Hell if you were unranked and hopped on b.net right now and went 10-0 or 15-0 you would easily be #1 plat of a new division. That doesn't mean you're good by any means.
Soooo not true, 15-0 gets you nowhere near 1950, someone in my division is like 28-4 and he is 15th.
lol, self-owned. Did I say 15-0 would get you 1950 rating? ^^
You just displayed your ignorance of the difference between rank & rating.
Does anyone know or have educated guesses what rating distribution it's tuned for once people play lots of games? These hidden matchmaking systems are tuned for a certain distribution usually, like WC3 (post 1.14) was supposed to have lvl 25 as average and lvl 50 as top (although they had the thing where you could go above but you had to win tons and not lose), wow arena is set for 3000 to be top and 1500 average and distribute around that, etc.
It seems like it could be similar to wow arena I guess, where equal skilled teams will +12 and -12 for a w/l once they reach enough games to have rating=hidden rating, and it seems like ratings are set to grow for most people right now, and most people are below 1500.
The point system actually does reflect your skill after you play many, many games (around 100+ for most people, probably 200+ for really good people). Although it was a bit perplexing when there was that silver player with 2100(?) points (correct me if I'm wrong).
I personally hover around 1600-1700 Platinum in 2v2's, consistently winning and losing about 1/2 my games once I hit this range. This is actually the 2nd time I've hit this range (pre-wipe and post-wipe) and pre-wipe it was 1550-1650 so I've improved a tad.
On May 08 2010 05:42 tathecat563 wrote: The point system actually does reflect your skill after you play many, many games (around 100+ for most people, probably 200+ for really good people). Although it was a bit perplexing when there was that silver player with 2100(?) points (correct me if I'm wrong).
I personally hover around 1600-1700 Platinum in 2v2's, consistently winning and losing about 1/2 my games once I hit this range. This is actually the 2nd time I've hit this range (pre-wipe and post-wipe) and pre-wipe it was 1550-1650 so I've improved a tad.
A high rating in silver is the equivalent of a mid-level rating in a higher bracket like Gold or Platinum. He just plays a lot and does well against other Silvers. In all likelihood he's a decent Platinum player that just got stuck there and the system refused to promote him. Happened a lot in the first few weeks where the criteria for promotion was... well I dunno. Nobody knew. It was really strict on some people and really leniant on others.
On May 08 2010 03:08 zealing wrote: lol i love how many noobs on here are like "divisions mean nothing kekeke, div 1 is the same as 100"
no its not, stop saying it is, your wrong accept it and F10 S.
your wrong accept it
edit: if you started late u join a recently created division own everyone and your in first but still have low points doesnt mean your not as good as the people who have been playing but just have playeed a lot more games
On May 08 2010 05:42 tathecat563 wrote: The point system actually does reflect your skill after you play many, many games (around 100+ for most people, probably 200+ for really good people). Although it was a bit perplexing when there was that silver player with 2100(?) points (correct me if I'm wrong).
I personally hover around 1600-1700 Platinum in 2v2's, consistently winning and losing about 1/2 my games once I hit this range. This is actually the 2nd time I've hit this range (pre-wipe and post-wipe) and pre-wipe it was 1550-1650 so I've improved a tad.
A high rating in silver is the equivalent of a mid-level rating in a higher bracket like Gold or Platinum. He just plays a lot and does well against other Silvers. In all likelihood he's a decent Platinum player that just got stuck there and the system refused to promote him. Happened a lot in the first few weeks where the criteria for promotion was... well I dunno. Nobody knew. It was really strict on some people and really leniant on others.
Firstly, that was a few patches ago, before the first reset. No, he wasn't only doing well against other Silvers. He was winning consistently against top platinum players. Him not getting promoted pointed to a serious problem in the way promotions were handled, which was fixed in later patches. It's basically a non-issue currently.
On May 08 2010 03:08 zealing wrote: lol i love how many noobs on here are like "divisions mean nothing kekeke, div 1 is the same as 100"
no its not, stop saying it is, your wrong accept it and F10 S.
your wrong accept it
edit: if you started late u join a recently created division own everyone and your in first but still have low points doesnt mean your not as good as the people who have been playing but just have playeed a lot more games
That doesn't mean you've proven yourself to be that good, either.
Being rank #1 means jack diddly squat if you just got placed, are sitting in division 3,031,964, the other 8 guys in your division are sitting at 5-0 with 1000 points and you play and win 1 more game.
Whether you got placed in Division 1, or division 3,031,964 means nothing, but relative to the other people who could be in your division, your RANK means nothing either.
On May 08 2010 04:46 skYfiVe wrote: All that happens by saying what rank you are is trying to see who has the bigger e-peen ^_^. Just say your in platinum or w/e.. but honestly ladder doesn't even mean anything.
Good to know there are people who don't understand statistics...
Granted, I think rank shouldn't be based on your division per se - I think it should be absolutely based on percentile, but divisions are certainly more representative of your overall rank than an all-inclusive ladder.
The problem with divisions is that they're not really large enough - if they were a bit larger, the chance that a player who's capable of, say, top 10 plat OVERALL is in any given division is a bit higher than 100 people per.
Regardless, they're a pretty decent indicator of your overall rank compared to all platinum/gold/silver/bronze/copper players.
On May 08 2010 02:34 bodysnatcher21 wrote: Alot of people are saying that we should focus on the validity of someones argument, rather then their rank/rating. I actually agree with that.
This +1 To many elitist that automatically say " you are copper, or bronze or silver or gold' therefore, you're opinion is invalid."
I'm 1440 something in sliver, but I am consistently beating mid high gold players and low plat players...got screwed in placements . I have been waiting to move to gold for a while.
Hate the actual bnet forums where people look up your stats and post them, hasn't happened to me but I've seen it done often.
Edit: I have also lost to bronze players who were better than me. It's easy for a bad player to get 5 easy placements or for a good player to get 5 hard ones and they will both end up in the wrong division. I feel everyone should start in silver and then you work your way up or down.
everyone i think knows this but when they say "im #1 or #2 plat" it sounds better, ppl that give a rating like that are trying to brag, there not trying to be legit, ppl still dont understand that it is beta, and think that b/c they plat they're insain
On May 08 2010 05:39 CharlieMurphy wrote: I thought the rating was based on a per division basis (meaning it was useless outside your division as ranking is concerned) It's not ELO.
You are correct, and if you look at page 1-3 ish you will see me arguing this point. Yet this thread has suddenly been irreversibly drowned by "hey im gold but i beat plat k" "lol u nubs dont know statistics" "whats timing" responses.
lets hope they get rid of this with the main release (although I doubt it). I see absolutely 0 point to divisions -_- unless they did them geographically or something which COULD be kind of cool.
On May 08 2010 02:38 Fayth wrote: the whole ladder doesn't mean much imo, except that platinums are generally better than gold, apart from that, it's really really bad.... 150 platinum divisions lol "NICE I GOT PROMOTED TO PLAT... not"
I'm silver league rating 1400 and beat a plat player the other day. . . it was a PvP and I scouted after 9 pylon to see nothing in his base, assumed proxy, went 2-gate and started pumping zealots. my econ was better than his, so I put up a 3rd gate, and squashed him.
On May 08 2010 04:36 Ursad0n wrote: I don't think scores are too accurate though. When i got promoted to Platinum from my Gold i started with 933 points. So unless someone knows why that happened I do not approve of the points system in its current state.
I'm at the opposite end. When I got promoted from gold to platinum, my point total was initially set at around 1030. When, however, the us server came back after some "maintenance" my point total was back at the 1445 I apparently had when I was promoted from gold.
so here I am, sitting at #1 in a new platinum division, without ever having played a 1v1 as a platinum player myself
On May 08 2010 05:39 CharlieMurphy wrote: I thought the rating was based on a per division basis (meaning it was useless outside your division as ranking is concerned) It's not ELO.
QFT
How do people who argue that ratings is a better measure figure the bonus pool works?
Right now there isn't really any way to get credibility besides having solid arguments and good replays. Anything else isn't relevant with how the ladder works.
I'm not so sure. You have to take into account that someone in a much older division has also had a lot more time to get their 2000 rating. So perhaps your rank is the more accurate measurement.
That being said, i'm pretty consistently in the top 5 of my division (and the guy in first isn't super impressive, so i'm sure if i just put the games in i'd overtake him), and I don't feel at all like i'm a great player or anything. I'm not even sure being in platinum at all really means much at this point.
Well before recent reset I could say I was in division 7 ranked 3rd which meant a little something. Now in div 40 something and doesn't matter what rank I am wouldn't be hard at all to get rank first.
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.
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 :|
On May 08 2010 02:36 Chill wrote: i agree but i dont think you need to make a thread about this/
Of course you don't.
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?
Let me just restate this: A division of higher number is in NO WAY indicative of the skill level of the division in comparison to one of a lower number. People are added to divisions RANDOMLY(or perhaps chronologically - i think this is the case) and new ones are created when the need for a new division arises. If you're in a higher-numbered division, that means ONLY that you qualified later than people who are in lower number divisions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
you should state rank and elo, you earned that rank there is nothing wrong with stating it, but also state your elo and your win/loss, but in the end its all numbers, I say challenge everyone you disagree with on a strat to 1v1, decide our e-**** on the field.
I've been using my rating in posts for a month now, unless I am required to give my division rank. It is a clearer indication of skill because when you say "lol im rank 1 div 85" you could be anywhere from 1500-2100 points
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
^how does that encourage someone to keep playing games as you imply, as opposed to letting their bonus pool build so they can make their fewer games more meaningful because you're guaranteed free points?
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?
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.
Well, since the matchmaking system doesn't take your division into account I can't imagine how being in a division with less skilled players would matter at all. By their very nature you'll have a division with someone who's bad relative to the total population of the league and someone who is very good relative to the total population of the league. There may be some overlap, which I think is what you were getting at, but it will be very minor in the grand scheme of things - in the cases in which the top two players are both, perhaps, top 1% of the league, their rating will be more reliable forms of comparison between the two players than their rank.
Again, though, a top 1% player will more than likely have rank 1 anyway.
Being a low level player myself I have to say the division system has been very discouraging to me. The reason is that the leagues I am placed in are essentially dead, with only 5-10 players racking up more then 20 games (in a silver league, it's probably even more inactive in bronze and copper).
Being ranked against people that are not playing is heart breaking and has made me feel like somewhat of a fool. "I guess I shouldn't be playing, nobody else this bad is".
I do think that low numbered divisions are better btw. Not by purpose but simply because they were created earlier and people that reached platinum the first few weeks are generally better than people only reaching it right now.
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.
I'm not sure you're using percentiles in the correct way here. Someone who is rank 3 platinum over a long period of time will be in, I suppose, the 97th percentile or the top 3% of all platinum players. They will actually very likely be in a percentile of less than 1 relative to the total population of players, and saying "you're in the top .003% out of everyone!" is a lot less helpful than "you're in the top 3% of those against whom you actually compete ."
On May 08 2010 09:06 Gallimatias wrote: Being a low level player myself I have to say the division system has been very discouraging to me. The reason is that the leagues I am placed in are essentially dead, with only 5-10 players racking up more then 20 games (in a silver league, it's probably even more inactive in bronze and copper).
Being ranked against people that are not playing is heart breaking and has made me feel like somewhat of a fool. "I guess I shouldn't be playing, nobody else this bad is".
I think you're misinterpreting what the division system means.
If you're, say, rank 8 in your division, that doesn't mean much for this beta. Over a long period of time with no resets, rank 8 would be a very good indicator of your skill.
For now, though, your rating should likely be considered a better indicator of skill than rank simply because of what you described - many people (though probably not most) are inactive, so the data is a bit unreliable. I think blizzard may implement some way to weed out inactive accounts from the calculations for rank in the future.
As more games are played, your rank will become a much more significant indicator of your overall skill level in comparison to your league.
You also seem to assume that you only get matched against people in your division. This is not true. In fact, if you do well, you begin to be match against people who aren't even in your league. Due to the fact that this is a short period of time relative to how long you might be playing at release, this amount of time matched against higher leagues is insignificant. It does, however, invalidate your ranking until you are promoted (or, alternatively, you begin to lose again and the matchmaking system begins to match you with players at your new rating and current league) and have the chance to play many more games in that league.
Overall, I feel the division system is (or perhaps has the potential to be) a MUCH better way of indicating player skill level.
On May 08 2010 09:06 Gallimatias wrote:
I do think that low numbered divisions are better btw. Not by purpose but simply because they were created earlier and people that reached platinum the first few weeks are generally better than people only reaching it right now.
Also keep in mind that the beta has fewer players playing fewer games than the game will at release, and thus is susceptible to flaws such as the one you have described for new divisions.. Over a period of perhaps a few weeks, though, the division system will not mean anything other than a convenient way to see how well you play in comparison to people in your league. It may end up being even shorter than that, perhaps a few days, given the large number of people who will be playing.
On May 08 2010 09:07 Issorlol wrote: I'm not sure you're using percentiles in the correct way here. Someone who is rank 3 platinum over a long period of time will be in, I suppose, the 97th percentile or the top 3% of all platinum players. They will actually very likely be in a percentile of less than 1 relative to the total population of players, and saying "you're in the top .003% out of everyone!" is a lot less helpful than "you're in the top 3% of those against whom you actually compete ."
I just made up some numbers to demonstrate. With the way the bonus points work, older divisions are generally always going to have more points than younger divisions, simply because they have had more time to accumulate bonus points. The younger divisions can feed off this to some extent by earning more points for winning, but I don't think it fully compensates. I would also expect the older divisions to contain more people who placed directly into a league, while the younger divisions contain people who were promoted. The older divisions should have more points in this situation (because they are generally better players, which is basis of the OP), but the ranking does not reflect this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the top 10 players of the first few divisions are better than the top players of the last divisions, simply because the last divisions were probably created from promotions, while the early divisions were placed directly.
But I suppose you are right about the total population of players. On the flipside, copper players probably don't want to see they are worse than 95% of all players. I still think showing your percentile for your league would be excellent, and it would allow a direct comparision between divisions (and finally give us an empirical clue as to how the point distribution really works between them).
On May 08 2010 09:07 Issorlol wrote: I'm not sure you're using percentiles in the correct way here. Someone who is rank 3 platinum over a long period of time will be in, I suppose, the 97th percentile or the top 3% of all platinum players. They will actually very likely be in a percentile of less than 1 relative to the total population of players, and saying "you're in the top .003% out of everyone!" is a lot less helpful than "you're in the top 3% of those against whom you actually compete ."
I just made up some numbers to demonstrate. With the way the bonus points work, older divisions are generally always going to have more points than younger divisions, simply because they have had more time to accumulate bonus points. The younger divisions can feed off this to some extent by earning more points for winning, but I don't think it fully compensates. I would also expect the older divisions to contain more people who placed directly into a league, while the younger divisions contain people who were promoted. The older divisions should have more points in this situation (because they are generally better players, which is basis of the OP), but the ranking does not reflect this. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the top 10 players of the first few divisions are better than the top players of the last divisions, simply because the last divisions were probably created from promotions, while the early divisions were placed directly.
But I suppose you are right about the total population of players. On the flipside, copper players probably don't want to see they are worse than 95% of all players. I still think showing your percentile for your league would be excellent, and it would allow a direct comparision between divisions (and finally give us an empirical clue as to how the point distribution really works between them).
The thing is, though, that your rank IS your percentile for your league. If you're rank 3, you're in the top 3% of the players in your league. That is why the division system is so good an indicator of skill - it just requires some time to get to that point.
Regarding the bonus pool - isn't the bonus pool only very large for newly-qualified people (and maybe promoted? my rating reward is massively bugged right now so rather than being promoted for doing well I'm losing many many many times more points than I should per loss vs people two leagues higher than me - 62 points vs a gold team when it should have been only two, so I haven't been able to be promoted) and people who are inactive for an amount of time?
Someone could, then, purposely wait or go inactive in order to have a high bonus pool, but it must be kept in mind that the bonus pool IS limited, and so when they start to be matched against players of higher skill, they will be brought down to their appropriate rating/ranking once again. They may be promoted if they're in the right position, but, again, they will be quickly demoted when the system decides that they can't perform in the league to which they are promoted.
"The thing is, though, that your rank IS your percentile for your league. If you're rank 3, you're in the top 3% of the players in your league. That is why the division system is so good an indicator of skill - it just requires some time to get to that point."
Not necessarily, although the numbers are small enough at this point that you may be right. You can easily disprove this by looking up your rating on the comprehensive ladder website that that one guy put up, then comparing your actual percentile based on rating compared to what you think your rank is.
I don't see why this is a hard concept to understand -- rank is relative to your division, rating is relative to your league. You do not only play players in your div, you play people in your league, so your rating and ELO are balanced around THAT.
Who cares what your rank is its a Beta, its 100% meaningless being rank 1 div 1 2000+ or rank 1 div 20 1600+ - while granted there is a distinct skill difference, its pretty much irrelevant if you are high ranked in Beta because stats are gonna be wiped again and again.
On May 08 2010 09:23 Vei wrote: "The thing is, though, that your rank IS your percentile for your league. If you're rank 3, you're in the top 3% of the players in your league. That is why the division system is so good an indicator of skill - it just requires some time to get to that point."
Not necessarily, although the numbers are small enough at this point that you may be right. You can easily disprove this by looking up your rating on the comprehensive ladder website that that one guy put up, then comparing your actual percentile based on rating compared to what you think your rank is.
I don't see why this is a hard concept to understand -- rank is relative to your division, rating is relative to your league. You do not only play players in your div, you play people in your league, so your rating and ELO are balanced around THAT.
I see what you're saying, but I also think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Right now, due to relatively small populations and inactivity, ranking is not really the most reliable way of rating yourself. However, in the release, there will be more players, and so the chance of a top 1% player being in any given league is a lot higher (given, perhaps, higher population caps for leagues, but this would make interpreting rank much harder to do for a player). This means that a player capable of top 1% play will quickly overtake a player who is incapable of such play. There is a chance, though, that NO player in any given league is capable of such high level play, and THEN you can use ELO/rating to decide who the better player is. For the most part, though, ranking will become a very good indicator of overall performance relative to the league in which a player is playing.
While rank is certainly relative to your division, the way the rating/ranking system works essentially means that most (though not ALL) rank 1 players should be in the top 1% of players in any given league. Also keep in mind that people shuffle in/out of leagues due to promotion/demotion, and so there is always the opportunity for a better player to enter a division and overtake the rank 1 player, increasing the validity of the rank as a way to compare a player to their league.
edit:
On May 08 2010 09:25 SichuanPanda wrote: Who cares what your rank is its a Beta, its 100% meaningless being rank 1 div 1 2000+ or rank 1 div 20 1600+ - while granted there is a distinct skill difference, its pretty much irrelevant if you are high ranked in Beta because stats are gonna be wiped again and again.
This post really isn't saying much. This thread has turned into a "is the division system a good way or ranking players overall?" discussion, and so your post is pretty meaningless overall.
On May 08 2010 09:29 Issorlol wrote: While rank is certainly relative to your division, the way the rating/ranking system works essentially means that most (though not ALL) rank 1 players should be in the top 1% of players in any given league.
This is where we disagree I think. My view is that old divisions will contain players who placed directly into a league. For platinum, my hunch is that these players are better than players who get promoted from a lower league. Is there a reason you disagree with my hypothesis?
On May 08 2010 09:29 Issorlol wrote: While rank is certainly relative to your division, the way the rating/ranking system works essentially means that most (though not ALL) rank 1 players should be in the top 1% of players in any given league.
This is where we disagree I think. My view is that old divisions will contain players who placed directly into a league. For platinum, my hunch is that these players are better than players who get promoted from a lower league. Is there a reason you disagree with my hypothesis?
Although obviously I can't offer real data for why I disagree, I think simply thinking about it a little bit will show why your hypothesis is flawed.
We know that matchmaking is entirely independent of which division you've placed. This means that you get matched one one of two (or perhaps more) criteria: 1.) your rating. This is used most often for most people. 2.) how well the matchmaking system thinks you're doing and what it thinks your true rank SHOULD be. This system is not perfect, but it allows people who are perhaps wrongly low-ranked or low-rated (perhaps a person newly promoted in to a league). In the first case, you play against people who are only slightly better than you (and when it gets to the point that they start beating you - slightly worse). In this way, you have a fairly consistent rank that is a good indicator of your place in your league.
In case number two, the system has to make a few guesses. This system is necessary, though, to allow rankings to be a more significant indicator of rank. This system is made more effective by way of the favored/slightly favored system and bonus pool. A player who qualifies into a league has an easier time of increasing their rank than someone who plays consistently and often. This may seem somewhat of a bad idea at first consideration, but upon further thought, you should find that it is a very good way of running the system. A player who jumps too high in ranking will quickly begin losing games and will be brought down to their appropriate ranking fairly soon. In a similar regard, a player who SHOULD be much higher will have an easier time of ranking up, and thus bonus pool encourages players who were perhaps wrongly placed to actually continue playing. It allows the amount of games necessary to play to be much lower than it would be without bonus pool, and so the game grind is, in fact, less of a grind.
Now, what this means is that a player who is promoted into a league is allowed to more quickly begin playing against people who placed into a league. What this means is that any player who may be promoted into a league is just as good as a player who placed into a league given that their ranking is the same. This is why the number attached to a division is irrelevant in the consideration of what a player's ranking really means. Because these promoted players are playing people who placed into these leagues, their rank is just as indicative of their skill as the player who placed into the league in the first place (again, given a fairly significant volume of games played at the rating at which they belong).
I hope you understand what I'm trying to say here.
the system itself is flawed in the match making system imo.
you have games were u are having a quailty match far to few inbetween the crap were you either get rolled by someone better, or smash someone who has no clue wat they are doing (yes there still there in plat)
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!
Edit: Alot of people are saying that we should focus on the validity of someones argument, rather then their rank/rating. I actually agree with that.
What I am saying in this post is that IF you want to give an indication of your skill level, it is better to use rating instead of rank.
Whether it is a good idea to use someones rating/rank (authority) to support claims is an entirely different debate.
im rank 1 platinum division 357 and im going to have to respectfully disagree.
On May 08 2010 10:03 Oodama wrote: the system itself is flawed in the match making system imo.
you have games were u are having a quailty match far to few inbetween the crap were you either get rolled by someone better, or smash someone who has no clue wat they are doing (yes there still there in plat)
Yes, this is true to an extent. I feel that with more players, this will happen less and less often. I'm sure they'll also make the system more reliable - keep in mind that we are here to test the matchmaking system's quality just as much as the balance of the game.
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.
1400 = 1400. You're not playing people in only your division so it is roughly the same. I mean some guy could hypothetically randomly get all the extremely good people, but it's honestly roughly the same.
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.
Yes it does.
What the man said.
No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
The reason that when it says "Even" and you don't have the same amount of ladder points alot of the time is because that it doesn't match you up with other people based on ladder points. It has a sort of internal skill rating system thing it matches you by that no one sees.
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.
You are quite wrong sir, everyone plays eachother regardless of division, which means absolute jackshit. A 1900 rated player will play another 1900 rated player.
On May 08 2010 02:44 sLiniss wrote: I compltely agree. Ratings are much more important. High rated gold will bhe playing a lot of plats anyways
im rank 4 in gold with 1300 rating and i get alot of toss players from plat who just voidray rush and such , like one guy just spamming Zealots and going 2stargate voidray directly after.. makes me kinda sad :/
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.
Yes it does.
On May 08 2010 02:38 Talic_Zealot wrote:
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.
It is in fact the same. Since you are not playing people that are only in your division.
On May 08 2010 02:40 Kashll wrote:
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.
Yes it does...
On May 08 2010 02:41 grubal wrote:
On May 08 2010 02:40 Kashll wrote:
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.
Yes it does...
This is correct. I approve.
On May 08 2010 02:43 Alou wrote:
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.
1400 = 1400. You're not playing people in only your division so it is roughly the same. I mean some guy could hypothetically randomly get all the extremely good people, but it's honestly roughly the same.
On May 08 2010 02:46 eugen1225 wrote:
On May 08 2010 02:38 craaaaack wrote:
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.
Yes it does.
What the man said.
No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
The reason that when it says "Even" and you don't have the same amount of ladder points alot of the time is because that it doesn't match you up with other people based on ladder points. It has a sort of internal skill rating system thing it matches you by that no one sees.
yep, so your skill is equal to ur hidden rating not your pts
I droped out of some of my 5 placement matches, so i got into silver. When I moved up from bottom silver to top silver to top gold, I honestly could tell little to no difference in skill. I hope that upon release your league will actually reflect your skill level more. In my opinion the highest rank you can get into off of your placements should be silver or gold. To get any further you would have to show you good enough to compete there. I know i should just play more games and try to move up to platinum, but it is still annoying to play platinum players who are clearly worse than numerous players in gold/silver.
From what i understand the highest league (pro league) will be extreamly exclusive and not something that normal players will be able to get to. While im not sure about this it seems like what blizzard was implying.
I hope that is the case. I doubt I have much of a chance of ever getting in to such a league (I'm silver-quality right now, and perhaps gold with some more practice), but it should make finding good replays a lot easier.
Another problem i have with matchmaking is that the division one isn't necessarily better than division 100. Although division one has been around for way longer and therefore probably has some pretty good players, but when a new player finishes their placement matches or ranks up from a previous rank, they might get placed right at division one.
Keep in mind i am talking mostly about levels below platinum, as platinum players will most likely not leave their division. When release hits and there are thousands and thousands of divisions you will really have no idea what your overall rank is because you are in the exact same slot as thousands of people who could be better, or worse than you.
I would like to see some kind of overall ranking system besides just points.
I know this isn't a great example because of the huge difference in player size, but in ICCUP you can know your exact place in the ladder, something that I really liked.
On May 08 2010 10:56 xOchievax wrote: Another problem i have with matchmaking is that the division one isn't necessarily better than division 100. Although division one has been around for way longer and therefore probably has some pretty good players, but when a new player finishes their placement matches or ranks up from a previous rank, they might get placed right at division one.
Keep in mind i am talking mostly about levels below platinum, as platinum players will most likely not leave their division. When release hits and there are thousands and thousands of divisions you will really have no idea what your overall rank is because you are in the exact same slot as thousands of people who could be better, or worse than you.
I would like to see some kind of overall ranking system besides just points.
I know this isn't a great example because of the huge difference in player size, but in ICCUP you can know your exact place in the ladder, something that I really liked.
As I've said in a few other posts, this rank is actually not very indicative of your overall place with so many people. The division-based rank is very close to what percentile you are of all of the players in your league, and so is a much better indicator of your relative rank in your league than a number like 3560/46031.
Has anyone discovered it division actually affects Rating? I used to hear things like divisions with more people would gain ELO at a different rate then divisions with less people or something like that.
On May 08 2010 11:03 Disastorm wrote: Has anyone discovered it division actually affects Rating? I used to hear things like divisions with more people would gain ELO at a different rate then divisions with less people or something like that.
That would remove all meaning behind the ranks and, thus, the reason for using divisions, so I highly doubt that is the case.
On May 08 2010 10:29 FortuneSyn wrote: yep, so your skill is equal to ur hidden rating not your pts
Over a long period of time, they level out. Your hidden rating fluctuates more than your point value in order to allow you to quickly find players at your own skill level even when you're slumping or streaking. When you level out to playing against players of your own skill level, the two match up.
So rating 1400 in division 1 might not the same as rating 1400 in division 54, but unless one of them has played significantly less games, or is playing inconsistently, they're probably pretty close, because their hidden rating has likely stabilized to correspond to their rating.
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.
Yes it does.
On May 08 2010 02:38 Talic_Zealot wrote:
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.
It is in fact the same. Since you are not playing people that are only in your division.
On May 08 2010 02:40 Kashll wrote:
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.
Yes it does...
On May 08 2010 02:41 grubal wrote:
On May 08 2010 02:40 Kashll wrote:
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.
Yes it does...
This is correct. I approve.
On May 08 2010 02:43 Alou wrote:
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.
1400 = 1400. You're not playing people in only your division so it is roughly the same. I mean some guy could hypothetically randomly get all the extremely good people, but it's honestly roughly the same.
On May 08 2010 02:46 eugen1225 wrote:
On May 08 2010 02:38 craaaaack wrote:
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.
Yes it does.
What the man said.
No it does not.
Next time you play someone thats "even" with you, go check and see if his rating equals your own. Most of the time / 50% of the time it does not.
the rating is basically there to show you how "good" you are relative to others in your division, not between divisions. If you are 200 pts below somebody in your division, that person is 200 pts better than you. That does not apply if you are in separate divisions.
The reason that when it says "Even" and you don't have the same amount of ladder points alot of the time is because that it doesn't match you up with other people based on ladder points. It has a sort of internal skill rating system thing it matches you by that no one sees.
yep, so your skill is equal to ur hidden rating not your pts
that's what i think too. part of match making is based off hidden things....maybe even average APM might be a factor
On May 10 2010 05:22 terrordrone wrote: that's what i think too. part of match making is based off hidden things....maybe even average APM might be a factor
I doubt it's anything so complicated - neither APM nor game score really reflect how well you play. From what I've noticed, the system just seems to factor in your current win streak and the level of people you've beaten / lost to in the last few games.
On May 10 2010 05:28 Meatloaf wrote: I find this funny , i'm almost 1400 , and still copper , are there Golds with 1400 points?
the ladder is quite stupid... once you reach certain ELO you should be promoted or degraded to the next level.
The leagues seems to suggest this is true.
After looking at each league on Starcraftrankings.com, it seems that there's noone that has more than 1600 or more points. The top player in each league is:
gold: 1520 silver: 1468 bronze: 1530 copper: 1578
That's only a 110 point spread betwen the top player of each league. This at least suggests that once you reach the 1500-1600 range, you're probably about ready to be promoted
Rating shows you how good you really are, rank and divisions just give you a more remote and 'ral' goal to aspire to. It's easier to gun for no1 spot in your division, and strive to achieve that, it's also a bit more 'personal', than it would be to strive for let's say 1700 rating, or trying to be top 10 when you are in spot 2000.
i agree with this, its deffinitely a personal goal for someone to strive for the top of their division, as opposed to the rating system, which indicates skill level across all divisions in the league.
Regardless of how the system does work, I think we would all agree that it SHOULD work in a way where you can compare players across divisions. This could be done by a rating system that works like a lot of people seem to think it does (where 1400 in div 5 is same as 1400 in div 98), or some sort of ELO system.
By release Blizzard either needs to fix this shit (since there seems to be so many weird parts to the system) or fully explain every aspect of how it works.
Also, I think we can agree that even if rating isn't an exact match between divisions because somehow being in that division changes it (like the b.net post indicated), ratings are still a better indicator for skill than rank. This is obviously true because you can have a bad division and easily get ranks whereas the general pool will never be "bad" (tho u can hit some bad players) and will give you a much more realistic view of where you stand.
On May 10 2010 05:52 On_Slaught wrote: Regardless of how the system does work, I think we would all agree that it SHOULD work in a way where you can compare players across divisions.
This will be the case. At the moment we're looking at very small timespans and a small amount of people playing the game, but when the game ships and we have very long seasons of several months (6+ usually) where every good platinum player will play a shitton of games, the rating in your platinum ladder should be a very good indicator of your hidden ELO rating. This will just be a case of a mathematical equilibrium that will balance itself out over time (albeit of course not perfectly).
At the moment (like Dustin Browder said) the average player plays about 20 games a week. Since the last reset that is what? 40-60 games on average per account? It does about equal the amount of games I see on accounts when I play (I'm ~1550 Platinum with about 80 games). That isn't even close to what a mathematically relevant sample size would be. When we have seasons where most active players have 300+ games on their accounts, that will be representable for the skill.
On May 10 2010 05:52 On_Slaught wrote: Regardless of how the system does work, I think we would all agree that it SHOULD work in a way where you can compare players across divisions.
This will be the case. At the moment we're looking at very small timespans and a small amount of people playing the game, but when the game ships and we have very long seasons of several months (6+ usually) where every good platinum player will play a shitton of games, the rating in your platinum ladder should be a very good indicator of your hidden ELO rating. This will just be a case of a mathematical equilibrium that will balance itself out over time (albeit of course not perfectly).
At the moment (like Dustin Browder said) the average player plays about 20 games a week. Since the last reset that is what? 40-60 games on average per account? It does about equal the amount of games I see on accounts when I play (I'm ~1550 Platinum with about 80 games). That isn't even close to what a mathematically relevant sample size would be. When we have seasons where most active players have 300+ games on their accounts, that will be representable for the skill.
Wonderful. I was just going to post essentially this exact explanation. I felt I did a good job of explaining just this in the last few pages, but I suppose that some just skim over them rather than read my (admittedly lengthy) posts.
On May 08 2010 03:56 Logo wrote: Won't the path you take to get to platinum affect your rating? Getting placed into platinum initially means you're going to start at 1000 platinum points and playing probably anyone else that's in platinum with a lower hidden rating. Working your way up from Bronze/Silver/Gold means your hidden rating is much more accurate, and likely much higher. Yet when you first enter platinum you're still going to get set to 1000 platinum points.
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.
lol that's not true, I've moved up to Platinum from silver after about 100 games. When I moved up from Silver I had about 1300ish points in silver leagure. Yet when I started out in gold, I only had 970 points. Then after reaching 1400ish in Gold and moving up to Platinum, I started out with about 1081.
I really don't think there's any way short of blizzard telling us how the ranking system/match-making system works. =\
EPT
