EPTOn February 28 2010 08:40 distant_voice wrote:
so many known starcraft players in the rankings...
so many known starcraft players in the rankings...
Yeah like me :D lol
EU 1v1 Platinum rankings - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
rjT.
Italy295 Posts
Yeah like me :D lol | ||
|
L
Canada4732 Posts
On February 28 2010 08:44 FrozenArbiter wrote: I want 1600 to mean the same across all divisions tho. Like, it sucks when someone can be in gold with 1600 points and someone in Platinum with 1200 points can be ranked higher. It makes no sense! Split the leagues in some other way, or at least give a "master ranking" - I want to see overall rankings not division by division/league by league. Also, maybe it is just a coincidence, but look at Orly in Division 7. The guy is 125-25. He's got 1539 points. Look at mTwMFkAra in division 6 - 125-48, 1554 pts. Look at OgerEli in Div 7: 135-41 -- 1422 pts Then let's look at me - JinrO, Division 3: 82-36 -- 1672 pts Or hell, let's look at the leader of my division since he's played about the same amount of games: Naugrim: 122-49 -- 1818 pts Does that really make sense? Why isn't there anyone in the big divisions who has a ton of games played, a good record, but a low score? I think the idea is specifically to get away from a master ranking. Instead of worrying about how good you are compared to all possible players, focus on being the best out of your small pool. That kinda mimicks the way SC started off as a game friends would play; you'd try to be the best out of your friends, then from there move to better and better pools sequentially. | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
On February 28 2010 07:38 FrozenArbiter wrote: Can check... yes, but not easily. You have to have a friend in each division, then you have to check each friends profile -_ - It takes forever cause there's no back button. RunA's record is wtf insane. That's a lot of games - can't be just one person? I like these threads, so thx! I'll give away a secret, it's not just one person, and it's also my beta-key xD (Runa bought it lol) | ||
|
Zoler
Sweden6339 Posts
| ||
|
Polar_Nada
United States1548 Posts
On February 28 2010 09:25 Zoler wrote: Also, woohoo not a single terran #1 that could be a reason for all the terran buffs in the recent patch hahahh | ||
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 28 2010 09:23 L wrote: I think the idea is specifically to get away from a master ranking. Instead of worrying about how good you are compared to all possible players, focus on being the best out of your small pool. That kinda mimicks the way SC started off as a game friends would play; you'd try to be the best out of your friends, then from there move to better and better pools sequentially. I do not give a shit about just my own division tho... I'll worry about that towards the end of the ladder season, for now I want to see how I compare to people I know in OTHER divisions. | ||
|
Squeegy
Finland1166 Posts
| ||
|
Bischu
Sweden25 Posts
On February 28 2010 08:59 Jyvblamo wrote: The point difference between Naugrim and mTwMFkAra should be evidence enough that your point ranking is only absolute within your own division. Which kind of annoys me, since it becomes very hard to compare players from different divisions. Well you can't discard the fact that one of them might have played alot of games when other ppl had low ELO so for example: kAra played 100games in a row when he was in the top so he only recieved 2pts for a win when Naugrim might have played 100games when he was on low ELO (Compared to the rest) so he'll get 20pts per win. The point I'm trying to make is that: The later you start playing the higher ELO you will have compared to your statistics(because everyone else will have a higher ELO) so the fact that they have equal stats but one of them have alot more ELO doesn't prove that your point ranking is only absolute within your own division. | ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
This relation is obviously skewed in such an early phase with players getting added to the system in waves. I might be wrong but a league system with multiple parallel leagues sounds completely illogical to me which is why I never even considered that to be a possibility until you guys started comparing ratings across divisions. | ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 28 2010 09:40 ven wrote: Aren't the divisions supposed to be stacked on top of each other rather than lined up in parallel? Comparing ratings across divisions is useless as even the last person in division one is higher ranked globally than any person in any other of the divisions no matter their rating. This relation is obviously skewed in such an early phase with players getting added to the system in waves. I might be wrong but a league system with multiple parallel leagues sounds completely illogical to me which is why I never even considered that to be a possibility until you guys started comparing ratings across divisions. Nah, the divisions are parallel, the leagues are stacked however. | ||
|
HazMat
United States17077 Posts
| ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
On February 28 2010 09:53 FrozenArbiter wrote: Nah, the divisions are parallel, the leagues are stacked however. Are you sure? Then why are people getting relegated between divisions and how would Blizzard's statement of "finding you a neighborhood of 100 players of equal skill against whom you will be ranked" still be true if the divisions within a league were all the same? | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Jinro
Sweden33719 Posts
On February 28 2010 10:09 ven wrote: Are you sure? Then why are people getting relegated between divisions and how would Blizzard's statement of "finding you a neighborhood of 100 players of equal skill against whom you will be ranked" still be true if the divisions within a league were all the same? But it wouldn't make any sense - the top of Div 3 is way beter than the middle of Div 1. And you don't play people in just your division - you play people in all divisions. They are either parallel or the system is really stupid/arbitrary about who is placed where. #17 in Division 1 is OgerHell with a record of 71-43 and 1356 pts #1 in Division 2 is Mind with a record of 160-42 and 1800 pts Considering they both play vs the same player pool, why on earth wouldn't Mind be ranked higher overall? | ||
|
ven
Germany332 Posts
If the ladder does work this way the divisions will correct themselves upon one of the first transitions or whatever you call them. | ||
|
Ruthless
United States492 Posts
On February 28 2010 10:38 ven wrote: 10 placement matches on an already skewed distribution resulting from the low playerpool might slot you into the wrong division and as far as I remember you only get to move across divisions in some kind of interval unless there are special circumstances. If the ladder does work this way the divisions will correct themselves upon one of the first transitions or whatever you call them. Can you elaborate on this? | ||
|
rANDY
United Kingdom748 Posts
In an ELO system, if the winner gains +10, then the loser gets -10. The average points of the players stays at the starting value (in this case 1000). This is not happening in these ladders, for example I lost a game and got -3, whereas the other guy gained +8. The system being used at the moment is resulting in more and more points entering the system the more games that are played. | ||
|
Pape
Serbia419 Posts
I have a friend who is 2v2 platinum but top 10 in his division in silver. He told me he was matched with a guy 1v1 that had 250 APM average and it was clear he was not silver, My friend placed bad in the placement matches and is maybe D+ iccup but he says he has gone onto 10+ game winning streaks easily in the silver league and than somebody like that is matched with him? | ||
|
Vequeth
United Kingdom1116 Posts
I played BratOK (that ID) today, but he claimed he was a noob in sc1 :O | ||
|
wanja
Slovakia43 Posts
| ||
| ||
Or at least have 1600 pts mean the same regardless of what league or division you are in.
