EPTAlthough, saying elo makes you cool.
SC2 Ladder Analysis: What YOU Need to Know - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Despotic
United States10 Posts
Although, saying elo makes you cool. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On May 12 2010 03:02 mattpkp wrote: Why would you invent a random term called "MMR" when they are probably using a standard ELO system. Just called it ELO, because that is what it is MMR is established in many many other games. It's not ELO. If it was ELO I would have called it as such. There is a point value (or "rating") that reflects your standing in the ladder, but that's where the similarities end. Elo has a very specific structure and set of rules, and it's inaccurate to call the SC2 system by the same name. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On May 11 2010 23:51 ZapRoffo wrote: Some more information: With a matchmaking rating system, the way points are assigned is as follows. There is a default point assignment (was +/-12 for wow, seems similar in sc2) for an "equal match result". The amount won or lost in any given match, though, is determined by comparing your displayed rating to your opponent's matchmaking rating. This is why many people are experiencing huge gains for wins and small losses. It's because they haven't played enough to raise their displayed rating to their matchmaking rating. They may be matched as an 1800 matchmaking rating, but are at 1300, so if they win against an equal opponent (1800 matchmaking), they get the points of a 1300 beating an 1800, which may be +20 or something. The opponent compares his matchmaking to your displayed rating to calculate his point change, if he's displayed 1600 and you are also 1800 matchmaking, he will -10 or so (slightly less than -12 default). One huge misconception people I feel like people need to learn the truth about: The bonus pool WILL NOT cause inflation of ratings in the long run as long as it only modifies your displayed rating and not your matchmaking rating, which appears to be the case. In the long run, displayed ratings converge to matchmaking rating, so if matchmaking rating is unaffected there is no long term effect. An example: I start with a big bonus pool and win up to 1600, and my matchmaking rating is 1700. Alice wins the same amount against similar quality opponents but with no bonus pool and goes to only 1350 or so, but also with 1700 matchmaking rating, because matchmaking is totally unaffected. Now in my games I will only be looking at winning +13 or so from my opponents who are 1700 matchmaking, while Alice is looking at something like +16 or +17 from her 1700 matchmaking opponents. I'm looking at -10 or -11 from losses, while she's looking at -8 or so from those same people. Eventually the result over a long enough period is we both end up at 1700 if no change in skill happens. Even if I got enough of a bonus pool to get to 1900 or something, once that runs out I'm going to lose more for losses than I get for wins against people who are my skill level until I get to the appropriate level. The bonus pool just functions to get people's displayed rating jump started so if they took a break they can jump to their rating more quickly. This is an excellent addendum and very likely accurate. EDIT: In fact, I'll add this to the original post. | ||
|
Empyrean
16981 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On May 12 2010 00:10 Crais wrote: Great read. I have one interesting thing. You say that in order to advance your MMR has to comfortably sit within the next bracket. In that case how can you lose a game and be promoted. Why would you not have been promoted after your previous win? That's a good question. The reason is because the longer your win streak is, the more volatile your MMR. Maybe you'll get about 20 MMR for your first win, 30 for your second, 50 for your third, 100 for your fourth, and so on. So let's say you start in Copper and won a number of games in a row. In the system you're describing, if you crossed the promotion threshold with your most recent win, you'd be promoted to Bronze. However, because your MMR is so volatile and the system has lost so much confidence in where you belong, your next few wins may make you eligible for Silver, and your next few beyond that may qualify you for Gold. This would make it troublesome for a player because he may constantly be getting promoted (or demoted) and unable to create goals for himself within his own division. Because of this, the system needs to take a "wait and see" approach to finally determine where you belong. Once you start going 50/50 with players of a given league, that's when your volatility will decrease and you'll face promotion into the target league. That's also why players will "skip" one or more leagues in their promotion, because they've overshot a league. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On May 12 2010 02:56 mrgoochio wrote: can you elaborate on "tough divisions"? I honestly have no idea what you mean by there are typically more skilled players in lower div numbers. maybe I read that wrong, but for example, ppl that play games immediately after a reset have a chance at getting into low numbered platinum divisions whereas people who log on later wont have a chance as those low divisions would be full. how does that equate to more skilled players being in lower divisions? more dedicated, but not necessarily more skilled. can you also elaborate on where you got your information on sc2 tournament info? or is that speculation based off of previous blizzard titles? That part is a little antiquated. Back in the earlier versions of beta, the Top 8 players from each division were considered "tournament eligible" but the specifics of tournaments were never defined. The idea behind "tough divisions" is covered by MorroW at the bottom of page 1 of this thread, but basically it means that the top players are more likely to a) play earlier than most players and b) go undefeated in all their placement matches, which means they'd be placed in the earlier Platinum divisions. So, if you were to see Division 1, you may not be surprised that it includes Artosis, Nony, Day, Machine, Inc, and others. Because of this, it's that much harder for people slightly below the top level to break into the Top 8 of that division to qualify for a tournament. Perhaps as a result of this speculation, tournament qualifier positions were removed for the Top 8 in one of the more recent beta patches. | ||
|
Holden Caulfield
102 Posts
| ||
|
caldazar
United States38 Posts
On May 11 2010 23:51 ZapRoffo wrote: Some more information: With a matchmaking rating system, the way points are assigned is as follows. There is a default point assignment (was +/-12 for wow, seems similar in sc2) for an "equal match result". The amount won or lost in any given match, though, is determined by comparing your displayed rating to your opponent's matchmaking rating. This is why many people are experiencing huge gains for wins and small losses. It's because they haven't played enough to raise their displayed rating to their matchmaking rating. They may be matched as an 1800 matchmaking rating, but are at 1300, so if they win against an equal opponent (1800 matchmaking), they get the points of a 1300 beating an 1800, which may be +20 or something. The opponent compares his matchmaking to your displayed rating to calculate his point change, if he's displayed 1600 and you are also 1800 matchmaking, he will -10 or so (slightly less than -12 default). Great post - this makes a ton of sense and also may explain why I have never, ever played a game where I was ranked as "favored" or even "slightly favored" compared to my opponent. I thought the system was just lying about who was favored in order to inflate points and make me feel better about losses, but more likely I just haven't played enough games to get my displayed rating to match my MMR. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On April 22 2010 15:32 Sejong wrote: you've got the right idea in that you have a bell curve. Only thing I wonder about is that in a normal distribution you have 68.2% of people within 1 standard deviation of the mean, and then outliers on the outside. I think a normal distribution might look like 2.2% - Platinum 13.6% - Gold 68.2% - Silver 13.6% - Bronze 2.2% - Copper I did think about that, and maybe it makes more sense that way. I was approaching it from the perspective of both the average striving and determined player and a developer, where each league above your own becomes slightly more exclusive. That appears to be reflected in the number of divisions within each league. Of course, it's just as likely that the designers could take your approach and anchor more players into the Silver division, though I'd argue that's not good game design (although it does have the side effect of making the top league extremely exclusive). | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On May 12 2010 03:49 Holden Caulfield wrote: So you are saying that there is a special day when everybody is promoted or it can be at anytime? (given that all the other variables have been met) It's different for everybody. It could be random, it could be based on your volatility, it could involve a minimum number of games since your last league change. There are really too many variables to accurately speculate. | ||
|
NyktaX
Germany5 Posts
| ||
|
AlliNPreFlop
59 Posts
It's generally accepted that the hierarchy of WoW Arena participants looks like this: 0-1499: Newb 1500-1799: Average Items 1800-1999: Fairly good Items 2000-2199: Very good Items 2200-3000: Extremely good Items Here you go, fixed. As you all know theres no skill involved in wow. | ||
|
TyranoS_NiveK
United States177 Posts
On May 12 2010 03:55 Excalibur_Z wrote: I did think about that, and maybe it makes more sense that way. I was approaching it from the perspective of both the average striving and determined player and a developer, where each league above your own becomes slightly more exclusive. That appears to be reflected in the number of divisions within each league. Of course, it's just as likely that the designers could take your approach and anchor more players into the Silver division, though I'd argue that's not good game design (although it does have the side effect of making the top league extremely exclusive). While it makes sense, does it mean that there is really about 30 times as many Silver divisions as say Platinum? I had always thought it was 20-20-20-20-20 (or even the 10-20-40-20-10). | ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
On May 12 2010 04:03 AlliNPreFlop wrote: Here you go, fixed. As you all know theres no skill involved in wow. If SC2 was like WoW: 0-1499: Harvesters, marines, zealots, lings available. 1500-1799: Hellions, tanks, observers, stalkers, colossi, hydras, banelings unlocked. BCs, Carriers, Ultras, and Brood Lords unlocked as an achievement for getting 1500. 1800-1999: Thors, banshees, high/dark templar, ghosts, mutalisks, corruptors, infestors unlocked. 2200-3000: Marauders, immortals, sentries, and roaches unlocked. Hey, if you're good you don't need good units to win games. You'll get to 2200 eventually. | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
| ||
|
Clearout
Norway1060 Posts
On April 03 2010 07:45 AmstAff wrote: 0-1499: Newb i am a newb damn =( damn i wanted to stop for today after reaching 1400 points but this made me very sad T:T He meant your MMR not your points, your MMR is hidden  | ||
|
Clearout
Norway1060 Posts
| ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
"The opponent compares his matchmaking to your displayed rating to calculate his point change, if he's displayed 1600 and you are also 1800 matchmaking, he will -10 or so (slightly less than -12 default)." It should say: "The opponent compares his displayed to your matchmaking rating..." because it operates the same way for him as it does for you. | ||
|
TheOracle
Australia256 Posts
| ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
| ||
| ||
