|
It's not an opinion, it's math.
you mix math with opinion.
As more games are played, your rank will become a much more significant indicator of your overall skill level in comparison to your league.
Ok. i understand that you pissed of because people dont understand that most rating alg. need time... if it dont get bedder with time its a terrible system.
So your right that the people who think the system dont work after all players start by 0 dont really understand the problem of a ranking/rating system. When 90% are placed right the new 10% will placed bedder. its hard/impossible to place all 100% right at beginning.
Sure blizz dont come out with a terrible system. My Problem is thes diamond gold think.
they said they make it because they want you to have direct oponents.
but this screw with the math a little bit and this is the problem.
A rating for all system is bedder mathematical but you have the problem that the people top and under you are switching all the time by 100k players.
I suggest elo system. this system also starts with wrong placement but you see faster results.
|
On July 13 2010 05:17 Mora wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:16 XsebT wrote:
Not to be an ass, but I'm not gonna read that much about a ranking system (I did dimly read it though, or this would just have been a bitchy comment). I've read a lot of the long articles about the ingame stuff and found it very interesting because it's quite complex, but a ranking system is not (should at least never be) complicated. Seriously, how can one write a wall like that to explain a point. It's not that interesting, especially considering you're writing statistics about a beta system. if you don't care, don't read of it. the rest of us enjoyed it. improve your posting
I care a lot about the division/ladder system, as I find it utterly important for the achievement-aspect of the game. However, I want your points to be straightforward and at the very least not more complicated than the actual system you're talking about.
|
This post was not intended to say that the division system isn't flawed or anything like that, just that it's a pretty good indicator of the skill level of most of the population of the game. There are improvements that can be made.
|
Isn't blizzad's ELO constantly inflating because of bonus points? If so using their ELO to determine how good someone is seems like and awful idea. A 1000+ diamond player from 2 weeks ago will be equivalent to at 1500+ diamond player today.
|
On July 13 2010 05:31 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:17 Mora wrote:On July 13 2010 05:16 XsebT wrote:
Not to be an ass, but I'm not gonna read that much about a ranking system (I did dimly read it though, or this would just have been a bitchy comment). I've read a lot of the long articles about the ingame stuff and found it very interesting because it's quite complex, but a ranking system is not (should at least never be) complicated. Seriously, how can one write a wall like that to explain a point. It's not that interesting, especially considering you're writing statistics about a beta system. if you don't care, don't read of it. the rest of us enjoyed it. improve your posting I care a lot about the division/ladder system, as I find it utterly important for the achievement-aspect of the game. However, I want your points to be straightforward and at the very least not more complicated than the actual system you're talking about.
There is a difference between lengthy and complicated. If you take the time to read the post I'm sure it will be quite clear.
|
It is all relative, if you are ranked anywhere between rank 100 in Bronze and rank 3 in diamond the division system is perfect and for any competitive player it should be all the comparative data you need to judge your relative skill.
But if you are rank 1-5 in diamond then the system is useless. Because then you are among the top 1% of the people playing the game. I say 1-5 instead of just rank 1 because the top five in division A might all be better than the first player in division B so there is some grayzone but even if it is precise.
No matter what though as soon as you are ranked 1 in your division then you can't actually climb any further. If there are 500 divisions then you will have to settle with being one of the top five hundred players on your region. But that number is just retarded for anyone who plays competitive games. For example, in League of Legends the top 300 players are listed on the forums each month. The lowest positions is higher than what you can assume being ranked 1 in a diamond division.
But since the division system will be great for 99.9% of people playing then all that is needed is some slight additions to give the top 500 players a chance to see if they are in fact the fifth best player or the five hundredth.
Easiest possible solution to implement would just be that once you reach fifth or higher in diamond, your global rank will appear next to your name as well, based on comparing elo between all top 5 players in all regions. If you are ranked lower than fifth then you have little reason to see your global rank because you are not even topping your own local division.
|
On July 13 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote:
This post was not intended to say that the division system isn't flawed or anything like that, just that it's a pretty good indicator of the skill level of most of the population of the game. There are improvements that can be made.
Flawless. Why didn't you write that in the OP? 
|
What happens if for some reason say Idra and TLO are both placed in the same platinum division. They both should be rank 1, but obviously 1 will be higher than the other. so one of them now looks like he is in only the top 2%.
If I understand the OP right then in this case we should look at their points, wouldn't it be better if instead it moved TLO to a separate division so both are now listed as rank 1??
|
On July 13 2010 05:33 Toids wrote:
Isn't blizzad's ELO constantly inflating because of bonus points? If so using their ELO to determine how good someone is seems like and awful idea. A 1000+ diamond player from 2 weeks ago will will be equivalent to at 1500+ diamond player today.
The hidden rating used to determine matchmaking is not the same as the rating visible to all players (the rating actually affected by the bonus pool, that is).
|
On July 13 2010 05:33 Toids wrote:
Isn't blizzad's ELO constantly inflating because of bonus points? If so using their ELO to determine how good someone is seems like and awful idea. A 1000+ diamond player from 2 weeks ago will will be equivalent to at 1500+ diamond player today.
yes. thats the elo problem.its infalting.
BUT over years!
its hard to compare a chess player at 1920 with one of today.
But over 1 or 10 year its totaly ok!
Chess runs elo long time with only few problems. but there are discussion over bedder systems.
you could take one of them.
I DONT KNOW THE ALG behind your Nummber. Perhaps this nummber dont mess with the liga.
And this number is a good indicator over time. I dont know lets see
BUT THE FACT thats it is rasing is the problem.
More games = higher nummber is no good system over time.
in elo everyone starts at 1500 and get down and up with the games.
if you start you see a very good rating after 10 games!
|
On July 13 2010 05:34 XsebT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote:
This post was not intended to say that the division system isn't flawed or anything like that, just that it's a pretty good indicator of the skill level of most of the population of the game. There are improvements that can be made. Flawless. Why didn't you write that in the OP?
I think I did :<
On July 13 2010 05:34 rastaban wrote:
What happens if for some reason say Idra and TLO are both placed in the same platinum division. They both should be rank 1, but obviously 1 will be higher than the other. so one of them now looks like he is in only the top 2%.
If I understand the OP right then in this case we should look at their points, wouldn't it be better if instead it moved TLO to a separate division so both are now listed as rank 1??
Yes, moving them to different divisions would be ideal, but in the current system rating is then the only reference we have to compare skill. Again, it's not perfect but it is certainly not the WORST IDEA EVER OMG as some seem to think.
|
On July 13 2010 05:33 VanGarde wrote:
It is all relative, if you are ranked anywhere between rank 100 in Bronze and rank 3 in diamond the division system is perfect and for any competitive player it should be all the comparative data you need to judge your relative skill.
But if you are rank 1-5 in diamond then the system is useless. Because then you are among the top 1% of the people playing the game. I say 1-5 instead of just rank 1 because the top five in division A might all be better than the first player in division B so there is some grayzone but even if it is precise.
No matter what though as soon as you are ranked 1 in your division then you can't actually climb any further. If there are 500 divisions then you will have to settle with being one of the top five hundred players on your region. But that number is just retarded for anyone who plays competitive games. For example, in League of Legends the top 300 players are listed on the forums each month. The lowest positions is higher than what you can assume being ranked 1 in a diamond division.
But since the division system will be great for 99.9% of people playing then all that is needed is some slight additions to give the top 500 players a chance to see if they are in fact the fifth best player or the five hundredth.
Easiest possible solution to implement would just be that once you reach fifth or higher in diamond, your global rank will appear next to your name as well, based on comparing elo between all top 5 players in all regions. If you are ranked lower than fifth then you have little reason to see your global rank because you are not even topping your own local division.
I agree with most of what you've posted, however comparing between regions makes the overall rank useless since the top players in the world aren't playing against each other since the matchmaking is region-based.
|
On July 13 2010 05:35 Issorlol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:34 XsebT wrote:On July 13 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote:
This post was not intended to say that the division system isn't flawed or anything like that, just that it's a pretty good indicator of the skill level of most of the population of the game. There are improvements that can be made. Flawless. Why didn't you write that in the OP? I think I did :< Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:34 rastaban wrote:
What happens if for some reason say Idra and TLO are both placed in the same platinum division. They both should be rank 1, but obviously 1 will be higher than the other. so one of them now looks like he is in only the top 2%.
If I understand the OP right then in this case we should look at their points, wouldn't it be better if instead it moved TLO to a separate division so both are now listed as rank 1??
Yes, moving them to different divisions would be ideal, but in the current system rating is then the only reference we have to compare skill. Again, it's not perfect but it is certainly not the WORST IDEA EVER OMG as some seem to think.
Thanks, I agree and just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious. I think in 99%+ cases that won't be an issue. also thanks for posting the op, it gave me a much better understanding of how the system would work.
|
On July 13 2010 05:21 Issorlol wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:11 spinesheath wrote:
Maybe it'll be enough for most leagues. But most likely not for top diamond. Players at the bottom of diamond can drop down and climb back up, hence shuffling the bottom of diamond. But the better diamond players will stay on top of their division. They can't be promoted (except for that pro league thing maybe but that'll be limited), and they won't be demoted. So the top of diamond will most likely end up quite static. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, that's the entire point of the division system. If the top of the diamond league is static, all that means is that those players are the best of the best. If it shuffles in the top, maybe someone pulling a Kolll just started playing sc2, which is a good thing since it reflects a change in who the top players in the league are.
The thing is this: assume that most of the top players get into diamond quickly, and thus clump up in the the first divisions created. Then as more players enter diamond over time, there will be new divisions and thus new people claiming #1 spots. Those may or may not be top 1% of diamond. Their ranks definitely won't tell you anything about that.
|
I don't understand how "over time," means much if you don't move around in your division. If I'm placed in upsilon sigma tau or whatever, I'm stuck with those 100 people. Because 100 is a relatively low number relative to the population, it is likely many people are going to suffer from a variety of skill within their own division. Maybe if division size was ~1,500-2,000 you'd have a more valid point. But as it stands, players could get placed in a shitty division and make it to rank 1 relatively easily, while they might only be rank ~25 elsewhere in another division. That rank 1 person could not even compare to the other rank 1 people elsewhere in the beta. And the same situation can happen in reverse. The more divisions you have, the more this discrepancy will occur. Without any division system you have no discrepancy - you are where you should be.
At an extreme, imagine each division had only 2 players. If you were constantly ranked 2 in that division, would that be enough data to reliably say you're in the bottom 50%? Most likely not. Although 100 would seem like it's a large enough originally to separate people, given the total number of people in your league (especially at the silver/gold/plat levels), more and more outliers are going to happen. Yes, while the "general" population we could say would be roughly where they should be (still, 100 is NOT a very large indicator in this case), the amount of outliers would be enough that it wouldn't be an amazing indicator.
So I have no idea why you suggest that this division system is better than a straight ladder system - which I would very much prefer. I have no problem seeing I'm ranked 13,500 if I know that's still within the top 10% because it gives a total 13,500/150,000 for the Diamond league, etc. That gives you a much more defined rank on where you stand.
|
On July 13 2010 05:37 rastaban wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:35 Issorlol wrote:On July 13 2010 05:34 XsebT wrote:On July 13 2010 05:32 Issorlol wrote:
This post was not intended to say that the division system isn't flawed or anything like that, just that it's a pretty good indicator of the skill level of most of the population of the game. There are improvements that can be made. Flawless. Why didn't you write that in the OP? I think I did :< On July 13 2010 05:34 rastaban wrote:
What happens if for some reason say Idra and TLO are both placed in the same platinum division. They both should be rank 1, but obviously 1 will be higher than the other. so one of them now looks like he is in only the top 2%.
If I understand the OP right then in this case we should look at their points, wouldn't it be better if instead it moved TLO to a separate division so both are now listed as rank 1??
Yes, moving them to different divisions would be ideal, but in the current system rating is then the only reference we have to compare skill. Again, it's not perfect but it is certainly not the WORST IDEA EVER OMG as some seem to think. Thanks, I agree and just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something obvious. I think in 99%+ cases that won't be an issue. also thanks for posting the op, it gave me a much better understanding of how the system would work.
That was what I was hoping for when I posted it! Thanks for reading.
On July 13 2010 05:38 spinesheath wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2010 05:21 Issorlol wrote:On July 13 2010 05:11 spinesheath wrote:
Maybe it'll be enough for most leagues. But most likely not for top diamond. Players at the bottom of diamond can drop down and climb back up, hence shuffling the bottom of diamond. But the better diamond players will stay on top of their division. They can't be promoted (except for that pro league thing maybe but that'll be limited), and they won't be demoted. So the top of diamond will most likely end up quite static. There is nothing inherently wrong with this. In fact, that's the entire point of the division system. If the top of the diamond league is static, all that means is that those players are the best of the best. If it shuffles in the top, maybe someone pulling a Kolll just started playing sc2, which is a good thing since it reflects a change in who the top players in the league are. The thing is this: assume that most of the top players get into diamond quickly, and thus clump up in the the first divisions created. Then as more players enter diamond over time, there will be new divisions and thus new people claiming #1 spots. Those may or may not be top 1% of diamond. Their ranks definitely won't tell you anything about that.
Yeah, this is an issue with the current system. I can guarantee you they're discussing this at Blizzard and, hopefully, will implement a system to fix things like that.
On July 13 2010 05:40 FabledIntegral wrote:
I don't understand how "over time," means much if you don't move around in your division. If I'm placed in upsilon sigma tau or whatever, I'm stuck with those 100 people. Because 100 is a relatively low number relative to the population, it is likely many people are going to suffer from a variety of skill within their own division. Maybe if division size was ~1,500-2,000 you'd have a more valid point. But as it stands, players could get placed in a shitty division and make it to rank 1 relatively easily, while they might only be rank ~25 elsewhere in another division. That rank 1 person could not even compare to the other rank 1 people elsewhere in the beta. And the same situation can happen in reverse. The more divisions you have, the more this discrepancy will occur. Without any division system you have no discrepancy - you are where you should be.
At an extreme, imagine each division had only 2 players. If you were constantly ranked 2 in that division, would that be enough data to reliably say you're in the bottom 50%? Most likely not. Although 100 would seem like it's a large enough originally to separate people, given the total number of people in your league (especially at the silver/gold/plat levels), more and more outliers are going to happen. Yes, while the "general" population we could say would be roughly where they should be (still, 100 is NOT a very large indicator in this case), the amount of outliers would be enough that it wouldn't be an amazing indicator.
So I have no idea why you suggest that this division system is better than a straight ladder system - which I would very much prefer. I have no problem seeing I'm ranked 13,500 if I know that's still within the top 10% because it gives a total 13,500/150,000 for the Diamond league, etc. That gives you a much more defined rank on where you stand.
100 is a perfectly acceptable number to use as a sample size of a large population. you would find larger divisions only marginally more accurate.
|
I do like the system. It's really good for everyone except the absolute top-tier players. Who cares if they are 10453th rank or 10236th. A percentile indication is really good here.
On the other hand, there is not really any good system for who is the absolute best player anyway. Elo kinda works but isn't perfect either. When you are a top-tier player tournaments and stuff like that is the important thing do figure out your standing.
|
On July 13 2010 05:43 Keniji wrote:
I do like the system. It's really good for everyone except the absolute top-tier players. Who cares if they are 10453th rank or 10236th. A percentile indication is really good here.
On the other hand, there is not really any good system for who is the absolute best player anyway. Elo kinda works but isn't perfect either. When you are a top-tier player tournaments and stuff like that is the important thing do figure out your standing.
Pretty much this exactly. Any system I can think of that would work for the majority of players wouldn't work for the small minority who are world-class.
|
its not as good as 1 big ladder. from what I understand, you're saying that over time someone's rank will correspond to their spot in the overall playing population such as rank 15 means you're in the 15th best percentile of the population. but if it was 1 big ladder that would mean that you can see what you rank is there and then divide to get a percentage right there. and you're not guestimating, it's your real rank.
|
I admit I haven't read it all, but I fail to understand why the division system need so much math and talk. In the end all the players care about is if they are pleased with being only 100 in their little ladder ranking.
In my opinion it isn't the division system that is the problem but the fact that there is only one ranking. The division are really good for low and average players because being ranked 10404th doesnt mean anything. But for the good players it IS important to have an overall ranking. Having two ranking, the actual one in the division and say, another like warcraft III's one, where you can check your overall ranking (maybe by league or by rating), would be ideal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
