EPTWhy the division system is better than you think - Page 4
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Iplaythings
Denmark9110 Posts
| ||
|
Issor
United States870 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:21 FabledIntegral wrote: 100 is not gigantic whatsoever statistically speaking... almost no survey will use a sample as small as 100 ppl if you're trying to compare to the rest of the population. You are incorrect. On July 13 2010 06:21 Iplaythings wrote: Think about it more like this: ![[image loading]](http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png) | ||
|
Tamerlane
Canada424 Posts
On July 13 2010 04:42 Issorlol wrote:Your division 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 with many games played by the community as a whole, indicative of your rank as a whole compared to everyone in your league by percentile Because you are wrong. Sure, if the division composition was made a random basis, that would hold, but there is a serious selection bias as we have seen since the beginning of the beta: all the better players which start massing games from Day 1 pretty much all end up in the same diamond division (equivalent of early platinum). During the beta, only a couple days are enough to get placed in a division which is MUCH softer - can you image what will happen with divisions that get created months after the release? I have to admit that in 5 years from now, when all expansions of the game will be released and will have a decent amount of balancing done and all the pros will have quit bnet and all the players left will have a lot of experience under their belt, then it will be much less of a concern. That's 5 years to wait for an easy to fix problem to fix itself... I hope you are not calling this ladder system good by any measure? | ||
|
skeldark
Germany2223 Posts
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. Agree. When you have a good alg for a overall ranking its easy to compare 2 player and players have this direct compare too that a division gives you. | ||
|
Issor
United States870 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:22 Tamerlane wrote: I stopped reading after this paragraph: Because you are wrong. Sure, if the division composition was made a random basis, that would hold, but there is a serious selection bias as we have seen since the beginning of the beta: all the better players which start massing games from Day 1 pretty much all end up in the same diamond division (equivalent of early platinum). During the beta, only a couple days are enough to get placed in a division which is MUCH softer - can you image what will happen with divisions that get created months after the release? I have to admit that in 5 years from now, when all expansions of the game will be released and will have a decent amount of balancing done and all the pros will have quit bnet and all the players left will have a lot of experience under their belt, then it will be much less of a concern. That's 5 years to wait for an easy to fix problem to fix itself... I hope you are not calling this ladder system good by any measure? I don't even know the number of times I've said that this doesn't apply to top diamond | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43817 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:18 Issorlol wrote: Oh okay, yeah, thanks. I can see now I definitely could have talked about the percentiles and ranks in such in a much clearer (more correct :x) way. I think this will be less of an issue, though, if blizzard ensures that divisions aren't stacked in the future. I don't see why they won't do this, since otherwise there is literally no reason to use divisions and I doubt blizzard would invest time into creating divisions just to nullify them because of weird placement. It won't be exact, but it will be pretty close. I don't have much of an issue with that. I think it's tough because people all join the ladders at different times. For instance, it's impossible to "reserve" different #1 division spots for each of the (assumed to be) best players. They get stacked early on because the better players get the beta early and play more often, so there's a greater chance they'll be in the lower-numbered divisions. Plus, if you get on super early, what's stopping you from *stealing* the name "Idra" or "White-Ra" or some other pro's name, causing him to make a new name? There are a lot of variables to take into account, and so I think it's pretty impossible to make the divisions truly even. Again, that's why we ask for rating/points over rank. If I'm in a high-number ladder, I can probably climb it easier  | ||
|
Issor
United States870 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:25 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think it's tough because people all join the ladders at different times. For instance, it's impossible to "reserve" different #1 division spots for each of the (assumed to be) best players. They get stacked early on because the better players get the beta early and play more often, so there's a greater chance they'll be in the lower-numbered divisions. Plus, if you get on super early, what's stopping you from *stealing* the name "Idra" or "White-Ra" or some other pro's name, causing him to make a new name? There are a lot of variables to take into account, and so I think it's pretty impossible to make the divisions truly even. Again, that's why we ask for rating/points over rank. If I'm in a high-number ladder, I can probably climb it easier Frankly I think that giving either your division rank (given enough time for it to be reflective of the division as a whole and such). To address your concern with "stealing" names, it's not possible. There could be a billion different IdrAs but they'd all have different identifier numbers | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43817 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:29 Issorlol wrote: Frankly I think that giving either your division rank (given enough time for it to be reflective of the division as a whole and such). To address your concern with "stealing" names, it's not possible. There could be a billion different IdrAs but they'd all have different identifier numbers I suppose so. It's still impossible to balance out the leagues in a division though, unless they switch people around according to rating (which just proves that rating is a better indicator of ability anyway). | ||
|
avilo
United States4100 Posts
On July 13 2010 05:21 Tsagacity wrote: I still loathe the current system. I don't care about my percentile. I want an actual rank =/ same here. | ||
|
psion
106 Posts
On July 13 2010 05:57 Issorlol wrote:The point of the system is to be easy to decipher at a glance, without doing math. What math? You mean percentile of total players? Blizzard could very easily display such. I'd argue that the point of the system is a psychological one. Blizzard is known for employing psychological tricks such as this. When WoW was in beta they changed the experience system from reducing bonus experience points when not rested, to gaining experience points when rested (with no net change, just a psychological one). They're not using this ladder system because it's easier to decipher, or to hide information, or to spite hardcore gamers. They're using this ladder system because it makes everyone feel like a winner when they're only #12th in their division instead of #738572 in the world. There's no way to know if all divisions will be even remotely equal, thus people will have to go to third-party sites to find their actual standing. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few people that already have a site planned to make some money off of this stupidity. | ||
|
liverpudlian
Canada7 Posts
Ranking systems are used to tell how well you play in relative to the top players. Think about it, if Hockey or soccer would implement this system, we would have 20 different winners with no conclusion. | ||
|
smurfdevil
Kosovo38 Posts
if the first one, getting into diamond league will be quite easy.. and it is a good advise to not boast alot saying you are a diamond player, because it says not much after all only that you probably play more than average. that's what will happen: we have 500'000 players playing ladder 1on1. that will be 100'000 per league. you get 1000 diamond divisions. probably you played warcraft 3... there were lots of players for the solo-ladder and it was no problem to get into the best 1000 with a bit of playing. if you were in the best 1000 in wc3 you'll be in the best 10th (probably 1st) of your diamond division if you play as good as you played wc3 :D it is obviously just an estimation, but I think that will not be far from reality. and now go and challenge a good player from a diamond league. The skill level in the best 10 of the diamond league will be so vastly widespread that a linear ladder with hundreds of divisions and 5 leagues is soooo useless. but i think it is progressive? i don't know :> e: isn't it stupid that everyone who wants can be no. 1 diamond with a bit of effort?  | ||
|
Deleted User 47542
1484 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States43817 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:35 psion wrote: What math? You mean percentile of total players? Blizzard could very easily display such. I'd argue that the point of the system is a psychological one. Blizzard is known for employing psychological tricks such as this. When WoW was in beta they changed the experience system from reducing bonus experience points when not rested, to gaining experience points when rested (with no net change, just a psychological one). They're not using this ladder system because it's easier to decipher, or to hide information, or to spite hardcore gamers. They're using this ladder system because it makes everyone feel like a winner when they're only #12th in their division instead of #738572 in the world. There's no way to know if all divisions will be even remotely equal, thus people will have to go to third-party sites to find their actual standing. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few people that already have a site planned to make some money off of this stupidity. Exactly. This would be the true way to find out percentile rank, or how one can compare to everyone in their league (or, hell, on all of StarCraft 2). This would be fantastic, quite honestly. Didn't they do this in Diablo 2 ladder, with experience? Just have everyone compare themselves to EVERYONE? Either you care about the ladder and so you'll really work at climbing a single, super-long and condensed one (and so you won't be content at being one of the hundreds of #5 spots that exist), or you won't care and you'll just play for fun. The current ladder rank doesn't truly represent skill level, so it really doesn't make anyone happy (unless you like being a high rank and don't mind not being an expert...which is good if you can trick your friends, I guess). | ||
|
iopq
United States842 Posts
On July 13 2010 06:17 SichuanPanda wrote: Very simple here. There will be a pro-league that does not use division a month or two after launch as Blizzard has stated before. Pros/high-level players need not worry soon enough you will be able to see what you want and that is an accurate ranking amongst all your peers so you have to have another ranking system (proleague) because the division system fails hard at this aspect? in wc3 they had a ladder AND tournaments AND all kinds of leagues because someone is ranked high in some league doesn't make the ladder pointless | ||
|
mufin
United States616 Posts
So a #1 diamond player from division A with 2000 rating is better then another #1 diamond player from division B with 1800 rating. Stacking a single division with the best players does not effect the system. If the 28th placed diamond player from division A has 1900 rating, then he is still better then the #1 diamond player from division B with 1800 rating. But if stacking does occur, then the ideal situation of being #1 means your in the top 1% is false. Hypothetically if the top 50 players in division A all have a rating of 1800 or better, then they are all in the top 1% compared to the #1 player from division B. | ||
|
ArYeS
Slovenia268 Posts
I actually don't know if I like this system or not. I'm just thinking, is blizzard even considering making one division ladder for display online? That would be great, people who actually care about their exact rank could go there and see. I don't a problem there really. | ||
|
Issor
United States870 Posts
On July 13 2010 07:14 ArYeS wrote: Nice wall of text, was fun to read it. I actually don't know if I like this system or not. I'm just thinking, is blizzard even considering making one division ladder for display online? That would be great, people who actually care about their exact rank could go there and see. I don't a problem there really. Thanks for reading I'm hoping that this is what ends up happening. Unfortunately I doubt any of us work at Blizzard so we'll just have to wait and see. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
.... almost any survey ever will use thousands of responses to try to give any relatively accurate results. If you only have 100 people you can not hope to say you are coming close... I'm definitely rusty on statistics but after doing a bit of googling the first ~2 pages I came up with all suggested sample sizes much larger than 100. Just found another... (keep in mind I'm just doing some googling) and I found this, look at the second page http://www.stocktongov.com/auditor/documents/ExplanationofSurveySampleSize.pdf "A sample size of 400 is one commonly chosen by local governments for resident policy surveys because a margin of error of ±5% is felt to be acceptable to government officials and the public at large." Although I'm confused because I remember the "±5%" number not being on a static number like 400... but depending on a multitude of other factors... including standard deviations... which is going into something completely different (man and I just took econ stats like a year ago :S). | ||
|
teamamerica
United States958 Posts
| ||
| ||
