|
I think one of the biggest issues is peoples understanding of what bronze/silver level play consists of.
For the record, my buddy plays in silver league, his current BO in PvT is:
Get 8 probes
build a pylon
2 gateways, and send zealots into the enemies base. Continue making nothing but zealots, eventually upgrade to 3 gateways.
He asked me for help with his strategy and after I suggested "make more probes" he said that isn't what he's looking for, he wants to be able to win with just zealots.
I was just dumbfounded... he actually wins with this from time to time...
If you are good enough to realize that you suck, you belong in platinum or diamond league. Anything below that has major issues with basic game mechanics.
|
On August 07 2010 13:44 Jermstuddog wrote:
I think one of the biggest issues is peoples understanding of what bronze/silver level play consists of.
For the record, my buddy plays in silver league, his current BO in PvT is:
Get 8 probes
build a pylon
2 gateways, and send zealots into the enemies base. Continue making nothing but zealots, eventually upgrade to 3 gateways.
He asked me for help with his strategy and after I suggested "make more probes" he said that isn't what he's looking for, he wants to be able to win with just zealots.
I was just dumbfounded... he actually wins with this from time to time...
If you are good enough to realize that you suck, you belong in platinum or diamond league. Anything below that has major issues with basic game mechanics.
The system only cares whether you win or lose, it doesn't matter how terrible your play is.
So ultimately this is irrelevant.
There is also no easy way to objectively measure how well you played, which is why it's better to only look at whether you won or lost.
|
On August 07 2010 13:33 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 13:14 brad drac wrote:On August 07 2010 12:30 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Average Win Percentage: 61.13%, 63.41%, 63.61%, 73.19%, 65.80%
Players Above 80%: 0, 0, 0, 13, 2
Players Above 70%: 5, 5, 3, 37, 11 I believe everyone should be ignoring all the numbers apart from these(rating is related to number of games played more than skill and is not comparable cross-league). This is indicative of a problem. I don't know what exactly it is or how to resolve it, but it does seem to be there. You sound like someone who has no understanding of the ladder system. Rating is not related more to the number of games played than skill. This was not true in WC3 and there's no reason why it would be true in SC2. Look at, for example, how few games Dayvie has played compared to those below him. Win ratio is a combination of 2 factors: the effectiveness of the AMM to find an equal skilled player and personal skill. Until you can find a statistically rigorous way to separate the contribution from each of the two factors, so that we can examine only the part of win ratio that is due to the personal skill factor, win ratio is not a very useful metric for personal skill and difficult to interpret in terms of personal skill.
You seem to be ignoring the bonus pool. This makes it so that with two players of equal skill, assuming decent matchmaking, the one who's played more games will almost certainly have the better rating. Obviously at the very top level, where all the players probably use their bonus pool almost every day, rating is a decent, if vague, metric of skill. But as the previous poster said "The system only cares whether you win or lose," and I believe the consensus here is that win ratio is the sole determinant of promotion/demotion, which was the only thing I was pointing out a problem with.
|
The ELO rankings are based off of your current rank.
When I got promoted from Bronze(lost 4 placement matches to plat/diamond player >.< ) —> Gold my Elo went from 500+ —> 150
Basically all my games we're re-ranked to match my new league. So my "balanced" games were dropped to me being favored and my slightly unfavored games were dropped to balanced.
So it is impossible to compare a diamond 500 elo to a bronze 500. If the bronze player were promoted to diamond he would have only like 50 rating.
|
On August 07 2010 13:55 brad drac wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 13:33 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 07 2010 13:14 brad drac wrote:On August 07 2010 12:30 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Average Win Percentage: 61.13%, 63.41%, 63.61%, 73.19%, 65.80%
Players Above 80%: 0, 0, 0, 13, 2
Players Above 70%: 5, 5, 3, 37, 11 I believe everyone should be ignoring all the numbers apart from these(rating is related to number of games played more than skill and is not comparable cross-league). This is indicative of a problem. I don't know what exactly it is or how to resolve it, but it does seem to be there. You sound like someone who has no understanding of the ladder system. Rating is not related more to the number of games played than skill. This was not true in WC3 and there's no reason why it would be true in SC2. Look at, for example, how few games Dayvie has played compared to those below him. Win ratio is a combination of 2 factors: the effectiveness of the AMM to find an equal skilled player and personal skill. Until you can find a statistically rigorous way to separate the contribution from each of the two factors, so that we can examine only the part of win ratio that is due to the personal skill factor, win ratio is not a very useful metric for personal skill and difficult to interpret in terms of personal skill. You seem to be ignoring the bonus pool. This makes it so that with two players of equal skill, assuming decent matchmaking, the one who's played more games will almost certainly have the better rating. Obviously at the very top level, where all the players probably use their bonus pool almost every day, rating is a decent, if vague, metric of skill. But as the previous poster said "The system only cares whether you win or lose," and I believe the consensus here is that win ratio is the sole determinant of promotion/demotion, which was the only thing I was pointing out a problem with.
No one knows how exactly the bonus pool works, but the current conjecture is that everyone gets the same bonus pool and it replenishes at the same rate for everyone.
Therefore, the bonus pool only serves to inflate everyone's points equally. So as long as people are playing, at the top, there should still be no correlation between points and games played, like in WC3.
There is clearly no trend where the top of the ladder is stacked with people massing games.
Also note that after sufficient games have been played you get 12 points for winning and losing an even match, so the net gain is 0, unless you are actually good enough to win more often then you lose, even with 50/50 matchmaking. Thus the top of the ladder are the players with the most skill, and not the most games played.
|
hmmm...maybe bronze has more points because bronze has more opportunity to take more points off favored players,and the higher you get,the lower the number of favored players,and greated the players you are favored against,hence the number of points is low too...?
|
On August 07 2010 13:55 brad drac wrote:[snip]Obviously at the very top level, where all the players probably use their bonus pool almost every day, rating is a decent, if vague, metric of skill. But as the previous poster said "The system only cares whether you win or lose," and I believe the consensus here is that win ratio is the sole determinant of promotion/demotion, which was the only thing I was pointing out a problem with.
Again, the problem I was referring to is entirely to do with promotion, or the lack thereof.
|
Maybe I misunderstand the issue then?
If the question is why do bronze players have higher rating than plat players, then its simple. League > rating. How is that an issue?
|
I think people are misunderstanding this. There is no reason the win percentage of Diamond players should be higher. Let's take the average win percentage of every player in Diamond. Notice that if two players in Diamond play each other, the average win percentage of Diamond as a whole will go down (you add one win to the numerator and two games played to the denominator). So since Diamond players play a lot more games than other leagues Diamond's average win percentage will be lower.
Of course when Diamond players play players outside of their leagues, you expect them to win and therefore increase the average Diamond win percentage relative to other leagues, but this should be a relatively small factor since Diamond players are matched against each other much more often than they are matched against players from other leagues.
Finally, the OP has only used data from the Top 50 of each league, so we expect the data to be even worse for Diamond, because the skill difference at the top of Diamond is smaller than between the top 50 of bronze (since you get people placed incorrectly, and learning a game at the early stages can progress at vastly different speeds than when you're at the top), so we can't expect high win percentages.
|
These numbers make perfect sense.
The top 50 Plat players should have 5-0d placements and then owned the crap out of a load of newbs just before finding a good player to lose to. Until they lose more games, they won't get promoted to diamond because the system doesn't know how high they should start the player, so it tries to find out who they'll lose to before adjusting their rating and placing them.
|
I think diamond is full and platinum players are simply unable to push up anymore.
If you look at this: http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/us/platinum/1
You can see CauthonLuck with 50-7 stuck at #1 plat with super high ELO. Can't be a coincidence.
|
On August 07 2010 15:12 RiceMenace wrote:I think diamond is full and platinum players are simply unable to push up anymore. If you look at this: http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/us/platinum/1You can see CauthonLuck with 50-7 stuck at #1 plat with super high ELO. Can't be a coincidence.
I doubt leagues can be full, because they are based off a % of the total population.
It's just the promotion system is a joke.
|
These stats are useless.
Points are not comparable not only between leagues, but also between divisions in the same league.
|
On August 07 2010 16:15 lololol wrote:
These stats are useless.
Points are not comparable not only between leagues, but also between divisions in the same league.
Of course points are comparable between divisions.
Divisions are purely illusory, they don't affect in anyway how you are matched and how points are acquired, only that you are arbitrarily gated off with 100 players with whom you can only be ranked against.
|
On August 07 2010 16:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 16:15 lololol wrote:
These stats are useless.
Points are not comparable not only between leagues, but also between divisions in the same league. Of course points are comparable between divisions. Divisions are purely illusory, they don't affect in anyway how you are matched and how points are acquired, only that you are arbitrarily gated off with 100 players with whom you can only be ranked against.
Points are comparable between leagues, but we don't know what that conversion factor is. Also, as the general skill level of players on b.net changes the conversion factor is going to change as is the meaning of that score within a league.
But, ignoring bonus pool inflation, I would argue that for a player's division score to be accurate their score needs to have stabilized at some value. Meaning that it would be useful to have a graph of how someone's score is changing over time, if the slope of the line is greater than the bonus inflation their score is not high enough.
So, in a nut shell, mass gaming isn't required to have a high score, but you do need a significant number of games, especially at the lower divisions.
note: edited where I put 'division' instead of 'league'
|
On August 07 2010 17:35 Lunacy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 16:19 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 07 2010 16:15 lololol wrote:
These stats are useless.
Points are not comparable not only between leagues, but also between divisions in the same league. Of course points are comparable between divisions. Divisions are purely illusory, they don't affect in anyway how you are matched and how points are acquired, only that you are arbitrarily gated off with 100 players with whom you can only be ranked against. Points are comparable between divisions, but we don't know what that conversion factor is. Also, as the general skill level of players on b.net changes the conversion factor is going to change as is the meaning of that score within a division. But, ignoring bonus pool inflation, I would argue that for a player's division score to be accurate their score needs to have stabilized at some value. Meaning that it would be useful to have a graph of how someone's score is changing over time, if the slope of the line is greater than the bonus inflation their score is not high enough. So, in a nut shell, mass gaming isn't required to have a high score, but you do need a significant number of games, especially at the lower divisions.
You're confusing division with league.
|
On August 07 2010 16:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 16:15 lololol wrote:
These stats are useless.
Points are not comparable not only between leagues, but also between divisions in the same league. Of course points are comparable between divisions. Divisions are purely illusory, they don't affect in anyway how you are matched and how points are acquired, only that you are arbitrarily gated off with 100 players with whom you can only be ranked against.
He was talking about comparing bronze to silver or plat or whatever not between medic MU and Medivac Alamo (or something like that).
In that particular area hes right. The fact that when you go up you get a cut in your points shows that and saying "no one knows how it works its maybe just that the system is unsure of your skill" (like you said) its...wrong? Its as much guessing as what we are saying and in the end it has the exact same effect. You move up, your higher point level wasnt earn against this new level of players so you get a cut to compensate that because the system isnt sure that you could get those points against this new level of skill. (the only difference here is that we say you get a cut because you got those points easy in the lower division and you say the system thinks that maybe you cant achieve that in this league so its the same thing right?)
Edit: he was right if you ignore the confusion between division and league
|
How is it posible that averange win% is above 60% for all leagues???
if some one looses somone wins so for all players averange must be 50%
or there are so many people that played 3/4 placements and never finished them
|
On August 07 2010 18:05 JAN0L wrote:
How is it posible that averange win% is above 60% for all leagues???
if some one looses somone wins so for all players averange must be 50%
or there are so many people that played 3/4 placements and never finished them
not all games are played against same league players. i'm in gold and play platinum a bunch and sometimes even silvers for some odd reason (usually after a losing streak :D )
|
Points between divisions in the same league are also not comparable, a blizzard rep confirmed that early in the beta. It was probably in the beta forums, so it may have been deleted by now, since I couldn't find it with a quick google search.
Anyway, I've had several cases with disproportionate points won/lost during the beta. In once case I was shown as favored and lost 16 points for that game, but our point difference was 18 points after the game(so 50 or 66 point difference before the game depending on if he had bonus points left, since he had 0 after the game) and 12 points are lost for an even matchup(16-8 is 66.6% chance to win for me, which is ridiculous for such a small point difference.
Your points are also inflated over time due to the bonus pool, so a player that gets placed in a new division right now, will have to receive something like 400+ bonus points in order to be even to players in old divisions that have accumulated these bonus points over time.
If new players receive bigger and bigger bonus pools after their placement matches, regardless if they are placed in a new league with no players or a league from release, then it's possible that it has been changed, but if they don't, then it's pretty clear points between different divisions even in the same league are not comparable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
