|
On August 08 2010 02:21 carwashguy wrote:I have read that other thread. First off, I'm talking about the ladder, not the hidden matchmaking rating. Other than league placement and matchmaking, the two ratings don't influence each other. Of course we have no reason to believe that inflation will occur in the hidden rating. Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 01:15 ZapRoffo wrote:
... and non-inflationary (it will not grow over time). Strictly speaking, bonus pool points will cause lasting inflation: meaning points increase but skill-value doesn't. Say a player earns 200 points. In two months, he could have 400 points without having improved his skill one bit. This is due to the bonus pool constantly pumping new points into the system. Points will grow over time. Where we agree: the ranking shouldn't alter, as everyone's points will grow equally in relation to one another--assuming they continue playing. If the bonus pool keeps pumping new points into the system, I can't see how you can claim that people's points will go "back down." Where would the points go?
The games are not zero-sum with regard to ladder rating.
If my rating is 1000 but my hidden rating is 800, and your rating is 1000 and hidden rating 800, and we play and I win, it compares my rating to your hidden rating to evaluate my points: my 1000 vs. your 800, therefore I win less than default (12), +10 or so.
It compares your rating to my hidden rating to evaluate your points: your 1000 vs. my 800, therefore you lose more than default (12), -14 or so.
If we play again with the opposite result, I will lose 14 and you will gain 10, resulting in a net loss of 4 for both of us because we are both overranked.
As long as people play frequently, this correction will continuously happen to make up for the trickle of bonus points. This can even be controlled (not sure if it is) by having the rate of bonus pool awards be based on amount of activity rather than time.
|
On August 08 2010 02:40 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 02:21 carwashguy wrote:I have read that other thread. First off, I'm talking about the ladder, not the hidden matchmaking rating. Other than league placement and matchmaking, the two ratings don't influence each other. Of course we have no reason to believe that inflation will occur in the hidden rating. On August 08 2010 01:15 ZapRoffo wrote:
... and non-inflationary (it will not grow over time). Strictly speaking, bonus pool points will cause lasting inflation: meaning points increase but skill-value doesn't. Say a player earns 200 points. In two months, he could have 400 points without having improved his skill one bit. This is due to the bonus pool constantly pumping new points into the system. Points will grow over time. Where we agree: the ranking shouldn't alter, as everyone's points will grow equally in relation to one another--assuming they continue playing. If the bonus pool keeps pumping new points into the system, I can't see how you can claim that people's points will go "back down." Where would the points go? it compares my rating to your hidden rating to evaluate my points: my 1000 vs. your 800, therefore I win less than default (12), +10 or so. It compares your rating to my hidden rating to evaluate your points: your 1000 vs. my 800, therefore you lose more than default (12), -14 or so. [...] As long as people play frequently, this correction will continuously happen to make up for the trickle of bonus points.
But is there any proof of it working this way? I hadn't heard any comments from Blizzard on this. If it does work this way, then you're absolutely right.
|
On August 08 2010 02:40 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 02:21 carwashguy wrote:I have read that other thread. First off, I'm talking about the ladder, not the hidden matchmaking rating. Other than league placement and matchmaking, the two ratings don't influence each other. Of course we have no reason to believe that inflation will occur in the hidden rating. On August 08 2010 01:15 ZapRoffo wrote:
... and non-inflationary (it will not grow over time). Strictly speaking, bonus pool points will cause lasting inflation: meaning points increase but skill-value doesn't. Say a player earns 200 points. In two months, he could have 400 points without having improved his skill one bit. This is due to the bonus pool constantly pumping new points into the system. Points will grow over time. Where we agree: the ranking shouldn't alter, as everyone's points will grow equally in relation to one another--assuming they continue playing. If the bonus pool keeps pumping new points into the system, I can't see how you can claim that people's points will go "back down." Where would the points go? The games are not zero-sum with regard to ladder rating. If my rating is 1000 but my hidden rating is 800, and your rating is 1000 and hidden rating 800, and we play and I win, it compares my rating to your hidden rating to evaluate my points: my 1000 vs. your 800, therefore I win less than default (12), +10 or so. It compares your rating to my hidden rating to evaluate your points: your 1000 vs. my 800, therefore you lose more than default (12), -14 or so. If we play again with the opposite result, I will lose 14 and you will gain 10, resulting in a net loss of 4 for both of us because we are both overranked. As long as people play frequently, this correction will continuously happen to make up for the trickle of bonus points. This can even be controlled (not sure if it is) by having the rate of bonus pool awards be based on amount of activity rather than time.
Is there any evidence that it works this way? I assumed it was non-zero-sum in the other direction, because whenever I win, I get around 20 (before bonus pool), and whenever I lose, I only lose 2 or 3. I've played about 30 games (http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/281144/1/catamorphist/), and I didn't bomb my placements or anything, so I don't think my rating should be absurdly inaccurate.
|
I got promoted from bronze straight to gold after about 40 games of 60% win rate (most opponents from gold or plat).. got cheesed couple of times in my placement matches 
|
i read this entire thread right after i woke and..
what i still dont understand, maybe i misread everything or just straight up forgot because i read in the morning and cant remember, is how placement matches work?
do i go against a bronze in my first, silver in my 2nd, gold in my 3rd, platinum in my 4th, and a diamond player in my 5th? i know everyones saying it doesnt take other statistics into account etc. bo, apm, whatever the hell.
i won 4/5 of my placements and ranked platinum, 1 other person i know said he won 4/5 and ranked silver. my cousin won 4/5 and ranked silver. and some other fellow won 4/5 and ranked gold. there has to be a secondary stat then just straight up wins that decides where you go after the placement matches?
or i could be completely wrong all together. all this is very confusing due to blizzards lack of info
|
The numbers count games played, if you suck, but play a lot of games, eventually you'll get a high number. In Diamond, most people placed into plat, so they didn't have to play that many games to get into the high leagues, so less games = lower score.
|
On August 07 2010 22:37 carwashguy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 12:30 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Average Rating : 761.9, 619.4, 588.5, 672.2, 798.6
Average Games: 69.8, 54.3, 58.6, 38.7, 165.8
Average Win Percentage: 61.13%, 63.41%, 63.61%, 73.19%, 65.80% I'd expect to see a greater rating disparity among the edges of the logarithmic distribution of players. Your top 50 stats confirm this. In other words, the very worse players are so bad that everyone can beat them, so the top bronze players have it easier. On the other hand, the top Diamond players are so good that no one can beat them, and they have it easier. So it makes sense that we'd see higher points in bronze and diamond. Top diamond players play a lot of games, which makes a lot of sense, but does anyone have any ideas as to why the top platinum players play the least?
Because they get promoted to Diamond.
|
I am currently gold rank 1 and have beat about 5 platinum players and I have only lost 1 game in the last 10 or so. I am first by a lot in my ladder. WTF and the matches against the platinum were not even close. I rofl stomped them.
|
On August 07 2010 22:37 carwashguy wrote:
does anyone have any ideas as to why the top platinum players play the least?
I am going to make a guess that it is a social/Real life thing:
C&C was released in 1995. Warcraft 2 was released in 1996. The orginal sc was released in 1998. So their is a group of players that grew up playing RTS in their teen age years. Let say you where born in 1980 and play RTS though about middle school, High school and college. That would make you 30ish now, with a career and some relationship or family? So you have a good understanding of RTS because u grew up with them but not a lot of time to play games at this point in your life.
I could also see a large number of high plat players being in university(like myself)with limited time to play games.
|
On August 08 2010 03:09 catamorphist wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2010 02:40 ZapRoffo wrote:On August 08 2010 02:21 carwashguy wrote:I have read that other thread. First off, I'm talking about the ladder, not the hidden matchmaking rating. Other than league placement and matchmaking, the two ratings don't influence each other. Of course we have no reason to believe that inflation will occur in the hidden rating. On August 08 2010 01:15 ZapRoffo wrote:
... and non-inflationary (it will not grow over time). Strictly speaking, bonus pool points will cause lasting inflation: meaning points increase but skill-value doesn't. Say a player earns 200 points. In two months, he could have 400 points without having improved his skill one bit. This is due to the bonus pool constantly pumping new points into the system. Points will grow over time. Where we agree: the ranking shouldn't alter, as everyone's points will grow equally in relation to one another--assuming they continue playing. If the bonus pool keeps pumping new points into the system, I can't see how you can claim that people's points will go "back down." Where would the points go? The games are not zero-sum with regard to ladder rating. If my rating is 1000 but my hidden rating is 800, and your rating is 1000 and hidden rating 800, and we play and I win, it compares my rating to your hidden rating to evaluate my points: my 1000 vs. your 800, therefore I win less than default (12), +10 or so. It compares your rating to my hidden rating to evaluate your points: your 1000 vs. my 800, therefore you lose more than default (12), -14 or so. If we play again with the opposite result, I will lose 14 and you will gain 10, resulting in a net loss of 4 for both of us because we are both overranked. As long as people play frequently, this correction will continuously happen to make up for the trickle of bonus points. This can even be controlled (not sure if it is) by having the rate of bonus pool awards be based on amount of activity rather than time. Is there any evidence that it works this way? I assumed it was non-zero-sum in the other direction, because whenever I win, I get around 20 (before bonus pool), and whenever I lose, I only lose 2 or 3. I've played about 30 games ( http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/281144/1/catamorphist/), and I didn't bomb my placements or anything, so I don't think my rating should be absurdly inaccurate.
In all the other blizzard games with this system it worked the same way, WoW and WC3, so this is an educated guess but everything I've seen has supported it, along with Blizzard saying there is a hidden matchmaking rating, so it's natural to believe it works the same as their other two hidden matchmaking rating games (where the system is fairly well understood, with rating points being determined by the your displayed vs. opponents matchmaking/hidden rating comparison).
In those games it was designed for you to have your displayed rating take 100-200 games on average to catch up to your hidden rating, which is very volatile (much more volatile even than the +40 you often see winning your early games) when you haven't played many games. Based on observation, it's the same way here. Remember you start at 0 points, but after only like 8-10 games if you perform well, your hidden rating (which determines who you match against) can be like 700 diamond or more (you will notice yourself playing against high diamond players, and I don't know what the average rating is set to be so I don't know what's high), so therefore there is a huge gap between your current displayed standing and your hidden rating which means you win lots and lose little. It was exactly the same in WoW and WC3, before you played many games you win huge sums and lose little. It's very easy to observe in WoW especially because they tell you your hidden rating there.
What you are experiencing (positive sum) is the opposite effect of being overranked because of bonus pool. You are severely underranked because you haven't played enough games to gain enough points to get to your rating (or even league, you are almost certain to end up in diamond).
Edit: OK read the featured 2nd part of the analysis for a more detailed and probably more correct version. It makes the leagues fit in well too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
