EPTSC2 Ladder Analysis: Part 2 - Page 12
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
SilentCrono
United States1420 Posts
| ||
|
taffy
United States28 Posts
On September 04 2010 10:59 Excalibur_Z wrote: I wasn't saying that MMR inflates or is granted a bonus in any way, just that bonus pool is ignored when matching players and determining Favored status on the loading screen. Can you explain what led to this idea? I'm not sure I understand it, and it just seems complex and unintuitive, and therefore unlikely. I'm trying not to come off like i'm doing 'intellectual posturing' or something like that, but I can't help but think you had an idea of what the bonus pool was for and then forced a theory that matched it. I'm basically just stating what the bonus pool does based on observations and pointing out the misconception about inflation, just like your initial post pointing out (very clearly so) that matchmaking and rating adjustments imply a hidden MMR system. | ||
|
gondolin
France332 Posts
On September 04 2010 14:00 taffy wrote: Can you explain what led to this idea? I'm not sure I understand it, and it just seems complex and unintuitive, and therefore unlikely. I'm trying not to come off like i'm doing 'intellectual posturing' or something like that, but I can't help but think you had an idea of what the bonus pool was for and then forced a theory that matched it. I don't see why you see that idea complex. How complex can it be to just ignore the bonus pool for the rating computation? It's just a global variable! There are two theories: - bonus pool is used for rating computation. - bonus pool is not used for rating computation. You support the first theory by saying it is simpler than the other one (you even invoke Occam razor). But I disagree with you: 1) it is not really simpler (it makes the role of the bonus pool harder to grasp than just *ignore it*. 2) There are very good arguments against it: it would lead to abuse. You have never really answered to this argument, taking into account bonus pool is very easily abusable, and I am sure Blizzard wants to prevent abuse (this is the main reason they give for not publishing the system). And this is *very important*, for some Blizzard tourneys in Warcraft 3, the invited player were chosen according to their ranks in the ladder, and they were loads of abuse and controversy with this system. Anyway the theory is easy to test, we have to see how the average points of people having used their whole bonus pool converge over time. | ||
|
taffy
United States28 Posts
On September 04 2010 14:24 gondolin wrote: I don't see why you see that idea complex. How complex can it be to just ignore the bonus pool for the rating computation? It's just a global variable! There are two theories: - bonus pool is used for rating computation. - bonus pool is not used for rating computation. You support the first theory by saying it is simpler than the other one (you even invoke Occam razor). But I disagree with you: 1) it is not really simpler (it makes the role of the bonus pool harder to grasp than just *ignore it*. 2) There are very good arguments against it: it would lead to abuse. You have never really answered to this argument, taking into account bonus pool is very easily abusable, and I am sure Blizzard wants to prevent abuse (this is the main reason they give for not publishing the system). And this is *very important*, for some Blizzard tourneys in Warcraft 3, the invited player were chosen according to their ranks in the ladder, and they were loads of abuse and controversy with this system. Anyway the theory is easy to test, we have to see how the average points of people having used their whole bonus pool converge over time. Ok I really didn't think there were several of you organized around this theory. I still don't see any evidence or reason behind having some constant growing number that is subtracted from everyone's score. As far as I know, if you create an account today you will not have the 600 or whatever accumulative bonus pool, so then there would be a personal bonus pool number and a constant number used to inflate everyones rating? Anyway I can look at this tomorrow but it still sounds really shaky to me. I still haven't heard any problem with my explanation other than it sounds irresponsible, but I don't see how that makes it less logical or less likely. (it's blizzard, and it's new). Also remember that it's not THAT exploitable. Like I said, it will only make your rating trend above your MMR (while you have it). This is a big deal at the cutoff rating for invite tourneys, but not a big deal for everyone else. I feel so outnumbered that I'll definitely review and see if I'm just being crazy (but it's late  | ||
|
gondolin
France332 Posts
On September 04 2010 16:17 taffy wrote: Ok I really didn't think there were several of you organized around this theory. I still don't see any evidence or reason behind having some constant growing number that is subtracted from everyone's score. As far as I know, if you create an account today you will not have the 600 or whatever accumulative bonus pool, so then there would be a personal bonus pool number and a constant number used to inflate everyones rating? We are not organized around this theory, I don't know Excalibur_Z or Vannick at all. Personally I just find their theory of growing bonus pool more logical and elegant. I was just trying to explain why I find it this way, this is not your case, and you may very well be right: if indeed newer players don't have the whole cumulative bonus pool, then this is not the way blizzard implemented it. As you say: Anyway I can look at this tomorrow but it still sounds really shaky to me. I still haven't heard any problem with my explanation other than it sounds irresponsible, but I don't see how that makes it less logical or less likely. (it's blizzard, and it's new). Also remember that it's not THAT exploitable. Like I said, it will only make your rating trend above your MMR (while you have it). This is a big deal at the cutoff rating for invite tourneys, but not a big deal for everyone else. Maybe Blizzard did implement it the way you describe. The reasons I think/hope they did not are: - preventing abuse *is* important for them, they know it *will* happen, we can hope they try to minimize the way it can happen. - In Warcraft III, they force activity on an account via an XP decay. It would be strange if they did not follow the same principle with sc2; and this is exactly what we think the bonus pool is for. With your theory, if people use their bonus pool to get above their MMR, they should stop playing. You answer that by saying they should continue playing to improve (and don't care about their ratings). That's true and is the long term point of view, but I think that people would prefer the ability to brag about their inflated points | ||
|
Tomo009
Australia96 Posts
I'm asking this because, stupidly, I jumped right into ladder games, and for my first about 30-50 games I was really just learning how to play zerg at all. Now I'm stuck in bronze at about 130 games played. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On September 04 2010 16:17 taffy wrote: As far as I know, if you create an account today you will not have the 600 or whatever accumulative bonus pool That's actually exactly how it happens. The bonus pool increases globally from Launch Day so that newer players don't fall behind. I'm logged into the game right now. I have a 3v3 team that joined a division on 8/2/2010 and hasn't played any games beyond placement matches. Its bonus pool is 593 right now. I have a 4v4 team that joined a division on 8/15/2010, no games beyond placement used, and its bonus pool is 593. I have another 4v4 team that placed just last night and we quit after placements. Its bonus pool: 593. Because the bonus pool total is the same for everyone, it becomes an easy global variable that can be elegantly removed from any equations regarding matchmaking or point earnings. However, because you can't see the bonus pools of others, this introduces some confusion because there's no way to determine how much bonus pool a player has consumed and how much they still have banked. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On September 04 2010 18:15 Tomo009 wrote: Hmm so I think I understand, so basically if you placed poorly at the beginning but then continued to improve over a fair number of games, it is going to take you much much longer to be promoted then someone who just started but is at a lower skill level? I'm asking this because, stupidly, I jumped right into ladder games, and for my first about 30-50 games I was really just learning how to play zerg at all. Now I'm stuck in bronze at about 130 games played. "Much much longer" is relative, but it would take longer. The same is true for demotions. There was a guy on the Bnet forums yesterday who was looking to tank his rating so he could get bumped down to Bronze from Platinum and start over as Zerg. He was pretty solidly in Platinum, finding Even Matches routinely with about 190 or so games played. He originally started off by instantly leaving every game until he dropped out of 26 games, at which point he started being matched against Bronze players and he had to start going 50-50 against those players to drop his sigma quickly. Looks like he got demoted to Silver today with a little over 230 games played. From firm Platinum to Silver in about 35 games. His sigma was quite large after that 26th loss in a row I'll bet, but it looks like it decreased to within league boundaries within 9 games, which isn't too bad. | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10669 Posts
| ||
|
pezyuan
United States23 Posts
Map / Win or Loss / Number of Points / Race / League / Rank / Points / WL Record / Win Loss Last 10 Games (Left is most recent game) Delta Quadrant W +44 T Platinum 23 Blistering Sands L -1 T Diamond 27 Scrap Station W T Match not Found (Suspect Dia) Lost Temple L -1 P Diamond 9 Delta Quadrant L -2 Z Diamond 12 Scrap Station W +46 P Diamond 11 Metalopolis W +44 Z Diamond 26 Blistering Sands W +44 P Diamond 16 Delta Quadrant L -1 P Diamond 9 Stepps of War L -1 T Diamond 1 976 Metalopolis L -2 T Diamond 12 852 Delta Quadrant W +42 Z Diamond 21 808 Lost Temple W +46 P Diamond 44 349 Xel'Naga Caverns L -3 P Diamond 2 901 Metalopolis W +44 P Diamond 1 908 Metalopolis W +44 Z Diamond 40 895 Stepps of War L -2 T Diamond 4 976 Metalopolis W +44 Z Diamond 41 538 Metalopolis L -3 Z Diamond 3 988 141-117 WWLLWWWWLL Xel'Naga Caverns L -4 Z Diamond 9 930 58-32 WWLWLWLWWW Stepps of War L -3 P Platinum 68 132 8-0 WWWWWWW Kulas Ravine L -3 T Diamond 3 964 199-164 WLLLWWWWW Delta Quadrant L -4 P Diamond 2 843 114-89 WLWWWLWWWW Metalopolis W +42 T Diamond 13 841 85-62 LWWLWLLLWW | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
| ||
|
pezyuan
United States23 Posts
If any of my other friends decide to tank their record I'll post their stuff here | ||
|
taffy
United States28 Posts
On September 05 2010 00:58 Excalibur_Z wrote: That's actually exactly how it happens. The bonus pool increases globally from Launch Day so that newer players don't fall behind. I'm logged into the game right now. I have a 3v3 team that joined a division on 8/2/2010 and hasn't played any games beyond placement matches. Its bonus pool is 593 right now. I have a 4v4 team that joined a division on 8/15/2010, no games beyond placement used, and its bonus pool is 593. I have another 4v4 team that placed just last night and we quit after placements. Its bonus pool: 593. Wow I completely missed that, which makes your theory a lot more plausible. Now it's me having to consider that I'm ignoring a possibility because I disagree so strongly with the design philosophy. Anyway, good work. Hope you're wrong about this one though  | ||
|
pezyuan
United States23 Posts
| ||
|
Jollyburner
Canada190 Posts
| ||
|
ibreakurface
United States664 Posts
| ||
|
Stosh
United States32 Posts
On September 04 2010 05:46 Lavitage wrote: I know the cause. It's because the people I live with start using the internet (they're all wired to the router, I'm not.) I'll start playing when I have the internet all to myself, have a good rhythm going, then suddenly someone jumps on to do something and bam, gg. There's nothing I can do about it except make enough money to find a new place to live. I can't even run a wire under the house, since the crawlspace is filled with sharp rusty gutters and black widows and god knows what else. I would look into a powerline adapter if you can't run a wire and the wireless is causing you issues. Newegg | ||
|
Jin
Canada439 Posts
http://www.moserware.com/2010/03/computing-your-skill.html | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On September 11 2010 03:03 Jin wrote: Bumping this thread because I found this explanation of statistical machine learning to be really good, a really good layman explanation: http://www.moserware.com/2010/03/computing-your-skill.html That is an excellent explanation of the TrueSkill system, and I recommend it for anyone who wants to learn the basics of TrueSkill. Anyone who chooses to read it should remember that there are some key differences between TrueSkill and Blizzard's SC2 Ladder, most notably with how sigma is treated and how players are divided into leagues. While there are a great number of similarities, the differences are what we should keep in mind. | ||
|
vesicular
United States1310 Posts
Would love to see more data from people like what Pez has shown here, that's great data. | ||
| ||
