|
As far as I am aware the points data on the Blizzard ladder was collected from players at different times over a period of days.
Dayvie for example was likely one of the first players to be put on the list.
By the time they got round to other players the other players points had increased, so had Dayvie's. However Dayvie is registered as lower points than he actually is because Blizzard searched him first.
Basically the ladder is out of date.
Not sure I would use the word "charade", may or may not be intentional, but the Blizzard information is simply not accurate in real time. SC2 Rankings.com is certainly a much more reliable source as it includes when the information was last updated so it can be verified. Blizzard as usual hides as much information as possible to make it difficult to verify anything.
|
On August 11 2010 22:16 Necrosjef wrote:
As far as I am aware the points data on the Blizzard ladder was collected from players at different times over a period of days.
Dayvie for example was likely one of the first players to be put on the list.
By the time they got round to other players the other players points had increased, so had Dayvie's. However Dayvie is registered as lower points than he actually is because Blizzard searched him first.
Basically the ladder is out of date.
Not sure I would use the word "charade", may or may not be intentional, but the Blizzard information is simply not accurate in real time. SC2 Rankings.com is certainly a much more reliable source as it includes when the information was last updated so it can be verified. Blizzard as usual hides as much information as possible to make it difficult to verify anything.
I doubt they collected the list over multiple days, but it's definitely possible that the list is very stale at the point of release. Mostly because these lists need to be verified, collated, formatted, and approved before they're released. There's at least a couple day lag time from when they're presented to when the data was collected.
|
49 zerg = 24.5%
82 terran = 41%
63 protoss = 31.5%
6 random = 3%
Not many good random players in europe. ^_^
|
On August 11 2010 22:09 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 21:48 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2010 21:40 shawabawa wrote:On August 11 2010 21:30 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2010 21:24 Hanno wrote:
it sounds like someone doesn't understand MMR I have a perfect understanding of MMR. If MMR gives the correct rank and points don't: then stop using points to rank and start using MMR. Alternatively, make points converge to MMR, so when several dozen games are played, they are essentially equal. Note that points in WoW do converge to MMR. But if this top 200 is ranked by MMR (it's probably some combination of points and MMR and possibly other factors), then they've shown that points don't converge to MMR, again making points worthless. Do you understand what converging means? I'm pretty sure they do converge to MMR, but that doesn't mean both lists will be identical. Especially this early on when people have played only ~500 games or so. Idra has played 93 + 14 games, he is ranked 7 by points, and ranked 6 by top 200. Dayvie has played 113 + 67 games, he is ranked 3 by points, and ranked 49 by top 200. Dayvie has played more games so he's points should be closer to he's MMR, meaning he is far more likely to get ranked in the top 200 the same as he is by points. The reverse is true for Idra. Yet the data shows the opposite of what your hypothesis would imply. In the end, this doesn't matter. What matters is the ladder ranks on the website are right, and the ladder ranks in game are wrong, What you said doesn't disprove what he said. It's totally possible that Dayvie HAS converged to his MMR but that others that are higher than him have not. This means that Dayvie is where he will always be, but IdrA and others higher than him have not yet risen to the visible point total that matches their MMR. When everyone converges properly then the two ladders will look the same. However, it's incorrect to say that for any given person, if they are in the same spot in both ladders they have converged. It's simply not the case. There's no cause and effect or correlation in the position of both ladders.
If Dayvie has converged to he's MMR with only 113+67 games, then surely ajtls has converged to he's MMR too because he has played 174+99 games.
Dayvie's points (~= Dayvie's MMR) > ajtls points (~= ajtls's MMR), and so Dayvie should be ranked higher than ajtls in the top 200, but Dayvie is rank 49 while ajtls is rank 6.
Either way you slice it, it doesn't add up.
Probably because it's NOT based on MMR, (or not solely based on MMR).
But you have all conveniently ignored my main point, which the above analysis is irrelevant to: The website is right, the game is wrong, the game needs to be fixed.
|
On August 11 2010 22:20 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 22:16 Necrosjef wrote:
As far as I am aware the points data on the Blizzard ladder was collected from players at different times over a period of days.
Dayvie for example was likely one of the first players to be put on the list.
By the time they got round to other players the other players points had increased, so had Dayvie's. However Dayvie is registered as lower points than he actually is because Blizzard searched him first.
Basically the ladder is out of date.
Not sure I would use the word "charade", may or may not be intentional, but the Blizzard information is simply not accurate in real time. SC2 Rankings.com is certainly a much more reliable source as it includes when the information was last updated so it can be verified. Blizzard as usual hides as much information as possible to make it difficult to verify anything. I doubt they collected the list over multiple days, but it's definitely possible that the list is very stale at the point of release. Mostly because these lists need to be verified, collated, formatted, and approved before they're released. There's at least a couple day lag time from when they're presented to when the data was collected.
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/426266?page=9#page-comments
@sLy: Of course. And these stats were pulled this morning. I've seen some people questioning their age.
|
On August 11 2010 22:20 Batch wrote:49 zerg = 24.5% 82 terran = 41% 63 protoss = 31.5% 6 random = 3% Not many good random players in europe. ^_^
This thread is not for discussing the content of the list, it's for discussing why the correct methods used to form this list isn't used in the game.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On August 11 2010 22:20 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 22:16 Necrosjef wrote:
As far as I am aware the points data on the Blizzard ladder was collected from players at different times over a period of days.
Dayvie for example was likely one of the first players to be put on the list.
By the time they got round to other players the other players points had increased, so had Dayvie's. However Dayvie is registered as lower points than he actually is because Blizzard searched him first.
Basically the ladder is out of date.
Not sure I would use the word "charade", may or may not be intentional, but the Blizzard information is simply not accurate in real time. SC2 Rankings.com is certainly a much more reliable source as it includes when the information was last updated so it can be verified. Blizzard as usual hides as much information as possible to make it difficult to verify anything. I doubt they collected the list over multiple days, but it's definitely possible that the list is very stale at the point of release. Mostly because these lists need to be verified, collated, formatted, and approved before they're released. There's at least a couple day lag time from when they're presented to when the data was collected.
That doesn't explain how I'm ranked 90 according to that list but I never broke through top 120 by rating. Blizzard used some other method to rank people, possibly just the internal rating filtered by activity.
Also, I believe a blizzard rep said in the comments that they pulled those numbers that morning.
|
Guys, it's either that Blizzard has taken stuff like team leagues and achievements into their calculation, or they are just totally wrong! I just do a check on some names in the top 200, some of them have only played less than 20 games!
Edit - some examples:
#183 Nadagast (US) is not even in diamond.
#188 caseeker (US) has played less than 40 games
#200 iMHerBz (SEA) has played only 15 games!
|
On August 11 2010 22:03 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 21:27 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2010 21:22 LonelyMargarita wrote:On August 11 2010 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:The top 200 players are determined across divisions by comparing their relative rankings and skill, while meeting certain requirements, such as ensuring that they’re active. We can all see that the top 200 is NOT sorted by points, and different from the rankings shown at www.sc2ranks.com. For example Dayvie is ranked 49 in the official top 200, but has always been in the top 10 in terms of points. This shows that the ladder ranks that the game uses based on points is nonsense. Either whatever method was used to calculate this top 200 is correct, or ranking based on points is. They can't both be right. If points are not the optimal way to rank players, why is Blizzard using it to rank in the game? Why not use this new method to rank? Or make points converge to the results given by this new method? Basically, Blizzard is admitting their points system for ranking is wrong, making the ladder rankings in the game a charade. No; Blizzard is simply showing the obvious: While the points system is a fairly accurate way of ranking players within their own division, it becomes less relevant when comparing across different divisions (of different skill levels), so other factors must be included. What is confusing about that? Firstly, there's nothing wrong with directly comparing points across divisions, because what division you're in has no influence on your points, and has no influence on how you're matched.Secondly, if Blizzard is serious about having a correct ladder, then make points equal to whatever this new method is. Adjust points for whatever they adjusted here. There are 2 different methods for the same task. There is no reason to choose the correct method for the website, and the wrong method for the game. They should always choose the correct method, everywhere. Comparing Oranges and Grapefruits is the best possible way to show you why it's wrong to compare based upon points alone. I chose not to use apples since you have two "similar" looking fruits, but they're not exactly the same. Not all diamonds are treated equally. Now, if the above were true then top platinum players should be given the same consideration as they can be matched similarly to some diamond players, and vice-versa. (Now let's add apples to my comparison since they are given a different badge but are in the same family as the diamond players). This means that a platinum 750 would somehow need to be included in this argument. How do you adjust their points to fit the equation? (we don't really know)
You don't even know the difference between divisions and leagues.
Points are comparable across divisions, but it is not known how they can be compared across leagues.
So I was comparing oranges to oranges.
|
[B]
#200 iMHerBz (SEA) has played only 15 games!
Wow, 15-5, in platinum and still in the top 200, while hundreds of diamond players aren't.
|
On August 11 2010 22:30 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 22:20 Takkara wrote:On August 11 2010 22:16 Necrosjef wrote:
As far as I am aware the points data on the Blizzard ladder was collected from players at different times over a period of days.
Dayvie for example was likely one of the first players to be put on the list.
By the time they got round to other players the other players points had increased, so had Dayvie's. However Dayvie is registered as lower points than he actually is because Blizzard searched him first.
Basically the ladder is out of date.
Not sure I would use the word "charade", may or may not be intentional, but the Blizzard information is simply not accurate in real time. SC2 Rankings.com is certainly a much more reliable source as it includes when the information was last updated so it can be verified. Blizzard as usual hides as much information as possible to make it difficult to verify anything. I doubt they collected the list over multiple days, but it's definitely possible that the list is very stale at the point of release. Mostly because these lists need to be verified, collated, formatted, and approved before they're released. There's at least a couple day lag time from when they're presented to when the data was collected. You don't even know the difference between divisions and leagues. Points are comparable across divisions, but it is not known how they can be compared across leagues. So I was comparing oranges to oranges.
What are you talking about? What about what I said means I don't know the difference between divisions and leagues?
The post that you quote there and the post I quoted were discussing the length of time over which this data was collected. There's a blue post in the thread linked saying they were collected that morning. That's the official answer. My answer was just speculation that it's possible the data was stale as a potential reason why it doesn't match up. This is clearly false in light of Blizzard confirming the numbers were run that morning.
However, I'm unsure what that has to do with the differences between divisions and leagues...
|
On August 11 2010 22:49 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 22:30 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2010 22:20 Takkara wrote:On August 11 2010 22:16 Necrosjef wrote:
As far as I am aware the points data on the Blizzard ladder was collected from players at different times over a period of days.
Dayvie for example was likely one of the first players to be put on the list.
By the time they got round to other players the other players points had increased, so had Dayvie's. However Dayvie is registered as lower points than he actually is because Blizzard searched him first.
Basically the ladder is out of date.
Not sure I would use the word "charade", may or may not be intentional, but the Blizzard information is simply not accurate in real time. SC2 Rankings.com is certainly a much more reliable source as it includes when the information was last updated so it can be verified. Blizzard as usual hides as much information as possible to make it difficult to verify anything. I doubt they collected the list over multiple days, but it's definitely possible that the list is very stale at the point of release. Mostly because these lists need to be verified, collated, formatted, and approved before they're released. There's at least a couple day lag time from when they're presented to when the data was collected. You don't even know the difference between divisions and leagues. Points are comparable across divisions, but it is not known how they can be compared across leagues. So I was comparing oranges to oranges. What are you talking about? What about what I said means I don't know the difference between divisions and leagues? The post that you quote there and the post I quoted were discussing the length of time over which this data was collected. There's a blue post in the thread linked saying they were collected that morning. That's the official answer. My answer was just speculation that it's possible the data was stale as a potential reason why it doesn't match up. This is clearly false in light of Blizzard confirming the numbers were run that morning. However, I'm unsure what that has to do with the differences between divisions and leagues...
Sorry.
It seems I've mistakenly quoted you.
I'll get that fix.
|
.......|.T.. P.. Z
EU:..| 82 63 49
US:..| 85 69 38
KR:..| 76 70 49
SEA:| 60 79 47
Global
Terran: 303
Protoss: 275
Zerg: 183
|
I remember a recent interview that was given, I can't remember the source. But one of the points was the ingame ladder system was not designed to be an accurate ranking system, instead it was designed so that players would feel like they were progressing.
In that case, Dayvie's point record makes sense. If the system is designed to make you go up in points the more you play, playing more games will give you more points than an equally skilled player who has played fewer.
|
On August 11 2010 23:35 zeidrichthorene wrote:
I remember a recent interview that was given, I can't remember the source. But one of the points was the ingame ladder system was not designed to be an accurate ranking system, instead it was designed so that players would feel like they were progressing.
In that case, Dayvie's point record makes sense. If the system is designed to make you go up in points the more you play, playing more games will give you more points than an equally skilled player who has played fewer.
That's not true. If you calculate the correlation coefficient between points and games played for the people near the top of the ladder, it will turn out to be negative.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=142001¤tpage=3#55
If I were the designer of the AMM, I would be highly insulted to hear people think the ranking system isn't meant to correctly rank.
|
On August 11 2010 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 23:35 zeidrichthorene wrote:
I remember a recent interview that was given, I can't remember the source. But one of the points was the ingame ladder system was not designed to be an accurate ranking system, instead it was designed so that players would feel like they were progressing.
In that case, Dayvie's point record makes sense. If the system is designed to make you go up in points the more you play, playing more games will give you more points than an equally skilled player who has played fewer. That's not true. If you calculate the correlation coefficient between points and games played for the people near the top of the ladder, it will turn out to be negative. If I were the designer of the AMM, I would be highly insulted to hear people think the ranking system isn't meant to correctly rank.
Right, I mean, there can be an issue here. We're just not sure unless Blizzard releases the methodology of the Top 200. If this continues to be a problem over the next few months, then we'll have more evidence. It's entirely possible that the system is too young at the moment for us to fully agree/see the same Top 200 with our tools. After the system matures and people are more settled, then we might see more convergence with the visible point system.
Again, there's no guarantee this will happen. We just don't know at the moment for lack of evidence. It's good to bring threads like this up to make sure there isn't an error in the ranking system or the reporting system, but at the end of the day there isn't enough information available to us at the moment to draw a definite conclusion about the state of the system or the nature of the rankings.
|
On August 11 2010 23:48 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2010 23:35 zeidrichthorene wrote:
I remember a recent interview that was given, I can't remember the source. But one of the points was the ingame ladder system was not designed to be an accurate ranking system, instead it was designed so that players would feel like they were progressing.
In that case, Dayvie's point record makes sense. If the system is designed to make you go up in points the more you play, playing more games will give you more points than an equally skilled player who has played fewer. That's not true. If you calculate the correlation coefficient between points and games played for the people near the top of the ladder, it will turn out to be negative. If I were the designer of the AMM, I would be highly insulted to hear people think the ranking system isn't meant to correctly rank. Right, I mean, there can be an issue here. We're just not sure unless Blizzard releases the methodology of the Top 200. If this continues to be a problem over the next few months, then we'll have more evidence. It's entirely possible that the system is too young at the moment for us to fully agree/see the same Top 200 with our tools. After the system matures and people are more settled, then we might see more convergence with the visible point system. Again, there's no guarantee this will happen. We just don't know at the moment for lack of evidence. It's good to bring threads like this up to make sure there isn't an error in the ranking system or the reporting system, but at the end of the day there isn't enough information available to us at the moment to draw a definite conclusion about the state of the system or the nature of the rankings.
I disagree. It's not with our tools. It's with Blizzard's in-game division ladders. Blizzard has 2 contradictory ladder ranking systems. And they can't both be right.
|
I thought that you get paired against players from your region. You don't get paired against opponents exclusively from your division.
The reason why some people say "that division is hard" is just because you need more points to be 1st, not because you only face these hard opponents of that division.
I'm pretty sure that's the way it works... but maybe i'm mistaken.
|
On August 11 2010 23:48 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 23:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2010 23:35 zeidrichthorene wrote:
I remember a recent interview that was given, I can't remember the source. But one of the points was the ingame ladder system was not designed to be an accurate ranking system, instead it was designed so that players would feel like they were progressing.
In that case, Dayvie's point record makes sense. If the system is designed to make you go up in points the more you play, playing more games will give you more points than an equally skilled player who has played fewer. That's not true. If you calculate the correlation coefficient between points and games played for the people near the top of the ladder, it will turn out to be negative. If I were the designer of the AMM, I would be highly insulted to hear people think the ranking system isn't meant to correctly rank. Right, I mean, there can be an issue here. We're just not sure unless Blizzard releases the methodology of the Top 200. If this continues to be a problem over the next few months, then we'll have more evidence. It's entirely possible that the system is too young at the moment for us to fully agree/see the same Top 200 with our tools. After the system matures and people are more settled, then we might see more convergence with the visible point system. Again, there's no guarantee this will happen. We just don't know at the moment for lack of evidence. It's good to bring threads like this up to make sure there isn't an error in the ranking system or the reporting system, but at the end of the day there isn't enough information available to us at the moment to draw a definite conclusion about the state of the system or the nature of the rankings.
I disagree. It's not with our tools. It's with Blizzard's in-game division ladders. Blizzard has 2 contradictory ladder ranking systems. And they can't both be right.
|
On August 11 2010 22:30 mrdx wrote:
Guys, it's either that Blizzard has taken stuff like team leagues and achievements into their calculation, or they are just totally wrong! I just do a check on some names in the top 200, some of them have only played less than 20 games!
Edit - some examples:
#183 Nadagast (US) is not even in diamond.
#188 caseeker (US) has played less than 40 games
#200 iMHerBz (SEA) has played only 15 games!
I think this pretty conclusively shows that their method for constructing the top 200 is questionable.
Of course, this doesn't mean that points are definitely better. We don't really know. But this is clearly nonsense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
