EPTBlizzard's top 200 show ladders are a charade. - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
AskJoshy
United States1625 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
| ||
|
AskJoshy
United States1625 Posts
Slightly off topic here, but DAMN HuK is even in the top 30 in Europe in addition to being #1 North America. =O | ||
|
nam nam
Sweden4672 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:10 Pyrthas wrote: Bonus pool doesn't explain why non-diamond and people playing 15 games are in Blizzard's top 200. (I'm taking mrdx's word here; I haven't checked myself.) Win % perhaps? | ||
|
Elefanto
Switzerland3584 Posts
top 20 t: 10 p: 5 z: 5 hilarious oh wait, THEY'RE JUST BETTER PLAYERS L OL | ||
|
Azile
United States339 Posts
Too many people are quick to hop on the 'omg it's broken' bandwagon when really they have no concept at all of what's going on to determine the results. How can you possibly say something is not working when you don't even know how it works? | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:10 Pyrthas wrote: Bonus pool doesn't explain why non-diamond and people playing 15 games are in Blizzard's top 200. (I'm taking mrdx's word here; I haven't checked myself.) There's three explanations: 1) The person in question is not the same person as on the list but another person with a different character code (Blizzard doesn't release the codes) 2) The person's MMR was high even though he was in Platinum. There's talk about having to lose to get promoted. So if someone was 26-0 in Platinum they could still have a skyhigh MMR because they're playing Diamond player in Platinum. 3) There's an error in Blizzard's Top 200 reporting tool. Bonus pool doesn't have anything to do with this. As far as I've heard last, everyone gets the same Bonus Pool regardless of how much they play. As long as everyone who could be on the Top 200 works through their Bonus Pool, it won't have any affect on the visible rankings. Everyone is inflated in the same way. Again, that's the last I heard on Bonus Pool. | ||
|
AskJoshy
United States1625 Posts
| ||
|
Pyrthas
United States3196 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: There's three explanations: 1) The person in question is not the same person as on the list but another person with a different character code (Blizzard doesn't release the codes) 2) The person's MMR was high even though he was in Platinum. There's talk about having to lose to get promoted. So if someone was 26-0 in Platinum they could still have a skyhigh MMR because they're playing Diamond player in Platinum. 3) There's an error in Blizzard's Top 200 reporting tool. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinK Edit: For posterity, he is currently 7-1 in 1v1. | ||
|
AskJoshy
United States1625 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote: This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinK Edit: For posterity, he is currently 7-1 in 1v1. He's got 100 wins (across 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc.) and an 83% win percentage... perhaps this shows that Blizzard looks at all divisions for MMR, not just 1v1? 83-17 looks pretty damn good, but so many of them were placements for this fellow. | ||
|
Martinni
Canada169 Posts
| ||
|
BondGamer
61 Posts
| ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote: He's got 100 wins (across 1v1, 2v2, 3v3, etc.) and an 83% win percentage... perhaps this shows that Blizzard looks at all divisions for MMR, not just 1v1? 83-17 looks pretty damn good, but so many of them were placements for this fellow. LOL, they looked at 2v2 and 3v3 rankings to determine a "best player"? Hahaha. This is completely bizarre. This company has absolutely no idea how seriously they're taken, and hence they're content to completely fly in the face of other sites' rankings without even a suggestion of an explanation of how the hell they slapped their ranking together. Ahh, e-sports. How little you've come all these years. :D | ||
|
Commodore
United States97 Posts
On August 11 2010 22:03 Puosu wrote: Could you please cite your source, it almost seems like you haven't really studied the subject and just jumped to a conclusion and then added in some caps lock and that definitely aint cool. If you don't have any proof please do read the thread and the other solutions to why this difference between the ladder and Blizzard's rankings might be happening. I remember seeing a blue post in the beta forums say that points are not comparable across divisions. Unfortunately, it looks like the beta forums are down. | ||
|
Takkara
United States2503 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote: LOL, they looked at 2v2 and 3v3 rankings to determine a "best player"? Hahaha. This is completely bizarre. This company has absolutely no idea how seriously they're taken, and hence they're content to completely fly in the face of other sites' rankings without even a suggestion of an explanation of how the hell they slapped their ranking together. Ahh, e-sports. How little you've come all these years. :D They specifically said they only looked at 1v1 ratings. | ||
|
Noev
United States1105 Posts
| ||
|
kajeus
United States679 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote: They specifically said they only looked at 1v1 ratings. Ok, then a dude with a 7-1 history is in the top 200 in the USA. I'm glad Blizzard is here to give us the hard facts of e-sports. | ||
|
cArn-
Korea (South)824 Posts
And just so people understand how MMR works, it's a hidden rating that is used to match you against people having a similar hidden rating. Let's say you're 400 rated, but you keep winning to 600 rated players, your MMR will go up to match your actual level which is over 600 rating. Your rating is supposed to converge to your MMR, and your win rate to 50%. If you're way over those 50% it'll just increase your MMR accordingly till you're matched against players of a similar level, in which case you should be around 50% , and your MMR won't be changing that much unless you improve. It can sure be inflated too and you can have a higher MMR and rating without actually being better, but relatively to how high highest rating go it should still be quite accurate ; the more games are played the more accurate it is tho, ofc. | ||
|
AmstAff
Germany949 Posts
| ||
|
Batch
Sweden692 Posts
On August 11 2010 23:52 paralleluniverse wrote: 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. The reason why they have done it like this is really easy to understand. Casual gamers want to feel they are getting better and likes archievements. --> Blizzard gives them a Bronze to Diamons leagues and bonus points over time to assure that they continue to climb even if they stay at the same skill level. Pro gamers want to compare themselves against each other. --> Blizzard gives them a competative ladder where bonus points don't aren't counted and shows the top of it. The reason that the whole ladder isn't shown is because it could hurt the casual gamers when they see that they are ranked 19904 in the ladder and that their platinum rank doesn't mean anything. | ||
| ||
