|
On August 12 2010 00:31 Commodore wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 22:03 Puosu wrote:On August 11 2010 21:59 ArdentZeal wrote:
As many times stated before, POINTS IN DIVISIONS ARE NOT COMPARABLE ACROSS DIVISIONS!
Read and remember.
The only one who knows how to compare these is... who would have guessed... BLIZZARD!
So stop bitching and get on with your lifes for gods sake 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.
I perfectly remember Xordiah saying that ranks were comparable between divisions. (following this, points are not, right?)
She said this to explain how anyone could compare to others, despite the division system.
(And this is why, at the beginning of the beta, there were like 8 special first places in each division. The best players in each division would meet in a tournament by league at the end of each season. I dont know if it's still planned... i dont think so :/)
|
On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: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. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinKEdit: 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. 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. 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.
What his number of games played doesn't mather if he has won against players like Idra, Ra or other highly ranked players. It's kind of like playing tennis and beating Federer and Nadal, your ranking will skyrocket. I don't know if this is the case but that is what I assume.
|
United States22883 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:28 BondGamer wrote:
Wouldn't it be possible for someone like IdrA who has an insane win percentage to just play a couple games a month to remain "active". He will always be in the top 200 then. Just have a second account to play to your hearts content.
Which is why competition based purely on ladders are frivolous. I'm not sure why this is a surprise for anyone. The only benefit of ladders over leagues is accessibility, but when we're talking about competitive play, that really doesn't matter. Ladder systems, even better ones like ICCUP, will always be flawed for determining ranking, their main use (like someone said earlier) is to convey a sense of progress and to obtain a general idea of who the best players are.
I would argue that competition based on ladders is actually detrimental to competitive play, as we've seen in online WoW. Teams do exactly as you described, which means they aren't even practicing sufficiently.
So yeah, ladders kind of suck. Once the major leagues get going (not just tournaments, but also season play), that's when rankings will truly start to develop. Basically, people need to stop worrying about it. The ladder's not going away, and it's not getting any more accurate.
|
On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: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. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinKEdit: 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. 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. Ok, then a dude with a 7-1 history is in the top 200 in the USA.
The best part here, imo, is that five of those eight games were, of course, placement matches. So this is someone who has played three games after placement, and Blizzard's algorithm decides it has enough information to say he's only worse than 199 other people on the NA server.
|
On August 12 2010 00:40 Batch wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: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. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinKEdit: 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. 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. 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. What his number of games played doesn't mather if he has won against players like Idra, Ra or other highly ranked players. It's kind of like playing tennis and beating Federer and Nadal, your ranking will skyrocket. I don't know if this is the case but that is what I assume.
Uh-huh. Damn, you give them a lot of credit.
Pretty sure you're not going to get paired against Idra -- or anyone in the top 200 -- after you've played fewer than 8 games. Even if you did, though, who's to say your opponent didn't disconnect? Maybe their mouse broke halfway through. The number of games played is far too low and the potential influence of flukes like that way too great at a grand total of 8 games.
|
On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:
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. I'm not that suppliesed that a dude with 8 games is top 200 in a 2 week-old sport.
He wont stay there if he doesnt play.
|
On August 12 2010 00:41 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: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. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinKEdit: 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. 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. Ok, then a dude with a 7-1 history is in the top 200 in the USA. The best part here, imo, is that five of those eight games were, of course, placement matches. So this is someone who has played three games after placement, and Blizzard's algorithm decides it has enough information to say he's only worse than 199 other people on the NA server.
Yeah it's certainly possible for outliers or edge cases to develop at the ends of a ranking report based on a young system. It doesn't prove there's a problem, yet, though. It may well point to one. It definitely points to something worth investigating. However, there's enough mitigating information that you cannot definitively say there's anything wrong with Blizzards rating system other than it's young. This is different than saying there's nothing wrong, you also can't prove that either. We just don't have enough information. It's not worth getting "angry" over who the true 200th best player in NA is. We identified an issue, why get so worked up over it at the end of the day? We'll keep watching it over the coming weeks.
|
On August 12 2010 00:46 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:41 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: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. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinKEdit: 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. 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. Ok, then a dude with a 7-1 history is in the top 200 in the USA. The best part here, imo, is that five of those eight games were, of course, placement matches. So this is someone who has played three games after placement, and Blizzard's algorithm decides it has enough information to say he's only worse than 199 other people on the NA server. Yeah it's certainly possible for outliers or edge cases to develop at the ends of a ranking report based on a young system. It doesn't prove there's a problem, yet, though. It may well point to one. It definitely points to something worth investigating. However, there's enough mitigating information that you cannot definitively say there's anything wrong with Blizzards rating system other than it's young. This is different than saying there's nothing wrong, you also can't prove that either. We just don't have enough information. It's not worth getting "angry" over who the true 200th best player in NA is. We identified an issue, why get so worked up over it at the end of the day? We'll keep watching it over the coming weeks.
It's mostly just frustrating that we have absolutely no idea at all how their system works, and they have absolutely no interest in sharing. So a 7-1 placer, in arguably the most important ranking in SC2, when thousands of players have played over a hundred games, looks very bad.
Maybe I should go back to baseball. :D
|
On August 12 2010 00:46 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:41 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: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. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinKEdit: 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. 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. Ok, then a dude with a 7-1 history is in the top 200 in the USA. The best part here, imo, is that five of those eight games were, of course, placement matches. So this is someone who has played three games after placement, and Blizzard's algorithm decides it has enough information to say he's only worse than 199 other people on the NA server. Yeah it's certainly possible for outliers or edge cases to develop at the ends of a ranking report based on a young system. It doesn't prove there's a problem, yet, though. It may well point to one. It definitely points to something worth investigating. However, there's enough mitigating information that you cannot definitively say there's anything wrong with Blizzards rating system other than it's young. This is different than saying there's nothing wrong, you also can't prove that either. We just don't have enough information. It's not worth getting "angry" over who the true 200th best player in NA is. We identified an issue, why get so worked up over it at the end of the day? We'll keep watching it over the coming weeks.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I'm not angry. I just think it highlights a potential problem with the ranking, and suggests that, while most of Blizzard's top 200 are probably very good players, we can't take the results seriously right now.
|
On August 12 2010 00:41 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: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. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinKEdit: 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. 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. Ok, then a dude with a 7-1 history is in the top 200 in the USA. The best part here, imo, is that five of those eight games were, of course, placement matches. So this is someone who has played three games after placement, and Blizzard's algorithm decides it has enough information to say he's only worse than 199 other people on the NA server.
Actually, and I don't know why or how this happens, but he has never faced anyone under 400 points in diamond
As of the compilation of this list he was 6-1 with his best win coming from Tozar, an 800 point protoss, and his one loss coming from Idra
It's all very confusing
edit: actually I do know how it occurred, he played 2v2 long before he played his 1v1 placements. When you play AT placements as a diamond 1v1er, it gives you diamond level opponents. So the same thing happened in his placements. He started playing good players right away.
It's still kinda ridiculous that in 7 games you can be ranked in the top 200.
|
We've known since early beta that points are not of equal value across all divisions.
It was made especially apparent when there used to be a bug that allowed you to be "promoted" from one platinum division to another (before diamond existed). Players would often see a drastic rise or fall of their rating.
|
People shouldn't be getting so worked up about these rankings. Obviously blizzard is using a pretty flawed way of coming up with the top 200, and that's fine, because they can't force us to care.
The problem with any starcraft ranking system is that it has to assume that the winner of a game is better than their opponent. I don't know how many best of 5s you've all watched, but 3-2 much? Even worse is the fact that at the very top of the ladder, you encounter the problem of not being able to find a better player. Say I'm ~800 and everyone who's better than me is offline or in a game. I can spam games and increase my ranking simply because battle.net can't find anyone to beat me. If someone like HuK or IdrA was online waiting to make me lose points that'd be great, but considering that at the top level, the matchmaker has to deal with the fact that it can't find the player it wants for you to play against, score levels and rankings mean a lot less once you cross in to the 700-1100 region, which is where most of the top 200 players should be.
In short, skill doesn't necessarily mean win in a game, and the ladder system only has enough players to make accurate rankings in regions below the top few hundred players, because at the high level, being the best player online effectively lets you rack up infinite points. (even though the best 400 players may be offline and you're 401) This will be remedied as time progresses and as more really good players emerge.
On August 12 2010 01:00 Dyno. wrote:
We've known since early beta that points are not of equal value across all divisions.
It was made especially apparent when there used to be a bug that allowed you to be "promoted" from one platinum division to another (before diamond existed). Players would often see a drastic rise or fall of their rating.
There's no evidence that points are currently working this way. In fact, evidence suggests that this was removed and that points are comparable among different divisions in the same league. There's probably a margin of error of over 100 points or more, but a 650 diamond with 300 games will almost definitely wipe the floor with a 250 diamond with 300 games, regardless of where they stand in their respective divisions.
|
On August 12 2010 00:58 floor exercise wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:41 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:33 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote: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. This guy is currently rank 200: http://www.sc2ranks.com./char/us/403486/InSTinKEdit: 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. 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. Ok, then a dude with a 7-1 history is in the top 200 in the USA. The best part here, imo, is that five of those eight games were, of course, placement matches. So this is someone who has played three games after placement, and Blizzard's algorithm decides it has enough information to say he's only worse than 199 other people on the NA server. Actually, and I don't know why or how this happens, but he has never faced anyone under 400 points in diamond As of the compilation of this list he was 6-1 with his best win coming from Tozar, an 800 point protoss, and his one loss coming from Idra It's all very confusing
Why is it confusing? If he started later than most of us, it could make sense.
We made our placement matches nearly after release, very few people ranked, we play against anyone from good players to bad players.
Imagine you start 1v1 now. (I dont know if the system tries to match you against a low lvl player at the begining but anyway...) If the first placement match is against a Diamond and you win, the system will keep on trying to find you better players.
|
think about this:
how could any sort of ranking in a game like starcraft be accurate?
it's all just an approximation, and ladder, this blizz200 are just as good as tournaments and leagues at determining skill.
stop over thinking this, it doesn't even matter anyway.
|
Whats the point of a ranking that compares players against each other when its impossible for them to play across regions anyway. Makes no sense.
|
On August 12 2010 01:08 infinity2k9 wrote:
Whats the point of a ranking that compares players against each other when its impossible for them to play across regions anyway. Makes no sense.
It doesnt compare players from different regions. :/
|
Hyrule19257 Posts
Blizzard has a separate 200 for each region. The best way to compare players across regions is to see how they do in cross-region tournaments.
|
On August 12 2010 01:09 Icks wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 01:08 infinity2k9 wrote:
Whats the point of a ranking that compares players against each other when its impossible for them to play across regions anyway. Makes no sense. It doesnt compare players from different regions. :/
Ah sorry my mistake i didn't look on the blizzard site.
|
It is hard to factor in many other gauges of skill. For example:
How many games were played against skilled opponents or Noobs?
How big of winning or loosing streaks did you go on?
Are you playing cheesy "all in" like or are you strong through the early, mid, and late game?
How much average unspent money do you have?
Is your macro strong?
Is your play all around strong/solid or gimmicky?
I feel it will probably take at least another 30 to 60 days for the leagues and rankings to settle in.
A key thing to remember, The more time that goes by and the more games everyone gets under the belts = more accurate rankings and league placements.
There has not been enough time or games played for anomalies to get factored out yet.
Look at Idra on that list, there are only a handful of people within 15% of his win ration. He is truthfully top 3 in the world right now. Maybe the best. But he's in 21st place. There are a bunch of people above him who do not belong above him. The guy in 5th place has a 56% win to idra's 86% win. yet he is 16 places higher than Idra simply because he's played around 400 games to idra's 100. That's just stupid IMO
|
On August 11 2010 21:30 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I know you get MMR, but I just have to say that it's really funny that since he thought you didn't, you say it like 6 times in your post. just sayin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
