|
On August 12 2010 01:59 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +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. Yeah you're right. Their ranking has to be based on MMR (because it's clearly not points), but may be influenced by ladder activity as well (they mentioned that has an impact, but to what degree we're not sure). Points need to be the sole ranking factor, or at least something else that's equally transparent. Lists like this one only serve to create confusion. My guess would be that this linear ranking is one that uses MMR - sigma*3, but then that wouldn't explain the 7-1 guy at the bottom whose sigma would probably be enormous (unless sigma rapidly changes after each match, far more than we estimated). Points are also absolutely comparable across divisions because the players all share competition, for those who are saying they aren't.
Well I'm glad someone pointed that out. But I doubt that InSTinK is on the list cause of his platinum team, they said it's listing people across brackets so in all likely hood it's the 2v2 diamond team he's on: http://sc2ranks.com/team/131796
The mistake people keep making is they are looking at divisions as anything except a wrapper around your rank. It's the equivalent to taking say, diamonds of varying qualities and putting them into separate boxes based on quality. You haven't made any of the diamonds more or less valuable, you just isolated them from the rest.
The only part that could make points an inaccurate measure is the bonus pool not being totaled up consistently across leagues/players.
|
Blizzard has stated right from the beginning that Points are not comparable even from division to division.
|
i am not happy that my points mean nothing, but i guess i already discriminate between good and bad players by their win percent rather than their points. Anything over 60 is good. 55 not so good. 50 getting terrible.
|
On August 12 2010 01:05 SharkSpider wrote:
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.
How can you say there's no evidence when these Blizzard rankings quite clearly support the theory? I'm not saying they're concrete evidence, but they are evidence. And then use "probably" to support your own theory.
The burden of proof lies on the accuser. In beta we knew conclusively that rating points weren't equal between divisions. There's no evidence to suggest anything has changed, but there is evidence that it hasn't.
Moving away from evidence and onto speculation, I think that the reason that blizzard chose to do this is the same reason why they chose to split everyone into divisions: they want people to feel like they're accomplishing something, because it makes them feel good about playing and thus more inclined to continue. Blizzard is trying to create the illusion that you're better than you really are. Not only can you feel good about topping your division, but you can feel like you're up there with all the other high rated players in the world.
I don't agree with this system at all. In fact, I think it's stupid; but it seems to be what blizzard has chosen to go with.
Your second point really isn't relevant and you can't prove that it's true because it hinges on the theory of points being equal being true, which hasn't been proven.
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 12 2010 02:31 Shadowed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 01:59 Excalibur_Z 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. Yeah you're right. Their ranking has to be based on MMR (because it's clearly not points), but may be influenced by ladder activity as well (they mentioned that has an impact, but to what degree we're not sure). Points need to be the sole ranking factor, or at least something else that's equally transparent. Lists like this one only serve to create confusion. My guess would be that this linear ranking is one that uses MMR - sigma*3, but then that wouldn't explain the 7-1 guy at the bottom whose sigma would probably be enormous (unless sigma rapidly changes after each match, far more than we estimated). Points are also absolutely comparable across divisions because the players all share competition, for those who are saying they aren't. Well I'm glad someone pointed that out. But I doubt that InSTinK is on the list cause of his platinum team, they said it's listing people across brackets so in all likely hood it's the 2v2 diamond team he's on: http://sc2ranks.com/team/131796The mistake people keep making is they are looking at divisions as anything except a wrapper around your rank. It's the equivalent to taking say, diamonds of varying qualities and putting them into separate boxes based on quality. You haven't made any of the diamonds more or less valuable, you just isolated them from the rest. The only part that could make points an inaccurate measure is the bonus pool not being totaled up consistently across leagues/players.
While that would do well to explain it, it doesn't make sense. Bashiok said yesterday that the rankings are based off 1v1. It doesn't follow that team games would have any impact when historically in War3 and WoW 2v2 and 3v3 have always had completely separate MMRs and ratings. It wouldn't be fair if I went 99-1 in 2v2 to start matching me against 3000 MMR players in 1v1 from the start because 2v2 says nothing about my solo performance.
|
On August 12 2010 02:40 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 02:31 Shadowed wrote:On August 12 2010 01:59 Excalibur_Z 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. Yeah you're right. Their ranking has to be based on MMR (because it's clearly not points), but may be influenced by ladder activity as well (they mentioned that has an impact, but to what degree we're not sure). Points need to be the sole ranking factor, or at least something else that's equally transparent. Lists like this one only serve to create confusion. My guess would be that this linear ranking is one that uses MMR - sigma*3, but then that wouldn't explain the 7-1 guy at the bottom whose sigma would probably be enormous (unless sigma rapidly changes after each match, far more than we estimated). Points are also absolutely comparable across divisions because the players all share competition, for those who are saying they aren't. Well I'm glad someone pointed that out. But I doubt that InSTinK is on the list cause of his platinum team, they said it's listing people across brackets so in all likely hood it's the 2v2 diamond team he's on: http://sc2ranks.com/team/131796The mistake people keep making is they are looking at divisions as anything except a wrapper around your rank. It's the equivalent to taking say, diamonds of varying qualities and putting them into separate boxes based on quality. You haven't made any of the diamonds more or less valuable, you just isolated them from the rest. The only part that could make points an inaccurate measure is the bonus pool not being totaled up consistently across leagues/players. While that would do well to explain it, it doesn't make sense. Bashiok said yesterday that the rankings are based off 1v1. It doesn't follow that team games would have any impact when historically in War3 and WoW 2v2 and 3v3 have always had completely separate MMRs and ratings. It wouldn't be fair if I went 99-1 in 2v2 to start matching me against 3000 MMR players in 1v1 from the start because 2v2 says nothing about my solo performance.
Of course it would be fair. You didn't get 99-1 by being a bad player. Not that doesn't mean you will be an amazing 1v1 player either, but there's a far better chance of that being true than there is of you being absolutely terrible. Makes more sense to start you near the top and if you suck you will fall down than it does to start you off playing bronze players where you can smash the casual player base into dust until you work your way up.
|
On August 12 2010 01:32 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 01:05 SharkSpider wrote:
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.
You're contradicting yourself. If skill doesn't necessarily mean win, then even if you're the best player on ladder, you will still lose games to worse players and lose a lot of points for the loss.
Sort of. I'm just showing multiple problems with the higher end of the league system. One problem is that accurate rankings can't be possible because win doesn't always mean skill, but the other problem is that at some point, players are so good that it just can't find people who are capable of beating them, no matter what you believe in terms of how far a player's skill needs to be 'off' for a match to go X-0 every time.
On August 12 2010 02:39 Dyno. wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 01:05 SharkSpider wrote:
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. How can you say there's no evidence when these Blizzard rankings quite clearly support the theory? I'm not saying they're concrete evidence, but they are evidence. And then use "probably" to support your own theory. The burden of proof lies on the accuser. In beta we knew conclusively that rating points weren't equal between divisions. There's no evidence to suggest anything has changed, but there is evidence that it hasn't. Moving away from evidence and onto speculation, I think that the reason that blizzard chose to do this is the same reason why they chose to split everyone into divisions: they want people to feel like they're accomplishing something, because it makes them feel good about playing and thus more inclined to continue. Blizzard is trying to create the illusion that you're better than you really are. Not only can you feel good about topping your division, but you can feel like you're up there with all the other high rated players in the world. I don't agree with this system at all. In fact, I think it's stupid; but it seems to be what blizzard has chosen to go with. Your second point really isn't relevant and you can't prove that it's true because it hinges on the theory of points being equal being true, which hasn't been proven.
What evidence suggests that your division affects how much points you get for a win? You can't claim that there isn't any evidence to suggest that it hasn't changed, either.
You can no longer be promoted from one division to another. When you win against a player with higher points, you get more points and they lose more points than if you win against a player with lower points. This happens regardless of Division. For example, I beat a ~420-point player from HuK's division (the one with all the high rollers) when I was at 400. When I was at 404, I beat a ~420-point player who was third in his division. I got 14 points for both games. Of course these are just two games, but I have yet to see or hear of anything to suggest that in the current state of the game, division factors in to the amount of points awarded on a win or loss. If this was the case, then wouldn't the first place players in most divisions have similar points? If it was easier to get to 1000 in a division full of mediocre players, why do top players in these divisions only have ~500 points after a few hundred games, while some divisions have ~600 players down in the 60-ranks?
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 12 2010 02:42 Azile wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 02:40 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 12 2010 02:31 Shadowed wrote:On August 12 2010 01:59 Excalibur_Z 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. Yeah you're right. Their ranking has to be based on MMR (because it's clearly not points), but may be influenced by ladder activity as well (they mentioned that has an impact, but to what degree we're not sure). Points need to be the sole ranking factor, or at least something else that's equally transparent. Lists like this one only serve to create confusion. My guess would be that this linear ranking is one that uses MMR - sigma*3, but then that wouldn't explain the 7-1 guy at the bottom whose sigma would probably be enormous (unless sigma rapidly changes after each match, far more than we estimated). Points are also absolutely comparable across divisions because the players all share competition, for those who are saying they aren't. Well I'm glad someone pointed that out. But I doubt that InSTinK is on the list cause of his platinum team, they said it's listing people across brackets so in all likely hood it's the 2v2 diamond team he's on: http://sc2ranks.com/team/131796The mistake people keep making is they are looking at divisions as anything except a wrapper around your rank. It's the equivalent to taking say, diamonds of varying qualities and putting them into separate boxes based on quality. You haven't made any of the diamonds more or less valuable, you just isolated them from the rest. The only part that could make points an inaccurate measure is the bonus pool not being totaled up consistently across leagues/players. While that would do well to explain it, it doesn't make sense. Bashiok said yesterday that the rankings are based off 1v1. It doesn't follow that team games would have any impact when historically in War3 and WoW 2v2 and 3v3 have always had completely separate MMRs and ratings. It wouldn't be fair if I went 99-1 in 2v2 to start matching me against 3000 MMR players in 1v1 from the start because 2v2 says nothing about my solo performance. Of course it would be fair. You didn't get 99-1 by being a bad player. Not that doesn't mean you will be an amazing 1v1 player either, but there's a far better chance of that being true than there is of you being absolutely terrible. Makes more sense to start you near the top and if you suck you will fall down than it does to start you off playing bronze players where you can smash the casual player base into dust until you work your way up.
I'm still not convinced. It would produce inaccurate results at best. If I know I'm a Diamond-caliber player but I played on a Bronze 2v2 and Bronze 3v3 team, why should I get paired against Bronze players during 1v1 placements? It's completely likely that I just had bad teammates and just serves to skew the results. If I start out against a Bronze player in 1v1 placements, even if I go 5-0 I probably won't end up in Platinum, or even Gold necessarily. It's poor design to have brackets influence each other, even as a starting point, and Blizzard made the correct decision to isolate brackets in War3 and WoW.
|
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.
Yes, this is what they said. Your points are relative to the people in your division, NOT your league.
edit: this is the whole reason the division system is bad.
|
On August 12 2010 02:40 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 02:31 Shadowed wrote:On August 12 2010 01:59 Excalibur_Z 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. Yeah you're right. Their ranking has to be based on MMR (because it's clearly not points), but may be influenced by ladder activity as well (they mentioned that has an impact, but to what degree we're not sure). Points need to be the sole ranking factor, or at least something else that's equally transparent. Lists like this one only serve to create confusion. My guess would be that this linear ranking is one that uses MMR - sigma*3, but then that wouldn't explain the 7-1 guy at the bottom whose sigma would probably be enormous (unless sigma rapidly changes after each match, far more than we estimated). Points are also absolutely comparable across divisions because the players all share competition, for those who are saying they aren't. Well I'm glad someone pointed that out. But I doubt that InSTinK is on the list cause of his platinum team, they said it's listing people across brackets so in all likely hood it's the 2v2 diamond team he's on: http://sc2ranks.com/team/131796The mistake people keep making is they are looking at divisions as anything except a wrapper around your rank. It's the equivalent to taking say, diamonds of varying qualities and putting them into separate boxes based on quality. You haven't made any of the diamonds more or less valuable, you just isolated them from the rest. The only part that could make points an inaccurate measure is the bonus pool not being totaled up consistently across leagues/players. While that would do well to explain it, it doesn't make sense. Bashiok said yesterday that the rankings are based off 1v1. It doesn't follow that team games would have any impact when historically in War3 and WoW 2v2 and 3v3 have always had completely separate MMRs and ratings. It wouldn't be fair if I went 99-1 in 2v2 to start matching me against 3000 MMR players in 1v1 from the start because 2v2 says nothing about my solo performance.
Hrm I could swear I read him saying it was across brackets, but going back and rereading comments you're right, it's showing only 1v1. That makes even less sense then.
|
On August 12 2010 02:30 Azile wrote:
This is so deja vu of exactly the reaction when the new MMR system was released in WoW. Everyone has an idea of how it 'should' work and then when it doesn't work that way they get all pissy instead of focusing on how it actually works.
Ignore your points, ignore your league, ignore your division. None of it means anything, it's all there for casuals to give them the sense of progression, the never-ending carrot on the stick that worked so successfully for them in WoW.
For competitive players, MMR is all that matters. You can tell exactly where you stand by who you are facing. You might be in platinum, but you just queued up and at the loading screen your opponent is HuK.. you are obviously way behind your MMR and the system is still catching you up. This is the exact same way as WoW when you start a new arena team you start at 0 rating but your MMR might be 2900.. because the system knows you are a pro, you will start your first game off playing against the top players in the world instead of playing 100 games smashing newbies until the dirt until you get where you should be.
I'd put my yearly salary on that 7-1 guy playing top players for all 8 of those games. The system saw his 2v2 league, his 3v3 league, etc and saw he was a very good player. He didn't go 5-0 in placement by stomping bronze leaguers. He lost to IdrA chances are all of his wins were against top diamond players as well. Now if he had went 1-7 instead of 7-1 his MMR would drop like a rock and he'd end up where he needs to be.
The system works, give it time.. the game just came out 2 weeks ago. That's a little fact a lot of people seem to be ignoring, any ranking system of any type will get more accurate the more time goes by.
in 1 year from now what's to stop a guy with 10 games from being in the top 200 by having played only vs top 10 players?
even in sc, not just chess, there is such a thing as variance, tilt, being off your game, getting unlucky, etc. the current matchmaking system doesn't seem to account for that when someone with so few wins can be ranked so highly
|
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.
I don't know where you get this idea, but simply comparing scores across divisions doesn't work because of bonus points.
Players in a new division formed today will have accrued fewer bonus points total over their playtime than players in a division formed a month ago. Older divisions will always have scores that are higher by the difference in bonus points accrued between the formation of the earlier division and the later.
Now, it is probably possible to correct for this, but even so, it's impossible to say whether the ladder point values include inflationary trends that aren't exactly analogous to the underlying skill ratings Blizzard uses for matching.
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 12 2010 03:12 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +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. I don't know where you get this idea, but simply comparing scores across divisions doesn't work because of bonus points. Players in a new division formed today will have accrued fewer bonus points total over their playtime than players in a division formed a month ago. Older divisions will always have scores that are higher by the difference in bonus points accrued between the formation of the earlier division and the later. Now, it is probably possible to correct for this, but even so, it's impossible to say whether the ladder point values include inflationary trends that aren't exactly analogous to the underlying skill ratings Blizzard uses for matching.
That's wrong. We verified yesterday that Bonus Pool accrues from the start of the ladder season and not division creation date. I had two 3v3 teams, one that joined a division on 8/2 (0 games played post-placement) and another that joined a division on 8/9 (0 games won post-placement so no bonus pool consumed), and both had the same amount of Bonus Pool.
Side note: the Bonus Pool seems to accrue at a rate of 1 per 2 hours.
|
On August 12 2010 02:40 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 02:31 Shadowed wrote:On August 12 2010 01:59 Excalibur_Z 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. Yeah you're right. Their ranking has to be based on MMR (because it's clearly not points), but may be influenced by ladder activity as well (they mentioned that has an impact, but to what degree we're not sure). Points need to be the sole ranking factor, or at least something else that's equally transparent. Lists like this one only serve to create confusion. My guess would be that this linear ranking is one that uses MMR - sigma*3, but then that wouldn't explain the 7-1 guy at the bottom whose sigma would probably be enormous (unless sigma rapidly changes after each match, far more than we estimated). Points are also absolutely comparable across divisions because the players all share competition, for those who are saying they aren't. Well I'm glad someone pointed that out. But I doubt that InSTinK is on the list cause of his platinum team, they said it's listing people across brackets so in all likely hood it's the 2v2 diamond team he's on: http://sc2ranks.com/team/131796The mistake people keep making is they are looking at divisions as anything except a wrapper around your rank. It's the equivalent to taking say, diamonds of varying qualities and putting them into separate boxes based on quality. You haven't made any of the diamonds more or less valuable, you just isolated them from the rest. The only part that could make points an inaccurate measure is the bonus pool not being totaled up consistently across leagues/players. While that would do well to explain it, it doesn't make sense. Bashiok said yesterday that the rankings are based off 1v1. It doesn't follow that team games would have any impact when historically in War3 and WoW 2v2 and 3v3 have always had completely separate MMRs and ratings. It wouldn't be fair if I went 99-1 in 2v2 to start matching me against 3000 MMR players in 1v1 from the start because 2v2 says nothing about my solo performance.
from waht i got by talking to good wow arena players, who might of course be very well retarded, MMR from one arena brackets translates into another.
|
On August 12 2010 03:12 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +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. I don't know where you get this idea, but simply comparing scores across divisions doesn't work because of bonus points. Players in a new division formed today will have accrued fewer bonus points total over their playtime than players in a division formed a month ago. Older divisions will always have scores that are higher by the difference in bonus points accrued between the formation of the earlier division and the later. Now, it is probably possible to correct for this, but even so, it's impossible to say whether the ladder point values include inflationary trends that aren't exactly analogous to the underlying skill ratings Blizzard uses for matching.
Bonus pool points are higher in new divisions. Furthermore, Bonus pool is an effective way of decreasing the relative scores of players who no longer play, it has nothing to do with bonuses for going away, vacation bonuses, etc. If you stop playing, you accrue points, while players that play just get them added to their rank.
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 12 2010 03:22 Sfydjklm wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 02:40 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 12 2010 02:31 Shadowed wrote:On August 12 2010 01:59 Excalibur_Z 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. Yeah you're right. Their ranking has to be based on MMR (because it's clearly not points), but may be influenced by ladder activity as well (they mentioned that has an impact, but to what degree we're not sure). Points need to be the sole ranking factor, or at least something else that's equally transparent. Lists like this one only serve to create confusion. My guess would be that this linear ranking is one that uses MMR - sigma*3, but then that wouldn't explain the 7-1 guy at the bottom whose sigma would probably be enormous (unless sigma rapidly changes after each match, far more than we estimated). Points are also absolutely comparable across divisions because the players all share competition, for those who are saying they aren't. Well I'm glad someone pointed that out. But I doubt that InSTinK is on the list cause of his platinum team, they said it's listing people across brackets so in all likely hood it's the 2v2 diamond team he's on: http://sc2ranks.com/team/131796The mistake people keep making is they are looking at divisions as anything except a wrapper around your rank. It's the equivalent to taking say, diamonds of varying qualities and putting them into separate boxes based on quality. You haven't made any of the diamonds more or less valuable, you just isolated them from the rest. The only part that could make points an inaccurate measure is the bonus pool not being totaled up consistently across leagues/players. While that would do well to explain it, it doesn't make sense. Bashiok said yesterday that the rankings are based off 1v1. It doesn't follow that team games would have any impact when historically in War3 and WoW 2v2 and 3v3 have always had completely separate MMRs and ratings. It wouldn't be fair if I went 99-1 in 2v2 to start matching me against 3000 MMR players in 1v1 from the start because 2v2 says nothing about my solo performance. from waht i got by talking to good wow arena players, who might of course be very well retarded, MMR from one arena brackets translates into another.
I can't find any evidence of this. Maybe they're confusing different brackets with different teams? If you leave one 3v3 team then join another one your MMR is still the same.
|
Bonus pool points are higher in new divisions.
Do you have evidence for this?
Edit: I haven't looked recently, but in beta I looked at a number of divisions and it was clear that newer divisions had lower high, low, and median point totals than older ones, and the difference appeared pretty much linear with time. If that's not true today, I'd be surprised, but I haven't repeated the effort to do the comparison yet.
Edit #2: Just poked around a bit to try to collect some numbers on this to write up here, but while there's plenty of variation there's no clear trend. A couple of weeks probably just isn't enough time to start seeing these differences clearly compared to natural variations in player skill across divisions.
Edit #3: Should point out to the OP of the post I quoted that I understand and agree with their description of the purpose of bonus points, but have not seen evidence that they're balanced across divisions. I did just read the post by the guy who said he'd inferred that they are, and I'll take that at face value for now. This may have changed since beta, and the details aren't being spelled out by Blizzard so we're left to try to infer it, so I could well be wrong.
|
On August 12 2010 02:28 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 02:17 Arcalious wrote:
There is no good way to really determine a players true skill level using ladder points for various reasons already mentioned. All these rankings are more or less for entertainment purposes and you can't read too much into it.
At http//:ps.sc2pf.com I added an additional sorting method. MScore (modified) is an experimental sorting option that uses a combination of points, win percentage and server to rank the players. While not a perfect way to rank players, it does give a different view and seems to do a better job of ranking players IMO then just using points. Once again, this is just a reflection on how well a player has done in ladder games and not true skill level.
This is from Tues data.
Notable changes. dayvie is dropped out of the top 10, Idra is put back into the top 10.
Sort by MScore (modified)
1 IdrA.US
2 HuK.US
3 roxkisBratOK.EU
4 KiWiKaKi.US
5 ClouD.EU
6 qxc.US
7 JunwiPrime.KR
8 oGsEnsnare.KR
9 TTOne.US
10 KilluaPrime.KR
Sort by Points.
1 HuK.US
2 TTOne.US
3 dayvie.US
4 roxkisBratOK.EU
5 요츠바랑.KR
6 ClouD.EU
7 mTwDIMAGA.EU
8 KiWiKaKi.US
9 JunwiPrime.KR
10 ajtls.US How can you rank people across regions? Doesn't seem like a very good idea. Yeah, it just means HuK,IdrA,qxc own harder the NA server than Ensnare,Cool,NEXGenius own the Korean server.
|
On August 12 2010 03:11 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 02:30 Azile wrote:
This is so deja vu of exactly the reaction when the new MMR system was released in WoW. Everyone has an idea of how it 'should' work and then when it doesn't work that way they get all pissy instead of focusing on how it actually works.
Ignore your points, ignore your league, ignore your division. None of it means anything, it's all there for casuals to give them the sense of progression, the never-ending carrot on the stick that worked so successfully for them in WoW.
For competitive players, MMR is all that matters. You can tell exactly where you stand by who you are facing. You might be in platinum, but you just queued up and at the loading screen your opponent is HuK.. you are obviously way behind your MMR and the system is still catching you up. This is the exact same way as WoW when you start a new arena team you start at 0 rating but your MMR might be 2900.. because the system knows you are a pro, you will start your first game off playing against the top players in the world instead of playing 100 games smashing newbies until the dirt until you get where you should be.
I'd put my yearly salary on that 7-1 guy playing top players for all 8 of those games. The system saw his 2v2 league, his 3v3 league, etc and saw he was a very good player. He didn't go 5-0 in placement by stomping bronze leaguers. He lost to IdrA chances are all of his wins were against top diamond players as well. Now if he had went 1-7 instead of 7-1 his MMR would drop like a rock and he'd end up where he needs to be.
The system works, give it time.. the game just came out 2 weeks ago. That's a little fact a lot of people seem to be ignoring, any ranking system of any type will get more accurate the more time goes by.
in 1 year from now what's to stop a guy with 10 games from being in the top 200 by having played only vs top 10 players? even in sc, not just chess, there is such a thing as variance, tilt, being off your game, getting unlucky, etc. the current matchmaking system doesn't seem to account for that when someone with so few wins can be ranked so highly
Time. Time will stop it. MMRs of top players will be far higher in a year than they are now, and there will be a greater number of [good] players vying for the top 200 than there are now. These sort of flukes won't be happening.
the current matchmaking system doesn't seem to account for that when someone with so few wins can be ranked so highly
As I said, give it time, the system has had two weeks to evaulate a couple million players the majority of which haven't even played 100 1v1 games.
|
Fair enough, that sounds reasonable. The system doesn't sound that bad when you put it like that, but in my personal opinion I can imagine much more reasonable sounding methods.
assuming what you say is true and everyone's rating will be so much higher that it isnt possible, of course
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
