|
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.
EDIT:
Everyone is missing the point.
It does NOT MATTER HOW THEY CALCULATED THE TOP 200.
What matters is that how they calculated the top 200 on the website is DIFFERENT from how rankings are calculated IN THE GAME.
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
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.
If whatever they used to form some new rating is a better way to rank, then they should stop using points because it's suboptimal, and use this rating instead, because it's more correct.
Last edit: 2010-08-12 14:12:57
|
Do you a link for blizzards top 200?
Ignore, I just saw it on 1st page :D
|
yea i knew something looked kinda of about that
|
On August 11 2010 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
it sounds like someone doesn't understand MMR
|
On August 11 2010 21:22 LonelyMargarita 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. 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.
|
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.
|
My guess is it's a combination of points / games played / win ratios and maybe even toughness of the matches thrown together. Sure they use a simple points ranking to place us in game but I wouldn't put it past them to have a much more efficient way of ranking people that they can see.
|
On August 11 2010 21:34 RoboFerret wrote:
My guess is it's a combination of points / games played / win ratios and maybe even toughness of the matches thrown together. Sure they use a simple points ranking to place us in game but I wouldn't put it past them to have a much more efficient way of ranking people that they can see.
Yes, but my argument is that if points / games played / win ratio, combined to form a new rating is a better way to rank, then they should stop using points because it's suboptimal, and use this rating instead, because it's more correct.
|
On August 11 2010 21:34 RoboFerret wrote:
My guess is it's a combination of points / games played / win ratios and maybe even toughness of the matches thrown together. Sure they use a simple points ranking to place us in game but I wouldn't put it past them to have a much more efficient way of ranking people that they can see.
shouldnt toughness of matches and streaks be part of what determines how many points you get? it's dumb, points you get for winning should be based on the same attributes they're using to rank people in the top 200.
|
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.
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.
|
Its a good argument, but Blizzards done plenty of stupid things revolving BNET2.0 already, why would they start doing smart things now? (lack of chat channels etc etc etc) I completely agree with you though if that helps. :D
|
On August 11 2010 21:40 shawabawa wrote:Show nested quote +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,
|
Sounds like somebodies upset he placed into gold league.....
User was warned for this post
|
If points mean nothing, it's worse than we thought..
|
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
|
On August 11 2010 21:27 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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)
|
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.
|
|
|
On August 11 2010 21:48 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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.
|
Are you guys really missing the extremely huge difference between ladder points (what we see in a player's division) and these top 200 server rankings? Bonus pool, man. I could lose 10 games to lose 100 points, and win 5 to get it all back if I have the bonus pool. Obviously 5-10 is a losing record, but in the ladder divisions it would put me even with whatever I was when I started. Top server rankings totally ignore bonus pool.
|
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.)
|
Right, but we have known since beta that the division rankings aren't a 100% accurate scope, and bonus pool is the reason. Come on, DOUBLE THE POINTS for laying off the game a couple of days? It's very easy to see why division rankings are skewed, and it definitely helps me understand and appreciate the value of Blizz's released top 200 lists.
Slightly off topic here, but DAMN HuK is even in the top 30 in Europe in addition to being #1 North America. =O
|
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?
|
Hell are there a shitton of fucking terrans across this summary
top 20
t: 10
p: 5
z: 5
hilarious
oh wait, THEY'RE JUST BETTER PLAYERS L OL
|
This is all pretty useless conjecture since no one knows how blizzard's internal ranking system works, and they're not likely to release that information. They've never been one to pull the curtain back on their systems, even the MMR system in WoW has never been fully explained.
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?
|
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.
|
Everyone is not inflated in the same way. Some players are more inflated than others because bonus pool has a cap of 200. If I play every single day and burn off my bonus pool, I have earned more inflated points than a person who hits their cap more than once before burning it off.
|
On August 12 2010 00:17 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +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/InSTinK
Edit: For posterity, he is currently 7-1 in 1v1.
|
On August 12 2010 00:23 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Blizzard is obviously not using only points to determined their rankings... sc2ranks is pretty much useless. Until we figure out blizzard's way of calculating things we can never know. Sc2ranks is at best an approximation of your rank.
|
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.
|
On August 12 2010 00:25 JoshSuth wrote:Show nested quote +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
|
On August 11 2010 22:03 Puosu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On August 12 2010 00:30 kajeus wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
huh i'm not up there yet, looks like ill have to take a semester off to get to number one again,a small sacrifice that i am willing to make
|
On August 12 2010 00:32 Takkara wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
It's probably a ranking based on MMR.
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.
|
this doenst make any sense^^
|
On August 11 2010 23:52 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 23:48 Takkara wrote: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.
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.
|
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. :/
|
Hyrule19050 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.
|
On August 12 2010 01:07 Icks wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 00:58 floor exercise wrote: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.
Nah I explained how it happened. if it has no prior information about you it will start you at the lowest skill level, but he had been playing 2v2 at a diamond level, so it started him off at diamond
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
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.
|
On August 12 2010 00:41 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Agreed, despite kespa problems, the format of tournement ELO seems the most legit way to determine this. and ofc some courag-esque tourney wouldnt hurt the "who is viable for ranking" dillemma. Id say take all the top 4 of any fairly large monetary event, and consider them for a pass into the 'league'
Has that 7-1 guy played in some tourny?
|
LOL
7-1 in top 200 and people are DEFENDING IT
ROFLMAO
GOD, UNBELIEVABLE LOL
|
probably includes custom games
|
Who cares, you earn your rep from LAN tournaments. Ladder is merely practice.
|
Battlecraft games should be included in rankings imo
|
On August 12 2010 01:33 travis wrote:
LOL
7-1 in top 200 and people are DEFENDING IT
ROFLMAO
GOD, UNBELIEVABLE LOL
Makes you wonder if blizzard even reviewed the list before releasing it. I don't care if the 7-1 is the best player in the world, there is no way you can know that from 8 games played.
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 11 2010 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On August 12 2010 01:09 tofucake wrote:
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.
Yeah, all those cross-region tourna—
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 12 2010 00:19 JoshSuth wrote:
Everyone is not inflated in the same way. Some players are more inflated than others because bonus pool has a cap of 200. If I play every single day and burn off my bonus pool, I have earned more inflated points than a person who hits their cap more than once before burning it off.
I don't think anyone's reached the Bonus Pool cap yet. Just yesterday I checked my 3v3 team that I started on 8/2 and played only up to placement and the bonus pool was 271.
|
United States12235 Posts
Expanding on MMR - sigma * 3 for a moment to try and explain the #200 guy who went 7-1, let's say he went 7-0 and his MMR jumped to like 2900 with a sigma of about 500. Then he lost to Idra who has an MMR of 3000, and because the result was expected and he hasn't played many games, his sigma dropped dramatically to about 50. His "ranking value" after factoring in MMR and uncertainly would then be 2750 which might be enough to hit top 200. It's still an anomaly, but something like that would explain it.
|
On August 12 2010 02:08 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Expanding on MMR - sigma * 3 for a moment to try and explain the #200 guy who went 7-1, let's say he went 7-0 and his MMR jumped to like 2900 with a sigma of about 500. Then he lost to Idra who has an MMR of 3000, and because the result was expected and he hasn't played many games, his sigma dropped dramatically to about 50. His "ranking value" after factoring in MMR and uncertainly would then be 2750 which might be enough to hit top 200. It's still an anomaly, but something like that would explain it.
Someone who is 7-0 would never get matched up with someone like IdrA.
|
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
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 12 2010 02:13 wuddersup wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 02:08 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Expanding on MMR - sigma * 3 for a moment to try and explain the #200 guy who went 7-1, let's say he went 7-0 and his MMR jumped to like 2900 with a sigma of about 500. Then he lost to Idra who has an MMR of 3000, and because the result was expected and he hasn't played many games, his sigma dropped dramatically to about 50. His "ranking value" after factoring in MMR and uncertainly would then be 2750 which might be enough to hit top 200. It's still an anomaly, but something like that would explain it. Someone who is 7-0 would never get matched up with someone like IdrA.
floor exercise's post on page 4 says that he won against Tozar and lost to Idra.
|
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.
Source? I thought it was agreed that ranks were not equal across all divisions. Points are not exact across all divisions in the same league, but would more or less be a solid indicator of rank in that league. Since you are not pitted against people only from your division but rather matched based on rating (points) in your division, it can be assumed that points would have to be rather equal for this to work.
The bug you're referring to was, indeed, a bug. I'm pretty sure a blue post was made to address that issue.
|
Nerd rage in this thread is off the charts.
|
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.
|
(I clicked on this because Charade is my bnet name. Hahah)
I do not understand why they would rank by a different system than the one they use. :\
|
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.
|
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
|
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.
I think he might be correct, heres some evidence that 2v2 might affect your 1v1 MMR,
I played this guy a while back (I'm diamond with, at the time, about 60 games played)
![[image loading]](http://i927.photobucket.com/albums/ad120/Chriamon/Screenshot2010-08-0212_39_14.jpg)
|
Honestly it doesn't take a genius to show that Blizzard's Top 200 is inaccurate. No matter how someone may defend it - putting players who have played less than 20 games on top of 10,000s of players who have played much more is just stupid.
Someone said in this thread that the inaccuracy was due to the fact that the game has only been out for 2 weeks. I think of the opposite - thanks to that fact that we have extreme cases of ranked players with less than 20 games which are most obvious evidence that the ranking is broken. We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking.
Blizzard really needs to do something now.
|
So sad that in every rank site I 'm 150-170 ranked @ Eu server, but today blizzard disappointed me....
http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/348087
Btw I'm 700 points @ diamond and the last @ top 200 was only 517(well he got high ratio coz we all know that 5-0 placement is izi,and u have huge pool like 250-300,it's so izi to get to 500 points even jump from platim into diamond need 150-200points discount,but anyway 74% ratio is much izier than get a 700+ one...)
|
On August 12 2010 09:29 mrdx wrote:
We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking.
Why?
|
Perhaps they don't factor in points from the bonus pool? There could be other factors too, including calculation of opponent strength, etc.
|
On August 12 2010 09:32 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:29 mrdx wrote:
We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking. Why?
well for example~
if u played only 10 games, u win each game u get a vey high increase on ur % ratio~
but if u plaed 1000, that cost u play 100 games each to get the same ratio...that's why
|
On August 12 2010 09:32 Pyrthas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:29 mrdx wrote:
We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking. Why?
If you read the thread, those who defended Blizzard's top 200 have used unverifiable factors like MMR and such - which are hard to argue against because it's "hidden".
The players with ridiculously small numbers of games played in this first ever 200 ranking list are a clear cut evidence that the ranking is flawed. In a few months' time when everyone has played hundreds of games or more, there won't be such extreme cases, and it will be nearly impossible to verify if the top 200 ranking is correct or not. People will just conveniently throw the big word 'MMR' to shut up everyone who raise any doubt.
|
On August 12 2010 10:13 mrdx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:32 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 09:29 mrdx wrote:
We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking. Why? If you read the thread, those who defended Blizzard's top 200 have used unverifiable factors like MMR and such - which are hard to argue against because it's "hidden". The players with ridiculously small numbers of games played in this first ever 200 ranking list are a clear cut evidence that the ranking is flawed. In a few months' time when everyone has played hundreds of games or more, there won't be such extreme cases, and it will be nearly impossible to verify if the top 200 ranking is correct or not. People will just conveniently throw the big word 'MMR' to shut up everyone who raise any doubt.
Conveniently, MMR is the most likely explanation. Blizzard have always have access to the real MMR numbers, and nobody in their right mind thinks that displayed rating is actually more accurate than MMR rankings.
Small numbers of games don't mean much except that the confidence the system has in the MMR is lower. The only way your argument even makes sense is if skill is only impacted by games played and starts off at the same level for everyone at release.
|
On August 12 2010 10:13 mrdx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:32 Pyrthas wrote:On August 12 2010 09:29 mrdx wrote:
We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking. Why? If you read the thread, those who defended Blizzard's top 200 have used unverifiable factors like MMR and such - which are hard to argue against because it's "hidden". The players with ridiculously small numbers of games played in this first ever 200 ranking list are a clear cut evidence that the ranking is flawed. In a few months' time when everyone has played hundreds of games or more, there won't be such extreme cases, and it will be nearly impossible to verify if the top 200 ranking is correct or not. People will just conveniently throw the big word 'MMR' to shut up everyone who raise any doubt.
Their point has been that the ranking system is designed so that it works pretty well when dealing with people with lots of games, and has some bizarre consequences when dealing with people with only a few games. That is, their point has been that this behavior is expected, and that the system, while imperfect, works well in the long run, after it's been running for a while.
I'm not saying I agree--I honestly don't know enough about the system to say--but testing systems in extreme cases is not always good engineering, especially when there is not much riding on getting absolutely every case perfectly correct. (I don't even know what a perfect ranking system would be--I imagine there's bound to be substantial disagreement there.)
|
InStink is ranked 200th in the US by Blizzard, his rec is 7-1, here's his matchlist record:
1st game: win against Mewtwo 496 point Diamond
2nd game: win against Toosneaky 590 point Diamond
3rd game: win against Drone 580 point Diamond
4th game: win against Mercurio 663 point Diamond
5th game: win against Tozar 791 point Diamond
6th game: win against Hezzerboy 481 point Diamond
7th game: loss against Idra 1009 point Diamond
8th game: win against Foo 720 point Diamond
|
Conveniently, MMR is the most likely explanation. Blizzard have always have access to the real MMR numbers, and nobody in their right mind thinks that displayed rating is actually more accurate than MMR rankings.
I disagree with seeing 'MMR rankings' as a somewhat superior, more accurate ranking system. Assuming that Blizzard is using MMR for the top 200 ranking - a decent player can create a new account to start off from scratch, play only 20 games and have a very good MMR (yet low confidence score) to sneak in. Which is fine - I can't care less about that except if Blizzard uses their top 200 ranking list to invite people to their tournaments and people abuse this to get in.
Personally I trust sc2ranks much more than the official one because it's based on something verifiable 
|
On August 12 2010 10:37 mrdx wrote:Show nested quote +Conveniently, MMR is the most likely explanation. Blizzard have always have access to the real MMR numbers, and nobody in their right mind thinks that displayed rating is actually more accurate than MMR rankings. I disagree with seeing 'MMR rankings' as a somewhat superior, more accurate ranking system. Assuming that Blizzard is using MMR for the top 200 ranking - a decent player can create a new account to start off from scratch, play only 20 games and have a very good MMR (yet low confidence score) to sneak in. Which is fine - I can't care less about that except if Blizzard uses their top 200 ranking list to invite people to their tournaments and people abuse this to get in. Personally I trust sc2ranks much more than the official one because it's based on something verifiable
A simple fix for Blizzard would be to limit the list to only those with more than 50 or 100 games.
|
On August 12 2010 10:37 mrdx wrote:Personally I trust sc2ranks much more than the official one because it's based on something verifiable
Only in the sense that we can check the points. What is up for discussion is whether the points are actually a reliable way, or a better way than MMR or whatever, to compare players, especially across divisions. Verifiability is only valuable if what we're verifying is actually important.
|
On August 11 2010 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:
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.
So much wrong that I dont know where to start
1.) The ladder is a ladder. It is based on points. NO WHERE did it say "oh look here, rank 1 is most skilled and rank 100 is the least skilled". It is incredibly obvious that the ladder is based on points and points alone. Your just be very ignorant and ASSUMING that rank = skill.
2.) What do you consider to be the "optimal way" to rank players? How can we truley realize the skill of a player? We can't. Points seem fine. You people just take it way to seriously. If you really want to prove yourself, GO TO TOURNAMENTS, ladder means nothing.
|
On August 12 2010 09:29 mrdx wrote:
Honestly it doesn't take a genius to show that Blizzard's Top 200 is inaccurate. No matter how someone may defend it - putting players who have played less than 20 games on top of 10,000s of players who have played much more is just stupid.
Someone said in this thread that the inaccuracy was due to the fact that the game has only been out for 2 weeks. I think of the opposite - thanks to that fact that we have extreme cases of ranked players with less than 20 games which are most obvious evidence that the ranking is broken. We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking.
Blizzard really needs to do something now.
right and you know the formula of how these results were derived?
uh huh so shut it.
|
On August 12 2010 10:37 mrdx wrote:Show nested quote +Conveniently, MMR is the most likely explanation. Blizzard have always have access to the real MMR numbers, and nobody in their right mind thinks that displayed rating is actually more accurate than MMR rankings. I disagree with seeing 'MMR rankings' as a somewhat superior, more accurate ranking system. Assuming that Blizzard is using MMR for the top 200 ranking - a decent player can create a new account to start off from scratch, play only 20 games and have a very good MMR (yet low confidence score) to sneak in. Which is fine - I can't care less about that except if Blizzard uses their top 200 ranking list to invite people to their tournaments and people abuse this to get in. Personally I trust sc2ranks much more than the official one because it's based on something verifiable
You just said that the player is decent.
You cant break the top 200 in MMR without playing at the very least the top 400, and if you beat players from 200-400 100% of the time you probably are top 200.
It doesn't mean anything that sc2ranks is verifiable, its based on something that explicitly is not supposed to accurately represent a player's skill level.
|
You cannot compare cross divisions using points. You can only compare using match making rating. Only Blizzard knows the match making rating so only Blizzard can give us an accurate global ranking of the top players. So yes, in summary, ranking sites that use points are wrong and do not rank based on player skill but instead on an arbitrary value that is only weakly linked to skill.
|
On August 12 2010 10:33 Dionyseus wrote:
InStink is ranked 200th in the US by Blizzard, his rec is 7-1, here's his matchlist record:
1st game: win against Mewtwo 496 point Diamond
2nd game: win against Toosneaky 590 point Diamond
3rd game: win against Drone 580 point Diamond
4th game: win against Mercurio 663 point Diamond
5th game: win against Tozar 791 point Diamond
6th game: win against Hezzerboy 481 point Diamond
7th game: loss against Idra 1009 point Diamond
8th game: win against Foo 720 point Diamond
Although he haven't played a lot of games yet, those 8 opponents are quality opponents. So I can see why he's ranked so high on Blizzard's own rankings.
|
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.
It's pretty clear you don't. The difference between the top 200 and sc2ranks is pretty minimal. They will likely start looking alike over time though as people settle into their ranks assuming no one improves or gets worse skillwise.
|
Its obvious to anyone (I hope) that the bonus pool alone makes displayed rating an inaccurate skill metric.
I could have told you that in beta, without waiting for Blizzard to show anything.
|
On August 12 2010 10:33 Dionyseus wrote:
InStink is ranked 200th in the US by Blizzard, his rec is 7-1, here's his matchlist record:
1st game: win against Mewtwo 496 point Diamond
2nd game: win against Toosneaky 590 point Diamond
3rd game: win against Drone 580 point Diamond
4th game: win against Mercurio 663 point Diamond
5th game: win against Tozar 791 point Diamond
6th game: win against Hezzerboy 481 point Diamond
7th game: loss against Idra 1009 point Diamond
8th game: win against Foo 720 point Diamond
what i wanna know is why this guy played against 5 diamonds in his placements
|
In the end of the rankings, it says:
'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.'
I don't know how advanced the rankings are, but not based upon only ratings at least.
|
On August 12 2010 10:47 virgozero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 09:29 mrdx wrote:
Honestly it doesn't take a genius to show that Blizzard's Top 200 is inaccurate. No matter how someone may defend it - putting players who have played less than 20 games on top of 10,000s of players who have played much more is just stupid.
Someone said in this thread that the inaccuracy was due to the fact that the game has only been out for 2 weeks. I think of the opposite - thanks to that fact that we have extreme cases of ranked players with less than 20 games which are most obvious evidence that the ranking is broken. We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking.
Blizzard really needs to do something now.
right and you know the formula of how these results were derived? uh huh so shut it.
You are missing the point. No one knows how the ranking was calculated. As many have pointed out, there were some questionable cases which made me doubt the reliability of the entire ranking.
#183 Nadagast (US) is not even in diamond.
#200 iMHerBz (SEA) has played only 15 games
|
On August 12 2010 11:06 roymarthyup wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 10:33 Dionyseus wrote:
InStink is ranked 200th in the US by Blizzard, his rec is 7-1, here's his matchlist record:
1st game: win against Mewtwo 496 point Diamond
2nd game: win against Toosneaky 590 point Diamond
3rd game: win against Drone 580 point Diamond
4th game: win against Mercurio 663 point Diamond
5th game: win against Tozar 791 point Diamond
6th game: win against Hezzerboy 481 point Diamond
7th game: loss against Idra 1009 point Diamond
8th game: win against Foo 720 point Diamond what i wanna know is why this guy played against 5 diamonds in his placements
He skipped the practice league so I think the system randomly chooses a gold, platinum, or diamond player as first opponent.
|
Many people skip the practice league... It's definitely not normal to be playing the top 1% of players on your first game and then Idra on your 7th game.
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 12 2010 04:17 Chriamon 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. I think he might be correct, heres some evidence that 2v2 might affect your 1v1 MMR, I played this guy a while back (I'm diamond with, at the time, about 60 games played)
That's pretty interesting. Maybe your MMR for placement matches really does adjust based on your other brackets. Surprising.
Based on that image as well as the game history of the 7-1 guy, though, that's some pretty strong evidence.
|
Based on the language used in their "Top 200" post, I believe they may have taken the rating of the player and then added a multiplier based on the total rating of his division, so that players in divisions with less points total (the sum of all players in the division) have a higher relative ranking.
If I'm rated 500 in a division with 25000 points total, and you're 1000 in one with 50000, maybe we'd be ranked the same.
Or it's just based on MMR. Maybe there are other factors as well, considering some of the other posts in this thread.
Either way, I think they should make the whole system more transparent.
|
On August 12 2010 11:02 kzn wrote:
Its obvious to anyone (I hope) that the bonus pool alone makes displayed rating an inaccurate skill metric.
I could have told you that in beta, without waiting for Blizzard to show anything.
except people are dumb and tend to think they can decipher the mechanics and become a genius on the TL forums.
|
On August 12 2010 11:02 kzn wrote:
Its obvious to anyone (I hope) that the bonus pool alone makes displayed rating an inaccurate skill metric.
I could have told you that in beta, without waiting for Blizzard to show anything.
The entire ladder is inaccurate, but it's the best we've got so that's why we use it.
|
There are SEA players in that list. I wonder how they calculate where to put them on that list...
one thing is for sure. This list is a lot more legit than the actual ratings.
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 12 2010 11:07 mrdx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 10:47 virgozero wrote:On August 12 2010 09:29 mrdx wrote:
Honestly it doesn't take a genius to show that Blizzard's Top 200 is inaccurate. No matter how someone may defend it - putting players who have played less than 20 games on top of 10,000s of players who have played much more is just stupid.
Someone said in this thread that the inaccuracy was due to the fact that the game has only been out for 2 weeks. I think of the opposite - thanks to that fact that we have extreme cases of ranked players with less than 20 games which are most obvious evidence that the ranking is broken. We won't have this chance again because when everyone has hundred of games in their history, it will be harder to validate the ranking.
Blizzard really needs to do something now.
right and you know the formula of how these results were derived? uh huh so shut it. You are missing the point. No one knows how the ranking was calculated. As many have pointed out, there were some questionable cases which made me doubt the reliability of the entire ranking. Show nested quote +#183 Nadagast (US) is not even in diamond.
#200 iMHerBz (SEA) has played only 15 games
The rankings start to make sense when you start thinking in terms of MMR and confidence values.
|
On August 12 2010 12:03 Backpack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 11:02 kzn wrote:
Its obvious to anyone (I hope) that the bonus pool alone makes displayed rating an inaccurate skill metric.
I could have told you that in beta, without waiting for Blizzard to show anything. The entire ladder is inaccurate, but it's the best we've got so that's why we use it.
The point of this thread is bitching about the discrepancies between what we have and what Blizzard has, and it somehow turned into an argument about which is more accurate, which is retarded.
Blizzard's is more accurate until conclusively proven otherwise.
|
I think Blizzard never says rating is the factor to determine top rankings.
So the site such as sc2ranking is not accurate.
|
Everyone is missing the point.
It does NOT MATTER HOW THEY CALCULATED THE TOP 200.
What matters is that how they calculated the top 200 on the website is DIFFERENT from how rankings are calculated IN THE GAME.
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
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.
If whatever they used to form some new rating is a better way to rank, then they should stop using points because it's suboptimal, and use this rating instead, because it's more correct.
|
On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
This only holds because we're competitive players, concerned with ranking ourselves against everyone else.
For casuals, it most definitely shouldn't be fixed.
|
On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Everyone is missing the point.
It does NOT MATTER HOW THEY CALCULATED THE TOP 200.
What matters is that how they calculated the top 200 on the website is DIFFERENT from how rankings are calculated IN THE GAME.
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
AND YOU DONT SEEM TO (lol caps) understand that the RANKINGS ARE NOT WRONG.
The rankings are based on points, whoever has more points = HIGHER RANK.
Your just being an ignorant fool thinking that the ranks will tell you who is the best gamer.
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.
There is no right or wrong method.
If they want to list the top 200 players of NA server they will do so with a formula derived specifically for that.
If they want to list the top players in accordance with their points earned they will do so with a formula for exclusively.
|
On August 12 2010 14:17 virgozero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Everyone is missing the point.
It does NOT MATTER HOW THEY CALCULATED THE TOP 200.
What matters is that how they calculated the top 200 on the website is DIFFERENT from how rankings are calculated IN THE GAME.
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
AND YOU DONT SEEM TO (lol caps) understand that the RANKINGS ARE NOT WRONG. The rankings are based on points, whoever has more points = HIGHER RANK. Your just being an ignorant fool thinking that the ranks will tell you who is the best gamer.
The ranks are not based on points,
Only the in-game ranks are based on points. But the in game ranks are not right, the online ranks are right.
Show nested quote +
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.
There is no right or wrong method. If they want to list the top 200 players of NA server they will do so with a formula derived specifically for that. If they want to list the top players in accordance with their points earned they will do so with a formula for exclusively.
And which method is more correct? Is Dayvie rank 3 or rank 49?
|
The OP is borderline ridiculous.
Here are the facts:
Blizzard uses the in game point system to rank players within a division
Blizzard [evidently] uses a different [unknown] system to rank players across divisions
.
There is no further conclusions to make without knowing how the cross-division ranking system works.
|
On August 12 2010 14:16 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed. This only holds because we're competitive players, concerned with ranking ourselves against everyone else. For casuals, it most definitely shouldn't be fixed.
Then points should converge to whatever rating is used to derive the top 200.
So that ranks based on points are correct, after enough games are played.
And so that there's 1 correct, official ladder, not 2 ladders, of which 1 is right, and the other is wrong.
|
On August 12 2010 14:38 Techno wrote:
The OP is borderline ridiculous.
Here are the facts:
Blizzard uses the in game point system to rank players within a division
Blizzard [evidently] uses a different [unknown] system to rank players across divisions
.
There is no further conclusions to make without knowing how the cross-division ranking system works.
EU top 200:
In division Tal’darim Theta:
LiquidTLO is ranked higher than LiquidJinro
In top 200:
LiquidJinro is WAY higher ranked then LiquidTLO
So you're not right.
Further, there is no reason why points are not directly comparable across divisions because divisions do not affect how you are match, nor how you get points.
|
United States47024 Posts
On August 12 2010 11:06 roymarthyup wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 10:33 Dionyseus wrote:
InStink is ranked 200th in the US by Blizzard, his rec is 7-1, here's his matchlist record:
1st game: win against Mewtwo 496 point Diamond
2nd game: win against Toosneaky 590 point Diamond
3rd game: win against Drone 580 point Diamond
4th game: win against Mercurio 663 point Diamond
5th game: win against Tozar 791 point Diamond
6th game: win against Hezzerboy 481 point Diamond
7th game: loss against Idra 1009 point Diamond
8th game: win against Foo 720 point Diamond what i wanna know is why this guy played against 5 diamonds in his placements
Its possible that Mewtwo was still in placements as well at the time, and when he was actually placed, it affected InStink's placement accordingly.
|
who cares <: if u wanna compete, play tournaments.... or is it any satisfaction being #1 in a ladder which doesnt mean shit?
|
On August 12 2010 15:02 {ToT}ColmA wrote:
who cares <: if u wanna compete, play tournaments.... or is it any satisfaction being #1 in a ladder which doesnt mean shit?
That's the problem.
|
maybe we can look at sc2ranks as Kespa ranking, and this top 200 thing as Power Rankings.
sc2ranks and Kespa rankings are based on numbers, while power ranking usually includes various other factors that might influence a player's rank.
|
On August 12 2010 15:52 nextstep wrote:
maybe we can look at sc2ranks as Kespa ranking, and this top 200 thing as Power Rankings.
sc2ranks and Kespa rankings are based on numbers, while power ranking usually includes various other factors that might influence a player's rank.
Or maybe there should only be a single, official and correct ladder rank, since both are Blizzard's ranks.
The problem with 2 different ranks is that they can't both be right.
|
On August 12 2010 14:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 14:17 virgozero wrote:On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Everyone is missing the point.
It does NOT MATTER HOW THEY CALCULATED THE TOP 200.
What matters is that how they calculated the top 200 on the website is DIFFERENT from how rankings are calculated IN THE GAME.
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
AND YOU DONT SEEM TO (lol caps) understand that the RANKINGS ARE NOT WRONG. The rankings are based on points, whoever has more points = HIGHER RANK. Your just being an ignorant fool thinking that the ranks will tell you who is the best gamer. The ranks are not based on points, Only the in-game ranks are based on points. But the in game ranks are not right, the online ranks are right.
okay I seriously cannot make this any simpler.
the in game ranks represents points
the top200 list represents top200 of na server (in terms of unspecified variables)
GET IT??????? read that 2x
They both MEAN different stuff. Your assuming they MEAN the same and they don't.
|
On August 12 2010 15:59 virgozero wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 14:38 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 12 2010 14:17 virgozero wrote:On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Everyone is missing the point.
It does NOT MATTER HOW THEY CALCULATED THE TOP 200.
What matters is that how they calculated the top 200 on the website is DIFFERENT from how rankings are calculated IN THE GAME.
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
AND YOU DONT SEEM TO (lol caps) understand that the RANKINGS ARE NOT WRONG. The rankings are based on points, whoever has more points = HIGHER RANK. Your just being an ignorant fool thinking that the ranks will tell you who is the best gamer. The ranks are not based on points, Only the in-game ranks are based on points. But the in game ranks are not right, the online ranks are right. okay I seriously cannot make this any simpler. the in game ranks represents points the top200 list represents top200 of na server (in terms of unspecified variables) GET IT??????? read that 2x They both MEAN different stuff. Your assuming they MEAN the same and they don't.
No, I'm saying they should represent the same thing: the best estimate of who is the better player.
If the top 200 represents the top 200, but the in game ranks don't, then the in-game ranks should be changed so that they are capable of ranking who is the better player
If the points used to rank in the game are suboptimal in actually ranking who the better players are, then the ladder is a charade, and it needs to be changed to the website ranks because they correctly rank players.
|
On August 12 2010 14:40 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 14:16 kzn wrote:On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed. This only holds because we're competitive players, concerned with ranking ourselves against everyone else. For casuals, it most definitely shouldn't be fixed. Then points should converge to whatever rating is used to derive the top 200. So that ranks based on points are correct, after enough games are played. And so that there's 1 correct, official ladder, not 2 ladders, of which 1 is right, and the other is wrong.
Well done, you repeated your conclusion without offering any further argument in support of it.
Again:
No, it shouldn't, with regards to casuals.
|
On August 12 2010 16:36 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 14:40 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 12 2010 14:16 kzn wrote:On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed. This only holds because we're competitive players, concerned with ranking ourselves against everyone else. For casuals, it most definitely shouldn't be fixed. Then points should converge to whatever rating is used to derive the top 200. So that ranks based on points are correct, after enough games are played. And so that there's 1 correct, official ladder, not 2 ladders, of which 1 is right, and the other is wrong. Well done, you repeated your conclusion without offering any further argument in support of it. Again: No, it shouldn't, with regards to casuals.
I don't see how this would ostracize casuals.
|
Because casuals need a reason to come back and play again, a reason beyond "I want to improve", and the bonus pool provides that reason.
Bonus pools are mutually exclusive with a rating that is an accurate metric of skill.
|
On August 12 2010 16:41 kzn wrote:
Because casuals need a reason to come back and play again, a reason beyond "I want to improve", and the bonus pool provides that reason.
Bonus pools are mutually exclusive with a rating that is an accurate metric of skill.
I don't see how my suggestion is mutually exclusive with the bonus pool.
It is trivial to incorporate the bonus pool into points, it would be trivial to incorporate the bonus pool with this new rating.
|
On August 12 2010 16:44 paralleluniverse wrote:
I don't see how my suggestion is mutually exclusive with the bonus pool.
It is trivial to incorporate the bonus pool into points, it would be trivial to incorporate the bonus pool with this new rating.
The very idea of a bonus pool is mutually exclusive with ratings "converging" to any point (except, technically, infinity). The only way it wouldn't be is if the bonus pool also applied to rating losses, which would defeat the casual-baiting point of the bonus pool in the first place.
|
On August 12 2010 16:47 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 16:44 paralleluniverse wrote:
I don't see how my suggestion is mutually exclusive with the bonus pool.
It is trivial to incorporate the bonus pool into points, it would be trivial to incorporate the bonus pool with this new rating. The very idea of a bonus pool is mutually exclusive with ratings "converging" to any point (except, technically, infinity). The only way it wouldn't be is if the bonus pool also applied to rating losses, which would defeat the casual-baiting point of the bonus pool in the first place.
Let r be the rating that is used in the ranking of the top 200.
Suppose the total bonus pool, P accrued by the d-th day after the start of the ladder season is given by: P(d) = 100 + 12d.
Then on the i-th day since the start of the ladder season, your points should converge to r + 100 + 12i.
Trivial.
This is probably how the ladder already works just with r replaced by MMR.
This type of setup would ensure that points in game will continue to inflate endlessly with the bonus pool, yet the ranks based on points would be consistent with the correct method used to rank the top 200.
|
On August 12 2010 16:53 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 16:47 kzn wrote:On August 12 2010 16:44 paralleluniverse wrote:
I don't see how my suggestion is mutually exclusive with the bonus pool.
It is trivial to incorporate the bonus pool into points, it would be trivial to incorporate the bonus pool with this new rating. The very idea of a bonus pool is mutually exclusive with ratings "converging" to any point (except, technically, infinity). The only way it wouldn't be is if the bonus pool also applied to rating losses, which would defeat the casual-baiting point of the bonus pool in the first place. Let r be the rating that is used in the ranking of the top 200. Suppose the total bonus pool, P accrued by the d-th day after the start of the ladder season is given by: P(d) = 100 + 12d. Then on the i-th day since the start of the ladder season, your points should converge to r + 100 + 12i. Trivial.
Yes, so over time ratings are converging to an infinite value. So the value of a given point of displayed rating falls over time (which is really precisely whats going on anyway).
And this assumes that bonus pools aren't abusable, which is false.
Someone who plays 3 games a day is going to see a much more significant boost from bonus pools than someone who plays 300 games a day, regardless of the skill levels of the two players.
|
On August 12 2010 16:56 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2010 16:53 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 12 2010 16:47 kzn wrote:On August 12 2010 16:44 paralleluniverse wrote:
I don't see how my suggestion is mutually exclusive with the bonus pool.
It is trivial to incorporate the bonus pool into points, it would be trivial to incorporate the bonus pool with this new rating. The very idea of a bonus pool is mutually exclusive with ratings "converging" to any point (except, technically, infinity). The only way it wouldn't be is if the bonus pool also applied to rating losses, which would defeat the casual-baiting point of the bonus pool in the first place. Let r be the rating that is used in the ranking of the top 200. Suppose the total bonus pool, P accrued by the d-th day after the start of the ladder season is given by: P(d) = 100 + 12d. Then on the i-th day since the start of the ladder season, your points should converge to r + 100 + 12i. Trivial. Yes, so over time ratings are converging to an infinite value. So the value of a given point of displayed rating falls over time (which is really precisely whats going on anyway).
So what?
The absolute value doesn't matter for the purpose of ranking,
And this assumes that bonus pools aren't abusable, which is false.
Someone who plays 3 games a day is going to see a much more significant boost from bonus pools than someone who plays 300 games a day, regardless of the skill levels of the two players.
If the bonus pool is abusable go make a post about it.
This has nothing to do with whether the bonus pool is abusable. It has to do with 2 inconsistent methods attempting to do the same thing.
Your example doesn't show anything. Everyone gets the same bonus pool. Suppose that both players get 12 bonus pool.
Then the player who plays 300 games will see, on average, the following change in rating: +24 - 12 + 12 - 12 + 12 - 12 + .... - 12 = 12.
The player who plays 4 games will, on average see the following change in rating: + 24 - 12 + 12 - 12 = 12.
EDIT:
Completely off-topic: The bonus pool is NOT a psychological "bonus" that makes casuals feel better. It's because of the bonus pool that your rank DECREASES every time you log in.
Therefore, the bonus pool is as much a penalty as it is a reward.
|
There isn't any ladder system that will perfectly rank the players according to their actual skill level and the points system is merely one method that gives a general roughness of who is better than another. The way Blizzard made the top 200 list obviously takes into account points and rank, but also probably factors in things like win ratio and who you have beaten. There isn't a way to accurately represent this on the ladder because people who play more will obviously have more points. Everyone already knows that more points does not definitively equal more skill, but is only a general indicator of skill level.
The Blizzard ranking was probably done in the current state of things, meaning AFTER the players had already played all their games. THEN, they made the top 200 list. You obviously can't replicate this in a ladder system. It is like asking why the Power Rank doesn't match up with the players ELO every time or the Kespa rankings. It's just different arbitrary systems all trying to accomplish the same thing.
|
On August 12 2010 17:33 jiabung wrote:
There isn't any ladder system that will perfectly rank the players according to their actual skill level and the points system is merely one method that gives a general roughness of who is better than another. The way Blizzard made the top 200 list obviously takes into account points and rank, but also probably factors in things like win ratio and who you have beaten. There isn't a way to accurately represent this on the ladder because people who play more will obviously have more points. Everyone already knows that more points does not definitively equal more skill, but is only a general indicator of skill level.
The Blizzard ranking was probably done in the current state of things, meaning AFTER the players had already played all their games. THEN, they made the top 200 list. You obviously can't replicate this in a ladder system. It is like asking why the Power Rank doesn't match up with the players ELO every time or the Kespa rankings. It's just different arbitrary systems all trying to accomplish the same thing.
It's already been shown that at the top of the ladder, there is a negative correlation between games played and points, meaning that if you play more games, its *worse* for your points. So please stop spreading misinformation.
"AFTER the players had already played" is a meaningless statement, there is no end to when players play. If they can pull the ranks at the time they did, they can pull the ranks after every game you play.
|
On August 12 2010 14:09 paralleluniverse wrote:
Everyone is missing the point.
It does NOT MATTER HOW THEY CALCULATED THE TOP 200.
What matters is that how they calculated the top 200 on the website is DIFFERENT from how rankings are calculated IN THE GAME.
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
And you really don't seem to get how this system is supposed to work. Given enough time, the ranking blizzard has and the ranking displayed will start to become close, it's just a matter of time so players actually play enough games so the rankings are getting accurate. Of course it'll never be 100% accurate, but I believe it will still be accurate enough so you can take a look at it to have an idea of someone's level.
|
the ranking they used for the top 200 is in the game, in wc3 it was called ell and it chose the opponents for you
being first in your div just tells you how baller you are but you dont really know how good you are
|
The points we use for rank people are the charade not blizzards top 200.
We have no way to see the hidden skill rating which is used for match making. That skill rating is the true ranking system which should be used to rank players. Since we don't have access to it we use points as a crutch to give a ranking. If you win and loose an equal number of games you gain ranking, even without bonus points. With bonus points your points go up even further. This is why the points are not an accurate system for use for total ladder position.
The title of the OP thread alone is enough to make me disagree. Clearly blizzard has a better idea of our true ranking than we do.
|
The only information that I have for the ranking list at RTS-Sanctuary and that is also used at sc2ranks is the points that are on player's profiles. We can only guess at what other factors Blizzard is using and this is the reason there is a difference between the lists. If it really is like an MMR system then over time the player rankings will converge towards their true rankings and be a more accurate reflection. ATM it's as much a case of how many games you play as anything else.
out of interest though .. look how thin the top end of diamond div is
![[image loading]](http://rts-sanctuary.com/images/popprofile.jpg)
only 5% of players in diamond are above 700 points atm
![[image loading]](http://rts-sanctuary.com/images/cpopprofile.jpg)
|
The notion that there is one "correct" way to rank players is kind of amusing.
Skill is not a scalar, like midi-chlorian count or something. Team A might beat team B, who beats team C, who beats team A. So who is #1? It depends on the rules. Which is totally fair, but also somewhat arbitrary, and there are lots of equally fair rule sets. We see this all the time in sports and gaming. The winner of a tournament is objective, but any kind of skill/power ranking is subjective (not to say "unfair" or "wrong"), including the ladders and the "top 200" lists.
I see a bunch of posts saying there's "no conceivable reason" for not using the top 200 methodology for the ladder. An obvious reason could be computing power required. The ladder needs to be up to date at all times with a million players constantly racking up games. I like Elo and Glicko, and both work pretty well in a dynamic environment, but that doesn't mean they're indisputably the best ranking systems.
The top 200 may have taken minutes or hours to churn through all the battle data, which would be unreasonable for use on the ladder. It could include algorithms for filtering out disconnects, map hacks, or other noise. It could even use a Condorcet method, which definitely would not be reasonable for ladder use.
I hope they continue to improve the ladder system. A combined ladder using Elo or Glicko with fully transparent formulas and rankings/ratings would certainly get my vote. But tournaments are and always will be the true measure of a top player, so ladder inaccuracies are probably not worth getting worked up over.
|
On August 13 2010 00:05 Voidious wrote:The top 200 may have taken minutes or hours to churn through all the battle data, which would be unreasonable for use on the ladder. It could include algorithms for filtering out disconnects, map hacks, or other noise. It could even use a Condorcet method, which definitely would not be reasonable for ladder use.
I hope they continue to improve the ladder system. A combined ladder using Elo or Glicko with fully transparent formulas and rankings/ratings would certainly get my vote. But tournaments are and always will be the true measure of a top player, so ladder inaccuracies are probably not worth getting worked up over.
I'm pretty sure that it's reasonably impossible to have a system that factors in disconnects, hacks and whathaveyou. Furthermore, I cannot imagine what Blizz could be doing that would require such an immense investment in computing power, unless they are literally reviewing everyone on a game-by-game basis and voting on the rankings, a la the BCS.
Like many in the thread have brought up, they need to change the ladder to reflect these supposedly more accurate rankings, or change the rankings to reflect accurate ladder standings. There's 0 reason to have them in conflict.
|
On August 13 2010 00:39 Darkside- wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 00:05 Voidious wrote:The top 200 may have taken minutes or hours to churn through all the battle data, which would be unreasonable for use on the ladder. It could include algorithms for filtering out disconnects, map hacks, or other noise. It could even use a Condorcet method, which definitely would not be reasonable for ladder use.
I hope they continue to improve the ladder system. A combined ladder using Elo or Glicko with fully transparent formulas and rankings/ratings would certainly get my vote. But tournaments are and always will be the true measure of a top player, so ladder inaccuracies are probably not worth getting worked up over. I'm pretty sure that it's reasonably impossible to have a system that factors in disconnects, hacks and whathaveyou. Furthermore, I cannot imagine what Blizz could be doing that would require such an immense investment in computing power, unless they are literally reviewing everyone on a game-by-game basis and voting on the rankings, a la the BCS. Like many in the thread have brought up, they need to change the ladder to reflect these supposedly more accurate rankings, or change the rankings to reflect accurate ladder standings. I don't understand the reason to have them in conflict.
Fixed for you there. Too many people assuming they know better than blizzard how to do things.
Quit trying to change the system because it's not going to happen, you're better off learning how it works and making it work for you.
The top 200 list is out, it's irrelevant whether you agree with it or not. Their system will decide the top players who play in their tournaments and ultimately play in a 'pro' league if they ever get around to making one. If you don't like that because the inner workings aren't laid out step by step for you or because they didn't rank you where you think you belong, feel free to quit playing ladder and wait for an iccup equivelant to come out.. if it ever does. Personally I feel it's not needed here, just because you don't understand the system doesn't mean it's wrong.
They have a LOT more information on hand to accurately judge players than you do or anyone else making a ranking site.
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 13 2010 01:17 Azile wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 00:39 Darkside- wrote:On August 13 2010 00:05 Voidious wrote:The top 200 may have taken minutes or hours to churn through all the battle data, which would be unreasonable for use on the ladder. It could include algorithms for filtering out disconnects, map hacks, or other noise. It could even use a Condorcet method, which definitely would not be reasonable for ladder use.
I hope they continue to improve the ladder system. A combined ladder using Elo or Glicko with fully transparent formulas and rankings/ratings would certainly get my vote. But tournaments are and always will be the true measure of a top player, so ladder inaccuracies are probably not worth getting worked up over. I'm pretty sure that it's reasonably impossible to have a system that factors in disconnects, hacks and whathaveyou. Furthermore, I cannot imagine what Blizz could be doing that would require such an immense investment in computing power, unless they are literally reviewing everyone on a game-by-game basis and voting on the rankings, a la the BCS. Like many in the thread have brought up, they need to change the ladder to reflect these supposedly more accurate rankings, or change the rankings to reflect accurate ladder standings. I don't understand the reason to have them in conflict. Fixed for you there. Too many people assuming they know better than blizzard how to do things. Quit trying to change the system because it's not going to happen, you're better off learning how it works and making it work for you. The top 200 list is out, it's irrelevant whether you agree with it or not. Their system will decide the top players who play in their tournaments and ultimately play in a 'pro' league if they ever get around to making one. If you don't like that because the inner workings aren't laid out step by step for you or because they didn't rank you where you think you belong, feel free to quit playing ladder and wait for an iccup equivelant to come out.. if it ever does. Personally I feel it's not needed here, just because you don't understand the system doesn't mean it's wrong. They have a LOT more information on hand to accurately judge players than you do or anyone else making a ranking site.
He does have a point, though. Just because we don't understand the system doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean it's confusing and nearly impossible for end-users to follow. We as players only have one trackable stat, and that's displayed rating. It stands to reason that a lot of people will get confused when they compare something that we always assumed to be true -- the SC2ranks linear ranking -- turns out to be different from Blizzard's internal tracking system.
In War3 and WoW, things were much more transparent. Seeing yourself ranked #701 on your in-game War3 profile meant that you could go to your web profile and see #701, and that you could go to the Ladder ranking page and see yourself at #701 based on the amount of XP you had accumulated. In WoW you could see a linear ranking of teams on your Battlegroup page based on the displayed rating you had earned. In SC2 everything we as players use to follow along is essentially smoke and mirrors, which understandably leads to frustration and in some cases outrage.
I have no doubt that, given full match histories for each of these Top 200 players, it may be possible to determine and replicate the methods used by Blizzard's internal stat tracking system and eventually produce Top 200 lists that are consistent with theirs in the future. Because there is so much missing information and too many unknown variables though, we're left in the dark which is an annoying place to be for an end-user.
|
(probably already said many times)
The top 200 is based on the rankings/points that are hidden/we don't see. These are the "points" that align you with who you play with/against. For example, you may have 0 points (from the placement matches), but you are still playing against plat or diamond players....Why? Because you have these "hidden points" that rank you skill wise. The points that we see are just for show and follow a general trend of skill and are easy for simpletons like us to follow.
|
I think the correct title for the thread is:
"Battle.net ladders are a charade"
|
On August 12 2010 17:04 paralleluniverse wrote:
So what?
So they aren't actually converging.
If the bonus pool is abusable go make a post about it.
This has nothing to do with whether the bonus pool is abusable. It has to do with 2 inconsistent methods attempting to do the same thing.
>Implying the bonus pool isn't the majority of the reason for displayed rating not matching MMR
Your example doesn't show anything. Everyone gets the same bonus pool. Suppose that both players get 12 bonus pool.
Then the player who plays 300 games will see, on average, the following change in rating: +24 - 12 + 12 - 12 + 12 - 12 + .... - 12 = 12.
The player who plays 4 games will, on average see the following change in rating: + 24 - 12 + 12 - 12 = 12.
And the player who plays 1 game will, on average, win 50% of his games. Every day that he loses, he will lose 12 (according to this ludicrously simple example). But every day he loses, his bonus pool will not decrease. Thus, the next time he manages a streak of 2 consecutive winning days, he will see +48 total over those two days.
I'm not entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure this averages out to a +24 - 6 = 18 average rating change.
Hence, I'm still right.
EDIT:
Completely off-topic: The bonus pool is NOT a psychological "bonus" that makes casuals feel better. It's because of the bonus pool that your rank DECREASES every time you log in.
Therefore, the bonus pool is as much a penalty as it is a reward.
And its because of your bonus pool that you can expect to increase your rank every time you log in whether or not you increased your skill.
|
err think it this way
I'm at the bottom of the diamond. I fight with people around my skill level. I just got 500 points.
Now theres idra. He fights with pros everyday. He reached 500 points.
Does that mean Idra has equal skill to mine?
|
On August 13 2010 04:44 AyJay wrote:
err think it this way
I'm at the bottom of the diamond. I fight with people around my skill level. I just got 500 points.
Now theres idra. He fights with pros everyday. He reached 500 points.
Does that mean Idra has equal skill to mine?
what?? that doesn't make any sense lol
|
On August 13 2010 04:39 kzn wrote:
And its because of your bonus pool that you can expect to increase your rank every time you log in whether or not you increased your skill.
I'm with you on the bonus pool causing the numbers to diverge over time, however the overall effect is for players who are active enough never to hit the bonus point cap to, on average, keep up with each other. Only once one hits the cap does one end up irrevocably behind. Active players' ranks will vary only a small amount due to different bonus pool usage, since the number of bonus pool points per day is fixed and the same for everyone.
IF the underlying pre-bonus points are analogous to (proportional to?) the hidden skill rating, then all one would have to do to achieve an accurate ranking within a division for sufficiently active players is to add each person's unused bonus points onto their score. Players who were inactive enough to hit the cap would drop to the bottom over time. Across divisions, if the bonus point totals for each division were different at a given point in time, that would require additional correction.
It's not clear whether the "math" involved in making the top 200 list was that simple. It could have been! Or, there may be more fundamental deviations between the point system and the hidden skill ratings beyond simply the addition of bonus points.
|
They choosed points in-game because it helps with league placement, they made top 200 differently because i say so.
Who cares, they're not reading these forums anyway. You're whining to a wall.
|
Call me stupid but when i was looking at seeing the countries and the initials for them I really thought Sea was the principality of sea land. Yea the ladder system isn't perfect yet but hey maybe we can vote who the number one player is through facebook integration.(sarcasm)
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 13 2010 04:44 AyJay wrote:
err think it this way
I'm at the bottom of the diamond. I fight with people around my skill level. I just got 500 points.
Now theres idra. He fights with pros everyday. He reached 500 points.
Does that mean Idra has equal skill to mine?
Yes, at least back when Idra hit 500 points... 500 points ago. He's over 1000 points right now.
|
Stop the bloody whining. The ingame ranking system is for fun, it's so you can feel that you're actively competing against everyone else in your division and it'll move around a lot (A losing streak can easily mean you lose 100 points)
The top 200 system is based on your actual matchmaking rating. They will not show your actual matchmaking rating in-game because it's boring, in the beginning it'll jump around wildly as it tries to figure out how good you are and as time goes by it'll become solid as a rock as it's confidence increases, no one wants to sit around being 2200 for 3 months in a row. (Except in WoW, arena points wooo)
|
On August 13 2010 01:39 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 01:17 Azile wrote:On August 13 2010 00:39 Darkside- wrote:On August 13 2010 00:05 Voidious wrote:The top 200 may have taken minutes or hours to churn through all the battle data, which would be unreasonable for use on the ladder. It could include algorithms for filtering out disconnects, map hacks, or other noise. It could even use a Condorcet method, which definitely would not be reasonable for ladder use.
I hope they continue to improve the ladder system. A combined ladder using Elo or Glicko with fully transparent formulas and rankings/ratings would certainly get my vote. But tournaments are and always will be the true measure of a top player, so ladder inaccuracies are probably not worth getting worked up over. I'm pretty sure that it's reasonably impossible to have a system that factors in disconnects, hacks and whathaveyou. Furthermore, I cannot imagine what Blizz could be doing that would require such an immense investment in computing power, unless they are literally reviewing everyone on a game-by-game basis and voting on the rankings, a la the BCS. Like many in the thread have brought up, they need to change the ladder to reflect these supposedly more accurate rankings, or change the rankings to reflect accurate ladder standings. I don't understand the reason to have them in conflict. Fixed for you there. Too many people assuming they know better than blizzard how to do things. Quit trying to change the system because it's not going to happen, you're better off learning how it works and making it work for you. The top 200 list is out, it's irrelevant whether you agree with it or not. Their system will decide the top players who play in their tournaments and ultimately play in a 'pro' league if they ever get around to making one. If you don't like that because the inner workings aren't laid out step by step for you or because they didn't rank you where you think you belong, feel free to quit playing ladder and wait for an iccup equivelant to come out.. if it ever does. Personally I feel it's not needed here, just because you don't understand the system doesn't mean it's wrong. They have a LOT more information on hand to accurately judge players than you do or anyone else making a ranking site. He does have a point, though. Just because we don't understand the system doesn't mean it's wrong, but it does mean it's confusing and nearly impossible for end-users to follow. We as players only have one trackable stat, and that's displayed rating. It stands to reason that a lot of people will get confused when they compare something that we always assumed to be true -- the SC2ranks linear ranking -- turns out to be different from Blizzard's internal tracking system. In War3 and WoW, things were much more transparent. Seeing yourself ranked #701 on your in-game War3 profile meant that you could go to your web profile and see #701, and that you could go to the Ladder ranking page and see yourself at #701 based on the amount of XP you had accumulated. In WoW you could see a linear ranking of teams on your Battlegroup page based on the displayed rating you had earned. In SC2 everything we as players use to follow along is essentially smoke and mirrors, which understandably leads to frustration and in some cases outrage. I have no doubt that, given full match histories for each of these Top 200 players, it may be possible to determine and replicate the methods used by Blizzard's internal stat tracking system and eventually produce Top 200 lists that are consistent with theirs in the future. Because there is so much missing information and too many unknown variables though, we're left in the dark which is an annoying place to be for an end-user.
my
|
On August 13 2010 04:39 kzn wrote:So they aren't actually converging.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5416/graphs.jpg
It's converging to a function, not to a fixed number, but it will still give ranks consistent with the top 200 methodology, which is the whole point. 1 consistent ladder.Show nested quote +
If the bonus pool is abusable go make a post about it.
This has nothing to do with whether the bonus pool is abusable. It has to do with 2 inconsistent methods attempting to do the same thing.
>Implying the bonus pool isn't the majority of the reason for displayed rating not matching MMR
How do you know the points have not matched MMR?
It's trivial to make a mathematical model where simultaneously, a bonus pool is working AND also points converge to MMR.
Further, there is nothing to suggest the top 200 methodology uses MMR, or purely MMR.Show nested quote +Your example doesn't show anything. Everyone gets the same bonus pool. Suppose that both players get 12 bonus pool.
Then the player who plays 300 games will see, on average, the following change in rating: +24 - 12 + 12 - 12 + 12 - 12 + .... - 12 = 12.
The player who plays 4 games will, on average see the following change in rating: + 24 - 12 + 12 - 12 = 12. And the player who plays 1 game will, on average, win 50% of his games. Every day that he loses, he will lose 12 (according to this ludicrously simple example). But every day he loses, his bonus pool will not decrease. Thus, the next time he manages a streak of 2 consecutive winning days, he will see +48 total over those two days. I'm not entirely certain, but I'm pretty sure this averages out to a +24 - 6 = 18 average rating change. Hence, I'm still right.
No, you are not right. On average the player will win 50%, so if he wins 2 games in a row, on average he will lose the next 2 games. Any deviation from this is only temporary, and will evaporate when he plays more games.
It is not possible for the bonus pool to confer an advantage to anyone in the long term, because everyone gets the same bonus pool. The bonus pool increases every active player's points equally.Show nested quote +EDIT:
Completely off-topic: The bonus pool is NOT a psychological "bonus" that makes casuals feel better. It's because of the bonus pool that your rank DECREASES every time you log in.
Therefore, the bonus pool is as much a penalty as it is a reward. And its because of your bonus pool that you can expect to increase your rank every time you log in whether or not you increased your skill.
No. What the bonus pool does is this: You log off at rank 50, when you log in the next day you drop to rank 60, and play games with the bonus pool, you move back up to rank 50 again. It's not a reward.
|
Fixed for you there. Too many people assuming they know better than blizzard how to do things.
Quit trying to change the system because it's not going to happen, you're better off learning how it works and making it work for you.
The top 200 list is out, it's irrelevant whether you agree with it or not. Their system will decide the top players who play in their tournaments and ultimately play in a 'pro' league if they ever get around to making one. If you don't like that because the inner workings aren't laid out step by step for you or because they didn't rank you where you think you belong, feel free to quit playing ladder and wait for an iccup equivelant to come out.. if it ever does. Personally I feel it's not needed here, just because you don't understand the system doesn't mean it's wrong.
They have a LOT more information on hand to accurately judge players than you do or anyone else making a ranking site.
There are 2 methods, and both give different results. They cannot both be right. One must be wrong, and therefore it should be changed.
On August 13 2010 05:11 Zironic wrote:
Stop the bloody whining. The ingame ranking system is for fun, it's so you can feel that you're actively competing against everyone else in your division and it'll move around a lot (A losing streak can easily mean you lose 100 points)
The top 200 system is based on your actual matchmaking rating. They will not show your actual matchmaking rating in-game because it's boring, in the beginning it'll jump around wildly as it tries to figure out how good you are and as time goes by it'll become solid as a rock as it's confidence increases, no one wants to sit around being 2200 for 3 months in a row. (Except in WoW, arena points wooo)
Then make points converge to the rating used for the top 200 (or some monotonic transformation of it) so that points can both:
a) inflate over time with the bonus pool, so people feel progress
b) correctly rank players consistently with the correct methodology once sufficient games have been played.
|
On August 13 2010 12:52 paralleluniverse wrote:
How do you know the points have not matched MMR?
Because the displayed rating rankings don't match the Blizzard rankings.
No, you are not right. On average the player will win 50%, so if he wins 2 games in a row, on average he will lose the next 2 games. Any deviation from this is only temporary, and will evaporate when he plays more games.
Except for the fact that wins are, relatively, rewarded more the less you play.
If he wins 2 games in a row, after a loss, he gets +24+24. When he loses the corresponding games, he takes -12-12. Thats a net gain of 24, thus inflation that is not present for players who play more per day.
Again, I am right.
I really find it hard to believe you're trying to argue that a bonus pool doesn't create rating inflation, and that such inflation isn't liable to create ladder inaccuracies. It is patently obvious to anyone with basic arithmetic skills that unless a 1-1 record against an equally skilled opponent generates zero deviation in relative rating, the system will be inaccurate, and it is patently obvious to anyone with basic arithmetic skills that the bonus pool implementations that act as bait for casuals apply their benefits in a way that creates just such a non-zero-sum system.
It is not possible for the bonus pool to confer an advantage to anyone in the long term, because everyone gets the same bonus pool.
No, they really don't. It is inaccurate to look at bonus pools as an absolute value, because the impact of a bonus pool obviously depends on the number of games played.
No. What the bonus pool does is this: You log off at rank 50, when you log in the next day you drop to rank 60, and play games with the bonus pool, you move back up to rank 50 again. It's not a reward.
You're arguing semantics. That is a reward, it just comes with a loss (and it doesn't, not in the long term).
If your only goal is to have the highest displayed rating of any player, without concern for MMR, you can do that almost regardless of skill purely by abusing the bonus pool, unless the system resets (which it does).
The bonus pool provides a reason for players to play. That is its purpose, and that purpose cannot be fulfilled via the same methodology without rendering displayed rating inaccurate.
|
On August 13 2010 13:44 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 12:52 paralleluniverse wrote:
How do you know the points have not matched MMR? Because the displayed rating rankings don't match the Blizzard rankings.
Further, there is nothing to suggest the top 200 methodology uses MMR, or purely MMR.
Show nested quote +No, you are not right. On average the player will win 50%, so if he wins 2 games in a row, on average he will lose the next 2 games. Any deviation from this is only temporary, and will evaporate when he plays more games. Except for the fact that wins are, relatively, rewarded more the less you play. If he wins 2 games in a row, after a loss, he gets +24+24. When he loses the corresponding games, he takes -12-12. Thats a net gain of 24, thus inflation that is not present for players who play more per day. Again, I am right.
In this case + 24 + 24 for winning 2 games means that player has 24 bonus pool. Another player with 24 bonus pool who plays 300 games will on average see rating change as follows: +24 - 12 + 24 - 12 + 12 - 12 + 12 - 12 + ... - 12 = +24 + 24 - 12 - 12.
I really find it hard to believe you're trying to argue that a bonus pool doesn't create rating inflation, and that such inflation isn't liable to create ladder inaccuracies. It is patently obvious to anyone with basic arithmetic skills that unless a 1-1 record against an equally skilled opponent generates zero deviation in relative rating, the system will be inaccurate, and it is patently obvious to anyone with basic arithmetic skills that the bonus pool implementations that act as bait for casuals apply their benefits in a way that creates just such a non-zero-sum system. Show nested quote +It is not possible for the bonus pool to confer an advantage to anyone in the long term, because everyone gets the same bonus pool. No, they really don't. It is inaccurate to look at bonus pools as an absolute value, because the impact of a bonus pool obviously depends on the number of games played.
I never said the bonus pool creates no point inflation. It inflates everyone's points EQUALLY, as long as they use up their bonus pool, and so the bonus pool will not screw up rankings as long as bonus pools are used up.
As an aside, I find it questionable that you believe the bonus pool screws up rankings, yet you defend the bonus pool. If I believed the bonus pool screws up rankings, I would be ripping it to shreds, regardless of the hurt feelings of casuals.
The impact of the bonus pool does NOT depend on the number of games played, as long as enough games are played to use it all up.
If you have x points, and y bonus pool, and it takes z games to use it all up, then whether you play z games or z + 100 games, your points will end, on average, at x + y.
No. What the bonus pool does is this: You log off at rank 50, when you log in the next day you drop to rank 60, and play games with the bonus pool, you move back up to rank 50 again. It's not a reward.
You're arguing semantics. That is a reward, it just comes with a loss (and it doesn't, not in the long term).
If you want more points it is a reward (but everyone's points go up).
If you want rank, then it is not a reward, because you break even.
If your only goal is to have the highest displayed rating of any player, without concern for MMR, you can do that almost regardless of skill purely by abusing the bonus pool, unless the system resets (which it does).
You can't abuse the bonus pool because everyone gets the same bonus pool.
The bonus pool provides a reason for players to play. That is its purpose, and that purpose cannot be fulfilled via the same methodology without rendering displayed rating inaccurate.
Of course it can.
It's easy to do: http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5416/graphs.jpg
|
On August 13 2010 14:13 paralleluniverse wrote:
Further, there is nothing to suggest the top 200 methodology uses MMR, or purely MMR.
Uh, yeah, there is a lot to suggest that.
In this case + 24 + 24 for winning 2 games means that player has 24 bonus pool.
No, it doesn't. It means he has 12 bonus pool per day and plays 1 game per day.
I never said the bonus pool creates no point inflation. It inflates everyone's points EQUALLY, as long as they use up their bonus pool, and so the bonus pool will not screw up rankings as long as bonus pools are used up.
As an aside, I find it questionable that you believe the bonus pool screws up rankings, yet you defend the bonus pool. If I believed the bonus pool screws up rankings, I would be ripping it to shreds, regardless of the hurt feelings of casuals.
It obviously doesn't inflate points equally because it doesn't apply to everyone equally.
I'm defending the bonus pool as a mechanism to draw in casuals, not as a mechanism to create accurate rankings. You're trying to argue that the bonus pool could do the former while still being accurate, and you're wrong.
The impact of the bonus pool does NOT depend on the number of games played, as long as enough games are played to use it all up.
So it does depend on it, except in some cases. Which is what I'm saying.
You can't abuse the bonus pool because everyone gets the same bonus pool.
Again, wrong.
|
On August 13 2010 15:42 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 14:13 paralleluniverse wrote:
Further, there is nothing to suggest the top 200 methodology uses MMR, or purely MMR. Uh, yeah, there is a lot to suggest that.
Like what?
"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."
Top 200 rating = relative ranking + MMR + other factors
Show nested quote +In this case + 24 + 24 for winning 2 games means that player has 24 bonus pool. No, it doesn't. It means he has 12 bonus pool per day and plays 1 game per day.
So 24 bonus pool in 2 days. A player who plays 300 games after not playing for 2 days, and therefore getting the same 24 bonus pool will still end up with the same point on average as the player who played 2 games, as my example shows.
Show nested quote +I never said the bonus pool creates no point inflation. It inflates everyone's points EQUALLY, as long as they use up their bonus pool, and so the bonus pool will not screw up rankings as long as bonus pools are used up.
As an aside, I find it questionable that you believe the bonus pool screws up rankings, yet you defend the bonus pool. If I believed the bonus pool screws up rankings, I would be ripping it to shreds, regardless of the hurt feelings of casuals. It obviously doesn't inflate points equally because it doesn't apply to everyone equally.
Yes it does.
I'm defending the bonus pool as a mechanism to draw in casuals, not as a mechanism to create accurate rankings. You're trying to argue that the bonus pool could do the former while still being accurate, and you're wrong.
Of course it can do both.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5416/graphs.jpg
And if it can't do both simultaneously, then the system is a failure.
Show nested quote +The impact of the bonus pool does NOT depend on the number of games played, as long as enough games are played to use it all up. So it does depend on it, except in some cases. Which is what I'm saying.
No that's not what your saying. You're saying people who play few games gets more out of bonus pool, while people who play more games gets less.
I'm saying as long as you play enough games to use up all your bonus pool (which is like 1 game a day), then you will get the same out of the bonus pool. Playing 2 games a day, and using up the bonus pool will on average be the same as playing 300 games a day and using up the bonus pool.
A player with x points and y bonus pool, can be compared to a person with z points and 0 bonus pool by simply adding the bonus pool to the points, i.e. comparing x + y to z.
No. It's not wrong, everyone gets the same bonus pool.
|
On August 13 2010 16:17 paralleluniverse wrote:
Like what?
"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."
Top 200 rating = relative ranking + MMR + other factors
If you think Blizzard doesn't highly weight the MMR in that calculation, I don't know what to tell you.
So 24 bonus pool in 2 days. A player who plays 300 games after not playing for 2 days, and therefore getting the same 24 bonus pool will still end up with the same point on average as the player who played 2 games, as my example shows.
You can keep changing your example to make it work, or you can stick to the example you used in the first place and admit it doesn't.
I'm saying as long as you play enough games to use up all your bonus pool (which is like 1 game a day), then you will get the same out of the bonus pool.
So you're arguing numbers? The numbers don't matter. If you had to play 1 game a week or less to abuse bonus pool it would still result in inaccuracies in the ranking, and its rather closer to 1 per day.
No. It's not wrong, everyone gets the same bonus pool.
Still wrong, because thats irrelevant.
|
On August 13 2010 16:24 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 16:17 paralleluniverse wrote:
Like what?
"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."
Top 200 rating = relative ranking + MMR + other factors If you think Blizzard doesn't highly weight the MMR in that calculation, I don't know what to tell you.
You have no idea what Blizzard weights.
Show nested quote +So 24 bonus pool in 2 days. A player who plays 300 games after not playing for 2 days, and therefore getting the same 24 bonus pool will still end up with the same point on average as the player who played 2 games, as my example shows. You can keep changing your example to make it work, or you can stick to the example you used in the first place and admit it doesn't.
You're the one who changed the example.
I never said 24 bonus pool in 2 days. You did.
And I showed that even in such a case, the bonus pool is still fair for everyone.
It does not matter how many games you play, as long as you use up your bonus pool, your points will on average be the same.
Show nested quote +
I'm saying as long as you play enough games to use up all your bonus pool (which is like 1 game a day), then you will get the same out of the bonus pool.
So you're arguing numbers? The numbers don't matter. If you had to play 1 game a week or less to abuse bonus pool it would still result in inaccuracies in the ranking, and its rather closer to 1 per day.
You have still failed to find a situation where the bonus pool can be abused.
Still wrong, because thats irrelevant.
How is it irrelevant?
The fact that everyone gets the same bonus pool is the *very reason why it can't be abused*.
And even if people don't play, so don't use their bonus pool, you can still fairly compare their points by adding the unspent bonus pool to it.
|
On August 13 2010 12:57 paralleluniverse wrote:
Then make points converge to the rating used for the top 200 (or some monotonic transformation of it) so that points can both:
a) inflate over time with the bonus pool, so people feel progress
b) correctly rank players consistently with the correct methodology once sufficient games have been played.
b) can't happen because of a) and the fact it's basically ELO.
People will fluctuate wildly in points ranking based on if they've spent their daily bonus points or not and if they've been on a winning/losing streak lately. While they /could/ make it so that once your ranking is solid you only gain lose like 1-2 points per game, who would want that? The point of a ladder is first and foremost to be fun, accurate representation is secondary.
|
On August 13 2010 21:54 Zironic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 12:57 paralleluniverse wrote:
Then make points converge to the rating used for the top 200 (or some monotonic transformation of it) so that points can both:
a) inflate over time with the bonus pool, so people feel progress
b) correctly rank players consistently with the correct methodology once sufficient games have been played. b) can't happen because of a) and the fact it's basically ELO. People will fluctuate wildly in points ranking based on if they've spent their daily bonus points or not and if they've been on a winning/losing streak lately. While they /could/ make it so that once your ranking is solid you only gain lose like 1-2 points per game, who would want that? The point of a ladder is first and foremost to be fun, accurate representation is secondary.
You can always consider a player who has 500 points and 50 bonus pool, as having 550 points for the purpose of comparing them with someone who has spent their bonus pool. This is justified because on average after spending their bonus pool they have points equal to their points before spending bonus pool, plus the bonus pool they spent.
http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5416/graphs.jpg
The current system most likely already does what's in the graph just with "R" replaced by "MMR". I'm just suggesting that "MMR" be replaced with "R". It's nothing radical.
|
MMR, perhaps, shouldn't be the same as what you see on the ladder because accurate skill evaluation isn't exactly conducive to a functioning ladder. Here's why:
- It makes players afraid to play. They don't want to risk losing their precious points. This is exemplified by chess amateurs' unwillingness to play out their games to a win: better to take the safe "draw" than to lose points.
- Once you're at the top, you have no reason to continue proving your skill.
|
On August 13 2010 22:43 carwashguy wrote:MMR, perhaps, shouldn't be the same as what you see on the ladder because accurate skill evaluation isn't exactly conducive to a functioning ladder. Here's why: - It makes players afraid to play. They don't want to risk losing their precious points. This is exemplified by chess amateurs' unwillingness to play out their games to a win: better to take the safe "draw" than to lose points.
- Once you're at the top, you have no reason to continue proving your skill.
I think that's the reason why there is no MMR shown. And that it's much better to actually see some steady progress instead of you jumping from division to division up and down because MMR changes a lot faster than your real rating does.
The problem you are describing is from my point of view solved by the bonus pool, which guarantees that the ladder will grow in points all the time which makes it impossible for someone to stay on top without playing.
If Blizzard adds some statistics to each account like approximate overall rank, winpercentage per race and stuff like that I think the matchmaking and ladder system is pretty damn good
|
On August 13 2010 23:54 Bommes wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 22:43 carwashguy wrote:MMR, perhaps, shouldn't be the same as what you see on the ladder because accurate skill evaluation isn't exactly conducive to a functioning ladder. Here's why: - It makes players afraid to play. They don't want to risk losing their precious points. This is exemplified by chess amateurs' unwillingness to play out their games to a win: better to take the safe "draw" than to lose points.
- Once you're at the top, you have no reason to continue proving your skill.
The problem you are describing is from my point of view solved by the bonus pool, which guarantees that the ladder will grow in points all the time which makes it impossible for someone to stay on top without playing.
I thought that, too. However, this guy says otherwise. He claims Starcraft 2's MMR/Ladder system comes from World of Warcraft, where inflation does not occur (even with th Bonus Pool).
|
I think it would be nice if blizzard kept the current system but added some kind of permanent ELO rating.
|
On August 14 2010 00:17 carwashguy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 23:54 Bommes wrote:On August 13 2010 22:43 carwashguy wrote:MMR, perhaps, shouldn't be the same as what you see on the ladder because accurate skill evaluation isn't exactly conducive to a functioning ladder. Here's why: - It makes players afraid to play. They don't want to risk losing their precious points. This is exemplified by chess amateurs' unwillingness to play out their games to a win: better to take the safe "draw" than to lose points.
- Once you're at the top, you have no reason to continue proving your skill.
The problem you are describing is from my point of view solved by the bonus pool, which guarantees that the ladder will grow in points all the time which makes it impossible for someone to stay on top without playing. I thought that, too. However, this guy says otherwise. He claims Starcraft 2's MMR/Ladder system comes from World of Warcraft, where inflation does not occur (even with th Bonus Pool).
He doesn't make that claim, and your claim is obviously wrong. The bonus pool ensures inflation, and in this case that's a good thing because it ensures people don't stay at the top without playing, and yet if they return they can quickly get back up to the top if they deserve it, thanks to the bonus pool system.
|
Dionyseus, I loled when I read this! Are you trolling me?
On August 14 2010 00:56 Dionyseus wrote:
He [ZapRoffo] doesn't make that claim
"I see a lot of people spreading the idea that bonus pool inflates the ladder, when it doesn't." -ZapRoffo
On August 14 2010 00:56 Dionyseus wrote:
and your [carwashguy's] claim is obviously wrong.
My original claim and yours are the same.
"Bonus pool points actually do cause inflation (how could they not?). The point is that, despite them, the leaderboard will still accurately rank players relative to each other--so long as they keep playing games." -me
On August 14 2010 00:56 Dionyseus wrote:
The bonus pool ensures inflation.
"I thought that, too." However, this guy [ZapRoffo] says otherwise." -me
"[...] will make this effect rather small and equal for everyone, and non-inflationary (it will not grow over time)." -ZapRoffo
Try reading before posting next time, so I don't have to waste my time spelling it out to you!
|
First, hello everybody , this is my first post on TL forums.
Second, I strongly agree that there's something terribly wrong with the current ranking system, and am trying to figure out how it works myself.
I was placed into gold after going 4 - 1 in placement (losing to cannon cheese), since then I have moved up to #1 in my division in Gold, and since reaching #1, have gone roughly 10 - 2 against platinum players, but still haven't moved up.
I suspect I'm either a high plat or low diamond player, but I'm stuck in gold because of this ranking system.
Maybe it uses in game statistics like scores at the end to determine these rankings?
|
United States12235 Posts
On August 14 2010 02:35 grahamcrackuh wrote:First, hello everybody , this is my first post on TL forums. Second, I strongly agree that there's something terribly wrong with the current ranking system, and am trying to figure out how it works myself. I was placed into gold after going 4 - 1 in placement (losing to cannon cheese), since then I have moved up to #1 in my division in Gold, and since reaching #1, have gone roughly 10 - 2 against platinum players, but still haven't moved up. I suspect I'm either a high plat or low diamond player, but I'm stuck in gold because of this ranking system. Maybe it uses in game statistics like scores at the end to determine these rankings?
Welcome to TL. Please search first, though.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118212
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=142211
|
On August 13 2010 15:42 kzn wrote:
It obviously doesn't inflate points equally because it doesn't apply to everyone equally.
Within a particular division, over the long run, the bonus pool should apply to everyone equally if they meet a minimum activity threshold. Everyone in the division accrues bonus points at the same rate, and it doesn't take that many wins (one or two a day) to stay ahead of the bonus pool capping out.
Among sufficiently active players (meaning players who played enough to stay ahead of the cap), you can eliminate differences introduced by the bonus pool simply by adding on their unearned bonus pool points. It's possible that (within a single division) the ranking you'd get when you did that would be the same as the ranking you'd get by ordering the players according to their hidden skill ratings. However, I'm not sure it's possible to tell that with the information we have.
Across divisions, those point scores are probably not comparable even accounting for bonus points, because there seems to be a degree of inflation over time over and above bonus point accrual. This is just a gut feeling based on what I've seen, I don't have data for it.
|
This issue is about processed data vs raw data. Its a constant battle between people who have the information and don't want to release it, and people who want the information to collect statistical insight from the raw data. Raw data is very valuable and many times, very expensive to collect.
|
On August 13 2010 16:37 paralleluniverse wrote:
You have no idea what Blizzard weights.
Yes. Yes I do.
You're the one who changed the example.
Nope. You just dont understand how bonus pool works.
I never said 24 bonus pool in 2 days. You did.
Yes, you did. 12 bonus pool per day, with bonus pool only applying to wins, equates to 24 bonus pool for every loss/win/win cycle that occurs.
And I showed that even in such a case, the bonus pool is still fair for everyone.
No, you didn't. You showed that in a different case, with a different bonus pool, that it would work the way you wish it worked in reality.
The fact that everyone gets the same bonus pool is the *very reason why it can't be abused*.
Except that fact doesn't establish that conclusion at all.
And even if people don't play, so don't use their bonus pool, you can still fairly compare their points by adding the unspent bonus pool to it.
It would be more accurate to subtract the total acquired points from bonus pools, which is actually (for the first time in this thread) a decent suggestion to keep the casual baiting and allow accurate rankings to be displayed.
[edit]
Within a particular division, over the long run, the bonus pool should apply to everyone equally if they meet a minimum activity threshold. Everyone in the division accrues bonus points at the same rate, and it doesn't take that many wins (one or two a day) to stay ahead of the bonus pool capping out.
IF.
How people can make an absolute argument that is prefaced by an if is beyond me.
At a certain point in the future, barring system resets, the displayed ratings of players who meet this minimum activity threshold will begin to converge on each other, inflating at a rate equal to the rate at which bonus pool accrues.
At said point, if I wanted to climb to the top of the displayed ladder, all I would need to do is play slightly under that minimum activity value. Over time, assuming nobody else is doing the same thing and nobody else gets radically better, I will climb the ladder without actually improving.
|
Massing games isn't a good determination of skill. It just shows you have more determination. The ladder is a handicap elo system in a nutshell so a website like sc2rankings using a win/loss elo ranking will place someone with a better record overall as higher rated especially given the closeness in rating (diamond). So with all that said it's pretty obvious why idra is ranked higher than dayvie when you toss out the pooled points system.
|
On August 13 2010 22:43 carwashguy wrote:MMR, perhaps, shouldn't be the same as what you see on the ladder because accurate skill evaluation isn't exactly conducive to a functioning ladder. Here's why: - It makes players afraid to play. They don't want to risk losing their precious points. This is exemplified by chess amateurs' unwillingness to play out their games to a win: better to take the safe "draw" than to lose points.
- Once you're at the top, you have no reason to continue proving your skill.
It's far more common for strong chess players to take safe draws than amateurs. I don't know anyone under 1800 who ever takes draws except when they're clearly worse.
Also, why do I care whether or not people who are afraid to play because they might lose points play? They're probably not going to get very strong with that attitude, so they're not going to provide competition/exciting games/etc.
|
On August 14 2010 15:46 PJA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2010 22:43 carwashguy wrote:MMR, perhaps, shouldn't be the same as what you see on the ladder because accurate skill evaluation isn't exactly conducive to a functioning ladder. Here's why: - It makes players afraid to play. They don't want to risk losing their precious points. This is exemplified by chess amateurs' unwillingness to play out their games to a win: better to take the safe "draw" than to lose points.
- Once you're at the top, you have no reason to continue proving your skill.
It's far more common for strong chess players to take safe draws than amateurs. I don't know anyone under 1800 who ever takes draws except when they're clearly worse. Also, why do I care whether or not people who are afraid to play because they might lose points play? They're probably not going to get very strong with that attitude, so they're not going to provide competition/exciting games/etc.
Ah, my mistake. That should've been "amateurs are less likely to play out of fear of losing points." Apparently I'm drawing from something I read in the past, and I "misremembered" it.
Anyway, you may not care if people are afraid of losing points or not, but Blizzard should (and I do, too). We'd prefer a system that, while still accurate, fosters the likelihood of a new player playing more games rather than less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
