[D] Why divisions aren't comparable - Page 4

On August 24 2010 20:22 theSAiNT wrote:

You're agreeing with what I'm saying. Your explanation says that in ABSOLUTE terms, a larger gap in skill leads to a larger gap in points. Therefore, the points should be comparable between divisions.

The points are NOT comparable between divisions if the same gap in skill does not always lead to the same gap in points. Which is what the OP is talking about. The OP is saying that in some divisions, having 1000 points is worth more than in other divisions.

No it's not. The system was not designed for local competition. Matchmaking is completely independent of your division. It doesn't matter what division you're in when you click 'find match'. Nobody has presented any announcement from Blizzard or evidence otherwise.
Again, this contradicts the OP's conclusions.

No, we have no way of knowing what your opponents MMR is. You assume that it's close to their rating but that's just an assumption, there's no reason to believe that 200 games is enough to stabilize everything. The points you gain or loose is thus irrelevant for the discussion, the only points that we can use are the points that your opponents gained or lost since we can assume that your own MMR didn't change massively between games. If you look at the players that beat you they all had around 500-700 points and gained 12-14 points which is perfectly reasonable. Any small discrepancies are easily explained by the 2 day delay and small changes in your own MMR. The points lost by your opponents also seem reasonable. I'd say everything looks as expected.

On August 22 2010 02:43 Animostas wrote:


If's sort of a silly thing to help the noobies. When you're judged by with smaller group of people, it isn't as demoralizing.

Think of it like this, is it feels worse to be judged as #30 out of 50 people? Or #300 out of 500?

Quoted From Cyclohexane's Quick Reference Guide
Civilization Tiers – The Power Rating system also rates the civilizations in tiers. When playing a multiplayer game, the civilization used is also rated in that game. All Spanish players, for example, will affect the ranking of the Spanish civilization by winning or losing games. The civilization ranking looks something like this (only two civilizations are used to keep the example simple):
Spanish Tier 3 (level 25+)
Spanish Tier 2 (level 10-24)
British Tier 3
British Tier 2
Spanish Tier 1 (level 0-9)
British Tier 1
This ranking is dynamic and is updating constantly throughout a day, adjusting to game results.
In the example above, Spanish tier 3 (levels 25+) is rated the highest while British tier 1 (levels 0-9) is rated the lowest. A player using a higher ranked civilization who defeats a player using a lower ranked civilization will gain slightly fewer points, and vice versa. The idea being that players that use the civilization that wins the most will be more likely to win the game, and so will earn fewer points.

On August 25 2010 04:55 Hidden_MotiveS wrote:
The more I think about it the more I think that Blizzard may not be revealing anything about the way it ranks players because doing so would not benefit them. It may make us mad and give us proof that the game is unbalanced