EPTOn 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.
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.
You don't compare silver points to diamond points because they can have the same or larger skill gaps but their divisions are obviously going to be so much weaker that they're point values aren't directly comparable.
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.
That's wrong because a gold player could have the same separation from 99 bronze players that Dayvie has from the rest of his division. You wouldn't consider the gold players 1400 points to be equivalent to dayvie's though..
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.
Again, this contradicts the OP's conclusions.
I'm pretty sure Rob Pardo used the words "local competition" in his Blizzcon presentation when discussing the division/league system. When I googled it an article said the same thing.
In short, matchmaking will be more friendly to newcomers and pro-gamers alike, featuring leagues that players will automatically be assigned to after playing a few games. Blizzard wants to encourage “local competition” by putting you in your “skill neighborhood” in order to facilitate fun and competitive games
http://www.sc2blog.com/2010/02/09/battle-net-2-0-preview-welcome-to-the-starcraft-2-beta/
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.
You need to tell me how you think points are awarded if I'm going to put anything your saying in to context. I would guess that you think that it's (Your Points vs their MMR) that determines your point gain or loss but I don't know so I'll wait before addressing that.
