EPTThe fact that it hasnt been working on EU for a while is also really annoying. EU ladder will go nuts as soon as it starts working again.
[D] Points system - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Armsved
Denmark642 Posts
The fact that it hasnt been working on EU for a while is also really annoying. EU ladder will go nuts as soon as it starts working again. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
On September 20 2010 08:48 arb wrote: I dont get points when i play most of the time early on when i had no bonus points i played for about 9 hours and i was still at 0 you get bonus points when you dont play Id rather see a ranking system like Iccup atleast that put you where you belonged You get bonus points at a constant rate, whether you're playing or not. You just conveniently forgot all those times where your wins would show up as "+12 (+1 bonus)" because the bonus pool ticked over while you were in a game. Means you need to be more attentive! | ||
|
SiN]
United States540 Posts
The hidden ELO system needs to go. Losing/gaining visible points based off of hidden points is crazy. | ||
|
Floophead_III
United States1832 Posts
On August 29 2010 20:04 arb wrote: I used to think that on Iccup until you see some of those 30-10 people that absolute garbage and cheese every game. Win ratio means very very little This is true. I also feel like very very very few players have significant win %'s at top teir. HuK's the first that comes to mind. However, people on iccup would get to A or higher with like 80-90% wins, so just keep that in mind when I mention that almost every single player is between 55 and 65% wins. How can win % mean anything for anyone because of this? But points don't matter because of: -bonus pool -hidden elo We just don't have a good metric to see who really is the best player right now. It's also a problem that because of the inflationary nature of the ladder, people who don't get to play all the time (I'm one of them) end up being underrated. I also think the sheer amount of cheese + abusable maps + bad players who mass game with cheese contributes to a lot of stupid losses and stupid games. I could just proxy 6 rax reaper 500 times in the time it takes to play 100 real games. I probably would sit at like 55-65% wins. I'd gain points. It wouldn't mean anything. | ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
On September 20 2010 10:06 Floophead_III wrote: This is true. I also feel like very very very few players have significant win %'s at top teir. HuK's the first that comes to mind. However, people on iccup would get to A or higher with like 80-90% wins, so just keep that in mind when I mention that almost every single player is between 55 and 65% wins. Okay, but nobody is as good at SC2 as someone who was A or higher in iccup. Not even close. | ||
|
RedTerror
New Zealand742 Posts
| ||
|
ToxNub
Canada805 Posts
The point is to accelerate the progress of players that are too good to be in their current position. Suppose that you are the god of RTS, and you cannot be beaten. Then also assume as the god of RTS your time is very valuable, and you can only dedicate 20 minutes per week to playing SC2. You will be playing the wrong players forever because your rank just won't increase fast enough. With bonus points, you effectively double the point gain of anyone with a low playtime (provided they can win their games). It won't affect most people, like you and I, because we play more than for bonus points. It only allows people to more strongly represent their skill when they have extremely low playtimes. For example: I play 10 games per week, you play 5. We each get 50 bonus points (for the week, lets say). I suck, so I lose 4 of those games. You're better, and win 4/5. Now, if there was no bonus point sytem, you would gain 40 and I would gain 60. But with the bonus point system, you gain 40+40=80 and I gain 110. It's still not quite even, but you get the drift. | ||
|
Tazza
Korea (South)1678 Posts
| ||
|
InRaged
1047 Posts
On September 20 2010 10:06 Floophead_III wrote: It's also a problem that because of the inflationary nature of the ladder, people who don't get to play all the time (I'm one of them) end up being underrated. That's not a problem really, cause that's the point of the bonus pool. Keep in mind, bonus pool is basically a point decay from WC3 in disguise. | ||
|
Hypatio
549 Posts
| ||
|
Sentient
United States437 Posts
| ||
|
Tazza
Korea (South)1678 Posts
| ||
|
Sentient
United States437 Posts
On September 20 2010 11:38 Tazza wrote: They should NOT remove the bonus point system becauese it wouldn't be fair for players like me that can only play one day a week. Bonus pool should work for players that don't play for a certain amount of time The bonus pool doesn't help you though, because people who play 24/7 get just as many bonus points as you do. It's entirely psychological. | ||
|
Tazza
Korea (South)1678 Posts
On September 20 2010 11:44 Sentient wrote: The bonus pool doesn't help you though, because people who play 24/7 get just as many bonus points as you do. It's entirely psychological. No, what I mean is, players that don't play for like 3 days straight should get bonus points, people that play all day everyday should not. This would better even out the skill levels as a player that can only a few times would be ranked significantly lower than a player that can play all the time even if their skills are the same | ||
|
aznhockeyboy16
United States558 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 29 2010 19:13 Inori wrote: P.S. Yes, I know ICCUP has huge rating numbers as well, but nobody measures skill by them anyway. You can say I'm "A" on ICCUP and it means you're really good. You can say you're Diamond in SC2 and it means.. nothing. Being in diamond means you're in the top 7% of all players. | ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
On September 20 2010 12:31 paralleluniverse wrote: Being in diamond means you're in the top 7% of all players. Let's assume, for a moment, that diamond literally is the top 7% of all players skill wise. Is that a small enough percent? I don't think so. I'd love for there to be another league that's top 0.7% | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On August 29 2010 23:09 DuncanIdaho wrote: Inori, I'm a statistician, and I'm trying to understand your beef with this. First off, point inflation is not really an issue, since numbers can go on infinitely. Unless there were some ceiling to how high numbers went (i.e., Blizz might have pulled a stupid and only alloted 8 digits to hold the points of each player, by the way, I have no knowledge of any such thing, who knows though), then inflation isn't a big issue. However, if you're wanting some linear combination of these scores that maintain an equating characteristic throughout the ends of time, then I do get what you're saying. Yet again, Blizz does allow you to know relativistically, with some limitations of course, how you stack up to others in your ladder. Though, in agreement with you, I would like to know a z-score(relativistic measure in units of standard deviations, eg. z=0 means you're average, z=2 means approx better than 95%, z=-2 means approx bottom 5% of skills. For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_score ) of my abilities, such that I have a clear idea as to where my skill set is in comparison to others. The problem though, is that all of the non-statisticians complain and fight and program games and such without consulting us. Just look at the shameful, not-guided-by-statisticians policy of No Child Left Behind in the U.S, where non-statistician Bush thought it would be a good idea to make a policy, without consulting statisticians, where schools whose scores go from, say, 15-20 get lots of $$, but schools whose scores go from 99-98 have to fire half their staff. I don't necessarily mean you the gamers are stupid, but all of the people out there, programmers and gamers alike who try to squabble about stats yet don't know a thing about them. I know, I'm nerd raging, but meh... The only explanations I can come up with are these: Either Blizz is not worried about equating scores over time (perhaps they've done studies and found that little kids playing sc2 would rather see that they have 5k points than that they havea z-score of -0.56667432), or Blizz doesn't have statisticians on their paid staff. I don't know, and honestly, I've given up caring about the stupidity of the ruling non-statisticians of the corporate world. Everyone has an opinion, but no one wants to do their rigorous research, and instead they just implement their stupid ideas... The WoW arena ranking system was made my a mathematics PhD, and I assume they used the same guy for the SC2 ladder system. The use of a z-score would be highly misleading: 1) it assumes a normal distribution which ranges over the real line, but points can't be negative. 2) skill is approximately normally distributed, but when that is skewed by players who spend bonus points and players who don't, the resulting distribution won't be normal anymore, 3) a z-score can't be interpreted without the aid of a statistical table or software. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On September 20 2010 12:41 tetracycloide wrote: Let's assume, for a moment, that diamond literally is the top 7% of all players skill wise. Is that a small enough percent? I don't think so. I'd love for there to be another league that's top 0.7% We could have 1000 leagues, each of which represents 0.1% of the population. | ||
|
tetracycloide
295 Posts
On September 20 2010 12:43 paralleluniverse wrote: We could have 1000 leagues, each of which represents 0.1% of the population. But there would be no reason to. Organizing players into groups by skill that get exponentially smaller as the skill levels go up is logical and mirrors the organization of many other sports. Plus the assumption is wrong anyway, leagues aren't divided by skill. | ||
| ||
