EPTBonus pool is dumb. This isn't WoW where I get rested experienced sitting inside an inn. Give me a break.
Standardized Rating - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
cHaNg-sTa
United States1058 Posts
Bonus pool is dumb. This isn't WoW where I get rested experienced sitting inside an inn. Give me a break. | ||
|
Mazer
Canada1086 Posts
On September 30 2010 02:16 cHaNg-sTa wrote: icCup system. This ^ Don't know why they wouldn't follow an already well known and extremely successful set-up within the BW community. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On September 28 2010 04:19 Excalibur_Z wrote: SC2ranks.com should have this feature added (where it shows the current max bonus pool and subtracts it from displayed ratings) in the coming days. Shadowed's ETA was last Friday but he had some server issues to work out. One thing that he said will not be coming is a per-user "true rating" that shows rating minus consumed bonus pool (or rating sans inflation). The reason for this is because each user has to be individually queried for each team or bracket, and it creates too much work for the server. Also to people in this thread: yes everyone gets the same amount of bonus pool, yes the accrual rate is constant. It's out now. Everyone go check it out. On the filter list on top you will see "sort by" and choose points - bonus pool | ||
|
deverlight
Korea (South)463 Posts
99% of the SC2 community does not care about how good they ACTUALLY are and would be put off by being at D- for all of eternity. Instead, they have a system where it seems like they're being rewarded by playing. A standardized rating is something that is only useful to players who need to have relevant credentials in discussion (such as in forums, chat). This only affects about 99% of the population. Instead of asking Blizzard to change this system for the minority, we should create our own way of standardizing the ratings so that we can keep the credentials relevant over longer periods of time. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12249 Posts
On September 30 2010 02:12 loadme wrote: the point is: if 2 teams (or 1on1) play against each others and both are equally matched the winner gets 12 points the loser loses 10 points i dont know about patch 1.1++ but from early beta until 1.0 it run that way. to prove or disprove my point, just watch the match history of your enemy and compare. if they ALWAYS lose as mutch points as you win, there will be no direct inflation (bonus points excluded) Just because it's not zero sum in points doesn't mean there's inflation. Points converge toward MMR. In some cases it's completely the opposite, like in very low Bronze where someone will gain 2 points and the other person will lose 18 points. That situation doesn't mean there's deflation in the system either. If MMR inflated then you would have something, but there's no way to track that so we don't know. I'm sure they've taken that into account. | ||
|
out4blood
United States313 Posts
1. Of course there will be inflation, even without the bonus pool. New players enter with 0 points. They cannot go below 0, but players that defeat them still score points. In a simplified example, with 2 players, both at 0, they play and the winner gets 10 points. Now we have inflation. And this inflation still occurs even if you have 1,000,000 established players. 2. Blizzard's goal of the current system is to encourage playing. There are plenty of publicly available Blizzard interviews to confirm this, but they do not want a system that merely displays true skill. At the top level, that would not encourage top players to keep playing because they might lose their ranking if they played and lost. Now they need to play just to maintain. At the lower levels, players are rewarded for playing more, and they feel like they are progressing even if they are not. This encourages all players to keep playing to keep up with the rising tide. More games = more fun. | ||
|
imax
Sweden31 Posts
| ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
If I was wrong (which I do currently believe) than it's a very useful thing. Anyway it's funny when I calculated it for myself and my standardized rating is a whopping 28. Which is worse than average cause I entered diamond with 300 some. A bunch of people must be negative too. | ||
|
deverlight
Korea (South)463 Posts
On September 30 2010 04:44 ZapRoffo wrote: Anyway it boils down it if I was originally right and bonus pool points affect your points won from future matches, then this standardized rating is invalid and meaningless (players who have played more and had their rating corrected more are double punished). If I was wrong (which I do currently believe) than it's a very useful thing. Anyway it's funny when I calculated it for myself and my standardized rating is a whopping 28. Which is worse than average cause I entered diamond with 300 some. A bunch of people must be negative too. I'm not clear on what you mean by bonus pool points affecting future matches. Whenever you win a match, if you have not depleted your bonus pool, you get extra points. I don't see how this correlates with future matches. If you win now, have bonus pool now, then you get extra points now. If you win later, and have bonus points later, then you get extra points later. If you win later and don't have bonus points later, then you get no extra points. | ||
|
DoubleRainbow
Canada85 Posts
| ||
|
Squisher
Canada8 Posts
So right now JangMinChul's Standardized Rating is 1,353. Mine is 230. So in my proposed system, JangMinChul's Normalized Standardized Rating (NSR) would be 1000. This would always be the rating of whoever is in first. My NSR would be 170. This rating should hold its position regardless of inflation from any form. | ||
|
Xapti
Canada2473 Posts
Simply removing the bonus pool number will not gauge any sort of standard rating over time accurately. This is because the points you gain and loose are dependent on the amount of points you already have and are not zero-sum. One also cannot do a division (as opposed to subtraction), because the ratio of people's regular earned points to bonus-pool earned points are all different depending how much they've played and when they've played. If you look at your rating over time and have two or more points to compare where you are the same global rank, but at significantly different times (I have one that's 1 month apart), you'll find that the rating difference isn't just the bonus pool. In my case, the bonus pool would have give 360 points, but my rating difference was 500 points. I don't know why someone would bother talking about a chronologically consistent rating when there already is one: ranking - be it global ranking or regional ranking. The only thing you need to take into account is player base (population) increases, but that's not really too hard to keep track of at all. On September 30 2010 03:12 Excalibur_Z wrote: Yes I agree with this as well. When SC2 started up I was a bit annoyed at the bonus pool system and considered it to be annoying inflation, but I learned that it will just take a bit of time for things to settle. In fact, I'd say things are at least 70% settled already.Just because it's not zero sum in points doesn't mean there's inflation. Points converge toward MMR. In some cases it's completely the opposite, like in very low Bronze where someone will gain 2 points and the other person will lose 18 points. That situation doesn't mean there's deflation in the system either. If MMR inflated then you would have something, but there's no way to track that so we don't know. I'm sure they've taken that into account. | ||
|
Garion
3 Posts
On September 30 2010 04:44 ZapRoffo wrote: Anyway it boils down it if I was originally right and bonus pool points affect your points won from future matches, then this standardized rating is invalid and meaningless (players who have played more and had their rating corrected more are double punished). If I was wrong (which I do currently believe) than it's a very useful thing. Anyway it's funny when I calculated it for myself and my standardized rating is a whopping 28. Which is worse than average cause I entered diamond with 300 some. A bunch of people must be negative too. This last part suggests to me that you were originally right. The median points in diamond is below the current 900ish bonus points (for example I am at 734 and this puts me in the 47th percentile, yay negative points!). If the system adjusted points for the bonus pool consumed, that would suggest that half of diamond is on the verge of demotion! | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15743 Posts
| ||
|
Chizambers
United States126 Posts
On September 30 2010 03:36 out4blood wrote: There seem to be a lot of misconceptions in this thread. 1. Of course there will be inflation, even without the bonus pool. New players enter with 0 points. They cannot go below 0, but players that defeat them still score points. In a simplified example, with 2 players, both at 0, they play and the winner gets 10 points. Now we have inflation. And this inflation still occurs even if you have 1,000,000 established players. 2. Blizzard's goal of the current system is to encourage playing. There are plenty of publicly available Blizzard interviews to confirm this, but they do not want a system that merely displays true skill. At the top level, that would not encourage top players to keep playing because they might lose their ranking if they played and lost. Now they need to play just to maintain. At the lower levels, players are rewarded for playing more, and they feel like they are progressing even if they are not. This encourages all players to keep playing to keep up with the rising tide. More games = more fun. Damn man... you nailed it. This is exactly right. The system works correctly. It does what is it supposed to by motivating players to continue to play. It is not a true skill rating like ELO, but it is a rough indicator of skill. And yes, there will be some inflation due to new players losing before they have any points to lose, but that is fine too. It still does a pretty solid job of raking the most skilled players at the top of the rankings. I also really like the fact that it doesn't allow someone to get to a high ranking and just sit on it. You have to keep playing to maintain your rank, which you should. Even though your MMR rating, or placement on the ladder may not go up, it doesn't mean your aren't getting better. It just means that you are improving at the same speed as everyone else. I have been at the top of my platinum league since release (just can't quite hit diamond), and even though my rank hasn't changed, I know I'm a much better player than when i first started. Unfortunately for me, so is everyone else I play against. | ||
|
Shikyo
Finland33997 Posts
On September 30 2010 04:44 ZapRoffo wrote: Anyway it boils down it if I was originally right and bonus pool points affect your points won from future matches, then this standardized rating is invalid and meaningless (players who have played more and had their rating corrected more are double punished). If I was wrong (which I do currently believe) than it's a very useful thing. Anyway it's funny when I calculated it for myself and my standardized rating is a whopping 28. Which is worse than average cause I entered diamond with 300 some. A bunch of people must be negative too. You can be like 700 point platinum and then promote to Diamond and be like 400 points but you'll still have lost all the bonus points from before and they're wasted. Am I right? | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
2. Blizzard's goal of the current system is to encourage playing. There are plenty of publicly available Blizzard interviews to confirm this, but they do not want a system that merely displays true skill. At the top level, that would not encourage top players to keep playing because they might lose their ranking if they played and lost. Now they need to play just to maintain. At the lower levels, players are rewarded for playing more, and they feel like they are progressing even if they are not. This encourages all players to keep playing to keep up with the rising tide. More games = more fun. While I agree, it would be nice to see an ELO rating along with your rank and points. | ||
|
redwingxviii
United States101 Posts
"i win a lot in diamond" "I am in the gold league" "I lose a lot in bronze" If you think you are insanely good, join a tournament. enough about ratings. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12249 Posts
On September 30 2010 03:36 out4blood wrote: There seem to be a lot of misconceptions in this thread. 1. Of course there will be inflation, even without the bonus pool. New players enter with 0 points. They cannot go below 0, but players that defeat them still score points. In a simplified example, with 2 players, both at 0, they play and the winner gets 10 points. Now we have inflation. And this inflation still occurs even if you have 1,000,000 established players. no no no no no no no no no | ||
|
ZapRoffo
United States5544 Posts
On September 30 2010 06:04 Garion wrote: This last part suggests to me that you were originally right. The median points in diamond is below the current 900ish bonus points (for example I am at 734 and this puts me in the 47th percentile, yay negative points!). If the system adjusted points for the bonus pool consumed, that would suggest that half of diamond is on the verge of demotion! I think a lot of the bottom half of the diamond ladders don't play frequently and have a bunch of unused bonus pool though. So if you've spent all your bonus pool it, just looking at ladder percentile is misleading compared to them. | ||
| ||
.. 
