Standardized Rating - Page 3

On September 30 2010 02:16 cHaNg-sTa wrote:
icCup system.

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.

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)

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.

On September 30 2010 03:12 Excalibur_Z wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!