|
Everyone has been complaining about bonus pool and how it inflates point totals leading to credentials from old posts becoming rather outdated. At a given time, a 1500 player might be "top tier" but after two weeks or so, plenty of people will have reached 1500 making it no longer "top tier" in the eyes of many. If you don't follow the forums every day, it's hard to get an idea of how high in the ladder these people actually are.
Easy way to "standardize" this rating involves removing the total number of bonus points awarded this season from the rating. Doing this will make your points relevant to the points that were around during the first week or two of release. If you still have bonus pool left, just add the amount of bonus pool you have left after subtracting the total bonus pool from your current rating. Many of you will remember that top players in the first week or two were sitting at around ~1000 points.
CURRENT TOTAL BONUS POOL: 905 (Updated 08:16KST 9/28/2010)
StandardizedRating = CurrentRating - CurrentTotalBonusPool + CurrentPersonalBonusPool
EXAMPLE
+ Show Spoiler +
If the CURRENT TOTAL BONUS POOL is 888
HuK - Currently at 2092 with 0 bonus pool
HuK (Standardized) - 1204
RandomExamplePlayer - Currently at 1400 with 300 bonus pool
RandomExamplePlayer (Standardized) - 812
Why is this useful?
For most people who have had their win ratio settle close to 50% and have played a significant number of games, points is a decent way to gauge their skill level. A standardized point total will allow credentials to be relevant for months instead of being outdated by inflation.
On a personal level, this really helps because it helps you track your ACTUAL improvement. A lot of people will watch their point total go up and feel satisfaction in "getting better". Even if you understand that your point total is being inflated, it's hard to tell exactly how much better (if at all) you're getting. If you just keep track of your standardized point total, you'll be able to have a pretty good idea of your progress and improvement.
How do I find the CURRENT TOTAL BONUS POOL?
If this idea catches on, I'll try to update this thread as much as possible with the current total bonus pool, but if you'd like to find it yourself, just get through 5 placement matches in whatever league you haven't played in. (Make a new team if you've already played placement matches in every format) The number of points in your bonus pool after you finish your placement matches is the value you want.
|
Hello. 
I agree that bonus pool points are quite pointless and prehas even "unfair". When I first bought SC2 two weeks after the realese I was able to play my five placment matches. I lost my first two as Zerg and then Terran, winning my next three in a row with Toss. Du to life, I was unable to play for the following 5 days, when I finally was able to play I had over 150 bonus pool points. After winning my next two games I was placed in Diamond and started playing people that had the "slight advantage" curse. I won my next 6 games in a row winning 42 points a game and ended being number 2 in my divison after about 2 hours of playing from platinum.
So in the end I belive that the system really is not needed and it is just a comparision from the "rested experiance" you get from WoW. 
|
The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement  ..
But its still less inflated Id guess.
|
On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess.
How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S
|
On September 28 2010 00:07 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess. How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S
Probably because your points are still inflating just not as much with the addition of bonus pool points.
|
the problem is that bonus pools are division and not league based.
noone will ever get into that "feld delta" division on europe anymore to see how much those pros got in bonuspoints.
Thus the idea is almost worthless im afraid
|
On September 28 2010 00:10 shannn wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:07 Clearout wrote:On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess. How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S Probably because your points are still inflating just not as much with the addition of bonus pool points.
Was pretty sure it stayed the same. E.g. I win 12 points, someone loses 12 points. If you have a ridiculous win rate though, you will climb higher, but if you end at 50% W/L you shouldnt increase in points.
Edit: Sorry for derailing.
OT: Thanks for this! I'll make use of it to get a general idea of my "skill"
|
I played against a friend that was about evenly matched with me. He won and got about 12 points and I only lost 9 points. The game after we faced each others again and this time I got 12 points..
So even tho we got 1-1 we both gained points.
If you ever play against someone twice and win one of the games, just check your history and his history... and you will see that you gained more than you lost.
Yes, you will get bonus points while you play. But not that many.
|
You can't have less than 0 points I think. If you lose your first couple games after being placed in a new league, you don't lose any points but someone else gains points. That's the only inflation beside the bonus pool I can think of.
|
The other inflation is if you play against a better opponent whole time and win you would get more points than an average game.
But if you lost you would lose less than you would gain.
So like xzidez pointed out above me and like my previous argument you will get some inflation but not as much.
But the same thing can be said vice versa. You could actually lose more points than that you could gain.
Therefore there are some cases where inflation isn't the case.
|
BTW, do you get more bonus points after your placements if you win more of them? Just curious.
|
On September 28 2010 00:13 Viruuus wrote:the problem is that bonus pools are division and not league based. noone will ever get into that "feld delta" division on europe anymore to see how much those pros got in bonuspoints. Thus the idea is almost worthless im afraid
Do you have a source that proves this? I'm pretty sure every division has the same amount of bonus pool. Getting through your placement matches and being placed in a brand new division still gives you tons of bonus points.
|
Hmm as shannn says you can also lose more points than you get.
So its probably something like if you have less expected rating, you will get more. And more expected rating you will get much less...
Nevertheless I approve your idea! Its a pain trying to figure out if you are improving or not... the only "measurement" is the blizzards weekly top 200. And it's so much based on your daily form. People jump from 70 to 150, and back.
On September 28 2010 00:30 deverlight wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:13 Viruuus wrote:the problem is that bonus pools are division and not league based. noone will ever get into that "feld delta" division on europe anymore to see how much those pros got in bonuspoints. Thus the idea is almost worthless im afraid Do you have a source that proves this? I'm pretty sure every division has the same amount of bonus pool. Getting through your placement matches and being placed in a brand new division still gives you tons of bonus points.
well since you get xxx new points even if you end up in a completely new division... I will go ahead and say that everyone get the equal ammount of bonus points.
|
I thought the Bonus pool was calculated every week since you activated your account, but I could be totally wrong on that.
If someone bought SC2 today and played his 5 placement matches, he wouldnt start with 888 Bonus pool, would he?
|
On September 28 2010 01:06 lepape wrote:
I thought the Bonus pool was calculated every week since you activated your account, but I could be totally wrong on that.
If someone bought SC2 today and played his 5 placement matches, he wouldnt start with 888 Bonus pool, would he?
he would.
|
Better way is go to sc2ranks.com, and look up your world percentile. Then say you're diamond 88th percentile or whatever. You'll still need to use all your own bonus points to be competitive though.
Subtracting out bonus pool isn't as good because there are other sources of inflation/deflation (rating floor of zero, amount of bonus your opponents had used etc).
|
This is a great idea.
|
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118212
On May 11 2010 23:51 ZapRoffo wrote:
Some more information:
With a matchmaking rating system, the way points are assigned is as follows. There is a default point assignment (was +/-12 for wow, seems similar in sc2) for an "equal match result". The amount won or lost in any given match, though, is determined by comparing your displayed rating to your opponent's matchmaking rating. This is why many people are experiencing huge gains for wins and small losses. It's because they haven't played enough to raise their displayed rating to their matchmaking rating. They may be matched as an 1800 matchmaking rating, but are at 1300, so if they win against an equal opponent (1800 matchmaking), they get the points of a 1300 beating an 1800, which may be +20 or something. The opponent compares his displayed rating to your matchmaking rating to calculate his point change, if he's displayed 1600 and you are also 1800 matchmaking, he will lose -10 or so (slightly less than -12 default).
One huge misconception people I feel like people need to learn the truth about:
The bonus pool WILL NOT cause inflation of ratings in the long run as long as it only modifies your displayed rating and not your matchmaking rating, which appears to be the case. In the long run, displayed ratings converge to matchmaking rating, so if matchmaking rating is unaffected there is no long term effect.
An example:
I start with a big bonus pool and win up to 1600, and my matchmaking rating is 1700. Alice wins the same amount against similar quality opponents but with no bonus pool and goes to only 1350 or so, but also with 1700 matchmaking rating, because matchmaking is totally unaffected. Now in my games I will only be looking at winning +13 or so from my opponents who are 1700 matchmaking, while Alice is looking at something like +16 or +17 from her 1700 matchmaking opponents. I'm looking at -10 or -11 from losses, while she's looking at -8 or so from those same people. Eventually the result over a long enough period is we both end up at 1700 if no change in skill happens.
Even if I got enough of a bonus pool to get to 1900 or something, once that runs out I'm going to lose more for losses than I get for wins against people who are my skill level until I get to the appropriate level. The bonus pool just functions to get people's displayed rating jump started so if they took a break they can jump to their rating more quickly.
|
United States12237 Posts
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.
|
While bonus pool will not cause any inflation problems regarding matchmaking, the problems arise in discussion. Just about every thread on TL has someone qualify themselves as a 1000pt diamond player. Because of how bonus pool accrues, a 1000 diamond player now will not be a 1000pt diamond player in a few months - chances are he'll be closer to 1500 or 2000. Standardization of rating attempts to keep statements like "I'm currently a #### rated diamond player" more relevant for discussion even several months down the line.
A 500-S(Standardized) level diamond player that does not improve relative to his competition on the ladder will remain roughly a 500-S level diamond player many months from now even if his actual displayed rating has doubled.
|
On September 28 2010 00:14 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:10 shannn wrote:On September 28 2010 00:07 Clearout wrote:On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess. How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S Probably because your points are still inflating just not as much with the addition of bonus pool points. Was pretty sure it stayed the same. E.g. I win 12 points, someone loses 12 points. If you have a ridiculous win rate though, you will climb higher, but if you end at 50% W/L you shouldnt increase in points. Edit: Sorry for derailing. OT: Thanks for this! I'll make use of it to get a general idea of my "skill"
No. In any ELO system, as more people join the lower ranks (and they do, in droves) the higher ranking scores inflate further. ELO point inflation has even become a controversy at the Grandmaster level of Professional Chess.
|
The bonus points are needed to compensate for those who have way to much time on their hands. Simplified example:
You play 1000 games with a 51% win percentage; at ten points a win, and minus ten points a loss, that's 200 points (no bonus)
You play 100 games and win 60%. Again, at +/- 10 points per win/loss, that's 200 points (no bonus).
In the current system, player 2 pulls ahead of player 1 (as he should) thanks to the bonus that accrues when he's not playing. But, under this standardized points system, the players appear equal, when they are not.
Win percentage doesn't work either; if you have a 60% win rate, but you just got promoted from platinum, you're not any better than a long-time diamond at 52%.
The system is flawed. I have no idea how to improve it.
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 28 2010 05:28 tGhOeOoDry wrote:
The bonus points are needed to compensate for those who have way to much time on their hands. Simplified example:
You play 1000 games with a 51% win percentage; at ten points a win, and minus ten points a loss, that's 200 points (no bonus)
You play 100 games and win 60%. Again, at +/- 10 points per win/loss, that's 200 points (no bonus).
In the current system, player 2 pulls ahead of player 1 (as he should) thanks to the bonus that accrues when he's not playing. But, under this standardized points system, the players appear equal, when they are not.
Win percentage doesn't work either; if you have a 60% win rate, but you just got promoted from platinum, you're not any better than a long-time diamond at 52%.
The system is flawed. I have no idea how to improve it.
The bonus pool accrues at a set rate for everyone, whether they're playing or not. It's not Rested XP from WoW.
|
On September 28 2010 04:50 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:14 Clearout wrote:On September 28 2010 00:10 shannn wrote:On September 28 2010 00:07 Clearout wrote:On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess. How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S Probably because your points are still inflating just not as much with the addition of bonus pool points. Was pretty sure it stayed the same. E.g. I win 12 points, someone loses 12 points. If you have a ridiculous win rate though, you will climb higher, but if you end at 50% W/L you shouldnt increase in points. Edit: Sorry for derailing. OT: Thanks for this! I'll make use of it to get a general idea of my "skill" No. In any ELO system, as more people join the lower ranks (and they do, in droves) the higher ranking scores inflate further. ELO point inflation has even become a controversy at the Grandmaster level of Professional Chess.
However wouldn't this system eliminate a HUGE amount of inflation? Like much larger than ELO inflation? I mean the bonus pool accumulates at a constant rate here.
I like this idea. It's too confusing to keep track of how high people are right now. With the standardized rating, the point inflation would be a ton more stable.
Although I think I'm like 200 pts with this system so it must be lame
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 28 2010 04:50 gogogadgetflow wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:14 Clearout wrote:On September 28 2010 00:10 shannn wrote:On September 28 2010 00:07 Clearout wrote:On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess. How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S Probably because your points are still inflating just not as much with the addition of bonus pool points. Was pretty sure it stayed the same. E.g. I win 12 points, someone loses 12 points. If you have a ridiculous win rate though, you will climb higher, but if you end at 50% W/L you shouldnt increase in points. Edit: Sorry for derailing. OT: Thanks for this! I'll make use of it to get a general idea of my "skill" No. In any ELO system, as more people join the lower ranks (and they do, in droves) the higher ranking scores inflate further. ELO point inflation has even become a controversy at the Grandmaster level of Professional Chess.
Except I think the Blizzard system for SC2 sidesteps this problem by dividing players into separate Leagues and resetting points every season.
|
United States4126 Posts
When a player gets promoted to a higher league, does their rating change by the same amount as someone else's? I remember I was promoted from a 800 plat player to a 500 diamond player.
|
sc2ranks has a convenient graph where you can see the rating history of players. In the last 35 days, the top ranks have gone up by about 700 points, while the bonus pool has only been 420 in the same time. So there are other sources of (significant) inflation besides the bonus pool.
Furthermore, as ZapRoffo's quoted post above explains, the bonus pool may not induce any inflation at all (though the theory on the Ladder Misconceptions FAQ is that the game compares current points minus bonus pool to MMR, while ZapRoffo's post assumes that the game compares current points directly to MMR, and the former would cause inflation equal to the bonus pool)
It's possible that the inflation we are seeing is primarily the system taking its sweet time to converge to players' true skill levels and bonus points have nothing to do with it, and in a few weeks we could see the rate of inflation drop below the bonus pool rate of 12/day.
|
On September 28 2010 05:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 05:28 tGhOeOoDry wrote:
The bonus points are needed to compensate for those who have way to much time on their hands. Simplified example:
You play 1000 games with a 51% win percentage; at ten points a win, and minus ten points a loss, that's 200 points (no bonus)
You play 100 games and win 60%. Again, at +/- 10 points per win/loss, that's 200 points (no bonus).
In the current system, player 2 pulls ahead of player 1 (as he should) thanks to the bonus that accrues when he's not playing. But, under this standardized points system, the players appear equal, when they are not.
Win percentage doesn't work either; if you have a 60% win rate, but you just got promoted from platinum, you're not any better than a long-time diamond at 52%.
The system is flawed. I have no idea how to improve it. The bonus pool accrues at a set rate for everyone, whether they're playing or not. It's not Rested XP from WoW.
To clarify: If you win one game every day, you get 10 bonus points per win. If you win 10 times a day, you get 1 bonus point per win. Whether intended or not (I believe intended, but I have no source and therefore cannot say), the effect is that bonus points help people who are better but play less keep up in the rankings.
|
On September 28 2010 07:33 Garion wrote:
sc2ranks has a convenient graph where you can see the rating history of players. In the last 35 days, the top ranks have gone up by about 700 points, while the bonus pool has only been 420 in the same time. So there are other sources of (significant) inflation besides the bonus pool.
Furthermore, as ZapRoffo's quoted post above explains, the bonus pool may not induce any inflation at all (though the theory on the Ladder Misconceptions FAQ is that the game compares current points minus bonus pool to MMR, while ZapRoffo's post assumes that the game compares current points directly to MMR, and the former would cause inflation equal to the bonus pool)
It's possible that the inflation we are seeing is primarily the system taking its sweet time to converge to players' true skill levels and bonus points have nothing to do with it, and in a few weeks we could see the rate of inflation drop below the bonus pool rate of 12/day.
The TOP players have not had their win ratio stabilize at 50%. This means that the more they play, the higher their rating is going to get. They win more than they lose after all.
To clarify: If you win one game every day, you get 10 bonus points per win. If you win 10 times a day, you get 1 bonus point per win. Whether intended or not (I believe intended, but I have no source and therefore cannot say), the effect is that bonus points help people who are better but play less keep up in the rankings.
It doesn't matter how many games you play in a day. You get bonus pool points at a rate of about 1point every 2 hours. This is a set rate that doesn't change for anyone - everyone gets bonus pool points at this rate. Whenever you win, you get points for winning and also a bonus pool point per winning point until you run out of bonus pool.
EXAMPLE
You have a bonus pool of 100 saved up. You win an even match which normally gives you +10. You also get an additional 10 bonus points from this win putting your actual points gained at +20. The 10 bonus points you get are subtracted from your bonus pool points leaving you at 90 bonus pool.
You have a bonus pool of 4 saved up. You win an even match which normally gives you +10. You would normally get an additional 10 bonus points from this win, but you only have 4 so you get the maximum amount you can get which is 4. This puts your actual points gained at +14 and your bonus pool at 0.
|
On September 28 2010 04:00 funkybovinator wrote:http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118212Show nested quote +On May 11 2010 23:51 ZapRoffo wrote:
Some more information:
With a matchmaking rating system, the way points are assigned is as follows. There is a default point assignment (was +/-12 for wow, seems similar in sc2) for an "equal match result". The amount won or lost in any given match, though, is determined by comparing your displayed rating to your opponent's matchmaking rating. This is why many people are experiencing huge gains for wins and small losses. It's because they haven't played enough to raise their displayed rating to their matchmaking rating. They may be matched as an 1800 matchmaking rating, but are at 1300, so if they win against an equal opponent (1800 matchmaking), they get the points of a 1300 beating an 1800, which may be +20 or something. The opponent compares his displayed rating to your matchmaking rating to calculate his point change, if he's displayed 1600 and you are also 1800 matchmaking, he will lose -10 or so (slightly less than -12 default).
One huge misconception people I feel like people need to learn the truth about:
The bonus pool WILL NOT cause inflation of ratings in the long run as long as it only modifies your displayed rating and not your matchmaking rating, which appears to be the case. In the long run, displayed ratings converge to matchmaking rating, so if matchmaking rating is unaffected there is no long term effect.
An example:
I start with a big bonus pool and win up to 1600, and my matchmaking rating is 1700. Alice wins the same amount against similar quality opponents but with no bonus pool and goes to only 1350 or so, but also with 1700 matchmaking rating, because matchmaking is totally unaffected. Now in my games I will only be looking at winning +13 or so from my opponents who are 1700 matchmaking, while Alice is looking at something like +16 or +17 from her 1700 matchmaking opponents. I'm looking at -10 or -11 from losses, while she's looking at -8 or so from those same people. Eventually the result over a long enough period is we both end up at 1700 if no change in skill happens.
Even if I got enough of a bonus pool to get to 1900 or something, once that runs out I'm going to lose more for losses than I get for wins against people who are my skill level until I get to the appropriate level. The bonus pool just functions to get people's displayed rating jump started so if they took a break they can jump to their rating more quickly.
I don't think that's right anymore funky, by observing what's happened. I was assuming bonus pool points affect how much you win/lose from future matches because your rating is overvalued. Seems this is not the case, since the graphs on sc2ranks seem to show rather constant growth.
|
I don't think that's right anymore funky, by observing what's happened. I was assuming bonus pool points affect how much you win/lose from future matches because your rating is overvalued. Seems this is not the case, since the graphs on sc2ranks seem to show rather constant growth.
Except the growth is faster than the bonus pool. And if you look at the top ranked players, they are still getting more than 12 points per win, indicating that their MMRs are higher than their points, with or without adjustment for bonus pool.
There is at least 240 points per month inflation happening beyond the bonus pool, whether this is from new players joining, the system taking time to converge, or something else entirely.
If the bonus pool is adjusted for when awarding points, then we have:
360 points/month bonus pool inflation+
240 points/month unknown inflation.
If the bonus pool is not adjusted for (i.e. your original theory), then we have:
600 points/month unknown inflation.
I haven't seen any evidence yet suggesting that either one is not the case.
|
if you then add this number to 1500 you can see your real elo
|
yea i understand why blizzard implemented the bonus pool, it really does trick you into thinking you improved... and that feels good! but what i do to get a better idea of my actual improvement is just to pick the top 3 or so in my division and see how far i am... so if i'm 400 points behind them a week ago and still 400 points behind this week, then even though my rating has gotten higher, i haven't really gotten much better...
to take this idea further, it would be nice to create an index of a few top players in the world and use that average to be the standard, constantly updated of course...
|
On September 29 2010 22:54 Garion wrote:Show nested quote +
I don't think that's right anymore funky, by observing what's happened. I was assuming bonus pool points affect how much you win/lose from future matches because your rating is overvalued. Seems this is not the case, since the graphs on sc2ranks seem to show rather constant growth.
Except the growth is faster than the bonus pool. And if you look at the top ranked players, they are still getting more than 12 points per win, indicating that their MMRs are higher than their points, with or without adjustment for bonus pool. There is at least 240 points per month inflation happening beyond the bonus pool, whether this is from new players joining, the system taking time to converge, or something else entirely. If the bonus pool is adjusted for when awarding points, then we have: 360 points/month bonus pool inflation+ 240 points/month unknown inflation. If the bonus pool is not adjusted for (i.e. your original theory), then we have: 600 points/month unknown inflation. I haven't seen any evidence yet suggesting that either one is not the case.
This isn't really what I'd call inflation. The reason for this is because these players have not had their rating settle yet. The matchmaking system will try to match players higher and higher until they stabilize at about a 50% win ratio. However, since these players are at the top of the ladder, the system does not work that well for them since there are no higher players to match them up with. For the average player who's starting to even out into roughly a 50% win ratio, there should be no inflation in the standardized rating that does not reflect an increase in skill relative to their peers. Because this is relative to the populace, if more people join who are generally worse than this player, his rating will go up because his relative skill level will be higher.
if you then add this number to 1500 you can see your real elo
This is false. Your REAL rating (HIDDEN MMR rating) is HIDDEN. There is no known way to pinpoint your exact MMR.
|
so why not just use your world/region ranking as the most solid rating, since it normalizes bonus pool and at high levels of play, it can be assumed that bonus pool is always exhausted?
|
I would like a standardized rating because right now the points dont mean anything.
|
I just track my progress by looking at my global rank on SC2ranks.com
|
Global rank on SC2ranks is a pretty good indicator of where you're at... but it only stays relevant if your bonus pool has been exhausted. This standardized rating system will roughly work even if you have hundreds of bonus points left.
|
On September 28 2010 00:07 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess. How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S
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 reducing the bonus pool won't help you pinpoint the MMR raiting, at all. I'm relatively low on pts, but compared to people that i've been near on blizzard's top 200 list, they'd be on average ~400 pts ahead of me, with similiar bonus pool left.
The points you gain/lose from the game are not only influenced by both player's MMR, but (i don't remember correctly) comparison of one player's MMR to other's ladder rating; same in reverse - both can appear 'favored' to each other, etc. MMR changes, however, only depending on opponent's MMR. There's a ton of confusion which results in "wtf 0_o" rating.
The only thing i more or less trust(since it's also not very stable due to weird bonus pool effects) is relative ranking worldwide on sc2ranks.com.
Still, it wasn't uncommon for me to keep winning +5 pts from players ~300-400 pts above me, and then lose ~20pts on a game against same kind of player. Makes me facepalm.
|
icCup system. That is all.
Bonus pool is dumb. This isn't WoW where I get rested experienced sitting inside an inn. Give me a break.
|
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.
|
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
|
I can understand Blizzard's reasoning behind implementing a bonus pool. It creates the illusion of progress and motivates casual players to continue playing because it boosts morale to see progress. Most people are not going to understand the bonus pool system - Even some people who do understand it can't completely avoid the psychological trick that Blizzard plays by showing your points steadily go up and up.
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.
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 30 2010 02:12 loadme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:07 Clearout wrote:On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess. How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S 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.
|
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.
|
I guess you can always use the % from sc2ranks. If you are top 1% diamond i guess your good.
|
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 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.
|
I think instead of having 10000 divisions, you have divisions based on skill. So you have the basic Bronze - Diamond, and then in each league, have a ranking system, kinda like iCCupt, where you have D- to S
|
Wouldn't it be better to normalize your standardized rating based upon the highest ranked player?
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.
|
As someone mentioned, and maybe one or two others have thought:
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:
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.
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.
|
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!
|
I feel like a lot of the confusion regarding Blizzard's ranking system comes from the fact that it was designed by a guy with a PhD in Mathematics. Sure, it is similar to "this", maybe based on "that", but it is also new in a lot of ways. New in what ways? Well, if we know the guy who made it has a PhD in Mathematics, presumably concentrated in a field relevant to ladder/ranking, we can know he applied some pretty intense Math that we can't just reason out.
|
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
i really don't understand the fuss. i understand that people want to "know where they are ranked" but can't you determine that by loose standards?
"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.
|
United States12237 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
|
On September 30 2010 06:04 Garion wrote:Show nested quote +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!
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.
|
I like the idea of using percentiles, easy to understand, and sc2ranks makes it easy to find. I'm 73rd percentile diamond in NA, 70th percentile diamond world ranking. http://www.sc2ranks.com/team/3982028
I think since there's no cross-region play, comparing ladder points across servers is a bit iffy, so it's probably best to state it as "73rd percentile in NA diamond."
|
On September 30 2010 06:35 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +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?
No, you gain the entire accrued bonus pool for your new diamond league. It's not wasted it's given back as new bonus pool in diamond.
|
On September 30 2010 07:22 Authweight wrote:I like the idea of using percentiles, easy to understand, and sc2ranks makes it easy to find. I'm 73rd percentile diamond in NA, 70th percentile diamond world ranking. http://www.sc2ranks.com/team/3982028I think since there's no cross-region play, comparing ladder points across servers is a bit iffy, so it's probably best to state it as "73rd percentile in NA diamond."
Wow. A suggestion that actually makes sense.
Only problem here is that it doesn't account for your unspent bonus pool points from a period of inactivity. But maybe that's a good thing?
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 30 2010 07:24 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 06:35 Shikyo wrote: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? No, you gain the entire accrued bonus pool for your new diamond league. It's not wasted it's given back as new bonus pool in diamond.
Are you sure? That hasn't been the case in histories I've seen. You seem to get whatever consumed bonus pool you had carried over plus X points (probably wherever you land based on MMR), and you don't seem to get any bonus pool refunded.
|
On September 30 2010 07:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 07:24 ZapRoffo wrote:On September 30 2010 06:35 Shikyo wrote: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? No, you gain the entire accrued bonus pool for your new diamond league. It's not wasted it's given back as new bonus pool in diamond. Are you sure? That hasn't been the case in histories I've seen. You seem to get whatever consumed bonus pool you had carried over plus X points (probably wherever you land based on MMR), and you don't seem to get any bonus pool refunded.
But then this whole thing doesn't make sense, because people would start diamond with different amounts of bonus pool depending on how much they used before they got there...
Oh unless you are saying your consumed bonus pool goes straight to your diamond points?
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 30 2010 07:31 ZapRoffo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 07:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:On September 30 2010 07:24 ZapRoffo wrote:On September 30 2010 06:35 Shikyo wrote: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? No, you gain the entire accrued bonus pool for your new diamond league. It's not wasted it's given back as new bonus pool in diamond. Are you sure? That hasn't been the case in histories I've seen. You seem to get whatever consumed bonus pool you had carried over plus X points (probably wherever you land based on MMR), and you don't seem to get any bonus pool refunded. But then this whole thing doesn't make sense, because people would start diamond with different amounts of bonus pool depending on how much they used before they got there... Oh unless you are saying your consumed bonus pool goes straight to your diamond points?
Yeah, that's what I meant. It goes straight to your new total.
|
This doesn't work because bonus pool more greatly affects people who haven't played as many games, unless MMR is 100% irrelevant of your displayed points. If it's completely irrelevant, then I guess, but I would imagine they are somehow somewhat even marginally linked.
|
On September 30 2010 07:25 SpaceYeti wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 07:22 Authweight wrote:I like the idea of using percentiles, easy to understand, and sc2ranks makes it easy to find. I'm 73rd percentile diamond in NA, 70th percentile diamond world ranking. http://www.sc2ranks.com/team/3982028I think since there's no cross-region play, comparing ladder points across servers is a bit iffy, so it's probably best to state it as "73rd percentile in NA diamond." Wow. A suggestion that actually makes sense. Only problem here is that it doesn't account for your unspent bonus pool points from a period of inactivity. But maybe that's a good thing?
So, does anyone find any problems with this? No?
Everyone in favour say aye!
|
I'm pretty sure bonus pool affects everyone the same amount. MMR is not related to displayed points. The displayed points just tries to tend you toward the MMR.
|
Or Blizzard would just get rid of the bonus pool.
Then the points would always be the same besides the inflation of top players due to there being a larger player pool. But seriously, we should have to rely on communities to add these things, it's something that should be in the game.
|
On September 28 2010 00:14 Clearout wrote:Show nested quote +On September 28 2010 00:10 shannn wrote:On September 28 2010 00:07 Clearout wrote:On September 28 2010 00:01 xzidez wrote:The problem is that the system is inflated even without the bonuspool. So even with this system you wont be able to track your actual improvement .. But its still less inflated Id guess. How is the system inflated without the bonuspool? :S Probably because your points are still inflating just not as much with the addition of bonus pool points. Was pretty sure it stayed the same. E.g. I win 12 points, someone loses 12 points. If you have a ridiculous win rate though, you will climb higher, but if you end at 50% W/L you shouldnt increase in points. Edit: Sorry for derailing. OT: Thanks for this! I'll make use of it to get a general idea of my "skill"
not true. I have a 56 w/l and I'm 1007 points
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 30 2010 07:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
This doesn't work because bonus pool more greatly affects people who haven't played as many games, unless MMR is 100% irrelevant of your displayed points. If it's completely irrelevant, then I guess, but I would imagine they are somehow somewhat even marginally linked.
I don't understand. Everyone gets the same total bonus pool, the only difference is how much you've used. You can find this out by going to your profile page on the Battle.net website. Deducting consumed bonus pool from your current displayed rating shows your rating sans inflation (and remember inflation occurs at the same rate for everyone).
|
Hi.
The thread is misleading imo. The current ladder and ranks are not to show who is actually the best!
Its a system for everybody to be happy. Low skilled players are able to get very high ratings and thats what blizzard wants.
The system is working for them and they are not gonna change it.
|
What about promotions? Every time you get promoted your point total drops. I was placed in bronze, and I have worked my way all the way up to Platinum. Going by your math I have 945 points - 890 bonus pool + 28 points unused = 83. The best platinum player in my division only has 1129 - 890 +9 = 248. And the 2nd ranked one has 1031 - 890 + 53 = 194. That seems really really low, especially given 165-132 55.6% for the best, 138-116 53.9% for the second, and 153-135 53% for me.
|
On September 30 2010 08:01 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 07:44 FabledIntegral wrote:
This doesn't work because bonus pool more greatly affects people who haven't played as many games, unless MMR is 100% irrelevant of your displayed points. If it's completely irrelevant, then I guess, but I would imagine they are somehow somewhat even marginally linked. I don't understand. Everyone gets the same total bonus pool, the only difference is how much you've used. You can find this out by going to your profile page on the Battle.net website. Deducting consumed bonus pool from your current displayed rating shows your rating sans inflation (and remember inflation occurs at the same rate for everyone).
Just typed out a 3 paragraph explanation only to realize I'm kinda shaky on the foundations, so I could be completely full of shit. I understand what you're saying about the bonus pool, maybe in my free time I'll end up figuring out what I mean.... if I'm even correct.
|
Some divisions have very inflated points.
|
So I went and grinded out my 4v4 random diamond promotion to try and get some data on how promotions work.
My rating (in platinum) and bonus pool before the game that promoted me:
Rating: 570
Bonus Pool: 602
Spent Bonus Pool (Total 919 at the time of playing): 317
My rating (in diamond) and bonus pool after the game that promoted me:
Rating: 410
Bonus Pool: 562
Spent Bonus Pool (Total 919 at the time of playing): 357
Something strange to note... The game that got me the promotion gave me +40. Instead of the usual 20 points and 20 bonus pool points, it looks like ALL of the points I got were bonus pool points. I believe Excalibur_Z has the most logical explanation to the promotion system. My standardized rating immediately after promotion is 53 which is probably derived from my hidden MMR. I'm then awarded the bonus points that I'd spent til then (357) putting my rating at 410. I'm not refunded any bonus pool.
This seems to make sense and is consistent with Excalibur_Z's findings in previous compilation posts. The only thing that would really throw a wrench in this would be if someone immediately after promotion had a standardized rating of less than 0. Also, following this theory someone who takes longer to be promoted than me (because their MMR hasn't stabilized to an acceptable level for promotion because an upper limit to their skill has not been found) should enter the league with a HIGHER standardized rating.
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 30 2010 09:38 deverlight wrote:
So I went and grinded out my 4v4 random diamond promotion to try and get some data on how promotions work.
My rating (in platinum) and bonus pool before the game that promoted me:
Rating: 570
Bonus Pool: 602
Spent Bonus Pool (Total 919 at the time of playing): 317
My rating (in diamond) and bonus pool after the game that promoted me:
Rating: 410
Bonus Pool: 562
Spent Bonus Pool (Total 919 at the time of playing): 357
Something strange to note... The game that got me the promotion gave me +40. Instead of the usual 20 points and 20 bonus pool points, it looks like ALL of the points I got were bonus pool points. I believe Excalibur_Z has the most logical explanation to the promotion system. My standardized rating immediately after promotion is 53 which is probably derived from my hidden MMR. I'm then awarded the bonus points that I'd spent til then (357) putting my rating at 410. I'm not refunded any bonus pool.
This seems to make sense and is consistent with Excalibur_Z's findings in previous compilation posts. The only thing that would really throw a wrench in this would be if someone immediately after promotion had a standardized rating of less than 0. Also, following this theory someone who takes longer to be promoted than me (because their MMR hasn't stabilized to an acceptable level for promotion because an upper limit to their skill has not been found) should enter the league with a HIGHER standardized rating.
When I got promoted into Diamond I also had 20 extra bonus points (I was supposed to win 20+20 from my last game) disappear from my bonus pool. It's probably a bug that may only be related to Diamond because the same thing happened to you, but that didn't happen to Vanick when he got promoted from Bronze to Silver. I asked Vanick to continue plotting his promotions after intentionally bombing his placement matches, so we'll see if extra bonus points disappear when he gets promoted again.
|
about a week ago i was platinum ranked #1 with 1106 points before getting promoted to diamond. i had used all of my bonus pool in my platinum division. Immediately upon promotion to diamond, I was set to 941 points in Diamond (1106 platinum -> 941 diamond). Several others who were put into my newly formed diamond division were also set to 941. I doubt each person who was newly set to 941 was also the exact amount of points that I had while in platinum.
was 941 the amount of bonus pool possible points up to that day? did it remove all other points i had accrued, even when playing diamond rated players and winning that weren't considered "bonus pool" point wins?
maybe someone who gets this can fill me in or use this information to understand something better
/confused
(edit, wording)
|
The point of the bonus pool is to have the number of games played have an effect on one's rating. Without the bonus pool a 1:1game player would have the exact same rank and rating as someone who has a 1,000:1,000record when the guy with 2k games would clearly likely be the superior player here. Bonus pool helps to distinguish this.
I however don't like it's inflating effect.
|
On September 30 2010 08:12 NEOtheONE wrote:
What about promotions? Every time you get promoted your point total drops. I was placed in bronze, and I have worked my way all the way up to Platinum. Going by your math I have 945 points - 890 bonus pool + 28 points unused = 83. The best platinum player in my division only has 1129 - 890 +9 = 248. And the 2nd ranked one has 1031 - 890 + 53 = 194. That seems really really low, especially given 165-132 55.6% for the best, 138-116 53.9% for the second, and 153-135 53% for me.
Due to the drop of points (or gain of points for that matter) when moving up or down from a division, another rule of standardization is probably needed to take into account of this phenomena (if this idea somehow gets going)
Assuming that when you move up a division, u lose 100 points, a sample standardization correction maybe as follows:
Bronze +0 pts
Silver: +100 pts
Gold: +200 pts
Plat: +300 pts
Diamond: +400 pts
Maybe with this rule, (with adjustments), this could help compare players in different leagues.
Then again I might be opening another can of worms here.
|
On September 30 2010 13:09 unifo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 08:12 NEOtheONE wrote:
What about promotions? Every time you get promoted your point total drops. I was placed in bronze, and I have worked my way all the way up to Platinum. Going by your math I have 945 points - 890 bonus pool + 28 points unused = 83. The best platinum player in my division only has 1129 - 890 +9 = 248. And the 2nd ranked one has 1031 - 890 + 53 = 194. That seems really really low, especially given 165-132 55.6% for the best, 138-116 53.9% for the second, and 153-135 53% for me. Due to the drop of points (or gain of points for that matter) when moving up or down from a division, another rule of standardization is probably needed to take into account of this phenomena (if this idea somehow gets going) Assuming that when you move up a division, u lose 100 points, a sample standardization correction maybe as follows: Bronze +0 pts Silver: +100 pts Gold: +200 pts Plat: +300 pts Diamond: +400 pts Maybe with this rule, (with adjustments), this could help compare players in different leagues. Then again I might be opening another can of worms here.
A 2000 bronze is nowhere near as good as a 1600 Diamond, so don't bother lol.
|
United States12237 Posts
On September 30 2010 13:09 unifo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2010 08:12 NEOtheONE wrote:
What about promotions? Every time you get promoted your point total drops. I was placed in bronze, and I have worked my way all the way up to Platinum. Going by your math I have 945 points - 890 bonus pool + 28 points unused = 83. The best platinum player in my division only has 1129 - 890 +9 = 248. And the 2nd ranked one has 1031 - 890 + 53 = 194. That seems really really low, especially given 165-132 55.6% for the best, 138-116 53.9% for the second, and 153-135 53% for me. Due to the drop of points (or gain of points for that matter) when moving up or down from a division, another rule of standardization is probably needed to take into account of this phenomena (if this idea somehow gets going) Assuming that when you move up a division, u lose 100 points, a sample standardization correction maybe as follows: Bronze +0 pts Silver: +100 pts Gold: +200 pts Plat: +300 pts Diamond: +400 pts Maybe with this rule, (with adjustments), this could help compare players in different leagues. Then again I might be opening another can of worms here.
You are opening another can of worms here, because the change in rating is not known and is different for everyone. Vanick lost 8 points, I lost 63. From my match history tracking file:
***** PROMOTION: 1v1 Diamond Araq Echo
** Bonus Pool post-promotion: 184
** Bonus Pool consumed thus far: 201
** Points pre-promotion: 337 (14-9)
** Points post-promotion: 274 (15-9)
There's definitely no hard and fast rule, and it may take a complete and total understanding of the inner workings of the system before we can ever hope to compare points across leagues.
|
Well to expound upon this I was at around 1000 points each time I was promoted and dropped to 800ish after being promoted. I know I lost about 150 points when I was promoted to platinum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
