|
well, just started playing 1v1 again.
gotta say that almost all my opponent has a rating of 1300-1700, this became the case when I got about 400 rating, and system will say teams even, although my win rate is only at around 60%. last time when I faced a guy with 1300+ rating while I was sitting on 500+, the system tells me that I am slightly favoured.
Probably it means that I have to fight much much tougher opponent in order to get to a similar rating others have.
Either the rating is just irrelevant or Blizzard should review their hidden number..
|
On October 20 2010 07:32 Ironical wrote:
I just don't get the point of having both systems. It seems pointless to me.
Well the system creates a rating for each team, and I've heard that they're planning on having 'seasons' which reset the ladders as well. The theory is that having a hidden MMR allows you to start out a new season or a new team and immediately be matched against people who are just as good as you. The alternative, more or less original ELO, just starts everybody at the same point and lets the system naturally start itself out from there. The displayed points value behaves kind of like ELO in that it starts everyone at the same place (I think? I've never actually paid attention to how many points you start out with after placement) and sorts out your rating as you play games. The difference is that because of your persistent MMR, the system knows where you 'should' be and tries to get you there as quickly as possible.
Actually, that might be the problem here. It's possible that the other guy's actually have a higher MMR than the OP, but a much larger delta between their earned points and their MMR. Conversely the OP might have higher earned points than MMR, due to who they ended up queueing against.
He doesn't have the win percentage he does because he's been playing "bronze league players".
I didn't mean he was literally playing bronze players, that was a stand-in for 'players much worse'. If he's playing a lot of games but matching up mostly against players he should stomp 99% of the time, he'll have a great win/loss record but that doesn't mean he should be ranked higher than someone who happens to constantly get matched with equally strong players.
|
On October 20 2010 07:47 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:32 Ironical wrote:
I just don't get the point of having both systems. It seems pointless to me. Well the system creates a rating for each team, and I've heard that they're planning on having 'seasons' which reset the ladders as well. The theory is that having a hidden MMR allows you to start out a new season or a new team and immediately be matched against people who are just as good as you. The alternative, more or less original ELO, just starts everybody at the same point and lets the system naturally start itself out from there. The displayed points value behaves kind of like ELO in that it starts everyone at the same place (I think? I've never actually paid attention to how many points you start out with after placement) and sorts out your rating as you play games. The difference is that because of your persistent MMR, the system knows where you 'should' be and tries to get you there as quickly as possible. Actually, that might be the problem here. It's possible that the other guy's actually have a higher MMR than the OP, but a much larger delta between their earned points and their MMR. Conversely the OP might have higher earned points than MMR, due to who they ended up queueing against.
I don't understand your reply. He was asking why have both systems. Why not JUST have the MMR, and SHOW IT TO US.
During a ladder reset, you could be "seeded" so to speak in your placements against people of similar MMR from last season. Why have both of these systems when one of them is clearly a load of garbage ("points"), and the other is an actual number that makes sense (your hidden MMR).
|
On October 20 2010 07:47 Footloop wrote:
Actually, that might be the problem here. It's possible that the other guy's actually have a higher MMR than the OP, but a much larger delta between their earned points and their MMR. Conversely the OP might have higher earned points than MMR, due to who they ended up queueing against
The former is impossible because he checked the point gain (if you read the thread) of his opponent. When the OP won, he gained less points than his opponents lost. This would indicate that OP has a higher MMR.
|
Well I have a little bit to add to this general idea. I have taken a break from playing for a little while so my account sat at ~1300.
Now, I just started up playing again, and this is how my pts have been:
Game 1) Loss vs 1901 P, [-8pts]
Game2) Win vs 1700 Z, [+7pts +7bonus pool]
Game 3) Win vs same 1700 Z, [+7pts +7 bonus pool]
Game 4) Win vs 1600 P, [+10pts +10 bonus pool]
Game 5) Win vs 1700 P, [+12pts +12 bonus pool]
Game 6) Win vs 1920 T, [+9pts +9 bonus pool]
After all this I am now 1436 w/ a 66% win percentage. But what I don't understand is how I got less points for beating a 1920 player than for beating the 1700 and 1600 players. It just feels like a really odd point calculation method
|
On October 20 2010 07:50 ltortoise wrote:
I don't understand your reply. He was asking why have both systems. Why not JUST have the MMR, and SHOW IT TO US.
During a ladder reset, you could be "seeded" so to speak in your placements against people of similar MMR from last season. Why have both of these systems when one of them is clearly a load of garbage ("points"), and the other is an actual number that makes sense (your hidden MMR).
Because they serve different functions. Your MMR represents who you should be playing, and is used by the system as such. Your points represent a combination of how much you've been playing and how many games you've won. Play enough games and they should converge.
The intent is that to get to the top of the ladder you have to actually play your way up there, not get a huge MMR one season and then start out at the top the next. However it should be *easier* for you to get up to the top if you were there previously.
The former is impossible because he checked the point gain (if you read the thread) of his opponent. When the OP won, he gained less points than his opponents lost. This would indicate that OP has a higher MMR.
I mentioned this in my last post, but points gained aren't only a function of your rating against your opponent's rating, but also your rating against your own MMR. If the OP's opponent has a large difference between their earned points (where they're currently ranked) and their MMR (where the system thinks they should be ranked) then it could explain the numbers.
|
The ladder desperately needs revamped. I still don't know wtf is going on with it half the time.
|
On October 20 2010 07:54 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:50 ltortoise wrote:
I don't understand your reply. He was asking why have both systems. Why not JUST have the MMR, and SHOW IT TO US.
During a ladder reset, you could be "seeded" so to speak in your placements against people of similar MMR from last season. Why have both of these systems when one of them is clearly a load of garbage ("points"), and the other is an actual number that makes sense (your hidden MMR). Because they serve different functions. Your MMR represents who you should be playing, and is used by the system as such. Your points represent a combination of how much you've been playing and how many games you've won. Play enough games and they should converge. The intent is that to get to the top of the ladder you have to actually play your way up there, not get a huge MMR one season and then start out at the top the next. However it should be *easier* for you to get up to the top if you were there previously.
This seems stupid to me. The top player should be the best player, not the player who "played to the top" (whatever the hell that means).
Your MMR is far more indicative of skill than how many points, thus your MMR should be shown, rather than points.
Seems rather simple to me. For the purposes of determining the top 200 or other lists, you could simply rule out players that have too large of a delta to mitigate people luckily getting a very high MMR from a win streak.
|
On October 20 2010 07:57 ltortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:54 Footloop wrote:On October 20 2010 07:50 ltortoise wrote:
I don't understand your reply. He was asking why have both systems. Why not JUST have the MMR, and SHOW IT TO US.
During a ladder reset, you could be "seeded" so to speak in your placements against people of similar MMR from last season. Why have both of these systems when one of them is clearly a load of garbage ("points"), and the other is an actual number that makes sense (your hidden MMR). Because they serve different functions. Your MMR represents who you should be playing, and is used by the system as such. Your points represent a combination of how much you've been playing and how many games you've won. Play enough games and they should converge. The intent is that to get to the top of the ladder you have to actually play your way up there, not get a huge MMR one season and then start out at the top the next. However it should be *easier* for you to get up to the top if you were there previously. This seems stupid to me. The top player should be the best player, not the player who "played to the top" (whatever the hell that means). Your MMR is far more indicative of skill than how many points, thus your MMR should be shown, rather than points. Seems rather simple to me. For the purposes of determining the top 200 or other lists, you could simply rule out players that have too large of a delta to mitigate people luckily getting a very high MMR from a win streak.
They probably don't display MMR because it can rise and fall so rapidly, whereas points do not
|
On October 20 2010 07:54 Footloop wrote:
I mentioned this in my last post, but points gained aren't only a function of your rating against your opponent's rating, but also your rating against your own MMR. If the OP's opponent has a large difference between their earned points (where they're currently ranked) and their MMR (where the system thinks they should be ranked) then it could explain the numbers.
Source? Evidence? Statistics?
Without knowing your MMR, proving this seems pretty impossible. You can't isolate the variable.
|
On October 20 2010 07:59 ltortoise wrote:
Source? Evidence? Statistics?
Without knowing your MMR, proving this seems pretty impossible. You can't isolate the variable.
Don't you notice that when starting a new team you'll be getting 20+ points for a win (not counting the bonus) whereas after you've played a bunch of games you'll be lucky to get more than 10?
This is definitely 100% the way it works in WoW Arena, where you *can* see your MMR. I would be pretty surprised if the system didn't work similarly here.
|
On October 20 2010 08:06 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:59 ltortoise wrote:
Source? Evidence? Statistics?
Without knowing your MMR, proving this seems pretty impossible. You can't isolate the variable.
Don't you notice that when starting a new team you'll be getting 20+ points for a win (not counting the bonus) whereas after you've played a bunch of games you'll be lucky to get more than 10? This is definitely 100% the way it works in WoW Arena, where you *can* see your MMR. I would be pretty surprised if the system didn't work similarly here.
That could simply be explained by the system assuming new players have very low MMR, and thus you gain many points from wins since your opponents will be HEAVILY favored (at least for a time).
It in no way proves anything else, or infers it.
|
Not trying to derail the thread but I have a concern regarding one of OP's points.
He seems to imply that MMR is shared across all teams for a given account.
On October 20 2010 02:12 TheYellowOne wrote:
4) It makes for unfair matches since players like Sorcery who has countless 90%+ win loss teams in every bracket could pick up a gold-level player to play with and he'd not only be forced to play against highest ranked diamond teams but gain no points while doing so once he gets into diamond.
Can anyone confirm or deny that? From Excalibur_Z's ladder FAQ thread, it seems that MMR is only used for initial placement across teams (or maybe just for 1v1):
Q: If I've never played 1v1, but I'm 2v2 Diamond, who will I face in 1v1 Placements?
A: Your performance in other brackets is considered when initially seeding your placement matches. In this case, you'd likely be paired with a Diamond player to start.
If your team MMR is used for more than just placement when forming another team, then this could be a big problem.
|
If you goto SC2ranks and change the "sort by" box to "points + ratio" all of the sudden you'll see a lot more people you've heard of at the top. The ranking system is imba imo.
Take a good look at these side by side!
Top 25 by points
Click here to see full image
Top 25 by points+ratio
click here to see full image
|
On October 20 2010 08:09 ltortoise wrote:
That could simply be explained by the system assuming new players have very low MMR, and thus you gain many points from wins since your opponents will be HEAVILY favored (at least for a time).
It in no way proves anything else, or infers it.
Why would you end up heavily favoured? The entire point of MMR is to match you up against people of similar MMR, if it's starting you out with a low MMR then you should be getting matched up against people of low MMR.
|
On October 20 2010 08:22 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 08:09 ltortoise wrote:
That could simply be explained by the system assuming new players have very low MMR, and thus you gain many points from wins since your opponents will be HEAVILY favored (at least for a time).
It in no way proves anything else, or infers it. Why would you end up heavily favoured? The entire point of MMR is to match you up against people of similar MMR, if it's starting you out with a low MMR then you should be getting matched up against people of low MMR.
Because your delta is large. It doesn't know what your MMR is really, so it's going to deliberately put you against people with higher MMR if you win, in order to at least get an upper bound on you. If you lose, it will do the opposite and try for a lower bound.
|
United States12230 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:12 c0ldfusion wrote:Not trying to derail the thread but I have a concern regarding one of OP's points. He seems to imply that MMR is shared across all teams for a given account. Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 02:12 TheYellowOne wrote:
4) It makes for unfair matches since players like Sorcery who has countless 90%+ win loss teams in every bracket could pick up a gold-level player to play with and he'd not only be forced to play against highest ranked diamond teams but gain no points while doing so once he gets into diamond.
Can anyone confirm or deny that? From Excalibur_Z's ladder FAQ thread, it seems that MMR is only used for initial placement across teams (or maybe just for 1v1): Show nested quote +
Q: If I've never played 1v1, but I'm 2v2 Diamond, who will I face in 1v1 Placements?
A: Your performance in other brackets is considered when initially seeding your placement matches. In this case, you'd likely be paired with a Diamond player to start.
If your team MMR is used for more than just placement when forming another team, then this could be a big problem.
Yeah, I agree. If MMR is persistent across all active teams, there's potential for exploitation.
|
I posted this in another thread but it got no interest but this thread seems more popular for some reason.
Also, how can the guy with the first answer not be banned, or people that answer with the link to ladder analysis threads? Way to read the OP, guys...
Anyway, personally I'm stuck at around 1200 pts. I get matched with people at 1800+ all the time, and I'm doing ok. When I win I gain x points, but when I lose I also lose x points, so there's no net gain. I actually started meeting diamonds in my placement matches...
I have a friend that have no BW background or anything, and because of that started out in Silver. He eventually got promoted to Gold, then Plat, then finally Diamond. He carried over most of his points gained from Silver/Gold/Plat players and three separate bonus pools, so he currently sits at around the same points as I do, plus he has a new healthy bonus pool. PLUS, he gets to meet players at 1000-1300 rating.
I beat this player 49 out of 50 times. Seriously. I can beat him with any race, any strategy, even super stupid strategies like being restricted to building just one type of unit and such. This player is ranked the same as me, but the difference is I have converged on my rating while he will no doubt rise further due to a large bonus pool, and learning the game at the same pace or slightly faster. I, however, am stuck until I can get better than ~1800 players (or when they become worse than me), then I will climb maybe to 1300-1400 until I get stuck again, facing 2000+ players.
That's what I call a broken system in need of serious repair.
I might actually gain by losing 20 games or something on purpose and then try to hold my winrate at 60% (throwing games here and there) facing people worse than me, so the system doesn't realize that I'm way better than them.
And if you're starting a new account and want to gain points fast and you're not SEn that can go 40-1 against 1800+ players, you'd do well to place yourself in Silver or something from the start, and not winning TOO much. That's the fastest way to climb in the rankings. Great system, huh?
|
I decided to do some data gathering, and I found out that out of my last 53 games, the average rating of my opponent was ~1722. Whats strange is that my win/loss is 58% out of those games, and my rating is only 1527. It seems as if you waste your bonus pool by offracing/tanking games you can't ever really get it back. My MMR is enough to get me qued up against 1950+ players on a regular basis, but I can't seem to get my points to go up, because I lose just as many as I gain if I go 50% against 1900 players. Since the system uses your MMR to determine how many points you gain, your actual point value can be quite a bit above or below your skill level and stay there depending on how you used your bonus pool.
The system isn't broken by any stretch, but bonus points make the ranking system give deceiving results. Notice how the top 200 differs from the top 200 points...
In short... the bonus pool is fucked up and punishes anyone who off races/screws around wasting bonus pool. I wish I could see my MMR, because its kinda depressing being 1530 and playing nothing but 1700+
|
On October 20 2010 02:18 Risen wrote:
I'd like to point out that Blizzard uses MMR to determine who gets the invite to their mini-tournament IIRC. Other than that, this post is very true (I'm low diamond and don't play enough to get out of it, but I can see where all these problems come from)
i cant agree more!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/9fpnia.png)
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/24cb3uo.png)
