New Top 200 List (10/25/10 post patch 1.1.2 data) - Page 3

On October 26 2010 13:08 mikell wrote:


from SEA top 200 , mOOnGLaDe got 183-39

On October 26 2010 13:21 Sfydjklm wrote:

greatman 234-39 on LA servers
One upped!

On October 26 2010 13:22 dcemuser wrote:


What's up with all the 39 loss people?

Is that the magic number? 39 losses and then BOOM you win every game.

On October 26 2010 11:35 Pokebunny wrote:

Are you sure? The ordering of the list is not at all the same as the ordering of points.

How are divisions weighted? I thought MMR was equal across all divisions and that it determined your point win/loss.

On October 25 2010 03:12 Excalibur_Z wrote:
So after the Multiplayer panel yesterday, we asked the Doc some more specific questions. There are some things that we're not sure about now. We now know that divisions are not equal which adds a great deal of confusion because sites like SC2Ranks are specifically designed to ignore division weighting. It seems like they've gone out of their way to put emphasis on your own division rather than your league ranking, which sort of has a side effect of screwing up global point rankings like SC2Ranks.

The other concept that he introduced was a moving average which has a similar function as sigma. Basically, if you were to track player skill game by game, it would have a ton of sharp peaks and deep valleys. Blizzard chooses to use a moving average to slowly gauge where you belong. Once your moving average crosses a certain threshold (some kind of confidence buffer), that's when you get promoted. This means that if you bomb your initial placement matches and go down into Bronze, then rapidly improve to Diamond level, it will take a long time for your moving average to cross into Diamond level and cement that level of confidence for a promotion. We believe that the moving average only covers your last X games (maybe 100 for example) otherwise players with 4000+ games played would never get out of their league.

I'll be making more corrections to the original post later on today or tomorrow.

On October 26 2010 13:19 xAPOCALYPSEx wrote:
That graph in the OP looks pretty reasonable... Dare I say that 1.1.2 achieved almost complete balance? Only thing I can see is that P should be represented a little more, since # of P Players > #T > #Z (I believe)

Edit: Though I do not like the fact that reapers and marauders have been murdered by blizz

On October 26 2010 13:40 QuothTheRaven wrote:

Everyone (including Excalibur) thought this up until Blizzcon. But at Blizzcon Excalibur asked the Blizz devs about the top 200, and they confirmed that the top 200 is done strictly on points without the division weighting factored in.

It's really bad news for competitive ranking and particularly sc2ranks

On October 26 2010 11:47 Antoine wrote:
Idra 13
Jinro 62
Haypro 74
TLO 193

On October 26 2010 13:06 Zelniq wrote:
rank15 zerg aloOla 123 - 39, still pulling off the impressive 3:1 ratio, anyone find out who this smurf is yet?

On October 26 2010 14:01 lastmotion wrote:


Since when have marauders been murdered? We are still waiting for that patch

Are you blind? Do you not see the graph? How do Protoss player number outnumber Terran player number? The graph clearly says Terran players # > Protoss players # > Zerg players #

1.12 hardly achieved balance. They actually nerfed the crap out of Toss by slamming VRs hard. They also increased zealot time. Zerg was given a slight boost but they did not address the main problems of TvZ (MULE, Thors, Repair, MMM, Plantary Fortress imo) while Protoss has just been downgraded for no reason.

On October 26 2010 14:09 heishe wrote:


then how come that the ranks on sc2ranks.com differ so much from the official top200? I'm pretty sure that the guys on the panel either misunderstood the question or that by points they actually meant your MMR. Otherwise this would make no sense at all, since all sc2ranks.com does is to count the points of each player and create a list.

On October 26 2010 13:09 MusiK wrote:


I think Roach Range isn't the problem, but rather the supply requirement. It was just an easy fix to stop early cheese, but that makes this SOOO easy for the 14 hatch every time against terran. There is no fear of being attacked early while Terran has to fear 6pools (not saying it's valid, but they CAN still do it). The option that the Terran had for aggression in the beginning made it so that the 14 hatch was something that the Zerg had to take a chance on, and if proxied, then use skill to defend correctly.

Maybe it was more of an issue against Toss, but in TvZ I feel like this new addition takes away a lot of early game options for BOTH Terran AND Zerg.

On October 26 2010 15:14 WeeKeong wrote:
^ No, it was probably a miscommunication. idra has only about 2000 points and hes 13th in Korea in the top 200 list. Hence, top 200 is not based on points.

On October 26 2010 13:13 Neeka wrote:


Misspelling "moron" in this context is priceless.

On October 26 2010 15:29 Excalibur_Z wrote:


It was not a miscommunication. Divisions just aren't equal. His exact words were "it's just by points with the division part taken out". There is some kind of weighting or alteration in division points.