|
On October 26 2010 18:03 Red Alert wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 15:29 Excalibur_Z wrote: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. 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. dude, no one is trying to tell you divisions are the same. Please read what people are saying, namely that the top 200 is not based on points. It's just a fact, look at sc2 ranks and try to find more than 2-3 people who have the same spot as they do on the top 200.
Given he asked a Blizzard employee, he gets a tad more credibility than you do. It doesn't matter what you call it, whether it's points, MMR, rating or magic pony number, context is what what matters. It is done by points (which will now call magic pony number), it's just not done the same ones you see on SC2 or battle.net.
|
|
|
On October 26 2010 11:44 Ivanero wrote:
I can't understand how Zerg players can be almost the same number as Terran and Protoss in top200 when distrubution of races is like Z: 23% P: 38% T:38%
And after only 2 weeks or something like that after the patch? Wtf o_O
Appeal to the casuals is not the same as appeal to the pros. While you might have a 20/40/40 distribution among casuals, there might be a 40/30/30 distribution among the top 1000 players.
|
who the hell is ALTA, xùxù, Chronas, ThorZaIN o_0 ? never seen these guys before
|
Haha people, don't argue with Excalibur_Z, he knows the ladder system much better than you do 
|
On October 26 2010 23:30 SmoKim wrote:who the hell is ALTA, xùxù, Chronas, ThorZaIN o_0 ? never seen these guys before
lolol smurfs?
Only Thorzain is familiar with me I think he was a human wc3 player back in the days (5-6 years?).
|
David Kim is #20 in US.
As Random.
What a fucking beast.
|
On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this.
[1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region.
[2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank.
ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players.
|
boxer grinding out games like a boss. hey that is the real boxer right? (talkin about #1 in kr 200)
|
lol
56 in SEA and my last week was spent losing games to 1base terran allin. Seems the top range of SEA is moving down from inactivity or something as they play other servers.
|
On October 27 2010 01:55 viraltouch wrote:
boxer grinding out games like a boss. hey that is the real boxer right? (talkin about #1 in kr 200)
i don't think so actually.... but not for sure. there was the 'boxer' in the gsl that isn't boxer and we've all seen the real boxer laddering as 'manofoneway' vs grack.
|
United States12224 Posts
On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players.
Except they're not. Consider these concepts:
1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League.
2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo.
3. Points aren't equal across divisions.
4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile.
Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points.
I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are.
|
On October 27 2010 01:55 viraltouch wrote:
boxer grinding out games like a boss. hey that is the real boxer right? (talkin about #1 in kr 200)
No, The real BoxeR is called "Manofoneway" and he is like nr 50-60 or something.
|
i can't win against zerg (i play terran), i don't think i'm affected by roach range that much but it's more that in combination with the terran nerfs, cus i find no way to do damage early in the game. or at least delay zerg expansion or dunno just do something to bother them other than unexpected banshees.
at the plat level everything zerg can do is scary, like you have to have the perfect micro to defend any possible thing they do, you must have perfect building placement, perfect macro. dunno, seems hard atm. although tbh i haven't played THAT many games vs. zerg to say i've tried everything.
|
On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points.
Stop spreading misinformation, please.
|
On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are.
Please find me a source quoting Blizzard telling us how they make the top 200 list. You are assuming something from nothing.
Also, divisions don't mean anything. Who cares if your division if 100 points on average higher than mine? How does even change anything? It doesn't matter where you are ranked in your division. It's merely a clever disguise to hide your real ranking. There is equal opportunity for points across all divisions because everyone has access to the same bonus pool and you do not just play players in your division.
edit I'm sorry about the double post. I thought I was editing my first post, but apparently not.
|
On October 27 2010 03:06 latan wrote:
i can't win against zerg (i play terran), i don't think i'm affected by roach range that much but it's more that in combination with the terran nerfs, cus i find no way to do damage early in the game. or at least delay zerg expansion or dunno just do something to bother them other than unexpected banshees.
at the plat level everything zerg can do is scary, like you have to have the perfect micro to defend any possible thing they do, you must have perfect building placement, perfect macro. dunno, seems hard atm. although tbh i haven't played THAT many games vs. zerg to say i've tried everything.
aww you platinum players and your perfect micro macro.
So cute.
|
On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are.
1. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever.
2. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever.
3. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever.
4. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever.
Blabla: Wrong. Blizzards fills the divisions over time with new/promoted/demoted players (i have a FAQ as evidence if anyone is interested). Average points dont mean anything.
|
8748 Posts
On October 27 2010 04:31 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are. 1. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever. 2. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever. 3. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever. 4. Thats what you think and want other people to believe. But its only an ASSUMPTION, you have no evidence what so ever. Blabla: Wrong. Blizzards fills the divisions over time with new/promoted/demoted players (i have a FAQ as evidence if anyone is interested). Average points dont mean anything.
I don't know about #1 but #2 is fairly obvious to anyone who knows what elo is.
#3 has been stated by Blizzard probably 5+ times now.
#4 There actually is evidence for this now that smurfing is becoming more popular. If you win enough of your games, you can get MMR high enough to match against players in the top 50 within 30 games. You can win 70%+ of your 31st-60th games and continue to match against people in the top 50, probably never matching against someone below the top 200. And then the weekly top 200 comes out and you're not even in Diamond league, or you just switched to Diamond and you have like 1200 points, and of course you are not in the top 200. But it's clearly established that your MMR behaves just like the MMR of people who are in the top 50.
|
United States12224 Posts
On October 27 2010 04:20 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 27 2010 01:43 TERRANLOL wrote:On October 26 2010 11:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:
It's worth noting that the weekly Top 200 lists are generated without division weighting factored in. Because divisions are not all equal, points cannot be directly compared across divisions, however the Top 200 lists are produced by points. Lol I just have to reply to this because there are two huge logical fallacies in this. [1] You don't play against people in your division. You play against people based on your ELO rank. Points across divisions are the same. Points across regions can vary, but this is per region. [2] Top 200 lists, these in particular, are not produced by points. They're produced by ELO rank. ELO rank is based on a secondary point system. It's basically the same as the point system we have now, except there is no inflation. So it's pure skill, and doesn't reward players for having a 50% win/loss ratio, or for winning and losing in a pattern, only for beating other good players. Except they're not. Consider these concepts: 1. The Top 200 produced weekly is the exact ranking that we will see in the Grandmaster League. 2. Elo is not a factor in any of this. MMR is not Elo (it's similar but not the same). MMR is not points. Points are not Elo. 3. Points aren't equal across divisions. 4. They don't rank by MMR, probably because it's too volatile. Now, let's say that you're in Division A with 1000 points and I'm in Division B with 900 points. However, maybe Division A is on average 100 points higher than everybody in Division B, and Division A has a weighting of +100 points. Let's say that Division B has a weighting of 0 points. That would mean that although you have 1000 and I have 900, our adjusted points are equal. If we were to be ranked in the Grandmaster League, we would both have 900 points. I'm going to try and do some research on this based on the Top 200 snapshots that we've seen in order to try and figure out what the weightings are. Please find me a source quoting Blizzard telling us how they make the top 200 list. You are assuming something from nothing. Also, divisions don't mean anything. Who cares if your division if 100 points on average higher than mine? How does even change anything? It doesn't matter where you are ranked in your division. It's merely a clever disguise to hide your real ranking. There is equal opportunity for points across all divisions because everyone has access to the same bonus pool and you do not just play players in your division. edit I'm sorry about the double post. I thought I was editing my first post, but apparently not.
After the SC2 Multiplayer Panel, Vanick and I spoke with Dr. Menke about this and those were his exact words. I hope the statistician in charge of developing the entire system is a good enough source for you. What would I have to gain by deliberately contradicting my initial theory? It's not misinformation, it's completely true, and I was as surprised by it as anyone here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
