|
On October 27 2010 04:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:20 Uhh Negative wrote: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.
Fair enough. I just don't understand how points are not even across divisions on average? Is it just due to newer divisions having more ununsed bonus pool? And why would it even matter in the top 200? Your points should not be affected by which division you are in. Your points change when you win or lose and your division should not affect this, am I right?
|
|
|
United States12240 Posts
On October 27 2010 04:47 Uhh Negative wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 04:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 27 2010 04:20 Uhh Negative wrote: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. Fair enough. I just don't understand how points are not even across divisions on average? Is it just due to newer divisions having more ununsed bonus pool? And why would it even matter in the top 200? Your points should not be affected by which division you are in. Your points change when you win or lose and your division should not affect this, am I right?
Dr. Menke said that they want the emphasis to be on your division of 100 players, so they made divisions unequal. I don't really understand why this would be the design because everybody knows you play against people outside of your division far more often than you play intra-divisional matches. Nevertheless, it is what it is. For that reason, it screws up sites like SC2ranks, and although he said they didn't intentionally try to screw sites like that over, it had that effect =(
|
I'm glad that people are finally starting to believe that points arent equal across divisions. I dont know how many times I have had to say this and people have not believed me. Blizzard told us this during beta and very few people have believed it until now.
|
On October 27 2010 05:11 Mastermind wrote:
I'm glad that people are finally starting to believe that points arent equal across divisions. I dont know how many times I have had to say this and people have not believed me. Blizzard told us this during beta and very few people have believed it until now.
You see a lot of people think they are so gosu after they reach rank 1 in their division when they only have like 1500 pts.
It would be cooler if diamond wasn't the norm. Diamond would mean so much more to a person. My eyes are on top 200~ i hope to be there in a month or so.
|
These ranks are based on your MMR right? and if i'm playing some of these players on ladder does that mean my MMR is close to the top 200? Or is it still undetermined on how they do the ranks?
Still nice to see how these ranks compare to the SC2 ranks.
|
I've always thought there are fewer zergs because you don't get to play zerg in the single player.
|
I see there's still people that think balance = all races with equal representation.
This is incorrect. Balance is obtained by equal representation relative to total players who play that race. This assumes skill to be distributed evenly amongst players, which is the only assumption you can reasonably make.
Alternatively you can also look at race by race matchup win rates.
Based on the figures here, if backed up by Blizzard's numbers, Zerg is in for a nerf. 20% race represetation with ~30% in the top 200 after a week and a half? Unless a gigantic number of people changed to Zerg, the balance of power shifted heavily in the last patch.
|
Unless the representation has significantly changed since the last patch.
|
On October 27 2010 09:24 lowercase wrote:
I've always thought there are fewer zergs because you don't get to play zerg in the single player.
that has nothing to do with top 200 players, they don't pick terran because they liked it in campaign =/
|
On October 26 2010 18:09 Camlito wrote:
alOola is mOOnglade.
Haha, so mOOnGLaDe is #15 AND #16? That's kinda baller.
|
On October 27 2010 09:50 Fa1nT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 09:24 lowercase wrote:
I've always thought there are fewer zergs because you don't get to play zerg in the single player. that has nothing to do with top 200 players, they don't pick terran because they liked it in campaign =/
The racial distribution is the same in every league according to Blizzard's released stats. Or at least was.
|
On October 27 2010 09:33 Tray wrote:
I see there's still people that think balance = all races with equal representation.
This is incorrect. Balance is obtained by equal representation relative to total players who play that race. This assumes skill to be distributed evenly amongst players, which is the only assumption you can reasonably make.
Alternatively you can also look at race by race matchup win rates.
Based on the figures here, if backed up by Blizzard's numbers, Zerg is in for a nerf. 20% race represetation with ~30% in the top 200 after a week and a half? Unless a gigantic number of people changed to Zerg, the balance of power shifted heavily in the last patch.
Wrong.
What does "balance" mean? It means that between "equally skilled" players, the probability of winning any matchup is 50%. We would expect 20% of the top 200 to be Zerg only if the skill distribution were for some reason skewed away from Zerg. Now, the fact that only 20% of the entire SC2-playing community plays Zerg says very little about the true skill distribution amongst the races at the top level (we're talking 99.9th percentile). In fact, it's far more likely that the skill distribution is fairly even at the top level, which would mean the 66th best Zerg is about the same skill level as the 66th best Terran and 66th best Protoss. At least, I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case. This would lead to equal representation among the top 200.
It would actually be quite problematic if only 20% of the top 200 were Zerg. If that indicated good balance, it would imply the 40th-best Zerg was as skilled as the 80th-best Terran and Protoss. This doesn't sound likely to me.
|
On October 27 2010 10:18 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 09:33 Tray wrote:
I see there's still people that think balance = all races with equal representation.
This is incorrect. Balance is obtained by equal representation relative to total players who play that race. This assumes skill to be distributed evenly amongst players, which is the only assumption you can reasonably make.
Alternatively you can also look at race by race matchup win rates.
Based on the figures here, if backed up by Blizzard's numbers, Zerg is in for a nerf. 20% race represetation with ~30% in the top 200 after a week and a half? Unless a gigantic number of people changed to Zerg, the balance of power shifted heavily in the last patch. Wrong. What does "balance" mean? It means that between "equally skilled" players, the probability of winning any matchup is 50%. We would expect 20% of the top 200 to be Zerg only if the skill distribution were for some reason skewed away from Zerg. Now, the fact that only 20% of the entire SC2-playing community plays Zerg says very little about the true skill distribution amongst the races at the top level (we're talking 99.9th percentile). In fact, it's far more likely that the skill distribution is fairly even at the top level, which would mean the 66th best Zerg is about the same skill level as the 66th best Terran and 66th best Protoss. At least, I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case. This would lead to equal representation among the top 200. It would actually be quite problematic if only 20% of the top 200 were Zerg. If that indicated good balance, it would imply the 40th-best Zerg was as skilled as the 80th-best Terran and Protoss. This doesn't sound likely to me.
Come on man really? You being wrong about statistics is going to get me banned again.
You're right that we would expect evenly skilled players to beat one another 50% of the time. Of course. Where you're wrong is saying that you expect higher than race representaion at the top for zerg. Sadly, you don't even bother to try to explain why this is the case. You simply make the assertion "it's more probable skill is evenly distrubuted at the top." This is just wrong, and I will tell you why.
You're reverse extrapolating the data to say that everyone in the top 200 has about the same skill, therefore each race should have 33% of those top 200. But you're completely ignoring the fact that only 1/5 of players play Zerg. Take a simple example of 100 players. Doesn't matter their races. Lets divide up their skill into 5 groups and use the same ones as Blizzard divisons so there's 20 bronze, 20 silver, 20 gold, 20 plat, and 20 diamonds. If only 20% of those players play Zerg, how many would you expect to be in Diamond if the game was perfectly balanced? It's 4. 20% of 20. If 10 of the 20 diamond players were Zerg you would say that Zerg must be overpowered because everyone is the same skill, yet they represent 50% of all players in the top bracket.
I hope that helps clear things up for you. I don't get anymore polite than that so before you reply, you better make sure your stats are sound. Before they were not.
|
On October 27 2010 10:28 Tray wrote:
Come on man really? You being wrong about statistics is going to get me banned again.
You're right that we would expect evenly skilled players to beat one another 50% of the time. Of course. Where you're wrong is saying that you expect higher than race representaion at the top for zerg. Sadly, you don't even bother to try to explain why this is the case. You simply make the assertion "it's more probable skill is evenly distrubuted at the top." This is just wrong, and I will tell you why.
You're reverse extrapolating the data to say that everyone in the top 200 has about the same skill, therefore each race should have 33% of those top 200. But you're completely ignoring the fact that only 1/5 of players play Zerg. Take a simple example of 100 players. Doesn't matter their races. Lets divide up their skill into 5 groups and use the same ones as Blizzard divisons so there's 20 bronze, 20 silver, 20 gold, 20 plat, and 20 diamonds. If only 20% of those players play Zerg, how many would you expect to be in Diamond if the game was perfectly balanced? It's 4. 20% of 20. If 10 of the 20 diamond players were Zerg you would say that Zerg must be overpowered because everyone is the same skill, yet they represent 50% of all players in the top bracket.
I hope that helps clear things up for you. I don't get anymore polite than that so before you reply, you better make sure your stats are sound. Before they were not.
I'm not using "statistics." Statistics isn't going to help determine what skill distribution amongst the top 200 we should expect. Yes, out of a random sample of 200 SC2 players, we would only expect 40 zerg players. But the top 200 is not a random sample and I see no reason why we should assume it is representative of the rest of the population.
I'm not reverse extrapolating any data; in fact, I'm ignoring the current race distribution of the top 200. However, I am saying I would certainly expect the 66th best Z to be evenly skilled with the 66th best T and P, creating an equal distribution. I feel this is more likely than the 33rd best Z to be evenly skilled with the 66th best T and P, which is what you assume by stating we should only expect 20% of the top 200 to be Z.
Basically, the "true" top 200 is such a small and unrepresentative sample that we cannot conclude anything about their skill distribution based on global population stats (or even the population stats of Diamond league, which is itself fairly large).
Until you explain to me why twice as many of the truly best SC2 players would choose T and P over Z, then I'm more inclined to believe the skill distribution at the very top should be fairly even. The actual skill distribution, of course, is not something that can be objectively proven by statistics or anything like that. But it should at least fit with our expectations of how top players choose their races. And I see no reason to think the very best are more inclined to choose T and P over Z by such a wide margin.
|
On October 27 2010 10:18 domovoi wrote:
In fact, it's far more likely that the skill distribution is fairly even at the top level, which would mean the 66th best Zerg is about the same skill level as the 66th best Terran and 66th best Protoss. At least, I can't think of any reason why that wouldn't be the case. This would lead to equal representation among the top 200.
It would actually be quite problematic if only 20% of the top 200 were Zerg. If that indicated good balance, it would imply the 40th-best Zerg was as skilled as the 80th-best Terran and Protoss. This doesn't sound likely to me.
It actually is true man. Think of it like this... if 20% of people play zerg and skill level is equal across all races then those smaller number of zergs will be spread out somewhat evenly over all the more common players of the other two races. Lets say #1, 2, 3 are terran, protoss and zerg respectively. You can't expect 4,5, and 6 to also be terran, protoss and zerg because there are just less people playing zerg (as an example). If there are less people playing a race and skill distribution is even across all races, the 50th best zerg will be worse than the 50th best terran.
Edit: I just want to say that what I said isn't true if you're trying to say that the best players switch races to what they think is the best. What I said is only true if the races truly have an even distribution of skill.
|
MementoMori, I understand that. What I am saying is that even though only 20% of several hundreds of thousands SC2 players play Zerg, this says very little about the skill distribution amongst the top 200, because the top 200 is such a small and unrepresentative sample. It's not at all apparent that the 50th best Z should be worse than the 50th best T simply because there are less Z players globally. We simply cannot conclude anything about the skill distribution amongst the races at the top 200 by looking at race distributions globally. We can only go by intuition, and I think it's more intuitive that the 50th best Zerg is around the same skill level as the 50th best Terran (or at least, certainly much better than the 100th best Terran, which would be the case if one thought there are only 20% Zerg at the very top).
It's rare for the highest percentile to ever be representative of the average.
|
How about you add numbers to the visual representation?
If you check the EU top 200 since patch 1.1.2 there are a lot more zerg now.
|
On October 26 2010 13:12 dazer wrote:Show nested quote +On October 26 2010 13:11 kidcrash89 wrote:
Having all three races have an equal representation in the top 200 is bad IMO. I think Blizz should try to strive for proportional balance (i.e. if only 20% of people play Zerg, then we should expect 20% Zerg in top 200 rather than ~33%). If they try to balance it based on having equal representation and consequently buff/nerf somethings a bit much then it will lead to imbalances eventually as players get better.
Balancing matchups is more important to me than balancing the top 200. Blizzard hasn't release any new data about the number of Zerg players yet. Have you seen the amount of ZvZ we have on the ladder these days?
# of zvz's is RIDICULOUS.
Nevertheless, I needed work in zvz so this is one way of getting it. Hopefully some switch back to toss/terran, because it's really starting to get annoying when 3/5 games are zvz.
|
I see a lot of players on that top 200 with less than 200 games played....
Kinda feels to me like that is too small a sample for Blizz to be able to say that those guys belong there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
