|
On October 28 2010 03:34 RivalryRedux wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 02:58 Perscienter wrote:
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less? I made a thread on this a while ago and I think that if your in a power division you will accumulate less points than you would in a weaker division. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=146009When top 200's come out, if you thumb through them, you'll see how players in those power divisions tend to move up on the ladder relative to their total points and the opposite happens for players in weaker divisions. When Excalibur_Z asked the guy at blizzcon he mentioned "and the skill of your division" when he was saying that you can't directly compare point among divisions. I wasn't entirely sure though if meant points or rank (everyone already knows rank).
The way you word it might confuse somebody though: You don't actually get less points than people in worse divisions when playing the different categories of skill (even matched, slightly favoured etc.), you just get matched against better opponents than those in worse divisions, and as such, you end up with a lower total amount of points because you will reach your skill softcap of points faster than those of worse divisions.
OK saying this sounds a little vague, I guess explaining it with an example would be better:
Let Player A and Player B have the same skill-level.
Player A is in a really tough division and Player B is in an average-skilled division (basically meaning that the average point-level of the division of player A is higher than in that of player B).
Both have 1700 points. However, Player A will get "even matches" against other players of average divisions which have a rating of 1900-2100, while Player B will only get "even matches" against 1600-1800 rated players. Since the 1900-2100 players naturally are a lot better than the players that B faces, player A is more or less stuck at 1700 points since he can't win enough games to move up the ladder. Player B however still faces worse opponents and thus rises up to 2000 points or so until he too is even-matched against the 1900-2100 players and stops rising.
Both players are equally skilled, however, player A has 1700 points while player B has 2000 points.
|
the game is still far balance because theres still the expansion pack and maybe new units coming out. so enjoy the imbalances while it lasts.
|
Balance discussions based off the top200 always confuse me a bit. There's invariably someone that brings up the top10 or top20 (whichever makes them able to say X race is over/underpowered), and then someone berates them for taking an arbitrary number of people just to try to make their point. I don't see how the top200 is a much better number of people to choose from. I understand that it might be the largest sample for which we have data at a given point in time, and certainly think it's better than selecting the top 5, 10, 20, etc, but I'm just not sold on it being a much better number.
I assume that most people on this board are concerned with the balance between the races when they are played as well as possible, or as near to that as possible. I don't see many people concerned with how the latest patch ruins their bronze league matches. However, where is the sweet spot where your sample size is large enough and yet your player skill levels are still at the level you want them to be? Another problem I can think of is that a lot of the top pros are playing mostly custom matches, so how valid is the data that we're actually seeing?
In the end, when we're making so many assumptions, does any of this analysis really mean anything?
|
Catyoul
France2377 Posts
Excalibur_Z you have an incredible level of patience, I'm in awe.
|
United States12248 Posts
^^^^^^^^^^
On October 28 2010 04:20 Catyoul wrote:
Excalibur_Z you have an incredible level of patience, I'm in awe.
haha. Thanks. I have to admit it's pretty funny getting lectured by people who cite our initial theory, not realizing that I'm seeking to correct that theory. It's like if I were to say the Sun revolves around the Earth, then everyone started saying that, then I came back and said that there was new evidence that the opposite was true and people argued that it couldn't be true because it was obvious the Sun revolves around the Earth.
On October 28 2010 03:44 heishe wrote:Show nested quote +On October 28 2010 03:34 RivalryRedux wrote:On October 28 2010 02:58 Perscienter wrote:
I also have a question. When my division is very strong, do I gain more points or less? I made a thread on this a while ago and I think that if your in a power division you will accumulate less points than you would in a weaker division. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=146009When top 200's come out, if you thumb through them, you'll see how players in those power divisions tend to move up on the ladder relative to their total points and the opposite happens for players in weaker divisions. When Excalibur_Z asked the guy at blizzcon he mentioned "and the skill of your division" when he was saying that you can't directly compare point among divisions. I wasn't entirely sure though if meant points or rank (everyone already knows rank). The way you word it might confuse somebody though: You don't actually get less points than people in worse divisions when playing the different categories of skill (even matched, slightly favoured etc.), you just get matched against better opponents than those in worse divisions, and as such, you end up with a lower total amount of points because you will reach your skill softcap of points faster than those of worse divisions. OK saying this sounds a little vague, I guess explaining it with an example would be better: Let Player A and Player B have the same skill-level. Player A is in a really tough division and Player B is in an average-skilled division (basically meaning that the average point-level of the division of player A is higher than in that of player B). Both have 1700 points. However, Player A will get "even matches" against other players of average divisions which have a rating of 1900-2100, while Player B will only get "even matches" against 1600-1800 rated players. Since the 1900-2100 players naturally are a lot better than the players that B faces, player A is more or less stuck at 1700 points since he can't win enough games to move up the ladder. Player B however still faces worse opponents and thus rises up to 2000 points or so until he too is even-matched against the 1900-2100 players and stops rising. Both players are equally skilled, however, player A has 1700 points while player B has 2000 points.
That actually sounds really plausible. I think where things tend to fall apart is Diamond league, where the skill gap between pro-level Diamond and low Diamond is almost as wide as the gap between Platinum and Bronze. However, it's possible for high Diamonds to be in the same division as low Diamonds, so even if the overall skill-level of the division is the same, the range of actual skill within that division over time will spread over a wide amount. If that happened in any lower league, players would just get promoted or demoted.
|
I read most of this, but I don't see why the answer isn't "Point changes are based on MMR, not rating." Since there's no way you can know what your opponents' MMRs are, I don't think you can disprove this possibility.
I agree that you get points based on MMR versus your rating which is quite noticeable when playing an up and coming platinum or smurf account in platinum.
However I consider your rating to be relative to your division rather than just your league which I spent more time arguing later on in the topic.
I'm sure you've noticed that while your in platinum you get seemingly a LOT of points when you win against diamond players (20 something without bonus) and this changes when you go in to diamond.
Well, I think the reason for all those points is that game is saying "Ok Rivalry won a game against a guy with X MMR, how does that MMR compare to amount of points Rivalry has and how does that compare with the MMR of other players in his DIVISION (possibly league as well) ."
So if a player got transferred from a weak diamond division to Medivac Alamo for some reason I think it would be like the transfer from platinum to diamond but less severe.
This is kind of just applying the perceived differences in how you gain points according to your league and applying it to individual divisions. It is possible that there is also a league modifier as well.
I still don't see how/why divisions should/would have weight. Who you play is not linked to your division at all so this implies that, if true, you are better off waiting to qualify for a week then playing your games after a reset. This would be a giant abusable bug if true.
Well you might be better off waiting if you want to say "I'm X diamond rated" as a qualifying statement. However it's kind of like saying you have 4000 points in platinum. Sure you have a lot of points but your division probably sucks and where you stand relative to everyone else will be more noticeable when the real lists (top 200) are put out.
Blizzard has gone to great lengths to make a ladder system which hides your true rating and encourages division competition. If it was as simple as comparing your points among your league it would kind of defeat the whole purpose.
The Master's League I think will have comparable points though because Blizzard has to know that a lot of mid-high tier players at around that level want to know where they stand in the larger scheme of things.
|
On October 27 2010 22:34 Tray wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 14:38 domovoi wrote:Then everything you say is invalid. Thanks for the worthless comment. Some things simply can't be proven by statistics, especially with limited data; anyone who knows a modicum about the subject could tell you that. Thankfully this is not one of them. This is how Blizzard balanced the races. You can sit there and say you have to do it off of intuition all day, but it will never be correct. Take it or leave it but clearly you're done trying to learn, so I'm done trying to teach.
The ironic thing is that I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, and it appears you do not understand at all what I'm trying to say.
Basically, I take issue with this assumption:
"It should match ONLY the % of players who play that race, making the assumption skill is evenly distributed."
(I interpret "evenly distributed" to mean skill is distributed amongst the top 200 similarly to how it is distributed amongst the entire population.)
However, this is not an assumption you can prove is true by using statistics, because the top 200 is a small, non-random and unrepresentative sample.* It might be true, but my argument is that intuitively it does not appear to be true. Can it really be said that the 20th best Zerg is only as good as the 40th best Protoss and Terran? What about the 10th best Zerg (let's say someone like Dimaga)? Are there really 19 Terran and 19 Protoss players better than him? Or is it more likely that there are closer to 9 T and 9 P players better?
* Here's another example of this: 25% of the top 100 chess players are Russian. Russians most certainly do not make up 25% of the total number of chess players in the world. There are 5 American and 6 Chinese players in the top 100, but 40 million total chess players in the US and only 3 million in China. Maybe being Chinese is OP, but probably not significantly so, as average IQ in China is 100 and in the US, it's 98.
|
On October 28 2010 05:31 domovoi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 27 2010 22:34 Tray wrote:On October 27 2010 14:38 domovoi wrote:Then everything you say is invalid. Thanks for the worthless comment. Some things simply can't be proven by statistics, especially with limited data; anyone who knows a modicum about the subject could tell you that. Thankfully this is not one of them. This is how Blizzard balanced the races. You can sit there and say you have to do it off of intuition all day, but it will never be correct. Take it or leave it but clearly you're done trying to learn, so I'm done trying to teach. The ironic thing is that I understand perfectly what you're trying to say, and it appears you do not understand at all what I'm trying to say. Basically, I take issue with this assumption: "It should match ONLY the % of players who play that race, making the assumption skill is evenly distributed." (I interpret "evenly distributed" to mean skill is distributed amongst the top 200 similarly to how it is distributed amongst the entire population.) However, this is not an assumption you can prove is true by using statistics, because the top 200 is a small, non-random and unrepresentative sample.* It might be true, but my argument is that intuitively it does not appear to be true. Can it really be said that the 20th best Zerg is only as good as the 40th best Protoss and Terran? What about the 10th best Zerg (let's say someone like Dimaga)? Are there really 19 Terran and 19 Protoss players better than him? Or is it more likely that there are closer to 9 T and 9 P players better? * Here's another example of this: 25% of the top 100 chess players are Russian. Russians most certainly do not make up 25% of the total number of chess players in the world. There are 5 American and 6 Chinese players in the top 100, but 40 million total chess players in the US and only 3 million in China. Maybe being Chinese is OP, but probably not significantly so, as average IQ in China is 100 and in the US, it's 98.
Yes, you're making an assumption you cannot make, that is why your posts are invalid. I'll explain in a subsequent paragraph why. The reason you can't prove it by statistics is beacuse it's not a valid measurement, you're just making things up.
The funny part is that your example proves my point but not yours. If those were the breakdowns of the top 100 chess players, you would say "Russians are better at chess than Americans." This is identical to if Zerg was overrepresented compared to the population. Same exact comparison. There's more Americans (Protoss), but there are more Russians (Zerg) in the top 200. Russians are OP. Same thing as you said about Chinese.
But I get what you're trying say. You think that Zerg players are just "better" than other players. While I agree this could theoretically be possible, you have presented no evidence that this is true, and you're using a circular argument to support your claim.
Saying that other factors contribute to which race is stronger is true, and I mentioned that earlier in this thread, but without Blizzard's data (they account for "skill", which is what you're getting at), the only assumption we can reasonably make is that skill is evenly distributed.
You should reread this a few times if you still don't get it. Stats aren't super easy and I'm not the most eloquent typer/speaker. If you're still struggling others will help.
|
On October 28 2010 06:02 Tray wrote:
Yes, you're making an assumption you cannot make, that is why your posts are invalid. I'll explain in a subsequent paragraph why. The reason you can't prove it by statistics is beacuse it's not a valid measurement, you're just making things up.
Please reread my posts, because the point is flying over your head.
The funny part is that your example proves my point but not yours. If those were the breakdowns of the top 100 chess players, you would say "Russians are better at chess than Americans." This is identical to if Zerg was overrepresented compared to the population. Same exact comparison. There's more Americans (Protoss), but there are more Russians (Zerg) in the top 200. Russians are OP. Same thing as you said about Chinese.
No, it doesn't prove your point at all. Your point was that a "true" top 200 should reflect 20% Zerg simply because the population is 20% Zerg. I gave you an example where race is "balanced," yet that is not true. Yes, you could say Russians and Chinese are better at chess than Americans (much like Koreans are better at SC2 than Americans), but that has nothing to do with any inherent advantages in being Russian or Chinese (it has more to do with governmental subsidies and infrastructure). Basically, in chess, whatever race you are has very, very little to do with your probability of winning (aka balance), yet you do not see the top 100 reflecting the racial makeup of the global population.
We must look to other things to determine why the top 100 is distributed the way it is (i.e. government subsidies, infrastructure, culture). You cannot look at the global population. My point is that when you look at the "other things" in SC2, there isn't anything there that would point to the very best SC2 players choosing T and P by such a wide margin. This is your opportunity to provide something, so please do.
But I get what you're trying say. You think that Zerg players are just "better" than other players. While I agree this could theoretically be possible, you have presented no evidence that this is true, and you're using a circular argument to support your claim.
No, I don't think Zerg players are "better." I said that amongst the top 200, it's more reasonable to expect 33% Zerg than 20% Zerg, because there isn't any reason why the very best would be attracted to T and P by such a wide margin. Yes, I'm going by intuition, and I've explained my reasons as to why I think this. Unfortunately, you have failed to address my reasons and instead dismiss it by making your own baseless assumptions that 20% of the top 200 should be Zerg, when I have already so clearly explained why that assumption cannot be made simply by looking at the global population.
In addition, there is nothing circular about my argument. That you think there is simply reflects your inability to comprehend my point.
Saying that other factors contribute to which race is stronger is true, and I mentioned that earlier in this thread, but without Blizzard's data (they account for "skill", which is what you're getting at), the only assumption we can reasonably make is that skill is evenly distributed.
No, that is not an assumption we can reasonably make. Nothing in statistics says the top 200 of a distribution is going to reflect the rest of the distribution. In fact, statistics says the opposite: you can't conclude anything. A small, non-representative sample cannot be used to conclude anything about the general population. The reverse is also true.
You should reread this a few times if you still don't get it. Stats aren't super easy and I'm not the most eloquent typer/speaker. If you're still struggling others will help.
The statistics principles we are using are actually fairly easy to comprehend, I've been familiar with them for over 10 years. Quit with the concern trolling, it simply makes you look foolish when I have to keep repeating the same points because you don't understand them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
