|
On November 03 2010 05:38 Hypatio wrote:
I'm about a 1.1k diamond at 78/68 win/loss with about 400 unused bonus points as I don't play too often. It seems that on average, I am placed against people with about 1500 pts and probably half of them are 1550-1750. This is considered an even match by the ladder system.
You are 1100, with 400 unused bonus.
If you maintain a 50/50 win/loss in even games against these 1500 players, you will become 1500 also due to using the bonus.
That's the whole point, to encourage people to play at least enough to use their bonus pool.
|
Hm first of all you can't pay attention to the "favored" or "slightly favored" thing at the loading screen, it means NOTHING. It's literally just random shit... I've had many occasions where it says my opponent is favored, when the game starts I ask them "hey who did ur screen say was favored?" and they say "it said you were".... that means the system is telling both of us that we are underdogs.
|
On November 03 2010 05:56 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
But of course points aren't comparable across divisions so the points of my opponents were probably deceptive. Perhaps if they were in my division they'd have less points than me, but I guess they're in divisions where points are easier to come by.
Divisions have nothing to do with points, they are just random groupings of players. Regions do however.
|
On November 03 2010 05:51 Nyxs wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:44 Deathstar wrote:On November 03 2010 05:38 Hypatio wrote:
I'm about a 1.1k diamond at 78/68 win/loss with about 400 unused bonus points as I don't play too often. It seems that on average, I am placed against people with about 1500 pts and probably half of them are 1550-1750. This is considered an even match by the ladder system. Now, I understand that I am placed against people with a higher score because it thinks that I am better than people with my score, but it seems that in terms of my score I am punished because it is harder for me to increase my score than someone for which 1.1k is their actual skill level.
IMO, it would be better if I am still placed against players on my level as determined by MMR but that my score increase is determined by the score differential rather than the MMR differential. Would this be better? Or is the current system acting as it should? It's just frustrating to me when I see someone who clearly isn't doing bad (facing me isn't the result of a losing streak) and has 1.7k points is treated as an even match with me.
What do you think? Yeah I agree. Basing matches on actual points instead of MMR would be so much better. It makes no sense to get only 10-14 points (without bonus pool) if you beat someone who has over 500 more points than you. No of course you should get only 10-14 points. Your opponent having more points doesn't make him a better player per say considering your skill is based on MMR and not your points. He only played more then you which resulted in having more points it doesn't actually make him better. So for people that have large amount of points but suck ass giving away tons of points would be imbalanced. You get an amount of points rewarded considering your opponents SKILL/MMR.
what you say is only true if we assume points are completly irrelevant and just some random numbers. but that cant be the goal of the system.
the points SHOULD reflect the actual player skill as good as possible. which isnt the case with the current system. if blizzards intention is that mmr is the end of all and points are just crap then they should make the MMR visible.
look at the wow arena system. its very similar to what they use in sc2. the key differnce tho is that the system always tries to match the points with the mmr asap. so you will get max/alot points no matter who you play until your points get near you mmr .
this way the points will reflect your mmr , your mmr is still used to match and determine your true skill and evrything is happy.
the current version is bad. the true skill rating (mmr) cant be seen, the visible points dont/ barely matter at all, people get furstrated by losing/winning stupid amounts and for some its way harder to climb the ladder then others. its a mess.
/edit this is mostly about the general situation and less about this specific thread.
|
On November 03 2010 06:04 Pro]ChoSen- wrote:
Hm first of all you can't pay attention to the "favored" or "slightly favored" thing at the loading screen, it means NOTHING. It's literally just random shit... I've had many occasions where it says my opponent is favored, when the game starts I ask them "hey who did ur screen say was favored?" and they say "it said you were".... that means the system is telling both of us that we are underdogs.
but "favored" or not determines how many points you get.
what i'm wondering is why would 1700 give me less points than 1000 especially when both players have equal amount of games (depleted bonus pool)
|
How is the points not comparable between divisions? how does what division you are in affect your points?
|
its because the match maker sets you up for a 50/50 matchup, regardless of the displayed ladder points. because you still have so much bonus pool, you will still theoretically climb steadily given you win at least 50% of your games.
|
On November 03 2010 06:04 Pro]ChoSen- wrote:
Hm first of all you can't pay attention to the "favored" or "slightly favored" thing at the loading screen, it means NOTHING. It's literally just random shit... I've had many occasions where it says my opponent is favored, when the game starts I ask them "hey who did ur screen say was favored?" and they say "it said you were".... that means the system is telling both of us that we are underdogs.
Favored and Unfavored is indicitive of how many points you will gain/lose, not necessarily how good you or your opponent is. This is because it compares your ladder score to their MMR for you, and Their ladder score to your MMR for them, this is why it is possible for both to see Favored, or unfavored. If your ladder is 1000, but your MMR is 1100 (You are currently playing better than your ladder score), and their ladder is 1200, but their MMR is 900 (They are currently playing worse than their ladder score), then you will be favored on your screen, and they will be favored on yours. This will make you gain lots of points so that your ladder score quickly gets close to your MMR, and they will lose lots of points so their Ladder score quickly gets close to their MMR.
In your case, if both are underdogs, that means both players are playing better than their ladder scores indicate. If both of you have ladder scores of 1000, but MMR's of 1500, then both will be underdogs so that both players will gain lots of points, and the ladder points will quickly reach the MMR.
Make sense now?
|
On November 03 2010 05:59 Liquid`Tyler wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:44 Uhh Negative wrote:
The way that points are now, there is pretty much almost nothing you can infer from points. This is pretty much the bottom line. It sucks but you have to ignore points. Blizzard simply did not find a global ranking important enough to implement in this system. Luckily for top players there will be a solution with grand master league. For the thousands of other competitive players, it doesn't look good.
They actually stated that the traditional points/division system would be scrapped for the Master's league as well, not just the GM league. Since the Master's league is supposed to be something like the top 1 - 2% of the region, that will be thousands of players.
And honestly, top 2% of the region shouldn't be that hard to achieve if you are a competitive sc2 player. Most people SUCK.
|
On November 03 2010 06:06 nttea wrote:
How is the points not comparable between divisions? how does what division you are in affect your points?
They are, Tyler is probably thinking of Regions.
|
United States12273 Posts
On November 03 2010 05:56 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I think points are calculated based on your opponent's MMR vs your actual points. So you are playing people who have MMR's lower than their actual points. It just happened to me yesterday. 2200 vs 2400 win 7 points, 2200 vs 2200 lose 19 points. If points were based on actual points, it would've been around +20 and -12. But of course points aren't comparable across divisions so the points of my opponents were probably deceptive. Perhaps if they were in my division they'd have less points than me, but I guess they're in divisions where points are easier to come by.
Generally speaking, unless you're in the middle of a streak, your current point value less your used bonus pool will show a rough estimate of your MMR. If a stable 1100 player with 400 bonus pool is considered even with a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool, I don't see how that could be interpreted as incorrect. The inactive player essentially has free potential points that he just needs to win games to earn, so after X number of games he will likely eventually become a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool.
Given that, you'll find that there are many many many players who are close to 0 points when you take away used bonus pool. The top players who have ~1000 adjusted rating are worlds better than those who have ~0 or negative adjusted rating.
|
On November 03 2010 06:14 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:56 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I think points are calculated based on your opponent's MMR vs your actual points. So you are playing people who have MMR's lower than their actual points. It just happened to me yesterday. 2200 vs 2400 win 7 points, 2200 vs 2200 lose 19 points. If points were based on actual points, it would've been around +20 and -12. But of course points aren't comparable across divisions so the points of my opponents were probably deceptive. Perhaps if they were in my division they'd have less points than me, but I guess they're in divisions where points are easier to come by. Generally speaking, unless you're in the middle of a streak, your current point value less your used bonus pool will show a rough estimate of your MMR. If a stable 1100 player with 400 bonus pool is considered even with a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool, I don't see how that could be interpreted as incorrect. The inactive player essentially has free potential points that he just needs to win games to earn, so after X number of games he will likely eventually become a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool. Given that, you'll find that there are many many many players who are close to 0 points when you take away used bonus pool. The top players who have ~1000 adjusted rating are worlds better than those who have ~0 or negative adjusted rating.
where do the huge point gain differences between people with used up bonus pool come from?
just like tieelers example i very often end up winning low and losing aton against players that are equal/way higher then me even when we both have 0 bonus pool left.
|
United States12273 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:12 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:06 nttea wrote:
How is the points not comparable between divisions? how does what division you are in affect your points? They are, Tyler is probably thinking of Regions.
No, points aren't comparable between divisions. There are some divisions that are weighted higher than others. For example, everybody knows that Medivac Alamo and Medic Mu etc are the "good" divisions, and that's reflected by the Top 200 consistently having members from those divisions. David Kim's Scout Kilo division is not weighted the same, and although he has more points, he's further down in the Top 200. We learned at Blizzcon that the Top 200 is done by points with division modifications removed.
I realize it doesn't make a whole lot of sense because the player pools in a given skill range are common, but that's how it is. The reason was to put a greater emphasis on your division. It makes sites like SC2Ranks not quite as accurate as we used to believe (until we can determine what the division modifiers are, if that's even possible).
EDIT: Actually the accuracy of estimating MMR in this way is in question even for the most stable players because of the division modifiers. Sooooo... there you go.
|
On November 03 2010 06:14 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:56 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I think points are calculated based on your opponent's MMR vs your actual points. So you are playing people who have MMR's lower than their actual points. It just happened to me yesterday. 2200 vs 2400 win 7 points, 2200 vs 2200 lose 19 points. If points were based on actual points, it would've been around +20 and -12. But of course points aren't comparable across divisions so the points of my opponents were probably deceptive. Perhaps if they were in my division they'd have less points than me, but I guess they're in divisions where points are easier to come by. Generally speaking, unless you're in the middle of a streak, your current point value less your used bonus pool will show a rough estimate of your MMR. If a stable 1100 player with 400 bonus pool is considered even with a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool, I don't see how that could be interpreted as incorrect. The inactive player essentially has free potential points that he just needs to win games to earn, so after X number of games he will likely eventually become a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool. Given that, you'll find that there are many many many players who are close to 0 points when you take away used bonus pool. The top players who have ~1000 adjusted rating are worlds better than those who have ~0 or negative adjusted rating.
This is actually a misconception. The Bonus Pool has no effect on your MMR. Even if you subtracted all the bonus pool from everyone's points, it would still not be an accurate indicator of your MMR. The reason is because the Match Making System of Bnet 2.0 matches you with players similar in skill. JoeSchmoe can have an MMR of 1500 and 2000 points, or Nony can have an MMR of 2000 and 2000 points. And whether you beat JoeSchmoe or Nony, you still get the same amount of points.
|
On November 03 2010 06:01 Ryka wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 05:56 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I think points are calculated based on your opponent's MMR vs your actual points. If it's anything like WoW's ladder system for arena this should be the case. But the only reason people were sometimes lower MMR than their actual rating is if they were on a big losing streak. This doesn't seem to be the case from what I've seen so far.
This was confirmed by one of the Blizzard guys in the Starcraft Multiplayer Q&A at Blizzcon, in response to a question asked by Excalibur_Z from this forum.
On November 03 2010 06:21 KevinIX wrote:
This is actually a misconception. The Bonus Pool has no effect on your MMR.
His comments above are pretty much straight out of the mouths of the Blizzard guys who answered his question at Blizzcon. They didn't reveal every detail of the system, but they did indicate that points minus bonus points should approximate MMR, and that points (with some math done on them, including accounting for bonus point differences) were being compared with MMR ratings to determine "favored/unfavored" as well as points awarded at the end of the match.
I honestly find the design of the system pretty confusing, but it does seem to match me with people of comparable skill, so I'm not complaining.
|
United States12273 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:19 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:14 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 03 2010 05:56 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I think points are calculated based on your opponent's MMR vs your actual points. So you are playing people who have MMR's lower than their actual points. It just happened to me yesterday. 2200 vs 2400 win 7 points, 2200 vs 2200 lose 19 points. If points were based on actual points, it would've been around +20 and -12. But of course points aren't comparable across divisions so the points of my opponents were probably deceptive. Perhaps if they were in my division they'd have less points than me, but I guess they're in divisions where points are easier to come by. Generally speaking, unless you're in the middle of a streak, your current point value less your used bonus pool will show a rough estimate of your MMR. If a stable 1100 player with 400 bonus pool is considered even with a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool, I don't see how that could be interpreted as incorrect. The inactive player essentially has free potential points that he just needs to win games to earn, so after X number of games he will likely eventually become a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool. Given that, you'll find that there are many many many players who are close to 0 points when you take away used bonus pool. The top players who have ~1000 adjusted rating are worlds better than those who have ~0 or negative adjusted rating. where do the huge point gain differences between people with used up bonus pool come from? just like tieelers example i very often end up winning low and losing aton against players that are equal/way higher then me even when we both have 0 bonus pool left.
Could be any number of reasons. Streaky player, different division, etc.
|
Speaking of this topic, I have a question. I'm one of these "inactive" diamond players. I have like 70 games played total (just got to diamond like 5 games ago) and I'm sitting at 630 points or so with an 850 bonus pool. Would it be safe to say that I would be considered a 1500~ diamond in terms of skill?
|
On November 03 2010 06:37 Jtn wrote:
Speaking of this topic, I have a question. I'm one of these "inactive" diamond players. I have like 70 games played total (just got to diamond like 5 games ago) and I'm sitting at 630 points or so with an 850 bonus pool. Would it be safe to say that I would be considered a 1500~ diamond in terms of skill?
It would be safe to say that your skill isn't correlated with your points in any meaningful way.
|
On November 03 2010 06:37 Jtn wrote:
Speaking of this topic, I have a question. I'm one of these "inactive" diamond players. I have like 70 games played total (just got to diamond like 5 games ago) and I'm sitting at 630 points or so with an 850 bonus pool. Would it be safe to say that I would be considered a 1500~ diamond in terms of skill?
i wonder about that too lol.
i got to diamond in about 20 games and now i sit at 50 games total. has 600 points with 900 bonus pool...i roflstomp my 1500 friends so i really wonder where i sit. making mistakes in 1:1 enrages me beyond belief (never BM at opponent though) so i refrain from too many 1s.
|
United States12273 Posts
On November 03 2010 06:21 KevinIX wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:14 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 03 2010 05:56 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
I think points are calculated based on your opponent's MMR vs your actual points. So you are playing people who have MMR's lower than their actual points. It just happened to me yesterday. 2200 vs 2400 win 7 points, 2200 vs 2200 lose 19 points. If points were based on actual points, it would've been around +20 and -12. But of course points aren't comparable across divisions so the points of my opponents were probably deceptive. Perhaps if they were in my division they'd have less points than me, but I guess they're in divisions where points are easier to come by. Generally speaking, unless you're in the middle of a streak, your current point value less your used bonus pool will show a rough estimate of your MMR. If a stable 1100 player with 400 bonus pool is considered even with a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool, I don't see how that could be interpreted as incorrect. The inactive player essentially has free potential points that he just needs to win games to earn, so after X number of games he will likely eventually become a 1500 player with 0 bonus pool. Given that, you'll find that there are many many many players who are close to 0 points when you take away used bonus pool. The top players who have ~1000 adjusted rating are worlds better than those who have ~0 or negative adjusted rating. This is actually a misconception. The Bonus Pool has no effect on your MMR. Even if you subtracted all the bonus pool from everyone's points, it would still not be an accurate indicator of your MMR. The reason is because the Match Making System of Bnet 2.0 matches you with players similar in skill. JoeSchmoe can have an MMR of 1500 and 2000 points, or Nony can have an MMR of 2000 and 2000 points. And whether you beat JoeSchmoe or Nony, you still get the same amount of points.
I realize that, and I'm not suggesting that bonus pool has an effect on MMR at all. In fact, I said completely the opposite.
Actually I did misspeak though because you can't really know your MMR because of division influences (since divisions aren't equal).
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
