EPTSC2 Ladder Analysis: Division Tiers - Page 14
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Hypatio
549 Posts
| ||
|
IamOBESE
United States134 Posts
On November 24 2010 00:07 ZlaSHeR wrote: So best way to get into top ranking. Wait til reset, get diamond fastest, then save bonus pool for 2 months and spam games to spend points. Uhh, there's really no point to doing that. A few things wrong with your statement. Getting into a division earlier does not help you get into a better division since it is mmr based. And even if it did, a better division doesn't help you get into the top 200. The different levels of divisions merely change your displayed rating, not the rating they use for the top 200. Saving your bonus pool does nothing but keep you out of contention during the weeks that you aren't playing. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On November 23 2010 19:17 Camlito wrote: Love the work! Are their any plans to do this for EU or SEA soon? I'd be interested in SEA because i'd like to see what it takes to get into the top 200 for me, since i went inactive for a month on SEA and came back, my MMR is still very high but my points are low, so i always get less points than others. Just curious! I'm not planning on expanding this to other servers, but I recommend that someone does, since more information is always better. That someone could be you! It actually doesn't take a very long time, it's just more work than I'd want to put in for a region with which I'm unfamiliar. | ||
|
SovSov
United States755 Posts
http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battle.net_Leagues Lots of misinformation. | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
How can you tell certain division is S-type, etc? Is it possible that, given enough points, a lower league(ie. platinum) player is able to "catch up" to a higher league player in points, like, a 4k platinum compared to a 2k diamond? | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
First, Vanick says: We now know that sigma does not play a direct role in promotion criteria I'm wondering whether that was from a Blizzard statement or an inference from data someone's gathered? Lots of stuff flying around in these discussions and it's hard to keep track. Second, do we have any actual evidence that these variations in division modifiers have some relationship to skill levels? Everything I've seen so far seems to state that as an assumption rather than finding reasons in the data to support it. Suppose, for example, that those modifiers were actually just corrections for variable bonus pools caused by the divisions being created at intervals (since it appears bonus points ARE being included in the top 200 calculation). That the lower-modifier divisions would have the best players could simply be an accident of the fact that the highest-ranked players are most likely to have started playing in the ladder immediately upon release. Anyway, that's a question, because I may have missed the analysis that would conclusively distinguish between those two cases.  However, I want to note that the first answer in the FAQ ("why?"), is pure conjecture. | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:49 Zephirdd wrote: Could you tell us how did you calculate the differences of "real" points in each league? This way, we could do researches on the leagues of our regions(ie. LA, in my case) based on our top 200 and sc2ranks. How can you tell certain division is S-type, etc? Is it possible that, given enough points, a lower league(ie. platinum) player is able to "catch up" to a higher league player in points, like, a 4k platinum compared to a 2k diamond? You calculate the differences by comparing their points at the time of the top 200 snapshot. Blizzard said it is based entirely on points, so the only thing that differs from what appears on sc2ranks is the division modifier. For example, if you see someone on the top 200 with 2400 and someone with 2463 and they are listed at an equal rank on the top 200, you can conclude the division of the 2463 person is one rank below the 2400 person. Sure, a 4k platinum would be higher (probably #1) but there's no way he would get that high without a promotion. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:49 Zephirdd wrote: Could you tell us how did you calculate the differences of "real" points in each league? This way, we could do researches on the leagues of our regions(ie. LA, in my case) based on our top 200 and sc2ranks. How can you tell certain league is S-type, etc? Sure. Let's say for example there are 10 players, A through J, ranked in descending order according to the top 200. So the Top 200 would show this: Blizzard_Rank Name Record 1 A 105-95 2 B 100-100 3 C 110-70 3 D 90-60 5 E 100-85 6 F 103-100 6 G 107-94 6 H 105-90 9 I 99-83 10 J 80-60 The first thing you'll notice is that C and D are ranked equally, and F, G, and H are ranked equally. This is important to keep in mind when determining tiers because it's your sole reference point. Now, if you go into A's profile on Battle.net by clicking his name, then click on his 1v1, you'll see that he's in Division A with 1000 points and a record of 105-95. That's consistent with what the Top 200 shows, so nothing needs to be done. Just make a note of it in a text file or spreadsheet. Next, B's profile. When you click on B's 1v1 you see that he has 1020 points in Division B and a record of 102-101. That's 2 wins and 1 loss more than the snapshot has recorded, so you need to go into his Match History and discount his 3 most recent games. Say that he gained +20 and +20 points for his wins and -10 for his loss, so you would use 1020 - 20 - 20 + 10 which is 990. Then you would make a note that B was in Division B with 990 points. C's profile. You click on C's 1v1 and see that he has 1043 points in Division C with a record of 110-70. He was ranked below A and B on the Top 200, but he has more points, and his record is consistent with the snapshot, so you would make a note that 1043 points in Division C is worth less than 990 in Division B. D's profile. D has 980 points in Division D with a record of 90-60. His record hasn't changed since the snapshot, so his 980 rating is accurate. However, he's tied for rank with C, so you know that 980 in Division D is equal to 1043 in Division C. You can see these kinds of notes in the "Interesting data points" section of my initial post. Basically, I was jotting these notes down as I was going along and eventually I was able to determine the different tiers. Note that Divisions A, B, and D in the example I gave may be top-tier divisions, but you don't know that for a fact until you see point values that may be below that. So tentatively, you would say that A, B, and D are in the highest tier until you could prove otherwise. C would be a tier below that until you could determine if there is a tier between the top tier and that lower tier. Hopefully that makes sense to you. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll try and explain more. | ||
|
JDM.s2000
United States122 Posts
On November 23 2010 18:28 Feverus wrote: Then he'd be in the horrible position of allaboutyou, having a displayed rating 200 points higher than his actual one. How absurdly terrifying! His friends will crucify him immediately. ? i dont understand your point. but basically to get into MY DIVISION to be ranked in the top 200 division, someone from my division needs to get above 2600 pts right? | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:56 Lysenko wrote: OK, after all this discussion, two questions: First, Vanick says: I'm wondering whether that was from a Blizzard statement or an inference from data someone's gathered? Lots of stuff flying around in these discussions and it's hard to keep track. Second, do we have any actual evidence that these variations in division modifiers have some relationship to skill levels? Everything I've seen so far seems to state that as an assumption rather than finding reasons in the data to support it. Suppose, for example, that those modifiers were actually just corrections for variable bonus pools caused by the divisions being created at intervals (since it appears bonus points ARE being included in the top 200 calculation). That the lower-modifier divisions would have the best players could simply be an accident of the fact that the highest-ranked players are most likely to have started playing in the ladder immediately upon release. Anyway, that's a question, because I may have missed the analysis that would conclusively distinguish between those two cases. However, I want to note that the first answer in the FAQ ("why?"), is pure conjecture.The first part: That was what the senior designer told us after the panel. So, it came from an official source. The second part: Also at Blizzcon in the same discussion, we learned from the senior designer that divisions are separated by skill. We just didn't know to what extent or how to measure it until last week's Top 200. Specifically, he mentioned that divisions were modified due to differing skill levels, and that's why they can't be globally grouped together like in SC2Ranks. EDIT: Also, the first answer in the FAQ isn't conjecture  | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On November 24 2010 03:13 JDM.s2000 wrote: ? i dont understand your point. but basically to get into MY DIVISION to be ranked in the top 200 division, someone from my division needs to get above 2600 pts right? If your friend in your division had 2400 points as of 7:30 AM Monday, then all you really know is that your division is not S-Rank, because the lowest rating in the Top 200 was an S-Rank division at 2352 points. If your division is A-Rank, your friend would have needed 2416 (2353 +63) points to get into this week's Top 200. If your division is B-Rank, your friend would have needed 2479. If your division is C-Rank, your friend would have needed 2542. If your division is D-Rank, your friend would have needed 2605. If your division is E-Rank, your friend would have needed 2668. If he had more than 2668 points and still wasn't on this week's Top 200, then that would be evidence of a new tier. | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On November 24 2010 03:09 Excalibur_Z wrote: Sure. Let's say for example there are 10 players, A through J, ranked in descending order according to the top 200. So the Top 200 would show this: Blizzard_Rank Name Record 1 A 105-95 2 B 100-100 3 C 110-70 3 D 90-60 5 E 100-85 6 F 103-100 6 G 107-94 6 H 105-90 9 I 99-83 10 J 80-60 The first thing you'll notice is that C and D are ranked equally, and F, G, and H are ranked equally. This is important to keep in mind when determining tiers because it's your sole reference point. Now, if you go into A's profile on Battle.net by clicking his name, then click on his 1v1, you'll see that he's in Division A with 1000 points and a record of 105-95. That's consistent with what the Top 200 shows, so nothing needs to be done. Just make a note of it in a text file or spreadsheet. Next, B's profile. When you click on B's 1v1 you see that he has 1020 points in Division B and a record of 102-101. That's 2 wins and 1 loss more than the snapshot has recorded, so you need to go into his Match History and discount his 3 most recent games. Say that he gained +20 and +20 points for his wins and -10 for his loss, so you would use 1020 - 20 - 20 + 10 which is 990. Then you would make a note that B was in Division B with 990 points. C's profile. You click on C's 1v1 and see that he has 1043 points in Division C with a record of 110-70. He was ranked below A and B on the Top 200, but he has more points, and his record is consistent with the snapshot, so you would make a note that 1043 points in Division C is worth less than 990 in Division B. D's profile. D has 980 points in Division D with a record of 90-60. His record hasn't changed since the snapshot, so his 980 rating is accurate. However, he's tied for rank with C, so you know that 980 in Division D is equal to 1043 in Division C. You can see these kinds of notes in the "Interesting data points" section of my initial post. Basically, I was jotting these notes down as I was going along and eventually I was able to determine the different tiers. Note that Divisions A, B, and D in the example I gave may be top-tier divisions, but you don't know that for a fact until you see point values that may be below that. So tentatively, you would say that A, B, and D are in the highest tier until you could prove otherwise. C would be a tier below that until you could determine if there is a tier between the top tier and that lower tier. Hopefully that makes sense to you. Let me know if you have any questions and I'll try and explain more. That makes sense for me, thank you. Once hte next LA's top 200 is out I'll begin researching. | ||
|
MGHova
Canada274 Posts
I'm assuming that the match ups are being made with this modifier.... since it makes sense that you are playing someone with similar skill level and not pure points. I'm assuming this is why its harder to get higher points with an S-class division. Can someone clarify this for me | ||
|
Mongery
892 Posts
On November 18 2010 06:21 Minigun wrote: does this mean I suck  No it does not mean that u suck ;p imo dont think that people are very very good because they can play 2000++++games and get high on ladder. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On November 24 2010 03:39 DaJuliaN wrote: This is very interesting. I have a question. How then does this relate to match ups. Are the modifiers used when determining points win/lost after a game? I'm in an S-class division approximately 2100 points and i've always found that i've been playing people with points a lot higher then me like 2200-2400 with teams even. Does this mean they are in a weaker division? Or is this something completely different. I'm assuming that the match ups are being made with this modifier.... since it makes sense that you are playing someone with similar skill level and not pure points. I'm assuming this is why its harder to get higher points with an S-class division. Can someone clarify this for me Matching is by hidden MMR and not rating. The points won/lost are determined by comparing your opponent's MMR to your adjusted (modifiers excluded) rating. | ||
|
MGHova
Canada274 Posts
On November 24 2010 04:08 Excalibur_Z wrote: Matching is by hidden MMR and not rating. The points won/lost are determined by comparing your opponent's MMR to your adjusted (modifiers excluded) rating. Oh, okay. has anyone figured out the MMR formula? Then I don't understand then how division skill should have anything to do with ranking. Should it just be pure points then.What does me being in an S-class division have anything to do with my global ranking then since MMR determines how much points you basically get / are at. Why do lower division people get penalized when a 2000 player in a worse division should be the same skill level as one in an S-class division. I'm probably missing something.... i'll be reading old posts again  edit: Are lower divisions starting with these extra points?? Is this why?? Not sure why blizzard would do that if it was the case. Bonus pool should help people climb the points ladder enough. | ||
|
Kpyolysis32
553 Posts
On November 24 2010 04:29 DaJuliaN wrote: Oh, okay. has anyone figured out the MMR formula? Then I don't understand then how division skill should have anything to do with ranking. Should it just be pure points then.What does me being in an S-class division have anything to do with my global ranking then since MMR determines how much points you basically get / are at. Why do lower division people get penalized when a 2000 player in a worse division should be the same skill level as one in an S-class division. I'm probably missing something.... i'll be reading old posts again edit: Are lower divisions starting with these extra points?? Is this why?? Not sure why blizzard would do that if it was the case. Bonus pool should help people climb the points ladder enough. No one has figured out the MMR formula. And as far as we know, at least, the reason for division modifiers is just to make points not comparable across divisions, so that players are forced to only focus on progress within their own division instead of on a global ladder. I think the reason for doing this is they think it will motivate players, because going up from #42 to #39 seems a lot more appealing than going from #39907 to #39904. It's kind of similar to why they chose bonus pool over inactive decay; A bonus pool makes you feel like you're constantly improving, even if you're just maintaining your previous position. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On November 24 2010 02:03 SovSov wrote: This page should be updated: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battle.net_Leagues Lots of misinformation. I made some edits to that page, in particular the league distribution (it's 20% of active players per league with some slush allowed) and added the division tiers. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On November 24 2010 04:29 DaJuliaN wrote: Oh, okay. has anyone figured out the MMR formula? Then I don't understand then how division skill should have anything to do with ranking. Should it just be pure points then.What does me being in an S-class division have anything to do with my global ranking then since MMR determines how much points you basically get / are at. Why do lower division people get penalized when a 2000 player in a worse division should be the same skill level as one in an S-class division. I'm probably missing something.... i'll be reading old posts again edit: Are lower divisions starting with these extra points?? Is this why?? Not sure why blizzard would do that if it was the case. Bonus pool should help people climb the points ladder enough. Nobody can or ever will figure out the MMR formula because MMR is hidden. Everyone gets the same amount of bonus pool, which means bonus pool only serves to separate the active from the inactive. So, that can't be used to normalize rating. I'll give you a hypothetical example about division skill. If you're in an S-Rank division with 1600 points and I'm in an E-Rank division with 1500 points, psychologically I think that I'm pretty close to your level. In reality, I'm 415 points behind you. However, this rating normalization (where lower-skilled divisions get higher modifiers) may make me want to keep playing so I can catch up to you. There is no penalty for being in a lower-skilled division. You just have a displayed rating that's higher than it really is. It doesn't make it any easier or harder to gain points, therefore no penalty exists. The idea is that S-Rank players are more skilled, therefore they're going to end up highest in points no matter what they do, but if there were no offsets, E-Rank players would be left far far behind which may discourage them from playing. As a result, there's no harm in granting +315 points essentially for free to these E-Rank players. Blizzard wants to ensure that there's no way for you to identify whether you're near the bottom of a league, and this is just another method they can use to that end. | ||
|
MGHova
Canada274 Posts
There is no penalty for being in a lower-skilled division. You just have a displayed rating that's higher than it really is. It doesn't make it any easier or harder to gain points, therefore no penalty exists. The idea is that S-Rank players are more skilled, therefore they're going to end up highest in points no matter what they do, but if there were no offsets, E-Rank players would be left far far behind which may discourage them from playing. As a result, there's no harm in granting +315 points essentially for free to these E-Rank players. Blizzard wants to ensure that there's no way for you to identify whether you're near the bottom of a league, and this is just another method they can use to that end. Cool thanks for explaining everything. I guess it makes some sense why they decide to do it that way. edit: I'm guessing there's no way to determine what kind of rank your division is unless its figured out using blizzards top 200. I can see blizzard keeping that a secret as well for the same reason they have it set up this way to begin with. | ||
| ||
