|
United States12235 Posts
On November 24 2010 19:11 hephaestos wrote:
Also, I have very strange data with two people belonging to the zealot alamo division :
Loz (feld delta) and bischu (zealot alamo), both ranked 90th, had roughly a difference of 63 points (one unknown defeat for bischu).
Kare (feld delta) and playzonefury (zealot alamo), both ranked 54th, had exactly the same amount of points.
Since there are other hints that zealot alamo is S-rank division, I think there is a problem with bischu's data (loz's data fit well with the other). I wonder if it is possible that the points modifier would be different for some players belonging to the same division. I have only one such case so far, but it is a strong one.
Thanks for putting in the work hephaestos, if I have time today I'll review.
|
Yay im in an S-rank division...
I always noticed I was beating people with 200-300 more points than me on the ladder, but we were still "evenly matched".
|
|
|
United States12235 Posts
On November 24 2010 16:55 hephaestos wrote:Ok, I tried to do the work for the EU ladder, and the first data I analyze don't fit, there we are : Top 200 blizard, rank 30 : Sjow and Infpro http://eu.battle.net/sc2/fr/blog/1010010#blogThey are both in the same division, so if only points count they should have the same number of points at the time of the ranking. Sjow was 353/153, and he is now 361/157. He has now 2759 points, and if I remove his last 8 victories (+98) and 4 defeats (-43), by looking in his history, he had 2704 points when the top200 was made. Infpro was 509/386 and is now 514/388. He has now 2723 points. I remove his last 5 victories (+53) and 2 defeats (-19) which brings me to a total of 2689 points. So, those 5 missing points, how can we explain them ?
SjoW at the time of this post is 362-157 with 2771 points. Going back and discounting his last 13 games (2771 -12-4-6-14+7-14-18-14-14+17+9-28+10), I get a result of 2690 points at the time of the snapshot.
Infpro is 518-390 right now with 2741, but he has played too many custom games recently and I can't go back far enough to verify.
|
On November 25 2010 01:30 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 19:11 hephaestos wrote:
Also, I have very strange data with two people belonging to the zealot alamo division :
Loz (feld delta) and bischu (zealot alamo), both ranked 90th, had roughly a difference of 63 points (one unknown defeat for bischu).
Kare (feld delta) and playzonefury (zealot alamo), both ranked 54th, had exactly the same amount of points.
Since there are other hints that zealot alamo is S-rank division, I think there is a problem with bischu's data (loz's data fit well with the other). I wonder if it is possible that the points modifier would be different for some players belonging to the same division. I have only one such case so far, but it is a strong one. Thanks for putting in the work hephaestos, if I have time today I'll review.
I bet it has something to do with the bonus pool.
|
United States12235 Posts
On November 24 2010 19:11 hephaestos wrote:
Also, I have very strange data with two people belonging to the zealot alamo division :
Loz (feld delta) and bischu (zealot alamo), both ranked 90th, had roughly a difference of 63 points (one unknown defeat for bischu).
Kare (feld delta) and playzonefury (zealot alamo), both ranked 54th, had exactly the same amount of points.
Since there are other hints that zealot alamo is S-rank division, I think there is a problem with bischu's data (loz's data fit well with the other). I wonder if it is possible that the points modifier would be different for some players belonging to the same division. I have only one such case so far, but it is a strong one.
LoZ had 2525, Bischu played too many customs so I can't confirm. He now has 2547 and he went 1-1 since the snapshot, but his win earned him 28 points (2519) and his loss... probably cost him 6 points. We can't be 100% sure here, but let's say for this example that it's probably true, which would mean Feld Delta and Zealot Alamo are equal.
Kare played 11 games since the snapshot, but in his match history he "left" one game, not sure what this means because it didn't have any impact on score. He has 2591 now, (-22+15-7+12+15-15+9-16+17-15...+15?). His next game after that was a 15 point loss, so I'll set that aside in case that counted as his actual 11th game. He had 2581 points at the time of the snapshot. Playzonefury has 2709 now, went 7-3 since the snapshot (-16-12-12-26-30+3-10-16+19+2), and working backwards, had... 2611 at the time?
Did things get messed up because of that "Left" in his match history? Did he somehow lose 15 or 30 points from that and it wasn't recorded? That is very strange indeed.
|
On November 25 2010 02:28 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2010 16:55 hephaestos wrote:Ok, I tried to do the work for the EU ladder, and the first data I analyze don't fit, there we are : Top 200 blizard, rank 30 : Sjow and Infpro http://eu.battle.net/sc2/fr/blog/1010010#blogThey are both in the same division, so if only points count they should have the same number of points at the time of the ranking. Sjow was 353/153, and he is now 361/157. He has now 2759 points, and if I remove his last 8 victories (+98) and 4 defeats (-43), by looking in his history, he had 2704 points when the top200 was made. Infpro was 509/386 and is now 514/388. He has now 2723 points. I remove his last 5 victories (+53) and 2 defeats (-19) which brings me to a total of 2689 points. So, those 5 missing points, how can we explain them ? SjoW at the time of this post is 362-157 with 2771 points. Going back and discounting his last 13 games (2771 -12-4-6-14+7-14-18-14-14+17+9-28+10), I get a result of 2690 points at the time of the snapshot. Infpro is 518-390 right now with 2741, but he has played too many custom games recently and I can't go back far enough to verify.
Yeah, nevermind those 5 points, don't you think they are just bonus pool points, the data totally fits for nearly everybody (when the history goes far enough).
|
United States12235 Posts
On November 25 2010 03:04 hephaestos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2010 02:28 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 24 2010 16:55 hephaestos wrote:Ok, I tried to do the work for the EU ladder, and the first data I analyze don't fit, there we are : Top 200 blizard, rank 30 : Sjow and Infpro http://eu.battle.net/sc2/fr/blog/1010010#blogThey are both in the same division, so if only points count they should have the same number of points at the time of the ranking. Sjow was 353/153, and he is now 361/157. He has now 2759 points, and if I remove his last 8 victories (+98) and 4 defeats (-43), by looking in his history, he had 2704 points when the top200 was made. Infpro was 509/386 and is now 514/388. He has now 2723 points. I remove his last 5 victories (+53) and 2 defeats (-19) which brings me to a total of 2689 points. So, those 5 missing points, how can we explain them ? SjoW at the time of this post is 362-157 with 2771 points. Going back and discounting his last 13 games (2771 -12-4-6-14+7-14-18-14-14+17+9-28+10), I get a result of 2690 points at the time of the snapshot. Infpro is 518-390 right now with 2741, but he has played too many custom games recently and I can't go back far enough to verify. Yeah, nevermind those 5 points, don't you think they are just bonus pool points, the data totally fits for nearly everybody (when the history goes far enough).
I don't think it's bonus pool, because some of the high level players on NA like Nazgul, Idra, Huk, Dimaga don't even play on NA anymore which means they've been accruing a lot of bonus pool (Huk has over 200 now) and it hasn't impacted their adjusted ratings from what I can see.
|
On November 25 2010 03:31 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I don't think it's bonus pool, because some of the high level players on NA like Nazgul, Idra, Huk, Dimaga don't even play on NA anymore which means they've been accruing a lot of bonus pool (Huk has over 200 now) and it hasn't impacted their adjusted ratings from what I can see.
That leaves me with 2 glitches. Damn matrix. I will see in the next top200 wether they are still there.
|
On November 24 2010 03:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:EDIT: Also, the first answer in the FAQ isn't conjecture 
A couple thoughts:
I heard the answer to your question at the Blizzcon Q&A, and they definitely did, as you say, confirm that there are skill differences between divisions. However, that doesn't directly lead to the inference that these division modifiers are specifically to correct for skill differences, despite how they're being used in ranking the top 200 -- if there were a difference between divisions related to the bonus point system that also required correction, such as differing bonus pools, that too would result in a modifier being used like the ones you've discerned for these divisions.
I'm not arguing that this is the case, because the assumption that the modifiers are to correct for those skill differences is very reasonable, just pointing out that unless you have information you haven't shared with us such as a private conversation with a designer, I don't know how you'd tell the difference between those two cases based on the data (since there's likely to be a correlation between, say, start date for a division and skill level that might cause high skill divisions to have high modifiers even if it's a pure bonus point adjustment.)
Edit: That later divisions sometimes pop up in the low modifier group might seem to be a counter-argument to the idea that the division differences are related to timing of when the division started. However, if there were either changes to how a division's initial bonus pools were handled after the game launched, or if there were some combination of division modifiers and initial bonus point pool adjustments that occurred over time in conjunction with each other, it could still be the case. Of course, the farther one goes down that path in trying to justify such an explanation, the more complicated and improbable the system seems.
Second is that the conjecture I was pointing out in Wargizmo's post was the idea that these modifiers (assuming they're to correct for skill differences) are primarily to make people feel better about their performance.
I'd suggest that the modifiers may serve another purpose, which is to ensure that a constant rate of bonus pool accrual and +/- 12 points for an even match can be used across all skill levels. Since everyone, bronze or diamond, accrues bonus points at a certain rate, and many players report that a win against an even match seems to average 12 points won or lost, having modifiers to place most people's point scores in a certain numerical range regardless of league or division skill level might be a necessary feature of the system.
For example, if top 200 players had scores around 10,000 and low Bronze players had scores around 30, those numbers (bonus point accrual and typical even-match score changes) would have to vary widely across skill levels. My guess (and it's also purely conjecture ) is that division modifiers *are* skill adjustments and are specifically to address that issue.
But, that's just a guess, and I don't think there's any way to test that either.
BTW, I certainly hope you don't take my comments as critical of your work on this -- your effort in interpreting all this information is extremely illuminating and I greatly appreciate it.
|
United States12235 Posts
We actually did have a conversation with the designer who answered my question after the panel was over (since obviously we had a ton of questions for him given the black box nature of the system). That was where we found a lot of this stuff out, like Top 200 being based on points and divisions being tied to skill.
I can't really say anything further about Wargizmo's post, other than to say it's accurate.
|
What if our league is not up there?
Valerian Gravity.
If I'm at 2253 points do I assume - 315 to find myself? I can't find myself on US-Masters
ZeN 697 T
|
United States12235 Posts
On November 25 2010 05:10 PerfectZeN wrote:
What if our league is not up there?
Valerian Gravity.
If I'm at 2253 points do I assume - 315 to find myself? I can't find myself on US-Masters
ZeN 697 T
If your division isn't listed, which is very likely, then it just means we don't know to which tier it belongs. We only have information on about 10% of NA Diamond divisions, and those are the ones that have representatives in the Top 200.
|
I guess Battle.net 2.0 does so called matching already at lower division levels. This is pure speculation only.
After the placement matches you are placed some division (you could have placed silver s-class or a-class etc) according opponent you faced. You could have had weaker class diamond players from e-class or d-class some point and b.net decides to put you on gold or platinum division. Now it starts to find your division spot to diamond side by comparing your new opponent if you are good enough for s-class or a-class etc. Enough wins against selected range of opponents you are promoted to new diamond division class from platinum (perhaps stronger class than your previous division if you improved well).
After placement matches
Gold (b-class)
After some games you seem to do well and beat platinum players which are a-class but still lose to s-class regularly --> Promotion to
Platinum a-class
Now getting diamond s-class requires more effort and good win rate vs them to get placed s-class directly. But you still improved a lot quickly and do regularly beat them --> promotion to
Diamond s-class
This means there is already so called checkpoints how well you do and this could explain why some people lose more (or less) points when they promote to new division.
|
United Kingdom2950 Posts
Not sure if this question has been asked/answered, but what if I'm in diamond and my division isn't even in the E+ list? Does that mean my division is so bad that it's not even placed?
|
United States12235 Posts
On November 25 2010 05:45 Wunder wrote:
Not sure if this question has been asked/answered, but what if I'm in diamond and my division isn't even in the E+ list? Does that mean my division is so bad that it's not even placed?
It has... two posts above yours. I'm going to just add this as a question in the FAQ at the bottom of the first post.
|
So, if you are placed in a S-ranked division, are you constantly being trained harder than those placed in a A ranked division? I am fascinated by how bnet2 makes it's decisions, but I wonder if they are good choices. (i suspect that they are not)
|
United Kingdom2950 Posts
On November 25 2010 05:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 25 2010 05:45 Wunder wrote:
Not sure if this question has been asked/answered, but what if I'm in diamond and my division isn't even in the E+ list? Does that mean my division is so bad that it's not even placed? It has... two posts above yours. I'm going to just add this as a question in the FAQ at the bottom of the first post.
Sorry :<
|
United States12235 Posts
On November 25 2010 06:06 ectonym wrote:
So, if you are placed in a S-ranked division, are you constantly being trained harder than those placed in a A ranked division? I am fascinated by how bnet2 makes it's decisions, but I wonder if they are good choices. (i suspect that they are not)
The tier only matters at the time of placement. Your MMR can increase or decrease from the tier's MMR range, which probably happens frequently. For example, all those players in the Top 200 who are in E-Rank divisions clearly don't have MMRs that correlate to the bottom section of Diamond, they're good players who have raised their MMRs beyond that point and now they play against S-Rank or equivalent players.
|
On November 25 2010 05:36 Too_MuchZerg wrote:
I guess Battle.net 2.0 does so called matching already at lower division levels. This is pure speculation only.
From what I know, only diamond has different level divisions. All platinum and lower league divisions are identical within the league. That's what I was told back in beta when platinum was the highest league, though at the time it was also possible to be promoted within platinum to different level divisions too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
