|
On January 05 2011 10:30 Wfat wrote:I would definately say that my MMR is significantly higher than both MARS's and Ehzx's due to my relative win/loss ratio and also because I consistently get matched up with people in the top 50-100 players in the current SEA top 200 list. Also, as FamousSEA pointed out (see quoted text), TASalvatioN is not on the SEA top 200 list but would have had a rating of ~2700 at the time of the list calculation. I actually played several games with TASalvatioN on the ladder yesterday (after top 200 calculation) and am roughly evenly MMR-matched with him (I think our games went 3-3 - all 12 or 13 point games). This means that TASalvatioN's division 'Prelate November' must have a ridiculously high division modifier, which would be something like +567 (I-class... lol) if the top 200 list is somewhat related to MMR aswell. Show nested quote +On January 04 2011 19:49 FamousSEA wrote:Im doubting the accuracy of http://www.sc2ranks.com/ at the time of SEAs top 200 coming out I am 154, TASalvation in my division aswell is 86 (on sc2ranks), but when SEAs top 200 came out, neither of us were on it, however, ranked 199 on http://www.sc2ranks.com/ is jump, and he is at 161 on SEA top 200. idk, Im just doubting its accuracy, Myself and Salvation outranked jump on the "masters league section" at the time of t200 release yet he is on the official t200 and we are not. Perhaps our division was calculated wrong and we are -500+?
Problem is, Artoflosing and Salvation have constantly been on official top 200 proving that our division isnt -500. Perhaps it is based on MMR, salvations MMR seems to be dropping judging by the "Favoured/even/whatever" when I meet him on ladder.
|
On January 05 2011 14:14 FamousSEA wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 10:30 Wfat wrote:I would definately say that my MMR is significantly higher than both MARS's and Ehzx's due to my relative win/loss ratio and also because I consistently get matched up with people in the top 50-100 players in the current SEA top 200 list. Also, as FamousSEA pointed out (see quoted text), TASalvatioN is not on the SEA top 200 list but would have had a rating of ~2700 at the time of the list calculation. I actually played several games with TASalvatioN on the ladder yesterday (after top 200 calculation) and am roughly evenly MMR-matched with him (I think our games went 3-3 - all 12 or 13 point games). This means that TASalvatioN's division 'Prelate November' must have a ridiculously high division modifier, which would be something like +567 (I-class... lol) if the top 200 list is somewhat related to MMR aswell. On January 04 2011 19:49 FamousSEA wrote:Im doubting the accuracy of http://www.sc2ranks.com/ at the time of SEAs top 200 coming out I am 154, TASalvation in my division aswell is 86 (on sc2ranks), but when SEAs top 200 came out, neither of us were on it, however, ranked 199 on http://www.sc2ranks.com/ is jump, and he is at 161 on SEA top 200. idk, Im just doubting its accuracy, Myself and Salvation outranked jump on the "masters league section" at the time of t200 release yet he is on the official t200 and we are not. Perhaps our division was calculated wrong and we are -500+? Problem is, Artoflosing and Salvation have constantly been on official top 200 proving that our division isnt -500. Perhaps it is based on MMR, salvations MMR seems to be dropping judging by the "Favoured/even/whatever" when I meet him on ladder.
The analysis in this thread has shown pretty conclusively that points and divisions determine the ordering of the top 200 to a large extent without the influence of a hidden MMR multiplier. I still believe that there was little discrepancy between my own and TASalvatioN's MMR during the top 200 calculation, but if you are correct that his MMR was significantly lower than mine even though His point total was much higher than mine then the following could be true:
Maybe Blizzard is using an additional constraint(s) that disregards point totals of a player if their MMR is much lower than expected (or other skill-based criterion), making these players ineligible for placement in the top 200.
|
United States12240 Posts
Yeah that sounds pretty convincing. It's weird that I'm not seeing that elsewhere, maybe due to the increased activity on other servers? NA for example has only one Plat division that's below 99 players. EU's smallest division is 97. Russia has 6 that are 90 or below. LA's three smallest are all slightly below 80. KR has only 5 below 96. TW has one at 48, but 10 others between 90 and 96.
|
On January 05 2011 15:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:Yeah that sounds pretty convincing. It's weird that I'm not seeing that elsewhere, maybe due to the increased activity on other servers? NA for example has only one Plat division that's below 99 players. EU's smallest division is 97. Russia has 6 that are 90 or below. LA's three smallest are all slightly below 80. KR has only 5 below 96. TW has one at 48, but 10 others between 90 and 96.
US have so many players that it could fill divisions faster than sc2ranks can find it.
Also, people can be demoted and promoted from platinum all the time, so 90 players or more could be easily a coincidence. But 10 and 34? That's something that is hardly a coincidence.
|
United States12240 Posts
On January 06 2011 05:06 SDream wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 15:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:Yeah that sounds pretty convincing. It's weird that I'm not seeing that elsewhere, maybe due to the increased activity on other servers? NA for example has only one Plat division that's below 99 players. EU's smallest division is 97. Russia has 6 that are 90 or below. LA's three smallest are all slightly below 80. KR has only 5 below 96. TW has one at 48, but 10 others between 90 and 96. US have so many players that it could fill divisions faster than sc2ranks can find it. Also, people can be demoted and promoted from platinum all the time, so 90 players or more could be easily a coincidence. But 10 and 34? That's something that is hardly a coincidence.
Well, okay, but what about RU, TW, or LA, that all have a small player pool? Why are there different amounts of divisions that aren't yet full or close to full? If there were tiers (which I believe there may be) it would be proven if 3 divisions were particularly low at any given time.
|
Division DuGalle Epsilon on NA servers is probably the new E-Rank division of the day. (85% of confidence on this one)
(I would bet 50% of diamond divisions on US are E)
|
On January 06 2011 05:16 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 05:06 SDream wrote:On January 05 2011 15:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:Yeah that sounds pretty convincing. It's weird that I'm not seeing that elsewhere, maybe due to the increased activity on other servers? NA for example has only one Plat division that's below 99 players. EU's smallest division is 97. Russia has 6 that are 90 or below. LA's three smallest are all slightly below 80. KR has only 5 below 96. TW has one at 48, but 10 others between 90 and 96. US have so many players that it could fill divisions faster than sc2ranks can find it. Also, people can be demoted and promoted from platinum all the time, so 90 players or more could be easily a coincidence. But 10 and 34? That's something that is hardly a coincidence. Well, okay, but what about RU, TW, or LA, that all have a small player pool? Why are there different amounts of divisions that aren't yet full or close to full? If there were tiers (which I believe there may be) it would be proven if 3 divisions were particularly low at any given time.
It's the same reason we can't find 7 tiers on diamond at any given time.
http://www.sc2ranks.com/div/la/diamond/1/points/0
Right now, only 5 divisions have less than 90 players on LA server. Coincidences exist.
|
United States12240 Posts
On January 06 2011 05:22 SDream wrote:
Division DuGalle Epsilon on NA servers is probably the new E-Rank division of the day. (85% of confidence on this one)
(I would bet 50% of diamond divisions on US are E)
I wonder how tiers are assigned. Leagues are supposed to cover roughly 20% of active players. If we've found 6 tiers on NA (S A B C D E) within that 20%, I wonder how it determines the placement of each player. Just to brainstorm here for a bit:
- Maybe it is a pyramid? 50% in E, 20% in D, 10% in C, 10% in B, 5% in A, 5% in S?
- Logically, one would think it to be even for each tier. 16% per tier (probably 14% but we haven't proven any F-ranks on NA yet).
- Maybe it's based on the highest active player's MMR? Maybe the higher the top player gets, the more exclusive S-rank divisions become? Maybe if the top active player's MMR is 5000 and 2000 is required for Diamond, the required moving averages for each tier become 4500, 4000, 3500, etc? Then if he goes inactive and the next highest person is 4500, the tier requirements become 4014, 3526, 3040, etc? (ed: or maybe the Diamond threshold itself would change as well?)
The league system is certainly unique, I've never encountered a "living, breathing" system before, so it's interesting to think about how exactly it's structured.
|
|
|
Quoting myself from the Post Reset Data Collection Project Thread, sorry for cross-posting, but I think it's not really fitting there:
Shouldn't you be able to tell the tier of every single division (but not between leagues) directly after the one single placement match?
Assuming that division tiers also exist after reset, your points after placement will either be the division modifier (i.e. 0, 63, 126...) or if you get (hidden) points for the placement match will be Points (+ Bonus Pool) + Tier Modifier and since Points + Bonus Pool can not be higher than 48, the Tier Modifier of the division you are in after placement will be floor(Ladder Points / 63) * 63
Edit: Above of course only works if the placement match is won. If lost, you might infern Division Tier by just rounding up to the next multiple of 63. If however someone loses the placment match and has 0 ladder points after, my head would spin.
Edit2: Since i'm pulling stuff out of my butt anyway, this would also mean that for everyone that has won his placement match, points P would be one of P(x,y) = x*63 + y for x = [0..7], y = [1..48] and for everyone that has lost the placement match P(x,y) = x*63 - y for x = [1..7], y = [1..24]
Too many assumption? My math skills are also severly lacking omg, I hope someone understands me at all.
|
On January 06 2011 06:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 05:22 SDream wrote:
Division DuGalle Epsilon on NA servers is probably the new E-Rank division of the day. (85% of confidence on this one)
(I would bet 50% of diamond divisions on US are E) - Maybe it's based on the highest active player's MMR? Maybe the higher the top player gets, the more exclusive S-rank divisions become? Maybe if the top active player's MMR is 5000 and 2000 is required for Diamond, the required moving averages for each tier become 4500, 4000, 3500, etc? Then if he goes inactive and the next highest person is 4500, the tier requirements become 4014, 3526, 3040, etc? (ed: or maybe the Diamond threshold itself would change as well?).
It's probably based on everyones MMR, so it probably changes every now and then.
If the highest MMR of an active player is 3000, and the MMR of the player 20% (the last diamond) is 1200, then we have:
3000 - 2700 = S
1200 - 1500 = E
That's my guess, again, I have no confidence on it, but I really doubt it's pyramidal or even, though it will probably have a seemingly piramidal effect? (as most players will have a mediocre MMR, and only really good or bad players will be that far away from the commum mmr).
|
United States12240 Posts
On January 06 2011 06:25 Lightspeed wrote:Quoting myself from the Post Reset Data Collection Project Thread, sorry for cross-posting, but I think it's not really fitting there: Show nested quote +Shouldn't you be able to tell the tier of every single division (but not between leagues) directly after the one single placement match?
Assuming that division tiers also exist after reset, your points after placement will either be the division modifier (i.e. 0, 63, 126...) or if you get (hidden) points for the placement match will be Points (+ Bonus Pool) + Tier Modifier and since Points + Bonus Pool can not be higher than 48, the Tier Modifier of the division you are in after placement will be floor(Ladder Points / 63) * 63
Edit: Above of course only works if the placement match is won. If lost, you might infern Division Tier by just rounding up to the next multiple of 63. If however someone loses the placment match and has 0 ladder points after, my head would spin.
Edit2: Since i'm pulling stuff out of my butt anyway, this would also mean that for everyone that has won his placement match, points P would be one of P(x,y) = x*63 + y for x = [0..7], y = [1..48] and for everyone that has lost the placement match P(x,y) = x*63 - y for x = [1..7], y = [1..24]
Too many assumption? My math skills are also severly lacking omg, I hope someone understands me at all.
That's a good question, but I think a ladder wipe would suggest that after the placement match everyone would start at 0 points, effectively removing any way of determining tiers initially.
|
On January 06 2011 06:25 Lightspeed wrote:Quoting myself from the Post Reset Data Collection Project Thread, sorry for cross-posting, but I think it's not really fitting there: Show nested quote +Shouldn't you be able to tell the tier of every single division (but not between leagues) directly after the one single placement match?
Assuming that division tiers also exist after reset, your points after placement will either be the division modifier (i.e. 0, 63, 126...) or if you get (hidden) points for the placement match will be Points (+ Bonus Pool) + Tier Modifier and since Points + Bonus Pool can not be higher than 48, the Tier Modifier of the division you are in after placement will be floor(Ladder Points / 63) * 63
Edit: Above of course only works if the placement match is won. If lost, you might infern Division Tier by just rounding up to the next multiple of 63. If however someone loses the placment match and has 0 ladder points after, my head would spin.
Edit2: Since i'm pulling stuff out of my butt anyway, this would also mean that for everyone that has won his placement match, points P would be one of P(x,y) = x*63 + y for x = [0..7], y = [1..48] and for everyone that has lost the placement match P(x,y) = x*63 - y for x = [1..7], y = [1..24]
Too many assumption? My math skills are also severly lacking omg, I hope someone understands me at all.
I think no one gets points even after winning the placement matches, so everyone will have 0 points after the placement, winning or losing.
After that, you'll keep 0 points till you finally win and you probably get 24 + bonus pool after your first win. So I don't understand what are you trying to say =/
|
On January 06 2011 06:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:
That's a good question, but I think a ladder wipe would suggest that after the placement match everyone would start at 0 points, effectively removing any way of determining tiers initially.
On January 06 2011 06:46 SDream wrote:
I think no one gets points even after winning the placement matches, so everyone will have 0 points after the placement, winning or losing.
After that, you'll keep 0 points till you finally win and you probably get 24 + bonus pool after your first win. So I don't understand what are you trying to say =/
Maybe I haven't had enoough sleep lately, but at the moment your displayed points are your points + division modifier, right? It has to be like that as soon as you can see your points. If you get placed into an A rank division your displayed points will always be points + 63, whether you have 0 unmodified points or 2000. If everyone had 0 points after placement, that would mean that division modifiers are not getting applied. At what point would they get applied then? The first rating you see after your placement must already include the division modifier.
Did everyone have 0 points after the 5 placement matches this ladder season? I seriously don't remember.
Edit: I checked, everyone has 0 points after placement. So division modifier is like a hidden bonus pool that only get's gradually applied? Just forget my ramblings...
|
On January 06 2011 07:05 Lightspeed wrote:Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 06:42 Excalibur_Z wrote:
That's a good question, but I think a ladder wipe would suggest that after the placement match everyone would start at 0 points, effectively removing any way of determining tiers initially. Show nested quote +On January 06 2011 06:46 SDream wrote:
I think no one gets points even after winning the placement matches, so everyone will have 0 points after the placement, winning or losing.
After that, you'll keep 0 points till you finally win and you probably get 24 + bonus pool after your first win. So I don't understand what are you trying to say =/ Maybe I haven't had enoough sleep lately, but at the moment your displayed points are your points + division modifier, right? It has to be like that as soon as you can see your points. If you get placed into an A rank division your displayed points will always be points + 63, whether you have 0 unmodified points or 2000. If everyone had 0 points after placement, that would mean that division modifiers are not getting applied. At what point would they get applied then? The first rating you see after your placement must already include the division modifier. Did everyone have 0 points after the 5 placement matches this ladder season? I seriously don't remember.
The only way to make a fair difference between the lower league divisions would be to have different bonus-pools.
The tiers found through top 200 are almost all from diamond divisions. Diamond divisions have not had any direct qualifiers, since people were placed in gold after going 5-0, so everyone reaching diamond divisions had to get promoted and thus lost an amount of points according to the tier of the division they qualified for.
In lower leagues it is almost impossible to confirm if tiers exist. It is very likely that platinum is tiered, while lower divisions are a lot more uncertain. Below platinum the only reasonable way to distinguish between tiers would be by giving different bonus pools or scewing the MMR-system and scewing in mathematical models is so not a good idea!
it would be nice to get an overview of the bonuspools and time of qualifying for people just qualified after the reset.
|
On January 05 2011 10:30 Wfat wrote:I would definately say that my MMR is significantly higher than both MARS's and Ehzx's due to my relative win/loss ratio and also because I consistently get matched up with people in the top 50-100 players in the current SEA top 200 list. Also, as FamousSEA pointed out (see quoted text), TASalvatioN is not on the SEA top 200 list but would have had a rating of ~2700 at the time of the list calculation. I actually played several games with TASalvatioN on the ladder yesterday (after top 200 calculation) and am roughly evenly MMR-matched with him (I think our games went 3-3 - all 12 or 13 point games). This means that TASalvatioN's division 'Prelate November' must have a ridiculously high division modifier, which would be something like +567 (I-class... lol) if the top 200 list is somewhat related to MMR aswell.
Hi wfat/studyharder! Nice coincidence to see you posting here haha. I'm curreh from your division and I actually noticed that happen as well, You were around ~2500 or something points and got placed into the top 200 where as ehzx and mars in our division were at around 2600 and didn't get included. I looked into it and saw that you had around 250 bonus pool left so you were actually around 2700-2800 mmr, whereas ehzx and mars both had around 0-10 bonus pool, I saw all these numbers around the time that the top 200 was posted
So it seems as though the points you should be at when you have bonus pool, or in essence your mmr is what the top 200 is based on. Sorry if that's already been realised in this thread haha, I haven't read too much of it : )
|
United States12240 Posts
On January 06 2011 15:51 curreh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 10:30 Wfat wrote:I would definately say that my MMR is significantly higher than both MARS's and Ehzx's due to my relative win/loss ratio and also because I consistently get matched up with people in the top 50-100 players in the current SEA top 200 list. Also, as FamousSEA pointed out (see quoted text), TASalvatioN is not on the SEA top 200 list but would have had a rating of ~2700 at the time of the list calculation. I actually played several games with TASalvatioN on the ladder yesterday (after top 200 calculation) and am roughly evenly MMR-matched with him (I think our games went 3-3 - all 12 or 13 point games). This means that TASalvatioN's division 'Prelate November' must have a ridiculously high division modifier, which would be something like +567 (I-class... lol) if the top 200 list is somewhat related to MMR aswell. Hi wfat/studyharder! Nice coincidence to see you posting here haha. I'm curreh from your division and I actually noticed that happen as well, You were around ~2500 or something points and got placed into the top 200 where as ehzx and mars in our division were at around 2600 and didn't get included. I looked into it and saw that you had around 250 bonus pool left so you were actually around 2700-2800 mmr, whereas ehzx and mars both had around 0-10 bonus pool, I saw all these numbers around the time that the top 200 was posted So it seems as though the points you should be at when you have bonus pool, or in essence your mmr is what the top 200 is based on. Sorry if that's already been realised in this thread haha, I haven't read too much of it : )
Don't confuse points with MMR, as they're not the same. Points + unused bonus pool does not equal MMR. MMR is hidden and there is no method to calculate it.
|
On January 06 2011 16:07 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Don't confuse points with MMR, as they're not the same. Points + unused bonus pool does not equal MMR. MMR is hidden and there is no method to calculate it.
They seem to be intertwined though, and points + bonus pool + division tier modifier seems to essentially be mmr doesn't it? :S I don't understand it too well sorry 
|
2 new divisions on NA servers, I wish LA servers were that exciting.
Division Hive Pepper
http://www.sc2ranks.com/div/66025/division-hive-pepper
Division Dominion Quest
http://www.sc2ranks.com/div/66033/division-dominion-quest
We know that the old "newest" E, D and S ranks are full, so they're probably one of these and a new one will probably pop up soonish (probably already had, but sc2ranks didn't find it).
My bet is Hive Pepper is D, and Dominion Quest is E. I'll probably be right if Dominion Quest fills faster than Hive Pepper
So a new rank S is probably going to be born soon(TM). Hope someone on this new rank S can be good enough for top 200, then it would be fun to confirm my guesses :D
All I'm trying to look at are: when the last division has completly filled (so I don't lose time trying to guess from A-C, as they still have vacancy!) and the points lost based on sc2ranks (unfortunatelly it's far from perfect data, but it's still fun to do and can be somewhat reliable with more than 20 players if they have more than 2000 points).
Edit: One day later, pretty much confirmed my guesses 
|
On January 07 2011 11:04 SDream wrote:2 new divisions on NA servers, I wish LA servers were that exciting. Division Hive Pepper http://www.sc2ranks.com/div/66025/division-hive-pepperDivision Dominion Quest http://www.sc2ranks.com/div/66033/division-dominion-questWe know that the old "newest" E, D and S ranks are full, so they're probably one of these and a new one will probably pop up soonish (probably already had, but sc2ranks didn't find it). My bet is Hive Pepper is D, and Dominion Quest is E. I'll probably be right if Dominion Quest fills faster than Hive Pepper So a new rank S is probably going to be born soon(TM). Hope someone on this new rank S can be good enough for top 200, then it would be fun to confirm my guesses :D All I'm trying to look at are: when the last division has completly filled (so I don't lose time trying to guess from A-C, as they still have vacancy!) and the points lost based on sc2ranks (unfortunatelly it's far from perfect data, but it's still fun to do and can be somewhat reliable with more than 20 players if they have more than 2000 points).
Interestingly, both of those divisions were created containing players with less than 315 points. I'm really interested in seeing if one of them turns out to be E rank, because if it does, it implies that division modifier isn't initially added to score (maybe it's added to bonus pool, but the favored even system would have to be very complex to not account for it while it's in the process of being depleted. Also, the favored/even system DOES have to subtract it out, otherwise it would just end up distributed among all players).
Has there already been speculation or evidence on this that I've missed?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
