|
Sorry StrifeCo, I still don't get it.
I understand that if you consistently have 0 bonus pool and all players started at the same time (i.e. playing enough and trying hard criteria), then points would be an accurate measure of skill. But if someone starts playing a significant time after SC2 release and consistently gets matched to >2000 point players of the same skill level then you will never be able to reach the same amount of points as them, given a 50% win ratio. This is because your MMR will increase much faster than your points during your first several games. ??
I just looked up the SEA top 200 though and it seems to verify Excalibur's hypothesis, as myself and ProAnn are ranked similarly in our division and also in the SEA top 200 (#159 and #156 respectively).
SEA top 200 (current)
|
Ooh, B-rank division. Actually, my ELO does seem to be around 126 points than most of the people I play against's. I wonder if that's a result of this, or if it's just coincidence.
Also, 0 through 63 is 64 different numbers, and 64 is a binary number, so 63 seems like a very reasonable number for this.
|
On November 18 2010 14:29 Wfat wrote:Sorry StrifeCo, I still don't get it. I understand that if you consistently have 0 bonus pool and all players started at the same time (i.e. playing enough and trying hard criteria), then points would be an accurate measure of skill. But if someone starts playing a significant time after SC2 release and consistently gets matched to >2000 point players of the same skill level then you will never be able to reach the same amount of points as them, given a 50% win ratio. This is because your MMR will increase much faster than your points during your first several games. ?? I just looked up the SEA top 200 though and it seems to verify Excalibur's hypothesis, as myself and ProAnn are ranked similarly in our division and also in the SEA top 200 (#159 and #156 respectively). SEA top 200 (current)
in the long run if you play versus 2000 rated people and go 50 percent you should still be able to get to 2000 because when your lower than 2000 generally you should get more than 12 points per win and lose less than 12 points per loss. they should appear on the loading screen as favored or slightly favored. 12 points is around when it says teams even for you. when you are higher than 2000, say 2400 and your still matching the same 2000 rated people you might lose 18 points per game but only win 6 points per game versus them. basicly you should be able to hit your MMR with enough games even going 50 percent.
|
On November 18 2010 14:18 Amber[LighT] wrote:
In division K-Xray the bolded players were in the top 200, and the non-bolded players did not appear.. Why and how did this happen?
1 Katari (2,856)
2 MasterAsia (2,682)
3 EGMachine (2,513)
4 Bamboocha (2,419)
5 FreshShock (2,276)
6 RaNGirLxD (2,267)
Excal's list was done by hand so maybe he missed a guy, but in the official top200 Bamboocha is #105 (tie).
FreshShock looks like he was just below the top 200 when the stats got pulled. Note the sc2ranks graph, the list was posted on the morning of the 16th (PST). The last data point from sc2ranks was 2224 points, putting him below the cutoff. I'm not sure this is exactly what happened, but it's probable.
|
United States12237 Posts
On November 18 2010 15:19 vanick wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 14:18 Amber[LighT] wrote:
In division K-Xray the bolded players were in the top 200, and the non-bolded players did not appear.. Why and how did this happen?
1 Katari (2,856)
2 MasterAsia (2,682)
3 EGMachine (2,513)
4 Bamboocha (2,419)
5 FreshShock (2,276)
6 RaNGirLxD (2,267)
Excal's list was done by hand so maybe he missed a guy, but in the official top200 Bamboocha is #105 (tie). FreshShock looks like he was just below the top 200 when the stats got pulled. Note the sc2ranks graph, the list was posted on the morning of the 16th (PST). The last data point from sc2ranks was 2224 points, putting him below the cutoff. I'm not sure this is exactly what happened, but it's probable.
Yeah that's exactly what happened. I just missed Bamboocha when I was doing the rankings. I fixed it though, thanks and good catch. FreshShock has played too many games since Friday so I can't confirm his precise rating at the time of the snapshot, but it looks like he's been gaining a lot more than he's been losing recently (since 11/17). His rating would have had to be above 2245 on Friday, but it doesn't look like it was that high.
|
United States12237 Posts
On November 18 2010 14:18 Amber[LighT] wrote:w00t represent kelercian x-ray!! I'll break back into top 10 soon enough! So now is this (below) technically correct? I'm trying to understand exactly what this means... Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 08:25 Wargizmo wrote:On November 18 2010 08:05 DooMDash wrote:On November 18 2010 07:58 Wargizmo wrote:
Excalubur_Z you are fucking awesome, this means Sc2ranks can actually plug these values into their website and give an accurate rating of the top 200.
And it totally makes sense now why David Kim, who is in Scout Kilo (an E-Rank division) is always way lower in the top 200 than in Sc2 ranks, because his actual rating is always 315 points less than displayed. So this is how it works? Because this would make sense to me then. So in theory don't you have an easier time being in the top 200 if you are in these S ranked divisions? Not really, because when people in an E-class division are placed initially they get given 315 free bonus points, so their rating is always going to be 315 higher than what it should be no matter what. That's why some people lose a ton of points when they get promoted and others don't lose much at all. If Dayvie for example had been placed in Medic Mu and played exactly the same games as he has done already, then he would have exactly 315 points less now than what he currently has but would be in exactly the same position on the top 200 list (because of the division).
That's correct, yes.
Also I'm assuming this (below) can't be answered because we don't have the ability to interpret all of the data? Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 08:27 Shadowed wrote:
The part I'm wondering is, how do they define ranks? As far as I know, divisions are created on the fly based on demand, so the assignment of rank makes little sense.
It does create new divisions based on demand, but the kind of demand is important here. If a new S-Rank division needs to be created, then it will make one. What we don't know is if it waits for some minimum number of eligible players before it creates that division. Wargizmo had the right explanation for this.
And are the modifiers arbitrary? How was 63 determined? Sry it's late and I might have missed this 
I thought I explained this in the original post but maybe I didn't cover the methodology well enough. You'll notice that the list of players is numbered in Blizz's Top 200. Some players are tied for the same rank. Because it's been explained that the Top 200 is based on points but without division modifiers applied, that means that all players who are tied for the same rank in the Top 200 all had the same unmodified point totals. The Top 200 doesn't list points, only player records, so you have to work backwards along their match history to determine what their point total was at the time of the snapshot.
For example, if Player A is #100 and his Top 200 record was 50-50, but now it's 53-52, you would look at his current rating, go back in his match history, and start adding back points for losses and subtracting points for wins for his last 5 games. Let's say the result is a rating of 1000 and he's in Division A. If Player B is also tied for #100 and you determine his rating is 800 in Division B, then you know that 800 in Division B is equal to 1000 in Division A. Once enough of these data points surface (and I was jotting them down in that bottom section as I found them), patterns begin to emerge.
At first, I found the +126 modifier. Then, I found the +252. Then I found the +315. Then the +63. Then I inferred the +189 (between +170 and 200, and 189 fit the +63 per tier pattern).
I'll pose this question as well...
In division K-Xray the bolded players were in the top 200, and the non-bolded players did not appear.. Why and how did this happen?
1 Katari (2,856)
2 MasterAsia (2,682)
3 EGMachine (2,513)
4 Bamboocha (2,419)
5 FreshShock (2,276)
6 RaNGirLxD (2,267)
FreshShock didn't have enough points at the time of the snapshot, and Bamboocha was an oversight (I just forgot to write him down) and has been corrected.
|
Hmm the top person in my division was 2285, and didn't make it, so all I can tell is mine's not S I guess. He's also really bad/a leaver at Storm of the Imperial Sanctum apparently  .
Match history:
+ Show Spoiler +
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Win --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Win --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Win --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/14/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/14/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/14/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Win --- 11/13/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/13/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/13/2010
Also why do you list Medivac Alamo as (likely)? Isn't it clear just from Slush's position at #3 that it's equal modifier to those around it?
|
So how come we can't get promoted between divisions?
|
What is the rationale for the existence of a division modifier so that points are not comparable across divisions?
Why not just make 2000 points in division A equal to 2000 points in division B?
Why not just use the top 200 methodology everywhere?
|
On November 18 2010 17:33 paralleluniverse wrote:
What is the rationale for the existence of a division modifier so that points are not comparable across divisions?
Why not just make 2000 points in division A equal to 2000 points in division B?
Why not just use the top 200 methodology everywhere?
Great question. I believe most people are wondering the same thing.
|
On November 18 2010 17:38 Paperscraps wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 17:33 paralleluniverse wrote:
What is the rationale for the existence of a division modifier so that points are not comparable across divisions?
Why not just make 2000 points in division A equal to 2000 points in division B?
Why not just use the top 200 methodology everywhere? Great question. I believe most people are wondering the same thing.
I was thinking about this today, and I think I understand why Blizzard do it the way they do.
Firstly it's obvious that they want divisions to have all players of roughly equal skill right? That's why some divisions have stronger players and some weaker, but why would that be? surely for accuracy's sake it would be better to have a sample of good players, mediocre players and weaker players in each division so that I could see my division rank and have an accurate idea of how good I am... maybe, but this is not Blizzard's goal and never has been.
Look at the players in your division, check out the players near the top and then the ones at the middle and then the ones at the bottom, notice a pattern? it's almost universal in every division that there is a direct relationship between games played and division rank.
If everyone in the division is of the same skill level, then the only way people are going to have more points than others is by playing more games. Your almost NEVER see a guy with 100 games ranked higher than someone with 200 games in the same division. Why? because if the guy with 100 games was significantly better he would be put in a higher tier of division to begin with.
Why would they do this? It's really ingenious. Basically anyone in the entire world can be #1 (or at least top 10) in their division if they just play enough games (with the possible exception of the very highest tier), the system has made sure that people who may not be that good are put in a division with others who aren't that good and can still feel that they are actually good.
The points modification is just the icing on the cake, people would kind of feel something was up if they were top of their division on only 1500 points... it would be really obvious about the weaker divisions, but if that gets inflated to 1815 points then it doesn't seem so bad, and certainly the guy who played 1000 games to get to the top of his E-class division can look at his point total and consider himself among the best in the world.
End result - people have a reason to keep playing, people are constantly rising in their division as long as they play enough games, and points totals remain roughly consistent with people who play more games = have more points.
|
Have anyone run this numbers on europe yet? Or we will have to wait until the next top 200 to be able to get the accurate numbers?
Also, is the top 200 snapshot taken the same day as they post it? Or is it taken earlier?
(Yes I know I could check this on games played on players, but I cant look it up now before the next one)..
|
On November 18 2010 17:17 Stromming wrote:
So how come we can't get promoted between divisions?
In general if you were really good enough that you should be promoted to a new division you should probably also be promoted to a new league. This works in sub-diamond leagues but since there's nowhere to go from diamond that's why you see all this analysis and such. With the masters league there will again be a place for people at the top end of diamond to be promoted to, and the divisions in masters league will be unweighted so there would be no need for division movement once in the masters.
|
United States12237 Posts
On November 18 2010 17:13 ZapRoffo wrote:Hmm the top person in my division was 2285, and didn't make it, so all I can tell is mine's not S I guess. He's also really bad/a leaver at Storm of the Imperial Sanctum apparently . Match history: + Show Spoiler +
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Win --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Win --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Win --- Today
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- Yesterday
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/14/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/14/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/14/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Win --- 11/13/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/13/2010
Storm of the Imperial Sanctum Custom Left --- 11/13/2010
Also why do you list Medivac Alamo as (likely)? Isn't it clear just from Slush's position at #3 that it's equal modifier to those around it?
Yeah you're right, there's enough evidence to conclude that Medivac Alamo is S-Rank (so S-Rank). I think we all knew that before but I wanted to be extra cautious in posting this =] I'll make the edits.
|
United States12237 Posts
On November 18 2010 21:44 xzidez wrote:
Have anyone run this numbers on europe yet? Or we will have to wait until the next top 200 to be able to get the accurate numbers?
Also, is the top 200 snapshot taken the same day as they post it? Or is it taken earlier?
(Yes I know I could check this on games played on players, but I cant look it up now before the next one)..
This week's NA snapshot was taken on Friday, probably early evening. So no, it's not always taken the same day it's posted. I think that in order to find what the player ratings were at the time of the snapshot you would have to work quite quickly, because in this week's list many players had already played 25 games (and in some cases far more) between Friday and Tuesday when I finished. There are some players that are rather inactive that you would still be able to get data for, though.
|
On November 19 2010 01:23 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 21:44 xzidez wrote:
Have anyone run this numbers on europe yet? Or we will have to wait until the next top 200 to be able to get the accurate numbers?
Also, is the top 200 snapshot taken the same day as they post it? Or is it taken earlier?
(Yes I know I could check this on games played on players, but I cant look it up now before the next one).. This week's NA snapshot was taken on Friday, probably early evening. So no, it's not always taken the same day it's posted. I think that in order to find what the player ratings were at the time of the snapshot you would have to work quite quickly, because in this week's list many players had already played 25 games (and in some cases far more) between Friday and Tuesday when I finished. There are some players that are rather inactive that you would still be able to get data for, though.
2010-11-15 between 08:00:00 and 20:00:00 is the rough time period I have that the snapshot was taken on.
|
United States12237 Posts
On November 19 2010 02:04 Shadowed wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 01:23 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 18 2010 21:44 xzidez wrote:
Have anyone run this numbers on europe yet? Or we will have to wait until the next top 200 to be able to get the accurate numbers?
Also, is the top 200 snapshot taken the same day as they post it? Or is it taken earlier?
(Yes I know I could check this on games played on players, but I cant look it up now before the next one).. This week's NA snapshot was taken on Friday, probably early evening. So no, it's not always taken the same day it's posted. I think that in order to find what the player ratings were at the time of the snapshot you would have to work quite quickly, because in this week's list many players had already played 25 games (and in some cases far more) between Friday and Tuesday when I finished. There are some players that are rather inactive that you would still be able to get data for, though. 2010-11-15 between 08:00:00 and 20:00:00 is the rough time period I have that the snapshot was taken on.
Er right, the 15th. So Monday. For some reason I was thinking the 15th was Monday.
(the 15th was not Monday)
|
This is an extremely informing post that has confirmed what I have suspected for the last 3 months. People have yelled at me for saying divisions are not equal.
Thanks for clearing this up. Hopefully sc2ranks might be able to correct for these division modifiers in the near future.
|
On November 18 2010 05:41 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2010 05:36 DooMDash wrote:
I thought divisions were just made by the date you got into it, and nothing more. I don't think there is any different ways to rank divisions like you are. Obviously new divisions are created all the time, but it's the strength of those divisions that is unclear. For example, Hartley Quest is a relatively new division but it has top-level players. Scout Kilo is an old division but it has relatively weaker players with the exception of David Kim.
seems like the OP has to be edited over and over
the newer divisions will keep emerging and older ones will me changed in such a way that nothing will make sense
either Blizzard gives us a new system or the diamond league will mean shit soon
|
On November 19 2010 02:20 ShoeFactory wrote:
This is an extremely informing post that has confirmed what I have suspected for the last 3 months. People have yelled at me for saying divisions are not equal.
Thanks for clearing this up. Hopefully sc2ranks might be able to correct for these division modifiers in the near future.
There's going to be a test page with the modifiers up probably tomorrow or Saturday so we (and by we, I mean Excal) can double check and see if his theory is consistent with the next ranking dump. It won't become the main ranking since multipliers can only be found for the top 200 divisions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
