|
United States12224 Posts
On November 19 2010 10:00 SovSov wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 09:46 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 19 2010 09:31 SovSov wrote:Hey excalibur_Z, I just want to point you towards my situation as it might help. I only lost ~150 points when I was promoted to diamond (went from 600 to 450). My division is new and consists of only recently promoted high win/loss ratio players with low amounts of games played. "Scourge Rho". http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2168758/1/Prada/ladder/25685#current-rank(It's not updated on sc2ranks.com yet) Do you have the exact numbers? Was it exactly 600 to exactly 450? I'ma do the math. So I had 477 platinum (I uploaded a replay which showed my current score) at a time, I added and subtracted all the points I've made since then (only 16 games). After that, I should have 686, but I have 478 diamond (my promotion was in between those 16 games). So apparently I was off, and I have 208 points missing. I can confidently say that number is accurate unless there is something wrong with my logic of getting there. With what you were saying, does it mean that my division wasn't just a coincidence of recently promoted diamonds? I mean, it would make sense, since everyone in my division likely has high MMR with their win/loss. SURELY there would be someone who has like 100+ games played and got promoted by now into my division if divisions were solely based on date of promotion. One more thing to note, there is one outlier in my division (NYCdaniel), but checking his matches he is on a HUGE losing streak (probably after he was promoted to diamond?).
Do you remember which game got you promoted? Was it your win on Delta Quadrant perhaps (+38)?
|
On November 19 2010 07:09 Prissy wrote:
how come I dont see my division on your chart?
Only divisions that had someone in the top 200 could be evaluated. There are hundreds of diamond divisions that are not captured by this analysis and indeed cannot be.
|
i have no idea what this means 
"We know that the only difference between SC2Ranks' point rankings and the weekly Top 200 snapshot is interspersed divisions."
What does that mean?
And am I wrong in saying that you never move out of your division? What if I jumped to 3000 points in the next week, wouldn't I stay in my "noob" division?
|
On November 19 2010 12:15 Subversion wrote:i have no idea what this means "We know that the only difference between SC2Ranks' point rankings and the weekly Top 200 snapshot is interspersed divisions." What does that mean? And am I wrong in saying that you never move out of your division? What if I jumped to 3000 points in the next week, wouldn't I stay in my "noob" division?
Each division has a modifier applied to points values that offsets your "true" points. This creates a group of people who can compete on a fairly level field for ranks within the division with normal-looking points across divisions.
In diamond you're right that if you jumped to 3000 you wouldn't be moved out of your division, but you would be captured in the top 200 list. In a lower league you'd just be promoted. With the addition of the masters league there will be somewhere for the best diamond players to be promoted to. In the masters league divisions will not have this effect applied to them so they will not matter as much.
|
On November 19 2010 10:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 10:00 SovSov wrote:On November 19 2010 09:46 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 19 2010 09:31 SovSov wrote:Hey excalibur_Z, I just want to point you towards my situation as it might help. I only lost ~150 points when I was promoted to diamond (went from 600 to 450). My division is new and consists of only recently promoted high win/loss ratio players with low amounts of games played. "Scourge Rho". http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2168758/1/Prada/ladder/25685#current-rank(It's not updated on sc2ranks.com yet) Do you have the exact numbers? Was it exactly 600 to exactly 450? I'ma do the math. So I had 477 platinum (I uploaded a replay which showed my current score) at a time, I added and subtracted all the points I've made since then (only 16 games). After that, I should have 686, but I have 478 diamond (my promotion was in between those 16 games). So apparently I was off, and I have 208 points missing. I can confidently say that number is accurate unless there is something wrong with my logic of getting there. With what you were saying, does it mean that my division wasn't just a coincidence of recently promoted diamonds? I mean, it would make sense, since everyone in my division likely has high MMR with their win/loss. SURELY there would be someone who has like 100+ games played and got promoted by now into my division if divisions were solely based on date of promotion. One more thing to note, there is one outlier in my division (NYCdaniel), but checking his matches he is on a HUGE losing streak (probably after he was promoted to diamond?). Do you remember which game got you promoted? Was it your win on Delta Quadrant perhaps (+38)?
Yes, yes it was. Nice guess. :p
Btw I "refreshed" and now my division is on SC2ranks.
http://www.sc2ranks.com/div/56912/division-scourge-rho
|
On November 19 2010 12:19 vanick wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 12:15 Subversion wrote:i have no idea what this means "We know that the only difference between SC2Ranks' point rankings and the weekly Top 200 snapshot is interspersed divisions." What does that mean? And am I wrong in saying that you never move out of your division? What if I jumped to 3000 points in the next week, wouldn't I stay in my "noob" division? Each division has a modifier applied to points values that offsets your "true" points. This creates a group of people who can compete on a fairly level field for ranks within the division with normal-looking points across divisions. In diamond you're right that if you jumped to 3000 you wouldn't be moved out of your division, but you would be captured in the top 200 list. In a lower league you'd just be promoted. With the addition of the masters league there will be somewhere for the best diamond players to be promoted to. In the masters league divisions will not have this effect applied to them so they will not matter as much.
but if divisions were only ranked upon their creation... then surely these ranks have become a lot less meaningful over time?
|
Hi, a short introduction!
I'm one of those guys who read everything for the past 7 years at this website but never bother to make an account  . Anyway i think it's important to know that your theory is false!
This week i was rank 191 EU server, while the current and at that time rank 1 in my division is not on the TOP 200 list. I thought this might be usefull information too futher investigate your theory. Keep up the good work.
If you wanne verify http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/255275/1/MaxaM/
|
On November 19 2010 13:01 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 12:19 vanick wrote:On November 19 2010 12:15 Subversion wrote:i have no idea what this means "We know that the only difference between SC2Ranks' point rankings and the weekly Top 200 snapshot is interspersed divisions." What does that mean? And am I wrong in saying that you never move out of your division? What if I jumped to 3000 points in the next week, wouldn't I stay in my "noob" division? Each division has a modifier applied to points values that offsets your "true" points. This creates a group of people who can compete on a fairly level field for ranks within the division with normal-looking points across divisions. In diamond you're right that if you jumped to 3000 you wouldn't be moved out of your division, but you would be captured in the top 200 list. In a lower league you'd just be promoted. With the addition of the masters league there will be somewhere for the best diamond players to be promoted to. In the masters league divisions will not have this effect applied to them so they will not matter as much. but if divisions were only ranked upon their creation... then surely these ranks have become a lot less meaningful over time?
In sub-diamond leagues the division system works well, due to promotions/demotions. In diamond at the very high end it can tilt too far upwards but in general the best players are already being placed in the upper ranked divisions so while it has an effect it isn't on every division.
Edit: MaxaM, this is another case where you need to work backwards. It looks like Madion just changed his name so sc2ranks isn't useable, as well as playing a significant number of games in the past several days. In all likelihood he is higher now than when the Top 200 snapshot was taken.
|
On November 19 2010 13:14 MaXXaM wrote:Hi, a short introduction! I'm one of those guys who read everything for the past 7 years at this website but never bother to make an account . Anyway i think it's important to know that your theory is false! This week i was rank 191 EU server, while the current and at that time rank 1 in my division is not on the TOP 200 list. I thought this might be usefull information too futher investigate your theory. Keep up the good work. If you wanne verify http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/255275/1/MaxaM/
I've briefly noticed this as well, but not sure since people might've jumped up/down heavily in my division.
|
United States12224 Posts
On November 19 2010 13:14 MaXXaM wrote:Hi, a short introduction! I'm one of those guys who read everything for the past 7 years at this website but never bother to make an account . Anyway i think it's important to know that your theory is false! This week i was rank 191 EU server, while the current and at that time rank 1 in my division is not on the TOP 200 list. I thought this might be usefull information too futher investigate your theory. Keep up the good work. If you wanne verify http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/255275/1/MaxaM/
We can't actually verify because both you and LoCo have played more than 25 games since the time of the snapshot. Note though that while the Top 200 EU news post is dated Nov 17, the actual snapshot was taken Nov 15. Are you sure you weren't above LoCo on the 15th? That's what the numbers would suggest.
|
An interesting aside to this is my personal experience when my Diamond Division was created. Most of the players in it had played lots of games, while other divisions were created at the same time with mostly players with less games. I had just gone on a huge win streak(15 games or so against diamonds), before losing some. Rather then the divisions being separated based on mmr(which would probably be pretty similar at time of promotion), perhaps user activity has something to do with it. Then again the fact that there are a 5-6 people in my division with like 25 games played would be evidence to the contrary. It would be logical though that the players with more games played would be given more of a bonus upon promotion, to account for the fact that they would have had more points with similar activity in the higher league.
|
United States12224 Posts
On November 19 2010 12:40 SovSov wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 10:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 19 2010 10:00 SovSov wrote:On November 19 2010 09:46 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 19 2010 09:31 SovSov wrote:Hey excalibur_Z, I just want to point you towards my situation as it might help. I only lost ~150 points when I was promoted to diamond (went from 600 to 450). My division is new and consists of only recently promoted high win/loss ratio players with low amounts of games played. "Scourge Rho". http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2168758/1/Prada/ladder/25685#current-rank(It's not updated on sc2ranks.com yet) Do you have the exact numbers? Was it exactly 600 to exactly 450? I'ma do the math. So I had 477 platinum (I uploaded a replay which showed my current score) at a time, I added and subtracted all the points I've made since then (only 16 games). After that, I should have 686, but I have 478 diamond (my promotion was in between those 16 games). So apparently I was off, and I have 208 points missing. I can confidently say that number is accurate unless there is something wrong with my logic of getting there. With what you were saying, does it mean that my division wasn't just a coincidence of recently promoted diamonds? I mean, it would make sense, since everyone in my division likely has high MMR with their win/loss. SURELY there would be someone who has like 100+ games played and got promoted by now into my division if divisions were solely based on date of promotion. One more thing to note, there is one outlier in my division (NYCdaniel), but checking his matches he is on a HUGE losing streak (probably after he was promoted to diamond?). Do you remember which game got you promoted? Was it your win on Delta Quadrant perhaps (+38)? Yes, yes it was. Nice guess. :p Btw I "refreshed" and now my division is on SC2ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/div/56912/division-scourge-rho
Worth noting then is that 208 - 19 = 189, which is a multiple of 63, meaning your +19 bonus pool got eaten the same way that Mendelfist's and mine did. Hooray for more data. So that would mean that you went up 3 tiers when you got promoted. If it is one contiguous ladder, then it would mean you jumped from a Rank X Platinum division to a Rank X-3 Diamond division.
|
On November 19 2010 15:49 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 12:40 SovSov wrote:On November 19 2010 10:44 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 19 2010 10:00 SovSov wrote:On November 19 2010 09:46 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 19 2010 09:31 SovSov wrote:Hey excalibur_Z, I just want to point you towards my situation as it might help. I only lost ~150 points when I was promoted to diamond (went from 600 to 450). My division is new and consists of only recently promoted high win/loss ratio players with low amounts of games played. "Scourge Rho". http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2168758/1/Prada/ladder/25685#current-rank(It's not updated on sc2ranks.com yet) Do you have the exact numbers? Was it exactly 600 to exactly 450? I'ma do the math. So I had 477 platinum (I uploaded a replay which showed my current score) at a time, I added and subtracted all the points I've made since then (only 16 games). After that, I should have 686, but I have 478 diamond (my promotion was in between those 16 games). So apparently I was off, and I have 208 points missing. I can confidently say that number is accurate unless there is something wrong with my logic of getting there. With what you were saying, does it mean that my division wasn't just a coincidence of recently promoted diamonds? I mean, it would make sense, since everyone in my division likely has high MMR with their win/loss. SURELY there would be someone who has like 100+ games played and got promoted by now into my division if divisions were solely based on date of promotion. One more thing to note, there is one outlier in my division (NYCdaniel), but checking his matches he is on a HUGE losing streak (probably after he was promoted to diamond?). Do you remember which game got you promoted? Was it your win on Delta Quadrant perhaps (+38)? Yes, yes it was. Nice guess. :p Btw I "refreshed" and now my division is on SC2ranks. http://www.sc2ranks.com/div/56912/division-scourge-rho Worth noting then is that 208 - 19 = 189, which is a multiple of 63, meaning your +19 bonus pool got eaten the same way that Mendelfist's and mine did. Hooray for more data. So that would mean that you went up 3 tiers when you got promoted. If it is one contiguous ladder, then it would mean you jumped from a Rank X Platinum division to a Rank X-3 Diamond division.
May I ask where the +19/-19 came from? I'm just curious.
Edit: Oh, was it the bonus from my 38 pt game (19+19)? Which would explain how you guessed which one I got promoted on. Also, in which case you're a fucking wizard.
Edit again: I just read the rest of this thread.. I wasn't aware I was contributing to the point deduction theory, I thought I was just giving info because of my high MMR only division. :p Sorry for giving you estimated numbers at first, if I knew that was the info you were after I would of done exact numbers before posting initially. Glad I could help though.
|
Occam's razor suggest that this is false. More than likely the reason there are multiple division with less than 100 people is because blizzard doesn't want divisons to be rediculously small. They likely have a minimum number of players per division rule, example:
"All divisions must have a minimum number of 70. If there are not enough players to reach this minimum then players will be drawn from other divisions to meet the requirement.
If there were 120 players needed to be placed, then it makes sense to have two divisions of 60 than 1 divison of 100 and one of 20. If there are 204 players that need to be placed, it makes more sense to have three divisions of 68 than 100, 100, 4, or 100, 52, 52.
In the case of the above example, where 204 players need to be placed we are 6 members short, the system would draw from a full division of 100 players so the #s would likely be something 75 players, split evenly among 4 divisions.
|
On November 19 2010 16:18 Largeman wrote:Occam's razor suggest that this is false. More than likely the reason there are multiple division with less than 100 people is because blizzard doesn't want divisons to be rediculously small. They likely have a minimum number of players per division rule, example: "All divisions must have a minimum number of 70. If there are not enough players to reach this minimum then players will be drawn from other divisions to meet the requirement. If there were 120 players needed to be placed, then it makes sense to have two divisions of 60 than 1 divison of 100 and one of 20. If there are 204 players that need to be placed, it makes more sense to have three divisions of 68 than 100, 100, 4, or 100, 52, 52. In the case of the above example, where 204 players need to be placed we are 6 members short, the system would draw from a full division of 100 players so the #s would likely be something 75 players, split evenly among 4 divisions.
But why would they suddenly get 204 people needing to be placed? it's going to be a constant trickle of people not a huge cluster of hundreds of people suddenly needing to be placed at once; unless they actually delay people's promotion, in which case they could just wait for enough people to fill up a new division rather than waiting for 120 players or 204 players or whatever.
|
On November 19 2010 16:18 Largeman wrote:
Occam's razor suggest that this is false.
lol. I really hate when people talk about Occams razor like its a valid argument for anything. You can't just bust into an argument about something complex backed by seemingly strong evidence and throw down some simple theory with no support other then "occams razor".
Anyways, excalibur solved the ladder that is super cool. An historic event for SC2. Can't wait to see the theory implemented on sc2ranks.
|
On November 19 2010 17:16 Bosu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 19 2010 16:18 Largeman wrote:
Occam's razor suggest that this is false.
lol. I really hate when people talk about Occams razor like its a valid argument for anything. You can't just bust into an argument about something complex backed by seemingly strong evidence and throw down some simple theory with no support other then "occams razor". Anyways, excalibur solved the ladder that is super cool. An historic event for SC2. Can't wait to see the theory implemented on sc2ranks.
And to top that off it's not even a correct use of Occams razor, since his explanation was actually more complicated than the original theory of simply just having one non-full division for each tier.
|
Very, very nice analysis. Please let me point out those players (I have played them all):
5 AlLaboUtyOu 650-459 2905 Ehlna Bravo
7 Boyardee 365-199 2927 Urun Charlie
19 Warden 731-606 2845 Boros Uncle
24 InflowMini 924-790 2883 Scout Kilo
35 theognis 335-244 2661 Feld Lima
40 Kangwook 490-400 2772 Feld Delta
76 ROOTDdoRo 801-636 2683 Shuttle Foxtrot
81 dayvie 485-365 2738 Scout Kilo
They all have surprisingly high ladder rating (usually higher than mine), but when I play them, I get a few points and lose a lot. Also, I do feel the skill-gap does not coincide with the shown points. but coincide with your analysis and the blizzard rankings. For example, I play Allaboutyou a lot in the ladder (he is usually 250 points above me). He of course is a great player, but I don't really feel he is 250 points above me (I feel we are at almost the same skill-level). In fact, I feel much more challenging playing Huk or Select when they were 200 points above me. From a player's view, I believe the points of Huk and Select are real.
I fully understand the difficulty to improve 200 points around my level. Improving from 2600 to 2800, is like improving from 50% win-ratio against 2600 people(win+12/lose-12) to 83% win-ratio against 2600 people(win+4/lose-20), it's very huge. Since players like minigun, warden, allaboutyou stand around 50% win-ratio against me from my own experience (and the game is almost always team even and I get/lose 10-14 pts each game), I believe your analysis is perfect.
Feel free to quote my post as a confirmation to your analysis. Great work.
|
I also have a conjecture:
The gap (multiple of 63) cumulates up with time. Since the blizzard top200 day this week is somewhere between 15 and 16 weeks from the release of sc2, I conjecture the gap is 4 times the number of weeks from the release. If the gap is always fixed, the extra 200 or 300 pts should be very significant when the top players only has 500 points, but I did not observe this.
|
On November 19 2010 05:34 darmousseh wrote:
There is a fundamental flaw with this understanding. When assigning people divisions, how would it know to assign to one division or another? What makes 1 player being promoted from plat to diamond better than a different player? How would it know to create a new "S" class division. What i think is more likely is that good players got promoted in the system a lot faster than lower ranked players, therefore there are a few divisions that have significantly more pros than other divisions. If a player on some random diamond division was to suddenly become better, he would never switch divisions and therefore you could say "his division must be good, look they have someone in the top 5".
What the OP more likely found was a product of the algorithm that they use to sort, most likely a product of recent activity. It has been observed that more inactive players tend to get lower on the ranks as opposed to active players. This might be a coincidence also since 63 is divisble by 7, but otherwise there is no reason for 63 to be this magic #.
The best way to verify this is to wait til next season and compare results.
Final Note: Blizzard, freaking just make the system simple. Show us our moving MMR. You can even subtract 2* sigma from our mean to make it easy for us to understand. We want to know our rating, not some point thing.
What probably happens is that the assignment of divisions is on a first come first serve basis, i.e. newly promoted players are added until a division is full, then a new division is created, and so on.
It is known that initially divisions were created in a group. Maybe like 10 at a time, those are filled, and then new divisions are created as needed.
Since the good players were the first to get to diamond, the diamond divisions created at the start are probably on average better than newly created diamond divisions.
Then, the modifier is calculated for each division based on the average skill level, probably using MMR, of players in that division, and can probably change over time depending on the performance of the division.
This of course doesn't explain what the point of this archaic system is, and why the top 200 ranking methodology isn't employed for in-game ranking.
And that is the more important question.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
