|
On January 18 2011 04:49 ThorIsHere wrote:
I know someone who was promoted to master's league -- he's around 2200 in visible points, but he just rattled off a 6-game win streak against all platinum players. In fact, he's been playing almost exclusively platinums for going on a month now. Meanwhile, I'm about 2100 but I play mostly 2600+ players.
So, yes, the promotion system is not logically-oriented.
I have doubts that he's been playing mostly plats.
|
Just noting some statistics on the league distribution, Blizzard has said it is 2/18/20/20/20 of active players. Here is what sc2ranks has without an activity filter:
http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/us/1/all
Masters 0.6% ( 4,050)
Diamond 7.6% ( 51,754)
Platinum 13.3% ( 90,239)
Gold 16.8% (114,210)
Silver 17.9% (121,544)
Bronze 43.7% (296,338)
And here it is with a 7 day filter:
http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/us/1/all/7
Masters 3.0% ( 4,010)
Diamond 13.0% (17,389)
Platinum 11.7% (15,578)
Gold 13.3% (17,709)
Silver 16.8% (22,340)
Bronze 42.2% (56,328)
So this gets us a bit closer but still a huge % of ppl are Bronze. Probably the difference is in the definition of "active". I don't know exactly what sc2ranks uses, but I did see if you play a team game, it includes you in this list which is really only for 1v1. Not sure about custom games.
When there is a full ladder reset we should see these numbers line up closer.
|
On January 18 2011 07:49 Dionyseus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 04:49 ThorIsHere wrote:
I know someone who was promoted to master's league -- he's around 2200 in visible points, but he just rattled off a 6-game win streak against all platinum players. In fact, he's been playing almost exclusively platinums for going on a month now. Meanwhile, I'm about 2100 but I play mostly 2600+ players.
So, yes, the promotion system is not logically-oriented. I have doubts that he's been playing mostly plats.
I made a video of it and made a thread here for it, unfortunately the TL mods felt that MMR-type discussions had been done so they deleted it.
|
On January 18 2011 08:36 ThorIsHere wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 07:49 Dionyseus wrote:On January 18 2011 04:49 ThorIsHere wrote:
I know someone who was promoted to master's league -- he's around 2200 in visible points, but he just rattled off a 6-game win streak against all platinum players. In fact, he's been playing almost exclusively platinums for going on a month now. Meanwhile, I'm about 2100 but I play mostly 2600+ players.
So, yes, the promotion system is not logically-oriented. I have doubts that he's been playing mostly plats. I made a video of it and made a thread here for it, unfortunately the TL mods felt that MMR-type discussions had been done so they deleted it.
What's his character name?
|
On January 18 2011 04:43 darmousseh wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 00:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 18 2011 00:32 Zorkmid wrote:
Any idea why Blizzard wouldn't just publish the match making rating? They don't want to hurt our feelings? Probably because the league system hinges on machine learning. This system, though similar in structure to WoW Arena, relies much more on accurate data due to the individual leagues and how Blizzard chooses to utilize its data for balance purposes. For example, we saw at Blizzcon how they parse race balance by league and aim for equal balance for each league. If MMR was visible, it could potentially throw off numbers and affect player behavior ("oh the Diamond MMR requirement is 2400 so once you hit 2400 MMR go 50-50 for a while until you get promoted!") which could in turn affect statistics that they rely upon for balance decisions. I actually think it's for a much more simple reason. In wow arena, getting a high MMR ranking means you can earn more points per week which can be used to purchase gear. wow arena is not actually competitive at the lower tiers and like 99% of people do it for fun as a side for when they aren't raiding. Displaying MMR lets them know how they are doing competitively since there are no divisions. SC2 has no motivation for gaining points other than prestige. You can't purchase new stuff or anything and points are simply for prestige. Because of this, the only possible reward is an arbitrary points system and a tier system. They don't want you to know your MMR so that you don't get discouraged since there are no other rewards. As far as balance goes, I believe at blizzcon that they said that the balance is specifically designed for the highest tier so that can't be a reason to not display MMR at all. The points system also encourages people to mass games which otherwise, if you were winning at a 50% win rate, you would be discouraged to do.
Exactly on point in my opinion. That's why Warcraft 3 laddering system was so much better: the level that you had compensate and give you a reward when you play.
|
United States12255 Posts
On January 18 2011 20:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 04:43 darmousseh wrote:On January 18 2011 00:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 18 2011 00:32 Zorkmid wrote:
Any idea why Blizzard wouldn't just publish the match making rating? They don't want to hurt our feelings? Probably because the league system hinges on machine learning. This system, though similar in structure to WoW Arena, relies much more on accurate data due to the individual leagues and how Blizzard chooses to utilize its data for balance purposes. For example, we saw at Blizzcon how they parse race balance by league and aim for equal balance for each league. If MMR was visible, it could potentially throw off numbers and affect player behavior ("oh the Diamond MMR requirement is 2400 so once you hit 2400 MMR go 50-50 for a while until you get promoted!") which could in turn affect statistics that they rely upon for balance decisions. I actually think it's for a much more simple reason. In wow arena, getting a high MMR ranking means you can earn more points per week which can be used to purchase gear. wow arena is not actually competitive at the lower tiers and like 99% of people do it for fun as a side for when they aren't raiding. Displaying MMR lets them know how they are doing competitively since there are no divisions. SC2 has no motivation for gaining points other than prestige. You can't purchase new stuff or anything and points are simply for prestige. Because of this, the only possible reward is an arbitrary points system and a tier system. They don't want you to know your MMR so that you don't get discouraged since there are no other rewards. As far as balance goes, I believe at blizzcon that they said that the balance is specifically designed for the highest tier so that can't be a reason to not display MMR at all. The points system also encourages people to mass games which otherwise, if you were winning at a 50% win rate, you would be discouraged to do. Exactly on point in my opinion. That's why Warcraft 3 laddering system was so much better: the level that you had compensate and give you a reward when you play.
SC2 is a little different in that rather than actually having to grind up to where you need to be, it's more analogous to being promoted to your assigned level in a fraction of the required amount of games. That is, we've seen people in Master league with as few as 40 games played, whereas 40 games played in War3's system even with an ELL of 100 would only get you to like level 10.
|
Is it at the point yet where to be promoted to masters league you will be playing master's league players? I'm still playing 2400+ diamond and have fought only a couple master's league
|
On January 19 2011 05:09 confusedcrib wrote:
Is it at the point yet where to be promoted to masters league you will be playing master's league players? I'm still playing 2400+ diamond and have fought only a couple master's league
I'm like 1600 with like 1350 in my bonus pool. I've played about 16 games since the patch, about 9 were against master leaguers and like 7 were against diamond people. I'm like 5-4 against the master leaguers and haven't been promoted yet so if you aren't playing mostly master leaguers I'd guess they probably won't promote you. Obviously I don't know, which is why I said probably.
Should mention my division is god awful so the division modifier probably isn't helping...
|
so uh.... what?
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2058907
new top 200 seems totally random, clearly not based on points anymore assuming master divisions have no tiers, but unless mmr changed with promotions it seems pretty unlikely that it's based on mmr either... unless there's some kind of mmr decay that would explain why some very high level players who maybe haven't laddered much lately are so low? i have no idea.
e: look at select, #41 with a ridiculous ratio and he's #8 in the US by points according to sc2ranks. maybe they just totally screwed up.
|
On January 19 2011 07:37 god deezy yo wrote:so uh.... what? http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2058907new top 200 seems totally random, clearly not based on points anymore assuming master divisions have no tiers, but unless mmr changed with promotions it seems pretty unlikely that it's based on mmr either... unless there's some kind of mmr decay that would explain why some very high level players who maybe haven't laddered much lately are so low? i have no idea. e: look at select, #41 with a ridiculous ratio and he's #8 in the US by points according to sc2ranks. maybe they just totally screwed up.
The list is completely inaccurate if you look at it and say "it's based on MMR" or if you look at it and say "Oh, it's based on points". So the question we got to ask ourselves is this.
If the top 200 isn't based on MMR or Points, What secret formula do they use to get the top 200 list?
|
Master Division Nahaan Lima
Avilo - 3297 Points, Rank 50 Top 200
Master Division Nahaan Lima
TQState - 3084 Points, Rank 2 Top 200
After seeing this type of data it's unclear to how they generated this list.
They're in the same division yet the person with 200 less points is ranked 2nd on the list. How do we begin to understand something like this?
|
On January 19 2011 08:13 Zerker wrote:
Master Division Nahaan Lima
Avilo - 3297 Points, Rank 50 Top 200
Master Division Nahaan Lima
TQState - 3084 Points, Rank 2 Top 200
After seeing this type of data it's unclear to how they generated this list.
They're in the same division yet the person with 200 less points is ranked 2nd on the list. How do we begin to understand something like this?
The top 200 list is generated a few days earlier than the actual release date of the list on tuesdays though.
|
On January 19 2011 08:18 ChaosTriggeR wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:13 Zerker wrote:
Master Division Nahaan Lima
Avilo - 3297 Points, Rank 50 Top 200
Master Division Nahaan Lima
TQState - 3084 Points, Rank 2 Top 200
After seeing this type of data it's unclear to how they generated this list.
They're in the same division yet the person with 200 less points is ranked 2nd on the list. How do we begin to understand something like this? The top 200 list is generated a few days earlier than the actual release date of the list on tuesdays though.
says it was generated at 1:30 PST today which is less than 2 hours ago
|
Yeah, this is confusing me too. Blizzard decided to troll us? ^.^??||
On January 19 2011 08:20 god deezy yo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:18 ChaosTriggeR wrote:On January 19 2011 08:13 Zerker wrote:
Master Division Nahaan Lima
Avilo - 3297 Points, Rank 50 Top 200
Master Division Nahaan Lima
TQState - 3084 Points, Rank 2 Top 200
After seeing this type of data it's unclear to how they generated this list.
They're in the same division yet the person with 200 less points is ranked 2nd on the list. How do we begin to understand something like this? The top 200 list is generated a few days earlier than the actual release date of the list on tuesdays though. says it was generated at 1:30 PST today which is less than 2 hours ago
I don't think I've ever been past Avilo.
|
It has nothing to do with w:l either seeing how avilo has 73% ratio while tqstate has 54%
Wtf did blizz just do.
|
On January 19 2011 08:20 god deezy yo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 08:18 ChaosTriggeR wrote:On January 19 2011 08:13 Zerker wrote:
Master Division Nahaan Lima
Avilo - 3297 Points, Rank 50 Top 200
Master Division Nahaan Lima
TQState - 3084 Points, Rank 2 Top 200
After seeing this type of data it's unclear to how they generated this list.
They're in the same division yet the person with 200 less points is ranked 2nd on the list. How do we begin to understand something like this? The top 200 list is generated a few days earlier than the actual release date of the list on tuesdays though. says it was generated at 1:30 PST today which is less than 2 hours ago
Many of the players W/L records listed on the top 200 match their current W/L so this is not outdated or old data being used.
That being said, I have no idea how the hell they arrived at this list but I'm trying to find out. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with unspent bonus pool either.
|
On January 18 2011 20:31 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On January 18 2011 04:43 darmousseh wrote:On January 18 2011 00:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:On January 18 2011 00:32 Zorkmid wrote:
Any idea why Blizzard wouldn't just publish the match making rating? They don't want to hurt our feelings? Probably because the league system hinges on machine learning. This system, though similar in structure to WoW Arena, relies much more on accurate data due to the individual leagues and how Blizzard chooses to utilize its data for balance purposes. For example, we saw at Blizzcon how they parse race balance by league and aim for equal balance for each league. If MMR was visible, it could potentially throw off numbers and affect player behavior ("oh the Diamond MMR requirement is 2400 so once you hit 2400 MMR go 50-50 for a while until you get promoted!") which could in turn affect statistics that they rely upon for balance decisions. I actually think it's for a much more simple reason. In wow arena, getting a high MMR ranking means you can earn more points per week which can be used to purchase gear. wow arena is not actually competitive at the lower tiers and like 99% of people do it for fun as a side for when they aren't raiding. Displaying MMR lets them know how they are doing competitively since there are no divisions. SC2 has no motivation for gaining points other than prestige. You can't purchase new stuff or anything and points are simply for prestige. Because of this, the only possible reward is an arbitrary points system and a tier system. They don't want you to know your MMR so that you don't get discouraged since there are no other rewards. As far as balance goes, I believe at blizzcon that they said that the balance is specifically designed for the highest tier so that can't be a reason to not display MMR at all. The points system also encourages people to mass games which otherwise, if you were winning at a 50% win rate, you would be discouraged to do. Exactly on point in my opinion. That's why Warcraft 3 laddering system was so much better: the level that you had compensate and give you a reward when you play.
Don't make me remind you how much people hated the WC3 ladder system. Your level in WC3 was irrelevant because you could mass games to gain levels, so the only thing that mattered to people was your ratio.
|
I think they should implement a system as transparent as the WoW arena one.
MMR was displaced, no division split, etc
|
On January 19 2011 08:13 Zerker wrote:
Master Division Nahaan Lima
Avilo - 3297 Points, Rank 50 Top 200
Master Division Nahaan Lima
TQState - 3084 Points, Rank 2 Top 200
After seeing this type of data it's unclear to how they generated this list.
They're in the same division yet the person with 200 less points is ranked 2nd on the list. How do we begin to understand something like this?
It's because everyone was reset to the same number when they were promoted to masters (and by the way is a presage of what is to come with the ladder reset.)
Before master's, everyone had played enough games that their MMR was similar to their points (accounting for division offsets). But now someone could have a very high MMR but not have played enough games to get their actual points to their MMR yet. Evidence for this would be if they are still gaining 20+ points per win and only losing 2-5 per loss. As they come closer to their MMR the wins/losses per game will converge closer to 12.
And right now it's impossible to look at total games played, because we don't know how many of those games were before they were promoted to masters and how many were after.
Edit: just looked at TQState and it looks like mostly he's getting normal points, so IDK maybe I'm wrong.
|
my MMR used to be high enough to make masters (i know because all of my friends in my range made masters in 1 game), but i have not played a 1v1 in 4 weeks. are they still creating masters divisions, or is are they done creating new masters divisions? so when i start playing again can i make masters or do i have to wait for someone to get demoted?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
