|
United States12235 Posts
On September 03 2011 07:38 Vorenius wrote:In the small part about random team matching it your post says this: Show nested quote +For Random Teams, it is likely that the MMRs of all members are averaged first, then an opposing team with a similar MMR (based upon a degree of uncertainty) is located. But does that actually make any sense? Can you quantify skill like that? Is a 2v2 team with a bronze/master gonna be as good as a team with a gold/plat (or whatever the "middle" MMR between bronze and master is)? I'm also sure the majority of games I play consist mainly of player from the same league, only with the occasional one league above or below.
Shortly after release, players were complaining about things like "Bronze is paired with a Diamond teammate against 2 Gold players wtf BLIZZ." Blizzard pretty much acknowledged that Random Team matchmaking could afford to be tighter. There was a hotfix (or maybe a patch, I can't remember which) where first they attempted to make Random Team matchmaking more competitive, then there was another patch/hotfix down the line that matched you competitively on your own team. Functionally, I think it works the same way as it did at first, only things are tightened up on the opponent end but also on your own team's end.
|
Wow really useful. Learned some new things from this thread! Thanks!
|
This is impressive; I mean I never knew how deep this went dealing with laddering. This stuff goes over my head and into the sky, but I must say this is neat.
|
|
|
The league/ranking system is broken in so many ways I don't even know where to begin =)
I win my placement and get demoted. Win 16/20 games instantly I'm ranked 12 in the new league. Any player who is top 49 can be #1 just playing enough games. Your ranking is reset when you change league LOL 100 people in a league where maybe 20 are actively playing WTF
At the very latest 1994 the free chess servers on the internet had a ten times better ranking system. If you have any contact at blizzard tell them to research the Glicko system. Would be fun for us number wankers if your rating actually had some meaning other than number of games played.
To me it seems the whole rating/league system is geared towards making everyone think they're the best, atleast within their league. I am almost always top 5 in leagues after bonus is empty and then I'm pretty much stuck there. Until I'm promoted and almost instantly I'm top 5 in the new league.
On the chess server almost TWENTY years ago you could type ranking and see exactly where you stood among ALL players. The best we get today is visiting a free site by volounters and see where we stand in our league...
|
On September 09 2011 18:24 oZe wrote:
The league/ranking system is broken in so many ways I don't even know where to begin =)
I win my placement and get demoted. Win 16/20 games instantly I'm ranked 12 in the new league. Any player who is top 49 can be #1 just playing enough games. Your ranking is reset when you change league LOL 100 people in a league where maybe 20 are actively playing WTF
At the very latest 1994 the free chess servers on the internet had a ten times better ranking system. If you have any contact at blizzard tell them to research the Glicko system. Would be fun for us number wankers if your rating actually had some meaning other than number of games played.
To me it seems the whole rating/league system is geared towards making everyone think they're the best, atleast within their league. I am almost always top 5 in leagues after bonus is empty and then I'm pretty much stuck there. Until I'm promoted and almost instantly I'm top 5 in the new league.
On the chess server almost TWENTY years ago you could type ranking and see exactly where you stood among ALL players. The best we get today is visiting a free site by volounters and see where we stand in our league...
I have a lot of friends in bronze, silver, and gold leagues. They already hesitate playing the game because they know how far down they are. You start showing them the reality of how far down they are by ranking them against EVERYBODY, you turn every small goal they've had into rubbish. At least they can have some pride in not being at the bottom of their division as well as in the bottom leagues.
Also, believe it or not, but EVERY system favors those who are active to a certain point. Glicko and pure Elo systems are no different in that regard. That guy that made it to the top 25% in that system played more games than the guy who is in the top 55%. It's how these systems work, on limits as games played approach infinite.
You want to see where you rank globally? Get to a league where the number of games played is a relatively small factor in where you are placed: top 1% (masters league).
|
For some reason, my division's players have a lot more points than other division's players, so that even though I have 1057 points in my masters league, I'm only ranked 11 (my ID is Kiaro). When I check the points of my opponents, most of the time they have less than me, but are ranked higher just because their division isn't as tough. In all of my opponent's divisions, I would definitely be ranked in the top 8 and probably higher. I sometimes play rank 1 masters who have like 850 points, which would be like rank 20 in my division. I checked on sc2ranks, and my division is extremely strong, ranked 12 strongest in terms of points out of 120 divisions. (http://sc2ranks.com/div/141098/division-changeling-gravity). However, if you look at the top of my division, you can see that the top 15 of my division are probably the strongest out of any of the divisions, its just that my division has quite a few inactive people that drag the division as a whole down. I've looked at all the divisions that are ahead of mine in terms of average points, and in every one, I would be ranked higher than in my division. Why does my division have all the good people? Are there tiers in masters league? Are points a representation of goodness? I really wish my division was weaker, so it wouldn't be such a struggle to keep the shiny badge and also get the achievement for finishing in the top 8, which I barely missed last season by like 3 points  .
|
Why does my division have all the good people? Are there tiers in masters league? Are points a representation of goodness?
You were unlucky, I'd bet you were one of the first guys to play a game in season 3, so your division is filled with people that is dedicated and, well, good luck. Next season wait some weeks (or at least some hours lol)
There aren't any tiers in masters, so it's safe to compare yourself with anyone in any master division.
Points do mean something, specially in master division. Adjusted points are better, but also keep in mind that newly promoted/demoted players have their points reset to spent bonus pool + 73, so they might take some time to catch up in points, but for a average active player that doesn't got demoted/promoted for a good while, yes, it does represent how good he is.
|
That was a fantastic breakdown of the MMR system, informative read.
Saying that though, I have a question. I've recently pulled my finger out and starting leaguing competitively, I've won the last 18/20 games and pulled up 3rd/4th in my division.
Why am I starting to be matched against opponents where I'm favored? Shouldn't I be playing more difficult opponents due to the winning streak? Or does the 'uncertainty' mechanic require much more influence to change?
Out of the last 20 games I managed a winning streak of 15 games in a row, (Wasn't cheese, I promise.) Shouldn't that have thrown it some?
|
On September 09 2011 23:56 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2011 18:24 oZe wrote:
The league/ranking system is broken in so many ways I don't even know where to begin =)
I win my placement and get demoted. Win 16/20 games instantly I'm ranked 12 in the new league. Any player who is top 49 can be #1 just playing enough games. Your ranking is reset when you change league LOL 100 people in a league where maybe 20 are actively playing WTF
At the very latest 1994 the free chess servers on the internet had a ten times better ranking system. If you have any contact at blizzard tell them to research the Glicko system. Would be fun for us number wankers if your rating actually had some meaning other than number of games played.
To me it seems the whole rating/league system is geared towards making everyone think they're the best, atleast within their league. I am almost always top 5 in leagues after bonus is empty and then I'm pretty much stuck there. Until I'm promoted and almost instantly I'm top 5 in the new league.
On the chess server almost TWENTY years ago you could type ranking and see exactly where you stood among ALL players. The best we get today is visiting a free site by volounters and see where we stand in our league...
Also, believe it or not, but EVERY system favors those who are active to a certain point. Glicko and pure Elo systems are no different in that regard. That guy that made it to the top 25% in that system played more games than the guy who is in the top 55%. It's how these systems work, on limits as games played approach infinite.
That's not true, at least for Elo. The Elo rating is completely independent of number of games played (once a provisional number is passed - usually around 20 games). In fact one of the criticisms of it is that a player can attain a high rating and then become completely inactive to maintain their rank. Somebody may be more skilled because they have played more game, but that is a completely different point.
|
On September 11 2011 23:32 whatthefat wrote:
That's not true, at least for Elo. The Elo rating is completely independent of number of games played (once a provisional number is passed - usually around 20 games). In fact one of the criticisms of it is that a player can attain a high rating and then become completely inactive to maintain their rank. Somebody may be more skilled because they have played more game, but that is a completely different point.
While that is true with relatively static systems (like chess), SC2 is much more dynamic with participation. People enter and leave the system on a regular basis, and hundreds of thousands of games are played each day. If you're in the better half, this means that, in a zero-sum system, you are missing points that are being injected into the system. The curve is spreading out, and inactivity prevents you from riding this wave. Elo is designed to stabilize roughly after the provisional period, but the systems always behave according to their settings and input. Sometimes that input causes weird results (like favoring active players in the top 50%).
|
On September 12 2011 03:12 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2011 23:32 whatthefat wrote:
That's not true, at least for Elo. The Elo rating is completely independent of number of games played (once a provisional number is passed - usually around 20 games). In fact one of the criticisms of it is that a player can attain a high rating and then become completely inactive to maintain their rank. Somebody may be more skilled because they have played more game, but that is a completely different point. While that is true with relatively static systems (like chess), SC2 is much more dynamic with participation. People enter and leave the system on a regular basis, and hundreds of thousands of games are played each day. If you're in the better half, this means that, in a zero-sum system, you are missing points that are being injected into the system. The curve is spreading out, and inactivity prevents you from riding this wave. Elo is designed to stabilize roughly after the provisional period, but the systems always behave according to their settings and input. Sometimes that input causes weird results (like favoring active players in the top 50%).
If you look at blitz chess, there are at least as many games going on as for SC2, so the point about participation/dynamism isn't really valid.
As for "riding the wave", I think you're referring to rating inflation due to new players joining the system and floor effects resulting in non-zero sum changes in the rating pool. I agree, that can favor activity in the very long term if it's not correctly adjusted for.
|
On September 12 2011 03:59 whatthefat wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 03:12 aksfjh wrote:On September 11 2011 23:32 whatthefat wrote:
That's not true, at least for Elo. The Elo rating is completely independent of number of games played (once a provisional number is passed - usually around 20 games). In fact one of the criticisms of it is that a player can attain a high rating and then become completely inactive to maintain their rank. Somebody may be more skilled because they have played more game, but that is a completely different point. While that is true with relatively static systems (like chess), SC2 is much more dynamic with participation. People enter and leave the system on a regular basis, and hundreds of thousands of games are played each day. If you're in the better half, this means that, in a zero-sum system, you are missing points that are being injected into the system. The curve is spreading out, and inactivity prevents you from riding this wave. Elo is designed to stabilize roughly after the provisional period, but the systems always behave according to their settings and input. Sometimes that input causes weird results (like favoring active players in the top 50%). If you look at blitz chess, there are at least as many games going on as for SC2, so the point about participation/dynamism isn't really valid. As for "riding the wave", I think you're referring to rating inflation due to new players joining the system and floor effects resulting in non-zero sum changes in the rating pool. I agree, that can favor activity in the very long term if it's not correctly adjusted for.
Pretty much. It takes a lot of effort to adjust that sort of thing. Something I don't think would be in a "Yahoo chess" environment, which is some of what I was talking about in the first place.
|
Question:
Was playing 3's today with two of my friends. We won the 1st 4 games and lost the 5th.
Placed in Diamond league 16 in a New Division. This new division only had 16 players in it.
If we would have won that 5th game, would we have been any higher in that particular division?
*Plus are there multiple NEW divisions being populated at any given time? Or is one new division filled before another new one opens up?
Thanks guys! Having an argument with some friends about it, and I want to get this figured out!
|
On September 12 2011 15:39 FluxSik wrote:
Question:
Was playing 3's today with two of my friends. We won the 1st 4 games and lost the 5th.
Placed in Diamond league 16 in a New Division. This new division only had 16 players in it.
If we would have won that 5th game, would we have been any higher in that particular division?
*Plus are there multiple NEW divisions being populated at any given time? Or is one new division filled before another new one opens up?
Thanks guys! Having an argument with some friends about it, and I want to get this figured out!
There's a possibility that the 5th win could have put your team closer to Masters, but there's no guarantee. As for division creation, divisions are created and filled up one by one depending on the division tier. In Masters, since there is only 1 tier, there is only 1 division being created at a time. Other leagues will have multiple divisions being created, but only 1 division per tier.
For more on what tiers are, see the OP.
|
United States12235 Posts
On September 12 2011 15:39 FluxSik wrote:
Question:
Was playing 3's today with two of my friends. We won the 1st 4 games and lost the 5th.
Placed in Diamond league 16 in a New Division. This new division only had 16 players in it.
If we would have won that 5th game, would we have been any higher in that particular division?
*Plus are there multiple NEW divisions being populated at any given time? Or is one new division filled before another new one opens up?
Thanks guys! Having an argument with some friends about it, and I want to get this figured out!
After your placement matches, you will always start out at 0 points. Rank within a division is based on points, so you with 0 would then be at the bottom. In this case, 16 out of 16.
|
On September 12 2011 16:10 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 15:39 FluxSik wrote:
Question:
Was playing 3's today with two of my friends. We won the 1st 4 games and lost the 5th.
Placed in Diamond league 16 in a New Division. This new division only had 16 players in it.
If we would have won that 5th game, would we have been any higher in that particular division?
*Plus are there multiple NEW divisions being populated at any given time? Or is one new division filled before another new one opens up?
Thanks guys! Having an argument with some friends about it, and I want to get this figured out!
There's a possibility that the 5th win could have put your team closer to Masters, but there's no guarantee. As for division creation, divisions are created and filled up one by one depending on the division tier. In Masters, since there is only 1 tier, there is only 1 division being created at a time. Other leagues will have multiple divisions being created, but only 1 division per tier. For more on what tiers are, see the OP.
So since Diamond has 7 tiers, does that mean that that 5th win could have put us in a different division within a different tier?
And if we had won that 5th placement match and placed in Master's, would we have been in a brand new division at the bottom of the list since we have no points?
Sorry if I'm a little unclear about it all. Thanks for the help guys!
|
I honestly prefer Day9's explanation.
These graphs and all don't really work for me...
The graph doesn't mention fun.
Day8 daily 269, my friends.
Watch it please 
|
On September 12 2011 17:03 FluxSik wrote:Show nested quote +On September 12 2011 16:10 aksfjh wrote:On September 12 2011 15:39 FluxSik wrote:
Question:
Was playing 3's today with two of my friends. We won the 1st 4 games and lost the 5th.
Placed in Diamond league 16 in a New Division. This new division only had 16 players in it.
If we would have won that 5th game, would we have been any higher in that particular division?
*Plus are there multiple NEW divisions being populated at any given time? Or is one new division filled before another new one opens up?
Thanks guys! Having an argument with some friends about it, and I want to get this figured out!
There's a possibility that the 5th win could have put your team closer to Masters, but there's no guarantee. As for division creation, divisions are created and filled up one by one depending on the division tier. In Masters, since there is only 1 tier, there is only 1 division being created at a time. Other leagues will have multiple divisions being created, but only 1 division per tier. For more on what tiers are, see the OP. So since Diamond has 7 tiers, does that mean that that 5th win could have put us in a different division within a different tier? And if we had won that 5th placement match and placed in Master's, would we have been in a brand new division at the bottom of the list since we have no points? Sorry if I'm a little unclear about it all. Thanks for the help guys!
Correct, but "brand new" can be a little misleading. You could end up in a division months old that hasn't filled up yet, or even taken somebody's old spot in an established division (that they were demoted/promoted out of). Of course, that 5th win could also do nothing for you guys (visibly) and you'd still be in the same division with 0 points.
|
I guess this is a good place to ask. Why did I go from 0 to 263 bonus pool over night? I had just emptied it with my games last night, I'm still in the same league, and have the same points, but my bonus pool has risen more than ten times what it should in less than 20 hours.
EDIT: Nvm. It said everyone had like 255 more points, but when I logged on and off I'm back to 7. A bug I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
