EPTAlso:
http://aligulac.com/predict/match/?i1=12&i2=7&bo=7
Being a bomber's fan it's funny to put him against protoss :d
December 26 rating list: now tweaked - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Godwrath
Spain10131 Posts
Also: http://aligulac.com/predict/match/?i1=12&i2=7&bo=7 Being a bomber's fan it's funny to put him against protoss :d | ||
|
jdsowa
405 Posts
Asking Blizzard to balance the races is like asking ID software to go back and fix an achievement glitch in Doom 1. User was temp banned for this post. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On December 27 2012 22:40 goswser wrote: Wait didn't both Adelscott and Lowely go farther than Combatex at WCG? If WCG is the basis of his ranking how can you put him above both of them? This makes no sense at all rofl. I'd say that CombatEx's high ranking is because he a) Won against a few good players. And more importantly b) Did not subsequently lose against anyone (apart from a very good Korean). Or, in other words, he doesn't play regularly in tournaments that matter like the other players, so his ranking won't go down. That also means he'll vanish from the ranking due to inactivity soon enough, though, so no worries.  | ||
|
ETisME
12476 Posts
The game he played against parting were actually pretty close | ||
|
AndAgain
United States2621 Posts
On December 27 2012 22:43 TheBB wrote: Because there was already information about Adelscott and Lowely prior to WCG. CombatEX was a blank. His rating is 100% based on his WCG run, whereas the ratings of Adelscott and Lowely are also based on hundreds of other games they have played. I wouldn't worry about him. In a month and a half he will drop out of the list on account of no games played. Wouldn't it be better to put a minimum games played requirement to avoid things like this? Combatex takes away credibility from the rankings in most people's eyes, I imagine. | ||
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
| ||
|
bearhug
United States999 Posts
On December 27 2012 22:39 iAmJeffReY wrote: 20 players, 3 terran, 4 protoss.....13 zerg... Nice ranking though! "Based on our data, it is perfectly balanced"--- David Kim, Blizzard Entertainment. | ||
|
ganil
253 Posts
| ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On December 27 2012 23:04 ganil wrote: Is it possible to filter your ranking to remove koreans ? I don't condone genocide. (Seriously, no it's not. Yet.) | ||
|
HereBeDragons
1429 Posts
On December 27 2012 22:32 edlover420 wrote: May i inquire on what grounds is combatex ranked 7th, when in fact he can't win versus anyone decent, he never did won versus anyone decent and he has no tournament results whatsoever? Also where is Taeja QQ The system is explained in detail here: http://aligulac.com/faq/ This is purely statistical and has no "wow" factor to spice the rankings, you have power ranks for that. | ||
|
Wintex
Norway16838 Posts
| ||
|
HoMM
Estonia635 Posts
That's great, about time the God of Protoss got some recognition! | ||
|
MateShade
Australia736 Posts
On December 27 2012 22:43 TheBB wrote: Because there was already information about Adelscott and Lowely prior to WCG. CombatEX was a blank. His rating is 100% based on his WCG run, whereas the ratings of Adelscott and Lowely are also based on hundreds of other games they have played. I wouldn't worry about him. In a month and a half he will drop out of the list on account of no games played. I have to question your ranking system if this is the case, I don't think this is a very old representation of anything if that's how it's done | ||
|
Finnz
United Kingdom260 Posts
| ||
|
ACrow
Germany6583 Posts
One wish I have, for helping with FPL: having a section that is showing predictions for upcoming Proleague matches. Probably a lot of people would use it for matches of the more unknown players , for trading etc. On December 27 2012 22:49 jdsowa wrote: All that's fine and dandy, except that SC2 is abandonware at this point. Asking Blizzard to balance the races is like asking ID software to go back and fix an achievement glitch in Doom 1. With the last update being dated December 4th, do you even believe this nonsense yourself? No? Why do you expect anybody else to believe it then? How is Destiny doing, btw? Go back under your bridge, troll! | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On December 27 2012 23:25 MateShade wrote: I have to question your ranking system if this is the case, I don't think this is a very old representation of anything if that's how it's done Not sure I understand your problem. I'm not trying to get "old" representations. Adelscott and Lowely play lots of games all the time. That means our current information about them is pretty up to date. On the other hand, there is a new player (CombatEX) about whom we know nothing at all. Then, WCG happens and all of them do really well. So we have: – Adelscott, we're fairly sure he's a middling player (1184 +/- 115), but he did pretty well at WCG (performed at about 1600 level). – Lowely, we're fairly sure he's pretty good (1682 +/- 77), and he did pretty well at WCG (performed at maybe ~2000 level if we include a few other games he played in that period). – CombatEX, we have no information about him (1000 +/- 600), and he also did pretty well at WCG (maybe about 2200?). Adelscott's and Lowely's ratings are then adjusted upwards somewhat, weighted by the confidence we have in their current rating (as indicated by the +/- numbers), and the consistency of their performances at WCG (which I don't save anywhere so I can't say for sure). Same with CombatEX, except we have essentially no confidence whatsoever in his current rating of 1000. For this reason, his rating adjusts quicker than that of Adelscott and Lowely. | ||
|
ChaosArcher
Germany956 Posts
| ||
|
Lazzi
Switzerland1923 Posts
| ||
|
thezanursic
5489 Posts
70% Zerg... Is it just me or is there a patern emerging?!? ![[image loading]](http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/7821/bisu.png) User was warned for this post | ||
|
KalWarkov
Germany4126 Posts
 and no, combatEX wont be part of the list :D | ||
| ||
