EPTWhat does "Code S level" mean? - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
FuzzyJAM
Scotland9300 Posts
| ||
|
coverpunch
United States2093 Posts
Does it have predictive value? Not really. But the argument is that Stephano "deserves" to be in Code S because he isn't wildly out of line with other people by his ranking. And in fact HuK may also deserve Code S because he isn't even the lowest ranked player of the bunch. That would be Byun. | ||
|
JJH777
United States4378 Posts
On February 02 2013 05:14 FuzzyJAM wrote: Without wishing to be a dick, this list is the best illustration that your stats are not close to being a good indicator of overall skill. This.. A guy who's only ever played in online qualifiers/cups and even in those he only has about a 50% win-rate being in the top 40 players in the world is hilarious. I don't know how hard it would be but I think your rankings need to take into account the tournament they beat the Code S players at and give them more or less points depending on where it's at. Something like GSL > IPL > MLG > Dreamhack > all other lans > Big online tournaments > weekly cups/online qualifiers. Also maybe making it so they have to have at least 15-20 games played against the current Code S | ||
|
llIH
Norway2142 Posts
| ||
|
UniversalSnip
9871 Posts
On February 02 2013 00:48 TheBB wrote: I've considered it. Well, not a bot, but just doing it manually. My gut instinct is that a good liquibetter would probably do better, but that the ratings are for sure more accurate than the people who write the TL predictions.  well, if you think about, even if everyone were complete noobs and picked bets at random, with enough of them you'd expect to be outbet by a large number of people. those people would then be labeled "good liquibetters" because they did better than you. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On February 02 2013 01:05 TheBB wrote: It is what it is. It's a fact that this is what you get when you run the numbers the way I did. Anything outside of that is extrapolation, which may or may not be of much use. Anyone should be careful when they use statistics, and this is no exception. But please, has Giantt ever competed against a Korean? The list is on the fucking website. It's not rocket science to actually go there and check. http://aligulac.com/players/294/results/ He has an even score against Hyun and 2-0 against TheStC for example. And can I just say, why would that be the defining characteristic? A passport doesn't make you good at StarCraft. You should be asking about his results against highly rated players, not against Koreans. Here's his most recent adjustment: http://aligulac.com/players/294/period/76/ you can browse back in history to see how he got the rating he has. He does NOT rank higher than Mvp. See here. They have almost the same rating (Mvp slightly higher). Like I have explanied, Giantt ranks higher than Mvp on the list given in the OP because it uses a different ranking system (performance against a pool of mostly Zergs and Terrans, matchups in which Giantt plays well). But still, Mvp is almost always pointed out as a flaw in the system and I'm getting kinda tired of it. He hardly plays any more and his recent results are middling at best. http://aligulac.com/players/13/results/ He's just not very good and that's why he's not rated highly. Get over it. Of course, as "code S level" goes, that can mean anything. The OP takes it to mean "would probably do ok in this season of code S", but that shows only one side of the story. The real question people is asking, is why was Giantt adjusted to 2301 rating vs Terran dispite never facing someone above 2k? He got a massive artificial boost without facing any Terrans even close to that rating (And only beating one, TheSTC 2-0 who wasn't even 2k rated) Why was First artifically boosted FIVE HUNDRED rating in all match ups dispite facing no one even close to that skill? http://aligulac.com/players/39/period/76/ How does this extrapolation make any sense in any world? You boosted him to the 2nd best player on the planet dispite him not even meeting anyone in the top 25. In ELO you cannot beat on someone who is lower than 400 points below you for a REASON. Because utterly destroying a random master leaguer 100 times in a row does not make you the best in the world regardless of your expected results against them. | ||
|
bittman
Australia8759 Posts
On February 02 2013 05:14 FuzzyJAM wrote: Without wishing to be a dick, this list is the best illustration that your stats are not close to being a good indicator of overall skill. There isn't really a skill list achievable through statistics out there that people would agree with anyway. I mean on TLPD Puzzle, who hasn't played for months, is still higher than Soulkey. And tear, who just made Code A, is higher than many Code S players. How would such a list be possible anyway? | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On February 02 2013 07:34 bittman wrote: There isn't really a skill list achievable through statistics out there that people would agree with anyway. I mean on TLPD Puzzle, who hasn't played for months, is still higher than Soulkey. And tear, who just made Code A, is higher than many Code S players. How would such a list be possible anyway? ELO Completely remove any results by any player who hasn't played more than 3 sets in the last 2 months, and any games played prior to 4 months. Exclude any results from a non-major tournament. Only include players with at least 6 sets played. Pretty simple, really. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7028 Posts
On February 02 2013 07:36 Figgy wrote: ELO Completely remove any results by any player who hasn't played in the last 2 months. Exclude any results from a non-major tournament. Pretty simple, really. What about someone who only plays a single game every two months? | ||
|
Mista_Masta
Netherlands557 Posts
At least the OP is full with interesting numbers and analysis, always a good thing  In my personal opinion 'Code S Level' means 'someone who could do well in Code S', so someone who is close to being the best in the world. What this actually means in terms of skill, I don't know either. My analysis is definitely not 'Code S Level' | ||
|
Yorbon
Netherlands4272 Posts
The definitions are highly subjective, as well as most of the elements in the definition (like in my definition), so an exact definition is impossible to give. At this moment, i think the best measurable approximation of a definition is 'those who are thought of as code s level the most, are code s level'. That is a very pragmatic approach, and i'd say it has some weaknesses, like fan-favorites being overestimated, or that it is susceptible to some biases. So basically, 'what does code s level mean?' is not a meaningful question on it's own. On February 02 2013 07:41 Mista_Masta wrote: haha, i liked that.My analysis is definitely not 'Code S Level' On February 02 2013 05:14 FuzzyJAM wrote: I don't think this can be said on it's own. Firstly, in my impression the list is not meant as an indicator of skill level, but it rather gives the chance someone will win a match against someone with another given position on this list, given historic win/loss data, disregarding any other possible influence of the game (format, location, physical/mental health, etc). Furthermore, i think that code s does not give a good impression of skill level either. The format of the gsl is significantly different from other tournaments, focussing on preparing for matches and/or opponents (as opposed to lots of matches in a small timespan, like mlg). I do think that the level in code s is higher overall, but the format definitely favours players who are good at mindgames, analysing the opponent and devising new strategies. If you define code s to be the standard of skill level, then i agree, this list is not a good indicator (although it was better than i'd expect). However, know that when doing so, you're assuming certain values as much as any other would be made list. i do agree that this list is not a good indicator for skill level, strictly speaking no list will ever..Without wishing to be a dick, this list is the best illustration that your stats are not close to being a good indicator of overall skill. | ||
|
Figgy
Canada1788 Posts
On February 02 2013 07:37 Grumbels wrote: What about someone who only plays a single game every two months? You do the same as in Chess ELO. There is a certain time period before you become inactive, and you need a certain number of games before your rating is set in stone. Also, people whose ratings aren't set in stone count very little towards the ratings of others. Therefor we don't get ridiculous results with people having no games having an absurd rating effecting the entire ladder, and all GSL players basically get placed appropriately. You also don't have random foreigners in MLGs and other events completely destroying the ratings of top end koreans because they have a single bad set out of 10. People who become inactive have their rating completely restarted from the beginning without effecting the games they've already played. | ||
|
Conti
Germany2516 Posts
On February 02 2013 07:36 Figgy wrote: ELO Completely remove any results by any player who hasn't played more than 3 sets in the last 2 months, and any games played prior to 4 months. Exclude any results from a non-major tournament. Only include players with at least 6 sets played. Pretty simple, really. Wait wait wait.. You bash this system, and as a suggestion on what to use instead you say.. ELO? That's just.. wow. That is seriously amusing. You do know that TLPD's rating is based on ELO, right? | ||
|
TheBB
Switzerland5133 Posts
On February 02 2013 07:18 Figgy wrote: The real question people is asking, is why was Giantt adjusted to 2301 rating vs Terran dispite never facing someone above 2k? He got a massive artificial boost without facing any Terrans even close to that rating (And only beating one, TheSTC 2-0 who wasn't even 2k rated) Why was First artifically boosted FIVE HUNDRED rating in all match ups dispite facing no one even close to that skill? http://aligulac.com/players/39/period/76/ How does this extrapolation make any sense in any world? You boosted him to the 2nd best player on the planet dispite him not even meeting anyone in the top 25. In ELO you cannot beat on someone who is lower than 400 points below you for a REASON. Because utterly destroying a random master leaguer 100 times in a row does not make you the best in the world regardless of your expected results against them. It's pretty simple and you know the answer yourself already. In this rating system you can get any rating no matter the ratings of your opponents, as long as you score well enough against them. In this respect it is different from Elo (not ELO). I can try to experiment with such a restriction, but I'm kinda cramped for time at the moment. Again though, you can ease off on the attitude. I'm trying to be reasonable but you're a pain in the ass to talk to. First was boosted five hundred points because it was 1000 points up to the maximal likelihood rating, and his past rating had similar variability to the ML rating, thus landing it somewhere in the middle. I didn't personally look at it and decide, y'know. | ||
|
dirtydurb82
United States178 Posts
| ||
|
achan1058
1091 Posts
| ||
|
Ace Frehley
2030 Posts
| ||
|
JJH777
United States4378 Posts
On February 02 2013 08:07 achan1058 wrote: Fundamentally, I think one issue that most people neglect is what is the cut-off for "Code S level", if you are talking about the current code S, you are talking about 32 people. If you are taking about people who can do well in several code S's, that's probably about 16 people, or less. Without even going into deeper meaning of things, the number of people in the cut-off itself is very different. I mean, let's face it, if Stephano drew 3 players on Hack's level (given how he plays today), he will probably make it out on the top of the group. It would be impossible for him to draw 3 players on Hack's level because of how the Code S group system works. You always have 1 person who got top 8 last season and then it is done by tiers with points. No offense to Hack he is very good but he is not ro8 level. Every player that got ro8 last season is better than him. Stephano really didn't get a very hard group. Bogus looked great last GSL but has done very poorly in SPL. DRG is really good. Hack is pretty meh. At best it was a middle of the road group for this season. I'd say without a doubt groups A, B, C and E were harder. | ||
|
Gimmeurladderpoints
Germany372 Posts
On February 02 2013 08:14 Ace Frehley wrote: Code S means you can beat Curious only reasonable way to find out. | ||
|
Goldfish
2230 Posts
On February 02 2013 01:34 Dingodile wrote: You forgot wc3, ~80% of all premier tournaments were won by Grubby, Moon, ToD, Lyn or Sky since 2004 until sc2 release. I really miss this consistency in sc2. sc2:wol is really super random.. Agreed. The main problem with SC2: 1. There are more all ins and the risk:reward ratio is much higher than most games (more than BW). 2. A lot of matches mostly end in just one big engagement rather than through several smaller engagements like in BW or WC3 (this is a huge reason). 3. Due to the fog of war mechanic (which is present in most RTS), there is a luck factor involved. Due to the problem of #1 (all ins are more high risk and high reward) and #2 (most games involve just one big engagement, which means being caught out of position once can lose you the game), the luck and randomness factor increases more and thus SC2 becomes a more random game. 4. There are less different type of skills sets you can use in SC2 to win. Artosis pointed something interesting in SotG, talking about how there were some Zerg players who only went 2 hatch muta against all match ups, and won purely off of Mutalisk micro alone. Idra also said a while back (in 2011), that in BW, there were many different ways to outplay your opponent compared to SC2 (note - this isn't about Build Orders or anything, it's about certain mechanics or certain skills. The Mutalisk micro is a good example, it's not present in SC2, you can't win SC2 games in 'all match ups' off of going mutalisks alone; of course it might be a bit extreme example because the mutalisk is the best unit in BW and was viable in all 3 match ups but the point is that there are many different types of skills you can use in BW to win compared to SC2; a player who masters as many different types of skills as possible is likely to be a consistent champion; tl;dr version is the skill ceiling "isn't higher" in BW but the skill room in BW is "wider"). (Yes, skill room is a made up term but I think it's a good simple way to say that there are more types of skillsets you can use to win in BW compared to SC2. Still though, I definitely say #2, making the game more gradual instead of one battle into win/lose is most important to reduce random element in SC2.) In BW, there were many ways and gameplay mechanics you could use to get wins. In SC2, there are also many ways to win but there are less. Generally, since everyone is doing more of the same as anyone else to win in SC2, this means that overlapping will happen more and there will be less ways to differentiate yourself from other types of players (again, not saying there isn't but it's much less compared to BW). There's definitely way more competition in SC2 than a lot of other games though but the consistency of top level champions could be increased and randomness could be lowered if #2 and #4 were addressed. | ||
| ||
