Season 8 Lock and new Ladder changes incoming - Page 14

On September 08 2012 02:58 jinorazi wrote:


isn't that what op says? rank 1 = 1%, 2 = 2%...50 = 50% and so on

On September 07 2012 10:31 pallad wrote:


Not true.. , if you can count , you can do basic math from patch 1.5 . Im diamond and i can see "games played this seson" in profile , when i watch ladder i see wins , plus/minus and i got my win ratio , simple as that

On September 08 2012 03:03 paralleluniverse wrote:

You cannot make that conclusion.

It is only true on average.

On September 08 2012 03:08 TheFrankOne wrote:


Doesn't it mean you are the top ranked out of a randomly selected group (in your league) instead of out of a group subtly biased to contain players of a certain skill level?

On September 08 2012 03:18 paralleluniverse wrote:

Yes. But if there are 1000 random groups, several of them are randomly going to have higher skill than the rest. The distribution of the average skill of a group will be normally (not uniformly) distributed according to the central limit theorem, so some groups will be better than other simply because of random chance.

Being in the top 2% of a randomly selected group doesn't mean that you're in the top 2% of the league. It means on average you are in the top 2% of the league.

On September 07 2012 16:59 ZwuckeL wrote:
Compare these divisions:

I call this division A: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/1582414/1/ATǂCENSURE/ladder/leagues

and this division B: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/1274090/1/CuteZerg/ladder/leagues

Division A was most likely established very early into the season, Division B quite a lot later.
Now you can see that the first ranked player in B would be only be placed 12th in division A.
B 2nd player would be 14th in A
B 3rd player would be 17th in A
and so on...

this pretty much fails hard at the statement "Place 1 roughly equals top 1% of playerbase"
Though it could be right for the first player in division B, what about the players in divsion A, placed 2-12 ?? According to their rating and compared to the first player of division B, they would also be top 1% of the playerbase. According to blizzards statement though, they are only best 10% of the playerbase.

edit: even bigger is the difference between those divisions' top 50, which would equal to "being top 50% of the playerbase"
Division A Top50 players include all until 1032 ponts.
Division B Top50 players include all unitl 380 points.

So reading blizzard's statement, the player placed 50th in division B would think he is one of the 50% highest rated players in master league. (which he isn't, because the difference between different aged divisions is too big)

On September 07 2012 16:59 ZwuckeL wrote:
Compare these divisions:

I call this division A: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/1582414/1/ATǂCENSURE/ladder/leagues

and this division B: http://eu.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/1274090/1/CuteZerg/ladder/leagues

Division A was most likely established very early into the season, Division B quite a lot later.
Now you can see that the first ranked player in B would be only be placed 12th in division A.
B 2nd player would be 14th in A
B 3rd player would be 17th in A
and so on...

this pretty much fails hard at the statement "Place 1 roughly equals top 1% of playerbase"
Though it could be right for the first player in division B, what about the players in divsion A, placed 2-12 ?? According to their rating and compared to the first player of division B, they would also be top 1% of the playerbase. According to blizzards statement though, they are only best 10% of the playerbase.

edit: even bigger is the difference between those divisions' top 50, which would equal to "being top 50% of the playerbase"
Division A Top50 players include all until 1032 ponts.
Division B Top50 players include all unitl 380 points.

So reading blizzard's statement, the player placed 50th in division B would think he is one of the 50% highest rated players in master league. (which he isn't, because the difference between different aged divisions is too big)

On September 08 2012 04:16 stevarius wrote:
The only way I could see this new ladder rank change working is if players can freely change divisions to try and keep the rankings as accurate as possible. If they're locked in it is going to be weird still.

On September 08 2012 03:28 paralleluniverse wrote:
I wonder what Pardo, Browder and co. were thinking when they back-flipped to make this change. "But, but, it's so fun climbing the division ladder, seeing your points increase relative to a group of 100 players of almost equal skill". Right? "That's why we added the division tiers in the first place" -- the fact that these 100 arbitrary, faceless men were of very roughly equal skill meant that you got a chance to see your meaningless division rank climb (and fall).

What happened to this design philosophy? Did they realize that seeing your pointless division rank change wasn't so novel after all? Or do they still believe in this pointless ladder system, and only decided on this change after concluding that increasing the skill range of a division from 3.3% to 20% (6 division tiers currently?) won't be bad enough to diminish the FUN in climbing the division ladder? Or was it really because all of the sudden, after more than 2 years, they're concerned that promotions aren't transparent enough, as they admit. Really, what's changed their minds?

On September 07 2012 10:10 emc wrote:
personally I think the ladder tier removal is a great step forward, now if they could only give us our Wins/Loss ratio back, because not seeing that isn't very transparent either.

On September 08 2012 05:52 Maggost wrote:


I hope not, Wins/loss ratio are bad, i dont wanna see how terrible i am in SC2, plus its good that we dont see the ladder position too in the main page of our profiles. Less info stats = better for our minds.