|
F had some calculation errors. Here's F corrected:
![[image loading]](http://s18.postimage.org/we086wimt/image.jpg)
I've been trying to mimic capped DMMR behavior with a formula but I'm running into difficulties. There are 73+-14 and a lot of 102+-14s in the data, which may lead one to believe the cap is at ~87-88. However if that were the case then we should have also been seeing 69.5+-17.5s and 61+-26s and the likes. It's possible we just didnt get any such numbers in our data, but with 10k games I find it hard to believe. The only alternative I can think of is that Blizzard uses a different representation of F than we do. Perhaps minimum value + range? So +12 pts games would be represented as -14 +0-29. If that were the case, then the cap would go back to being 73.
|
United States12224 Posts
How does the new F impact the estimated offsets?
|
|
|
I figured out how the cap works.
We had a problem that our DMMR cap couldn't explain the results we were seeing. If the cap was at 87 or 88 then how come we didn't get DMMR results of 72 +- 16 in our data, but were seeing many 73 +-14 and many 102+-14. I found a way to explain it.
You see, it's not DMMR that's capped. It's the amount of points won based on the adj points. We were just seeing it as DMMR cap because we assumed that's what Blizzard does ... It's a valid way to approach it. It's just not what Blizzard does.
Here's a graph of players adjusted points and their points change after the game (master/gm not included as they are not capped):
![[image loading]](http://s16.postimage.org/l9733mcs1/adj_pts_vs_pts_change.jpg)
When you look at the steps size you quickly realize they remind you of something... They look exactly like F^-1 shifted 73 points and reversed. If we define the cap function to take minus adjusted points of a player as input, we can plot it along side F^-1.
For the record, this is F:
F(MMR, adj) = round_nearest(24*(1-1/(1+10^((MMR - adj)/400))))
This is F^-1, along with CAP(-adj):
![[image loading]](http://s15.postimage.org/8bny2acav/F_1_plus_Cap.jpg)
I'm sure Blizzard does something simpler on their side, some sort of formula using 73, min/max and F. If I look at it more I can probably find it, but for now it doesn't matter. All we care about are the values.
Note that 1 is built in to the CAP function. This is why it's not possible to get less than 1 point for a win.
Let's look at the data with CAP function on top of it:
![[image loading]](http://s17.postimage.org/owi8w4isr/adj_pts_vs_pts_change_with_cap.jpg)
Major props to my CPU for not dying on me while making this graph. It was close.
So now that we know the cap, looking at our data:
3307 games are possibly capped with the CAP formula vs 3343 games possibly capped with the DMMR-var<=88 method
31 games are reported possibly capped with the CAP formula and not with the DMMR-var <= 88 method
63 games are reported possibly capped with the DMMR-var <= 88 method and not with the CAP formula.
Using the CAP formula can reproduce the abundance of 73+-14 and 102+-14 games whereas DMMR can not.
This also explains fully the behavior people have been seeing when you lose a lot of games your points loss starts decreasing.
Best news, now we can forget about 88. 73 plays pivotal role again. 73=0 anyone?
|
You guys are at a math level that I can't take ;_;
Anyway, gratz for you guys and your computer for not dying on us!! :D
73=0 anyone?
It will be easier if 73=0 I guess, so I will cheer for it. If 73 isn't zero, then Diamond tier F players would theorically never leave the 73 AP "zone" if they'd never actually increase their skill level/game play.
|
United States12224 Posts
73 is not 0 but it does have significance. Adjusted points (within a division listing, that is) cannot go below 0. If you look at F, the gap between a -10/+12 and a +14/-12 is +/-73 on the high and low end. This means that the Favored display will show Even when a 0 player plays against a 73. 73 represents the widest possible gap before venturing into Slightly Favored (+15/-9) territory. Therefore, 0-point players can play against newly-promoted players and still be Even.
Note that this doesn't mean that 73 is the DMMR or "minimum MMR" point. We've already seen values as high as 88 for that.
|
I think you mean ladder points can't go below 0. Adjusted points can go negative provided the player has used up some bonus pool. But I don't understand what the favored system has to do with this.
Regarding DMMR 'cap' I'm not sure there's much point referring to it anymore, seeing how it's not the DMMR that's capped but the points change. We could calculate the lowest DMMR values we could see while still being sure they're uncapped, and we'll get to 87 +- 14 at the lowest I believe. Anyway it doesn't matter anymore as we don't use the actual DMMR value to determine cap-ability :D.
|
Time for new offsets:
![[image loading]](http://s18.postimage.org/42cu49nit/offsets4.jpg)
Click all pictures in post to view large version.
- Master-GM offset is 466 US, 458 EU and 402 SEA.
- To get promoted into GM right now requires about 901 adjusted points on US, 972 adj pts on EU, 852 on KR and 178 on SEA.
- For some leagues I analysed US and for some all servers, depending on the amount of data. Generally US / EU seem close, with Master-GM being ~8 points bigger on US.
- US has the most data, followed closely by EU. SEA has much less data, KR barely has any at all, and China is China.
- Offsets can change whenever Blizzard feels like it, possibly as early as next couple of weeks when season 8 comes.
What changed since last offsets:
- 16,609 games
- F slightly corrected
- Removed +1/+2/+22/+23 matches from calculation
- Using my new cap calculation by adjusted points instead of DMMR 'cap'. As far as I can tell it's 100% accurate.
There's still a rare problem with the data. Here's what it looks like:
![[image loading]](http://s15.postimage.org/xyour1spj/Master_Master.jpg)
Unfortunately it's not always this clear. The problem is caused due to bnet web page sometimes failing to update a game within a reasonable amount of time from it's end. Sometimes the delay is so big that another game will be finished and the last one isn't updated yet:
![[image loading]](http://s14.postimage.org/x5v4o6c65/profile_bug.jpg)
That "left" match (in this case a loss) is a late comer and causes problems with some of our data. This produces these strange results clearly visible on the Master/Master graph.
The graphs I used to calculate the offsets:
Master-GM
![[image loading]](http://s17.postimage.org/pqrk75fi3/Master_GM.jpg)
Diamond-Master US
![[image loading]](http://s14.postimage.org/8ogt5idr1/Diamond_Master_US.jpg)
Diamond-Diamond US
![[image loading]](http://s7.postimage.org/mrj6n2uhz/Diamond_Diamond_US.jpg)
Platinum-Diamond
![[image loading]](http://s15.postimage.org/70ck6cejb/Platinum_Diamond.jpg)
Platinum-Platinum
![[image loading]](http://s15.postimage.org/cr2qk2mjb/Platinum_Platinum.jpg)
Platinum-Gold
![[image loading]](http://s7.postimage.org/g8qca5iav/Platinum_Gold.jpg)
Gold-Gold
![[image loading]](http://s18.postimage.org/wzirjod3p/Gold_Gold.jpg)
Gold-Silver
![[image loading]](http://s18.postimage.org/l6u56xvf9/Gold_Silver.jpg)
Silver-Silver
![[image loading]](http://s18.postimage.org/w068t7239/Silver_Silver.jpg)
Silver-Bronze
![[image loading]](http://s16.postimage.org/ij9aahk35/Bronze_Silver.jpg)
Bronze-Bronze
![[image loading]](http://s18.postimage.org/4hxaoro7p/Bronze_Bronze.jpg)
Latest version of my excel file to view the data and the graphs yourself
|
Unfortunately it's not always this clear. The problem is caused due to bnet web page sometimes failing to update a game within a reasonable amount of time from it's end. Sometimes the delay is so big that another game will be finished and the last one isn't updated yet:
This is a bug that I have experienced myself =(
Player 1 leave and lose the game, then player 2 leave, but the system still thinks the player 1 is there and results disagree. The system then takes its time to confirm that player 2 wins. Or something like this, it's just my theory, not an official statement. I've seen this happen with me, that's why I made a theory about it 
|
I think results disagree is something completely different. As I understand things bnet depends on the SC2 clients to report the match result. If they report conflicting results due to a bug or a hack then bnet can't determine a winner. Of course if someone is hacking and abusing this then his results will disagree often and they'll ban him.
This I believe is just some data base lag from whatever reason. The player's points end up changing eventually.
|
- To get promoted into GM right now requires about 901 adjusted points on US, 972 adj pts on EU, 852 on KR and 178 on SEA.
Well my friend on EU has 1706 points - 681 the bonus pool = 1025, and there is a spot in gm so I think something is wrong?
|
It's only an estimate as GM league is unique in that it has a fixed number of spots. Either way your friend is very close.
|
United States12224 Posts
Just FYI, "Left" always means -12 adjusted points for the party who "Left". I'm not sure if it counts as a "50:50 game worth of MMR loss" though.
|
Oh, wow... This will come extremely useful. Thank you.
In the example picture the opponent (whose match history is in picture) won on Ohana and our tool calculated +3 adjusted points change. If the "left" is -12 adjusted points, then this seem to indicate he won 15 adjusted points and 2 bonus points for the game. Putting +15 for the game makes the user's DMMR fall right in place. Nice!
Any idea whether or not these games appear as losses for the player's games lost count? Or what's causing a player to get 'left' result?
|
Do u have any idea what's the average MMR of a low EU grandmaster, I'm rank 1 masters with 642-674 and im just wondering how far am I from gm t.t
|
On June 03 2012 17:41 Powerstrike wrote:
Do u have any idea what's the average MMR of a low EU grandmaster, I'm rank 1 masters with 642-674 and im just wondering how far am I from gm t.t
This is a hard question.
The problem is, as longer the session as harder to get into gm. So there are some guys in gm that would not come in today.
On the other site there are many high master who would get a gm spot back then.
So give you some numbers. Some guys in gm are 600-700, but we call them the old gms. They would not get a spot with this mmr today. Several master guys have ratings from 800-1000 and waiting for a spot. Last gm promotion on eu was around 1050 but with this value you are automatic top 10 gm.
So: 650 is not enough to get promoted at the moment.
However, if you have a "run" at the 1 week of new session and have a temp mmr of 700-800 you can get a spot. Many gm guys cheat by push their mmr in the 1 week with wins, than stop playing and play only 1 game a on promotion day.
Overall you need a little bit of luck.
|
Ballpark number to make it into GM when it unlocks next season I would say high 700's to 800 above Master offset, which would be 2670-2700 MMR for Europe. Of course back when GM opened in season 7 we didn't have our tool yet thus no data. If we can get a lot of high Master and low GMs to use our tool at the time GM unlocks in season 8 we should get much more accurate with our estimates.
On June 03 2012 17:41 Powerstrike wrote:
Do u have any idea what's the average MMR of a low EU grandmaster, I'm rank 1 masters with 642-674 and im just wondering how far am I from gm t.t
|
I was reading the 'Patch 1.5 Arcade Beta' thread and found a frightening post: "..., and now with patch 1.5 you can't even view the division ladder of other players": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=341648¤tpage=18#342
If this is not just a feature that is not yet implemented in the beta, it could mean the end of this project. Because if they take down the ability to check others' ladder divisions via SC2 client, they will most likely take down the division ladders in their webpages too.
They removed the loss and total games counters from people lower than masters in a similar way too. The counters were removed in a larger PTR patch that brought changes to the SC2 Bnet UI and they did not mention it in the patch notes. And later on they just introduced the PTR patch as an official patch, even if there were complaints about the removal during the PTR testing process.
|
On June 05 2012 01:58 korona wrote:I was reading the 'Patch 1.5 Arcade Beta' thread and found a frightening post: "..., and now with patch 1.5 you can't even view the division ladder of other players": http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=341648¤tpage=18#342If this is not just a feature that is not yet implemented in the beta, it could mean the end of this project. Because if they take down the ability to check others' ladder divisions via SC2 client, they will most likely take down the division ladders in their webpages too. They removed the loss and total games counters from people lower than masters in a similar way too. The counters were removed in a larger PTR patch that brought changes to the SC2 Bnet UI and they did not mention it in the patch notes. And later on they just introduced the PTR patch as an official patch, even if there were complaints about the removal during the PTR testing process.
if they do this ...Oo.
I just dont get it. Why are they so afraid that people see their rating? they put so much energy into hiding this information.
If they have to much time, they could use it to improve bnet ...
|
United States12224 Posts
I agree. If that goes into the live version, it will make it virtually impossible to collect data. League badges alone are already confusing enough for players because they must be viewed within a certain context. Typically what happens is something like this:
1. Player posts a forum thread asking "I'm only SILVER and I'm being matched against DIAMONDS what the heck is going on??"
2. I investigate by looking up the player's match history to determine whether: a) the guy is talking about team games and is confusing a player's Best Team with the Actual Team he was matched against, or b) he is close to promotion or the other player is close to demotion.
3. I post the adjusted points for all opponents in the player's match history and the associated point gains/losses so the player has a better idea of why he was matched against that player in the first place, and I also include the opponents' opponents if that information is statistically interesting or otherwise relevant.
4. The player is thankful to receive the information and/or rails against Blizzard for the confusion.
If that change goes live, I won't be able to provide step 3 anymore, and maybe not even step 2. People do understand when you tell them "you've got 1000 adjusted points and that Diamond you fought was -200, and before that game you played against a 100 point Platinum and a 400 point Gold, so the Diamond wasn't as much of an anomaly as you might have expected" because it puts things in context. Without that additional layer of research, things become much cloudier.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
