|
On August 07 2010 18:05 JAN0L wrote:
How is it posible that averange win% is above 60% for all leagues???
if some one looses somone wins so for all players averange must be 50%
or there are so many people that played 3/4 placements and never finished them
Because those stats are just for the top 50.
|
On August 07 2010 20:35 lololol wrote:
Points between divisions in the same league are also not comparable, a blizzard rep confirmed that early in the beta. It was probably in the beta forums, so it may have been deleted by now, since I couldn't find it with a quick google search.
Anyway, I've had several cases with disproportionate points won/lost during the beta. In once case I was shown as favored and lost 16 points for that game, but our point difference was 18 points after the game(so 50 or 66 point difference before the game depending on if he had bonus points left, since he had 0 after the game) and 12 points are lost for an even matchup(16-8 is 66.6% chance to win for me, which is ridiculous for such a small point difference.
Your points are also inflated over time due to the bonus pool, so a player that gets placed in a new division right now, will have to receive something like 400+ bonus points in order to be even to players in old divisions that have accumulated these bonus points over time.
If new players receive bigger and bigger bonus pools after their placement matches, regardless if they are placed in a new league with no players or a league from release, then it's possible that it has been changed, but if they don't, then it's pretty clear points between different divisions even in the same league are not comparable.
They are comparable. The favored/unfavored system goes by your hidden rating, not your visual rating. The more games you play the closer the hidden rating will be to your visual rating.
|
He is 74/36 in bronze, that's quite the achievement
|
i read alot over the ranking and i think you can comare now.
But you cant compare points over liga.
this means if you want to see the top, search diamond only and than sort by rank....
|
On August 07 2010 20:39 Dionyseus wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 20:35 lololol wrote:
Points between divisions in the same league are also not comparable, a blizzard rep confirmed that early in the beta. It was probably in the beta forums, so it may have been deleted by now, since I couldn't find it with a quick google search.
Anyway, I've had several cases with disproportionate points won/lost during the beta. In once case I was shown as favored and lost 16 points for that game, but our point difference was 18 points after the game(so 50 or 66 point difference before the game depending on if he had bonus points left, since he had 0 after the game) and 12 points are lost for an even matchup(16-8 is 66.6% chance to win for me, which is ridiculous for such a small point difference.
Your points are also inflated over time due to the bonus pool, so a player that gets placed in a new division right now, will have to receive something like 400+ bonus points in order to be even to players in old divisions that have accumulated these bonus points over time.
If new players receive bigger and bigger bonus pools after their placement matches, regardless if they are placed in a new league with no players or a league from release, then it's possible that it has been changed, but if they don't, then it's pretty clear points between different divisions even in the same league are not comparable. They are comparable. The favored/unfavored system goes by your hidden rating, not your visual rating. The more games you play the closer the hidden rating will be to your visual rating.
Almost true. If your skill level stagnates and you assume the player pool around you as a constant you indeed would end up in a situation where you could not alter your rank anymore (except for short term variance.).
But your assumption misses two crucial elements: Bonus pool and the player population. The player population is not constant, over the lifetime of a game the general playerbase skill improves and the bottom of the player pool will usually not stick around long (which is partially the reason for the higher average skill.), thus your ranking will not stagnate. Next to that you will never see a stagnation actually happen because bonus pool obscures it completely (everyone's ranking goes up due to bonus pool over time.)
|
On August 07 2010 21:31 gerundium wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 20:39 Dionyseus wrote:On August 07 2010 20:35 lololol wrote:
Points between divisions in the same league are also not comparable, a blizzard rep confirmed that early in the beta. It was probably in the beta forums, so it may have been deleted by now, since I couldn't find it with a quick google search.
Anyway, I've had several cases with disproportionate points won/lost during the beta. In once case I was shown as favored and lost 16 points for that game, but our point difference was 18 points after the game(so 50 or 66 point difference before the game depending on if he had bonus points left, since he had 0 after the game) and 12 points are lost for an even matchup(16-8 is 66.6% chance to win for me, which is ridiculous for such a small point difference.
Your points are also inflated over time due to the bonus pool, so a player that gets placed in a new division right now, will have to receive something like 400+ bonus points in order to be even to players in old divisions that have accumulated these bonus points over time.
If new players receive bigger and bigger bonus pools after their placement matches, regardless if they are placed in a new league with no players or a league from release, then it's possible that it has been changed, but if they don't, then it's pretty clear points between different divisions even in the same league are not comparable. They are comparable. The favored/unfavored system goes by your hidden rating, not your visual rating. The more games you play the closer the hidden rating will be to your visual rating. Almost true. If your skill level stagnates and you assume the player pool around you as a constant you indeed would end up in a situation where you could not alter your rank anymore (except for short term variance.). But your assumption misses two crucial elements: Bonus pool and the player population. The player population is not constant, over the lifetime of a game the general playerbase skill improves and the bottom of the player pool will usually not stick around long (which is partially the reason for the higher average skill.), thus your ranking will not stagnate. Next to that you will never see a stagnation actually happen because bonus pool obscures it completely (everyone's ranking goes up due to bonus pool over time.)
Both those factors affect everyone equally, so again points are comparable across divisions within the same league, because divisions do NOT alter how points are gained or lost in any way, only how you are ranked.
Points are not easily comparable across leagues because we do not know the meaning of, say 200 points diamond vs 700 points platinum, and we don't know how to convert between the two. This is a major weakness of this terrible ranking system.
|
On August 07 2010 17:51 paralleluniverse wrote:
You're confusing division with league.
My reply was using the wrong terminology as I almost always ignore division entirely, because I think divisions are pointless. I was referring to leagues and in general about the scoring system.
|
On August 07 2010 20:35 lololol wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Points between divisions in the same league are also not comparable, a blizzard rep confirmed that early in the beta. It was probably in the beta forums, so it may have been deleted by now, since I couldn't find it with a quick google search.
Anyway, I've had several cases with disproportionate points won/lost during the beta. In once case I was shown as favored and lost 16 points for that game, but our point difference was 18 points after the game(so 50 or 66 point difference before the game depending on if he had bonus points left, since he had 0 after the game) and 12 points are lost for an even matchup(16-8 is 66.6% chance to win for me, which is ridiculous for such a small point difference.
Your points are also inflated over time due to the bonus pool, so a player that gets placed in a new division right now, will have to receive something like 400+ bonus points in order to be even to players in old divisions that have accumulated these bonus points over time. + Show Spoiler +If new players receive bigger and bigger bonus pools after their placement matches, regardless if they are placed in a new league with no players or a league from release, then it's possible that it has been changed, but if they don't, then it's pretty clear points between different divisions even in the same league are not comparable.
I think you are totally right. The problem isn't that you can't compare between divisions, it is that you can't compare people who started in the ladder at different times because of the bonus pool inflation.
This does assume that new signups are starting with the same size bonus pool as those that started laddering immediately.
|
On August 07 2010 12:30 MichaelJLowell wrote:
Average Rating : 761.9, 619.4, 588.5, 672.2, 798.6
Average Games: 69.8, 54.3, 58.6, 38.7, 165.8
Average Win Percentage: 61.13%, 63.41%, 63.61%, 73.19%, 65.80%
I'd expect to see a greater rating disparity among the edges of the logarithmic distribution of players. Your top 50 stats confirm this. In other words, the very worse players are so bad that everyone can beat them, so the top bronze players have it easier. On the other hand, the top Diamond players are so good that no one can beat them, and they have it easier. So it makes sense that we'd see higher points in bronze and diamond.
Top diamond players play a lot of games, which makes a lot of sense, but does anyone have any ideas as to why the top platinum players play the least?
|
On August 07 2010 20:35 lololol wrote:
Points between divisions in the same league are also not comparable, a blizzard rep confirmed that early in the beta. It was probably in the beta forums, so it may have been deleted by now, since I couldn't find it with a quick google search.
Anyway, I've had several cases with disproportionate points won/lost during the beta. In once case I was shown as favored and lost 16 points for that game, but our point difference was 18 points after the game(so 50 or 66 point difference before the game depending on if he had bonus points left, since he had 0 after the game) and 12 points are lost for an even matchup(16-8 is 66.6% chance to win for me, which is ridiculous for such a small point difference.
Your points are also inflated over time due to the bonus pool, so a player that gets placed in a new division right now, will have to receive something like 400+ bonus points in order to be even to players in old divisions that have accumulated these bonus points over time.
If new players receive bigger and bigger bonus pools after their placement matches, regardless if they are placed in a new league with no players or a league from release, then it's possible that it has been changed, but if they don't, then it's pretty clear points between different divisions even in the same league are not comparable.
My assumption is that points are comparable between divisions. But, I've seen weird/buggy point things too. I was 480 diamond yesterday, and played vs a guy who was 654 diamond (he was #3 in his div, I was like #60 in mine) or so, and I won 10 points for beating him. How on earth was I favoured against a guy in the same league as me who had more than 150 more points than me? So maybe what division you're in is relevant I guess. I'm in medivac alamo, he was in some div I haven't heard of.
|
It makes logical, intuitive sense why you're getting the numbers you're getting.
Gold is the middle league. People both place into it and place out of it. People placing into it are likely not in the top 50 because they lost displayed rating when they joined the gold league. People placing out of it were likely at the top but they got bumped to Platinum or Diamond.
Therefore, because you're only looking at the top 50, you're seeing the Gold players who are good enough to be at the top but not good enough to get bumped out of the division.
|
On August 07 2010 22:40 Nightmarjoo wrote:
My assumption is that points are comparable between divisions. But, I've seen weird/buggy point things too. I was 480 diamond yesterday, and played vs a guy who was 654 diamond (he was #3 in his div, I was like #60 in mine) or so, and I won 10 points for beating him. How on earth was I favoured against a guy in the same league as me who had more than 150 more points than me? of.
Seems like the "favoredness indicator" goes off your hidden (accurate) rating, not your leaderboard rating.
|
Ireland174 Posts
I'm confused about the so-called 'points'. Some people in this thread referred to them as a rating, with someone saying it is an ELO rating (the numbers seem very low for this, especially given the presence of a bonus pool). Is there a source or a thread I haven't read that clarifies this, or at least that explains the significance of these points?
World of Warcraft arena uses the ELO system and it refers to it as a rating. If Starcraft 2 were using the same system why would it call it points? Of course we all mprobably have hidden ELOs that are used for matchmaking.
This whole system seems very convoluted. I'm not sure why they don't tell us how it works exactly.
|
On August 07 2010 22:52 barrykp wrote:
I'm confused about the so-called 'points'. Some people in this thread referred to them as a rating, with someone saying it is an ELO rating (the numbers seem very low for this, especially given the presence of a bonus pool). Is there a source or a thread I haven't read that clarifies this, or at least that explains the significance of these points?
World of Warcraft arena uses the ELO system and it refers to it as a rating. If Starcraft 2 were using the same system why would it call it points? Of course we all mprobably have hidden ELOs that are used for matchmaking.
This whole system seems very convoluted. I'm not sure why they don't tell us how it works exactly.
None of it is truly ELO, WoW hasn't been that for a long time either. The original WoW arena ratings were more like ELO.
The magnitude is arbitrary, in Warcraft 3 they are 1-50(+) with 25 average and broken into experience points and levels, in WoW they are 0-3000 with 1500 average and called rating, it doesn't matter what size the numbers are or what they are called, in SC2 they are called points and players are split into leagues, but they are all the same general system with minor differences.\
Edit: I see a lot of people spreading the idea that bonus pool inflates the ladder, when it doesn't. I think this thread will help explain a lot of the questions people have about the ladder system:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118212
|
On August 07 2010 23:21 ZapRoffo wrote:
Edit: I see a lot of people spreading the idea that bonus pool inflates the ladder, when it doesn't. I think this thread will help explain a lot of the questions people have about the ladder system:
Bonus pool points actually do cause inflation (how could they not?). The point is that, despite them, the leaderboard will still accurately rank players relative to each other--so long as they keep playing games. It's a positive way of preventing top players sitting on the top, never having to play another game.
Anyway, I quickly mapped out correlations for the top 25 players. Take it for what it's worth:
http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AgsClBPVhGPpdDBiRmNuT1daZjRmZkE2V21mNW05Mnc&hl=en&single=true&gid=0&output=html
Win rate somewhat correlates with points, which is about right. There's no reason to believe that the leaderboard doesn't accurately rank people. Moreover, it shows that you don't get to the top simply by playing a whole lot of games. That seems to negatively correlate.
A larger sample size is in order. Anyone up to writing a SED script to parse this data?
|
Down is the new up, bronze is the new diamond. Well, all the realms/leagues/divisions begin to look less and less legit. Just a bunch of people playing the game, in the end. Just play and duncare (=
|
In regards to bonus pool, the only thing I can say for sure is that when I was last promoted I went from having a very low bonus pool in my previous league back to having around 220. Assuming the number I received is equal to the total number accrued by any other diamond player in total since launch and also assuming my initial points rating is determined by adjusting the points received for my previous games(minus bonus pool points) to what they would have been had I been in diamond when I played each game(or had my current hidden rating if that's the case), THEN once I use up all my bonus pool points my point rating will be a reasonably accurate representation of my standing within the diamond league as a whole, even cross division. It's a lot of assumptions I know, but this seems to me like it's the most likely way bliz are doing things. I really wish they'd just tell us how they do it though.
|
On August 07 2010 23:38 carwashguy wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2010 23:21 ZapRoffo wrote:
Edit: I see a lot of people spreading the idea that bonus pool inflates the ladder, when it doesn't. I think this thread will help explain a lot of the questions people have about the ladder system:
Bonus pool points actually do cause inflation (how could they not?). The point is that, despite them, the leaderboard will still accurately rank players relative to each other--so long as they keep playing games. It's a positive way of preventing top players sitting on the top, never having to play another game. Anyway, I quickly mapped out correlations for the top 25 players. Take it for what it's worth: http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=0AgsClBPVhGPpdDBiRmNuT1daZjRmZkE2V21mNW05Mnc&hl=en&single=true&gid=0&output=htmlWin rate somewhat correlates with points, which is about right. There's no reason to believe that the leaderboard doesn't accurately rank people. Moreover, it shows that you don't get to the top simply by playing a whole lot of games. That seems to negatively correlate. A larger sample size is in order. Anyone up to writing a SED script to parse this data?
Read what I posted in that other thread, quoted in the OP. Bonus pool has no bearing on your hidden rating, and in the long run everyone's points converge to their hidden rating, so the bonus pool has no effect. It just gets people to that convergence faster.
It is true that since you constantly earn bonus pool even when you are equal to your hidden rating, ratings will be boosted above hidden ratings overall by a little bit before being corrected back down and this will happen constantly. It depends on how frequently people play (more frequent = less boosted), and people who take longer breaks will likely be briefly overranked by the ladder when they come back but the overall high activity level (especially near the top, and in people who play enough games to reach their hidden rating in the first place) will make this effect rather small and equal for everyone, and non-inflationary (it will not grow over time).
|
Isn't 50 an infinitesimally small sample size to be making these assumptions on?
I'm not a math/statistics geek but that just feels way to tiny a group to sample and create all this debate. 500 or 5000 maybe.
|
I have read that other thread. First off, I'm talking about the ladder, not the hidden matchmaking rating. Other than league placement and matchmaking, the two ratings don't influence each other. Of course we have no reason to believe that inflation will occur in the hidden rating.
On August 08 2010 01:15 ZapRoffo wrote:
... and non-inflationary (it will not grow over time).
Strictly speaking, bonus pool points will cause lasting inflation: meaning points increase but skill-value doesn't. Say a player earns 200 points. In two months, he could have 400 points without having improved his skill one bit. This is due to the bonus pool constantly pumping new points into the system. Points will grow over time. Where we agree: the ranking shouldn't alter, as everyone's points will grow equally in relation to one another--assuming they continue playing.
If the bonus pool keeps pumping new points into the system, I can't see how you can claim that people's points will go "back down." Where would the points go?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
