|
The top 200 players are determined across divisions by comparing their relative rankings and skill, while meeting certain requirements, such as ensuring that they’re active.
We can all see that the top 200 is NOT sorted by points, and different from the rankings shown at www.sc2ranks.com.
For example Dayvie is ranked 49 in the official top 200, but has always been in the top 10 in terms of points.
This shows that the ladder ranks that the game uses based on points is nonsense. Either whatever method was used to calculate this top 200 is correct, or ranking based on points is. They can't both be right.
If points are not the optimal way to rank players, why is Blizzard using it to rank in the game? Why not use this new method to rank? Or make points converge to the results given by this new method?
Basically, Blizzard is admitting their points system for ranking is wrong, making the ladder rankings in the game a charade.
EDIT:
Everyone is missing the point.
It does NOT MATTER HOW THEY CALCULATED THE TOP 200.
What matters is that how they calculated the top 200 on the website is DIFFERENT from how rankings are calculated IN THE GAME.
Therefore, the RANKINGS IN THE GAME ARE WRONG.
This should be fixed.
There are 2 different methods for the same task.
There is no reason to choose the correct method for the website, and the wrong method for the game.
They should always choose the correct method, everywhere.
If whatever they used to form some new rating is a better way to rank, then they should stop using points because it's suboptimal, and use this rating instead, because it's more correct.
Last edit: 2010-08-12 14:12:57
|
Do you a link for blizzards top 200?
Ignore, I just saw it on 1st page :D
|
yea i knew something looked kinda of about that
|
On August 11 2010 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +The top 200 players are determined across divisions by comparing their relative rankings and skill, while meeting certain requirements, such as ensuring that they’re active. We can all see that the top 200 is NOT sorted by points, and different from the rankings shown at www.sc2ranks.com. For example Dayvie is ranked 49 in the official top 200, but has always been in the top 10 in terms of points. This shows that the ladder ranks that the game uses based on points is nonsense. Either whatever method was used to calculate this top 200 is correct, or ranking based on points is. They can't both be right. If points are not the optimal way to rank players, why is Blizzard using it to rank in the game? Why not use this new method to rank? Or make points converge to the results given by this new method? Basically, Blizzard is admitting their points system for ranking is wrong, making the ladder rankings in the game a charade.
No; Blizzard is simply showing the obvious: While the points system is a fairly accurate way of ranking players within their own division, it becomes less relevant when comparing across different divisions (of different skill levels), so other factors must be included. What is confusing about that?
|
it sounds like someone doesn't understand MMR
|
On August 11 2010 21:22 LonelyMargarita wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:The top 200 players are determined across divisions by comparing their relative rankings and skill, while meeting certain requirements, such as ensuring that they’re active. We can all see that the top 200 is NOT sorted by points, and different from the rankings shown at www.sc2ranks.com. For example Dayvie is ranked 49 in the official top 200, but has always been in the top 10 in terms of points. This shows that the ladder ranks that the game uses based on points is nonsense. Either whatever method was used to calculate this top 200 is correct, or ranking based on points is. They can't both be right. If points are not the optimal way to rank players, why is Blizzard using it to rank in the game? Why not use this new method to rank? Or make points converge to the results given by this new method? Basically, Blizzard is admitting their points system for ranking is wrong, making the ladder rankings in the game a charade. No; Blizzard is simply showing the obvious: While the points system is a fairly accurate way of ranking players within their own division, it becomes less relevant when comparing across different divisions (of different skill levels), so other factors must be included. What is confusing about that?
Firstly, there's nothing wrong with directly comparing points across divisions, because what division you're in has no influence on your points, and has no influence on how you're matched.
Secondly, if Blizzard is serious about having a correct ladder, then make points equal to whatever this new method is. Adjust points for whatever they adjusted here.
There are 2 different methods for the same task.
There is no reason to choose the correct method for the website, and the wrong method for the game.
They should always choose the correct method, everywhere.
|
On August 11 2010 21:24 Hanno wrote:
it sounds like someone doesn't understand MMR
I have a perfect understanding of MMR.
If MMR gives the correct rank and points don't: then stop using points to rank and start using MMR.
Alternatively, make points converge to MMR, so when several dozen games are played, they are essentially equal.
Note that points in WoW do converge to MMR. But if this top 200 is ranked by MMR (it's probably some combination of points and MMR and possibly other factors), then they've shown that points don't converge to MMR, again making points worthless.
|
My guess is it's a combination of points / games played / win ratios and maybe even toughness of the matches thrown together. Sure they use a simple points ranking to place us in game but I wouldn't put it past them to have a much more efficient way of ranking people that they can see.
|
On August 11 2010 21:34 RoboFerret wrote:
My guess is it's a combination of points / games played / win ratios and maybe even toughness of the matches thrown together. Sure they use a simple points ranking to place us in game but I wouldn't put it past them to have a much more efficient way of ranking people that they can see.
Yes, but my argument is that if points / games played / win ratio, combined to form a new rating is a better way to rank, then they should stop using points because it's suboptimal, and use this rating instead, because it's more correct.
|
On August 11 2010 21:34 RoboFerret wrote:
My guess is it's a combination of points / games played / win ratios and maybe even toughness of the matches thrown together. Sure they use a simple points ranking to place us in game but I wouldn't put it past them to have a much more efficient way of ranking people that they can see.
shouldnt toughness of matches and streaks be part of what determines how many points you get? it's dumb, points you get for winning should be based on the same attributes they're using to rank people in the top 200.
|
On August 11 2010 21:30 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 21:24 Hanno wrote:
it sounds like someone doesn't understand MMR I have a perfect understanding of MMR. If MMR gives the correct rank and points don't: then stop using points to rank and start using MMR. Alternatively, make points converge to MMR, so when several dozen games are played, they are essentially equal. Note that points in WoW do converge to MMR. But if this top 200 is ranked by MMR (it's probably some combination of points and MMR and possibly other factors), then they've shown that points don't converge to MMR, again making points worthless.
Do you understand what converging means?
I'm pretty sure they do converge to MMR, but that doesn't mean both lists will be identical. Especially this early on when people have played only ~500 games or so.
|
Its a good argument, but Blizzards done plenty of stupid things revolving BNET2.0 already, why would they start doing smart things now? (lack of chat channels etc etc etc) I completely agree with you though if that helps. :D
|
On August 11 2010 21:40 shawabawa wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 21:30 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2010 21:24 Hanno wrote:
it sounds like someone doesn't understand MMR I have a perfect understanding of MMR. If MMR gives the correct rank and points don't: then stop using points to rank and start using MMR. Alternatively, make points converge to MMR, so when several dozen games are played, they are essentially equal. Note that points in WoW do converge to MMR. But if this top 200 is ranked by MMR (it's probably some combination of points and MMR and possibly other factors), then they've shown that points don't converge to MMR, again making points worthless. Do you understand what converging means? I'm pretty sure they do converge to MMR, but that doesn't mean both lists will be identical. Especially this early on when people have played only ~500 games or so.
Idra has played 93 + 14 games, he is ranked 7 by points, and ranked 6 by top 200.
Dayvie has played 113 + 67 games, he is ranked 3 by points, and ranked 49 by top 200.
Dayvie has played more games so he's points should be closer to he's MMR, meaning he is far more likely to get ranked in the top 200 the same as he is by points.
The reverse is true for Idra.
Yet the data shows the opposite of what your hypothesis would imply.
In the end, this doesn't matter. What matters is the ladder ranks on the website are right, and the ladder ranks in game are wrong,
|
Sounds like somebodies upset he placed into gold league.....
User was warned for this post
|
If points mean nothing, it's worse than we thought..
|
As many times stated before, POINTS IN DIVISIONS ARE NOT COMPARABLE ACROSS DIVISIONS!
Read and remember.
The only one who knows how to compare these is... who would have guessed... BLIZZARD!
So stop bitching and get on with your lifes for gods sake
|
On August 11 2010 21:27 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 21:22 LonelyMargarita wrote:On August 11 2010 21:17 paralleluniverse wrote:The top 200 players are determined across divisions by comparing their relative rankings and skill, while meeting certain requirements, such as ensuring that they’re active. We can all see that the top 200 is NOT sorted by points, and different from the rankings shown at www.sc2ranks.com. For example Dayvie is ranked 49 in the official top 200, but has always been in the top 10 in terms of points. This shows that the ladder ranks that the game uses based on points is nonsense. Either whatever method was used to calculate this top 200 is correct, or ranking based on points is. They can't both be right. If points are not the optimal way to rank players, why is Blizzard using it to rank in the game? Why not use this new method to rank? Or make points converge to the results given by this new method? Basically, Blizzard is admitting their points system for ranking is wrong, making the ladder rankings in the game a charade. No; Blizzard is simply showing the obvious: While the points system is a fairly accurate way of ranking players within their own division, it becomes less relevant when comparing across different divisions (of different skill levels), so other factors must be included. What is confusing about that? Firstly, there's nothing wrong with directly comparing points across divisions, because what division you're in has no influence on your points, and has no influence on how you're matched.Secondly, if Blizzard is serious about having a correct ladder, then make points equal to whatever this new method is. Adjust points for whatever they adjusted here. There are 2 different methods for the same task. There is no reason to choose the correct method for the website, and the wrong method for the game. They should always choose the correct method, everywhere.
Comparing Oranges and Grapefruits is the best possible way to show you why it's wrong to compare based upon points alone. I chose not to use apples since you have two "similar" looking fruits, but they're not exactly the same. Not all diamonds are treated equally.
Now, if the above were true then top platinum players should be given the same consideration as they can be matched similarly to some diamond players, and vice-versa. (Now let's add apples to my comparison since they are given a different badge but are in the same family as the diamond players). This means that a platinum 750 would somehow need to be included in this argument. How do you adjust their points to fit the equation? (we don't really know)
|
On August 11 2010 21:59 ArdentZeal wrote:
As many times stated before, POINTS IN DIVISIONS ARE NOT COMPARABLE ACROSS DIVISIONS!
Read and remember.
The only one who knows how to compare these is... who would have guessed... BLIZZARD!
So stop bitching and get on with your lifes for gods sake
Could you please cite your source, it almost seems like you haven't really studied the subject and just jumped to a conclusion and then added in some caps lock and that definitely aint cool. If you don't have any proof please do read the thread and the other solutions to why this difference between the ladder and Blizzard's rankings might be happening.
|
Denmark33 Posts
|
On August 11 2010 21:48 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2010 21:40 shawabawa wrote:On August 11 2010 21:30 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 11 2010 21:24 Hanno wrote:
it sounds like someone doesn't understand MMR I have a perfect understanding of MMR. If MMR gives the correct rank and points don't: then stop using points to rank and start using MMR. Alternatively, make points converge to MMR, so when several dozen games are played, they are essentially equal. Note that points in WoW do converge to MMR. But if this top 200 is ranked by MMR (it's probably some combination of points and MMR and possibly other factors), then they've shown that points don't converge to MMR, again making points worthless. Do you understand what converging means? I'm pretty sure they do converge to MMR, but that doesn't mean both lists will be identical. Especially this early on when people have played only ~500 games or so. Idra has played 93 + 14 games, he is ranked 7 by points, and ranked 6 by top 200. Dayvie has played 113 + 67 games, he is ranked 3 by points, and ranked 49 by top 200. Dayvie has played more games so he's points should be closer to he's MMR, meaning he is far more likely to get ranked in the top 200 the same as he is by points. The reverse is true for Idra. Yet the data shows the opposite of what your hypothesis would imply. In the end, this doesn't matter. What matters is the ladder ranks on the website are right, and the ladder ranks in game are wrong,
What you said doesn't disprove what he said. It's totally possible that Dayvie HAS converged to his MMR but that others that are higher than him have not. This means that Dayvie is where he will always be, but IdrA and others higher than him have not yet risen to the visible point total that matches their MMR.
When everyone converges properly then the two ladders will look the same. However, it's incorrect to say that for any given person, if they are in the same spot in both ladders they have converged. It's simply not the case. There's no cause and effect or correlation in the position of both ladders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
