SCLegacy SC2Ranks Division Discussion

[JackhammerIV]

Why shouldn't he be? Besides the fact that he's the ultimate douche bag, he's actually pretty good ( When not cheesing )



You get objectively assigned a rating, when you get put in a league. Or have i misunderstood something?

Isn't the whole point of laddering that you get to play opponents of equal skill? And as you beat these opponents, you climb the ladder, and face tougher and tougher enemies.

The ladder system is based off of activity. Meaning you do play people of the same skill but it's hard to measure between leagues and inside leagues. Like how much better is a grandmasters player than a masters player?? It assigns people to ensure a rough percentage of the active population of ladder players in each league (20% bronze, 20% silver, 20% gold, 20% platinum, 18% diamond, 2% masters (including those in grandmasters)). It's a system based off activity and not skill. MMR requirements for leagues are readjusted to keep this population requirement for leagues.

And there's this whole "SC2 is too easy mindset" where people feel the SC2 ladder system doesn't measure skill well because C players on BW's ICCup rating system have stated they easily got into masters or even grandmasters sometimes by just playing enough.

It's like if you consider all the top pros of a A level. Are all grandmasters at the A level?? Or because of the necessity of having 200 people in grandmasters does it allow some B players to sneak in?? That sort of thing. If right now you set pros to be at the very top of the skill ladder and bronze as the very lowest skill level then where is the middle (in terms of skill)?? Is it diamond?? Masters??

[Todie]

this has been covered literally dozens of times in this thread already. bottom line is, i disagree with JH here; the leagues are actually fine. you can generally see a distinctive skill difference between diamond players as compared to masters, etc.... but the whole system with divisions, rating and ranking within the division, im very far from convinced its at all representative of absolute skill... and even if it is, in some way, its not common knowledge exactly how so understanding how it works would barley even matter.

... ill take it for what it is though, and the match making system has always worked well. its pretty bad to make you day-by-day ladder games all that focsued on winning anyway; its beter to make it all about improving...

... maybe one day ill get promoted to masters, or to begin with, acutally get matched vs any master players on ladder... That will still feel like a worthwhile achievement.

[JackhammerIV]

this has been covered literally dozens of times in this thread already. bottom line is, i disagree with JH here; the leagues are actually fine. you can generally see a distinctive skill difference between diamond players as compared to masters, etc.... but the whole system with divisions, rating and ranking within the division, im very far from convinced its at all representative of absolute skill... and even if it is, in some way, its not common knowledge exactly how so understanding how it works would barley even matter.

... ill take it for what it is though, and the match making system has always worked well. its pretty bad to make you day-by-day ladder games all that focsued on winning anyway; its beter to make it all about improving...

... maybe one day ill get promoted to masters, or to begin with, acutally get matched vs any master players on ladder... That will still feel like a worthwhile achievement.

Yeah I know todie. I agree with your dislike of divisions, rating, ranking but I take my dislike of the ladder system even further than you. I dislike the whole SC2 leagues based off of active population system. This has all been discussed before so let's end it here. I'm more nitpicky than todie. End of story.

On a side note I feel I completely suck at this game and would be thoroughly disappointed if i ever get matched against masters players or ever make it into masters. That would make me completely lose faith in the SC2 ladder system.

[Todie]

... my interpretation of how the system works is that it only readjusts the MMR boundaries in between leagues when there is a reset, witch is fine.

[JackhammerIV]

... my interpretation of how the system works is that it only readjusts the MMR boundaries in between leagues when there is a reset, witch is fine.

The current understanding of it is based off this amazing TL work..
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/view...opic_id=195273

Which I believe you have read already is that it uses bonus pool as a way to measure inactivity. Like there was a requirement for Grandmasters that if they let their bonus pool get above 180 bonus points they would get kicked out of Grandmaster League.

So the poster states that Blizzard uses bonus pool accrued as a measure of inactivity. If you are inactive Blizzard does not consider you when deciding MMR requirements for leagues. So actually MMR boundaries between leagues are constantly readjusted based off how many active players (players with a bonus pool below a certain amount) there are and their MMRs [This is not a concrete conclusion since again Blizzard does not tell us specifics but it is the current understanding of the system].

The exact activity criteria are by the TL poster (may or may not have been confirmed by Blizzard. I think it might have been):

- If a player has more than 90 remaining bonus pool, is he still above X bonus pool (inactivity threshold)?
- If a player has more than X bonus pool (inactivity threshold), is he spending at least 90 per week?

Players who meet either of these requirements are counted toward league population.

EDIT: Important to note that while the boundaries might be shifting that promotions/demotions will occur less frequently than the changing of MMR boundaries. This is due to the system's nature of needing to be sure of which league you belong in.

[Todie]

yes, i know... but i think you make the system sound more volatile than it is. for GM, ofcourse it will be somewhat volatile, becasue its only 200 ppl and who will remain active is not alltogehter predictable and consistent., while by the nature of the GM notion, it needs to be continually readjusted quite frequently.

... idk if tehre is even evidence that the thresholds for non-GM leagues are continually readjusted just as frequently. but even if tehy are, these pools of players are significantly larger (especially anything below masters) making it reasonable to expect it to remian more consistent.

... also, i remeber reading back during reset-time, taht the boundery for acitvity-messurment back then was 600 points. i can see them having reduced that for keeping GM quite active, but why would they change it for the rest?

[JackhammerIV]

yes, i know... but i think you make the system sound more volatile than it is. for GM, ofcourse it will be somewhat volatile, becasue its only 200 ppl and who will remain active is not alltogehter predictable and consistent., while by the nature of the GM notion, it needs to be continually readjusted quite frequently.

... idk if tehre is even evidence that the thresholds for non-GM leagues are continually readjusted just as frequently. but even if tehy are, these pools of players are significantly larger (especially anything below masters) making it reasonable to expect it to remian more consistent.

... also, i remeber reading back during reset-time, taht the boundery for acitvity-messurment back then was 600 points. i can see them having reduced that for keeping GM quite active, but why would they change it for the rest?

Not sure about any of those points. In the end hard to get concrete information on how much it readjusts and by what degree. Also there's the question of how the ladder system which aims for 50% win rate affects all this (if at all).

The question of consistent skill in ladder games might be another point. How does a constantly improving vs a consistent player affect the system?? If both are active they provide data points. There might be an overall trend in each league of active players. Then there arises another question of what happens if players in one league are improving at a faster rate than players in a different league.

All that data remains in Blizzard's hands. It's a very complex system that sounds initially simple but has a lot of intricacies.

I guess i might be making it seem volatile but imo it's too volatile for my tastes. I am the type of person who prefers it to be more clearcut.

[Twilice]

Players skill is measured from the other players skill of course.
So all those that have C ICCUP rating is better then ALL of the Bronze-Platinum players. How hard is that to understand? It's not like EVERY player that played broodwar had an ICCUP rating.

I don't really understand what the problem is that you are having, except those strange divisions. Could you explain a bit more? If all the people are inactive in diamond, then they keep their MMR those with a bit lower from platinum will be promoted to diamond because if they wasn't there would be no players at all in diamond so players would "jump" from playing vs platinum players and then vs master players if they win a lot. Wouldn't that be even more odd? When those Diamond players stopped being inactive they get matched against those of equal MMR again and they have to prove that they can still win. Okay, maybe it could be a bit strange for those former platinum that got promoted to once again get demoted without actually losing. But I do wonder if it really is that way it's working.

[Todie]

The question of consistent skill in ladder games might be another point. How does a constantly improving vs a consistent player affect the system?? If both are active they provide data points. There might be an overall trend in each league of active players. Then there arises another question of what happens if players in one league are improving at a faster rate than players in a different league.

to me this is an issue within / among divisions. not leagues. when it comes to comparing players taht are in different leagues, all we'll ever know is that higher is better, eamning that the diamond player is to be considered better than the platinum player in a majority of cases (the exception being if one or both has lately improved or decayed enough in skill to be on a clear path to a promotion/demotion) ... im fine with that. what is happening within the leagues though, ranks point and divisions, as compared to what people epect these nubmers to mean, that is just a mess.

[JackhammerIV]

to me this is an issue within / among divisions. not leagues. when it comes to comparing players taht are in different leagues, all we'll ever know is that higher is better, eamning that the diamond player is to be considered better than the platinum player in a majority of cases (the exception being if one or both has lately improved or decayed enough in skill to be on a clear path to a promotion/demotion) ... im fine with that. what is happening within the leagues though, ranks point and divisions, as compared to what people epect these nubmers to mean, that is just a mess.

I completely agree with that. I'm just more nitpicky about the leagues. Simply due to assignment of leagues by activity. In all probability in like 5 or so years perhaps the leagues will have worked themselves out to satisfy me but they currently don't.

There's the rough estimate within leagues. Just like compare the percentage of matches you play vs players from a higher league. If you play more matches with players from a higher league then technically you should be considered better. That's how I check what Blizzard thinks my rough position in Diamond is. I see the league of who I was matched against then I check their match history and see the leagues of the opponents they got matched against. Last I checked I think I was roughly low Diamond maybe just barely getting to mid Diamond.

EDIT: This is how i roughly work out if i'm low, mid or high in my league (i keep updating it based off my next opponent who Blizzard considers is "Even"):
I play vs A.
A is from a higher league.
A's match history reveals he's been playing more and more people from my league. So i know i'm edging towards the high end of my league.

I play vs B.
B is from a higher league.
B's match history reveals they are mostly playing players from their own league. So I am probably on track to maybe get promoted.

I play vs C.
C is from the same league.
C's match history reveals they are playing a lot of players from a higher league. Probably both myself and C are edging towards the high end of our league and maybe promotion.