Messages In This Thread

amoffett11 · 03-23-2013, 03:19 AM

(03-23-2013 12:57 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote: I maintain that you are mistaken on this point. The number of players awarded ST status is dependent on the skill distribution, yes, but also on the number of players in the population. Think of it in the reverse way; suppose that there were 100,000 1v1 players instead of about 20,000. Would we see many more STs? Of course. You're right that if there was one player who won always won 50% of all matches, regardless of player skill, then they would not move up or down in league. But that's not a very useful hypothetical; in practice, player populations have diverse skill levels, and skill levels increase over time as players learn the game, so skill diversity within a player population emerges.

Again, not a very useful hypothetical, but you actually hit right on target here; you're right, players who are close together in skill would average about 50% win ratio, which means they would not increase in skill rating anymore. So, what happened was that there were a bunch of teams who were very, very good (myself, worldfamous, awpertunity/terence, burnodrod/mastercaster, sir3 and p1noyboy, etc.), and so we rose to the top of the ranking list. But because the threshold was so high, and we were roughly even in skill, we all played each other (due to matchmaking) and no one could get out ahead enough of the pack in order to reach the very limiting threshold. This was a bad system, as it did not award the very very good teams who were merely not quite as good as the top 2. If there were (many) more players in the population, this wouldn't have been such a big issue, but with only about 1500 something had to change. It's too bad that I was promoted this way, didn't feel very triumphant. I wish OML had planned the league system more appropriately, but I guess you can't fault them for not being able to see the future.

No, the number of ST's is dependent on the # of players only if you assume that their is an even skill distribution among the players (which in this case their mostly is, although I would say that in 2v2 its weighted more towards the top). I'm not sure why you talk about the threshold as if its based on a certain percentage (0.3%, etc.), the threshold isn't based on a percentage, but on a skill rating.

I think you've misunderstood my hypothetical about the teams who are all 50/50. You're saying that there's a bunch of teams who are very, very good, and I'm sure you're right. But what I was saying is that imagine that everyone was that good: is anyone actually very very good or is everyone just average. This is what I was trying to say: the reason you did not reach super titan before was because you were not *better* than enough teams. You were worse than 2 (the two STs), you were even with several other teams (the very, very good teams you listed, and perhaps others), and better than all the rest. To be a supertitan, you have to be *better* than a certain number of teams; the teams you're even with you're not better than; playing them to 50/50 won't help you reach that level.

" I still don't see why OML couldn't merely pick a spot between the old threshold and new threshold and call it a day"

If the old threshold was 10, and the new one is 9, for example, then there is no spot in between. Obviously they're further apart than that, but I think that they're closer than you think, and to pick an arbitrary spot in between to get an acceptable percentage *right now* is not a good idea, the skill distribution will change, and the percentage will continually be in flux. The trick is to be patient and let it sort itself out.