Another Look at 2v2 Super Titan

[GreatGonzales]

(03-23-2013 03:19 AM)amoffett Wrote:  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 pretty thoroughly addressed the first point in my other ninja post about ELO. As for speaking in terms of percentages, it's really just out of a lack of a better way to communicate it. It's true, OML didn't set percentages for the leagues, but I imagine when they were picking the skill rating thresholds, they had imagined percentiles of the population that they'd like to separate. This is why I use percentages, because the skill rating thing is a black box.

Quote: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.

Yeah, I agree with this. That's exactly what was happening. But the threshold needed to be lowered to let more people in, it was too excluding. 2 person league is pointless.

Quote:If the old threshold was 10, and the new one is 9, for example, then there is no spot in between.

9.5? Anyway, I tend to agree that we should sit with the current threshold for a while and see how the population settles in. But if OML could do it over, based on my experience, I think they should have used "9.5".