Messages In This Thread

GreatGonzales · (This post was last modified: 03-21-2013 11:33 AM by GreatGonzales.)

Man come on, you're picking this fight with me again? Alllllrighty then....

Quote:Here's our problem: you're not reading what I'm saying.

What I said: it's impossible (right now) to find a threshold where the percentage of 1v1 STs is the same as the percentage of 2v2 STs.

What you apparently read: it's impossible to find the right threshold.

To be fair, that's not an exact quote of what you said, but I see what you meant now. I do not intend to knock down a straw man. Sure, it's going to be an inexact process due to the inherent differences between the two populations; my point is, however, that OML can re-draw the boundary to improve the threshold (assuming current scenario is not ideal) knowing nothing more than what they know right now. But could they precisely locate the same threshold utilized by 1v1 ST? No, probably not.

Quote:What I'm saying is that the distribution of skill is such that by lowering the threshold a little, like they did, they lowered it below at least 30 teams, this is because these 30 teams skill rating is very close together. There is no in between, at this point in time.

You're apparently fond of claiming that I make assumptions....so if I may be so bold, you are making an important assumption here. Namely, you presume to know, or at least have some idea about, the degree that the promotion threshold for 2v2 ST was lowered. It could be that Alex gave it a very minor tweak, which would support your contention that the top 40 teams are all very close together in terms of skill level. But it could also be that Alex gave it a large nudge, or something in between. We don't know; all we know is that once the threshold was changed, the number of ST teams skyrocketed from 2 to 33 (and probably will land somewhere around 40 if current trend holds). These facts are also potentially consistent with a top 40 2v2 teams of fairly diverse skill levels.

Quote:I recognize that you believe, based on nothing but the games you've played against various teams, that you and about 15 other teams stand above the rest. However, with the evidence we have given the two league distributions (and this, along with the top 200 2v2 lists is the only evidence we have) supports the theory that you're all closer together than you think. Just because someone is #3 and someone else is #69 doesn't mean that their skill ratings are not actually close together.

I believe that there is a fairly severe drop-off in skill after the top 10 or so teams, yes, and it's true that much of that belief is based on my own personal experience. But I think Rawkhawk and I are probably one of the top 10 teams, so I feel well-qualified to make that call.

But anyway, can you please clarify what you mean when you say that the two league distributions and the top 200 lists support the theory that the top teams are closer in skill than I think? I don't understand. The top 200 lists do not tell us the distance between player skill, only their rank. I'm also not sure what the league distributions, by which I take you to mean the breakdown of the player population by league, can tell us about the relative skill of players within a particular league. You're right that just because a team is ranked 3rd overall does not necessarily mean that there is a significant difference in skill between them and the team ranked 69th, but it does suggest as much.

Quote:And you do make an assumption: you assume that two skill distributions in two different formats should be equal. There is nothing to suggest that this would be the case. It's apples and oranges.

No, I don't believe that the skill distributions between 1v1 and 2v2 should be equal, nor do I think they in fact are equal. I'm merely suggesting that we use the 1v1 ST league as a model for 2v2 since it feels right. Absent another model, it's the best one we have.