Another Look at 2v2 Super Titan

amoffett11 · 03-21-2013, 11:54 AM

I'm not claiming that the 40ish teams are definitely all close together, nor that the threshold was dropped only a little, scooping up all the teams. All I am trying to say is that both of these thing are possible.

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with you, I'm just trying to point out that the ideal threshold that you're looking for, and that you believe lies somewhere in between the past and present ones, might not exist at all.

As for the skill distributions, if you don't think that they should be equal, and you don't think that they are equal, then why should the percentages of STs in each format be the same?

CombatEX · 03-21-2013, 02:23 PM

'Ideal threshold' is an interesting concept which will naturally differ from person to person. The main problem I see here is people over-thinking distributions. You can get technical and try to find large skill gaps where you can divide leagues, but at the end of the day I don't think it's necessary or practical. 'Skill gaps' will open and close over time in different places. Are you going to drastically alter league boundaries continuously to accommodate new skill gaps and the closure of old ones? It works for dividing letter grades on exams because scores are static, but I don't think it's worthwhile here and would be overly complicated. Separating leagues based on percentages is more practical to maintain.

Personally I like that 1v1 ST is <1% and that's all I desire for 2v2 Arranged ST. Basically I just like the thought of an exclusive top league and less than 1 in every 100 players sounds good to me. It's as simple as that and I don't see the need to make things any more complicated. This is why I think we should just come up with a percentage-based distribution we're happy with and use it across the board instead of trying to find skill gaps in each particular ladder (1v1, 2v2 arranged, 2v2 random) and tailoring each distribution to the respective league (only to have to adjust it whenever the skill gaps shift).

On a related note, the more I think about it, the more I feel the current pyramid distribution is harmful to Outwitters in the long run. I know this was already discussed extensively in the '80% of players are in fluffy and clever thread', but I feel it is a pressing enough concern that we shouldn't let it be forgotten. It's discouraging for so many players stuck in the massive low leagues. I've gone over various reason why this current distribution is misleading so I won't reiterate it here (I linked to IMPERIAL's thread above if you do want to read the original discussion). ~~Essentially I would like the overall distribution to be more along the lines of the following:~~

*snip*

I got carried away and wrote WAY too much and it was rather off-topic. I still think this is a crucial issue so I will make a new thread regarding the matter at a later date (I've already written it but I want to proofread it before I post it and I'm too tired to do that now... time to sleep ^^ I'll probably post it tomorrow)

GreatGonzales · (This post was last modified: 03-22-2013 01:18 AM by GreatGonzales.)

(03-21-2013 11:54 AM)amoffett Wrote: I'm not claiming that the 40ish teams are definitely all close together, nor that the threshold was dropped only a little, scooping up all the teams. All I am trying to say is that both of these thing are possible.

I'm not trying to "pick a fight" with you, I'm just trying to point out that the ideal threshold that you're looking for, and that you believe lies somewhere in between the past and present ones, might not exist at all.

As for the skill distributions, if you don't think that they should be equal, and you don't think that they are equal, then why should the percentages of STs in each format be the same?

Sure, it's possible; that's not what you seemed to be saying earlier. But anyway, I don't claim to know where the "ideal threshold" is (by the way, if we were doing our due diligence we would have to properly define what the "ideal" is. But, eh.), but I think it's pretty clear that before it was too high, now it may be too low, and if so logic dictates that a better threshold would be somewhere in the middle. Right?

As for your last question, it's a good one. I've considered it a lot...having my boots on the ground in both 1v1 and 2v2 ST I feel like I have a pretty good lay of the land. From what I have experienced, there's a different shape to the skill landscape between the two: If we were to graph it, I would give 1v1 a generous plateau and then a gradual slope downwards, then the slope becoming more severe perhaps around rank 100. If we graphed 2v2, I would give it a fairly generous plateau, and then a fairly severe slope downward from that. I think the reason for this is that there are fewer 2v2 players in the population, but many 1v1 ST paired up to form very strong teams (ex: burnodrod & mastercaster; p1noyboypj & ..Sir3..; Terenceshiu2005 & awpertunity, etc.), resulting in a more pronounced elite than the population would have otherwise produced. But though the skill distributions for 1v1 and 2v2 are different, it just so happens that roughly the same percentage of players occupy the "plateau" in 1v1 and in 2v2, and so we may as well use the standard set by 1v1 ST.

That being said, as I concluded in the OP, I'm not sold on the idea that we should adjust the threshold again; the numbers are inconclusive, and as CombatEX pointed out there's also the unknown impact of the 2v2 random population to consider. Also, it's an inexact science; maybe it makes sense to leave it the way it is, and let the player population grow into it.

amoffett11 · 03-22-2013, 01:40 AM

(03-22-2013 12:45 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote: Also, it's an inexact science; maybe it makes sense to leave it the way it is, and let the player population grow into it.

That's all I've been trying to say from the start.

We'll never know now, but I still believe that if the threshold was left where it was, in a month or two we'd see the 10 to 15 STs that you're looking for.

GreatGonzales · 03-22-2013, 01:54 AM

Eh, that seems very unlikely. It took about 4-5 months for there to be even 1 ST, and then a couple months later there were 2... No indication that we would ever reach as many as 10-15 unless there was a severe change in the player population (i.e., more players).

amoffett11 · 03-22-2013, 04:01 AM

Weren't you guys arguing though that you felt you were about as good as they were? If that were true, it would only have been a matter of time.

GreatGonzales · 03-22-2013, 04:09 AM

(03-22-2013 04:01 AM)amoffett Wrote: Weren't you guys arguing though that you felt you were about as good as they were? If that were true, it would only have been a matter of time.

Yeah but the way ranking systems work, there's only so many players that can exceed a given point value. It's dependent upon the size of the player population. OML set the bar too high, so basically a bunch of ST-quality teams were eating each other and no one could climb high enough to reach the bar. Many probably never would have.

worldfamous · 03-22-2013, 07:02 AM

(03-22-2013 04:09 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:
(03-22-2013 04:01 AM)amoffett Wrote: Weren't you guys arguing though that you felt you were about as good as they were? If that were true, it would only have been a matter of time.

so basically a bunch of ST-quality teams were eating each other and no one could climb high enough to reach the bar.

Well said. That's exactly what was happening.

amoffett11 · 03-22-2013, 07:43 AM

(03-22-2013 07:02 AM)worldfamous Wrote:
(03-22-2013 04:09 AM)GreatGonzales Wrote:
(03-22-2013 04:01 AM)amoffett Wrote: Weren't you guys arguing though that you felt you were about as good as they were? If that were true, it would only have been a matter of time.

so basically a bunch of ST-quality teams were eating each other and no one could climb high enough to reach the bar.
Well said. That's exactly what was happening.

Except for a couple of teams did reach the bar.

You can't have it both ways, you can't a) be as good as them and b) not get up to their skill rating eventually. So which is it?

GreatGonzales · (This post was last modified: 03-22-2013 08:27 AM by GreatGonzales.)

(03-22-2013 07:43 AM)amoffett Wrote: You can't have it both ways, you can't a) be as good as them and b) not get up to their skill rating eventually. So which is it?

Neither A or B actually... Not saying we (those that are newly ST) are as good as the two pre-existing STs. Saying we are almost as good, good enough to deserve to be in the highest league. Also not saying that we are at "their" skill rating; we are ST because we have surpassed a point threshold that has been lowered, not the old threshold which was more excluding. You seem to have a misunderstanding about how ranking systems work; it's not as though people can go up in score indefinitely. There's a limit to how far one can increase in skill rating/points that is in part dependent upon the number of players in the population. The old threshold was too high for the size of the player population, so OML adjusted it and now we're ST. A good way to think of it is this: you can only climb as high as there are people below you. Not a perfect analogy but you get the idea.