Jump to content

  • Curse Sites
Help

Winratio's explained seeing as 90% of the AJ browsers don't understand it


  • Please log in to reply
81 replies to this topic

#1 Charred

Charred
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • EU-Kazzak
  • Misery
  • Posts: 1521
  • Talents: Frost
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:01 PM

I see people everywhere complaining about:
"omg how can they get so high with a 50% winrate"
"omg a 2.8k rated team with 45% win."

If you find yourself saying this, you do not understand the current rating system fully.

I explained in a post a while ago how the MMR exploiters actually do it:

Spoiler



Of importance for this post is that TR gains/losses are based of your TMMR & as long as your TR isn't close to your TMMR, you will not lose any TR, only TMMR/MMR.
This means you can reach high ratings as long as your TMMR is even higher, evne with a sub 50% winrate.


Now to get to the core of this "issue":

If a team of 2400TMMR starts a new team at 0TR & for the sake of the argument, their team is intended to be at 2400TMMR AND they face equal rated teams only, they SHOULD exactly have a 50% winrate till they reach 2400TR.

Why should they have more than 50%? A 2400 team facing off against other 2400 teams (aka 2 equally skilled teams) has a mathematical chance of around 50% to win (excluding random factors).
When you go head to head with an equally skilled opponent, lets say mirror matches to keep this easy, you both have a 50% of winning.
!!! Now in a zero-sum system, such as the old TBC system, this would lead to both of you sitting on the same rating. In TBC, you'd start at 1500 rating, gain 15 if you'd win, lose 15 if you'd lose. So these 2 teams in TBC would sit on 1500 forever (in a closed system, where it's just the 2 of them), even though they are worth of 2400 rating.
This isn't how the current system works though. You both start at 0, lose 0 if you lose & gain 96 if you win, until your TR comes close enough to your TMMR, then the gains start decreasing slightly & you actually start to lose rating. Once these 2400 teams reach 2400 & they still go head to head, they will maintain a 50% winrate @2400.

As an illustration for those who know, this is exactly what the russian 3600 teams did. They grinded their MMR up skyhigh, then split even against eachother. Since they keep on gaining TR until they come close enough to their TMMR, they could easily reach 3600 rating by splitting even (after having abused their MMR up ofcourse).



The only teams that, in this very simplified theoritical example, should have more than 50% winrate are teams that either

1) Are below their TMMR indicates (example: http://eu.battle.net...NNYANNYANNYANN/ )
2) Face only lower rated teams
3) Are significantly above the rest of the ladder (ex, a 3600 worthy team on a ladder where except for them the highest team is 3000), mostly rank 1 contenders (example: http://eu.battle.net.../3v3/DNAW trio/ ).

Even if a team has a negative win/loss to their rating (example:http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/arena/kazzak/3v3/Pala%20Drunk%20GG/ ), it doesn't say anything about how good or bad their team actually is.
It can mean several things:

1) The average TMMR they faced upto grinding that rating was higher than their own TMMR.
2) Their TMMR was slightly higher than what they were worth off & because of that, they lost a few games more than they won until they established their actual TR.



So why do people have such issues with these winrates then?

First of all, this is because in every (e-)sport, teams that are considered good always have astonishing winratios. It's just what's common to people & what is considered "normal".
Secondly, the TBC MMR system was all about winratios. You could get high without a huge winratio. Top 20 teams would almost always have atleast 75%+ winrates. People still have this state of mind where they believe winratios matter for everybody & that you're worthless with something such as a 50% winrate.
Like I tried to explain, this isn't true at all, a team with a 45% winrate @ 2900TR, 2900TMMR can be amazingly good, yet they faced teams that on average had 3000TMMR.

Edited by Charred, 16 July 2011 - 12:02 PM.

Posted Image

Official Blizzard Quote:

Battlegrounds are like ducks.
No wonder PVP is fucked up.

#2 Pouncedd

Pouncedd
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Mal'Ganis
  • Stormstrike
  • Posts: 1153
  • Talents: Survival 0/0/2/2/1/0
  • 2v2: 2027
  • 3v3: 2831
  • 5v5: 1534
  • RBG: 192
  • LocationOhio

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:18 PM

Good good post! Explains it all.

People Lol at you for having 65% W:L But your 2700. Since they changed the system its not a bad thing to have something like this going.
Twitch.tv/pounced for my stream

#3 Shaileen

Shaileen
  • Junkies
  • Night Elfclass_name
  • EU-Malfurion
  • Blutdurst
  • Posts: 533
  • Talents: Subtlety

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:19 PM

I like this post.
You are one of the least benightedly unintelligent organic lifeforms it has been my profound lack of pleasure not to have been able to avoid meeting.

#4 Esiwdeer

Esiwdeer
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 2048
  • Talents: Marksmanship 2/0/1/0/1/2
  • 2v2: 276
  • 3v3: 1704
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:20 PM

You're trying to use math to defend an Elo system within an Elo system..within an Elo system? The regular Elo system - you know, the one they use for professional Chess - is flawed to begin with. x3, plus random variables, plus rampant cheating.

--

It is flawed. Massively. I don't disagree with your entire post but I think what you're perceiving is wrong. People complain about stupid MMRs which is mostly evidenced by a shitty win/loss. For example, a lot of teams on my server caught ridicule because they went, I think, 31-32 and were 2950 on the last day of the season. There's no penalty for losing games, which is always the wrong answer.

So, yeah, 50% w/l is terrible because if there is no penalty for losing it is impossible to separate the winners from the losers with any system involving numbers.

edit: maybe I'm getting too old. I remember when people tried to bring this argument around for top tier TFT. Unfortunately, being a 50% player never turned into a good thing.

Edited by threatslol, 16 July 2011 - 12:22 PM.


#5 Charred

Charred
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • EU-Kazzak
  • Misery
  • Posts: 1521
  • Talents: Frost
  • LocationBelgium

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:28 PM

View Postthreatslol, on 16 July 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

You're trying to use math to defend an Elo system within an Elo system..within an Elo system? The regular Elo system - you know, the one they use for professional Chess - is flawed to begin with. x3, plus random variables, plus rampant cheating.

--

It is flawed. Massively. I don't disagree with your entire post but I think what you're perceiving is wrong. People complain about stupid MMRs which is mostly evidenced by a shitty win/loss. For example, a lot of teams on my server caught ridicule because they went, I think, 31-32 and were 2950 on the last day of the season. There's no penalty for losing games, which is always the wrong answer.

So, yeah, 50% w/l is terrible because if there is no penalty for losing it is impossible to separate the winners from the losers with any system involving numbers.

edit: maybe I'm getting too old. I remember when people tried to bring this argument around for top tier TFT. Unfortunately, being a 50% player never turned into a good thing.

Where exactly do I defend anything? I dont think this system is good or useful in any way.
All im doing is explaining how the current system works, in which winratios are a very little indication of almost anything. Wether you and i like it or not, that's simply how it is right now & our opinion about it is of no actual relevance to the system itself.

Read the goddamn post before you start complaining.
Posted Image

Official Blizzard Quote:

Battlegrounds are like ducks.
No wonder PVP is fucked up.

#6 Esiwdeer

Esiwdeer
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 2048
  • Talents: Marksmanship 2/0/1/0/1/2
  • 2v2: 276
  • 3v3: 1704
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:38 PM

View PostCharred, on 16 July 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Where exactly do I defend anything? I dont think this system is good or useful in any way.
All im doing is explaining how the current system works, in which winratios are a very little indication of almost anything. Wether you and i like it or not, that's simply how it is right now & our opinion about it is of no actual relevance to the system itself.

Read the goddamn post before you start complaining.
1) You said the causation of a 50% win/loss wasn't a lack of skill, rather an intended ladder ranking mechanism(whether or not it is flawed, broken or damaged is irrelevant.)

2) I explained why, in my opinion, a poor win/loss ratio was indicative of an undeserved rating(which you were defending when you stated a team should have a 50% win/loss ratio.)

3) You said I had poor reading comprehension.

Edited by threatslol, 16 July 2011 - 12:39 PM.


#7 Pouncedd

Pouncedd
  • Junkies
  • Orcclass_name
  • US-Mal'Ganis
  • Stormstrike
  • Posts: 1153
  • Talents: Survival 0/0/2/2/1/0
  • 2v2: 2027
  • 3v3: 2831
  • 5v5: 1534
  • RBG: 192
  • LocationOhio

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:42 PM

View Postthreatslol, on 16 July 2011 - 12:38 PM, said:

1) You said the causation of a 50% win/loss wasn't a lack of skill, rather an intended ladder ranking mechanism(whether or not it is flawed, broken or damaged is irrelevant.)

2) I explained why, in my opinion, a poor win/loss ratio was indicative of an undeserved rating(which you were defending when you stated a team should have a 50% win/loss ratio.)

3) You said I had poor reading comprehension.

Him explaining why the system is the way it is shouldn't be labeled as defense.
Twitch.tv/pounced for my stream

#8 Esiwdeer

Esiwdeer
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 2048
  • Talents: Marksmanship 2/0/1/0/1/2
  • 2v2: 276
  • 3v3: 1704
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:47 PM

View PostPouncedd, on 16 July 2011 - 12:42 PM, said:

Him explaining why the system is the way it is shouldn't be labeled as defense.
"if you say x is bad, you don't understand x"

could be read to mean,

"x isn't bad"

x, here having the meaning of 50% win/loss, is bad. I explained why.

which is a defensive argument, especially when paired with, "90% of the aj browsers don't understand it"

He then said I had poor reading comprehension, and then.. Pounced posted.

--

And then I sat still, and thought for a moment.. and wondered, why do I want to win an argument in a community where Pounced is an active member?

TL;DR: Me telling you why, "90 of the AJ browsers" perceive the issue the way they do doesn't mean Pounced should be able to post.

Edited by threatslol, 16 July 2011 - 12:51 PM.


#9 Esiwdeer

Esiwdeer
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 2048
  • Talents: Marksmanship 2/0/1/0/1/2
  • 2v2: 276
  • 3v3: 1704
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:50 PM

View PostMomohxo, on 16 July 2011 - 12:44 PM, said:

Trying so hard to sound smart that you actually end up creating your own irrelevant argument, superb!
Your signature is condescending in that it calls someone a Challenger, as though it were a negative connotation.

You've never gotten Gladiator.

You, nor anyone else so far, has made any attempt to refute any of my logical and respectfully posted arguments.

--

Please refrain from insulting my word wizardry lest I schedule you a meeting with justice.

Edited by threatslol, 16 July 2011 - 12:51 PM.


#10 Izin

Izin
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 23
  • Talents: Holy
  • RBG: 2557

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:54 PM

View Postthreatslol, on 16 July 2011 - 12:20 PM, said:

So, yeah, 50% w/l is terrible because if there is no penalty for losing it is impossible to separate the winners from the losers with any system involving numbers.

There is a penalty, you will still always lose MMR if you lose a game. If you start at 2800 MMR and this is your "true skill level" you SHOULD have 50% win/loss and your team rating will be 2800 after x amount of games. If you are better than 2800 you will have a win/loss that is higher than 50% and your MMR will be higher than 2800 (same goes for the team obviously). Im presuming you are matched up vs an equal team.

So say you have a 2800 team and all of you get an alt with same class and same gear but your MMR at 1500 (which all new chars start at) your win/loss should indeed be 90%+ till you reach 2800.


I think that Charred's post explains this very well.

#11 Esiwdeer

Esiwdeer
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 2048
  • Talents: Marksmanship 2/0/1/0/1/2
  • 2v2: 276
  • 3v3: 1704
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 16 July 2011 - 12:59 PM

View PostPouncedd, on 16 July 2011 - 12:52 PM, said:

Listen here http://www.homefacts...-Reed-Wise.html, You don't win arguments cuss I'm a member of the forum. I love how last season you said "Omg can't wait till you don't have access anymore, blah blah blah." I'm still here and I will be for a long time.

Now I'm pretty sure you owe people money for buying a surplus of candy for that van of yours you try and trick children into getting in.

As Mo says stop trying so hard to sound smart.
A sex offender has 2/3 of my character name? Damn, got me again. What's next, are you going to tell me I have 5 minutes to get the money?

Real original, yo. I guess it's no wonder why you'd want to defend your access and teams with 50% win/loss, but I do wish you'd at least try to be a little innovative about it.

I'd rather be a sex offender that tries to sound smart than a Duelist that doesn't have to try to sound stupid.

Edited by threatslol, 16 July 2011 - 01:02 PM.


#12 Avengerz619

Avengerz619
  • Junkies
  • Blood Elfclass_name
  • EU-Stormscale
  • Cyclone / Wirbelsturm
  • Posts: 34
  • Talents: Holy
  • RBG: 384

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:01 PM

Thanks for putting time into this =)

#13 Esiwdeer

Esiwdeer
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 2048
  • Talents: Marksmanship 2/0/1/0/1/2
  • 2v2: 276
  • 3v3: 1704
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:01 PM

Quote

you SHOULD have 50% win/loss
No, your goal should not be to have 50% win/loss. Research ranking systems. Actually think about what you're saying. I can't even argue if you guys are going to say stuff like that.

#14 saffie

saffie
  • Junkies
  • Humanclass_name
  • EU-Outland
  • Misery
  • Posts: 1089
  • Talents: Destruction 0/1/2/0/2/1
  • RBG: 2112

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:06 PM

The problem isnt that a 2.7k mmr team gets that rating with %50 win ratio, but a 2.5k team gets 2.7k mmr with %50 win ratio...

Imo its because when you meet a high mmr team that you counter even though they are so much better than you, you win cause of your comp. Thats how all the TSG's got gladiator last season. Too many hardcounters in the game.

#15 Geonosis

Geonosis
  • Junkies
  • Draeneiclass_name
  • EU-Emerald Dream
  • Blackout
  • Posts: 137
  • Talents: Restoration

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:09 PM

"Stop trying to sound smart" - ultimate copout.

IM DUMB SO GNA CALL U OUT FOR USIN PROPER ENGLISH HEHE.

#16 Ipsissimus

Ipsissimus
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • EU-Twisting Nether
  • Rampage / Saccage
  • Posts: 291
  • Talents: Frost 2/0/0/0/1/0/.
  • 3v3: 1176
  • LocationAltneuland

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:18 PM

The explanation is accurate but it fails to acknowledge the fact that you seldom get to meet teams that are at the exact same MMR as you consistently. The higher your MMR is the smaller the pool of teams there are for you to face against which you should have a 50% win percentage against. Therefore, even with the current system, a high rated team with a low win percentage would still draw legitimate negative attention.

Edited by Ipsissimus, 16 July 2011 - 01:43 PM.


#17 Tamz

Tamz
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-The Forgotten Coast
  • Whirlwind
  • Posts: 276
  • Talents: Holy 1/1/0/1/0/0
  • 2v2: 1403
  • 3v3: 1904
  • RBG: 192

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:24 PM

A good case in point is to look at ANY pro SC2 player, no matter how many tournaments they have won or how godly they are I have yet to see anyone with a win % in the 60s.

  The difference with wow of course is you aren't playing teams that are as equally good as you 24/7 like in sc2.

Edited by Tamz, 16 July 2011 - 01:26 PM.

Posted Image
Best analogy for the 5v5 bracket^^

#18 Esiwdeer

Esiwdeer
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 2048
  • Talents: Marksmanship 2/0/1/0/1/2
  • 2v2: 276
  • 3v3: 1704
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:28 PM

View PostTamz, on 16 July 2011 - 01:24 PM, said:

A good case in point is to look at ANY pro SC2 player, no matter how many tournaments they have won or how godly they are I have yet to see anyone with a win % in the 60s.

  The difference with wow of course is you aren't playing teams that are as equally good as you 24/7 like in sc2.
what do you mean? I don't follow SC2, but when I played TFT I don't think I ever saw anyone respectable under 80%, which was pretty good considering those guys played 30+ games a day for years. Even the people who didn't regularly win tournaments, or never even placed weren't below 70%.

Edited by threatslol, 16 July 2011 - 01:28 PM.


#19 Tamz

Tamz
  • Junkies
  • Undeadclass_name
  • US-The Forgotten Coast
  • Whirlwind
  • Posts: 276
  • Talents: Holy 1/1/0/1/0/0
  • 2v2: 1403
  • 3v3: 1904
  • RBG: 192

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:38 PM

View Postthreatslol, on 16 July 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

what do you mean? I don't follow SC2, but when I played TFT I don't think I ever saw anyone respectable under 80%, which was pretty good considering those guys played 30+ games a day for years. Even the people who didn't regularly win tournaments, or never even placed weren't below 70%.

The winner of Dreamhack one of the biggest SC2 tourneys around from what I can tell.
http://www.gomtv.net...137&option=view

What i'm trying to get across playing opponents of equal skill and not factoring in something like comp or gear(lets say its TR you are playing against a mirror that is gemmed/specced the EXACT same way as you) going with a 90% win in a 10 game series against players that are just as good as you is a little unreasonable.(though it does happen as there are bad days and good days or just really good strat calls on one side)

Now whats that mean for Blizzards ladder system? a low win % clearly shows someone was placed and started playing their team at a higher MMR then they were ready for and though they are still gaining team rating to decent ratings it's really the system adjusting you to where it believes you belong. Place the two top teams in the world against each other and the chances of seeing a 3-0 series or something is pretty small. Lets also not forget the random 2200s that mmr exploited to god knows what MMR and are artificially inflating pt gains.
'
All in all, the MMR system is still total shit and really just promotes a quick day or 2 of playing then camping at your desired rating until you are required to play again further in the season there by helping kill off arena.(starting to think this is a goal of blizzard)

Edited by Tamz, 16 July 2011 - 01:47 PM.

Posted Image
Best analogy for the 5v5 bracket^^

#20 Esiwdeer

Esiwdeer
  • Junkies
  • Trollclass_name
  • US-Moon Guard
  • Emberstorm
  • Posts: 2048
  • Talents: Marksmanship 2/0/1/0/1/2
  • 2v2: 276
  • 3v3: 1704
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted 16 July 2011 - 01:45 PM

View PostTamz, on 16 July 2011 - 01:38 PM, said:

The winner of Dreamhack one of the biggest SC2 tourneys around from what I can tell.
http://www.gomtv.net...137&option=view

What i'm trying to get across playing opponents of equal skill and not factoring in something like comp or gear(lets say its TR you are playing against a mirror that is gemmed/specced the EXACT same way as you) going with a 90% win in a 10 game series against players that are just as good as you is a little unreasonable.
In a tournament like GSL absolutely I agree - to an extent, at least. I'd say that's a legit marker until finals, or whatever.

On, "live" though(or whatever SC2's version of live is) you should not be able to be both 50% and considered to be a top team based on your ratings. Live isn't a tournament. The original Elo system was designed to tell you who you'd be matched against once you got to a tournament, after playing, "open ladder" games.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

<