End the bell curve!

Competitive Discussion
http://www.cavinhr.com/relevance-of-bell-curve-method-of-performance-appraisal/
Yeah, articles on this matter become more and more frequent. In application to OW we just need more ranks: Bronze Tier I, Bronze Tier II, Bronze Tier III, etc. And NEVER queue people from different ranks.
have you thought through wat should go in its place for more than five seconds. bell curves arent forced in elo systems, they occur naturally. This isnt like a school class where there is an arbitrary grade determination based on class rank.

That example of bell curves in your link is preposterous because they are discussing arbitrarlily designed bell curves based on subjective data no less...overwatch and any other elo based system is an objective sampling of one single statistic- your ability to win. Elo systems are pure and will always, ALWAYS, be the absolute most optimal way to rank people in video games. This will not change 100 years from now. The only way to optimally measure a persons ability to win is to...u guessed it, measure their ability to win against people of similar ability.
02/14/2018 12:13 AMPosted by alexfly
have you thought through wat should go in its place for more than five seconds. bell curves arent forced in elo systems, they occur naturally. This isnt like a school class where there is an arbitrary grade determination based on class rank.

That example of bell curves in your link is preposterous because they are discussing arbitrarlily designed bell curves based on subjective data no less...overwatch and any other elo based system is an objective sampling of one single statistic- your ability to win. Elo systems are pure and will always, ALWAYS, be the absolute most optimal way to rank people in video games. This will not change 100 years from now. The only way to optimally measure a persons ability to win is to...u guessed it, measure their ability to win against people of similar ability.


Bliz has already said that they use a bell curve system, not that it is naturally occurring.
I just wonder if the infamous losing streaks where you get terrible players on your team (despite higher ranges would suggest you get tougher enemy, but also more skilled teammates) has something to do with enforcing the bell curve.

Regardless what it is, there are some mechanisms in place that ensure this artificial distribution - and it doesn't really feels great. One of those reasons is having median in the center, so at let's say SR 2250-2750 you have highest population density with highest player skill variance.
02/14/2018 12:13 AMPosted by alexfly
have you thought through wat should go in its place for more than five seconds. bell curves arent forced in elo systems, they occur naturally. This isnt like a school class where there is an arbitrary grade determination based on class rank.

That example of bell curves in your link is preposterous because they are discussing arbitrarlily designed bell curves based on subjective data no less...overwatch and any other elo based system is an objective sampling of one single statistic- your ability to win. Elo systems are pure and will always, ALWAYS, be the absolute most optimal way to rank people in video games. This will not change 100 years from now. The only way to optimally measure a persons ability to win is to...u guessed it, measure their ability to win against people of similar ability.


What is artificially designed in OW is rank distribution across player population. The current one has very vague rank borders, which, combined with unknown and undisclosed performance metrics, make climbing more difficult for people, who want to climb, because prioritizing effort is impossible.
02/14/2018 12:14 AMPosted by IceQueen
02/14/2018 12:13 AMPosted by alexfly
have you thought through wat should go in its place for more than five seconds. bell curves arent forced in elo systems, they occur naturally. This isnt like a school class where there is an arbitrary grade determination based on class rank.

That example of bell curves in your link is preposterous because they are discussing arbitrarlily designed bell curves based on subjective data no less...overwatch and any other elo based system is an objective sampling of one single statistic- your ability to win. Elo systems are pure and will always, ALWAYS, be the absolute most optimal way to rank people in video games. This will not change 100 years from now. The only way to optimally measure a persons ability to win is to...u guessed it, measure their ability to win against people of similar ability.


Bliz has already said that they use a bell curve system, not that it is naturally occurring.


hes saying even if they didnt there would still be a bell curve. literally skill based measures in human beings almost always are bell shaped graphs
02/14/2018 12:34 AMPosted by TobysWeed
02/14/2018 12:14 AMPosted by IceQueen
...

Bliz has already said that they use a bell curve system, not that it is naturally occurring.


hes saying even if they didnt there would still be a bell curve. literally skill based measures in human beings almost always are bell shaped graphs


Oh you mean in other games like lol where the majority of players are at the bottom cause they barely play?
hes saying even if they didnt there would still be a bell curve. literally skill based measures in human beings almost always are bell shaped graphs


However, this is not entirely true. Recent research argue that: http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf.
02/14/2018 12:42 AMPosted by Des
hes saying even if they didnt there would still be a bell curve. literally skill based measures in human beings almost always are bell shaped graphs


However, this is not entirely true. Recent research argue that: http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf.


anybody worth speaking to about matchmaking systems understands that the casual crowd is likely more clumped in ability at niche tasks and there is an exponential increase in skill among the more competitive. This isnt a new phenomenon or idea. Im quite confident blizz doesnt force a bell curve, but even if they did, it wouldnt really amtter. All it would mean is that climbing sr at higher tiers would be more difficult than at lower tiers because of the exponential effect that article discusses. And this is already the case. Climbing from 2000 to 2300 is far different than climbing from 3700 to 4000. This will be true in a bell curve or a heavily tailed curve either way due to the nature of outliers. The effect would just be more prominent in a forced bell curve.

and btw they posted the distribution in season 3 if you want to search the forums.
02/14/2018 12:42 AMPosted by Des
...

However, this is not entirely true. Recent research argue that: http://www.hrma.ca/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/rb-the-best-and-the-rest.pdf.


anybody worth speaking to about matchmaking systems understands that the casual crowd is likely more clumped in ability at niche tasks and there is an exponential increase in skill among the more competitive. This isnt a new phenomenon or idea. Im quite confident blizz doesnt force a bell curve, but even if they did, it wouldnt really amtter. All it would mean is that climbing sr at higher tiers would be more difficult than at lower tiers because of the exponential effect that article discusses. And this is already the case. Climbing from 2000 to 2300 is far different than climbing from 3700 to 4000. This will be true in a bell curve or a heavily tailed curve either way due to the nature of outliers. The effect would just be more prominent in a forced bell curve.

and btw they posted the distribution in season 3 if you want to search the forums.


They posted distribution for a number of season, they were all similar up until they changed the way the bell curve worked in order to stop the majority of people from being clumped into one rank.
I'm not saying, anyone is forcing a curve (this whole phrase does not make any sense). Blizzard FORCES ranks' range and distribution by definition - only Blizzard knows the real rank requirements (MMR).

I know the season 3 and 4 distribution, and that is exactly, what bothers me. The silver and gold contain more than half of player base, making skill variance within these ranks INSANE. This makes playing in those ranks a total nightmare, when your personal effort does not mean anything.
02/14/2018 01:42 AMPosted by Des
I'm not saying, anyone is forcing a curve (this whole phrase does not make any sense). Blizzard FORCES ranks' range and distribution by definition - only Blizzard knows the real rank requirements (MMR).

I know the season 3 and 4 distribution, and that is exactly, what bothers me. The silver and gold contain more than half of player base, making skill variance within these ranks INSANE. This makes playing in those ranks a total nightmare, when your personal effort does not mean anything.


They changed it so there are more players in plat now.
They changed it so there are more players in plat now.


And how does it feel in terms of skill diversity?
Bliz has already said that they use a bell curve system, not that it is naturally occurring.

Mhmm, its not like they made it this way. It was formed naturally (since there is no other way for ELO to really work). They simply stated that they artifically influenced it to "even" or "spread" major bell curve, to make distribution more broad.
Naturally, absolute majority of people will be average, some will be bad or very bew, some good and very few extremely good. They simply try to work with "average" section of bell curve to make it work better, with different ideas... adjusting PBSR, artifically dropping SR each season, etc. Some ideas work, some not...
02/14/2018 02:09 AMPosted by BOO
Bliz has already said that they use a bell curve system, not that it is naturally occurring.

Mhmm, its not like they made it this way. It was formed naturally (since there is no other way for ELO to really work). They simply stated that they artifically influenced it to "even" or "spread" major bell curve, to make distribution more broad.
Naturally, absolute majority of people will be average, some will be bad or very bew, some good and very few extremely good. They simply try to work with "average" section of bell curve to make it work better, with different ideas... adjusting PBSR, artifically dropping SR each season, etc. Some ideas work, some not...


Read the thread. Blizzard has already said that they use a bell curve, not that it is naturally occurring.
02/14/2018 01:54 AMPosted by Des
They changed it so there are more players in plat now.


And how does it feel in terms of skill diversity?


Problem is not only with bell curve but also initial placements. People are being placed way to high. It's easy for a lvl 25 newbie to land around 2500SR (or even higher), while his real skill is maybe just around bronze. What happens then? He ruins every single game until he drops to MMR (and SR) matching his skill. Then you have that skill diversity that is being talked here and that makes games from mid silver to at least mid platinum hell of a nightmare. Then you have matchmaking throwing 5 one role mains (typically dps since it's most popular role) into one team and I'm seriously tired to playing games that are nothing but a waste of time. All in all, bell curve (which is forced, as they did increase spread of it, if it was natural they could do jack sh!t about it) is just fraction of the problem.
02/14/2018 12:37 AMPosted by IceQueen
02/14/2018 12:34 AMPosted by TobysWeed
...

hes saying even if they didnt there would still be a bell curve. literally skill based measures in human beings almost always are bell shaped graphs


Oh you mean in other games like lol where the majority of players are at the bottom cause they barely play?


fair point about skill distrubition in video games. but i will counter argument with why would we balance a game including an sr around people who barely play.

in my expirence silver gold and plat have felt very consistent as far as skill. yes there are dumb players but silver to gold felt like a big change and plat was even more noticable. i will say if you learn tyhe game better fighting through gold ahouldnt be to awful just make sure to learn atleast 1 not dps.

i can also agree with the first post i was ranked almost plat in my first placement. i then dropped to low silver. i then got to plat through lots of practice and consuming info on how to play better.
02/14/2018 02:53 AMPosted by TobysWeed
i can also agree with the first post i was ranked almost plat in my first placement. i then dropped to low silver. i then got to plat through lots of practice and consuming info on how to play better.

Shhh don't give any the secret to climbing or everyone will start to practice and improve and climbing will be more difficult :)
It's easy for a lvl 25 newbie to land around 2500SR (or even higher), while his real skill is maybe just around bronze.

When you make such outrageous statements, please back it up with proofs. I dont think any1 ever landed 2500 with bronze-level skills. There could be some difference, but you make it look bigger than it really is, and normally people land lower than they could eventually climb.

Read the thread. Blizzard has already said that they use a bell curve, not that it is naturally occurring.

Whatever they "use" (not create), it was always bell curve even back in season 1, before any changes. Its natural occurance, when you rank people from 0 to 100, most will be at 40-60, or maybe even 30-60.
The problem was that 0-30 and 90-100 ranges were actually empty, hence they employed 1-5000 range and tried to make people spread across all of it.

Join the Conversation

Return to Forum