Hey peoples, spontaneouously came up with the idea to do this.
hf feeling like a pro / nub / average player
(made with MS paint xd)
Last edited:
nope. I should mention the weaknesses of this: 0 game accounts as well as multiple accounts and non-2000-elo retired accounts are not taken into account (i.e. not taken out of consideration as they should).Does this also take 0 game accounts into account?
haha I believe i'll be there soon hopefully (after exams : p)noob get 19xx
joke well done - interesting figure
The only data I needed was the elo list from rm 1v1 ladder, the rest is just maths xdHow did you get all this data?
Nice info btw, makes me feel better
I can think of a simple case where that is not true: If there are three players in the system, and two of them (A and B) always beat C and only ever play vs C, then both A and B will be > 1600, and C will be < 1600.Strange! Mathematically, the number of people below 1600 and above 1600 should be equal,as 1600 is the medium (initial elo for everyone).
That's not true at all, the fact that everyone starts at 1600 ELO doesn't mean it's the medium. The medium it's the value that has 50% of players below and ther other 50% avobe it , in ELO in this case. Following OP's image it would be something from 1500 to 1600, closer to 1600 so I'd say something around 1570-1580Strange! Mathematically, the number of people below 1600 and above 1600 should be equal,as 1600 is the medium (initial elo for everyone).
There is a rating boost for the first 10-20 games played, where you gain/lose more points than normal to help players get to their "correct" rating faster.
That's not true at all, the fact that everyone starts at 1600 ELO doesn't mean it's the medium. The medium it's the value that has 50% of players below and ther other 50% avobe it , in ELO in this case. Following OP's image it would be something from 1500 to 1600, closer to 1600 so I'd say something around 1570-1580
I agreed that, it must be the main reason behind it.On top of that there is decay, so players lose some ELO without other people gaining any
Not only the best players make smurf accounts, I think more or less everyone at some point might have 1 or even couple smurf accounts. Your calculation for the medium of the distribution being 1600 could be right if you don't take into consideration that after certain ELO there's points decay if you don't play an amount of games per period of time, meaning this is not a zero-sum system (everything gained by someone is lost by someone else), so the 50% of ELO would be lower than 1600, not much because of what you explained but still a bitWhat? Unless people smurf and quit playing, the elo should be like that. In sample of 100 people, 50 people play each other, 50 win 50 lose. 50 % get 1616 rating meanwhile another 50% get 1584 rating. If the winner keep playing each other and the loser keep player each other, the total number of distribution will be the same on both positive and negative sides.(medium will still be 1600). And again when the loser 1584 win 1616, both will get 1600, so the medium will be the same. The scenario of unbalanced distribution happens when the better players make multiple smurf accounts, such as MBL.