I completely get that- and given what the paper actually says, I think it's a misrepresentation. I hope people can understand "accurate more often" vs "old system wrong." I am also capable of understanding detailed arguments. Neither case meshes right now and making global claims to subpopulations that may not be applicable is poor science.LUKEPOWA wrote:He can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think he was just simplifying things to make it easier to understand and to get his point across more definitively. If you look at the bolded question which prompted that response, it's easy to understand why he would say it that way because some people just don't get it and will continue to say they were so and so rank before so why are this now even after he gives a detailed explanation.One Sig Fig wrote:Are there some undocumented changes in TS2 that you feel comfortable making the seemingly gross statement that "the new system is right and the old one was wrong all along"? - because the paper doesn't really support that claim. The paper, at best, claims that the new method is right more often- but I don't see how anyone can claim more than that.
And his recent tweet w/ Mikwen is a perfect example of why it is a misrepresentation:
For all of the training data- it has Mikwen at Platinum after 3 games, despite there being no reset in MMR.
The last game that dropped him from Diamond to Platinum? It was this one:
It was a 100-0 Strongholds game (that they won) where half of the other team quit. The entire game had 6 kills. I'm guessing, because I don't see the data, that a lot of high end players are getting royally hosed if they have multiple games where the opponents quit out and they don't meet expected kill rates.
There seem to be some pretty clear indications that there are flaws inside the black box. Maybe it's just at the high end of the curve. But "the new system is right and the old one was wrong all along" makes it easy to sweep away obvious shortcomings, and we can do better.