Quote (Serria @ Nov 17 2019 07:54pm)
The population for season 3 vs season 9 is large enough in both cases that they do not have any statistical significance for the ranked distribution.
If the population of the ranked players in season 3 was 10 players then you are correct.
1) If OP is asking how a season 3 1500 ELO player would perform in season 9 then it would be FAR from platinum 2. It would be closer to bronze probably.
2) If OP is asking if we used old ranked distribution on today's players how would a 1500 ELO player in the old system look like today? It would be platinum 2.
You learning curve argument has nothing to do with point 2.
Point 1 is subjective.
Point 2 is objective. It is how it is. UNLESS the sample size of either population was too small to have any statistical significance.
As much as I'd love to participate in an intellectual debate, I unfortunately don't have the time to source sufficient data today. Perhaps I can respond with more statistical evidence later this week.
1. There IS a significant statistical disparity of ranked players between season 3 and season 9. You're probably seeing statistics about ACTIVE players, rather than AGGREGATE players. Note: if a player plays ~8 ranked games over the course of 11 months, they are included in the statistical distribution of ranked players (although important to note, they wouldn't hit the bar of daily/monthly "active player"). Even if S3 and S9 don't differ significantly in ACTIVE ranked players, there is significant disparity in AGGREGATE ranked players (which therefore impacts % placement). I'm sure I can prove this to you if I spend 30 minutes to gather sufficient statistical evidence - which I'd probably be willing to do later this week depending on this conversation.
2. It's difficult to assume what OP is asking given the phrasing of his question, "
what would you say S1-2 player is today?" - but my interpretation is that it is closer to #1 in your post. Yes, it is subjective, which is why it's important to take into consideration my two aforementioned points.
3. I don't think your "statistical interpretation" of platinum 2 is scientifically accurate, nor is it completely objective.
Side note, curious what rank you are?
This post was edited by MidWinter on Nov 17 2019 07:06pm