Nope. I’m assuming that “in general, alts traverse towards equal to or lower SR than their mains” (A).
That is a very conservative and reasonable statement. Alts by their very nature are more disposable so they trend towards lower SR aka “rank”.
The other assumption, which I didn’t invoke for this argument, but you could make the case for it: “the ratio of alts-to-mains for a player is >= 1”. (B)
Degeneration of the normal pdf symmetry (and statements about average rank etc) follow from A and B. We haven’t included C and D and all the other stuff as well (rigging, no-resets, etc).
Existence of alts and rigging and no-reset ladder conditions is FOUNDATIONAL to the question. (mmr as a possible definition of rank instead of sr, alts vs. mains as defining the distribution)
A discussion about “rank averages” needs to look at what rank means and what the ladder represents.
that only makes sense for people who’s mains are higher than what they’ll place at on a freshie. given that alts place roughly in the middle of the ladder, and given how difficult you make it out to be to actually move your accounts rating in any meaningful way on a regular basis due to forced 50/50, it’s gonna require some serious playtime to push that alt account down to the point where it can fall below the mains sr.
i will just take the subtle hint that you do actually believe it’s not hard to move your accounts sr, that’s the logical conclusion
Rank is defined by an SR number, which every account has that participates in Competitive to the amount where a number is issued and is unrelated to MMR and matchmaking, as you’ve repeatedly claimed. Or are you calling yourself a liar?
And to help elucidate the idea further I went into detail for the benefit of all (not just the OP, but nonetheless on topic).
It’s still hard to move. But it’s less effort to lower your SR than raise it. Which is why (A) holds. Main accounts, in general, are assumed to present less disposable gameplay and peak higher. It’s “easier” to move your alt lower. Overall this drifts the distribution into the shape I outlined earlier.
Any other questions for the prof before i go back to <500 queues?
You mean data like this that is years and years old and doesn’t account for alts or rigging or no-resets?
No1 in the community-at-large has good data. So I prefer to reason it out on structural grounds. The idea the pdf is lognormal, positive skew, or multi-modal degen is just an informed guess, using mild assumptions.
It’s a direct byproduct of the assumptions (A) and (B) which I carefully outlined. Players have more alts than mains (A) and alts are easier to derank than uprank (B). Do you disagree with (A) and (B) do you have mathematical basis to refute them?
I disagree with A because we have no data showing how many people own alt accounts and with current systems, we cannot possibly know.
With B, I disagree because we have no proof which alt accounts are higher than main accounts and which are lower, and anecdotes are not data. It’s unknowable with the data collection systems we have.
Now, where’s your proof?
EDIT - changed the autocorrection “unprovoked” to “unknowable” for clarity.
Of course there is no data. There was declared when I said “I don’t”.
This is why everyone here has to use assumptions. Mine are extremely basic and conservative.
I repeat: if a player has an alt, that player will contribute >=1 alts:main ratio. That’s (A). For (B): Alts are by definition more disposable and less serious, so they will naturally drift to lower SR (in general) compared to the main. Higher skill is less frequent and maintainable than lower skill (effort based skill sieving). You will own or occupy more lower SR than higher SR for you as an account-holder than you as a player (if you have more than 1 account). The edge case: since we know at least one person has more than 1 account, we know this must be true.
A booster with 18 accounts all in GM we count the highest placed account as the “main” and the others as lower alts which again sour the distribution (case for multi-modal). A plat with 2-3 accounts less than plat again affects the skew.
These “assumptions” are more like primitive facts which are data-free.
And their direct result (C) is the normal pdf for player % by SR goes away and instead you have a degenerate looking pdf for number of accounts by “SR”.
So again, explain why you refute A and/or B. Now that I think of it, you might only need A to hold for C to be technically true. The existence of a single alt somewhere already disrupts the “players by % skill” statement.
Finally, assuming A,B, explain using math why C is not reachable. Thanks.
Nah, you admitted you have no data, which is all I wanted. You’ve now shown the thread that you’re offering nothing useful to the argument and I’ll take my leave, since I don’t feel like trying to mathematically disprove an argument you’ve made on feelings.
Right since you are both idiots as I said before in my other post ask me anything regarding ranking…I have been through the ringer on this…just stop fighting please…this is enough on this.
We don’t have newer data, and I don’t feel like pulling guesses from my fundament, so I’ll simply state that this is the last official data we have:
…and unlike other people, I don’t feel like making uneducated guesses based on feelings. And since again, you keep providing nothing relevant in the way of data, I’ll again wish you a good night and end this lack of discussion.
The data you provided is years out-of-date and based on player% not accounts%. It’s not valid in fact it’s misleading.
What isn’t misleading: If a single alt exists the way I have defined it (A and B) then C is true. It’s a data-free argument based on existence proof.
You can’t talk about “playerbase” distribution when speaking about SR, and you can’t really talk about SR when speaking about skill (mmr).
Alts exist, corruption exists, and no-reset deteriorations exist. In the base case for n=1 we already know the noise effects on the pdf. Scale that out to whatever N you want, you already lose your claim about the pdf.
Data-free will always beat data-driven nonsense using the wrong metrics and out-of-date sources. We’re literally inducting for the set of any/all data.
