geting insta declined for keys ive already timed

[Jester Joe]

Okay but you're wrong we are talking about the people who are actively engaging in the game and 2500 is certainly not the top 10% of ppl that might sign to any given key at any given key level.

There are drones of ppl in the 2800-3000 bracket

If you can bring any actual proof besides "I feel like", sure, I'm willing to hear it out.

But just claiming statistics are wrong because you disagree doesn't actually work.

[Tech614]

2500 is extremely high for the average WoW player.

The average WoW player doesn't even touch M+ tho or if they do just do a few low keys each season.

You guys seem to be arguing completely different things. When I'm queing up a group for a 24 no I'm not going to see players without extremely high ratings queing up for the most part. There is a ton of people with 2800+ ratings, but they are not the average WoW player. If we where talking about just the average of players I group with of course it would be way way way higher than the average of the whole player base. I have no clue what's going on with this discussion lol.

[Biomega]

They may be top 10% OVERALL, but they're not top 10% FOR PEOPLE YOU'D CONSIDER FOR THIS KIND OF KEY.

Which is what ACTUALLY counts, because people with 1,000 rating existing has absolutely zero bearing whatsoever on a +20 key - you'll never ever pick them (under PUG conditions).

It's like saying you need to give more consideration to people with BA degrees when looking to fill a professorship, because after all <10% of the world's population have a BA degree so they're in the top 10%. That's not how it works. People below a certain threshold simply DON'T COUNT AT ALL for certain tasks, and it'd be not only disingenuous but counterproductive to include them in a statistical measure where they skew the metric despite not being relevant parts of the population to consider.

[Twdft]

You guys seem to be arguing completely different things.

Yeah, for pages now. And neither is interested in lowering their mental block...

2500 is top 10% of m+ players
2500 is probably bottom 10% of m+ players engaging in 20s

Both statements are correct. At the same time. Funny but true.

[DeltrusDisc]

that literally dose not explain why i'm getting instantly declined for them that just means most are ignoring me coz of my lower score, not instantly declining me the second i sign up to the grp.

and yes that would probably be the case if they are going for timer i've signed up for lots listed as "finish for weekly" only to be insta declined for the key but it seems that for some reason people want all keys done to get into a specific key and this doesn't just apply to 20s and its a stupid mentality imo

You do understand people can check mark a "minimum m+ score" setting, right?

[thunderdragon2]

You do understand people can check mark a "minimum m+ score" setting, right?

yeh and iirc if hou check that box the minimum rating the are looking for id displayed which funnily enough is not what's happening here

unlike most people playing wow i do read what people put in titles and descriptions in lfg

thats why for example if a tiles says "lf rogue" i dont bother signing for it

[Jester Joe]

2500 is extremely high for the average WoW player.

The average WoW player doesn't even touch M+ tho or if they do just do a few low keys each season.

You guys seem to be arguing completely different things. When I'm queing up a group for a 24 no I'm not going to see players without extremely high ratings queing up for the most part. There is a ton of people with 2800+ ratings, but they are not the average WoW player. If we where talking about just the average of players I group with of course it would be way way way higher than the average of the whole player base. I have no clue what's going on with this discussion lol.

I mean, this is literally what I'm saying.

2500 is high for the overall score.

But in pug environments, people will always take the overqualified. But for some reason in pointing out that people are being extremely inaccurate by saying 2500 is "scrub" and "low", the counter argument comes up as "BUT IT'S TOO LOW TO BE TAKEN FOR A 20 PUG SINCE THERE'S BETTER TO CHOOSE" and it's like... Yes, again, I've said hundreds of times that everyones going to take the overqualified any day of the week. It doesn't mean that 2500 is bad or shouldn't be in a 20 though.

[Tiwack]

Keyholders often set minimum ilvl requirements when starting a group in the groupfinder-tool, I think you can see it on mouse-over but you won't know when you just apply quick to a bunch of groups, you'll just get auto-rejected without a stated reason or error, which is pretty crappy.
Pugging keyholders just want a smooth weekly chest more often than not and don't care if their requirements are obscene as long as they're getting applicants and that easy clear with likeminded individuals. Better to play with friends but you'll still have to put in the work regardless if you want a max m+ ilvl vault.

[Biomega]

I mean, this is literally what I'm saying.

2500 is high for the overall score.

Yes. But "high" is a relative term, and you're effectively cheating here - you're inflating the value of 2,500 by including irrelevant parts of the population when calculating the percentage.

It'd be like calculating voter turnout but including everyone who isn't eligible to vote, like people under 18. The number would drop precipitously, but it would be a useless metric because you poisoned the statistic by including irrelevant data to modify the outcome.

But for some reason in pointing out that people are being extremely inaccurate by saying 2500 is "scrub" and "low"

That's because you've rigged the numbers to support that point, and you're refusing to even acknowledge that. You are using a different reference value - you go relative to the total population, whereas most other people will go relative to the population of people qualified to even run a key of that level in the first place.

That's where this discrepancy comes from.

[Jester Joe]

Yes. But "high" is a relative term, and you're effectively cheating here - you're inflating the value of 2,500 by including irrelevant parts of the population when calculating the percentage.

It'd be like calculating voter turnout but including everyone who isn't eligible to vote, like people under 18. The number would drop precipitously, but it would be a useless metric because you poisoned the statistic by including irrelevant data to modify the outcome.

That's not how this works when raider.io factors from participation in M+. Your comparison falls flat.

That's because you've rigged the numbers to support that point, and you're refusing to even acknowledge that. You are using a different reference value - you go relative to the total population, whereas most other people will go relative to the population of people qualified to even run a key of that level in the first place.

That's where this discrepancy comes from.

How are you telling me with a straight face that it's "rigging" it to consider all players that participate in M+, but it's NOT rigging to filter out the people you don't want to include because you don't think they run M+ enough. That's not how this works.

Especially when, as said several times by now and I feel like it's become a broken record, even AFTER asking for clarification people didn't say "Well considering what else you can get someone more qualified", they said "No it's trash overall".

[Biomega]

How are you telling me with a straight face that it's "rigging" it to consider all players that participate in M+, but it's NOT rigging to filter out the people you don't want to include because you don't think they run M+ enough. That's not how this works.

I'm excluding people with a rating that isn't high enough to EVER be considered as PUGs for that key bracket. That doesn't mean they COULDN'T DO IT - the metric doesn't look at skill. It only looks at one particular representation of skill and time: rating. Because that's the information you get as a PUG.

Don't tell me you think someone with a 1,000 rating would ever be taken to a +20 key as a PUG. Emphasis on AS A PUG, I'm not talking about someone going "oh I know this guy he's good" or whatever. Purely based on rating information.

Those people have no business being in the reference value here, because they DO NOT MATTER. That's how bracketing works. Only people above a certain threshold are even a CONSIDERATION, the rest are instant discards.

Now, how high that threshold is EXACTLY, that can be argued about. But we know it's not 500 and it's not 1,000. It's not a whole lot of numbers. And those must be excluded as a reference value if you want to know how "high" 2,500 really is IN THE GIVEN BRACKET. Because that's the ACTUAL relative comparison people are making in practice, and the fact that someone is so many magnitudes better than someone who's never gone past m+5 is completely irrelevant when it comes to a +20. All people want is what's high relative to THAT BRACKET. And it's grossly disingenuous to try and pervert that by including people in the average that would never ever ever EVER get PUG'd in this scenario. It's pointless data that has no business being included in the calculation.

Well considering what else you can get someone more qualified", they said "No it's trash overall".

While that's imprecise, you COULD make that argument as well for much the same reason - i.e. that most people don't care about people who do +2 keys, and therefore they're irrelevant to the statistic. That's a common phenomenon in naïve statements about statistical distributions like this, where weight is given to the top end of the curve; i.e. someone doing +25 keys or higher is more important to the perceived "skill level" than the vast masses doing +2 keys. In a simple average, they'd all count the same; but that's rarely how naïve assessments work, because people tend to intuitively discard certain parts of the population based on the distribution in question. In effect, it's more like a median than a mean, though it's rarely mathematically accurate to that degree - only in representation.

And that's not surprising at all, given that the difficulty curve isn't linear. The difference between a +5 and a +10 is NOWHERE NEAR the same as between a +20 and +25, even though they're both +5 levels; and it's nowhere near the difference between +10 and +20 either (which would be double the key level). So why should people in those brackets all count the same in terms of rating average?

It'd be stupid to treat this as a simple calculation of the average and performance percentiles, when the underlying metric isn't linear.

[Delekii]

Of ppl who actively play the game yes thats completely reasonable.

- - - Updated - - -



Active as in people who ACTUALLY PLAY THE GAME.

Please dont factor ppl who picked up Dragonflight for 5 weeks, did 5 +8s and quit the game bc they got what they wanted out of the expansion.

Yes if you factor that in, maybe. But if you actually count the playerbase that actively plays M+ then it's about the Median I'd say.

If you count people who do at least lets say 5 keys a week and have been actively playing since release at least half of them are 2500.

I'd say most people who want to play M+ who I know and are invested in the activity that I know end up reaching 3k this season. No premading needed, no super tryharding,just playing a few hours a week and trying a few keys and they get 3k eventually.

You're just making up numbers, there's no evidence to support what you're saying. You can cherry pick any subset of data to match what you're saying. Your experience and perception is ridiculously far from what is average; there are still shitloads of players happily plinking away at sub 10 keys week after week, let alone sub 20.

To say that the average m+ player is anywhere NEAR 2500 is completely absurd. It would be like filtering "real" raiders to people who are 4/7 heroic or above then claiming the average raider gets ahead of the curve, when that's not even close to true.

[Jester Joe]

I'm excluding people with a rating that isn't high enough to EVER be considered as PUGs for that key bracket. That doesn't mean they COULDN'T DO IT - the metric doesn't look at skill. It only looks at one particular representation of skill and time: rating. Because that's the information you get as a PUG.

That isn't how it works though if you're talking about scores overall which IS what was being discussed.

Don't tell me you think someone with a 1,000 rating would ever be taken to a +20 key as a PUG. Emphasis on AS A PUG, I'm not talking about someone going "oh I know this guy he's good" or whatever. Purely based on rating information.

Nothing close to this has ever been said, in fact I've said several times I understand fully that people will take the overqualified.
While 2500 is the score people should be moving into 20, anyone would take the people timing 23s over that.

Those people have no business being in the reference value here, because they DO NOT MATTER. That's how bracketing works. Only people above a certain threshold are even a CONSIDERATION, the rest are instant discards.

Again, this is irrelevant because as pointed out, people have been basically treating 2500 as if it was a rating of 100. You can say all you want "Well what they mean is only in terms of running 20s!" but again, as already covered

1) you can't speak for others intentions
2) they straight up said the opposite.

Now, how high that threshold is EXACTLY, that can be argued about. But we know it's not 500 and it's not 1,000. It's not a whole lot of numbers. And those must be excluded as a reference value if you want to know how "high" 2,500 really is IN THE GIVEN BRACKET. Because that's the ACTUAL relative comparison people are making in practice, and the fact that someone is so many magnitudes better than someone who's never gone past m+5 is completely irrelevant when it comes to a +20. All people want is what's high relative to THAT BRACKET. And it's grossly disingenuous to try and pervert that by including people in the average that would never ever ever EVER get PUG'd in this scenario. It's pointless data that has no business being included in the calculation.

Except what was being discuss is the value of 2500 overall. Not just whether or not it is in terms of high keys. And it goes back to the points above if you're going to try to keep claiming what others mean.

And that's not surprising at all, given that the difficulty curve isn't linear. The difference between a +5 and a +10 is NOWHERE NEAR the same as between a +20 and +25, even though they're both +5 levels; and it's nowhere near the difference between +10 and +20 either (which would be double the key level). So why should people in those brackets all count the same in terms of rating average?

The scaling is linear though. It's all still 10% after a 10. So yes, for people climbing +1 each time, it's going to be a steady smooth climb if they're applying themselves, excluding external factors of bad pugs.

And this is a really weird way to try to argue that people at lower ratings shouldn't matter. I mean, you seem to be missing a key point here, you're working on the assumption that people are talking about solely within the confines of "Who's running high keys" when the last few posts were directly in response to someone saying, and I quote

Idk 2500 might be top 10% but many people dont even do all 8 dungeons both weeks so that is inflated.

2500 might be actually 50% Median of people who actually actively play the game

This isnt' a quote about "Just those who run 20s". This is about the general playerbase at that point.

[Biomega]

Except what was being discuss is the value of 2500 overall. Not just whether or not it is in terms of high keys. And it goes back to the points above if you're going to try to keep claiming what others mean.

This is purely because you completely fail to understand what's going on. There is no "2,500 overall" - that's a meaningless, artificial misrepresentation. There is 2,500 rating, period, and that's ALWAYS interpreted relative to a key bracket when it comes to PUGs. The abstract doesn't matter, because it's not an actually applicable metric - saying "less than 10% of people overall have 2,500 rating" is a true statement that's also completely useless in the context, because no one looking at PUG invites actually thinks that way. It's ALWAYS contextualized.

That's the point I'm trying to get across.

The scaling is linear though. It's all still 10% after a 10. So yes, for people climbing +1 each time, it's going to be a steady smooth climb if they're applying themselves, excluding external factors of bad pugs.

The DIFFICULTY isn't linear. That's why people CARE MORE about high rating than they do about low rating, i.e. to THEM rating is NOT worth the same, point-for-point, because the DIFFICULTY CURVE itself isn't linear. Going from 10 to 15 is 5 keystone levels, but no one in their right mind would say that's equivalent to going from 20 to 25 or from 25 to 30, even though those are also 5 keystone levels (and that's reflected in the rating). The difficulty INCREASES MASSIVELY as you get higher and higher, it's NOT linear.

That's why it's silly to treat rating as a linear metric, irrespective of the numbers. Points are "worth more" the higher you go, because the content gets harder and harder.

By including the lowest brackets on a mathematically equal footing, point-for-point, you're distorting the actual underlying mechanics. That's why "2,500 overall" is completely meaningless - it ONLY has meaning in the context of a bracket, and that's how almost everyone treats it when it comes to PUGs.

And this is a really weird way to try to argue that people at lower ratings shouldn't matter. I mean, you seem to be missing a key point here, you're working on the assumption that people are talking about solely within the confines of "Who's running high keys" when the last few posts were directly in response to someone saying, and I quote

This isnt' a quote about "Just those who run 20s". This is about the general playerbase at that point.

Same thing applies. The difficulty isn't linear, and that's why "2,500 is scrub" is a common sentiment - it doesn't reflect the high increase in difficulty at the top end if you treat it like a simple linear scale, EVEN OVERALL. High rating is worth more than low rating, point-for-point. Because it's so much harder to get.

[Jester Joe]

This is purely because you completely fail to understand what's going on. There is no "2,500 overall" - that's a meaningless, artificial misrepresentation. There is 2,500 rating, period, and that's ALWAYS interpreted relative to a key bracket when it comes to PUGs. The abstract doesn't matter, because it's not an actually applicable metric - saying "less than 10% of people overall have 2,500 rating" is a true statement that's also completely useless in the context, because no one looking at PUG invites actually thinks that way. It's ALWAYS contextualized.

That's the point I'm trying to get across.

The only one here who's completely failing to understand what's going on is you.

Someone straight up said "2500 isn't 10% of the playerbase".

THAT IS WHAT YOU RESPONDED TO ANOTHER POST ABOUT. I'm capitalizing it because you seem to be missing that point very much. That is what was being discussed. You hopped in and decided to try to argue a point about a post that wasn't being talked about at all. I can only assume you cut it out because you realized it kinda shoots a hole in your argument.

The rest of your argument is just a really weird way of ignoring people have different skill levels, because to some getting to a 10 will be just as hard as people trying to get to a 25, which you seem to be ignoring also.

[Biomega]

The rest of your argument is just a really weird way of ignoring people have different skill levels, because to some getting to a 10 will be just as hard as people trying to get to a 25, which you seem to be ignoring also.

I don't talk about skill. In fact, I specifically mentioned that I am not talking about skill.

I also said, explicitly, that something like "2,500 is 10% of the playerbase" (or whatever similar slice) may well be TRUE in terms of raw numbers, but isn't MEANINGFUL because the underlying metric (difficulty of dungeons) isn't linear like the representative rating is. Which is why people are justified when they say that it isn't a particularly impressive achievement DESPITE the low overall representation, even in an abstract context - which in terms of PUGs no one uses to begin with, but even so.

That's my point. You can't just look at percentile brackets and pretend they're representative when the difficulty curve isn't on the same scale. Not to mention that there's other forms of selection bias at play here, that make percentiles even less useful when looking at overall metric (as many people aren't even TRYING to reach higher brackets, for example). It'd be like looking at exam results when the last 10 questions on the exam aren't even attempted by most people - it would massively skew the percentile brackets to just look at overall data and try to figure out how well people are doing (i.e. we have no idea how well people are doing in something they don't even try, because that's very different from trying and FAILING).

[Jester Joe]

I don't talk about skill. In fact, I specifically mentioned that I am not talking about skill.

I also said, explicitly, that something like "2,500 is 10% of the playerbase" (or whatever similar slice) may well be TRUE in terms of raw numbers, but isn't MEANINGFUL because the underlying metric (difficulty of dungeons) isn't linear like the representative rating is. Which is why people are justified when they say that it isn't a particularly impressive achievement DESPITE the low overall representation, even in an abstract context - which in terms of PUGs no one uses to begin with, but even so.

That's my point. You can't just look at percentile brackets and pretend they're representative when the difficulty curve isn't on the same scale. Not to mention that there's other forms of selection bias at play here, that make percentiles even less useful when looking at overall metric (as many people aren't even TRYING to reach higher brackets, for example). It'd be like looking at exam results when the last 10 questions on the exam aren't even attempted by most people - it would massively skew the percentile brackets to just look at overall data and try to figure out how well people are doing (i.e. we have no idea how well people are doing in something they don't even try, because that's very different from trying and FAILING).

I don't understand how you're ignoring the context to which you're responding to, and also trying to create loophole arguments to the validity of "2500 being 10% of the playerbase", when you started this off by accusing me "rigging information" was it?

I mean, your entire argument keeps holding onto the idea of "2500 is low for doing 20s because bracket".

Which mind you, is still false because as I've said, doing 18-19s timed lands you around 2500, which makes 20 the next logical step. But on top of that, it's already been said several dozen times that in terms of pugging though there's going to be more qualified candidates to take. That doesn't make 2500 "not impressive", it just means you have some weird standards that if translated to other games, like Overwatch, you'd be like "Oh, you're only grandmaster? You're not in the top 500? Ew".

Which is silly. You can argue that there's better choices to take, which is FINE, but you're ignoring the fact that taking someone that's overqualified doesn't suddenly mean the 2500 score isn't qualified to do 20s and that it's "too low", it just means that you went with the safer choice.

[M1r4g3]

Until hunters get a separate rio score based on how close they are to the rest of the group(-multiplier if there is an evoker healing) during the dungeon il keep insta declining them

[Biomega]

I don't understand how you're ignoring the context to which you're responding to, and also trying to create loophole arguments to the validity of "2500 being 10% of the playerbase", when you started this off by accusing me "rigging information" was it?

My point is that it's not about whether or not that's a TRUE STATEMENT, it's about whether or not that statement actually says anything meaningful, especially when it comes to representations of "skill" (however you want to measure it).

I mean, your entire argument keeps holding onto the idea of "2500 is low for doing 20s because bracket".

Which mind you, is still false because as I've said, doing 18-19s timed lands you around 2500, which makes 20 the next logical step.

Which only tells me you don't understand what the problem is, because you're still stubbornly clinging to a version of high/low founded in your whole "overall percentile" metric - which is meaningless and misleading, for all the reasons laid out, and is precisely WHY people go "uh 2,500 is kinda scrub tho?". Not because your whole 10% shtick is somehow untrue, but because you don't understand why it doesn't mean anything.

That doesn't make 2500 "not impressive", it just means you have some weird standards that if translated to other games, like Overwatch, you'd be like "Oh, you're only grandmaster? You're not in the top 500? Ew".

Again, you still don't seem to understand the problem. The problem is that 1. brackets exist, and that inside a bracket the lower brackets tend to mean jack shit, and are therefore useless reference values; and 2. difficulty isn't linear even though rating is, which means that rating increases in value point-for-point the higher you go, and that means you can't apply simple percentiles of the overall because lower points are worth less.

Which is silly. You can argue that there's better choices to take, which is FINE, but you're ignoring the fact that taking someone that's overqualified doesn't suddenly mean the 2500 score isn't qualified to do 20s and that it's "too low", it just means that you went with the safer choice.

You're making a category error here. No one said 2,500 wasn't QUALIFIED - just that it was LOW. The ones that aren't qualified are all the people you would never ever ever take to a +20, all the 500s and 1,000s and whatnot, which for that reason aren't qualified to be in the REFERENCE population. This is what lowers the value of 2,500 in that bracket compared to a raw percentile of the overall population. It doesn't mean 2,500 isn't qualified. Those are two entirely different operations you're confusing.

Now, I've said before that where exactly the threshold is for who is and isn't qualified in the +20 bracket, that's something people can argue about; but it doesn't really matter where it is EXACTLY. Just a rough consensus is enough, because what's important is that you scratch off the non-picks like the 500s and 1,000s and whatever, not whether the threshold is 2,100 or 2,150 or whatever else.

The fact that you THEN take the overqualified people anyway just because you're drowning in applications is another matter.

[Jester Joe]

My point is that it's not about whether or not that's a TRUE STATEMENT, it's about whether or not that statement actually says anything meaningful, especially when it comes to representations of "skill" (however you want to measure it).


Which only tells me you don't understand what the problem is, because you're still stubbornly clinging to a version of high/low founded in your whole "overall percentile" metric - which is meaningless and misleading, for all the reasons laid out, and is precisely WHY people go "uh 2,500 is kinda scrub tho?". Not because your whole 10% shtick is somehow untrue, but because you don't understand why it doesn't mean anything.


Again, you still don't seem to understand the problem. The problem is that 1. brackets exist, and that inside a bracket the lower brackets tend to mean jack shit, and are therefore useless reference values; and 2. difficulty isn't linear even though rating is, which means that rating increases in value point-for-point the higher you go, and that means you can't apply simple percentiles of the overall because lower points are worth less.


You're making a category error here. No one said 2,500 wasn't QUALIFIED - just that it was LOW. The ones that aren't qualified are all the people you would never ever ever take to a +20, all the 500s and 1,000s and whatnot, which for that reason aren't qualified to be in the REFERENCE population. This is what lowers the value of 2,500 in that bracket compared to a raw percentile of the overall population. It doesn't mean 2,500 isn't qualified. Those are two entirely different operations you're confusing.

Now, I've said before that where exactly the threshold is for who is and isn't qualified in the +20 bracket, that's something people can argue about; but it doesn't really matter where it is EXACTLY. Just a rough consensus is enough, because what's important is that you scratch off the non-picks like the 500s and 1,000s and whatever, not whether the threshold is 2,100 or 2,150 or whatever else.

The fact that you THEN take the overqualified people anyway just because you're drowning in applications is another matter.

So when are you going to finally acknowledge that I've said several times now we were currently talking about OVERALL IN TERMS OF ALL PLAYERS IO SCORE and you're coming in repeatedly talking about brackets, because this is really getting tiring to have to repeat the same thing over and over again that you're arguing a strawman. You really can't be calling other people stubborn when you keep ignoring that.