geting insta declined for keys ive already timed

[Biomega]

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

I already have. I'm explaining why that doesn't mean shit. Overall is a terrible metric to use for all the reasons I've given. I never once said 2,500 wasn't the top 10% or whatever else overall - only that using that approach is a bad take from the get-go.

I even had entire separate sections explaining why using percentiles of overall (and not in bracket contexts) is a bad metric, and why it still causes people to go "2,500 = low" even though no one refutes the percentiles.

I'm not saying the 10% isn't TRUE, I'm saying it's USELESS.

[Jester Joe]

I already have. I'm explaining why that doesn't mean shit. Overall is a terrible metric to use for all the reasons I've given. I never once said 2,500 wasn't the top 10% or whatever else overall - only that using that approach is a bad take from the get-go.

I even had entire separate sections explaining why using percentiles of overall (and not in bracket contexts) is a bad metric, and why it still causes people to go "2,500 = low" even though no one refutes the percentiles.

I'm not saying the 10% isn't TRUE, I'm saying it's USELESS.

You're arguing against something that was never said while repeatedly calling me stubborn and other things. I don't know what more you want me to say. You're trying to argue semantics to justify why people are belittling another person's score while refusing to see that all I've ever stated is as follows-

2500 is high rating because it's in the top 10%, and it's not going to get you into 20s because there's people who are overqualified who will queue up for those 20s instead.

Which is basically the same result as what you're trying to say, that there's higher so in comparison, 2500 is low to that. Which again, is fair, but you're trying to argue what OTHER POSTERS mean which isn't possible when they've already clarified, they're not talking about YOUR brackets, they're talking about in general.

Which is making this pointless because you keep going "nah they totally really mean this other thing".

[TOM_RUS]

The only reason for this is the fact that M+ dungeons are massively overtuned. If it was possible to take random players and get shit done easily, this would not be an issue...

[Biomega]

2500 is high rating because it's in the top 10%

This right here. THIS is what I'm ranting against.

You're trying to smuggle in a premise that somehow top 10%=high. You can't do that, for the reason I explained: you're using a linear metric (rating percentile overall) to map a NONLINEAR metric (difficulty curve). That's a big problem. And it's exactly why so many people have gone "2,500 isn't high tho?" even if they agree that it is indeed top 10%.

[Delekii]

This right here. THIS is what I'm ranting against.

You're trying to smuggle in a premise that somehow top 10%=high. You can't do that, for the reason I explained: you're using a linear metric (rating percentile overall) to map a NONLINEAR metric (difficulty curve). That's a big problem. And it's exactly why so many people have gone "2,500 isn't high tho?" even if they agree that it is indeed top 10%.

They are objectively wrong. Being in the top 10% of something is, objectively, high. Everything beyond that is you applying a subjective filter to that scale. The scale is definitionally as linear as the dungeon scaling that creates it. How people interpret and use it may be subjectively tiered or filtered, but the information itself is a reasonably linear representation of ability.

[Biomega]

They are objectively wrong. Being in the top 10% of something is, objectively, high.

Even if that was true, it'd only be true on a linear scale. It doesn't work the same for nonlinear metrics. That's the whole POINT I'm trying to get across. The higher you go in rating, the harder it becomes to get more rating. Those 10% aren't the same as any other 10%, and can't just be treated as though they were.

But "10% is objectively high" is just not true to begin with, because there is no objective definition for "high" here.

The scale is definitionally as linear as the dungeon scaling that creates it.

I'm not talking about scaling. I'm talking about DIFFICULTY. Going from +10 to +15 is way way way WAY easier than going from +20 to +25; and going from +20 to +25 is way way way WAY easier than going from +25 to +30. Even though they're just 5 key levels worth of scaling, and 5 key levels worth of rating. The difficulty increase is NOT linear by any stretch, far from it.

That's why this is thrown off.

[Lahis]

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.

Nobody is talking about overall RIO score when the context is +20 keys. 2499 of those points are meaningless in that discussion.

[Jester Joe]

Even if that was true, it'd only be true on a linear scale. It doesn't work the same for nonlinear metrics. That's the whole POINT I'm trying to get across. The higher you go in rating, the harder it becomes to get more rating. Those 10% aren't the same as any other 10%, and can't just be treated as though they were.

But "10% is objectively high" is just not true to begin with, because there is no objective definition for "high" here.


I'm not talking about scaling. I'm talking about DIFFICULTY. Going from +10 to +15 is way way way WAY easier than going from +20 to +25; and going from +20 to +25 is way way way WAY easier than going from +25 to +30. Even though they're just 5 key levels worth of scaling, and 5 key levels worth of rating. The difficulty increase is NOT linear by any stretch, far from it.

That's why this is thrown off.

The difficulty increases at a linear rate after 10s. I don't know where you're thinking it's exponential, because it's not.
The large jump in difficulty, in terms of pure numbers, is a 9 to a 10, because you get an extra 10% increase from the seasonal affix in terms of enemy health (and damage I think, but I can't remember there).

Going from a 10 to a 15 is easier for people who are already skilled at the game. Rapidly rising the ranks due to skill doesn't suddenly mean the lower ranks doesn't exist.

- - - Updated - - -

Nobody is talking about overall RIO score when the context is +20 keys. 2499 of those points are meaningless in that discussion.

I must have imagined this then.

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

[Biomega]

The difficulty increases at a linear rate after 10s. I don't know where you're thinking it's exponential, because it's not.

I agree it's not exponential. Which is why I never, anywhere, used that word, ever. I said it's not linear - and it isn't. Something that isn't linear isn't automatically exponential. That's not how any of this works.

And I'm talking about DIFFICULTY, not about SCALING. Those are not the same thing. SCALING is linear. Difficulty is not. That's because mechanics have pass/fail filters on them, and timers exist, and gear doesn't scale infinitely, and so on. You hit walls. Some you can climb more easily, some not so easily, some not at all. That's why 5 key levels worth of scaling feel VERY different in terms of difficulty depending on where you're at. Jumps from one key level to the next become vastly more difficult to higher up you go, even though the scaling doesn't change. 24 to 25 is not even in the same galaxy as 27 to 28, even though they're both 1 key level difference.

That's why M+ rating as a representation of "skill" (i.e. ability to successfully deal with difficulty) is massively top-heavy, instead of just linear progression. And that's why 2,500 really isn't high at all, despite it being the top 10% of overall players.

[Jester Joe]

I agree it's not exponential. Which is why I never, anywhere, used that word, ever. I said it's not linear - and it isn't. Something that isn't linear isn't automatically exponential. That's not how any of this works.

And I'm talking about DIFFICULTY, not about SCALING. Those are not the same thing. SCALING is linear. Difficulty is not. That's because mechanics have pass/fail filters on them, and timers exist, and gear doesn't scale infinitely, and so on. You hit walls. Some you can climb more easily, some not so easily, some not at all. That's why 5 key levels worth of scaling feel VERY different in terms of difficulty depending on where you're at. Jumps from one key level to the next become vastly more difficult to higher up you go, even though the scaling doesn't change. 24 to 25 is not even in the same galaxy as 27 to 28, even though they're both 1 key level difference.

That's why M+ rating as a representation of "skill" (i.e. ability to successfully deal with difficulty) is massively top-heavy, instead of just linear progression. And that's why 2,500 really isn't high at all, despite it being the top 10% of overall players.

The difficulty increases with scaling. Your example doesn't exactly hold weight because the fundamental issue is that a 24 isn't comparable to a 27 nor is a 25 comparable to the 28. But the flat increase is still the same. You're also not factoring in skill at all, because sure to the top percent they'll plow through 23-25s, we see it with the MDI all the time. But that doesn't suddenly change that lower keys are difficult to some players.

An IO score is basically your MMR for M+, but you're not viewing it as that. Some people do struggle to get through 10s, and that's the real reason why 2500 is the top 10% of players who participate in M+.

[Biomega]

The difficulty increases with scaling. Your example doesn't exactly hold weight because the fundamental issue is that a 24 isn't comparable to a 27 nor is a 25 comparable to the 28.

Which is why I didn't compare them that way. I compared 24 to 25, and 27 to 28. I didn't compare across.

But the flat increase is still the same.

Yes. Which is why I said, SCALING is a linear increase. DIFFICULTY is not. I even explained why, with examples.

What's going on here, that's like the third time you just grossly misread what I said, or ignored it outright. You don't need to post within 5 minutes. Read. Parse. UNDERSTAND. Then reply.

You're also not factoring in skill at all, because sure to the top percent they'll plow through 23-25s, we see it with the MDI all the time. But that doesn't suddenly change that lower keys are difficult to some players.

Everything will be difficult to someone, somewhere. What's the point you're trying to make with that? I'm saying that there's significant stratification at the top end, that's not on a linear scale with rating or scaling. How do we get from that to "but some people struggle on lower keys, too!", and more importantly WHY?

An IO score is basically your MMR for M+, but you're not viewing it as that. Some people do struggle to get through 10s, and that's the real reason why 2500 is the top 10% of players who participate in M+.

And, again, I'm not saying 2,500 isn't the top 10% or anything remotely like that. I'm saying that this DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING because there's too many things that screw with a simple percentile scale here, so your 10% doesn't properly reflect the fact that the representation of rating to difficulty is immensely top-heavy - and that as a result, 2,500 despite being in the top 10% isn't "high" in the sense that it represents any significant measure of skill as in skill=ability to successfully overcome difficulty in M+. The walls come later. If you simply define "high" as "this is the 90th percentile and that's a lot" then sure, I agree, but that's a tautological statement because all you're saying is "10% isn't very many people" which is very true and very trivial and COMPLETELY BESIDE THE POINT for any realistic or practicable use case when it comes to M+ rating, because nobody cares about the lower brackets.

[danki1337]

its funny on here the constant bitch about how other people run their keys. run your own damn key and stop complaining. now cry some more about how you dont want to run your key. keep the cycle going. motherfuckers on here bitch more than my ex wife.

i understand why shes your EX wife, question is whyd she even marry you to begin with, your sour attitude and toxic behaviour surely is why you cant form or....keep meaning full connections! whats wrong with you omg

[Lahis]

I must have imagined this then.

Did you even comprehend what you quoted there? It literally says that we are talking about people actively doing keys, in which context 2500 is nowhere even near the top 10%.

[Eazy]

Did you even comprehend what you quoted there? It literally says that we are talking about people actively doing keys, in which context 2500 is nowhere even near the top 10%.

2500 is in fact TOP 10% in M+ EU:
https://raider.io/mythic-plus/cutoffs/season-df-1/eu

For the Horde EU: 2563.1
For the Alliance EU: 2454.5
(it's even less in US and more on the Asian realms)

Writing about that just in case if anyone had any contrived, false opinion.

[Lahis]

2500 is in fact TOP 10% in M+ EU:
https://raider.io/mythic-plus/cutoffs/season-df-1/eu

For the Horde EU: 2563.1
For the Alliance EU: 2454.5
(it's even less in US and more on the Asian realms)

Writing about that just in case if anyone had any contrived, false opinion.

And it doesn't matter. Nobody cares for +10 keys in 1000 rating range. In the actual relevant range we are discussing, 20+ keys, 2500 is very bottom of the barrel.

[ssviolett]

Did you even comprehend what you quoted there? It literally says that we are talking about people actively doing keys, in which context 2500 is nowhere even near the top 10%.

Probably it is, but who cares? You want high RIO guy for your 20th key (high RIO means a guy has completed all 20ths or more likely all or almost all 21-22ths) and you dont care if its 10% or 0.1%, you, as a PUG want an experienced overqualified person since it reduces a failure chances and thats it.

[Eazy]

And it doesn't matter. Nobody cares for +10 keys in 1000 rating range. In the actual relevant range we are discussing, 20+ keys, 2500 is very bottom of the barrel.

Yes. I was just factualy making a true statement that TOP 10% is ~2500 r.io, just in case if anybody would have still making wrong assumptions about that situation.

[Barzotti]

2500 is in fact TOP 10% in M+ EU:
https://raider.io/mythic-plus/cutoffs/season-df-1/eu

For the Horde EU: 2563.1
For the Alliance EU: 2454.5
(it's even less in US and more on the Asian realms)

Writing about that just in case if anyone had any contrived, false opinion.

2500 is definitely not top 10% M+ for people actively doing keys (which the post you quoted was about) because you have to substract the hundreds of thousands of chars with 200 score and a grand total of one or two keys done. It inflates artificially the cutoff by including chars that barely touched M+.

2500 is indeed low for 20s: you can reach that score without completing any 20. I have a char at 2468 with laughable scores for some dungeons (like +16/14 for RLP). It doesn't mean that some 2400 player isn't capable of doing 20s, it doesn't mean he's necessarily unqualified.

Probably it is, but who cares? You want high RIO guy for your 20th key (high RIO means a guy has completed all 20ths or more likely all or almost all 21-22ths) and you dont care if its 10% or 0.1%, you, as a PUG want an experienced overqualified person since it reduces a failure chances and thats it.

It's not even "overqualified": you can get a 2.7k + rating by just timing every dungeon in +20 both weeks. A 3k player would be overqualified (because he has done +22/+23s), but definitely not a 2.7k player.

[Eazy]

2500 is definitely not top 10% M+ for people actively doing keys (which the post you quoted was about) because you have to substract the hundreds of thousands of chars with 200 score and a grand total of one or two keys done. It inflates artificially the cutoff by including chars that barely touched M+.

Probably, I was just stating a fact that TOP10% players have ~2500 r.io and higher.

2500 is indeed low for 20s: you can reach that score without completing any 20.

Subjective.

It doesn't mean that some 2400 player isn't capable of doing 20s, it doesn't mean he's necessarily unqualified.

Indeed.

[Barzotti]

Subjective.

No. You can get 2.5k score rating by timing all the dungeons on +17/+18. One of my chars has a 313.6 score for timing Nokhud in +17/18. If you multiply by 8 dungeons, you get a 2508 score. You don't need to time a +19 to earn KSH. You don't even need to time a dungeon +18 both weeks.

The same char has timed CoS +19 both weeks. Doing that in every dungeon would give him a 2624 rating. If you want to check:

https://raider.io/characters/eu/khaz-modan/Barzotti