...Hrmmm.
I moved up a division
Blogs > Alou |
Alou
United States3748 Posts
...Hrmmm. | ||
canucks12
Canada812 Posts
| ||
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
elmizzt
United States3309 Posts
Of course, this is all conjecture on my part, but it seems logical in my head. Let me know if it makes sense or not. | ||
ejac
United States1195 Posts
| ||
HCastorp
United States388 Posts
| ||
IceCube
Croatia1403 Posts
| ||
aznhockeyboy16
United States558 Posts
| ||
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
| ||
zatic
Zurich15306 Posts
| ||
djcube
United States985 Posts
On June 05 2010 13:01 elmizzt wrote: It makes perfect sense to me that you would get ranked up after a loss. When the system thinks you should be moved up based on a ratio or streak of wins, it is most logical to move you after a loss that breaks the streak or ratio. This is because the system then knows the upper bound of your placement. Moving up on a win makes less sense because if you continue to win more games, the system would have to inefficiently move you up again. Of course, this is all conjecture on my part, but it seems logical in my head. Let me know if it makes sense or not. I'm actually not familiar with the sc2 ranking system at all, but when you say "upper bound," it implies that bnet can bump you up one or several tiers (I don't know if this is true). Well, what if, for instance, I'm a bronze level player and only good enough to beat other bronze players. So then I end up playing the average bronze player every game and go 10-0. Well I haven't lost yet, since I've only been playing other bronze players which wouldn't be an accurate test to see what level is appropriate for me. I finally lose my next game, bnet thinks my ratio is really good, and bumps me up to platinum thinking my "upper bound" is that high (when it's really not). It'd make more sense, for instance, to bump you up or down (or remain at the same level) depending on your win/loss percentage after a certain number of games. | ||
Z3kk
4099 Posts
| ||
Flyingdutchman
Netherlands858 Posts
| ||
| ||