EPTSorry.
The myth of the bonus pool. - Page 2
| Blogs > Ftrunkz |
|
Velr
Switzerland10939 Posts
Sorry. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On November 24 2010 01:13 Velr wrote: The "retards" are accomplished game designers.Bonus pool was the worst addition ever. Thanks to it you can only meassure people that actually have it on 0 most of the time, which is bad. I really think Blizzard overestimated the avg. Games played/day by the average user. It just feels stupid. I don't play any ladder just customs for 3-4 Weeks? Quality of my enemies does not change, but instead of 1400 points they now have 1700-1900 while im still sitting at my ~1400 which is groing at a steady rate up to the point were i just could have added the Bonuspool to my normal score thanks to the "glorious" 50% mms. What's the use of it except making retards feel like they accomplish something? I really have problems to understand which kind of moron designed this system and which retards thought this guy had the right idea... Just bring back the OLD(!) WC3 system (with some adjustments) and everything would be better. The "moron" (or morons) which designed the new ladder made it better for the most of us players. Considering your choice of words I would not be surprised if Blizzard does take your opinion into consideration. The point inflation is a good thing since it rewards laddering. The bonus pool can be considered as a penality for inactive players. But the XP decay in WC3 was not too well received just because is was implemented as a penality. So they changed the system to a bonus bool to get the same effect: The inactive player will be passed by the active player even if both players have the equal skill level. Since it is now labeled "bonus pool" it does no longer feel like a punishment while it actually punishes inactive players. | ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
On December 22 2010 18:02 [F_]aths wrote: The "retards" are accomplished game designers. This does not make them immune to fucking up. And if it does, then whoever designed Battle.net 2.0 certainly doesn't meet the criteria of "accomplished game designer". My situation's different than the OP, but I do feel it could have been handled better. I'm not entirely sure what the problem is that's trying to be prevented by the bonus pool, but would a minimum game quota to maintain your rank be a solution? | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On December 22 2010 18:40 Kanil wrote: This could be a solution but would be perceived as a punishment.This does not make them immune to fucking up. And if it does, then whoever designed Battle.net 2.0 certainly doesn't meet the criteria of "accomplished game designer". My situation's different than the OP, but I do feel it could have been handled better. I'm not entirely sure what the problem is that's trying to be prevented by the bonus pool, but would a minimum game quota to maintain your rank be a solution? At Blizzcon 2009 (I did not attend, just watched the stream) an employee told the story about WoW rested XP bonus. The original implementation had a malus after you played for a while. This caused the test player to feel punished for playing. Then Blizzard changed the system. They lowered the general XP but gave a bonus for beeing rested. The outcome was exactly the same but now it was perceived as a bonus. XP decay makes you think "I am forced to play or I lose something". The bonus pool makes you think "If I not play, I am not gaining additional points but at least I don't lose my points for which I worked so hard". Since it is a relative comparison to other players, you still lose (rank, that is, not points) so the outcome is the same. But it does not feel like a real punishment. The bonus pool also encourages casual gamers to play again. "Even if I don't get 50% win ratio because I am not accustomed to the latest strategies, I can get sone additional points." The current ladder is optimized for casual and even regular gamers. Pro gamers will get their own leagues. | ||
| ||
