|
On June 10 2015 06:04 fearthequeen wrote:Show nested quote +On June 09 2015 15:31 GeckoXp wrote:On June 09 2015 12:57 fearthequeen wrote:
You have to think of it from both sides. Now C-/C stands to gain LESS points from beating a B- than they did in the old system. So while B- will be more willing to play vs lower ranks, the lower ranks have less reason to play against higher ranks (when they are 2 or more ranks apart)
Honestly I thank you for taking the time to implement a new points system, I'm just not convinced it will be any better than the old one. The problem isn't the ranking, old or new, but the player base. If anyone is so invested in their rankings and the prestige that goes with it, no system will ever be perfect. The new adaption seems to target the problem of higher ranked players complaining about not finding people on their own rank - well it's a try. Yet, the majority is still like "I go to FISH because cool" or "lul Lancerx 5000 games only B", this obviously won't help too much. One can't make fun of mass gamers on one hand, and on the other complain about a small population. Also lol @ the newbie bashing argument by Nina. As if you weren't the perfect example of a newb basher, who pre-selects opponents based on their win ratio in the lobby. Hypocrite much? Any ladder system should cater to the fact that players will be invested in their ranks and striving for the prestigious A/B ranks, not try to function in spite of it. You can only work under the assumption that people will be trying to maximize their gains and minimize their losses to "abuse" the system, and rank up as fast/efficiently as possible. And as I've shown in previous posts, this system fails to account for players' natural mindset.
I just wrong a lenghty post, but I kind of disagree. The ladder is there to find equal opponents. The problem was, that there were too few people on the high ranks to have opponents. This was trying to be fixed, nothing else. Now people can rank up faster, or play alternative opponents, which MIGHT fix the issue. Not sure if this is good or not, but it's worth a try, you can always go back or try something else.
As for the "worth" of rankings go: Ladder ranks always meant shit. There were always abusers, there always will be. You can limit that, but why? What counts is you improving in the game. If you can only play down, because you already are on top, no anti-abuse will make it better. Also, tournament finishes and game play matter more for judging skill than ranks do. People who chase ranks instead of skill are responsible for their own lack of improvement imo.
Also, if you want to improve, playing against better people is good. It's annoying and frustrating, sure, but it's the way to go. I get D ranks and their complaints, but nobody stops them from socializing with people they think are equal - and play off ladder to train or just have some fun. But that's not the purpose of a ladder. If a ladder is skewed, because people maximize its abuse potential, it's bad, but it's nearly impossible to fix that without letting go of the MOTW idea - and add ELO instead. Acutally, ELO/GLicko2 with MOTW would be possible, but no way the ICCup devs make that happen. That's the point where I stop, because ELO brings back other problems, including the one the high rank players had in the past, when it came to finding suiting opponents.
|
I dunno, now if I start playing again I might hit B- if I mass games while my actual top skill was C according to the old system. This might motivate more people to actively play, which is good, but now the ranks have entirely different meanings.
|
Canada11349 Posts
On June 10 2015 22:04 B-royal wrote:I don't see the problem. Stats are not hidden. A D- player accepted to play versus him. D players are responsible for their own decisions...
Yeah, I don't think this is an issue- I auto kick C and higher if they join- unless I'm feeling depressed about my laddering. The trickier thing is the clearstats guys that farm D's and D-'s (no D+) until they hit C, wipe and start over again. I started making a list of guys to auto boot, but I seem to have lost it.
I think this is an interesting initiative. I wonder for the future if D- ought to be put into a separate category.
1) D's have never had troubles finding game, so they don't need the D- points. (Since consistently staying D, I don't play D- unless they join.)
2) For the higher ranks, I think it's the untapped player base of D, D+, and C- that is needed to steal more nerd's ladder points. Because everyone starts at D and you can clear stats, I don't think the higher ranks would get that many players from D- ranks anyways.
3) D- to D has the biggest skill discrepancy, especially when you are first starting out, so I think keeping D- ladder points in a separate category better reflects this fact. It's a bigger deal as a D- player when you finally beat a D.
4) Because D- is a hole you fall into rather than the starting position, it would be better if you could climb out more easily like under the old system.
|
On June 11 2015 00:09 thezanursic wrote:
I dunno, now if I start playing again I might hit B- if I mass games while my actual top skill was C according to the old system. This might motivate more people to actively play, which is good, but now the ranks have entirely different meanings.
Meaning is still overrated - there were always phases in which rankings were pointless, or at least lost SOME meaning. For instance, before every WCG you could suddenly reach higher ranks, because everyone was playing. It wasn't too bad though. The real deal were the TSLs, for which out of nowhere hundreds of total scrubs tried to play shit and go up, while the season was prolonged. As average C you could suddenly reach C+ or even B-, cracking the first C in a day or so.
Also, the comparison between a 2008 and 2013 is totally off, and it was already off in 2009 and December 2010. I remember watching a very(!!!) early game of some B- gamers, such as ZaRaki and eOn and wondered if the average B- couldn't cope with their style anymore. Obviously, these also improved and there were still tons of good players out. A January 2012 game of a B- was prolly harder than the average B- of 2009 - no idea, that's where I stopped really using the ladder (somewhen in 2012 I mean). Anything under B- lost its meaning entirely, like, there were C ranks which were so stupidly poor in executions, whereas the average C in 2009 was... well a solid C. Then again you faced D+ players who were stuck on D+, where you wondered, if they shouldn't be higher.
Leads me back to: The ranking will be fucked up one way or the other, since it prolly depends on the number of players, less than the ranking itself. You can only fix problems here and there (e.g. trying to make it more attractive for the best and/or the lowest), but nothing works if there's nobody playing. Complaining doesn't help, as well as the attitude of the average C- dude, who rather goes on FISH, to play some random Koreans. I still don't get why FISH would be better, the play is the same mostly, you just don't have the same excuses than you have for ICCup.
|
On June 10 2015 14:46 idegelchik wrote:![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/K4sVEpF.jpg) come to daddy 
This was a perfect example of an abuse for the previous rating system, but now it's what we are willing to see, more games between all D/C/B with the result to have many more B/A-/A players.
With the new system we will consider abuses green/gold ranks playing only or mostly vs red/yellow.
|
|
|
Russian Federation382 Posts
no dodge, more games, but we have 1 sad fact: A- iccup = F fish now
|
On June 11 2015 20:58 idegelchik wrote:no dodge, more games, but we have 1 sad fact: A- iccup = F fish now
And you know? That's perfect. Doesn't matter what ranking system there is, skill level would be the same. Right now A- would be probably mid E on fish. I think going into fish is a journey for a mid class players like we are, and everyone should strive for getting A+ and moving to Fish.
|
On June 11 2015 00:50 iCCup.Face wrote:This was a perfect example of an abuse for the previous rating system, but now it's what we are willing to see, more games between all D/C/B with the result to have many more B/A-/A players. With the new system we will consider abuses green/gold ranks playing only or mostly vs red/yellow.
So that's why that guy banned me
|
Hello, iCCup.Face.
I have to admit these changes are quite interesting. In the long run (that is, after many games played) I expect that the players who normally maintained C- and higher in the old system will be crammed between the A- to Olympic ranks in the new system, whereas those who maintained D- to C- will be spread out from D- to B+.
I think these changes are definitely worth a shot. The people at the top of the ladder will be able to play more games in a given amount of time, the people at the middle of the ladder will be able to play more with the top dogs and improve their game, and those at the bottom of the ladder will have a better idea of how strong their opponents are. Also, even though it's a minor point, it feels more satisfying to say, "I'm ranked B," instead of "I'm ranked C-." The only minor point against this system is that the higher ranks are easier to obtain and thus not as prestigious as before.
What I'm bummed about is that the E rank is no more... I really liked the pink mouse and keyboard icon... 
Sincerely,
Shalashaska_123
EDIT: Because of the increased spread in the lower ranks, it may be worthwhile to consider changing the initial rank from D to, say, C-. This would also decrease the amount of "newbie-bashing" that better players have to do to advance in the ladder. Hmm, I'm actually not sure about this...
The other thing to think about is that even though a B- player can get a significant number of points from playing a D player, it is quite risky as well. If that D player happens to be a shark in the water, it can lead to a big loss in points. Additionally, lower-level players don't have to play against higher-rated players if they don't want to; it takes two to tango. Therefore, I don't think it's fair for a higher-rated player to be punished for strictly playing lower-rated opponents.
This edit is just food for thought.
|
Canada11349 Posts
I don't know that would actually change anything. You still have to lose to go down- so C- just becomes the new D- could be someone just starting their laddering is actually C- or anything lower than C- or anything higher than C-. Might as well keep the start at D and let people ladder up or down.
|
On June 14 2015 16:34 Falling wrote:
I don't know that would actually change anything. You still have to lose to go down- so C- just becomes the new D- could be someone just starting their laddering is actually C- or anything lower than C- or anything higher than C-. Might as well keep the start at D and let people ladder up or down.
It's important to realize that the higher ranks will be more heavily populated. Having the starting point for all players at the bottom of the barrel (aka D rank) leaves very little room to drop down, and hence, there will not be a way to distinguish the real D players from those who are just starting to level up. If most players are going to be C- and up with this generous point system, why should the initial ranking be the same as before?
EDIT: Having a higher starting rank would make the new system more friendly to the genuine newbies of the game. As it is now, the lowest rank, D-, is just under the rank that everybody starts at, and this can be frustrating for everybody. The good players have to waste time playing people way below their level, and the not-so-great players get demoralized and waste time getting crushed. The old Fish ladder with the point system had a relatively high starting point, starting at 1000 (if I remember correctly, the best players had around 1800, and the lowest had around 600), so the idea has been implemented before.
|
I have a huge problem with this new system. Stat abusers are being rewarded and make up at least 1/4 of the top 20 players in the rankings. Here's one example...
These are tuddldnjfem's last 12 games played:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jcnlufI.png?1)
Here's his opponents:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FguzvGB.png?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/d9RKL1Z.png?1)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WKUtSGu.png?1)
Ten of the games are against complete E rankers... people who can't even make a drone when the game starts, and he's gone from 7004 to 7784 points by playing them - gaining nearly an entire rank from B to B+. Congratulations, number 6 on ladder.
Oh, and he did the same thing from 5785 to 6904. That's over a whole rank, from C+ to almost B.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/rA3STLQ.png?1)
That's 1900 points, or 2 full ranks, against E rankers in his last 2 pages. At the same time, he refuses to play against me while he's clearly online and looking for a game. There's multiple other stat abusers at B ranks who also ignore me and host game name "d d-" on ladder instead.
According to Face, this would only be stat abuse if they were green ranks (aka A-), at which point they probably won't even ladder anymore. This change isn't making it any easier to find games, just allowing people to dodge and abuse their way to the top of the ladder with 90% winrate.
|
Norway28637 Posts
but you can see from that list that he actually played a regame against a d player who beat him, and also beat a C player. looks more like 'i'll play whomever' (which is what we want) than 'trying to get a- with <5% loss!!' (which is annoying but it doesn't really matter. )
|
Canada11349 Posts
I wonder- is he hosting games for C+/ C and then hosting for B players and then the low ranks are joining anyways? Or is he hosting games called D/D- when he is C or B and they are playing even when they discover he has way too many points (are they not noticing?) or does he not host and he is only joining D/D- games. Because the last two are very different than the first scenario.
|
He won't play whoever, though. I've asked for a game multiple times, and he refuses to play while still responding in chat. When I join one of his games (titled "motw d d-") he simply won't start or leaves. These are the majority of his games from C+ to B+, and most players on iCCup are not low D-/E ranks. There are only 100 players below 700 points, and many of them will not even play against a B ranker. He's clearly targeting them, not playing anyone, and multiple others do the same. I decided to try playing against a 1 point E ranker whom he's gotten 500 points from, and the guy was literally eliminated by my scouting SCV. They've played 6+ times.
|
My hope is that this will help the general skill level of the public.
It was so hard to find games once I got to B+, that getting A- without winning ladder tournaments was impossible.
The only option was to play C players, which I didn't do. But that's exactly what we need. Better players playing worse players, so that the worse players can improve. It's how I got better. Now it will be easier to give back "to the system".
Like paying taxes from the job I got with a free education, from other people who payed taxes to fund that education.
But, I think that it will make extreme noob bashing much easier, which I am not in favour of. To solve that, we need to stat reset, or ladder ban, the abusers.
|
Maybe a system that depends on a certain form of "bonus points" could be implemented to prevent such a situation. The amount of points would depend on the amount of times you've played versus a player of that rank (read: a lower rank).
For example: if you play versus a D player (as a B player) consecutively, you will gain fewer points after each game. This could be reset based on time past or based on losing versus a player of that rank.
|
Canada11349 Posts
He won't play whoever, though. I've asked for a game multiple times, and he refuses to play while still responding in chat. When I join one of his games (titled "motw d d-")
Ok, that is really irritating that he is intentionally misleading players. One would hope that people would read the points that he has and immediately leave, but maybe newer players don't know about that? The fact that he won't start the game vs equally ranked players definitely makes for a ladder abuser, purposefully preying on newbs.
|
The old system had similar flaws, but it seems to handle abuse better. Note: I don't play BW anymore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
