EPTICCUP: New Rating System - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
neteX
Sweden285 Posts
| ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On June 19 2015 03:46 Sero wrote: 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. Told everyone this would happen. | ||
|
dRaW
Canada5744 Posts
On June 09 2015 07:11 ninazerg wrote: Thanks, I will get started bashing C- noobies up to A- at once! If only you could even get C- then maybe... | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On June 10 2015 18:52 TwiggyWan wrote: The real issue isnt smurfing, its whiners who cant accept a loss and refuse to play people better than them. In my day we called those people pussies. Were still in my day.Problem was and will always be smurfing. You think you play a D noob while being D yourself and no, it's a B protoss scrub smurfing.. This is actually why i stopped playing HAHAHA as if it was somewhat enforced | ||
|
outscar
2832 Posts
| ||
|
fearthequeen
United States788 Posts
u called it, bro On June 19 2015 10:40 outscar wrote: What they were thinking when they made 1x1 ladder channel by merging everyone into one place? Now B can just PM D and he is getting rekt - that's the story. Just fucking return D, C, B, A ladder channels! The rest is OK! If you really think that will solve the problems you are mistaken. Abusers dont even ask for game in channel, they just make a game with generic name and then pick any noob who joins that's willing to play them. Merging the channels didnt spawn stats abusers. Although it would be more convenient to let players have a choice between 2 channels, for example :: Ladder D:: and ::Ladder C minus and higher:: I think once most players hit C they have no desire to play d- d d+ anymore. You could make the channels unrestricted as well, so d+ c- c players who might wanna play vs all spectrum of ranks can pick which channel they want. 50 D ranks in the channel is just clutter for C rank and up players. | ||
|
castleeMg
Canada790 Posts
| ||
|
Shalashaska_123
United States142 Posts
On June 19 2015 03:46 Sero wrote: 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. Sero, the solution to this is simple. If he only wants to play vs D/D- opponents, then make a new account so you play him as a D rank. Then when he loses to you, he'll lose a lot of points. Actually, I encourage all the good players to make a few smurf accounts to punish those who try to abuse the new ladder system. | ||
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
On June 19 2015 23:58 Shalashaska_123 wrote: Sero, the solution to this is simple. If he only wants to play vs D/D- opponents, then make a new account so you play him as a D rank. Then when he loses to you, he'll lose a lot of points. Actually, I encourage all the good players to make a few smurf accounts to punish those who try to abuse the new ladder system. They really don't lose that many points though. B or B+ player losing to D- player loses about as many points as a D+ player losing to a D- player in the old system. It's only once you hit A that you really start losing points to E's and D-s (supposing in a million years they could beat you.) | ||
|
fearthequeen
United States788 Posts
On June 20 2015 03:21 Falling wrote: They really don't lose that many points though. B or B+ player losing to D- player loses about as many points as a D+ player losing to a D- player in the old system. It's only once you hit A that you really start losing points to E's and D-s (supposing in a million years they could beat you.) Exactly. This is the biggest oversight of the system. It's great to encourage playing between a broader specturm of ranks in theory, but it doesn't really work if you want the ranks to hold any weight. Also @ shalashaska, players shouldn't have to waste their time making new IDs to punish the abusers. The abusers should be banned, accounts cleared/locked. | ||
|
Falling
Canada11607 Posts
http://iccup.com/en/starcraft/matchlist/6903293/1x1/page1.html Irma seems to have played everyone (D- to B+) and nearly always loses in under 5 or 4 minutes. Does Irma actually play? The one time he joined my game, he literally only ordered his workers to mine and did no other action. Is this typical of anyone else that played against him? An account perpetually and intentionally sandbagging or is it some sort of bot? They have a handful of wins, but I have no idea how considering its a 2:31 or 3:19 minute game. | ||
|
Piste
6183 Posts
On June 20 2015 04:25 Falling wrote: On the other side of things, who the hell is Irma? http://iccup.com/en/starcraft/matchlist/6903293/1x1/page1.html Irma seems to have played everyone (D- to B+) and nearly always loses in under 5 or 4 minutes. Does Irma actually play? The one time he joined my game, he literally only ordered his workers to mine and did no other action. Is this typical of anyone else that played against him? An account perpetually and intentionally sandbagging or is it some sort of bot? They have a handful of wins, but I have no idea how considering its a 2:31 or 3:19 minute game. I usually leave the game after I see that the player is collecting losses on purpose and that way wasting my time. I guess some players wants to get recogntion by the cool looking cpu rank since they're not able to collect points instead. | ||
|
noname_
469 Posts
| ||
|
xboi209
United States1173 Posts
On June 20 2015 06:17 noname_ wrote: Getting rid of 3-4 monthly resets would have been better, but still it`s a respectable initiative. This won't change anytime soon, we're suck on this 3 month schedule because ICCup has to reset BW ladder at the same time as they reset DotA | ||
|
Shalashaska_123
United States142 Posts
On June 20 2015 03:48 fearthequeen wrote: Exactly. This is the biggest oversight of the system. It's great to encourage playing between a broader specturm of ranks in theory, but it doesn't really work if you want the ranks to hold any weight. Also @ shalashaska, players shouldn't have to waste their time making new IDs to punish the abusers. The abusers should be banned, accounts cleared/locked. fearthequeen, I was just pointing out how to play a guy who dodges and only plays D rated players. On June 11 2015 00:50 iCCup.Face wrote: With the new system we will consider abuses green/gold ranks playing only or mostly vs red/yellow. I don't think it's fair to ban people for playing a certain class of players. They aren't breaking any rules or anything like that, and I don't think it's right to force people to play against those they don't want to play against. I feel that if you want to discourage people from only playing D-/E players, the point system needs to be modified to make it disadvantageous to do so at higher ranks. As I said earlier, the D- to C- players from the old system are being spread out over D- to A- in the new system, and those from C- to Olympic in the old one are being crammed between A- to Olympic in the new one. So really, tuddldnjfem is playing in his skill range and not doing anything wrong. Even though dodging is taboo, it's not against the rules. Just to reiterate my point, if you want a player at a certain rank to play against others with a particular range of ranks, the point system needs to be changed to reflect this. Banning or clearing the stats of "abusers" will not fix the problem, for there will always be more. Also, it would be silly to say something like, "For A- ranks and higher, at least 70% of your games must be against blues, greens, and golds..... OR THOU SHALT BEETH BANNED!" | ||
|
iCCup.Face
Italy447 Posts
I like to see people discussing and share comments, but I wonder if you read the previous replies before to drop yours... On June 11 2015 00:50 iCCup.Face wrote: 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. If it's not clear yet, the real ladder will start from A- this season! D/C/B are there to encourage to play many games at any lvl (that should increase the activity for all), but the true goal is to separate total noobs (D/C) from low medium players (B), medium players (A-), and good ones (A/A+/A++). With the difference to have more players at higher ranks respect previous system, so good players can still find games and good opponents in a reasonable timing. I'm personally satisfied of the first 2 weeks with this system, an increment is visible, but we must wait the end of season for any clever deduction. Remember this is a try and it's possible something will be adjusted, but I don't see all the negative and in the most of cases ignorant (without offense) comments wrote. Funny that some writers don't even play ICCUP. I'm not a veteran of these forums...anyway the same persons are always posting negative and wrong/ignorant statements, TL should assign a /troll mark for them. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10069 Posts
| ||
|
dRaW
Canada5744 Posts
On June 20 2015 13:45 TT1 wrote: who cares if ppl newb bash on the ladder, iccup ladder ranks became meaningless ever since sc2 came out, im sure everyone knows who the good 1v1 players are anyways. this is a good change for 2v2, the 2v2 community is pretty active on iccup. it'll be much easier to find games now. Yep well said, mostly noobs complain about this sort of thing. If you were serious about 1v1 ladder you would have been on fish years ago. | ||
|
wslkgmlk
Australia38 Posts
Here are some recommendations: a) Points for wins and losses should be based on the rank difference between players Based on the current rating system, a B+ player shall be awarded +50 points (or +65 for MOTW) when winning against a player that can be more than 8,000 points lower in rating (e.g. B+ 8,999 vs D- 400), and shall lose -75 points for each loss against that same opponent. Effectively, this means that the B+ player requires a winrate of at least 60% (or 54% when playing on MOTWs) against vastly inferior opponents to advance to the next rank. Although this may appear as an extreme example, it is already being encountered on iCCup with players abusing this to achieve high ranks while obtaining winrates far superior than those noted previously. This is only possible due to the fact that points are awarded based on the grouping of ranks (e.g. D-, D and D+ are all treated as the same rank by the rating system). To minimise this occurance, points can be awarded as follows: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/JP9tGZ2.png) Based on the proposed rating system above, the B+ player would now be awarded +50 points (or +65 for MOTW) when winning against a player that can now only be up to 6,999 points lower (e.g. B+ 8,999 vs D+ 2,000), and shall lose -100 points for each loss against that same opponent. This increases the minimum required winrate to 67% (or 61% when playing on MOTWs) while playing against slightly better opponents this time. Overall, the proposed rating system would slightly minimise the rating gap that would be required to win the same amount of points as before. It shall also provide additional incentive for the lower ranked players to play against higher ranked players, as the points awarded for a win increase per rank and not per three ranks as it is for a loss. Below are a couple of examples how points would be awarded to the B+ and D- players in our example: ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NeXbRXJ.png) b) The rating system should become harder for players as they advance through the ranks The current system has a +100/-50 win/loss policy from D- to B+, which means that as long as a player competes against others of equal rank and maintains a winrate above 33%, they will eventually reach A-. This required winrate to achieve an A- rank can be lowered even more if that player is only playing on MOTWs (28%). In my opinion, players should lose slightly more points when competing at higher ranks against equal opponents to make the ranks meaningful and indicative of skill level. This is how the previous rating system operated, however the numbers can be modified to allow players to climb the ranks slightly easier. For example (as shown in the previous table as well):
Thats it for now, going for beers so I might include further recommendations later.  | ||
|
fearthequeen
United States788 Posts
On June 20 2015 15:48 wslkgmlk wrote: + Show Spoiler + I think its a good approach by iCCup admins to change the rating system to boost activity on the server, although I believe some tweaking to the numbers would create a more fair ladder experience and assist in minimising the amount of abuse. Here are some recommendations: a) Points for wins and losses should be based on the rank difference between players Based on the current rating system, a B+ player shall be awarded +50 points (or +65 for MOTW) when winning against a player that can be more than 8,000 points lower in rating (e.g. B+ 8,999 vs D- 400), and shall lose -75 points for each loss against that same opponent. Effectively, this means that the B+ player requires a winrate of at least 60% (or 54% when playing on MOTWs) against vastly inferior opponents to advance to the next rank. Although this may appear as an extreme example, it is already being encountered on iCCup with players abusing this to achieve high ranks while obtaining winrates far superior than those noted previously. This is only possible due to the fact that points are awarded based on the grouping of ranks (e.g. D-, D and D+ are all treated as the same rank by the rating system). To minimise this occurance, points can be awarded as follows: Based on the proposed rating system above, the B+ player would now be awarded +50 points (or +65 for MOTW) when winning against a player that can now only be up to 6,999 points lower (e.g. B+ 8,999 vs D+ 2,000), and shall lose -100 points for each loss against that same opponent. This increases the minimum required winrate to 67% (or 61% when playing on MOTWs) while playing against slightly better opponents this time. Overall, the proposed rating system would slightly minimise the rating gap that would be required to win the same amount of points as before. It shall also provide additional incentive for the lower ranked players to play against higher ranked players, as the points awarded for a win increase per rank and not per three ranks as it is for a loss. Below are a couple of examples how points would be awarded to the B+ and D- players in our example: b) The rating system should become harder for players as they advance through the ranks The current system has a +100/-50 win/loss policy from D- to B+, which means that as long as a player competes against others of equal rank and maintains a winrate above 33%, they will eventually reach A-. This required winrate to achieve an A- rank can be lowered even more if that player is only playing on MOTWs (28%). In my opinion, players should lose slightly more points when competing at higher ranks against equal opponents to make the ranks meaningful and indicative of skill level. This is how the previous rating system operated, however the numbers can be modified to allow players to climb the ranks slightly easier. For example (as shown in the previous table as well):
Thats it for now, going for beers so I might include further recommendations later. Well done and agreed, hopefully iccup admins will be willing to adjust the system realizing the current one is a bit extreme. I tried to point out the potential flaw in the beginning (how low the winrate needed would be to maintain B rank) I'm impressed at you fully fleshing out an example. | ||
| ||
