ICCUP: New Rating System
Forum Index > BW General |
iCCup.Face
Italy447 Posts
| ||
Mirabel_
United States1768 Posts
| ||
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
| ||
TheGreatOne
United States534 Posts
![]() | ||
Filco
France154 Posts
| ||
TelecoM
United States10671 Posts
| ||
fearthequeen
United States786 Posts
For one it looks like the loss penalties at higher ranks are less. (for example b- vs b- was -100 in the past, now only -50) meaning you now can maintain, and with motw bonus actually gain points @ b-,b,b+ by having 33% win rate vs same rank (130 for 1 win, -100 for two losses = +30 net) Is 33% win rate against same rank really enough for someone to be considered a B ranker? In my opinion no way. Also, imagine you are sitting at D+. You have the choice of playing vs D- or C-. Vs D- you have 100/-50 and vs C- you have 125/-37. Is there any incentive to play vs C- if you are strictly trying to rank up? | ||
Glioburd
France1911 Posts
![]() Thanks for your work Face ! | ||
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On June 09 2015 07:58 fearthequeen wrote: At first glance it looks good, and i understand the reasoning behind doing this (relatively small player pool) but I don't think its better than previous system. For one it looks like the loss penalties at higher ranks are less. (for example b- vs b- was -100 in the past, now only -50) meaning you now can maintain, and with motw bonus actually gain points @ b-,b,b+ by having 33% win rate vs same rank (130 for 1 win, -100 for two losses = +30 net) Is 33% win rate against same rank really enough for someone to be considered a B ranker? In my opinion no way. Also, imagine you are sitting at D+. You have the choice of playing vs D- or C-. Vs D- you have 100/-50 and vs C- you have 125/-37. Is there any incentive to play vs C- if you are strictly trying to rank up? Yeah, this is what I was thinking, but too lazy to write out. This new system actually incentivizes noob-bashing. If ladder noobs thought they were getting "trolled" before (they weren't, just everyone starts at D, and they're just whining because they're bad) well, this is going to make it much more likely that they'll get picked on. | ||
iCCup.Face
Italy447 Posts
The previous C+ skilled will be the next A-, with the difference to play more to get your real new rank, supposing you are here for the fun to play and to ladder up. We hope you will get more games with more different players and with the chance to play vs people much better than you. Something that never happened before since gosu players had no reason to play vs 2-3-4 lower ranks. And the MOST important you will not get bored to wait 20 minutes for a fu%&ing game. You get less points playing against 2-3 higher ranks? True, but how many B- players would have played vs C-/C? Now you will find many more willing to do, or it's what we hope for... | ||
Ty2
United States1434 Posts
| ||
fearthequeen
United States786 Posts
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. | ||
LaStScan
Korea (South)1289 Posts
| ||
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On June 09 2015 08:18 ninazerg wrote: Yeah, this is what I was thinking, but too lazy to write out. This new system actually incentivizes noob-bashing. If ladder noobs thought they were getting "trolled" before (they weren't, just everyone starts at D, and they're just whining because they're bad) well, this is going to make it much more likely that they'll get picked on. Ladder noobs who dont kick an A- player and chose to play them instead don't deserve to even whine ![]() | ||
idegelchik
Russian Federation382 Posts
![]() ![]() ![]() | ||
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
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? | ||
LV-Hellscream
Great Britain154 Posts
Also would be nice that people are allowed to have just one or max 2 acc. ![]() teams should be allowed not more than 10 palyers. and like this Clan league would be back too. f*ck ranks. most important is autogame search like in sc2. for example C+ rank player searches for game ,and he can appear to play vs any, from +-2 ranks. C-C B-B then they can't leave game or they lose pts. so they play. | ||
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On June 09 2015 08:47 iCCup.Face wrote: You should look the full picture. Oh. I didn't think of that. Hm. | ||
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On June 09 2015 15:31 GeckoXp wrote: 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? You are the most bitter, angry and vindictive dude on this forum. I already said that was silly of me, but you have to go "hYpOcRiTe mUcH!?" because why? I don't understand why you do this to yourself. You rarely post here, but when you do, it's always to insult someone or literally tell them to "go fuck themselves". Also, zcorez. | ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
![]() Although it seems a little rough that C+ can get 75 (or 97) points off of a D- players. Granted, I guess D- can just boot the C+ guys just the same. | ||
vanatir
Germany355 Posts
![]() | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28657 Posts
still though, this could make the ladder more lively and playable - I think the past two years I've never moved beyond c+ because I've been having to wait far too long for each game to even make try. And laddering without progress, that's just annoying. | ||
Soulforged
Latvia918 Posts
As in, anyone who can keep a > 60% winrate against D rank, could go from B+ to A-. A could be said to be decent, requiring 55% winrate against B ranks to go from A- to A., or 83% winrate against D ranks(that's probably still too low....still not counting the motws and most good players would have a 95%+ rate there, anyway, with rare losses being running into smurfs or something). Unfortunately you have to remember that the new B ranks will most likely be nothing like the old B ranks; so yeah; A wouldn't speak much about ranks. I guess, A+ is the first new legit rank? That's a ballpark estimate, though. I like the change's direction, though the numbers themselves seem overkill to me. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28657 Posts
![]() | ||
iCCup.Face
Italy447 Posts
5.6 It's forbidden to play against lower ranks only to artificially rank up; Punishment: clearstats (+ lockacct if needed) So if you willing to stats abuse playing only against 3-4 lower ranks, don't do it! The soul of ICCUP is the fair play. | ||
TelecoM
United States10671 Posts
On June 10 2015 00:05 iCCup.Face wrote: I want to remind we have a rule that can be applied at admin's discretion (and we have already used it to clear a couple of blue rank players last seasons): 5.6 It's forbidden to play against lower ranks only to artificially rank up; Punishment: clearstats (+ lockacct if needed) So if you willing to stats abuse playing only against 3-4 lower ranks, don't do it! The soul of ICCUP is the fair play. This seems like a pretty difficult thing to prove, when essentially everyone on iCCup is trying to rank up, and take the easiest path possible to get there. It is natural that anyone will try to take the easiest path to get to the highest rank, so being able to really enforce this rule seems it will prove to be extremely difficult. Although I still think this change is for the best, and hope it brings forth a larger player pool for iCCup. Also, GeckoXp wow really, I never thought I would agree with Nina on anything but yea, she is spot on about you GeckoXp....you really need to do something other than complain in every post~ | ||
xboi209
United States1173 Posts
On June 10 2015 01:13 GGzerG wrote: It is natural that anyone will try to take the easiest path to get to the highest rank, so being able to really enforce this rule seems it will prove to be extremely difficult. In my opinion, there should be an automated system for this if it's going to be a rule. | ||
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
On June 10 2015 02:35 xboi209 wrote: In my opinion, there should be an automated system for this if it's going to be a rule. Well, it's not such a huge problem as it sounds, or as people believe it was. The most common variation of such an abuse are two players playing each other for about fifty games or so. Theoretically, this isn't even illegal, if they pay attention to the rules - hence the rule 5.6 was added. Stuff like that is shut down, and it's fine, no futher step needed. It really happens rarely that a "newb basher" goes higher than 4k points at the most, because newbs will kick him out; no D ranked player fancies to play a C player anymore. For all the rest, who play with low C- against mid D goes: you can't stop that. Either because it's too hard to detect, or because the low C- dude is actually not much better than the ordinary high D. In the end it's not an abuse, as (s)he is so bad, that the D ranked player has chances. I guess it's a bigger problem for 2v2, but 2v2 was always a little wonky system wise. I can only speak from personal experience, but I never felt the urge to actually do something pro-active for that specific sub-community over at ICCup and was quite transparent about it. Every time you try to fix their requests, you realize how incredibly offensive and rude a large part of that sub-scene is. Sad for those few who really rock (thinking about pirayaya for instance), but well... in the end the 2v2 guys complain all day and still play the most. No action required, plus a very minor pay off for a larger work input. The only interesting hint was that of Eriador: D- and D are different worlds. Then again, not sure if there are those who will stay in D- long. It's easy to get in there for about a few hours or so, but it's "hard" to stay this low with the +100 / -50 system. Not sure if that is bad or good for the "true" D- players, since they constantly go up and down between equal and clearly stronger opponents. However, no idea how to fix it. Would seem kinda strange to make -80 points for loss of D- against D-, but could maybe work. I hope that was fine enough for you mister GGbraindamageG | ||
SnowFantasy
4173 Posts
it's also probably not necessary to start calling people brain damaged. | ||
TelecoM
United States10671 Posts
On June 10 2015 02:54 GeckoXp wrote: I don't play 1v1 so I do not know how it works really tbh, although in 2v2 this could make things Wonky. Fixed that for you. | ||
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
no D ranked player fancies to play a C player anymore I beg to differ. ![]() Admittedly I don't get a ton of time to play BW these days but anytime I was playing on ICCup I appreciated playing as high of ranked people as were willing to play against me. The more difficult the opponent the more fun it gets. | ||
nbaker
United States1341 Posts
| ||
iloveav
Poland1478 Posts
But I have been inactive so little that if the player base has really droped that much, its possible that its the best idea ever. | ||
fearthequeen
United States786 Posts
On June 09 2015 15:31 GeckoXp wrote: 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. | ||
HerbMon
United States460 Posts
On June 10 2015 01:13 GGzerG wrote: This seems like a pretty difficult thing to prove, when essentially everyone on iCCup is trying to rank up, and take the easiest path possible to get there. It is natural that anyone will try to take the easiest path to get to the highest rank, so being able to really enforce this rule seems it will prove to be extremely difficult. Although I still think this change is for the best, and hope it brings forth a larger player pool for iCCup. Also, GeckoXp wow really, I never thought I would agree with Nina on anything but yea, she is spot on about you GeckoXp....you really need to do something other than complain in every post~ just checking peoples match history would be easy enough to tell. | ||
idegelchik
Russian Federation382 Posts
![]() come to daddy ![]() | ||
TelecoM
United States10671 Posts
Umm...really sad. | ||
Soulforged
Latvia918 Posts
not like he dodges people around his rank unfortunately with current state of the game, playing everyone leads to playing D ranks over half of the time. doesn't mean they're max D ranks, though only sad part I see is that he actually spends time to play D- guys too, as they're "certainly" D ranks, and never a good game for his level. but 3 games out of 180 is not a problem, haha | ||
TwiggyWan
France329 Posts
On June 09 2015 08:18 ninazerg wrote: Yeah, this is what I was thinking, but too lazy to write out. This new system actually incentivizes noob-bashing. If ladder noobs thought they were getting "trolled" before (they weren't, just everyone starts at D, and they're just whining because they're bad) well, this is going to make it much more likely that they'll get picked on. 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 I want to remind we have a rule that can be applied at admin's discretion (and we have already used it to clear a couple of blue rank players last seasons): 5.6 It's forbidden to play against lower ranks only to artificially rank up; Punishment: clearstats (+ lockacct if needed) So if you willing to stats abuse playing only against 3-4 lower ranks, don't do it! The soul of ICCUP is the fair play. HAHAHA as if it was somewhat enforced | ||
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
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... | ||
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
On June 10 2015 06:04 fearthequeen wrote: 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. | ||
thezanursic
5478 Posts
| ||
![]()
Falling
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. | ||
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
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. | ||
iCCup.Face
Italy447 Posts
On June 10 2015 14:46 idegelchik wrote: ![]() 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. | ||
neteX
Sweden285 Posts
| ||
idegelchik
Russian Federation382 Posts
![]() | ||
kogeT
Poland2037 Posts
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. ![]() | ||
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
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 | ||
Shalashaska_123
United States142 Posts
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. | ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
| ||
Shalashaska_123
United States142 Posts
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. | ||
Sero
United States692 Posts
These are tuddldnjfem's last 12 games played: ![]() Here's his opponents: ![]() ![]() ![]() 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. ![]() 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. | ||
![]()
Liquid`Drone
Norway28657 Posts
| ||
![]()
Falling
Canada11349 Posts
| ||
Sero
United States692 Posts
| ||
vOdToasT
Sweden2870 Posts
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. | ||
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
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. | ||
![]()
Falling
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. | ||
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
| ||
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 States786 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
Canada760 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
Canada11349 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 States786 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
Canada11349 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
6175 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_
456 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
Canada10007 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: ![]() 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. ![]() | ||
fearthequeen
United States786 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. | ||
Shalashaska_123
United States142 Posts
That's a very thoughtful post you wrote. I can tell you took some time to organize everything and make the tables look pretty. Well done. ![]() From what I've gathered so far, iCCup.Face has the final say in what ends up happening, but he wants to make the experience more enjoyable for everyone, which is why he implemented this new point system in the first place. I'm curious to know if he succeeded in his mission (roughly two weeks since the change took place). If you have played on iCCup this season, please vote in the following polls. Poll: Are you satisfied with iCCup.Face's new rating system? No (14) Yes (10) 24 total votes Your vote: Are you satisfied with iCCup.Face's new rating system? Poll: What rating system do you want to be in place? wslkgmlk's Option a) Rating System (8) iCCup.Face's Rating System (4) The Original Rating System (4) wslkgmlk's Option b) Rating System (0) Some Other Rating System (0) 16 total votes Your vote: What rating system do you want to be in place? (Vote): iCCup.Face's Rating System | ||
fearthequeen
United States786 Posts
On June 21 2015 00:37 Shalashaska_123 wrote: Hello, wslkgmlk. That's a very thoughtful post you wrote. I can tell you took some time to organize everything and make the tables look pretty. Well done. ![]() From what I've gathered so far, iCCup.Face has the final say in what ends up happening, but he wants to make the experience more enjoyable for everyone, which is why he implemented this new point system in the first place. I'm curious to know if he succeeded in his mission (roughly two weeks since the change took place). If you have played on iCCup this season, please vote in the following polls. Poll: Are you satisfied with iCCup.Face's new rating system? No (14) Yes (10) 24 total votes Your vote: Are you satisfied with iCCup.Face's new rating system? Poll: What rating system do you want to be in place? wslkgmlk's Option a) Rating System (8) iCCup.Face's Rating System (4) The Original Rating System (4) wslkgmlk's Option b) Rating System (0) Some Other Rating System (0) 16 total votes Your vote: What rating system do you want to be in place? (Vote): iCCup.Face's Rating System The a) and b) in wslkgmlk's post are not 2 separate example systems. They are 2 points that are both addressed within the same 1 system. Also I don't know how I feel about a poll on Teamliquid, considering anyone with a TL account can vote on it, and wouldn't even have to be a BW player to vote, much less an active iccup user who sees the ladder system first hand. I'm just not sure a poll here can/should be taken seriously by Iccup. I did vote on the first poll just for kicks. | ||
kogeT
Poland2037 Posts
| ||
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
look at this guys match list - imo that is ban worthy.. its a joke lol | ||
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
| ||
Sero
United States692 Posts
![]() | ||
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
I think the changes are good overall but u need to give less points for B vs D matches. Maybe like 10 or even less. Playing 30-40 games as a B+ vs D should be the same as playing 2-3 vs B or B+.. | ||
castleeMg
Canada760 Posts
| ||
13Julia
Canada231 Posts
There's more to play for, last season once you got to C, there was no one to play. Now ppl ladder just to get the rank, I don't care if someone gets the rank playing vsE or D+, still more active people play up higher - easier to find a game. Good. | ||
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On June 20 2015 12:17 iCCup.Face wrote: 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. I get it now. However I don't think there's a reason not to make an exception for D- and E players as others have said an to split it into 3 groups E and D- D to B+ A- and above | ||
idegelchik
Russian Federation382 Posts
| ||
kogeT
Poland2037 Posts
On June 23 2015 17:00 JieXian wrote: I get it now. However I don't think there's a reason not to make an exception for D- and E players as others have said an to split it into 3 groups E and D- D to B+ A- and above Fully support that. E and D- group as one (and very little points when playing them and more points to lose) D to B+ - as it is is fine A- and above -> big penalties for losing D to C+ and small wins. | ||
idegelchik
Russian Federation382 Posts
On June 23 2015 20:35 kogeT wrote: Fully support that. E and D- group as one (and very little points when playing them and more points to lose) D to B+ - as it is is fine A- and above -> big penalties for losing D to C+ and small wins. u wrote old system, iccup wanna try new ![]() | ||
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
what a .. cunt :D | ||
TheGreatOne
United States534 Posts
| ||
fearthequeen
United States786 Posts
On July 07 2015 13:24 TheGreatOne wrote: I'm struggling to comprehend the new rating system changes exactly. Can someone please simplify the new changes in a post. In the old system there were different possible +/- points on the line based on "semi-ranks" (D D+ C- C) ect. So, for example, in old D+ vs C- D+ vs C D+ vs C+ all had different amounts of points to gain/lose in each situation. In new, its simplified to where the effective ranks are D, C, B, A-, A, A+, Olympic (d- d d+ are all counted as D now when calculating points, for example). Now D- vs D+ counts the same as D vs D, D+ vs C- counts the same as D+ vs C+, and so on. Also players stand to lose less points from losing a ladder game across the spectrum, when compared with old system. Aka the loss penalties are less now. | ||
TheGreatOne
United States534 Posts
On July 07 2015 15:17 fearthequeen wrote: In the old system there were different possible +/- points on the line based on "semi-ranks" (D D+ C- C) ect. So, for example, in old D+ vs C- D+ vs C D+ vs C+ all had different amounts of points to gain/lose in each situation. In new, its simplified to where the effective ranks are D, C, B, A-, A, A+, Olympic (d- d d+ are all counted as D now when calculating points, for example). Now D- vs D+ counts the same as D vs D, D+ vs C- counts the same as D+ vs C+, and so on. Also players stand to lose less points from losing a ladder game across the spectrum, when compared with old system. Aka the loss penalties are less now. Okay, that helps a lot, thank you very much! ![]() | ||
zimp
Hungary951 Posts
On June 23 2015 20:35 kogeT wrote: Fully support that. E and D- group as one (and very little points when playing them and more points to lose) D to B+ - as it is is fine A- and above -> big penalties for losing D to C+ and small wins. i agree with this (or maybe a bit more difficult like what wslkgmlk wrote) and bringing back a C - A channel would make sense too. | ||
PhilGood2DaY
Germany7424 Posts
So imho Playing D-,D,D+ if u are B-,B,B+ and even worse A-,A,A+ should maybe get u max 5-10 points. Now u can think twice about bashing noobs and abusing if u have to waste 10-20 games on the equivalent of 1 game vs similiar rank. Ofc its tricky: U do not want the players who dont dodge to get upset when they want to play and no similiar rank is around. Still imo the KEY point is -> Give very very low points for B+ A- , A, A+ vs D and C- range. Maybe in general give like 5-10 points for a win if u are playing D- and D guy if u are above B or B+. | ||
GeckoXp
Germany2016 Posts
| ||
BulgarianToss
Bulgaria484 Posts
| ||
SuGo
United States681 Posts
1) I understand why the new changes have been put into effect: Simply to induce more activity and not create a standstill once a player reaches C+. In the old system, once you achieve C+, you're essentially stuck there as it's either play D ranks and get +16 (or whatever insanely low value), or just don't play at all because to wait for another similarly ranked person may never happen. This was obviously no good, and this new system helps to mitigate this standstill so people keep playing. In essence, it does indeed do what it was set out to do: Help increase some sort of activity. 2) However, while Point 1 is a success (seemingly... and yes, some new adjustments and such should be in order), it still truly does create a very LARGE group of users who will either abuse (purposely play D ranks, because who doesn't want to get +65 on MOTW?) and dodge the similarly ranked players. This example was noted best by one of Sero's examples in the earlier pages. I have no problem with a person playing D ranks and getting the +65. That's part of this whole implementation to induce more activity, so that's ok. The part that needs to be remediated is the 'dodging' part. If a B rank purposely wants to face D, if no other game is present, that's great. But if a C+ comes to you, and you dodge it so you can keep playing the D, we have a problem. Of course, the issue is: how to stop this? Can we build some sort of programming that "locks" a player in? I'm not sure. But this point needs the most addressing in my opinion. 3) Some others did suggest a good alternative: Group E/D together, and use the same old system format... If you play an E or D, you will get the measly +16 pts, but you will lose the -200. And keep the new system rules in place for C- and onwards... That will omit B ranks trying to intentionally play a D rank. Yes, a B vs C- is still probably going to be an auto-loss for C-, but the C- COULD win a few games here and there to help balance the point total(s). In conclusion: Let's see what comes of this - but there are certainly changes that need to be made to come CLOSER to a 'perfect system.' I say CLOSER because... well, the system can and never will be perfect. It's the nature of a ladder like this where it's human nature, in some sense, to want the prestige of ranking. | ||
| ||