|
On December 17 2015 23:22 WrathSCII wrote:
As a D class, when I make a game 1v1 with the name "D", I expect someone who is "D" level to join not a fucking smurf C hiding behind shady 1000/1000. So how about the likes of you stop smurfing our games?
everyones gotta rank up you know?
no need to whine about it because youre bad
|
not sure if hate is the right word, i can see people getting frustrated quickly and i guess deciding they hate it ? then just giving up quickly because the learning curve in bw is so big.
On December 17 2015 23:22 WrathSCII wrote:
As a D class, when I make a game 1v1 with the name "D", I expect someone who is "D" level to join not a fucking smurf C hiding behind shady 1000/1000. So how about the likes of you stop smurfing our games?
i hate these kind of posts, you're playing ladder on broodwar. ladder is meant to be competitive. please don't CRY about a C rank or higher rank player playing on a D rank account vs D rank players because the only way for him to rank up is to get through you first. why not look at it as an opportunity and watch the replay on how you lost vs better players to improve yourself rather than being concerned on how to get a weaker or same skilled opponent in your game?
|
On December 19 2015 07:57 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2015 23:22 WrathSCII wrote:
As a D class, when I make a game 1v1 with the name "D", I expect someone who is "D" level to join not a fucking smurf C hiding behind shady 1000/1000. So how about the likes of you stop smurfing our games? everyones gotta rank up you know? no need to whine about it because youre bad
The problem is that some people like ranking up so much that they just do that over and over again, instead of playing against even opponents, so the D rank players role is to be entertainment for the higher level players.
|
SC2 people naturally hate BW.
As for being D, that's like everyone that plays less than 16 games a season and the bottom 50% of everyone that does, by definition.
I used to be a C- terran. That translates to a B protoss. If I'd log on now and play, I'd be D.
Posts like this are just stupid. Can people never understand the weaknesses of iccup? Iccup rank is about scoring points, not about skill. Half an iccup rank is about how many plays you and everyone else is playing and about how much rank inflation is going on.
If you want somethihng skill based, there's a challenge in programming an algorithm that can guess the skill of a player the quickest. There's some good systems out there, like Trueskill or Glicko.
|
On December 19 2015 09:30 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
SC2 people naturally hate BW.
wtf? no.
|
Ladder worries are not an SC2 issue, its a player base issue. Does not matter if its a quick match button or iccup.
|
On December 19 2015 09:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Ladder worries are not an SC2 issue, its a player base issue. Does not matter if its a quick match button or iccup.
Don't agree. In SC2, 98% of the people win and lose exactly 50% of their games. We can't have 51% of the people winning 51% of their games. Let alone 90% winning 70% of their games.
Iccup is something completely different.
|
On December 19 2015 10:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 09:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Ladder worries are not an SC2 issue, its a player base issue. Does not matter if its a quick match button or iccup. Don't agree. In SC2, 98% of the people win and lose exactly 50% of their games. We can't have 51% of the people winning 51% of their games. Let alone 90% winning 70% of their games. Iccup is something completely different.
So where are these stats of yours coming from? Surely not from your ass, right?
|
On December 19 2015 09:30 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
I used to be a C- terran. That translates to a B protoss. If I'd log on now and play, I'd be D.
lol yet again this argument, havent read that in a long while. I like your point on Glicko though. Glicko2 makes for a nice ranking system. Question is, do users really want it?
|
On December 19 2015 10:09 11cc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 10:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On December 19 2015 09:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Ladder worries are not an SC2 issue, its a player base issue. Does not matter if its a quick match button or iccup. Don't agree. In SC2, 98% of the people win and lose exactly 50% of their games. We can't have 51% of the people winning 51% of their games. Let alone 90% winning 70% of their games. Iccup is something completely different. So where are these stats of yours coming from? Surely not from your ass, right?
The SC2 matchmaking system will match you to opponents of your strength. If you win more than 50%, you'll get to play opponents who are better than you until you lose. Essentially, the system makes it so unless you're a top tier player, you'll always have a win rate that'll be around 50%.
|
On December 19 2015 10:26 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 10:09 11cc wrote:On December 19 2015 10:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On December 19 2015 09:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Ladder worries are not an SC2 issue, its a player base issue. Does not matter if its a quick match button or iccup. Don't agree. In SC2, 98% of the people win and lose exactly 50% of their games. We can't have 51% of the people winning 51% of their games. Let alone 90% winning 70% of their games. Iccup is something completely different. So where are these stats of yours coming from? Surely not from your ass, right? The SC2 matchmaking system will match you to opponents of your strength. If you win more than 50%, you'll get to play opponents who are better than you until you lose. Essentially, the system makes it so unless you're a top tier player, you'll always have a win rate that'll be around 50%.
But isn't that how iccup works as well, except it isn't automated?
|
On December 19 2015 10:09 11cc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 10:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On December 19 2015 09:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Ladder worries are not an SC2 issue, its a player base issue. Does not matter if its a quick match button or iccup. Don't agree. In SC2, 98% of the people win and lose exactly 50% of their games. We can't have 51% of the people winning 51% of their games. Let alone 90% winning 70% of their games. Iccup is something completely different. So where are these stats of yours coming from? Surely not from your ass, right?
Reading that, you don't realize that one of them basically boils down to a statement saying '1 plus 1 can't be 3'?.
How can 51% of the people win 51% of their games?
Point being, this is the thing game devs struggle with. The solution may be to trick people into believing they are playing humans, inflating their winrate. Just have 2 out of 10 people secretly be AI. People talk so little, a game dev can get away with it.
That way, you can get all your customers to be winners. They will all be a lot more satisfied. More cash for your shareholders, surely.
Anyway, this was mostly rhetoric. Surely, most people have a number of games player that doesn't allow for neat stats. If you play only 3 games, no way in hell you can lose 50% of them.
|
On December 19 2015 10:32 11cc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 10:26 Djzapz wrote:On December 19 2015 10:09 11cc wrote:On December 19 2015 10:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On December 19 2015 09:56 Naracs_Duc wrote:
Ladder worries are not an SC2 issue, its a player base issue. Does not matter if its a quick match button or iccup. Don't agree. In SC2, 98% of the people win and lose exactly 50% of their games. We can't have 51% of the people winning 51% of their games. Let alone 90% winning 70% of their games. Iccup is something completely different. So where are these stats of yours coming from? Surely not from your ass, right? The SC2 matchmaking system will match you to opponents of your strength. If you win more than 50%, you'll get to play opponents who are better than you until you lose. Essentially, the system makes it so unless you're a top tier player, you'll always have a win rate that'll be around 50%. But isn't that how iccup works as well, except it isn't automated?
in a broad sense yes. The variancy is higher on ICCup and it part, but not only that is connected to lack of players playing the game. [By variance i mean that you will have more games that drastically differ from your "skill range"]
In theory you rank up so long until you hit a brick wall and can't win more than 45% of your games.
This is partly not functioning anymore since the rank system was overhauled and the decrease in points you can win vs lower rank players is much slower now.
|
On December 19 2015 10:43 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:
How can 51% of the people win 51% of their games?
That is totally possible btw, unlike 1+1=3
Point being, this is the thing game devs struggle with. The solution may be to trick people into believing they are playing humans, inflating their winrate. Just have 2 out of 10 people secretly be AI. People talk so little, a game dev can get away with it.
That way, you can get all your customers to be winners. They will all be a lot more satisfied. More cash for your shareholders, surely.
Anyway, this was mostly rhetoric. Surely, most people have a number of games player that doesn't allow for neat stats. If you play only 3 games, no way in hell you can lose 50% of them.
You actually believe that blizzard is making people play AI on sc2 ladder? I must be mistaken.
|
On December 19 2015 11:01 11cc wrote:
You actually believe that blizzard is making people play AI on sc2 ladder? I must be mistaken.
He believes they could do that to make people feel like they're winning more than they really are. The problem with that is we'd inevitably find out, AI is incredibly hard to code, and if we found ourselves playing against "people" running the same bad strats over and over, we'd figure it out.
Some folks would watch replays and be like what the hell these guys with weird names that seem randomized all play the same kind of erratic weird style that lacks fluidity and doesn't make the same mistakes humans do.
|
On December 19 2015 11:01 11cc wrote:
That is totally possible btw, unlike 1+1=3
How can you say that with a straight face?
Obviously, any game is a zero sum game. For every winner you need a loser.
Now that I think about it, I should have realized that a statement like this isn't intuitive to everyone. There's quite some inferior intellects out there, if you are a top intellect yourself.
Only when I tried to write it down I actually realized it is not an easy problem to explain or to offer a proof. Maybe someone will come along that has more patience and can explain it to you.
You actually believe that blizzard is making people play AI on sc2 ladder? I must be mistaken.
Since you don't understand the statistics, I guess it is only natural for you to twist my words. Once you can actually read and understand my statement, the problem at hand is obvious and my statement is completely non-ambiguous.
Since this is a novel solution I offer as a distant-future solution, I can't see how one can claim I think ths is what the big bad B is doing.
In fact, I never mentioned the big bad B.
Also, I don't think it is that likely that people will go and nitpick the play of bronze player and consider their play so unreasonable, it can't possibly be produced by humans.
I won't say it won't leak, but if it will leak it will leak like corporate conspiracies usually leak.
Fact remains, some multinationals are reckless enough to engage into conspiracies that will be figured out and backfire against them. Why can't it happen in the game industry? Be it the big bad B or someone else. It is all a matter of risk and reward and about how reckless the risk-reward judgment of that one guy under a lot of pressure that's in charge is.
I don't see how getting a database with believable names is an issue. You can just rip or copy names you already have that are player-made.
I agree that playing a game like SC BW can be like a Turing test and that the AI most likely will fail.
But it is a lot harder to pass a Turing test the moment the human knows he is doing a Turing test.
In fact, half the people here could be bots, just posting what humans posted online somewhere else, and I would never realize. Indeed, it would explain a lot of the craziness you see! Especially the unexpected follow-ups.
|
why are you guys talking about whether if or not Blizzard rig's their 2v2 leagues in Sc2? It's not really related to the topic anymore 
|
Have 10 people:
9 out of 10 are mediocre players and win 50% against each other. One player (X) is just a mess and loses 100% of his games.
Now you have 9 players (>51% of the population) with higher than 51 win percentage, which can get higher and higher the more they play mister X.
edit: Purely from intuition, this does seem very much possible. Maybe someone can bring some math in here and prove it haha.
|
On December 17 2015 23:22 WrathSCII wrote:
As a D class, when I make a game 1v1 with the name "D", I expect someone who is "D" level to join not a fucking smurf C hiding behind shady 1000/1000. So how about the likes of you stop smurfing our games?
I remember making a C- game on iCCup a few years back. Played against a similar player with exactly 3200 pts and 0 losses. Got crushed so badly in a standard macro game that I went out of my way to check his account. Turned out he was A+ for like the last few seasons on iCCup and after some more digging, turned out to be the Korean progamer Shuttle. Never been happier to have gotten destroyed xD.
|
Sometimes I think it would be better if seasons didn't reset so often or not at all
My friend who plays GO (not CS:GO... the game of GO) told me about their ladder system that doesn't reset. The result is that it reflects skill a lot better than ours!
I can see the appeal of having seasonal goals but resetting ladder, for me this has made me stop to want to get higher ranks. I could try to get B to prove my skill is B, but it takes too many games in 3 months for me to achieve Especially since I almost never keep playing daily for 3 months in a row and like to try stuff.
Then there is the frustration for people at D skill level, and some amount of "waste of time" for people who want to play against higher skilled players but have to grind a lot before that...
Yes I think in the end it would be better to have a simple ELO ladder system that doesn't reset.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
