EPTalso marketing (through their forums) is needed. i guess most casual koreans are simply ignorant about iccup, doesn't help with the image when people that know iccup through word-of-mouth usually gets unsavory associations like "lag", "peruvians" etc.
[ICCUP] Good signals, activity increased! - Page 4
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
Probemicro
3708 Posts
also marketing (through their forums) is needed. i guess most casual koreans are simply ignorant about iccup, doesn't help with the image when people that know iccup through word-of-mouth usually gets unsavory associations like "lag", "peruvians" etc. | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
They'll just have to learn to avoid [PE] haha. | ||
|
iCCup.Face
Italy447 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KI3kb59.png) Season 42 finished with the highest number of games played in last 21 months (7 seasons). We are not in the golden age anymore, but it's still a record. Thanks guys, keep playing! | ||
|
Highgamer
1470 Posts
 (I have no probs like that normally) | ||
|
awerti
227 Posts
| ||
|
iCCup.Face
Italy447 Posts
On March 01 2017 07:28 Highgamer wrote: I know this might be a bit out of place here after this post... but can anyone else not connect to Iccup right now? (I have no probs like that normally) s43 will start in few hours | ||
|
Highgamer
1470 Posts
Significant growth since mid last year... will be interesting to see the numbers for 2017. | ||
|
noname_
467 Posts
On March 08 2016 06:27 zimp wrote: great! how can one explain the huge peaks on the first graph? Weekends probably yield more games. | ||
|
BearAttack
33 Posts
| ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
Are there any plans on changing the ranking system? Right now it's almost meaningless, with people that spam games ranking up artificially | ||
|
Bonyth
Poland611 Posts
| ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
On March 01 2017 09:29 Bonyth wrote: I would say it works very well with only one player hitting olympic 1v1 and a couple more in 2v2 So you're saying a guy B rank with 85-15 and another with 320-250 deserve to be at the same rank? Number of ppl hitting olympic affects almost no ones experience, and as such is close to irrelevant in this discussion | ||
|
SCC-Faust
United States3736 Posts
| ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
On March 01 2017 09:38 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: So you're saying a guy B rank with 85-15 and another with 320-250 deserve to be at the same rank? Number of ppl hitting olympic affects almost no ones experience, and as such is close to irrelevant in this discussion The guy that's at 85-15 will most likely get to A/Olympic if he keeps on playing (logically), whereas the other guy won't? Bad example imo. | ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
Also, you're basically saying that in 100 games the B rank is still not at his deserved rank, and you have no problems with it? How many games you think it should take? 500? That's already a problem right there | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
On March 01 2017 11:09 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: You're either stupid or pretending to be. Either way, B and higher ranks don't have a problem with the system because they're obviously not affected by how shit it is. In fact, they're contributing to it, by smurfing their asses off, beating noobs for 40 games and moving on to the next account, instead of 'keeping playing', which according to you is the next 'logical' step. I'd love data on how many accounts per player, divided by rank. That would reveal the bullshit of ppl defending the ranking system in a second Also, you're basically saying that in 100 games the B rank is still not at his deserved rank, and you have no problems with it? How many games you think it should take? 500? That's already a problem right there How dense are you honestly? Yes you should play more than 100 games to get at your desired rank OBVIOUSLY. Or do you think that a ladder (you know you start climbing a ladder at the bottom right? And it can take a long time before you reach the top) in a game like starcraft (which has such vast differences in skill that it's inconceivable to try to define it), you should be able to reach your true ranking if you're super good after 100 games? What other system do you suggest? A trash system like sc2 that "places" you in a league based on 5 laughable placement games? I don't understand how you can be so oblivious to other people's stats. How about you check people's stats before you play a game? Is that too much effort for you? If they're 18-0 at D+, maybe don't play them unless you're up for a challenge? Any system is abusable. I can abuse placement matches by purposely playing bad in them, being put into bronze and having a jolly go at playing scrubs. Try thinking ahead sometimes or at least coming up with solutions. Or maybe, just maybe put your ego at the door and accept you're not very good at starcraft and that it's not always B/A players smurfing but more like bad C players smurfing who need to have their 40-10 account only to restart over when they start losing. Anyway nice ad hominems. I would also say you're straw manning but you didn't even address my argument aside from stating that it's a problem that you don't necessarily reach your final rank after 100 games and not explaining why it is. So try again buddy. edit: And finally even more laughable is that your issue is clearly with smurfing (which means people making tons of accounts), which has nothing to do with the ranking system!! hahahaha | ||
|
Cryoc
Germany913 Posts
On March 01 2017 11:09 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: You're either stupid or pretending to be. Either way, B and higher ranks don't have a problem with the system because they're obviously not affected by how shit it is. In fact, they're contributing to it, by smurfing their asses off, beating noobs for 40 games and moving on to the next account, instead of 'keeping playing', which according to you is the next 'logical' step. I'd love data on how many accounts per player, divided by rank. That would reveal the bullshit of ppl defending the ranking system in a second Also, you're basically saying that in 100 games the B rank is still not at his deserved rank, and you have no problems with it? How many games you think it should take? 500? That's already a problem right there The problem is the limited player base. You will always run into one of the two cases: 1. Either higher level players cannot find games in reasonable time if they are only allowed to play vs equally strong players and might stop playing altogether or 2. Ladder games between players can have bigger disparity in skill level to reduce the waiting time and increase the number of played games but it results more often in stomps. Both sides have significant disadvantages and I don't see that being solved without a significant increase in player numbers. | ||
|
Jealous
10358 Posts
On March 01 2017 11:09 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: You're either stupid or pretending to be. Either way, B and higher ranks don't have a problem with the system because they're obviously not affected by how shit it is. In fact, they're contributing to it, by smurfing their asses off, beating noobs for 40 games and moving on to the next account, instead of 'keeping playing', which according to you is the next 'logical' step. I'd love data on how many accounts per player, divided by rank. That would reveal the bullshit of ppl defending the ranking system in a second Also, you're basically saying that in 100 games the B rank is still not at his deserved rank, and you have no problems with it? How many games you think it should take? 500? That's already a problem right there I'd love it if people would begin to realize that 90% of the people that whoop them at D rank are most likely not smurfs, and that they are just bad. | ||
|
HerbMon
United States472 Posts
On March 01 2017 09:50 SCC-Faust wrote: Shoutout to herbmon for playing about 0.5% of those games last season. HAHAHAH im fucking dead. xD | ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
On March 01 2017 12:08 B-royal wrote: How dense are you honestly? Yes you should play more than 100 games to get at your desired rank OBVIOUSLY. Or do you think that a ladder (you know you start climbing a ladder at the bottom right? And it can take a long time before you reach the top) in a game like starcraft (which has such vast differences in skill that it's inconceivable to try to define it), you should be able to reach your true ranking if you're super good after 100 games? What other system do you suggest? A trash system like sc2 that "places" you in a league based on 5 laughable placement games? I don't understand how you can be so oblivious to other people's stats. How about you check people's stats before you play a game? Is that too much effort for you? If they're 18-0 at D+, maybe don't play them unless you're up for a challenge? Any system is abusable. I can abuse placement matches by purposely playing bad in them, being put into bronze and having a jolly go at playing scrubs. Try thinking ahead sometimes or at least coming up with solutions. Or maybe, just maybe put your ego at the door and accept you're not very good at starcraft and that it's not always B/A players smurfing but more like bad C players smurfing who need to have their 40-10 account only to restart over when they start losing. Anyway nice ad hominems. I would also say you're straw manning but you didn't even address my argument aside from stating that it's a problem that you don't necessarily reach your final rank after 100 games and not explaining why it is. So try again buddy. edit: And finally even more laughable is that your issue is clearly with smurfing (which means people making tons of accounts), which has nothing to do with the ranking system!! hahahaha Yes, if you have 85% winrate over 100 games you should get to your true rank in any decent system. If you think 100 games is not enough for a player that good imagine someone with 55% wins, or 60%. They will take thousands, which is more than 99% of people play per season and thus defeats the whole purpose. You're literally agreeing with me without realizing by saying that checking the stats is relevant. It shouldn't be. The rank's purpose, as far as the players go, is to know where you stack up. If you have to check stats outside of the game then why have a rank in the first place? Also stop making assumptions about my rank. This seems to be a very common assumption every time someone brings up this discussion, and it couldn't be more wrong. It just so happens that many of the high ranks that still bother to post here have been high rank for so long they don't give a fuck/are not affected by rank problems. In my experience over 50% of games at C or below have a chance higher than 50% that the opponent is gonna be a smurf. And no, it's not because 'I'm just bad', it's because they have no games played in previous seasons and are standing up to me, it's because they have a 25-50 record but you can see they play against B and A ranks all the time (who wouldn't accept playing vs D if the punish for losing was high enough), it's because they were A two seasons ago but didn't play for a while, it's because you can create a new account in less than 5 minutes and be playing ladder. How the fuck can someone even defend this system is beyond me | ||
| ||
