EPT[ICCUP] Good signals, activity increased! - Page 5
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
psd
France94 Posts
| ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
Nice argument bro | ||
|
psd
France94 Posts
- Smurf - Ex A/B players that were absent last season - Shared account As B-royal said, it has nothing to do with the ladder system, it's just how ppl behave on iccup. | ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
Lose same amount of points per loss than you win per victory. That way there's no rank inflation caused by game spam = increase in rank accuracy Lose a lot more against lower ranks. That way there's less incentive for high ranks to play low ranks. This means people that don't bother ranking up and just play high ranks anyway because that's where they belong will have a harder time finding games and forced to rank up = increase in rank accuracy No more MOTW bs. This is also a system that results in rank inflation. Let players decide which map they wanna play Require that new accounts do something before they can ladder. That way you can't just create a fresh account and ladder away = increase in rank accuracy Put a system in place to support clan tags. Right now you have to create a fresh account if you want to have a clan tag = increase in rank accuracy Make it so it takes less games to rank up to account for these changes | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
On March 02 2017 00:04 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: Yes, if you have 85% winrate over 100 games you should get to your true rank in any decent system. Why? You don't know whom he played to get an 85% win rate, clearly not people that are at his skill level so why should his rank reflect his true skill? 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. It doesn't defeat the purpose. It shows that this person is not good enough to attain a higher rank. He needs to get better before he'll progress smoothly to higher ranks in a matter of a 100 games. 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? I'm not agreeing at all. I'm stating that you seem to have a problem with smurfing, which has inherently nothing to do with the ranking system. It's people making new accounts. How do you try to prevent this? By making accounts cost money or by tying it to IP addresses or by some other ways more tech savvy people can come up with. A rank is an accomplishment like a medal or a trophy you carry with you. It gives an indication of the skill the person is at. But nobody takes it at face value since a rank can't ever tell you how good a person really is. This is why you try to incorporate information from other places such as someone's win rates, if you care about this. Some people don't mind at all if they play someone that's leagues above themselves. It would make sense if you were advocating for an MMR/ELO type of system (surprise surprise though even those games have "ranks" that don't always align with the MMR/ELO). Since then winning and losing points could be weighted based on how good your opponent is (MMR/ELO) and not only his rank. 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. It's not hard inferring that you are a low(er) rank player since you have troubles with smurfing. But that's obviously besides the point. 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 How is changing the ranking system so people can't "artificially rank up" going to alleviate this issue of smurfing? edit: On March 02 2017 01:14 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: Here's what can be done: Lose same amount of points per loss than you win per victory. That way there's no rank inflation caused by game spam = increase in rank accuracy This will result in over-saturation of people at lower ranks, which will aggravate the issue of "smurfing". Lose a lot more against lower ranks. That way there's less incentive for high ranks to play low ranks. This means people that don't bother ranking up and just play high ranks anyway because that's where they belong will have a harder time finding games and forced to rank up = increase in rank accuracy Combined with your previous measure this will make it harder for better people to reach their true rank, which will aggravate the issue of smurfing not only by forcing people to make new accounts to get games going but also because these players can't even attain their true rank. No more MOTW bs. This is also a system that results in rank inflation. Let players decide which map they wanna play MOTW is a good system, there should just be even more incentive to use them at lower ranks. Right now I only ever see MOTW hosted by people that are high rank since they're familiar with the maps. Lower ranks in my experience stick even more to Fighting Spirit and Python. Besides MOTW is again good to alleviate smurfing as it allows good people to reach their true rank faster, which means they have to play less games, making less nerds sad that they're getting beat by a player that's clearly not D/C rank  Require that new accounts do something before they can ladder. That way you can't just create a fresh account and ladder away = increase in rank accuracy I could agree with this but I don't think the game is in any position to place more restrictions on what could be actual new players. Put a system in place to support clan tags. Right now you have to create a fresh account if you want to have a clan tag = increase in rank accuracy This is a good change. | ||
|
Bonyth
Poland605 Posts
| ||
|
shall_burn
252 Posts
Ladder is about competition. If you want to define your own true rank, then you actually have to play anyone who joins your game, not just Ds or Cs or where are you atm. "1v1 any rank" is the way to go. | ||
|
noname_
467 Posts
| ||
|
noname_
467 Posts
I`d vote for random maps. On March 02 2017 02:56 shall_burn wrote: Ladder is about competition. If you want to define your own true rank, then you actually have to play anyone who joins your game, not just Ds or Cs or where are you atm. "1v1 any rank" is the way to go. I agree. Too bad after a while you get 0 points.  | ||
|
CrownRoyal
Vatican City State1872 Posts
You should be really happy to play players better than you, if you could practice vs someone who smashed your face in 50 games a day you would be so much better than if you played someone of equal skill 50x a day. We used to emulate playing vs much better players in broodwar by playing team melee and fighting one another 2v1. In my clique we realized that you get a lot better practice even though you are really only training one person at a time. The guy playing alone NEVER wins, just like if you played some korean pro every game. Honestly do not care about your record/rating unless you're really just trying to be able to say "I got A- on ICCUP". It really doesn't matter. It will be much easier for you to say you got that rating if you just get better at the game and don't worry about getting beat up, it's part of the process of getting better. | ||
|
shall_burn
252 Posts
I agree. Too bad after a while you get 0 points. No, not really. At least that wasn't my case. I got to C without picking opponents, whoever comes I play him.Although my win/lose ratio wasn't good (below 50%), that season when I decided to stop bitching about ranks was my most successful season in terms of growth and (as much as trite this word is) improvement. Of course, C is nothing to boast with here, I myself am not a dedicated player too. But before that I was struggling to keep my score above 2000 points, consistently dropping back to D. I also got some important and helpful pieces of advice from players better than me. | ||
|
rand0MPrecisi0n
313 Posts
To answer b-royal argumnt about over-saturation, this is easily fixed by reading the last line of my post 'Make it so it takes less games to rank up to account for these changes' All in all, I find hard to believe that people think a system where you can rank up with below 50% winrate vs the rank you're in to be a good system, but then again I'm the kind of person who puts too much faith in people's intelligence, so it's no surprise I'm disappointed more often than not | ||
|
DarkNetHunter
1224 Posts
For anyone interested, account made in Feb 2017, first post: On February 11 2017 16:14 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: iccup rnd0MPrcs0n rank c-/c race t, can off-race with lower ranks LF game spam vs any race edit: if u add me post here or send a pm So basically you're C- terran complaining about smurfs when you're probably just losing PvT to B- protosses all day and thinking they're way better than they are. (See how making assumptions about other people is bad? ) The only solution to your 'issue' is one B-Royal suggested which is an actual IP/paid key or other form of IT based account restriction. If you're troubled by Smurfs so much, go play on Fish, the incentive for people to smurf is way less since it requires 30 melee games to even begin laddering. I'm sure you'll still find something to complain about. | ||
|
Bonyth
Poland605 Posts
You can check the history of games played at iccup in previous seasons where u can notice Iccup activity increase after changing the system into less strict one. | ||
|
Highgamer
1470 Posts
On March 02 2017 05:24 Bonyth wrote: You see, Iccup has about 300-500 people online (and who knows how many of them are just afk). Because our foreign community is so small (compared to Fish server), with current system we reward people for being active. Because of that, people create more games and because of that, less people are discouraged cause they are in fact able to find games (less people dropping sc:bw). You can check the history of games played at iccup in previous seasons where u can notice Iccup activity increase after changing the system into less strict one. Interesting points, mentioning some practical reasons, but one could counter-argue that 1) some people, especially newcomers, get discouraged after a while, too, because they want to ladder but not get beaten up out of nowhere all the time... but who can tell what's the more pressing issue (or which is more negligible, haha) 2) The increasing number of games probably does not only stem from the system-change, probably (just one possible reason out of many: Flash is back) I think we should share our opinions and give room to them all, argue about what could be improved and accept criticism, but also appreciate what he have in Iccup, we'll hardly find a system that serves all needs. And if the system fucks you up once again, this might help you let off some steam: | ||
|
Sr18
Netherlands1141 Posts
In comparison, my experience with iccup is pretty bad. You need to play way too many games to get to your skill level and by the time you get there, the season ends. The appeal is lost on me. | ||
|
Highgamer
1470 Posts
How many non-korean people play BW? I think the quantity matters a lot, see Bonyth's line of argument. | ||
|
noname_
467 Posts
On March 02 2017 05:48 Sr18 wrote: As someone used to several different chess servers that all use some form of ELO for ranking, I never understood the appeal of the iccup ladder. On the chess servers I get to my level within 10 games and then only have good games. There are no seasons or resets either, as there is no need. In comparison, my experience with iccup is pretty bad. You need to play way too many games to get to your skill level and by the time you get there, the season ends. The appeal is lost on me. This mirrors my views too exactly. And on the top of it, you won`t find games easily on higher levels within an acceptable time interval (dodge, too few players, timing, you name it), which is pretty strange given the fact that you are willing to play literally anyone. | ||
|
B-royal
Belgium1330 Posts
On March 02 2017 04:33 rand0MPrecisi0n wrote: Lots of weird arguments about this but I think I made my point pretty clear. To answer b-royal argumnt about over-saturation, this is easily fixed by reading the last line of my post 'Make it so it takes less games to rank up to account for these changes' All in all, I find hard to believe that people think a system where you can rank up with below 50% winrate vs the rank you're in to be a good system, but then again I'm the kind of person who puts too much faith in people's intelligence, so it's no surprise I'm disappointed more often than not Your point is obviously not clear since initially you were talking about people "artificially ranking up". From this, I would surmise you are actually sad a lot of B/A rank players are not good enough for you. But then you addressed the issue of smurfing, which has nothing to do with how the ranking system works. Of course continue to insult people's intelligence while you're clearly not making any sense at all, that'll go really well. All in all this measure of gaining more points than losing if you play someone of equal ranks makes a lot of sense to promote: 1. People slowly ranking up, still giving them a feeling that they're improving instead of just getting stuck at a certain rating. And since there's a season reset, ranks retain their meaning. 2. People getting to their true rank faster to combat lower players getting stomped continuously. Any system has its disadvantages, but iCCup is not about to switch to an ELO/MMR based system. | ||
|
MuNi
United States72 Posts
I think that is a huge part of the problem. Last season there was less than 100 users that were A- or above. So, all of us know eachother. We know who is legit and who is dodge and most of us have players we avoid. Point being, I think there should be some kind of change in the ranking system when a user hits a certain level that is more drastic than what it is now. If you are C- you should get decent points for beating D+, but no A- or even B+ user should be able to snag points from any D user. If you are a higher ranked player and there arent any games on iccup than you are playing on fish. There are some exceptations of course because of latency or whatever else. Point being is that there is plenty of incentive to play on Fish if iccup is dead for youre level of players. | ||
| ||
