Today, we'd like to bring some statistics to you about how many ladder games were played in the past seasons.
Graph A:
As you can see in graph A, we saw a steady increase in games played from mid Season 36 to the end of Season 38. The average of games played has increased from just under 7,500 to over 11,000 games played (variable data time frame 2-5 days).
Graph B:
We also recorded, can be seen in Graph B, the total amount of ladder games played per season: 29th August 2015 for Season 36 with 253,835 games 30 November 2015 for Season 37 with 253,494 games 29 February 2016 for Season 38 with 273,231 games
While the total amount of games played in Season 36 and 37 are very closed each other, we see quite an increase between 37 and 38 about 19,700 games, an increment of 7% in games played.
Now, it is hard to exactly pinpoint the reasons for this most welcome increase in activity, since multiple factors could be playing into it, could have been the new rating system, the events created by teamliquid and non solo, but we certainly hope we did a good job to make ICCup a fun, challenging and rewarding experience to you.
We hope to do an even better job for the rest of 2016 and wish you all...
...GL&HF
NEW MAP PACK v39.0
I also take this opportunity to announce we released a new version of the iCCup Map Pack
Changes: • Cross Game 1.06: Fixed pylon walling at 3 o clock • Overwatch: Changed terran wall at top main, 1st marine spawns inside wall now and pylon walling at 6 o clock (and 12), bit harder to mine hop now • Neo Medusa: Delete ‘Neo’ • Neo Jade: Delete ‘Neo’ • Latin Quarter: Delete ‘The’ • Fortress: Delete ‘The’ • Fortress obs: Delete ‘SE’ • ColloseumII 2.0: Change to Colloseum 2.0 • ResonanceII 1.0: Change to Resonance 2.0 • Grandline: Delete ‘SE’ • Circuit Breakers: Delete the plural ‘s’ • Luna the final: Change to Luna 2.1 • Hunters: Delete 'kespa' • Added a version number for: Eye of the storm, Icarus, Longinus, Pathfinder, Tau cross, Circuit Breaker
It's important to use the new pack from now or the system wouldn't detect your ladder games
great news! i also feel like i have seen a huge increase of people on fish after 이영호 started streaming again.. also, i have heard non-starcraft related korean girls talking about BW again, both about bisu and flash's handsomeness... rebirth of bw?
As you know, in the mapping scene there are several maps that have a ‘Neo’ or ‘New’ prefix. The iCCup map pack previously had some maps with the neo included while others had dropped it and just changed the version number to 2.0 instead. When hosting maps, it is convenient if players can alphabetically jump to a map by typing the first letter. For this reason, all the maps with a neo prefix have been changed. Also maps with ‘The’ at the start.
Neo Jade is now Jade 2.1 Neo Medusa is now Medusa 2.2 Neo Overwatch is now Overwatch 2.1
Which is inline with the convention that was previously established with Aztec 2.1 Beltway 2.0 Bloody Ridge 2.1 Chain Reaction 2.0 Electric Circuit 2.1 Ground Zero 2.0 Heartbreak Ridge 2.1 Sniper Ridge 2.0 Tornado 2.2
The Latin Quarter has been labelled just Latin Quarter now.
‘The Fortress’ has been corrected to just Fortress now.
ColosseumII 2.0 has been changed to Colosseum 2.0. The II was superfluous, following the previous conventions.
ResonanceII 1.0 has been changed to Resonance 1.0. 'Resonance I' was a 4 player map concept that was never published. So this map being called Resonance II is not necessary.
Grand Line SE 2.2 has been changed to Grand Line 2.2. Again, the SE is superfluous.
Dantes Peak SE 2.0 hasn’t been changed yet, because I bloody forgot alright!
Luna the Final has been changed to Luna 2.1.
Hunters had ‘kespa’ in the title, it has been changed to Hunters 1.1.
Version numbers added: Benzene 1.1 Circuit Breaker 1.0 Eye of the Storm 1.0 Icarus 1.0 Longinus 2.0 Pathfinder 1.0 Tau Cross 1.0
So, which have I got wrong?
------------------------ ------------------------
If you make a map called ‘Neo’ the filename/map title would be ‘Neo 1.0’. If you make a map called ‘The’ it would become ‘1.0’. If you make a map called ‘The 1.0’ it would become ‘1.0 1.0’. If ‘The 1.0’ was changed significantly, it would become ‘1.0 2.0’. If you make a map called ‘The The 2.0’ it would become ‘The 2.0 1.0’.
If a map was called ‘Neo Neo’ as the first version ever released, it would become ‘Neo Neo 1.0’. If ‘Neo Neo’ was changed significantly it would become ‘Neo Neo 2.0’.
------------------------ ------------------------
Version 1.06 Cross Game -Fixed pylon walling at 3 o clock
Version 2.1 Overwatch -Changed terran wall at top main, 1st marine spawns inside wall now -Changed pylon walling at 6 o clock (and 12), bit harder to mine hop now
On March 08 2016 08:02 CardinalAllin wrote: If you make a map called ‘Neo’ the filename/map title would be ‘Neo 1.0’. If you make a map called ‘The’ it would become ‘1.0’. If you make a map called ‘The 1.0’ it would become ‘1.0 1.0’. If ‘The 1.0’ was changed significantly, it would become ‘1.0 2.0’. If you make a map called ‘The The 2.0’ it would become ‘The 2.0 1.0’.
If a map was called ‘Neo Neo’ as the first version ever released, it would become ‘Neo Neo 1.0’. If ‘Neo Neo’ was changed significantly it would become ‘Neo Neo 2.0’.
Hahaha I like
What would this map be called, then:
A significantly revamped version of the map "The Neo 1.0 Neo 2.5" ? :D
Also what I do not really understand is the second digit? Is it version number like the when you have a significantly changed map version and only change some smaller details it becomes 2.2? Or what?
I think it's a little naive to celebrate a 7% increase in games played from the previous two seasons. You'd have to compare it to data from many more seasons prior to determine whether this is significant or not. There might have been more games played in Season 38 because it was in session during the holidays and also because people were practicing for the TLS Championship tournament. I'm skeptical whether this recent spike in activity has anything to do with the new iCCup rating system due to how long ago it was implemented. With the return of FlaSh, I imagine interest in Brood War will soar for a while.
On another note, if you delete "kespa" from the title, how are people supposed to distinguish this Hunters map from the one created by Blizzard? If you delete the "Neo" from Neo Jade, how will people distinguish it from the original? In my opinion, these changes do nothing but cause confusion and lead to more waiting time in the lobby downloading maps.
Shalashaska_123
P.S. I couldn't help but laugh at these:
• ColloseumII 2.0: Change to Colloseum 2.0 • ResonanceII 1.0: Change to Resonance 2.0
I'm really happy with that. Yet, I can't help but wonder how much more activity would have showed if BW's pesky router-/windows-/technical difficulties were nonexistent.
On March 08 2016 04:17 Jealous wrote: Although 1 season being higher than the previous two is hardly a trend, it is uplifting news in itself Hopefully this upwards climb continues.
That might be the case for B, but graph A shows a best fit trendline across the past 8 months with a positive slope. 8 months of consistent increase is enough for me to consider it a trend.
On March 08 2016 04:17 Jealous wrote: Although 1 season being higher than the previous two is hardly a trend, it is uplifting news in itself Hopefully this upwards climb continues.
That might be the case for B, but graph A shows a best fit trendline across the past 8 months with a positive slope. 8 months of consistent increase is enough for me to consider it a trend.
The best - fit line is deceptive in that it pretty much is a straight line from day 1 to day x's average games per (day? Week?). It implies growth when there practically was none between the first two seasons.
On March 08 2016 04:17 Jealous wrote: Although 1 season being higher than the previous two is hardly a trend, it is uplifting news in itself Hopefully this upwards climb continues.
That might be the case for B, but graph A shows a best fit trendline across the past 8 months with a positive slope. 8 months of consistent increase is enough for me to consider it a trend.
The best - fit line is deceptive in that it pretty much is a straight line from day 1 to day x's average games per (day? Week?). It implies growth when there practically was none between the first two seasons.
Lol okay yea I was being pretty lazy with skimming. It's just a best fit line with a really weak r^2.
Guess we will just have to watch the next couple seasons and see what happens. It would make sense to me that it's a combination of greater foreign activity as a result of TLS, possibly combined with a little more vibrancy in the KR scene than before and added involvement of people like Tastosis.
On March 08 2016 04:17 Jealous wrote: Although 1 season being higher than the previous two is hardly a trend, it is uplifting news in itself Hopefully this upwards climb continues.
That might be the case for B, but graph A shows a best fit trendline across the past 8 months with a positive slope. 8 months of consistent increase is enough for me to consider it a trend.
The best - fit line is deceptive in that it pretty much is a straight line from day 1 to day x's average games per (day? Week?). It implies growth when there practically was none between the first two seasons.
Lol okay yea I was being pretty lazy with skimming. It's just a best fit line with a really weak r^2.
Guess we will just have to watch the next couple seasons and see what happens. It would make sense to me that it's a combination of greater foreign activity as a result of TLS, possibly combined with a little more vibrancy in the KR scene than before and added involvement of people like Tastosis.
Stick around to find out if it's lasting!
I'm in it for the long haul ^^ I once said a while ago that I'll be around until the day that I'm #1 BW, even if it means there are only 10 people still playing xD
On March 08 2016 04:17 Jealous wrote: Although 1 season being higher than the previous two is hardly a trend, it is uplifting news in itself Hopefully this upwards climb continues.
That might be the case for B, but graph A shows a best fit trendline across the past 8 months with a positive slope. 8 months of consistent increase is enough for me to consider it a trend.
The best - fit line is deceptive in that it pretty much is a straight line from day 1 to day x's average games per (day? Week?). It implies growth when there practically was none between the first two seasons.
Lol okay yea I was being pretty lazy with skimming. It's just a best fit line with a really weak r^2.
Guess we will just have to watch the next couple seasons and see what happens. It would make sense to me that it's a combination of greater foreign activity as a result of TLS, possibly combined with a little more vibrancy in the KR scene than before and added involvement of people like Tastosis.
Stick around to find out if it's lasting!
I'm in it for the long haul ^^ I once said a while ago that I'll be around until the day that I'm #1 BW, even if it means there are only 10 people still playing xD
Yea I don't think I'll ever leave either. I seriously adore this game. It really is a special one.
It's a daily ritual to watch FPView while eating lunch, and usually at least watch a game or two before bed.
Play here or there too, still have designs on going for B- at some point when I know I have 6-12 months I can really devote to some serious BW playing. As it is, BW is too good of a game and my personality such that if I start playing hard I'm really susceptible to it taking over my life. I play enough to never get hopelessly rusty...but not enough to get better by any stretch of the imagination.
On March 08 2016 04:02 B-royal wrote: Excellent news. MakeIccupGreatAgain#
We must build a wall to prevent the Peruvians from playing on ICCup and then make them pay for it.
Btw, if Cuba gets better internet, I see a great increase in BW activity. Apparently, people in Cuba play alot of lan BW but can't play online due to connection issues.
On March 08 2016 04:02 B-royal wrote: Excellent news. MakeIccupGreatAgain#
We must build a wall to prevent the Peruvians from playing on ICCup and then make them pay for it.
Btw, if Cuba gets better internet, I see a great increase in BW activity. Apparently, people in Cuba play alot of lan BW but can't play online due to connection issues.
That doesn't stop people in Peru playing with bad connections
On March 08 2016 04:02 B-royal wrote: Excellent news. MakeIccupGreatAgain#
We must build a wall to prevent the Peruvians from playing on ICCup and then make them pay for it.
Btw, if Cuba gets better internet, I see a great increase in BW activity. Apparently, people in Cuba play alot of lan BW but can't play online due to connection issues.
That doesn't stop people in Peru playing with bad connections
Yeah, but I wonder what kind of talent there is in cuba given that they were isolated so long. Maybe there is someone out there being able to stop Flash? A cuban prodigy?
On March 08 2016 04:02 B-royal wrote: Excellent news. MakeIccupGreatAgain#
We must build a wall to prevent the Peruvians from playing on ICCup and then make them pay for it.
Btw, if Cuba gets better internet, I see a great increase in BW activity. Apparently, people in Cuba play alot of lan BW but can't play online due to connection issues.
That doesn't stop people in Peru playing with bad connections
Yeah, but I wonder what kind of talent there is in cuba given that they were isolated so long. Maybe there is someone out there being able to stop Flash? A cuban prodigy?
cuban max lvl is like C+ b- ,im belge (cuban origin ) and been there for holydays played with many players.
+ that scene is pretty much dead at this point.they are playing dota 2 ^^
On March 08 2016 08:40 Shalashaska_123 wrote: Hello, iCCup.Face.
I think it's a little naive to celebrate a 7% increase in games played from the previous two seasons. You'd have to compare it to data from many more seasons prior to determine whether this is significant or not. There might have been more games played in Season 38 because it was in session during the holidays and also because people were practicing for the TLS Championship tournament. I'm skeptical whether this recent spike in activity has anything to do with the new iCCup rating system due to how long ago it was implemented. With the return of FlaSh, I imagine interest in Brood War will soar for a while.
On another note, if you delete "kespa" from the title, how are people supposed to distinguish this Hunters map from the one created by Blizzard? If you delete the "Neo" from Neo Jade, how will people distinguish it from the original? In my opinion, these changes do nothing but cause confusion and lead to more waiting time in the lobby downloading maps.
Shalashaska_123
P.S. I couldn't help but laugh at these:
• ColloseumII 2.0: Change to Colloseum 2.0 • ResonanceII 1.0: Change to Resonance 2.0
I second this, simply awful changes. In my opinion only mapmaker has right to change his own map and players who will return to play gonna confuse everything. Not to mention that with these names no one will recognize thus not gonna play with you on Fish. Cardinal should at least add Neo to end of maps f.e. Jade Neo.
chrisolo A significantly revamped version of the map "The Neo 1.0 Neo 2.5" ? :D
Also what I do not really understand is the second digit? Is it version number like the when you have a significantly changed map version and only change some smaller details it becomes 2.2? Or what?
Haha, hmm lets see, if a map maker released a map called "The Neo 1.0 Neo 2.5" then it would become “Neo 1.0 Neo 2.5 1.0”. Yeah the second digit is for smaller changes. For example Overwatch was 2.0 but now with this small update it has become 2.1. So why is Cross Game 1.06? Well, previously some of us were doing it that way. Going forward, if Cross Game has a small update, I would probably encourage it to be labelled 1.1. This would continue up to 1.9 if necessary. Maybe it would go to 1.91 after or maybe it would become 2.0.
Shalashaska_123 if you delete "kespa" from the title, how are people supposed to distinguish this Hunters map from the one created by Blizzard? If you delete the "Neo" from Neo Jade, how will people distinguish it from the original? In my opinion, these changes do nothing but cause confusion and lead to more waiting time in the lobby downloading maps.
All iccup maps have | iCCup | prefix in the title. If someone is hosting the iccup ladder version of Hunters it appears as: | iCCup | Hunters 1.1 The map description is: The Hunters Created by Blizzard Editors: [Ragnarok]Valkyrie, Forgotten_ Version: 1.1 Presented by iCCup
Jade map title is now: | iCCup | Jade 2.1 The 2.X denotes it is the Neo version. You need to understand, it was formerly labelled Neo Jade 2.1 in the iccup map pack. So this new name actually finishes off what was started, it follows the previously established convention.
Basically its just a tidy up. Map names now follow 1 naming system rather than 3. Going forward, it can only be more clear than before.
Is that answering your question Shalashaska?
Shalashaska_123 P.S. I couldn't help but laugh at these: • ColosseumII 2.0: Change to Colosseum 2.0 • ResonanceII 1.0: Change to Resonance 2.0
Theres a typo in the op, ResonanceII 1.0 has been changed to Resonance 1.0. 'Resonance I' was a 4 player map concept that was never published. So this map being called Resonance II is not necessary.
outscar simply awful changes. In my opinion only mapmaker has right to change his own map and players who will return to play gonna confuse everything. Not to mention that with these names no one will recognize thus not gonna play with you on Fish. Cardinal should at least add Neo to end of maps f.e. Jade Neo.
I agree that it would be nice to just use the label given by the map maker. The precedent had already been set to drop Neo prefix though, and it has its advantages. Also, it is better to follow 1 system than 3 at the same time.
There is more going on though. Imagine the map maker calls his map Resonance II 1.03a. This is possibly acceptable to you, if so good you are consistent. At some point does it become too much though? How about a map name that is really long. Iccup server uses a | iCCup | prefix to distinguish ladder maps. If the map name was now over 31 characters we have a technical problem where a compromise has to be reached.
What if a map maker leaves the scene but everyone wants the map to be updated? If he is the only person with the right to change the name of his map then we are stuck. Maybe that is acceptable to you? If yes, then good you are consistent. Im just checking your position for my own interest. There is also the language barrier and contactability problem. It is theoretically possible for a situation to exist where you have a Korean map, but no contact details. If everyone wanted it added to the pack then should it be added without permission? Probably almost all of the Korean maps in iccup map pack were added without permission from the mappers. So we have to remove all those maps. Hell, iccup itself exists probably without permission from Blizzard, so we should stop using it. What Im saying is that maybe it is possible some human do things without permission, without the moral right and sometimes maybe it benefits in the long run? Im not saying that’s what I necessarily think. And Im not saying thats what has necessarily happened here in this case. Wow this is philosophical now, apologies. I must be enjoying myself. Im being very extreme ofcourse, mainly just for fun of exploring the argument. At the end of the day, changing Neo Jade to Jade 2.X is not that big of a deal. It has advantages and disadvantages. It’s a pragmatic solution to a small problem.
But look, I do get it. Consider though, by doing this slightly uncomfortable update, it makes the future more comfortable because now there is a clear system that mappers can expect to encounter if their map is put into the iccup map pack. So it might discourages mappers from using Neo, and from doing 1.03a rather than 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, etc. This is probably a good thing really right?
By the way, Jade actually is a different forked version on iccup because the mineral field in one of the mains is different. This is a massive change that you should be very angry about as the map plays significantly differently now without the author permission. So I just want to check if you are annoyed by this or not. Essentially if you ladder on Jade on iccup, you are playing a special iccup version of the map that plays differently than it will on Fish. Hopefully it’s a version that you actually like.
Lastly, Heartbeat had its name completely changed not by the original author. And it has been edited lots without his permission. Again you should be very angry about this. If yes, then good you are consistent. I can understand if a map maker were to come back to the scene and find one of his maps was taken, altered and used he might be annoyed. Most map makers would encourage it. I know this from being part of the scene and reading comments specifically on the subject over the years. Infact I was reading an old thread today on bwmn where this exact thing came up. The original mapper had gone to Diablo, came back and was very happy to discover his map was still actively being updated by others. bwmn don’t protect maps. We encourage sharing, playing around, tweaking, modifying. If what you are doing has some logical approach going on then its good. (making brood war maps is very different to writing a book or something though, if we are talking about a more general copyright subject). By the way Im not thinking of -NegativeZero-, I was actually thinking of JungleTerrain, but really its hypothetical. If I have got it totally wrong, then we can easily reupload Neo Overwatch on bwmn to version 2.0. In that case, you would have to think of iccup map pack as a fork that is controlled by iccup organisation and mappers would understand that they surrender a map to iccup and it could be altered. But this is so far from reality, what actually happened is Ive tweaked Overwatch so that walling is consistent and I hope -NegativeZero- would consider it a good thing. And yes I changed Neo Overwatch 2.0 on bwmn page to the Overwatch 2.1 tweak version. I think its a good choice.
Don’t see how playing on Fish is affected. Adding Neo to the end is unnecessary because the version number indicates it. The idea here is to unify under 1 naming convention that works well and preferably is somewhat elegant.
Imagine a new map is released. Its called Tiger. Later, a new version is released. Its called Neo Tiger. But then a new version of Neo Tiger is released. What would this be labelled logically? Would it be Tiger SE/Tiger II? Would it be Tiger TE/Tiger III? Consider Odd-Eye. There is version 1, 2 and 3. If version 2 had been labelled Neo Odd-Eye then by the time we have 3 versions of Odd-Eye it has become confusing because there is no Odd-Eye 2, only Neo Odd-Eye.
Maybe version 3 of Tiger would be Neo Tiger SE. Then a 4th version of Tiger is released and its called Neo Tiger SE II. Obviously Im being silly but an option would be to call them: Tiger 1.0 Tiger 2.0 Tiger 3.0 Tiger 4.0 Its not a bad way of doing things. Do you agree?
If all the Neo/New maps in iccup map pack actually had the prefix, there would be 12. If this continues you could end up with, er, more. I don’t necessarily mind but it’s a nice bonus if you are able to type the letter to jump to the map in the folder.
I remember you were a very loud advocate of having ‘The’ dropped from The Latin Quarter. So I hope you atleast think this update has a minimum of 1 good thing rather than your blanket phrase ‘simply awful changes’.
For players who return, its actually very simple. You go to iccup website, download the map pack, and play the maps. They are the latest version, they are the only version that works for ladder. If a returning player is there thinking I want to play Neo Medusa, he looks in the map pack and sees it is not there. He might be confused for a sec, but then he sees that Medusa 2.2 is in the map pack and hosts that. Problem solved?
Im re-reading my earlier post, and this part is maybe not explained the best:
Neo Jade is now Jade 2.1 Neo Medusa is now Medusa 2.2 Neo Overwatch is now Overwatch 2.1
I didn’t explain fully. It was actually previously Neo Jade 2.1, Neo Medusa 2.2, and Neo Overwatch 2.1. The 2.X in all of these maps already signifies it is the Neo version. Yet the titles still retained a Neo prefix. It doesn’t really make sense, and its different to the majority of neo maps in the iccup map pack. So you see that this update hasn’t actually invented new version numbers out of thin air for the most part. It is following the version number that you guys have been using for years. It’s a tidy up.
Outscar, by the way, copyright is a topic I find absorbing. So that’s why your comment sparked my interest.
On March 08 2016 08:40 Shalashaska_123 wrote: Hello, iCCup.Face.
I think it's a little naive to celebrate a 7% increase in games played from the previous two seasons. You'd have to compare it to data from many more seasons prior to determine whether this is significant or not. There might have been more games played in Season 38 because it was in session during the holidays and also because people were practicing for the TLS Championship tournament. I'm skeptical whether this recent spike in activity has anything to do with the new iCCup rating system due to how long ago it was implemented. With the return of FlaSh, I imagine interest in Brood War will soar for a while.
what's your point? The OP states there are most likely multiple reasons and that they hope they did a good job supporting the players. Nowhere it is said it's ICCup's admins achievement alone.
That you don't like to see more activity in Brood War is your deal (else why not celebrate it, even for reasons unknown?), but I imagine most people in the BW forums like the news, myself included.
Tbh this whole map discussion is a waste of time. I understand the principles of making that update but in reality there are so few maps that it would have been better to just leave it in standard, author made format. There is no problem in scrolling through a folder of 20 maps to find the one you want (like Jade or whatever), and if you do that on your Download folder you'll get 10 versions of each map anyway.
tl;dr: a lot of unnecessary work that can create more problems than benefits.
Iccup maps are: - renamed (to iccup_xxx) - re-compressed/protected to begin with. So they are considered separate versions/maps (as far as BW's internal map recognition is concerned), anyway. Appealing to the author's will to oppose a new naming convention is laughable. Neither were the map titles actually changed on any fundamental level, nor is there even anything new going on. No one seems to have opposed the iccup practice to just remove all credits from maps and just put an "iccup version" in instead (for an identical, simply relabled and repackaged map version, on top of that!). If you play fish, you have probably gathered a hundred versions of FS alone by now, all of which only differ in the file name... Seriously, there is no issue here that would be worth wasting any more posts about...
On March 09 2016 20:23 Ares[Effort] wrote: What channels do TLers or foreigners in general hang out in on iCCup other than the ladder channels?
I used to stay at Op TL or Op TeamLiquid (one was replaced by the other at some point years ago, I forget which tho because they are both so inactive), but nowadays I just host a private channel that my friends join when we play together -_-; As far as I can tell there is usually very little activity at Op TL/Teamliquid. I've seen 3-4 people there maybe 2-3 times in the past few months.
On March 09 2016 20:23 Ares[Effort] wrote: What channels do TLers or foreigners in general hang out in on iCCup other than the ladder channels?
I used to stay at Op TL or Op TeamLiquid (one was replaced by the other at some point years ago, I forget which tho because they are both so inactive), but nowadays I just host a private channel that my friends join when we play together -_-; As far as I can tell there is usually very little activity at Op TL/Teamliquid. I've seen 3-4 people there maybe 2-3 times in the past few months.
I usually hang around there, but I'm currently without proper internet so I can't join :/
Just for the record, every map Ive put in does have credits in the map description. (I know Freakling wasnt saying otherwise, but it could be misunderstood). ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 11 2016 17:18 Piste wrote: Can I see map pictures somewhere? What changes did you make to Luna the final? Fixed positions?
Luna has not been changed gameplay wise. It is only a name change. This is the case for all except 2 of the maps. The only maps that have had gameplay updates are Overwatch and Cross Game.
Version 1.06 Cross Game -Fixed pylon walling at 3 o clock
Version 2.1 Overwatch -Changed terran wall at top main, 1st marine spawns inside wall now -Changed pylon walling at 6 o clock (and 12), bit harder to mine hop now
I didnt make pictures because the building placement has not changed. You still place the buildings in the same way as before. You might be able to do slightly different walls now though. Overwatch top main:
You can place the depots in different ways. ----------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 11 2016 17:54 pebble444 wrote: I personally think Jade 1.0 is better than version 2.1 ; that third gas strip made it more difficult to win games pvz
Generally I like a healthy gas 3rd as well. They could have kept the gas and made the ramp into the 3rd a bit bigger instead or something (just off the top of my head). Dont forget that Neo Jade does have other changes too though, the shape of the naturals and resource placement there in particular. Essentially though, iCCup is simply using the latest version as used in the korean leagues. Its not an endorsement necessarily. Similar with Neo Ground Zero, they just removed the gas from the 3rd completely. Its partly what motivated Toad Stone.
There has been a recent surge of korean players on Iccup starting with Shinee's (nick edgegirl) enter a week ago or so. I'm not sure who everyone is but players like HestiaSin, Asianprotoss and lshlshlsh might very well be ex-pros and they bring more high level amateurs. Some of whom might be Sarin_modesty, Sarin_rOrO, SeolHyun, gksmfaowj and others.
Also oldies liked huCkleberry_P just recently started playing again, and maybe we'll ErOs_Sherry start playing again too..
Games at A- and above seems to be more frequently available now. I'm kind of excited. Maybe we should make a new thread about it if it keeps going in this direction, a who is who thread perhaps. That might get some attention and "lure" even more players to Iccup.
There has been a recent surge of korean players on Iccup starting with Shinee's (nick edgegirl) enter a week ago or so. I'm not sure who everyone is but players like HestiaSin, Asianprotoss and lshlshlsh might very well be ex-pros and they bring more high level amateurs. Some of whom might be Sarin_modesty, Sarin_rOrO, SeolHyun, gksmfaowj and others.
Also oldies liked huCkleberry_P just recently started playing again, and maybe we'll ErOs_Sherry start playing again too..
Games at A- and above seems to be more frequently available now. I'm kind of excited. Maybe we should make a new thread about it if it keeps going in this direction, a who is who thread perhaps. That might get some attention and "lure" even more players to Iccup.
well, we were hoping to attract more high level korean players. I think in this case it's due to the changes made by the fish server rather than our own merit, but it's a good delevopment, i agree!
Please post replays if you play some pro- pro vs foreigner are always entertaining/instructive. Plus if they're really pro, you can say you're A++ if you win and no one can make fun of you if you lose
On May 08 2016 20:46 Cele wrote: well, we were hoping to attract more high level korean players. I think in this case it's due to the changes made by the fish server rather than our own merit, but it's a good delevopment, i agree!
They too think that SNS verification is stupid... I think Shinee is using MCALauncher??
from what i gather from ygosu the one pet peeve koreans have with playing on iccup is lag/latency, especially against europeans/south americans i would imagine. unfortunate uncontrollable factor although if more koreans move there they could just play against themselves lol. (also there ARE foreigners with good connection to koreans..)
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.
I start games against peruvians but most of the time I just leave before it starts counting as a real game. They'll just have to learn to avoid [PE] haha.
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.
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?
Wow you were quick on the stats then, didn't check the last date and didn't even cross my mind this could've been from the (in my mind) 'current' season.
Significant growth since mid last year... will be interesting to see the numbers for 2017.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
if you want even, fair and fun games, play with friends. Or try to find some while laddering, if you see a guy that is around your skill, pm him and go play in melee mode. 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.
The thing I still don`t get, is what`s so fucking hard in "learning" a new map. What`s that big? Even the d- users are playing 5+ years, and they probably played only FS. 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 skimmed the last page really hard but I noticed a lot of people complaining about "smurfs"
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
I just want to add that I think you shoulsnt get points vs D users once you are a certain rank. Once you hit C+ish or something around there then playing vs D users should result in zero points imo. This would stop abusing and bashing completely and give us correct insight on peoples actual skill level. There are too many people in the B ranks that only play vs D/D- users and always dodge playing anyone that is actually B or A.
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.
I want to help the discussion remembering that the changes applied to the system are not perfect and have their negative points, but were necessary from my pov.
I'd also want to point up that we have 7 real ranks; with A- in the middle. As you can see the system automatically regulates middle ranks vs the lowest, red and yellow with +0 and +13 points per win. So don't get shocked if you see players with a matchlist played only vs low ranks hitting A-, because it's a middle rank and the "real ladder" starts from there.
Actually we encourage to play vs anyone, even only vs low players, getting as many green ranked as possible.
I forget where I mentioned this, and if it was earlier in this thread then I'm sorry, but one change that I'd like to see that I don't think is too controversial is better reset compensation. I don't know a better way to say this in as many words, so I'll explain:
Currently, if a player is B- when the reset comes, they start at C- when the new season begins. I'm not sure if there are any others (A- to B- is not a thing, I think?).
Why not expand this system to all ranks? If you were C, you start at D+. If you were C+, you are now C-. B- > C. A+ > A-.
One issue I foresee is that people have to play fewer games to rank up with this system. As Bonyth astutely pointed out, the current system increases game numbers. I can understand how people would be less motivated to grind if they were only 2 "grades" lower. To what extent this would be an issue, I think no one can say with any certainty.
This also wouldn't prevent people from doing /clearstats before or after the reset, or from smurfing. But, as I am certain I said recently, 90% of the people who whoop on what are probably late-season C- Terrans at D rank in the first few weeks are NOT smurfs and I don't think smurfing is a genuine issue.
However, what this would accomplish is motivate people to reach their max rank in the first place. A lot of the comments I hear from people who are ~C is that it takes them like 100 games just to get there, because they lose to every B and higher player who passes them and don't win against all C players. "Why is this an issue? Doesn't that mean that this person is truly C?" the issue is that as these people are climbing the ranks to GET to C, they are often either crushed by better players or roflstomp worse players (which is the focal point of the whine so far in this thread). If the C player started even at D+, that would be fewer games needed to play to get to C where the competition is more "even" for them. However, this also means that people would reach their max earlier in the season while more people are climbing... Ah, it's complicated.
Another thing that seems to be affecting people is that they start at D and then in just a few losses fall to D-, and for some, all the way down to 1 point. I can see how this is depressing. Why not start the ladder at C so that it takes them longer to get to these depressing levels? The gap between D and D- is really unforgiving.
Just spitballing towards the end there but hopefully I made at least one or two interesting points.
On March 02 2017 07:26 iCCup.Face wrote: I want to help the discussion remembering that the changes applied to the system are not perfect and have their negative points, but were necessary from my pov.
I'd also want to point up that we have 7 real ranks; with A- in the middle. As you can see the system automatically regulates middle ranks vs the lowest, red and yellow with +0 and +13 points per win. So don't get shocked if you see players with a matchlist played only vs low ranks hitting A-, because it's a middle rank and the "real ladder" starts from there.
Actually we encourage to play vs anyone, even only vs low players, getting as many green ranked as possible.
Just by playing with the same person who you are equally skilled with on MOTW, you'll both reach infinite rating.
I really dislike the current Iccup system, because you rank is completely meaningless, since there's endless points inflation. A rating that has much more value is in which percentile are you compared to the rest of the people on ladder.
Saying things like real ladder starts at A- is silly, because the truth is the real ladder never starts, because there's always point inflation, it just gets slightly smaller.
I think all games need to be point neutral, if you want to increase activity, then something like bonus pool that is time bound, not number of games bound is a lot better.
6.1 It's forbidden to play against the same player more than:
• no limit between E to B+ if no abuses detected • 9 games in 24h between A- to Olympic
Also, actually the points you win vs same rank are "neutral" as you say, so idk
Yeah, those limits only exist because the ladder system is broken.
I could play vs my friend who is same skill level as me (no abuse) and we would keep getting more and more points, once we get to A-, okay, we would play 9 games a day because of the rule, but we would still keep getting points.
And the thing you posted doesn't match up with the picture in my post, and it doesn't consider MOTW either.
On March 02 2017 07:39 ARREST_HILLARY_NOW wrote: rank resets every season dont seem to make much sense
On March 02 2017 07:44 Bonyth wrote: If there was no resets, over time, every player would have olympic rank. Not a joke.
The reset makes exactly that much sense, like there were a reset in chess ÉLŐ`s four times a year. The reset only exists because the Dota section needs it for some unknown reason. As many stated the real ladder starts at A-, too bad it does actually not just starts but stops right there, as the player pool become so much limited (+many other factors). I really would prefer the old point system combined with endless ladder / or with ÉLŐ points. If anyone wishes to reset, he can just do it, but reaching A- to not be able to play is a no go for a lot of people. Maybe a simple solution would be that if you really need to reset the server, keep track of previous ranks, and start the players with the same rank, I bet, It would increase the ladder activity.
I think you over complicate the debate. Players who are better will still rise in ranks faster due to sheer win/loss ratio, also meaning that eventually they will run into other people with similar win/loss-ratio at say around C+/B- which will stagger their rise in rank. Also in return, if we propose that an B/B+ player can maintain the same win/loss-ratio up until a certain point as an A-/A/A+ player then this will differentiate the two once they collide on B-/B-level with equal win ratio. Meaning the player who is actually B-/B will start loosing a lot more than the A-/A player. Thus I don't really see the problem, yes obviously you can heavily inflate your rank by just massgaming/playing lesser opponents but your games played will reflect that. Any ranking system that allows you to play players of a different skill than your own will automatically mean it can be inflated.
Only AMM-systems that will always match you against an opponent of appropriate MMR are immune to such things. Considering the player base at ICCup that would never work because the search time would be infinite.
It comes down to the question whether 100 % accurate ranking is better than actually having someone to play. These days I'd say the latter alternative is the better one.
On March 03 2017 01:47 dignitas.merz wrote: I think you over complicate the debate. Players who are better will still rise in ranks faster due to sheer win/loss ratio, also meaning that eventually they will run into other people with similar win/loss-ratio at say around C+/B- which will stagger their rise in rank. Also in return, if we propose that an B/B+ player can maintain the same win/loss-ratio up until a certain point as an A-/A/A+ player then this will differentiate the two once they collide on B-/B-level with equal win ratio. Meaning the player who is actually B-/B will start loosing a lot more than the A-/A player. Thus I don't really see the problem, yes obviously you can heavily inflate your rank by just massgaming/playing lesser opponents but your games played will reflect that. Any ranking system that allows you to play players of a different skill than your own will automatically mean it can be inflated.
Only AMM-systems that will always match you against an opponent of appropriate MMR are immune to such things. Considering the player base at ICCup that would never work because the search time would be infinite.
It comes down to the question whether 100 % accurate ranking is better than actually having someone to play. These days I'd say the latter alternative is the better one.
Chess elo lets you play anyone without having any point inflation (the winner gets as many points as the loser loses)... Let's say you play someone the same level as you, winner gets 50, loser loses 50. You play someone a rank above you, you win you get 75 and they lose 75, you lose, then you lose 25 and they win 25. The numbers are there to give an example, they can obviously be anything, and better yet, defined by an equation like:
Predicted result #1 = 1/(1+x^((rating2-rating1)/d)) Predicted result #2 = 1/(1+x^((rating1-rating2)/d))
Then based on the results of the game, adjust the score
New rating = old rating + K(actual result - predicted result)
For both players, which in essence is the ELO system. The only things left is choosing x,d,k. The x and d essentially define the distribution of points between players. For example the classic x = 10 and d = 400 means that a player with 400 points more will be 10x as likely to win. But you can change x to a higher number to space out the distribution more, and lower the k, so that for example you achieve a distribution where 3000 points will be average, and 1000 points will mean that they are 10x as likely to win. So the difference between 4k and 3k would be consistent, where a 4k has a 90.9% win rate against a 3k player, and a 5k player has a 90.9% win rate against a 4k player.
The last thing is just set a reasonable k, which is the converging parameter, though a PID controller opposed to a P might me more appropriate. But for example, I'm a 5k player winning against a 4k player, that means my actual result was a 1 (win, and my predicted was 0.909. Make k = 100, and now I'm gaining 9.1 points for that win (though against an equally matched opponent I would win 50 points).
On March 03 2017 08:14 Bakuryu wrote: we dont want elo on iccup. why is there 1 guy every year advocating elo like its the only way of life.
I'm not saying it's the only one, I just explained how the current system is very bad (because I could become #1 on the server by repeatedly playing 1 person who is my skill level because of points inflation).
Then I provided an alternative (just so it doesn't come off as I'm only complaining). Most games that have decently large studio has an ELO derived system for their points. Whether that's SC2, Dota, League, CS:GO... Uhh, well I don't know too many games, but I'm never seen a system as rudimentary is this one.
It's not like everyone is exposed to the math, before you start your game, it'll tell you how many points you will get if you win and lose, the math is in the backend, that's how chess does it.
Then assign point ranges for all the letter ranks, and voila. The main thing that makes me not play on iccup is the ladder system (but you prob don't want me there anyways). Anyway, I heard you loud and clear, you don't like ELO type systems, but why? The complexity of this point system is small and easy to grasp.
On March 03 2017 08:14 Bakuryu wrote: we dont want elo on iccup. why is there 1 guy every year advocating elo like its the only way of life.
I'm not saying it's the only one, I just explained how the current system is very bad (because I could become #1 on the server by repeatedly playing 1 person who is my skill level because of points inflation).
Then I provided an alternative (just so it doesn't come off as I'm only complaining). Most games that have decently large studio has an ELO derived system for their points. Whether that's SC2, Dota, League, CS:GO... Uhh, well I don't know too many games, but I'm never seen a system as rudimentary is this one.
It's not like everyone is exposed to the math, before you start your game, it'll tell you how many points you will get if you win and lose, the math is in the backend, that's how chess does it.
Then assign point ranges for all the letter ranks, and voila. The main thing that makes me not play on iccup is the ladder system (but you prob don't want me there anyways). Anyway, I heard you loud and clear, you don't like ELO type systems, but why? The complexity of this point system is small and easy to grasp.
Any system is abusable. You can do exactly the same thing with a single friend in an ELO based ladder unless you're also advocating for automated matchmaking? All it needs, is a few additional accounts.
On March 03 2017 08:14 Bakuryu wrote: we dont want elo on iccup. why is there 1 guy every year advocating elo like its the only way of life.
I'm not saying it's the only one, I just explained how the current system is very bad (because I could become #1 on the server by repeatedly playing 1 person who is my skill level because of points inflation).
Then I provided an alternative (just so it doesn't come off as I'm only complaining). Most games that have decently large studio has an ELO derived system for their points. Whether that's SC2, Dota, League, CS:GO... Uhh, well I don't know too many games, but I'm never seen a system as rudimentary is this one.
It's not like everyone is exposed to the math, before you start your game, it'll tell you how many points you will get if you win and lose, the math is in the backend, that's how chess does it.
Then assign point ranges for all the letter ranks, and voila. The main thing that makes me not play on iccup is the ladder system (but you prob don't want me there anyways). Anyway, I heard you loud and clear, you don't like ELO type systems, but why? The complexity of this point system is small and easy to grasp.
Any system is abusable. You can do exactly the same thing with a single friend in an ELO based ladder unless you're also advocating for automated matchmaking? All it needs, is a few additional accounts.
No, it's different.
In my example that I explained, I am not abusing anything. I just have a friend who I like mass gaming with (heck, on SB I often have 15-20 games straight on one day against the same person, like practice partners), and on iccup we generate points out of thin air, with my proposal it'd be a zero sum game.
Of course any system can be abused if you let people make infinite accounts and play vs each other with them, but that's a clear abuse over normal gameplay. I do think that enforcing account limits in some way is a good idea, simply because less smurfs, people act better to maintain and raise their reputation (such as on SB).... But anyway, I recognize it's hard-impossible to do effectively without being very intrusive.
And no, I am not advocating automatic matchmaking (it can work with or without it).
this is how i see it. it is a ladder system, not a ranking system. the goal is to get as many points as you can in the 3 months while rewarding you with "medals" (=rank) in your profile. our current user base is about 1000 active people, where 500 are in the D+ to C ranks, while the other 500 gets spread over C+ to olympic the goal of the current system (lets say version 3), which you are saying is "bad", is to increase the activity in ladder (= to get more ladder games) if you use the point inflation to play 600~ games against the same person to get to A+/Olympic, then the ladder system is rewarding your activity with the A+/Olympic medal. in the iccup ranking system before that (version 2), you could not do "point inflation 50% win against same skilled player" because on A- you lost 140 point vs A- while only winning 130 (if you play motw). In version 1, A- vs A- you lost 130 points, and back then our player base was still strong so they wanted to thin out the A- ranks by going from -130 to -140 points. all in all, the "real ladder" started around B- back then. because the player base shrunk dramatically after sc2, you could only ladder until B and then you could decide between: 1) playing the same 5 people again and again. 2) waiting between 2 weeks and 1 month for enough people to catch up 3) reset account/start with 2nd account/smurf few seasons later, they changed it to the current system, where the "real ladder" starts at A- and you have a wider range of players you can play. now you can mostly ladder until A and then decide between 1), 2) and 3).
we just have too few players to saturate all the different "skill levels" and i dont see how elo on iccup will give us more players
On March 03 2017 09:24 Bakuryu wrote: this is how i see it. it is a ladder system, not a ranking system. the goal is to get as many points as you can in the 3 months while rewarding you with "medals" (=rank) in your profile. our current user base is about 1000 active people, where 500 are in the D+ to C ranks, while the other 500 gets spread over C+ to olympic the goal of the current system (lets say version 3), which you are saying is "bad", is to increase the activity in ladder (= to get more ladder games) if you use the point inflation to play 600~ games against the same person to get to A+/Olympic, then the ladder system is rewarding your activity with the A+/Olympic medal. in the iccup ranking system before that (version 2), you could not do "point inflation 50% win against same skilled player" because on A- you lost 140 point vs A- while only winning 130 (if you play motw). In version 1, A- vs A- you lost 130 points, and back then our player base was still strong so they wanted to thin out the A- ranks by going from -130 to -140 points. all in all, the "real ladder" started around B- back then. because the player base shrunk dramatically after sc2, you could only ladder until B and then you could decide between: 1) playing the same 5 people again and again. 2) waiting between 2 weeks and 1 month for enough people to catch up 3) reset account/start with 2nd account/smurf few seasons later, they changed it to the current system, where the "real ladder" starts at A- and you have a wider range of players you can play. now you can mostly ladder until A and then decide between 1), 2) and 3).
we just have too few players to saturate all the different "skill levels" and i dont see how elo on iccup will give us more players
I feel like it takes too long to get to a steady state rankings because you're getting points until your win rate falls to like 30% (depending your skill level)... So a steady state rank means you're losing most of your games, which is also kind of shitty mentally for the player.
My view is that currently activity is punished, because what happens is that if I play a lot of games I have nobody to play against because my rank shoots up quicker than other people if I'm a high level player, and if I'm a lower level player, well then I'll reach say B- with a low winrate, and any B- player who hasn't played as many games as me will likely destroy me, and so I'll stay at B- by winning 50% of my games against C players, and losing most games against B- and C+ players.
In the current system, the points are playing catch-up (because of the inflation), at the start of the season I reach B-, now I have nobody to play against, now more people played games, and there are more B's now, rinse and repeat.
I understand the idea, but I feel like it's the wrong way of stimulating activity. Improvement in rank feels meaningless, because even if I'm getting worse my rating is going up, it's more difficult to hop on and play a few games for someone more casual (I'm surrounded by a lot of newer people coming back on ShieldBattery)... And importantly like I mentioned, I feel like I'm punished, not rewarded for playing a lot of games, because if I'm playing MOTW and I'm a B player or worse (like most of us)... The I'm losing most of my games ( to maintain my points against same rank players I need 28% win rate)... 50/(50+130) = 0.27778.
Being in this kind of situation just encourages more people to smurf, and makes the genuine regular players care less if they're matched up against smurfs, because heck, your win rate is low already, you don't lose as many points, etc. In my replay folder I have exactly 666 games I've played on SB since October 2016 (most were 1v1's, though some obs games and Racewars, etc)... I don't need points like this to be encouraged to play, maybe short term it's an effective strategy (like within the season), but I feel like long term it's more difficult to track improvement, pushes your hand to play (opposed to purely individual desire), and reduces morale, and thus lowers player retention.
On March 03 2017 19:27 kogeT wrote: On the topic: You can actually feel the increased activity on Iccup. During peak times we hit over 500 people online. That's great.
Keep up the good work guys! I know that I've noticed atleast a dozen people that have openly said they are just returning or are new to the game. I always try to thank them for joining us!
On March 03 2017 19:27 kogeT wrote: On the topic: You can actually feel the increased activity on Iccup. During peak times we hit over 500 people online. That's great.
Ye.. It was hard to get 350+ on weekends... Now we have 500+
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FsBtkgm.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/SH6tfWg.png)
Hopefully this upwards climb continues. ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/paR22AL.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/PjtPDUK.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/KI3kb59.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/dzjcMIA.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/fmjbzjY.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xi2Fz01.gif[)
