EPTI was about D when I played Iccup and I'm 1460 ladder
What is everybody else at?
Correlation of new SC:RM MMR to ICcup Ranking?
| Forum Index > BW General |
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
I was about D when I played Iccup and I'm 1460 ladder What is everybody else at? | ||
|
arb
Noobville17920 Posts
| ||
|
RaNgeD
United States732 Posts
| ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
| ||
|
CHEONSOYUN
515 Posts
I say wait a month or two and it'll be obvious what the MMR value means in terms of player worth O: | ||
|
Pokebunny
United States10654 Posts
| ||
|
GeneralStan
United States4789 Posts
On August 26 2017 08:16 CHEONSOYUN wrote: it's hard to say because the past couple years a lot of players farmed points by dodging players or matchups + a lot of inactivity. I say wait a month or two and it'll be obvious what the MMR value means in terms of player worth O: I thought the number was a new SC:RM number | ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
I was a D+ and I cup and I'm hovering in the 16 - 1700 range. It is a bit early though my games are still iCup ish if that's the word. Once I hit the bottom of 1600 I start playing at 80 apm players | ||
|
lepape
Canada557 Posts
| ||
|
Alpha-NP-
United States1242 Posts
| ||
|
Neverendar
8 Posts
On August 26 2017 08:32 lepape wrote: Well there's one thing I know, 1800 MMR on Europe/US is equal roughly to 1300 MMR on Korean server. And this makes it really confusing as a new player. After you steamroll some newbie with 50apm, you find yourself at the same MMR against a 200apm dude with proper build orders. | ||
FlaShFTW
United States10096 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12235 Posts
| ||
|
XERX
85 Posts
| ||
|
JungleTerrain
Chile799 Posts
But I don't think the highest MMR has been reached yet for the top players. I expect the MMR ratings to have a decent amount of legit 3000+ in the next week unless they reset the ladder soon or those at the top simply play less games on those accounts. | ||
|
Dromar
United States2145 Posts
I used to be D+/C- iCCup and I'm currently at 1760, for what it's worth. Not sure if that's where I should be or if I'm still rising. Haven't had a chance to play a ton of games (currently 20-8). | ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2221 Posts
| ||
|
Jan1997
Norway671 Posts
| ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
| ||
|
Frauenarzt
Germany22 Posts
On August 26 2017 08:04 RaNgeD wrote: It's really hard to say. It depends on who you match with too. Players that aren't playing Koreans are gonna have much higher MMR than players that do. how do u not play vs koreans ? i was on ~1930 (eu server) when i had to play a lag game vs a 2140 korean (kor server) | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1496 Posts
| ||
|
Power[Xp]
Netherlands64 Posts
On August 26 2017 18:19 iFU.pauline wrote: I am 1800 1900 mmr playing only kor and my iccup rank ranged between B A- Can I ask how you play Koreans only? I changed region to Asia and played on Korean server, but I still get to play Europeans. | ||
|
iFU.pauline
France1496 Posts
On August 26 2017 18:24 Power[Xp] wrote: Can I ask how you play Koreans only? I changed region to Asia and played on Korean server, but I still get to play Europeans. vpn, there is a thread about it in this section. | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
1. Different populations. While ICCup was definitely very pyramidal in its structure (80% of players were D, 18% were C, 2% higher, roughly), the "bottom" of the Pyramid in SC:R MM is very low and broad. In other words, the average player is simply worse than they were on ICCup at this point in time. 2. Different rating scales. MMR and Elo and etc. cannot be compared to ICCup's activity-based system. If you played MotW, you only needed more than like 30% winrate against other D rank players to get to C-. 3. I expect hours of activity to affect MMR similar to how ICCup had "Korean hours." The same rating attributed to two people who have a wide disparity in skill due to environment. There are more reasons but I'm tired. In short, don't worry too much about translating rating scales, or rating scales in general. | ||
|
SuGo
United States681 Posts
Also, it depends who plays when ... if you play during a time zone where it's essentially dead for Koreans, you may only match foreigners and have an easier time. I'm currently sitting 2150-2250, but seem to match 90% Koreans due to the fact that the hours I play seem to coincide with peak Korean times as well. On the other side, I see a lot of foreigners who I know are not nearly as good as me, but are also ~2100. But it's probably because they don't get heavy Korean pairings. In short, who cares about rating. It's too early. Just practice and embrace the new system. | ||
|
noob_saibot
Russian Federation213 Posts
| ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On August 26 2017 09:54 XERX wrote: points mean nothing right now wait until the rankings get released That is literally what the points are. Rankings. | ||
|
Poly_Optimize
Canada156 Posts
| ||
|
radley
Poland580 Posts
| ||
|
MymSlorm
Chile187 Posts
| ||
|
esReveR
United States567 Posts
On August 27 2017 00:41 reneg wrote: That is literally what the points are. Rankings. No. Blizzard is testing out the system and working out the bugs. When they get it fixed up, they are going to reset the ratings and potentially change to a letter grade system (see Gamescom interviews). Right now they literally mean nothing. | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
On August 26 2017 08:32 lepape wrote: Well there's one thing I know, 1800 MMR on Europe/US is equal roughly to 1300 MMR on Korean server. ranked is global so u can play vs koris as higher as u come, u onyl not play them because of server lag but even then all 1600 on kor server i met was ... not good definetly not better then eu, koris are better but the good koris go up rly fast and there is a LOT of scrum in korea too xD | ||
|
iopq
United States881 Posts
On August 26 2017 07:54 arb wrote: i think someone was saying 1700-1750 was d+? but im not 100% certain on that obviously 2200+ is like A rank so maybe 1700 is somewhere in the C region? I'm 1900+ (getting USWest players even queuing from other servers), previously C on iccup | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
one thing I don't understand is there is currently a jump in the ladder ranks between like 199 and 200, like the top 200 players all have 2100+ and then the 200th or 201th player has 1860 or smtg, there is a gap don't know where its coming from (edit: apparently its because of bug in the display of ladder ranking, if you scroll it up after selecting a region and "see myself" it ends up showing the ranks of the global ladder instead mixed in) | ||
|
reneg
United States859 Posts
On August 27 2017 13:57 esReveR wrote: No. Blizzard is testing out the system and working out the bugs. When they get it fixed up, they are going to reset the ratings and potentially change to a letter grade system (see Gamescom interviews). Right now they literally mean nothing. Sure, they might reset it, but that's still exactly what these points are measuring. If they change it to be a letter system, that doesn't change the fact that your letter is determined by your MMR Rating (which is what you currently see...) It's basically exactly like the SC2 system, where you have a ranking (Diamond/Masters/Etc), but have an MMR rating behind (which is really the only thing that matters).... | ||
|
Demurity
United States424 Posts
I was about B on iCCup, current ladder MMR is 2000. | ||
|
gDPhantom
New Zealand162 Posts
| ||
|
EndingLife
United States1587 Posts
| ||
|
oDieN[Siege]
United States2904 Posts
On August 30 2017 00:14 EndingLife wrote: It's going to be hard to compare as it seems to come down to your region, and when you play. I can only play after 8:00 PM so I'm getting matched with mostly Koreans. I was A- and currently at 2100 MMR. I only play at the times when KR's are sleeping. I avoid them. It's like hide and seek for me, except they don't know that we're playing. | ||
|
739
Bearded Elder29903 Posts
| ||
|
iloveav
Poland1478 Posts
If we consider the previous situation, the amount of players that played ICC and the % of those players in different ranks, Id say that MMR under 1800 might quite simply not be reliable under 100 games played. After that, add the two extremes we usually did not see in ICC (Korean Pro/Semi pro and players who are starting to play bw at the release of remastered) and any true mathematical comparison is going to have a lot of asterisks. Id say, that if you consider noobs and pros in the mix, odds are most iccup players between D+ and B- might find themselves in between 1850-2200. Anything above 2200 you are talking about such a small pool of players that odds are they will trade MMR with high skill players until someone from the lower ranks gets into that range only to be kicked back down. Anything under 1850 and you might be hitting players who are not too good but are trading blows with other not so good players. BTW, I am hitting koreans non stop. 40% of my current games were vs koreans. Normally id say thats annoying cus you lose more but its damn good practice. This is ofc in my opinion. | ||
|
Chronopolis
Canada1484 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
I considered myself vaguely a c- player (going by the 50% idea) but im basically 1900 mmr on ladder, though on ladder I have something like a 90% win rate [ive dropped only one game, but it counted as three losses!]. So in both cases im not sure what i would consider my true rank, was I c on iccup? Am I 2000 on the ladder? Gonna take a lot more games for both myself and the community before theres mmr stabilization, id think. | ||
|
Lorch
Germany3672 Posts
On September 22 2017 05:25 Chronopolis wrote: I was low to mid D+ on the old ICCup. Now playing a bunch and reviewing games I'm hanging at about 1650 points. It seems like the variance doesn't go away even after you play more games. Sometimes I go below 1500, one time I went up to 1800. Pretty much my experience. It's kinda crazy some times. One day I went from 1600 to 1750 and the next night I dropped to 1480. Still feels like some games are counted twice tbh. | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
| ||
|
CadenZie
Korea (South)545 Posts
Now I have several usernames between 2000~2200mmr and most opponents are koreans. Also my thing always says zerglings loose in the factory so i never know whats going on with points, and ladder no longer loads for me. | ||
|
sc-darkness
856 Posts
On September 22 2017 06:14 CadenZa wrote: I was C with https://iccup.com/en/starcraft/gamingprofile/cadenzie.html Now I have several usernames between 2000~2200mmr and most opponents are koreans. Also my thing always says zerglings loose in the factory so i never know whats going on with points, and ladder no longer loads for me. Isn't that usually related to disconnects? | ||
|
CadenZie
Korea (South)545 Posts
| ||
|
[GiTM]-Ace
United States4935 Posts
On September 22 2017 05:54 Dazed. wrote: What do we all mean when we talk about icc ranks anyway? You can win 33% of your games and reach d+ if you play a ton, does that make you d or d+? So is your 'rank' the max you can reach assuming you spam games, or where you hang out at roughly 50%? I considered myself vaguely a c- player (going by the 50% idea) but im basically 1900 mmr on ladder, though on ladder I have something like a 90% win rate [ive dropped only one game, but it counted as three losses!]. So in both cases im not sure what i would consider my true rank, was I c on iccup? Am I 2000 on the ladder? Gonna take a lot more games for both myself and the community before theres mmr stabilization, id think. ive wondered that since i switched to hon player. I was newb( 1500) player but most of my accounts were low 1600. I never identified as 1600 player though so i wonder how it works wijth letters. | ||
|
raff100
498 Posts
On September 22 2017 06:14 CadenZa wrote: I was C with https://iccup.com/en/starcraft/gamingprofile/cadenzie.html Now I have several usernames between 2000~2200mmr and most opponents are koreans. Also my thing always says zerglings loose in the factory so i never know whats going on with points, and ladder no longer loads for me. How is the lag from Scotland to KR? | ||
|
castleeMg
Canada758 Posts
| ||
|
merz
Sweden2760 Posts
One fair thing to say though is that if you cant break into 2000+ MMR I'd say that would be equal to being a D to D+ player on ICCup. | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
On August 26 2017 07:54 arb wrote: i think someone was saying 1700-1750 was d+? but im not 100% certain on that obviously 2200+ is like A rank so maybe 1700 is somewhere in the C region? 2200 maybe around B- ish C+ish | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On September 22 2017 09:39 castleeMg wrote: heres the thing, iccup ratings were meaningless after the admins changed the system. before the change, i think the highest rated players were around B... after the change there were about 10 or so A+ and 40 players A or A-. but the problem was some losers would pick and choose their opponents and only play vs D in order to achieve an A- rank, while others played the ladder legitimately and were probably more skilled than the abusers but received a much lower rank. in conclusion dont compare this blizzard ladder to iccup ratings because iccup rating was a very poor way to determine actual skill near the end of their modified ranking system imo at least. The thing is man is iCCUP ratings were meaningless BEFORE the change as well for the exact same reason. Using any form of ranking system as a determination of skill is silly. Day9 made a video about this and it was pretty good. People take their rating far too seriously. | ||
|
abuse
Latvia1927 Posts
On September 22 2017 15:12 merz wrote: One fair thing to say though is that if you cant break into 2000+ MMR I'd say that would be equal to being a D to D+ player on ICCup. I think you're overvaluing D/D+. I am around D+/C- and, while I do not play much, games after 1750 quite often feel like my skills are insufficient Not always of course, but I highly doubt that 2000+ is where you stop being "D to D+." It feels crazy how you start meeting korean ex-pro's at 2380 or so(judging by Draco's stream), yet 2000+ is between D and D+. | ||
|
TT1
Canada9990 Posts
| ||
|
Chronopolis
Canada1484 Posts
On September 22 2017 05:54 Dazed. wrote: What do we all mean when we talk about icc ranks anyway? You can win 33% of your games and reach d+ if you play a ton, does that make you d or d+? So is your 'rank' the max you can reach assuming you spam games, or where you hang out at roughly 50%? Yeah I think if you really want to compare you want to go by the 50% rule. Basically whatever rank where you were able to fight evenly against your opponents. So if you were grinding MoTW games to get your top rank, subtract a healthy amount from that. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28598 Posts
And iccup allowed you to progress through winning only 33% of games until you got to high ranks.. If someone was 60-75 C-, it's fair to argue that he was more like a D / D+ player skill wise. Roughly though, I'd say that ~2100 MMR seems to correspond with ~B rank, 2200-2300 is more like a-. Maybe 1500 being about D and adding one + for each 100 actually seems kinda correct. | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On September 22 2017 16:14 abuse wrote: I think you're overvaluing D/D+. I am around D+/C- and, while I do not play much, games after 1750 quite often feel like my skills are insufficient Not always of course, but I highly doubt that 2000+ is where you stop being "D to D+." It feels crazy how you start meeting korean ex-pro's at 2380 or so(judging by Draco's stream), yet 2000+ is between D and D+. I agree on Europe server I would say "C-" from old iccup feels a little like 1700 maybe, at around 1800-1900 it's like C, 2000-2100 maybe like C+/B- or something like that. But its hard to tell, its probably wrong^^ the MMR is buggy too so. and people play differently than from that iccup time On September 22 2017 19:20 Liquid`Drone wrote:And iccup allowed you to progress through winning only 33% of games until you got to high ranks.. If someone was 60-75 C-, it's fair to argue that he was more like a D / D+ player skill wise. imo thing with iccup stats, if you had negative, maybe you still deserve that rank because you probably had to play against a lot of better players (higher than rank C-) to get there. So I would say, if you got a rank... you got that rank lolz | ||
|
angrypofke
Lithuania174 Posts
| ||
|
Eywa-
Canada4876 Posts
On September 22 2017 16:21 TT1 wrote: Depends what hours you're playing on and who you're facing. I really don't think it is dependent on your play time, I often start winning a lot in the late night EST which is when Koreans get online, I think the skill level at Korean hours is more predictable, if you're 1700, you're likely to hit a legit 1700. I was D+ back on iCCup and I hover around 1800-1900 (went as high as 2k), but since people have figured out they can disc to avoid the loss, I'm just dropping like crazy. So I stopped playing until it's patched. | ||
|
Pippah
Denmark353 Posts
Sometimes when I log in I meet only worse players winning all my games. Other times I dont stand a chance. My rating fluctuates wildly between 1600-1900. I can literally log out at 1700 and when I login again I have gained or lost 200 points for no apparent reason. | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On September 22 2017 15:45 Qikz wrote: The thing is man is iCCUP ratings were meaningless BEFORE the change as well for the exact same reason. Using any form of ranking system as a determination of skill is silly. Day9 made a video about this and it was pretty good. People take their rating far too seriously. what is your skill if not your ability to win at a game? i think ranking system determines your ability to win pretty fairly | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On September 22 2017 15:45 Qikz wrote: The thing is man is iCCUP ratings were meaningless BEFORE the change as well for the exact same reason. Using any form of ranking system as a determination of skill is silly. Day9 made a video about this and it was pretty good. People take their rating far too seriously. I disagree that a ranking system determining skill is silly. It's really not. I can give many examples. in 2009 on iccup if a B player played a C player, you knew who would win just by looking at the rank (assuming no smurf). There is no doubt in anyone's mind that a B player that is 150-30 or whatever vs a C player with 150-100. But let's not just count iccup, you could say the same with League or SC2. If a diamond player plays a GM player, you know who's going to win regardless of the match up. Now at the absolute highest levels of play I can agree that your skill rating doesn't matter. But for 99% of the players? Yes it shows and does show your skill level to another player. | ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
| ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28598 Posts
On September 23 2017 05:19 blade55555 wrote: I disagree that a ranking system determining skill is silly. It's really not. I can give many examples. in 2009 on iccup if a B player played a C player, you knew who would win just by looking at the rank (assuming no smurf). There is no doubt in anyone's mind that a B player that is 150-30 or whatever vs a C player with 150-100. But let's not just count iccup, you could say the same with League or SC2. If a diamond player plays a GM player, you know who's going to win regardless of the match up. Now at the absolute highest levels of play I can agree that your skill rating doesn't matter. But for 99% of the players? Yes it shows and does show your skill level to another player. The thing is that at least for every ladder before this one, it has been possible to inflate your ladder score through various means. On iccup, you'd have some people who would only play one matchup on one particular map (like say, only pvt longinus), most ladders had more points for winning than losing, so that going 200-100 would give way more points than going 100-50 against the same group of players, people could exclusively go for strategies that are great in a best of 1 (like zergs perfecting 3 hatch ling allins) and not play regames.. a LOT of people would look at the stats of other players and dodge playeers with great win/loss ratios. (iccup removed the stats option ingame for this reason, but people would still look at it when asking for games in channels) For people who did none these, you could totally say that an a- player was better than a b+ was better than a b etc. But these types of rating inflations were extremely common, so common that there were certainly a lot of players who would have like, b+ max rating but where their actual skill level would be more like, b-. | ||
|
Ender2701
United States581 Posts
The people at 1500 on US West actually seem quite good, with real builds and 200+APM. At 1700 US East, I'm still seeing people that have no idea what they're doing, dying to my first few units and such. I think what's happening is that I'm hitting a bunch of Koreans on US West; I see a bunch of Korean names and it seems like a number of people I play don't understand English. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28598 Posts
| ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
On September 23 2017 05:59 rredtooth wrote: there might be a hidden MMR in the new ladder system. purely anecdotal but i was fishing for a PvZ on a smurf and auto-quit like 10 games in a row vT and vP. dropped my visible rating from 1900 to <1500 but i was still playing >1800 players when i finally got a Z matchup. maybe they're using 'my' system: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/524433-idea-separate-matchmaking-rating-for-each-matchup | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On September 23 2017 06:15 Liquid`Drone wrote: The thing is that at least for every ladder before this one, it has been possible to inflate your ladder score through various means. On iccup, you'd have some people who would only play one matchup on one particular map (like say, only pvt longinus), most ladders had more points for winning than losing, so that going 200-100 would give way more points than going 100-50 against the same group of players, people could exclusively go for strategies that are great in a best of 1 (like zergs perfecting 3 hatch ling allins) and not play regames.. a LOT of people would look at the stats of other players and dodge playeers with great win/loss ratios. (iccup removed the stats option ingame for this reason, but people would still look at it when asking for games in channels) For people who did none these, you could totally say that an a- player was better than a b+ was better than a b etc. But these types of rating inflations were extremely common, so common that there were certainly a lot of players who would have like, b+ max rating but where their actual skill level would be more like, b-. While true there was abuse, I don't think the majority did this. Like anything else there are the abusers/cheaters, but for the most part I would say it's pretty accurate. I do know I dodged ZvZ hardcore back then and would today if that was how I was playing. This one would be more accurate I think if it worked lol. Points are so sporadic and it is annoying in the sense that I don't know what my MMR should be. I fluctuate from 1950 to 2160. I'm pretty sure that's also because games are getting counted twice. I'll see after a game I go from 2160 to 2130, but after the next game I play it shows 2100 or 2080 or something like that, same with wins. I will update to 2000 and end up being at 2030 or higher sometimes. I am a bit surprised the match making hasn't been fixed yet... | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28598 Posts
 | ||
|
sM.Zik
Canada2544 Posts
| ||
|
Navane
Netherlands2745 Posts
On September 23 2017 05:19 blade55555 wrote: I disagree that a ranking system determining skill is silly. It's really not. I can give many examples. in 2009 on iccup if a B player played a C player, you knew who would win just by looking at the rank (assuming no smurf). There is no doubt in anyone's mind that a B player that is 150-30 or whatever vs a C player with 150-100. But what if that B player will never play any C player, except ones he carefully chooses? That's how he got that inflated ranking. And now he can boast around how he's B. Which is silly. Or what if that B player only does one all-in per matchup, but knows those really well. In rematches he doesn't stand a chance, but on this relatively anonymous 1v1 ladder, he scores high. He would never do a rematch. Still he can boast around how he's B. Which is silly. It's not bad, it's not cheating, but it is silly. (The right way to approach a ladder is as a means to practice. With auto-matchmaking, the rating number could even be hidden. So no body knows. So there's no reason to do silly things to get on top.) | ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On September 23 2017 07:48 Liquid`Drone wrote: I think you should run into the same opponents regardless of the server you are playing on.. It makes sense that your rank is higher on useast than uswest, but that the ratings differ should be random, unless I'm getting something wrong. Well maybe I'm wrong but I believe, you get matched most often against people who are close to you if a match can quickly be found near your MMR with a nearby player. So especially while you are not near the top percents of the MMR ranks, you would get matched against ppl of your server a lot, and the ratings may scale different per server. Until they get adjusted differently by playing a large proportion of games against players of other servers at some threshold. | ||
|
Qikz
United Kingdom12022 Posts
On September 23 2017 16:40 ninazerg wrote: The points don't matter. Right now, it's like asking who has the biggest rock collection. And I don't mean shiny rocks. I mean like just regular, small, uninteresting rocks. B- players are at 1800, D+ players are at 2000... it's just completely unreliable as a measure of skill. Even the old system was. I find it hilarious that it's taken until now for people to realise this. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28598 Posts
On September 23 2017 19:10 ProMeTheus112 wrote: Well maybe I'm wrong but I believe, you get matched most often against people who are close to you if a match can quickly be found near your MMR with a nearby player. So especially while you are not near the top percents of the MMR ranks, you would get matched against ppl of your server a lot, and the ratings may scale different per server. Until they get adjusted differently by playing a large proportion of games against players of other servers at some threshold. But whether they are close to you should be irrelevant of server if you yourself is changing servers, right? If someone lives on the west coast of US they should get the same opponents regardless of whether they themselves choose USEast or USWest to play on. I live in Europe, I should be matched first against european opponents regardless of whether I play on west or europe. | ||
Liquid`Ret
Netherlands4511 Posts
US East or US West doesn't make a difference. I think this ladder system, once it's fixed, is a good way to determine skill. But there really isnt any need for win streak bonus points, since it just blows people up temporarily who are on a hot streak. It does very little, these players will likely just go on a losing streak at another point and reach their actual skill rating. First it'd be great if the disconnect problem, the double wins, double loss problems could get fixed. Then we can discuss what MMR says about your skill. | ||
|
aFF]ZuluNAtion[
Poland173 Posts
1900=C 2000=C+ 2100=B-/B 2200B+ 2300A- | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10666 Posts
| ||
|
aLt)nirvana
Singapore846 Posts
https://iccup.com/en/starcraft/ladder/1x1.html And then search on battle.net ladder for the names you see. If they play on both and their w/l has settled, you get the exact correlation. For e.g I believe these names can be found on ladder. I know eonzerg can. Dandy[PE]: A iFU.eonzerg: A ArcneoN: A And based on that: A: 2400 A-: 2300 B+: 2200 B: 2100 B-: 2000 C+: 1900 C/C-: 1800 D+: 1700 D: 1500-1600 D-: <1400 | ||
|
FlaShFTW
United States10096 Posts
| ||
|
Sero
United States692 Posts
| ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On September 25 2017 13:52 Sero wrote: I think those MMRs should have higher iCCup ranks. Like 1900 B-/B, 2k A-, 2300 A+. Obviously it's not going to be very accurate, like everyone else in the thread has already said, but it's close enough imo. Playing vs Koreans only means higher skill level at even lower MMR too. feels very strange to be promoted to A- after 4 years of inactivity lol | ||
|
XenOsky
Chile2221 Posts
| ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
| ||
|
oDieN[Siege]
United States2904 Posts
| ||
|
ninazerg
United States7291 Posts
On September 25 2017 14:56 oDieN[Siege] wrote: there's no way my 12 year old brother is nearly B- by only 5 pooling every single game If it worked for DinOt, it can work for your brother. | ||
|
Jealous
10107 Posts
| ||
|
Sero
United States692 Posts
On September 25 2017 14:09 rauk wrote: feels very strange to be promoted to A- after 4 years of inactivity lol Thank iCCup.Face for your promotion, not me. People seem to have missed that iCCup changed their ranking system a few years ago to make it way easier to rank up. Previously C- max players can now hit A- after playing enough games. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/487256-iccup-new-rating-system On June 09 2015 08:47 iCCup.Face wrote: The previous C+ skilled will be the next A-, with the difference to play more to get your real new rank, supposing you are here for the fun to play and to ladder up. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jcnlufI.png?1) | ||
|
[sc1f]eonzerg
Belgium6505 Posts
On September 25 2017 11:48 aLt)nirvana wrote: You can look at the iccup rankings for the current and last season https://iccup.com/en/starcraft/ladder/1x1.html And then search on battle.net ladder for the names you see. If they play on both and their w/l has settled, you get the exact correlation. For e.g I believe these names can be found on ladder. I know eonzerg can. Dandy[PE]: A iFU.eonzerg: A ArcneoN: A And based on that: A: 2400 A-: 2300 B+: 2200 B: 2100 B-: 2000 C+: 1900 C/C-: 1800 D+: 1700 D: 1500-1600 D-: <1400 imo we need to wait a bit more for having realistic ranks,i was 2700 and then blizzard change TR and i loss my mmr just leaving games cuz lag,im pretty sure im not the only one having this problem. | ||
|
aFF]ZuluNAtion[
Poland173 Posts
| ||
|
Sero
United States692 Posts
On September 26 2017 03:02 aFF]ZuluNAtion[ wrote: i dont think 1900 is even C+ i am on 2 accounts 1950MMR now and i am typical 100-100 4500pts C player (100:100 vs equal rank, not vs lower ranks, vs lower ranks i hit B-). Also i am very bad at maps other than FS i played only FS for last 10 years, so now my MMR should be lower than my normal iccup skill becouse of losing on other than fs maps. I dont think my skill grow up so quick to be B- lol. If you hit B-, then you aren't C. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28598 Posts
| ||
|
aFF]ZuluNAtion[
Poland173 Posts
I dont accept someone is A- when half of his games is vs C/C- its not real A-, i played and win vs alot of A- like it, ppl like this just decive themeselves and belives they are better but its not true. | ||
|
Ender2701
United States581 Posts
Most of my games on US East are very one sided too, people seem to barely know what they're doing. On US West, this is more rare; I'm regularly playing people with 200+ APM while ranked below average. I think the matchmaking will prefer players in the region you select, and then will go global if it doesn't find good matches. I was D+ in iCCup, but I didn't play that much, probably only 100 or so lifetime games. Have been masters for 24 seasons in SC2 though. | ||
|
iopq
United States881 Posts
On September 25 2017 13:52 Sero wrote: I think those MMRs should have higher iCCup ranks. Like 1900 B-/B, 2k A-, 2300 A+. Obviously it's not going to be very accurate, like everyone else in the thread has already said, but it's close enough imo. Playing vs Koreans only means higher skill level at even lower MMR too. I was C on iccup ladder (E fish ladder) and I maintain above 1900, with one account over 2000. Did I suddenly become A- skill over two-three months? | ||
|
aFF]ZuluNAtion[
Poland173 Posts
| ||
|
Sero
United States692 Posts
On September 26 2017 05:47 iopq wrote: I was C on iccup ladder (E fish ladder) and I maintain above 1900, with one account over 2000. Did I suddenly become A- skill over two-three months? Pretty much the same thing I said to Rauk. C and B+/A- iCCup ladder are the same thing, with the former having fewer games played. Go back on iCCup and see if anyone's still there to play against; you'll get it eventually. | ||
|
EndingLife
United States1587 Posts
| ||
|
Pulimuli1
33 Posts
edit: pretty sure im not B rank now in skill, more like C+ maybe lol | ||
|
EndingLife
United States1587 Posts
If you play on more than one ID, that should give you a good idea about the variance. On one ID I'm 24-2 2100, on another I'm 42-25 2100. 42-25 stats is probably a lot more accurate given my current skill level | ||
|
skindzer
Chile5114 Posts
| ||
|
niteReloaded
Croatia5281 Posts
On September 26 2017 05:47 iopq wrote: I was C on iccup ladder (E fish ladder) and I maintain above 1900, with one account over 2000. Did I suddenly become A- skill over two-three months? nope But the SCR ranking system sure gives us room to believe our talent magically surfaced! Iccup I was glued to D+ (terran) for I'd say years! Couldnt stabilize in C- until I actually decided to improve, and started being serious about build orders etc, and then could reach C after a relatively short time. (weeks?) I think noticable improvement is a direct result of focusing on improvement. So if you didn't focus, you likely didn't improve. On September 26 2017 06:32 skindzer wrote: For the sake of it.. I was D+ / C- on Iccup and im hovering between 1600-1700. Like someone said before, if I lose too much in a row I end up playing against 80+/- apm players at like 1600 mmr. If I win too much I end up getting obliterated at 1700 mmr. Same here, I'm probably now around low C- or high D+ level, and varying between 1600-1800. It'd be cool to see letter ranks again in SCR. | ||
|
chris0809
United States28 Posts
| ||
|
iopq
United States881 Posts
On September 26 2017 06:03 Sero wrote: Pretty much the same thing I said to Rauk. C and B+/A- iCCup ladder are the same thing, with the former having fewer games played. Go back on iCCup and see if anyone's still there to play against; you'll get it eventually. I was 233-350 C on iccup. Next season 158-241 C. Next season 108-158 C. Last season on iccup I was 22-22 D+. I'm not playing 1000 games to fail to get A- just to prove your point. | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On September 26 2017 06:53 iopq wrote: I was 233-350 C on iccup. Next season 158-241 C. Next season 108-158 C. Last season on iccup I was 22-22 D+. I'm not playing 1000 games to fail to get A- just to prove your point. i think his point is you need to game the system and mass game vs D players, not C/C+ | ||
|
Zergneedsfood
United States10671 Posts
Don't think I'm even close to C rank though atm. | ||
|
Sero
United States692 Posts
On September 26 2017 07:14 rauk wrote: i think his point is you need to game the system and mass game vs D players, not C/C+ No, not at all. You only need a 50% winrate against C players without even playing MotW. C- and C+ don't mean anything; it's all the same C rank. Anyway, it's not worth arguing over a 100 MMR difference. I didn't say it was perfectly accurate... That is how iCCup ranks work now though, if you just look at the points chart. | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
| ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On September 26 2017 06:03 Sero wrote: Pretty much the same thing I said to Rauk. C and B+/A- iCCup ladder are the same thing, with the former having fewer games played. Go back on iCCup and see if anyone's still there to play against; you'll get it eventually. Well we should never talk about the new ICCup ranks imo. Compare to the old ones. Those, more often than not, at least had a general correlation with skill. Or Fish ranks work too. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
| ||
|
gamapg
Philippines189 Posts
I was a D player on Iccup before.... but now I'm in the asia and korean server at 1400 MMR, I'm still against people who know what they're doing and got 300 apm mid-late game.... Well... looks like i'm gonna sink deeper unless I get on par with them koreans... | ||
|
rredtooth
5459 Posts
On September 26 2017 08:36 L_Master wrote: Well we should never talk about the new ICCup ranks imo. Compare to the old ones. Those, more often than not, at least had a general correlation with skill. Or Fish ranks work too. agree with this. when people talk about iccup ranks they're probably referring to the old system. the inflated one that came out in 2015 is quite the monstrosity lol. | ||
|
iopq
United States881 Posts
On September 26 2017 08:21 Sero wrote: No, not at all. You only need a 50% winrate against C players without even playing MotW. C- and C+ don't mean anything; it's all the same C rank. Anyway, it's not worth arguing over a 100 MMR difference. I didn't say it was perfectly accurate... That is how iCCup ranks work now though, if you just look at the points chart. You don't get to play vs. all C rank players. You play a D+ guy and it turns out he's Dandy's smurf or something. You just don't get 50% win rate when playing against C rank players because some of those C rank players are actually olympic - they are just starting a new account. Maybe it's different now that RM is out, but I've never had a positive win rate at C rank. | ||
|
heyitsMiro
83 Posts
On September 26 2017 08:36 L_Master wrote: Well we should never talk about the new ICCup ranks imo. Compare to the old ones. Those, more often than not, at least had a general correlation with skill. Or Fish ranks work too. We shouldn't even be talking about ICCup at all. It's really just a meme and has been an absolute joke for years. If you're trying to use a ranking system from 5+ years ago to relate to players today, you're automatically doing something wrong as well. Fish ranks are maybe more accurate and could potentially be used. As shitty and buggy as the new MMR system is, it's probably the best indicator for skill and you should just take the number at face value for what it is. On every ladder people are going to game the system to try and min-max their point ranking. SC:R ladder is hardest to do that on. | ||
|
heyitsMiro
83 Posts
On September 26 2017 09:10 iopq wrote: You don't get to play vs. all C rank players. You play a D+ guy and it turns out he's Dandy's smurf or something. You just don't get 50% win rate when playing against C rank players because some of those C rank players are actually olympic - they are just starting a new account. Maybe it's different now that RM is out, but I've never had a positive win rate at C rank. That sounds like a player issue and a personal problem. No flaming intended. | ||
|
iopq
United States881 Posts
On September 26 2017 09:57 Carnations wrote: That sounds like a player issue and a personal problem. No flaming intended. Yeah, I'm saying I'm a bad player and I would never reach A- rank with my skills, yet I've been nearly 2100 on ladder. | ||
|
heyitsMiro
83 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/158501beded15524cf068ca997e8f12a.png) Anything is possible on ICCup. The ladder is trash and doesn't mean anything. It meant little before the point system rework but it was like, even more meaningless after. | ||
|
L_Master
United States8017 Posts
On September 26 2017 14:19 Carnations wrote: That's the thing though, you could. Anything is possible on ICCup. The ladder is trash and doesn't mean anything. It meant little before the point system rework but it was like, even more meaningless after. How does your ICCup laddering relate to Iopq though? | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
| ||
|
heyitsMiro
83 Posts
On September 26 2017 15:03 L_Master wrote: How does your ICCup laddering relate to Iopq though? It's not me.But how the fuck does a B+ player get hardstuck at C+, then get A- a few seasons later, and get hardstuck at B- again the next season? Literally anything can happen on iccup. The ladder is awful and if you wanted to game the system hard enough you could get A- after the point changes especially. 800 games B- to roughly 55% A+ is a lot of improvement. There are a lot of players that this has happened to. That screenshot is just the most memorable to me. Too lazy to remember/try to find others. I've also played games with iopg and am quite sure if he really wanted the A- rank by his name, he could get it. | ||
|
iD.NicKy
France767 Posts
ICCUP C SCR 1800 | ||
|
CHEONSOYUN
515 Posts
insecurity thread? | ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5490 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On September 27 2017 04:30 jimminy_kriket wrote: Tried searching. What was the points change that occured on iccup? I quit playing before then. something like you get more points playing against lower ranks than before so you can rank up playing against lower ranks np or smtg like that i dont want to play on there anymore tbh | ||
|
heyitsMiro
83 Posts
On September 27 2017 04:30 jimminy_kriket wrote: Tried searching. What was the points change that occured on iccup? I quit playing before then. Entire letters (B- B B+) are all considered the same rank and you lose significantly less points for each loss. The old ICCup system was D letters lose -50 points vs same rank (D+ vs D+), -62 vs one rank lower (D+ vs D). C letters lose -75 vs same rank (C vs C) -93 vs one lower (C+ vs C). B letters would lose -100 vs same rank, -125 for a rank lower, and -150 for two ranks lower (B+ vs B- or B- vs C) for example. Now B+ loses 50 points vs same rank which can be B+ vs B- and vs one rank lower they lose 62 points. One rank lower can be B+ vs C-. Playing B+ vs C- games gives you 97 points on MOTW which is roughly equal to playing non-motw same rank games before ladder reworks. The lower ranks are inflated as well but it isn't *as* bad. Maybe C+ through A level just got insanely inflated. edit: oh yeah, the dumbest thing was once you get to A- on the old system, losing against the same rank would mean you lost 140 points (totally negating the motw bonus, and requiring you to win a lot more of your games to climb). Now every A letter loses 75 points vs the same rank and -93 for a rank lower. That's basically the point loss for the old C letters. The entire thing is a joke now. | ||
|
aFF]ZuluNAtion[
Poland173 Posts
D-DD+ was same 1 rank (just 3 different icons depends of how much points you have), C-CC+ was same 1 rank (just 3 different icons depends of how much points you have) etc... So playing B vs D- was like 2 ranks difference. and C+ vs D was 1 rank difference in real. A- was like C+ or B- ofc its very hard to compare becouse community was smaller, overall skill was higher than in expample 2008 etc new A- was ofc better than old C+ or smth but still, making A- never was so easy as on new system becouse it was just 1 rank difference from B to C-C guys and 2 ranks to D guys so many ppl just makes points vs newbs from lower ranks.. | ||
|
Berg_zerg
Germany294 Posts
SCR MMR and Iccup are both not only highly dependend on the amount of games you played but also on how long the ladder has been going on. So to compare your End Rank at Iccup to a temporary SC:R mmr while having played a different amount of games is completely worthless | ||
|
aFF]ZuluNAtion[
Poland173 Posts
| ||
|
LxRogue
United States1415 Posts
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/1zx7gV4.png) | ||
|
noname_
456 Posts
On topic: for a lot of people the deterring point of iccup laddering were the seasonal resets, I`m crossing fingers that this won`t be the case with SCR ladder... | ||
|
A.Alm
Sweden508 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
On September 29 2017 20:17 noname_ wrote: I`d rather compare statistically the two chat system, the ease of lat chaging in games, and so on... On topic: for a lot of people the deterring point of iccup laddering were the seasonal resets, I`m crossing fingers that this won`t be the case with SCR ladder... agree +1 though I think with MMR, it may adjust faster, we've seen about 100 points may be about a Iccup rank, and if the system match you against a player with higher MMR cause you're on the rise after a reset, within 3-4 wins you get a "rank" instead of 10wins, its a pretty big difference already. But I don't think resets are needed? the interface is so slow in remastered, I just don't understand it. It's irritating, and inefficient. Now launching the game and using it feels heavy instead of light, and nothing works that well until you get into the game itself (and then you often get lag if your MMR is high or smtg^^) | ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
| ||
|
sicklucker
Canada16987 Posts
| ||
|
sicklucker
Canada16987 Posts
Also are there win streaks | ||
|
iopq
United States881 Posts
On September 29 2017 22:34 Dazed. wrote: Seems to be a trend appearing, despite the differences between the old system; c rank lands around 1750-1900, 1900-2000 seems roughly B. I'm 2100 and I was C on iccup | ||
|
-Debaser-
United States329 Posts
| ||
|
oDieN[Siege]
United States2904 Posts
On August 26 2017 18:08 Frauenarzt wrote: how do u not play vs koreans ? i was on ~1930 (eu server) when i had to play a lag game vs a 2140 korean (kor server) Believe it or not.. Koreans sleep too you know. | ||
|
jimminy_kriket
Canada5490 Posts
On October 13 2017 11:53 -Debaser- wrote: Does anyone feel like there's been significant MMR inflation? Even at lower levels. In the sense that it's easier to hit a higher MMR than before? Yes. | ||
|
Poegim
Poland264 Posts
| ||
|
iopq
United States881 Posts
On October 13 2017 14:58 Poegim wrote: Same as on iccup, at start of season its hard to make rank becouse its many good players who also starts from same lvl etc etc. As long as season go its goin easier and easier to make higher score. Soon top foreigners will make 3000 probably. A Chinese player already had | ||
| ||
