|
I remember Pete saying the ranks would be like Fish (S to F), this was a while back tho.
I assume the rating system won't change so won/lost points will be based on MMR. The only thing they need to figure out is the rank groupings. Assuming everyone starts at 1500 like right now, we could do:
0 to 1499 = F- (having a wide range of players at this rank isn't a bad thing, they could acquire information more easily)
1500 (default) to 1799 = F
1800 to 2099 = E
2100 to 2399 = D
2400 to 2699 = C
2700 to 2999 = B
3000 to 3299 = A
3300+ = S
I think these rank groupings fall in line with the current ladder ratings/skill lvl as well. There's only 24 3300+ rated players on the ladder right now and i don't think regular ladder seasons are going to last as long as frontier.
Lock every ladder channel above F but keep F unlocked for F- players. When a player moves up a rank leave all the channels below his rank unlocked.
How would team matchmaking work tho? Will players be able to queue up for 2v2 games by themselves? Will they be matched vs other solo queuing players or will they be matched vs an allied team (the allied team would obviously have a big edge over solo Q'ing players)? Are we gonna have separate MMRs for solo Q 2v2 players and allied teams (allied team = players who Q up as a team)? Will team matchmaking have chat channels as well (this would allow ppl with similar interests to meet each other etc.)?
|
The major drawback of iccup was the seasonal resets. They wanted to change this, but they couldn`t due to the whole server was reset because of other games (dota and whatnot), if I know correctly.
I don`t get what`s the point in reaching a certain rating if it`ll be reset. Imagine if chess`s ELŐ ratings were reset once a year, how hilarious that`d be. Yeah I know it`s not quite a fair comparison, but you get the point.
I don`t wish to "noobbash" my way for a hundred or so games to reach a certain rating every season just to play at my level. Not every one of us has the time and incentive to do this, and if you have, then go ahead and make a new account, and do so.
|
On December 23 2017 22:33 noname_ wrote:
The major drawback of iccup was the seasonal resets. They wanted to change this, but they couldn`t due to the whole server was reset because of other games (dota and whatnot), if I know correctly.
I don`t get what`s the point in reaching a certain rating if it`ll be reset. Imagine if chess`s ELŐ ratings were reset once a year, how hilarious that`d be. Yeah I know it`s not quite a fair comparison, but you get the point.
I don`t wish to "noobbash" my way for a hundred or so games to reach a certain rating every season just to play at my level. Not every one of us has the time and incentive to do this, and if you have, then go ahead and make a new account, and do so.
I agree tbh I don't really see the point of season reset, especially if it leads to grinding through less skilled players for too long like Iccup
however if the ratings get messed up or the system leads to point inflation or whatever, then a reset from time to time I guess can be healthy... just every 3 months on ICCup was too much with the slightly grinding rewarding point system, trying to reach a new best rank was chore-like and that's where you get the best training too.. in short it makes you play more games where you learn less, and then resets you there every 3 months. If you are not particularly highly active, the drawback is real. It's pretty much real in all cases except if you are a D+ skill player or so and actually enjoy playing against better players often, which I don't think a lot of D+ skill players would rather do that than playing against equal skilled players more. Honestly you learn just about as much if not more playing against equal skill at lower levels cause you get to try and do more stuff within a single game rather than get beaten instantly by the first few moves and snowball to loss.
|
Curious about the new ramps system. Kudos to them if they can make something that is actually as powerful and flexible as tile editing. Personally, I would just consider a dynamic texturing system for ramp terrain…
What about finally fixing the tilesets though?
|
On December 23 2017 22:56 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2017 22:33 noname_ wrote:
The major drawback of iccup was the seasonal resets. They wanted to change this, but they couldn`t due to the whole server was reset because of other games (dota and whatnot), if I know correctly.
I don`t get what`s the point in reaching a certain rating if it`ll be reset. Imagine if chess`s ELŐ ratings were reset once a year, how hilarious that`d be. Yeah I know it`s not quite a fair comparison, but you get the point.
I don`t wish to "noobbash" my way for a hundred or so games to reach a certain rating every season just to play at my level. Not every one of us has the time and incentive to do this, and if you have, then go ahead and make a new account, and do so. I agree tbh I don't really see the point of season reset, especially if it leads to grinding through less skilled players for too long like Iccup however if the ratings get messed up or the system leads to point inflation or whatever, then a reset from time to time I guess can be healthy... just every 3 months on ICCup was too much with the slightly grinding rewarding point system, trying to reach a new best rank was chore-like and that's where you get the best training too.. in short it makes you play more games where you learn less, and then resets you there every 3 months. If you are not particularly highly active, the drawback is real. It's pretty much real in all cases except if you are a D+ skill player or so and actually enjoy playing against better players often, which I don't think a lot of D+ skill players would rather do that than playing against equal skilled players more. Honestly you learn just about as much if not more playing against equal skill at lower levels cause you get to try and do more stuff within a single game rather than get beaten instantly by the first few moves and snowball to loss.
It`s not the case of inflation in Remastered I think, as observing point gains and losses (just speculation though) they use an ELŐ system with a k-factor of 16, or close to it, just like in high level chess.
|
On December 23 2017 21:37 wslkgmlk wrote:
Would it be too much to ask for support for 144x144 maps? This would go a long way in making some cool 3v3 and 4v4 maps for ladder play without them being too big. I already have a number of maps and ideas in the works, but trying to fit 6-8 decent sized bases with reasonable rush distances and without siege tanks wrecking mineral lines and adjacent mains on a 128x128 map isn't really possible.
Wow that is indeed a fight i have inside also... people seem to not like "shared base maps" and 256*256 are way to big. I 100% understand your request.
The problem is that there are not many people backing it up and other stuff for "team mach making".
https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20760626221#post-3
Somebody answered to me something like "Shared Bases where the down-fall of 2on2, 3on3 and 4on4 in SC2 and trust me I know what I am talking about," and i have been thinking about it... i will always think having case shared maps is a GREAT idea.... i will try to back it up as more as i can.
|
also I'm noting that the stats counts are still not reliable,
although the ladder seems to now count games properly, and although both ladder and custom game wins seem to go into the stats that show when you type /stats or join a game properly (although with a delay, why? there was no delay for registering win/loss before),
the profile page still doesn't show stats which are consistent with these.
it seems confused between maybe accounts that have the same name on different gateways
i don't know exactly but the result is a profile page that displays stats that are incorrect, apparently (in the winrate circles). i wish these winrates circles would just go and just show raw stats or just show the correct thing there o_o so for example on europe my account has 24-12 stats, 14-6 in ladder, and 10-6 in custom games. But instead the winrate circles show 2-2 Terran, 4-3 Protoss and 0-2 Zerg. That's incorrect. The /stats have counted my games properly, but the profile page doesn't show that. If your winrate circles don't work, just remove them from the game and display the correct raw stats there, and then add your winrate circles later when it works ok? not that I want winrate circles, it's not very meaningful, but whatever, at least do show the correct stats in there please. Otherwise what's the point of displaying stats in the profile page, which is slow to load on top of that? If you show stats, they gotta be real, otherwise its just misinformation why look at it? it's confusing and feels like unfinished interface draft instead of bnet operational interface
again starcraft the original does not have these problems, it knows how to count and display stats reliable on the profile page which displays instantly. Please make this work fast & good already, improved profile is not a profile which shows more information which is incorrect.. its too long for this stuff to just be unfinished like this come on. really annoying to keep running into this kind of basic stuff its just the raw core stuff that we expect from the platform that we always had.. if you had something it's gotta work otherwise leave it out, don't just hang stuff around that doesn't work for months for everyone to get confused and annoyed about @@ how do you think this makes starcraft look? everybody likes to increase their win count and have it shown on nice profile page it just gotta work, its like a motivator to mass game too lol (winrate circles dont help with that though cause they wont move if you play more games, you wanna play only games that you are sure to win to increase it. So again I suggest remove them, but whatever just at least get the stuff that's in there the basics to work, or remove what doesnt work, dont leave it like this)
also i'm getting tired of repeating this stuff over and over again so please do something about all this make a note of it and just say you're committed to it or whatever damnit like in text, just do it so we don't need to damnit write it again and again all the time
also include names in autoreplay so we do find those games back easily like before. You know like you want to be able to find a specific game among the last 100 you played cause you remember the map and the name of the other player or smtg. Just do something about that cause we had this before, we had name and race as options in name of replay, it was just easier and faster you see. so you could make an interface that displays the name and races of players when selecting a replay and add that information as tags in replay data, or just more simply just put the names of players right in the replay file name as before OK (with like a P T or Z after player name)
|
Yeah i read the same article a couple of times, is very cryptic.
For what i understand STUN helps computers outside of your network to contact you back more efficiently. Also all this is "wrapped" in a more universal protocol such as UDP, making the need for ports unnecessary.
|
On December 23 2017 23:29 hyfrehyfre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2017 21:37 wslkgmlk wrote:
Would it be too much to ask for support for 144x144 maps? This would go a long way in making some cool 3v3 and 4v4 maps for ladder play without them being too big. I already have a number of maps and ideas in the works, but trying to fit 6-8 decent sized bases with reasonable rush distances and without siege tanks wrecking mineral lines and adjacent mains on a 128x128 map isn't really possible. Wow that is indeed a fight i have inside also... people seem to not like "shared base maps" and 256*256 are way to big. I 100% understand your request. The problem is that there are not many people backing it up and other stuff for "team mach making". https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20760626221#post-3Somebody answered to me something like "Shared Bases where the down-fall of 2on2, 3on3 and 4on4 in SC2 and trust me I know what I am talking about," and i have been thinking about it... i will always think having case shared maps is a GREAT idea.... i will try to back it up as more as i can.
I don't think shared bases is a good idea at all, on all the ladders that have ever existed (WGTour, PGTour, iCCup, etc.) they have always featured 2v2 with popular maps that are used for 1v1 and obviously do not feature shared bases, for example:
- Lost Temple
- Luna
- Python
- Fighting Spirit
- Othello
- Any other mainstream 4-player map
Even in the pro korean scene they developed maps specifically for 2v2 that were not using shared bases:
- Usan Nation
- Vampire
- Hannibal
- Iron Curtain
- Seongangil
- Chariots of Fire
- The Huntress
Shared bases maps for team games are an unknown quantity right now as they have not been played or tested at any level to determine balance. Up until now and for the past 20 years, each race has been played based on their own strengths and have developed their own unique role in team games. Zerg for example provide mobility early on in the game and allow teams to gang up on a single player, however they become weaker in the mid game if they don't provide the team with an advantage for the Terran and Protoss players to capitalize on. On a shared-bases map, this will no longer be a factor and will remove a significant feature of the Zerg army.
Team games have been played for so long and are still popular amongst new players and veterans alike, there is no real reason to mess with the balance of a game mode that has been developed all these years alongside the mainstream 1v1 scene even though most people may not be aware of it.
For reference, I have been playing for most of these 20 years and have a preference for 2v2 and 3v3 which I still predominately play right now. I have reached the green and gold ranks in 2v2 on PGTour and iCCup across multiple seasons, so my point of view is based on my experience and knowledge of the game across thousands of games up until now.
|
about shared bases, I feel like it would simplify team game a lot.
A lot of the fun and complexity in 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4 is dealing with multiple points of defense and movement and even asymetry of map and dangerously close positions on hunters for example. Not every map needs to be the same, why not the odd shared base map in a pool, but that sounds like something that certainly isn't good as a "standard" for bw. Its also incompatible with the base rule that says starting locations are random! which is key to the variance and fun of team games
I do agree though that bigger map that is still smaller than 192 would be great for 3vs3... even maybe for 2vs2. 256 is way too big except maybe for 4vs4 lol (probably even then, the distance between players would vary too much for example? or it would just feel slow?), 192 is just probably too big but yeah man something like 144 sounds like a great way to give breathing room to maps that are close to standard size for team games, should allow to make new good maps of different kinds without running into the same constraints..
something fun I'd like to see blizzard do is actually make a few new maps. Even if they don't end up being favorites, it would be interesting contribution. Like a team map pool with one or two new blizzard made maps in it uh^^
|
Shared base maps are not a new thing in BW…
As for the map size problem: Have you ever tried non-square formats like 192x160 or something like that? 192x128 is a standard map size and not that much bigger than 144². Lack of minimap stretch is a problem, though.
|
On December 23 2017 22:05 TT1 wrote:
I remember Pete saying the ranks would be like Fish (S to F), this was a while back tho.
I assume the rating system won't change so won/lost points will be based on MMR. The only thing they need to figure out is the rank groupings. Assuming everyone starts at 1500 like right now, we could do:
0 to 1499 = F- (having a wide range of players at this rank isn't a bad thing, they could acquire information more easily)
1500 (default) to 1799 = F
1800 to 2099 = E
2100 to 2399 = D
2400 to 2699 = C
2700 to 2999 = B
3000 to 3299 = A
3300+ = S
I think these rank groupings fall in line with the current ladder ratings/skill lvl as well. There's only 24 3300+ rated players on the ladder right now and i don't think regular ladder seasons are going to last as long as frontier.
Lock every ladder channel above F but keep F unlocked for F- players. When a player moves up a rank leave all the channels below his rank unlocked.
How would team matchmaking work tho? Will players be able to queue up for 2v2 games by themselves? Will they be matched vs other solo queuing players or will they be matched vs an allied team (the allied team would obviously have a big edge over solo Q'ing players)? Are we gonna have separate MMRs for solo Q 2v2 players and allied teams (allied team = players who Q up as a team)? Will team matchmaking have chat channels as well (this would allow ppl with similar interests to meet each other etc.)?
Those are too hars honestly... there are really good players that just CANT win matches and stay in 1800, old ICCUP A players i mean, yours looks like a punch in the balls INMO, more like fish.
People will leave the game is damn to harsh, imagine that 76% of the player base is under 1450, are they going to be F- for months? no no... people need to see shit going up and down, so there has to be more letters and categories otherwise it will be as in ICCUP or FISH where for you to climb UP the rank you had to play like crazy, trust me i am not a good player i was ICCUP B and i cant get over 1700 or 1800, i will hate seeing my rank stay in "D-" forever just to get to D? no no no.... you are nuts, this is not fish.
Only by adding EE, SS, Pro and Gosu you can make things look better. I worked a lot on this idea i hope you like it... is hard to understand. Technically it keeps ICCUP badges similar and creates a felling that FIsh players are over pro Iccup players... give it a shoot.
The league system has to be more mobile, meaning that things must go UP and DOWN all the time, giving you a felling of "doing something", so what i would like to see is also that the symbols mean something, i will explain this a little bit as we progress, at the very top of the Ladder we start having "badges" like SS, PRO, GOSU then just numbers for top players like: 35,34...10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 etc... let me explain.
First of all as a way of explaining what is typed down here the ladder goes from 0 as 3300, also check that there are NO D-, E- F-... those symbols are used for other stuff that i will explain after in this section, so we have this:
0 to 699 = EE (Double EE, is better than the old word N00b)
700 to 1099 = E
1100 to 1299 = F
1300 to 1500 = D / NEW (New is for new players)
1501 to 1799 = C
1800 to 2099 = B
2100 to 2399 = A
2400 to 2699 = S
2700 to 2999 = SS
3000 to 3100 = Pro
3100 to 3299 = GOSU
3300+ = NUMBERS.
This "NUMBERS" are just whoever is up 3300, lets say there are only 35 players, then tag will says 35, 34... up to 1.
I would 100 % like to see Remastered include the word GOSU as a badge is a cultural thing that everybody would like INMO. It was on Fish an iccup.
Now about the simbols. I would like the simbols "-" (Minus) and "+" (plus) mean something different and more meaningful as i said before here i explain it to you:
"--" Minus Minus = About to be DEMOTED.
"-" MInus = FLOOR. Going Down the rank half/average points and playing under 20 hours..
"+" Plus = ROOF. Going Up the rank half/average points and playing under 20 hours.
"++" Plus Plus = About to get PROMOTED !.
How is "going down" or "going up" calculated?, is just the exact HALF of you League MMR points.
What does "under 20 hours" means?. Simple, if you win over the HALF of your league you get your rank and plus, like (A+), this "+" will stay in your badge for 20 hours, latter it will disapear, win a game you have it again.
Ao lets say i am in C (As it would be where i personally land now with 1670 MMR points i think), then my range is 1501 to 1799, and the exact half is = 1650.
So based on that i would have my "badge" showing C, now here is the deal... if i win a game my badge will change to C+. if i play another game and win it will remain in C+, but if i don't play another game inside 20 hours it will go back to C (my MMR don't change just the symbol disappears showing i am leaving remastered for 20 hours), . Understand?.
Now lets say i am VERY close (50 MMr points or so) to 1799, which is my roof to be promoted to B, then my badge should change to C++, and show that i am not only good programmer (lol) but also very close, probably a game or 2 to become B, and even if i don't come back for 20 hours it will remain C++. the ++ symbol remains as i am closer to be promoted.
So the same for going down... let say i lose a game, and my MMR goes beneath the "exact half" to 1630... then my Badge should show C-, and stays C- if i keep losing...nobody wants its badge to be like that, you will only make it positive if yo hit that ( half/average) of your league rank in this case 1650, also you could leave for 20 hours and the "-" will dissapear... also if i get very close (50 points close) to my floor of 1501... i will get my badge C--, but -- badges DO disappear after 20 hours because we don't want to communicate to the world "this guys is a loser about o be demoted), we only want to communicate the positive.
++ badges don't dissapear once you stay near being promoted, -- badges dissapear after 20 hours. + means going up an, and - means going down, this last 2 stay in the badge as long as the player plays under 20 hours, or keeps losing or winning over the Half or average of the League rank they belong to.
So long story short, i would like them to keep the symbols "-" and "+" as something active, people like to see that after playing 3 or 5 games they are making a "difference" whether this difference is "good" or "bad" that's up to them and how hard they practice. Is good to remember that people sont play many games... some of the only play one or 2 games a week, give them something to "see", they get a "plus" sign that means is good, they get to see a "++" sing they should stay and play more !!.
In you original League (very similar to fish) people will play 300 games and stay in F-... not cool, in my system at least they will go up to D at some point, then down to F again, be D- D-- and F++ and get some felling of "mobility" etc...
About the chat channels, i think exactly as you, once you reached a letter as you say above, lets say in my case B, i have access to that Channel, even despite i go down to E in the future.
Now Above S we get like another Ladder if you will, for pros, and that's the point... i got to be B in iccup once, but then i stayed in C for years, i was not disciplined enough to climb again. The point is, the "letters" resemble Iccup a bit, but then come like a Ladder inside another ladder this are:
SS, Pro, Gosu. they are self explanatory, but the point is that the word GOSU when over 3299 becomes just numbers, so when you are in those ladder placements that are for the best of the best, they would have the number like: "InteRMindd" would have the badge "1" plain and simple for instance.
Also From SS to pro there is no SS++, just color changes which i explain below.
Another thing to keep in mind is that the badges should very VERY colorful, not just like it was on ICCUP and FISH but more modern, this is my suggestion. EE = Pink, E, F, D = Yellow, C B = Green, A, S, SS = Red, PRO = SIlver, Gosu = GOlD, GosuNUMBER = white?.
Also when you are C+ you get some "contrast", something to tell you visually that you are making progress, when you at SS (about to become PRO) you get some SICK contrast etc... I think colors and design are very 2017.
What do you think?, with this people will fell that the ladder is more "dynamic" if you will.
About TMM obviously i think than when you visit someone profile you should get a League Badge for TMM and another one for 1v1, i think that is out of the question... there should be 2 separated Leader Boards 100%:
I will try to make a thread about this with graphics, i think is worth it i hope is of good enough taste for the TeamLiquid people.
Also for anyone actually reading this, remember that Starcraft Remastered is NOT Starcraft 2, meaning that a D player could find an SS player at any point... harsh but true, it depends on how many people are connected at the time, what maps/encounter type are you playing etc... rank in SC:RM is weird, and i would like a scientific explanation of it, but know 100% as a fact that there is no rule that says, F should never encunter a PRO player...it might just happen, the system is indeed build as far as i can tell to avoid this, but there is no garantee.
|
On December 23 2017 22:33 noname_ wrote:
The major drawback of iccup was the seasonal resets. They wanted to change this, but they couldn`t due to the whole server was reset because of other games (dota and whatnot), if I know correctly.
I don`t get what`s the point in reaching a certain rating if it`ll be reset. Imagine if chess`s ELŐ ratings were reset once a year, how hilarious that`d be. Yeah I know it`s not quite a fair comparison, but you get the point.
I don`t wish to "noobbash" my way for a hundred or so games to reach a certain rating every season just to play at my level. Not every one of us has the time and incentive to do this, and if you have, then go ahead and make a new account, and do so.
People create new accounts all the time to reach higher levels, juts because they where "new" when they started, i think that STATS should reset on every season as they did on ICCUP, but profile should show your last, and your MMR should start on the average, instead of starting at 1500 again... but i do agree stats should start from 0 in every season, is nice to fell FRESH again, this also would be amazing having achievements like "player with most wins in season" etc...
|
On December 23 2017 23:01 Freakling wrote:Curious about the new ramps system. Kudos to them if they can make something that is actually as powerful and flexible as tile editing. Personally, I would just consider a dynamic texturing system for ramp terrain… What about finally fixing the tilesets though?
Go check maps like "EDDY" they have amazing elongated ramps... i think they are going for something similar. I Hardly understand what they mean with "ramps" to be honest.
|
On December 24 2017 00:03 wslkgmlk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2017 23:29 hyfrehyfre wrote:On December 23 2017 21:37 wslkgmlk wrote:
Would it be too much to ask for support for 144x144 maps? This would go a long way in making some cool 3v3 and 4v4 maps for ladder play without them being too big. I already have a number of maps and ideas in the works, but trying to fit 6-8 decent sized bases with reasonable rush distances and without siege tanks wrecking mineral lines and adjacent mains on a 128x128 map isn't really possible. Wow that is indeed a fight i have inside also... people seem to not like "shared base maps" and 256*256 are way to big. I 100% understand your request. The problem is that there are not many people backing it up and other stuff for "team mach making". https://us.battle.net/forums/en/starcraft/topic/20760626221#post-3Somebody answered to me something like "Shared Bases where the down-fall of 2on2, 3on3 and 4on4 in SC2 and trust me I know what I am talking about," and i have been thinking about it... i will always think having case shared maps is a GREAT idea.... i will try to back it up as more as i can. I don't think shared bases is a good idea at all, on all the ladders that have ever existed (WGTour, PGTour, iCCup, etc.) they have always featured 2v2 with popular maps that are used for 1v1 and obviously do not feature shared bases, for example: - Lost Temple
- Luna
- Python
- Fighting Spirit
- Othello
- Any other mainstream 4-player map
Even in the pro korean scene they developed maps specifically for 2v2 that were not using shared bases: - Usan Nation
- Vampire
- Hannibal
- Iron Curtain
- Seongangil
- Chariots of Fire
- The Huntress
Shared bases maps for team games are an unknown quantity right now as they have not been played or tested at any level to determine balance. Up until now and for the past 20 years, each race has been played based on their own strengths and have developed their own unique role in team games. Zerg for example provide mobility early on in the game and allow teams to gang up on a single player, however they become weaker in the mid game if they don't provide the team with an advantage for the Terran and Protoss players to capitalize on. On a shared-bases map, this will no longer be a factor and will remove a significant feature of the Zerg army. Team games have been played for so long and are still popular amongst new players and veterans alike, there is no real reason to mess with the balance of a game mode that has been developed all these years alongside the mainstream 1v1 scene even though most people may not be aware of it. For reference, I have been playing for most of these 20 years and have a preference for 2v2 and 3v3 which I still predominately play right now. I have reached the green and gold ranks in 2v2 on PGTour and iCCup across multiple seasons, so my point of view is based on my experience and knowledge of the game across thousands of games up until now.
Yes but you assuming they will oly let 2v2 rank be a thing with that logic... which makes me sad, i want 3v3 and 4v4 rank also... maybe you are seeing the future, they release 2v2 and thats it... if so well no biggie, but i am sure people would like to have 3v3 and 4v4 experience then... i would hate to see Hunters and BGH over and over again.
|
Netherlands4520 Posts
With Grant Davies the game seems in very good hands thank you for your continued effort.
|
On December 24 2017 02:27 hyfrehyfre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2017 22:05 TT1 wrote:
[spoiler] remember Pete saying the ranks would be like Fish (S to F), this was a while back tho.
I assume the rating system won't change so won/lost points will be based on MMR. The only thing they need to figure out is the rank groupings. Assuming everyone starts at 1500 like right now, we could do:
0 to 1499 = F- (having a wide range of players at this rank isn't a bad thing, they could acquire information more easily)
1500 (default) to 1799 = F
1800 to 2099 = E
2100 to 2399 = D
2400 to 2699 = C
2700 to 2999 = B
3000 to 3299 = A
3300+ = S
I think these rank groupings fall in line with the current ladder ratings/skill lvl as well. There's only 24 3300+ rated players on the ladder right now and i don't think regular ladder seasons are going to last as long as frontier.
Lock every ladder channel above F but keep F unlocked for F- players. When a player moves up a rank leave all the channels below his rank unlocked.
How would team matchmaking work tho? Will players be able to queue up for 2v2 games by themselves? Will they be matched vs other solo queuing players or will they be matched vs an allied team (the allied team would obviously have a big edge over solo Q'ing players)? Are we gonna have separate MMRs for solo Q 2v2 players and allied teams (allied team = players who Q up as a team)? Will team matchmaking have chat channels as well (this would allow ppl with similar interests to meet each other etc.)? spoiler
ok then just add more ranks between 0 and 1499
|
On December 24 2017 02:31 hyfrehyfre wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2017 23:01 Freakling wrote:Curious about the new ramps system. Kudos to them if they can make something that is actually as powerful and flexible as tile editing. Personally, I would just consider a dynamic texturing system for ramp terrain… What about finally fixing the tilesets though? Go check maps like "EDDY" they have amazing elongated ramps... i think they are going for something similar. I Hardly understand what they mean with "ramps" to be honest.
Well, exactly my point. If something like Eddy (among other things) is not possible with whatever ramp system they come up with, then it is mostly useless above entry-level map making (And I made Eddy, so I don't need to check ;P). Defining the term ramp in the StarCraft context basically comes down to "fully walkable, typically unbuildable terrain that is used to transition between different terrain types separated by cliffs, typically having different terrain levels".
|
|
|
On December 24 2017 02:58 TT1 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 24 2017 02:27 hyfrehyfre wrote:On December 23 2017 22:05 TT1 wrote:+ Show Spoiler + remember Pete saying the ranks would be like Fish (S to F), this was a while back tho.
I assume the rating system won't change so won/lost points will be based on MMR. The only thing they need to figure out is the rank groupings. Assuming everyone starts at 1500 like right now, we could do:
0 to 1499 = F- (having a wide range of players at this rank isn't a bad thing, they could acquire information more easily)
1500 (default) to 1799 = F
1800 to 2099 = E
2100 to 2399 = D
2400 to 2699 = C
2700 to 2999 = B
3000 to 3299 = A
3300+ = S
I think these rank groupings fall in line with the current ladder ratings/skill lvl as well. There's only 24 3300+ rated players on the ladder right now and i don't think regular ladder seasons are going to last as long as frontier.
Lock every ladder channel above F but keep F unlocked for F- players. When a player moves up a rank leave all the channels below his rank unlocked.
How would team matchmaking work tho? Will players be able to queue up for 2v2 games by themselves? Will they be matched vs other solo queuing players or will they be matched vs an allied team (the allied team would obviously have a big edge over solo Q'ing players)? Are we gonna have separate MMRs for solo Q 2v2 players and allied teams (allied team = players who Q up as a team)? Will team matchmaking have chat channels as well (this would allow ppl with similar interests to meet each other etc.)? [spoiler]Those are too hars honestly... there are really good players that just CANT win matches and stay in 1800, old ICCUP A players i mean, yours looks like a punch in the balls INMO, more like fish. People will leave the game is damn to harsh, imagine that 76% of the player base is under 1450, are they going to be F- for months? no no... people need to see shit going up and down, so there has to be more letters and categories otherwise it will be as in ICCUP or FISH where for you to climb UP the rank you had to play like crazy, trust me i am not a good player i was ICCUP B and i cant get over 1700 or 1800, i will hate seeing my rank stay in "D-" forever just to get to D? no no no.... you are nuts, this is not fish. Only by adding EE, SS, Pro and Gosu you can make things look better. I worked a lot on this idea i hope you like it... is hard to understand. Technically it keeps ICCUP badges similar and creates a felling that FIsh players are over pro Iccup players... give it a shoot. The league system has to be more mobile, meaning that things must go UP and DOWN all the time, giving you a felling of "doing something", so what i would like to see is also that the symbols mean something, i will explain this a little bit as we progress, at the very top of the Ladder we start having "badges" like SS, PRO, GOSU then just numbers for top players like: 35,34...10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 etc... let me explain. First of all as a way of explaining what is typed down here the ladder goes from 0 as 3300, also check that there are NO D-, E- F-... those symbols are used for other stuff that i will explain after in this section, so we have this: 0 to 699 = EE (Double EE, is better than the old word N00b) 700 to 1099 = E 1100 to 1299 = F 1300 to 1500 = D / NEW (New is for new players) 1501 to 1799 = C 1800 to 2099 = B 2100 to 2399 = A 2400 to 2699 = S 2700 to 2999 = SS 3000 to 3100 = Pro 3100 to 3299 = GOSU 3300+ = NUMBERS. This "NUMBERS" are just whoever is up 3300, lets say there are only 35 players, then tag will says 35, 34... up to 1. I would 100 % like to see Remastered include the word GOSU as a badge is a cultural thing that everybody would like INMO. It was on Fish an iccup. Now about the simbols. I would like the simbols "-" (Minus) and "+" (plus) mean something different and more meaningful as i said before here i explain it to you: "--" Minus Minus = About to be DEMOTED. "-" MInus = FLOOR. Going Down the rank half/average points and playing under 20 hours.. "+" Plus = ROOF. Going Up the rank half/average points and playing under 20 hours. "++" Plus Plus = About to get PROMOTED !. How is "going down" or "going up" calculated?, is just the exact HALF of you League MMR points. What does "under 20 hours" means?. Simple, if you win over the HALF of your league you get your rank and plus, like (A+), this "+" will stay in your badge for 20 hours, latter it will disapear, win a game you have it again. Ao lets say i am in C (As it would be where i personally land now with 1670 MMR points i think), then my range is 1501 to 1799, and the exact half is = 1650. So based on that i would have my "badge" showing C, now here is the deal... if i win a game my badge will change to C+. if i play another game and win it will remain in C+, but if i don't play another game inside 20 hours it will go back to C (my MMR don't change just the symbol disappears showing i am leaving remastered for 20 hours), . Understand?. Now lets say i am VERY close (50 MMr points or so) to 1799, which is my roof to be promoted to B, then my badge should change to C++, and show that i am not only good programmer (lol) but also very close, probably a game or 2 to become B, and even if i don't come back for 20 hours it will remain C++. the ++ symbol remains as i am closer to be promoted. So the same for going down... let say i lose a game, and my MMR goes beneath the "exact half" to 1630... then my Badge should show C-, and stays C- if i keep losing...nobody wants its badge to be like that, you will only make it positive if yo hit that ( half/average) of your league rank in this case 1650, also you could leave for 20 hours and the "-" will dissapear... also if i get very close (50 points close) to my floor of 1501... i will get my badge C--, but -- badges DO disappear after 20 hours because we don't want to communicate to the world "this guys is a loser about o be demoted), we only want to communicate the positive. ++ badges don't dissapear once you stay near being promoted, -- badges dissapear after 20 hours. + means going up an, and - means going down, this last 2 stay in the badge as long as the player plays under 20 hours, or keeps losing or winning over the Half or average of the League rank they belong to. So long story short, i would like them to keep the symbols "-" and "+" as something active, people like to see that after playing 3 or 5 games they are making a "difference" whether this difference is "good" or "bad" that's up to them and how hard they practice. Is good to remember that people sont play many games... some of the only play one or 2 games a week, give them something to "see", they get a "plus" sign that means is good, they get to see a "++" sing they should stay and play more !!. In you original League (very similar to fish) people will play 300 games and stay in F-... not cool, in my system at least they will go up to D at some point, then down to F again, be D- D-- and F++ and get some felling of "mobility" etc... About the chat channels, i think exactly as you, once you reached a letter as you say above, lets say in my case B, i have access to that Channel, even despite i go down to E in the future.Now Above S we get like another Ladder if you will, for pros, and that's the point... i got to be B in iccup once, but then i stayed in C for years, i was not disciplined enough to climb again. The point is, the "letters" resemble Iccup a bit, but then come like a Ladder inside another ladder this are: SS, Pro, Gosu. they are self explanatory, but the point is that the word GOSU when over 3299 becomes just numbers, so when you are in those ladder placements that are for the best of the best, they would have the number like: "InteRMindd" would have the badge "1" plain and simple for instance. Also From SS to pro there is no SS++, just color changes which i explain below. Another thing to keep in mind is that the badges should very VERY colorful, not just like it was on ICCUP and FISH but more modern, this is my suggestion. EE = Pink, E, F, D = Yellow, C B = Green, A, S, SS = Red, PRO = SIlver, Gosu = GOlD, GosuNUMBER = white?. Also when you are C+ you get some "contrast", something to tell you visually that you are making progress, when you at SS (about to become PRO) you get some SICK contrast etc... I think colors and design are very 2017. What do you think?, with this people will fell that the ladder is more "dynamic" if you will. About TMM obviously i think than when you visit someone profile you should get a League Badge for TMM and another one for 1v1, i think that is out of the question... there should be 2 separated Leader Boards 100%: I will try to make a thread about this with graphics, i think is worth it i hope is of good enough taste for the TeamLiquid people. ok then just add more ranks between 0 and 1499
Yes exactly, make it more "active", and also make the simbols mean something,
In my idea i add EE, SS, Pro, Gosu and number, thats it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
