| Forum Index > BW General |
|
JungleTerrain
Chile799 Posts
On December 24 2017 02:31 hyfrehyfre wrote: 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. Lol! | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On December 24 2017 05:49 TT1 wrote: You can have the 1st rank up be like 100 points, past the 1st rank move it up by increments of 300 points. That's how Fish did it. It took 4 wins to rank up from F to E (first rank up), everyone started at 1000 pts and they'd get 25 pts for an evenly ranked win (for example F vs F). Assuming our base rating starts at 1500 like it does now, it would be: 1500 > 1599 (F), 1600 > 1899 (E), 1900 > 2199 (D), 2200 > 2499 (C), 2500 > 2799 (B), 2800 > 3099 (A), 3100+ (S). We could extend A rank from like 2800 to 3299 (instead of 2800 to 3099) to make S rank feel more prestigious, S rank would then start at 3300. source: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/Fish_Server Current system (effective April 8, 2017) Rank Points S >2600 A 2300–2599 B 2000–2299 C 1700–1999 D 1400–1699 E 1100–1399 F 801–1099 (everyone started at 1000, took 4 wins to reach 1100/E rank) F- 1–800 So for the current ladder system the equivalent would be to start at 1500 (F) and rank up at 1600 (E), aka 4 wins. F rank (base rank) would have to be around 1300 - 1599, F- would be 1000 to 1299. 0 to 999 would be the beginner rank, you could split it up into 2 ranks if you wanted to, say 0 to 499 and 500 to 999. Call it w/e rank you want. I don't entirely agree. That's very close to the "traditional" concept of a ladder. Super grindy, everyone condensed tightly into one region until chunks of players start branching out. Eventually subchunks break out, then subchunks of subchunks, and eventually you have crazy population numbers where each rank has like 5% of the population of the rank below it. It ends up looking like a pyramid. I'm of two minds on this. When I played SF4 and Soulcalibur 5, they had grindy ranked play like this (Japanese game developers love the hyper-grindy rank climb). I hated it. Sure it was prestigious to see (or be) an A-ranked player, but it took literally thousands of games to get there. Elo moves about as slowly. You never want to have to say "yeah Flash is B, and there are only 5 B-ranks out there right now, but eventually he'll reach A or S", it should be evident almost immediately who is the best player in the world. Setting up "aspirational" ranks only artificially delays what the disitribution should look like. One thing that's really good about the SC2 system is that you have equal distance to rise or fall from the median starting point. It also moves a lot more quickly than Elo. However, one of the main reasons why the SC2 system works is because you're only allowed a single account per region. In SCR you can create unlimited accounts, which can lead to inflation because if you go from 1000 to 900, you can always just make a new account at 1000 and climb rather than use your first account. It would probably still be better than the pyramid-shaped supergrind though. | ||
|
hyfrehyfre
Bolivia92 Posts
On December 24 2017 08:47 Excalibur_Z wrote: I don't entirely agree. That's very close to the "traditional" concept of a ladder. Super grindy, everyone condensed tightly into one region until chunks of players start branching out. Eventually subchunks break out, then subchunks of subchunks, and eventually you have crazy population numbers where each rank has like 5% of the population of the rank below it. It ends up looking like a pyramid. I'm of two minds on this. When I played SF4 and Soulcalibur 5, they had grindy ranked play like this (Japanese game developers love the hyper-grindy rank climb). I hated it. Sure it was prestigious to see (or be) an A-ranked player, but it took literally thousands of games to get there. Elo moves about as slowly. You never want to have to say "yeah Flash is B, and there are only 5 B-ranks out there right now, but eventually he'll reach A or S", it should be evident almost immediately who is the best player in the world. Setting up "aspirational" ranks only artificially delays what the disitribution should look like. One thing that's really good about the SC2 system is that you have equal distance to rise or fall from the median starting point. It also moves a lot more quickly than Elo. However, one of the main reasons why the SC2 system works is because you're only allowed a single account per region. In SCR you can create unlimited accounts, which can lead to inflation because if you go from 1000 to 900, you can always just make a new account at 1000 and climb rather than use your first account. It would probably still be better than the pyramid-shaped supergrind though. Look i tried to understand the "pyramid" thing and i failed, then just at the end i understood it, you hate the idea that there are way to few S and a million F,D and C, in other words you want "other factors" to influence the rank letter. My question is "what other factors?", the only factor that i would consider great to have is that after each season (lets say 4 months etc) you are given the closest Rank DOWN, so if you where 1900 MMR before the season started you would start as D , and then in your profile you will find "season 3, final placement #54.256, final MMR 1900, RANK C, protoss 57% etc...". and is carved in stone. This is important because that way people will start with the amount of point they deserver, imagine an S player with 2600 MMR starting again at 1500? no thanks... Also i would like very much is that so it wont fell so "grindy" that you actually get the "+" and "-" simbols to mean something, going UP or going DOWN, about to be promoted or demoted etc, Maybe even if you keep the "+" sign for 4 games you get like a "combo bonus?", let say you win someone and ELO = 18, then next game you play him again and win him again then ELO = 18 + 2, then again ELO = 18 + 4 etc.... Now about accounts, i like how Sc Remastered allows making different accounts, it helps players start a new account with another race, or simply start fresh. But for me the "reset of seasons" is the most important thing. | ||
|
TT1
Canada10011 Posts
On December 24 2017 08:47 Excalibur_Z wrote: I don't entirely agree. That's very close to the "traditional" concept of a ladder. Super grindy, everyone condensed tightly into one region until chunks of players start branching out. Eventually subchunks break out, then subchunks of subchunks, and eventually you have crazy population numbers where each rank has like 5% of the population of the rank below it. It ends up looking like a pyramid. I'm of two minds on this. When I played SF4 and Soulcalibur 5, they had grindy ranked play like this (Japanese game developers love the hyper-grindy rank climb). I hated it. Sure it was prestigious to see (or be) an A-ranked player, but it took literally thousands of games to get there. Elo moves about as slowly. You never want to have to say "yeah Flash is B, and there are only 5 B-ranks out there right now, but eventually he'll reach A or S", it should be evident almost immediately who is the best player in the world. Setting up "aspirational" ranks only artificially delays what the disitribution should look like. One thing that's really good about the SC2 system is that you have equal distance to rise or fall from the median starting point. It also moves a lot more quickly than Elo. However, one of the main reasons why the SC2 system works is because you're only allowed a single account per region. In SCR you can create unlimited accounts, which can lead to inflation because if you go from 1000 to 900, you can always just make a new account at 1000 and climb rather than use your first account. It would probably still be better than the pyramid-shaped supergrind though. One of the main goals of grouping players into ladder ranks is to create default ladder channels for each rank (say you're C rank, you'd auto-join Ladder C whenever you log into b.net) in order to allow players to meet each other and have a more sociable b.net experience (as opposed to having them sit in their regional channel by themselves without knowing what channel to go to). The ladder ranks themselves are pretty meaningless other than grouping people inside chat channels (and having a cool ladder icon which is fluff). The leaderboard is still going to be based on MMR ratings like it currently is. What alternative would you suggest? | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
My SB design was still using Elo but with some modern adaptations: - larger K-factor if you have less than a certain number of games played - after you cross that number of games played, your K-factor would decrease if the outcome of the match was expected (your predicted win chance by rating difference was less than 50% and you lost, or more than 50% and you won) - your K-factor would gradually increase with a streak of unexpected outcomes It was kind of an attempt at approximating the TrueSkillesque SC2 model, but Blizzard can do that much better than I can. But the basic gist is: 1. Rating ranges that are fixed 2. Equal(ish) opportunity to rise and fall from the origin 3. Rapid and aggressive initial placement The season roll thing wouldn't have to reset MMR. In fact, there's no reason to ever reset MMR because it means you're willfully discarding millions of data points that have led to player skill definitions. I wouldn't expect the season roll to change that at all. The only thing the season roll will do is change the map pool and adjust the league boundaries if needed (that's the plan with SB also). | ||
|
halomonian
Brazil255 Posts
| ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
I also noted that currently bnet confuses your accounts if they have the same name on different gateways. So if I have abc10@Europe and abc10@US.West, the stats display before entering bnet and I think even in profile will display some kind of mix up between stats of these accounts that you have with the same name on different gateways. For example, even the MMR on a new account with the same name on a new gateway will display as being your MMR of your existing account, but then if you do play ladder it is considered a 1500 as normal. But the MMR won't display properly on bnet login or profile, neither do the stats, although /stats will apparently show the correct stats for that account. Please fix that too, and don't leave it like this. Currently, my main new account has incorrect stat count in bnet login and profile (out of ladder stats) and any alt acc with the same name on other gateways copy that. /stats shows correct. edit: apparently the incorrect stat count in bnet login and profile, is because the first custom games I played must have been on US.West with the same name. So now my main account with the same name on Europe has stat count on bnet login and profile that are those of the US.West account, but ladder stats of the Europe account for both account because I played ladder with it first. The US.West still has a separate ladder stat count / MMR which shows after playing a ladder game, and the Europe still has a separate general stats count which shows using /stats. It's messing up like this from pulling the information from a reference for the interface?... please fix this, I want my account to show my stats correctly wherever I'm playing. Now I choose to play mostly on europe, my stats display won't update. I guess I'll again create new accounts when it works, resetting my stats, but have to make another name . . . . | ||
|
Leeoku
1617 Posts
| ||
|
sM.Zik
Canada2550 Posts
On December 25 2017 03:43 Leeoku wrote: Changing the entire BW history, wider ramps Wider ramps has always been a thing with custom map editor? | ||
|
PorkSoda
170 Posts
On December 24 2017 13:32 Excalibur_Z wrote: I'm a little biased obviously but I think the ShieldBattery ladder approach is best. That had I believe 11 buckets and you started in the 7th highest one, so almost equal room to grow in either direction (I was taking into account people who would just quit or make new profiles once they got too far below the starting value). Each bucket was equal in rating size, but were intended to target certain percentiles, similar to the Heart of the Swarm ladder distribution. Every so often we would round the values off and recapture those percentiles if they drifted from the intended targets. My SB design was still using Elo but with some modern adaptations: - larger K-factor if you have less than a certain number of games played - after you cross that number of games played, your K-factor would decrease if the outcome of the match was expected (your predicted win chance by rating difference was less than 50% and you lost, or more than 50% and you won) - your K-factor would gradually increase with a streak of unexpected outcomes It was kind of an attempt at approximating the TrueSkillesque SC2 model, but Blizzard can do that much better than I can. But the basic gist is: 1. Rating ranges that are fixed 2. Equal(ish) opportunity to rise and fall from the origin 3. Rapid and aggressive initial placement The season roll thing wouldn't have to reset MMR. In fact, there's no reason to ever reset MMR because it means you're willfully discarding millions of data points that have led to player skill definitions. I wouldn't expect the season roll to change that at all. The only thing the season roll will do is change the map pool and adjust the league boundaries if needed (that's the plan with SB also). Are there any plans for SB to continue and stay up to date? | ||
|
castleeMg
Canada777 Posts
| ||
|
hyfrehyfre
Bolivia92 Posts
On December 25 2017 06:20 castleeMg wrote: having alot of problems with matchmaking, getting matched then reset to the "searching 1v1" lobby screen, happens like 10 times b4 i get a game, not even exaggerating. is anyone else experiencing this problem? ive seen a post on the starcraft blizzard forums about it but no response from blizz yet.. im wondering if its a port issue but its geting super annoying That will keep happening... but the point is that it probably need a little bit more of "animation", right now the transition is so "CUT", it wouldn't hurt that they fix this, but is definitely an animation problem, for instance... when it says: Searching for player 1v1... And then it "sounds" as if the player vs player screen is about to pop out, maybe just always show your character and the other side "blank" as if waiting or something, and even if the code "knows" that behind the scenes it will drop it will make you fell something happened with the other player instead of that annoying transitions as if something is wrong with he Matrix it sometimes even shows that annoying "loading" green cursor, or makes the entire windows BLANK like you cant select anything. Also would be nice that the "waiting time" wont come to 0 again, is deceiving, maybe show a quick message like "Player disconnected suddenly, searching for another player, total waiting time..." even if its a crying LIE and not even the server knows "why" this happened.. JUST MAKE THE MATCH MAKING TRANSITIONS/ANIMATIONS BETTER. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On December 25 2017 06:20 castleeMg wrote: having alot of problems with matchmaking, getting matched then reset to the "searching 1v1" lobby screen, happens like 10 times b4 i get a game, not even exaggerating. is anyone else experiencing this problem? ive seen a post on the starcraft blizzard forums about it but no response from blizz yet.. im wondering if its a port issue but its geting super annoying have been having the same issues today. usually it takes about a minute to match and it only dismisses a found match 1/5 times.. today it's like 2-3 minutes and more than half the time the game fails to load. quick question.. if you search on realm x, can you hit some one on realm y? | ||
HaN-
France1920 Posts
Blizzard won't be able to make the queue times short and guarantee players of similar levels at the same time. This is even more an issue because 2v2 players from my experience in public games are either very bad (think D-) or very good (think A+). You'll have a mix of players who have been mastering 2v2 for 10+ years and new comers from the 1v1s scene who will need to learn 2v2 in and out from the begining. If good and bad players run into each other too often, it won't be fun for anyone. This was the experience on iccup in the last years.. Maybe that now with the global ladder, having koreans can fix these problems but then what about the latency. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
 | ||
|
ProMeTheus112
France2027 Posts
| ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
On December 25 2017 08:55 ProMeTheus112 wrote: It seems to me that player made games with channel is more efficient than auto matchmaking on low population server, but then again this particular matchmaker seems to bug or fail to find game for no apparent reason quite often http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/brood-war/529674-whos-playing we're waiting for you | ||
|
TT1
Canada10011 Posts
On December 25 2017 08:54 Alejandrisha wrote: i'm thinking 2v2 ranked is never going to happen without ~5 minute queue times. they waited too long if they mix solo q'ing players with premade teams the q time wont be bad, the premade teams are going to have a big edge but at least we'll be playing games | ||
|
hyfrehyfre
Bolivia92 Posts
On December 25 2017 08:47 HaN- wrote: I'm curious how the team match making will handle the inevitable small pool of players. Blizzard won't be able to make the queue times short and guarantee players of similar levels at the same time. This is even more an issue because 2v2 players from my experience in public games are either very bad (think D-) or very good (think A+). You'll have a mix of players who have been mastering 2v2 for 10+ years and new comers from the 1v1s scene who will need to learn 2v2 in and out from the begining. If good and bad players run into each other too often, it won't be fun for anyone. This was the experience on iccup in the last years.. Maybe that now with the global ladder, having koreans can fix these problems but then what about the latency. Probably it will be an incentive to have better AI and well... making us play in RANK vs computers, we wont even know they are bots, but after a time as with any bot you will tell the difference... | ||
|
hyfrehyfre
Bolivia92 Posts
On December 25 2017 08:54 Alejandrisha wrote: i'm thinking 2v2 ranked is never going to happen without ~5 minute queue times. they waited too long It does not have not be this way, first of all is basic to assume they are going to allow friends to be invited into 2v2 3v3 or 4v4 rooms, which would make Team vs Team a modality that "fills" a room faster. Also it would be nice that after lets say... 300 seconds of waiting the options "1v1" become available, so his way if yo are not willing to wait for minutes you can click 1v1 ad then start a game, maybe even if the Team Match Making room is still there once you come out of your 1v1 game you will be joined there automatically. Another thing that comes to mind is a "challenge" button, so you could visit the "Team Match making Ladder" and check which teams are "online", then challenge them, a team will create a "team" and if everyone is online and in Lobby it will appear in the "Team Matchmaking ladder" as "ONLINE & available", right click "challenge, and they will accept, an invitation button will appear next to your avatar portraits and you will clicks JOIN CHALLENGE and that's it. Other thing that comes to mind is the idea of "reset maps", so once a 2v2 match is done instead of leaving the game people would vote to "start another game quick" and the map will restart and you will RE that team... also would be nice if that option would allow to change maps without the necessity of ever leaving the P2P network. Who knows... even if a player leaves the network and someone wihout a "Team" clicks 2v2 it would be asked "There is a game i progress, would you like to join or join a new lobby?". Also something very nice is if they would made 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 modes FREE, meaning that the people that have the free version will make the pool "bigger", this will obviously never happen as it gives to much for free... maybe jsut make 3v3 and 4v4 for free. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Super Smash Bros Other Games summit1g9161 C9.Mang0244 Maynarde133 WinterStarcraft73 Trikslyr35 missharvey33 RuFF_SC212 PiLiPiLi8 fpsfer  1 |
|
Wardi Open
PiGosaur Cup
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
OSC
Tenacious Turtle Tussle
The PondCast
Replay Cast
OSC
LAN Event
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
