So today came the best Blizzard video update to date. Grant Davis (Lead Engineer) talked about this stuff in no particular order:
* Working on League System, Seasons, Ranking players
* Working on new ramps system (for wider ramps, different directions "COMMING VERY SOON")
* Working on Broodwar AI BWAPI? implementation, so we can program out own Offline computers to practice, and probably use some that are already done over the internet
* Better channel functionality, particularly channels based on "League" level etc (Suggested by TT1 a few weeks ago)
*Support on international characters for chats
*Collapsing servers game lists and channels
* The will create a better way to make people play without ports (Very Exciting), probably talking about STUN:
Network Latency Improvements , "Without getting too technical, there are 3 different types of NAT networks, and we've already rolled out a STUN server solution for the first type in patch 1.21 - we're hearing that you've noticed the difference in latency since its release. The second type is more complicated and we're working on it right now. The third type still requires the connection to route via a proxy server." Mark Chandler at StarCraft Forums
Grant did NOT talked about Team Match Making, but they are working on it, it was probably neglected from the video for no particular reason, they are definitely working on 2v2 (in the long term).
Some of this we have heard before and we where "expecting" to be addressed again officially, or we knew where on the working stage.
But now we get some extra stuff, exciting stuff to say the least!!! with some questions like always:
* BWAPI, grant spelled this letter by letter, is he talking about compatibility with the BWAPI that is already out there? which BTW works perfectly?, or are they developing something new. Probably the answer is YES, Remastered will allow BWAPI script to be loaded natively !!!
* Cross server Game Lists, channels and also friend lists?, how this would work? you will have to login when clicking a game from another server?, i hope not, VERY VERY exciting having everyone in the same place. Would be very nice to have a translator for Korean, or East Europe game names if this comes to be.
* Working on a new way for players without "ports opened" to play with more stable connection. Is this STUN?, what is STUN?, any network engineer out there that could help to understand this? (see link above in spoilers).
* Leagues and Seasons... we knew it was coming, is it going to be like ICCUP or FISH? A;B;C;D;E ?, probably the answer is yes based on previous communications, this is very exciting. Also now channels will open based on your league like it was in Legacy 1.1.6 Btnet.
Well that's it... i am very excited!!! this is the most amazing Classic Team Communication and compromise they have done since release, This improvements if done correctly will definitely make the game better, and the product more valuable, with this additions only small things like guilds, tournament modes, official SC Blizzard sponsored tournaments, improvements to Replay & observer mode are missing from the complete product and experience. 2018 looks like a great year.
I am felling incredibly happy, now lets go grind some games.
Thanks to Blizzard for continuing to invest in BW. I love it and all of the improvements discussed here will be really welcome. The fact that the game and online experience are being actively developed again helps a lot when I'm trying to encourage friends to pick up BW again (if they haven't played since the 00s) or purchase Remastered.
I'm especially pleased to hear they're working on improving things for players who have not set up port forwarding. Needing to muck with networking manually to get the best experience is definitely something that makes people feel like they're dealing with previous-generation technology.
It's been a great year to be a BW player and fan. Looking forward to 2018!
On December 23 2017 12:39 tarpman wrote: Thanks to Blizzard for continuing to invest in BW. I love it and all of the improvements discussed here will be really welcome. The fact that the game and online experience are being actively developed again helps a lot when I'm trying to encourage friends to pick up BW again (if they haven't played since the 00s) or purchase Remastered.
I'm especially pleased to hear they're working on improving things for players who have not set up port forwarding. Needing to muck with networking manually to get the best experience is definitely something that makes people feel like they're dealing with previous-generation technology.
It's been a great year to be a BW player and fan. Looking forward to 2018!
In the meanwhile they are denying the afreeca team battle and charging organisers tens of thousands of dollars for a single tournament. Blizzard is investing so much into BW, yeah right. More like milking the franchise until it's fully drained if you ask me.
Whatever they did to change latency has been massive for me. Not only do I stay on 14 or 16 turn rate often, but the fact it can go back up after going down is huge... i'd often have very temporary (1-2s) spikes of lag every so often and it'd also take it down like 4 turn rate each time. So many of my matches were 6 turn rate.
I'm really excited for team matchmaking, the new chat channels and the server merge. It would be nice if we could also change the background image on bnet, the old one is getting kinda dull. We could also make people pay for it and put the funds toward running BW events or something (i know micro-transactions are frowned upon but if it's going towards supporting the community.. why not?!).. but yea that's more of a luxury add.
I know they're also focusing on clan systems as well but that's further down the line.
P.S: Title needs to be changed, i didn't even know this was related to the new dev vid.
Everything discussed in the video is gold! Good development.
To say one point of critisim: im worried they Will implement a goofy and soft ranking system semiliar to the Sc2 bronze League bw always had hard solid ranks ie: ladder ratings like from 1000 to 2500 points or simple A B C D E F ranks
I dont want the goofy bronze Chrome Leagu nonsene so that nobody has to have their sensitive feelings touched when they are in low ranks , low ranks are Fine its good for practice
agree with your comments TT1 especially server merge sounds like something that could be rly good if done well (wish that D2 and War3 can also remain on the same chat space, it has fun potential sometimes ppl hang out on same channel using different games), however i hope not to see microtransaction on starcraft bnet. There is no need to let blizzard handle the money people would be willing to give to support events.. they are taking a lot where it doesn't help the game already aren''t they. Microtransactions seem to be mostly a plague to any game, I don't see any benefit to the game and the players from it. Please no t_t
also I pretty much agree with onlystar about points making more sense than ranks well so long as the point system behind the ranks is good, I would like to know exactly how it works too but it seems good, if there is no issue like point inflation or... i mean what would be the different system? the current system of points to me seems... better than Iccup because it doesn't follow "morphing" rules as you go through ranks so its pretty straight up, I guess you have about equal earning and losses in points potentially for a match, does your opponent lose as many points as you gained if you win? I like the points, it's how bw was originally yeah at 1000 points was the base, it was just ELO system I think, simple good no nonsense point system, gives good results.
also will throw this in again : replay interface now the bottom ~4 lines of maps are covered by it, the screen is cluttered on a 4:3 screen in particular by the resource pane, if you watch a replay of a team game a lot of the screen is covered by it, that's not good, I'd like option to just switch back to original replay interface because the graphics also are nice and it's actually just more comfortable to use. I mean the extra options in the replay interfaces, not bad, but not too comfortable, overall it does feel like I want original back, can you just include it as option? and definitely fix the bottom ~4 lines of map being covered by interface? (which isn't a problem with original interface, since it's not transparent and the game area is displayed properly on top of it only like 1 unconstructible line covered on the sides by interface so you can always see everything) also this again: can you make options screen display instantly? that would be nice because starcraft original interface is completely fast and efficient, and this one is kinda the opposite especially because it just takes like 5 seconds to start up, which is a ton of time of course during gameplay of all moments @@ you know, within 1 or 2 seconds you would be able to hit options and change your mouse speed, the sound or music volume, or your network latency settings, but now it takes over 5 seconds to do that. It does make a difference that is ergonomic right, it's kinda weird why a 2D interface on a 2017 game can't load instantly like just about any game can do, why make it slow, options, you wanna navigate that fast as you go in and out of it to do anything. There are still a few interfaces like blizzard login (wish didnt have to use that) or profile that will take seconds to load, if you can do smtg about it that's nice cause again starcraft originally has this really always slick and efficient interface and you know SC:R should have it too. Make the R in SC:R count for everything, it's as good or better! aaah another thing the SD graphics, still want a better display!! damn, maybe I'm wrong, but it feels like if you'll just include an graphics option for a different resolution, then the SD graphics on that resolution will display better and not require the same type of filters. I want the SD graphics to look just as good as original OK??? nostalgia reason or not, this is SC:R, there are the SD graphics in it, they gotta look right!!! refer to 1.18 where you did find a good compromise for an increased resolution with light filtering and it looked good, but then in SC:R it looks terrible!! it matters! I wonder, if somebody downloads the free version now, does it look like this?? lol
also could use some improvement on readability of fonts on bnet on the default resolution
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.
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…
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".
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)
On December 23 2017 16:45 Excalibur_Z wrote: If you want to learn more about STUN, here's the wikipedia article on how it works: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/STUN
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 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".
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.
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^^
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…
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 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".
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.
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.
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.)?
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…
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".
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.
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…
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".
Really !!! i love your map been playing it a lot in observer mode lately, is very Terran though, wish you have a little more "engine felxibility" to make the distance between bases just a little bit longer, Terran just walk like home sometimes when larger ramps, i think you know what i mean.
Wow i wish that EDDY gets to a map pool anytime soon i love that map.
EDIT: wait a second... you also made ROAD KILL !!!! i love that map. Please tell me you are a hot girl, i am a big fan.
Another fantastic dev update. Sounds like they've got an excellent idea of the things the community is talking about and are working on things that are relevant. Glad to see the continued support and communication! :D
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.
Don't need to add different ranking labels and over-complicate things:
0 to 599 = Z- 600 to 1199 = Z rank 1200 to 1499 = F- 1500 (default/starting point) 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
Anyways the 1v1 ranks are easy to figure out. What i'm not sure is how the team matchmaking system is gonna work and how they're gonna rank players.
Well Blizzard have already mentioned team game ladder will include 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 so there are actually no assumptions being made here. In fact, I'm looking forward to a 3v3 ladder. I agree that seeing Hunters over and over again as hyfrehyfre says would be monotonous though, hence why I raised the 144x144 map size issue.
As to what Freakling asked, I've never really bothered looking into creating maps lager than 128x128 for a number of reasons, primarily because the minimap becomes unbearably small which makes it hard for players to focus on what's happening on the map and throughout the game. I have created a number of 6-player and 8-player maps over the years though, some of these have been uploaded to BWMN a while ago and some others are maps I've been working on lately (hoping maybe some new maps would be required for the new team ladder) but these are still incomplete and would require a little more work and fixing up:
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.
Don't need to add different ranking labels and over-complicate things:
0 to 599 = Z- 600 to 1199 = Z rank 1200 to 1499 = F- 1500 (default/starting point) 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
Anyways the 1v1 ranks are easy to figure out. What i'm not sure is how the team matchmaking system is gonna work and how they're gonna rank players.
I cant but disagree... i was C+ and got to B on iccup, and now i should be F? no no... think about it again please. But in reality this last one is more like it.
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.
Don't need to add different ranking labels and over-complicate things:
0 to 599 = Z- 600 to 1199 = Z rank 1200 to 1499 = F- 1500 (default/starting point) 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
Anyways the 1v1 ranks are easy to figure out. What i'm not sure is how the team matchmaking system is gonna work and how they're gonna rank players.
I cant but disagree... i was C+ and got to B on iccup, and now i should be F? no no... think about it again please. But in reality this last one is more like it.
Why does your ICCup rank matter on a system that's completely different?
playing at 1750 now, my opponents are like iccup C- level easily of course its possible making these letter ranks close to what they were "worth" on iccup since in the end it grades skill at the same game yeah its just that on ICCup it got possible/easier to inflate your rank anyway these letters kinda remind grades C being average, somebody playing around 1800 is totally in that spot imo^^ where you could say they are quite decent players. So, worth better than a "E" ^^
well but then it applies to everyone and many more people were actually using fish letter ranks uh?^^
On December 24 2017 03:35 ProMeTheus112 wrote: playing at 1750 now, my opponents are like iccup C- level easily of course its possible making these letter ranks close to what they were "worth" on iccup since in the end it grades skill at the same game yeah its just that on ICCup it got possible/easier to inflate your rank anyway these letters kinda remind grades C being average, somebody playing around 1800 is totally in that spot imo^^ where you could say they are quite decent players. So, worth better than a "E" ^^
yeah i actually made the math, i am C+ o Iccup always was, and D and D- on fish.... i dont want to be F, i know is a different rating, but there are somethings that are like "symbols" i refuse to be classified as an F, and i am sure that FISH A+ would prefer to be classified as PROs.
On December 24 2017 03:35 ProMeTheus112 wrote: playing at 1750 now, my opponents are like iccup C- level easily of course its possible making these letter ranks close to what they were "worth" on iccup since in the end it grades skill at the same game yeah its just that on ICCup it got possible/easier to inflate your rank anyway these letters kinda remind grades C being average, somebody playing around 1800 is totally in that spot imo^^ where you could say they are quite decent players. So, worth better than a "E" ^^
yeah i actually made the math, i am C+ o Iccup always was, and D and D- on fish.... i dont want to be F, i know is a different rating, but there are somethings that are like "symbols" i refuse to be classified as an F, and i am sure that FISH A+ would prefer to be classified as PROs.
If the proposed system by other people doesn't really suit you because you don't want to be F, I guess its time to
On December 24 2017 03:35 ProMeTheus112 wrote: playing at 1750 now, my opponents are like iccup C- level easily of course its possible making these letter ranks close to what they were "worth" on iccup since in the end it grades skill at the same game yeah its just that on ICCup it got possible/easier to inflate your rank anyway these letters kinda remind grades C being average, somebody playing around 1800 is totally in that spot imo^^ where you could say they are quite decent players. So, worth better than a "E" ^^
yeah i actually made the math, i am C+ o Iccup always was, and D and D- on fish.... i dont want to be F, i know is a different rating, but there are somethings that are like "symbols" i refuse to be classified as an F, and i am sure that FISH A+ would prefer to be classified as PROs.
Did the math on what?
If you were C+ on ICCup you'd be F rank on Fish.. inflated ICCup ranks don't matter. Imo my proposed rank groupings are very similar to the old Fish ranks (in terms of skill level). Fish A+ doesn't exist (and neither does D-, Fish ranks are F-/F/E/D/C/B/A/S, starting point is F rank), the highest rank on Fish is S. If you don't like labeling players as F/Z rank players then find different labels, that's not a big deal.
D/C rank on Fish is when you start hitting "solid players", A+ foreigners on ICCup were D rank players on Fish. With the current matchmaking system you can feel the difference in skill level once you hit ~2400 to ~2600 which is why i equate it to somewhere close to D/C rank on Fish. When someone was A rank on Fish his ranked felt special/it was noticeable, 3k MMR feels the same way on the current ladder system.
On December 24 2017 03:27 wslkgmlk wrote: Well Blizzard have already mentioned team game ladder will include 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 so there are actually no assumptions being made here. In fact, I'm looking forward to a 3v3 ladder. I agree that seeing Hunters over and over again as hyfrehyfre says would be monotonous though, hence why I raised the 144x144 map size issue.
As to what Freakling asked, I've never really bothered looking into creating maps lager than 128x128 for a number of reasons, primarily because the minimap becomes unbearably small which makes it hard for players to focus on what's happening on the map and throughout the game. I have created a number of 6-player and 8-player maps over the years though, some of these have been uploaded to BWMN a while ago and some others are maps I've been working on lately (hoping maybe some new maps would be required for the new team ladder) but these are still incomplete and would require a little more work and fixing up:
Eon Blue Apocalypse (6 players)
Thermopylae (6 players)
Symbolic (8 players)
Work in progress map #1 (6 players)
Work in progress map #2 (6 players)
Wow those are very nice maps !!
I just think that base shared maps is something that not only I want, if ever 3v3 or 4v4 come to be i would like to see them thats all i am saying. Very nice maps really when release?
On December 24 2017 03:35 ProMeTheus112 wrote: playing at 1750 now, my opponents are like iccup C- level easily of course its possible making these letter ranks close to what they were "worth" on iccup since in the end it grades skill at the same game yeah its just that on ICCup it got possible/easier to inflate your rank anyway these letters kinda remind grades C being average, somebody playing around 1800 is totally in that spot imo^^ where you could say they are quite decent players. So, worth better than a "E" ^^
yeah i actually made the math, i am C+ o Iccup always was, and D and D- on fish.... i dont want to be F, i know is a different rating, but there are somethings that are like "symbols" i refuse to be classified as an F, and i am sure that FISH A+ would prefer to be classified as PROs.
If the proposed system by other people doesn't really suit you because you don't want to be F, I guess its time to
GIT GUD.
is not just that, is "symbolic" F means bad, i acept D for 1800 MMR.... but the problem is this.... i know old A+ players from Iccup that are 1800 MMR also... they just well... dont play enough to "git gud", not all in life is saying something funny hihihi and then leave.
You are saying that based on TT1 ladder everyone should be E or F ? lol so dumb, i dont say is "wrong", just saying that people struggle between 1400 and 1500 (70%) of them do, i am 1650 or something like that, and i have 570 wins and 680 loses, i am a bad player, but i am by no mean a N00b, just don't practice enough, don't have that much talent etc. The point is F is NOT my category period. i am D+ or C.
I have friends that are way better than me, and they are 1900 and crying because RANK is hard, and they suppose to be D- ?? (i know TT1 mistake an E in the last chart)... i hope this ladder as TT1 suggest never comes to be, is not realistic and is sincerely insulting. No disrespect of any kind and is not for us to decide anyways. but at the end i know Blizzard is smarter than that, and wont let 70% of the people be F forever F, they will find a way to classify people, and those crazy guys that are able to obtain 2200 or more should be other Badges, not regular Letter ones, like pro, gosu, etc.
On December 24 2017 03:35 ProMeTheus112 wrote: playing at 1750 now, my opponents are like iccup C- level easily of course its possible making these letter ranks close to what they were "worth" on iccup since in the end it grades skill at the same game yeah its just that on ICCup it got possible/easier to inflate your rank anyway these letters kinda remind grades C being average, somebody playing around 1800 is totally in that spot imo^^ where you could say they are quite decent players. So, worth better than a "E" ^^
yeah i actually made the math, i am C+ o Iccup always was, and D and D- on fish.... i dont want to be F, i know is a different rating, but there are somethings that are like "symbols" i refuse to be classified as an F, and i am sure that FISH A+ would prefer to be classified as PROs.
Did the math on what?
If you were C+ on ICCup you'd be F rank on Fish.. inflated ICCup ranks don't matter. Imo my proposed rank groupings are very similar to the old Fish ranks (in terms of skill level). Fish A+ doesn't exist (and neither does D-, Fish ranks are F-/F/E/D/C/B/A/S, starting point is F rank), the highest rank on Fish is S. If you don't like labeling players as F/Z rank players then find different labels, that's not a big deal.
D/C rank on Fish is when you start hitting "solid players", A+ foreigners on ICCup were D rank players on Fish. With the current matchmaking system you can feel the difference in skill level once you hit ~2400 to ~2600 which is why i equate it to somewhere close to D/C rank on Fish. When someone was A rank on Fish his ranked felt special/it was noticeable, 3k MMR feels the same way on the current ladder system.
This thread is not to talk about this... but i was D- and then hit D which was hard. I would accept D to be my rank, but F?...i don't think so, i had no idea fish had no A+, i never played fish that much because of the lag, probably just visited it a few times in a row, like 4 months back in 2014 or so, still yes, hitting D in Fish was the really hard, i was honestly younger back then, i know it sounds kind of lame, but today i just dont have the reflexes i used to have to survive, or the will to keep those games going when you lost everything, i just start a new one...
So i agree with you create different "labels", that is exactly what i am saying, let the letters Z,E,F,D,C,B,A be from 0 - 2500 or 2700, then from there classify people with other labels, like Pro, Gosu, and then rank numbers. I am sure that old FISH players that where A on fish etc would LOVE finding they get classified as PRO or GOSU.
Both sides wins, western people will have a rank similar to what they had on iccup, in my case D, or C, and then as you progress you start finding other stuff (Pro, Gosu, number), like i said before, also i added you z which i like, the result is this:
0 to 1099= Z( 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.
Also i like my idea of keeping the +, - and ++, -- symbols to mean "going up", "going down", "about to be promoted", "about to be demoted". that is just something extra i think would be nice to keep people with a felling of "movement", like i said people play 2 or 3 games a week let then "see" they are accomplishing something, is something extra at the end i really don't care.
About TMM... well different ladder i suppose, maybe more simplistic, that really depends on how are they going to do this, remember that RANK prioritize distance and connection type etc more than MMR... in Korea or the US where there are many other players it might not be as noticeable, but here in South American i encounter 2500 MMR all the time from chile, brasil, and as i told you i am 1650 right now... sometimes i win, most of the times i don't, i don't complain game is game... i say this because i don't expect TMM to match you with someone of your same level, and even if you have a team of people and you are missing that other person it might give you someone that just installed the game... is all very complicated.
At the end we can only hope Blizzard reads some of this and takes a nice decision.
On December 24 2017 05:35 CobaltBlu wrote: Somehow I doubt that Blizzard is going to make a ranking system where 90+% of the player base is rank F and below.
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.
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.
On December 24 2017 05:35 CobaltBlu wrote: Somehow I doubt that Blizzard is going to make a ranking system where 90+% of the player base is rank F and below.
You can have the 1st rank up be like 100 or 200 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 even ranked win (F vs F).
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 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.
That is perfect sir, i agree 100% now, ship it. Above 2600 i would like to see some of the Badges i speak about, they are still S rank but with Pro, Gosu etc... though i like this. 10/10.
I say COPY PASTE BLIZZARD, this one is perfect. NO "conversions" needed, just copy and paste.
Dont forget that i truly think that colors have to play a part in this, also the + and - symbols, hope you agree with those, is not bad idea to keep things moving, specially for people that are "stuck" it will give them some "feeling" of movement and progress. Cheers.
On December 24 2017 03:35 ProMeTheus112 wrote: playing at 1750 now, my opponents are like iccup C- level easily of course its possible making these letter ranks close to what they were "worth" on iccup since in the end it grades skill at the same game yeah its just that on ICCup it got possible/easier to inflate your rank anyway these letters kinda remind grades C being average, somebody playing around 1800 is totally in that spot imo^^ where you could say they are quite decent players. So, worth better than a "E" ^^
yeah i actually made the math, i am C+ o Iccup always was, and D and D- on fish.... i dont want to be F, i know is a different rating, but there are somethings that are like "symbols" i refuse to be classified as an F, and i am sure that FISH A+ would prefer to be classified as PROs.
Did the math on what?
If you were C+ on ICCup you'd be F rank on Fish.. inflated ICCup ranks don't matter. Imo my proposed rank groupings are very similar to the old Fish ranks (in terms of skill level). Fish A+ doesn't exist (and neither does D-, Fish ranks are F-/F/E/D/C/B/A/S, starting point is F rank), the highest rank on Fish is S. If you don't like labeling players as F/Z rank players then find different labels, that's not a big deal.
D/C rank on Fish is when you start hitting "solid players", A+ foreigners on ICCup were D rank players on Fish. With the current matchmaking system you can feel the difference in skill level once you hit ~2400 to ~2600 which is why i equate it to somewhere close to D/C rank on Fish. When someone was A rank on Fish his ranked felt special/it was noticeable, 3k MMR feels the same way on the current ladder system.
It's a general ladder now. There's absolutely no reason to throw the entire foreign community into the same "F" rank.
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…
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 05:35 CobaltBlu wrote: Somehow I doubt that Blizzard is going to make a ranking system where 90+% of the player base is rank F and below.
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.
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.
On December 24 2017 05:35 CobaltBlu wrote: Somehow I doubt that Blizzard is going to make a ranking system where 90+% of the player base is rank F and below.
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.
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.
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.
On December 24 2017 05:35 CobaltBlu wrote: Somehow I doubt that Blizzard is going to make a ranking system where 90+% of the player base is rank F and below.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Would love for the top mmr worldwide to receive the olympic badge. Also, the S rank should be reserved for tip top pros, and derive the rest of the ranks from there
Speaking of possible multiple accounts for ladder, 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 . . . .
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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
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
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
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...
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.
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
That's at least mathematically solvable. All you have to do is find out the delta.
Let's say you have records of 1,000,000 Random Team vs Arranged Team and 1,000,000 Arranged Team vs Arranged Team matches, all at identical ratings. The AT vs AT matches prove to go 50/50, so you know your matchmaker is tuned correctly for team vs team. The RT vs AT matches go 45/55. Let's say a 45/55 matchup translates to 80 MMR. You simply match the AT as though they were 80 MMR higher than they are. Run the next data set of 1,000,000 matches, and find that now your RT vs AT games are 50/50.
The delta will vary by rating (maybe it has a larger effect at 2000 MMR than it does at 1000 MMR), but as long as your samples are kept local, you can still figure out that the necessary adjustment is 80 at 1000 and 160 at 2000. You just keep running simulations and leveraging real data until you find which offset works to make your matches 50/50.
This is what systems designers have done in SC2 and Overwatch (and also other games like Dota).
The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience.
On December 25 2017 12:50 TT1 wrote: The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience.
You could determine that also. For teams that pre-queued something+Z, if their win rate is abnormally high (like beyond normal variance), you can further handicap them by matching them against harder RT opponents such that both sides have a 50% win probability. I don't believe this has actually been used anywhere, but it can be done.
It would probably break down at the very top top top end of the ladder a bit (where Zerg ATs will dominate the top) just because there are fewer potential opponents, but for a huge majority of players the advantage is calculable.
Anyone having a terrible time queuing for matches in ranked? Last 3 days it's almost unplayable. Wait like 2 minutes, get matched up with someone then it just stalls there and most times shows I'm against nobody. Then will wait again for this to happen again and again and again... Then I just give up and go do something else. My MMR isn't high at all, I made a fresh account to see if I could get matches there and it's a bit easier but still difficult to get matches. And this is with no maps vetoed. Is the ranked population just abysmally small or what?
On December 25 2017 16:31 JungleTerrain wrote: Anyone having a terrible time queuing for matches in ranked? Last 3 days it's almost unplayable. Wait like 2 minutes, get matched up with someone then it just stalls there and most times shows I'm against nobody. Then will wait again for this to happen again and again and again... Then I just give up and go do something else. My MMR isn't high at all, I made a fresh account to see if I could get matches there and it's a bit easier but still difficult to get matches. And this is with no maps vetoed. Is the ranked population just abysmally small or what?
I have never had problems with finding matches from MMR's 1500-2100. However there were some days / times of day when it slowed down a little bit, but was still playable. I hope BW doesn't calm down anytime soon, we need new players. But unfortunately among my friends most of the casual players who picked it up already dropped it again. I think the lack of team matchmaking and the very shitty state of the game when it released did too much damage.
On December 25 2017 16:31 JungleTerrain wrote: Anyone having a terrible time queuing for matches in ranked? Last 3 days it's almost unplayable. Wait like 2 minutes, get matched up with someone then it just stalls there and most times shows I'm against nobody. Then will wait again for this to happen again and again and again... Then I just give up and go do something else. My MMR isn't high at all, I made a fresh account to see if I could get matches there and it's a bit easier but still difficult to get matches. And this is with no maps vetoed. Is the ranked population just abysmally small or what?
I have never had problems with finding matches from MMR's 1500-2100. However there were some days / times of day when it slowed down a little bit, but was still playable. I hope BW doesn't calm down anytime soon, we need new players. But unfortunately among my friends most of the casual players who picked it up already dropped it again. I think the lack of team matchmaking and the very shitty state of the game when it released did too much damage.
I couldn't get a single game and I tried with 3 different accounts. After being queued for like 20 minutes I just got frustrated and went to do something else. It was around 10-11pm PST (at the time it said that US West had around 1000 players online).
Hi guys, I've not post a single post for like 4 years now. Just bumped into SC: Remastered today. I want to go back to play, how is the state of the community in general?
On December 25 2017 12:50 TT1 wrote: The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience.
You could determine that also. For teams that pre-queued something+Z, if their win rate is abnormally high (like beyond normal variance), you can further handicap them by matching them against harder RT opponents such that both sides have a 50% win probability. I don't believe this has actually been used anywhere, but it can be done.
It would probably break down at the very top top top end of the ladder a bit (where Zerg ATs will dominate the top) just because there are fewer potential opponents, but for a huge majority of players the advantage is calculable.
I don't like this type of artificial adjustments, they gotta have some bad repercussions. AT vs RT is not necessarily fair, but I guess its kind of a recurring situation anyway not unbeatable still makes fun games.. Plus for many players it won't be interesting to try and play in AT all the time, the rating not being individual, you'll probably not want to play always with or at the same time as these two teammates.. then you have multiple AT ratings for every team you play with.. or is it just individual ratings? it seems to work better, if it just won't differenciate between AT and RT, more easy to play, stats just go to the same place for "2v2" or "3v3"? that way you can also queue 2 players together for a 3vs3 which is something you'd do with custom games so it brings that function etc I dont think that the point of the ladder is to create scenarios where you go to 50% win probability ?_? the win probability should be considered unknown, just ladder rewarding wins and losses equally depending on points and try to match ppl with close points..
at the end maybe some imba composition/rushes often win in team games, but that's ok, it's still good
On December 25 2017 22:43 Caphe wrote: Hi guys, I've not post a single post for like 4 years now. Just bumped into SC: Remastered today. I want to go back to play, how is the state of the community in general?
Honestly? the experience for 10 dollars or is it 15 back again after xmas? is VERY WORTH IT, i Think Blizzard hit the price tag for the value of the product.
There are no difference in the "offline features" yet, but some exciting things are coming.
About the "community" if you ask so is quite active, but its been going down lately last weeks, you probably already missed where there was a bunch of streamers on Twitch, though AfreecaTV is very active as always, and you will always find at least 2 streamers on Twitch, very nice people all of them.
Now the grinding is horrid, you will lose a lot, there is not many "new blood" if you will, they are there trying to learn, but most of them leave after being punched in the nuts by people that actually know the game. Is a harsh game to RANK that's for sure...
But at the end is 100% worth it for the price, the lag is a tremendous problem, but is got fixed A LOT in last weeks, and better things are coming.
On December 25 2017 12:50 TT1 wrote: The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience.
You could determine that also. For teams that pre-queued something+Z, if their win rate is abnormally high (like beyond normal variance), you can further handicap them by matching them against harder RT opponents such that both sides have a 50% win probability. I don't believe this has actually been used anywhere, but it can be done.
It would probably break down at the very top top top end of the ladder a bit (where Zerg ATs will dominate the top) just because there are fewer potential opponents, but for a huge majority of players the advantage is calculable.
I don't like this type of artificial adjustments, they gotta have some bad repercussions. AT vs RT is not necessarily fair, but I guess its kind of a recurring situation anyway not unbeatable still makes fun games.. Plus for many players it won't be interesting to try and play in AT all the time, the rating not being individual, you'll probably not want to play always with or at the same time as these two teammates.. then you have multiple AT ratings for every team you play with.. or is it just individual ratings? it seems to work better, if it just won't differenciate between AT and RT, more easy to play, stats just go to the same place for "2v2" or "3v3"? that way you can also queue 2 players together for a 3vs3 which is something you'd do with custom games so it brings that function etc I dont think that the point of the ladder is to create scenarios where you go to 50% win probability ?_? the win probability should be considered unknown, just ladder rewarding wins and losses equally depending on points and try to match ppl with close points..
at the end maybe some imba composition/rushes often win in team games, but that's ok, it's still good
The best way to handle AT is to do what SC2 did and have unique MMRs per AT. So A+B would have one MMR, A+C would have a different MMR, and so on. With AT, you basically need a rating that defines your skill level together as a unit.
The tightness of ladder tuning is a philosophical debate that has existed since the dawn of automated matchmaking When SC2 first launched, the matchmaker was very aggressively tuned to find very close 50/50 matches. Later, they relaxed that tuning because players found it to be a tense experience. Further iterations saw the creation of "rides" (a casino term referring to the highs and lows of rollercoasters) where players have the "most fun" experience by playing some harder matches followed by some easier matches, leading to more games played overall. The core, unchanging philosophy is still that you want every player to be accurately ranked, meaning they win half their games, you just leave an allowable variance such that you're not putting the player into unwinnable matches (maybe you disallow individual matches that are beyond an 80/20 win prediction, for example).
On December 25 2017 16:31 JungleTerrain wrote: Anyone having a terrible time queuing for matches in ranked? Last 3 days it's almost unplayable. Wait like 2 minutes, get matched up with someone then it just stalls there and most times shows I'm against nobody. Then will wait again for this to happen again and again and again... Then I just give up and go do something else. My MMR isn't high at all, I made a fresh account to see if I could get matches there and it's a bit easier but still difficult to get matches. And this is with no maps vetoed. Is the ranked population just abysmally small or what?
Same issue for me the last few days as well. I also cant host games at all anymore.
On December 25 2017 12:50 TT1 wrote: The issue i have is the racial edge AT teams will have over RT teams. AT teams will always have an edge because they'll have a Z whereas the RT team will have random race pairs (and as everyone knows not having a Z in 2v2 is a big disadvantage).
Even if you adjust the MMR so that AT teams always end up being the favorite it still won't change the fact that they're gonna win the majority of the games which makes for a pretty frustrating gaming experience.
You could determine that also. For teams that pre-queued something+Z, if their win rate is abnormally high (like beyond normal variance), you can further handicap them by matching them against harder RT opponents such that both sides have a 50% win probability. I don't believe this has actually been used anywhere, but it can be done.
It would probably break down at the very top top top end of the ladder a bit (where Zerg ATs will dominate the top) just because there are fewer potential opponents, but for a huge majority of players the advantage is calculable.
I don't like this type of artificial adjustments, they gotta have some bad repercussions. AT vs RT is not necessarily fair, but I guess its kind of a recurring situation anyway not unbeatable still makes fun games.. Plus for many players it won't be interesting to try and play in AT all the time, the rating not being individual, you'll probably not want to play always with or at the same time as these two teammates.. then you have multiple AT ratings for every team you play with.. or is it just individual ratings? it seems to work better, if it just won't differenciate between AT and RT, more easy to play, stats just go to the same place for "2v2" or "3v3"? that way you can also queue 2 players together for a 3vs3 which is something you'd do with custom games so it brings that function etc I dont think that the point of the ladder is to create scenarios where you go to 50% win probability ?_? the win probability should be considered unknown, just ladder rewarding wins and losses equally depending on points and try to match ppl with close points..
at the end maybe some imba composition/rushes often win in team games, but that's ok, it's still good
The best way to handle AT is to do what SC2 did and have unique MMRs per AT. So A+B would have one MMR, A+C would have a different MMR, and so on. With AT, you basically need a rating that defines your skill level together as a unit.
The tightness of ladder tuning is a philosophical debate that has existed since the dawn of automated matchmaking When SC2 first launched, the matchmaker was very aggressively tuned to find very close 50/50 matches. Later, they relaxed that tuning because players found it to be a tense experience. Further iterations saw the creation of "rides" (a casino term referring to the highs and lows of rollercoasters) where players have the "most fun" experience by playing some harder matches followed by some easier matches, leading to more games played overall. The core, unchanging philosophy is still that you want every player to be accurately ranked, meaning they win half their games, you just leave an allowable variance such that you're not putting the player into unwinnable matches (maybe you disallow individual matches that are beyond an 80/20 win prediction, for example).
but then any time you want to play with a different team, you get reset to a low rating and get many easy games? I prefer the simple way it seems more natural to me, 50% win rate isn't necessary, that means boosting you faster to where it thinks you'll lose often and then taking you down faster so you'll start winning more it's just weird i don't see the point of it lol. If you are really good of course your win rate should be more than 50%. If you are at the top, but also if you are not at the top, why not? if it avoids matching you really hard, you get more time to get wins with your good style and refine it.. it's fine. And if you're not so good and prone to losing more than winning? why give you a fake reward by matching you against lesser skilled players instead of letting you figure out your mistakes and play them out normally losing against equal skilled and slowly going down? in my mind team game is not as competitive as 1v1, the best fun I have is when I don't take it 100% seriously and especially let myself play with ppl I don't know or who have different skill levels, play random etc, maybe that's not the point of auto matchmaking in team ladder and then i'll just keep playing custom games as normal I feel like there isn't really much of a downside of just putting RT and AT together with individual ratings, there is quite a downside of not doing that
for me SC2 was a failure as far as team games go. Not only because of this ladder system, but because the game itself also kinda sucked for team games imo. But even the ladder system felt pretty much awkward and there didn't seem to be that much fun activity there, speaking of xp playing with friends and not etc and I think everybody saw the nowhere hole that the top designers gave as a direction by obsessing with winrates instead of quality of the experience it's really a backwards way to think about how to make and play a game I think haha. Not a model by any means, just a anti-model if you ask me, what not to do lol it is a way to give artificial reward to any player regardless of how well they are doing. twists your progression and make it harder to practice in stable environment. it destabilizes
is there going to be RT in this ladder or just AT? and with the low populations.. what makes the activity easily boost up is when players make games and play some partial arranged team vs a random team etc if you split and create MMR distances it reduces the occurence of games.. that's why overall i think the simple system that doesn't distort your matchmaking to go for artificial 50%, rates players individually and allows AT vs RT mixed up is best you'd have your top ATvsAT competitive games at the top of that ladder likely and within you could give a small bonus to RT or malus to AT but I feel that's unnecessary and artificial as well, can't tell how many points its worth if at all so variable..
What's artificial about the 50% winrates? If a system is designed to match you with players of equal strength and you end up winning half of these games, your winrate of 50% seems quite real to me.
I assume there's going to be RT ladder, wouldn't make sense otherwise. There's players who'd rather play RT instead of AT because it's more challenging. Also, you're not always gonna have an ally to 2v2 with but you still might wanna play team games. Sadly Z RT players will have an advantage over T/P RT players but that's the inherent nature of the game. Figuring out what to do with AT players is the real dilemma imo.
RT is straightforward, a player plays games and he accumulates MMR over time, basically the same way 1v1 works. AT is a bit harder to figure out. Should we have separate ladders for AT and RT (AT vs AT // RT vs RT)? That'll have an impact on queue times but it might be our only option (you'd also need 2 leaderboards, 1 for RT players and 1 for AT players).
Assuming we want to cut down on queue times, we would have to mix AT and RT players together but that system is easily abuse-able. A high end player could make a new account and ally his friend in order to allow him to rank up easier. So say there's two 3k MMR players, instead of them being a 3k MMR team 1 player could play on a new account (1500 MMR) and that would make them a 2250 MMR team (3k + 1.5k divided by 2). On top of that they have all the other advantages that comes with being an AT.
To have a fair system i think we're forced to split the 2v2 ladder into 2 formats, RT vs RT and AT vs AT. Even then AT players can still abuse the system the same way if we don't split their MMR for every individual ally. Basically the RT leaderboard would have individual players with their MMR and the AT leaderboard would have team MMRs, for example:
but it's not a big deal, that some guys would use mixed AT+RT to smurf some wins whereas it's a pretty big deal that the ladders would be split? it's not like there isn't always a way to abuse any system, the smurf abuse is such a small issue if the main point of the ladder is to find games easily, I feel like it doesn't really matter that some guys would do this type of stuff, besides it should have the side effect of lowering the amount of points they gain for a win (the higher rated players on that team with a smurf low player) its the type of abuse where mostly the abusers are only hurting themselves, because they are not practicing against equally strong opponents, and their allies are still not gaining as many points for that too so they don't have incentive to encourage it
and also the point is, that as long as you can queue in ladder in AT as well, then you can expect the best AT teams their players will be at the top of ladder anyway where it will likely be mostly ATvsAT (so it doesn't hurt the competition) it's just really awkward in terms of rating and matchmaking if teams are rated on a ladder like this and also split from random teams, it works for a tournament but for a ladder and a ladder with low pop, i think it's a bad idea to split / rate teams instead of players
there is another big downside that whenever you are playing with a new team you are supposed to rank back up from the bottom (if team based rating)... (each time get many easy wins at first for being underanked, if your goal is to climb gotta predict you will play many games with that team, which makes everything heavy and inertia, less incentive to play with others sometimes etc) i really don't think this approach was good, it was started with warcraft3, i don't really think it gives good result, war3 didn't rly have much of a striving 2v2 3v3 scene afaik.. again the game isn't starcraft, but seriously I think this approach is awkward
keep in mind the matchmaker right now is really having a hard time finding games consistently even in 1vs1. This may not be as true at the most active layer of the ladder, in some rating ranges where most people play everyday and do lots of games, but if you try making a new account you will see that you can hardly get a string of 2 or 3 games these days. Maybe it finds your first game after 50sec, then no second game at all, etc. not saying I trust the system that there isn't anybody to match me with when I'm queuing, but that's the results ppl seem to be getting around 1500-1800, kinda scarce games (takes me days to climb just because I can hardly get many games played)
(which btw ties back to the problem where the environment isn't great for new players to get into practicing)
On December 26 2017 04:22 Sr18 wrote: What's artificial about the 50% winrates? If a system is designed to match you with players of equal strength and you end up winning half of these games, your winrate of 50% seems quite real to me.
because the only way that I see that it could do that is by matching you against too strong players to give you losses or matching you against too weak players to give you wins whenever you are off the 50% let's say you play some games, and you realize something new in the game, some flaw in your build, and implement the solution. Where you are in the ladder, you could start getting a lot of wins. But if the ladder wants you to have 50%, it will quickly match you against much stronger players, and you get losses. It's artificial winrate, because if it wasn't artificial, your winrate is unknown, you get matched at your rating and gain rating if you win lose if you don't. If you do well you will get to a certain rating with a nice winrate, etc. And if you start climbing cause you do things better, without a "50% bias" you will get more time to test your new good stuff get some wins with it refine it.. not artificial.
It's also artificial because if you are one of the best players in the world, your winrate should not be 50%. Nor if you are the worst player. It also tells you something if you can get to a certain point on the ladder with a certain winrate. Whereas all the 50% says is that the ladder tried hard to make sure you would lose after you won, or win after you lost.. it's actually going to undermatch you if you have lost a few games, or overmatch you if you have won a few games. useless extra variance to brag that the ladder does 50% winrate and the game is balanced lol <= what they did with the whole SC2 fake genius design
you know, if the ladder tries to get 50% results, it will actually reduce the likeliness to play close games on a close game, the outcome is unknown, it's not 50%. if you play many close games (when the ladder matches you well), it's unknown your win percentage after a series of games. It's only known (highly probable) if it will on purpose match you less fairly to guarantee that winrate... it's really backwards thinking lol
seriously, don't take a model out of what the guys who made SC2 did, they are terrible designers ok lol, the way i see it they were obsessed with numeric results to justify their whole game design and call it good you know, even if its brood lords + infestors 1 dimensional mind numbing for months it's characteristic of their trying to control and predict everything rather than create something that has a lot of potential
A 50% win-loss ratio might be "artificially" chosen for the matchmaking system, although I don’t see why that is a bad thing. If you want your match-making system to have players playing against those with a similar strength, they should win as much as they lose. Higher or lower suggests a large skill difference and can compromise the quality of games played on ladder.
On December 25 2017 12:46 ProMeTheus112 wrote: without a "50% bias" you will get more time to test your new good stuff get some wins with it refine it.. not artificial.
Ladder should match you with players of an appropriate performance. If you don't perform as well because you choose to play differently, the system should reflect that in order to respect fairness. If you want to practice an unfamiliar style without risking your rating, you could always find other players to practice in private with that are around your level.
It's also artificial because if you are one of the best players in the world, your winrate should not be 50%. Nor if you are the worst player.
A 50% win-loss ratio as a target to maintain match quality does not predetermine that your win rate must be 50% in a pool of players at any given time. You only have so many players to play against. There is going to be a point where you’re going to have trouble finding players that are worse than you, or finding players that are better than you.
it's actually going to undermatch you if you have lost a few games, or overmatch you if you have won a few games. useless extra variance to brag that the ladder does 50% winrate and the game is balanced lol
If the queue times at 3000MMR are any indication, the current ladder system doesn’t do this. Can’t say how many times I’d go to watch Scan’s stream to see the queue timer over 5 minutes.
on a close game, the outcome is unknown it's not 50%. if you play many close games (when the ladder matches you well), it's unknown your win percentage after a series of games. It's only known (highly probable) if it will on purpose match you less fairly to guarantee that winrate.
The matchmaker isn’t supposed to guarantee a winner, just put people that it thinks are appropriate matches for each other together. I do think that there are matches where one player is favored over the other, yet the outcome is rewarded/punished proportionally to what the system expects. Play someone much higher than you? Expect not to lose as much MMR as you would playing a more even opponent. Most match-making systems function this way, and I am fairly certain that SC:R isn't any different in this manner.
yes I know that the current doesn't do that, I was reacting to excalibur_z comment
look, a perfect ladder isn't a ladder where everybody has 50% winrate, the point isn't to control players winrate, it is only to distribute points fairly and match you against close points, and then the players will determine winrates and rank if your point system is good, this is what will match people well, it's all that's needed
basically, what I'm saying is mixed AT/RT would likely work real fine with individual ratings without any artificial convoluted bias. AT being a little stronger than RT, players will gain a little more points for being in AT, then they'll face stronger opponents and at the top of ladder you will have mostly AT players. That's fine and logical, since AT is pretty much the best way to play team games competitively, but the ladder ranks everyone not just the top... so its fine let's say that one race is imba. You don't want to bias the system to equalize the winrates. That race may dominate the top of the ladder. That's the normal result of the game, and it's fine. if you want to rank higher, use that race, or try harder with the others. etc
from the RT player point of view, the point is to get games.. who cares that the opposing team is arranged if there are individual ratings already. If they are at this place on the ladder it's probably a good match. (cause the environment is mixed to begin with) factor in the population issue / clunky matchmaker => simple mixed ladder sounds best to me (not that everybody exclusively plays RT or AT)
just saying, cause I'm seeing something coming I might not be interested in playing, even though I love some 3vs3. player-made games do better than a bad automatic matchmaker..
On December 26 2017 08:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote: yes I know that the current doesn't do that, I was reacting to excalibur_z comment
look, a perfect ladder isn't a ladder where everybody has 50% winrate, the point isn't to control players winrate, it is only to reward points fairly and match you against close points, and then the players will determine winrates and rank if your point system is good, this is what will match people well, it's all that's needed
basically, what I'm saying is mixed AT/RT would likely work real fine with individual ratings without any artificial convoluted bias
The win-ratio is a means of ensuring that matches are even, rather than a strict declaration players will win half the time. Reading what you've posted here, it sounds like we're all in agreement for this particular point. I apologize for not making that more clear in my previous post.
In order for players to get an optimal experience, we've got to set the parameters ourselves. Otherwise the ladder system won't mean anything. Just because the system is "biased" with the goal of ensuring games are fair and competitive does not make the system any less genuine.
You don't want to bias the system to equalize the winrates.
What do you mean by this? How else would you get a system that gives players an even match? The win-rate is only a symptom, not a direct cause. It is a sign that you are being matched evenly with other players. Considering the performance of an arranged team is generally higher, they as a team, should share a rating in order to provide others with the fairest match possible. Personally, I would be less inclined to play if I were to discover that most of my matches weren't fair. I'd venture to say that this isn't an uncommon sentiment.
This is my take on TMM sorry if its convoluted i really don't see how i cant explain this without making it long. I hope that at least is well written at least...
So..you press "RANK 2v2" and you will join the room that is closest to your P2P network PERIOD, no questions asked... now there are a few things here...
For the people playing the "free version" lets say the created a Top vs Bottom game in Fighting Spirit, they will see you joining their channel but with a different color, free people wont be able to "kick" you once you joined, you purchased Remastered anyways, and now they are playing vs someone that is playing a RANK game. I hope this concept is understood.
In other words, people that create 2v2, top vs bottom, they will create a game and AT ANY TIME a Rank player might join their game and they will have no way to kick him, if the close the game the RANK player will just see a player leaving. What the system is doing is searching for players, even those that are playing in a private game.
Now... you can also "assemble" teams, this works by being "invited to a team" or by "creating your own team", you can have as many teams as you like. Once a team has gotten a certain number of wins it will appear in the "Team Ladder List". Now this teams can be OFFLINE (no player from that team is online), ONLINE-INCOMPLETE (some players of that team are online, or maybe some are playing a game right now), ONLINE (All players of that team are in lobby connected and not playing a game)
Also there are 2 states: OPEN (The team is opened for challenge at ANY time), CLOSED (This team doe snot want to receive challenges).
Quick about "who decides the state of the team?" easy... you have to options when you create a team you can set 2 options, "leader team" or "Equality team", in the first only the creator or other person assigned by the creator manages the "state of the team", and in equality anyone can turn this triggers ON or OFF at any time. Once a tream has creater with a type it cannot be changed, and the tam will disappear if no activity is detected. In leader the man/girl in charge can kick anyone or invite anyone at any time, in Equality there is a secret vote system.
You can obviously assign a logo, channel etc... but only after a x number of games where all the players in the team where connected and playing.
A team can be flagged as "weak connection".. nobody can see this flag but the people that are in the team, so they can choose to find a partner with better connection. If the people in a team keep pushing the formula even despite they being flagged as "weak connection" between them, they will get loses as a team when disconnected vs another team that has a "5 star connection quality".
About the "Team Ladder List", you search for teams in the "team ladder section", this list will always show you in the main page the teams with the P2P network that is more "stable" to you. If you search for a team in Korea, and you are in Peru, the system will warn you the game being lag and unstable.
Now back to RANK
When you press RANK all by yourself without a team there are 2 options running in the background "create new room" or "search for room", you cant actually choose this options, the system searches the p2p network directory for you, if they are (ONLINE & OPEN) it chooses that team and open a room, this is where your Team MMR will try to search someone "compatible" with your game level, and always try to set you with people that are better than you. i say "try".
When searching solo for TMM you can join a room that was waiting for players, or the game creates an empty room for you. As i said the priority is P2P network stability, so if you are in a country, or have a history of unstable connection you will be most likely send to an empty room. I you land in an empty room you can click an "empty slot" and send invite to your friend list.
Also when a friend that is also in one of your teams JOIN a Team Rank game solo you will be notified, and click next to his portrait to join the game fast, or just use a command such as /jf .
Now in the other hand you can visit your "Teams Channels" and see if a channel is ONLINE, PARTIAL or OFFLINE, also you can check ALL of your teams either in your profile or in the Team Ladder section.
Once a team is selected you can click "assemble" and a message will be send tot he players... if only one joins (in a 3v3 game) then you can click START and you will have created a room a solo player or another team searching can JOIN !.
Obviously all this describer "message" and "invitations" can be turned off at any time if you dont want to be bothered.
--------------------
Now a few things about this... i would like seeing integrate "Team Speak" in the work, Blizz app voice chat is cool, but in TMM should also have a different system:
Also if the "waiting time" is too long you should be able to search other modalities like 1v1 without leaving the room, once a game is found you will have seconds to click "leave room join 1v1 game".
------------
I hope peole actually read this... i know is complicated, but thats how i see it. Long story short, Team Match Making should be like a Social Network, you create or join a team, and then you can challenge other teams (if they wish to be open), you can also try Team Match Making SOLO.
The algorithm will always prioritize P2P network stability over MMR, but will also try to keep the game fair. The point is to keep the waiting times LOW.
If waiting times are TOO long you can click other options, and even search for private games, as soon as you join a private game or find a 1v1 game you leave the room. If by any reason after playing 1v1 the TMM room is still on you will be joined automatically there again.
I would like voice chat to be a thing.
People playing the free version that created 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 or top vs bottom games will see people with a different color and status they CANT KICK join their channel. Nothing they can do about it, if they want to avoid RANK players, they will have to create UMS. Polemic i know...
-----------
As something extra i have been thinking about...there should also be a FFA ladder, you click FFA and you join a random map with a random set of peole that just want to have a QUICK GAME, waiting times should be LOW, and the map pool should be CRAZY but fair for FFa.
---------
Another crazy thing to disccus another day is the fact that maybe you should have 2 different types of Team MMR:
* Individual Team MMR
* Shared Team MMR
There should be bonuses for the people that survived, killed the most longer etc... even if you lose the match !!!, i am not saying that you will get "extra points" just that the points "subtracted" if you lose should be less.
Also if the Team vs Team ELO is favorable they Individual Team MMR bonus should be more.
On December 25 2017 22:43 Caphe wrote: Hi guys, I've not post a single post for like 4 years now. Just bumped into SC: Remastered today. I want to go back to play, how is the state of the community in general?
Honestly? the experience for 10 dollars or is it 15 back again after xmas? is VERY WORTH IT, i Think Blizzard hit the price tag for the value of the product.
There are no difference in the "offline features" yet, but some exciting things are coming.
About the "community" if you ask so is quite active, but its been going down lately last weeks, you probably already missed where there was a bunch of streamers on Twitch, though AfreecaTV is very active as always, and you will always find at least 2 streamers on Twitch, very nice people all of them.
Now the grinding is horrid, you will lose a lot, there is not many "new blood" if you will, they are there trying to learn, but most of them leave after being punched in the nuts by people that actually know the game. Is a harsh game to RANK that's for sure...
But at the end is 100% worth it for the price, the lag is a tremendous problem, but is got fixed A LOT in last weeks, and better things are coming.
Thanks mate. Already bought the game yesterday, the sale is still on. For 9.99 it's tremendous value actually. Yeah, I would not expect many newbies, but that should not be a problem since I am not new either . Just played 1 game yesterday and I already feel a strong draw that SCII had never had on me.
For ten bucks it is gold. All the games you want versus players at your level! It's a miracle that I can face Koreans who are just as bad as Me. Back in the day it was like a crap shoot.
And I'm gonna say it. Having random team and arranged team Ladder combined is important. The pop outside of korea is way too low for this not to be the case.
Don't split them up. The ranking and points will gradually have at vs at, at the high end of the ladder.
hyfrehyfre no offense but you suggest a lot of over-complicated stuff that has never been tested in either BW/SCR or SC2. You need to think of more realistic solutions, the dev team isn't gonna spend a year writing a new matchmaking system from scratch just for 2v2 when we already have 1 in place.
The discussion is whether or not we should split AT and RT. Assuming we don't (for matchmaking/queue reasons), what can we do to limit AT abuse (allies playing on lower MMR accounts to boost their friend up, i can see this being a big issue at the highest ranks) and deal with the inherent advantages that ATs have over RTs (race advantage, premade teams are in general stronger than RT players etc.).
On December 26 2017 12:41 TT1 wrote: hyfrehyfre no offense but you suggest a lot of over-complicated stuff that has never been tested in either BW/SCR or SC2. You need to think of more realistic solutions, the dev team isn't gonna spend a year writing a new matchmaking system from scratch just for 2v2 when we already have 1 in place.
If you want a simple "press and play classic room" no problem with it... but i think we deserve and actual team creation system, sorry if its convulsed but that's how it goes.
All that i want at this point is BWAPI release for remastered personally.
For Team Match Making they could easily just well...when you press RANK 2v2 open a private room and that's it... but do we really deserve that?.
And with all do respect simple things don't make things better, at least not in this particular situation at least, you need to be able to have new stuff that better take half a year to make, quality over release time 100% ALWAYS, meanwhile we could have the simple "press and play".
If you are fine with the more simple stuff well ok for you... i am not. I would hate the idea of Team Match Making just being well.... a remastered ladder over Top vs Bottom....
Imagine TMM being just that... a classic BW room with a new ladder system. NO THANKS. i want new stuff with Team Channels, logos, being able to kick people form the team you created or making it more democratic, create your own teams, have a global team MMR where you can farm points, etc...
Lets see what they do, something tells me it will be just that, you press RANK 2v2 and you join a room and wait people to join, you can invite people and that's it... lets hope NOT. That would be lazzy honestly for a product that has to live over 15 years in the future.
Dont be simplistic TT1, be realistic as you say.
And also before i forget, about Random Team or Arranged teams i already answered that, as a matter of fact i just said that. Did you read?.
If you press RANK 2v2 solo you join a team that has already opened a game room, they cant kick you, the algorithm will try to match someone of your level, but is not garantee. It always prioritizes P2P network stability.
You can also create personalized teams and join or create rooms.
Your team has an MMR, and you have an individual MMR for Team Match Making, 100% different from your 1v1 MMR. Lets NEVER combine 1v1 and Team Match Making MMR, horrid.
Added to this, voice chat, being able to search for games without leaving the room, and people playing the free version will always be joined automatically.
You get bonuses by landing in a better place at the end of the game, it wouldn't be fair if you lose the same amount of MMR points because your friend "leaved the game" "was a noob" etc... this "calculation" is a mater of another discussion. Added to this if you WIN you get bonuses based on the Team MMR ELO.
Maybe this was more easy to read, sorry i type things long.
On December 26 2017 12:41 TT1 wrote: hyfrehyfre no offense but you suggest a lot of over-complicated stuff that has never been tested in either BW/SCR or SC2. You need to think of more realistic solutions, the dev team isn't gonna spend a year writing a new matchmaking system from scratch just for 2v2 when we already have 1 in place.
The discussion is whether or not we should split AT and RT. Assuming we don't (for matchmaking/queue reasons), what can we do to limit AT abuse (allies playing on lower MMR accounts to boost their friend up, i can see this being a big issue at the highest ranks) and deal with the inherent advantages that ATs have over RTs (race advantage, premade teams are in general stronger than RT players etc.).
Sorry, should have sifted through the thread more. as for AT abuse, why not have a placement system like sc2? whenever you have a new AT partner, you and that partner play vs ranked teams to decide where they are placed in the ladder. this is what should decide initial mmr. you can't stop smurfing, but in this way, an AT team that is legit, can move onto the higher end of the ladder a lot quicker.
On December 26 2017 12:41 TT1 wrote: hyfrehyfre no offense but you suggest a lot of over-complicated stuff that has never been tested in either BW/SCR or SC2. You need to think of more realistic solutions, the dev team isn't gonna spend a year writing a new matchmaking system from scratch just for 2v2 when we already have 1 in place.
The discussion is whether or not we should split AT and RT. Assuming we don't (for matchmaking/queue reasons), what can we do to limit AT abuse (allies playing on lower MMR accounts to boost their friend up, i can see this being a big issue at the highest ranks) and deal with the inherent advantages that ATs have over RTs (race advantage, premade teams are in general stronger than RT players etc.).
Sorry, should have sifted through the thread more. as for AT abuse, why not have a placement system like sc2? whenever you have a new AT partner, you and that partner play vs ranked teams to decide where they are placed in the ladder. this is what should decide initial mmr. you can't stop smurfing, but in this way, an AT team that is legit, can move onto the higher end of the ladder a lot quicker.
We're mixing AT and RT MMRs. In SC2 AT and RT had separate MMRs, each AT team had their own page with their record/MMR. If we mix AT and RT there's only gonna be 1 leaderboard (like the 1v1 leaderboard). Playing AT games under this system just adds points to your account like it would if you were playing RT (solo queue 2v2) games.
Also, say the top 2 players on the 2v2 ladder are 4K MMR. They both Q up for an RT game at the same time, if there's no one close to their MMR (in order to create a balanced game) would the system match them with like two 1.5k MMR players just to have "even" teams? Theoretically both teams would have even MMR but the game quality would be extremely bad, neither the high ranked nor the low ranked players would enjoy the game.
yeah just mix the mmrs under one leaderboard. don't separate like sc2.
Thus you would have five placement matches against RTs or ATs with various mmrs (doesn't matter if it's all ATs in the placement or RTs, just make sure the placement matches have varying levels of mmr). after the five matches, you are given your initial MMR placement.
sucks for hardcore RT guys since it will be much harder to get to the top via RT, but it's what we have to sacrifice to make do with what we got.
On December 26 2017 13:52 Golgotha wrote: yeah just mix the mmrs under one leaderboard. don't separate like sc2.
Thus you would have five placement matches against RTs or ATs with various mmrs (doesn't matter if it's all ATs in the placement or RTs, just make sure the placement matches have varying levels of mmr). after the five matches, you are given your initial MMR placement.
sucks for hardcore RT guys since it will be much harder to get to the top via RT, but it's what we have to sacrifice to make do with what we got.
Anyway you look at it the system won't be fair for RT players. The smurf account with a high lvl AT partner is gonna cruise to 5 wins and get a big MMR boost. The RT player is gonna have to struggle and grind way more. On top of that i don't see that system deterring a high MMR player if he really wanted to lower his MMR to get easier games/points, it would just be a bit more time consuming.
Maybe we can tell the system to prioritize searching for AT vs AT games within an MMR range (i think it kinda works like this in SC2). If two similarly rated AT teams arent available (~300-500 MMR difference) the system could extend the search and match the AT team up vs RT players?
And to avoid having extremely low MMR players ally high MMR players in RT vs RT games you'd need to cap the search range to like +/- 500 MMR (just a number off the top of my head). The system would prioritize pairing 4 players of similar MMR in a game, if 4 equally rated players aren't available the system would extend the search by increasing the MMR range (say after 120 seconds of search time), the cap would be +/- 500 MMR tho. It might take longer to find games if 4 players within 500 MMR aren't searching at the same time (especially if high ranked 2v2 players are searching for RT games) but at the very least you won't have mismatched games.
If the queue time for the high ranked RT games is too long because the range isn't wide enough then just increase the MMR range (go to 1k max range instead of 500).
As far as I can tell having played some SC2 2v2 this week, AT and RT play in the same queue. You are just placed separately for each AT that you decide to place with.
On December 26 2017 13:52 Golgotha wrote: yeah just mix the mmrs under one leaderboard. don't separate like sc2.
Thus you would have five placement matches against RTs or ATs with various mmrs (doesn't matter if it's all ATs in the placement or RTs, just make sure the placement matches have varying levels of mmr). after the five matches, you are given your initial MMR placement.
sucks for hardcore RT guys since it will be much harder to get to the top via RT, but it's what we have to sacrifice to make do with what we got.
Anyway you look at it the system won't be fair for RT players. The smurf account with a high lvl AT partner is gonna cruise to 5 wins and get a big MMR boost. The RT player is gonna have to struggle and grind way more. On top of that i don't see that system deterring a high MMR player if he really wanted to lower his MMR to get easier games/points, it would just be a bit more time consuming.
Maybe we can tell the system to prioritize searching for AT vs AT games within an MMR range (i think it kinda works like this in SC2). If two similarly rated AT teams arent available (~300-500 MMR difference) the system could extend the search and match the AT team up vs RT players?
And to avoid having extremely low MMR players ally high MMR players in RT vs RT games you'd need to cap the search range to like +/- 500 MMR (just a number off the top of my head). The system would prioritize pairing 4 players of similar MMR in a game, if 4 equally rated players aren't available the system would extend the search by increasing the MMR range (say after 120 seconds of search time), the cap would be +/- 500 MMR tho. It might take longer to find games if 4 players within 500 MMR aren't searching at the same time (especially if high ranked 2v2 players are searching for RT games) but at the very least you won't have mismatched games.
If the queue time for the high ranked RT games is too long because the range isn't wide enough then just increase the MMR range (go to 1k max range instead of 500).
I am sure you know better than I do on what is best. I am sure Grant and his team will choose the best course for us!
On December 26 2017 15:11 TT1 wrote: yea but i'm almost positive that AT vs AT is prioritized over AT vs RT in SC2, i've played a lot of SC2 team games
I think it is too. I only posted that because it seemed like there was a bit of confusion. Might have read the thread wrong, probably have been up for too long.
On December 26 2017 08:14 ProMeTheus112 wrote: yes I know that the current doesn't do that, I was reacting to excalibur_z comment
look, a perfect ladder isn't a ladder where everybody has 50% winrate, the point isn't to control players winrate, it is only to distribute points fairly and match you against close points, and then the players will determine winrates and rank if your point system is good, this is what will match people well, it's all that's needed
basically, what I'm saying is mixed AT/RT would likely work real fine with individual ratings without any artificial convoluted bias. AT being a little stronger than RT, players will gain a little more points for being in AT, then they'll face stronger opponents and at the top of ladder you will have mostly AT players. That's fine and logical, since AT is pretty much the best way to play team games competitively, but the ladder ranks everyone not just the top... so its fine let's say that one race is imba. You don't want to bias the system to equalize the winrates. That race may dominate the top of the ladder. That's the normal result of the game, and it's fine. if you want to rank higher, use that race, or try harder with the others. etc
from the RT player point of view, the point is to get games.. who cares that the opposing team is arranged if there are individual ratings already. If they are at this place on the ladder it's probably a good match. (cause the environment is mixed to begin with) factor in the population issue / clunky matchmaker => simple mixed ladder sounds best to me (not that everybody exclusively plays RT or AT)
just saying, cause I'm seeing something coming I might not be interested in playing, even though I love some 3vs3. player-made games do better than a bad automatic matchmaker..
I think I understand where there might be some confusion. The matchmaker does not care about your win rate, and it doesn't try to influence your win rate. It has never done this, in SC2 or any other game.
Let's say you're a 3000 player on a new 1500 account. The game will not put an easy win in front of you followed by an easy loss. The matchmaker has no way to predict that. It just matches you against similarly-rated players within a particular variance. If you keep winning all the way until 3000, maybe your win rate is 90%. The matchmaker is not going to consider you in "loss debt" and throw a bunch of 4k opponents your way to push you back to 50%. The entire time, the matchmaker has some degree of confidence that you belong at your current rating. So it just keeps trying to find fair matches the whole way. Eventually, you'll plateau at a rating where you'll win half the time -- that is, against other 3000s. So if your record upon reaching 3000 was 90-10, but now you're winning half your games, your record will go to 100-20, then 150-70, then 200-120, then 500-420... the point is that it will get closer to 50% the more games you play anyway.
The only players who don't have 50% win rates under a functional matchmaker are the ones at the very top and the very bottom, because they're natural outliers.
What I was saying before about the handicap is important because you're dealing with two distinct populations who have to be matched in the same pool. If you have a Random Team with a rating average of 1500 and an Arranged Team with a rating average of 1500, I think it's no surprise that the AT has the advantage. If you don't implement a handicap, then it becomes pointless to even match RTs against ATs because you're willingly handing an advantage to all ATs when you declare their ratings to have equal value. But their values aren't equal in reality. "1500" in RT means something different from "1500" in AT because it's easier to get to 1500 in AT.
On December 26 2017 13:42 TT1 wrote: Also, say the top 2 players on the 2v2 ladder are 4K MMR. They both Q up for an RT game at the same time, if there's no one close to their MMR (in order to create a balanced game) would the system match them with like two 1.5k MMR players just to have "even" teams? Theoretically both teams would have even MMR but the game quality would be extremely bad, neither the high ranked nor the low ranked players would enjoy the game.
Honestly I have far less experience of 2v2 than 3v3, but in 3v3 this situation is common and makes really fun games. I know on 2vs2 the level of reliance on everything your ally does is so much higher and you get locked by it on your every decisions quite a lot more, but I'm not sure that's still a big issue. [to be fair one reason I rarely play 2vs2 is because it tends to lock and disadvantage more if there is a difference in skill between the two teams, but if you get a rating to equalize that i dont think its really a problem anymore.] You just have to shake your style depending on what the heck your ally does, and if you do well/better than the opposing team at that, likely you win and the game doesn't look like other games you might play at 4K+4K vs 4K+4K. Anyway this is sort of inherent of RT, also you can assume that if you are at 4K there would be people a little closer to your rating to match you with.
Generally a point should be to make sure that the point system doesn't create unnecessarily large rating distance between players.
The simple fact that there are ratings means that the system should be a really handy tool for playing a lot of fun games, and among these games the higher you go the more often you will be playing tough high skill "no nonsense" games with strong allies. I do believe highly rated RT players would enjoy playing against a highly rated AT team. The one imba composition is Z+Z afaik, which composition is really unwinning against this? can't you still have a chance playing Z+P or T+T or Z+T ? If you have rated really high in RT and want to go higher, you'll just likely start queuing with ally/allies more often. There is also a possibility of doing away with this auto-race pick by again, implementing a simple pre-game lobby where you can pick your race before the game starts (as it would also be good to have for 1vs1 for some people, but even more so for 2vs2 I guess). I mean there's nothing to implement, it's already there, just grey out the cancel button pretty much.
On December 26 2017 19:37 Excalibur_Z wrote: What I was saying before about the handicap is important because you're dealing with two distinct populations who have to be matched in the same pool. If you have a Random Team with a rating average of 1500 and an Arranged Team with a rating average of 1500, I think it's no surprise that the AT has the advantage. If you don't implement a handicap, then it becomes pointless to even match RTs against ATs because you're willingly handing an advantage to all ATs when you declare their ratings to have equal value. But their values aren't equal in reality. "1500" in RT means something different from "1500" in AT because it's easier to get to 1500 in AT.
Ok well you see I think, it's not needed to handicap, because naturally the AT will rate higher, and the RT will rate lower, a little bit, and it regulates itself that way. It's like, let's say Z > P (^^), I don't want Z to have a rating handicap, that's not needed, they'll just naturally rank a little higher. The AT guys, if they play some RT games, would find it harder, that's normal. It's not a problem imo. The playing writes how many points its worth for every single player that they are on AT or RT. You can't decide in advance how much that's worth for everyone, so it's best to leave it neutral imo.
prioritizing ATvsAT and only then put against RT if unfound sounds all right, it will increase queue time, is it worth it or not idk i would tend to say it's not because the matchmaker isn't fast enough now for 1vs1
btw i'll just throw this in here, didn't war3 experience some kind of death after a while after sc2 came out? is part of this due to the inefficiency of automatic matchmaking on a low population server?
is player-made games the superior system even for ladder? (mmmh, perhaps not, opponent picking)
+pre-game lobby is more natural, race pick, say hi // i suggest again just add a race pick 5sec before game start don't ignore those players who play different mus and also that's the normal rule if you play anyone out of ladder which ladder is meant to prepare you for also
I think you are over complicating stuff... the RANK system/algorithm will ALWAYS prioritize first P2P network stability and waiting times, even if this means the game is unbalanced.
Now RANK will try to make games "Balanced" by taking all the Individual MMR of players adding them up and diving it by the number of players, then comparing. So if there is a team that is 3000 MMR and other that is 1500 MMR like Excalibur says well...it will just launch the game. But before it "launches the game" it will search for other rooms opened and try to change people from rooms. But P2P network stability and waiting times is a priority 100% of the time.
This goes also for the questions "can i invite an under/over powered friend" to a game?.... yes you can, always. In Team Match Making you can invite anyone at any time that is your friend, no questions asked. There is "math" build in the algorithm that takes in consideration the player pool, if there are "other players searching for games" the slot should be filled anyways. At the end in this rooms nobody can kick nobody.
Now you can also set Team Challenges... you create your team, put a logo in it etc... then click "search for game", it will search for "connected" teams, but then if no connected team that is also P2P stable is around.... then it will open a room and make people join. Same principle ANYONE can join.
Thats the thing about Team Match Making, anyone can join at any time, you can have matched that are 800 MMR teams vs 3000 MMR teams any times. I prefer this than waiting any longer for games that are "fair". Practice > Fairness in BW.
Now... don't get me wrong, the RANK algorithm has a buld in function that "searches for fair matches" build in, i know you people are talking about this right now, Arranged Teams vs Automatic Teams "balance", but lets be realistic is a pointless talk as there are not that many players to have this. But it would definitely be buld in the RANK algorithm if any time in the future the player pool goes up.
------------------
Now what i would like to see from Blizzard is something called "automatic RE", simply put, without leaving the P2P network just launch another game !!!, no need to search for another team, as soon as the 2v2,3v3 or 4v4 match is over, open a room with the same people EVERY SINGLE TIME, this is because an Stable P2P connection is such a weird Unicorn that there is no point on searching anymore, one or two people might leave, those slots will be filled quicker than starting a new room.
Also maybe the engine can be build so you can simply "re" and the map would "restart" no need to get out of the game... the map just starts again, different start positions, same map. And also maybe... in a future someone that pressed RANK 2v2 will be asked "there is an ongoing game Team A "5" VS Team B "0" would you like to join team B?" and you are just taken INSIDE THE GAME, no waiting rooms or anything.
On December 26 2017 20:55 ProMeTheus112 wrote: btw i'll just throw this in here, didn't war3 experience some kind of death after a while after sc2 came out? is part of this due to the inefficiency of automatic matchmaking on a low population server?
is player-made games the superior system even for ladder? (mmmh, perhaps not, opponent picking)
+pre-game lobby is more natural, race pick, say hi // i suggest again just add a race pick 5sec before game start don't ignore those players who play different mus and also that's the normal rule if you play anyone out of ladder which ladder is meant to prepare you for also
also add a /draw
Should be a combination, people that created Top vs Bottom, 2v2, 3v3, 4v4 "Private games" or "rooms" as you call them should see that people that pressed RANK joined their room. They wont be able to kick them anymore, they can CANCEL the game but in the other side "people that pressed RANK" will just see a player leaving.
So i think both modes should be connected.
Now as you say... i also think that the best "logical" solution is than when you press RANK 2v2 you open a private room, the difference that this room should be in the "outside lobby" and you should be able to chat outside the room, even search for 1v1 games with the room opened. So they are not the classic "private rooms" they are a better version.
EXAMPLE: For instance, lets say you are searching for a "4v4" game, the algorithm is running and people JOIN you get to ar room and you are the only one, but wait times become over let say... 300 seconds, then the option "search for 1v1" becomes available, you click it, another search starts, it find a 1v1 game !!, you click "join game", you start playing 1v1, the game is short, you come out and guess what.
You are still in the 4v4 room !!
And there are other 3 players... so now the option 2V2 is on !!, but ALL players must click "player name: ProMeTheus112 has suggested to start 2v2 game, do you accept?", everyone has to click accept. then you can start another 1v1 game if you will, the room is waiting for you outside.
This is for 4v4 of course etc WAY in the future.
The problem is well the Btnet server stability, we get kicked SO MUCH "disconnected", "logged out", is honestly disgusting. btnet RANK should change in this regard, If you have noticed when you are in private game you can be "loged out from Btnet" without actually leaving the P2P network, you will just play normally etc... if you leave the room you are kicked to the main screen.
For Rank Team Match Making rooms i want the same, with the difference that you are never kicked out of Btnet, you can log in back from there !!!, but you are not really connected, and your room is there, nobody touches it.
NO more being kicked from the Btnet Screen, you just get "disconnected" and you can log back right from there without leaving your room, all the Btnet options are greyed out until you log in back from thereno rocket science tbh, common sense
On December 26 2017 23:27 Golgotha wrote: it's weird, I am experiencing something quite amusing. only map i have vetoed is FS, but I get FS all the time. haha...
also, I have noticed what others have experienced, lots of games I get matched up, but then no one appears. a loop of searching
Wow so you voted FS as a map you don't want to see and is the only one you see XD hahaha, for me sincerely i think that the VETO votes are shenanigans, but i might be wrong.
About the "loop of searching" this might never be fixed, but as i told somewhere before, what i would like to see is better animations and transitions, not that ugly "CUTE & DRY" things that makes us think that our game has crashed. For instance, once the "start game sound/drum" and the message "game found!" has be showed, always show your portraits the map, and the other side BLANK like waiting for someone... and even if the game really already "knows" that it will have to search again it will have the animation of hiding that screen "sliding it out"... then a message like "Searching again, opponent connection was lost", and make the waiting times not start from 0... very basic.
On December 26 2017 23:27 Golgotha wrote: it's weird, I am experiencing something quite amusing. only map i have vetoed is FS, but I get FS all the time. haha...
also, I have noticed what others have experienced, lots of games I get matched up, but then no one appears. a loop of searching
Wow so you voted FS as a map you don't want to see and is the only one you see XD hahaha, for me sincerely i think that the VETO votes are shenanigans, but i might be wrong.
About the "loop of searching" this might never be fixed, but as i told somewhere before, what i would like to see is better animations and transitions, not that ugly "CUTE & DRY" things that makes us think that our game has crashed. For instance, once the "start game sound/drum" and the message "game found!" has be showed, always show your portraits the map, and the other side BLANK like waiting for someone... and even if the game really already "knows" that it will have to search again it will have the animation of hiding that screen "sliding it out"... then a message like "Searching again, opponent connection was lost", and make the waiting times not start from 0... very basic.
no joke, FS is the only veto and I got it 3 times in a row. I'm not sure how that works.
the searching loop was never a problem in previous patches. It started appearing since the last patch. Not sure why this would be.
On December 26 2017 23:27 Golgotha wrote: it's weird, I am experiencing something quite amusing. only map i have vetoed is FS, but I get FS all the time. haha...
also, I have noticed what others have experienced, lots of games I get matched up, but then no one appears. a loop of searching
Wow so you voted FS as a map you don't want to see and is the only one you see XD hahaha, for me sincerely i think that the VETO votes are shenanigans, but i might be wrong.
About the "loop of searching" this might never be fixed, but as i told somewhere before, what i would like to see is better animations and transitions, not that ugly "CUTE & DRY" things that makes us think that our game has crashed. For instance, once the "start game sound/drum" and the message "game found!" has be showed, always show your portraits the map, and the other side BLANK like waiting for someone... and even if the game really already "knows" that it will have to search again it will have the animation of hiding that screen "sliding it out"... then a message like "Searching again, opponent connection was lost", and make the waiting times not start from 0... very basic.
no joke, FS is the only veto and I got it 3 times in a row. I'm not sure how that works.
the searching loop was never a problem in previous patches. It started appearing since the last patch. Not sure why this would be.
Probably because the "search game algorithm for rank" has to be very efficient, and has no time to check why it disconnected. What i mean is, it finds a player and open a connection to you, this connection might go down by a bizzillion of reasons:
1. Infrastructure problems. 2. Sudden disconnect. 3. P2P connection failed. 4. Player closed the laptop. 5. Cat walked over the power line.
etc...
RANK because of waiting times has no way of saying which P2P connection will be "stable" they just put player vs player based on country, distance, MMR etc... in that order, and it tries to "balance" the game accordingly as best as it can, but the player pool is not big enough to prioritize MMR over P2P quality i am afraid, maybe in a near future after STUN servers?.
Nevertheless, this is a problem with the animation, and how this transitions look so CUT. It didn't happen before 1.21 you say?, i been seeing this since day 1 i think... probably what is going on is that now they have a system to tell "this game will lag", but this check is done AFTER the p2p network has been established, because well... they have to ping the Network anyways and you cant ping an network that is not established...
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team.
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team.
I really like this idea because it also handicaps AT players if they match up vs RT teams. It also makes it so that an AT can't lower their MMR by having 1 person smurf on a new acc, so they can't abuse the system.
For RT players you take their average MMR and for AT players the highest MMR on their team = their team MMR.
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team.
I really like this idea because it also handicaps AT players if they match up vs RT teams. It also makes it so that an AT can't lower their MMR by having 1 person smurf on a new acc, so they can't abuse the system.
For RT players you take their average MMR and for AT players the highest MMR on their team = their team MMR.
Do you just then accept the legitimate case of an AT between a good player at say 2200 MMR and his noob friend, a legit 1000 MMR, being matched against 2200/2200 arranged or random teams?
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team.
I really like this idea because it also handicaps AT players if they match up vs RT teams. It also makes it so that an AT can't lower their MMR by having 1 person smurf on a new acc, so they can't abuse the system.
For RT players you take their average MMR and for AT players the highest MMR on their team = their team MMR.
Do you just then accept the legitimate case of an AT between a good player at say 2200 MMR and his noob friend, a legit 1000 MMR, being matched against 2200/2200 arranged or random teams?
Pretty much a situation you have to accept, it's basically for the greater good. In that case if they really wanted to get easier games his higher ranked friend could just make a new acc and they'd be a 1500 MMR team. Their MMR would normalize after a few games.
Personally i plan to make 2 accs, 1 RT and 1 AT. The AT acc is just to play with friends for fun.
RT means queueing 2v2 solo. so you get paired with a random solo dude to form a team. AT gets 2 players that have already formed a team in the lobby to join the queue.
2v2 RT should always have been separate from 2v2 AT, AT will always be better and more advantageous over RT.
What do you make of the situation of 2 players queuing together for 3vs3 ? They will be 2 eg "AT" + 1 RT vs 3 RT. Do you take the max MMR of these 2 players, then average this with the third?
I think it would be best that you can do that, ppl doing that in 3vs3 often
I'm a veteran 2vs2 player and i'm really looking forward 2vs2 matchmaking.
What do you guys think about having the MMR equal to the highest MMR in the team ? This way you can't abuse by having a player creating a smurf and each team will know his MMR and won't have a bad surprise when queued against a team.
I really like this idea because it also handicaps AT players if they match up vs RT teams. It also makes it so that an AT can't lower their MMR by having 1 person smurf on a new acc, so they can't abuse the system.
For RT players you take their average MMR and for AT players the highest MMR on their team = their team MMR.
Do you just then accept the legitimate case of an AT between a good player at say 2200 MMR and his noob friend, a legit 1000 MMR, being matched against 2200/2200 arranged or random teams?
Pretty much a situation you have to accept, it's basically for the greater good. In that case if they really wanted to get easier games his higher ranked friend could just make a new acc and they'd be a 1500 MMR team. Their MMR would normalize after a few games.
Personally i plan to make 2 accs, 1 RT and 1 AT. The AT acc is just to play with friends for fun.
But now it's awkward again, if you need to make new accounts just to regulate the system. I don't know that this isn't just worse than a couple abusers trying to get easier wins and gain less points by making a smurf low account @@ it's translating the smurf problem at the bottom of the ladder, as the best thing to do..?
if our farm abuser team do this, say a fake 1500 + a 3000, they get matched with a 2300 team or so. If they win, they get how many points? Does the 3000 get as many points as the 1500? Not necessarily (shouldn't be that way imo). Make individual point gain depend on their individual ratings, which means if they win a lot they'll end up at the same rating instead of both climbing at same speed. It would make sense, right. Then the 3000 guy would earn a lot less points for playing with the fake 1500 guy. And if they lose, the 3000 guy lose quite a lot of points. (so in this example, facing a 2300 team, maybe the 1500 guy makes 40 points, and the 3000 guy makes 4 points or less.. if they lose, maybe the 1500 guy loses 4 points, and the 3000 guy loses 40 points...)
So what's this abuse gonna achieve? They're not even likely to get to the top of ladder. Is this worth making ppl awkwardly cant just queue together without being overmatched because you took the highest MMR by default to prevent a small abuse potential?? i don't think so, you wanna be able to just queue together fast & easy.. people want to be able to play on one account and have all their games registered on it, keep their name, don't need to log out log in which is anti ergonomic etc
there is always ways to abuse any system, you only need to make sure that the abuses are small enough, and in doing so try to deal as little damage as possible or none to what's not an abuse
it doesn't matter to me that some noob abusers try to play easier matches by smurfing a low rating if they are gosu abusers (lol), maybe they rake in some points.. well only the highly rated one, not the one who is smurfing since he's resetting his rating. it's not a big deal at all... he'll only be able to rake in a small amount of extra points by winning a lot of games with his partner smurfing for it on a different account.. if they get pwned once by a decent team, the highly rated will lose lot of points.
in my opinion, it is more important that the whole system is very playable by everyone rather than having the most accurate ranking at the very top of the ladder, too. cause the ranking of a ladder is never really accurate it's just a ladder ranking, people can play as many games as they want etc preventing easy and large damage abuses yeah sure that's important (such as 80%+ accounts on the ladder being bots right?^^), but small abuses are only worth preventing with measures that don't really affect the rest~
I get the idea is that the 3000 guy would actually be able to endlessly farm points and the top accounts on the ladder would all be farming easy wins with a smurf account. But they'd have to be able to win all the time at a rating which increases as the 3000 guy increases in rating. For every 10 wins they score, maybe only 1 loss makes the high rated lose the earnings. So if the point system is right, this abuse might just be worthless. (except as a way to gain icon/portrait points^^ fine^^)
I think the base point system right now gives you 20 points if you are at equal rating, is that correct? For a ~100 points difference, maybe, you get 10 points instead. If the point difference is as large as 750 points, maybe you only get 1 point. And if you lose, maybe it's 50 points. I don't know the actual numbers that are in the system now, but it depends on this mostly. So unless this abuser team is actually able to score 50 wins without losing at 2250 and up... it's unlikely their method is the best way to get to the top. (and it would be slow on top of that so you can potentially beat them by winning more than losing at high rating normally)
like L_Master said, this would actually occur often not as an abuse but normal situation. Overmatching a team with a good player and a bad player isn't good for people with different skill levels to queue together in team games. And that's a problem because its exactly one thing that's great about team games, if you play 1vs1 with your lower skill friend you'll wreck him, not fun (or exhausting), but you can play team games is one of the most fun things to do with him (and good opportunity for the lower skilled to get better!). Don't want to obstacle that... this is one of the main things that the team ladder has great potential for. It's a lot more important than a bunch of abusers maybe getting a fake top rated account. Which they won't even get to do if the points don't reward it..
tldr i think smurf issues are not issues so long as the base system is coherent (which is why there are generally more pros than cons in being able to make new accounts) the main purpose of ladder is to accomodate good playing/practicing environment with your accounts whoever you play with the best opportunities to determine who really is the best is some kind of matches or tournaments as always in the end the whole "AT" and "RT" denominations could be forgotten, you can just queue alone or with 1 or more allies for a XvsX game. (and rank ppl indivually and separately for 1vs1, 2vs2, 3vs3, 4vs4, and why not FFA the same way ie queuing alone or with a number of friends, with different map pools) although for FFA if you can queue with friends that's kinda hard on those who aren't part of a group^^ lol- so i'd suggest instead only solo queue for FFA. (what about team melee?^^ madness)
PS: there's actually a downside to rating individually in the sense that now highly rated players might avoid queuing with lower rated friends so as not to lose rating... again though if the point system is right, doesn't have to be a big deal. And how many players care more about climbing in rating all the time rather than just play with whoever they want? If you do, you'd play more often only with similarly rated~ so imo its fine, most potential, practical, etc
let's see the base 1500+3000 vs 2250+2250 (averaged 2250 vs 2250) teams are equal rating, if a team wins they get 20 points, if they lose they lose 20 points if team A wins, distribute the 20 points between the two players player 1 : 1500, much lower than 2250, gets most of the points, how much? maybe it's 18. player 2 : 3000, much higher than 2250, gets few points, maybe it's 2 points. both the opposing players lose 10 points
if team A loses, player 1 @1500 loses 2 points, and player 2@3000 loses 18 points. in this case they'd have to have a 90+% winrate against their average to farm points for the highly rated, you can make it harder by making it -1 / -19 at such distances then it's what 95+% winrate against average etc
for example.. sound good to me? does that make anybody not want to play with their low rated friends with their main account? is this really so abusable? isn't it fine that you can actually make a bunch of points if you manage to win with your lower skilled friend? is the top of the ladder not going to be rather composed of players who only play together at higher ratings? and even if not (unknown), not a big deal? as the best players are those who win the matches or tourneys, a ladder is a ladder, nobody is playing the same amount of games etc
So 3k MMR player + 1.5k MMR player = 2250 combined MMR, they'll face other 2250 MMR teams.
With individual ratings the 3k MMR player wins/loses his points based on his team MMR, so a 3k MMR player will gain less points and lose more points if his team MMR is 2250, makes sense. But then we still have the inherent advantage that ATs have over RTs, ATs will have to be handicapped somehow.
ok but how exactly? give them a slightly imbalanced win/loss compared to RT? and how do you differenciate partial AT with full AT? (such as 2 players queueing together for 3vs3, if that's made possible?) perhaps, at the end of the received rating, if you are AT (didn't queue alone), your losses are increased by 20%, and your wins are decreased by 20%? for balance of total points this should be reflected on the amount won/lost in total. that works, cause then ATvsAT won't give any point disadvantage. If partial AT or ATvsRT, you can give the rest of the points (lost or not gained) to the opposing team, by decreasing their loss or increasing their gain equal amount in total.
i dont rly have an opinion against that, i just think its hard to quantify how much better it is for AT on average.. but i'd be fine with something like that personally, doesn't seem unfair, doesn't seem impractical or anything, something small enough i guess
let me also insist on the /draw or ask for draw option for cancelling out laggy ladder games without point change. won't always be accepted, but should come in handy many times i guess
OK people... MMR should not be a prioritizing factor to create a 2v2 game, not at all, just press TEAM then join a waiting list, you can choose "4v4", "3v3", "2v2" or "any" and then you just get into a wait line. Thats it.
Obviously inside the algorithm there will be a way to check for MMT balance, but at the end the player pool will not care, for a basic reason, there are not enough players.
Now if you want a "balance" MMR game create a private game that is "OFFICIAL" for the rank more, people from a whole team will join, and based on the avg MMR/#of of players the game can be fair.
But in your daily TMM RANk wont care about MMR balance that much i am afraid so i think this talk is no very interesting. You probably should be focusing on the stuff like Base Share maps, rule flags like all opponents being zerg, how are the waiting rooms going to be...
Hey Blizz, please make the game lobby so that the countdown stops as soon as a player leaves the lobby before the game starts. It would really save a lot of wasted time (especially in team games) so players don't have to rehost and rejoin again. Thanks.
pathfinding is a pretty large topic. Starcraft2 deathballs are because of super good pathfinding, for example. I don't think anyone would argue that wouldn't have a big effect on balance.
It would be cool if Blizzard could implement more features into mapmaking, things that have been used, but can only be done with certain restrictions, like 0 visibility ground or maybe no flight blockers maybe play with how map sizes work, etc
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.panschk.de/mappage/(6)Eon%20Blue%20Apocalypse.scx.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.panschk.de/mappage/(6)Thermopylae.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.panschk.de/mappage/(8)Symbolic.jpg)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/wTr1qsQ.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/LPrFO0s.png)
When SC2 first launched, the matchmaker was very aggressively tuned to find very close 50/50 matches. Later, they relaxed that tuning because players found it to be a tense experience. Further iterations saw the creation of "rides" (a casino term referring to the highs and lows of rollercoasters) where players have the "most fun" experience by playing some harder matches followed by some easier matches, leading to more games played overall. The core, unchanging philosophy is still that you want every player to be accurately ranked, meaning they win half their games, you just leave an allowable variance such that you're not putting the player into unwinnable matches (maybe you disallow individual matches that are beyond an 80/20 win prediction, for example).
