|
France1920 Posts
On October 30 2020 22:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I said it's a bit harder at the very top because winning 1v2/1v3 is harder. I did not say they can't rank up. I still have a positive win rate with z and so do all the top 20 players who play random. And I don't really want anything about the design of the ladder to be fixed. (as mentioned, the only issues I have is that games too frequently do not register, and that the dynamic TR makes it drop to tr8 too frequently. (myself I would prefer a fixed tr12, but it's fine. ) )
My bad. You said it's much harder and now you say it's a bit harder.
I'm saying it's extremely hard to the point that it doesn't make sense and it's not fun.
|
On October 30 2020 22:22 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 18:37 MeSaber wrote:
Personally i want to be able to have a fun game and not a dead serious one. 1v3 games becomes just that. Play serious or die. No chance for fun builds.
Just because of this i regularly have to make a new account with balanced win/loss or i always get to play with the beginners :D Then don't play ranked BGH??? It's not hard... Certainly less effort than smurfing whole accounts to noob stomp.
Ofc i will keep making accounts if the system is flawed. UpSideDown's allies is a good example. Check his trip from 3000 to 3700 it was all with less than 1000 mmr allies that probably had no clue about 3v3 where he needs to either talk 24/7 for em to make good decisions or just lose.
In a 1v3 position it loses the fun (imo) and becomes a rush one player to make it 1v2 with a possible chance of the other two to actually kill one other enemy so it becomes reverse 3v1 (if you sacrificed too much eco so you cant 1v1).
So what ure saying i should just stop play because i dont add to the play super serious system?
My advice is to instead make it somewhat balanced as i mentioned earlier, if there are too many low mmr players split em between teams instead of 1v3 game.
Good example is if i play with 5 low mmr players, should i just be banned then as im bashing? Your bashing argument makes no sense when you think about there is no control over WHO joins so it will never be fair however 1v3 is just flawed. No 4000 mmr can win vs 3 players knowing how to rush one guy because hes the only threat the whole game.
FYI im not into bghmmr to bash, its to have fun games but that fun is bound by my mmr and apm and intro stats. If you start your first game with 100-10 stats for example you will be ranked 2500ish mmr at once before game has started. Once that game is done you are close to 3000 from the win + apm where its 2v3 more like for next game. This is just not a good system where the two worst players get mixed with the best player. All im saying really as it removes the fun and makes it too serious. If you agree or not fine. Just telling my experience just like Drone does and i respect his 1v3 skillz 
|
On October 31 2020 01:49 MeSaber wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 22:22 Jealous wrote:On October 30 2020 18:37 MeSaber wrote:
Personally i want to be able to have a fun game and not a dead serious one. 1v3 games becomes just that. Play serious or die. No chance for fun builds.
Just because of this i regularly have to make a new account with balanced win/loss or i always get to play with the beginners :D Then don't play ranked BGH??? It's not hard... Certainly less effort than smurfing whole accounts to noob stomp. Ofc i will keep making accounts if the system is flawed. UpSideDown's allies is a good example. Check his trip from 3000 to 3700 it was all with less than 1000 mmr allies that probably had no clue about 3v3 where he needs to either talk 24/7 for em to make good decisions or just lose. In a 1v3 position it loses the fun (imo) and becomes a rush one player to make it 1v2 with a possible chance of the other two to actually kill one other enemy so it becomes reverse 3v1 (if you sacrificed too much eco so you cant 1v1). So what ure saying i should just stop play because i dont add to the play super serious system? My advice is to instead make it somewhat balanced as i mentioned earlier, if there are too many low mmr players split em between teams instead of 1v3 game. Good example is if i play with 5 low mmr players, should i just be banned then as im bashing? Your bashing argument makes no sense when you think about there is no control over WHO joins so it will never be fair however 1v3 is just flawed. No 4000 mmr can win vs 3 players knowing how to rush one guy because hes the only threat the whole game. FYI im not into bghmmr to bash, its to have fun games but that fun is bound by my mmr and apm and intro stats. If you start your first game with 100-10 stats for example you will be ranked 2500ish mmr at once before game has started. Once that game is done you are close to 3000 from the win + apm where its 2v3 more like for next game. This is just not a good system where the two worst players get mixed with the best player. All im saying really as it removes the fun and makes it too serious. If you agree or not fine. Just telling my experience just like Drone does and i respect his 1v3 skillz
And I'm telling you that this experience is in no way forced upon you because you can join non-MMR non-Bot 3v3 BGH games. Instead of repeatedly smurfing the system (thus pushing certain players lower and lower because you keep re-injecting yourself with an artificially lowered score because you lose on purpose to not have "100-10" stats as you say) you are actually helping to destabilize the very system you are crying about. What you're describing is actually how the system is SUPPOSED to work - as you climb to higher MMR, it becomes harder to keep climbing... Makes sense in the context of balanced team matches with no Elo restriction, doesn't it? Yes, 1v3 with 2 noob allies and 3 middle-of-the-pack players is tough, but that is the system working - it recognizes your hypothetical skill, and thus makes the game harder and harder for you until you are at a place where each game is actually challenging and you should be close to 50% winrate. Maybe you are one of those people that makes a new ladder account every time they lose a game or dip below 90% winrate, but the reality is that a good ranking system places you in a spot where you win 50% of the games against opponents/squads at that level, nothing more, nothing less. Given enough games and no drop-outs, EVERY skill-based ranking system would have every player outside of extreme outliers sitting at 50%.
What you're saying is you can't just queue up and expect to play half-heartedly and keep winning. Well, you are at the place where you can't do that anymore because you won/earned your way there, congratulations. Sorry you can't continue to "troll" scrubs anymore because you did so successfully long enough for it to become too difficult. Like, I don't understand what you don't understand about how these things work? Go host your own 3v3 BGH FOR FUN game or something if you want to get the dopamine rush of rushing nukes or whatever. Don't complain about the expected effects of a system working as it is intended simply because you lack the comprehension to understand it.
|
On May 19 2020 02:37 MeSaber wrote:
A good player doesnt need high APM to be good. Its a bad indicator of skill, especially in a BGH game that you play for fun and dont really try to play good but more unorthodox.
Probably need to make a combination of win/loss ratio + apm, if you want somewhat even games. MMR alone doesnt say anything.
win/loss alone is a bad indicator when people want a loss account. If it however is teamed with apm it might prove to be more useful to see if someone is faking it. However if he both uses low apm and loss account it wont help either.
Edit: Other data that may want to be involved into showing someones skill is resource collection. Did he gather much resources? Same goes for this, if its a zerg player with superb muta control he doesnt need much resources to be useful/win, it would however show on APM, as muta micro cant go without high apm.
Edit2: about loss account: You could make it so that the team who won even though a loss account left before win, he would still be eligible for the win instead of a loss (the team won and he was in the team, no matter if he died 5 mins in and game went for 50 mins, he still get the win). This would add false positives to a bad player if he actually died 5 mins in for real, however you could make it so if he stayed for more than 75% of the games duration he still gets win even if he lost.
Whats important here is that good players cant disguise as bad players, then it will automatically be an uneven game as a good player can easily play like 3 if he wanted to.
This is a post from MeSaber on page 4 talking about how to prevent "loss accounts" abusing the system. Kind of ironic given his recent posts eh?
|
Norway28851 Posts
On October 30 2020 23:24 HaN- wrote:Show nested quote +On October 30 2020 22:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I said it's a bit harder at the very top because winning 1v2/1v3 is harder. I did not say they can't rank up. I still have a positive win rate with z and so do all the top 20 players who play random. And I don't really want anything about the design of the ladder to be fixed. (as mentioned, the only issues I have is that games too frequently do not register, and that the dynamic TR makes it drop to tr8 too frequently. (myself I would prefer a fixed tr12, but it's fine. ) )
My bad. You said it's much harder and now you say it's a bit harder. I'm saying it's extremely hard to the point that it doesn't make sense and it's not fun.
I mean, 2500 with z is prolly the equivalent of 2800 with p or whatever.
Anyway, it's not supposed to be easy, that's exactly the thing with this bgh bot. 3v3 public bgh games are normally really easy and at least personally, if I play a public 3v3 with two good teammates, then my win rate approaches 100%. On this ladder, I'm down to 2/3, because the ladder works, and because I get teamed up with the worst two players fairly frequently. Looking at you, you're 17-15 - that's a ladder working optimally, imo..
|
@badbeatpete taking my posts out of context seems to be your thing.
|
In that post you talk about loss accounts being good players disguising themselves as bad players resulting in uneven games. In your most recent posts you talk about making new accounts and deliberately losing to have a lower mmr than your true mmr in order to get stronger teammates/weaker opponents.
So... what exactly is the context I am missing here?
|
Hi, all!
I just wanted to address few issues.
- Sorting
I've implemented sorting on main page of bghmmr.eu. You can now order results by
number of games, wins, loses or apm.
- Banning
I might make a report system on website but all bans will be confirmed. Reporting might get automated but bans won't.
- Valid games
Games count when they are longer than 5 minutes and nobody left within first 3 minutes.
If game counts, all players from the winning team are considered winners and all players from losing team are losers. It doesn't matter if somebody died before the end of game.
- New player bias
As for players getting more points in first games. I already talked about this. Generally in any ranking system makes assumptions with small amount of data first and then corrects it with more data. You can't avoid that. Giving players constant number of points for all matches would be the same thing. Only instead of assuming player is very good/bad it would assume he is average even for
gosu players. The system in place now is now is better but like any solution it is biased.
- Matchups
In regards matches being difficult: that's the point! All ranking system try to put you on edge of your skills. Jealous explained it pretty accurately.
Now that being said there are some problems with balancing that I haven't addressed yet. Those problems are inherit to BGH itself.
- positions are not balanced - some map placements are much better for one team
- race compositions are not balanced - those are winrates for given teams in bghmmr
- PPP 0.563
- PPZ 0.528
- PPT 0.516
- PTZ 0.498
- PZZ 0.488
- TZZ 0.472
- TTZ 0.462
- ZZZ 0.439
- PTT 0.428
- TTT 0.360
- players that came into lobby sometimes just can't be matched into good teams
I don't have a good solution for those problems. What you have to remember is that in the end BGH is a not a professionally designed map for e-sports and BW 3v3 was never balanced. We are kind of go against the system. One solution would be to create UMS game based on BGH but most players are allergic to any changes to canonical BGH.
- Leagues
This has came up couple times already. Dividing matches by players doesn't require much work but I'm not sure it's desirable. With few players on the servers max we could do is two leagues. For the system to work those need to be mostly separated so it boils to this:
- first division: SABCD
- second division: CDEFU
I will add a poll to get some feedback from you guys. In case of league division I end up ion second division and probably won't even play as matches with only average players are kinda boring. But if majority of players want this I could implement this solution.
Poll: Divide league into two divisions?You must be logged in to vote in this poll. ☐ Yes
☐ NO
PS Thanks everyone for constructive ideas on how to improve the league.
|
Maybe have the higher caliber play in normal hunters instead of BGH?
It might bring more players.
|
How about a bot for all ranks S-F and another bot reserved for higher ranks S-C?
|
On November 03 2020 18:10 badbeatpete wrote:
How about a bot for all ranks S-F and another bot reserved for higher ranks S-C?
That would make access to games uneven for players, meaning that higher ranked players could have more games to play than lower ranking ones...
|
On November 03 2020 21:22 D3AD-R3TARD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2020 18:10 badbeatpete wrote:
How about a bot for all ranks S-F and another bot reserved for higher ranks S-C? That would make access to games uneven for players, meaning that higher ranked players could have more games to play than lower ranking ones...
One system that worked, with an admittedly larger playing population, was a forced promotion lobby system in Voobly for AOE2. Everyone starts in Noob lobby at 1200 MMR, but if you exceed 1400 or if you have a solid win rate at mid 1350s, you are forcibly promoted to "real" lobby and given a new 1600 MMR that is only affected by games in the real lobby. Not sure how demotions work (or if they exist) but can be done similarly I guess. This can be a way to make two lobbies with separate populations and thus not overrepresenting a particular demographic.
This has the added benefit of removing the problem for higher ranked players who complain about balance in teams, since everyone at C+ should at least be bare level competent.
However, this opens the door for players like MeSaber to smurf lower leagues when they get bored of the challenge. But, people will do that regardless, so not much lost I guess.
Also, there are more bad/middle of the pack than high level players, so this may make higher rank games harder to start if not drawing from the former population for games. It'd be important to draw the line at a reasonable place so that both populations can get similar wait times.
Just a suggestion
|
On November 03 2020 21:22 D3AD-R3TARD wrote:
That would make access to games uneven for players, meaning that higher ranked players could have more games to play than lower ranking ones...
That's true but I figured it would still be preferable since all types of players could get the type of games they enjoy playing. From reading recent posts in this thread it seems like there is a significant number of high rank players that dropped out (or started smurfing) once their ally quality becomes too low.
By the way, have you ever considered running the bots on West since the player base is larger there? There are a lot of players that never played on Europe and don't know about this ladder. Sorry if you've already addressed this.
|
On November 03 2020 21:22 D3AD-R3TARD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2020 18:10 badbeatpete wrote:
How about a bot for all ranks S-F and another bot reserved for higher ranks S-C? That would make access to games uneven for players, meaning that higher ranked players could have more games to play than lower ranking ones...
Then three bots: S-F / S-C / C-F ?
Honestly I can't answer the poll. I really want S-C, but I dont think C-F is a good idea, especially if that implies the creator of the bot can't play in upper rank games.
Not to mention our friend Liquid Drone would no longer be able to bash noobs three at a time!
|
On November 01 2020 02:48 Piste wrote:Maybe have the higher caliber play in normal hunters instead of BGH? It might bring more players.
I would love that.
|
I have played on 3 accounts on bghmmr and all of them has placed on S-rank initially and then incrimentally as ive played more games ive watched them all go to hell (apart from one inactive ~3100 acc that im just sitting on).
Im writing to echo the sentiments that some people expressed that its been my subjective experience that it is so much harder by orders of magnitude to win a game as the top ranked player compared to playing as the second highest ranked.
I am all for making the ladder challenging but thats just not whats being discussed when you are repeatedly being paired with one ally that only makes static defence and no workers and your other ally is the lowest ranked in the game apart from that guy.
I have no idea how Drone does it (apart from being way better than all of us).
As I believe other posters also kindly expressed its not about demanding a fix, we dont know any fix to this we just want to talk about a problem that we have experienced that makes the mode not fun to play.
And btw for what its worth D3AD-R3TARD I used to participate in your mmr bot games since before the ladder ever existed and I always felt this way about the algorithm before the "competitive" ladder element was ever introduced to it.
I think the decision to remove inactive accounts was a great one.
I am also really supportive of adding leauges to this mode these two factors seem like big steps in the right direction to me.
In my opinion I would prefer to see the first leauge not include D rank players as the gap between C and D seem quite high. But I understand that you have other considerations than skill level to think about (as you mentioned the availability of games to all types of players) I trust that you will make the best choice in this with all facts considered especially so because this is your project and only you can decide what your vision is.
Let me stress again that I think you are doing a great job and are providing a great service to the community I think we are all really greatful, this is just about improving something that is already working.
My aka is Maitreya[Rev] btw.
|
On November 04 2020 04:20 YoucriedWolf wrote:
I have played on 3 accounts on bghmmr and all of them has placed on S-rank initially and then incrimentally as ive played more games ive watched them all go to hell (apart from one inactive ~3100 acc that im just sitting on).
Im writing to echo the sentiments that some people expressed that its been my subjective experience that it is so much harder by orders of magnitude to win a game as the top ranked player compared to playing as the second highest ranked.
I am all for making the ladder challenging but thats just not whats being discussed when you are repeatedly being paired with one ally that only makes static defence and no workers and your other ally is the lowest ranked in the game apart from that guy.
I have no idea how Drone does it (apart from being way better than all of us).
As I believe other posters also kindly expressed its not about demanding a fix, we dont know any fix to this we just want to talk about a problem that we have experienced that makes the mode not fun to play.
And btw for what its worth D3AD-R3TARD I used to participate in your mmr bot games since before the ladder ever existed and I always felt this way about the algorithm before the "competitive" ladder element was ever introduced to it.
I think the decision to remove inactive accounts was a great one.
I am also really supportive of adding leauges to this mode these two factors seem like big steps in the right direction to me.
In my opinion I would prefer to see the first leauge not include D rank players as the gap between C and D seem quite high. But I understand that you have other considerations than skill level to think about (as you mentioned the availability of games to all types of players) I trust that you will make the best choice in this with all facts considered especially so because this is your project and only you can decide what your vision is.
Let me stress again that I think you are doing a great job and are providing a great service to the community I think we are all really greatful, this is just about improving something that is already working.
My aka is Maitreya[Rev] btw.
THIS is how we should be leaving feedback on a great project Cheers.
|
On October 31 2020 19:17 D3AD-R3TARD wrote:
PS Thanks everyone for constructive ideas on how to improve the league.
you are a baller and your bot initiative works. I'm having most fun playing in your games, and even though uneven games do still happen, they are less frequent. There is nothing worst than entering a game vs a team of decent 3 players and you get 1 or 2 complete dodos in your team. Anything you do is irrelevant. And i've been doing some miracles in those games, but it wasn't even close at the end. So thank you again. cheers
|
One problem I didn't mention but it came up in Jealous's posts is placement of unranked players.
Players with less than 4 games don't have a rank. They create problem of their own because theirs mmr is just rough estimation. They must have access to some leagues/lobbies but not all as they usually imbalance the games the most.
I like Grouhh's idea. I would consider 3 lobbies:
- SABC: lobby for top 50% of ranked players
- DEF+U : lobby for unranked and bottom 50% of ranked players
- SABCDEF: lobby for all ranked players
Pros of this solution are that
- Games would still be accessible: 2 out of 3 bots will be open to any ranked player
- There is an overlap between leagues. Comepletely separated leagues could create cases where MMR from different leagues wouldnt match.
- Few lobbies with unranked players. That would reduce smurfing and imbalance caused by new players.
Con is that it's going to be difficult for new players to enter. That might lead to less people playing and slow death of the system.
|
Russian Federation16 Posts
On October 31 2020 19:17 D3AD-R3TARD wrote:
most players are allergic to any changes to canonical BGH.
I have an unpopular opinion on this:
People play this crappy map only because they are not forced to play some other maps. Seriously, there are tons of 3x3 map on broodwarmaps.net.
Why do even bother with BGH ? Why not made a pool of at lest 2-4 any NOBGH maps and rotate them randomly? + Show Spoiler +Or maybe opensource bghmmr and people will do the rest like new mappool, 2x2, 4x4, run it on US bnet etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
