EPTPoll: Bonus pool should be removed - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
OhMyGawd
United States264 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:18 cyrex wrote: From my understanding, your bonus pool accumulates equally. Everyone gets 12 points a day. Not just when you aren't playing. The only reason it gets bigger when you aren't playing is because you haven't used it up as you get the points. There is no benefit at all to letting your pool build up and if you wait too long and let it cap out, you will fall behind where you could be. http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Battle.net_Leagues#Bonus_PoolSource According to liquipedia, we gain 84 bonus pool points a week. This means someone with a 55% win rate playing 16 games a week (8.8 won 7.2 lost) in an even match at Gold level (win/lose 10 points per game) will win earn an average of 100 points per week (88-72+84). After the bonus pool, it will take an additional 100 games (55-45) for the next 100 ladder points. All this does, is encourage casual players to play up to 5 hours per week, while not really harming anyone that plays more. Sorry if this doesn't make sense. I started going down a track to explain this all using calculus and it just got to where I wasn't sure anyone but math majors would understand, so its been drastically simplified. Holy cow, thanks for sourcing that. Just made some edits to that section of Liquipedia that hopefully get pushed live soon. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:28 Zephirdd wrote: That, of course, is only true when the gives conditions occur: - All of the games are giving and removing the same amount of points for both players compared - Player A(the one with more games) NEVER gets better/ALWAYS ALWAYS will receive the same points(sry for repeating the first point) - Player B(the one that waits for the bonus pool) NEVER players with 0 bonus The thing is, the system won't work that way. As you get better, ladder starts varying the points. There is a point where you are either receiving +20 pure points a win or you get promoted. In this case, the active player - as he gets better - receives much more points. However, it is indeed true that a player with 100 wins can have the same points as a player with 1000. It is also true that it is more efficient to ladder when you wait for bonus. However, you are also stagnated in the league and won't go up into plat/diamond/masters or whatever, and the active player will improve due to the sheer fact that he is getting more experience, and eventually will get promoted. So, if you want points, play 2 games a day. If you want a promotion, 20 games a day. Yea, you're kinda right. But then what is the point of the ladder? A ladder is supposed to be a competition, points are supposed to be the reflection of the players skill. That isn't the case. Like with my example earlier: RevDime 1,869 437 393 52.65% SolidControL 1,870 151 140 51.89% I bet you those two players are pretty similar in skill and are both ranked in the top 50 masters players in NA. But why should one of them who played 800 games with a higher win % be ranked lower than someone who only played 300 games with a lower win%? | ||
|
lolsixtynine
United States600 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:21 Gnax wrote: If you want bonus pool removed you're officially stupid. The only thing bonus pool does is motivate casual players to play ladder. And what that does is decrease the time you have to wait to find a ladder game. There is absolutely no negative effect on anything. Having 0 bonus pool and playing ladder doesn't give you any disadvantage over someone who plays with 1000 bonus pool. If you have 0 bonus pool it means you have more points than the guy with 1000 bonus pool will ever get from bonus pool alone. I'm glad you have the official say on whether or not the rest of us are stupid. And the "negative effects on anything" have been elaborated on in this thread already, before your post. | ||
|
Zocat
Germany2229 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:22 shinyA wrote: My problem with bonus pool is that it doesn't motivate players to play more, it only motivates them to play enough to keep their bonus pool low. It doesn't reward mass games, it actually rewards fewer games which shouldn't be the case. You approach the problem from the wrong side. Imagine a no-bonus pool system: Player A & B same skill level. Player A plays 2 games a day. Player B plays 20 games a day. Both start with 1000 points. After 1 week - both have 1000points. After another week - both still have 1000 points. Now add bonuspool (84 points / week). Both start with 1000 points. After 1 week both have 1084 points. After another week both have 1168 points. Why is that? Because with the 50% winratio and assuming a pure system where neither gains/loses skill their points do not change. Their MMR is static and therefor their points . The bonus pool system is giving the illusion that players improve. 1 week you were at X points, the following week at X+bonuspool. That surely means you got better, right? It doesnt matter if people play 2, 10, 30 games day as long as their skill isnt changing. I also disagree with your last sentence. Yes, it doesnt reward mass gaming. But it shouldnt reward mass gaming. It should reward people who improve the most. And this is the case. If someone can improve at a faster rate than someone, who play 30 games a day, by playing 2 games a day it should reward him more. | ||
|
Eatme
Switzerland3919 Posts
| ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I even like the pay for ingame things in other games (unless they make you have to buy them if you want to play the game right), because it helps to improve the game without doing any damage, well except to the pockets of people with to much money that is. So Bonus Points in sc2 are totally fine, there are other things that indicate that you are getting better and where you stand skill wise, just have to use your brain cells and you can find that out yourself with the stuff the blizzard ladders tells you of yourself and the opponent. Well 80% of the ladder are probably at their righteouse place anyway. I am way to high sadly, due to the cheese and allin free wins given in the ladder. | ||
|
Gnax
Sweden490 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:40 lolsixtynine wrote: I'm glad you have the official say on whether or not the rest of us are stupid. And the "negative effects on anything" have been elaborated on in this thread already, before your post. Not awarding people with no skill who mass games is not a negative thing. That's like saying the CEO of Google shouldn't be able to make more money than an employee at McDonalds because the guy at McDonalds works more hours than him. I'm sure you can see how stupid that sounds. | ||
|
NDsOdapOp
United Kingdom60 Posts
| ||
|
AndyGB4
Canada156 Posts
| ||
|
CidO
United States695 Posts
| ||
|
Kwanny
Germany222 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:35 shinyA wrote: That's assuming that you have an exact rate of 50%, if you have anything higher than 50% then whoever plays more is rewarded more. I know what you're saying but that only applies to people who can't break 50% when in reality tons of people will have a higher win% than 50. Don't get me wrong, I hate the MMR system too. I think that I should play people of my own points, not some hidden MMR that is supposed to match me with people of my own skill because that obviously doesn't work since there's tons of people with incredibly high win percentages. You don't even realize, that it is logically and system wise nearly impossible, to have different amounts of games, while having the same skill and the same winrate and the same rating points. If you "assume" that the winrate stays the same (a constant), it would mean, that you have the same winrate against anyone you play against. Following your logic, it wouldn't matter, if the opponent was grandmaster or bronze. Higher amount of games with the same rating points with the same skill level will result in a lower winrate. If your bonus pool pushes you up to a level, that your intrinsic skill doesn't represent, you'll eventually lose some games, and drop to a more appropriate level, in case of a mass gamer. A guy, that maintains the same rating as you (with both having the same amount of bonus pool left), with less games played, will most likely have a higher winrate, and if not, have faced tougher opponents, so that his intrinsic skilllevel is most likely higher than that of the mass gamer's. | ||
|
ronpaul012
United States769 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:08 Mendelfist wrote: No, it isn't, unless you are in bronze. With a 45% win ratio you will get demoted to a lower league after a while. woah, i'm not so sure about that. I've been keeping track of wins and losses personally and i'm a plat player with about 57% win ratio. Using your theory of a 5% off of 50 would a demotion/promotion I would be diamond. I dont think 45% is low enough, as long as there mmr is staying high enough. If everybody below a 50% win ratio would be moved down then ladder would be going crazy. My point was that many people are somewhere between a 45-50% win ratio in the ladder. For all of those players, they would be at the same ranking, and many times lower than a player who has a 53% win ratio but hasn't played in a month. The bonus pool is a useful tool to help players who are on a bit of a slump, or struggling to go .500 in their league. I do agree that the bonus pool inflates points too much, and that there should be a bonus pool used counter near the remaining bonus pool. This would give everyone a good idea of where a player should actually be for those who care. However completely removing bonus pool may be going too far. | ||
|
PanzerKing
United States483 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:00 koveras wrote: I am kind of annoyed by the bonus pool system blizzard introduced in SC2. In my oppinion it demotivates players to do lots of ranked games because waiting for your bonus pool to inflate will make sure you have a higher score in ranked points. In my league the number one player has played 80 games and has about 1500 ranked points and he has been inactive in ranked now for quite some time without anyone challenging him in our league. Last night I had a pretty bad losing streak and got kicked out of the top 8. Now im doubting if I should rank again or just wait for my bonus pool to fill up. Im wondering what the TL community thinks about the idea of the bonus pool being removed. It's a moot question, since Blizzard will not be removing the bonus pool. It was implemented for the same reason that Arena ranks in World of Warcraft begin at 0 instead of 1500 - to give people a constant feeling of progression in that their total number of ranking points increases over time. Blizzard wants you to keep playing, which means that you have to feel like you're accomplishing something by playing, which means gradually increasing your points over time. For more serious players the bonus pool is a nonissue, but since it helps keep casual players involved in the game, it's here to stay. | ||
|
MrCeeJ
United Kingdom57 Posts
The league rankings and bonus pool inflation have no real meaning at all, Blizz designed it that way deliberately since if you reveal to people how far down the list they are in the grand scheme of things they will loose all sense of perspective and despair. The only impact it has on the game is booting people out of GM, and even that is equivalent to saying "have you averaged less than 16 games a week this season". | ||
|
Pughy
Wales662 Posts
| ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
| ||
|
Kwanny
Germany222 Posts
| ||
|
lazydino
Canada331 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:50 shinyA wrote: It does not reward fewer games. When you play with the bonus pool depleted, you play regularly enough that the MMR is close to you true skill. So you don't lose points when you play with a depleted bonus pool, but you increase your skill due to experience. This separates you from someone who plays just to bonus pool depletion.My problem with bonus pool is that it doesn't motivate players to play more, it only motivates them to play enough to keep their bonus pool low. It doesn't reward mass games, it actually rewards fewer games which shouldn't be the case. | ||
| ||
