EPTPoll: Bonus pool should be removed - Page 7
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Boyo
United States226 Posts
| ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 04:24 Lysenko wrote: Arguably, what bronze league players need to improve is to play more, not simply to see that they're ranked 500,000th out of 750,000 players. I'm not just referring to bronze. I'm currently in platinum, and it's still the case. Maybe it gets better in diamond and up. | ||
|
eluv
United States1251 Posts
What bonus pool does do is takes away a leg-up you might have if you start early. If you play 1000 games in the first month of the ladder, and only 100 in the second, and another guy plays 100 in the first, and 1000 in the second, assuming the same W/L ratios, against the same caliber of players, you'll have the same number of points - simple as that. | ||
|
Noxie
United States2227 Posts
| ||
|
MindRush
Romania916 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:04 Soma.bokforlag wrote: i like the bonus pool, it motivates me to play.. when i see the bonus pool stacking up it reminds me that i have been watching to much and playing too little i like the fact that its a positive reinforcer too, compared to point decay or so yeah, due to the fact that i moved in another town and started work, I have alot to do now, take care of the new place I live, and my computer stands unattended for days, sometimes weeks. Meanwhile I try to watch stuff on laptop and post shit on TL. Playing once in a while keeps me generally a bad player, but when I get my games going, in 1 day or 2 my macro gets back to me and I get from bad to less bad. This transition lasts almost exactly as long as the bonus pool points last. The first games I play after a long break are so bad that I wonder how my computer stills listens to my commands. After those games, after I get my hand working and my macro up the true value of my playstyle surfaces - I still suck but not as much. My point is that being so busy nowadays and playing occasionally don't make me a better player. I will probably be stuck for a while at my level, but if it weren't for those bonus pools I'd be at least 1 league lower. | ||
|
koveras
163 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:21 Thrombozyt wrote: Wow.. season 2 and people still do not understand, how the bonus pool works. In the ladder system, you don't get any points, if you do not improve relative to your competitors. That's simple, because the point you get have to come from someone. If you are ranked at the level that you belong to, you will NOT gain any points - besides bonus pool. Now why is the bonus pool there? To reward regular activity and force players to play (and risk losing points) in order to keep their rank. If there are two players and one is playing 100 games with a 50% win/loss ratio and the other one is playing no game at all, both players would stay at equal points if there was no bonus pool. Without any skill in change, your points will rise at the same rate as you accumulate bonus pool (I think it's 100 points per week) - as long as you are active enough to use up your bonus pool (around 15 games per week) and thus the active player pulls ahead of the inactive player, until the latter gets active again. Now comes the kicker: The rate at which you accumulate bonus pool is exactly the same no matter how many games you play! This means that everyone who has used up his bonus pool has his point according to his skill. The OP does not understand, that him falling out of the top 8 is a result of his losing streak. If the top1 guy of the OP's division is inactive, the OP only needs to maintain a 50% record and he will close in to the inactive guy, even though the inactive guy might be better. Having more points with less games is NOT a result of the bonus pool system (or an abuse thereof) but hint that this person might win more than they lose (and thus will continue to rise in the system). @shinyA: Without the bonus pool, exactly the same would happen. You would have your 200 points after 3000 games and a guy would have the same amount of points after 100 games, because he as good as or better than you. A ladder system ranks people for their skill and not for the amount of games. You still have to play enough to use up your bonus pool, but that's it. It also ensures that you can start later in the season and still place decent - provided you are actually good. Poll: Do you understand the bonus pool system? Yes, I knew it all along. (22) Yes, I know it now. (1) No, I still believe there is a way to get more points if you play more/less. (1) Other (1) 25 total votes Your vote: Do you understand the bonus pool system? (Vote): Yes, I knew it all along. There may not be a way to increase the amount of points you get but you do have the option on when to distribute them. Its just that the profile with 1500 points in just 80 games looks a tad bit cooler than my 1250 points in 180 games. I know that he most likely is a much better player than I am and I'm sure theres a good chance he will get promoted to masters anytime soon. But what whas actually bothering me is how I look when I come back in the top 8 before my record is frozen and the next season begins. Last season I whas placed 9th place due to race switch and got butchered on ranked, somehow I didnt cared about my rating at all but that whas before I knew they where going to introduce seasons. So if someone says that rating below masters doesnt say that much about skill difference why implement it at all? Now this weird fetish for profiles statistics may all sound very conceided to allot of people but Im sure that way of thinking is shared by a significant portion of the SC2 laddering community. Just fuck the bonus pool, just fuck it, or maybe just fuck the whole system and get something simple and less vague. Im just not happy about it and I really shouldnt be such a pussy. | ||
|
ejac
United States1195 Posts
| ||
|
itkovian
United States1763 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:04 Soma.bokforlag wrote: i like the bonus pool, it motivates me to play.. when i see the bonus pool stacking up it reminds me that i have been watching to much and playing too little i like the fact that its a positive reinforcer too, compared to point decay or so I agree. The bonus pool is a motivator to me. Does it make for a fair and balanced system? Hell no. Would I take it out because of this? nope, it makes me feel good :D Plus the real concern is how I am improving, not how many points I have anyway. So might as well leave it in for the feel goodness | ||
|
ReketSomething
United States6012 Posts
Guess blizzard did a good job lol. Bonus pool system is bad. Division tiers are worse. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On June 30 2011 11:04 koveras wrote: There may not be a way to increase the amount of points you get but you do have the option on when to distribute them. Its just that the profile with 1500 points in just 80 games looks a tad bit cooler than my 1250 points in 180 games. I know that he most likely is a much better player than I am and I'm sure theres a good chance he will get promoted to masters anytime soon. But what whas actually bothering me is how I look when I come back in the top 8 before my record is frozen and the next season begins. Last season I whas placed 9th place due to race switch and got butchered on ranked, somehow I didnt cared about my rating at all but that whas before I knew they where going to introduce seasons. So if someone says that rating below masters doesnt say that much about skill difference why implement it at all? Now this weird fetish for profiles statistics may all sound very conceided to allot of people but Im sure that way of thinking is shared by a significant portion of the SC2 laddering community. Just fuck the bonus pool, just fuck it, or maybe just fuck the whole system and get something simple and less vague. Im just not happy about it and I really shouldnt be such a pussy. Okay well that's pretty irrational. Read through the posts, we've been over why it is the way it is. Maybe instead of blindly raging over it you should actually pick up some knowledge. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:05 iamho wrote: Then they should show us our MMR so we actually know how good we are, instead of having to guess. I can give you a very simple way to tell. If youre playing anything below top Master/GM you're bad If youre playing anything better, youre probably A) very cheesy B) actually good. No it shouldnt be removed anyway, imaginet hose late seasons where you've lost internet or something. Top of the league is at 3k while youre at 100, goodluck grinding that with 10-15 points at a time, thats not fun at all. | ||
|
Keitzer
United States2509 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:05 iamho wrote: Then they should show us our MMR so we actually know how good we are, instead of having to guess. it's not even a true ELO rating... why would you want to see it? edit: also, this whole bonus pool thing... if you're that torn about people with high score because of bonus pool, just play more games than them... mass games with many low point wins > inactive but few high point wins as it's not only more experience, but also probably more MMR increase | ||
|
Daltrain
Australia15 Posts
| ||
|
Etheon
United States35 Posts
Alternatively, why shouldnt players who are playing competitively and often be rewarded? I feel that this system caters to making casual players feel competitive. In basketball, if you dont play for a month there isn't a handicap to help you along until you get back into. You just have to be bad for a while. That kinda how i feel Starcraft 2, as an e-sport, should be. In the end though it really doesnt matter. The point of playing should be to get better. Not to have this or that rank in this or that league. Until your a pro its all useless bragging rights. But i guess thats important to some people. | ||
|
Motiva
United States1774 Posts
| ||
|
kellymilkies
Singapore1393 Posts
| ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 30 2011 12:04 Motiva wrote: If the idea is to change the ladder and make it more accurate or something similar to iccup or ELO then a lot more needs to be changed than the bonus pool. Compared to Elo and iCCup the Battle.net 2.0 matching system is most likely a lot better. Elo was the first of its kind, the first stab anyone ever took at a statistical ranking system, and as a result had certain undesirable properties that successor systems like Microsoft's TrueSkill and Battle.net 2.0 have tried to correct. (Though Battle.net 2.0's details are not available, TrueSkill has been extensively documented by Microsoft Research, and a few of the same people were involved in developing Battle.net 2.0, so they probably share architectural similarities.) Just as an example: one major objective of TrueSkill was reducing the number of matches necessary to establish an initial score for a player with no record. Elo requires a large number of matches to create an initial ranking, which makes it less desirable for a matching system that a new player might expect to make an accurate match within a few games. The iCCup system is a greatly simplified implementation of a point-based system in which the ranks bear an arbitrary relationship to population distribution. It's not a statistical ranking system in the sense that there's not a well-defined relationship between two players' relative rankings and the likelihoods of who will win. However, it ought to be pretty good at ordering a bunch of players in terms of their relative likelihoods of beating each other. Overall, given the same (very long) set of games, Battle.net 2.0, TrueSkill, iCCup, and Elo all ought to order players in similar orders from best to worst. Battle.net 2.0 and TrueSkill are both designed to converge on accurate ordering faster, at the expense of less stability over the short term. In any case, though, switching to Elo or iCCup's systems probably would not result in a huge difference for rankings of players who are active enough to use up the Battle.net 2.0 bonus pool. Battle.net 2.0's rankings are probably pretty good for those active players. Below that level, activity dominates the rankings. | ||
|
YarNhoj
United States69 Posts
Imagine if there was no way you could ever be the top of your division unless you played every single day. Where is the incentive for someone who can't afford that time to play at all? And how much would we all be raging if you had the same win rate as the number one player in your division but then had to travel for work, or go TDY, or babysit? You would never be able to catch that person and thus would be ranked below people who you are better than but just have more time to play. In the end the people who play the most will always be the top of the division so I'm not sure why everyone is QQing in the first place. | ||
|
SecondChance
Australia603 Posts
Then a few sentences down you confess that you are considering letting yours inflate before laddering again. Either you have an issue with the bonus pool system, and thus will continue to ladder regardless. Or, you simply don't like other players have more points in "your" undisclosed league; hence your request to remove the system. I'm afraid that confession undermines your biased OP and as a result, your polled is not asked genuinely. | ||
|
Cosmos
Belgium1077 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:05 iamho wrote: Then they should show us our MMR so we actually know how good we are, instead of having to guess. Stop this stupid mmr dicussion, if you won you are better you don't need anything else. | ||
| ||
