EPTPoll: Should the bonus pool be removed?
no (593)
50%
I don't care (291)
25%
yes (269)
23%
maybe (25)
2%
1178 total votes
I don't care (291)
yes (269)
maybe (25)
1178 total votes
Your vote: Should the bonus pool be removed?
Poll: Bonus pool should be removed
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
koveras
163 Posts
| ||
|
oDieN[Siege]
United States2905 Posts
| ||
|
Geiko
France1943 Posts
=> points always stay the same unless you get better => people aren't motivated to play => blizzard is unhappy so no, bonus has its problem but it's necessary so bronze players know they're are going to win more points thant they lose when they decide to play. | ||
|
Soma.bokforlag
Sweden448 Posts
i like the fact that its a positive reinforcer too, compared to point decay or so | ||
|
mewbert
United States291 Posts
| ||
|
iamho
United States3347 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:04 mewby wrote: who the fuck cares about ladder points, the point of the game is to be better than the next person. Then they should show us our MMR so we actually know how good we are, instead of having to guess. | ||
|
InvictusTT
United States47 Posts
Though, I voted for "I dont care." I don't see a reason to have it. | ||
|
weltraumMonster
Germany62 Posts
Without the bonus pool i would always stay in low ladder spots... with it i can play lees and still stay in the top 8 of my division... to have a high ladder rank is my main motivation to kkep playing. Even though it does'nt mean to much below masters league. | ||
|
oDieN[Siege]
United States2905 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. ...and what exactly would be listed if Blizzard were to show us our "MMR?" The whole point on why it's called "Hidden MMR" is that it's Hidden. | ||
|
cocosoft
Sweden1068 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
Carush
United States356 Posts
| ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
not help you to wait, you wont get MORE bonus than when you play | ||
|
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
The current system can be improved though. Now the bonus pool greatly distorts the real ranking of someone. Say I have 1000 ladder points with no bonus pool. Someone else has 950 ladder points but has 150 bonus pool remaining. That makes a huge difference and really, it SUCKS to have to click on everyones profile on the ladder to get a sense of his/her skill points. There should be a way to quickly see the "skill points" of a player. Like a button on the ladder screen that when clicked, substracts all bonus pool of the season from his/her current ladder points or adds the bonus pool to that player. That way you can see who is actually playing better/worse then you. I'd have the first option (substracting) since it's more accurate, but negative values make people stop playing so Blizzard will never do that. And I think everything is too much work for them so this thread is kinda useless. Still... they should allow more statistics for diamond/master/grandmaster players. For a simple fix, I wouldn't mind if the bonus pool accrued at half the current rate. | ||
|
cyrex
United States24 Posts
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 I'm going to expand on this and attempt to try to explain why the bonus pool is a good thing for people who don't play daily. The basic idea of the ladder is to systematically rank players in such a way that they are usually matched up against people with equal skill/ability. As you know, the ladder uses a points system where winning earn you points and loses will cause you to lose point. Winning more than loses will typically cause your points to trend upward. Being that very few, if any, players on the ladder are playing at their absolute best, the basic trend for the majority is to get better as they play causing the total ladder points in play to trend upwards. On the top end of the ladder (> Platinum), the skill of players increases at a slower rate than ladder points do. On the lower end of the ladder (<= Gold) skill increases faster than ladder points do. Because of this, the bonus pool has a different effect at different levels. If a Diamond player hasn't played for a week, it is unlikely that his ability has worsened significantly, however his rating has stayed the same while players at his skill level that did play during the week has increased. Bonus points all how to catch up to where he should be faster rather than without the bonus pool. In general, the ladder works better as players fit into their rightful spot, so the bonus pool promotes this. 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. | ||
|
SoundProof
Sweden99 Posts
| ||
|
Bibbit
Canada5377 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:04 mewby wrote: who the fuck cares about ladder points, the point of the game is to be better than the next person. Shockingly, we've recently learned that the answer is a hell of a lot of people. | ||
|
Gnax
Sweden490 Posts
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. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
If I play 1000 games in the first month of a ladder reset with a decent win percentage say I have 1500 points. After that month someone else starts laddering, has an inflated bonus pool, will have the same amount of points as me after just 100 games. That doesn't reward or motivate players to play more it actually does the opposite. It's funny, the person above me says "you're officially stupid if you want bonus pool removed because it motivates the casual player to play" but that makes no sense. The casual player is actually persuaded to play less. They know playing over their bonus pool will risk losing more points so they will play only to keep the advantage of bonus pool. If there is no bonus pool they would be motivated to play more to keep up with other players. A system that rewards mass gaming is what motivates people to mass game. Logically a system that rewards minimal play cannot motivate more play. If I know that I have a better chance of keeping my points high by not playing, why would I play more? First of all the argument in favor of bonus pool, which is for the casual gamer, would imply that the casual gamer cares a lot about points. If that's the case, like I have said then there is no reason for them to ever play past their bonus pool. But I would argue that if you're a casual player then you play for fun and should not care about points. But when you have a factor such as bonus pool it puts more emphasis on points which would, in my opinion, discourage mass gaming. Take a ladder system like ICC for example, mass gamers are rewarded and those who don't play a lot won't get a high rank. How is that not how it should be? Why should someone who plays at the very end of a season be the same rank as someone who's play 10 times as many games? Not to mention Bonus Pool makes no real skill bars, points are only important for whatever is the current time. 1000 points in the first few weeks is a cool thing but a couple weeks after that it's nothing. In a system like ICC points are a reflection of skill, if you're A+ you're one of the best players, but that's a set rank where other players of the same rank are equally skilled. When I play a game and I see +20 points I want that to mean something, as should everyone else, casual and competitive alike. | ||
|
vectorix108
United States4633 Posts
| ||
|
Gnax
Sweden490 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. If I play 1000 games in the first month of a ladder reset with a decent win percentage say I have 1500 points. After that month someone else starts laddering, has an inflated bonus pool, will have the same amount of points as me after just 100 games. That doesn't reward or motivate players to play more it actually does the opposite. Wow you're not very good at math. If he starts laddering when you have 1500 points and he has 1500 bonus pool it means he will have 1500 points and 0 bonus pool when you have 1500 points and 1500 bonus pool. Unless you constantly ladder then you will have around 3000 points when he has 1500. | ||
|
mordek
United States12705 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 was going to say something along these lines. The only people who care about what rank they are in the ladder are the people who care about points. For those people that understand your rank really doesn't mean jacksquat unless you're in master's or grandmaster's, the bonus pool is just something that gives you bigger green numbers when you win a game. A lot of my friends talk about what rank they are in Bronze or Silver. I don't tell them this but all that means is they've played more games at the Bronze/Silver level than other people in the league. I guess in Bronze if you never win the rank could mean something too... Anyways, having fun and getting better should be the motivators. Bonus pool makes a more tangible reward for these things. Getting promoted to a higher league should be the more real tangible reward to show you are improving. | ||
|
SlimeBagly
356 Posts
| ||
|
Kanil
United States1713 Posts
| ||
|
{ToT}ColmA
Japan3260 Posts
| ||
|
Ignorant prodigy
United States385 Posts
Sounds like winning would solve your problem to be honest. At the end of the day there’s not a whole lot you can do to control your ranking. How upset would you be if you finally made it to first place.. and then someone gets demoted or promoted from a different league and is placed into your league…but has enough points to bump you out of first? Will you make a thread about how people shouldn’t be moved into new leagues? I think you should be more concentrated on moving up in leagues vs. your placement in your division.. considering most people in the divisions are pretty inactive anyways. Besides if you start winning more your placement will take care of itself. | ||
|
Amber[LighT]
United States5078 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
Just to use up the bonus bool, you need about 1 win per day, so you play roughly 14 (or 15) games per week, assuming your MMR is correct and you have a 50% win chance. This is more than the average player plays. He gets motivated to play. Regular player's don't need motivation as they play regularly. Even if you get out of Top-8 for a while, the bonus pool will get you back in if you belong in the Top-8. | ||
|
andeh
United States904 Posts
They should switch to an iccup style, where you can directly see how many points you are away from plat/B+, and each win earns the same number of points based on your opponent's ranking. Blizzard's system seems really random with how many points you gain/lose. | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 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 If you could win one 12 points game a day, would you win it in the beginning of the day, when your BP is 2, or near the end, when your BP is 12? Also, if you could win only two games in two days, would you win both in the first day earning 12 bonus or one in each day, winning 24 bonus? Yes, it is good to hold games until your bonus goes up, if what you are looking for are points. | ||
|
HaXXspetten
Sweden15718 Posts
If they did remove it however, the system would fail. It's a sort of necessary pain in the ass, voted I don't care. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:26 Gnax wrote: Wow you're not very good at math. If he starts laddering when you have 1500 points and he has 1500 bonus pool it means he will have 1500 points and 0 bonus pool when you have 1500 points and 1500 bonus pool. Unless you constantly ladder then you will have around 3000 points when he has 1500. Wrong. The numbers I used were figurative and have nothing to do with the point made. There was no math involved in my argument. The bottom line was, I would play 1000 games and be ranked as the same as someone who plays 100 games. During my month of play my bonus pool would have run out long before the end of the month meaning that I wouldn't be gaining near as many points as the person who doesn't start playing until after that month, with a huge bonus pool. I would continue playing even while he's playing still and he will always be equal to my points as long as he keeps abusing the bonus pool and I keep on playing a lot. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
If I play 1000 games in the first month of a ladder reset with a decent win percentage say I have 1500 points. After that month someone else starts laddering, has an inflated bonus pool, will have the same amount of points as me after just 100 games. That doesn't reward or motivate players to play more it actually does the opposite. It's funny, the person above me says "you're officially stupid if you want bonus pool removed because it motivates the casual player to play" but that makes no sense. The casual player is actually persuaded to play less. They know playing over their bonus pool will risk losing more points so they will play only to keep the advantage of bonus pool. If there is no bonus pool they would be motivated to play more to keep up with other players. A system that rewards mass gaming is what motivates people to mass game. Logically a system that rewards minimal play cannot motivate more play. If I know that I have a better chance of keeping my points high by not playing, why would I play more? First of all the argument in favor of bonus pool, which is for the casual gamer, would imply that the casual gamer cares a lot about points. If that's the case, like I have said then there is no reason for them to ever play past their bonus pool. But I would argue that if you're a casual player then you play for fun and should not care about points. But when you have a factor such as bonus pool it puts more emphasis on points which would, in my opinion, discourage mass gaming. Take a ladder system like ICC for example, mass gamers are rewarded and those who don't play a lot won't get a high rank. How is that not how it should be? Why should someone who plays at the very end of a season be the same rank as someone who's play 10 times as many games? Not to mention Bonus Pool makes no real skill bars, points are only important for whatever is the current time. 1000 points in the first few weeks is a cool thing but a couple weeks after that it's nothing. In a system like ICC points are a reflection of skill, if you're A+ you're one of the best players, but that's a set rank where other players of the same rank are equally skilled. When I play a game and I see +20 points I want that to mean something, as should everyone else, casual and competitive alike. Edited my previous post and added more, so people don't quote the small bit I had before. | ||
|
a176
Canada6688 Posts
| ||
|
Gnax
Sweden490 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:46 Zephirdd wrote: If you could win one 12 points game a day, would you win it in the beginning of the day, when your BP is 2, or near the end, when your BP is 12? Also, if you could win only two games in two days, would you win both in the first day earning 12 bonus or one in each day, winning 24 bonus? Yes, it is good to hold games until your bonus goes up, if what you are looking for are points. I'm sorry, how does that matter unless you decide to uninstall starcraft after those two wins for some reason. | ||
|
synapse
China13814 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:17 Morphs wrote: There should be some way to decay inactive players on the ladder. Two options here: decrease points at a steady rate or increase points at a steady rate. The first option prevents a bonus pool from filling up but at the same time also eats up the "skill points" which you don't want. The current system can be improved though. Now the bonus pool greatly distorts the real ranking of someone. Say I have 1000 ladder points with no bonus pool. Someone else has 950 ladder points but has 150 bonus pool remaining. That makes a huge difference and really, it SUCKS to have to click on everyones profile on the ladder to get a sense of his/her skill points. There should be a way to quickly see the "skill points" of a player. Like a button on the ladder screen that when clicked, substracts all bonus pool of the season from his/her current ladder points or adds the bonus pool to that player. That way you can see who is actually playing better/worse then you. I'd have the first option (substracting) since it's more accurate, but negative values make people stop playing so Blizzard will never do that. And I think everything is too much work for them so this thread is kinda useless. Still... they should allow more statistics for diamond/master/grandmaster players. For a simple fix, I wouldn't mind if the bonus pool accrued at half the current rate. But it doesn't necessarily have to take effect immediately (as in immediate after they become inactive). What's wrong with just having different seasons? | ||
|
Tsuki.eu
Portugal1049 Posts
 | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:31 Amber[LighT] wrote: I dont play everyday, so I love having the bonus pool to catch up. I wonder how many voted "no" because of misunderstandings like this. If there was no bonus pool you wouldn't have to catch up in the first place. | ||
|
vrok
Sweden2541 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:00 koveras wrote: 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. Excuse me for being blunt, but why the fuck do you even care about this? Your rank means nothing. Your division means nothing. Your points mean nothing. That's it. The entire system you're wanting to 'game' means nothing. Nothing will be gained and nothing will be lost regardless of what you do. The only thing that matters is if you improve and get to play better and better opponents. Maybe hitting masters league is cool too so you can see your loss record, but meh, it'll be about 50% no matter what you do. Just forget about everything the system tells you. It's better that way than trying to force out some useless information out of it to compare yourself with others. | ||
|
chaopow
United States556 Posts
It also is used a lot for grandmasters to keep pros active on ladder. For me, I like to keep around a low bonus pool 0-100 and spend it all every once in a while, but I dont really like to play with no bonus pool. I guess I'm somewhat casual but I mostly play 1v1 and am masters though. | ||
|
ronpaul012
United States769 Posts
Maybe i'm confused here, but wouldn't removing the bonus pool force a lot of players into a forever 0 position? | ||
|
Oxb
199 Posts
Someone who has active uses all their bonus points, someone who is not does not. Where does the idea come from that someone with less games has exactly the same amount of points? It just means he did a better job win/loss ratio or played better against higher ranked players. The amount of bonus points used is exactly the same... The system is made that even with 0 bonus pool you steadily increase (i.e it tries to give you a 50:50 win:loss) in ladder points because wins are in general rewarded with slightly more points than losses (unless you lose to bronze while you're in gold, or to gold when you are in diamond/master etc.) In the end both players (whether one has 1000games played and the other only 100) used exactly the same amount of bonus points. Using the given arguments by OP I don't see any reason to remove bonus pool? I actually though bonus pool is just to make sure people who don't play to much (but win -> i.e they are not bad) don't have to play 1000+games/season to keep up with the more active players of same skill level. This would actually be very de-stimulation to a lot of people who have a "busy" job + wife/kids or "busy" student life or whatever. Imagine a decent player in Platinum league who plays very actively and therefor is top of the league. But all of a sudden he has exams/has to go on a business trip and can't play much/at all for 2 weeks. He would fall 'behind' in ladder points (compared to the other active players) and thus he either has to play like crazy to catch up and get in top 5 of his ladder. Or somebody who has not been able for whatever reason to play for 2 months and only now starts season 2, he would never make it into top50 even if he is one of the better players in his league. I don't see that one can actually abuse the bonus pool since everybody gets exactly the same amount of bonus pool points. | ||
|
Tr0utp0nD
United States4 Posts
| ||
|
Gnax
Sweden490 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:49 shinyA wrote: Wrong. The numbers I used were figurative and have nothing to do with the point made. There was no math involved in my argument. The bottom line was, I would play 1000 games and be ranked as the same as someone who plays 100 games. During my month of play my bonus pool would have run out long before the end of the month meaning that I wouldn't be gaining near as many points as the person who doesn't start playing until after that month, with a huge bonus pool. I would continue playing even while he's playing still and he will always be equal to my points as long as he keeps abusing the bonus pool and I keep on playing a lot. Why do you keep failing so much? if your bonus pool runs out you already "abused" bonus pool more than the guy who didn't play has. And when he starts playing he "abuses" it the way you already did until he catches up with you. | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:02 ronpaul012 wrote: While 45% win ratio isn't very good, its still possible to be top 25 in your league as long as your active. 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. | ||
|
Erasme
Bahamas15899 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:04 Gnax wrote: Why do you keep failing so much? if your bonus pool runs out you already "abused" bonus pool more than the guy who didn't play has. And when he starts playing he "abuses" it the way you already did until he catches up with you. Still wrong. Everybody have the same amount of bp. Even if they start 2months after everyone. Why do you keep failing so much ? | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:02 Oxb wrote: I'm confused by some posters. Someone who has active uses all their bonus points, someone who is not does not. Where does the idea come from that someone with less games has exactly the same amount of points? It just means he did a better job win/loss ratio or played better against higher ranked players. The amount of bonus points used is exactly the same... The system is made that even with 0 bonus pool you steadily increase (i.e it tries to give you a 50:50 win:loss) in ladder points because wins are in general rewarded with slightly more points than losses (unless you lose to bronze while you're in gold, or to gold when you are in diamond/master etc.) In the end both players (whether one has 1000games played and the other only 100) used exactly the same amount of bonus points. Using the given arguments by OP I don't see any reason to remove bonus pool? I actually though bonus pool is just to make sure people who don't play to much (but win -> i.e they are not bad) don't have to play 1000+games/season to keep up with the more active players of same skill level. This would actually be very de-stimulation to a lot of people who have a "busy" job + wife/kids or "busy" student life or whatever. Imagine a decent player in Platinum league who plays very actively and therefor is top of the league. But all of a sudden he has exams/has to go on a business trip and can't play much/at all for 2 weeks. He would fall 'behind' in ladder points (compared to the other active players) and thus he either has to play like crazy to catch up and get in top 5 of his ladder. Or somebody who has not been able for whatever reason to play for 2 months and only now starts season 2, he would never make it into top50 even if he is one of the better players in his league. I don't see that one can actually abuse the bonus pool since everybody gets exactly the same amount of bonus pool points. On June 30 2011 00:04 Gnax wrote: Why do you keep failing so much? if your bonus pool runs out you already "abused" bonus pool more than the guy who didn't play has. And when he starts playing he "abuses" it the way you already did until he catches up with you. If 2 people of equal skill, who have the same exact W/L ratio play ladder. They each start out with 300 bonus pool. One of the players plays 20 games a day, say he averages 10 points per win, which gives him 10 bonus points a win and he goes 50/50 every day. He'll be out of his bonus pool in a little over 3 and a half days. So let's say he's winning 10 points and losing 10 points, so with bonus pool that's +20 for a win and -10 for a loss. After those 3 and a half days he'll be at 600 points. But at this point his bonus pool runs out, if he maintains a 50/50 W/L ratio then he'll basically gain only a few points a day, whatever is the amount of bonus pool you get per day is what he'll gain. Another player who only plays when he has bonus pool will always win double points, so at the end of the month he'll have way less games played but the same amount of points because the first guy whos mass gaming hardly wins more points than losing when he plays without bonus pool. Obviously the numbers I used aren't perfect and there is a little more factors to take into consideration but the point is the same. | ||
|
Gnax
Sweden490 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:10 Erasme wrote: Still wrong. Everybody have the same amount of bp. Even if they start 2months after everyone. Why do you keep failing so much ? Sir. First of all, I was never wrong in this thread, so you can't say I am still wrong. Secondly I have been saying the same thing you just said, so you say I'm wrong and then you echo what I've said. That is probably the ultimate fail right there. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:15 Gnax wrote: Sir. First of all, I was never wrong in this thread, so you can't say I am still wrong. Secondly I have been saying the same thing you just said, so you say I'm wrong and then you echo what I've said. That is probably the ultimate fail right there. No, you're a moron and have been wrong in every post. You keep saying that everyone has the same amount of BP therefore it will even out eventually. But you can't seem to comprehend that when a player plays when he doesn't have bonus pool he hardly gains anything more than he loses. So two players of equal WL% but one plays every day and the other only plays when he has bonus pool, the player who only plays with bonus pool will have the same amount as the guy player every day. SO one player can have 1000 games and be at the same points as someone who only plays out their bonus pool and has 100 games. EDIT - Here, just to further prove you wrong. I go to sc2ranks and find these 2 players. RevDime 1,869 437 393 52.65% SolidControL 1,870 151 140 51.89% The Dime kid has around 800 games played and a higher win % than someone who only has 290 games played and a lower win % but Dime has less points. GG? | ||
|
zarepath
United States1626 Posts
| ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
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. | ||
|
KepowOb
Canada24 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:50 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. If I play 1000 games in the first month of a ladder reset with a decent win percentage say I have 1500 points. After that month someone else starts laddering, has an inflated bonus pool, will have the same amount of points as me after just 100 games. That doesn't reward or motivate players to play more it actually does the opposite. I think one thing you have to realize is Blizzard needs to cater to people outside the hardcore players. Why? Because the hardcore players will play, period. Those who don't play all the time might switch to another game when it comes along, they are the ones who need incentive to play, not those who ladder several hours a day. The hardcore players of a game are important as they are likely to recruit other people to play, but they also make up a small % of the actual sales Blizzard is going to make. Obviously if they are totally alienated the game will fail... This isn't an MMO with monthly fees, once you bought the game they've made their profit off you... they need casual players to enjoy the game and feel incentive to play, so that they will get their friends to get the game too etc... As we can all see through this forum, it is the devoted fans who are the most vocal as the game means more to them than the rest, but at the same time the number of players who ladder for hours a day is VERY minimal. As great as it would be to cater to these players, it wouldn't make sense. .... And as others have pointed out, does it really matter at the end of the day? | ||
|
cyrex
United States24 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. Why shouldn't it be the case? Would you not agree that fewer people play 100 games a week than those that play 15 games a week? Do you think it is better to have a ladder consisting of fewer people that play more often, or more people that don't play as often? Who wants to go up against the same people over and over? What motivation does blizzard have to reward people for playing a lot? Do they get more income that way? Wouldn't it be better to reward many people who can only play 5 hours a week, thus increasing popularity of the game and indirectly increasing those that play more often? | ||
|
Kwanny
Germany222 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:11 shinyA wrote: If 2 people of equal skill, who have the same exact W/L ratio play ladder. They each start out with 300 bonus pool. One of the players plays 20 games a day, say he averages 10 points per win, which gives him 10 bonus points a win and he goes 50/50 every day. He'll be out of his bonus pool in a little over 3 and a half days. So let's say he's winning 10 points and losing 10 points, so with bonus pool that's +20 for a win and -10 for a loss. After those 3 and a half days he'll be at 600 points. But at this point his bonus pool runs out, if he maintains a 50/50 W/L ratio then he'll basically gain only a few points a day, whatever is the amount of bonus pool you get per day is what he'll gain. Another player who only plays when he has bonus pool will always win double points, so at the end of the month he'll have way less games played but the same amount of points because the first guy whos mass gaming hardly wins more points than losing when he plays without bonus pool. Obviously the numbers I used aren't perfect and there is a little more factors to take into consideration but the point is the same. But in the end, they are in equal skill, so there is no reason, why the massgamer should have higher points, even though he played more. He shouldn't be rewarded for it, because, in the end, the intrinsic skill is the same. It actually would seem, that the massgamer hasn't even improved despite the amount of games he has played compared to the other, "casual", guy. It doesn't really matter either, if it encourages massgamers (who will keep on playing regardless of any system) or only casual gamers, because as long as it keeps the community active, blizzard has achieved its goal with the bp system. | ||
|
HallBregg
134 Posts
In the end tho, division rank doesn't correlate at all with skill until you are in masters/granmasters so its all just placevo for the masses. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:21 Thrombozyt wrote: @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. If there were no bonus pool the same thing wouldn't happen because whoever plays more games would make up more ground. If there were no bonus pool and 2 players of the same exact skill and had the same exact win% played ladder, whoever who would play more games would have more points. | ||
|
Barbiero
Brazil5259 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:19 shinyA wrote: No, you're a moron and have been wrong in every post. You keep saying that everyone has the same amount of BP therefore it will even out eventually. But you can't seem to comprehend that when a player plays when he doesn't have bonus pool he hardly gains anything more than he loses. So two players of equal WL% but one plays every day and the other only plays when he has bonus pool, the player who only plays with bonus pool will have the same amount as the guy player every day. SO one player can have 1000 games and be at the same points as someone who only plays out their bonus pool and has 100 games. 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. | ||
|
Thrombozyt
Germany1269 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:26 shinyA wrote: If there were no bonus pool the same thing wouldn't happen because whoever plays more games would make up more ground. If there were no bonus pool and 2 players of the same exact skill and had the same exact win% played ladder, whoever who would play more games would have more points. There you are wrong. If you are matched with player of your skill you win as much as you lose - your win% approaches 50%. Thus without bonus pool you would not gain any points in the long run because you win as many as you lose. So not playing is actually as good as 52383 games per week, because you don't gain any points as long as you don't improve (Edit: without bonus pool). | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:24 Kwanny wrote: But in the end, they are in equal skill, so there is no reason, why the massgamer should have higher points, even though he played more. He shouldn't be rewarded for it, because, in the end, the intrinsic skill is the same. It actually would seem, that the massgamer hasn't even improved despite the amount of games he has played compared to the other, "casual", guy. It doesn't really matter either, if it encourages massgamers (who will keep on playing regardless of any system) or only casual gamers, because as long as it keeps the community active, blizzard has achieved its goal with the bp system. It's a ladder though, it's a competition. They don't just give top players top rank spots, they have to play games to get it. Whoever plays more should have that reflected on their rank in the ladder. That's the point of a ladder. There should be a winner of a ladder, so where does the actual work and competition come in if someone of the same skill can do way less work than you and be at the same rank. That's like having a tournament with MC going straight to the finals but NesTea has to go through 50 rounds to get to him and then MC only has to play 1 round to win. That defeats the purpose of the tournament in the same way that bonus pool defeats the purpose of a ladder. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:29 Thrombozyt wrote: There you are wrong. If you are matched with player of your skill you win as much as you lose - your win% approaches 50%. Thus without bonus pool you would not gain any points in the long run because you win as many as you lose. So not playing is actually as good as 52383 games per week, because you don't gain any points as long as you don't improve (Edit: without bonus pool). 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. | ||
|
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. | ||
|
OsoVega
926 Posts
| ||
|
00Visor
4337 Posts
There is no sense in "waiting for bonus pool to fill up". | ||
|
VTPerfect
United States487 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:40 shinyA wrote: 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%? That is not 65% at all. The bonus pool doesnt change anything at 99.9% levels of play, the only time it matters is top 10 ladder where you lose 20+ points for a loss and only win 4 points for a win. In that circumstance there is no reason why you should play without bonus pool because a whole game for 4 points is a waste of time and the risk is too high. The other time it matters is at rock bottom win trading when no one cares about points anyway because they are icon farming. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:12 GreEny K wrote: Last season I tried to play a lot and get to the top, after a while I gave up on that because I didn't have the time. This season I have a 450 bonus pool and have only played about 90-100 games and am sitting at 1k points. I don't really care about the bonus or number of games played. People get better using different techniques and just because someone is at the top with a lot of points and games doesn't make them the best. Agreed. See Lulush at the top of a couple regions and all the random Chinese players at the top of the ladder. They aren't winning tournaments though so who cares. Also, HuK isn't even GM for what it's worth and he won two major tournaments in a row. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 30 2011 01:49 Uhh Negative wrote: Agreed. See Lulush at the top of a couple regions and all the random Chinese players at the top of the ladder. They aren't winning tournaments though so who cares. Also, HuK isn't even GM for what it's worth and he won two major tournaments in a row. He was top 50 GM on the ladder many times, he got knocked out of GM when he was playing in DreamHack and Home Story Cup because his bonus pool exceeded 180. | ||
|
shinyA
United States473 Posts
On June 30 2011 01:23 VTPerfect wrote: That is not 65% at all. The bonus pool doesnt change anything at 99.9% levels of play, the only time it matters is top 10 ladder where you lose 20+ points for a loss and only win 4 points for a win. In that circumstance there is no reason why you should play without bonus pool because a whole game for 4 points is a waste of time and the risk is too high. The other time it matters is at rock bottom win trading when no one cares about points anyway because they are icon farming. I think you read it wrong. It's 437-389 which is 52.65%, not 65. | ||
|
SoKHo
Korea (South)1081 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:40 shinyA wrote: 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%? Because it is likely that solid improved faster than revdime | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
Bonus pool has two very specific intentions: 1. It's a disguised decay mechanism. Rather than directly penalizing players who don't play, bonus pool indirectly penalizes inactive players. So, instead of inactive players' points gravitating toward zero like they would in War3, those players just miss out on free points. This keeps the rankings just as accurate as a true decay system (and arguably moreso because there's more granularity). 2. It encourages players to play because hey, free points. Being able to earn up to double your points for a win feels good. Typically, only around the top 8 or 10 players in any given division have used up their entire bonus pool. VTPerfect is also correct. For players who are still earning 12+12 bonus for a win and -12 for a loss, once their bonus pool runs out, their points stagnate. That's okay, because all that means is that you've used up all your "free" points and your skill hasn't actually been improving (more accurately, it hasn't been improving more rapidly than your peers). For players who are earning 15+15 bonus for a win and -9 for a loss, their points will still be going up even without any bonus. It's not until you reach a point where your points are much higher than any valid opponent's MMR (like at the tip-top of GM league where players earn 3+3 or 4+4 points or lose 20) that "saving up" bonus pool becomes a viable strategy because the risk is so great. | ||
|
MERLIN.
Canada546 Posts
So if somenoe has same rank, with more bonus, they are higher rank obviously since its not like anyone gets an advantage of bonus points leave it, its fine. | ||
|
dmillz
Canada270 Posts
| ||
|
YarNhoj
United States69 Posts
Such a player should gain approximately 63 points per week if they maintain 7 games. If a player waits till the end of the week, when the bonus pool is full then they would have an 84 point bonus pool saved as opposed to spending it during the week. The player then proceeds to play his 7 games at 50% giving him....63 points. Such a player represents someone who is active and spends out their entire bonus pool during the week. Now we have our player B who thinks that saving up his bonus will inflate his points. Such a player waits three whole weeks before laddering thus bumping up his bonus pool to a whopping 252 points! He then sits down and starts playing games at a 50% win rate. He plays 21 games thus spending out his bonus pool and having a record of 10.5w10.5L. This changes our equation slightly to 10.5W-10.5L=P. Player B in one night of gaming has amassed 189 points! This oddly enough is the exact same as the other player who diligently plays out his bonus pool every day. 63 points per week X 3 weeks...can you see where I'm going here??? If not it's 189 points. This means that two players who play the same number of games and are of the same skill level each receive the SAME number of points no matter when they ladder so long as their win rate stays the same. Now say that our first player plays 2 extra games per week that don't have bonus pool because he likes to play mass games...That player will gain +6 points per week bringing his total to 207. The player who waits and just plays out his bonus pool will never be able to catch the player who does this unless he also begins to play games that do not include bonus pool and maintains his win rate. So if you have a two players with similar win rates then they player who plays the most will always have more points meaning that when I get back from the beach I can play out my bonus pool and put myself back up where I belong, which would still be below the people who play more and have the same or better win rate as me. | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 00:58 ronpaul012 wrote: 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. With 45% win ratio I mean the average of your latest games, not the total. The total is irrelevant. You cannot have 57% win ratio in e.g. your latest 50 games forever and stay in platinum. It will inevitably move to 50% or you will be promoted. 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, They wouldn't. Without bonus pool your points converges to your MMR, if we disregard division and league offsets. | ||
|
Halcyondaze
United States509 Posts
| ||
|
ahx
Canada132 Posts
rank 1 in my bronze div has about 2k points and has been inactive forever.. that's not going to effect anyone getting promoted. | ||
|
strength
United States493 Posts
| ||
|
Beakyboo
United States485 Posts
| ||
|
KillerPlague
United States1386 Posts
but yeah i used to try in the ladder, but like you said losing streaks kill you. so now i just chill with 100+ bonus points although am only ranked 20th when i should be top 10, maybe even top 8 :/ | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51493 Posts
But if you lose a game regardless of bonus pool u lose 8-18? depending on being favorite or not. what i want personally is just standard points. Win = 8 points Loss = 8 points Then you dont have stupid numbers and for example in grandmasters, you dont drop 10-20 places for losing 1 game and have to win 3-5 games again to get back to where u were. | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 01:59 YarNhoj wrote:So if you have a two players with similar win rates then they player who plays the most will always have more points meaning that when I get back from the beach I can play out my bonus pool and put myself back up where I belong, which would still be below the people who play more and have the same or better win rate as me. The only reason you need to "get back where you belong" is because the ones who have been playing have spent their bonus pool. Without bonus pool you wouldn't need to "get back where you belong". The bonus pool is punishing you for not playing. It's not helping you. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 29 2011 23:26 mordek wrote: A lot of my friends talk about what rank they are in Bronze or Silver. I don't tell them this but all that means is they've played more games at the Bronze/Silver level than other people in the league. I guess in Bronze if you never win the rank could mean something too... This depends a lot on the division. In all leagues, there are some divisions where everyone uses all their bonus pool. In fact, among players who keep their bonus pool near 0, which can be anywhere from the top few to the top 20 in a low-league division, ladder rankings should approximate MMR rankings pretty closely because of how the "favored" system works. | ||
|
Badfatpanda
United States9719 Posts
If he has less wins than you and is higher than you on ladder it means that he has a better win/loss =0. I think a more interesting poll would be for a flat point system for w/l, it would eliminate some of the issues with drastic differences for a win and for a loss. Not grandmaster 1v1 yet, but winning 5 points and losing 20 in 2v2s after waiting 5-10min for a game kinda makes me not wanna play =( | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 30 2011 01:59 YarNhoj wrote: Bonus pool exists solely to allow people who are not able to play often the ability to maintain their division rank. I don't agree with this way of phrasing it. Actually, bonus pool is a way of decaying inactive players' ladder positions, to encourage continuing to play. | ||
|
Weasel-
Canada1556 Posts
| ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 30 2011 02:58 Badfatpanda wrote: If he has less wins than you and is higher than you on ladder it means that he has a better win/loss =0 That's not necessarily accurate either, once you get above the point on the ladder where people are using up their bonus pool. Someone with 100 games and someone with 500 games can both have 50% win/loss ratios and the 500 game player can be ranked much higher just because of a higher MMR. I'll put it in bold for emphasis: Ladder ranking roughly tracks MMR for people who use all their bonus points, and that's why ladder rankings among those players are interesting. | ||
|
Azzur
Australia6260 Posts
Bonus pool is an ingenious part of the ladder system. It forces a player to be active in order to prove themselves. I for one think it is bad when a player can hit a hot streak and then camp on that rating for the rest of the season. For those people who say that you can't measure your own progress because of bonus pool - then you either don't understand how it works or have not been thinking enough. You can use "adjusted points" to measure progress (or if you're in masters, you can use it to compare the "skill" of different players). Bonus pool is a constant, and you can go here: http://sc2ranks.com/api/bonus/pool?appKey=localhost to find out how much has been generated. Adjusted points = Current points - total bonus pool generated + unused bonus pool Adjusted points correlate highly to MMR when a player has played alot of games. It can thus be used to measure progress over time. I found the poll results on the first page interesting - if this same poll were asked 6 months ago, people would've claimed that bonus pool was bad. Looks like a lot of people have finally understood how it works! | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 03:07 Azzur wrote:I found the poll results on the first page interesting - if this same poll were asked 6 months ago, people would've claimed that bonus pool was bad. Looks like a lot of people have finally understood how it works! I don't think it's because people understand how it works. Just look at the posts in this thread. I think few really understands that points track your MMR, and that points and rank within your division would be a pretty good skill indicator if it wasn't for bonus pool. If they did, I think they would be pissed off, like me. The ladder has just become another achievement where you can be at the top just by playing a lot and spending all your bonus points. | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On June 30 2011 03:18 Mendelfist wrote: I don't think it's because people understand how it works. Just look at the posts in this thread. I think few really understands that points track your MMR, and that points and rank within your division would be a pretty good skill indicator if it wasn't for bonus pool. If they did, I think they would be pissed off, like me. The ladder has just become another achievement where you can be at the top just by playing a lot and spending all your bonus points. That being said, though, there is some merit to points because being active is important in a functioning ladder. If you consider that everyone is improving at a certain rate, while some are improving faster or slower than others, then players who simply stop playing then return after a hiatus will have gotten worse compared to people who kept playing. Bonus pool means that someone who was a good week 1 player can't just sit at 400 points because over time, 400 points will be considered low. If that same player took a break and stopped playing until he reached 1000 bonus pool, it's not clear whether his lack of practice or his week 1 talent would best define his performance in the evolving ladder. So, if he were to go and spend all his bonus pool, would his points increase by 600? 800? 1000? 1200? It depends entirely on how much the average player has improved over that period. If you keep your bonus pool very low, then by design you're keeping active which means keeping up with the constantly-evolving metagame. It is true that to get to the top 8 or so of your division, all you have to do is spend your bonus pool because there are simply that many players who don't. However, points do matter more within that top 8 because all those other guys have spent all their bonus pool and you start to get a better idea of where you stand among the other active players. It produces an interesting dynamic. | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 03:29 Excalibur_Z wrote: That being said, though, there is some merit to points because being active is important in a functioning ladder. If you consider that everyone is improving at a certain rate, while some are improving faster or slower than others, then players who simply stop playing then return after a hiatus will have gotten worse compared to people who kept playing. Yes. If bonus pool is removed it has to be replaced with something else. I do understand it's function, but the current implementation is bad for more reasons than one. To have a bonus pool in the thousands and "real points" in the hundreds is silly in the first place. The bonus pool totally overshadows everything else. But my main gripe with the current system is its lack of transparency. It is based on deception, and with it follows confusion and irritation. Look at the bnet-forums with page after page with questions like "why am I not promoted" and "my matchups are unfair". It's even apparent in this thread where a majority misunderstands how the bonus pool works. The system really looks like a skilled based ladder, and nothing Blizzards says officially indicates otherwise. But secretly the system does everything it can to hide your true skill, with it's league offsets, division tiers and bonus pool. I would complain less if it was presented as what it really is. | ||
|
Roflhaxx
Korea (South)1244 Posts
| ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 30 2011 03:56 Mendelfist wrote: To have a bonus pool in the thousands and "real points" in the hundreds is silly in the first place. The bonus pool totally overshadows everything else. It has to be that way because it's specifically designed to make your ladder ranking decay, that is to say to have enough of an effect that you'll drop all the way to the bottom of the list if you stop playing. The system really looks like a skilled based ladder, and nothing Blizzards says officially indicates otherwise. But secretly the system does everything it can to hide your true skill, with it's league offsets, division tiers and bonus pool. I would complain less if it was presented as what it really is. It is a skill (or rather MMR) based ladder for people who use up all their bonus pool, with the caveat that you can't compare between divisions except in Master and Grandmaster leagues. That there are large numbers of sporadically active players with stale MMRs (meaning MMRs that reflect their standing in the population from some time in the distant past) is an issue that no amount of redesign will make go away. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 30 2011 04:02 Roflhaxx wrote: I feel like instead of bonus pool they could have done the opposite, make people lose points over time. Would have made it so that you always know what amount of points is good. Blizzard's developers have frequently talked about this in reference to WoW's "rested bonus" system. During WoW's beta, they had implemented an XP decay as you played, reflecting a character getting tired. Players HATED it. When they simply lowered XP accrual across the board and instead framed the highest rate as bonus points for being rested, people eagerly logged on to use their rested bonus. Bonus points are a ladder decay presented to the player as a bonus for being active, which is a presentation that is much more likely to encourage people to log on and play. Side effect of this though would be that people with 50% winratio would be at 0 points and that would most likely throw off a lot of the casual players. Your MMR can rise steadily with a near 50% win ratio as long as you beat stronger players regularly. Increasing your MMR does not require a long-term win ratio to be much better than 50%. | ||
|
Zirith
Canada403 Posts
| ||
|
GMonster
686 Posts
| ||
|
Pengu
England226 Posts
You need to remember that not everyone has time to play often or even wants to play often. I LOVE SC2 yet actually I don't play that much, maybe 10 games a week or something however I probably spend 10x that watching and reading about sc2 and mostly sc2 as an ESport. I actually started watching sc2 before i even bought the game and I only started watching sc2 as I picked up a few videos from tankspot of the game in beta and all the units and what they can do. While bonus pool does limited amounts for me I like it because it feels nice since it makes me think i get more for my short time playing. I only play in bursts might not play for a week then will come back and play the shit out of it  Long story short little things that might not have an affect on a player who plays a lot can have a bigger affect on a more casual player ( and casual doesn't always mean bad for those of you that seem to believe that) | ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On June 30 2011 03:56 Mendelfist wrote: Yes. If bonus pool is removed it has to be replaced with something else. I do understand it's function, but the current implementation is bad for more reasons than one. To have a bonus pool in the thousands and "real points" in the hundreds is silly in the first place. The bonus pool totally overshadows everything else. But my main gripe with the current system is its lack of transparency. It is based on deception, and with it follows confusion and irritation. Look at the bnet-forums with page after page with questions like "why am I not promoted" and "my matchups are unfair". It's even apparent in this thread where a majority misunderstands how the bonus pool works. The system really looks like a skilled based ladder, and nothing Blizzards says officially indicates otherwise. But secretly the system does everything it can to hide your true skill, with it's league offsets, division tiers and bonus pool. I would complain less if it was presented as what it really is. Yeah, I know you know about it. I agree that there's a lot they could do to promote transparency, and it's pretty clear that they've made design decisions that consciously obscure true rankings. I think promotions are still basically a mystery for most people, and that creates this cascading effect where people become less interested in how the ladder works, and I think that culminates in some pretty black-and-white opinions like "points are worthless." The reality is that there is a middle ground where points aren't necessarily worthless, they do a pretty good job of ranking you in a division and they become more accurate the more games you play, which makes sense. Some of the stuff like point resets and league offsets and especially division tiers really throws a wrench into deciphering the ladder, and for people like you and me who are trying to explain and solve it, it can be frustrating. They serve a pretty important role on the developer end, though. Division tiers, for example, mean that people get put into an accurate 100-player cross-section of the ladder where they can rise and fall through the ranks with players of similar perceived skill. If there were no division tiers, the gap between the highest player and the lowest player would be much wider. Because points determine your rank within a given tier, there is skill involved in who is at the top and who isn't. I would appreciate more transparency but I don't know of a palatable way to provide it for both casual and hardcore players, and I'm sure they've argued internally over the best approach many times. As it stands right now, the ladder makes sense only if you understand the context behind every component, which is no easy task to understand or to teach. | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 04:02 Lysenko wrote: It has to be that way because it's specifically designed to make your ladder ranking decay, that is to say to have enough of an effect that you'll drop all the way to the bottom of the list if you stop playing. As it is currently implemented yes, I understand that. But the ladder today (at lower levels) is almost completely a competition about bonus points, not skill. That can't be good. It is a skill (or rather MMR) based ladder for people who use up all their bonus pool Which doesn't happen for the most part of the ladder. Two ideas (maybe not well thought out, but anyway): 1: Don't use point decay. Mark people as inactive and put them last in their division. Put them back when they play a game or two. 2: Use point decay, but have a "grace period" for two weeks. Your points don't start do decay until after this period. The decay maybe should be accelerating. When you start playing again it should be relatively easy to get back where you were. As it is now, you have no chance of getting back after a month or two offline with reasonable effort. The same happens if you buy the game in the middle of a season. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 30 2011 04:12 GoKu` wrote: right now the entire ladder system and ranking means absolutely nothing and you cant measure skill with the point system. I'd say the system's pretty good at measuring skill, since most players get consistently even matches. Care to share with us what criticisms you have rather than just making a statement like that without support? | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On June 30 2011 04:21 Mendelfist wrote: As it is currently implemented yes, I understand that. But the ladder today (at lower levels) is almost completely a competition about bonus points, not skill. That can't be good. 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. | ||
|
-stOpSKY-
Canada498 Posts
| ||
|
4of8
Germany256 Posts
 | ||
|
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. | ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 14:33 YarNhoj wrote: @Mendelfist If I can only play one night a week but I am as good as someone who plays five days a week then why shouldn't my points be close to his? I agree. Without bonus pool that would be the case. But the bonus pool system forces you to play on average 14 games per week to "keep up". The bonus pool allows me to "make up" for not being able to play more than 1 day a week. No it does not, as I and others repeatedly have told you. It's the other way around. Bonus pool causes inflation and forces you to play a lot to keep up. Without bonus pool there would be no inflation. | ||
|
harhar!
Germany190 Posts
also its kinda unfair that you have to play much to hold your rank. | ||
|
NoodleFish
South Africa198 Posts
But think about it, if you accumulate 90 bp a week, that means you aren't really playing too much. Sure, some people will practise in customs and xvx games, but are the majority of people who are accumulating points actually getting better? I know for a fact that I'm not. And I'm not just accumulating just cos I can, but cos of time constraints. So in the end, bonus pool keeps me in my top 8 and hopefully I'll get the top 8 icon at the end of the season :D | ||
|
svefnleysi
Iceland623 Posts
| ||
|
Tofugrinder
Austria899 Posts
| ||
|
Mendelfist
Sweden356 Posts
On June 30 2011 16:08 svefnleysi wrote: If they removed bonus pool, 50% of players would have negative scores. With the way the matchmaking system works, everyone, excluding high masters ranked players, would be hovering around zero indefinitely. No, they would not. Without bonus pool your points converge to your MMR, if we disregard league and division offsets. | ||
|
SDream
Brazil896 Posts
| ||
SC.Shifty
Canada135 Posts
| ||
| ||
