|
United States12248 Posts
On August 21 2015 11:45 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 08:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 20 2015 05:26 hitpoint wrote:On August 20 2015 05:17 FLuE wrote:On August 20 2015 05:12 hitpoint wrote:Each match in a tournament is currently limited to 25 minutes. This would equate roughly to a 35-minute game in Heart of the Swarm due to the game-clock changes in Legacy of the Void. If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value. Experience is accrued throughout the game by earning money, constructing units, destroying units, etc. Really dislike this. I can see so many people getting a loss for games they were going to win. Hope they find a better solution than exp points.. Do you pay attention to scores? How often are you up in points and lose? I know people will always figure out a way to work the system, but the reality is for the most part, the person who is going to win has the most points. And if you notice someone is trying to just turtle up and win then you can do the same thing and at that point it almost becomes a coin toss. The time limit is needed. I don't want to enter a tournament and then have to wait an hour to play the next game because two players are sitting around doing nothing, or even worse both just leave for some reason. I'm sure when they picked the time limit they had data to look at the average length of a game which is probably in the 10-20 minute range and then added a few minutes to that so essentially only a higher sliver of games will end up in a draw anyway. I can say so far playing Beta with all the new units and ways to make things happen having games go longer than 25 minutes isn't very common. I don't know how the WC3 system worked but I don't remember having to wait too long. Granted, that was over 12 or 13 years ago. The War3 system actually functioned very similarly to Hearthstone's Arena system, at least for matchmaking in the prelim phase. It's a Schenkel system (variant of the Swiss-style format) where you play against opponents of identical record for that tournament over a 3-hour period. You could play as many games as you wanted, up to a max of 8. Wins gave you 3 points, losses -1, and ties 1 (the game could not be completed within the time limit). After the prelim phase ended, the top 16 players by points would advance to the finals. The finals had a standard knockout bracket with each round starting and ending at a fixed time. Tournament Schedule. You can see how each round is budgeted to start and end at fixed times. Preliminary Phase Leaderboard. Top 16 move into the finals, sorted by points. Finals Bracket. Standard single-elimination format. It was pretty fun. Of course, since it wasn't subdivided by skill level, you could utterly stomp one opponent and then get stomped in the very next game. You could be a low-MMR guy who happened to beat a lower-MMR guy, then get matched against a high-MMR guy the next game. This is one thing that bracketing out tournaments by league will directly address, and it's actually a very smart move to integrate an existing system. paralleluniverse is getting bogged down in the fact that the tournaments will use meaningless league icons, but they don't have to tie the brackets to the icons themselves, just the rating ranges that correspond to those leagues. Mismatches will still happen if a player is higher or lower than they should be, but it's going to happen much less often than War3's method. I have no problem with bracketing out tournaments by MMR (but not by league). In fact, I praised it as a good innovation for allowing everyone a chance of winning. You say that the league brackets in tournaments could just mean that Blizzard is using the MMR range associated with the league. Maybe, or maybe not. If it's true, then calling it a "Platinum" tournament is just misleading because not everyone in the tournament is platinum. You often get matched with players outside of your league (which is one clue that they're just wrong), so there's no reason to assume tournament matchmaking won't also match outside of leagues. If it's not true, i.e. a "Platinum" tournament only has platinum players, then why doesn't also ordinary matchmaking enforce this strange rule? I'm just saying there should be a 3rd tournament format that doesn't group by MMR or leagues. It doesn't have to follow the details of WC3 tournament matchmaking exactly, just the principle that anyone can be matched with anyone (bracketing by MMR won't be as accurate as not, when you have to find the best player in only 5 or 6 games).
It does say "Platinum Level" which suggests to me "in or around Platinum" and by extension the rating range spanning Platinum. If it simply said "1v1 Platinum" it would be a lot more ambiguous to me. I do wonder though if you can enter a Platinum Level tournament if your rating has fallen to Gold or Silver but you retain the Platinum icon...
|
I just won my first automated tournament. Great addition to the game.
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value
bad system
|
Sounds fun! 
A bit afraid of people dumping their MMR on ladder, and then stomping through low-level tournaments for the lols. Hopefully that won't be a problem.
Also probably too time consuming for me to do it often. I usually can't promise that much time in advance.
|
On August 21 2015 15:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 11:45 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 21 2015 08:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 20 2015 05:26 hitpoint wrote:On August 20 2015 05:17 FLuE wrote:On August 20 2015 05:12 hitpoint wrote:Each match in a tournament is currently limited to 25 minutes. This would equate roughly to a 35-minute game in Heart of the Swarm due to the game-clock changes in Legacy of the Void. If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value. Experience is accrued throughout the game by earning money, constructing units, destroying units, etc. Really dislike this. I can see so many people getting a loss for games they were going to win. Hope they find a better solution than exp points.. Do you pay attention to scores? How often are you up in points and lose? I know people will always figure out a way to work the system, but the reality is for the most part, the person who is going to win has the most points. And if you notice someone is trying to just turtle up and win then you can do the same thing and at that point it almost becomes a coin toss. The time limit is needed. I don't want to enter a tournament and then have to wait an hour to play the next game because two players are sitting around doing nothing, or even worse both just leave for some reason. I'm sure when they picked the time limit they had data to look at the average length of a game which is probably in the 10-20 minute range and then added a few minutes to that so essentially only a higher sliver of games will end up in a draw anyway. I can say so far playing Beta with all the new units and ways to make things happen having games go longer than 25 minutes isn't very common. I don't know how the WC3 system worked but I don't remember having to wait too long. Granted, that was over 12 or 13 years ago. The War3 system actually functioned very similarly to Hearthstone's Arena system, at least for matchmaking in the prelim phase. It's a Schenkel system (variant of the Swiss-style format) where you play against opponents of identical record for that tournament over a 3-hour period. You could play as many games as you wanted, up to a max of 8. Wins gave you 3 points, losses -1, and ties 1 (the game could not be completed within the time limit). After the prelim phase ended, the top 16 players by points would advance to the finals. The finals had a standard knockout bracket with each round starting and ending at a fixed time. Tournament Schedule. You can see how each round is budgeted to start and end at fixed times. Preliminary Phase Leaderboard. Top 16 move into the finals, sorted by points. Finals Bracket. Standard single-elimination format. It was pretty fun. Of course, since it wasn't subdivided by skill level, you could utterly stomp one opponent and then get stomped in the very next game. You could be a low-MMR guy who happened to beat a lower-MMR guy, then get matched against a high-MMR guy the next game. This is one thing that bracketing out tournaments by league will directly address, and it's actually a very smart move to integrate an existing system. paralleluniverse is getting bogged down in the fact that the tournaments will use meaningless league icons, but they don't have to tie the brackets to the icons themselves, just the rating ranges that correspond to those leagues. Mismatches will still happen if a player is higher or lower than they should be, but it's going to happen much less often than War3's method. I have no problem with bracketing out tournaments by MMR (but not by league). In fact, I praised it as a good innovation for allowing everyone a chance of winning. You say that the league brackets in tournaments could just mean that Blizzard is using the MMR range associated with the league. Maybe, or maybe not. If it's true, then calling it a "Platinum" tournament is just misleading because not everyone in the tournament is platinum. You often get matched with players outside of your league (which is one clue that they're just wrong), so there's no reason to assume tournament matchmaking won't also match outside of leagues. If it's not true, i.e. a "Platinum" tournament only has platinum players, then why doesn't also ordinary matchmaking enforce this strange rule? I'm just saying there should be a 3rd tournament format that doesn't group by MMR or leagues. It doesn't have to follow the details of WC3 tournament matchmaking exactly, just the principle that anyone can be matched with anyone (bracketing by MMR won't be as accurate as not, when you have to find the best player in only 5 or 6 games). It does say "Platinum Level" which suggests to me "in or around Platinum" and by extension the rating range spanning Platinum. If it simply said "1v1 Platinum" it would be a lot more ambiguous to me. I do wonder though if you can enter a Platinum Level tournament if your rating has fallen to Gold or Silver but you retain the Platinum icon...
Just tested this. I'm in Bronze league, but got put in a Gold league tournament. There are players in Bronze, Silver and Gold.
So the league of the tournament is just as dodgy as the league of the players.
|
On August 21 2015 22:14 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 15:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 21 2015 11:45 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 21 2015 08:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 20 2015 05:26 hitpoint wrote:On August 20 2015 05:17 FLuE wrote:On August 20 2015 05:12 hitpoint wrote:Each match in a tournament is currently limited to 25 minutes. This would equate roughly to a 35-minute game in Heart of the Swarm due to the game-clock changes in Legacy of the Void. If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value. Experience is accrued throughout the game by earning money, constructing units, destroying units, etc. Really dislike this. I can see so many people getting a loss for games they were going to win. Hope they find a better solution than exp points.. Do you pay attention to scores? How often are you up in points and lose? I know people will always figure out a way to work the system, but the reality is for the most part, the person who is going to win has the most points. And if you notice someone is trying to just turtle up and win then you can do the same thing and at that point it almost becomes a coin toss. The time limit is needed. I don't want to enter a tournament and then have to wait an hour to play the next game because two players are sitting around doing nothing, or even worse both just leave for some reason. I'm sure when they picked the time limit they had data to look at the average length of a game which is probably in the 10-20 minute range and then added a few minutes to that so essentially only a higher sliver of games will end up in a draw anyway. I can say so far playing Beta with all the new units and ways to make things happen having games go longer than 25 minutes isn't very common. I don't know how the WC3 system worked but I don't remember having to wait too long. Granted, that was over 12 or 13 years ago. The War3 system actually functioned very similarly to Hearthstone's Arena system, at least for matchmaking in the prelim phase. It's a Schenkel system (variant of the Swiss-style format) where you play against opponents of identical record for that tournament over a 3-hour period. You could play as many games as you wanted, up to a max of 8. Wins gave you 3 points, losses -1, and ties 1 (the game could not be completed within the time limit). After the prelim phase ended, the top 16 players by points would advance to the finals. The finals had a standard knockout bracket with each round starting and ending at a fixed time. Tournament Schedule. You can see how each round is budgeted to start and end at fixed times. Preliminary Phase Leaderboard. Top 16 move into the finals, sorted by points. Finals Bracket. Standard single-elimination format. It was pretty fun. Of course, since it wasn't subdivided by skill level, you could utterly stomp one opponent and then get stomped in the very next game. You could be a low-MMR guy who happened to beat a lower-MMR guy, then get matched against a high-MMR guy the next game. This is one thing that bracketing out tournaments by league will directly address, and it's actually a very smart move to integrate an existing system. paralleluniverse is getting bogged down in the fact that the tournaments will use meaningless league icons, but they don't have to tie the brackets to the icons themselves, just the rating ranges that correspond to those leagues. Mismatches will still happen if a player is higher or lower than they should be, but it's going to happen much less often than War3's method. I have no problem with bracketing out tournaments by MMR (but not by league). In fact, I praised it as a good innovation for allowing everyone a chance of winning. You say that the league brackets in tournaments could just mean that Blizzard is using the MMR range associated with the league. Maybe, or maybe not. If it's true, then calling it a "Platinum" tournament is just misleading because not everyone in the tournament is platinum. You often get matched with players outside of your league (which is one clue that they're just wrong), so there's no reason to assume tournament matchmaking won't also match outside of leagues. If it's not true, i.e. a "Platinum" tournament only has platinum players, then why doesn't also ordinary matchmaking enforce this strange rule? I'm just saying there should be a 3rd tournament format that doesn't group by MMR or leagues. It doesn't have to follow the details of WC3 tournament matchmaking exactly, just the principle that anyone can be matched with anyone (bracketing by MMR won't be as accurate as not, when you have to find the best player in only 5 or 6 games). It does say "Platinum Level" which suggests to me "in or around Platinum" and by extension the rating range spanning Platinum. If it simply said "1v1 Platinum" it would be a lot more ambiguous to me. I do wonder though if you can enter a Platinum Level tournament if your rating has fallen to Gold or Silver but you retain the Platinum icon... Just tested this. I'm in Bronze league, but got put in a Gold league tournament. There are players in Bronze, Silver and Gold. So the league of the tournament is just as dodgy as the league of the players.
I"d assume the players are matched my MMR, not by league. Which means that there can be players in gold, silver and bronze, all with similar MMR, but that isn't really news I think?
|
My fingers keep trying to chrono stuff ingame -.-'
|
On August 21 2015 22:19 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 22:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 21 2015 15:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 21 2015 11:45 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 21 2015 08:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 20 2015 05:26 hitpoint wrote:On August 20 2015 05:17 FLuE wrote:On August 20 2015 05:12 hitpoint wrote:Each match in a tournament is currently limited to 25 minutes. This would equate roughly to a 35-minute game in Heart of the Swarm due to the game-clock changes in Legacy of the Void. If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value. Experience is accrued throughout the game by earning money, constructing units, destroying units, etc. Really dislike this. I can see so many people getting a loss for games they were going to win. Hope they find a better solution than exp points.. Do you pay attention to scores? How often are you up in points and lose? I know people will always figure out a way to work the system, but the reality is for the most part, the person who is going to win has the most points. And if you notice someone is trying to just turtle up and win then you can do the same thing and at that point it almost becomes a coin toss. The time limit is needed. I don't want to enter a tournament and then have to wait an hour to play the next game because two players are sitting around doing nothing, or even worse both just leave for some reason. I'm sure when they picked the time limit they had data to look at the average length of a game which is probably in the 10-20 minute range and then added a few minutes to that so essentially only a higher sliver of games will end up in a draw anyway. I can say so far playing Beta with all the new units and ways to make things happen having games go longer than 25 minutes isn't very common. I don't know how the WC3 system worked but I don't remember having to wait too long. Granted, that was over 12 or 13 years ago. The War3 system actually functioned very similarly to Hearthstone's Arena system, at least for matchmaking in the prelim phase. It's a Schenkel system (variant of the Swiss-style format) where you play against opponents of identical record for that tournament over a 3-hour period. You could play as many games as you wanted, up to a max of 8. Wins gave you 3 points, losses -1, and ties 1 (the game could not be completed within the time limit). After the prelim phase ended, the top 16 players by points would advance to the finals. The finals had a standard knockout bracket with each round starting and ending at a fixed time. Tournament Schedule. You can see how each round is budgeted to start and end at fixed times. Preliminary Phase Leaderboard. Top 16 move into the finals, sorted by points. Finals Bracket. Standard single-elimination format. It was pretty fun. Of course, since it wasn't subdivided by skill level, you could utterly stomp one opponent and then get stomped in the very next game. You could be a low-MMR guy who happened to beat a lower-MMR guy, then get matched against a high-MMR guy the next game. This is one thing that bracketing out tournaments by league will directly address, and it's actually a very smart move to integrate an existing system. paralleluniverse is getting bogged down in the fact that the tournaments will use meaningless league icons, but they don't have to tie the brackets to the icons themselves, just the rating ranges that correspond to those leagues. Mismatches will still happen if a player is higher or lower than they should be, but it's going to happen much less often than War3's method. I have no problem with bracketing out tournaments by MMR (but not by league). In fact, I praised it as a good innovation for allowing everyone a chance of winning. You say that the league brackets in tournaments could just mean that Blizzard is using the MMR range associated with the league. Maybe, or maybe not. If it's true, then calling it a "Platinum" tournament is just misleading because not everyone in the tournament is platinum. You often get matched with players outside of your league (which is one clue that they're just wrong), so there's no reason to assume tournament matchmaking won't also match outside of leagues. If it's not true, i.e. a "Platinum" tournament only has platinum players, then why doesn't also ordinary matchmaking enforce this strange rule? I'm just saying there should be a 3rd tournament format that doesn't group by MMR or leagues. It doesn't have to follow the details of WC3 tournament matchmaking exactly, just the principle that anyone can be matched with anyone (bracketing by MMR won't be as accurate as not, when you have to find the best player in only 5 or 6 games). It does say "Platinum Level" which suggests to me "in or around Platinum" and by extension the rating range spanning Platinum. If it simply said "1v1 Platinum" it would be a lot more ambiguous to me. I do wonder though if you can enter a Platinum Level tournament if your rating has fallen to Gold or Silver but you retain the Platinum icon... Just tested this. I'm in Bronze league, but got put in a Gold league tournament. There are players in Bronze, Silver and Gold. So the league of the tournament is just as dodgy as the league of the players. I"d assume the players are matched my MMR, not by league. Which means that there can be players in gold, silver and bronze, all with similar MMR, but that isn't really news I think?
I just got promoted to Silver after my 2nd tournament game. Not Gold yet, so I don't think I have Gold MMR, but I'm still in a Gold tournament. It seems the Gold MMR criteria for being a Gold tournament is likely approximate.
If it were true that Gold tournaments = Gold MMR, then that would be a useful way for people to estimate how far they are from promotion, and also a useful way to measure how wrong the leagues are.
|
On August 21 2015 22:49 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 22:19 Cascade wrote:On August 21 2015 22:14 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 21 2015 15:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 21 2015 11:45 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 21 2015 08:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 20 2015 05:26 hitpoint wrote:On August 20 2015 05:17 FLuE wrote:On August 20 2015 05:12 hitpoint wrote:Each match in a tournament is currently limited to 25 minutes. This would equate roughly to a 35-minute game in Heart of the Swarm due to the game-clock changes in Legacy of the Void. If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value. Experience is accrued throughout the game by earning money, constructing units, destroying units, etc. Really dislike this. I can see so many people getting a loss for games they were going to win. Hope they find a better solution than exp points.. Do you pay attention to scores? How often are you up in points and lose? I know people will always figure out a way to work the system, but the reality is for the most part, the person who is going to win has the most points. And if you notice someone is trying to just turtle up and win then you can do the same thing and at that point it almost becomes a coin toss. The time limit is needed. I don't want to enter a tournament and then have to wait an hour to play the next game because two players are sitting around doing nothing, or even worse both just leave for some reason. I'm sure when they picked the time limit they had data to look at the average length of a game which is probably in the 10-20 minute range and then added a few minutes to that so essentially only a higher sliver of games will end up in a draw anyway. I can say so far playing Beta with all the new units and ways to make things happen having games go longer than 25 minutes isn't very common. I don't know how the WC3 system worked but I don't remember having to wait too long. Granted, that was over 12 or 13 years ago. The War3 system actually functioned very similarly to Hearthstone's Arena system, at least for matchmaking in the prelim phase. It's a Schenkel system (variant of the Swiss-style format) where you play against opponents of identical record for that tournament over a 3-hour period. You could play as many games as you wanted, up to a max of 8. Wins gave you 3 points, losses -1, and ties 1 (the game could not be completed within the time limit). After the prelim phase ended, the top 16 players by points would advance to the finals. The finals had a standard knockout bracket with each round starting and ending at a fixed time. Tournament Schedule. You can see how each round is budgeted to start and end at fixed times. Preliminary Phase Leaderboard. Top 16 move into the finals, sorted by points. Finals Bracket. Standard single-elimination format. It was pretty fun. Of course, since it wasn't subdivided by skill level, you could utterly stomp one opponent and then get stomped in the very next game. You could be a low-MMR guy who happened to beat a lower-MMR guy, then get matched against a high-MMR guy the next game. This is one thing that bracketing out tournaments by league will directly address, and it's actually a very smart move to integrate an existing system. paralleluniverse is getting bogged down in the fact that the tournaments will use meaningless league icons, but they don't have to tie the brackets to the icons themselves, just the rating ranges that correspond to those leagues. Mismatches will still happen if a player is higher or lower than they should be, but it's going to happen much less often than War3's method. I have no problem with bracketing out tournaments by MMR (but not by league). In fact, I praised it as a good innovation for allowing everyone a chance of winning. You say that the league brackets in tournaments could just mean that Blizzard is using the MMR range associated with the league. Maybe, or maybe not. If it's true, then calling it a "Platinum" tournament is just misleading because not everyone in the tournament is platinum. You often get matched with players outside of your league (which is one clue that they're just wrong), so there's no reason to assume tournament matchmaking won't also match outside of leagues. If it's not true, i.e. a "Platinum" tournament only has platinum players, then why doesn't also ordinary matchmaking enforce this strange rule? I'm just saying there should be a 3rd tournament format that doesn't group by MMR or leagues. It doesn't have to follow the details of WC3 tournament matchmaking exactly, just the principle that anyone can be matched with anyone (bracketing by MMR won't be as accurate as not, when you have to find the best player in only 5 or 6 games). It does say "Platinum Level" which suggests to me "in or around Platinum" and by extension the rating range spanning Platinum. If it simply said "1v1 Platinum" it would be a lot more ambiguous to me. I do wonder though if you can enter a Platinum Level tournament if your rating has fallen to Gold or Silver but you retain the Platinum icon... Just tested this. I'm in Bronze league, but got put in a Gold league tournament. There are players in Bronze, Silver and Gold. So the league of the tournament is just as dodgy as the league of the players. I"d assume the players are matched my MMR, not by league. Which means that there can be players in gold, silver and bronze, all with similar MMR, but that isn't really news I think? I just got promoted to Silver after my 2nd tournament game. Not Gold yet. I don't think I have Gold MMR, but I'm still in a Gold tournament. So it seems the Gold MMR criteria for being a Gold tournament is likely approximate. If it were true that Gold tournaments = Gold MMR, then that would be a useful way for people to estimate how far they are from promotion, and also a useful way to measure how wrong the leagues are.
There will be a range of MMR in each tournament, maybe the pick the highest MMR to display? So that a gold tournament is a tournament where at least one player has gold MMR? Or it's mean MMR or something, and your MMR is enough to be matched with low gold/high silver players.
|
On August 21 2015 18:01 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote + If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value bad system
I haven't tried it but please elaborate, how and why is it a bad system?
I can see that it definitely isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to enforce the 25 minute time limit, so what would you suggest?
the argument I've seen against this system is it promotes using the most efficient possible strategy, which often means the most turtley one.
the counter -argument I have seen to that is if the enemy turtles then you can just grab the entire map and never attack, thereby winning because you have mined thousands of points worth of resources more.
I have not seen this effect in action nor have I tried it, so I don't actually know if either of these arguments are true, but I would very much like to see a constructive argument be made around it.
|
United States12248 Posts
On August 21 2015 22:14 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 15:53 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 21 2015 11:45 paralleluniverse wrote:On August 21 2015 08:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:On August 20 2015 05:26 hitpoint wrote:On August 20 2015 05:17 FLuE wrote:On August 20 2015 05:12 hitpoint wrote:Each match in a tournament is currently limited to 25 minutes. This would equate roughly to a 35-minute game in Heart of the Swarm due to the game-clock changes in Legacy of the Void. If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value. Experience is accrued throughout the game by earning money, constructing units, destroying units, etc. Really dislike this. I can see so many people getting a loss for games they were going to win. Hope they find a better solution than exp points.. Do you pay attention to scores? How often are you up in points and lose? I know people will always figure out a way to work the system, but the reality is for the most part, the person who is going to win has the most points. And if you notice someone is trying to just turtle up and win then you can do the same thing and at that point it almost becomes a coin toss. The time limit is needed. I don't want to enter a tournament and then have to wait an hour to play the next game because two players are sitting around doing nothing, or even worse both just leave for some reason. I'm sure when they picked the time limit they had data to look at the average length of a game which is probably in the 10-20 minute range and then added a few minutes to that so essentially only a higher sliver of games will end up in a draw anyway. I can say so far playing Beta with all the new units and ways to make things happen having games go longer than 25 minutes isn't very common. I don't know how the WC3 system worked but I don't remember having to wait too long. Granted, that was over 12 or 13 years ago. The War3 system actually functioned very similarly to Hearthstone's Arena system, at least for matchmaking in the prelim phase. It's a Schenkel system (variant of the Swiss-style format) where you play against opponents of identical record for that tournament over a 3-hour period. You could play as many games as you wanted, up to a max of 8. Wins gave you 3 points, losses -1, and ties 1 (the game could not be completed within the time limit). After the prelim phase ended, the top 16 players by points would advance to the finals. The finals had a standard knockout bracket with each round starting and ending at a fixed time. Tournament Schedule. You can see how each round is budgeted to start and end at fixed times. Preliminary Phase Leaderboard. Top 16 move into the finals, sorted by points. Finals Bracket. Standard single-elimination format. It was pretty fun. Of course, since it wasn't subdivided by skill level, you could utterly stomp one opponent and then get stomped in the very next game. You could be a low-MMR guy who happened to beat a lower-MMR guy, then get matched against a high-MMR guy the next game. This is one thing that bracketing out tournaments by league will directly address, and it's actually a very smart move to integrate an existing system. paralleluniverse is getting bogged down in the fact that the tournaments will use meaningless league icons, but they don't have to tie the brackets to the icons themselves, just the rating ranges that correspond to those leagues. Mismatches will still happen if a player is higher or lower than they should be, but it's going to happen much less often than War3's method. I have no problem with bracketing out tournaments by MMR (but not by league). In fact, I praised it as a good innovation for allowing everyone a chance of winning. You say that the league brackets in tournaments could just mean that Blizzard is using the MMR range associated with the league. Maybe, or maybe not. If it's true, then calling it a "Platinum" tournament is just misleading because not everyone in the tournament is platinum. You often get matched with players outside of your league (which is one clue that they're just wrong), so there's no reason to assume tournament matchmaking won't also match outside of leagues. If it's not true, i.e. a "Platinum" tournament only has platinum players, then why doesn't also ordinary matchmaking enforce this strange rule? I'm just saying there should be a 3rd tournament format that doesn't group by MMR or leagues. It doesn't have to follow the details of WC3 tournament matchmaking exactly, just the principle that anyone can be matched with anyone (bracketing by MMR won't be as accurate as not, when you have to find the best player in only 5 or 6 games). It does say "Platinum Level" which suggests to me "in or around Platinum" and by extension the rating range spanning Platinum. If it simply said "1v1 Platinum" it would be a lot more ambiguous to me. I do wonder though if you can enter a Platinum Level tournament if your rating has fallen to Gold or Silver but you retain the Platinum icon... Just tested this. I'm in Bronze league, but got put in a Gold league tournament. There are players in Bronze, Silver and Gold. So the league of the tournament is just as dodgy as the league of the players.
That's the player pool of the beta though, not retail, and they did say that the entry requirements would be looser to compensate for that. I'll ask for confirmation.
|
I don't like how these tournaments are scheduled.
It would be much better if you just sign in and wait till there are 7 more players in your skill range ready to go.
scheduled tournaments maybe should be a thing too, but then you could do wc3 style/bo3/whatever
|
That's a nice addition. Hope they add the capability to have custom "lobby" tournaments with your friends with options like best of 3 and tournament watching.
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
On August 22 2015 00:49 Roblin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2015 18:01 Cyro wrote: If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value bad system I haven't tried it but please elaborate, how and why is it a bad system? I can see that it definitely isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to enforce the 25 minute time limit, so what would you suggest? the argument I've seen against this system is it promotes using the most efficient possible strategy, which often means the most turtley one. the counter -argument I have seen to that is if the enemy turtles then you can just grab the entire map and never attack, thereby winning because you have mined thousands of points worth of resources more. I have not seen this effect in action nor have I tried it, so I don't actually know if either of these arguments are true, but I would very much like to see a constructive argument be made around it.
Winning based on an arbitrary exp point system (that wasn't designed for it) if neither player is 100% eliminated just has the potential to skew the games into being about something other than beating your opponent like you would in a real game/tournament
|
On August 22 2015 02:49 Cyro wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 00:49 Roblin wrote:On August 21 2015 18:01 Cyro wrote: If the game reaches the 25-minute limit, victory will be awarded to the player who has the highest experience point value bad system I haven't tried it but please elaborate, how and why is it a bad system? I can see that it definitely isn't ideal, but there has to be some way to enforce the 25 minute time limit, so what would you suggest? the argument I've seen against this system is it promotes using the most efficient possible strategy, which often means the most turtley one. the counter -argument I have seen to that is if the enemy turtles then you can just grab the entire map and never attack, thereby winning because you have mined thousands of points worth of resources more. I have not seen this effect in action nor have I tried it, so I don't actually know if either of these arguments are true, but I would very much like to see a constructive argument be made around it. Winning based on an arbitrary exp point system (that wasn't designed for it) if neither player is 100% eliminated just has the potential to skew the games into being about something other than beating your opponent like you would in a real game/tournament
Would you prefer draws? Which would encourage running around the map building pylons/extractors/depots
Would you prefer a specific building/unit/supply count? Which would amount to the same thing as points but doesn't take into account efficiently trading units.
What system do you think is most fair as a tie breaker?
|
United Kingdom20335 Posts
I can't think of a great one (at least not without a ton of effort) but the game length seems a bit too short. If it was longer, it would be more ok to win based on an imperfect system
|
United States12248 Posts
I posted a FAQ about this stuff which basically summarizes the information presented in the blog post, but Psione replied with some additional information to unanswered questions:
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/18724763966
Q: What determines the league badge for a tournament? Average MMR? Highest/Lowest Participating?
A: It matches by MMR and determines league through the highest league of the players participating. This explains why players like paralleluniverse had a "Gold Level" tournament populated by Bronze, Silver, and Gold players. Part of that was probably the looser calibration due to the smaller player pool of the beta, so a span of 3 leagues is probably unlikely. Nevertheless, it illustrates that "Gold Level" or "Platinum Level" or "Master Level" does not represent a fixed rating range, it's going to vary from tournament to tournament.
Q: Do tournament match outcomes affect MMR? Can promotions happen by winning a tournament match?
A: Yes. One goal is to allow players to exclusively play tournaments for league progression if they wish. That's cool, didn't see that one coming.
Q: Are there rewards attached to collecting tournament wins or becoming grand champion?
A: Rewards are still being worked on, but there will be some form of reward for winning a tournament.
|
If you win the tournament it says there is a website with actual winners list. Is the website online if yes can someone write the link here down? Thnx.
|
On August 22 2015 11:05 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Q: What determines the league badge for a tournament? Average MMR? Highest/Lowest Participating?
A: It matches by MMR and determines league through the highest league of the players participating. This explains why players like paralleluniverse had a "Gold Level" tournament populated by Bronze, Silver, and Gold players. Part of that was probably the looser calibration due to the smaller player pool of the beta, so a span of 3 leagues is probably unlikely. Nevertheless, it illustrates that "Gold Level" or "Platinum Level" or "Master Level" does not represent a fixed rating range, it's going to vary from tournament to tournament.
So I got promoted to Gold in LotV today. In summary, I was Bronze, got put into a Gold tournament, after 2 games in the tournament, I got promoted to Silver, and then 4 games after that I got promoted to Gold.
This seems to align with what Psione said, that tournaments "matches by MMR". Meaning that tournaments can be used to give a indication of how close you are to promotion. In other word, an indication of how wrong the leagues are. You could already kinda do something similar now by looking at the league of the players in your last 16 matches, but it would be slightly less informative than looking at the tournament participants as your MMR can change a bit over 16 games.
The tournament being labeled by the highest league of its participants seems pointless. It's not new information, it's not interesting information, it's information with no point. I don't understand the point of showing it. Maybe they just think leagues are really cool and awesome (lol).
|
On August 23 2015 16:06 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On August 22 2015 11:05 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Q: What determines the league badge for a tournament? Average MMR? Highest/Lowest Participating?
A: It matches by MMR and determines league through the highest league of the players participating. This explains why players like paralleluniverse had a "Gold Level" tournament populated by Bronze, Silver, and Gold players. Part of that was probably the looser calibration due to the smaller player pool of the beta, so a span of 3 leagues is probably unlikely. Nevertheless, it illustrates that "Gold Level" or "Platinum Level" or "Master Level" does not represent a fixed rating range, it's going to vary from tournament to tournament. So I got promoted to Gold in LotV today. In summary, I was Bronze, got put into a Gold tournament, after 2 games in the tournament, I got promoted to Silver, and then 4 games after that I got promoted to Gold. This seems to align with what Psione said, that tournaments "matches by MMR". Meaning that tournaments can be used to give a indication of how close you are to promotion. In other word, an indication of how wrong the leagues are. You could already kinda do something similar now by looking at the league of the players in your last 16 matches, but it would be slightly less informative than looking at the tournament participants as your MMR can change a bit over 16 games. The tournament being labeled by the highest league of its participants seems pointless. It's not new information, it's not interesting information, it's information with no point. I don't understand the point of showing it. Maybe they just think leagues are really cool and awesome (lol).
I can see people being excited when they get put into a platinum league for the first time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
