|
I would say that is the most obvious pie chart i've ever seen in my life
|
I was newly placed in US Gold 29 last Wednesday. Both myself and all brand new players I've seen in the division had 8-2 records upon joining.
In my placement matches, my first 4-5 opponents were noticeably weaker than the last 5-6. I lost games 6 and 8 in placement. My game 9 opponent explicitly said he was rank 4 in his Bronze.
|
On March 17 2010 08:07 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2010 07:42 Disastorm wrote:
What somoene said earlier about not starting you off at the lowest and work your way up is the biggest flaw in blizzard's system. especially if they plan to make u take the 10 game test every season (not sure if they are gonna do that though). If they do that, that would mean when the new season starts your league would be determined by luck, by who you happen to play in the 10 game placement matches (and since everyone would be the same rank, you have equal chance to fight a good player as a crappy player). Think about how the system operates, and you'll discover why it's vastly superior to the ICCup system (or any legacy system). When you're 0-0 playing your placement matches, your MMR is of course going to be 0 (though this may be influenced by how experienced in RTS games you declare to be when you first start). Let's say the newbiest newb would have an MMR of 0 and the highest end Platinum player would have an MMR of about 3000 (to use WoW arena values). Your first match is going to be against someone who also has a very low MMR, so probably not a very good player, or someone also on his first placement match. Beating this person will probably net you about 300 MMR. Your next match is going to be against a rather low-end player, again with a similar MMR. Your volatility rating is still very high because you have so few games played, so if you beat this guy, you'll probably get another 400 MMR. Game 3 will be against someone who is low-mid range, again similar MMR. You win, and say you get 600 MMR for this. At this point your MMR is about 1300, and game 4 is against someone who's pretty solidly mid-level. You win this one and get 800 MMR. Now you're starting to play against people who are pretty good with your 2100 MMR. Let's say you lose game 5. Your MMR falls by about 400, because the system knows that you're better than the 1300 guy but not quite up to the 2100 guy. Game 6 you win and get 300 MMR, so you go back up to 1900. You still have a pretty high volatility rating, maybe that last game was a fluke. The system still believes you're pretty good, because after all, you've been winning more than you've been losing. Game 7, you win, you're up to 2400. Game 8 you're playing against someone who's very good, but you lose. You go back down to 2000 and the system is starting to think that maybe you're not quite as good. Game 9 you lose again, you go down to 1800. It's starting to get a pretty good idea of where you should be and your volatility drops. Game 10 you win and you go up to 1950. You get seated in Gold, being among the top 25% of players. This MMR will continue to change, sometimes wildly according to your win and loss streaks, as it constantly determines where to place you. If you all of a sudden get your MMR up to 2600 and hovers around there, you may suddenly find yourself promoted to Platinum. This is a way better system because those ten placement games more or less put you where you need to be at first. I don't expect people's MMRs to change every season either (there would be no reason for them to do that).
yea u are right, my thing would only apply if they do reset mmr every season. yea sorry i don't know why i said it was their biggest flaw either, they have some other flaws that i think are more important. In reality, what I think their biggest flaw is , is the whole ELO being different in each league, such that if you want to know someones skill you need to know their ELO and League and then calculate it to determine, for example someone in Silver with an ELO of 2000 is better than someone in Platinum with an ELO of 1200.
|
On March 17 2010 08:25 Disastorm wrote:
for example someone in Silver with an ELO of 2000 is better than someone in Platinum with an ELO of 1200.
This is what I was talking about in my thread about league overlapping. It's a flawed system in general (by this I mean the system has potential, but currently does not live up to it).
|
United States12235 Posts
On March 17 2010 08:25 Disastorm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2010 08:07 Excalibur_Z wrote:On March 17 2010 07:42 Disastorm wrote:
What somoene said earlier about not starting you off at the lowest and work your way up is the biggest flaw in blizzard's system. especially if they plan to make u take the 10 game test every season (not sure if they are gonna do that though). If they do that, that would mean when the new season starts your league would be determined by luck, by who you happen to play in the 10 game placement matches (and since everyone would be the same rank, you have equal chance to fight a good player as a crappy player). Think about how the system operates, and you'll discover why it's vastly superior to the ICCup system (or any legacy system). When you're 0-0 playing your placement matches, your MMR is of course going to be 0 (though this may be influenced by how experienced in RTS games you declare to be when you first start). Let's say the newbiest newb would have an MMR of 0 and the highest end Platinum player would have an MMR of about 3000 (to use WoW arena values). Your first match is going to be against someone who also has a very low MMR, so probably not a very good player, or someone also on his first placement match. Beating this person will probably net you about 300 MMR. Your next match is going to be against a rather low-end player, again with a similar MMR. Your volatility rating is still very high because you have so few games played, so if you beat this guy, you'll probably get another 400 MMR. Game 3 will be against someone who is low-mid range, again similar MMR. You win, and say you get 600 MMR for this. At this point your MMR is about 1300, and game 4 is against someone who's pretty solidly mid-level. You win this one and get 800 MMR. Now you're starting to play against people who are pretty good with your 2100 MMR. Let's say you lose game 5. Your MMR falls by about 400, because the system knows that you're better than the 1300 guy but not quite up to the 2100 guy. Game 6 you win and get 300 MMR, so you go back up to 1900. You still have a pretty high volatility rating, maybe that last game was a fluke. The system still believes you're pretty good, because after all, you've been winning more than you've been losing. Game 7, you win, you're up to 2400. Game 8 you're playing against someone who's very good, but you lose. You go back down to 2000 and the system is starting to think that maybe you're not quite as good. Game 9 you lose again, you go down to 1800. It's starting to get a pretty good idea of where you should be and your volatility drops. Game 10 you win and you go up to 1950. You get seated in Gold, being among the top 25% of players. This MMR will continue to change, sometimes wildly according to your win and loss streaks, as it constantly determines where to place you. If you all of a sudden get your MMR up to 2600 and hovers around there, you may suddenly find yourself promoted to Platinum. This is a way better system because those ten placement games more or less put you where you need to be at first. I don't expect people's MMRs to change every season either (there would be no reason for them to do that). yea u are right, my thing would only apply if they do reset mmr every season. yea sorry i don't know why i said it was their biggest flaw either, they have some other flaws that i think are more important. In reality, what I think their biggest flaw is , is the whole ELO being different in each league, such that if you want to know someones skill you need to know their ELO and League and then calculate it to determine, for example someone in Silver with an ELO of 2000 is better than someone in Platinum with an ELO of 1200.
The thing with the elo ratings (which aren't really elo either, this is a total misnomer) is that they're still relevant, but only within their own league, and more specifically their own division. If the system has cemented you in Silver and your volatility rating is so low that you're unlikely to be graduating to any higher leagues, then all you have to separate you from the other people in your division (as well as your league) is your rating. The top 8 qualify for a tournament that takes place at a predetermined time, so it's not like the ratings are meaningless. It could be argued that it's still meaningless because "who cares if you're #1 in that Silver tournament in division 23", which is inevitably what some people will be saying, but it's a fun little milestone and goal for players to set for themselves. Psychologically it's very thrilling and entertaining, and to some extent it allows many more players than just the top 0.1% to experience the pressure of a tournament against players who are around their level.
The ratings don't directly translate to other leagues, which would have to be by design, based on the way the leagues are structured.
|
Multiple divisions all with a 100 players means there will always be someone on of comparable skill
|
i don't mind it that much that the ratings aren't very well comparable. it doesn't say a lot to me if i am like number 25k of the EU server. there will probably 300k+ players per server so there isn't much use for it.
people love to play for achievements. blizzard already said they would put them in there and competition will be fierce for those achievements. wouldn't it be great to get a special avatar for ending number 1 in your devision? or if you won the league tournament after the end of a season? there will probably a lot of shiny badges to earn and i would love to play for achievable goals.
the only place where direct comparison is important is at the absolute top. other comparison is irrelevant. so i would love to see a list of the best top 100 of the server and a top 100 per country. places below that don't matter anyway.
what i like best is not a list but a top devision of 100 players per country. above that there should be the proleague. the tournament at the end of every season could be used as some sort of courage tournaments to get in the special top devisions and the bottom players should be demoted. this way the pro's/semi pro's can also have what they want.
the system now will work for 99.5% of the players. only the absolute top is hurt by this system.
|
I really dislike the league system. I was afraid of starting placement matches because I was worried I wouldn't win all my games and end up trapped in a league I end up outgrowing. Yes, Trapped. It is the only way I can describe the feeling. At least with iCCup someone can start at D- one season, figure a bunch of stuff out, and rocket to B ranks. I'm still quite worried after going 6-3 (one game crash in there) that I'll be stuck in Gold or Silver. The ladder reset can't come quickly enough.
It's been suggested elsewhere and I think it is a good compromise to have players in the top of their league have the option to go to the next highest league and have harder matches, or stay in their league where they are doing well.
|
Yea I think for platinum and pro they should just have the ordinary ladder system. People don't want to be ranked #15346 in silver league, and I get what Blizzard's trying to do there, but I don't think it sucks being ranked #2864 in the single platinum ladder at all. The division system seems more for casual gamers and the ladder more for competitive players.
I'd suggest this system (numbers made up obv):
- Top 10000 get put into a Platinum ladder (ignore Pro since it's invite only)
- Every month (the division tournament cycle), the top 8 players in each Gold division promotes to the Platinum ladder, relegating the bottom Platinum players
- Every few days, the top 2 players in every Gold division has the OPTION to move up to the ladder, again relegating Platinum players to keep the total at 10000. This option is important so players don't get 'stuck' in a lower league for too long because of whatever reasons.
I think this will keep the division system for more casual players, which will suit them, while giving competitive players a cool goal to achieve - reaching the ladder, as well as of course climbing the ladder.
Also, as it is now, the AMM matches players across divisions and rankings. The above change only affects how players view their own progress, not who they can play.
|
i got placed into platinum right after the placement games 0.o and yes a division 20 does exist for platinum
|
On March 17 2010 08:38 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2010 08:25 Disastorm wrote:On March 17 2010 08:07 Excalibur_Z wrote:On March 17 2010 07:42 Disastorm wrote:
What somoene said earlier about not starting you off at the lowest and work your way up is the biggest flaw in blizzard's system. especially if they plan to make u take the 10 game test every season (not sure if they are gonna do that though). If they do that, that would mean when the new season starts your league would be determined by luck, by who you happen to play in the 10 game placement matches (and since everyone would be the same rank, you have equal chance to fight a good player as a crappy player). Think about how the system operates, and you'll discover why it's vastly superior to the ICCup system (or any legacy system). When you're 0-0 playing your placement matches, your MMR is of course going to be 0 (though this may be influenced by how experienced in RTS games you declare to be when you first start). Let's say the newbiest newb would have an MMR of 0 and the highest end Platinum player would have an MMR of about 3000 (to use WoW arena values). Your first match is going to be against someone who also has a very low MMR, so probably not a very good player, or someone also on his first placement match. Beating this person will probably net you about 300 MMR. Your next match is going to be against a rather low-end player, again with a similar MMR. Your volatility rating is still very high because you have so few games played, so if you beat this guy, you'll probably get another 400 MMR. Game 3 will be against someone who is low-mid range, again similar MMR. You win, and say you get 600 MMR for this. At this point your MMR is about 1300, and game 4 is against someone who's pretty solidly mid-level. You win this one and get 800 MMR. Now you're starting to play against people who are pretty good with your 2100 MMR. Let's say you lose game 5. Your MMR falls by about 400, because the system knows that you're better than the 1300 guy but not quite up to the 2100 guy. Game 6 you win and get 300 MMR, so you go back up to 1900. You still have a pretty high volatility rating, maybe that last game was a fluke. The system still believes you're pretty good, because after all, you've been winning more than you've been losing. Game 7, you win, you're up to 2400. Game 8 you're playing against someone who's very good, but you lose. You go back down to 2000 and the system is starting to think that maybe you're not quite as good. Game 9 you lose again, you go down to 1800. It's starting to get a pretty good idea of where you should be and your volatility drops. Game 10 you win and you go up to 1950. You get seated in Gold, being among the top 25% of players. This MMR will continue to change, sometimes wildly according to your win and loss streaks, as it constantly determines where to place you. If you all of a sudden get your MMR up to 2600 and hovers around there, you may suddenly find yourself promoted to Platinum. This is a way better system because those ten placement games more or less put you where you need to be at first. I don't expect people's MMRs to change every season either (there would be no reason for them to do that). yea u are right, my thing would only apply if they do reset mmr every season. yea sorry i don't know why i said it was their biggest flaw either, they have some other flaws that i think are more important. In reality, what I think their biggest flaw is , is the whole ELO being different in each league, such that if you want to know someones skill you need to know their ELO and League and then calculate it to determine, for example someone in Silver with an ELO of 2000 is better than someone in Platinum with an ELO of 1200. The thing with the elo ratings (which aren't really elo either, this is a total misnomer) is that they're still relevant, but only within their own league, and more specifically their own division. If the system has cemented you in Silver and your volatility rating is so low that you're unlikely to be graduating to any higher leagues, then all you have to separate you from the other people in your division (as well as your league) is your rating. The top 8 qualify for a tournament that takes place at a predetermined time, so it's not like the ratings are meaningless. It could be argued that it's still meaningless because "who cares if you're #1 in that Silver tournament in division 23", which is inevitably what some people will be saying, but it's a fun little milestone and goal for players to set for themselves. Psychologically it's very thrilling and entertaining, and to some extent it allows many more players than just the top 0.1% to experience the pressure of a tournament against players who are around their level. The ratings don't directly translate to other leagues, which would have to be by design, based on the way the leagues are structured.
Im pretty sure with the current reset they just reset MMR and now everything is all discombobulated. Players that are really good are worth the same as players who dont know how to play and depending on your luck of the draw you will either get a cerrtain number of wins or losses and get placed in a league based on that.
|
United States12235 Posts
On March 26 2010 14:24 Disastorm wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2010 08:38 Excalibur_Z wrote:On March 17 2010 08:25 Disastorm wrote:On March 17 2010 08:07 Excalibur_Z wrote:On March 17 2010 07:42 Disastorm wrote:
What somoene said earlier about not starting you off at the lowest and work your way up is the biggest flaw in blizzard's system. especially if they plan to make u take the 10 game test every season (not sure if they are gonna do that though). If they do that, that would mean when the new season starts your league would be determined by luck, by who you happen to play in the 10 game placement matches (and since everyone would be the same rank, you have equal chance to fight a good player as a crappy player). Think about how the system operates, and you'll discover why it's vastly superior to the ICCup system (or any legacy system). When you're 0-0 playing your placement matches, your MMR is of course going to be 0 (though this may be influenced by how experienced in RTS games you declare to be when you first start). Let's say the newbiest newb would have an MMR of 0 and the highest end Platinum player would have an MMR of about 3000 (to use WoW arena values). Your first match is going to be against someone who also has a very low MMR, so probably not a very good player, or someone also on his first placement match. Beating this person will probably net you about 300 MMR. Your next match is going to be against a rather low-end player, again with a similar MMR. Your volatility rating is still very high because you have so few games played, so if you beat this guy, you'll probably get another 400 MMR. Game 3 will be against someone who is low-mid range, again similar MMR. You win, and say you get 600 MMR for this. At this point your MMR is about 1300, and game 4 is against someone who's pretty solidly mid-level. You win this one and get 800 MMR. Now you're starting to play against people who are pretty good with your 2100 MMR. Let's say you lose game 5. Your MMR falls by about 400, because the system knows that you're better than the 1300 guy but not quite up to the 2100 guy. Game 6 you win and get 300 MMR, so you go back up to 1900. You still have a pretty high volatility rating, maybe that last game was a fluke. The system still believes you're pretty good, because after all, you've been winning more than you've been losing. Game 7, you win, you're up to 2400. Game 8 you're playing against someone who's very good, but you lose. You go back down to 2000 and the system is starting to think that maybe you're not quite as good. Game 9 you lose again, you go down to 1800. It's starting to get a pretty good idea of where you should be and your volatility drops. Game 10 you win and you go up to 1950. You get seated in Gold, being among the top 25% of players. This MMR will continue to change, sometimes wildly according to your win and loss streaks, as it constantly determines where to place you. If you all of a sudden get your MMR up to 2600 and hovers around there, you may suddenly find yourself promoted to Platinum. This is a way better system because those ten placement games more or less put you where you need to be at first. I don't expect people's MMRs to change every season either (there would be no reason for them to do that). yea u are right, my thing would only apply if they do reset mmr every season. yea sorry i don't know why i said it was their biggest flaw either, they have some other flaws that i think are more important. In reality, what I think their biggest flaw is , is the whole ELO being different in each league, such that if you want to know someones skill you need to know their ELO and League and then calculate it to determine, for example someone in Silver with an ELO of 2000 is better than someone in Platinum with an ELO of 1200. The thing with the elo ratings (which aren't really elo either, this is a total misnomer) is that they're still relevant, but only within their own league, and more specifically their own division. If the system has cemented you in Silver and your volatility rating is so low that you're unlikely to be graduating to any higher leagues, then all you have to separate you from the other people in your division (as well as your league) is your rating. The top 8 qualify for a tournament that takes place at a predetermined time, so it's not like the ratings are meaningless. It could be argued that it's still meaningless because "who cares if you're #1 in that Silver tournament in division 23", which is inevitably what some people will be saying, but it's a fun little milestone and goal for players to set for themselves. Psychologically it's very thrilling and entertaining, and to some extent it allows many more players than just the top 0.1% to experience the pressure of a tournament against players who are around their level. The ratings don't directly translate to other leagues, which would have to be by design, based on the way the leagues are structured. Im pretty sure with the current reset they just reset MMR and now everything is all discombobulated. Players that are really good are worth the same as players who dont know how to play and depending on your luck of the draw you will either get a cerrtain number of wins or losses and get placed in a league based on that.
That's probably true, I haven't played since the reset to confirm. It makes sense though. The system doesn't know where anyone is, so you may not be placed accurately until enough players have already been seated. It will probably take a few weeks to properly organize and divide each league.
|
A very good question, I've posted about this on their forums. I believe the numbers should be skewed FAR more, and you should not be able to place directly into the top 2 leagues. A 'pro' league should be added to compliment this.
|
My twin brother who hasn't played an RTS game in YEARS got into Platinum. I was so thoroughly mind fucked by that.
|
It makes no sense to me, I went 4-1 in placement matches, losing my first game to a 6 pool, and I was put into Gold. After 40 games they finally upgraded me to Platinum, where I'm #4 in the division I'm in. I think they need to revamp this system, because it makes no sense, or at least make it more placement matches then 5-10.
|
after my stats got reseted yesterday i went in platinum div 57
so obviously there is a huge amount of platinum guys
|
Well, I'm D @ iCCup and I placed in Gold in my first ever attempt. I wasn't around before the first reset, but since a new one is comming (on the EU at least), I'll update my status again.
Quite odd, because even thou SC2 is much easier on me then SC BW, I'm not much of a player. I have bad micro, I panic easly when I see something funky, my micro is bad also, but in my first 10 games (I think practice and placement), I was 8-2.
What strikes me is that I'm seeing improvements in my game, since I've started following Day[9] Daily's. Which means that after the reset I might get lucky and end up in Platinum which is totally not my place to be around.
I'm playing SC2 for like a week now. I think my D rank @ iCCup makes me more fit for Bronze. I wouldn't mind Cooper if the maps there are not the novice ones. Silver will be a bit of a hard work for me to keep up with, but Gosh - Gold ?! No way. I can't even explain to myself why my record currently is positive in my league (16-10).
|
I really like the "newbie, amateur, veteran" thing. All the current platinum players will most likely pick Veteran on launch, and the Copper/bronze on newbie. I think if there is a good explanation on *what* these "newbie, amateur, veteran" things are on the placement screen, 99% of the players will end up easily in the correct league. I know for an example i will most likely put myself in amateur, and play and most likely end up in silver.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
