|
On April 30 2010 21:20 Craton wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 19:37 PainBall wrote:
the real platinums are the 1400-1500+ players imho and especially with over 60 % win ratio I think my division has one person over 1400, maybe two; nobody is over 1500. The problem with pulling numbers out of your ass is they're never useful.
eh he's kinda right. As a C- (non all in... lool) Zerg there is a vast difference between 1000-1300 Plat and 1500+ and just because your sample (division) of 100/5000 doesn't contain anyone over 1400 might actually move to make his point even further.
Not to mention I think that you're all kinda of missing the point. Things like Platinum League, Gold League and so on don't actually physically exist. They are just labels, if they didn't exist the skill levels of players wouldn't be any different. This is just an argument over how you want to label things, it has very little to nothing to do w/ the actual distribution of skill. This is because players are the ones w/ skills and not ladder systems. Regardless of how you label or organize them, the top 10% is the top 10%.
The reason so many platinum players suck is because most people in general suck. The top 10% of Iccup is vastly different than the top10% of Battle.net (Bnet2 has more people online at any time now, than Iccup has ever had). Most of us TL/Iccup/SC1 crowd are in that top10% even if your barely D+
I think ELO is the far more important aspect here. I don't like the ambiguity when comparing say a 2100 Gold player to a 1400 Platinum player. This is the biggest flaw in this system in my opinion. There isn't a clear indicator of where the line is drawn.
|
On April 30 2010 16:58 cartoon]x wrote:
The demographic bit is flawed because people who sign up for the sc2 beta are inherently more interested in the game than the average noob; and 90 percent is an exaggerated number to begin with. I think the real issue is an overwhelming majority of people suck at starcraft, especially in the united states.
Being intrested in the SC2 beta does not make one a awesome player though ;-) There are heaps of people, including myself, that are intrested but appear to be playing blindfolded with both hands behind the back and sound off. Atleast when you compare it to the platinum players. And while this is a competative Starcraft site, don't forget that a part of those newbie players might just pick the game up for the singleplayer and are just biding their time in the copper/bronze leagues. If you remove these players from those leagues then the bottom of silver/gold/platinum would fill in that gap in turn (bottom bronze to copper, bottom silver to bronze etc) which in turn picks off the bottom platinum players and raise the average platinum skill by a bit.
|
^you should learn to think in trends instead of reducing everything to specific, isolated examples which land you confused and constantly refuting evidence. Demographics are statistical, and statistics should be thought about in trends.
On April 30 2010 18:45 Evelynn wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 04:42 Polemarch wrote:Yes, here's the problem: ![[image loading]](http://i44.tinypic.com/e96lud.png) (Not to scale, obviously) This wide skill gap reduces the feeling of competitiveness within the platinum divisions. The league distribution should keep the skill gap within each division roughly the same; this can be done with a more pyramidal shape. Edit: This is a problem with their system, not just the fact that it's beta. The player pool will grow and people will get better over time, but the same general skill distribution will remain, unless we start hitting skill ceilings, which would be horrible. (SC1 essentially has an infinite skill ceiling.) I don't think your graph is accurate. A bad copper player could never win against an average bronze player, yet the skill difference in your graph is only marginal. A good gold player could easily beat an average platin player, but your graph shows a pretty big skill difference. I think the biggest skill differences are both in copper and in platinum level, because in those leagues you'll find the absolut best and absolut worst players.
A good gold player should not be able to beat an average platinum player, and this is only the case because the placement methods of 5 games is not incredibly accurate. However, as things start to shake out over 100 games or so the gold players who should of been in platinum will move up, & vice versa for the crappy platinum players; then an average or even a low platinum player should beat a top ranked gold player. At least that is assuming the leagues are sorted in a logical manner ...
What is more, once the game goes live there will be a ton more people searching - I would expect blizzard to revise their parameters for who we match in games. When this happens it's plausible top 10 platinums will get paired with other top 10 platinums, instead of with rank 40 platinums. It may even be that the distant pairing is a direct result of unavailable peers - blizzard did say the search tool starts with immediate peers and branches outward as the search progresses. Also, as the game is played we will see the skills of players increase relative to the skills of ourselves... many of us study the game rather intensely and it has accelerated our learning curve.
|
It will probably even out after release but regardless you shouldn't be able to qualify into platinum after 5 games...its not exactly hard to win 5 placement games against random people. I got the beta 2 days ago and I won all my placement games in like 10 min now I'm rank 20 platinum. Against true top 20 platinum people I would get annihilated cause I'm really not that great lol...maybe mid level gold at most if the ranking system was truly accurate.
|
When the game is released there will be the "Proleague":
|
On April 30 2010 02:14 Zelniq wrote:
yeah what people have been saying is right. it feels like right now they have an even distribution when it should be more like a pyramid
I don't think you guys are getting it right.
The situation we have now is like having ranks only up to A- on ICC.
Some may argue that the solution is to make A- harder to reach, but that would obviously make one of the lower ranks very stretched when it comes to skill levels.
If you make plat harder to reach, there will be a bunch of one sided games in gold.
If you push it further down - there will be a bunch of one sided games in silver.
You get the point.
I just don't believe how many of you agree that the solution is to make platinum harder to reach, like there's a chance in hell that only 5 leagues will be enough to separate players into pools of equal skill, when ICCup had 13!!(14 if you count the late addition 'noob rank' ) and people were STILL complaining about the jump from B+ to A- iirc.
Obviously a level above Platinum is the solution.
|
I thing how to do some turnaments on battle.net and first 3 places go to some new diamond or kinda that lague.tournament should be just for members of platinum, or just make some turnament in gold if u want to get to platinum...
|
Would it help to limit the leagues people can be placed into after their first 5 games? Have it sort of like so:
Veteran: Platinum (5-0 / 4-1), Gold (3-2 / 2-3) or Silver (1-4 / 0-5)
Experienced: Gold (5-0 / 4-1), Silver (3-2 / 2-3) or Bronze (1-4 / 0-5)
New to RTS: Silver (5-0 / 4-1), Bronze (3-2 / 2-3) or Copper (1-4 / 0-5)
It would counter things like my own situation where after the first reset I chose experienced, played 3 silver and 2 bronze players and ended up in platinum because I went 5-0, a pretty bizarre result in my eyes.
|
Get rid of the divisions; I cannot phantom a more annoying system.
|
I'd like to know how that setting even affects placement matches. I selected Veteran the last 2 or 3 times and still fought people who barely knew what RTS meant in my first games.
On April 30 2010 21:46 Motiva wrote:
I think ELO is the far more important aspect here. I don't like the ambiguity when comparing say a 2100 Gold player to a 1400 Platinum player. This is the biggest flaw in this system in my opinion. There isn't a clear indicator of where the line is drawn.
I agree with this. I'd like to have an easier time distinguishing ability, but right now everything is very nebulous, both intra-plat and inter-division.
|
|
|
I honestly can't wait when retail comes and the same people complaining about getting into platinum is so easy not being able to remain there in the long term. News Flash guys, 5 placement matches aren't meant to TRULY determine your skill, just to give you an easier starting point if you come into the game with previous skill. It was not so long ago people complaining that 10 placement matches were too much.
We'll be seeing many "I was in Platinum in beta and now I can't get out of silver" threads I suspect.
|
Yeah I wouldn't expect this to be the final version of this ladder. It is kind of fun though, lose a game lose 2-5 points win a game and gain like 20-42 depending on rested points. More placements is the answer. I said it before and I will say it again. 15-20 is all that you need, if you win your placement game you face someone doing them that is the same record as you, so your last game could be a 14-0 vs a 14-0 game. This would only work though if they made time frames to get your placements done for an upcoming season, if you miss the time frame you start in copper for start of the season.
|
In response to the post above.
We don't want platinum players starting in copper because they missed the pre-season placement. I wouldn't be surprised if many players skipped the placement and just went to own noobs in copper. Blizzard is trying to stop good players from owning noobs. They don't want to give them an easy way to play against them on the ladder.
|
On May 01 2010 03:33 Zack1900 wrote:
In response to the above post.
We don't want platinum players starting in copper because they missed the pre-season placement. I wouldn't be surprised if many players skipped the placement and just went to own noobs in copper. Blizzard is trying to stop good players from owning noobs. They don't want to give them an easy way to play against them on the ladder.
What is the difference from throwing your placementsÉ (for some reason É =`s a question mark on my keyboard...) If the system works well you won`t stay in a league that you are too good for very long.
|
On May 01 2010 03:35 Kralic wrote:Show nested quote +On May 01 2010 03:33 Zack1900 wrote:
In response to the above post.
We don't want platinum players starting in copper because they missed the pre-season placement. I wouldn't be surprised if many players skipped the placement and just went to own noobs in copper. Blizzard is trying to stop good players from owning noobs. They don't want to give them an easy way to play against them on the ladder. What is the difference from throwing your placementsÉ (for some reason É =`s a question mark on my keyboard...) If the system works well you won`t stay in a league that you are too good for very long.
look in "Control Panel", then some sort of "Language" option, then set your keyboard language to English Canada (US), or English US (without Canada).
|
*wishes it was just a copy of iccup ladder system*
|
On April 30 2010 21:35 Kishime wrote:
Am I the only one who is getting a somewhat sad vibe that people on here need to feel like they're worth something? Does it really matter if someone who you can beat 8 times out of 10 is in the same league as you? Do you really need the ability to say "I'm in ____ league!" to validate yourself?
Just play the game, get better, have fun, and win. Who the hell cares what league you're in?
It's not for bragging rights, it's that this contributes to the matchmaking system being broken. More even matches would be more fun instead of half the matches being completely rape one way or the other.
On May 01 2010 05:23 leetchaos wrote:
*wishes it was just a copy of iccup ladder system*
ICCUP ladder + a placement match system + single accounts per cdkey = win.
|
On May 01 2010 05:29 zomgzergrush wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 21:35 Kishime wrote:
Am I the only one who is getting a somewhat sad vibe that people on here need to feel like they're worth something? Does it really matter if someone who you can beat 8 times out of 10 is in the same league as you? Do you really need the ability to say "I'm in ____ league!" to validate yourself?
Just play the game, get better, have fun, and win. Who the hell cares what league you're in? It's not for bragging rights, it's that this contributes to the matchmaking system being broken. More even matches would be more fun instead of half the matches being completely rape one way or the other. Show nested quote +On May 01 2010 05:23 leetchaos wrote:
*wishes it was just a copy of iccup ladder system* ICCUP ladder + a placement match system + single accounts per cdkey = win.
I agree with this, wholeheartedly. The way ICCUP does it is not just great, nay, excellent. It seems like Blizzard is trying to do something similar (with a grading system), but it doesn't look to be working, at least not in the beta as far as Platinum is concerned.
What is the difference from throwing your placementsÉ (for some reason É =`s a question mark on my keyboard...) If the system works well you won`t stay in a league that you are too good for very long.
The difference is that if the player is required to throw some games, it would at least require more effort, which could be a deterrant. I'm not saying it'll work, but it may help.
Overall, I'm wondering
1. Why do they have several divisions of each rank?
2. Why don't they have a unified ELO stat?
I thought at first it might be to make casual players not feel like they suck as bad, but being placed in Copper league is no different than having an ELO of 325 when players start with 1000.
It just makes no sense to me.
|
I despise ICCUP's ladder system.
The bottom is way too clogged: there is too much skill variance among D-level players. Part of this is the problem that everyone starts at D so you get people who aren't actually D level stomping on people who are. Thankfully this is largely only a problem at the start of each season. Even without that though, there's ridiculous skill variance at D level. Now, maybe there's this same degree of skill variance at other levels; I wouldn't know because I'm D, but the fact that I can't log on ICCUP and expect to get a reasonably competitive game is a lot of why I stopped playing BW. I also think that there are just way too many players at D level (someone posted stats some time ago showing nearly 50% of all accounts with games played are D-level, and well over 50% are either D or below).
Admittedly this would be solved by a good matchmaking system that differentiates among players in the same rank better (whereas ICCUP has zero matchmaking system). ICCUP's ranking is not a good way to do this though, because:
You rank up if you win 1/3 of your games at D level on maps of the week. ICCUP rewards mass gaming far more than it rewards actually being good until you get to higher ranks. This leads to the interesting conclusion that anyone who belongs at D level (wins 50% of the time against D level players) actually isn't D-level ... if everyone just massed games you'd have everyone ranking up until you have almost no one at D or D+ or anywhere until you hit the rank where you need 50% winrate to stabilize.
I've always thought that people just played on ICCUP because it's all there was. I've never thought it was a good ladder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
