|
On May 25 2010 00:57 commanderchobo wrote:
i wont lie. i laddered to get like top 10 in my division by just playing games, but the fact was i had no real desire to ladder since being first in division 65 is so meaningless. id rather be place 780 out of 1000 people then number 6 in division 65.
thats how it was on the wc3 ladder, i remember being like man i had a good day today i got level 25 and am ranked 400th! im awesome!
But what would be your rank out of 1 000 000 players ? It wouldn't look very good and to be in top half million, don't you think? Plus it'd be hard keeping track of your own rank anyway, because it'd be likely to change every hour or so. Being away for a few days you could drop thousands of places.
It's very different when there are so many players playing the game.
|
Why is it that they cannot have both Division Ranks alongside Overall Ranks? This way casual gamers could set smaller goals for themselves and more competitive gamers could have a more accurate reflection of their skill in comparison to the overall competition. This is the kind of system we have for many sports and games where people or teams will be ranked in their city, state, and nation.
|
That's why ELO rankings are better because then you can say, "Man, I just went over 1300!" That has a lot more meaning. I remember when I first hit 1200 in vanilla and I was excited because you got the shiny icon next to your name. lol
|
I'm not expert in statistics, but it doesn't look like Blizzard is doing it solely to make players feel better (although that's a reason as well). Take WoW for example. They have no problem showing your current standing but you have only 5000 teams playing on each battlegroup. SC2 will have almost or even more than one million players on a server. Would ELO be able to sufficiently evaluate so many players where many of them will never face each other? Maybe that's the point. It's just that they don't have a good enough system that could evaluate players accurately.
I think Blizzard mentioned that Pro-league will be one division and players will be matched only with other players from Pro-league (at least mostly). And in Pro-league you will see the rankings. But Pro-league is much smaller and given the odds of players being matched with other players from pro-league being very high you can accurately evaluate them using ELO-type algorithms.
|
I guess what I don't understand is why Blizzard should devote development resources to changing this when viable 3rd party alternatives exist.
|
On May 25 2010 03:43 Spidinko wrote:
I'm not expert in statistics, but it doesn't look like Blizzard is doing it solely to make players feel better (although that's a reason as well). Take WoW for example. They have no problem showing your current standing but you have only 5000 teams playing on each battlegroup. SC2 will have almost or even more than one million players on a server. Would ELO be able to sufficiently evaluate so many players where many of them will never face each other?
Yes - in fact the ELO system (like most rating systems) will work better with a larger number of players because ideally the system wants to match players up with other players of similar ELO rating. Then the result of the game can determine which player "deserves" to be at that particular rating or higher (the winner) and which player should probably be ranked lower (the loser).
Then the loser gets to play someone slightly lower rated and can "proove" themselves better than that particular rating. This goes on until players find their niche and their rating will go up and down around a central point for awhile until their skill gradual grows or diminishes based mainly on practice time.
|
/signed
even though iam a casual player
|
Just a reminder to everyone, make sure to show your support in the Battle.net forums thread as well. Link is in the OP.
|
On May 25 2010 08:25 Cuddly wrote:
I guess what I don't understand is why Blizzard should devote development resources to changing this when viable 3rd party alternatives exist.
I don't have access to anywhere near the same quality of data that Blizzard does. There are some things 3rd parties like starcraftrankings.com can do, but ultimately we'd always be behind what an official Battle.net source could have.
|
On May 25 2010 08:25 Cuddly wrote:
I guess what I don't understand is why Blizzard should devote development resources to changing this when viable 3rd party alternatives exist.
Blizzard's stance on SC2 seems to be that they want to be a part of everything. Every tournament, every game, every single-player game...everything. For there to be a ranking system which is obviously such leaps and bounds better than what they offer should entice them to improve.
What Starcraft rankings does, is give us an entirely new ladder. It doesn't include stuff below Platinum, but nothing below plat even matters. People who are not in Platinum know that in order to really be anything, they need to first work on getting to platinum.
So since at the competitive level, Platinum/Diamond or whatever the top one may be at any given time, is assumed, its all that matters. We already have what we want, its just a little messy. What Gibybo has given us is plain and simply superior to Bnet ranking. But if Blizzard did what Gibybo did, it could have better data, be more fluid, and of course be more integrated.
|
On May 25 2010 08:56 andyrichdale wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2010 03:43 Spidinko wrote:
I'm not expert in statistics, but it doesn't look like Blizzard is doing it solely to make players feel better (although that's a reason as well). Take WoW for example. They have no problem showing your current standing but you have only 5000 teams playing on each battlegroup. SC2 will have almost or even more than one million players on a server. Would ELO be able to sufficiently evaluate so many players where many of them will never face each other? Yes - in fact the ELO system (like most rating systems) will work better with a larger number of players because ideally the system wants to match players up with other players of similar ELO rating. Then the result of the game can determine which player "deserves" to be at that particular rating or higher (the winner) and which player should probably be ranked lower (the loser). Then the loser gets to play someone slightly lower rated and can "proove" themselves better than that particular rating. This goes on until players find their niche and their rating will go up and down around a central point for awhile until their skill gradual grows or diminishes based mainly on practice time.
Yes, ELO works if you have enough players AND these players play enough games for them to get to their "true" rating. The problem is the same as WoW, it is fairly accurate for the top teams (well not really because of the abuses but let's forget that) but not much for lower teams because they dont play enough and the overall ladder is skewed on the lower tiers.
Now I agree with the OP. As much as I understand the purpose of divisions and leagues (giving people smaller goals), I would like a way to both know the overall rank, who are the top players, and also not being kinda "drowned" by being like the 18934th player.
Anyway... it will always be just an estimation of skill and not what really skill is, so... will never be perfect.
I would like blizzard to add a way to know what ranking have the opponents and allies... maybe after game if necessary.
|
On May 25 2010 01:03 Spidinko wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2010 00:57 commanderchobo wrote:
i wont lie. i laddered to get like top 10 in my division by just playing games, but the fact was i had no real desire to ladder since being first in division 65 is so meaningless. id rather be place 780 out of 1000 people then number 6 in division 65.
thats how it was on the wc3 ladder, i remember being like man i had a good day today i got level 25 and am ranked 400th! im awesome! But what would be your rank out of 1 000 000 players ? It wouldn't look very good and to be in top half million, don't you think? Plus it'd be hard keeping track of your own rank anyway, because it'd be likely to change every hour or so. Being away for a few days you could drop thousands of places. It's very different when there are so many players playing the game.
IT WOULDN'T LOOK VERY GOOD?
That's exactly the attitude Blizz is catering to.
Who cares if it wouldn't look very good? That just means that the player isn't very good. That's the player's skill cap. It's honest and accurate.
If you want a better looking rank, then be a better player. Simple as that.
It's not hard to keep track of your own rank. You just open your profile and look.
War3 did not rank anybody that was not in the top 1000. That's the fix in keeping track of millions of players.
Cap it at the top 10000 for sc2. Not everybody needs a rank.
|
On May 25 2010 10:12 InfiniteIce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2010 01:03 Spidinko wrote:On May 25 2010 00:57 commanderchobo wrote:
i wont lie. i laddered to get like top 10 in my division by just playing games, but the fact was i had no real desire to ladder since being first in division 65 is so meaningless. id rather be place 780 out of 1000 people then number 6 in division 65.
thats how it was on the wc3 ladder, i remember being like man i had a good day today i got level 25 and am ranked 400th! im awesome! But what would be your rank out of 1 000 000 players ? It wouldn't look very good and to be in top half million, don't you think? Plus it'd be hard keeping track of your own rank anyway, because it'd be likely to change every hour or so. Being away for a few days you could drop thousands of places. It's very different when there are so many players playing the game. IT WOULDN'T LOOK VERY GOOD? That's exactly the attitude Blizz is catering to. Who cares if it wouldn't look very good? That just means that the player isn't very good. That's the player's skill cap. It's honest and accurate. If you want a better looking rank, then be a better player. Simple as that. It's not hard to keep track of your own rank. You just open your profile and look. War3 did not rank anybody that was not in the top 1000. That's the fix in keeping track of millions of players. Cap it at the top 10000 for sc2. Not everybody needs a rank.
I say do it like was mentioned earlier by someone (not sure who) Keep the current system, except for diamond, make diamond divisionless and be an absolute ranking. "Casuals" get their feel good stats, and the good players can actually get useful info.
|
Great letter, I hope blizzard listens!
|
Bill307
Canada9103 Posts
I understand what Blizzard is doing. For the average player, having divisions so that your rank feels more motivating and satisfying is a very good idea. The same principle is used in other places, such as XBox Live games that allow you to view your rank in a game compared to just your friends. It is a great improvement over being ranked #57,136. It gives the average player a much more realistic goal: to be one of the best among a small group of players. And they SHOULD feel good about an accomplishment like that. They SHOULD feel good about moving from #57,136 to #56,814, because they have accomplished something, and yet it feels meaningless. That is a big problem with an overall ranking.
That said, I think this thread is evidence enough that an overall ranking is a far superior method for, say, the top 10% of the players.
There is an easy way to satisfy most players in both groups. Have divisions for the vast majority of the players, but once you reach the highest level (diamond, titanium, plutonium (because you're HOT STUFF), whatever), group all the players at that level into a single division, creating an overall ranking.
Having 2 systems works great because of how the players are distributed. If you're a player who gets more out of the division system, then you're probably in the lower levels. If you're a player who gets more out of the overall ranking system, then you're probably in or close to the highest level. So you're pleasing far more players like this than you would be with just one system or the other.
Adding a top level with an overall ranking also adds an additional incentive or milestone for the high-level players who want to be ranked in that manner: no only do you get to take pride in being in the top level, but you also get to take pride in stepping out of the divisions and into the overall ranking. 
|
On May 25 2010 08:56 andyrichdale wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2010 03:43 Spidinko wrote:
I'm not expert in statistics, but it doesn't look like Blizzard is doing it solely to make players feel better (although that's a reason as well). Take WoW for example. They have no problem showing your current standing but you have only 5000 teams playing on each battlegroup. SC2 will have almost or even more than one million players on a server. Would ELO be able to sufficiently evaluate so many players where many of them will never face each other? Yes - in fact the ELO system (like most rating systems) will work better with a larger number of players because ideally the system wants to match players up with other players of similar ELO rating. Then the result of the game can determine which player "deserves" to be at that particular rating or higher (the winner) and which player should probably be ranked lower (the loser). Then the loser gets to play someone slightly lower rated and can "proove" themselves better than that particular rating. This goes on until players find their niche and their rating will go up and down around a central point for awhile until their skill gradual grows or diminishes based mainly on practice time.
Wouldn't that only work if players played sufficient amount of games?
I understand that everyone would have their rating, but would it be accurate? You mentioned they would play each other. If that happened, it would work. But given such a huge amount of players it would be unlikely for them to face each other considering casual players don't play that much. Would ranking on their level be accurate? Higher leagues wouldn't have that problem, though.
|
On May 25 2010 10:12 InfiniteIce wrote:Show nested quote +On May 25 2010 01:03 Spidinko wrote:On May 25 2010 00:57 commanderchobo wrote:
i wont lie. i laddered to get like top 10 in my division by just playing games, but the fact was i had no real desire to ladder since being first in division 65 is so meaningless. id rather be place 780 out of 1000 people then number 6 in division 65.
thats how it was on the wc3 ladder, i remember being like man i had a good day today i got level 25 and am ranked 400th! im awesome! But what would be your rank out of 1 000 000 players ? It wouldn't look very good and to be in top half million, don't you think? Plus it'd be hard keeping track of your own rank anyway, because it'd be likely to change every hour or so. Being away for a few days you could drop thousands of places. It's very different when there are so many players playing the game. IT WOULDN'T LOOK VERY GOOD? That's exactly the attitude Blizz is catering to. Who cares if it wouldn't look very good? That just means that the player isn't very good. That's the player's skill cap. It's honest and accurate. If you want a better looking rank, then be a better player. Simple as that. It's not hard to keep track of your own rank. You just open your profile and look. War3 did not rank anybody that was not in the top 1000. That's the fix in keeping track of millions of players. Cap it at the top 10000 for sc2. Not everybody needs a rank.
Firstly, I would like to see my ranking. I just think more people would be pushed away seeing their ranking.
You say give it to top 10k and I completely agree. I said the same think just a couple of posts before. I actually think that this is going to happen because of the Pro-league. Pro-league should have global ranking system and I kind of think they are going to let more players into Pro-league, not only pros.
|
On May 25 2010 12:46 Bill307 wrote:I understand what Blizzard is doing. For the average player, having divisions so that your rank feels more motivating and satisfying is a very good idea. The same principle is used in other places, such as XBox Live games that allow you to view your rank in a game compared to just your friends. It is a great improvement over being ranked #57,136. It gives the average player a much more realistic goal: to be one of the best among a small group of players. And they SHOULD feel good about an accomplishment like that. They SHOULD feel good about moving from #57,136 to #56,814, because they have accomplished something, and yet it feels meaningless. That is a big problem with an overall ranking. That said, I think this thread is evidence enough that an overall ranking is a far superior method for, say, the top 10% of the players. There is an easy way to satisfy most players in both groups. Have divisions for the vast majority of the players, but once you reach the highest level (diamond, titanium, plutonium (because you're HOT STUFF), whatever), group all the players at that level into a single division, creating an overall ranking. Having 2 systems works great because of how the players are distributed. If you're a player who gets more out of the division system, then you're probably in the lower levels. If you're a player who gets more out of the overall ranking system, then you're probably in or close to the highest level. So you're pleasing far more players like this than you would be with just one system or the other. Adding a top level with an overall ranking also adds an additional incentive or milestone for the high-level players who want to be ranked in that manner: no only do you get to take pride in being in the top level, but you also get to take pride in stepping out of the divisions and into the overall ranking.
i like this post and agree with it. Even if you dont totally get rid of divisions, maybe at the highest rank they could give you both overall + division or something.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
