EPTRead the bottom of the OP, I realize my wording was confusing so I put something to clear up what I meant.
Leagues, Divisions, Elo, and Where SC is Headed - Page 9
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
joolz
United States67 Posts
Read the bottom of the OP, I realize my wording was confusing so I put something to clear up what I meant. | ||
|
andyrichdale
New Zealand90 Posts
On May 24 2010 06:15 Slunk wrote: Iccup did the opposite. You had to be pretty fucking manly to keep trainng to get to D+ if you are on 30% winrate. Yeah, maybe this rewarded spamming cheese games too much on the lower levels, because going 10-5 in 3 hours was way better than going 4-1 in 2 hours, but still, the winrate was the deciding factor. Now, no matter how hard you suck you can't have a winrate below 50%. That's because the matchmaking system is good enough to match you against evenly skilled opponents so most player's winrate will be around 50%. Winrate should never be the determining factor in assessing a player's skill as it's dependent on the relative skill of your opponents. | ||
|
TerriBad
United States146 Posts
Division # was just the order the divisions were formed. Being in division 1 only meant that you played your placement matches right after the reset or whatever. It doesn't have anything to do with skill like the OP suggested. | ||
|
RoMarX
Argentina189 Posts
On May 24 2010 04 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 24 2010 04 end_of_the_skype_highlighting:09 FrozenArbiter wrote: So because you don't want to see what your overall rank is, you don't want to let ME see what MY overall rank is? Just fyi, the ICCUP system (1000-1999 pts is rank D, 2000-2999 is rank D+, 3000-3999 is C-, 4000-4999 is C, and so on) provides the exact same motivation. Hell, they could even keep the current system, just add an overall ranking IN ADDITION. i didnt say that, i said an overall ranking would be nice too, but not neccesary. i mean whats really the point in the ladder?? train or having a good rank just to be pride of that?? does it change something if you are rank 20 overall or 15?? no. the tournaments are the true, the best players are there. or even with the ladders right now if you want to compare with another guy you can just see the ELO for a general idea of the level of the guy. again: an overall ranking in addition would be good, but not neccesary. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
1. starting at 0 means that you feel the need to get more points thus making you want/need to play more. Also with bonus points it makes you 'feel' like you are improving 2. The rating system they are using naturally converges to your actual rating, so 3-4 months in, expect rating to be mostly accurate 3. After 6-7 months new players are hurt dramatically as experienced players have tons of bonus points built up and are raising the average rating and thus are screwing the results 4. Oh, ratings are out of control, hit the big "new season" button. And go to set 1. | ||
|
SleepSheep
Canada344 Posts
| ||
|
Gamer0ne
Bulgaria51 Posts
| ||
|
DragonDefonce
United States790 Posts
| ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
| ||
|
DarQraven
Netherlands553 Posts
What I don't agree with is that divisions are stupid. I see them like taking part in any non-top level tournament. Are those stupid too because they don't have Flash and Jaedong taking part in them to set all the newbs straight on their skill level? If you place first in that mid-level tournament, you're still first in that tournament, no matter how hard some professional would own you. Doesn't mean that this is therefore a meaningless achievement - it's relative to the player. A bronze league player managing to beat a silver league player (assuming correct placements) is just as much of an achievement for them as it is for a foreigner to place first in a Korean BW tournament. Conversely, a Platinum player beating that same silver league player is nothing more than expected - which is why they aren't in the same league. With that in mind, as for a moment assuming there is a consistent ELO ranking system present, I see absolutely no issue with the ladder being split into divisions. I can imagine more transparent systems, yes, or perhaps a system with a more clear sense of progression (for instance, divisions being ranked according to skill, so that Silver #50 < Silver #1 < Gold #100 < ...), but the divisions themselves are not inherently bad. | ||
|
jackofclubs81
United States196 Posts
Ok, so why do we need this extra stuff anyway? The answer of the people who say we do is to make people like me feel better about our playing skills. The truth is that if im talking to or playing with someone who is significantly better than myself (Think C+, B, etc.) I want to know about it beforehand so i don't start trying to act like i know more than he does. If the current iccup system didn't exist and instead we were all in leagues like Daimond Tango Goliath Alpha Roach Bronze SCV or whatever, and then i tried to tell him about a new build, etc. that i came up with and then played him and got owned, I would still be able to have some level of credibility because d- means having an apm of ~50 so my loss would be understandable even if my build was good. However, if we do have the new flashy gay leagues instead of the easily recognizable ranks, then i would lose all credibility in a situation like this. Contrary to Blizzard's point of view, i actually want to know who is better and worse than me(even at this low level of play). The game shouldn't cater to 10-year-olds who can't bear the fact that they are not in the top 100 in the world; it should cater to the average consumer. And even if the average consumer would be a d- on iccup there are still d- people who believe that the iccup system was the best possible solution. A proud noob sining out. | ||
|
Perfect Balance
Norway131 Posts
What this basically comes down to is a reflection of Blizzard's (Activision's?) new multiplayer gaming philosophy: "players are children and we should hold their hands as much as possible and try to satisfy everyone at the same time." Why? Because having players spam games played and feel good about their rank/rating means more money for the company. Toss in some easy mode achievements/rewards (they nerfed the solo/team crusher achievements... LOL) and just keep the pacifiers in their mouths. You hit the nail on the head, OP. Blizzard are actively working to hurdle their consumers into the "facebook and flashy achievements stable". At the age of 25, I now have the feeling of being treated like baby cattle when I log on to Battle.net 2.0, and as great as I think certain aspects of the game looks, I don't appreciate being milked. As of further notice, I'm on a complete boycott of this company. Watch out Blizzard.. you might just get burned if you continue on this route. | ||
|
omeg
Poland19 Posts
On May 23 2010 22:21 joolz wrote: Unfortunately, the gaming industry and Blizzard/Activision in particular likes to have those things because they generate more profits (see: World of Warcraft). And those companies have a limited number of employees, and those employees have a limited number of working hours, and those working hours need to be distributed across 100 different features of the game. So when Blizzard has 50 people working on achievements and portraits and decals, that's 50 people NOT WORKING ON THE GAME ITSELF. 50 people not helping to balance the game, test corner cases, find bugs, try to design and detect map hacks, make good maps, design more singleplayer missions, create awesome art, etc etc etc. Then on patch day there is insufferable lag, they have to bring the servers down for 10 hour maintenance... because why? BECAUSE THE FACEBOOK FEATURE DOESNT WORK ANYMORE?!!??! I'm a software engineer myself. The company you're working for must be quite weird indeed if you can just grab (for example) 50 network engineers/programmers and tell them to do QA/balance/whatever. Or maybe they are all so good that they can do all these things?  | ||
|
joolz
United States67 Posts
On May 24 2010 08:52 omeg wrote: I'm a software engineer myself. The company you're working for must be quite weird indeed if you can just grab (for example) 50 network engineers/programmers and tell them to do QA/balance/whatever. Or maybe they are all so good that they can do all these things? If their architects laid out the project without superfluous achievements/etc they wouldn't have hired the 50 people to make those things and used those resources to hire more people for the important jobs instead. Is it really that hard to make that logical leap? | ||
|
omeg
Poland19 Posts
| ||
|
arc.karma
1 Post
I'm a complete newbie to SCII and I have no problem realizing that I'm obviously one of the worst SCII players out there. Of course I'm not as good as Idra, Nony, or TLO. I'm well aware that people have played SC:BW for the past 11 years and are therefore much better at SCII right off the bat. So, why doesn't Blizzard just tell me where I actually stand? If I'm 25000/25000 then just tell me that so I can get to 24999/25000 and feel better knowing that there's one player I can beat  | ||
Liquid`Ret
Netherlands4515 Posts
I love the fact Im seeing more ppl on these forums get more and more dissapointed with sc2 and putting it into good arguements, I've felt this way about a lot of things since the moment I first played the game. | ||
|
CynanMachae
Canada1459 Posts
| ||
|
Neptuneajax
Australia206 Posts
| ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
I think it would be ok if they split people among divisions like this if they also included some other factor like location for the lower levels and then bunched everyone into groups of 200 in the top divisions. But with the current system this is not possible. | ||
| ||
