Oh, I wanted to add. Seems that 4v4 diamond league was a new one - everyone joined on the same day. So it seems blizzard has some kind of limit on the actual number of leagues? Sorry if this is old news, I skimmed the OP but I don't think I saw anything relating to that.

Zog

57 Posts

March 04 2011 17:18 GMT

#402

Ok, I have a question about this system. I understand the basics of what excalibur wrote, but I would like a couple of information about my case.

I decided to switch race, and so start from the beginning. I free lost 63 games in a row to get from diamond to bronze, and now i'm playing seriously with my new race. I won about 30 games, and lost 4 or 5, and get usually 10 wins streaks. Only thing is I've not seen a single silver opponent for the moment.

I suppose I should continue to win to eventually raise my MMR high enough to face silver players, but I'm a bit confused about the number of wins I need. If after 30 wins / 5 loss I'm fighting top 10 bronze players, it will roughly take as many wins to get promoted to silver, and then again as many to gold, etc..., but I only lost 63 times.

So maybe by intentionally losing I messed too much with my status and the ladder system is lost to properly evaluate my level.
Or maybe I need a lot of wins to stabilize my incertainty rating back to decent level, and then it will be faster to get promoted once I start to play higher league players, and I can jump swiftly from bronze to platinum for example.
Or maybe my occasional losses are the reason why I need so many games to face higher players, since it hurts my mmr a lot to lose vs bronze players.

What is your opinion about this ?

Excalibur_Z

United States12237 Posts

March 04 2011 17:27 GMT

#403

Bronze is probably a much larger league (spans a greater MMR range) than Silver, Gold, or Platinum. We believe Diamond is about as large as Bronze. Getting out of Bronze is the first hurdle, but it won't take you equally long to get through the other leagues if you maintain your level of performance.

SDream

Brazil896 Posts

March 04 2011 20:49 GMT

#404

@Zog

Did you lose enough till the system would demote you without the need of a win? If so, then you're probably in the lowest tier of bronze, which is interesting, can you say the division name? :D

turdburgler

England6749 Posts

March 06 2011 12:41 GMT

#405

On March 05 2011 02:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:
Bronze is probably a much larger league (spans a greater MMR range) than Silver, Gold, or Platinum. We believe Diamond is about as large as Bronze. Getting out of Bronze is the first hurdle, but it won't take you equally long to get through the other leagues if you maintain your level of performance.

maybe ive missed something but why do you believe bronze is bigger than any other league? i know its the only league where you can go down forever. but i thought the assumtions were the mmr barriers for each league would shift with the population to fit expected percentages? if thats still the running theory each league should maintain its 20% of players, or 18% for the current diamond?

Aim Here

Scotland672 Posts

March 06 2011 13:22 GMT

#406

On March 06 2011 21:41 turdburgler wrote:

Show nested quote +

The 20/20/20/20/18/2 split is for active players (who have spent, or are spending, a high proportion of their bonus pool). Sc2ranks looks at all players (or all players it can find anything about, which is likely to be more or less the same thing) and it consistently gets a figure of about 45-60% of the players are bronze.

Note that not being 'active' doesn't necessarily mean the players aren't playing Starcraft. Here, 'active' is a technical term used by Blizzard that doesn't quite correspond with your intuition.. You'll find that 45-60% of the players who played in the last week are bronze too.

Anyways, I reckon the grandparent is wrong, not because of the relative sizes of the leagues, but because of the operation of diminishing returns. My guess is that it'll be far easier to go from bronze to silver than it will from Diamond to Masters, or Platinum to Diamond, because you have to work on far more tricky and detailed parts of your game to do the latter.

SYNC_qx

Germany197 Posts

April 05 2011 13:03 GMT

#407

Wow, thanks for taking time to put this all togethere, this is so informative!

Mendelfist

Sweden356 Posts

April 25 2011 08:40 GMT

#408

This has now happened twice, so it's no longer a coincidence. Last season I lost the first match after my promotion to gold. My points however increased. The score screen said -13, but my points increased with 19. The difference is 32, which is what I got for my promotion match. It seems that I got the points for that match again.

Now the same thing happened again. I won 28 points for my promotion match to platinum (14 + 14). Then I lost the next match. The score screen said -13, but my points increased with 15, which happens to be -13 + 28.

Has anyone else noticed this?

Excalibur_Z

United States12237 Posts

April 25 2011 15:47 GMT

#409

On April 25 2011 17:40 Mendelfist wrote:
This has now happened twice, so it's no longer a coincidence. Last season I lost the first match after my promotion to gold. My points however increased. The score screen said -13, but my points increased with 19. The difference is 32, which is what I got for my promotion match. It seems that I got the points for that match again.

Now the same thing happened again. I won 28 points for my promotion match to platinum (14 + 14). Then I lost the next match. The score screen said -13, but my points increased with 15, which happens to be -13 + 28.

Has anyone else noticed this?

I think things that like have been reported, but they're mostly attributed to missing wins in match history? I also don't think many players notice it because it's hard to notice unless you're tracking your points after each game (like you do).