|
On September 20 2010 17:16 Drazzzt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 16:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2010 16:39 Drazzzt wrote:On September 18 2010 20:16 Numy wrote:On August 29 2010 22:40 Klockan3 wrote:On August 29 2010 19:13 Inori wrote:
Why this bothers me is because this system has no stable grounds - a way to know what level a player is based on his rating in any given time. For example in chess 1500 is mid, 1800 - good and 2200+ is pro level. This was true 30 years ago. This will be true 30 years from now. In SC2, however, 2-3 months from now everyone will have 5k+ points. And in another 2-3 months, what? 9999 points? And after that? Sure, resets may come, but they don't really solve the core of the problem.
You don't know how the rating works, not at all. None does but the designers working for Blizzard. It could be that the bonus pool artificially inflates the ratings but we don't know that and we wont know that until either Blizzard makes an official statement or in at least a few months. And look at these arguments: 1. It takes a long while for the system to stabilize when everyone starts out at x rating. chess haven't had a situation like this in ages. 2. If suddenly the whole world started to play competitive chess then everyones chess ranking would get a huge increase simply because the system puts all new players at the same ranking and most of the world are way worse than the worst parts of the competitive chess community. 3. The top players scores increases faster than the bonus pool adds points. You are completely missing the point. Bonus pool creates a large inflation. This is a FACT. No matter how match making works the points you see in your profile is increasing. This creates massive problems for the player. Now if I want to know if I have improved there is no baseline for me to compare myself to since 1000 points. today could be the same as 500 points last week. This inflation is stupid and serves only to boost the egos of those that don't understand. Bonus pool inflates POINTS - Rating is something we don't see and will most likely not see for a long time so it's meaningless as a visual indicator of improvement. EDIT: On September 18 2010 20:11 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I hate the system, I dont get to play very much so I am constantly behind everybody because of the bonus points. I have about 650 points in diamond but my hidden rating has me consistently getting matched against people that are at 1100-1200 now.
A couple weeks ago it was me against 800 point players, now its against 1200 point players.
(I am 38-24 at this point) I get the same thing. I'm around 800 points and always get matched up against 1200-1500 points players. The actual matchmaking is fine, I really enjoy it but what I don't understand is why the system has to hide the fact that I am a 1200-1500 player because of this stupid inflation. I want to be able to look at my points and get a rough idea of if I have improved from last week or not. Probably you are missing the points? Please read Excalibur_Z articles (mentioned later in this thread) and the comments about bonus pools. Stating that inflation is A FACT can only be a true if you really prove it (mathematically), which you can't as you don't know the details. The article describes quite well what is happening and it is quite certain (and well accepted) that the bonus pool only increases your shown points not the hidden MMR. So, there is some (!) inflation in the shown points, but definitely only a certain (not infinite!!!) amount. Why? The points gained after a win are calculated comparing your shown points with the opponents hidden MMR. If your points are inflated (the MMR is not, because no bonus pool), they will be much higher than the opponents MMR and, thus, the points you gain by winning will be getting lower and lower. The bonus points are only a constant to be added determined by the 1 point per 2 hours rate. To make it even more clear: if 2 top players play against each other, they should both (!) see that they are favored compared to each other. Thus, winning won't get them many points. Now you could discuss if this makes sense or not (both seeing themselves as favored if they are actually at the same level, meaning that MMR and shown points are always separated by the aforementioned constant, but it will stop inflation.) That is not correct. There is no evidence to suggest that: "the points you gain by winning will be getting lower and lower". Points will most likely increase indefinitely until a ladder reset, and converge not to MMR, but rather, (MMR + 0.5t), where t is the number of hours from the beginning of the season to right now. When stating something like this you should at least try to explain the reasoning behind it.... What you are missing here is that you won't win all of your games.....you will lets say lose 50% Lets say you play 1 game an hour, constantly. you lose one, you win one, you lose one, you win one and so on. Your points are much higher than your MMR (as there is no bonus pool). And your equally skilled opponent has the same MMR and points. So, your points are compared to his MMR, his points are compared to your MMR. So, if you win you get 1-3 normal points (as you are favored, your points >> his MMR) plus one bonus pool point (you win every two hours). If you lose you will lose 18-24 points as you are favored. So, you win 2-4 and lose 18-24 points, win 2-4, lose 18-24.....How will this increase indefinitely?
There is no evidence to suggest this is the case.
In the actual game, if you win you get 12 (24 if you have bonus pool), if you lose you get -12.
|
On September 20 2010 17:19 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 17:16 Drazzzt wrote:On September 20 2010 16:44 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2010 16:39 Drazzzt wrote:On September 18 2010 20:16 Numy wrote:On August 29 2010 22:40 Klockan3 wrote:On August 29 2010 19:13 Inori wrote:
Why this bothers me is because this system has no stable grounds - a way to know what level a player is based on his rating in any given time. For example in chess 1500 is mid, 1800 - good and 2200+ is pro level. This was true 30 years ago. This will be true 30 years from now. In SC2, however, 2-3 months from now everyone will have 5k+ points. And in another 2-3 months, what? 9999 points? And after that? Sure, resets may come, but they don't really solve the core of the problem.
You don't know how the rating works, not at all. None does but the designers working for Blizzard. It could be that the bonus pool artificially inflates the ratings but we don't know that and we wont know that until either Blizzard makes an official statement or in at least a few months. And look at these arguments: 1. It takes a long while for the system to stabilize when everyone starts out at x rating. chess haven't had a situation like this in ages. 2. If suddenly the whole world started to play competitive chess then everyones chess ranking would get a huge increase simply because the system puts all new players at the same ranking and most of the world are way worse than the worst parts of the competitive chess community. 3. The top players scores increases faster than the bonus pool adds points. You are completely missing the point. Bonus pool creates a large inflation. This is a FACT. No matter how match making works the points you see in your profile is increasing. This creates massive problems for the player. Now if I want to know if I have improved there is no baseline for me to compare myself to since 1000 points. today could be the same as 500 points last week. This inflation is stupid and serves only to boost the egos of those that don't understand. Bonus pool inflates POINTS - Rating is something we don't see and will most likely not see for a long time so it's meaningless as a visual indicator of improvement. EDIT: On September 18 2010 20:11 TheRabidDeer wrote:
I hate the system, I dont get to play very much so I am constantly behind everybody because of the bonus points. I have about 650 points in diamond but my hidden rating has me consistently getting matched against people that are at 1100-1200 now.
A couple weeks ago it was me against 800 point players, now its against 1200 point players.
(I am 38-24 at this point) I get the same thing. I'm around 800 points and always get matched up against 1200-1500 points players. The actual matchmaking is fine, I really enjoy it but what I don't understand is why the system has to hide the fact that I am a 1200-1500 player because of this stupid inflation. I want to be able to look at my points and get a rough idea of if I have improved from last week or not. Probably you are missing the points? Please read Excalibur_Z articles (mentioned later in this thread) and the comments about bonus pools. Stating that inflation is A FACT can only be a true if you really prove it (mathematically), which you can't as you don't know the details. The article describes quite well what is happening and it is quite certain (and well accepted) that the bonus pool only increases your shown points not the hidden MMR. So, there is some (!) inflation in the shown points, but definitely only a certain (not infinite!!!) amount. Why? The points gained after a win are calculated comparing your shown points with the opponents hidden MMR. If your points are inflated (the MMR is not, because no bonus pool), they will be much higher than the opponents MMR and, thus, the points you gain by winning will be getting lower and lower. The bonus points are only a constant to be added determined by the 1 point per 2 hours rate. To make it even more clear: if 2 top players play against each other, they should both (!) see that they are favored compared to each other. Thus, winning won't get them many points. Now you could discuss if this makes sense or not (both seeing themselves as favored if they are actually at the same level, meaning that MMR and shown points are always separated by the aforementioned constant, but it will stop inflation.) That is not correct. There is no evidence to suggest that: "the points you gain by winning will be getting lower and lower". Points will most likely increase indefinitely until a ladder reset, and converge not to MMR, but rather, (MMR + 0.5t), where t is the number of hours from the beginning of the season to right now. When stating something like this you should at least try to explain the reasoning behind it.... What you are missing here is that you won't win all of your games.....you will lets say lose 50% Lets say you play 1 game an hour, constantly. you lose one, you win one, you lose one, you win one and so on. Your points are much higher than your MMR (as there is no bonus pool). And your equally skilled opponent has the same MMR and points. So, your points are compared to his MMR, his points are compared to your MMR. So, if you win you get 1-3 normal points (as you are favored, your points >> his MMR) plus one bonus pool point (you win every two hours). If you lose you will lose 18-24 points as you are favored. So, you win 2-4 and lose 18-24 points, win 2-4, lose 18-24.....How will this increase indefinitely? There is no evidence to suggest this is the case. In the actual game, if you win you get 12 (24 if you have bonus pool), if you lose you get -12.
Come on, what are you talking about? In the game, you win points and lose points according to who is favored....Please, make yourself more knowledgeable about the topic. It's never always +12 and -12, only if you play against equal/even players. (and even than you have 9-15 points, not always 12)
And it is well accepted that your points are compared to the opponents hidden MMR and vice versa.
So, if your points are much higher than your MMR which is the case when their is bonus pool inflation in your points and not your MMR, you will always be favored when high in the ladder. Thus, only winning much less than +12 and losing much more than +12...
So, please next time make your point and GIVE a REASONING behind it.
|
Come on, what are you talking about? In the game, you win points and lose points according to who is favored....Please, make yourself more knowledgeable about the topic. It's never always +12 and -12, only if you play against equal/even players. (and even than you have 9-15 points, not always 12)
A new account will have nearly all opponents favored, but when sufficient games are player nearly all opponents are evenly matched.
This is because deciding who is favored is done by comparing a transformation of your points, adjusted for bonus pool inflation, to your opponents MMR.
And it is well accepted that your points are compared to the opponents hidden MMR and vice versa.
So, if your points are much higher than your MMR which is the case when their is bonus pool inflation in your points and not your MMR, you will always be favored when high in the ladder. Thus, only winning much less than +12 and losing much more than +12...
So, please next time make your point and GIVE a REASONING behind it.
No, your points are not directly compared to your opponents MMR. If they were then the behavior you described (once hitting high points, you get few points for winning, and lots of points for losing) will occur.
And there is no empirical evidence that this is the case. Furthermore, you are NOT always favored when high in the ladder. You are nearly always favored when your account has played few games, and evenly matched when your account has played many games, even if it's high in the ladder.
Again, you claims are not consistent with observable evidence.
The best explanation is that points adjusted for bonus pool inflation is compared to MMR.
Hopefully this graph will be illuminating: http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5416/graphs.jpg (replace R with MMR).
|
On September 19 2010 03:44 Tomtaietot wrote:
I M ASKING THIS FOR THE 4TH TIMEEEE !!!
Nobody seens to wonder ...
WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE BONUS POOL ?! WHY IT DOESN T GIVE POINTS ANYMORE ?!?!? ALL HAVE OVER 40 points SO FAR (at least in diamond) ....
DOES ANYONE KNOWS WHAT IS HAPPENING ?!?!?
(sorry for caps - but it becomes annoying)
It's a bug. It's a known issue and likely won't be fixed until next maintenance (since they don't want to take servers down to fix what's really a minor issue).
Next time you notice you're typing in all caps, go back and change it.
Screaming at everyone because you're annoyed just makes other people annoyed too.
|
BP is good. If you play 50 games a day it doesn't affect you at all.
But If you play 3-4 games a day. This give you chance to stay at some decent spot in your division.
Yes it doesn't mean you are better if you have more points. But if diamond avg win% is 53%
you will get more points without the pool too. The more you play the more points you get.
So 4-5 games a day with 3w 2 lose is going to give you enought points so you are not very far behind more active players with 27:23 W:L
|
On September 20 2010 17:54 AcOrP wrote:
BP is good. If you play 50 games a day it doesn't affect you at all.
But If you play 3-4 games a day. This give you chance to stay at some decent spot in your division.
Yes it doesn't mean you are better if you have more points. But if diamond avg win% is 53%
you will get more points without the pool too. The more you play the more points you get.
So 4-5 games a day with 3w 2 lose is going to give you enought points so you are not very far behind more active players with 27:23 W:L
TheRabidDeer:
It is not a system that promotes "catching up". Everybody gets bonus points, which means that any distance that you might be away from somebody that is at your skill level is actually just there BECAUSE of the bonus points
|
On September 20 2010 17:38 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +
Come on, what are you talking about? In the game, you win points and lose points according to who is favored....Please, make yourself more knowledgeable about the topic. It's never always +12 and -12, only if you play against equal/even players. (and even than you have 9-15 points, not always 12)
A new account will have nearly all opponents favored, but when sufficient games are player nearly all opponents are evenly matched. This is because deciding who is favored is done by comparing a transformation of your points, adjusted for bonus pool inflation, to your opponents MMR. Show nested quote +
And it is well accepted that your points are compared to the opponents hidden MMR and vice versa.
So, if your points are much higher than your MMR which is the case when their is bonus pool inflation in your points and not your MMR, you will always be favored when high in the ladder. Thus, only winning much less than +12 and losing much more than +12...
So, please next time make your point and GIVE a REASONING behind it.
No, your points are not directly compared to your opponents MMR. If they were then the behavior you described (once hitting high points, you get few points for winning, and lots of points for losing) will occur. And there is no empirical evidence that this is the case. Furthermore, you are NOT always favored when high in the ladder. You are nearly always favored *low* in the ladder, and evenly matched high in the ladder. Again, you claims are not consistent with observable evidence. The best explanation is that points adjusted for bonus pool inflation is compared to MMR. Hopefully this graph will be illuminating: http://img227.imageshack.us/img227/5416/graphs.jpg (replace R with MMR).
Thanks for finally giving a reasoning :-). So, now we can really start discussing.
I acknoweldge: If you were really correct that your points are adjusted for bonus pool when comparing with MMR, then you would be right of course, no question about it.
If it was not adjusted, then my calculations would be right. I think u agree here also.
Now, the question is: Is there a correction for bonus pool or not.
Is there already a proof / blizzard confirmation that there is a correction?
If there was one, I would consider it as unfortunate, because then the increase would be there. As I don't think that Blizzard really wants that I can't believe it's true.
So, now you might say: As in the top you often play against even players, it MUST be corrected. This is my "proof".
I'd say: No, it's no "water-proof" proof. Even when looking at the example I gave with an uncorrected system, it could still be possible to play against even opponents and still have a point ceiling.
How?
I gave an extreme example. Both favored, so winning 2-4, losing 20-24. This will of course never be the case, as it is really easy to see that this in not in the equilibrium and in this way you will lose points rapidly. So, your points get closer to your MMR fast.
If you get closer to your MMR, then you will start only playing slightly favored (and your equal opponent as well), so you will win 6-9 and lose 16-19 or something. It's still not in the equilibrium.
So, your points drop further until you play as even. As "even" has a range from 9-15 or something you can lose 9-15 and win 9-15 PLUS 1 (your bonus pool, you win every 2 hours).
So, it's only a 1 point difference. So, as soon as your points go higher and leave the MMR behind, you will only win 10+1 points and lose 14 points. So even there your points will drift back to the MMR (no matter if there is a bonus pool or not). And all the time you play against EVEN!!!!
|
Diamond is way too easy to obtain, it's a joke for those that are truly top tier players to play again those kind of crappy players that barely made it into lower Diamond. This is especially the case for 1vs1. There should be a higher league at the rate that the skill disparity keeps on increasing at the Diamond league level.
Also the team matchups needs to be fixed too, 3s and 4s are just unplayable for RT games, especially when you are the only highly placed Diamond player in the team matched with bronze level players vs an Arranged Team.
|
On September 20 2010 14:02 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 13:51 tetracycloide wrote:On September 20 2010 13:32 paralleluniverse wrote:On September 20 2010 13:27 tetracycloide wrote:On September 20 2010 13:08 On_Slaught wrote:
Honestly, I don't think the system is as deep or devious as many people think it might/should be.
I think it is simply a shallow, terrible system and Blizzard is too embarrassed to say anything (which is why they refuse to say anything about it) that will be changed at some point without telling anyone or in a very subtle way.
Point inflation is crazy and if their solution is simply "reset points" every once in a while, then that is a terrible system. I think it's more accurate to say that it's exactly the system Blizzard wanted. They're not embarrassed by it, they designed it to do what they wanted it to do and it does that. I think they couldn't be prouder of it. It keeps people playing. Just look at the sheer number of people even in a place like teamliquid who are hung up on points and leagues and ranks when it's all just made up numbers and pictures to make people feel good. That's what sells games and keeps people playing, after all. Not telling them they suck and will never amount to anything. People are always hung up over points, leagues and ranks, and even without a bonus pool endlessly inflating points and destabilizing ladder rankings, this would still be the case. Yes but fewer of them though. With meaningless points anyone can compete. If the points meant something only the players good enough to compete for them would be hung up on them. I mean sure, there are exceptions for especially tenacious players but the average person just wants to be patted on the head and told they're doing a good job on a constant basis. There's nothing stopping bad people from competing even without a bonus pool system. Bad players will still end up in bronze, and they will still have less points than better players in the same league.
Psychology stops them. It's basic behavioral conditioning. People don't do things over and over that are unrewarding. Bonus points are a built in reward that everyone gets equally so it encourages everyone to play equally, unlike a skill based system where only the proficient would be getting rewards. It's as simple as that.
|
I think we are looking in the wrong spot for the answer. I'm curious, do the lower leagues also have the same inflation issue currently? I'm not sure of the best way to research it, but I think we need to check a number of established lower league players and their rating over time. Like a 400 silver player or something. Do they ever hit a wall of their rating or is it continually climbing at the rate that the bonus points kick in?
Similarly to chess, maybe the ceiling of the top players is 2800 rating (which in chess is freaking almost unbeatable) and the top teir players like huk and select are still climbing. In turn, your current 1200 rated diamond may land in 2000 rating but they are still climbing.
But in the lower leagues maybe the ceiling has been hit and the players have settled in. Remember in WC3 it took an eternity for your level to be established.
I'll try to do some research on my lunch break unless someone has already done this process.
Edit; I poked around some high number of games players in gold an silver and in general their rating did climb at about the rate of bonus points accumulating. Bummer.
|
On September 20 2010 17:55 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2010 17:54 AcOrP wrote:
BP is good. If you play 50 games a day it doesn't affect you at all.
But If you play 3-4 games a day. This give you chance to stay at some decent spot in your division.
Yes it doesn't mean you are better if you have more points. But if diamond avg win% is 53%
you will get more points without the pool too. The more you play the more points you get.
So 4-5 games a day with 3w 2 lose is going to give you enought points so you are not very far behind more active players with 27:23 W:L TheRabidDeer: It is not a system that promotes "catching up". Everybody gets bonus points, which means that any distance that you might be away from somebody that is at your skill level is actually just there BECAUSE of the bonus points
No. Please observe the following.
5 games per week (0% loss) = 50 points + 50 point bonus pool = 100 points
10 games per week (40% loss) = 10 points + 50 point bonus pool = 50 points
100 games per week (40% loss) = 100 points + 50 point bonus pool = 150 points
10:100 is a far bigger difference than 50:150. Thus
1. The system helps players who cannot play often (above a minimum threshold).
2. The system REALLY helps players who are ranked far too low for their skill, but cannot play too often. (In this example, doubling his gains).
But sure, everyone is going to ignore this and just continue to post shit from their ass.
|
Exactly how do you gain 50 points by going 50/50 in 10 games?
You gain and lose the same amount for a win and a loss, for the most part.
You would net 50 for the week because of the bonus points whether you played 10 games or 100 games. Hence the inflation.
And before you bring it up I have a degree in math and engineering so I probably know a little bit more about how to do calculations than you do.
Edit: I think I see what you mean now but the wording is freaking terrible. Do you mean some dude who started with 500 ends with 550? If so then you admit to inflation since both players who went 50/50 got an additional 50 points added to their score even though they split their games.
Edit^2:now you are changing the numers unrealistically. People don't win 60% of their games unless you are a god. You win 50% of the games so your logic is flawed.
|
On September 21 2010 02:22 Champ24 wrote:
Exactly how do you gain 50 points by going 50/50 in 10 games?
You gain and lose the same amount for a win and a loss, for the most part.
You would net 50 for the week because of the bonus points whether you played 10 games or 100 games. Hence the inflation.
And before you bring it up I have a degree in math and engineering so I probably know a little bit more about how to do calculations than you do.
Edit: I think I see what you mean now but the wording is freaking terrible. Do you mean some dude who started with 500 ends with 550? If so then you admit to inflation since both players who went 50/50 got an additional 50 points added to their score even though they split their games.
There was a mistake in my OP (I've corrected it now). Sorry for the confusion. Things ARE equal at 50/50, but they are not equal anywhere else. What I had meant to show was that x wins and 10*x wins behave differently with the bonus point system to the advantage of the x.
Ok, but as to the rest of your post
1) I never denied that there was inflation, I was pointing out WHY the system works the way it does, since nobody seems to understand that part.
2) Look, if you want to get into an epeen contest, I'll gladly take the challenge. People who cite their degrees as evidence of their capability to perform grade-school math seem to be majoring in bullshit more than anything else.
my reply to your edit: nonsense. look at the numbers. A lot of people have 60% win rates... basically anybody who isn't correctly placed yet. THIS IS WHAT THE SYSTEM IS FOR. This bonus point system helps place them faster than they otherwise would get there. Furthermore, anyone over 50% (even infinitesimally) experiences this relative gain. It should be obvious to you with all your math degrees that x < y is relatively farther apart than x + c < y + c
|
Considering that bonus points are generated for everyone evenly and at the same rate (unlike a similar rest system in WoW that more or less generates only when you aren't doing anything in town/logged out), what is the point of the bonus pool system at all?
All it does is inflate everyone's scores at a constant rate as with the 'intended' 50/50 win rate you will constantly grow in points from the bonus pool alone.
I'm quite confused by its purpose.
|
On September 21 2010 03:14 PTZ. wrote:
Considering that bonus points are generated for everyone evenly and at the same rate (unlike a similar rest system in WoW that more or less generates only when you aren't doing anything in town/logged out), what is the point of the bonus pool system at all?
All it does is inflate everyone's scores at a constant rate as with the 'intended' 50/50 win rate you will constantly grow in points from the bonus pool alone.
I'm quite confused by its purpose.
Please read my post 3 replies up.
|
On September 21 2010 03:09 ToxNub wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2010 02:22 Champ24 wrote:
Exactly how do you gain 50 points by going 50/50 in 10 games?
You gain and lose the same amount for a win and a loss, for the most part.
You would net 50 for the week because of the bonus points whether you played 10 games or 100 games. Hence the inflation.
And before you bring it up I have a degree in math and engineering so I probably know a little bit more about how to do calculations than you do.
Edit: I think I see what you mean now but the wording is freaking terrible. Do you mean some dude who started with 500 ends with 550? If so then you admit to inflation since both players who went 50/50 got an additional 50 points added to their score even though they split their games. There was a mistake in my OP (I've corrected it now). Sorry for the confusion. Things ARE equal at 50/50, but they are not equal anywhere else. What I had meant to show was that x wins and 10*x wins behave differently with the bonus point system to the advantage of the x. Ok, but as to the rest of your post 1) I never denied that there was inflation, I was pointing out WHY the system works the way it does, since nobody seems to understand that part. 2) Look, if you want to get into an epeen contest, I'll gladly take the challenge. People who cite their degrees as evidence of their capability to perform grade-school math seem to be majoring in bullshit more than anything else.
You are the one who brought up how easy the grade-school difficulty math is and then fucked it up, not me.
Then we agree there is inflation. I think inflation blows. You don't. I guess we can agree to disagree.
|
Inflation is not ideal. But neither is screwing over people with low playtimes.
|
Grinding games should not increase a player's points steadily. Ideally the only way to gain points is to win more games than you lose, and win against better players. I'll admit this happens to me, but I lose around as many games as I win yet my point value consistently rises. It makes it so there is no clearcut boundary of better players and worse players since anyone can get to the top regardless of skill.
|
On September 21 2010 03:32 hmunkey wrote:
Grinding games should not increase a player's points steadily. Ideally the only way to gain points is to win more games than you lose, and win against better players. I'll admit this happens to me, but I lose around as many games as I win yet my point value consistently rises. It makes it so there is no clearcut boundary of better players and worse players since anyone can get to the top regardless of skill.
This logic is faulty. The top players increase too, so no, you'll stay right where you are in regards to the "top". Grinding games does not increase your points steadily (relatively!) unless you're increasing your skill steadily.
|
On August 29 2010 19:13 Inori wrote:
[Why this bothers me is because this system has no stable grounds - a way to know what level a player is based on his rating in any given time. For example in chess 1500 is mid, 1800 - good and 2200+ is pro level. This was true 30 years ago. This will be true 30 years from now. In SC2, however, 2-3 months from now everyone will have 5k+ points. And in another 2-3 months, what? 9999 points? And after that? Sure, resets may come, but they don't really solve the core of the problem.
I think this problem is better than ones that would exist without bonus points.
For example: someone with the beta who learned the fundementals playing a bunch of games against new players and getting a high rating after a couple days. Then he never plays again and in a couple years his name is up there at the top with a bunch of people that are WAY better than him.
I think a better comprimised system would be for your bonus points to come from your actual points so after a day you gain 12 bonus points but loose 12.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
