|
On October 20 2010 06:41 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 05:48 bigjenk wrote:
Thus why i said they should ditch the point system. I started this game in bronze due to never really trying in any rts prior(lulz early sc1 and then tried 4 years later and got roflstomped 20x in a row against good players so i couldn't ever get into it) so my points relative now that i have climbed multiple leagues are 400 or so points lower due to bonus pool, I honestly don't really care though. I would love to have an elo or mmr rating so despite division and whatever you can see exactly where you are in relative grade to everyone else on your server. You're kind of missing the point of the points system here. Yes, if you're a top player but not in the top 200 who wants to know where you really stand in terms of ranking, I agree the points system is rather misleading, and yes, if you're one of the elite few with an MMR so high you can no longer gain points as fast as random people 1500 points lower than you with a huge bonus pool to farm, the point-gaining system is flawed and doesn't help you out at all, but the points system does not exist to benefit you individually in either of these cases. The points system exists to benefit low-to-mid range players and give them a reason to continue playing and feel as if they're improving even if they're really not. If someone from the gold league rises 400 points and several places in their division but their MMR hasn't changed at all, well, they don't know that, to them it feels like they've really improved their standings and that's going to give them more incentive to play, as well as a greater reward for playing more. And random gold league players are going to outnumber elite diamond super-high-MMR players every single time. WoW arena originally had more of the system you're thinking of here where you were shown your 'true' rating, as it were, and saw exactly how it fluctuated based on your games. It was a disaster. People hated being proven numerically they were terrible and new players had almost no incentive to try at all, and there's really no bigger discouragement to stop playing than seeing that you've played for 2 hours and ended up tanking your rating. So they changed it a bit and now all new players start at 0 and can only go up, even with a massively lopsided w/l ratio. Now you're seeing people go "well I went from 900 to 1500 rating, I must've really improved!" even though from a skill perspective they're still awful. Blizzard learned a lot from this and I happen to think the new points ranking system is kind of ingenious. Everyone, no matter where they are, can only go up so it always feels like you're improving, and you always get rewarded for playing even if you have an awful w/l ratio. Of course it's just an illusion and a psychological trap to get you to play more, but from a game designer perspective it's brilliant. They would have no reason at all to ditch this system no matter how many super high-rated players bitch about it.
The thing that was complained about was that new players started at 1500 when that was the 50 percent line so there first 20 games out of the gate would net lose them a ton of points due to their mmr being lower than their actual rating. They reversed this. And actually they went the opposite direction of what you said actual mmr was hidden for 6 seasons i believe(maybe 5) and the complaints about that led them to being able to see your actual mmr instead of it being a mystery number. It's kind of funny that they forgot years of complaints in one game and then hid it again in their new game after finally revealing it in wow.
|
On October 20 2010 06:42 TheYellowOne wrote:
On October 20 2010 06:17 RyanRushia wrote:
However, in team games or lower diamond play where we're not always playing for tournaments or preparing for tournament, it's kind of hard to convince 2 other friends to get on at semi-inconvenient times, play together for a few games, win more games than u lose and still lose more points to a team that the ladder says is higher ranked. Blizzard says it's about each division you're in except this happens at the division level too.
"hey andrew, u wanna play some 3's?" "and lose more points for winning vs a higher ranked team so we go even lower? nty"
what does it matter? team games are played for fun. nobody even cares about anyone else's team rankings.
"hey andrew, u wanna play (insert any fun activity)?" "and not gain achievement points/gamer points/points on a meaningless online ladder/money/reputation/political power? nty" time to ditch andrew and make new friends who actually know how to have fun.
|
|
|
Started a trial account with Terran to see how they play. I'm currently 12-1 and facing 1800+ diamond users, when I have like 350 pts in Platinum. Shit's dumb yo.
|
You keep saying that you're better you have a better MMR and the system expects you to win but you want more points than them. That's not how it works if you keep losing to this team you're not going to stay above them in the ladder. You keep saying they cheese you well if they're beating you...
You don't seem to fully grasp the concept by what you keep saying. Yes the system expects you to win thats why you get less points. I really fail to see the problem here there are so many variables on the ladder that result in these sorts of situations that unless you ahppen to be on both teams it's not really possible to say OMG it's broken. Maybe they -ONLY- lose to people with higher MMR than them so that their point gain is really high. How do you know?
That system only goes by points and cannot see the MMR hence why Blizzard's rankings are always different. Ranking by purely points alone is flawed as you need to know the hidden numbers to see who is actually #1.
|
Remember going to high school and getting a bad grade when you studied really hard for a test and being really angry? It's not a good feeling at all. In fact, I would guess a bunch of you like video games and especially starcraft because it's based on "skill" at the high level of play. Out of anything you'll find in the RNG-filled life of ours, you find solace in something that actually rewards you for working hard and achieving something. Maybe that's just Day9 talking but what you may not know is the mmr system is pretty much worse than your average 70 year old teacher who gave you a terrible grade for no reason. It actually will lower your grade as soon as you give the right answer.
The ladder system, like school, does not reward "hard work". It rewards results. You could study all day, but if you don't learn anything, should you be rewarded for that? Is it fair that someone could study and study and yet fail a class while another person can do the minimum and get straights A's? Maybe, maybe not. Fairness is not the question; the question is if the test is a valid test.
I know you dont care about my team games cuz team games dont matter but look at who's top ranked in 1v1. Select? Huk? nope, some korean with 50 something % win loss. This isn't just because good players didn't "ladder recently" it's because their point gains are worse overall than the people with worse win loss and therefore lower mmr. You can check their point gains against equally ranked players.
So what's actually happening in the situation from the beginning is your mmr is actually high and you're "at the 1800+ level" but since you play vs other people of that mmr all the time you're point gain is EVEN assuming you break even. You gain 12, you lose 12. What's your mmr at? STILL 1400 LOL. Now obviously it goes up cuz of the bonus pool but eventually
First, the system was not designed to compare regions. The system has not ranked "some Korean" higher than HuK or SeleCT. That is purely a third-party interpretation of the points. The regions do not play each other.
And even if they did, this argument would still not be consistent. Win/Loss ratio does not mean as much as you think it does. The people with worse win/loss probably played better people then you did. Why shouldn't this be taken into account? If the situation were reversed, would you feel the same way?
If your playing people of the same MMR and going even, then why should you get more points? You win some and lose some, then you do not deserve to get promoted, just cause you "work hard". Sorry, but thats how relative rankings work. You want reward for hard work, thats what achievement points are for.
your MMR gain is disproportionately high compared to how many points you gain. For example, as we were playing our mmr would keep going up for winning while our points stayed at the same ranking, meaning we kept losing more points and winning less until we were getting 1 pt a game. This means if you keep queueing and keep winning your point gain will become worse and worse overall in respect to everyone else unless u drop ur win loss a bit. Give it a few more months, someone like select who has a great win loss will gain even less pts per win since his mmr will be presumably higher than the RANK ONE 50% WIN LOSS GOD OF STARCRAFT 2.
This is because the MMR models skill as being normally distributed, the typical bell-curve shape. Near the extreme end of skill, it makes sense to level off the points. So fucking what if some nub gets more points on the margin than SeleCT; he still has more points on average. This reminds me of a great Dilbert comic that illustrates the mistake you are making.
here
If you're having problems in 1v1, you might also let your dog play a little bit so lower your mmr. Best part is the ladder system will reward your dog substituting for you half the time with more points. You can also try any sort of pet or very young siblings you have as long as they actually dont know how to play the game. If they actually know how to play the game, you run the risk of losing more ranking in the long run.
The ranking suggests, based on your past performance, that if you play someone with equal points, you should win about half the time. So if you confirm this by gaining 12, then losing 12, you have validated the system; the system has zeroed in in your skill level. If on the other hand, you do better than the system predicts, your points will then we adjusted upwards. There is no reason to think that your dog would automatically fit this prediction.
|
On October 20 2010 06:41 Krigwin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 05:48 bigjenk wrote:
Thus why i said they should ditch the point system. I started this game in bronze due to never really trying in any rts prior(lulz early sc1 and then tried 4 years later and got roflstomped 20x in a row against good players so i couldn't ever get into it) so my points relative now that i have climbed multiple leagues are 400 or so points lower due to bonus pool, I honestly don't really care though. I would love to have an elo or mmr rating so despite division and whatever you can see exactly where you are in relative grade to everyone else on your server. You're kind of missing the point of the points system here. Yes, if you're a top player but not in the top 200 who wants to know where you really stand in terms of ranking, I agree the points system is rather misleading, and yes, if you're one of the elite few with an MMR so high you can no longer gain points as fast as random people 1500 points lower than you with a huge bonus pool to farm, the point-gaining system is flawed and doesn't help you out at all, but the points system does not exist to benefit you individually in either of these cases. The points system exists to benefit low-to-mid range players and give them a reason to continue playing and feel as if they're improving even if they're really not. If someone from the gold league rises 400 points and several places in their division but their MMR hasn't changed at all, well, they don't know that, to them it feels like they've really improved their standings and that's going to give them more incentive to play, as well as a greater reward for playing more. And random gold league players are going to outnumber elite diamond super-high-MMR players every single time. WoW arena originally had more of the system you're thinking of here where you were shown your 'true' rating, as it were, and saw exactly how it fluctuated based on your games. It was a disaster. People hated being proven numerically they were terrible and new players had almost no incentive to try at all, and there's really no bigger discouragement to stop playing than seeing that you've played for 2 hours and ended up tanking your rating. So they changed it a bit and now all new players start at 0 and can only go up, even with a massively lopsided w/l ratio. Now you're seeing people go "well I went from 900 to 1500 rating, I must've really improved!" even though from a skill perspective they're still awful. Blizzard learned a lot from this and I happen to think the new points ranking system is kind of ingenious. Everyone, no matter where they are, can only go up so it always feels like you're improving, and you always get rewarded for playing even if you have an awful w/l ratio. Of course it's just an illusion and a psychological trap to get you to play more, but from a game designer perspective it's brilliant. They would have no reason at all to ditch this system no matter how many super high-rated players bitch about it.
hmm i hadn't thought of it that way. this is a pretty interesting way to look at it, but u still wont gain any points if u break even in terms of W/L(this is true for me and i am far from a high ranker). for a few weeks, i was at 1000-1100plat because i switched to random to try the other races to improve my gameplay and see which race i liked best. i had a 50% win ratio and my score flucated between 1000 and 1100 for a long time. but yur logic, blizzard should, at the very least, allow diamond players to see their MMR. as a plat player, i get discouraged and pissed off when im on a losing streak, but ill just stop playing and come back to next day to try and improve. i think that most players at plat and above will play like that. based on my experience, its not like the point system is working the way it was meant to work in plat anyways.
|
On October 20 2010 06:48 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:You keep saying that you're better you have a better MMR and the system expects you to win but you want more points than them. That's not how it works if you keep losing to this team you're not going to stay above them in the ladder. You keep saying they cheese you well if they're beating you... You don't seem to fully grasp the concept by what you keep saying. Yes the system expects you to win thats why you get less points. I really fail to see the problem here there are so many variables on the ladder that result in these sorts of situations that unless you ahppen to be on both teams it's not really possible to say OMG it's broken. Maybe they -ONLY- lose to people with higher MMR than them so that their point gain is really high. How do you know? That system only goes by points and cannot see the MMR hence why Blizzard's rankings are always different. Ranking by purely points alone is flawed as you need to know the hidden numbers to see who is actually #1.
We didnt "keep losing to this team" lol u gotta actually read wut im saying here. we went 5-3 overall and got way less pts in that exchange when we were already higher mmr. If we didn't have higher mmr this wouldnt happen to begin with. Further, if they only lose to people with higher mmr their mmr wouldnt drop down as much meaning their mmr would be higher and they would actually gain less points. We already know it compares SOMETHING (according to excalibur_z it's ur own team rating) to your opponent's mmr to determine who is favored. Unless you mean to say they lose to worse teams so their mmr drops more per losses. Either way higher mmr loses more points but in this situation the higher mmr team already has less pts. Also something tells me if they lose to worse teams and do it more often than we do maybe that's indicative of them being a worse team. The mmr obviously reflects this so your points should reflect this as well is my thought.
Here are the facts You can check my match history as well as theirs if you want proof
1) we have higher mmr according to who is favored on both teams. For them we were slightly favored, to us we were slightly favored. You say we need to be on their team to understand but we're practically on their team cuz we can track their wins, losses and pt gains as well as who they win/lose to.
2) we have more wins and less losses over all. (this means we played more games since u didnt get this last time)
3) we also won more games and lost less games against the specific team
3) we STARTED with less overall pts with no bonus pool on either side meaning bonus pool infllation wasnt a factor when we started our "series" against them"
4) we ENDED with even less overall pts
Raelcun i kno u kno howplaysc2 so imagine you playing against a bronze league player and you getting 10-1'ed. But you go up in points and he loses points, mayb get demoted to copper or something even though it doesnt even exist. Does that make sense to you?
|
you went 5-3 against a team with lower MMR and lost points in the exchange that's working as intended. Did you know that both teams can be favored vs each other at the same time though? The way MMR works compares two different numbers it's not a straight comparison so you could both be favored vs eachother but you are more favored than they are.
1)Do not look at the "You are favored" on the loading screen it's wrong read the thread from excalibur_Z that was linked on page one of the topic.
2)The fact that you have more wins and less losses is why you have a higher MMR, but you keep stating that you've lost vs this team which is has a lower MMR than you basically giving them free points in comparison to you and complain that they're higher ranked?
3a) It doesnt matter that you have won more games than lost against that team because you have a higher MMR if you don't completely smash them every time and go close to 60-70% they will come out better in points.
Do the simple math that you've stated previously you 7 points and they win 15, you win 5 times thats 35 points, they win 3 times thats 45.
3b) See above
4) See above
|
I have a question..
Where exactly did you see your hidden MMR? Cause sure as hell i can't find it..
|
I have to agree. I am a 1500 diamond player, yet the system always says that I'm an even match with people in the 1800s. I really do understand the MMR argument, but if everything is actually based on MMR, then why do points even exist
|
On October 20 2010 06:50 treekiller wrote:Show nested quote +Remember going to high school and getting a bad grade when you studied really hard for a test and being really angry? It's not a good feeling at all. In fact, I would guess a bunch of you like video games and especially starcraft because it's based on "skill" at the high level of play. Out of anything you'll find in the RNG-filled life of ours, you find solace in something that actually rewards you for working hard and achieving something. Maybe that's just Day9 talking but what you may not know is the mmr system is pretty much worse than your average 70 year old teacher who gave you a terrible grade for no reason. It actually will lower your grade as soon as you give the right answer. The ladder system, like school, does not reward "hard work". It rewards results. You could study all day, but if you don't learn anything, should you be rewarded for that? Is it fair that someone could study and study and yet fail a class while another person can do the minimum and get straights A's? Maybe, maybe not. Fairness is not the question; the question is if the test is a valid test. Show nested quote +I know you dont care about my team games cuz team games dont matter but look at who's top ranked in 1v1. Select? Huk? nope, some korean with 50 something % win loss. This isn't just because good players didn't "ladder recently" it's because their point gains are worse overall than the people with worse win loss and therefore lower mmr. You can check their point gains against equally ranked players.
So what's actually happening in the situation from the beginning is your mmr is actually high and you're "at the 1800+ level" but since you play vs other people of that mmr all the time you're point gain is EVEN assuming you break even. You gain 12, you lose 12. What's your mmr at? STILL 1400 LOL. Now obviously it goes up cuz of the bonus pool but eventually First, the system was not designed to compare regions. The system has not ranked "some Korean" higher than HuK or SeleCT. That is purely a third-party interpretation of the points. The regions do not play each other. And even if they did, this argument would still not be consistent. Win/Loss ratio does not mean as much as you think it does. The people with worse win/loss probably played better people then you did. Why shouldn't this be taken into account? If the situation were reversed, would you feel the same way? If your playing people of the same MMR and going even, then why should you get more points? You win some and lose some, then you do not deserve to get promoted, just cause you "work hard". Sorry, but thats how relative rankings work. You want reward for hard work, thats what achievement points are for. Show nested quote +your MMR gain is disproportionately high compared to how many points you gain. For example, as we were playing our mmr would keep going up for winning while our points stayed at the same ranking, meaning we kept losing more points and winning less until we were getting 1 pt a game. This means if you keep queueing and keep winning your point gain will become worse and worse overall in respect to everyone else unless u drop ur win loss a bit. Give it a few more months, someone like select who has a great win loss will gain even less pts per win since his mmr will be presumably higher than the RANK ONE 50% WIN LOSS GOD OF STARCRAFT 2. This is because the MMR models skill as being normally distributed, the typical bell-curve shape. Near the extreme end of skill, it makes sense to level off the points. So fucking what if some nub gets more points on the margin than SeleCT; he still has more points on average. This reminds me of a great Dilbert comic that illustrates the mistake you are making. hereShow nested quote +If you're having problems in 1v1, you might also let your dog play a little bit so lower your mmr. Best part is the ladder system will reward your dog substituting for you half the time with more points. You can also try any sort of pet or very young siblings you have as long as they actually dont know how to play the game. If they actually know how to play the game, you run the risk of losing more ranking in the long run. The ranking suggests, based on your past performance, that if you play someone with equal points, you should win about half the time. So if you confirm this by gaining 12, then losing 12, you have validated the system; the system has zeroed in in your skill level. If on the other hand, you do better than the system predicts, your points will then we adjusted upwards. There is no reason to think that your dog would automatically fit this prediction.
some people don't want rewards, they just wanna know if they are improving and exactly how strong they are as a player. pros don't need it cuz they have tournaments to tell them that(ex: if u win the GSL u are awesome, simple as that). for the gamers that don't play to enter compeitions, but just play to get better, they wanna know exactly how good they are. points wont show u this because ex:
u win 4 games yay!
u get 40 points(+10 each win) and yur mmr goes up, so u start facing hard ppl
u lose 4 games and win 2 =(
u have a net loss of 88 points (-27 each lose, +10 each win) yur mmr decreases a little.
win 4 games =D
u gain 40 points yur mmr is as high as it ever was but look at what happens to points.
u have a total of 10 wins and 4 loses
100 - 108 = -8
wtf!!! u end up losing points for getting better. yeah..... that makes perfect sense.
u end up getting so good that u might actually consider playing at the professional level but u don't actually know that cuz u've lost 800 points. u would need a 3 : 1 win ratio to gain points.
|
On October 20 2010 07:13 MementoMori wrote:
I have to agree. I am a 1500 diamond player, yet the system always says that I'm an even match with people in the 1800s. I really do understand the MMR argument, but if everything is actually based on MMR, then why do points even exist
That's because you are, 300 point difference is not a big difference especially with how much the points are getting inflated on the ladder. The favored vs even thing is not straight up MMR comparison it's a coimparison between your MMR and their listed points. It means your MMR is high if you're getting listed as even vs an 1800 player. Read the thread by Excalibur_Z it's linked on the first page of this thread it answers basically all of the misconceptions that have been brought up in this entire topic.
|
On October 20 2010 06:50 treekiller wrote:Show nested quote +Remember going to high school and getting a bad grade when you studied really hard for a test and being really angry? It's not a good feeling at all. In fact, I would guess a bunch of you like video games and especially starcraft because it's based on "skill" at the high level of play. Out of anything you'll find in the RNG-filled life of ours, you find solace in something that actually rewards you for working hard and achieving something. Maybe that's just Day9 talking but what you may not know is the mmr system is pretty much worse than your average 70 year old teacher who gave you a terrible grade for no reason. It actually will lower your grade as soon as you give the right answer. The ladder system, like school, does not reward "hard work". It rewards results. You could study all day, but if you don't learn anything, should you be rewarded for that? Is it fair that someone could study and study and yet fail a class while another person can do the minimum and get straights A's? Maybe, maybe not. Fairness is not the question; the question is if the test is a valid test. Show nested quote +I know you dont care about my team games cuz team games dont matter but look at who's top ranked in 1v1. Select? Huk? nope, some korean with 50 something % win loss. This isn't just because good players didn't "ladder recently" it's because their point gains are worse overall than the people with worse win loss and therefore lower mmr. You can check their point gains against equally ranked players.
So what's actually happening in the situation from the beginning is your mmr is actually high and you're "at the 1800+ level" but since you play vs other people of that mmr all the time you're point gain is EVEN assuming you break even. You gain 12, you lose 12. What's your mmr at? STILL 1400 LOL. Now obviously it goes up cuz of the bonus pool but eventually First, the system was not designed to compare regions. The system has not ranked "some Korean" higher than HuK or SeleCT. That is purely a third-party interpretation of the points. The regions do not play each other. And even if they did, this argument would still not be consistent. Win/Loss ratio does not mean as much as you think it does. The people with worse win/loss probably played better people then you did. Why shouldn't this be taken into account? If the situation were reversed, would you feel the same way? If your playing people of the same MMR and going even, then why should you get more points? You win some and lose some, then you do not deserve to get promoted, just cause you "work hard". Sorry, but thats how relative rankings work. You want reward for hard work, thats what achievement points are for. Show nested quote +your MMR gain is disproportionately high compared to how many points you gain. For example, as we were playing our mmr would keep going up for winning while our points stayed at the same ranking, meaning we kept losing more points and winning less until we were getting 1 pt a game. This means if you keep queueing and keep winning your point gain will become worse and worse overall in respect to everyone else unless u drop ur win loss a bit. Give it a few more months, someone like select who has a great win loss will gain even less pts per win since his mmr will be presumably higher than the RANK ONE 50% WIN LOSS GOD OF STARCRAFT 2. This is because the MMR models skill as being normally distributed, the typical bell-curve shape. Near the extreme end of skill, it makes sense to level off the points. So fucking what if some nub gets more points on the margin than SeleCT; he still has more points on average. This reminds me of a great Dilbert comic that illustrates the mistake you are making. hereShow nested quote +If you're having problems in 1v1, you might also let your dog play a little bit so lower your mmr. Best part is the ladder system will reward your dog substituting for you half the time with more points. You can also try any sort of pet or very young siblings you have as long as they actually dont know how to play the game. If they actually know how to play the game, you run the risk of losing more ranking in the long run. The ranking suggests, based on your past performance, that if you play someone with equal points, you should win about half the time. So if you confirm this by gaining 12, then losing 12, you have validated the system; the system has zeroed in in your skill level. If on the other hand, you do better than the system predicts, your points will then we adjusted upwards. There is no reason to think that your dog would automatically fit this prediction.
1) u say the system rewards results. More wins, less losses, more games, higher mmr, yet less pts gained AND they have more pts to begin with than us. I consider -17 after +5 not much of a reward.
2) u say it's not meant to compare regions. u can do 2 things, 1 just look at just each region then. argument still applies. 2 u can also remember that the only difference between 3 regions is about 10 pts in bonus pool as sc2ranks indicates. It's a different skill pool sure but pt wise its practically the same.
3) u say "If your playing people of the same MMR and going even, then why should you get more points?" but u gotta remember they alrdy have more pts than u even tho it's not just cuz they played more.
4) you're thinking that these other people with lower win loss have a marginal lead in ranking and that people that are actually good are in the lead longer on average, except it doesnt work like that at all. For example, select as rank 2 could queue with higher mmr than the r1 guy and even if he goes 7-3 or something against him he'll have 0 pt gain aside from bonus pool while the other guy gets an even bigger boost. This means ppl have to go practically 10-0 and it DISPROPORTIONATELY AWARDS ppl with bad win loss in the long run.
5) the dog example was saying u should go lose mmr in some other bracket so u have an easier time catching up to people of higher ranking/lower mmr. It's quicker. If you want proof i can link u the 0-50 a few days before we got rank 1. It's like you're defending this system on a whim that it's even functioning the way you want it to. It's actually not working like that at all.
Please keep reading theories about how the system works and assume blizzard knows wut theyre doing. I might go and lose more games on purpose so i actually can be that guy "benefiting from marginal leads" except owait ill b in the lead until the season ends
|
On October 20 2010 07:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
you went 5-3 against a team with lower MMR and lost points in the exchange that's working as intended. Did you know that both teams can be favored vs each other at the same time though? The way MMR works compares two different numbers it's not a straight comparison so you could both be favored vs eachother but you are more favored than they are.
1)Do not look at the "You are favored" on the loading screen it's wrong read the thread from excalibur_Z that was linked on page one of the topic.
2)The fact that you have more wins and less losses is why you have a higher MMR, but you keep stating that you've lost vs this team which is has a lower MMR than you basically giving them free points in comparison to you and complain that they're higher ranked?
3a) It doesnt matter that you have won more games than lost against that team because you have a higher MMR if you don't completely smash them every time and go close to 60-70% they will come out better in points.
Do the simple math that you've stated previously you 7 points and they win 15, you win 5 times thats 35 points, they win 3 times thats 45.
3b) See above
4) See above
Why does TheYellowOne have to smash the team every single time just because of his MMR? The way I see it, if he's winning more than he's losing against this team, his team should be ranked higher until that changes.
|
On October 20 2010 07:21 Ironical wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
you went 5-3 against a team with lower MMR and lost points in the exchange that's working as intended. Did you know that both teams can be favored vs each other at the same time though? The way MMR works compares two different numbers it's not a straight comparison so you could both be favored vs eachother but you are more favored than they are.
1)Do not look at the "You are favored" on the loading screen it's wrong read the thread from excalibur_Z that was linked on page one of the topic.
2)The fact that you have more wins and less losses is why you have a higher MMR, but you keep stating that you've lost vs this team which is has a lower MMR than you basically giving them free points in comparison to you and complain that they're higher ranked?
3a) It doesnt matter that you have won more games than lost against that team because you have a higher MMR if you don't completely smash them every time and go close to 60-70% they will come out better in points.
Do the simple math that you've stated previously you 7 points and they win 15, you win 5 times thats 35 points, they win 3 times thats 45.
3b) See above
4) See above Why does TheYellowOne have to smash the team every single time just because of his MMR? The way I see it, if he's winning more than he's losing against this team, his team should be ranked higher until that changes.
Because he keeps saying his win ratio is wayyyy better than his opponents he claims that they get twice the points for winning that he does so the system obviously thinks he's way better than his opponent. If he continues to draw almost even the MMR will adjust and he'll start winning more points as the system fixes itself. In short everything is working as it is supposed to be because as of right now apparently it thinks that he is better than he is if he's only going 5-3 against these guys and winning half the points.
|
On October 20 2010 07:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
you went 5-3 against a team with lower MMR and lost points in the exchange that's working as intended. Did you know that both teams can be favored vs each other at the same time though? The way MMR works compares two different numbers it's not a straight comparison so you could both be favored vs eachother but you are more favored than they are.
1)Do not look at the "You are favored" on the loading screen it's wrong read the thread from excalibur_Z that was linked on page one of the topic.
2)The fact that you have more wins and less losses is why you have a higher MMR, but you keep stating that you've lost vs this team which is has a lower MMR than you basically giving them free points in comparison to you and complain that they're higher ranked?
3a) It doesnt matter that you have won more games than lost against that team because you have a higher MMR if you don't completely smash them every time and go close to 60-70% they will come out better in points.
Do the simple math that you've stated previously you 7 points and they win 15, you win 5 times thats 35 points, they win 3 times thats 45.
3b) See above
4) See above
see my last post, u didnt even answer any of it
incase ur too lazy to read wut im saying which u clearly are:
1) ur saying they might been favored but check their win loss they got 15+15. doesnt seem like they were favored even to themselves. THIS IS ON THEIR MATCH HISTORY IM NOT READING FROM MINE. STOP ASSUMING I HAVE DOWNS. I dont know how much more proof u need that our mmr was higher and that we were favored on our screen and we were ALSO favored on their screen.they got 15+15, lost 10, that happens alot when ur hard favored, right? (that's sarcasm btw)
2) we had higher mmr BEFORE the series started and had higher mmr AFTER the series ended ur saying we gave them points except we started off that way. Idk wut part of that is hard to understand, that they had MORE POINTS before and after and they also had LESS MMR before and after.
3) they were coming out better in pts before and after. are you honestly saying that rank 1 team winning less and getting more than a rank 2 team is indicative of who should be rank 1?
it's as if you assume i dont accept that we should beat them more to keep our mmr high. im saying our mmr being high means we get even less pts over all against them and the disparity gets bigger and bigger.
You didn't read my example about u playing vs a bronze player clearly so here's another one incase you notice this one: You're rank 2 and This other guy's rank 1. You play a thousand games, and win more than you lose. You had a higher mmr so start with meaning even if it's slightly less you still have a higher mmr. What rank are you now? probably like rank 100 cuz they got more pts per game, and SO MANY MORE points per game that it outweighed you winning more games overall. Did you deserve to be rank 100? you tell me
please read what im saying here or i might as well just quote myself everytime
|
On October 20 2010 07:23 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:21 Ironical wrote:On October 20 2010 07:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
you went 5-3 against a team with lower MMR and lost points in the exchange that's working as intended. Did you know that both teams can be favored vs each other at the same time though? The way MMR works compares two different numbers it's not a straight comparison so you could both be favored vs eachother but you are more favored than they are.
1)Do not look at the "You are favored" on the loading screen it's wrong read the thread from excalibur_Z that was linked on page one of the topic.
2)The fact that you have more wins and less losses is why you have a higher MMR, but you keep stating that you've lost vs this team which is has a lower MMR than you basically giving them free points in comparison to you and complain that they're higher ranked?
3a) It doesnt matter that you have won more games than lost against that team because you have a higher MMR if you don't completely smash them every time and go close to 60-70% they will come out better in points.
Do the simple math that you've stated previously you 7 points and they win 15, you win 5 times thats 35 points, they win 3 times thats 45.
3b) See above
4) See above Why does TheYellowOne have to smash the team every single time just because of his MMR? The way I see it, if he's winning more than he's losing against this team, his team should be ranked higher until that changes. Because he keeps saying his win ratio is wayyyy better than his opponents he claims that they get twice the points for winning that he does so the system obviously thinks he's way better than his opponent. If he continues to draw almost even the MMR will adjust and he'll start winning more points as the system fixes itself. In short everything is working as it is supposed to be because as of right now apparently it thinks that he is better than he is if he's only going 5-3 against these guys and winning half the points.
LOL THIS IS WHY WE WENT AND LOST ON PURPOSE MAN."If he continues to draw almost even the MMR will adjust and he'll start winning more points as the system fixes itself." IT FIXES FASTER WHEN WE LOSE ON PURPOSE LOL UR SYSTEM IS SO GOOD.
cuz u kno, the system thinks "we're better than we are if we're going 5-3 against these guys and winning half the points" which is why it keeps giving us less points overall... do you even hear urself?
|
On October 20 2010 07:16 TheYellowOne wrote:
1) u say the system rewards results. More wins, less losses, more games, higher mmr, yet less pts gained AND they have more pts to begin with than us. I consider -17 after +5 not much of a reward.
You got this exactly backwards. Grinding out more games is the equivalent of studying hard in his analogy, but beating people much better than you is the equivalent of passing the test. Imagine you're a diamond player and the system, for whatever reason, puts you against nothing but bronze players for 100 games. Do you think that with your shiny 100-0 record you deserve to be ranked higher than someone who played 50 games against top 10 players and went 30-20?
I'm not saying that's necessarily what's going on in your situation, but you can't just straight up compare your number of games and win % against another team like that.
|
On October 20 2010 07:23 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:21 Ironical wrote:On October 20 2010 07:08 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
you went 5-3 against a team with lower MMR and lost points in the exchange that's working as intended. Did you know that both teams can be favored vs each other at the same time though? The way MMR works compares two different numbers it's not a straight comparison so you could both be favored vs eachother but you are more favored than they are.
1)Do not look at the "You are favored" on the loading screen it's wrong read the thread from excalibur_Z that was linked on page one of the topic.
2)The fact that you have more wins and less losses is why you have a higher MMR, but you keep stating that you've lost vs this team which is has a lower MMR than you basically giving them free points in comparison to you and complain that they're higher ranked?
3a) It doesnt matter that you have won more games than lost against that team because you have a higher MMR if you don't completely smash them every time and go close to 60-70% they will come out better in points.
Do the simple math that you've stated previously you 7 points and they win 15, you win 5 times thats 35 points, they win 3 times thats 45.
3b) See above
4) See above Why does TheYellowOne have to smash the team every single time just because of his MMR? The way I see it, if he's winning more than he's losing against this team, his team should be ranked higher until that changes. Because he keeps saying his win ratio is wayyyy better than his opponents he claims that they get twice the points for winning that he does so the system obviously thinks he's way better than his opponent. If he continues to draw almost even the MMR will adjust and he'll start winning more points as the system fixes itself. In short everything is working as it is supposed to be because as of right now apparently it thinks that he is better than he is if he's only going 5-3 against these guys and winning half the points.
My question is why are they ranked higher, though? Okay, TheYellowOne's team might not be as good as the MMR system thinks he is. Why does that automatically mean this other team should gain a lead on points though? TheYellowOne's team is still beating them on record. "Statistically", they are still the better team. Maybe they shouldn't have as much of a lead, but they should still be ahead.
I just don't get the point of having both systems. It seems pointless to me.
On October 20 2010 07:29 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:16 TheYellowOne wrote:
1) u say the system rewards results. More wins, less losses, more games, higher mmr, yet less pts gained AND they have more pts to begin with than us. I consider -17 after +5 not much of a reward. You got this exactly backwards. Grinding out more games is the equivalent of studying hard in his analogy, but beating people much better than you is the equivalent of passing the test. Imagine you're a diamond player and the system, for whatever reason, puts you against nothing but bronze players for 100 games. Do you think that with your shiny 100-0 record you deserve to be ranked higher than someone who played 50 games against top 10 players and went 30-20? I'm not saying that's necessarily what's going on in your situation, but you can't just straight up compare your number of games and win % against another team like that.
Look up TheYellowOne on SC2Ranks. His 3v3 team is one of the top in the world. Therefore, he is playing the best 3v3 teams available, ideally. Furthermore, given that his MMR is high, it means that he's been consistently beating the highest ranked teams. He doesn't have the win percentage he does because he's been playing "bronze league players". His win percentage is from the best that exist (by no means am I saying that 3v3 players are fantastically skilled or anything, but if it's the best available, then it should work in TheYellowOne's favor.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
