|
On October 20 2010 09:01 MrLonely wrote:
And if you're starting a new account and want to gain points fast and you're not SEn that can go 40-1 against 1800+ players, you'd do well to place yourself in Silver or something from the start, and not winning TOO much. That's the fastest way to climb in the rankings. Great system, huh?
66% is ideal for ranking up in this sort of system. go run data from the top 200 in excel, their win rates average to 66%.
this was discussed in a thread about how to get promoted up to Diamond when you're "stuck" as #1 Platinum:
+ Show Spoiler +
edit: Top 200 from the Blizzard blog, which is based on MMR: http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/927459#blog
just the top 10 win ratios in order: 72%, 73%, 77%, 65%, 63% 59%, 74% 58%, 65%, 61%, the avg of those 10 is 67%
|
as a matter of fact I have 2 accs (friend borrowed me his for how long i wish, and i did placement and got platinum for him lol), im both silver and high platinum so i play everyone from bronze to diammond and what you are suggesting does make sense, actually the system will keep throwing better people at me, i start with low platinum up to 800-900 diamond in the platinum acc, when i go on losing streak (for trying to do something i´m not up to like imitating a poltprime strat) i actually get MORE points when i recover then when im on a winning streak... the system is just bizarre ...
|
Wow soo many peoplehere can't understand the OP or just illitarate!
SO i'll try to explain simple as I can.
1. He is talking about 3vs3 ladder and there are no tournaments or mmr ratings chart for it! So people saying ladder rating means nothing and tournament and top 200 is, learn to read and stop trolling!
2. (For you to understand easily) TheYellowOne has the world rank 1 team in MMR. But he is ranked 3rd in the ladder and have won more games than rank 1 and rank 2 teams ( So no it’s not a matter of grinding). He also has a higher win% of like 90%,
3. He keep winning was the rank 1 and 2 teams with about 70% win rate but keep losing points so will keep going down the ladder while rank 1 and rank 2 teams get more points from 30% win rate!.
4. So only option TheYellowOne have atm is
(i) to tank rating loosing over 100 games and get the win % and mmr down and slowly climb up the ladder winning more and more.
(ii) beat the rank 1, rank 2 teams for over 90% win rate! ( which is hard for him atm)
So ATM although TheYellowOne has the best 3vs3 team in world in mmr two other teams get the credit and only way he can get to rank 1 is to lose so many games lower the mmr and slowly climbing the ladder!
PS:- Yes the ladder is the measure of skill in 3vs3 and there are no other method to measure it atm! He did not ask if you care only about your 1vs1 tournaments!
|
On October 20 2010 09:01 MrLonely wrote:
I posted this in another thread but it got no interest but this thread seems more popular for some reason.
Also, how can the guy with the first answer not be banned, or people that answer with the link to ladder analysis threads? Way to read the OP, guys...
Anyway, personally I'm stuck at around 1200 pts. I get matched with people at 1800+ all the time, and I'm doing ok. When I win I gain x points, but when I lose I also lose x points, so there's no net gain. I actually started meeting diamonds in my placement matches...
I have a friend that have no BW background or anything, and because of that started out in Silver. He eventually got promoted to Gold, then Plat, then finally Diamond. He carried over most of his points gained from Silver/Gold/Plat players and three separate bonus pools, so he currently sits at around the same points as I do, plus he has a new healthy bonus pool. PLUS, he gets to meet players at 1000-1300 rating.
I beat this player 49 out of 50 times. Seriously. I can beat him with any race, any strategy, even super stupid strategies like being restricted to building just one type of unit and such. This player is ranked the same as me, but the difference is I have converged on my rating while he will no doubt rise further due to a large bonus pool, and learning the game at the same pace or slightly faster. I, however, am stuck until I can get better than ~1800 players (or when they become worse than me), then I will climb maybe to 1300-1400 until I get stuck again, facing 2000+ players.
That's what I call a broken system in need of serious repair.
I might actually gain by losing 20 games or something on purpose and then try to hold my winrate at 60% (throwing games here and there) facing people worse than me, so the system doesn't realize that I'm way better than them.
And if you're starting a new account and want to gain points fast and you're not SEn that can go 40-1 against 1800+ players, you'd do well to place yourself in Silver or something from the start, and not winning TOO much. That's the fastest way to climb in the rankings. Great system, huh?
Hi,
good post. I experience a similar problem (albeit with 1500-1700 players, I'm also ~1200). I already discussed it a bit with Excalibur_Z in his first ladder thread.
The only explanation I have found so far is (if the assumption of how MMR/points etc work are correct),
MMR is oscillating quite fast with a big amplitude plus:
The range of considering teams "even" spans 400-600 points which is bad imo.
The latter means that you will gain 12-14 points if you win and lose 9-12 points if you lose (if you play with a much higher MMR than your shown points). So, at an 50% average you will gain 100 points in about 30-50 games. So, only the bonus pool will move you up which is bad. It should only work as a boost.
As Blizzard's goal should be to have a consistent MMR/point system, I just don't understand this.
The auto matchmaking works ok though.
Regarding your example with your friend. It is hard to understand that this guy can reach 1200 diamond. I agree :-)
|
On October 20 2010 12:41 Reesj wrote:
Wow soo many peoplehere can't understand the OP or just illitarate!
SO i'll try to explain simple as I can.
1. He is talking about 3vs3 ladder and there are no tournaments or mmr ratings chart for it! So people saying ladder rating means nothing and tournament and top 200 is, learn to read and stop trolling!
2. (For you to understand easily) TheYellowOne has the world rank 1 team in MMR. But he is ranked 3rd in the ladder and have won more games than rank 1 and rank 2 teams ( So no it’s not a matter of grinding). He also has a higher win% of like 90%,
3. He keep winning was the rank 1 and 2 teams with about 70% win rate but keep losing points so will keep going down the ladder while rank 1 and rank 2 teams get more points from 30% win rate!.
4. So only option TheYellowOne have atm is
(i) to tank rating loosing over 100 games and get the win % and mmr down and slowly climb up the ladder winning more and more.
(ii) beat the rank 1, rank 2 teams for over 90% win rate! ( which is hard for him atm)
So ATM although TheYellowOne has the best 3vs3 team in world in mmr two other teams get the credit and only way he can get to rank 1 is to lose so many games lower the mmr and slowly climbing the ladder!
PS:- Yes the ladder is the measure of skill in 3vs3 and there are no other method to measure it atm! He did not ask if you care only about your 1vs1 tournaments!
to be fair i believe my post on this page explains it, even though i was focused on 1v1 (because Blizzard only releases MMR ranking info for 1v1 ladder).
if i did re-re-re-read the OP correctly, his friends ranked up the 3v3 pretty recently. they shot up the ranks with bonus pool, beating random teams, stopping high ranked cheesers, etc. and found themselves with the #1 MMR.
the problem he has is that his win % is too high. 90% is not ideal for ladder climbing as i stated in my previous post. the ideal win ratio for ranking up is 66%.
what he did was win too much. because MMR is so volatile compared to actual points ranking, it shot up much farther than the previous #1 MMR team to the point where they got 7-3 against that team and end up losing points overall.
is it a problem? yes. it's unfortunate that there is a downside to winning too often when trying to rank up in the ladder.
the flaw is that it isn't a popular ladder. in 1v1 this situation would be much less likely because of the amount of skilled players that play 1v1 bracket seriously.
he wouldn't be in this position at all if there was even 1 other team that could shoot up to a higher MMR. if the current #1 points ranked team could win consecutive games to the point that their MMR catches up to the OP's team, the OP could then go 7-3 against them and likely end up on top in points.
so yes, its flawed. but no, its not "broken" as the OP suggests. it is "working as intended" so to speak, where the system is in fact awarding points the way it was programmed to. there's nothing broken or buggy about it where your MMR bugs out to an incorrect rating if you surpass a soft cap or something.
the main issue is that 3v3 Arranged Teams simply is not competitive enough. there aren't enough skilled teams for them to face. it happens on many WoW arena battlegroups in the 5v5 bracket, but WoW's point system doesn't have bonus pool so the problem turns into the #1 team having no incentive to ever queue and the #2 team never having a high MMR opponent to score points off of to ever surpass the #1 team.
|
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...
lol I think you are thinking way too complicated, when it is indeed really simple
let's just say: my MMR > your MMR (because I'm frickin gosu keke? jk)
but because you play more it's my points < your points
we play against each other: if you win you get many points, I lose many --> point-difference increases fast; if I win then I win few points you lose few points --> point-difference decreases slowly;
now "spread" this thought over to other matches where we don't play against each other; each time you beat somebody there is a good chance you are NOT favoured against him and get more points than I would've gotten;
therefore, although your MMR is lower you will steadily advance and get further and further ahead of me until EVENTUALLY my MMR drops from playing the very best on the ladder too often, so the system will give me more points for my wins;
how can anybody consider such system "not" to be flawed?
|
It's clear from what I've read here that we basically have two systems, a logical and useful MMR system which is doing the important work of making competitive matches behind the scenes and a pointless Bullshit system of 'points' layered on top of that which serves only to obfuscate and hide the underlying system.
While some people calim that the Bullshit points some how motivate casual players the jig is clearly up on it. From the release of the game people have been clearly trying and wanting to use the points for real skill comparison. But as they see how the system is crippled with point inflation. And good deduction here at TeamLiquid is showing how little it actually correlates with anything of value. It's been and is being so discredited that most people will simply ignore it entirely within a year, Leagues are the only thing that even approaches a meaningful metric but they are crippled by being so course a measurement, theirs more variation in Diamond then their is in the whole rest of the spectrum from Plat to Bronze.
The current point system basically never had credibility with the professional players which I think is fundamentally a crippling blow too its popularity. People would LOVE to have a real number value between themselves and the pros and for Pro's to care about and try to raise their standing on it. That would centralize the pro scene so much more within Battle-net rather then the current situation ware pro-gaming basically happens off the ladder and has caused the growth of spin-offs with better systems (iCCup, Kali, etc). As Blizzard is trying very hard to make SC2 a huge E-sport their total failure to get their ladder system accepted or used by pro's must be considered an epic fail on their part.
And I honestly cant see any longer term attraction for the typical player either. Which would you rather have a really meaningful number that basically tells you the exact spread between yourself and your favorite 'idol' player OR a meaningless number that consistently goes up. Their's simply no competition, that's why most players focus on the best thing they can get their hands on their League, leveling up to another league is the only real competitive recognition a player has in SC2 and its literally the rarest things that can happen.
|
On October 20 2010 19:20 Impaler wrote:
As Blizzard is trying very hard to make SC2 a huge E-sport their total failure to get their ladder system accepted or used by pro's must be considered an epic fail on their part.
well, the epic failure was already the introduction of "divisions" nobody gives a crap about; if it weren't shown at the main screen, I would never ever check the "rank" of my division because it's simply 100% meaningless
the point-inflation is more like the icing on the cake....because blizz itself doesn't even provide point-based ladders, you have to check on sc2stats and rts-sanctuary for this
the funny thing is that the original wc3-ladder was SO much better in every conceivable aspect; it's not like blizz would continuously improve...no....the point-based system with the "hidden" MMR is nothing else but a HUGE step backwards; especially for those like me that are used to the "levels" in wc3 this is a utter disappointment;
because in original wc3 you wouldn't inflate but would LOSE levels if you didn't play, which means everyone reached their "real" level of skill once; also it was also very easy to get demoted after a losing streak; this sucked, but hell, that's life; much more motivation, because even "keeping" your level mattered!
after a short period of time many ppl essentially stayed at the same level for quite long....meaning, moving up actually meant "moving up" skillwise!
which was just huge, because it was so incredibly motivating to know, if you gain levels and move up it was only, solely because your skill has improved
|
I've played vs you and your team about twice, both GG's
Just curious, when you lose- how many points do you lose?
|
I bet the reason they don't display the MMR is that it probably oscillates wildly between games. Certainly it changes waay faster than points. I go on a three game winstreak and I'm playing 1.4k, 3 game loosing streak and I'm playing 500. I think there'd be a lot of howling on these forums if all it took was 3 games to send you from 1400 points to 500 points.
It's kind of like points are the integral of a quickly-changing MMR. If the MMR is generally increasing, points will generally increase, and vice verse. The problem is getting the constant of integration right...
|
I agree with the OP. I think it's ridiculous that I gain <10 points for a win but lose >10 points for a loss against a guy who has 500 more points than me, regardless of what hidden MMR says.
It IS demotivating to play when you know that
a) you're gonna play someone really good (because your MMR is high)
b) you're not gonna get rewarded much when you win, but losing will result in a large loss of points
I had much more fun before I got promoted to Diamond for this reason, and I think a lot of players feel the same.
|
On October 20 2010 02:12 TheYellowOne wrote:
we also were slightly favored, meaning every game we played against the RANK 1 TEAM
If you were slightly favored, that means BNET actually considers YOU to be the rank 1 team. I do admit that it sucks that it wouldn't yet display it this way until you play enough games to have more points than them though.
I've always said it would just be better that MMR would be the displayed rank of a player/team and not the points.
|
Just a thought... but wouldn't it be better if the matchmaking system worked exactly like it does now, in that the MMR is used to determine who you face, but the amount of points gained or lost is determined solely by points?
Seems to me that would eventually even out the MMR and Points. At this point the system means some people who got "too high" MMR "too early" will effectively never rise in the ranks because they are good enough to go toe to toe with much higher ranked players, but not good enough to dominate them - meaning that they will stay where they are, ranked substantially lower than people they would beat 8/10 times.
Mind you, I might very well be lacking some deeper understanding of how the system works. I just read this thread, and the answer seemed obvious, matchmaking based on MMR, points based on.. points!
Take it with a pinch of salt.
|
Canada840 Posts
On October 20 2010 02:12 TheYellowOne wrote:
If you're having problems in team games, MAKE SURE you go on random 3v3 or random 4v4 etc etc and BACKSTAB everyone on your team to guarantee that you lose.
Bannable offense!
|
Essentially they copied most of the newest WoW Arena system, but left out the most important part.... YOUR TEAM RATING (displayed points) SHOULD APPROACH YOUR MMR!
That means that point wins and losses should be based on YOUR matchmaking rating vs. YOUR displayed rating, NOT your matchmaking rating vs. your OPPONENT'S matchmaking rating.
|
On October 21 2010 01:59 fant0m wrote:
Essentially they copied most of the newest WoW Arena system, but left out the most important part.... YOUR TEAM RATING (displayed points) SHOULD APPROACH YOUR MMR!
That means that point wins and losses should be based on YOUR matchmaking rating vs. YOUR displayed rating, NOT your matchmaking rating vs. your OPPONENT'S matchmaking rating.
This is not wow and it’s not the same system!! WOW it will try to get you to your MMR ASAP! Also plz read what he wrote properly. If it’s that hard for you I have written a simpler version few posts above. Read and then comment plz. Do not reply to a post after checking the title or just reading the 1st two lines.
|
On October 20 2010 22:51 FuRong wrote:
I agree with the OP. I think it's ridiculous that I gain <10 points for a win but lose >10 points for a loss against a guy who has 500 more points than me, regardless of what hidden MMR says.
It IS demotivating to play when you know that
a) you're gonna play someone really good (because your MMR is high)
b) you're not gonna get rewarded much when you win, but losing will result in a large loss of points
I had much more fun before I got promoted to Diamond for this reason, and I think a lot of players feel the same.
Uh?
If you play someone good based on MMR, you will earn more points. If you play someone ranked lower by MMR, you will earn less points. This works as intended, and you a/b contradict.
The ladder points system has no bearing on how good someone is to a large degree. I agree that there should only be one system and it should be visible, though, because that's the source of the confusion.
|
United States12230 Posts
On October 21 2010 01:59 fant0m wrote:
Essentially they copied most of the newest WoW Arena system, but left out the most important part.... YOUR TEAM RATING (displayed points) SHOULD APPROACH YOUR MMR!
That means that point wins and losses should be based on YOUR matchmaking rating vs. YOUR displayed rating, NOT your matchmaking rating vs. your OPPONENT'S matchmaking rating.
If it compared your MMR to your own rating, then it wouldn't matter who you faced. Instead it compares your opponent's MMR, which ideally is close to your own MMR but with some variance, to your rating so that your rating generally approaches your MMR as fast as it would if it compared to your MMR. This was how it worked in arena too.
|
OP is confusing MMR with Points. Two different things.
|
I just wish people weren't dumb enough to fall for the whole point -> bonus system such as to enjoy it more just when the system hinted that they were better.
I would really much rather just have like.. the halo 2 Xbox Live ranking system, where it assigned you a number level and that number level was based directly on your MMR. I hate that inflation exists in the system.
Ehh. The people who really care about knowing how good they are are screwed over by this system set up for egotistical jackasses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NypD1.jpg)
