|
Hello TL. Long time lurker, pmuch first time poster here. I'm also a 2k+ player or something so now you're obligated to actually read the post since "those points matter and validate your arguments" but i'm actually kidding because that's the point of this post. The mmr system is broken.
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.
Have you ever wondered why you're at 1400 pts and you constanty play people at 1800 and still get only 10 pts a game because it was an "even" match? In short it's because the mmr system is completely and utterly broken it's unplayable if you're not awful at this game and still care about ladder.
What's actually happening, (and you could check this if you're one of those people) is you probably have a higher win loss than the "1800+ diamond pro tier players." They probably have a thousand games played with 50% win loss and you might actually have 55-60% win loss. But CLEARLY the 1800+ players are better...(caps is sarcasm on the internet btw)
There was another post like this but the point here is different, that not only is this unfair for the people not gaining points in 1v1 but when you let mmr carry over in team games it breaks the ladder entirely.
The thread here explains the mmr system:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=142211
There are 4 problems with how this system is currently implemented:
1) High MMR hurts your point gain overall
This is intrinsically broken because it bases YOUR point gain on your opponent's mmr. If you play people that are bad, even if you were an amazing player/team you would gain practically no points per game. (no joke, you get +0 pts for winning once you get high enough) In WoW, if your mmr was high, which was indicative that you were likely a better team, your team rating would approach that to represent your skill level. It wouldnt matter what your opponent's shit mmr was because if you played on a new team, you deserve to be at your "skill level" so it let you catch up to it quickly. It can't happen in 1v1 yet since you cant make a new "team" but if you're GSL-tier in 2v2 or something and u made a new team? good luck getting out of bottom of diamond lol.
For example, me and a few friends got rank 1 3v3 in the world (cuz it MATTERS) for shits and giggles, and after playing a bunch of games we realized that everyone that has been above us and even slightly below us has a worse win/loss. We didn't cheese, played consistently and we had 90% win loss which if you check sc2ranks.com, practically no one has except for 2 other teams in top 100. They have terrible win loss of like 60-70% (which is horrible considering you play vs. random teams and you're arranged) and still have the same # of points as us. It wasn't because we "didnt play enough games" like some might suggest but only because the mmr system was broken. People then question, "you probably played people in gold league" but nope, when we were rank 2 we played vs tranman/?/?'s team who cheesed every game and even though we had a winning record vs them and we had about 80 more wins and 10 less losses overall, they had more points and was ranked 1when we both farmed our bonus pool. But that's not all, we also were slightly favored, meaning every game we played against the RANK 1 TEAM we won 5+5(bp) pts and lost 17. They won 15+15(bp) and lost 10 ptIs that fair that we play the "best team in the world according to the ladder," we go 5-3 and still come out with less points than we started? The ladder system thinks so.
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
So the quesiton on your mind is, "how did those people with bad win loss still get higher than me in the first place?" This brings me to the second and third problem
2) 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.
3) It puts a disproportionate emphasis on the bonus pool and bonus pool pts. This means you get way more points from just playing more than having higher mmr. If everyone is gaining practically no points then you just gain the most out of having played the last night and farming the bonus pool. This has nothing to do with whether "casuals can catch up" which was blizzard's argument. That's like saying since 5 years old kids want to l2p basketball and needs a 4 feet tall basketball hoop, we ought to apply the same rules to lebron james since equity in a system is great. At least implement a different system for top diamond league please.
The fact that you're a good player and could get 90% win loss in 1v1 (if that was at all possible) wouldnt even matter because if everyone's breaking even, the people whose mmr is low enough that they could get 12 pt games farm their bonus pool quicker. If you're 90% win loss and retardedly high mmr, gl farming your bonus pool b/c every game is 1 pt wins.
Also, for people that might be affected by the following problem,
4) It makes for unfair matches since players like Sorcery who has countless 90%+ win loss teams in every bracket could pick up a gold-level player to play with and he'd not only be forced to play against highest ranked diamond teams but gain no points while doing so once he gets into diamond.
This is why we havent played in forever after throwing a couple of games doing retard strats for shits and giggles. This is why none of us want to play ladder. This is also why I went 0-50 in random 3v3 just to lower my mmr. It actually helps. I'm not even kidding.
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.
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.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TLDR: we have less pts than another team and yet we lose more pts than they do vs us. according to excalibur_z's thread that means their mmr is lower in respect to where our pts are at.. but they're r1. Im saying that's a problem. stop linking that thread by excalibur_z if u didnt read the whole thing. 1) it says it's a theory and 2) even if it were true the mmr's relationship with the points makes no sense.
This isn't about bonus pool/pt inflation. I'm not saying we have high mmr but they play more so they have more pts. This isn't what happened. We already know inflation is annoying but doesnt mean anything. What happened is that we played more, had more wins, had less losses, and yet they gain literally 3x more pts and lose like 40% less. This isnt pt inflation, it's mmr growing disproportionately high until ur rank never catches up
i'm not crying that we have high mmr but we lose more pts. obviously we shouldnt get 20 pts for stomping ppl in plat. im saying though that we have a higher mmr and we played more, we should have higher pts. MAYBE HIGHER MMR AND BETTER WIN LOSS WITH MORE GAMES PLAYED SHOULD RESULT IN HIGHER PTS OVERALL just maybe
edit: i actually didn't check who got invited to blizzcon but remember that again says the ladder doesnt reflect who's actually good. Also for the people quoting the post i linked about how mmr works, try actually reading the post pls :3 I said your point gain is stalled b/c it uses ur opponent's mmr which we know is for sure true. This means that if you play "lower mmr players" means your rating wont go up.. except the lower mmr players' rating is 400 higher than yours. It's like you guys read that post and took it for granted it that it's also true as if the word "theory" didnt meant anything.
also to everyone saying that pts dont matter, that's actually wut i meant to say; that it doesnt actually reflect where your mmr is and that it should be changed to be at where your mmr is at or rank people by their mmr in a system where we can check updated rankings. if i could id rename the post "the pt system is broken"
this also means that
|
MMR is fine. You are ranked by your MMR--- NOT POINTS.
|
Just play to get better. Ladder only exists to a) get casuals to play the game, b) to get better and c) for ego manaics to brag about to their friends.
With respect to complaining about the fact that blizzard uses it for blizzcon: You complain that 50% win ratio korean has higher rating than SeleCT and HuK, but notice that SeleCT was invited to blizzcon.
|
I'd like to point out that Blizzard uses MMR to determine who gets the invite to their mini-tournament IIRC. Other than that, this post is very true (I'm low diamond and don't play enough to get out of it, but I can see where all these problems come from)
|
You are right. Except in your p.s. Blizz invites people according to their ranking in the top 200 blizz posts every (other?) week for each server and that list is based on MMR.
edit: sarnath'd
|
This thread is a huge wall of text and I am trying to read it but the spacing, formatting and gigantic paragraphs just make me stop.
If you are going to write that much please put in some bullets or additional spacing or something. Reading long threads on the internet doesn't have to be like reading a fine-print novel.
|
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong.
|
I had huge trouble reading your post. While it does have paragraphs and some formatting, the sheer amount of text combined with your ill-disguised rage makes it a major p.i.t.a. to read.
While I do agree with the league/ladder system being far from perfect, all you're doing here is boasting with your ranks, throwing around some memes and giving horrible advice (losing intentionally, backstabbing in team games).
If the game is so much about your ladder rank and points gained and not just about actually playing, then maybe you should re-think your priorities.
|
I think I agree with you but I can't tell. You really shouldn't write like you talk, it makes it impossible to follow. I would do some reformatting and you will probably get a more intelligent discussion.
|
I also feel like many games a 1300 point person with a 300 bonus pool is matched up with a 1600 point person with a 0 bonus pool.
This is because their real elo and actual MMR are indeed very similar.
|
On October 20 2010 02:12 TheYellowOne wrote: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.
thats not quite right, in an perfectly even match you gain 12 points and would lose 11(!)
but that just increases the pointinflation and encourages massplaying
|
I'm at 300 diamond and I'm usually pitted against 800-1000 players. I've noticed that I seem to gain and lose an equal amount of points against these players, and the only thing that actually increases my points are the extra points from the bonus pool. Had the bonus pool been empty, I'd probably be stuck. It does seem kind of strange :/
|
The OP might explain why Idra couldn't get into Diamond because his win streak messed up his MMR, matching him agains diamond players, winning, but not getting promoted.
This actually happens to most people. Going well in the top of a league, getting a loss or loss streak and the first win after that is an instant promotion.
But you know what the worst thing is? So far, every patch had some sort of REALLY obvious bug that was discovered in less than 24h after the patch went live. Even with all their internal testing, Blizzard will never even come close to how fast bugs are discovered by the community. With that in mind, it's almost certain that their complex matchmaking system has some bugs that won't be discovered this way... shame..
|
I can't believe there are still long-winded OPs about how the MMR is broken even after there have been several good (better) threads about how the MMR and ranking system really works.
To OP, I highly suggest searching and reading Excalibur_Z's analysis and explanation of how exactly the ladder works. Hell, I'll do better. I'll link you to the first part.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118212
|
Have to agree that the existing ladder system is stupid, but this is nothing new and has been posted a bazillion times.
Also have to agree with those who wisely point out that ladder ranking is unimportant and to not worry about it. Look at IdrA; his ladder ranking is far from tip top but he is arguably the best foreigner SC2 player out there atm. Ladder matches are for practice, not for competition. The existence of a ladder system obfuscates that fact, but it's really only tournaments that matter in reality.
Would be much better if they just used an ELO-esque sort of system instead of these leagues and points, but meh....who cares really. Use ladder to practice and tournaments to compete.
|
i always figured MMR was more of a "guess" by blizzard as to where you belonged in the ladder.
eg if you have been winning all your games with a record of like 40-5, your MMR might be 1500 but your points may only be 1000.
you would be matched up against players around the 1500 level, if you beat them a few times and your record beomes 45-5
your MMR might have jump to 1800 while your actual points are still only 1100
|
It's obvious the ladder system fails at the top and the bottom (top diamond and bottom bronze), because it can't find better/worse teams so you get these matchups where you're favoured but can't get up in the ladder because there's no team with more (or less if you're at the bottom) points. The problem is known and there's not much they can do about it.
|
This is why blizzard releases a list of the top 200 based on MMR and not ladder points. The ladder system rewards those who play more, while the MMR system rewards those who play better.
|
The current ladder system is not broken. It just does not set out to do what you want it to. Encouraging players to play more is a goal. Encouraging a broader swath of the community to get involved in ladder play is a goal. Ranking players based on skill is a non-goal of the current ladder. They reserve that for the top 200. Frankly, I'd prefer that they extended the "real" ranking to all of diamond but that's neither here nor there.
But you're using a screw driver to try and drive a nail and claiming the screw driver is broken when it doesn't work. Granted, Blizzard is dressing up the screw driver like a hammer. This metaphor kind of sucks but you get what I mean.
|
Points are a carrot on a string that Blizzard uses to give lower level players a sense of progress (in that sense, it does work). MMR and points aren't perfectly correlated, so if you've played a vastly different number of games than your opponent points may be pretty off. Just don't worry about it and enjoy your games.
It's too bad that there is no way to view your MMR, but this has been discussed ad nauseum.
|
On October 20 2010 02:20 Ketara wrote:
This thread is a huge wall of text and I am trying to read it but the spacing, formatting and gigantic paragraphs just make me stop.
If you are going to write that much please put in some bullets or additional spacing or something. Reading long threads on the internet doesn't have to be like reading a fine-print novel.
I found his post to be quite readable and very informative. Maybe you should've put more bullets in your post or something.
On topic, it's my understanding that the system is giving you less points because you're winning so much and therefore it can't keep you at 50/50 any other way than to balance you out because that's just how the system works.
|
I like how when me + catz were done our placement matches in 2v2 we got matched vs teams in the top 20 on the US ladder because of our 1v1 pts. Same thing happened when tt1 / select / huk 3v3 'd lol they couldn't find a game to save their life.
|
I'm a 1450 dia toss player who started playing random 3v3 and 4v4 just for fun. I am currenty 17-3 in the 4v4 league with 206 points in plat...assuming 10 points per loss, that means I'm getting a massive 14 points a win. Including bonus pool. I should be WAY higher than that with that record with the bonus pool.
I don't care cause...well, it's the 4v4 league, but I think it shows that the MMR rating carries over leagues, meaning, if you bomb the worthless 3v3 or 4v4 random leagues and jump into 1v1, it should artificially inflate our point values for wins and drop them for losses. That is, until it stabilizes again when you can just bomb more team random games.
Edit: it goes without saying, but I am ALWAYS on the favored team. With that record I should be gettin bronze level teammates facing diamond teams until it finds my upper bound. Instead it already knows where I stand based on my 1v1 play.
|
this happened to me which doesn't make sense.
I play 3x games against 1300, i only gain 8pts each(evenly matched).
i play 2x games against 800, i gain 12 points each(opponent slightly favored).
I'm a 600 dia w/ 700 bonus pool, less than 50 games.
my opponents have over 200 games and at 50% win/loss rate.
1300 dia player is giving me lower points than a 800 dia player even if both players have similar win% and similar games played? i guess MMR can jump around in a matter of few games?
|
On October 20 2010 03:01 GagnarTheUnruly wrote:
Points are a carrot on a string that Blizzard uses to give lower level players a sense of progress (in that sense, it does work). MMR and points aren't perfectly correlated, so if you've played a vastly different number of games than your opponent points may be pretty off. Just don't worry about it and enjoy your games.
It's too bad that there is no way to view your MMR, but this has been discussed ad nauseum.
There should be a division above diamond (or maybe even diamond) that does not have bonus pool and shows your MMR instead of the meaningless points
|
Honestly I don't give a rats ass about points or MMR or whatever, as long as it matches me against people of a comparable skill level, and in my experience it does, its fine
Just stop caring about points and just play
|
To my understanding points gained or lost are trying to catch your rating up to your MMR.
Example
Player1: 800 Points 1000 MMR LOSES (-8 points) (sees opponent favored)
Player2: 1000 Points 1000 MMR WINS (+10 points) (sees equal match)
Actually based on the insane amount of reading on the subject, reading the blizzard sticky, and knowing how blizzards MMR system from WoW (gag) would all strongly suggest this is how it works and you do not understand the MMR system yourself. It's fantastic for setting up "good matches." Can no one remember the pain of typing "/stats" and seeing your opponent being 30-2?
|
I'm not sure I get how this works, but I've been playing 2v2s with my irl friend who's like silver 1v1 and 2v2, and I'm 1500 diamond. We face almost exclusively opponents who are high diamond in 1v1 or other leagues, is that random or is it because of my "mmr"?
|
On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong.
This post is accurate. The OP has completely misunderstood the MMR system.
|
On October 20 2010 02:14 Titan107 wrote:
MMR is fine. You are ranked by your MMR--- NOT POINTS.
First post sums it up the best.
Unfortunately none of your arguments hold up since they are all based on points being the same as MMR. You CAN have a higher MMR than an 1900 player when you have fewer points. There's a great analysis somehwere, I recommend using the search function.
|
My beef with the ladder system is that it shows you this useless "points" number, but all the real work of the system is done with this MMR number that you can't ever see.
|
Your understanding of the MMR system is a little off OP.
The system is designed specifically to:
1. Find the point at which you will be winning 50% of your games and get you to that point.
2. When a new season starts they do not want top players getting randomly paired up vs lower mmr newbs, so what will happen is top players will play other high mmr players if they are both queueing at the same time, and their ladder point game will actually be dramatically QUICKER because MMR plays a lot into how many points you are gaining. When you are climbing from 0 rating back up to whatever your mmr is, the only time you will start to lose any significant amount of points for a loss are when you lose to someone with a much lower mmr, or when your points start to get high enough to where the system starts giving you "normal" amount of point deduction per loss.
On October 20 2010 03:25 Agenda42 wrote:
My beef with the ladder system is that it shows you this useless "points" number, but all the real work of the system is done with this MMR number that you can't ever see.
This is indeed the biggest problem, in WoW you at least got to see your teams combined MMR at the end of each match on the scoreboard, in SC2 you can't see it at all. So even if you have a decent idea of how you rank against other players, you can never be 100% sure what your MMR is.
|
Ex WoW player complaining that something in SC2 is "Completely and utterly broken!!" Leave it on the WoW Gen/PvP forum please.
I'm actually really happy with the system as I don't really care what my points say as much as I care about it matching me with opponents who are near my skill level. Which it does very well for me.
|
On October 20 2010 03:02 drewbie.root wrote:
I like how when me + catz were done our placement matches in 2v2 we got matched vs teams in the top 20 on the US ladder because of our 1v1 pts. Same thing happened when tt1 / select / huk 3v3 'd lol they couldn't find a game to save their life.
we played u and catz as well as tt1/select/huk like twice each.. although i thought it was b/c u and mindset played a bunch of 2v2 that got ur mmr up there? does 1v1 actually affect other ladders too? lol
|
Basically what Bey said. Shown points is not meant to be a completely accurate representation of your skill level. It's rather a tool to delude you into thinking you are making progress so you play more. Think positive affirmation of playing on the ladder. The more you play, the more points you will have... in theory.
Alas Blizzard believes in security by obscurity, an archaic concept in a world where most experts and practicioners mostly favor security by simplicity.
Tournaments/Top 200 lists are a far better representation of skill level.
Imagine a smiley face. Now connect the dots between the eyes. If you assume the left eye is the mmr/skill of the bronze level players and the right eye is the mmr/skill for the players at the pro level, then the frown is the correllation between mmr and shown points, with the apex of the frown having an r(2) value of about 0.8
Cheers.
|
On October 20 2010 03:49 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 03:02 drewbie.root wrote:
I like how when me + catz were done our placement matches in 2v2 we got matched vs teams in the top 20 on the US ladder because of our 1v1 pts. Same thing happened when tt1 / select / huk 3v3 'd lol they couldn't find a game to save their life. we played u and catz as well as tt1/select/huk like twice each.. although i thought it was b/c u and mindset played a bunch of 2v2 that got ur mmr up there? does 1v1 actually affect other ladders too? lol
MMR from other brackets dictate where you will start your placement matches in.
If you and your partner have Diamond in 1v1, your alternate bracket placements will start in Platinum/Diamond level.
I'm sure you can figure out the converse here.
|
United States12230 Posts
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating.
|
"They probably have a thousand games played with 50% win loss and you might actually have 55-60% win loss. But CLEARLY the 1800+ players are better."
This one simple point is where your logic derails. People who play more generally have more points. It has nothing to do w/ skill. The point system is inflationary to reward people for playing the game. In fact, it's likely that someone with a 60% ratio after 100 games is a good deal better than someone at 50% after 1000.
|
On October 20 2010 02:43 Ryuu314 wrote:I can't believe there are still long-winded OPs about how the MMR is broken even after there have been several good (better) threads about how the MMR and ranking system really works. To OP, I highly suggest searching and reading Excalibur_Z's analysis and explanation of how exactly the ladder works. Hell, I'll do better. I'll link you to the first part. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=118212
This it's clear you dont know how MMR works because all of your complaints are explained in that post.
|
On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating.
The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1.
My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =(
|
On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating.
As I understand OP, (s)he is unhappy with the lack of a visible skill rating, and the closest available replacement is very much a terrible one.
If you spend that much time in something and have obtained some semblance of skill, it's a lot more rewarding to see that your rating > your competitor's ratings.
By Blizzard deliberately obfuscating the MMR points and especially the system itself, one would feel slighted.
Analogy: You win the NBA Finals but in this fantasy world they don't ever record it in the record books. They don't even get you a championship trophy. Instead, some regular season scrub that gamed the season but had no real skill for the playoff gets the only actual mention, an MVP trophy.
|
OP: This is why none of us want to play ladder. This is also why I went 0-50 in random 3v3 just to lower my mmr. It actually helps. I'm not even kidding.
This is something a 12 year old does.
|
On October 20 2010 03:58 eecs4ever wrote:OP: Show nested quote +This is why none of us want to play ladder. This is also why I went 0-50 in random 3v3 just to lower my mmr. It actually helps. I'm not even kidding. This is something a 12 year old does.
While I do not condone his action, this is out of line.
From your PoV, it's hard to be on the receiving end of this unfairness which you are more likely to be than the giving. It is frustrating for you to see someone lashing out and seeding his pain into others.
From TheYellowOne's PoV, (s)he's probably sick of the lack of response on this particular issue, the mechanical unresponsiveness of a completely automated system, and mostly frustrated with the SC2 company line of catering to casuals.
The philosophy of ends justifying the means has been debated ad infinitum, and remains undecided. It's easy to dismiss one side or the other for being either bureaucratic for the naysayers and heartless for those that believe in such a philosophy.
|
United States12230 Posts
On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =(
Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see.
|
On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see.
yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago.
|
Points =! MMR
God ppl need to udnerstand this. 2300 points doesnt mean you are good or not a noob it just means you have 2300 points. They dont say anything about skill at all. The point system is just for the average bob to feel good about himself..
The system works 100% intended.
|
On October 20 2010 03:58 eecs4ever wrote:OP: Show nested quote +This is why none of us want to play ladder. This is also why I went 0-50 in random 3v3 just to lower my mmr. It actually helps. I'm not even kidding. This is something a 12 year old does.
Is it?
Because the displayed rating is all we ever see, how is it fair that a 1500MMR team with a 1500 point rating gets 18 points for a win against a different 2500MMR team with 100 points that only gets 1 for their victory?
The OP is written awkwardly, but I get his point. Having to play 500 games for your displayed rating to match your MMR is dumb. Bombing 50 games to drop your MMR to where it takes 50 games for it to match isn't childish. It's a massive time saver.
|
On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago.
Actually excalibur_z, i just checked.
If u want proof you can go to my partner homeless.801's match history and scroll down to 2 weeks ago, u'll notice we went 1-1 but lost 17 pts at digsite to this team.
if you click on them and look at their match history, in the same match they lost against us, they lost 10 pts. I guess u can't tell what rating we were at but if u count all of the pts down to that game they were alrdy ahead of us.
Meaning that they were ahead in pts but had a much lower mmr than us according to your system.
|
Posts like this explain why blizzard is stupid for not using a STANDARDIZED ELO RATING SYSTEM. It's been used for like 50 years in chess. It's tried and true. Why do they do stupid shit like hide your "MMR" rating (which is your actual Elo rating, from what I can best tell, but who knows!?!!)
Instead, we have this stupid self-inflating, meaningless point system where your point score isn't anything like your actaul mmr, and in addition, isn't a remotely good judge of your actual skill compared to another player.
In chess, comparing someone's Elo gives you an EXTREMELY good guess as to which player will win matches. Of course there are upsets from time to time, but a 2000 rated player will RARELY beat a 2100 player (or their rating will rise.)
Obviously skill from game to game varies more in a real-time game, especially one with different races, but the system is infinitely more self-consistent and transparent.
I agree, needing to play 500 games to make your actual rating match your MMR is asinine. Also, that actual rating isn't even an actual rating, because of point-inflation!
|
On October 20 2010 02:14 Titan107 wrote:
MMR is fine. You are ranked by your MMR--- NOT POINTS.
have you, like, looked on any division page
oh wait division is as useless as points and the only ranking that matters is something we cant even see 
|
It's not perfect but I do think it's good encouragement to allow players to get up in terms of points by mass gaming because it encourages practice. Anyone knowledgeable knows total point total isn't a raw indicator of skill or even overall true rank anyway.
|
United States12230 Posts
On October 20 2010 04:26 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago. Actually excalibur_z, i just checked. If u want proof you can go to my partner homeless.801's match history and scroll down to 2 weeks ago, u'll notice we went 1-1 but lost 17 pts at digsite to this team. if you click on them and look at their match history, in the same match they lost against us, they lost 10 pts. I guess u can't tell what rating we were at but if u count all of the pts down to that game they were alrdy ahead of us. Meaning that they were ahead in pts but had a much lower mmr than us according to your system.
I have to go in-game to look, but from the match history web browser it doesn't look like the same game.
09/26/2010: You gain 4 points on Dig Site
10/02/2010: They lose -10 points on Dig Site.
I can't find in either of your teams' last 25 games played a single common game on the website.
|
|
|
On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago.
The problem with this is are you certain that it wasnt bonus pool?
|
They intentionally use a system that inflates a ton so people can constantly feel they are progressing.
|
On October 20 2010 04:42 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago. The problem with this is are you certain that it wasnt bonus pool?
yes cuz we lost 17 they lost 10 pts. losing pts doesnt take bonus pool into account
If you want actual numbers, the game we won we got 5+5(bp) and they lost 10 pts. the game we lost they got and we lost 17 pts... and appraently i just checked and they got 15+15(bp) so i dont see how that's at all fair
if they also had more pts to begin with. you can go back and subtract/add all the pt gains
|
On October 20 2010 04:18 Champ24 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 03:58 eecs4ever wrote:OP: This is why none of us want to play ladder. This is also why I went 0-50 in random 3v3 just to lower my mmr. It actually helps. I'm not even kidding. This is something a 12 year old does. Is it? Because the displayed rating is all we ever see, how is it fair that a 1500MMR team with a 1500 point rating gets 18 points for a win against a different 2500MMR team with 100 points that only gets 1 for their victory? The OP is written awkwardly, but I get his point. Having to play 500 games for your displayed rating to match your MMR is dumb. Bombing 50 games to drop your MMR to where it takes 50 games for it to match isn't childish. It's a massive time saver.
No one is saying it's fair for the OP, but it would be one thing if he was just tanking games in 1v1, in random 3v3 you happen to have two allies who might not be on board with the whole "let's lose on purpose" thing.
It's the equivalent of a kid on a high school football team who thinks he should be playing college ball, so he throws every game on purpose. Whether or not he really does deserve to be on a college team, he's still being a dick to everyone else he's currently playing with. That is why it is childish.
It would be different if he got a team together for the sole purpose of tanking games but ruining games for people playing real random 3v3 just because you think the ranking system is trash is an asshole move.
It also kind of undermines your whole point of "this matchmaking system is balls" when you deliberately do things that screw with the matchmaking system like bombing games. If someone says the maps are imbalanced and is later revealed to be a maphacker, are you going to be taking them seriously?
|
On October 20 2010 04:41 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:26 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago. Actually excalibur_z, i just checked. If u want proof you can go to my partner homeless.801's match history and scroll down to 2 weeks ago, u'll notice we went 1-1 but lost 17 pts at digsite to this team. if you click on them and look at their match history, in the same match they lost against us, they lost 10 pts. I guess u can't tell what rating we were at but if u count all of the pts down to that game they were alrdy ahead of us. Meaning that they were ahead in pts but had a much lower mmr than us according to your system. I have to go in-game to look, but from the match history web browser it doesn't look like the same game. 09/26/2010: You gain 4 points on Dig Site 10/02/2010: They lose -10 points on Dig Site. I can't find in either of your teams' last 25 games played a single common game on the website.
you can add me to friends and check my match history in game, it's theyellowone.594
you go back 2 weeks and its' the match where we lost 17 pts, the game before we won but they lost 10 pts to us. to check their pts lost u can just click on the list of players in the scorescreen of the match
|
The problem is you are concerned with your points instead of your actual mmr. Imo blizz should ditch the whole point system and make the mmr the visible ranking and make it increase/decrease a bit slower than wow's system due to more games being played.
|
Krigwin:
I don't condone it, and I certainly wont do it, but it highlights a flaw in blizzards system.
I see where he is coming from since I am experiencing the same issue in my 4v4 random rating. If I did care, I would probably bomb my 1v1 rating to help my 4v4 rating get to where it needs to be. I'm 17-3 with 206 points. That is REALLY low for how I am performing. I just don't care. But if I did, I wouldn't call it childish, just impatient.
|
OP: I don't really understand your problem tbh. The MMR matches you with opponents that are roughly at your skill level, so that you can steadily get better. If you have 1400 points and go 50/50 against 1800+ players, the MMR obviously does its job right. What would you gain by wtfpwning all the people at your point range and then playing the 1800 guys when you've reached a similar amount of points?
Imho the problem is that you care more about points and win ratio than you care about getting better.
|
On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago.
Once again you are complaining about the points value and don't understand mmr by your post. Mmr is similar to elo. If you are not getting as many points as them then you have a much higher mmr. The only issue with super high mmr is that it is hard to find you ques at your level therefore you get games with much lower mmr opponents that you get many less points from due to the fact you should win almost every time. If there was random queing for chess similar top grand masters would not have enough of each other to actually get reliable ques against there skill level and would therefore get many +1 or -20 games, because they should win those games almost every time(I understand in chess at that skill difference there should be 0 chance of losing outside a huge blunder though).
|
On October 20 2010 04:56 bigjenk wrote:
The problem is you are concerned with your points instead of your actual mmr. Imo blizz should ditch the whole point system and make the mmr the visible ranking and make it increase/decrease a bit slower than wow's system due to more games being played.
points should reflect the MMR . and its absolutely ok to care about points since its the only benchmark we have.
i expirience the weird mmr/favoured thing all the time even at a way lower lvl (1600). when i win 6 points for people that are higher then me and after a few losses win 20 for people with the same rating it just looks very random and stupid.
in the end my inconsistent play seems to help me gain points. evrytime i fuck up and lose 4-5 games in a row i swing back after it and win more total points. while i miht lose 15 on the first loss vs higher people it quickly changes and when i start winning again i get 14+ against the pointrange i maybe won 9 before.
no matter how you look at it, the points dont reflect mmr/skill, the points you get can be totally "random" and the system is very foggy overall.
if they dont want to change the system they should show the MMR somewhere in the profile.
|
On October 20 2010 05:03 bigjenk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago. Once again you are complaining about the points value and don't understand mmr by your post. Mmr is similar to elo. If you are not getting as many points as them then you have a much higher mmr. The only issue with super high mmr is that it is hard to find you ques at your level therefore you get games with much lower mmr opponents that you get many less points from due to the fact you should win almost every time. If there was random queing for chess similar top grand masters would not have enough of each other to actually get reliable ques against there skill level and would therefore get many +1 or -20 games, because they should win those games almost every time(I understand in chess at that skill difference there should be 0 chance of losing outside a huge blunder though).
If you want actual numbers, the game vs the team i was talking about, we won and we got 5+5(bp) and they lost 10 pts. the game we lost, they got 15+15(bp) and we lost 17 pts... and appraently i just checked and they got 15+15(bp) but their pts were higher. CLEARLY our mmr is higher so why did they have more pts when we had more wins and less losses and farmed our bonus pool and started in plat into diamond?
i dont complain about stomping bads for +1 and losing 24 pts if i lose. that's fine, we can get 90% win loss to make up for it. Im just asking why people with much worse performance and mmr that was PROVEN to be lower than ours have more pts after less games?
u read excalibur_z's post and all the sudden think u "understand the system" when in fact the post was a theory to begin with. u THINK we gain less pts cuz we have a high mmr but the thing is, their pts were higher than ours and yet that's all we're given to compare rankings.
All im saying is that i think its stupid to be ranked lower yet be better in every way. Higher MMR, more wins, less losses, even a winning record against them if u care.
|
On October 20 2010 04:56 bigjenk wrote:
The problem is you are concerned with your points instead of your actual mmr. Imo blizz should ditch the whole point system and make the mmr the visible ranking and make it increase/decrease a bit slower than wow's system due to more games being played.
I would normally agree with you about only worrying of your MMR, but we only have points to work with. A mere 200 people in North America have the honor and privilege to know their MMR rating relative to each other. The rest of the contininent has to use points. It's all we have!
|
CLEARLY our mmr is higher so why did they have more pts when we had more wins and less losses and farmed our bonus pool and started in plat into diamond?
Because points aren't based on win/loss records. It's really that simple; you want them to be, but they are not.
|
On October 20 2010 05:04 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:56 bigjenk wrote:
The problem is you are concerned with your points instead of your actual mmr. Imo blizz should ditch the whole point system and make the mmr the visible ranking and make it increase/decrease a bit slower than wow's system due to more games being played. points should reflect the MMR . and its absolutely ok to care about points since its the only benchmark we have. i expirience the weird mmr/favoured thing all the time even at a way lower lvl (1600). when i win 6 points for people that are higher then me and after a few losses win 20 for people with the same rating it just looks very random and stupid. in the end my inconsistent play seems to help me gain points. evrytime i fuck up and lose 4-5 games in a row i swing back after it and win more total points. while i miht lose 15 on the first loss vs higher people it quickly changes and when i start winning again i get 14+ against the pointrange i maybe won 9 before. no matter how you look at it, the points dont reflect mmr/skill, the points you get can be totally "random" and the system is very foggy overall. if they dont want to change the system they should show the MMR somewhere in the profile.
yeah except it's not "random" and is consistently worse for u with a high mmr. This doesnt seem to matter as much in 1v1 since the people at the top are mostly professional players who might just get on ladder for practice and try out new things but for us nerds playing other things it makes us sad sometimes that our mmr is actually higher and we lose more pts but we're not higher ranked =(
|
OPp doesn't understand the difference between MMR and points.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On October 20 2010 05:18 out4blood wrote:
OPp doesn't understand the difference between MMR and points.
apparently u dont know how to read. i said i know there's a huge difference and that there SHOULDNT b a difference like that. it's stupid to have higher mmr and more games logged and yet less pts
|
On October 20 2010 05:15 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +CLEARLY our mmr is higher so why did they have more pts when we had more wins and less losses and farmed our bonus pool and started in plat into diamond? Because points aren't based on win/loss records. It's really that simple; you want them to be, but they are not.
i understand if some kid went 4-1 in placement the 80% win loss doesnt mean he's better than select's 71% win loss. However in this situation we have higher mmr and yet less pts after more games logged. Imagine being a faster track runner, u ran faster than this other kid the entire time and u tried harder than he did and yet u finsh second and he finishes first b/c the referee decides to count backwards.
|
On October 20 2010 04:47 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:42 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago. The problem with this is are you certain that it wasnt bonus pool? yes cuz we lost 17 they lost 10 pts. losing pts doesnt take bonus pool into account If you want actual numbers, the game we won we got 5+5(bp) and they lost 10 pts. the game we lost they got and we lost 17 pts... and appraently i just checked and they got 15+15(bp) so i dont see how that's at all fair if they also had more pts to begin with. you can go back and subtract/add all the pt gains
How is it not fair? You got to that rank with a higher win % which means your MMR is better so the system expects you to win. They have just played more games with a lower winrate which with bonus points inflates your total points over time. You'll pass them easily if you keep up your performance but if you clearly are a better team they should win more points anyways...
|
On October 20 2010 05:18 out4blood wrote:
OPp doesn't understand the difference between MMR and points.
I'm quoting this for many stupid posts that have been written here, because the point the OP makes is perfectly valid if you actually think about the stuff he writes
the OP does NOT in any way cry about getting matched up with the very best; neither does he cry about losing much more points when losing games than when winning; he says that, if you try to gain ladder-points (!) it is best to have a low MMR (!);
and this is very true and very broken because it effectively means that worse players (but still good players) who mass-game can farm up MUCH more points than those who are "so" good that they...well..."refuse" to lose very often; because these players will gain nothing from winning; nothing at all; they are lucky if they can keep their bonus-pool low because that's not that easy with 2-3 points won per game; these ppl will be (slightly) favoured basicly against anybody
I've been saying this since the very first discussions about this: this is NOT how it's supposed to work; on top of the ladder should be those ppl who are actually the best - what's so bad about that? I mean, who could "not" be in favour of such a ranking system, I don't get it?
many of the real pros don't care much about their points anyways, but if they did it would be better if they dropped every other game intentionally just to lower their MMR and get more points overall (!); not because they will play different ppl...well....sometimes yes, but that's not the point; the point is, they will gain much more points when winning against the exact same ppl, subsequently ending up with more points overall when they mass-game; and this is just completely nuts I genuinely despise it
|
The counter argument is that since points don't affect play in anyway, it doesn't matter if some players are ranked higher than others because they've played a lot more. Maybe you could envision points as a badge that indicates someone is successful and plays a lot.
Personally I think it would be nice if diamond and above could see their MMR, but I don't think any of this is worth fussing over too much.
|
On October 20 2010 05:10 Champ24 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:56 bigjenk wrote:
The problem is you are concerned with your points instead of your actual mmr. Imo blizz should ditch the whole point system and make the mmr the visible ranking and make it increase/decrease a bit slower than wow's system due to more games being played. I would normally agree with you about only worrying of your MMR, but we only have points to work with. A mere 200 people in North America have the honor and privilege to know their MMR rating relative to each other. The rest of the contininent has to use points. It's all we have!
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.
|
I really don't buy this crap about how tournaments are all that matter. Maybe that's true for the very top, but I bet there's a lot of people like me, a 1200 diamond, who invests enough effort in the game that they want to see improvement in their ranks, but are never going to be good enough to compete in real tournaments. No one is ever going to recognize me when they're playing me, so tournament fame isn't my target. I want to be able to say last week I was ranked x, but this week I've moved up to y. I really, really don't believe for a second that the average Team Liquidean just uses ladder to practice for tournaments.
|
On October 20 2010 05:10 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 05:03 bigjenk wrote:On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago. Once again you are complaining about the points value and don't understand mmr by your post. Mmr is similar to elo. If you are not getting as many points as them then you have a much higher mmr. The only issue with super high mmr is that it is hard to find you ques at your level therefore you get games with much lower mmr opponents that you get many less points from due to the fact you should win almost every time. If there was random queing for chess similar top grand masters would not have enough of each other to actually get reliable ques against there skill level and would therefore get many +1 or -20 games, because they should win those games almost every time(I understand in chess at that skill difference there should be 0 chance of losing outside a huge blunder though). If you want actual numbers, the game vs the team i was talking about, we won and we got 5+5(bp) and they lost 10 pts. the game we lost, they got 15+15(bp) and we lost 17 pts... and appraently i just checked and they got 15+15(bp) but their pts were higher. CLEARLY our mmr is higher so why did they have more pts when we had more wins and less losses and farmed our bonus pool and started in plat into diamond? i dont complain about stomping bads for +1 and losing 24 pts if i lose. that's fine, we can get 90% win loss to make up for it. Im just asking why people with much worse performance and mmr that was PROVEN to be lower than ours have more pts after less games? u read excalibur_z's post and all the sudden think u "understand the system" when in fact the post was a theory to begin with. u THINK we gain less pts cuz we have a high mmr but the thing is, their pts were higher than ours and yet that's all we're given to compare rankings. All im saying is that i think its stupid to be ranked lower yet be better in every way. Higher MMR, more wins, less losses, even a winning record against them if u care.
No i have barely browsed the mmr post in this game but i have played wow arena and chess so im quite aware of mmr and elo. Once again you are complaining about the point system which i would agree is broken and badly thought out. The actual mmr is not shown to be broken at all from your post, the only thing you could possibly complain about is that you are on the outlier rankings thus hardly will get any games close to your actual mmr. Wow players have dealt with this for a long time and developed a system of either queing the same time other teams there level were queing or by doing something like adding to their friends list so that they could see when people were queing that were also at high mmr, due to the number of times that there would be a disconnect against a team that is minus 24 points and +1 and that would ruin a whole night of queing against bad mmr. That should not be as much a problem in this game due to so many more people queing on a regular basis and the top spot on the ladder not being as cutthroat as well as tons of top players going inactive and sitting on mmr.
|
I don't really get how people can't understand this. It's pretty clear what the problem is.
Points do not factor into your matchings (as they should)
Points do not factor into your favored/unfavored (as they should)
MMR factors into your matchings & favored/unfavored (as it should)
MMR determines how many MMR you gain/lose
MMR determines how many Points you gain/lose <This is the problem!>
Basically it's like a piece of the puzzle is missing. If player a has an MMR > player b then we expect player a to gain less MMR for winning. But at the same time player a might have < points than player b. Even though player a's MMR is higher it makes no sense for his points to be less for the victory. The system has basically found an inconsistency in how it's rating players (points are lower for the better player) and rather than working towards fixing it, it chooses to actually make the inconsistency worse.
The difference in points should be a factor in how many points you gain/lose is all that it really comes down to.
You really start to notice it the more you play even at mediocre ratings. I can be 1350 diamond playing someone 1500 and gain only a modest amount of points (10 or so) for the win indicating that my MMR is = or > than his. The system makes no attempt to help us reorganize our points. If I play that same person 100 times and win 50% our points rating should be the same by the end of it (clearly we're evenly matched). In terms of MMR that's what happens. In terms of points I'll still be 1350 and he'll still be 1500 (depending on what kind of streak it ends with).
|
its not really that difficult to fix this problem tho....
if my MMR > opp MMR and my Points < opp Points
then u just calculate the point values as if u were NOT(edit) favored, while keeping the MMR normal. it would literally take seconds for blizzard to fix this.
blizzard should fix this because points are supposed to indicate yur level of skill right? if they don't, why even bother with points, they might as well just show us our MMR or nothing at all.
this is off topic but MMR is what decides what league yur in right?
|
On October 20 2010 05:37 sleepingdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 05:18 out4blood wrote:
OPp doesn't understand the difference between MMR and points. I'm quoting this for many stupid posts that have been written here, because the point the OP makes is perfectly valid if you actually think about the stuff he writes the OP does NOT in any way cry about getting matched up with the very best; neither does he cry about losing much more points when losing games than when winning; he says that, if you try to gain ladder-points (!) it is best to have a low MMR (!); and this is very true and very broken because it effectively means that worse players (but still good players) who mass-game can farm up MUCH more points than those who are "so" good that they...well..."refuse" to lose very often; because these players will gain nothing from winning; nothing at all; they are lucky if they can keep their bonus-pool low because that's not that easy with 2-3 points won per game; these ppl will be (slightly) favoured basicly against anybody I've been saying this since the very first discussions about this: this is NOT how it's supposed to work; on top of the ladder should be those ppl who are actually the best - what's so bad about that? I mean, who could "not" be in favour of such a ranking system, I don't get it? many of the real pros don't care much about their points anyways, but if they did it would be better if they dropped every other game intentionally just to lower their MMR and get more points overall (!); not because they will play different ppl...well....sometimes yes, but that's not the point; the point is, they will gain much more points when winning against the exact same ppl, subsequently ending up with more points overall when they mass-game; and this is just completely nuts I genuinely despise it
Im not entirely sure how the mmr in their team games is ranked but 3v3 it was seen to have people cheese the system by having one player on the team tank their mmr with another team come back and they get better point gain. Absolutely will be 0 problem in 1v1 but possibly in 2v2 and 3v3 if people exploit the system.
|
On October 20 2010 05:57 Zecias wrote:
its not really that difficult to fix this problem tho....
if my MMR > opp MMR and my Points < opp Points
then u just calculate the point values as if u were favored, while keeping the MMR normal.
this is off topic but MMR is what decides what league yur in right?
That's right but backwards.
If MMR > opp MMR & points < opp points you should be gaining more points for a win and losing less points for a loss (as if you were unfavored).
|
On October 20 2010 06:01 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 05:57 Zecias wrote:
its not really that difficult to fix this problem tho....
if my MMR > opp MMR and my Points < opp Points
then u just calculate the point values as if u were favored, while keeping the MMR normal.
this is off topic but MMR is what decides what league yur in right? That's right but backwards. If MMR > opp MMR & points < opp points you should be gaining more points for a win and losing less points for a loss (as if you were unfavored).
o.o? i wrote the exact same thing as u did
|
MMR is currently broken , if MMR is the only way of progress they should display MMR points not meaningless points . Battle net 2.0 is a giant fail overall , the only things they can do to make it worse are removing custom games and removing all chat that there ever was ( not chat rooms tough since they are unnecesarry according to blizzard ) . Would rather have warcraft 3 battle net in every featue ( except map creator ) warcraft 3 battle net was better then this over rushed battle net. A point based ladder is fine , but not with the current way it is implented with bonus points etc and the fact u can have match ups where u would only win 2 points and lose 20 points , max XP u could lose in war 3 was probarly 30 while minimum XP gained was probarly around 40 ....... ( wasn't lvl 40 top 300 in war 3 so can't say to much about it ) . Why can't Blizzard just give warcraft 3 battle net instead of this joke .
|
On October 20 2010 06:03 Zecias wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 06:01 Logo wrote:On October 20 2010 05:57 Zecias wrote:
its not really that difficult to fix this problem tho....
if my MMR > opp MMR and my Points < opp Points
then u just calculate the point values as if u were favored, while keeping the MMR normal.
this is off topic but MMR is what decides what league yur in right? That's right but backwards. If MMR > opp MMR & points < opp points you should be gaining more points for a win and losing less points for a loss (as if you were unfavored). o.o? i wrote the exact same thing as u did
You said if you were favored.
If you're favored in a matchup you lose more points for a loss and gain less for a win.
|
Everyone is in the same boat is it's not broken really.
|
On October 20 2010 06:01 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 05:57 Zecias wrote:
its not really that difficult to fix this problem tho....
if my MMR > opp MMR and my Points < opp Points
then u just calculate the point values as if u were favored, while keeping the MMR normal.
this is off topic but MMR is what decides what league yur in right? That's right but backwards. If MMR > opp MMR & points < opp points you should be gaining more points for a win and losing less points for a loss (as if you were unfavored).
That or they could take the idea for wow and ditch bonus pool. If your mmr<points you should get double points until you actually approach your mmr.
|
On October 20 2010 06:06 bigjenk wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 06:01 Logo wrote:On October 20 2010 05:57 Zecias wrote:
its not really that difficult to fix this problem tho....
if my MMR > opp MMR and my Points < opp Points
then u just calculate the point values as if u were favored, while keeping the MMR normal.
this is off topic but MMR is what decides what league yur in right? That's right but backwards. If MMR > opp MMR & points < opp points you should be gaining more points for a win and losing less points for a loss (as if you were unfavored). That or they could take the idea for wow and ditch bonus pool. If your mmr<points you should get double points until you actually approach your mmr.
That'd make too many people happy. We'd be rid of inflation and the points would actually be semi-accurate reflection of skill. Though I don't know how that'd be affected with the league system.
To be fair doing ratings properly is really really hard. Straight ELO 'works' but is mediocre at best and tends to be unfriendly to new players.
|
On October 20 2010 06:04 metalsonic wrote:
MMR is currently broken , if MMR is the only way of progress they should display MMR points not meaningless points . Battle net 2.0 is a giant fail overall , the only things they can do to make it worse are removing custom games and removing all chat that there ever was ( not chat rooms tough since they are unnecesarry according to blizzard ) . Would rather have warcraft 3 battle net in every featue ( except map creator ) warcraft 3 battle net was better then this over rushed battle net. A point based ladder is fine , but not with the current way it is implented with bonus points etc and the fact u can have match ups where u would only win 2 points and lose 20 points , max XP u could lose in war 3 was probarly 30 while minimum XP gained was probarly around 40 ....... ( wasn't lvl 40 top 300 in war 3 so can't say to much about it ) . Why can't Blizzard just give warcraft 3 battle net instead of this joke .
I guess with so many responses like this blizzard ought to change the rating system just to appease all the casuals. Maybe with more money from casuals they can implement chat rooms faster or something.
And that's what everyone who makes complaints like this is.
|
On October 20 2010 06:05 Cephei wrote:
Everyone is in the same boat is it's not broken really.
tell that the guys that all drowned in their broken boat ;P
just because something applies to many people doesnt mean its fine.
|
On October 20 2010 05:30 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 04:47 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:42 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:On October 20 2010 04:13 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 04:09 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 20 2010 03:57 TheYellowOne wrote:On October 20 2010 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote:
I want to make sure I understand what you're expecting to happen. If you're at the top end of the ladder with a rating far above your opponent MMRs, then you will be favored all the time. Do you have a more complete match history beyond the 25 most recent games that appear on the website? I see that in 3v3 most recently you've gained +2 +2 +2 +4 +2 +2 +4 +5 +3 +1 +1 +0 +1. That sounds about right for a team that's at the very top.
I also want to make sure you understand that your point gains and losses are a result of your opponent MMR as compared to your displayed rating. The 2 is actually 1 + 1 from the bonus pool. so it goes +1 +1 +1 +2 +1 +1 +2 +3 +2 +1 +1 +0 +1. My bit about the team games weren't that we get 1 pt off gold, plat or even low diamond teams, it's that people with HIGHER PTS than us get more out of winning against us than we do out of winning vs them. Also that says something about how the mmr system works considering it's our pt vs their mmr, meaning their mmr must b ridiculously low for us to be favored when our pt isnt even higher than theirs... but owait they're r1? =( Are you sure they're getting more points beating you than you get beating them? It's not zero sum. Check their match history and see. yeah. this was like 2 weeks ago before we just kinda gave up on queueing i might go back to see if i can find the games to screenshot but their games against us gave them way more than 7 and they also get like 12 pts a game within the 3-4 hour period that we were both queueing. Pretty sure the last time we ever got 12+ pts was about 200 games ago. The problem with this is are you certain that it wasnt bonus pool? yes cuz we lost 17 they lost 10 pts. losing pts doesnt take bonus pool into account If you want actual numbers, the game we won we got 5+5(bp) and they lost 10 pts. the game we lost they got and we lost 17 pts... and appraently i just checked and they got 15+15(bp) so i dont see how that's at all fair if they also had more pts to begin with. you can go back and subtract/add all the pt gains How is it not fair? You got to that rank with a higher win % which means your MMR is better so the system expects you to win. They have just played more games with a lower winrate which with bonus points inflates your total points over time. You'll pass them easily if you keep up your performance but if you clearly are a better team they should win more points anyways...
except we played more games than they did too. we had more wins and less losses, our mmr is higher but we lose more overall and yet their rank is high. none of that makes sense to me. we had to get a 40+ win streak to pass them and they pass us in like 5 wins, but even discounting that, the system expects me to win and yet doesnt give me more points. thats just wut i dont understand. if it recognizes we're better i dont get why we had less pts after more games played with like 15% better win loss for example. Btw it was legitimately like we won 100 more and lost like 5 less when all this happened.
i'm not sure if you're assuming that we're one of these people that are complaining that we get penalized too much for not playing alot. im not saying that at all. I'm saying that mmr goes up disproportionately fast to the point where if you're winning alot, you cant get anywhere. We honestly had way more luck when we lost on purpose.
If the game wants to reward that team with a lower mmr like you said with more points b/c they "pulled off something unexpected" i dont get why they had more points overall, as if they just kept "pulling off the unexpected" If we're expected to win all the time why were we always lower than them in pts until they didnt play for like a week?
|
On October 20 2010 06:04 metalsonic wrote:
MMR is currently broken , if MMR is the only way of progress they should display MMR points not meaningless points . Battle net 2.0 is a giant fail overall , the only things they can do to make it worse are removing custom games and removing all chat that there ever was ( not chat rooms tough since they are unnecesarry according to blizzard ) . Would rather have warcraft 3 battle net in every featue ( except map creator ) warcraft 3 battle net was better then this over rushed battle net. A point based ladder is fine , but not with the current way it is implented with bonus points etc and the fact u can have match ups where u would only win 2 points and lose 20 points , max XP u could lose in war 3 was probarly 30 while minimum XP gained was probarly around 40 ....... ( wasn't lvl 40 top 300 in war 3 so can't say to much about it ) . Why can't Blizzard just give warcraft 3 battle net instead of this joke .
People can exploit that as well at the top end. A top 20 player can literally friend everyone on the top 100 if they want and then que for ladder at odd hours or during tournaments where barely anyone is on and then wait for the rest to be in game. Voila they can just keep inflating their mmr indefinitely to a ridiculous number. Teams already did this in wow(cough bilian) by dodging everyone that was a top player and then just racking up 3-4 point gains at a 95 percent win ratio. Now in a system where the min gained is 10 and max lost is like 24 that is hugely exploitable.
|
On October 20 2010 06:08 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 06:06 bigjenk wrote:On October 20 2010 06:01 Logo wrote:On October 20 2010 05:57 Zecias wrote:
its not really that difficult to fix this problem tho....
if my MMR > opp MMR and my Points < opp Points
then u just calculate the point values as if u were favored, while keeping the MMR normal.
this is off topic but MMR is what decides what league yur in right? That's right but backwards. If MMR > opp MMR & points < opp points you should be gaining more points for a win and losing less points for a loss (as if you were unfavored). That or they could take the idea for wow and ditch bonus pool. If your mmr<points you should get double points until you actually approach your mmr. That'd make too many people happy. We'd be rid of inflation and the points would actually be semi-accurate reflection of skill. Though I don't know how that'd be affected with the league system. To be fair doing ratings properly is really really hard. Straight ELO 'works' but is mediocre at best and tends to be unfriendly to new players.
Tbh it would be quite easy as you enter every league you would start with mid mmr so like if you entered diamond 1200 or so(not sure the exact 50 percent line) and by time you played your way up to your mmr it would be balanced out, you would either keep winning >50 percent and keep getting bonus up to your higher mmr or you would even out or lose mmr and even out earlier.
|
or you could just stop worrying about your points and play to improve... would drastically reduce the amount of concern you have for a high-point level... which most good players dont even care about too much
|
On October 20 2010 06:05 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 06:03 Zecias wrote:On October 20 2010 06:01 Logo wrote:On October 20 2010 05:57 Zecias wrote:
its not really that difficult to fix this problem tho....
if my MMR > opp MMR and my Points < opp Points
then u just calculate the point values as if u were favored, while keeping the MMR normal.
this is off topic but MMR is what decides what league yur in right? That's right but backwards. If MMR > opp MMR & points < opp points you should be gaining more points for a win and losing less points for a loss (as if you were unfavored). o.o? i wrote the exact same thing as u did You said if you were favored. If you're favored in a matchup you lose more points for a loss and gain less for a win.
oh yeah >.> i should fix that.
|
The MMR system works for the casual gamer and ordinary gamers who want to get better, which is about 98% of the bnet 2.0 population. Who'd want to play a game where they get 0 points after 1,000 games?
|
On October 20 2010 06:34 toadstool wrote:
The MMR system works for the casual gamer and ordinary gamers who want to get better, which is about 98% of the bnet 2.0 population. Who'd want to play a game where they get 0 points after 1,000 games?
the MMR system also works for the top pro gamers who don't want to obsess over a meaningless points ladder that gets inflated every day by bonus pool, but still want to be able to log on and get matched against someone with equal skill as them regardless of artificial points standing. who'd want to grind bonus pool day in and day out when they can get better practice playing custom games against teammates with higher skill?
|
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.
|
I actually think the mmr would be nicer for the casual players and players in lower leagues. League cutoffs in the mmr would actually be known so that they have something to shoot for aka I want to get to gold by next week so i need to gain 100 mmr, as opposed to the guesswork that happens now aka ive been top player in my league with over 50 percent win ratio for 2 months now why no promotion?
|
On October 20 2010 06:17 RyanRushia wrote:
or you could just stop worrying about your points and play to improve... would drastically reduce the amount of concern you have for a high-point level... which most good players dont even care about too much
It's a bit different in team games though. the 1v1 ladder is used by pro gamers as a place to practice. Like IdrA said about the ladder system in sotg, it does a good job matching you up in terms of matches against good players. The way the pt system works isn't indicative of anything and no one at that highest level care since blizzcon doesnt take tha tinto account either i guess.
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"
|
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.
Everyone's bonus pool is the exact same though, if someone is below you by exactly the number of points left in their bonus pool that means they would have the exact same rating as you under standard ELO as well. Not sure how the system is flawed in this case.
|
It is ingenious until it backfires.
At some point someone can be working really really hard to improve and be seeing no reflection of it in their rating even if they ARE improving. It can really put a damper on someone's will to keep trying to improve or can rob them of the feeling that they are improving (even if by MMR they are slowly improving).
|
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.)
|
well, just started playing 1v1 again.
gotta say that almost all my opponent has a rating of 1300-1700, this became the case when I got about 400 rating, and system will say teams even, although my win rate is only at around 60%. last time when I faced a guy with 1300+ rating while I was sitting on 500+, the system tells me that I am slightly favoured.
Probably it means that I have to fight much much tougher opponent in order to get to a similar rating others have.
Either the rating is just irrelevant or Blizzard should review their hidden number..
|
On October 20 2010 07:32 Ironical wrote:
I just don't get the point of having both systems. It seems pointless to me.
Well the system creates a rating for each team, and I've heard that they're planning on having 'seasons' which reset the ladders as well. The theory is that having a hidden MMR allows you to start out a new season or a new team and immediately be matched against people who are just as good as you. The alternative, more or less original ELO, just starts everybody at the same point and lets the system naturally start itself out from there. The displayed points value behaves kind of like ELO in that it starts everyone at the same place (I think? I've never actually paid attention to how many points you start out with after placement) and sorts out your rating as you play games. The difference is that because of your persistent MMR, the system knows where you 'should' be and tries to get you there as quickly as possible.
Actually, that might be the problem here. It's possible that the other guy's actually have a higher MMR than the OP, but a much larger delta between their earned points and their MMR. Conversely the OP might have higher earned points than MMR, due to who they ended up queueing against.
He doesn't have the win percentage he does because he's been playing "bronze league players".
I didn't mean he was literally playing bronze players, that was a stand-in for 'players much worse'. If he's playing a lot of games but matching up mostly against players he should stomp 99% of the time, he'll have a great win/loss record but that doesn't mean he should be ranked higher than someone who happens to constantly get matched with equally strong players.
|
On October 20 2010 07:47 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:32 Ironical wrote:
I just don't get the point of having both systems. It seems pointless to me. Well the system creates a rating for each team, and I've heard that they're planning on having 'seasons' which reset the ladders as well. The theory is that having a hidden MMR allows you to start out a new season or a new team and immediately be matched against people who are just as good as you. The alternative, more or less original ELO, just starts everybody at the same point and lets the system naturally start itself out from there. The displayed points value behaves kind of like ELO in that it starts everyone at the same place (I think? I've never actually paid attention to how many points you start out with after placement) and sorts out your rating as you play games. The difference is that because of your persistent MMR, the system knows where you 'should' be and tries to get you there as quickly as possible. Actually, that might be the problem here. It's possible that the other guy's actually have a higher MMR than the OP, but a much larger delta between their earned points and their MMR. Conversely the OP might have higher earned points than MMR, due to who they ended up queueing against.
I don't understand your reply. He was asking why have both systems. Why not JUST have the MMR, and SHOW IT TO US.
During a ladder reset, you could be "seeded" so to speak in your placements against people of similar MMR from last season. Why have both of these systems when one of them is clearly a load of garbage ("points"), and the other is an actual number that makes sense (your hidden MMR).
|
On October 20 2010 07:47 Footloop wrote:
Actually, that might be the problem here. It's possible that the other guy's actually have a higher MMR than the OP, but a much larger delta between their earned points and their MMR. Conversely the OP might have higher earned points than MMR, due to who they ended up queueing against
The former is impossible because he checked the point gain (if you read the thread) of his opponent. When the OP won, he gained less points than his opponents lost. This would indicate that OP has a higher MMR.
|
Well I have a little bit to add to this general idea. I have taken a break from playing for a little while so my account sat at ~1300.
Now, I just started up playing again, and this is how my pts have been:
Game 1) Loss vs 1901 P, [-8pts]
Game2) Win vs 1700 Z, [+7pts +7bonus pool]
Game 3) Win vs same 1700 Z, [+7pts +7 bonus pool]
Game 4) Win vs 1600 P, [+10pts +10 bonus pool]
Game 5) Win vs 1700 P, [+12pts +12 bonus pool]
Game 6) Win vs 1920 T, [+9pts +9 bonus pool]
After all this I am now 1436 w/ a 66% win percentage. But what I don't understand is how I got less points for beating a 1920 player than for beating the 1700 and 1600 players. It just feels like a really odd point calculation method
|
On October 20 2010 07:50 ltortoise wrote:
I don't understand your reply. He was asking why have both systems. Why not JUST have the MMR, and SHOW IT TO US.
During a ladder reset, you could be "seeded" so to speak in your placements against people of similar MMR from last season. Why have both of these systems when one of them is clearly a load of garbage ("points"), and the other is an actual number that makes sense (your hidden MMR).
Because they serve different functions. Your MMR represents who you should be playing, and is used by the system as such. Your points represent a combination of how much you've been playing and how many games you've won. Play enough games and they should converge.
The intent is that to get to the top of the ladder you have to actually play your way up there, not get a huge MMR one season and then start out at the top the next. However it should be *easier* for you to get up to the top if you were there previously.
The former is impossible because he checked the point gain (if you read the thread) of his opponent. When the OP won, he gained less points than his opponents lost. This would indicate that OP has a higher MMR.
I mentioned this in my last post, but points gained aren't only a function of your rating against your opponent's rating, but also your rating against your own MMR. If the OP's opponent has a large difference between their earned points (where they're currently ranked) and their MMR (where the system thinks they should be ranked) then it could explain the numbers.
|
The ladder desperately needs revamped. I still don't know wtf is going on with it half the time.
|
On October 20 2010 07:54 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:50 ltortoise wrote:
I don't understand your reply. He was asking why have both systems. Why not JUST have the MMR, and SHOW IT TO US.
During a ladder reset, you could be "seeded" so to speak in your placements against people of similar MMR from last season. Why have both of these systems when one of them is clearly a load of garbage ("points"), and the other is an actual number that makes sense (your hidden MMR). Because they serve different functions. Your MMR represents who you should be playing, and is used by the system as such. Your points represent a combination of how much you've been playing and how many games you've won. Play enough games and they should converge. The intent is that to get to the top of the ladder you have to actually play your way up there, not get a huge MMR one season and then start out at the top the next. However it should be *easier* for you to get up to the top if you were there previously.
This seems stupid to me. The top player should be the best player, not the player who "played to the top" (whatever the hell that means).
Your MMR is far more indicative of skill than how many points, thus your MMR should be shown, rather than points.
Seems rather simple to me. For the purposes of determining the top 200 or other lists, you could simply rule out players that have too large of a delta to mitigate people luckily getting a very high MMR from a win streak.
|
On October 20 2010 07:57 ltortoise wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:54 Footloop wrote:On October 20 2010 07:50 ltortoise wrote:
I don't understand your reply. He was asking why have both systems. Why not JUST have the MMR, and SHOW IT TO US.
During a ladder reset, you could be "seeded" so to speak in your placements against people of similar MMR from last season. Why have both of these systems when one of them is clearly a load of garbage ("points"), and the other is an actual number that makes sense (your hidden MMR). Because they serve different functions. Your MMR represents who you should be playing, and is used by the system as such. Your points represent a combination of how much you've been playing and how many games you've won. Play enough games and they should converge. The intent is that to get to the top of the ladder you have to actually play your way up there, not get a huge MMR one season and then start out at the top the next. However it should be *easier* for you to get up to the top if you were there previously. This seems stupid to me. The top player should be the best player, not the player who "played to the top" (whatever the hell that means). Your MMR is far more indicative of skill than how many points, thus your MMR should be shown, rather than points. Seems rather simple to me. For the purposes of determining the top 200 or other lists, you could simply rule out players that have too large of a delta to mitigate people luckily getting a very high MMR from a win streak.
They probably don't display MMR because it can rise and fall so rapidly, whereas points do not
|
On October 20 2010 07:54 Footloop wrote:
I mentioned this in my last post, but points gained aren't only a function of your rating against your opponent's rating, but also your rating against your own MMR. If the OP's opponent has a large difference between their earned points (where they're currently ranked) and their MMR (where the system thinks they should be ranked) then it could explain the numbers.
Source? Evidence? Statistics?
Without knowing your MMR, proving this seems pretty impossible. You can't isolate the variable.
|
On October 20 2010 07:59 ltortoise wrote:
Source? Evidence? Statistics?
Without knowing your MMR, proving this seems pretty impossible. You can't isolate the variable.
Don't you notice that when starting a new team you'll be getting 20+ points for a win (not counting the bonus) whereas after you've played a bunch of games you'll be lucky to get more than 10?
This is definitely 100% the way it works in WoW Arena, where you *can* see your MMR. I would be pretty surprised if the system didn't work similarly here.
|
On October 20 2010 08:06 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 07:59 ltortoise wrote:
Source? Evidence? Statistics?
Without knowing your MMR, proving this seems pretty impossible. You can't isolate the variable.
Don't you notice that when starting a new team you'll be getting 20+ points for a win (not counting the bonus) whereas after you've played a bunch of games you'll be lucky to get more than 10? This is definitely 100% the way it works in WoW Arena, where you *can* see your MMR. I would be pretty surprised if the system didn't work similarly here.
That could simply be explained by the system assuming new players have very low MMR, and thus you gain many points from wins since your opponents will be HEAVILY favored (at least for a time).
It in no way proves anything else, or infers it.
|
Not trying to derail the thread but I have a concern regarding one of OP's points.
He seems to imply that MMR is shared across all teams for a given account.
On October 20 2010 02:12 TheYellowOne wrote:
4) It makes for unfair matches since players like Sorcery who has countless 90%+ win loss teams in every bracket could pick up a gold-level player to play with and he'd not only be forced to play against highest ranked diamond teams but gain no points while doing so once he gets into diamond.
Can anyone confirm or deny that? From Excalibur_Z's ladder FAQ thread, it seems that MMR is only used for initial placement across teams (or maybe just for 1v1):
Q: If I've never played 1v1, but I'm 2v2 Diamond, who will I face in 1v1 Placements?
A: Your performance in other brackets is considered when initially seeding your placement matches. In this case, you'd likely be paired with a Diamond player to start.
If your team MMR is used for more than just placement when forming another team, then this could be a big problem.
|
If you goto SC2ranks and change the "sort by" box to "points + ratio" all of the sudden you'll see a lot more people you've heard of at the top. The ranking system is imba imo.
Take a good look at these side by side!
Top 25 by points
Click here to see full image
Top 25 by points+ratio
click here to see full image
|
On October 20 2010 08:09 ltortoise wrote:
That could simply be explained by the system assuming new players have very low MMR, and thus you gain many points from wins since your opponents will be HEAVILY favored (at least for a time).
It in no way proves anything else, or infers it.
Why would you end up heavily favoured? The entire point of MMR is to match you up against people of similar MMR, if it's starting you out with a low MMR then you should be getting matched up against people of low MMR.
|
On October 20 2010 08:22 Footloop wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 08:09 ltortoise wrote:
That could simply be explained by the system assuming new players have very low MMR, and thus you gain many points from wins since your opponents will be HEAVILY favored (at least for a time).
It in no way proves anything else, or infers it. Why would you end up heavily favoured? The entire point of MMR is to match you up against people of similar MMR, if it's starting you out with a low MMR then you should be getting matched up against people of low MMR.
Because your delta is large. It doesn't know what your MMR is really, so it's going to deliberately put you against people with higher MMR if you win, in order to at least get an upper bound on you. If you lose, it will do the opposite and try for a lower bound.
|
United States12230 Posts
On October 20 2010 08:12 c0ldfusion wrote:Not trying to derail the thread but I have a concern regarding one of OP's points. He seems to imply that MMR is shared across all teams for a given account. Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 02:12 TheYellowOne wrote:
4) It makes for unfair matches since players like Sorcery who has countless 90%+ win loss teams in every bracket could pick up a gold-level player to play with and he'd not only be forced to play against highest ranked diamond teams but gain no points while doing so once he gets into diamond.
Can anyone confirm or deny that? From Excalibur_Z's ladder FAQ thread, it seems that MMR is only used for initial placement across teams (or maybe just for 1v1): Show nested quote +
Q: If I've never played 1v1, but I'm 2v2 Diamond, who will I face in 1v1 Placements?
A: Your performance in other brackets is considered when initially seeding your placement matches. In this case, you'd likely be paired with a Diamond player to start.
If your team MMR is used for more than just placement when forming another team, then this could be a big problem.
Yeah, I agree. If MMR is persistent across all active teams, there's potential for exploitation.
|
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?
|
I decided to do some data gathering, and I found out that out of my last 53 games, the average rating of my opponent was ~1722. Whats strange is that my win/loss is 58% out of those games, and my rating is only 1527. It seems as if you waste your bonus pool by offracing/tanking games you can't ever really get it back. My MMR is enough to get me qued up against 1950+ players on a regular basis, but I can't seem to get my points to go up, because I lose just as many as I gain if I go 50% against 1900 players. Since the system uses your MMR to determine how many points you gain, your actual point value can be quite a bit above or below your skill level and stay there depending on how you used your bonus pool.
The system isn't broken by any stretch, but bonus points make the ranking system give deceiving results. Notice how the top 200 differs from the top 200 points...
In short... the bonus pool is fucked up and punishes anyone who off races/screws around wasting bonus pool. I wish I could see my MMR, because its kinda depressing being 1530 and playing nothing but 1700+
|
On October 20 2010 02:18 Risen wrote:
I'd like to point out that Blizzard uses MMR to determine who gets the invite to their mini-tournament IIRC. Other than that, this post is very true (I'm low diamond and don't play enough to get out of it, but I can see where all these problems come from)
i cant agree more!
|
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.
|
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.
|
On October 21 2010 03:02 Crushgroove wrote:
OP is confusing MMR with Points. Two different things.
my tldr wasnt THAT long, the least u could do is read it real quick =(
all im saying is ur mmr goes up way too fast and never really comes back down to the point where ur point gain is always stupidly lopsided even against other top players. Sure, excalibur z says if you play a billion games it should technically be at where ur pts are at but its not gonna ever come down or pull ur pts up. ur pt gains will always stay mediocre until ur mmr drops, cuz ur pts r never gonna go up.
altho, since ur saying mmr is diff from pts i guess u agree with me lol
|
On October 21 2010 03:02 Crushgroove wrote:
OP is confusing MMR with Points. Two different things.
No. He's not.
|
On October 21 2010 06:21 TheYellowOne wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2010 03:02 Crushgroove wrote:
OP is confusing MMR with Points. Two different things. my tldr wasnt THAT long, the least u could do is read it real quick =( all im saying is ur mmr goes up way too fast and never really comes back down to the point where ur point gain is always stupidly lopsided even against other top players. Sure, excalibur z says if you play a billion games it should technically be at where ur pts are at but its not gonna ever come down or pull ur pts up. ur pt gains will always stay mediocre until ur mmr drops, cuz ur pts r never gonna go up. altho, since ur saying mmr is diff from pts i guess u agree with me lol
I think an OP almost 2000 words long put a lot of people off reading the whole thing...and as the bit where you mean't to title the thread 'points system is broken' is like 2 lines from the end I'm not surprised people skipped over it.
My personal view is that the whole points and divisions thing is purely cosmetic...they don't actually mean anything and I guess if nothing else thats why the points system is broken  I mean eventually peoples points ranking would reflect their MMR ranking but realistically thats only going to happen if everyone mass games. As it stands points 'rewards' players for improving, not for already being good as it appears in your case
|
On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong.
No you're wrong. He's saying, for example: You have 1200 pts in diamond. You're playing 1800 pt diamond people because that's where you're MMR is at. If it's an even match, you're going to gain 10 pts (random number let's just use 10) if you win, and lose 10pts if you lose. But you're POINTS that you can see are still ~1200! But really you are a 1800 player who has a good win/loss ratio (at least 50%) and you SHOULD be an 1800 player because you're MMR is there, but you're points CANNOT go that high unless you become a 2200 player and keep on playing those 1800's!
|
Germany743 Posts
On October 21 2010 09:37 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong. No you're wrong. He's saying, for example: You have 1200 pts in diamond. You're playing 1800 pt diamond people because that's where you're MMR is at. If it's an even match, you're going to gain 10 pts (random number let's just use 10) if you win, and lose 10pts if you lose. But you're POINTS that you can see are still ~1200! But really you are a 1800 player who has a good win/loss ratio (at least 50%) and you SHOULD be an 1800 player because you're MMR is there, but you're points CANNOT go that high unless you become a 2200 player and keep on playing those 1800's!
You are wrong Silidons. Because:
On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong.
|
Yellowone: if it makes you feel better, under the sort by tab, check the "Points + Win ratio" .
It would cool if they showed your MRR somewhere... = /
|
On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong.
I am skeptical of this claim. Is there any proof/evidence to support this?
It seems to me the case of point gain/loss is determined by your MMR vs their MMR. Or at the very least, I haven't been seeing any counter-examples.
Edit: And I have seen TONS of counter-examples to the idea that it's your points vs their MMR.
|
I'm not sure I fully understand the original post, but he seems to be talking about discrepancies between mmr and ladder points, and how people with higher mmrs are punished in ladder points while players with lower mmrs are rewarded with ladder points. I do not know if this is true, but last night I had a game which made me suspect it is.
I am ~600 plat with about 90 1v1 games under my belt. I don't play 1v1s too often and quit for awhile after a losing streak -- but I started again a couple of weeks ago and have had a solid win-loss ratio since then. Last night I was paired with a ~1200 diamond player and the ladder system counted it as an "even match." I lost points equivalent to an even match for me (-10) and he gained points equivalent to an even match for him (+22; we actually rematched in custom a couple times after that waiting for GSL to start). While I can accept that we are close on the MMR scale, I don't know why bnet considered this an "even match" in terms of points. Is it a bug? Or is it what the OP is mentioning?
The OP also talks about team games. Are individual mmrs calculated in team mmrs? I have seen speculation on this, but I would appreciate someone answering definitely or showing me a post in which this is discussed at length. Anyway, personal experience leads me to suspect individual mmr is calculated in team mmr: in all my solo leagues (1v1 and rand teams) I am plat or diamond. I have a 2v2 team with a good buddy who is gold-plat level. Our 2v2 team is ranked gold, but we keep getting matched up against diamond level teams in spite of our sub-40% win-loss record. Bnet keeps stubbornly matching us against better players and we keep losing. This is frustrating for us (especially him). I know bnet inflates AT mmr compared to RT mmr, so that could explain part of it, but our win-loss record is so bad that it would only make sense if something else were at play. Individual mmr being accounted for in team mmr might explain it.
|
Don't worry OP 1.2 will fix it with the points/mmr reset.
|
As long as the ladder matches you against people of similar skill until you get 50/50, who cares what your points are? I mean you can do any multitude of things to increase your points/league (cheese, mass games) so they are fairly irrelevant.
Its a game - if you are having decent competition, is it that big a deal if some other nerd has more points or w/e? As far as I'm concerned constant, good competition is what the system delivers so it works.
|
On October 21 2010 09:37 Silidons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong. No you're wrong. He's saying, for example: You have 1200 pts in diamond. You're playing 1800 pt diamond people because that's where you're MMR is at. If it's an even match, you're going to gain 10 pts (random number let's just use 10) if you win, and lose 10pts if you lose. But you're POINTS that you can see are still ~1200! But really you are a 1800 player who has a good win/loss ratio (at least 50%) and you SHOULD be an 1800 player because you're MMR is there, but you're points CANNOT go that high unless you become a 2200 player and keep on playing those 1800's!
I wouldn't worry about your rating if you can't get above 1200. I'd be worry about staying under 3k minerals and learning how to expand.
|
On October 21 2010 02:43 Reesj wrote:
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.
Um, obviously it's not wow. It's still a ladder system. If they're going to copy it (MMR, start at 0, etc). then they might as well finish the job.
It was obvious from day 1 that they borrowed heavily from the WoW ladder system (which is actually really refined after YEARS of testing and there's no reason they shouldn't copy it since they're both Blizzard games).
And I read the entire thread. He wasn't just talking about 3v3, that was just an example that shows what happens at the extreme high end (90% win ratio). If people achieved 90% win ratio sustained in 1v1, then you would see the same problems in that bracket too. I understand perfectly what the OP was saying, and I was pointing out the flaw in the current system which leads to the "broken" ladder that the OP is complaining about.
On October 21 2010 02:56 Excalibur_Z wrote:
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.
That's why it's broken. And who you face matters because that affects YOUR MMR. The number of displayed rating points you win or lose should NOT be dependent on the MMR of your opponent/who you face.
It should NOT COMPARE YOUR OPPONENT'S MMR to YOUR MMR and base point gain on that (which is the current system).
And it does not work the same as arena. That's the PROBLEM.
"so that your rating generally approaches your MMR as fast as it would if it compared to your MMR."
Again, no, this is not what happens.
On October 21 2010 09:42 Grummler wrote:You are wrong Silidons. Because: Show nested quote +On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong.
This is wrong.
After each win the point you get are based on your MMR compared to his MMR.
This is how it currently works, and leads to broken rating gains.
|
delete post. reason: double post
|
I dont understand? So you arent complaining at all about the matchmaking and are just whinging that your skill is not represented in any comparable form. So the mmr system is actually working fine then if you can be matched with people. >.>
|
On October 21 2010 12:31 T0fuuu wrote:
I dont understand? So you arent complaining at all about the matchmaking and are just whinging that your skill is not represented in any comparable form. So the mmr system is actually working fine then if you can be matched with people. >.>
We are complaining that the rating is not working as an indicator of skill, nor is it used to match you with people, nor is it used to calculate point gains/losses. Despite its ultimate uselessness, it is the only thing you see when you look at a player's stats, next to wins and losses. Not only is it useless, it's in fact very misleading, since a player rated at 1100 with 50:50 ratio might be facing lower rated player and be pretty bad, or might be facing higher rated players and be pretty good.
It's clearly intended to be useful, and not misleading, but somehow it's wrong that people complain about its being useless?
Fanboys will be fanboys, I guess.
|
I'm also very skeptical about the claim that you gain points based on your displayed rating vs. opponent MMR.
I went from 500 diamond to 1000 diamond (idle in 1v1 for a long time) in the past few days playing almost exclusively 1400-1700 rated players. Every match I get the standard +10-14 (without bonus pool) for even matches. It's hard to believe that the system is so broken that these 1400-1700 players have MMR's of sub 1000?
|
I don't think Blizzard will do a damn thing, they knew what they were doing, and they will most likely ignore this finding, even if it was on the front page of every community site.
Great find though!
|
Germany743 Posts
On October 21 2010 12:21 fant0m wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2010 09:42 Grummler wrote:You are wrong Silidons. Because: On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong. This is wrong. This is how it currently works, and leads to broken rating gains.
Did you never wondered, why the loading screen sometimes shows both players favored?
Like Player A vs Player B.
Loading screen player A:
Player B is favored
Loading Screen player B:
player A is favored
Its because the point gain is based on your points compared to his MMR. If both players have a higher MMR then the other one has points, they both face a favored player.
There was a thread about it, actually saying that the MMS is broken because it compares own points to opponents MMR. Now people say its broken because it compares MMR to MMR.
|
On October 21 2010 20:01 Grummler wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2010 12:21 fant0m wrote:On October 21 2010 09:42 Grummler wrote:You are wrong Silidons. Because: On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong. This is wrong. After each win the point you get are based on your MMR compared to his MMR. This is how it currently works, and leads to broken rating gains. Did you never wondered, why the loading screen sometimes shows both players favored? Like Player A vs Player B. Loading screen player A: Player B is favored Loading Screen player B: player A is favored Its because the point gain is based on your points compared to his MMR. If both players have a higher MMR then the other one has points, they both face a favored player. There was a thread about it, actually saying that the MMS is broken because it compares own points to opponents MMR. Now people say its broken because it compares MMR to MMR.
I don't believe this until I see proof. It's not that often you see both players loading screens so I have never experienced it.
Anyway, the system is broken either way cause MMR sucks whatever you do with it. It's just bad.
|
It sounds like this only applies to a very select few of the top teams in the world.
That seems like the only situation where there literally aren't enough players of equivalent MMR for you to play against. The only reason you have this issue in your 3v3, is because your team is apparently the best in the world(in terms of MMR), by leaps and bounds, and thus are never play others with MMR as high as yours(as they apparently don't exist).
|
I can't believe there is still so much confusion in this thread.
The amount of points based on win or loss factor in all 4 things. Your points/mmr, opponents points/mmr.
The only reason it seemed like you could take heavy point losses early on this season is because the MMR hadn't inflated either. Back when huk was near the top in global rank and the top was at 700, his MMR was prolly a bit above 700. Now the ladder has inflated to where 2500-2600 is the top, and his MMR has inflated with it as well because that is the new top of the ladder and he is still playing at a top level.
Next season if MMR is saved like it is in WoW, you will see top players with extremely high MMR climbing the ladder much faster. Because when your MMR is at 2500-3k you aren't going to be taking heavy point losses until your actual rating gets closer to that MMR.
On October 21 2010 23:19 skipdog172 wrote:
It sounds like this only applies to a very select few of the top teams in the world.
That seems like the only situation where there literally aren't enough players of equivalent MMR for you to play against. The only reason you have this issue in your 3v3, is because your team is apparently the best in the world(in terms of MMR), by leaps and bounds, and thus are never play others with MMR as high as yours(as they apparently don't exist).
The problem is simply that once you get high MMR in 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4, there are literally so few teams playing at that high MMR that most of the games you get are vs people with much lower MMR.
My 2v2 team had really high MMR, constantly favored vs some of the highest rated 2v2 teams in the US. Then we went inactive...
Now when we try to queue we get long wait times cause so few good players take 2v2 seriously and there are so few teams with high MMR in 2v2.
The other day we literally got 4 games in a row, where we literally got 0 points a game because we were so favored. Yet if we had lost we probably woulda lost 20+ points.
It sucks sitting in a queue for 5-10mins and then going in at risk to something like double zerg which can gimmick our team pretty badly, and then getting 0 points for the wins.
|
On October 21 2010 23:36 robertdinh wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2010 23:19 skipdog172 wrote:
It sounds like this only applies to a very select few of the top teams in the world.
That seems like the only situation where there literally aren't enough players of equivalent MMR for you to play against. The only reason you have this issue in your 3v3, is because your team is apparently the best in the world(in terms of MMR), by leaps and bounds, and thus are never play others with MMR as high as yours(as they apparently don't exist). The problem is simply that once you get high MMR in 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4, there are literally so few teams playing at that high MMR that most of the games you get are vs people with much lower MMR. My 2v2 team had really high MMR, constantly favored vs some of the highest rated 2v2 teams in the US. Then we went inactive... Now when we try to queue we get long wait times cause so few good players take 2v2 seriously and there are so few teams with high MMR in 2v2. The other day we literally got 4 games in a row, where we literally got 0 points a game because we were so favored. Yet if we had lost we probably woulda lost 20+ points. It sucks sitting in a queue for 5-10mins and then going in at risk to something like double zerg which can gimmick our team pretty badly, and then getting 0 points for the wins.
Yes.. just like I said. This is only a problem for teams whose MMR is so high that there aren't other teams with equivalent MMRs to be matched against. I'm not exactly sure how this can be resolved....just be happy that you are the best? You really don't deserve many points at all against such a bad team...but then again, the system shouldn't normally pair you against those teams and the only reason it does is because you are so damn good! I'm sure it does suck to not have any good teams to play against...but I guess that is just a drawback of team games: there just aren't many good players playing them.
Just seems like something we have to accept... if you have such a high and ludicrous winning percentage like 90% and you are the "best in the world and there are no equally skilled teams to play against", it will be hard to catch up in terms of "points". I don't think Blizzard anticipated players/teams being so good as to have such a high winning percentage and there not being any other players/teams online to play against on any sort of consistent basis.
This just seems like a quirk of an issue that only affects very very very few people. I would say generally and especially for 1v1, once you've spent your bonus pool....points probably do reflect your skill level pretty accurately. This is because in 1v1s, you just aren't going to have a 90% winning percentage and have a problem with there not being equally skilled players online when you are looking for a match.
Really this thread should be title "The MMR is broken if you have a 90% winning percentage and there are no equally skilled players to play against". That just isn't something that is going to be experienced very often.
|
On October 21 2010 23:52 skipdog172 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2010 23:36 robertdinh wrote:On October 21 2010 23:19 skipdog172 wrote:
It sounds like this only applies to a very select few of the top teams in the world.
That seems like the only situation where there literally aren't enough players of equivalent MMR for you to play against. The only reason you have this issue in your 3v3, is because your team is apparently the best in the world(in terms of MMR), by leaps and bounds, and thus are never play others with MMR as high as yours(as they apparently don't exist). The problem is simply that once you get high MMR in 2v2 or 3v3 or 4v4, there are literally so few teams playing at that high MMR that most of the games you get are vs people with much lower MMR. My 2v2 team had really high MMR, constantly favored vs some of the highest rated 2v2 teams in the US. Then we went inactive... Now when we try to queue we get long wait times cause so few good players take 2v2 seriously and there are so few teams with high MMR in 2v2. The other day we literally got 4 games in a row, where we literally got 0 points a game because we were so favored. Yet if we had lost we probably woulda lost 20+ points. It sucks sitting in a queue for 5-10mins and then going in at risk to something like double zerg which can gimmick our team pretty badly, and then getting 0 points for the wins. Yes.. just like I said. This is only a problem for teams whose MMR is so high that there aren't other teams with equivalent MMRs to be matched against. I'm not exactly sure how this can be resolved....just be happy that you are the best? You really don't deserve many points at all against such a bad team...but then again, the system shouldn't normally pair you against those teams and the only reason it does is because you are so damn good! I'm sure it does suck to not have any good teams to play against...but I guess that is just a drawback of team games: there just aren't many good players playing them. Just seems like something we have to accept... if you have such a high and ludicrous winning percentage like 90% and you are the "best in the world and there are no equally skilled teams to play against", it will be hard to catch up in terms of "points". I don't think Blizzard anticipated players/teams being so good as to have such a high winning percentage and there not being any other players/teams online to play against on any sort of consistent basis. This just seems like a quirk of an issue that only affects very very very few people. I would say generally and especially for 1v1, once you've spent your bonus pool....points probably do reflect your skill level pretty accurately. This is because in 1v1s, you just aren't going to have a 90% winning percentage and have a problem with there not being equally skilled players online when you are looking for a match. Really this thread should be title "The MMR is broken if you have a 90% winning percentage and there are no equally skilled players to play against". That just isn't something that is going to be experienced very often.
I'm not arguing with you or anything, I am just elaborating on it all with my own experiences.
The main problem is just that not enough teams are participating actively and competitively in 2v2 ladder.
Without a healthy player base blizzard's personal ladder system for wow/sc2 just doesn't work very well.
I don't blame anyone though, this game isn't even close to balanced for 2v2.
Also I want to clarify, that I think it is really stupid for the ladder system to ever give you 0 points for a ladder match, that's the equivalent of being a waste of time.
|
United States12230 Posts
On October 21 2010 22:56 MrLonely wrote:Show nested quote +On October 21 2010 20:01 Grummler wrote:On October 21 2010 12:21 fant0m wrote:On October 21 2010 09:42 Grummler wrote:You are wrong Silidons. Because: On October 20 2010 02:21 Hider wrote:
After each win the point you get are based on your ladder point compared to his MMR. So your logic is wrong. This is wrong. After each win the point you get are based on your MMR compared to his MMR. This is how it currently works, and leads to broken rating gains. Did you never wondered, why the loading screen sometimes shows both players favored? Like Player A vs Player B. Loading screen player A: Player B is favored Loading Screen player B: player A is favored Its because the point gain is based on your points compared to his MMR. If both players have a higher MMR then the other one has points, they both face a favored player. There was a thread about it, actually saying that the MMS is broken because it compares own points to opponents MMR. Now people say its broken because it compares MMR to MMR. I don't believe this until I see proof. It's not that often you see both players loading screens so I have never experienced it. Anyway, the system is broken either way cause MMR sucks whatever you do with it. It's just bad.
If you want proof, then just look at any game ever. Look at your match history and pick out a game. Now go to your opponent's profile and find the same game and you'll see what he gained or lost. The points gained and lost aren't always zero sum (and I'm not factoring in bonus pool here). If you won +40 points and your opponent lost 3, then you both saw each other as favored.
|
United States12230 Posts
On October 21 2010 23:58 robertdinh wrote:
Also I want to clarify, that I think it is really stupid for the ladder system to ever give you 0 points for a ladder match, that's the equivalent of being a waste of time.
Yeah, agreed. There were some games in WoW where both teams lost points (say one loses 15 and the other loses 1). That doesn't make any sense to us but Blizzard said it's not a bug, it's a result of rating approaching MMR. We don't know whether that's happening in SC2's system but gaining 0 points is almost as bad.
|
did not read past the second or third paragraph. basically, your mmr is hidden, you will never know it. the points system is completely unrelated, and is just there to help your e-penis grow. why do you think people like me got promoted from plat to dia with just 300 or so ladder points, while people are in plat now with 1500 and no promotion?
points will always grow. your mmr won't.
When you hit 50% win-lose ratio, thats pretty much your MMR cap, but yet if you keep playing, and retain your 50% ratio, you will still gain ladder points.
Im so sorry your thread was so long, you have wasted your time by misunderstanding how the MMR and Ladders work.
|
On October 22 2010 04:40 arthur wrote:
did not read past the second or third paragraph. basically, your mmr is hidden, you will never know it. the points system is completely unrelated, and is just there to help your e-penis grow. why do you think people like me got promoted from plat to dia with just 300 or so ladder points, while people are in plat now with 1500 and no promotion?
points will always grow. your mmr won't.
When you hit 50% win-lose ratio, thats pretty much your MMR cap, but yet if you keep playing, and retain your 50% ratio, you will still gain ladder points.
Im so sorry your thread was so long, you have wasted your time by misunderstanding how the MMR and Ladders work.
Wow you really should learn to read. This is not what the post was about. He is talking about having a very high MMR, but not a high rating. He is playing a team that has a really high rating, yet lower MMR. Meaning when he wins he will only get 1-2 points (because of his ridiculus MMR), and when losing against the same team (the team that has a much higher rating) he will lose 10-12 points. This is turn results the other team having a higher rating (So their e-penis is bigger and they are more pr0 than him) yet he has a really hard time catching up in rating (because of getting a lot fewer points). This he feels is unfair, which I totally agree. So the MMR is punishing him for being better and is working against him to reach where he belongs in the ladder, while the not so good team will be displayed as better because of the higher rating. You should really read threads before making a post 
|
The only problem I see with the ranking and matchmaking system is that it's unnecessarily complex and secretive. I don't believe this secret ranking thing makes casuals want to play more. Actually I would think being in bronze while your best friend is in plat would hurt more than it would if you were ranked properly on an overall ladder.
|
I think I get this and after reading this I feel like this applies to me. I was a 700 diamond 1v1 player with like a 60% win-loss a month and a half ago when 700 points was like... decent. When the top people were only liek 1200. I didn;t play 1v1s for a long time and so now, since ladder has inflated tons, my 700 points looks pretty crappy. So I started playing 1v1s and I keep getting placed against 1400-1800 point players only to see that I'm "evenly matched". So I get like 10 points plus another 10 from bonus pool when playing these so called evenly matched players despite the fact my actual point rating is like 1000 points lower and I feel liek my hidden ranking and points ranking will take like 200 games to equilibriate. Which is annoying.
|
got pitted vs a 12-3 plat today and lost as a 1550 diamond to someone who shouted out tlo half the game and thor rushed me with strike cannon on my immortal -_-
come to think of it been seeing tons of mech vs terran lately..
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/9fpnia.png)
![[image loading]](http://i51.tinypic.com/24cb3uo.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NypD1.jpg)
