EPTIt's the same kind of people that left 4v4 games to farm possible free wins.
Intentionally losing to lower MMR? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
bubblegumbo
Taiwan1296 Posts
It's the same kind of people that left 4v4 games to farm possible free wins. | ||
|
MrLonely
60 Posts
On October 29 2010 22:00 Tempy wrote: i feel the MMR system should be reworked, because its absolutely awful to have about 950 points playing against 1600-1700 players, it makes it extremely difficult to get to any real respectable point range, wouldn't it be better to let me get to the actual point range in which i belong (or lower other kids to where they belong)? i cannot imagine playing like 2k+ pointers when i am at 1400, it would just be so stupid. Yeah, this has been pointed out before but for some reason it's never taken seriously and a lot of people actually deny that this could happen, even though it happens to a lot of people. It could be what he's doing. I know I've thought about it. | ||
|
Sumwar
Canada199 Posts
| ||
|
klauz619
453 Posts
| ||
|
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
On October 29 2010 22:41 MrLonely wrote: Yeah, this has been pointed out before but for some reason it's never taken seriously and a lot of people actually deny that this could happen, even though it happens to a lot of people. It could be what he's doing. I know I've thought about it. The entire point of pitting you against higher players is that you can get to higher points faster. You are probably at the same skill level as them. The only reason you have less points is because you have played less, and therefore have not used all of your bonus pool. It would not be fair if someone who barely used their bonus pool was at the same point range and skill as someone who used up all of their bonus pool. Why is it awful to play someone closer to your level? If you are not at a higher level than them, you will not be placed against higher opponents as your points go up. This is because your MMR will remain roughly the same because you will have close to a 50% winrate while your points will go up because of your bonus pool. | ||
|
CharlieMurphy
United States22895 Posts
| ||
|
kmkkmk
Germany418 Posts
On October 29 2010 18:57 wiwihaha wrote: this is even worse. it just makes the ladder more unhealthy by skipping stronger opponents/specific races No it is not. Its applying day9 wisdom and it is really simple: Your brain works good if you limit options. In my case it is as simple as I want to improve my PvT so I leave every game where my opponent is not a terran. This helps me improve one thing at a time. | ||
|
MrLonely
60 Posts
On October 29 2010 22:56 Enervate wrote: The entire point of pitting you against higher players is that you can get to higher points faster. You are probably at the same skill level as them. The only reason you have less points is because you have played less, and therefore have not used all of your bonus pool. It would not be fair if someone who barely used their bonus pool was at the same point range and skill as someone who used up all of their bonus pool. Why is it awful to play someone closer to your level? If you are not at a higher level than them, you will not be placed against higher opponents as your points go up. This is because your MMR will remain roughly the same because you will have close to a 50% winrate while your points will go up because of your bonus pool. I don't know if this is the right place to have this discussion, but you get the same points beating a 1700+ player as 950 yourself, as someone sitting at 1700 points. It's all about whether you're evenly matched or not according to MMR. So it's fully possible to win 50% of games against higher rated opponents and still be stuck at a lower rating. | ||
|
AZbadfish
United States56 Posts
| ||
|
Champ24
177 Posts
The System is actually pretty slow at reacting to the losses if your MMR is well established. It took me about 100 losses to bottom out, and is taking me about equally as long to climb back up. I was 20 wins above .500, and I'll probably level off there when it's said and done. I'm 1 win below .500 and currently playing low diamond. | ||
|
Rasva_Pallo
Finland126 Posts
If it's about players in general there are many reasons to do this. Most of them been said in previous posts: portraits, achievements, switching race, switching play style, etc. If it's about certain player you could always ask the player? For the speculations how to solve the problem that someone is sunking his ratings on purpose? I think solving the problem will cause many bigger problems. | ||
|
Uhh Negative
United States1090 Posts
On October 29 2010 19:03 Chanted wrote: Getting your 6th pvp in a row can be annoying, so I have left some games when I get too many mirror matchups in a row. This. I'm on an epic losing streak right now, I've lost 16 of the last 20 went from 1750 diamond to 1600. Most of these losses are zvz (everyone goes all-in) because apparently zerg is the flavor of the month and one time I was facing a random opponent and as soon as I saw an overlord I said, "fuck zvz" and left. | ||
|
Dagon
Romania264 Posts
On October 29 2010 18:49 Zarahtra wrote: Lmao would love to watch idrA's face while laddering then. 90% of the time people would just leave rather than face him(or other pros)  Hell no! I would preffer to play only against top players even if i get smashed every game.. At least i would learn something.. | ||
|
ChThoniC
United States536 Posts
| ||
|
adius
United States249 Posts
On October 29 2010 23:07 kmkkmk wrote: No it is not. Its applying day9 wisdom and it is really simple: Your brain works good if you limit options. In my case it is as simple as I want to improve my PvT so I leave every game where my opponent is not a terran. This helps me improve one thing at a time. Is it THAT hard to find a decent practice partner? I think there's even a thread here to help you with that. | ||
|
Noxie
United States2227 Posts
| ||
|
SoL[9]
Portugal1370 Posts
| ||
|
megagoten
318 Posts
On October 29 2010 23:09 MrLonely wrote: I don't know if this is the right place to have this discussion, but you get the same points beating a 1700+ player as 950 yourself, as someone sitting at 1700 points. It's all about whether you're evenly matched or not according to MMR. So it's fully possible to win 50% of games against higher rated opponents and still be stuck at a lower rating. no it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect if you play at 50% against rated opponent, you'll win 15 pts per win and lose about 4 per loss, meaning you won't stay at the same rating | ||
|
Tempy
United States46 Posts
On October 30 2010 00:52 megagoten wrote: no it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect if you play at 50% against rated opponent, you'll win 15 pts per win and lose about 4 per loss, meaning you won't stay at the same rating when i play against 1700 players with my 950 rating, i still lose the full 11-14 points per loss, and i only gain points from my bonus pool at 50% win rate (hell i have even been slightly favored vs a 1800 zerg), which is stupid, at least place me against 1400's and give me even points or make them slightly favored at 1700, the points balancing is awful. edit: if the dunning kruger effect were to apply to anyone in this situation, its the 1700's ive been beating. (in short, MMR should not be the only determining factor in the system, total points should factor in as well) by doing this, people will be at the point ranges they belong. | ||
|
c0ldfusion
United States8293 Posts
On October 30 2010 00:52 megagoten wrote: no it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect if you play at 50% against rated opponent, you'll win 15 pts per win and lose about 4 per loss, meaning you won't stay at the same rating That's hilarious. I couldn't have said it better myself. I think there are some quirks in the MMR system. For example some people intentionally lose a game to lower their sigma. But even that "bug" is debatable (you can probably keep winning and Battle Net may promote you over multiple leagues at once). In short, the system works and you would be promoted if you deserve to be promoted. | ||
| ||
