|
On November 03 2010 07:21 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 06:58 BlasiuS wrote:On November 03 2010 06:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:
No, points aren't comparable between divisions. There are some divisions that are weighted higher than others. For example, everybody knows that Medivac Alamo and Medic Mu etc are the "good" divisions, and that's reflected by the Top 200 consistently having members from those divisions. David Kim's Scout Kilo division is not weighted the same, and although he has more points, he's further down in the Top 200. We learned at Blizzcon that the Top 200 is done by points with division modifications removed.
do you have a link this conversation that happened at Blizzcon? I want to read what they have to say about the ladder/MMR/division/top 200. How are some divisions 'weighted higher'? If I beat someone with X pts, X MMR in a division, then beat a player in a different division also with X pts, X MMR, I'll get a different amount of points? I don't. It was off camera and took place after the panel ended, just when we had a moment to talk with Josh Menke (the statistician from the multiplayer panel). From what we can gather, the division weighting is done to normalize player points across divisions by appearance. In the example you gave, you would get the same amount of points because both players have the same MMR. However, your points will be adjusted and someone in a different division than you would receive a higher or lower amount of points for beating those same players, all other things being equal.
wait what?
if player A beats B&C (same MMR different divisions) he gets the same points.
but if player D from a different division with the same mmr as A beats B&C he gets differnt points?
how does that make any sense? so only your division matter but the division of your opponent doesnt? i really could follow your 2 older threads no problem. but i really really see not even a bit of logic in this .
and what does "points adjusted" mean?
if im just stupid here please tell me. i really want to understand it but it looks totally senseless to me(i dont doubt what you say. i doubt the system makes sense)
|
The fact fluffly cracked the top 200 with 6 k games played, and under a 50% win rate is justification for me that the system and or the top200 list is broken.
|
I really hope that with this new esports patch, they add in custom ladder and league functionality, so we don't have to bother with the current blizzard ladder. I would really prefer ladder with a more elo based system, and with bigger better maps. Although i dont think the next patch will add this, i know they talked about something similar a while ago.
As for the OP, i do agree, and am in the same situation. I constantly face 1600+ diamond players, while i am only 1100pts myself. I dont ladder often because i dont get many points. It almost seems the bonus point pool really shouldn't be there, or at least not be as extream as it currently is. I would like to perhaps see it about halved, and the amount of points per day reduced. This way, you wouldn't get punished for not playing 10 games every day. (I prefer to pratice in single player and in customs. ladder, because you improve a lot faster then on ladder, when your trying to grind out your play.)
|
United States12275 Posts
On November 03 2010 07:30 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:21 Excalibur_Z wrote:On November 03 2010 06:58 BlasiuS wrote:On November 03 2010 06:19 Excalibur_Z wrote:
No, points aren't comparable between divisions. There are some divisions that are weighted higher than others. For example, everybody knows that Medivac Alamo and Medic Mu etc are the "good" divisions, and that's reflected by the Top 200 consistently having members from those divisions. David Kim's Scout Kilo division is not weighted the same, and although he has more points, he's further down in the Top 200. We learned at Blizzcon that the Top 200 is done by points with division modifications removed.
do you have a link this conversation that happened at Blizzcon? I want to read what they have to say about the ladder/MMR/division/top 200. How are some divisions 'weighted higher'? If I beat someone with X pts, X MMR in a division, then beat a player in a different division also with X pts, X MMR, I'll get a different amount of points? I don't. It was off camera and took place after the panel ended, just when we had a moment to talk with Josh Menke (the statistician from the multiplayer panel). From what we can gather, the division weighting is done to normalize player points across divisions by appearance. In the example you gave, you would get the same amount of points because both players have the same MMR. However, your points will be adjusted and someone in a different division than you would receive a higher or lower amount of points for beating those same players, all other things being equal. wait what? if player A beats B&C (same MMR different divisions) he gets the same points. but if player D from a different division with the same mmr as A beats B&C he gets differnt points? how does that make any sense? so only your division matter but the division of your opponent doesnt? i really could follow your 2 older threads no problem. but i really really see not even a bit of logic in this . and what does "points adjusted" mean? if im just stupid here please tell me. i really want to understand it but it looks totally senseless to me(i dont doubt what you say. i doubt the system makes sense)
No you're right. D gets the same points from B and C but that point value would be different from what A earned. That's what I mean by point adjustment, because A's gain is different from D's and appear more normalized. We know very little about the intent behind the design (other than to direct focus to your own division) or the method behind the adjustment. I still find it confusing myself.
|
Doesn't the matchmaking system try to pair you with players of similar MMR across all divisions though?
I was always under the impression that division didn't matter because you constantly play players from all divisions, and that the whole divisions thing was really more of a way to set up competition between small groups of players.
Like for example, 2200 seems to be elite players right now, and in medivac alamo, 2200 puts you in 13/14th place. The same 2200 points puts at number 1 in almost every other division, but shouldn't a player with 2200 points in any other division and a lot of games played be of the same level of skill of a 2200 player in medivac alamo?
EDIT: Also, to answer the question, doesn't the current system reward players who play less? let's say I play 20 games today and two games tomorrow, each time starting with 10 bonus points. I go 10-10 the first day, and 1-1 the second day, and earn +/- 10 points each game because the system is perfect (lol, but bear with me.) so on day 1, I earned 110 points, minus 100 for the losses, and on the second day I earned 20, minus 10 points for the losses.
So, I only earn an average of 1 bonus point per win when I play 20 games, wheras when I played 2 games, I'm earning 10 points per win. Since bonus pool constantly goes up, doesn't this mean that someone who plays far fewer games will have points than a mass gamer at points where the two players have an equal record?
|
On November 03 2010 07:53 KiLL_ORdeR wrote:
So, I only earn an average of 1 bonus point per win when I play 20 games, wheras when I played 2 games, I'm earning 10 points per win. Since bonus pool constantly goes up, doesn't this mean that someone who plays far fewer games will have points than a mass gamer at points where the two players have an equal record?
But doesn't both players get a bonus pool at the same rate? I'm not sure on that but it would be akin to just spending what u accumulated.
Moving a bit off section but still related to ladder. Ladders from different regions do not intertwine with each other right?
I'm curious because me and my partner are about Diamond1.49k for 2v2 in SEA and when we played placement in US, we were fighting Diamonds about 1.5 - 1.8k. We had a score of 1-4 but we ended up in platinum lol. Felt odd for me which brought me to ask this question.
|
On November 03 2010 08:19 Marksman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:53 KiLL_ORdeR wrote:
So, I only earn an average of 1 bonus point per win when I play 20 games, wheras when I played 2 games, I'm earning 10 points per win. Since bonus pool constantly goes up, doesn't this mean that someone who plays far fewer games will have points than a mass gamer at points where the two players have an equal record? But doesn't both players get a bonus pool at the same rate? I'm not sure on that but it would be akin to just spending what u accumulated.
well what i'm saying is that they aren't spending them at the same rate. When the player who only plays 2 games a day gets to 10-10, they will have 100 points, whereas the player who went 10-10 on their first day only had 10 points. If you look at it from a purely games played aspect, the player who plays fewer games earns points at a significantly accelerated rate, sorta like zerg's economy.
|
The ladder isn't fair no, you will always punish people for some unfair thing. THis is partly because Blizzard hides the real figures to make things more interesting. I bet you have an Elo-rating behind the screens, but it's simply far less driving. So they put you into virtual leagues and divisions to give you a drive to climb and to promote. Being able to say 'I'm first in platinum' is cooler than 'I'm #289221 on the US servers', especially if the number changes 50 places after one refresh.
How the AMM works is probably fairer, and it takes a lot into account it seems, I remember Husky going five matches versus the internet. He was in Platinum because he hadn't played it since the beta almost and just did some placement matches, but he was matched at diamond league players the whole time, probably because of his 2v2 record.
In the end, what also factors your situation out s that you have a 400 point bonus pool, so it's not per se harder for you to climb back, after all, you get double points for the next 30 matches you win or something.
In the end, this can never be done fairly, because they are trying to do the impossible. You cannot just rate people's skill on a linear one-dimensional line in a game which involves multiple dimensions. It might be possible that x beats y all the time, and y beats z, but z beats x again, who's better now?
Also, in the end? It's all to have a good fun game isn't it?
|
I find the difficulty of your opponents isn't very well implemented. If I go on a winning streak of say 5+ games I can guarantee the next 10+ will be against people "favoured" and checking the points after game they're not just slightly favoured, they're substantially favoured. I enjoy a challenge but when I'm getting obliterated game after game I'm learning nothing short of what I already know I'm doing wrong. I can't necessarily improve on those things when I'm getting face smashed because frustration eventually sets in.
Yes I want to play slightly better people, but I'd like an even mix of even and slightly better not a streak of slightly/heavily better, and then when BNet finally feels bad for me a streak of lower skilled players.
|
It's really annoying for me considering I didn't play for 3 weeks
iCCup had the same problem (any other C+~ players find laddering up the most boring thing ever?) but the constant resets made it not so much of a big deal.
With Bnet 2 though I won't come close to hitting my 'point ceiling' because as a 1k player I'll be playing 2k+ players. Really not seeing what these 'points' are meant to show..
|
I recently moved countries and am waiting to get my computer, because of this I have not played for two months, seeing as how the game has not been out very long I think its one of the longer breaks in play up to this moment.
When I left I was a Diamond player at 600 pts somewhere around 10-20 in rank, now when I look my self up I am still in Diamond but have been droped in rank to 89th...
This is expected but I still think its interesting.
|
if b net shows MMR that would be nice.
|
On November 03 2010 07:32 ZomgTossRush wrote:
The fact fluffly cracked the top 200 with 6 k games played, and under a 50% win rate is justification for me that the system and or the top200 list is broken.
Maybe the system weights recent matches greater than previously played? Fact is, Fluffy just from rank 0 Bronze with thousand+ games played to 1100 Diamond in a few days with less than a two hundred games played and a sub 50% win ratio.
|
On November 03 2010 07:32 ZomgTossRush wrote:
The fact fluffly cracked the top 200 with 6 k games played, and under a 50% win rate is justification for me that the system and or the top200 list is broken.
How so? The top 200's are only a compilation of the best* 200 players to have played recently, it doesn't factor in how you did the entire course of your playing SC2. To make the list, he's probably beating a lot of the people who were already on the list and and winning against players with high MMR's. Is that not enough to justify him being in the top 200, or should his past record forever haunt him?
*According to how they calculate it
|
In fact, since you dont play that much think that your points are your current point + your bonus pool. If you play a lot, it will become that way anyway, the only difference is that you have a big bonus pool unused that make you think you are lower.
You get up as fast as 1100 normal player since they dont have their bonus pool bonus every time they win a game. So you go twice as fast as these players
|
i came back from a two month break to go 2 wins in 15 games. I sure felt punished.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 04 2010 08:37 reprise wrote:Show nested quote +On November 03 2010 07:32 ZomgTossRush wrote:
The fact fluffly cracked the top 200 with 6 k games played, and under a 50% win rate is justification for me that the system and or the top200 list is broken.
How so? The top 200's are only a compilation of the best* 200 players to have played recently, it doesn't factor in how you did the entire course of your playing SC2. To make the list, he's probably beating a lot of the people who were already on the list and and winning against players with high MMR's. Is that not enough to justify him being in the top 200, or should his past record forever haunt him? *According to how they calculate it
I played him recently and he wasn't that good :/
He tried a proxy 2nd rax which got scouted and blocked. Then he attacked at a bad time without preparing for drops at all.
|
The ladder seems completely arbitrary to me. One game I'm fighting 1900's and the next I'm up vs a 400 diamond with a total of 50 games played. I've pretty much stopped dead in the ladder at 1650 for a good while so shouldn't I be faced with 1650 players, it seems like that's where I am skillwise?
|
somehow i feel like this ladder thingy punished more TL-er than 'infreqeunt players' lol
you see, casual gamers dont even/never will care about MMR, most of them i bet wont even look at the points. the shinny league icon is probably the only thing that matters - it merely serve the purpose to attract 'casual' people to keep playing sc2's mp.
and fun fact: '9 out of 10 sc2 owner are probably a casual gamer'. oh wait, 10k TL vs 3mil 'casual gamers'.....
i'd rather go play more games/watch replays/stream or whatever rather than thinking the ladder questions. ladder should be ignored if you are a serious player anyway.
<_< yes i cant play the game now which why i replied in this thread lol
|
What does the Bonus pool mean? I never understood
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
