|
On January 11 2011 18:25 Benjilol wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 18:22 Ighox wrote:On January 11 2011 18:20 Benjilol wrote:
Chat channels are working, and are pretty good.
Masters is MMR based, someone on SEA is like 35-13 and is in Masters. MMR based Masters is pretty failure. Why? MMR matters a lot more than points :p I'm currently ranked 220 on sc2ranks master division (which calculates the top 200) and I am not making it into Master, yet people that have played at launch, did 5 rax reaper for a few games, suddenly log back on with 2000 bonus points but a killer MMR, and they make it in.
There's a lot of people on the top200 list that are there simply because they play a lot of games and keep a win/loss-ratio over 50% and not because they're actually top200 in terms of skill.
If I played 2k games since release and maintained a 50,5% winratio, I'd be at like 3k points right now just because of that and it wouldn't have been because of skill.
(Add the different multipliers for divisions to that and it would be even worse to promote based on points.)
At least MMR does a pretty good job at knowing how good you are and what players to place you against instead of just being pointless numbers like points.
But it's probably not too hard for Blizzard to make some tweaks that demotes inactive players.
Anyways, it's just dumb to discuss this when we have no idea how masters league works so see you in a week 
|
ZvP is going to be worse than it already is. except for the pylon block at the ramp
|
|
|
On January 11 2011 18:35 FrostedMiniWeet wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 18:27 tarath wrote:On January 11 2011 18:22 Ighox wrote:On January 11 2011 18:20 Benjilol wrote:
Chat channels are working, and are pretty good.
Masters is MMR based, someone on SEA is like 35-13 and is in Masters. MMR based Masters is pretty failure. Why? MMR matters a lot more than points :p Idk, if I play someone who appears as favored and has 1000+ games I almost always lose. When I run into some guy whose 15-2 and favored I usually roflstomp him cause he got a high rating by beating a bunch of noobs. I think MMR is useful but for players with lower #s of games there can be a ton of variance in their MMR and I would definitely say that some kind of minimum game threshold for Masters (like 500) would make a lot of sense. I would also say that there should be a requirement of playing a significant number of games recently. I've noticed that occasionally I run into people who haven't played in 2 months and are awful but ran up their MMR early on and I get like 17 points when I beat them. You can't get a high rating by beating a bunch of noobs. The system doesn't work like that. Beating a noob doesn't increase your MMR much, as noobs have low MMRs.. I'm tired of all the excuses, and people blaming the system for their failure to get to league X. The system is pretty straight forward, and people do end up where they belong.
Actually the way the system works is that every game in a row you win your variance (the amount your MMR increases with each win) increases. While you don't get a super high MMR by beating bronze level players if you beat 3 bronze players, then 3 gold, then 3 plat, then 3 low diamond, at that point your next win will jump your MMR so high that it may significantly over shoot your true skill.
The odds of you being significantly misranked (having a rank that does not reflect your true skill level) are thousands of times higher if you have played < 20 games than if you have played more than 1000. This is simply due to the properties of the normal distribution and law of large numbers and is a statistical fact. This not an excuse in any way for my rating.
If you disagree please explain mathematically how you think a player with a small number of games is less likely to be inaccurately ranked than a player with a large number of games given what we know about the MMR formula.
Furthermore, I am reasonably sure that for most players if their goal was to maximize their MMR they would be best off, playing standard for as many games as they could vs noobs and winning easily. Then when the opponents started getting tough they should cheese once or twice and hope to beat a superior player and then quit playing permanently if they win.
|
On January 11 2011 18:39 tarath wrote:Actually the way the system works is that every game in a row you win your variance (the amount your MMR increases with each win) increases. While you don't get a super high MMR by beating bronze level players if you beat 3 bronze players, then 3 gold, then 3 plat, then 3 low diamond, at that point your next win will jump your MMR so high that it may significantly over shoot your true skill.
The odds of you being significantly misranked (having a rank that does not reflect your true skill level) are thousands of times higher if you have played < 20 games than if you have played more than 1000. This is simply due to the properties of the normal distribution and law of large numbers and is a statistical fact. This not an excuse in any way for my rating.
If you disagree please explain mathematically how you think a player with a small number of games is less likely to be inaccurately ranked than a player with a large number of games given what we know about the MMR formula.
There is no problem associated with that system assuming players continue to play and don't just quit after playing 50 games and getting promoted to masters. Eventually they will reach their true skill level, when that means they belong into diamond, they'll get demoted.
The only problem is that inactive players suffer no point decay, demotion or etc. But at the end of the day, the system works well.
|
Well the chat channels are miles better than what we had before but ughhhhhhhh... You can resize them but only in one direction (up). There is so much wasted space on the screen I really wonder about the people they have in charge of the bnet user interface.
Heres the chat fully "maximised":
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/6q2ZQ.jpg)
|
On January 11 2011 18:45 vek wrote:
Well the chat channels are miles better than what we had before but ughhhhhhhh... You can resize them but only in one direction (up). There is so much wasted space on the screen I really wonder about the people they have in charge of the bnet user interface.
Heres the chat fully "maximised"
WHAT?
That's as big as it gets? ugh..
I was annoyed when I saw the size of the chat screens in PTR screenshots, but I heard they could be resized and thought it was all good.
|
On January 11 2011 18:45 vek wrote:Well the chat channels are miles better than what we had before but ughhhhhhhh... You can resize them but only in one direction (up). There is so much wasted space on the screen I really wonder about the people they have in charge of the bnet user interface. Heres the chat fully "maximised":
No it isnt.
You can resize them diagonally as well.
|
You can't pop it off the bar?
|
On January 11 2011 18:45 vek wrote:Well the chat channels are miles better than what we had before but ughhhhhhhh... You can resize them but only in one direction (up). There is so much wasted space on the screen I really wonder about the people they have in charge of the bnet user interface. Heres the chat fully "maximised":
u sure? it looks like your window is still pinned to the bottom
if thats the case you can click that arrow to get it into "free window" mode and expand it to all sides
|
On January 11 2011 18:45 vek wrote:Well the chat channels are miles better than what we had before but ughhhhhhhh... You can resize them but only in one direction (up). There is so much wasted space on the screen I really wonder about the people they have in charge of the bnet user interface. Heres the chat fully "maximised":
I feel like if you clicked the arrow button on the top right of the window you will undock it from the bottom frame and be able to resize it much bigger in any direction.
Let me know if it works.
|
Yeah whoops, I just discovered you can click the arrow on the top right hand corner and then you can resize left and right. Here it is:
http://i.imgur.com/75uMs.jpg
Still pretty bad though.. you don't have much freedom with it at all.
|
On January 11 2011 18:50 vek wrote:Yeah whoops, I just discovered you can click the arrow on the top right hand corner and then you can resize left and right. Here it is: http://i.imgur.com/75uMs.jpgStill pretty bad though.. you don't have much freedom with it at all.
Good enough, you scared me there 
|
On January 11 2011 18:50 Exarl25 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 18:50 vek wrote:Yeah whoops, I just discovered you can click the arrow on the top right hand corner and then you can resize left and right. Here it is: http://i.imgur.com/75uMs.jpgStill pretty bad though.. you don't have much freedom with it at all. Good enough, you scared me there
I was scared myself!
|
Well i think it is just a matter of getting used to it. What is the maximum amount of people in a chat? Because if there are like 1000 players spamming you stress out.
|
On January 11 2011 18:43 Lurk wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 18:39 tarath wrote:Actually the way the system works is that every game in a row you win your variance (the amount your MMR increases with each win) increases. While you don't get a super high MMR by beating bronze level players if you beat 3 bronze players, then 3 gold, then 3 plat, then 3 low diamond, at that point your next win will jump your MMR so high that it may significantly over shoot your true skill.
The odds of you being significantly misranked (having a rank that does not reflect your true skill level) are thousands of times higher if you have played < 20 games than if you have played more than 1000. This is simply due to the properties of the normal distribution and law of large numbers and is a statistical fact. This not an excuse in any way for my rating.
If you disagree please explain mathematically how you think a player with a small number of games is less likely to be inaccurately ranked than a player with a large number of games given what we know about the MMR formula. There is no problem associated with that system assuming players continue to play and don't just quit after playing 50 games and getting promoted to masters. Eventually they will reach their true skill level, when that means they belong into diamond, they'll get demoted. The only problem is that inactive players suffer no point decay, demotion or etc. But at the end of the day, the system works well.
yeah I agree completely. Except for people going inactive there is no problem and in practice the system sorts itself out quite well.
|
On January 11 2011 18:52 norlock wrote:
Well i think it is just a matter of getting used to it. What is the maximum amount of people in a chat? Because if there are like 1000 players spamming you stress out.
It looks to cap out at 100.
Edit: A good thing I just found is that it seems possible to join multiple chat channels. You seem to be able to join one "public" channel (guessing it means the blizzard provided ones) as well as one or more private channels.
Can't find any admin/mod options though. No slash commands...
|
Its a good step but this patch haven't addressed some problems. Terran can still block the ramp with 2 bunker which is stupid. Also they need to do something about protoss especially psionic storm.
|
On January 11 2011 18:52 norlock wrote:
Well i think it is just a matter of getting used to it. What is the maximum amount of people in a chat? Because if there are like 1000 players spamming you stress out.
100 maximum.
And no moderation options, and no password protected channels.
|
On January 11 2011 18:37 Ighox wrote:Show nested quote +On January 11 2011 18:25 Benjilol wrote:On January 11 2011 18:22 Ighox wrote:On January 11 2011 18:20 Benjilol wrote:
Chat channels are working, and are pretty good.
Masters is MMR based, someone on SEA is like 35-13 and is in Masters. MMR based Masters is pretty failure. Why? MMR matters a lot more than points :p I'm currently ranked 220 on sc2ranks master division (which calculates the top 200) and I am not making it into Master, yet people that have played at launch, did 5 rax reaper for a few games, suddenly log back on with 2000 bonus points but a killer MMR, and they make it in. There's a lot of people on the top200 list that are there simply because they play a lot of games and keep a win/loss-ratio over 50% and not because they're actually top200 in terms of skill. If I played 2k games since release and maintained a 50,5% winratio, I'd be at like 3k points right now just because of that and it wouldn't have been because of skill. (Add the different multipliers for divisions to that and it would be even worse to promote based on points.) At least MMR does a pretty good job at knowing how good you are and what players to place you against instead of just being pointless numbers like points. But it's probably not too hard for Blizzard to make some tweaks that demotes inactive players. Anyways, it's just dumb to discuss this when we have no idea how masters league works so see you in a week
Do you really want accurate player rankings?
+ Show Spoiler +
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
