|
On July 17 2011 02:44 Sek-Kuar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 07:37 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 16 2011 07:24 SDream wrote:On July 16 2011 06:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 16 2011 05:12 Wonger wrote:Team Matchmaking
It is believed that when a team is first formed, the MMRs of all members are averaged to form the team's initial MMR during the first placement match. After that first placement match, the team's MMR is separate per normal. For Random Teams, it is likely that the MMRs of all members are averaged first, then an opposing team with a similar MMR (based upon a degree of uncertainty) is located. Do we know, or have a strong theory, as to which MMR's are used for new or random teams? For example, for a new 3v3 team, is it the MMR of all 3 players 1v1 that's averaged? Or the average MMR of all the 3v3 teams of all 3 players? Or the average MMR of all the teams of all 3 players? For a random 3v3 team is it each of the 3 players 3v3 Random MMR that is averaged, or would it be the average of all 3v3 teams each player has or even the average of all teams that each player has? That's the real question, isn't it? =) We're not really sure. If I had to speculate, it's probably something like "if you've played with other people in this team in other formats, use that as a starting point, otherwise use other team data, otherwise use 1v1 data." I think every team/player starts at "1500 MMR" (or whatever is the "zero"), regardless of having a master 1v1 etc. What happens is that the system is more complex than just MMR. Everyone starts with a gold level MMR, but the system will still put you against a bronze first (generally), at least on placement matches. I think the same logic applies if you are master then try a random team. You will still start with 1500 MMR, but the system will already predict you might be able to beat another master team and your placements will be with these masters and your MMR will jump fast enough to actually be able to be placed at master in this random team, even with your MMR starting at 1500. I think that is what happens, but I have no idea if it is possible to prove it somehow =( Will a master player in 1v1, that loses the 5 placements matches in random team still get a master spot? That would prove that his MMR started that high, which I doubt. I have doubts about that. We know there's initial bootstrapping because they've said as such (it was applied about a month or so after launch). Personally, I played 4v4 with Jathin, Vanick, and Cube. Jathin and Cube were already Master 4v4, Vanick and I were Plat 4v4. We immediately started facing Master-level 4v4 Random teams and a Master 4v4 arranged team, went 3-2, and got placed in Master. If we started with a Gold-level MMR then there's no way we would have faced Master-quality players in our first game. rofl 3-2 to master with initial 2plat 2master MMR that can only happen on NA ^^ But appart from region difference in requirements for being placed to master, hes right. Long time ago placements started from very low level no matter what, but these days its more accurate, though still very very far from ideal state. I have no experiences on NA realm, but in Eu even 4 master frorming AT can meet gold/plat teams in first 1-2 placement. Still the worst part about this is that if new AT of 4 high master players plays first placement vs whatever bellow their level (gold, plat, diamond..) that RT team against them will lose more points than master team AT plays against in 5th placement. Its really sad considering that players in AT already played much more than enough games to make system sure about their skill level.
I was always under the impression that facing placement players netted you an "equal" point potential (±12 iirc), regardless of their placement match record.
|
Wow looks like you spent a lot of hard work on writing this out and explaining. Thanks!
|
United States12240 Posts
On July 17 2011 16:41 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 02:44 Sek-Kuar wrote:On July 16 2011 07:37 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 16 2011 07:24 SDream wrote:On July 16 2011 06:27 Excalibur_Z wrote:On July 16 2011 05:12 Wonger wrote:Team Matchmaking
It is believed that when a team is first formed, the MMRs of all members are averaged to form the team's initial MMR during the first placement match. After that first placement match, the team's MMR is separate per normal. For Random Teams, it is likely that the MMRs of all members are averaged first, then an opposing team with a similar MMR (based upon a degree of uncertainty) is located. Do we know, or have a strong theory, as to which MMR's are used for new or random teams? For example, for a new 3v3 team, is it the MMR of all 3 players 1v1 that's averaged? Or the average MMR of all the 3v3 teams of all 3 players? Or the average MMR of all the teams of all 3 players? For a random 3v3 team is it each of the 3 players 3v3 Random MMR that is averaged, or would it be the average of all 3v3 teams each player has or even the average of all teams that each player has? That's the real question, isn't it? =) We're not really sure. If I had to speculate, it's probably something like "if you've played with other people in this team in other formats, use that as a starting point, otherwise use other team data, otherwise use 1v1 data." I think every team/player starts at "1500 MMR" (or whatever is the "zero"), regardless of having a master 1v1 etc. What happens is that the system is more complex than just MMR. Everyone starts with a gold level MMR, but the system will still put you against a bronze first (generally), at least on placement matches. I think the same logic applies if you are master then try a random team. You will still start with 1500 MMR, but the system will already predict you might be able to beat another master team and your placements will be with these masters and your MMR will jump fast enough to actually be able to be placed at master in this random team, even with your MMR starting at 1500. I think that is what happens, but I have no idea if it is possible to prove it somehow =( Will a master player in 1v1, that loses the 5 placements matches in random team still get a master spot? That would prove that his MMR started that high, which I doubt. I have doubts about that. We know there's initial bootstrapping because they've said as such (it was applied about a month or so after launch). Personally, I played 4v4 with Jathin, Vanick, and Cube. Jathin and Cube were already Master 4v4, Vanick and I were Plat 4v4. We immediately started facing Master-level 4v4 Random teams and a Master 4v4 arranged team, went 3-2, and got placed in Master. If we started with a Gold-level MMR then there's no way we would have faced Master-quality players in our first game. rofl 3-2 to master with initial 2plat 2master MMR that can only happen on NA ^^ But appart from region difference in requirements for being placed to master, hes right. Long time ago placements started from very low level no matter what, but these days its more accurate, though still very very far from ideal state. I have no experiences on NA realm, but in Eu even 4 master frorming AT can meet gold/plat teams in first 1-2 placement. Still the worst part about this is that if new AT of 4 high master players plays first placement vs whatever bellow their level (gold, plat, diamond..) that RT team against them will lose more points than master team AT plays against in 5th placement. Its really sad considering that players in AT already played much more than enough games to make system sure about their skill level. I was always under the impression that facing placement players netted you an "equal" point potential (±12 iirc), regardless of their placement match record.
Nah placement players, if they've never played any games ever, will give you points consistent with what a middling Gold player would. That's my experience anyway, and what I've seen from match histories.
|
Awesome post, extremely useful, especially the part about promotions, cleared up quite a bit of confusion. Thanks again!
|
Bronze Players Stuck at Zero Points
Fixed in 1.3
There is no upper or lower bound on MMR. As such, it is possible for MMR to go below the point floor. Remember that players are matched with other players who have similar MMRs, meaning that p,.......
How was this fixed? I threw 200 games last season because I had ladder phobia (more I hated losing because i wanted to maintain 60+% win rate, so I wanted to completely remove the emotional distress associated w/ losing), and just now played this season's placement game. Placed in 99th bronze and i get +0 points for the win. Just like last season, every win I'd get +0 points. After about 20 (consecutive) wins I gave up on NA ladder. No way I'm grinding hundreds or thousands of bronze games.
Does anybody know of a recourse to this problem? I e-mailed blizzard 4 months ago, but as I expected they ignored it.
|
On July 18 2011 15:59 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +Bronze Players Stuck at Zero Points
Fixed in 1.3
There is no upper or lower bound on MMR. As such, it is possible for MMR to go below the point floor. Remember that players are matched with other players who have similar MMRs, meaning that p,....... How was this fixed? I threw 200 games last season because I had ladder phobia (more I hated losing because i wanted to maintain 60+% win rate), and just now played this season's placement game. Placed in 99th bronze and i get +0 points for the win. Just like last season, every win I'd get +0 points. After about 20 (consecutive) wins I gave up on NA ladder. No way I'm grinding hundreds or thousands of bronze games. Does anybody know of a recourse to this problem? I e-mailed blizzard 4 months ago, but as I expected they ignored it.
They essentially shifted the range of MMR up, as well as compressing the range of players on it. There is no solid way to fix the problem they were having, other than to just adjust MMR to the point where it is highly unlikely for somebody to hit an MMR drastically below the ladder floor. This means it's not impossible to recreate the bug now, but you have to lose a lot of games against the people at the very bottom of the ladder, and you have to do this a lot.
|
On July 18 2011 15:59 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +Bronze Players Stuck at Zero Points
Fixed in 1.3
There is no upper or lower bound on MMR. As such, it is possible for MMR to go below the point floor. Remember that players are matched with other players who have similar MMRs, meaning that p,....... How was this fixed? I threw 200 games last season because I had ladder phobia (more I hated losing because i wanted to maintain 60+% win rate, so I wanted to completely remove the emotional distress associated w/ losing), and just now played this season's placement game. Placed in 99th bronze and i get +0 points for the win. Just like last season, every win I'd get +0 points. After about 20 (consecutive) wins I gave up on NA ladder. No way I'm grinding hundreds or thousands of bronze games. Does anybody know of a recourse to this problem? I e-mailed blizzard 4 months ago, but as I expected they ignored it.
You threw 200 games to tank your MMR and guarantee yourself a 60+% win rate, and then you complained to Blizzard because you had to play 20+ bronze games and it didn't raise your MMR back over the point floor?
You're lucky they didn't just straight up ban you. The bronze-leaguers have much more of a right to complain about being smashed by people who manipulating their rating to guarantee themselves a challenge-free ladder experience than you have to complain that the ladder's matchmaking system did exactly what it's designed to do.
|
Well said. If you have ladder phobia, alternate between SEA and NA games so you can slow your rank increase. Throwing games on purpose isn't smiled upon here or by Bliz.
|
On July 18 2011 19:52 Probe1 wrote:
Well said. If you have ladder phobia, alternate between SEA and NA games so you can slow your rank increase. Throwing games on purpose isn't smiled upon here or by Bliz.
The phobia was about maintaining my win rate. I didn't care about ladder ranking. I tried to make my win rate 10% or so so I didn't give a damn about it and I could just ladder freely.
|
On July 18 2011 21:30 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 19:52 Probe1 wrote:
Well said. If you have ladder phobia, alternate between SEA and NA games so you can slow your rank increase. Throwing games on purpose isn't smiled upon here or by Bliz. The phobia was about maintaining my win rate. I didn't care about ladder ranking. I tried to make my win rate 10% or so so I didn't give a damn about it and I could just ladder freely.
Which doesn't change the fact that you intentionally threw games in order to face easier opponents. You could have just said you don't care about your winrate without throwing over 200 games. Now you are ruining the experience of other players because you are presumably much better then the opponents you are facing.
Oh, and by the way, saying you stopped laddering because you didn't want to grind out games (after "grinding" out 200 losses) to get your ladder rating restored then coming here and saying you don't care about your ladder rating makes no sense at all.
|
On July 18 2011 22:53 STS17 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2011 21:30 arbitrageur wrote:On July 18 2011 19:52 Probe1 wrote:
Well said. If you have ladder phobia, alternate between SEA and NA games so you can slow your rank increase. Throwing games on purpose isn't smiled upon here or by Bliz. The phobia was about maintaining my win rate. I didn't care about ladder ranking. I tried to make my win rate 10% or so so I didn't give a damn about it and I could just ladder freely. Which doesn't change the fact that you intentionally threw games in order to face easier opponents. You could have just said you don't care about your winrate without throwing over 200 games. Now you are ruining the experience of other players because you are presumably much better then the opponents you are facing.l.
No. I didn't throw games to face easier opponents. I threw games to destroy my winrate, thinking I could then have a day or two of 100% win rate and be promoted very quickly back into high masters, albeit with a horrible win rate. I thought this because I went from plat to diamond in like 10 games when I started to ladder, so I thought I could go from bronze to masters in maybe 50 games (I never considered you could get +0 points for each win). I don't like, or want, to face anyone under high masters. It's boring. So there, your attribution of what I was trying to achieve is a misunderstanding due to my lack of explanation. Proof: arbitrage.505 match history.. I don't ladder.
Oh, and by the way, saying you stopped laddering because you didn't want to grind out games (after "grinding" out 200 losses) to get your ladder rating restored then coming here and saying you don't care about your ladder rating makes no sense at al
I don't care about my ladder ranking in that I don't care if I'm 1700 masters or low grandmaster. That's what I meant. When it comes to being in bronze and not being able to ladder as a result, then yes I care.
After re-reading my response, I can see why you had these misunderstandings. I hope I've cleared them up with this post.
|
You threw 200 games to tank your MMR and guarantee yourself a 60+% win rate.
No, I threw 200 games so my win rate would go below 20%. My plan was to then win a lot of games to get back to high masters with a record of like 50-250, so I could play against good players without caring about whether or not I lost. I realise caring about winrate isn't "rational", but it's a failing of my brain that I haven't overcome yet. I hadn't read up on how the Blizzard ladder system worked before I tried this, obviously.
|
On July 18 2011 23:18 arbitrageur wrote:Show nested quote +
You threw 200 games to tank your MMR and guarantee yourself a 60+% win rate.
No, I threw 200 games so my win rate would go below 20%. My plan was to then win a lot of games to get back to high masters with a record of like 50-250, so I could play against good players without caring about whether or not I lost. I hadn't read up on how the Blizzard ladder system worked before I tried this, obviously.
HAHAHAHHAHA you deserve everything you got
|
Thanks for your advice whoever was first to respond. I didn't think I was harming anyone when I did this. My plan was to give out 250 free wins and take 50 or so free wins back on my way back to masters. Too bad this acc is useless now.
|
Well if you went to school and did well and got a good job as a result then yeah you deserve a lot of money. If you throw 200 games and play really shitty players as a result then you deserve that, too.
edit: well alright I guess nevermind this post as well
|
If you're inactive for a season, do you know if you have to go back through all 5 placement matches during the beginning of the next or does it still just put you back with 1?
|
United States12240 Posts
On July 19 2011 00:43 See.Blue wrote:
If you're inactive for a season, do you know if you have to go back through all 5 placement matches during the beginning of the next or does it still just put you back with 1?
Just 1.
|
On July 18 2011 23:24 arbitrageur wrote:
Too bad this acc is useless now.
Why don't you just play the game and have fun? I think you're thinking way too much about win rate/ranking (despite how you say you don't care about it), etc, etc, etc.
I really don't see how your account is useless now just because your MMR is low.
Just go and play. Have fun. Improve and get better.
Your account situation is obviously adding unnecessary tension and stress to SC2. Who cares if you're 99 rank bronze? If you're better than that, then just keep playing and you'll eventually end up where you're supposed to be.
o.o
|
On July 19 2011 01:30 Precision wrote:Why don't you just play the game and have fun? I think you're thinking way too much about win rate/ranking (despite how you say you don't care about it), etc, etc, etc. I really don't see how your account is useless now just because your MMR is low. Just go and play. Have fun. Improve and get better. Your account situation is obviously adding unnecessary tension and stress to SC2. Who cares if you're 99 rank bronze? If you're better than that, then just keep playing and you'll eventually end up where you're supposed to be. o.o
He just said he doesn't have fun playing against much worse players, especially when he gets 0 points for winning anyway -_-
|
On July 19 2011 01:30 Precision wrote:Why don't you just play the game and have fun? I think you're thinking way too much about win rate/ranking (despite how you say you don't care about it), etc, etc, etc. I really don't see how your account is useless now just because your MMR is low. Just go and play. Have fun. Improve and get better. Your account situation is obviously adding unnecessary tension and stress to SC2. Who cares if you're 99 rank bronze? If you're better than that, then just keep playing and you'll eventually end up where you're supposed to be. o.o
I don't need more ppl replying to my question as it's been answered already. Thank you to the gentleman that made it clear for me. I'll explain it again especially for you Precision. I'm not a bronze player, but I'm stuck in bronze because I threw games due to my ladder phobia - I wanted to blitz back to high masters and have a really really bad ratio so I did not give a damn about it anymore. As you implied, it's not rational, and I realise this, and I've overcome much of it on SEA ladder. TY those who provided help.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
