EPT[G] Comprehensive SC2 League and Ladder Guide - Page 65
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Mura19
43 Posts
| ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On October 20 2012 09:09 Mura19 wrote: Probably the worst system ladder I ever seen. Iccup system was way better... The short answer is that it has different design goals from ICCUP, which was aimed at much more serious players. | ||
|
Mura19
43 Posts
| ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On October 20 2012 10:14 Mura19 wrote: You loss too much points when you favored, that ridiculous... Low mmr players are favored most of the time and high mmr will play againt favored opponent most of the time. That result as high mmr players will always gain alot points beating favored players and losing ridiculous pts for losing like -1 or -5 pts. In the other side low mmr player will always going down and down because they loss too many points for a loss and gain nothing for a win. Sc2 ladder system is actually broken... What you're describing is not how the system works, at all. In what league were you seeing what you describe happening? When the system's functioning normally, a high MMR player will always see themselves "favored" vs a low MMR player unless the high MMR player's point score is too low for their MMR, which happens only at the beginning of a season or if they do not play very much. Also, both players can see each other as "favored" at the same time, if they both have too-low point scores for their MMRs, so if the low MMR player has been playing a lot and encounters a relatively inactive high MMR player, both players will earn large points for a win and lose few for a loss since they'll see each other as "favored." Regardless, there's no way for a low MMR player to wind up in some kind of score death spiral because they're losing tons of points for a loss against better MMR players. It just won't happen. * * Unless there's a bug. Is this happening at GM level, or low bronze league? | ||
|
Mura19
43 Posts
| ||
|
Mura19
43 Posts
| ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On October 20 2012 10:47 Mura19 wrote: Seriouly who care losing 20 games againt idra -1pts per loss? But losing -20 pts againt diamond player who cheese you is clearly a joke and it's how this system work... If you're losing that many points, they must be losing a lot to worse players than you. Maybe figuring out how those lower MMR players beat them is better than complaining about the system? Edit: There are reasonable complaints about this system, this is not one of them. Note that ICCUP takes away large numbers of points if better players lose to lower skill players' cheeses too. | ||
|
Mura19
43 Posts
| ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On October 27 2012 23:53 Mura19 wrote: I got 567 points in 500 games played this season. In the same league I see some players with 1100 points with 50 games played. This broken ladder system don't make any sense to me... playing 450 more games and get less points than other players with the same ratio win/loss.... You're playing different calibers of players. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:57 Excalibur_Z wrote: You're playing different calibers of players. First, what Excalibur_Z said. Second: Let me get this straight. You want a 50/50 win/loss ratio, or close to it (ok, maybe you're in high master league with 60/40 because it usually matches you against worse players), with no improvement, to earn you unlimited points as you rack up games? Fortunately, they're adding a system that does just that to Heart of the Swarm. http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/7681240/Heart_of_the_Swarm_Preview_Leveling-10_25_2012 You'll quickly wind up level 20, while that guy with 1100 points will be level 3 or something. Edit: I'm not being derisive about the leveling system -- the idea of a straight-up reward for activity of any kind is something that might be just what SC2 needs. However, I think people need to understand that, contrary to what many seem to believe, the current ladder system does NOT work like that. | ||
|
Mura19
43 Posts
On October 28 2012 00:57 Excalibur_Z wrote: You're playing different calibers of players. How many games I need to play to get same points as the other guy who get 1100points with 50 game played?? 1000 games? 2000 games ? Just because this guys play againt '' different calibers of players''. Im not sure if you serious or not... | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On October 28 2012 05:04 Mura19 wrote: How many games I need to play to get same points as the other guy who get 1100points with 50 game played?? 1000 games? 2000 games ? Just because this guys play againt '' different calibers of players''. Im not sure if you serious or not... He's very serious. A better player will have a higher hidden matchmaking rating and his point score will rise higher as a result. Once you are done with bonus pool, points are driven by your quality of play, not how much you play. If your points are at the level that corresponds to your matchmaking rating, you will, on average, lose as many points as you gain and thus stay in about the same place. The only way to catch up to the guy at 1100 is to improve your game and get better. Edit: All the answers are in the original post. Your questions will all be addressed when you read and understand it. | ||
|
Generalul
Romania114 Posts
 This happened in the same season, and i was glad afterwards i remained there, without falling again. Still, after all this experience i think demotions are made too easily, as you can have a losing streak, lose a few games to cheese/weird allins, and this can spiral out of control. Now, after 5-6 loses i imediatly think about demotion, and i don't think this is the way Blizz intended the gameplay to be... | ||
|
Mura19
43 Posts
On October 28 2012 05:35 Lysenko wrote: He's very serious. A better player will have a higher hidden matchmaking rating and his point score will rise higher as a result. Once you are done with bonus pool, points are driven by your quality of play, not how much you play. If your points are at the level that corresponds to your matchmaking rating, you will, on average, lose as many points as you gain and thus stay in about the same place. The only way to catch up to the guy at 1100 is to improve your game and get better. Edit: All the answers are in the original post. Your questions will all be addressed when you read and understand it. I don't want to know why the broken ladder system is broken, I want blizzard make a change. I want fair system like Iccup. And Generalul, you totally right, i'ts just another problem with the system... | ||
|
Skirmjan
Italy190 Posts
On October 29 2012 19:52 Mura19 wrote: I don't want to know why the broken ladder system is broken, I want blizzard make a change. I want fair system like Iccup. And Generalul, you totally right, i'ts just another problem with the system... your "friend" is playing against player with higher MMR than your opponents, has an higher MMR than you have, and as such is getting more points as his ladder points are rapidly running towards his high MMR. let's make a practical example: it's 1st of november, points are reset and you're placed in the same master league as the real IMMVP*; as he plays progamers, and has an incredibly high MMR, his points will rapidly rise towards it, faster than yours do (and btw, i think this is totally right and legit,otherwised points would totally be an activity meter, while this way they are at least tied to real skill, that being MMR). This happens because points are reset while MMR is not, just imagine ICCUP with a seasonal reset that keeps you in the old "letter" (say,C-) category and has a "back into form" meter, as ladder points. What really compares with ICCUP scores is the real MMR, which is hidden and pretty shaky. The league is also pretty much a % page, nothing more. being diamond means top 18%, for istance. I must say that i'm actually unsure if you're being serious tho. The ladder matchmaking is totally fine, could use some more stats and transparency, but works totally right. @ExcaliburZ i remember reading one of your post saying that actually master was enlarged, going from top 2% to top 5% or something, i remember you weren't sure about how much of an enlargement there had been back then (i wasn't registered in TL yet) is that still true? do we have more precise data? *too lazy to write in the LG | ||
|
Mura19
43 Posts
On October 29 2012 20:34 Skirmjan wrote: your "friend" is playing against player with higher MMR than your opponents, has an higher MMR than you have, and as such is getting more points as his ladder points are rapidly running towards his high MMR. let's make a practical example: it's 1st of november, points are reset and you're placed in the same master league as the real IMMVP*; as he plays progamers, and has an incredibly high MMR, his points will rapidly rise towards it, faster than yours do (and btw, i think this is totally right and legit,otherwised points would totally be an activity meter, while this way they are at least tied to real skill, that being MMR). This happens because points are reset while MMR is not, just imagine ICCUP with a seasonal reset that keeps you in the old "letter" (say,C-) category and has a "back into form" meter, as ladder points. What really compares with ICCUP scores is the real MMR, which is hidden and pretty shaky. The league is also pretty much a % page, nothing more. being diamond means top 18%, for istance. I must say that i'm actually unsure if you're being serious tho. The ladder matchmaking is totally fine, could use some more stats and transparency, but works totally right. @ExcaliburZ i remember reading one of your post saying that actually master was enlarged, going from top 2% to top 5% or something, i remember you weren't sure about how much of an enlargement there had been back then (i wasn't registered in TL yet) is that still true? do we have more precise data? *too lazy to write in the LG The MMR is not good, it make the ladder system unfair. In ICCUP, when you won a game you gain same points as any other player. You don't have this unfair system who give you more points because your high MMR. That why ICCUP will always be the best system ladder, there is no favoritism, everyone are egal... And egal mean fair.... The only thing can ICCUP should add, is a QUICK MATCH system. | ||
|
Skirmjan
Italy190 Posts
On October 29 2012 22:58 Mura19 wrote: The MMR is not good, it make the ladder system unfair. In ICCUP, when you won a game you gain same points as any other player. You don't have this unfair system who give you more points because your high MMR. That why ICCUP will always be the best system ladder, there is no favoritism, everyone are egal... And egal mean fair.... The only thing can ICCUP should add, is a QUICK MATCH system. That's NOT true, in Iccup when a B- player plays a C gets very little points, and also point gain diminishes as the rank gets higher (A players get much less points for beating fellow A players than D players get for beating fellow D players, in fact you could be getting points even if you had less than 50% wins in the long run so long as you're below D+\C) I think you've never played iccup or bw, and you're just being a troll. | ||
|
Mura19
43 Posts
| ||
|
Sandstorm9
41 Posts
| ||
|
Excalibur_Z
United States12248 Posts
On October 29 2012 20:34 Skirmjan wrote: your "friend" is playing against player with higher MMR than your opponents, has an higher MMR than you have, and as such is getting more points as his ladder points are rapidly running towards his high MMR. let's make a practical example: it's 1st of november, points are reset and you're placed in the same master league as the real IMMVP*; as he plays progamers, and has an incredibly high MMR, his points will rapidly rise towards it, faster than yours do (and btw, i think this is totally right and legit,otherwised points would totally be an activity meter, while this way they are at least tied to real skill, that being MMR). This happens because points are reset while MMR is not, just imagine ICCUP with a seasonal reset that keeps you in the old "letter" (say,C-) category and has a "back into form" meter, as ladder points. What really compares with ICCUP scores is the real MMR, which is hidden and pretty shaky. The league is also pretty much a % page, nothing more. being diamond means top 18%, for istance. I must say that i'm actually unsure if you're being serious tho. The ladder matchmaking is totally fine, could use some more stats and transparency, but works totally right. @ExcaliburZ i remember reading one of your post saying that actually master was enlarged, going from top 2% to top 5% or something, i remember you weren't sure about how much of an enlargement there had been back then (i wasn't registered in TL yet) is that still true? do we have more precise data? *too lazy to write in the LG It is still true, but until Blizzard releases the new target percentiles, I can't update the guide with 100% confidence. The only thing I was told was "the sc2ranks numbers are fairly accurate" but those have a lot of slush, one week Master might be 4%, the next 5%, the next 6%, so it's difficult to pinpoint. | ||
| ||
