EPTWhy the Blizzard ladder is great - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
nastyyy
United States262 Posts
| ||
|
Chylouk
United Kingdom30 Posts
On April 19 2011 18:16 Snackysnacks wrote: To bash bob for not man-ing up and showing losses. This is the life of the internet. In a sense, i like what alot of what OP wrote because it applies to me, a guy who bought sc2 day one, threw 20 matches in, then havent touched 1v1 since. I, myself, honestly want all leagues besides diamond+ to be toned down a bit. Not that placing gold was bad or anything, i hate having to enter a "tryhard" mode to win games for "fun" Little irrelevant steps in the way dont bother me, ill be unphased by the removal of losses, but i enjoy the lightheartedness that comes from it. When i go ladder, i find myself to 4gates, timed zerged rushes, proxy terran buildings with abusive pronged attacks at the 8 min mark. Not that its hard to deal with, and a bit of effort i could leave this, I just want to play to enjoy. I wanna play long macro games, test unit comps, enjoy myself for 15-30 min a game but the people around me look for the fastest win to the next match. Hopefully everyone lightens up so i can get some care-free matches in. I understand and feel your pain, I was in a similar place as you where, but i noticed the following from my jounry from gold to plat. If you keep on wining and carry on wining then you will stay where you are until your MMR balance's out. I.e when I was top gold about 200 points above everyone else I was playing people in plat and wining. I then reached a point when my MMR got to high above my skill and I lost 6 games on the bounce. This then lowered my MMR back down and I started to play people mid to high plat and once i won/lost a few then I was promoted. This was done during 1 day. The only conclusion that I can come to from this is you wont get promoted until your MMR is balanced to the level of your skill. If you are constantly wining all the time then your MMR is only going up and not able to balance out and give you your well earned promotion. This is only my conclusion basied on the games and experance that I have and found playing on the EU ladder from silver to plat. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On April 19 2011 18:16 Snackysnacks wrote: Yes. An option to show losses could lead to trash talk if someone decides to hide his losses.To bash bob for not man-ing up and showing losses. This is the life of the internet. On April 19 2011 18:16 Snackysnacks wrote: Did you play the campaign at least?In a sense, i like what alot of what OP wrote because it applies to me, a guy who bought sc2 day one, threw 20 matches in, then havent touched 1v1 since. On April 19 2011 18:16 Snackysnacks wrote: If you beat players who would have mop the floor with you just four weeks ago, feels great. Recently I survived things like 4gate or proxy-2-gate and turned it into a victory. They left without gg. That also changed my mind from "omgwtfbbq the sucker pushes me hard" into "lolol I just need to survive and even if I lose some drones I still outproduce him later."Hopefully everyone lightens up so i can get some care-free matches in. Feeling improvement as a way to have more control over the game flow, is just great. While I have one-sided games from time to time, overall I get opponents which I could beat as well as I could get beaten, depending on who manages to make less mistakes. Blizzard does a great job matching the players. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On April 19 2011 18:23 enzym wrote: Normally a change gets more bashed than something established being not changed. Also negative comments normally are more prominent than positive comments. Blizzard did get some heat about the loss counter removal but at least as I perceive it, those critique came mostly from guys with no understanding that the win ratio is meaningless by design.After all your knowledge about the AMM and about statistics, one would expect that you are aware of the ambiguity of such a display. Seeing more people stating that they play more because of this change can have several reasons, only one of which is an actual overall increase in ladder activity. It could also appear this way because of a perceptual bias (you pay more attention to them), it could be because these people are somehow more likely to express their opinion or because they are overrepresented on this website, forum or thread in general. On April 19 2011 18:23 enzym wrote: You "screw" them to protect them from false assumptions. An option to show it could lead to trash talks "Hey nub, afraid to show your shitty win ratio?" You would not care about your losses if nobody else wouldn't care, too. Since other people could make fun of you, you feel pressure. An option to hide means an option to show and does not remove the pressure.But most of all, even if a majority of people was happy about that change, it still doesn't mean that removing w/l is a better choice than providing an option, because without the option you are screwing other players over, as evidenced by this thread. The player profile should provide more statistical data, but the overall win ratio is not one of the useful statistics. To offer an option to show/hide it does not remedy the issue of having a false impression about the meaning of the win ratio. To have an option to show it would imply that the win ratio would have a meaning – while in truth it does not. You still can say that you want to see your losses anyway, of course. But as I perceive it, Blizzard did the overall right thing here in not allowing for Diamond and below. It is not possibly to create a system everyone agrees with anyway. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On April 19 2011 16:29 Jibba wrote: I think any good player has friends around his skill level to play a custom match against.It can be useful for basics or as a warm up, but with hardcore improvement as the goal, rather than winning as the goal, Custom games are a much better system, and it's a shame we don't have iCCup style channels to find games. Having too good options for custom matches (effectively to play custom anytime you want, against opponents of the same skill level) would lead to practice there and only start a ladder game when one feels prepared. In my opinion, this is not how ladder should work. The normal game should be a ladder game, even though you cannot train one map only for 7 days in a row. Blizzards own tournament with inviting the top ladder players should not hurt the pro who says "ladder doesn't matter" because there are many other tournaments. If I look at the ladder, I see that many pros don't take ladder too seriously. For my part, I like how the ladder works because I like surprises in a game. I never know which map and which race I get to play agains. I also don't know if he will try to cheese me. I have to learn quickly about his style to exploit any weakness I can find. | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On April 19 2011 19:32 [F_]aths wrote: Yes. An option to show losses could lead to trash talk if someone decides to hide his losses. I've had an issue with that stance from the beginning but couldn't figure out why that is. I think I've finally realized it. You say that we can't expect everyone who wants to play SC2 multiplayer to have a competetive mindset, so we have to go along with catering to sensitive people. But if I turn that around (the ladder is a competitive environment and we expect other people to go along with us being able to experience it as such) it suddenly becomes wrong. I think that this is a double standard and inconsistent and therefor not justifiable. On April 19 2011 19:58 [F_]aths wrote: Normally a change gets more bashed than something established being not changed. Also negative comments normally are more prominent than positive comments. Blizzard did get some heat about the loss counter removal but at least as I perceive it, those critique came mostly from guys with no understanding that the win ratio is meaningless by design. Regardless of whether this is perceptional bias or hearsay it is not a solid base for an argument. I also just spent several extensive posts explaining why w/l is not meaningless in all circumstances, as well as trying to point out why a complete removal of it might be a bad choice independent of that. On April 19 2011 19:58 [F_]aths wrote: You "screw" them to protect them from false assumptions. An option to show it could lead to trash talks "Hey nub, afraid to show your shitty win ratio?" You would not care about your losses if nobody else wouldn't care, too. Since other people could make fun of you, you feel pressure. An option to hide means an option to show and does not remove the pressure. The player profile should provide more statistical data, but the overall win ratio is not one of the useful statistics. To offer an option to show/hide it does not remedy the issue of having a false impression about the meaning of the win ratio. To have an option to show it would imply that the win ratio would have a meaning – while in truth it does not. You still can say that you want to see your losses anyway, of course. But as I perceive it, Blizzard did the overall right thing here in not allowing for Diamond and below. I don't think that it has been sufficiently established that all of the reasoning in favour of w/l or an option brought forth in this discussion is based on false assumptions. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On April 19 2011 18:23 enzym wrote: Correct. The same applies to your objection. I can back up my conclusion with some examples while there still is no-one who states he will play less ladder since he must count his losses manually. This may be not counts as a mathematical proof but it is enough for me to judge Blizzard's decision to be a good one. The real mistake Blizzard did was to show the loss counter in the first place.Regardless of whether this is perceptional bias or hearsay it is not a solid base for an argument. On April 19 2011 20:04 enzym wrote: While there are effects which can lead to a positive or negative win ratio, this only proves the imperfections of the current MMR calculation. The MM-rating relies on incomplete information and therefore can never be completely correct. Since the AMM is designed to get you to 50% in the long run, one should not look at the "real" win ratio because it is distorted by several imperfections as well as random noise. I also just spent several extensive posts explaining why w/l is not meaningless in all circumstances, as well as trying to point out why a complete removal of it might be a bad choice independent of that. The ladder is largely designed for nonprofessional players since they are the largest part of the SC2 player base. Especially Bronze-to-Diamond is made for nonprofessional players. I argued that Blizzard's goal is not to turn them to pro but to encourage them to play a lot. They implemented several goals for us non-pros, including achievements, milestones, portraits, decals, a ladder ranking. It also tries to provide fair matches (which means that you have 50% chance to win.) What do you learn from a deviation from 50%? Only that the MMR is lagging behind the real skill. And this is something you don't want. If you are in a slump, you want get easier opponents fast. If you are on a killing spree, it may be would good for your ego to let you continue to stomp lesser players. But since you are not learning from those games, you want to get better opponents fast. In real life, many players would actually like to stomp lesser-skilled playes as many SC1 or WC3 players made smurf accounts to bash noobs and then brag around with their good win ratio. Blizzard now "screws" them to provide fair matches for everyone because you have only one account per game. The ladder system from Bronze up to Diamond includes intentional misunderstandings. If you are a bad player and the MMR finally adjusted, you have the impression you improved while in fact you have not. This sounds so wrong to tell a real noob "No, you are not that bad. Here, look, you won some games already !" But this will keep him playing and eventually he can improve if he wants to. If not, he still had fun and Blizzard has his money. Good for both sides. The intentional false ranking within the division also keeps folk playing. Lets say you are top in platinum and finally get promoted. If any division in each league would be equal and span the full league range, you would now either accept a very low diamond ranking forever or improve really a lot. With the invisible division modifier however, you can still get a good ranking in your division. This artificially will show you some progress while in fact there is may be no skill improvement at all, you are just using up your bonus pool. This also sounds so wrong, simulating progress where is none! The upside is that the promoted player feels encouraged to play more. The more players in the ladder, the faster and more accurate the game matching. Division modifiers hurt the skill comparison but also mean less time waiting and less one-sided matches. If you want to get in the competitive part of the ladder, you need to earn it with become a master league player. At this level you have shown a nice understanding of the game. Many gold and above players also consider themself quite good and make excused why their league does not reflect their true skill. Those players are not ready yet to get in the really competitive ladder part because they are not good enough yet. (For the record: I am currently placed in Bronze and know that I suck big-time.) Both things (perceived improvement where is none due to MMR adjusting, invisible division modifiers) are hurting competitive play much more than the removal of the loss counter. It still is a good thing considering the goal for this part of the ladder which is to keep them playing. Players who take skill improving seriously enough will eventually get to Master level anyway. All master divisions are equal, there are no different modifiers so you can compare division rankings. In the end, you have to accept that Blizzard does not consider you a really competitive player unless you are in Master. It sounds harsh, but it is the truth considering the facts (like division modifiers.) | ||
|
MusiK
United States302 Posts
| ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On April 19 2011 22:10 MusiK wrote: Sc2ranks.com does not display my losses because the site does not have access to that data. It can pull the losses only for master and grand master player.I believe all of this is highly irrelevant because a simple look up on sc2 ranks will reveal all losses anyway if you are"hardcore"enough to care. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
I also know most people here don't care about 4 v 4, but it's still ladder and it's kind of broken for me right now. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
Blizzard also still sometimes match random teams versus arranged teams or partly arranged teams. This obviously gives an edge to the arranged team. I don't know if the Battle.net balances this with a skill difference of the teams. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On April 19 2011 22:31 Sm3agol wrote: I also know most people here don't care about 4 v 4, but it's still ladder and it's kind of broken for me right now. 4v4 doesnt have many players in it. So if you are masters you cant expect 8 masters found in 15 seconds, the same applies to diamond. So the solution is it mixes up the teams trying to make the teams equal on average MMR. So if you are high masters expect to have gold partners vs all diamond team, and it will be even teams despite your frustration. | ||
|
Drake
Germany6146 Posts
people should stop flaming blizzard for everything they do on a level they not understand. for my friends, only masters and TOP diamonds cry about not seeing loses anymore, all gold and lower are quite happy with it  | ||
|
enzym
Germany1034 Posts
On April 19 2011 21:53 [F_]aths wrote: Correct. The same applies to your objection. I can back up my conclusion with some examples while there still is no-one who states he will play less ladder since he must count his losses manually. This may be not counts as a mathematical proof but it is enough for me to judge Blizzard's decision to be a good one. The real mistake Blizzard did was to show the loss counter in the first place. There have been many voices in this thread (and others, as you yourself stated: "Also negative comments normally are more prominent than positive comments. Blizzard did get some heat about the loss counter removal") expressing that they are disappointed with the removal of w/l and that the ladder appeals less to them because of it and other, partially related, issues. I have stated that the removal of w/l is one reason for which I do not engage in ladder activity more frequently. So this passage of your post is an outright lie. On April 19 2011 21:53 [F_]aths wrote: While there are effects which can lead to a positive or negative win ratio, this only proves the imperfections of the current MMR calculation. The MM-rating relies on incomplete information and therefore can never be completely correct. Since the AMM is designed to get you to 50% in the long run, one should not look at the "real" win ratio because it is distorted by several imperfections as well as random noise. Despite its imperfection w/l was providing additional information which people value, without an alternative source of that information of comparable quality. People also expressed opposition to the removal of w/l for reasons of comfort, the same reason you use as basis for its removal. On April 19 2011 21:53 [F_]aths wrote: The ladder is largely designed for nonprofessional players since they are the largest part of the SC2 player base. Especially Bronze-to-Diamond is made for nonprofessional players. I argued that Blizzard's goal is not to turn them to pro but to encourage them to play a lot. They implemented several goals for us non-pros, including achievements, milestones, portraits, decals, a ladder ranking. It also tries to provide fair matches (which means that you have 50% chance to win.) What do you learn from a deviation from 50%? Only that the MMR is lagging behind the real skill. Unless Blizzard has stated that their intention with the ladder is exactly that, what you are saying here is just your personal opinion/speculation. Additionally, having designed the ladder for nonprofessional players would not exclude it from having features with appeal for more competitive players, at least as an option. If it is Blizzard's stance and if they think that competitive players must be screwed over in order to ensure an active casual player base then that is tragic and disrespectful towards all of these competitive players. And, as has been repeatedly stated in this thread, the information that MMR is lagging behind their real skill is valuable information for some people. And this is something you don't want. If you are in a slump, you want get easier opponents fast. If you are on a killing spree, it may be would good for your ego to let you continue to stomp lesser players. But since you are not learning from those games, you want to get better opponents fast. In real life, many players would actually like to stomp lesser-skilled playes as many SC1 or WC3 players made smurf accounts to bash noobs and then brag around with their good win ratio. Blizzard now "screws" them to provide fair matches for everyone because you have only one account per game. I don't understand what you are saying here. A lot of what is written in this passage comes down to personal preference. This thread is not about the AMM trying to give you equally good opponents and nobody is complaining about that. The ladder system from Bronze up to Diamond includes intentional misunderstandings. If you are a bad player and the MMR finally adjusted, you have the impression you improved while in fact you have not. This sounds so wrong to tell a real noob "No, you are not that bad. Here, look, you won some games already !" But this will keep him playing and eventually he can improve if he wants to. If not, he still had fun and Blizzard has his money. Good for both sides. The intentional false ranking within the division also keeps folk playing. Lets say you are top in platinum and finally get promoted. If any division in each league would be equal and span the full league range, you would now either accept a very low diamond ranking forever or improve really a lot. With the invisible division modifier however, you can still get a good ranking in your division. This artificially will show you some progress while in fact there is may be no skill improvement at all, you are just using up your bonus pool. This also sounds so wrong, simulating progress where is none! I don't understand what you are saying here either. The ladder system is full of intentional "misunderstandings" (deception) even beyond bronze to diamond. That is the whole purpose of divisions and the removal of w/l. Are you arguing for or against that, and what does that have to do with where the discussion has been at previously? I can't tell. The upside is that the promoted player feels encouraged to play more. The more players in the ladder, the faster and more accurate the game matching. Division modifiers hurt the skill comparison but also mean less time waiting and less one-sided matches. Does the AMM match you according to your division and not according to your MMR? How would that reduce waiting time? Isn't an additional division of the player pool with divisions reducing the number of possible matches for you and thereby increasing waiting time, and what does that have to do with where the discussion has been at previously? If you want to get in the competitive part of the ladder, you need to earn it with become a master league player. At this level you have shown a nice understanding of the game. Many gold and above players also consider themself quite good and make excused why their league does not reflect their true skill. Those players are not ready yet to get in the really competitive ladder part because they are not admitting that they suck. (For the record: I am currently placed in Bronze and know that I suck big-time.) Both things (perceived improvement where is none due to MMR adjusting, invisible division modifiers) are hurting competitive play much more than the removal of the loss counter. It still is a good thing considering the goal for this part of the ladder which is to keep them playing. Players who take skill improving seriously enough will eventually get to Master level anyway. All master divisions are equal, there are no different modifiers so you can compare division rankings. In the end, you have to accept that Blizzard does not consider you a really competitive player unless you are in Master. It sounds harsh, but it is the truth considering the facts (like division modifiers.) Why would you need to be excluded from the competitive aspect of the ladder until masters, isn't that just your personal opinion? Several people in this thread have expressed desire to have access to the competitive aspect of it despite not being in masters... What about the "Many gold and above players also consider themself quite good and [don't] make excused why their league does not reflect their true skill", do they not deserve equal consideration? Do you have a source for Blizzard not considering you as a competitive player unless you are in masters, or is that your personal opinion/speculation again? | ||
|
Benjerry
Sweden9 Posts
*W/L ratio in lower leagues is a meaningless gauge of skill and progress. Removing it is thus good.* I repeat: *meaningless*. Attempting to use it will lead players who don´t understand the matchmaking system astray. People in lower leagues who understand the matchmaking system don´t use W/L ratio as a measure of progress. This is because of the matchmaking system actively attempting to keep you at a 50% W/L ratio. For any lower-league player who wants to be competitive, your league and score will give a perfectly good picture of your position - especially when used in combination with Sc2ranks, etc. The exception is that score is less meaningful if you play so little that you have a large bonus pool. Big whoop - either mentally take this into account, or play a few more games. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On April 19 2011 22:41 Cheerio wrote: 4v4 doesnt have many players in it. So if you are masters you cant expect 8 masters found in 15 seconds, the same applies to diamond. So the solution is it mixes up the teams trying to make the teams equal on average MMR. So if you are high masters expect to have gold partners vs all diamond team, and it will be even teams despite your frustration. I understand that, I just don't think they keep teams very even. I also definitely think they should factor in 1 v 1 ranking when matching people up. I've had several games where my opponents were a clear team of 3 gold 4 v 4'ers......and all of them were masters 1 v 1. Obviously that isn't fair in any way possible. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
My statement you mention is not a lie. While you may be will not play more ladder, you will at least not play less ladder. Even if you do, I see many more voices here in this thread which state that they now ladder more. Win ratio does not provide "additional" information, it only provides misinformation up to diamond league. The only reason it can have a meaning in higher leagues is just caused by the small player pool the AMM tries to match you with. Since battle.net does not want to have you wait for hours, it then gives you a weaker opponent so you can maintain a positive win ratio if you are a really top player. Most master players will also get close to 50% if they play enough games. This renders the win ratio display meaningless. If you fail to understand this, so be it. I don't have time to repeat myself forever. Blizzard does not "screwed over" competitive people because according to Blizzard's valuation you are not really competitive until you reach at least lower master ranks. I am just stating this as a conclusion of the facts at hand including hidden division modifiers for any league below Master. May be they hurt your feelings since it is now so visible as they removed the loss counter from you, but I have the feeling that Blizzard attracts more users overall. If you are not convinced that Blizzard draws more people to ladder, so be it. I will no longer try to convince you. The 'deceptions' in the casual ladder parts can be viewed as good or bad. While I see the disadvantages, I also understand the positive effects. They did it how they did it. AMM waiting time is reduced when many players are online and searching for a ladder game at the same time. To include elements which induce a feeling of pressure scares away some folks. If they are not laddering, waiting time increases. Also the accuracy gets lower because after a while the AMM widens the search range to get you an opponent eventually. There is also a chain reaction. Often times, the lesser skilled players are scared because they mostly play rushes or other coinflip strategies. They don't know the feeling to control the game flow. With fewer people of this low skill level online, the remaining ones gets stronger opponents more often. They feel how one-sided the match is and lose interest in laddering, too. To provide low-skill players a good ladder environment, you have to make sure that enough of those players are online and not scared away. The scare potential of the win ratio is of course purely based on the wrong impression that skill somehow relates to the win ratio while in fact it does not because of the way the AMM is intended to work. Considering anyone below master league not to be really competitive is not my personal opinion but Blizzard's view obviously as they decided to make the cut between diamond and master league. I just agree to this particular choice. Blizzard should be interested in having even the most poorly skilled player laddering because those players are more likely to follow tournaments. Tournaments keep the hardcore scene alive. This is constant promotion for the game and help long-term sales. | ||
|
Rotodyne
United States2263 Posts
So thank you blizzard, I know this is a way to keep noobs happy and to keep them playing the game, and it was a good idea. Thanks. | ||
|
Offhand
United States1869 Posts
On April 19 2011 19:32 [F_]aths wrote: Yes. An option to show losses could lead to trash talk if someone decides to hide his losses. As if anyone below masters should be trash talking anyway. Put the option to show losses into the game, set it to default off, bronze-gold league won't even notice. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On April 20 2011 03:26 Offhand wrote: After the release of SC2, I told a friend who still has no computer able to run this game, that the SC2 ladder actually manages to provide fair matches opposed to WC3 where I sucked so hard that I maintained my negative ratio even after 1000+ games.As if anyone below masters should be trash talking anyway. Put the option to show losses into the game, set it to default off, bronze-gold league won't even notice. He asked me about my win ratio in SC2. I told him and explained why it does not matter in SC2. Some weeks later he asked me again about my ratio. Since he cannot value leagues (I was gold at that time) he wanted to derivate my skill from the ratio. I know him from university, he is not dumb but still failed to understand the meaningless of the ratio. This alone (people not understanding that in means nothing) is a reason to hide it. The second reason is emotion. Though I knew that I should not care about it, I was always concerned if I can ever get back to 50%. I allege that I am not the only person who was in this false mindset which promotes play without experiments. | ||
| ||
