EPTGrandmaster League Info Thread - Page 25
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Nomadic
United Kingdom312 Posts
| ||
|
Armsved
Denmark642 Posts
| ||
|
Darkhallow
Finland139 Posts
On April 14 2011 03:49 Armsved wrote: Its really fucking retarded that blizzard have made a game centered around a ladder noone can see. WTH are you talking about. Everyone can see GM league rankings >< | ||
|
Armsved
Denmark642 Posts
On April 14 2011 03:50 Darkhallow wrote: WTH are you talking about. Everyone can see GM league rankings >< im talking about MMR | ||
|
khOOM
United States87 Posts
| ||
|
Let it Raine
Canada1245 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:10 khOOM wrote: What the fuck is going on with ladder placement in GM... there are so many bads that have like 12 games this season (one guy is 6-6..) who are around 2k in masters last season. Tell me they are going to be removed, please. i'll tell you to look up how mmr works first | ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:11 Let it Raine wrote: i'll tell you to look up how mmr works first its all fun and games but it also equals claiming that Fruitdealer is the best player in the world right now. | ||
|
BeMannerDuPenner
Germany5638 Posts
On April 14 2011 03:37 shinyA wrote: The system should have no hidden skill rating system, it should be based only on ladder points and the only games you should get are of those in a set range of your ladder points. Basically a system like PGT / ICC. It's stupid to have hidden rankings, it just leads to the idiocy that we have now. If the system were one based solely on points, then not only would the system be incredibly easy to understand but it would be an accurate measure of skill. The higher your points, the higher your skill. You wouldn't need all the idiotic divisions, you would simply have a ladder rating such as the ABCD system of PGT and ICC. Being #1 in Bronze isn't going to give someone encouragement, they're still in bronze. But if you're D and you know what it takes to get to D+ it makes you work harder. There's no "I wonder if I'll get promoted soon", it's just "I need to get to X amount of points to be promoted" and that's how it should be. If it were like that, points and ladder score would mean something, just as in PGT. If you were a high rank there everyone knew you were good, that's because you only played people who are also that high in points. But with the hidden MMR you have people with high points / low MMR which makes the system a joke. Not to mention that there's no set points to strive for, it's always going. If you were pro, you could play 200 games and get A and then you're set - you accomplished something and it was rewarding. "I got to X rank in X amount of time", that's something to be proud of, but here it's like you can play 200 games and get to 1000 points as one of the first in the world, if you don't play for a week theres 500 people who are already at 1500 making your 1000 points look stupid and pointless /end rant agree 100% exactly my thoughts. but guess it would be to intimidating for blizzard... cause people could actually see that they are rank 373455... so sad :/ | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
Because of cases like this, it's likely that the NA GM league won't fill up for a while yet, if I correctly understand how this system works. | ||
|
khOOM
United States87 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:11 Let it Raine wrote: + Show Spoiler + On April 14 2011 04:10 khOOM wrote: What the fuck is going on with ladder placement in GM... there are so many bads that have like 12 games this season (one guy is 6-6..) who are around 2k in masters last season. Tell me they are going to be removed, please. i'll tell you to look up how mmr works first I have, and I must reiterate: What the fuck? | ||
|
ch33psh33p
7650 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:26 Lysenko wrote: Here's an interesting point: ROOTKitty, which hasn't been played since the 9th and probably won't be, most likely has a spot reserved in the GM league. Until another player in Master league surpasses his MMR, or until his bonus pool hits 180 (it's currently 59), that spot won't be taken by another player. Because of cases like this, it's likely that the NA GM league won't fill up for a while yet, if I correctly understand how this system works. That is EXACTLY correct. The high mmr reserve slots haven't been taken yet, but the lower ones have. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:21 BeMannerDuPenner wrote: agree 100% exactly my thoughts. but guess it would be to intimidating for blizzard... cause people could actually see that they are rank 373455... so sad :/ Problem is, if blizzard used a point system which actually correlated well with skill (e.g., ELO), they would lose a ton of their player base. Most casual players don't like ELO systems, because it doesn't reward playing lots of games, and it's very difficult to improve your rating, unlike the system that ICCUP/PGT used, and unlike the system blizzard uses now. In fact, PGT didn't use an ELO system for that reason. There was much debate between the people who ran PGT about what point system they would use, and they decided to use the one they did rather than some modified ELO because they thought it would increase activity. Don't even try to argue that the system ICCUP and PGT used was any better than blizzard's system, because mass gaming could still get you pretty high. There was a massive difference between someone who was C+ and was 50-12, and someone who was C+ and 120-100. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:33 ch33psh33p wrote: The high mmr reserve slots haven't been taken yet, but the lower ones have. I'd guess that at least a couple of those slots are high-level players who are in Sweden for Dreamhack. I'll be interested to see if any recognizable names make it in once that's over. | ||
|
displaced
22 Posts
On April 14 2011 03:23 Lysenko wrote: One weakness of the MMR system, as implemented, appears to be that it measures where you fall in the population, not some absolute level of skill, while at the same time remaining unchanged if you do not play. There's no such thing as absolute skill - everything is relative. In a world of retarded kids with parkinson's, someone with 100 APM would be the holy emperor of Starcraft. We judge one person's skill based on our perception of the norm. The only thing you CAN measure is where you fall relative to others. On April 14 2011 03:23 Lysenko wrote: If a player had had a very high MMR last fall, and quit the game until this season, then played a small number of games that were mostly losses but didn't tank their MMR completely, it's possible they might make it into the GM league due to a stale, inflated MMR. they might make it due to a high MMR, not an inflated one. throughout the course of a game's season, global MMR will inflate due to 2 things - more games played, and more people playing. I'm basing this on my experience with the WOW ladder which employs (I assume) the same system. At the start of the MMR wipe in a new season, 2200 was fairly difficult to achieve, and the top teams were only around 2700. Around now, 2500 is fairly easy to achieve, and the highest teams are 3000. Imagine if a top team sitting at 2700 MMR quit early in the season - it wouldn't mean anything in the later stages. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:38 PJA wrote: Problem is, if blizzard used a point system which actually correlated well with skill (e.g., ELO), they would lose a ton of their player base. It does correlate well with skill within a division, among players who are spending all their bonus points as they earn them. Admittedly, those are pretty big caveats, particularly in lower leagues where many players don't play that much. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:40 displaced wrote: There's no such thing as absolute skill - everything is relative. I understand that. My point was that the system's weakness is that a player who takes a long break has an MMR that doesn't reflect their skill correctly vs. players who play actively, and it won't correct until they play a bunch of games and lose. On April 14 2011 04:40 displaced wrote: they might make it due to a high MMR, not an inflated one. "Inflated" meaning that their MMR, while correct when they started their break, has become an overestimate of their skill over time as players who have stayed active have improved (or simply changed how they're playing.) If you were the top player on the ladder in August and stopped playing until today, your MMR would wrongly estimate that you would go 50/50 with players who would simply destroy you over and over again. That's what I mean by an inflated, or stale, MMR. | ||
|
displaced
22 Posts
don't know what player you're talking about, but this is the most plausible explanation: he beat players of high MMR, and only lost to players of high MMR. for the sake of simplicity, assume he won 6 times against 3000 rated players. then he lost 6 times against 3100 rated players. he would have a high MMR, shit ratio, and not a lot of actual points. here's the alternative to paint a contrasting picture: someone wins 30 games against 2000 rated players. then he loses 1 against a 2800. his MMR would effectively be lower than the first guy's. | ||
|
Jaden-
6 Posts
| ||
|
displaced
22 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:45 Lysenko wrote: "Inflated" meaning that their MMR, while correct when they started their break, has become an overestimate of their skill over time as players who have stayed active have improved (or simply changed how they're playing.) If you were the top player on the ladder in August and stopped playing until today, your MMR would wrongly estimate that you would go 50/50 with players who would simply destroy you over and over again. That's what I mean by an inflated, or stale, MMR. I'm not going to look up the definition of inflation because I have class soon, but it should be pretty clear what I mean. Your implications were wrong - someone who quit last fall won't have a high MMR just by sitting on it for a year, due to everyone else's MMR rising due to a "MMR inflation" as I described. Unless everyone quits starcraft, MMR will constantly rise over time. if 2k MMR is top 200 today, in a year 3k mmr will probably be top 200. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On April 14 2011 04:49 Jaden- wrote: made top 200 with like a 7 months break vgood with just playing some game 2 days ago! info thread, not brag thread. | ||
| ||
