|
On July 15 2011 15:36 KimJongChill wrote:
It seems that any league can encompass a surprising range of skill levels, and that a more accurate system would be to have a multiplicity of leagues denoted by an even wider variety of semi-precious metals. But then again...why not just show MMR?
Yeah, bro!
The solution has to be to split it up even more. I honestly don't believe I am Master League material, even though I obviously deserve to be "master" according to how it is now defined. It just bothers me that I can be in the same league as Spanishiwa and BlastKalin just a couple hundrer points behind them.
|
On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:34 Halcyondaze wrote:On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'. I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". This is not true at all. FAR from it. To be in GM you are a great player period. Miles ahead of low-mid master players. CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.
Well than surely all the trolls are wrong and he is a GREAT PLAYER. (<- period)
|
I have a feeling the OP isn't talking about just pros but all SC2 players in general. No need to bring tournament results into the discussion.
|
On July 15 2011 15:31 Cuiu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:19 NicoLoco wrote:
Why have they set up a system where the credibility of ones rank is questionable? because a good game is a game that is played. and people play more when they dont have the fear to get demoted Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:30 Joseph123 wrote:
rank doesn't matter
in masters only points matter higher points higher rank? ahm i dont get your point here Öo
Indeed, you will not get his ladder points.
|
On July 15 2011 15:36 KimJongChill wrote:
It seems that any league can encompass a surprising range of skill levels, and that a more accurate system would be to have a multiplicity of leagues denoted by an even wider variety of semi-precious metals. But then again...why not just show MMR?
and what is the benefit to know your mmr?
you lose alot
you have low mmr
you win alot
you have higher mmr
you lose win lose win lose win
you have a stagnant mmr
but because the bonuspool/rank
you get the illusion that you are getting better = motivation = you play more = you are getting rly better
|
I want a ladder that doesn't keep giving me "treats" every time I win a game. It is like the system is trying to trick me into packing my bags and moving to Korea.
I guess I just have a level headed view on my skill, and I always feel that I should be ranked as I deserved.
I used to tutor a guy when he was i platinum. When he got promoted he was higher ranked than me. He said that he could beat "any other top diamond", just not me (I was still diamond then). It is silly, I am waaay better than him, but he has a rank that puts him even or higher than me.
|
On July 15 2011 15:31 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'. I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". This is incorrect - GM has nothing to do with laddering a lot. To get into GM, you need to be one of the top MMR in the region. As for the comparison between iccup ranks and SC2 ladder ranks, it is all purely arbitrary and "all in the head". Having 90%+ players in the D/D+ region, I don't think it's that great of a thing. Blizzard could just as easily setup an iccup system if they wanted to.
Er there is nothing inherently wrong with the iccup system. It works just like an MMR system in every way except that you don't auto match up with people around your MMR.
The reason 90% of players were in the D/D+ area was because the people that played in Iccup tended to be far above your average RTS player. That alone is why it was such a big deal when you hit A+....that and you absolutely had to win more than you lost once you hit A- because you lost 130 points for a same rank loss and only gained 100.
If you saw someone on Iccup with an A ranking you knew they were really amazing. If you see an average masters league person you aren't so amazed because it's...not as hard to be at that point frankly.
It's the same shit...
|
On July 15 2011 15:44 Cuiu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:36 KimJongChill wrote:
It seems that any league can encompass a surprising range of skill levels, and that a more accurate system would be to have a multiplicity of leagues denoted by an even wider variety of semi-precious metals. But then again...why not just show MMR? and what is the benefit to know your mmr? you lose alot you have low mmr you win alot you have higher mmr you lose win lose win lose win you have a stagnant mmr but because the bonuspool/rank you get the illusion that you are getting better = motivation = you play more = you are getting rly better
Is mmr just a w/l ratio kind of thing? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I just thought it was a wholistic ranking which indicates relative skill. The current system seems to confound this notion by conflating ladder leagues with mmr. I think it would just be simpler to view a standard ranking, without all of the shiny icons.
|
Diamond players are the most delusional players in the world. There is not a single Diamond player in the world, it seems, who describes themselves as such. 99% of all Diamond players I see, describe themselves as "ranked in Diamond but playing at a Masters level". No, you don't play at a Master's level. If you did, you'd be there.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'.
Once you played enough ladder games. Ladder points converges with MMR, then comparing ladder points is a very good way to determine skill.
On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:34 Halcyondaze wrote:On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'. I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". This is not true at all. FAR from it. To be in GM you are a great player period. Miles ahead of low-mid master players. CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.
His cheeses are very good.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On July 15 2011 15:54 Jayme wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:31 Azzur wrote:On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'. I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". This is incorrect - GM has nothing to do with laddering a lot. To get into GM, you need to be one of the top MMR in the region. As for the comparison between iccup ranks and SC2 ladder ranks, it is all purely arbitrary and "all in the head". Having 90%+ players in the D/D+ region, I don't think it's that great of a thing. Blizzard could just as easily setup an iccup system if they wanted to. Er there is nothing inherently wrong with the iccup system. It works just like an MMR system in every way except that you don't auto match up with people around your MMR. The reason 90% of players were in the D/D+ area was because the people that played in Iccup tended to be far above your average RTS player. That alone is why it was such a big deal when you hit A+....that and you absolutely had to win more than you lost once you hit A- because you lost 130 points for a same rank loss and only gained 100. If you saw someone on Iccup with an A ranking you knew they were really amazing. If you see an average masters league person you aren't so amazed because it's...not as hard to be at that point frankly. It's the same shit...
Actually. the ICCUP system does promote mass gaming as a way to gain Ladder points. You get 100 points for a win and 50 points for a loss vs same ranked D players. In Starcraft2, you win 12 points against evenly matched player and you lose 12 points vs a evenly matched player. That's why mass gaming won't inflate your rank in SC2.
|
On July 15 2011 16:05 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:54 Jayme wrote:On July 15 2011 15:31 Azzur wrote:On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'. I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". This is incorrect - GM has nothing to do with laddering a lot. To get into GM, you need to be one of the top MMR in the region. As for the comparison between iccup ranks and SC2 ladder ranks, it is all purely arbitrary and "all in the head". Having 90%+ players in the D/D+ region, I don't think it's that great of a thing. Blizzard could just as easily setup an iccup system if they wanted to. Er there is nothing inherently wrong with the iccup system. It works just like an MMR system in every way except that you don't auto match up with people around your MMR. The reason 90% of players were in the D/D+ area was because the people that played in Iccup tended to be far above your average RTS player. That alone is why it was such a big deal when you hit A+....that and you absolutely had to win more than you lost once you hit A- because you lost 130 points for a same rank loss and only gained 100. If you saw someone on Iccup with an A ranking you knew they were really amazing. If you see an average masters league person you aren't so amazed because it's...not as hard to be at that point frankly. It's the same shit... Actually. the ICCUP system does promote mass gaming as a way to gain Ladder points. You get 100 points for a win and 50 points for a loss vs same ranked D players. In Starcraft2, you win 12 points against evenly matched player and you lose 12 points vs a evenly matched player. That's why mass gaming won't inflate your rank in SC2.
You gain upto 24 points because of the bonus pool. Of course, in places where the bonus pool is dry, all that happens is the number of points the people around the top sit on slowly goes up
|
|
|
On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:
CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.
CombatEx isn't a terrible terrible player. He can obviously do more than just cheese.
But keep in mind, he stream cheats a lot. With that kind of advantage any Masters level player could probably end up in GM.
|
The system works fine. It's just only a true indication once your points has arrived at your MMR. If anything the system works well since less active but skilled players will be rated lower even with high MMR. I'll take that any day over a system which ranks inactive players higher than active ones.
It doesn't take rocket science to get to high masters. If you can play P or T and practice 1 or 2 solid, smart builds for each MU over the course of 500 games you should easily see your way into masters.
|
On July 15 2011 16:12 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:On July 15 2011 15:34 Halcyondaze wrote:On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'. I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". This is not true at all. FAR from it. To be in GM you are a great player period. Miles ahead of low-mid master players. CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster. Not to say he's at the same caliber as pros you see on the tournaments, but I bet he would beat 90% of the people that troll/whine about his ladder position.
In all reality, Combat ex would beat 99.9 percent of all people who whine about him. As for ladder rank showing your true skill, if you have 0 bonus pool and the ladder is not locked, I believe you should be comfortable where you are! Try not to think, oh yea but I beat this 1800 ranked masters player I should be also ranked 1800. You are what you are until you plateau and your bonus pool is 0.
|
On July 15 2011 16:15 Ruyguy wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 16:12 Inori wrote:On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:On July 15 2011 15:34 Halcyondaze wrote:On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'. I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". This is not true at all. FAR from it. To be in GM you are a great player period. Miles ahead of low-mid master players. CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster. Not to say he's at the same caliber as pros you see on the tournaments, but I bet he would beat 90% of the people that troll/whine about his ladder position. In all reality, Combat ex would beat 99.9 percent of all people who whine about him. As for ladder rank showing your true skill, if you have 0 bonus pool and the ladder is not locked, I believe you should be comfortable where you are! Try not to think, oh yea but I beat this 1800 ranked masters player I should be also ranked 1800. You are what you are until you plateau and your bonus pool is 0.
Well said. Beating someone of high rating doesn't mean shit unless you can beat them & people like them >50% of the time in all 3 of your matchups. I'm 1500+ masters and I got 2-0'd by a cheesy diamond terran on the PTR yesterday. It happens! lol.
|
I'm quite happy that Team Liquid does not show what league you are, because it prevents good posts being trashed by trolls saying "your plat lololol anything you say is wrong" (AKA WELCOME TO BLIZZARD FORUMS).
Even bad players can make credible posts, depending on what they're posting. If they are going to talk strats, then they'll probably show some deficiency and hopefully will show restraint in posting rather than walking in and going "it works in all my silver games".
|
I think also if you are at 0 bonus pool you would already be in the top 20 easily. It seemed at the end of season 2 when they stop increasing the bonus pool and people played to eat up their remaining pool you could drop from say rank 5 to rank 20 if you don't have any pool left and don't magically start winning more games.
|
On July 15 2011 16:05 T.O.P. wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 15:54 Jayme wrote:On July 15 2011 15:31 Azzur wrote:On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:On July 15 2011 15:23 zergrushkekeke wrote:
My understanding of is is your rank has more to do with how many 1v1 ladder games you play on that account. Your hidden MMR and eventually your league has more to do with your skill.
The rank is there to make you feel good for playing more games and getting more 'points'. I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". This is incorrect - GM has nothing to do with laddering a lot. To get into GM, you need to be one of the top MMR in the region. As for the comparison between iccup ranks and SC2 ladder ranks, it is all purely arbitrary and "all in the head". Having 90%+ players in the D/D+ region, I don't think it's that great of a thing. Blizzard could just as easily setup an iccup system if they wanted to. Er there is nothing inherently wrong with the iccup system. It works just like an MMR system in every way except that you don't auto match up with people around your MMR. The reason 90% of players were in the D/D+ area was because the people that played in Iccup tended to be far above your average RTS player. That alone is why it was such a big deal when you hit A+....that and you absolutely had to win more than you lost once you hit A- because you lost 130 points for a same rank loss and only gained 100. If you saw someone on Iccup with an A ranking you knew they were really amazing. If you see an average masters league person you aren't so amazed because it's...not as hard to be at that point frankly. It's the same shit... Actually. the ICCUP system does promote mass gaming as a way to gain Ladder points. You get 100 points for a win and 50 points for a loss vs same ranked D players. In Starcraft2, you win 12 points against evenly matched player and you lose 12 points vs a evenly matched player. That's why mass gaming won't inflate your rank in SC2.
Sc2 has the bonus pool.
Regardless by the time you got to B rank the point exchange was equivilant. Mass gaming is great and all but you still have to win to advance anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
