|
On July 15 2011 15:54 Jayme wrote:
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...
This, exactly. I was ~2000 points on Iccup (borderline D/D+), and I've always been diamond/master since the beta. I know I haven't improved a drastic amount, and I've played ~500 total games of 1v1 since release. My point is that really, D-A rankings on iccup pretty much translate to master/grandmaster in sc2.
|
On July 15 2011 16:18 kaisuki wrote:
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".
lol agreed. I mean, chances are you'll get a better post from a better player, but it's funny to see:
Gold Player: "I think if you see X you should focus on producing Y at Z time into the game and focus fire and make sure you choose the engagement location. Here's a replay of a pro stopping this (link)."
Diamond Player: "STFU n00b you know nothing because you are in gold just gtfo. X is just OP."
Then check games played: 46 for the gold, 460 for the Diamond. Check game length: 19 minutes on average for the gold, 7 minutes on average for the Diamond.
|
Read the ladder guide... it explains why Blizzard chose to make it like that.
Basically, the divisions/points/ranks, although indirectly indicative of your "skill" or MMR, help motivate players to keep playing.
On July 15 2011 16:26 Darclite wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 16:18 kaisuki wrote:
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". lol agreed. I mean, chances are you'll get a better post from a better player, but it's funny to see: Gold Player: "I think if you see X you should focus on producing Y at Z time into the game and focus fire and make sure you choose the engagement location. Here's a replay of a pro stopping this (link)." Diamond Player: "STFU n00b you know nothing because you are in gold just gtfo. X is just OP." Then check games played: 46 for the gold, 460 for the Diamond. Check game length: 19 minutes on average for the gold, 7 minutes on average for the Diamond.
I agree so hard, haha.
With that whole "you're in X league so stfu" logic means that pretty much no one should talk except for the best player (who would be closest to perfect or knowing everything).
|
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
In your division perhaps. The difference between divisions are massive. If you look at rank, you can compare two players and say, "Oh, they are equall, both are rank 10", however, if you look at points, perhaps one of them has 1700 while the other one has 1100. Chances are the 1700 player is a lot better. Therefore he's saying you can't measure by rank, but rather by points, simply because the gap between different divisions are too high.
|
Sounds to me like the OP just hit the dead space a bunch of people sit at or around before you start facing opponents that are flat out better than you are.
|
On July 15 2011 16:36 Baarn wrote:
Sounds to me like the OP just hit the dead space a bunch of people sit at or around before you start facing opponents that are flat out better than you are.
This post has nothing to do with me, lol. Have I even ever once mentioned that I fealt like my ranking was too low?
Please read all my posts in this thread before posting "hate".
|
The system is strange in my oppinion, say you play one race for the most on the ladder and you have P as your main.
Main race:
60% wins in p-p, (240-160)
70% wins in p-t (280-120)
50% wins in p-z (200-200)
say you play offrace some games throughout in a season.
0% wins in t-t (0-3)
33% wins in t-p (1-2)
0% wins in t-z (0-2)
witch will give you a total procent of 35,5% witch will likely demote you to a lower league, but should this person really be demoted??? No probebly not becouse its to few games played as offrace, but instead this person probebly stay low in his league (but should he?)
Then these 8 games counts so much more then your main race since the system goes on each mu.
I dont say its me, its just an example, but its something i have found out is a problem with the system. I am high diamond and i can honestly say that there is not a big skill diffrence in eu from high platinum to mid masters. The easiest people in all these 3 levels are the low masters and the low diamonds ... and probebly the low platinums.
The thing i want to change with the system is that demote and promote will be more frequently. if a player is inactive (then he loose skill compered to others who frequently plays and improves, but he keeps his mmr. Then he should also go down in division after a while .. since his real skill probebly have got lower (compared to the avarage guy).
|
On July 15 2011 15:26 Twistacles wrote:
Generally the rank is pretty indicative of your skill. However, there's this annoying gray area around mid-diamond, high-diamond, low master, midmaster that is really the same.
All the high diamonds are trying hard to break into master league, so theyre practicing more than the typical mid master. Therefore its common to see a midmaster fall out of practice, slump, get faced gainst top diamonds that are actually better than the masters he was facing and get demoted. Then theres all the smurf accounts that come out.
You must be mid to high diamond 
|
On July 15 2011 16:28 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:Read the ladder guide... it explains why Blizzard chose to make it like that. Basically, the divisions/points/ranks, although indirectly indicative of your "skill" or MMR, help motivate players to keep playing. Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 16:26 Darclite wrote:On July 15 2011 16:18 kaisuki wrote:
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". lol agreed. I mean, chances are you'll get a better post from a better player, but it's funny to see: Gold Player: "I think if you see X you should focus on producing Y at Z time into the game and focus fire and make sure you choose the engagement location. Here's a replay of a pro stopping this (link)." Diamond Player: "STFU n00b you know nothing because you are in gold just gtfo. X is just OP." Then check games played: 46 for the gold, 460 for the Diamond. Check game length: 19 minutes on average for the gold, 7 minutes on average for the Diamond. I agree so hard, haha. With that whole "you're in X league so stfu" logic means that pretty much no one should talk except for the best player (who would be closest to perfect or knowing everything).
lol just went to the Battlenet forums (a horrible place) for an example, found one in the first thread I looked at.
The OP in the thread was suggesting modifying shield upgrades to make them more resilient against EMP (very slightly, and it would still zap the same amount of energy) instead of just making the upgrade improve shield, so that the upgrades have a purpose in PvT. Is it a perfect idea? Maybe not, but it is certainly reasonable, is nothing drastic (considering most of those threads are "remove colossi from the game"). The point is that it isn't that bad of an idea and the guy was just looking for feedback. Then another player comes in and starts talking about the inefficiency of terran upgrades because of mech and that protoss's upgrade system is OP (even though mech isn't popular in TvP), that the OP is a total n00b and knows nothing about the game, and that he knows every detail of the game pretty much (and of course talking down to him because of superior rank). I check the stats: the OP is bronze with 40 wins, the asshole responding is in Gold with 2500 (and he's still in gold lol). Play over 5000 games, hardly improve, find the few people you can talk down to and do it to make yourself feel like those hours were worth it.
btw, the example was only for the sake of this thread, I am not talking about balance.
|
Blizzard ranking is fine,theres usually 3 skill lvls in each league.
For example:best diamond players who are soon to get promoted are probably better then worst master players who are soon to get demoted,those best diamonds are probably on same skill lvl as master players but they are worse then best masters players who are better then worst gms, and so on.
Those best diamonds will get eventualy promoted after 10 or so games if they keep winning,and those worst masters will get demoted after they lose some more games to top diamonds.
I like system,its not too hard to move up if you really are as good as higher rank players.
It has to be that way because if you are able to move up after 2-3 wins you would also be able to move down after 2-3 wins.
If you lose 2 games to 6pool does that mean you arent good enough?no you just got suprised and you shouldnt be demoted just based on that,just like you shouldnt be promoted to new league after you 6pool twice and catch your opponents offguard.
However if you are in same league after 50-100 games then 99% of the time you belong there.
|
On July 15 2011 16:54 Get.Midikem wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The system is strange in my oppinion, say you play one race for the most on the ladder and you have P as your main.
Main race:
60% wins in p-p, (240-160)
70% wins in p-t (280-120)
50% wins in p-z (200-200)
say you play offrace some games throughout in a season.
0% wins in t-t (0-3)
33% wins in t-p (1-2)
0% wins in t-z (0-2)
witch will give you a total procent of 35,5% witch will likely demote you to a lower league, but should this person really be demoted??? No probebly not becouse its to few games played as offrace, but instead this person probebly stay low in his league (but should he?)
Then these 8 games counts so much more then your main race since the system goes on each mu.
I dont say its me, its just an example, but its something i have found out is a problem with the system. I am high diamond and i can honestly say that there is not a big skill diffrence in eu from high platinum to mid masters. The easiest people in all these 3 levels are the low masters and the low diamonds ... and probebly the low platinums.
The thing i want to change with the system is that demote and promote will be more frequently. if a player is inactive (then he loose skill compered to others who frequently plays and improves, but he keeps his mmr. Then he should also go down in division after a while .. since his real skill probebly have got lower (compared to the avarage guy).
Sorry what? where did you get 35,5% there? so if you played another two offraces and lose you expect to go down to 10%? the system doesn't need to give a shit what race you play. With so many games in statistics those few games won't move that much with your rank, nor MMR. And why do you really care if your rank/mmr moves, if your skill in your main race stays same? You can easily get the points back then since you'll be matched with weaker opponents than you should be, right? Unless your rank is imaginarily inflated by bonus points that you'll lose through defeats and might not have anymore.
It is quite normal that the worst people in a given league are those at low positions while the best being the ones at top positions.
I really don't see what you want to change. Promotions shouldn't happen every day, hell I'd even be happy if you could be promoted/demoted once a season. A person will go down in his division even now and it's caused exactly because he doesn't play -- other players gain points while he doesn't, their points go up he stays. Tada! If his real skill goes down because he gets out of shape, he'll lose some games after returning too. No big deal.
I don't see what you're complaining about, but it's quite amusing as some people above said that the people that have the most issues with the system appear to be top diamonds.. that accidentally you appear to be.
I don't wanna troll or flame here and won't respond to anything that might seem like that. I just don't see the point of the abovementioned post. It doesn't really say anything new, just seems like someone got butthurt or something.
Edit--
as my opinion on credibility of ladder goes, I don't think it matters that much. Usually when you see someone in top division position they usually are somewhat better than the rest, because they play a lot and get the feel. I wasn't high ranked ICCUP player and I totally see why blizzard did this spread-out of low ranks into multiple leagues, because if 90% of people were stuck in bronze they'd stop playing. Hardcore gamers wouldn't care and would value higher ranks more, though.
grandmaster league and points in master league are somewhat related to skill in my eyes, but then again, ladder is just bo1, and when my friend tells me - OH I BEAT THAT AND THAT GUY ON LADDER and I ask him how and he says he knew he couldn't beat him straight up so he cheesed I just facepalm.
That brings me to another point.. in ICCUP everyone started at 1000 points and could get up. Here you have placement matches and get straight to xxyy value. While this might make stuff faster, it doesn't necessarily mean the person really should be there. Then you get those one trick ponies that eventually hit the wall. In ICCUP I had the feeling that when D+ plays against C+, the C+ always wins, and the rank actually matters. Here it's not the case, because of strengths of certain builds/cheeses/all-ins and general decrease of mechanical requirements, powerful aoe effects, too fast unmicroable combat, etc.
However, stuff might change with datadiscs and ranks on ladder might actually start to matter even in lower leagues than top master/gm.
|
On July 15 2011 17:02 Owl wrote:
Blizzard ranking is fine,theres usually 3 skill lvls in each league.
For example:best diamond players who are soon to get promoted are probably better then worst master players who are soon to get demoted,those best diamonds are probably on same skill lvl as master players but they are worse then best masters players who are better then worst gms, and so on.
Those best diamonds will get eventualy promoted after 10 or so games if they keep winning,and those worst masters will get demoted after they lose some more games to top diamonds.
I like system,its not too hard to move up if you really are as good as higher rank players.
It has to be that way because if you are able to move up after 2-3 wins you would also be able to move down after 2-3 wins.
If you lose 2 games to 6pool does that mean you arent good enough?no you just got suprised and you shouldnt be demoted just based on that,just like you shouldnt be promoted to new league after you 6pool twice and catch your opponents offguard.
However if you are in same league after 50-100 games then 99% of the time you belong there.
If you read the OP you will not see me complaining about how the laddering system works, I just think the credibility of ones rank is easy to question, therefore its validity is totally void.
|
Now that there is no bonus pool the rank actually does mean something. It's very hard to maintain a high rank given that you play a lot.
|
On July 15 2011 17:15 freestalker wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 16:54 Get.Midikem wrote:+ Show Spoiler +The system is strange in my oppinion, say you play one race for the most on the ladder and you have P as your main.
Main race:
60% wins in p-p, (240-160)
70% wins in p-t (280-120)
50% wins in p-z (200-200)
say you play offrace some games throughout in a season.
0% wins in t-t (0-3)
33% wins in t-p (1-2)
0% wins in t-z (0-2)
witch will give you a total procent of 35,5% witch will likely demote you to a lower league, but should this person really be demoted??? No probebly not becouse its to few games played as offrace, but instead this person probebly stay low in his league (but should he?)
Then these 8 games counts so much more then your main race since the system goes on each mu.
I dont say its me, its just an example, but its something i have found out is a problem with the system. I am high diamond and i can honestly say that there is not a big skill diffrence in eu from high platinum to mid masters. The easiest people in all these 3 levels are the low masters and the low diamonds ... and probebly the low platinums.
The thing i want to change with the system is that demote and promote will be more frequently. if a player is inactive (then he loose skill compered to others who frequently plays and improves, but he keeps his mmr. Then he should also go down in division after a while .. since his real skill probebly have got lower (compared to the avarage guy).
Sorry what? where did you get 35,5% there? so if you played another two offraces and lose you expect to go down to 10%? the system doesn't need to give a shit what race you play. With so many games in statistics those few games won't move that much with your rank, nor MMR. And why do you really care if your rank/mmr moves, if your skill in your main race stays same? You can easily get the points back then since you'll be matched with weaker opponents than you should be, right? Unless your rank is imaginarily inflated by bonus points that you'll lose through defeats and might not have anymore. It is quite normal that the worst people in a given league are those at low positions while the best being the ones at top positions. I really don't see what you want to change. Promotions shouldn't happen every day, hell I'd even be happy if you could be promoted/demoted once a season. A person will go down in his division even now and it's caused exactly because he doesn't play -- other players gain points while he doesn't, their points go up he stays. Tada! If his real skill goes down because he gets out of shape, he'll lose some games after returning too. No big deal. I don't see what you're complaining about, but it's quite amusing as some people above said that the people that have the most issues with the system appear to be top diamonds.. that accidentally you appear to be. I don't wanna troll or flame here and won't respond to anything that might seem like that. I just don't see the point of the abovementioned post. It doesn't really say anything new, just seems like someone got butthurt or something. Edit-- as my opinion on credibility of ladder goes, I don't think it matters that much. Usually when you see someone in top division position they usually are somewhat better than the rest, because they play a lot and get the feel. I wasn't high ranked ICCUP player and I totally see why blizzard did this spread-out of low ranks into multiple leagues, because if 90% of people were stuck in bronze they'd stop playing. Hardcore gamers wouldn't care and would value higher ranks more, though. grandmaster league and points in master league are somewhat related to skill in my eyes, but then again, ladder is just bo1, and when my friend tells me - OH I BEAT THAT AND THAT GUY ON LADDER and I ask him how and he says he knew he couldn't beat him straight up so he cheesed I just facepalm. That brings me to another point.. in ICCUP everyone started at 1000 points and could get up. Here you have placement matches and get straight to xxyy value. While this might make stuff faster, it doesn't necessarily mean the person really should be there. Then you get those one trick ponies that eventually hit the wall. In ICCUP I had the feeling that when D+ plays against C+, the C+ always wins, and the rank actually matters. Here it's not the case, because of strengths of certain builds/cheeses/all-ins and general decrease of mechanical requirements, powerful aoe effects, too fast unmicroable combat, etc. However, stuff might change with datadiscs and ranks on ladder might actually start to matter even in lower leagues than top master/gm.
Well what I mean is if you know about the formula blizzard uses to decide what league you are and what mmr you have. Offcourse its more complex then that but it probebly matters more than it should to play some games offrace. That was the only thing I wanted to say about that.
About promotions and demotions ... I think they are to rare. If you are inactive you should get demoted after some weeks .. or atleast after the season, but thats not the case ... since they still have there mmr. So they can keep playing one game each season and stay in a league, even if they suck at the moment compared to others. I know that they counts as inactive players and new spots will be added to the current league after a while. If we take a look at the low gamers at masters (cant take any other league as example since masters is the only league showing losses). Its alot of people with like 5-20 in stats. In my mind they should have been demoted long time ago. The problem I see with the system is that top platinum or top dimond or any other top players in a league need to be like far aboove the above leagues "normal" player. Shouldent it be better if the promotion and demosion actually appeared more offen then so the active players feels "better" for the moment .. since blizzard wants you as a gamer to feel "good".
|
ladder is cool
grandmaster is a lot like MLG's top 16 system though, hard to get in and even harder to get out.
theres a solid 10-15 gm's, on NA at least, who only play JUST enough to keep themselves in grandmasters. and then they afk for a week again.
I really hope I get in next season though, would remove a ton of stress from laddering.
|
Ladder is the worst way to compare skill. But it's all we have. Blizzard doesn't want you to be compared to others, because it makes you feel unsecure about yourself.
|
I only care about my position in my division because of those stupid "season achievements". Honestly if you're rank 8 in your master's division, chances are you're rank 14 in a more competitive division (aka people who play more). I think you should only care about the people you are playing against and their respected points or ranking. That will give you a general idea of where you fit in.
|
On July 15 2011 15:19 NicoLoco wrote:Disclaimer: + Show Spoiler +
I don't care one bit about my ladder rank apart from being in Master league - however I consider myself the lowest of masters around, even if I have been to Rank 8 in master league.
I play against a lot of different people, and I help offer advice to my friends and people who ask me for my point of view on the game.In doing so I face a lot of different people with varying skill levels. I am also an avid reader of TL and /r, so I would say that I stay in tune with the community.
While reading different threads here and other places and playing custom games against all kinds of people I have noticed the clear and ridiculous difference between players. I am a caster for the Norwegian team GamersLeague.no, and in the team we have some GM players and some solid rank1 Master leaguers. Now these guys are the real deal, but not long ago I was rank 7 master myself, however I suck at the game. These guys eat pieces of shit like me for breakfast (don't catch the reference? meh..). On forums people smash their ladder rank around like it actually matters, and you often see people saying "I only face top master players on ladder", or "high diamond" or even for those unfortunate enough "Top silver"  . My point is this: I have played a lot of people who are rank 1 diamond or rank 10 master league, and they are not one bit better than me. (Obviously the rank 1 Diamond isn't supposed to be, but some of them aren't even CLOSE!). Before I was promoted I was rank 50-something Diamond. Diamond probably has the widest skillgap, from those who are close to getting into Masters and those facing a relegation in season 3. At least I can easier notice the difference there. Why have they set up a system where the credibility of ones rank is questionable?
This is true. I'd like to qualify this with my own experience. I faced top 8 diamonds a while back (only ~250-300 game wins this season). I tanked 20 games and was facing silvers. I started out this season in bronze because I lost 4 of 5 my placements because I took zerg right after buying the game. I learned hard and fast the use and understanding of the place of queens, because I was doing it on my own. I consider it a good thing because I figured it out myself and understood the true working of the thing without blindly following a build order and not understanding why it worked. I hit a wall around rank 10 plat, at which point I looked up a single BO and started winning tons of games, which put me against those diamonds. then i tanked and was with silvers for a while. Then I went back up after 14 straight wins and was hitting diamonds again. Now, it seems that some of the people who are diamond, not top 8, but 12-20 rank, get utterly destroyed by me. Some Plats do things that get advantages on me early on, like 4 phoenix OL kills and queen harass deaths. And yet I still burrow infestors and roll his base by using lings to attack expo and main simultaneously resulting in very bad RCR from all the probe death and his inability to expo. then I come in and roach/IT pop on his front where my 6 roaches alone would not have killed off the 6 stalkers and 8 zealots, but with the 8 IT they faceroll it all down until he runs off his remaining units. proceed to push like this and I win, all on a 1 base zerg with macro hatch.
My point is this: He was rank 1 plat, with only 26 games played, so he clearly isn't well versed enough to have not lost the advantage and steamrolled me, nor did he have the set of instructions memorized to quickly deal with the very dangerous burrowed IT play. It took me about 5 real time minutes to push into his base and finish him with my 6 roaches and IT, yet he couldnt manage to get the proper defenses quickly enough? So what happened that he got to plat? Like I said before, I've played some diamonds and oter plats that I've totally facerolled, which means he likely got very lucky with MU's. This problem is that I either seem like Im really good, or I struggle to eke out a win vs a non top 8 plat and I dont understand why Im having trouble. This goes back to the "learned helplessness" I was talking about in the fear of starcraft ladder thread. What we see visually doesn't make sense with what we face, so internally, it throws us off. This is also why blizzard takes a harsh stance against Win trading and portrait farming, and yet their very system is designed to hide true skill so we dont know whats what. We cant pay attention to rank as if It matters.
You say you're in master and you suck compared to other masters. I applaud you for your honesty. I've seen a stream of one particular master zerg losing by keep feeding his roaches into a FF wall while theres a colosus nearby! you can retreat, its the middle of the map, waste his en and regather forces with further reinforcements. I mean, the protoss played bad too, he was sitting on a nearly mined out natural with no effort to expo again, even though the zerg had expod twice. and the zerg still lost. /facepalm.
This leads me to believe that getting into a certain league is based more on luck in the very beginning of your ladder experience than based on skill. the less games played, the more likely a win streak against bad players will throw you up into the higher leagues. But then what becomes of the MMR system that supposedly lets your MMR average level out before placing you higher? Well it appears to level out if you get lucky and then lose once or twice and get lucky again. Again, its the extremely small sample size that pushes you into a higher league. its the reason small samples sizes with scientific method are anecdotal at best, not even considered reasonable and proof positive.
Another thing: the point system. people who lose try to throw their or my points around because they think its going to upset me. however, the more games played, the less points you will have at 50/50. How does this make sense? Because, if you continually have a bonus pool that doubles your points gained for every win, you will only lose half of the points you gained for a loss. So you go up 200%, and lose only 100%. If you play every day and have very little bonus pool, you go up 110%-130%, and lose 100%, for a 50/50 w/l. Which ones going to have more points at the end of the month, since matches are based on MMR to get a 50/50 w/l and not based on points? A lot of people assume I suck because I have lower points. And when I didnt play for 3 days, I immediately jumped up to rank 1 plat. points dictate placement in league, and MMR dictates league. Therefore, you can easily get rank 1 diamond by playing LESS games and getting lucky or having a good win streak, while still having an MMR that places you against plats.
In summation: The ladder is a laugh. Casuals cant look to it for their true ability, because casuals are the ones who wont care enough to go look ath the hidden MMR post and exactly how it works out. basically, its a lot of extra work implemented and made for the person to solve the confounding visuals we get and attain transparency as to our true skill level vs everyone. The ladder system is a joke to me.
On July 15 2011 18:18 Kira__ wrote:
Ladder is the worst way to compare skill. But it's all we have. Blizzard doesn't want you to be compared to others, because it makes you feel unsecure about yourself.
It make me feel more insecure to be destroyed by a silver. I'd rather have realistic ladder because then I know some guy was SUPPOSED to beat me. Again, this is why they ban portrait farmers and derankers/win traders. The ladder system, however, does the exact same thing they accuse these players of doing, making the ladder information that players gt inaccurate and thus frustrating players. For 2000+ years, people have advocated and relied on strict transparency of numbers for determining skill level and odds of beating people. now bliz comes along with some idea they think is better than an already established reason?
|
On July 15 2011 17:48 decaf wrote:
Now that there is no bonus pool the rank actually does mean something. It's very hard to maintain a high rank given that you play a lot.
Was thinking the same thing for past week, see a lot of people dropping below me in rank in my div
Edit: Masters league players (not high masters) are typically players who do really well in certain cases, maybe in all 3 matchups, but have problems with certain aspects of the game that they either aren't aware of or don't want to work on to correct. When you see play from any of the lower leagues, the errors and the "badness" is quite apparent, but you only see that from the master league players from time to time if you catch them in the area they are deficient at and are able to identify it.
|
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...
ICCUP system is far worse than blizzard's.
At least GM is based on MMR, which afaik is at least pretty close to some kind of legitimate elo-esque rating system. On ICCUP it's just straight up based on how many games you play. Until you got to B-, you gain more points per win on MOTW than you lose when you lose, so as long as you are at least 45% or so, you keep going up.
Also, FWIW, combat-ex (and probably any GM level player) is hands-down way better than some mid-masters player.
EDIT: As for legimacy of ladder rating, don't look at the number. Look at whether or not they are favored against known players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
