|
[QUOTE]On July 16 2011 12:21 RobCorso wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 16 2011 03:44 BlizzrdSlave wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 15 2011 15:19 NicoLoco wrote:
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. ?[/QUOTE]
You won 14 games and went from silver to diamond?
I won 18 games in a row and only went from rank 60 bronze to rank 40 bronze
T_T
silver now
[/QUOTE]
from fighting silvers to fighting diamonds. For clarification, I lost my first 5 placements throwing myself in the deepend and learning zerg all on my own. It took about 2 days to get silver, 5 to get gold, and then about 13 to get plat. Eventually I hit a wall around rank 10 plat so I looked up a build order and then started getting rank 1 plat. I was hitting on diamonds, and then tanked 20 games in a row and it placed me with silvers, while I was still plat. I was doing 50/50 for a while in those ranks, and then I stopped dicking off and went for 14 straight wins, putting me back with the high plats and diamonds, even though I never changed out of plat league personally.
Its far easier to get rank 1 playing infrequently and using up bonus pool for huge gains than get rank 1 playing every day. I've actually personally experienced this.
|
On July 16 2011 12:14 BlizzrdSlave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 11:00 Eknoid4 wrote:On July 16 2011 05:43 svefnleysi wrote:
MMR has a much better correlation with skill than rank. Unfortunately they won't show us our MMR. the more games you play the closer your rating gets to your MMR thats the whole point derp if someone wins 5 placements through getting lucky matches, and is put in plat at the start of a season, what determines who gets masters? Its a race to score games sooner than anyone else and so get that placement right? Or is it perhaps that if everyone starts from absolute zero (think season 1 where noone had MMR or points or any of that), then who gets masters then? Is it based solely on the first five placement matches, or do people fight each other and if they hold an even 50/50 w/l while different MMR brackets of opponents come and go, does that put you in master? Because if so, a number of people can get theoretically lucky, considering how many people DO in fact play, and thus attain masters while still not actually being very good. And the reason they hold onto this master position is because there's others like them in all leagues, so there's no shortage of being matched against players of similar MMR that keeps your MMR inflated enough to stay in masters. thats the whole point. And of course the more often you play the more your MMR will average out due to being matched by all types of players. If you're a master who hardly ever plays, you'll not only get more points overall from the bonus pool while consistent players have a small point gain through trading at a mere 130%, while you trade at 200% thanks to bonus pool, your MMR will also manage to stay up in the leagues because you will fight people who are in diamond or master who are just as bad as you, so you cant fall. Its like someone else in this thread said, hes not that great, but he gives masters ass whoopings sometimes while sometimes diamond level whoop him. and yet people arent losing their master placement. like someone else in this thread said, people are just saying that masters arent that good here because they want to feel better about themselves. Well, if there was transparency and TRUE skill placement that people could see, there would be no reason for believe to say or believe that. If the system is causing people to say that, maybe its a symptom of the fact that people are consistently fighting leagues above them and thrashing them while people in their own league sometimes thrash them. It doesn't make sense. Here's a question: If it takes 5 wins in placement to get plat, that means you have to earn diamond right? Yet if someone is struggling vs other plats but shoving their fist down some diamond throat, clearly the diamond did not earn their position through good gameplay, but plat vs plat will keep eating each other's MMR so neither will advance, because they'll trade back and forth with each other just as much as diamond, and so noone will go anywhere. Its like spinning tires in the mud.
Everyone gets the same bonus pool.
Also being in a higher league doesn't imply that you will always beat someone in a lower league. It only means that you have a higher probability of winning based on your skill. How would it even be possible for any ranking system to offer such certainty?
|
Here's what I think about this topic:
First I want to say that in my opinion the Bnet Ladder is very well designed, and it seems to work fine. I've seen a lot of confused and/or angry people come to this forum in order to figure out how ladder works, or to debate about supposed flaws and bugs that they supposedly encountered, Anyway the truth is, ladder is fine. It's definitely not perfect but it's fine for a specific reason: it is inconsequential.
Ladder rank does not really matter because unlike some other online games, Starcraft is all about competition. If there was no other way to rank the players, then ladder would be totally legit. Fortunately, we have a lot of tournament as well as a nice ELO ranking system and THAT'S what matters to me.
Although I must say that I like the whole Master / Grandmaster hierarchy, in my opinion unless you're top 50 KR ladder, you're not impressive. No offense to anyone, I respect every player out there, bronze players and GSL code S players alike.
|
from fighting silvers to fighting diamonds. For clarification, I lost my first 5 placements throwing myself in the deepend and learning zerg all on my own. It took about 2 days to get silver, 5 to get gold, and then about 13 to get plat. Eventually I hit a wall around rank 10 plat so I looked up a build order and then started getting rank 1 plat. I was hitting on diamonds, and then tanked 20 games in a row and it placed me with silvers, while I was still plat. I was doing 50/50 for a while in those ranks, and then I stopped dicking off and went for 14 straight wins, putting me back with the high plats and diamonds, even though I never changed out of plat league personally.
Its far easier to get rank 1 playing infrequently and using up bonus pool for huge gains than get rank 1 playing every day. I've actually personally experienced this.
It makes no difference as long as the results are the same and against the same level of opponents.
In the end, the amount of bonus pool you spend will be exactly the same since you will always get the same amount of bonus pool per hour.
Unless for some reason you play better when spreading your games out, rather than all at once because you get tired, make mistakes or whatever.
|
[QUOTE]On July 16 2011 12:31 BlizzrdSlave wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 16 2011 12:21 RobCorso wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 16 2011 03:44 BlizzrdSlave wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 15 2011 15:19 NicoLoco wrote:
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. ?[/QUOTE]
You won 14 games and went from silver to diamond?
I won 18 games in a row and only went from rank 60 bronze to rank 40 bronze
T_T
silver now
[/QUOTE]
from fighting silvers to fighting diamonds. For clarification, I lost my first 5 placements throwing myself in the deepend and learning zerg all on my own. It took about 2 days to get silver, 5 to get gold, and then about 13 to get plat. Eventually I hit a wall around rank 10 plat so I looked up a build order and then started getting rank 1 plat. I was hitting on diamonds, and then tanked 20 games in a row and it placed me with silvers, while I was still plat. I was doing 50/50 for a while in those ranks, and then I stopped dicking off and went for 14 straight wins, putting me back with the high plats and diamonds, even though I never changed out of plat league personally.
Its far easier to get rank 1 playing infrequently and using up bonus pool for huge gains than get rank 1 playing every day. I've actually personally experienced this.[/QUOTE]
It took me like half a month month to get out from bronze in SEA, even through my win rate was about 80%. (like 50 games or so)
Then it only took me like a week to get to gold, it was quite funny because I was facing more gold players than silver.
I have played some pretty good bronze actually, they were the ones that really got me interested in the game (because most bronze games were cheesing/massing units/all-ins) and I was so happy to get to silver only to find the gold players aren't that good either lol
I believe there is a different in skill level in different division as well, the bad gold I played were all from the same division
|
i think that blizzard didn't mean for people to say i'm "low masters" or "high masters" i think that was implemented by the players who care too much about their ladder rank. there are lower leagues and higher leagues and you have to have a certain amount of skill to get into those "higher leagues". as well if you are new to rts or starcraft you can get placed in the "lower leagues" i think people who say they suck and are in diamond or masters are just trying to be a little humble because to be there you have to have a basic understanding of the game and how it works. also must have a basic amount of macro and micro skills. the ladder is a more of a way to track progress more than skill.
|
On July 16 2011 12:39 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 12:14 BlizzrdSlave wrote:On July 16 2011 11:00 Eknoid4 wrote:On July 16 2011 05:43 svefnleysi wrote:
MMR has a much better correlation with skill than rank. Unfortunately they won't show us our MMR. the more games you play the closer your rating gets to your MMR thats the whole point derp if someone wins 5 placements through getting lucky matches, and is put in plat at the start of a season, what determines who gets masters? Its a race to score games sooner than anyone else and so get that placement right? Or is it perhaps that if everyone starts from absolute zero (think season 1 where noone had MMR or points or any of that), then who gets masters then? Is it based solely on the first five placement matches, or do people fight each other and if they hold an even 50/50 w/l while different MMR brackets of opponents come and go, does that put you in master? Because if so, a number of people can get theoretically lucky, considering how many people DO in fact play, and thus attain masters while still not actually being very good. And the reason they hold onto this master position is because there's others like them in all leagues, so there's no shortage of being matched against players of similar MMR that keeps your MMR inflated enough to stay in masters. thats the whole point. And of course the more often you play the more your MMR will average out due to being matched by all types of players. If you're a master who hardly ever plays, you'll not only get more points overall from the bonus pool while consistent players have a small point gain through trading at a mere 130%, while you trade at 200% thanks to bonus pool, your MMR will also manage to stay up in the leagues because you will fight people who are in diamond or master who are just as bad as you, so you cant fall. Its like someone else in this thread said, hes not that great, but he gives masters ass whoopings sometimes while sometimes diamond level whoop him. and yet people arent losing their master placement. like someone else in this thread said, people are just saying that masters arent that good here because they want to feel better about themselves. Well, if there was transparency and TRUE skill placement that people could see, there would be no reason for believe to say or believe that. If the system is causing people to say that, maybe its a symptom of the fact that people are consistently fighting leagues above them and thrashing them while people in their own league sometimes thrash them. It doesn't make sense. Here's a question: If it takes 5 wins in placement to get plat, that means you have to earn diamond right? Yet if someone is struggling vs other plats but shoving their fist down some diamond throat, clearly the diamond did not earn their position through good gameplay, but plat vs plat will keep eating each other's MMR so neither will advance, because they'll trade back and forth with each other just as much as diamond, and so noone will go anywhere. Its like spinning tires in the mud. Everyone gets the same bonus pool. Also being in a higher league doesn't imply that you will always beat someone in a lower league. It only means that you have a higher probability of winning based on your skill. How would it even be possible for any ranking system to offer such certainty?
winning 120% of your points is a lot different than winning 200%. contrasted a player that plays all the time with one who plays rarely. as I said, I have had personal experience where I'd shoot up in ranks by holding onto a bunch of BP and then using it all up at one go.
Lets put it this way, if two players actively play each other every day, there is a constant influx of points into the system, one or the other player having more of it. If one player stops playing for a while, the system gets less points put into it in the short term, or none at all if there's only 2 players, and then that player which was not playing has developed a huge BP. said player then plays and wins a few games completely depleting his BP. That player is directly responsible for the less or complete lack of inflation of points, and then turns around and makes huge gains both personally and in doing so highly inflates the point system. This creates a twofold effect that together causes a reasonable gap between a player who was playing constantly and the one that quit for a while. The smaller the inflation is, the less constant players stand to gain from playing.
|
Rank is a perfect estimator of skill...IF divisonal adjustments are made AND nobody played any games without bonus pool. Of course in reality that never happens
The more you play without a bonus pool, the lower your rank will be compared to your MMR. So if you placed into masters with something like 200-200 wlr while playing without bonus points often, your hidden mmr will actually be higher than what your rank indicates. In fact you might be eligible for GM even if you're not at the top of your masters division.
I've noticed this in my opponents too; platinum players with less than 20 wins are easier prey than silver players with greater than 200 wins. Thats because the silver player's mmr is higher than their rank indicates. With the new ladder rest, that silver player would probably be insta-promoted to gold or platinum. Immediately after the ladder rest, rank will be a perfect estimate of mmr, but they will diverge the more people play without bonus pool.
|
Ladder is just a practice tool, the points system is devised to keep "bad players" playing, as the ever increasing point totals will make you feel like your getting better, 50% ratio players will always feel like they are moving up due to bonus pool.
Everyone competitive understands that just spamming ladder doesn't really count as practice, it might make you aware of trends that you hadn't noticed within custom practice though.
As another poster said, ladder is completely inconsequential, and if it weren't for the "casual addiction" of points, we might as well do away with them completely because a lot of people seem afraid of ladder, a ladder system with hidden MMR and no points would probably benefit a lot of people who dont want to ladder for fear of looking bad or whatever.
|
I feel as though if I ladder enough I can get to GM, but I will never become or even imagine to become an A+ player.
|
On July 16 2011 13:23 BlizzrdSlave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 12:39 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 16 2011 12:14 BlizzrdSlave wrote:On July 16 2011 11:00 Eknoid4 wrote:On July 16 2011 05:43 svefnleysi wrote:
MMR has a much better correlation with skill than rank. Unfortunately they won't show us our MMR. the more games you play the closer your rating gets to your MMR thats the whole point derp if someone wins 5 placements through getting lucky matches, and is put in plat at the start of a season, what determines who gets masters? Its a race to score games sooner than anyone else and so get that placement right? Or is it perhaps that if everyone starts from absolute zero (think season 1 where noone had MMR or points or any of that), then who gets masters then? Is it based solely on the first five placement matches, or do people fight each other and if they hold an even 50/50 w/l while different MMR brackets of opponents come and go, does that put you in master? Because if so, a number of people can get theoretically lucky, considering how many people DO in fact play, and thus attain masters while still not actually being very good. And the reason they hold onto this master position is because there's others like them in all leagues, so there's no shortage of being matched against players of similar MMR that keeps your MMR inflated enough to stay in masters. thats the whole point. And of course the more often you play the more your MMR will average out due to being matched by all types of players. If you're a master who hardly ever plays, you'll not only get more points overall from the bonus pool while consistent players have a small point gain through trading at a mere 130%, while you trade at 200% thanks to bonus pool, your MMR will also manage to stay up in the leagues because you will fight people who are in diamond or master who are just as bad as you, so you cant fall. Its like someone else in this thread said, hes not that great, but he gives masters ass whoopings sometimes while sometimes diamond level whoop him. and yet people arent losing their master placement. like someone else in this thread said, people are just saying that masters arent that good here because they want to feel better about themselves. Well, if there was transparency and TRUE skill placement that people could see, there would be no reason for believe to say or believe that. If the system is causing people to say that, maybe its a symptom of the fact that people are consistently fighting leagues above them and thrashing them while people in their own league sometimes thrash them. It doesn't make sense. Here's a question: If it takes 5 wins in placement to get plat, that means you have to earn diamond right? Yet if someone is struggling vs other plats but shoving their fist down some diamond throat, clearly the diamond did not earn their position through good gameplay, but plat vs plat will keep eating each other's MMR so neither will advance, because they'll trade back and forth with each other just as much as diamond, and so noone will go anywhere. Its like spinning tires in the mud. Everyone gets the same bonus pool. Also being in a higher league doesn't imply that you will always beat someone in a lower league. It only means that you have a higher probability of winning based on your skill. How would it even be possible for any ranking system to offer such certainty? winning 120% of your points is a lot different than winning 200%. contrasted a player that plays all the time with one who plays rarely. as I said, I have had personal experience where I'd shoot up in ranks by holding onto a bunch of BP and then using it all up at one go. Lets put it this way, if two players actively play each other every day, there is a constant influx of points into the system, one or the other player having more of it. If one player stops playing for a while, the system gets less points put into it in the short term, or none at all if there's only 2 players, and then that player which was not playing has developed a huge BP. said player then plays and wins a few games completely depleting his BP. That player is directly responsible for the less or complete lack of inflation of points, and then turns around and makes huge gains both personally and in doing so highly inflates the point system. This creates a twofold effect that together causes a reasonable gap between a player who was playing constantly and the one that quit for a while. The smaller the inflation is, the less constant players stand to gain from playing.
If 2 people constantly play each other there is a net gain of 0 points for both players (unless they have bonus pool).
There is no constant influx of points. Beyond several games after placement, you will on average get +12 points for a win and -12 points for a loss, and on average everyone will win 50% of times. In this sense, the only source of points is bonus pool.
Everyone gets the *same* amount of bonus pool. It doesn't matter when it's spent, or how long you wait until you spend it, because it's the same amount.
It's simple arithmetic: X + bonus pool = bonus pool + X.
|
On July 16 2011 12:14 BlizzrdSlave wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 11:00 Eknoid4 wrote:On July 16 2011 05:43 svefnleysi wrote:
MMR has a much better correlation with skill than rank. Unfortunately they won't show us our MMR. the more games you play the closer your rating gets to your MMR thats the whole point derp if someone wins 5 placements through getting lucky matches, and is put in plat at the start of a season, what determines who gets masters? Its a race to score games sooner than anyone else and so get that placement right? Or is it perhaps that if everyone starts from absolute zero (think season 1 where noone had MMR or points or any of that), then who gets masters then? Is it based solely on the first five placement matches, or do people fight each other and if they hold an even 50/50 w/l while different MMR brackets of opponents come and go, does that put you in master? Because if so, a number of people can get theoretically lucky, considering how many people DO in fact play, and thus attain masters while still not actually being very good. And the reason they hold onto this master position is because there's others like them in all leagues, so there's no shortage of being matched against players of similar MMR that keeps your MMR inflated enough to stay in masters. thats the whole point. And of course the more often you play the more your MMR will average out due to being matched by all types of players. If you're a master who hardly ever plays, you'll not only get more points overall from the bonus pool while consistent players have a small point gain through trading at a mere 130%, while you trade at 200% thanks to bonus pool, your MMR will also manage to stay up in the leagues because you will fight people who are in diamond or master who are just as bad as you, so you cant fall. Its like someone else in this thread said, hes not that great, but he gives masters ass whoopings sometimes while sometimes diamond level whoop him. and yet people arent losing their master placement. like someone else in this thread said, people are just saying that masters arent that good here because they want to feel better about themselves. Well, if there was transparency and TRUE skill placement that people could see, there would be no reason for believe to say or believe that. If the system is causing people to say that, maybe its a symptom of the fact that people are consistently fighting leagues above them and thrashing them while people in their own league sometimes thrash them. It doesn't make sense. Here's a question: If it takes 5 wins in placement to get plat, that means you have to earn diamond right? Yet if someone is struggling vs other plats but shoving their fist down some diamond throat, clearly the diamond did not earn their position through good gameplay, but plat vs plat will keep eating each other's MMR so neither will advance, because they'll trade back and forth with each other just as much as diamond, and so noone will go anywhere. Its like spinning tires in the mud.
so what you're saying is that if you have the same MMR as everyone else in your league that doesnt mean you should be in the same league ?
The reason they don't use strict MMR is because you would go up a league on a win streak and go down a league on a lose streak
How would you like to play 10 games on a bad night and go down 1-2 leagues? Nothing you've said is actually consistent with rational though, though. I've found that pretty much everyone who complains about shitting on people 1-2 leagues above them is really speaking about a chosen few scenarios and making it sound like it's every game.
|
the ladder is skewed
if you play protoss or terran, take your rating, subtract 300 pts, and you have you true rating
j/p :D
|
On July 16 2011 14:15 SoKHo wrote:
I feel as though if I ladder enough I can get to GM, but I will never become or even imagine to become an A+ player.
You can't, unless you really are in the top 200 players.
Look at the top 200, is there a trend where the more games that are played the higher ranked the player?
No.
|
People saying "high silver" and "mid gold" has always really bothered me.
The place in your division is largely based on playtime. It's not until masters where you can see the win loss ratios that it actually matters.
Heck, I didn't play for a week while I waited for my new PC and I dropped from 1 diamond to rank 30ish diamond. I played for a day and a half and got to rank 6. Does that mean I got better? No, I'm pretty much the same as I was before.
I wish they would put the ratios back for sub masters players.
|
On July 16 2011 16:48 paralleluniverse wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 14:15 SoKHo wrote:
I feel as though if I ladder enough I can get to GM, but I will never become or even imagine to become an A+ player. You can't, unless you really are in the top 200 players. Look at the top 200, is there a trend where the more games that are played the higher ranked the player? No.
Many top 200 players prefer to practice in custom games with teammates/friends rather than ladder for a plethora of reasons that this thread is not about. There is probably a correlation between number of minutes spent in serious melee games and skill level.
Also saying you can ladder enough to get to GM if you only played enough games is like saying you can be the worlds strongest man if you just worked out enough.
|
On July 16 2011 17:03 alphafuzard wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 16:48 paralleluniverse wrote:On July 16 2011 14:15 SoKHo wrote:
I feel as though if I ladder enough I can get to GM, but I will never become or even imagine to become an A+ player. You can't, unless you really are in the top 200 players. Look at the top 200, is there a trend where the more games that are played the higher ranked the player? No. Many top 200 players prefer to practice in custom games with teammates/friends rather than ladder for a plethora of reasons that this thread is not about. There is probably a correlation between number of minutes spent in serious melee games and skill level. Also saying you can ladder enough to get to GM if you only played enough games is like saying you can be the worlds strongest man if you just worked out enough.
That's just saying practice is correlated with success.
Which is not what the person I was replying to was saying. He seems to think massing games is correlated with getting into GM or being highly ranked.
|
On July 15 2011 17:29 NicoLoco wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Well anything is easy to question,i question now if you really wanted to discuss anything here or you just wanted to be attention whore posting thread where you dont want to discuss anything but say "its easy to question someones rank".
|
points matter more than rank. and obviously league.
|
On July 16 2011 17:07 Owl wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 17:29 NicoLoco wrote: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. Well anything is easy to question,i question now if you really wanted to discuss anything here or you just wanted to be attention whore posting thread where you dont want to discuss anything but say "its easy to question someones rank".
Well it is an undisputed fact that points and ranks are meaningless in diamond and below because of division tiers, so it is true that points and ranks are meaningless and incomparable for 98% of players.
For the top 2% of players in Masters and GM, points and ranks are meaningful when adjusted for bonus pool, if you want to take constant activity out as a factor.
Otherwise, the unadjusted ranks and points (what you see in the profile) is an accurate and credible measure of skill *and* activity, only for Masters and GM players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
