Credibility of ladder rank

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'.

On July 15 2011 15:19 NicoLoco wrote:
Why have they set up a system where the credibility of ones rank is questionable?

On July 15 2011 15:30 Joseph123 wrote:
rank doesn't matter
in masters only points matter

On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:


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".

On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:


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".

On July 15 2011 15:34 Halcyondaze wrote:


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.

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?

On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:


CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.

On July 15 2011 15:31 Cuiu wrote:


because a good game is a game that is played.
and people play more when they dont have the fear to get demoted



higher points higher rank? ahm i dont get your point here Öo

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?

On July 15 2011 15:31 Azzur wrote:

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.

On July 15 2011 15:44 Cuiu wrote:


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

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'.

On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:


CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.

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...

On July 15 2011 16:05 T.O.P. wrote:

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 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:

CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.

On July 15 2011 16:12 Inori wrote:

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.

On July 15 2011 16:15 Ruyguy wrote:

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 16:05 T.O.P. wrote:

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 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...

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".

On July 15 2011 16:26 Darclite wrote:


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.

On July 15 2011 15:31 Cuiu wrote:


because a good game is a game that is played.
and people play more when they dont have the fear to get demoted



higher points higher rank? ahm i dont get your point here Öo

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.

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.

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.





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 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.

On July 15 2011 17:15 freestalker wrote:

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 15:19 NicoLoco wrote:
Disclaimer:
+ Show Spoiler +

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?

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.

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.

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...

On July 15 2011 15:31 Cuiu wrote:


because a good game is a game that is played.
and people play more when they dont have the fear to get demoted



higher points higher rank? ahm i dont get your point here Öo

On July 16 2011 04:27 eoLithic wrote:
Masters and GM players get bashed all day every day, the people bashing them are usually people of similar of lower ranks and just use it to try and take something away from them and/or making themselves feel better about their own rank.

From a noob(high diamond) perspective, high masters for example resembles alot of skill for me.

my 2 cents.

On July 15 2011 15:28 Azzur wrote:
Your rank while a little indicative of "skill", does not necessarily compare well against others. A better measure would be MMR to measure "skill". If you have played enough games, "adjusted points" (points with bonus pool removed) will correlate highly with MMR. If you're in master league, this "adjusted points" can be used to compare between the two different players.

On July 15 2011 15:29 holyhalo5 wrote:
It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one possible. Could you think of a better way to "give people credible ranks", short of having Blizzard employees observe every game played and award points based on skill and not wins?

On July 16 2011 04:44 rbkl wrote:
IdrA is in masters, not gm -- just saying

On July 16 2011 04:09 BlizzrdSlave wrote:
tl:dr. bonus pool allows people who play less to have higher ranks in their league, and MMR allows people to fight and win or lose to people from a league above or under them.

On July 15 2011 16:25 brownthing wrote:


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 16 2011 04:49 lol wrote:
Yeah the ladder ranking system is not so great. On iCCup you kinda know how good a player is if he tell you his rank (no smurfs!! ^^) Now, Master league doesn't tell you jack shit about you. If someone is around B rank on iCCup you know that he can play Starcraft, if someone is A you know he is fucking sickballerfucker on the game. The same with Fish and Brain server in BW, the points and stats gives a good picture on how good you are.

It's just to easy to get into Master league. You can just 1-2 base your way in there with 60 apm and no macro. The skill level is to mixed in there too. When I played on iCCup I felt proud when I was climbing in rank and I was happy to get something in return (my rank) for the effort I put into practice and get better at BW. When I got into Master league it was nothing special at all.

I feel like all this league and rank bullshit should be removed and the real ladder should go after your MMR or just simply points without any cool and shiny league badges. Just my take on things.

On July 16 2011 04:52 Xapti wrote:
I don't see why SC2 uses a bonus pool inflation system, it's stupid.

SC2 should have a slow decay (much slower than bonus pool accumulates for most players), proportional to the user's rank (higher rank, more decay), with all decayed points going into a recovery pool (works same as bonus pool).

It makes no sense to use the current system, it's just so bad.

AFAIK (may be mistaken) it's because Blizzard mistakenly kicked him out because of a hacker impersonating him. Idra has been GM for a long time.

On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:


CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.

On July 16 2011 04:52 Xapti wrote:
I don't see why SC2 uses a bonus pool inflation system, it's stupid.

SC2 should have a slow decay (much slower than bonus pool accumulates for most players), proportional to the user's rank (higher rank, more decay), with all decayed points going into a recovery pool (works same as bonus pool).

It makes no sense to use the current system, it's just so bad.

AFAIK (may be mistaken) it's because Blizzard mistakenly kicked him out because of a hacker impersonating him. Idra has been GM for a long time.

On July 16 2011 05:41 Oscatron wrote:
ladder honestly doesnt even matter

i use to care a lot about ladder now not any more. ladder games are just practice games. thats it. no real testament to how good you are, as all kinds of random shit goes on on ladder, cheese, all in, retarded unorthodox play.

look at idra, he's in masters. ladder doesnt matter

On July 16 2011 05:38 SxYSpAz wrote:
It's really hard to set up a ranking system, and all in all, I think blizzard has done really well. It would be awesome if they didn't let you rank up near as easily by noticing that you're a cheesy player.

or even better, the people with the shortest games play the other people with the shortest games, so they can cheese each other all to hell.

It sucks playing people in high diamond that are clearly only good at one aspect of the game and do the same cheesey build every game, but i think diamond is probably the cheesiest (or most successful cheese) so i see it kinda as a rite of passage to get into masters... where i hope there's less early game all ins

On July 16 2011 05:53 Schnullerbacke13 wrote:


its not hard and has been done before in many games like chess. I strongly dislike the "psychological" attitude of hiding information. It fails hard, because intransparency creates uncertainty and makes people keep away from laddering. just give us a straight elo (or mmr) system with all the numbers: ELO, winrate against each races, winrate overall, build diversity (to mark one trick ponys)

On July 16 2011 05:58 SxYSpAz wrote:

yeah, stats would be great! but that's not what i was talking about at all. I was just saying it's hard to completely make leagues based on skill, cause people can just 7pool everygame and get pretty deep.

also, why couldn't you just say attitude? why does it have to be "psychological" attitude. haha. jp

On July 15 2011 15:29 holyhalo5 wrote:
It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one possible. Could you think of a better way to "give people credible ranks", short of having Blizzard employees observe every game played and award points based on skill and not wins?

On July 16 2011 05:41 Oscatron wrote:
ladder honestly doesnt even matter

i use to care a lot about ladder now not any more. ladder games are just practice games. thats it. no real testament to how good you are, as all kinds of random shit goes on on ladder, cheese, all in, retarded unorthodox play.

look at idra, he's in masters. ladder doesnt matter

On July 15 2011 15:29 holyhalo5 wrote:
It's not a perfect system, but it's the best one possible. Could you think of a better way to "give people credible ranks", short of having Blizzard employees observe every game played and award points based on skill and not wins?

On July 16 2011 09:30 Xercen wrote:



i'd like to know what league you are in.

Because knowing how to defend all-ins and recognition of enemy builds/timings are indicative of your league.

GM league = you have all of that plus high apm to carry all those tasks out effectively.

Ladder games are only practice for the top top progamers like nestea idra mc mvp thorzain.

For the rest of us in non GM leagues, it's very much practice orientated.

On July 16 2011 08:36 ronpaul012 wrote:
Yeah the system does feel pretty messed up for me personally. On my main account, I started about 5 months ago new and went from terrible to top platinum, and this is where you laugh. Top platinum, as if its much different from gold/low or even mid platinum. I myself didn't think there was that much of a difference, just a bit more of control I thought. I play 50/50 diamond/plat players, but there's not much difference between the diamond i'm playing, and high diamond, or the different levels of platinum's.

Then the game went on sale, so I figured I'd pick up a new account and try a different race. Normally a protoss player, I figured I'd play some zerg. So I went ahead and played my placement matches, and went 4-1 and got placed in.....platinum. Damn it, I knew I wasnt as good with zerg as I am protoss, but blizzard thinks I am.

But then I started playing, playing high golds/low plats and winning around half my games(except zvz, thats hard). And this is what worries me, that blizzard tells people that all platinum players are equal to each other. My protoss would kick my zerg's ass. It wouldn't even be close, and I know that my secret mmr's would reflect that. However; instead of being clear about skill level, blizzard has these ridiculous skill tiers. I really wish that they went ahead and had more rankings, or just showed your mmr.

Ever since I got placed in platinum again I stopped caring about rank at all, because there are gold players out there better than me, and there's diamond players that are worse than me, so who cares what blizzard tries to tell me.

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.

On July 16 2011 09:35 Oscatron wrote:


masters right now

former top 200 na

and i agree knowing how to defend all ins and everything is part of how good you are, but ladder doesnt really mean anything. there are gonna be players in gold better than players in plat. not everyone is placed specifically where they belong.

what i mean to say is, ladder rank/points is a generalization, but it is not accurate at all imo. too many factors, like idra for example who dropped down to masters cause he didnt play on the ladder for a while. just cause some guy is rank 10 on GM doesnt mean he is the #10 best player in NA.

On July 16 2011 05:38 SxYSpAz wrote:
It's really hard to set up a ranking system, and all in all, I think blizzard has done really well. It would be awesome if they didn't let you rank up near as easily by noticing that you're a cheesy player.

or even better, the people with the shortest games play the other people with the shortest games, so they can cheese each other all to hell.

It sucks playing people in high diamond that are clearly only good at one aspect of the game and do the same cheesey build every game, but i think diamond is probably the cheesiest (or most successful cheese) so i see it kinda as a rite of passage to get into masters... where i hope there's less early game all ins

On July 16 2011 11:00 Eknoid4 wrote:

the more games you play the closer your rating gets to your MMR

thats the whole point

derp

On July 16 2011 12:14 BlizzrdSlave wrote:



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.

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 12:39 paralleluniverse wrote:

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?

On July 16 2011 13:23 BlizzrdSlave wrote:



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.

On July 16 2011 12:14 BlizzrdSlave wrote:



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.

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.

On July 16 2011 16:48 paralleluniverse wrote:

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.

On July 16 2011 17:03 alphafuzard wrote:

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 15 2011 17:29 NicoLoco wrote:


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.

On July 16 2011 17:07 Owl wrote:


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".

On July 16 2011 22:41 Not_That wrote:
Ranks are irrelevant, because divisions are irrelevant. If you want to compare yourself to other players, then simply either add on unspent bonus pool to all the players' points, or substract the total bonus pool earned from all players' points. Then simply factor in league and division tier modifiers, and you have the actual ladder position for all players. Since division tiers and most leagues modifiers are unknown, sometimes you can not get an absolute comparison. In such cases, a relative position can still be drawn more often than not.

On July 16 2011 22:41 Not_That wrote:Instead of saying "I am rank 20 Master", say "I am 1500 points Master". Whether or not you actually have 1500 points and 0 unspent bonus pool, or 1000 points and 500 unspent bonus pool is irrelevant. Then other players will see your post (and note the date it was posted. As time goes on, there is points inflation due to bonus pool increasing which everyone must account for) and will instantly be able to tell your rough position in the ladder.

On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote:


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".

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".

On July 17 2011 23:27 JediGamer wrote:
People using combatex as an example of why rank means nothing are stupid.
First off hes pretty good in general in macro.
2nd off- he maphacks on ladder now, not too hard to pick a GM slaying strategy with good macro mechanics and a hack

On July 17 2011 23:40 PopcornColonel wrote:

Not really... destiny was masters rank 1 for a long, long time after GM was released, and he played a TON.

My problem with bonus pool is that it doesn't motivate players to play more, it only motivates them to play enough to keep their bonus pool low. It doesn't reward mass games, it actually rewards fewer games which shouldn't be the case.

If I play 1000 games in the first month of a ladder reset with a decent win percentage say I have 1500 points. After that month someone else starts laddering, has an inflated bonus pool, will have the same amount of points as me after just 100 games. That doesn't reward or motivate players to play more it actually does the opposite.

It's funny, the person above me says "you're officially stupid if you want bonus pool removed because it motivates the casual player to play" but that makes no sense. The casual player is actually persuaded to play less. They know playing over their bonus pool will risk losing more points so they will play only to keep the advantage of bonus pool. If there is no bonus pool they would be motivated to play more to keep up with other players. A system that rewards mass gaming is what motivates people to mass game. Logically a system that rewards minimal play cannot motivate more play.

If I know that I have a better chance of keeping my points high by not playing, why would I play more? First of all the argument in favor of bonus pool, which is for the casual gamer, would imply that the casual gamer cares a lot about points. If that's the case, like I have said then there is no reason for them to ever play past their bonus pool. But I would argue that if you're a casual player then you play for fun and should not care about points. But when you have a factor such as bonus pool it puts more emphasis on points which would, in my opinion, discourage mass gaming.

Take a ladder system like ICC for example, mass gamers are rewarded and those who don't play a lot won't get a high rank. How is that not how it should be? Why should someone who plays at the very end of a season be the same rank as someone who's play 10 times as many games?

Not to mention Bonus Pool makes no real skill bars, points are only important for whatever is the current time. 1000 points in the first few weeks is a cool thing but a couple weeks after that it's nothing. In a system like ICC points are a reflection of skill, if you're A+ you're one of the best players, but that's a set rank where other players of the same rank are equally skilled. When I play a game and I see +20 points I want that to mean something, as should everyone else, casual and competitive alike.

On July 18 2011 03:38 Meldrath wrote:
Masters and Grand master players are good, Diamond players are not bad, anything else is well sub par play. Ladder rank is a good way to get a broad idea of how you stack against someone else. If you consider the games played and the bonus pool of both players.. you can guess with some degree of certainty who will win. It is no fool proof system though... and alot of players shoot way up 1 week and waaaayyy down the next as is expected with outside factors (players who play while stoned/drunk or tired) etc etc

On July 18 2011 03:42 BlizzrdSlave wrote:


Im plat and I eat top 8 diamonds regularly when I play them. try again.

On July 18 2011 03:44 SecondChance wrote:
It's a bit hard to quantify skill with only 7 badges. I take it you're implying that this isn't enough. I guess points are out of the question due to bonus pool.

What do you suggest, that they make public your MMR? Probably wouldn't be an accurate way to do it either as not everyone will have the same base games played to sample from.

So yea, what do you suggest?



I'll try for him:

You're in platinum.

/end

On July 18 2011 03:56 BlizzrdSlave wrote:


/facepalm.

really? I mean, seriously? That was the entire point. He said that M or GM is good diamonds are not bad, and everyone else is subpar. Im lower than diamond in leagues, yet I consistently beat top 8 diamonds when I do get matched with them. So clearly, the subpar people are better than the "not bad" people, by his logic. That is the entire point I was making. You and him are both saying rank is a strict indicator of skill when its not true at all.

so what rank are you so I can laugh in your face?

On July 18 2011 03:56 BlizzrdSlave wrote:


/facepalm.

really? I mean, seriously? That was the entire point. He said that M or GM is good diamonds are not bad, and everyone else is subpar. Im lower than diamond in leagues, yet I consistently beat top 8 diamonds when I do get matched with them. So clearly, the subpar people are better than the "not bad" people, by his logic. That is the entire point I was making. You and him are both saying rank is a strict indicator of skill when its not true at all.

so what rank are you so I can laugh in your face?

On July 18 2011 05:57 Meldrath wrote:



You're being dense. very dense... if you read my entire post and got what it said not what you wanted it to say you would understand.. You're platinum becuase you're macro sucks alittle worse then those in diamond and I am happy that you beat someone of a higher league "some" of the time. Doesn't mean you consistantly play at that level I bet you 100 dollars there are days you play like shit and lose to gold rank 1 players as well.. so the system loses confidence in you and you never get your promotion. Stop being a dense easily offended newb and realize you are where you are for a reason. I know you wanna think your better then that and you might be but you havent proven it yet.

On July 18 2011 03:42 BlizzrdSlave wrote:


Im plat and I eat top 8 diamonds regularly when I play them. try again.

On July 18 2011 03:42 BlizzrdSlave wrote:


Im plat and I eat top 8 diamonds regularly when I play them. try again.

On July 18 2011 07:55 BlizzrdSlave wrote:



lol. and while his post was simply wrong, your post was strawmanned and trollish to the extreme. it had absolutely no content, so Im going to treat it as such. additionally, I AM likely on the verge of promotion, yet its locked ladder so i cant really do that can I? See how someone can be different in skill than their league? Of perhaps what about the so called tiers or brackets, where an MMR of plat in one league is comparable to the MMR of gold or the MMR of diamond of another league, because there's a graduated system at work, which is what everyone else here has been explaining. all this leads back to my central point, that league is not an indicator of skill like people like you think it is. so brandish your e-peen more and dodge my question of what league you are. I really don't care that you're being obstinate in the face of facts.

for the record, my macro is quite good. I learned rhythmic perfect queen injects three weeks ago. I bought this game about 5 weeks ago. I also dont have any weakness against low league cheeses. having seen (and done) them all, and having perfected early game macro and BO, I can easily defend any cheese with a generic opening, into a drone cut or tech rush as necessary. wall off paylon cannon rushes are perhaps the most easy for me to beat, next in order being marine scv all in, banshee rush, VR rush, etc. you're now going to say "VR and banshee isnt cheese lol nub". Except that low league people learn this, and they suddenly start winning every game until they meet someone who counters it perfectly, whether they know its coming or not. that is by definition cheese.

On July 17 2011 22:59 paralleluniverse wrote:

Currently, all division modifiers are unknown. So this doesn't work. There's no way to get a "true" rank for players under Masters.

On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:


CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.

On July 15 2011 15:41 Spacekyod wrote:


CombatEx is rank 75 grandmaster.

On July 18 2011 22:30 Sated wrote:
The ranks are only relevant if everyone plays the exact same number of games, ideally the number required to clean out their bonus pool and only that amount. Since most people don't do this (most probably play either way more or way less), the numerical rank they have in their league is irrelevant.

On July 18 2011 07:55 BlizzrdSlave wrote:



lol. and while his post was simply wrong, your post was strawmanned and trollish to the extreme. it had absolutely no content, so Im going to treat it as such. additionally, I AM likely on the verge of promotion, yet its locked ladder so i cant really do that can I? See how someone can be different in skill than their league? Of perhaps what about the so called tiers or brackets, where an MMR of plat in one league is comparable to the MMR of gold or the MMR of diamond of another league, because there's a graduated system at work, which is what everyone else here has been explaining. all this leads back to my central point, that league is not an indicator of skill like people like you think it is. so brandish your e-peen more and dodge my question of what league you are. I really don't care that you're being obstinate in the face of facts.

for the record, my macro is quite good. I learned rhythmic perfect queen injects three weeks ago. I bought this game about 5 weeks ago. I also dont have any weakness against low league cheeses. having seen (and done) them all, and having perfected early game macro and BO, I can easily defend any cheese with a generic opening, into a drone cut or tech rush as necessary. wall off paylon cannon rushes are perhaps the most easy for me to beat, next in order being marine scv all in, banshee rush, VR rush, etc. you're now going to say "VR and banshee isnt cheese lol nub". Except that low league people learn this, and they suddenly start winning every game until they meet someone who counters it perfectly, whether they know its coming or not. that is by definition cheese.

On July 18 2011 22:22 GreEny K wrote:


That doesn't make you the better player... I've taken games off some people I should not have just because of timings attacks and abusing maps/ units and their weaknesses.

On July 19 2011 04:41 TheFrankOne wrote:



Its almost impossible to strawman the argument "i beat people above me; you wrong". You've spent a significant portion, almost 1/2, of your total play time during the ladder lock, I would assume you are better now than two weeks ago, probably significantly better. So you haven't been promoted now that you deserve it. Ladder lock = no promotions, deserved or otherwise. So there was something you weren't mentioning.

Come back after season 3 starts if you're still platinum. Be less angry and more patient.

On July 18 2011 22:30 Sated wrote:
The ranks are only relevant if everyone plays the exact same number of games, ideally the number required to clean out their bonus pool and only that amount. Since most people don't do this (most probably play either way more or way less), the numerical rank they have in their league is irrelevant.

For instance, I'm second in my league and I'm 7 points behind the guy at the top. They have twice as many wins as me but I have far more bonus pool than them. If I actually played enough to spend my bonus pool, I would be higher than the guy who is top and I'd probably still have less wins... but it's also possible that someone else in the league has more bonus pool left than I do and could overtake me if they actually bothered to play all of their games. It's completely irrelevant, only your MMR really matters.

(And even though I know it is irrelevant, I still have this feeling that I should really play some games and get those 7 points before the season ends... Haha)

On July 19 2011 06:35 teer wrote:
I would love a placement challenge option. You get one placement challenge per season if you feel your worthy of being promoted. Since the details of the promotion system are hidden i can't really make any sugegsstions about how it would work though. Maybe something about maintaining a certain MMR that is the general average of the league about you or 2 leagues above. I dunno...

On July 19 2011 07:06 emc wrote:
these kinds of threads make my head hurt....

your rank is where blizzard puts you, it's their system, IT'S THEIR GAME, therefore talk to them!

Look at ANY game with a ranking system, no ranking system is perfectly accurate of your skill level. One day you might be really good because your just playing well, the next day you might be playing awful, a number assigning your rank virtually means nothing unless you think it does.

point is, it's pointless to talk about these kinds of things because we don't have control over the damn system, blizzard does! Just live with it and play and stop worrying about true rank because that shit doesn't matter and the only way to see your true rank is to play in tournaments.