|
shorter seems => faster rotating map pool = great
|
for people saying shorter seasons are worse... why?
for people saying they haven't had time to play enough games, how would a longer season actually allow you to play more games/day? Also, wouldn't having your "games played deficit" erased make it easier to start up in the next season?
|
I welcome shorter seasons too. maps and tactics will morph at a faster pace IMO.
|
On October 07 2011 18:27 zergtat wrote:
I welcome shorter seasons too. maps and tactics will morph at a faster pace IMO.
Why?
Tactics morph depending on patches and the GSL mostly ...
Maps I see 
|
United Arab Emirates874 Posts
I like the shorter seasons. I love playing on new maps. it makes the game feel fresh :D
|
This is great if the map pool changes every season!
|
I think the more concise seasons will reward those who want to get a promotion, and the inverse for those who are too lazy/too scared to play.
|
Shorter seasons is definitely the way to go in my opinion.
Or, at least a revise on the division system. I'm sorry but my play stagnates when I'm #1 in my division for a month straight. So either start a new season or refresh divisions with active players. I love seeing (sarcasm) 90% of my division having less than 5 wins. Real... competitive. And for reference it's Diamond, maybe other leagues see more activity.
|
On October 07 2011 00:06 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2011 14:14 Mendelfist wrote:On October 06 2011 09:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:And, yes, if we had an established system and then all Bronze left, it would be 0%. We have ways of dealing with that though, if it's necessary  So Bronze actually wouldn't get repopulated in the hypothetical "what if Bronze quit" scenario, Blizzard would just react to that and adjust MMR boundaries accordingly. Thanks. The only question left for me then is what happens in the unlikely scenario that every single one of the bronzes leave. I understand that if a few of them remain they will force the rest of the population to keep their MMR, but I don't agree that nothing will happen if they all leave. The question is what Blizzard uses for "anchors". There has to be something, otherwise MMR will tend to drift. In other online systems, Go for example, you use well known players as anchors. "X is 9 dan. Period." In this system, what do they use? My idea was that they simply assign the best player to some MMR, and the worst player to some other MMR. In that case bronze will repopulate if empty, but according to your response that won't happen. So how do they do it? Actually, I was just going to hit "Post", when the thought occured to me that you can't use two anchors. That would assign a fixed MMR difference between the best and the worst regardless of their skill difference, and that doesn't work (because "MMR will always be directly proportional to the estimated win %" wouldn't be true). Maybe they only use the best players? But that would cause some problems in the long run, because the skill difference between the best and the worst will constantly increase, and bronze would fill up more and more. Whatever anchor you choose, you would see a redistribution over time as the best continue to be better, but the newcomers still are newbies, and we don't see this. Well we know that the MMR range is fixed (that is, it has a cap) because some players who have spoken to David Kim have been told this, and that's backed up by the diminishing returns that top Grandmaster players are seeing for each of their wins. Maybe it really is using the old 0-3000 range that WoW did after all. I know the way chess handles this is by modifying the k-factor at certain steps to make earning rating beyond a certain point more difficult, but I'm not sure if the same principle applies to MMR.
I'm pretty sure WoW mmr didn't cap at 3000 as top teams playing eachother at 50% winrate capped both teams (team rating was 0-3000) in a few games which suggests their MMR had to be way over 3000 (assuming team rating moves towards mmr)
|
I think a better solution would be that inactive players drop down a league as a punishment.
Right now, some players achieved a decent league in in the earlier seasons, but then they just play 1(!) placement game each season. Even if they lose those games their MMR will be almost the same so they will be placed in the same high league again.
Then they will only play 4vs4 while bragging about their Master/Diamond 1v1 League while in reality only being a gold level 1v1 player.
TLDR
Inactive players should be dropped one league, not just being able to keep their league by playing a single game each season.
|
can u still games via matchmaking or is it locked too ?
|
Would definitely appreciate more time this season, i really like the maps and I've just caught a break with some time to play more 
|
United States12235 Posts
On October 07 2011 21:12 BadBinky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 00:06 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 06 2011 14:14 Mendelfist wrote:On October 06 2011 09:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:And, yes, if we had an established system and then all Bronze left, it would be 0%. We have ways of dealing with that though, if it's necessary So Bronze actually wouldn't get repopulated in the hypothetical "what if Bronze quit" scenario, Blizzard would just react to that and adjust MMR boundaries accordingly. Thanks. The only question left for me then is what happens in the unlikely scenario that every single one of the bronzes leave. I understand that if a few of them remain they will force the rest of the population to keep their MMR, but I don't agree that nothing will happen if they all leave. The question is what Blizzard uses for "anchors". There has to be something, otherwise MMR will tend to drift. In other online systems, Go for example, you use well known players as anchors. "X is 9 dan. Period." In this system, what do they use? My idea was that they simply assign the best player to some MMR, and the worst player to some other MMR. In that case bronze will repopulate if empty, but according to your response that won't happen. So how do they do it? Actually, I was just going to hit "Post", when the thought occured to me that you can't use two anchors. That would assign a fixed MMR difference between the best and the worst regardless of their skill difference, and that doesn't work (because "MMR will always be directly proportional to the estimated win %" wouldn't be true). Maybe they only use the best players? But that would cause some problems in the long run, because the skill difference between the best and the worst will constantly increase, and bronze would fill up more and more. Whatever anchor you choose, you would see a redistribution over time as the best continue to be better, but the newcomers still are newbies, and we don't see this. Well we know that the MMR range is fixed (that is, it has a cap) because some players who have spoken to David Kim have been told this, and that's backed up by the diminishing returns that top Grandmaster players are seeing for each of their wins. Maybe it really is using the old 0-3000 range that WoW did after all. I know the way chess handles this is by modifying the k-factor at certain steps to make earning rating beyond a certain point more difficult, but I'm not sure if the same principle applies to MMR. I'm pretty sure WoW mmr didn't cap at 3000 as top teams playing eachother at 50% winrate capped both teams (team rating was 0-3000) in a few games which suggests their MMR had to be way over 3000 (assuming team rating moves towards mmr)
It used to be capped (hence why I phrased it "the old 0-3000 range") but they removed the cap after some season, can't remember which.
|
In some ways this is cool but I also like the fact that seasons take long mostly because all that time you get to improve if you don't got as much time on your hands as others do, especially if you're working a 9 to 5. But I also think this can get me to masters faster. I feel like I'm smarter then masters if that makes sense? (I'm diamond btw) I watch most of my replays and I only lose because my macro is derp. So after I practice on my smurf I will hopefully pick up my macro and get placed into masters. wish my luck and good luck to all of you.....keep laddering brethren!!!!
|
Imo 2 months is just too quick. Yes faster seasons = faster map rotation. At the same time shouldn't we give some of these maps some time to get played out? Just imagine of for some wierd reason they'd remove antiga shipyard with s4, yes it's still in tourneys and shit, but for most of us ladder is atleast a good part of our playtime. And I feel like antigate shipyard still has a lot of potential and is far away from being played out.
Imo 3 months are just fine, I don't see why they change it. If I'd see that there is more activity within the first 8 weeks I wouldn't shorten seasons, I would ask myself why people stop playing my game that much after 8 weeks.
|
I know that historically Blizzard changes up the map pool when there's a new season. Has anyone seen anything about new maps? I haven't seen anything yet so I was wondering if they're breaking that trend with this next season or perhaps I'm just missing that info.
|
On October 07 2011 21:12 BadBinky wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2011 00:06 Excalibur_Z wrote:On October 06 2011 14:14 Mendelfist wrote:On October 06 2011 09:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:And, yes, if we had an established system and then all Bronze left, it would be 0%. We have ways of dealing with that though, if it's necessary So Bronze actually wouldn't get repopulated in the hypothetical "what if Bronze quit" scenario, Blizzard would just react to that and adjust MMR boundaries accordingly. Thanks. The only question left for me then is what happens in the unlikely scenario that every single one of the bronzes leave. I understand that if a few of them remain they will force the rest of the population to keep their MMR, but I don't agree that nothing will happen if they all leave. The question is what Blizzard uses for "anchors". There has to be something, otherwise MMR will tend to drift. In other online systems, Go for example, you use well known players as anchors. "X is 9 dan. Period." In this system, what do they use? My idea was that they simply assign the best player to some MMR, and the worst player to some other MMR. In that case bronze will repopulate if empty, but according to your response that won't happen. So how do they do it? Actually, I was just going to hit "Post", when the thought occured to me that you can't use two anchors. That would assign a fixed MMR difference between the best and the worst regardless of their skill difference, and that doesn't work (because "MMR will always be directly proportional to the estimated win %" wouldn't be true). Maybe they only use the best players? But that would cause some problems in the long run, because the skill difference between the best and the worst will constantly increase, and bronze would fill up more and more. Whatever anchor you choose, you would see a redistribution over time as the best continue to be better, but the newcomers still are newbies, and we don't see this. Well we know that the MMR range is fixed (that is, it has a cap) because some players who have spoken to David Kim have been told this, and that's backed up by the diminishing returns that top Grandmaster players are seeing for each of their wins. Maybe it really is using the old 0-3000 range that WoW did after all. I know the way chess handles this is by modifying the k-factor at certain steps to make earning rating beyond a certain point more difficult, but I'm not sure if the same principle applies to MMR. I'm pretty sure WoW mmr didn't cap at 3000 as top teams playing eachother at 50% winrate capped both teams (team rating was 0-3000) in a few games which suggests their MMR had to be way over 3000 (assuming team rating moves towards mmr)
It's a much better system imo, and would fix all the league overlaps at the high x/low y areas.
|
Just bring in new maps and i'll be happy!
Actually they already did
Bring new maps into tourney play and i'll be happy!
|
They had a reason to why they want to have each season shorter. The beginning 8 weeks of any season is when most players are active.
|
maybe they will bring in maps where it is possible to take a third as toss :D
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
