|
On February 13 2012 18:34 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 17:14 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 07:19 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2012 05:49 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 04:28 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever  What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread.  Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match. Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.) If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway. Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller. Separate AT and RT ladders worked perfectly fine in WC3. The only problem they had were long queue times at the highest levels; the average team though never had to wait very long (source: literally thousands of WC3 AT/RT games at various skill levels). There was no "imbalance because of smaller player pools". RT/AT games in WC3 are far from perfect. For each game you need you invite your friend(s) again. And then you can get way stronger or weaker teams as opponents. Or both good players and scrubs in the same random team. And especially for the AT, the search time is way longer than in SC2. Even at times WC3 got a much larger playerbase than today. I played a lot of 2v2 AT in WC3 some years ago. This little discussion of ours is getting a bit too circular for my taste. So far you haven't adressed the issue of RT abuse in SC2 except with an assumption that you "think" it's somehow covered by the matchmaking when in reality it's not (check the top diamond/master ladders for team games to look at some ridiculous win-%. Legit random team gamers? Hell, no). The overall matchmaking has improved, yes. Which is to be expected 9 years after WC3. And small features like not having to invite people again for every game are good too; sure. Still, SC2's team game system is a mess, prone to abuse, sacrificing fair matchups for short queue times and convenience. Top rankings in 1v1 also often show more wins than losses, this is not especially a team game issue. Even if you could somehow abuse the RT/AT mixing, you can do it only for so long because the MMR adapts. With very high win ratios over a sustained period, you are ranked high and get worthy opponents – if they are online. As in 1v1, top players often play lesser ones because there are not enough top players online.
*sigh* I am not talking about more wins than losses or a sustained high win rate. I am talking about "random team" players leading master and diamond leagues with ratios like 50-2 or 28-0. Those aren't a rare sight, btw. A working matchmaking system would not let this happen.
To cut this short, what's your argument for keeping SC2's AT/RT system over the approach of WC3? Only shorter queue times that affect a select few? Because if that's what it boils down to, there's no reason to not use separate ladders that have worked fine in the previous game.
|
On February 13 2012 18:34 [F_]aths wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 17:14 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 07:19 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2012 05:49 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 04:28 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match. Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.) If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway. Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller. Separate AT and RT ladders worked perfectly fine in WC3. The only problem they had were long queue times at the highest levels; the average team though never had to wait very long (source: literally thousands of WC3 AT/RT games at various skill levels). There was no "imbalance because of smaller player pools". RT/AT games in WC3 are far from perfect. For each game you need you invite your friend(s) again. And then you can get way stronger or weaker teams as opponents. Or both good players and scrubs in the same random team. And especially for the AT, the search time is way longer than in SC2. Even at times WC3 got a much larger playerbase than today. I played a lot of 2v2 AT in WC3 some years ago. This little discussion of ours is getting a bit too circular for my taste. So far you haven't adressed the issue of RT abuse in SC2 except with an assumption that you "think" it's somehow covered by the matchmaking when in reality it's not (check the top diamond/master ladders for team games to look at some ridiculous win-%. Legit random team gamers? Hell, no). The overall matchmaking has improved, yes. Which is to be expected 9 years after WC3. And small features like not having to invite people again for every game are good too; sure. Still, SC2's team game system is a mess, prone to abuse, sacrificing fair matchups for short queue times and convenience. Top rankings in 1v1 also often show more wins than losses, this is not especially a team game issue. Even if you could somehow abuse the RT/AT mixing, you can do it only for so long because the MMR adapts. With very high win ratios over a sustained period, you are ranked high and get worthy opponents – if they are online. As in 1v1, top players often play lesser ones because there are not enough top players online.
The win rates for 2v2 AT (http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/am/master/2) are much higher than win rates for 2v2 RT (http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/am/master/2R)
|
On February 12 2012 19:41 YaShock wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 19:36 qwertzi wrote:HOLY SHIT I'D LOVE THIS: I took the img from the op.. dont know who made it, but prpz to him/her!!! This would make sc2 SOOOOOOOO much more enjoyable.. I want this! NOW!! Ye I know what are you talking about, I just LOVE this idea. I mean joining as observer to your friend games and stuff like that. Also he made funny chat there :D But another thing about custom games that they didn't mention: They should have made password protection for custom games, it's very, I mean VERY frustrating when you cast games and all your real ID friends join you non stop and you have to kick them all 5 fives in a row, and then the real ID friends of other casters start joining. You can't even start a game because they join non stop, you can't have a password and neither close slots in game. (like in BW, W3, again 7-12 years old games, Blizzard WHYYYYYYY)
yea ur right... there are just sooo many SIMPLE things blizzard could do!
|
On February 13 2012 20:05 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 18:34 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2012 17:14 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 07:19 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2012 05:49 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 04:28 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match. Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.) If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway. Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller. Separate AT and RT ladders worked perfectly fine in WC3. The only problem they had were long queue times at the highest levels; the average team though never had to wait very long (source: literally thousands of WC3 AT/RT games at various skill levels). There was no "imbalance because of smaller player pools". RT/AT games in WC3 are far from perfect. For each game you need you invite your friend(s) again. And then you can get way stronger or weaker teams as opponents. Or both good players and scrubs in the same random team. And especially for the AT, the search time is way longer than in SC2. Even at times WC3 got a much larger playerbase than today. I played a lot of 2v2 AT in WC3 some years ago. This little discussion of ours is getting a bit too circular for my taste. So far you haven't adressed the issue of RT abuse in SC2 except with an assumption that you "think" it's somehow covered by the matchmaking when in reality it's not (check the top diamond/master ladders for team games to look at some ridiculous win-%. Legit random team gamers? Hell, no). The overall matchmaking has improved, yes. Which is to be expected 9 years after WC3. And small features like not having to invite people again for every game are good too; sure. Still, SC2's team game system is a mess, prone to abuse, sacrificing fair matchups for short queue times and convenience. Top rankings in 1v1 also often show more wins than losses, this is not especially a team game issue. Even if you could somehow abuse the RT/AT mixing, you can do it only for so long because the MMR adapts. With very high win ratios over a sustained period, you are ranked high and get worthy opponents – if they are online. As in 1v1, top players often play lesser ones because there are not enough top players online. *sigh* I am not talking about more wins than losses or a sustained high win rate. I am talking about "random team" players leading master and diamond leagues with ratios like 50-2 or 28-0. Those aren't a rare sight, btw. A working matchmaking system would not let this happen.To cut this short, what's your argument for keeping SC2's AT/RT system over the approach of WC3? Only shorter queue times that affect a select few? Because if that's what it boils down to, there's no reason to not use separate ladders that have worked fine in the previous game.
(How do you see diamond league win rates? Did you check the match history?)
Matching AT vs RT has the advantage of faster and more accurate team search. It is also possible to mix arranged and random guys in the same team. WC3 has longer search times but still bad team matching (both comparing the teams as a whole as well as different player skills within the same team.)
Lets say you play RT and get matched versus an AT. In the game you can see that your mechanics are superior compared to the other team, but the overall strength is still roughly even as you can also see that the enemies are coordinating their actions while you have trouble to coordinate through ingame chat with your ally. If you lose, you will probably claim that it was unfair since the other team had voice chat.
Lets say you play an AT and get matched versus an RT. The enemies have better mechanics and macro, but you are connected with your friend through Skype. If you lose, you still will probably claim that was unfair, because the match maker set you against superior players.
This is my argument: Don't blame the match maker, since it uses the same MMR formula for every player / team. Maybe there are some teams who can abuse a good team strategy for a certain amount of time. An RT/AT split could possible lessen that issue since it's harder to abuse a strategy versus an AT. But the common team player pool has advantages for the majority of the players.
|
This will be my last reply to you. You're just regurgitating your argument over and over without acknowledging any of my points or taking a look at some stats. It's pointless to continue this.
Neither of us knows how the matchmaking handles RT, AT and partial ATs abusing RT, yet you argue that "the formula will somehow work it out". Hint: It does not. Take a look at the win rates paralleluniverse quoted, or follow my suggestion and take a look at various diamond and master team leagues, both AT and RT. You'll see an obvious and massive advantage for ATs which a fair and balanced matchmaking system should not let happen.
But the common team player pool has advantages for the majority of the players.
It does not, except for shorter queue times (which, as I predicted in my previous post, is all that your arguments boil down to). And those alone aren't worth the sacrifice of fair and balanced team games.
|
Fantastic thread, mirrors my thoughts so well.
It means all the more to me, in that I love SC2.
If they removed all the crap (ALL, including perma online and custom game limitations), and put back everything that was removed from WC3 and BW, I'd actually gladly pay a monthly subscription to ladder.
|
Would be a dream to have that chat channel and clan support.
|
Hmm not into this problem, but since the top of the thread asked so nicely to speak up i will.
Now all i do is 1v1 and have 4 friend on friends list, i dont think socializing in game is good. But when i sometimes wanna do something else on Bnet, try to get to TL chat room, i cant since its full. And there is nothing else at all, nothing, only maybe match history and thats it. I just play games and quit bnet, since there is nothing else really.
|
I can not agree with this article more. It pretty much sums up all my feelings and I don't have the patience to write such a comprehensive guide.
|
Good to hear other people care. The way you feel alone in B.net 2.0 is very probably one of the greatest reasons why the player pool fades away from season to season. I too often just want to log out after playing one or two 1v1 ladder games, just because there isn't much to do.
The screens of the UI suggested by Goblinoid are amazing ! We have to keep these threads alive just for all these wonderful features.
+ Show Spoiler +It does not, except for shorter queue times (which, as I predicted in my previous post, is all that your arguments boil down to). And those alone aren't worth the sacrifice of fair and balanced team games.
This is so right. Every time I play a team game with a team hopelessly outmatching the other, it's basically a 20mins queue time.
|
Not to mention the SC2 editor UI that's also been a huge downgrade from WC3 really, so even for mapping veterans (e.g. I made the original Tech Wars way back in the first weeks of TFT) it took weeks to figure out any basic functions... and other times all we figured out was that the functionality is not there yet/anymore. Things like only having 3 cliff levels or how hard it is to make custom units with imported custom models... while the editor is... barely alright maybe?, it's thanks to the ridiculous custom map hosting system that the SC2 mapping scene is crippled already. I was looking forward to SC2 ever since TFT maps stopped evolving but unfortunately in the end I was really disappointed.
Right now Bethesda is way outclassing Blizzard in supporting the modding community not because Bethesda fundamentally improved things (Oblivion modding was great already) but because Blizzard for some reason did so much worse with SC2.
And Diablo 3 won't even have any modding...
|
On February 14 2012 04:50 Trotim wrote:
Not to mention the SC2 editor UI that's also been a huge downgrade from WC3 really, so even for mapping veterans (e.g. I made the original Tech Wars way back in the first weeks of TFT) it took weeks to figure out any basic functions... and other times all we figured out was that the functionality is not there yet/anymore. Things like only having 3 cliff levels or how hard it is to make custom units with imported custom models... while the editor is... barely alright maybe?, it's thanks to the ridiculous custom map hosting system that the SC2 mapping scene is crippled already. I was looking forward to SC2 ever since TFT maps stopped evolving but unfortunately in the end I was really disappointed.
Right now Bethesda is way outclassing Blizzard in supporting the modding community not because Bethesda fundamentally improved things (Oblivion modding was great already) but because Blizzard for some reason did so much worse with SC2.
And Diablo 3 won't even have any modding...
Even when you get sc2 editor more and more figured, it's still EXTREMELY SLOW, its funny how much XML you have to use to save time, but it's still not enough.. I was so into modding scene in WC3 and when I heard about SC2 I decided to really put effort into modding and OH DIABLO 3 TOO!! Now when I look back what I thought I can lol hard.
Anyone know if blizzard has stated of improving battle.net or anything that maybe they will add nice things in hots?? :/
|
Some more numbers, because we all like them:
Counting only the american, english, polish and german Blizzard boards, we're now at six "popular" threads with a total of 1.570 posts. All of this in barely more than a week and, sadly, all of this without any official response so far.
Also, feel free to take a look at the current "Nobody Plays 1vs1 Ladder Anymore" thread, where a lot of our points are raised as well. The thread's author kindly linked our thread in his OP; I returned the favor.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=311533
|
I miss community chat rooms from Bnet, sigh.
Damn it, Blizzard.
|
I remember a time when Blizzard was a company that made games for the players.
R.I.P. Blizzard
|
On February 14 2012 06:41 marconi wrote:
I remember a time when Blizzard was a company that made games for the players.
R.I.P. Blizzard
Yah.. I miss those days (WarCraft I,II, SC, BW, Diablo, Diablo II, WarCraft III). Gosh I wish I had a time machine...
|
I think if blizzard added a "build helper" in which you could type in a build and then it would guide you along ingame would be great. It should also have a few default builds like 6pool, 2rax ,1 raxfe into tanks etc. It would help noobies possibly get over their ladder fear.
|
On February 13 2012 20:05 Shockk wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 18:34 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2012 17:14 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 07:19 [F_]aths wrote:On February 13 2012 05:49 Shockk wrote:On February 13 2012 04:28 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 23:03 Shockk wrote:On February 12 2012 21:41 [F_]aths wrote:On February 12 2012 20:16 RayBeans wrote:I like the laddersystem as it is at the moment, I feel great ranking nr. 1 in silver and not being rank 182.731/200.000 or whatever What is missing are open chat channels to talk to random people. And clan features. And everything else that is mentioned in the first post of this thread. Some issues stated in the OP are not real issues, rather a misunderstanding of the OP's poster (like AT vs RT matching is fair since it uses the MMR system to match teams.) You haven't played a lot of SC2 team games, have you? Oh, and do me a favor and don't assume I'm stupid, alright? There is nothing to "misunderstand", but I'll gladly elaborate on why AT vs. RT isn't fine. Regardless of matchmaking, an AT will always be in an advantageous position compared to an RT. Be it predetermined strategies or voice communitcation. Also, the matchmaking system in team games is atrocious. It will create "even teams" only on paper, usually by pairing good players with weakers ones to create an "even" team. A "real" even team will easily roflstomp such a forced composition. And finally, RTs are abused 24/7. People will sign up with premade 2/3-man teams for 3/4man team games, for example, where they're rated as RT but will obviously have a huge edge over their opponents. Most team games aren't fun. You either win against teams you're hopelessly outmatching, or you'll get stomped by a team you have no hope winning against. Every 1 in 10 games is an actual even, entertaining match. Actually I have my share regarding team matches, for AT, RT, and mixed teams (which counts as RT for the ladder.) If an AT is matched versus an RT, they do not have an advantage because they are matched with MMR. The AT can use voice chat and has better strategy coordination, but the MMR reflects this already. For mixed RT/AT matches, the Bnet probably considers the AT strength of the AT participants even though the points count towards the RT ladder. But ladder and MMR are separate anyway. Separating RT and AT will make the average team balance even more uneven because each player pool is smaller. Separate AT and RT ladders worked perfectly fine in WC3. The only problem they had were long queue times at the highest levels; the average team though never had to wait very long (source: literally thousands of WC3 AT/RT games at various skill levels). There was no "imbalance because of smaller player pools". RT/AT games in WC3 are far from perfect. For each game you need you invite your friend(s) again. And then you can get way stronger or weaker teams as opponents. Or both good players and scrubs in the same random team. And especially for the AT, the search time is way longer than in SC2. Even at times WC3 got a much larger playerbase than today. I played a lot of 2v2 AT in WC3 some years ago. This little discussion of ours is getting a bit too circular for my taste. So far you haven't adressed the issue of RT abuse in SC2 except with an assumption that you "think" it's somehow covered by the matchmaking when in reality it's not (check the top diamond/master ladders for team games to look at some ridiculous win-%. Legit random team gamers? Hell, no). The overall matchmaking has improved, yes. Which is to be expected 9 years after WC3. And small features like not having to invite people again for every game are good too; sure. Still, SC2's team game system is a mess, prone to abuse, sacrificing fair matchups for short queue times and convenience. Top rankings in 1v1 also often show more wins than losses, this is not especially a team game issue. Even if you could somehow abuse the RT/AT mixing, you can do it only for so long because the MMR adapts. With very high win ratios over a sustained period, you are ranked high and get worthy opponents – if they are online. As in 1v1, top players often play lesser ones because there are not enough top players online. *sigh* I am not talking about more wins than losses or a sustained high win rate. I am talking about "random team" players leading master and diamond leagues with ratios like 50-2 or 28-0. Those aren't a rare sight, btw. A working matchmaking system would not let this happen.To cut this short, what's your argument for keeping SC2's AT/RT system over the approach of WC3? Only shorter queue times that affect a select few? Because if that's what it boils down to, there's no reason to not use separate ladders that have worked fine in the previous game.
This is a good point Shockk, but goes to a deeper issue. The division system, while OK for casual 1v1s, is toxic to creating a healthy team game system.
Why?
My friend and his bro, are in mid-diamond, and very low masters (probably diamond if he'd actually played Season 5), in 1v1, respectively. Yet they got 'rank 1' masters in their division on SEA. Furthermore, their W/L was like 85%. And it isn't changing. They don't get matched against anyone better.
They really are not that good. They play super greedy and turtle till the protoss gets 10 collosi. It's a solid enough strat on some maps but it should not be getting them that sort of W/L at the 'top of masters'. Finally they got bored and quit. I got them to play on NA, where at least they're getting challenged and have about a 65% W/L, but the game still tells them they're RANK 1 MASTERS.
Anyway, your original post is epic and 100% so damn true I can't express it in text.
|
How often does it take a Blue poster on the Blizz forums to respond?
|
I hate all of you. Because it's all so god damn true. I can't open sc2, and it's not because I don't want to ladder. I love the game, watch a shitton of it, run a fucking university society based on it, ran a $1500 tournament for it, but can I be fucked even being in the game? Nope. So many things are missing, so many things I had in Brood War but don't have now. The things I got in replacement were all terrible (bar one, that clock in the bottom right. Good move there.)
ARGH.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/b7pAn.jpg)
