|
On November 20 2012 22:48 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 22:45 Mendelfist wrote:
Why? The system is identical to the one used today, except that you get several accounts. What is against the rule of any skill function. Skill function calculate the diffrence of your skill compare to the average skill. By having different amount of account per user your average server skill is no longer the average user skill. So the skill functions works under a wrong assumption already. The affect dont have to be big. But if the better players have significant more accounts or if a significant different behaviour for 2. and 3. accounts exist, the gauss glock will lose form. Without derivation, the skill function can not work.
If what you say is true then it's a problem in Wings of Liberty too, because people are already buying several accounts, especially in higher leagues.
On November 20 2012 22:48 skeldark wrote:
Beside that i totaly dont understand why would you do it. A "unranked" system that is ranked just make no sense at all.
Where is the point of playing "unranked" when you get ranked? Just to get a second ladder account?
There are very good reasons to have an unranked system. 1: People get nervous when playing on the ladder. 2: People may want to play causally when playing unranked, or play with another race. Unless the MMRs are separate that wouldn't work well.
|
On November 20 2012 23:04 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 22:48 skeldark wrote:On November 20 2012 22:45 Mendelfist wrote:
Why? The system is identical to the one used today, except that you get several accounts. What is against the rule of any skill function. Skill function calculate the diffrence of your skill compare to the average skill. By having different amount of account per user your average server skill is no longer the average user skill. So the skill functions works under a wrong assumption already. The affect dont have to be big. But if the better players have significant more accounts or if a significant different behaviour for 2. and 3. accounts exist, the gauss glock will lose form. Without derivation, the skill function can not work. If what you say is true then it's a problem in Wings of Liberty too, because people are already buying several accounts, especially in higher leagues. Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 22:48 skeldark wrote:
Beside that i totaly dont understand why would you do it. A "unranked" system that is ranked just make no sense at all.
Where is the point of playing "unranked" when you get ranked? Just to get a second ladder account?
There are very good reasons to have an unranked system. 1: People get nervous when playing on the ladder. 2: People may want to play causally when playing unranked, or play with another race. Unless the MMRs are separate that wouldn't work well.
Edited my old post while you posted.
You have to wait when i post min 5 minutes.
If you noticed, i edit every post i make several times after post 
Yes 2. account are already a problem!
Its a part (not the only one) of the reason why master league get bigger.
And Yes their is a good reason for an unranked system!
But they dont add one. They add a ranked system where they hide the rank and call it "unranked".
|
And Yes their is a good reason for an unranked system!
But they dont add one. They add a ranked system where they hide the rank and call it "unranked".
The only purpose for a truly unranked ladder would be for masochistic bronzies to go and get slaughtered, and for high level dickheads to go and bully somebody that stands no chance. It would be a pointless feature, surely.
What they're adding is a seperate MMR that is hidden from everybody. You get appropriate opponents, but your ladder ranking is private so you don't need to worry about your virtual 'reputation'.
You were mentioning that higher level players will "pollute the average MMR pool by messing around on their unranked accounts". This already exists; those players have bought several accounts. Now you can do it on just one account. I do this on a friend's account who no longer plays, and use crazy dumb strategies on off-races that I'm terrible at. My actions make it that little bit easier to get in a higher league than if I was not adding my influence to the system.
Will the average skill level (represented by your MMR value) drop if more people are messing around on ladder? Will it be easier to be at 'X' value MMR after this unranked feature comes in to play? I have no doubts it will - but that doesn't matter at all! The "meaning" of 1500 only makes sense when you compare it against other players, so even if the goalposts are shifted slightly it doesn't matter.
|
On November 20 2012 23:37 Hairy wrote:Show nested quote +And Yes their is a good reason for an unranked system!
But they dont add one. They add a ranked system where they hide the rank and call it "unranked". The only purpose for a truly unranked ladder would be for masochistic bronzies to go and get slaughtered, and for high level dickheads to go and bully somebody that stands no chance. It would be a pointless feature, surely. What they're adding is a seperate MMR that is hidden from everybody. You get appropriate opponents, but your ladder ranking is private so you don't need to worry about your virtual 'reputation'. You were mentioning that higher level players will "pollute the average MMR pool by messing around on their unranked accounts". This already exists; those players have bought several accounts. Now you can do it on just one account. I do this on a friend's account who no longer plays, and use crazy dumb strategies on off-races that I'm terrible at. My actions make it that little bit easier to get in a higher league than if I was not adding my influence to the system. Will the average skill level (represented by your MMR value) drop if more people are messing around on ladder? Will it be easier to be at 'X' value MMR after this unranked feature comes in to play? I have no doubts it will - but that doesn't matter at all! The "meaning" of 1500 only makes sense when you compare it against other players, so even if the goalposts are shifted slightly it doesn't matter.
So why not add a unranked ladder where you get placed against opponents that have same skill than you on the ranked ladder? This is the way the rest of the world does it for last 20 years...
About the problem with the skill function read the last post on the page before again. Rating functions work different than you think.
It matters because the skill value is nothing else, than a value that compare you with the average player by taking the average player skill derivation into account.
Its not about comparing the result to other people.
The comparison creates the result!
E.G. 1500 Skill = Your skill is equal to the average account in the pool. If the average alone shifts, this is no problem at all.
It just let the values shift by fix amount. If the distribution shift, than we have an unfixable problem!
And yes the problem already exist and allready mess up the skill value, But the amount of people who do it is small. So it dont have a big effect. If more do it with the 2 ladder it can become a problem.
|
On November 20 2012 23:37 Hairy wrote:
Will the average skill level (represented by your MMR value) drop if more people are messing around on ladder? Will it be easier to be at 'X' value MMR after this unranked feature comes in to play? I have no doubts it will - but that doesn't matter at all! The "meaning" of 1500 only makes sense when you compare it against other players, so even if the goalposts are shifted slightly it doesn't matter.
That's not his point. His point is that the rating system (the one that calculates your MMR, not the one that calculates your ladder ranking) makes some assumptions about the player pool, and people having several accounts invalidates that assumption. I have no idea how big that problem is for MMR calculations, and neither does anyone else on this forum I suspect, and even if there were, no one else here would be able to tell if that person is making things up or not. :-) So I'll just drop the subject.
|
Everyone who knows something about gauss can explain that.
TLDR:
Every skill function need standard deviation of player skill.
This is not the case in computer games. But history show, its close enough to work with!
Its the BIG topic in skill calculation how close your players skill is to standard.
You can be unlucky and loose this "from" over time ( only good players stay and only bad ones join = you loose your middle ). So you want to avoid ANY factor, that makes the problem bigger.
|
On November 20 2012 23:13 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 23:04 Mendelfist wrote:On November 20 2012 22:48 skeldark wrote:On November 20 2012 22:45 Mendelfist wrote:
Why? The system is identical to the one used today, except that you get several accounts. What is against the rule of any skill function. Skill function calculate the diffrence of your skill compare to the average skill. By having different amount of account per user your average server skill is no longer the average user skill. So the skill functions works under a wrong assumption already. The affect dont have to be big. But if the better players have significant more accounts or if a significant different behaviour for 2. and 3. accounts exist, the gauss glock will lose form. Without derivation, the skill function can not work. If what you say is true then it's a problem in Wings of Liberty too, because people are already buying several accounts, especially in higher leagues. On November 20 2012 22:48 skeldark wrote:
Beside that i totaly dont understand why would you do it. A "unranked" system that is ranked just make no sense at all.
Where is the point of playing "unranked" when you get ranked? Just to get a second ladder account?
There are very good reasons to have an unranked system. 1: People get nervous when playing on the ladder. 2: People may want to play causally when playing unranked, or play with another race. Unless the MMRs are separate that wouldn't work well. Edited my old post while you posted. You have to wait when i post min 5 minutes. If you noticed, i edit every post i make several times after post Yes 2. account are already a problem! Its a part (not the only one) of the reason why master league get bigger. And Yes their is a good reason for an unranked system! But they dont add one. They add a ranked system where they hide the rank and call it "unranked".
I'm sorry, how would you possibly do an "unranked" ladder without a MMR system? The system must have an idea of how you will perform, somewhat; without any form of opponent selection, you get basically a big button to enter random lost temple maps made by random ppl in battlenet... ever tried doing that? 9/10 it's a huge mismatch and results either in a stomp or in a disconnection of the weaker player after he checked the opponents ladder league.
Yes, the skill math goes out of the window, but that's actually unimportant as most players will play goofy or drunk ecc ecc anyways... it's just a "play top x% of the players in order to not get a total mismatch".
If they also segregate races into yet different MMRs it's also fine, as most players are essentially playing with a handicap when off-racing, their MMR will stabilize to a post-handicap level eventually.
I'm assuming that you can't find a player playing ranked while playing unranked, obviously, cause that would be senseless.
It's obvious that the skill value in the unranked ladder would be messed up, it's the whole purpose of it! Just ignore that ladder if you're thinking about skill values ecc, treat like it was Starcasual 2 ladder, like a different game.
edit: >.< Hairy ninjaed me.
|
Ok here is what i expected they would do because thats how chess and all computer games did it in past:
You have one account in the ranked pool. Every game here is ranked. You play against people who have near your skill.
You can play an unranked game if you want. You only play against people who also want to play an unranked game.
The result dont change your or the opponents skill points.
The opponent finder however works like in ranked games. You get a opponent who have near your skill on your ranked account.
|
On November 20 2012 23:04 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 22:48 skeldark wrote:On November 20 2012 22:45 Mendelfist wrote:
Why? The system is identical to the one used today, except that you get several accounts. What is against the rule of any skill function. Skill function calculate the diffrence of your skill compare to the average skill. By having different amount of account per user your average server skill is no longer the average user skill. So the skill functions works under a wrong assumption already. The affect dont have to be big. But if the better players have significant more accounts or if a significant different behaviour for 2. and 3. accounts exist, the gauss glock will lose form. Without derivation, the skill function can not work. If what you say is true then it's a problem in Wings of Liberty too, because people are already buying several accounts, especially in higher leagues.
Personally I feel the one matchmaking pool for both unranked & ranked games will affect the system negatively. The unranked players have nothing to lose (except their unranked MMR will drop) and ranked players are affected when they play against unranked players. There are lots of exploitation possibilities. I listed few exploits before I knew about the separate MMRs (excalibur_z's response). After learning about separate MMRs my bigger fear is that lots of people will now smurf with unranked mode. They will lower their unranked MMR on purpose and then get easy wins against their ranked opponents. And if this becomes common, then general MMR levels below master will drop as 'legit' players will lose more against 'the unranked smurfs'.
Of course Blizzard is pushing the one matchmaking pool because they are likely afraid that if there are separate matchmaking pools for both modes (ranked & unranked) the population in either mode would be so low that it would take much more time to find opponents than currently.
|
On November 20 2012 23:56 korona wrote:
Of course Blizzard is pushing the one matchmaking pool because they are likely afraid that if there are separate matchmaking pools for both modes (ranked & unranked) the population in either mode would be so low that it would take much more time to find opponents than currently.
Exactly. And they give up accuracy for it! What is a very bad decision in my opinion.
|
On November 20 2012 23:52 skeldark wrote:
Everyone who knows something about gauss can explain that.
TLDR:
Every skill function need standard deviation of player skill.
This is not the case in computer games. But history show, its close enough to work with!
Its the BIG topic in skill calculation how close your players skill is to standard.
You can be unlucky and loose this "from" over time ( only good players stay and only bad ones join = you loose your middle ). So you want to avoid ANY factor, that makes the problem bigger.
My point was that no one here knows how big the problem is, not if the rating system needs to assume a gauss (or any other) distribution. I think most people agree that the matchmaking in WoL is pretty darned good, or at least it was, until they deliberately "loosened" it.
|
On November 20 2012 23:44 skeldark wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 23:37 Hairy wrote:And Yes their is a good reason for an unranked system!
But they dont add one. They add a ranked system where they hide the rank and call it "unranked". The only purpose for a truly unranked ladder would be for masochistic bronzies to go and get slaughtered, and for high level dickheads to go and bully somebody that stands no chance. It would be a pointless feature, surely. What they're adding is a seperate MMR that is hidden from everybody. You get appropriate opponents, but your ladder ranking is private so you don't need to worry about your virtual 'reputation'. You were mentioning that higher level players will "pollute the average MMR pool by messing around on their unranked accounts". This already exists; those players have bought several accounts. Now you can do it on just one account. I do this on a friend's account who no longer plays, and use crazy dumb strategies on off-races that I'm terrible at. My actions make it that little bit easier to get in a higher league than if I was not adding my influence to the system. Will the average skill level (represented by your MMR value) drop if more people are messing around on ladder? Will it be easier to be at 'X' value MMR after this unranked feature comes in to play? I have no doubts it will - but that doesn't matter at all! The "meaning" of 1500 only makes sense when you compare it against other players, so even if the goalposts are shifted slightly it doesn't matter. So why not add a unranked ladder where you get placed against opponents that have same skill than you on the ranked ladder? This is the way the rest of the world does it for last 20 years...
Because I'm approaching masters as zerg and bloody awful at the other races. When I'm playing protoss or terran I don't want to get faced against masters opponents! I want to get faced against opponents whose MMR is appropriate for my play, and if I'm offracing I need that MMR to be lower. If the unranked MMR was simply a fixed mirror of my ranked MMR, to get good games when offracing I would need to intentionally lose 20+ ranked games and drop several leagues!
About the problem with the skill function read the last post on the page before again. Rating functions work different than you think.
It matters because the skill value is nothing else, than a value that compare you with the average player by taking the average player skill derivation into account.
Why is it a problem if the average player skill changes? The average player skill is gradually improving over time anyway. It will decrease sharply due to an influx of new HOTS players. It may be further dampened by people playing unranked games and messing around. There are so many factors that impact the average player skill there is no use worrying about it.
|
On November 20 2012 23:59 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 23:52 skeldark wrote:
Everyone who knows something about gauss can explain that.
TLDR:
Every skill function need standard deviation of player skill.
This is not the case in computer games. But history show, its close enough to work with!
Its the BIG topic in skill calculation how close your players skill is to standard.
You can be unlucky and loose this "from" over time ( only good players stay and only bad ones join = you loose your middle ). So you want to avoid ANY factor, that makes the problem bigger. My point was that no one here knows how big the problem is, not if the rating system needs to assume a gauss distribution. I think most people agree that the matchmaking in WoL is pretty darned good, or at least it was, until they deliberately "loosened" it.
The problem gets bigger. Offset changes can tell you the how big it is. Because they aim for 20% 20% ... i can see what numbers they put in the offsets to get this goal. The numbers are not exact like they should be for gauss.
The diffrence between the numbers they have to put in and the numbers i would calculate with gauss show how big the problem is...
On November 21 2012 00:01 Hairy wrote:
Why is it a problem if the average player skill changes? The average player skill is gradually improving over time anyway. It will decrease sharply due to an influx of new HOTS players. It may be further dampened by people playing unranked games and messing around. There are so many factors that impact the average player skill there is no use worrying about it.
Like i said its not! Its a problem if the derivation change! Read my old post again.
Guys this is offtopic. Just take it as fact that its a big problem for a skill function when your player base is total out of standard derivation. If you dont believe this read about it.
|
On November 20 2012 23:55 skeldark wrote:
Ok here is what i expected they would do because thats how chess and all computer games did it in past:
You have one account in the ranked pool. Every game here is ranked. You play against people who have near your skill.
You can play an unranked game if you want. You only play against people who also want to play an unranked game.
The result dont change your or the opponents skill points.
The opponent finder however works like in ranked games. You get a opponent who have near your skill on your ranked account.
yes, however if i play my third race, in my case zerg, say i have a -150 MMR handicap (arbirtrary value). This means that everytime i try and i play zerg i will lose say, 75% of my games in unrankend ladder,as a player with -150 MMR compared to me would do when playing me in my main race.
Besides, all these system seem to expect that you can only play inside of them, but if i get a 1000 elo chess account, then i train 24/7 with a grandmaster friend in my house, then come back on the game, i will destroy everyone until i reach GM level..... then if i come back 2 years later having forgotten everything i will proceed to lose alot until back to say, 1100. The Gaussian curve will never be a good idea of real skill, only of ladder skill. There's famously a lot of progamers who suck in a ladder enviroment (compared to some others, who they beat anyway given a modicum of preparation)
edit: this thread is moving really fast
Of course Blizzard is pushing the one matchmaking pool because they are likely afraid that if there are separate matchmaking pools for both modes (ranked & unranked) the population in either mode would be so low that it would take much more time to find opponents than currently.
yea i agree this would be bad
|
On November 21 2012 00:04 Skirmjan wrote:Show nested quote +On November 20 2012 23:55 skeldark wrote:
Ok here is what i expected they would do because thats how chess and all computer games did it in past:
You have one account in the ranked pool. Every game here is ranked. You play against people who have near your skill.
You can play an unranked game if you want. You only play against people who also want to play an unranked game.
The result dont change your or the opponents skill points.
The opponent finder however works like in ranked games. You get a opponent who have near your skill on your ranked account. yes, however if i play my third race, in my case zerg, say i have a -150 MMR handicap (arbirtrary value). This means that everytime i try and i play zerg i will lose say, 75% of my games in unrankend ladder,as a player with -150 MMR compared to me would do when playing me in my main race.
Thats why many systems allow you to enter the range of your opponent by hand if you play unranked and also ask you before the game if you agree with the player he found or want to search again...
Also in this case you can add 3 account for everyone to the main ladder.
Its no problem if all player have the exact same amount of accounts! Unused accounts have to be filled with the value of the used ones. Also the diffrence races would not make an problem because in average all this accounts would be equal good ( if the game is balanced ... wait this would fuck everything up ^^)
|
So to (attempt to) summarize:
The MMR system has already been shown to be less accurate than the Gaussian curve to gauge skill, and adding an unranked ladder where players are matched against ranked players is going to lessen that accuracy even more.
My opinion: fine! Skirmjan said it well just above: "The Gaussian curve will never be a good idea of real skill, only of ladder skill." And the SC2 ladder is in the same way this shadow of any player's "real" skill; we all agree we can never know perfectly anyone's real skill. We do, however, come up with ladder systems to help us put an accurate number on it, like the Gaussian curve thing. It is a bit of a shame that the MMR system doesn't suit the competitive player as well as the casual one in gauging skill, but it's the one that's in place for SC2 and we have to live with it. For the competitive player, I still think tournaments are a better test of skill (not to mention more intense and exciting than ladder), but that's my opinion.
To finish on another related topic, I really like an idea that's been thrown out for the unranked ladder: checking off specifically the race, league or use the mmr, map, whatever, of the opponent you'd like. And then being asked if you agree to the one found by the matchmaking system... pretty cool, because that's unranked anyway. This would work as a seperate ladder from ranked, none of this playing-the-ranked-ladder-players stuff.
|
On November 21 2012 00:27 kongor wrote:
So to (attempt to) summarize:
The MMR system has already been shown to be less accurate than the Gaussian curve to gauge skill, and adding an unranked ladder where players are matched against ranked players is going to lessen that accuracy even more.
My opinion: fine! Skirmjan said it well just above: "The Gaussian curve will never be a good idea of real skill, only of ladder skill." And the SC2 ladder is in the same way this shadow of any player's "real" skill; we all agree we can never know perfectly anyone's real skill. We do, however, come up with ladder systems to help us put an accurate number on it, like the Gaussian curve thing. It is a bit of a shame that the MMR system doesn't suit the competitive player as well as the casual one in gauging skill, but it's the one that's in place for SC2 and we have to live with it. For the competitive player, I still think tournaments are a better test of skill (not to mention more intense and exciting than ladder), but that's my opinion.
Good summary.
I just dont see the point to lose it up more if there is no need for it. You can do an unranked ladder without creating new problems.
To finish on another related topic, I really like an idea that's been thrown out for the unranked ladder: checking off specifically the race, league, map, whatever, of the opponent you'd like. And then being asked if you agree to the one found by the matchmaking system... pretty cool, because that's unranked anyway. This would work as a seperate ladder from ranked, none of this playing the ranked ladder players stuff.
Impossible
This system was done before and did work well. It would be a good feature and also dont mess with the ladder. It will allow users freedom and allow them to find out them self what they want and for what they find people to play with.
It is possible to add this in a user friendly interface with great functionality.
All this would be against the fundamentals of battelnet! Besite that we have to wait until the technologies for checkboxes is invented!
|
For the offrace reason I'd expect them to take the ranked MMR for your first few unranked games. Then split off your unranked MMR. I think that's how they want to do it. Even though it just creates a more hidden MMR.
But the most important point, as skeldark pointed out already, is that ranked should never ever play against unranked or it will mess up ranked MMR so much.
- players dropping games to get a specific matchup will push their ranked opponents up the ladder
- players losing from shitty/stupid/funny/i don't care strategies will push their ranked opponents up the ladder
- high MMR players playing unranked but still honest that win will push their ranked opponents down the ladder
- high MMR players dropping unranked MMR, smurfing in low leagues, crushing lowleaguers will push their ranked opponents down the ladder
There are probably more scenarios like this.
Where you end up in the ladder (with your ranked MMR) doesn't depend on skill anymore, but on being lucky or unlucky with your unranked opponents.
|
On November 21 2012 00:05 skeldark wrote:
Thats why many systems allow you to enter the range of your opponent by hand if you play unranked and also ask you before the game if you agree with the player he found or want to search again...
Also in this case you can add 3 account for everyone to the main ladder.
Its no problem if all player have the exact same amount of accounts! Unused accounts have to be filled with the value of the used ones. Also the diffrence races would not make an problem because in average all this accounts would be equal good ( if the game is balanced ... wait this would fuck everything up ^^)
It would actually fuck up everything anyways, given that races don't have a 33% main race/second race/third race choice distribution, AND they have different skill requirements at different levels (ie say zerg is harder in bronze, terran in silver, protoss in gold, random stuff). Also players that usually Random mess that up even more :D.
About specifying the point interval ecc, i feel that is both incredibly prone to abuses, and also calls for a fairly responsible and learned adult to use >.< (i'm saying that it's both "complex" and abusable for the general internet folk... sigh, informatic systems need to be as simple as possible unfortunately)
I see that you're concerned with data pollution given by a big % of good players being multiplied, but what if there was a single MMR with said handicaps applied on it? Say, you play your unranked ladder, main race, you actually get to search for your ladder MMR minus a penalty calculated by the system who decides how bad you are when playing unranked, then applying an additional point penalty if playing offrace...
In such a system, you get a ghost unranked MMR that is only loosely tied to your real MMR, but applies modifiers which change after your Unladder matches (maybe even in a constant way? who really cares about that). So long as real ladder MMR doesn't get modified by an encounter with an Unladder player, the gauss is preserved and the Unladder is less punishing as they both should.
I am unfortunately not really informed on this subject, i'm trying to learn something ^^
To finish on another related topic, I really like an idea that's been thrown out for the unranked ladder: checking off specifically the race, league, map, whatever, of the opponent you'd like. And then being asked if you agree to the one found by the matchmaking system... pretty cool, because that's unranked anyway. This would work as a seperate ladder from ranked, none of this playing the ranked ladder players stuff.
Expanding on what i said above
First of all, how do you select the league of your opponent? you're playing unranked, his ranked league points ecc are unrelated to that, and he's probably offracing (how do you check if your opponent is offracing?)
Besides, imagine being either a low bronze or a high GM, the ones who would be targeted most often.... you risk having to constantly refuse requests from platinums/diamonds that are useless and unfun to you in both cases, so the system needs a blockoff system too, risking to lengthen the queues a lot,and to top it off most of these checks would be either in the 1 league interval, or troll league intervals.
Add to that that a good % of those playing unranked may be inactive in ranked ladder, and have a different skill level than the one shown by his 1 game-per-season league. unrelated question, those guys also pollute the normal ladder season? Or does that "active" requirement ignore them?
Obviously race and map should be there as they have less downsides, however.
if any of this is off-topic, please say so in a post and answer me in a PM, if you can be bothered with that ^^
edit: this post has become something akin to a zombie as i strive to keep it on par with the refresh rate of the thread :D
|
On November 21 2012 00:27 kongor wrote:
To finish on another related topic, I really like an idea that's been thrown out for the unranked ladder: checking off specifically the race, league or use the mmr, map, whatever, of the opponent you'd like. And then being asked if you agree to the one found by the matchmaking system... pretty cool, because that's unranked anyway. This would work as a seperate ladder from ranked, none of this playing-the-ranked-ladder-players stuff.
...
Expanding on what i said above
First of all, how do you select the league of your opponent? you're playing unranked, his ranked league points ecc are unrelated to that, and he's probably offracing (how do you check if your opponent is offracing?)
Besides, imagine being either a low bronze or a high GM, the ones who would be targeted most often.... you risk having to constantly refuse requests from platinums/diamonds that are useless and unfun to you in both cases, so the system needs a blockoff system too, risking to lengthen the queues a lot,and to top it off most of these checks would be either in the 1 league interval, or troll league intervals.
Add to that that a good % of those playing unranked may be inactive in ranked ladder, and have a different skill level than the one shown by his 1 game-per-season league. unrelated question, those guys also pollute the normal ladder season? Or does that "active" requirement ignore them?
Obviously race and map should be there as they have less downsides, however.
MAN! What was I thinking! You guys are right, that wouldnt work at all. It wouldn't be fair to call it unranked ladder. It would be... custom game? Isn't that available already anyway? In the form of games already being hosted and waiting for a player to join? Minus the display of the skill of the players, that remains hidden, but an unranked ladder where you can specify the league/skill of your opponent wouldn't be useful or fun for very long. I think now that if it does interest you, you should go find a custom game.
All this would be against the fundamentals of battlenet! Beside that we have to wait until the technologies for checkboxes are invented!
Not to mention the need for checkboxes, righto, talk about a theoretical not-yet-existent object =P
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
