EPTDiamond could act as a gatekeeper to Masters and Masters could be split into the three leagues that it is in most peoples mind right now (Lower, Mid and Upper), GM can stay as it is.
New League Distribution in HotS - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
Diamond could act as a gatekeeper to Masters and Masters could be split into the three leagues that it is in most peoples mind right now (Lower, Mid and Upper), GM can stay as it is. | ||
|
Swift118
United Kingdom335 Posts
On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote: Yeah, the wording was stupid, both systems are obviously relative to other players. I actually wanted to deleted that phrase, no idea why I ended up leaving it. My main point still stands: Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. Wouldn't B+/A- be closer related to grandmasters? I agree that the the term masters is maybe not a true reflection of quite a decent portion of the players in the league, but I just tend to ignore the literal terming and view it as just a league name. | ||
|
ALPINA
3791 Posts
On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit. I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success. But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league  Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something.But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. | ||
|
Cortza
South Africa328 Posts
On March 12 2013 03:08 vultdylan wrote: I feel like this is going to lower the skill level for silver/gold, allowing for players that may not be skilled enough for Platinum league to get promoted by playing players who were formerly bronze/silver in skill. I don't see how this will happen. If you can't beat a plat player, you can't get into platinum. Doesn't matter how they distribute the leagues below. | ||
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
Oukka
Finland1683 Posts
But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. I think this is a weird and somehow twisted idea. Why is loosing to an all-in or a cheese somehow less significant? Shouldn't a great player be able to hold cheese or an all-in from a weaker opponent? Actually that is (or used to be) the largest tell between a bronze and a silver player. In ladder where it is up to a point very hard or almost impossible to prepare for a specific opponent it should be natural to use safer builds and scout more. That's why players like Kas in EU are such ladder gods, they play ladder as a different game from online/offline cups where they actually now their opponents and can prepare for their playstyles. Got sidetracked a bit. | ||
|
thezanursic
5500 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote: Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something.But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. | ||
|
spalding
95 Posts
| ||
|
blackone
Germany1314 Posts
On March 14 2013 23:12 thezanursic wrote: Hahahaha, such a bullshit excuse from blizzard. Since you are the only one who knows the real reason, do you mind telling us what it is? | ||
|
thurst0n
United States611 Posts
On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote: This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. But if we really compare ourselves to the entire world then we'd all be in the Master league. I think this discussion got off track. I like the new distribution even though I'm somewhere at the bottom of diamond league. I think when people say everyone below high master is actually bad it's because it's simply true. It's not a comparison to other pro players or GM players. It's a comparison to their knowledge of the game. Low league players have an inflated sense of their skill. As the knowledge increases on the game as a whole, so does the knowledge of how many incompetencies you actually have at the game. I don't have to compare my play to anyone to point out consistent glaring mistakes that could lose me the game if my opponent had any real skill/ability. I don't think it's really elitism. I think its' just a culture of understanding. If you admit to yourself that you're bad and make mistakes, then you are less likely to make the mistake of hubris. If you lie to yourself, like I do about my poker skills, then you are more likely to lose a lot (in the case of poker it's money that I lose). Even if this is elitism, it doesn't really hurt anyone (unless you count egos, which I don't). The elitism that hurts is when people say SC2 is the only real e-sport or Starcraft is the only pure game. I think it hurts even when people rag on consoles because they're PC elitists. Just my two cents. | ||
|
thezanursic
5500 Posts
On March 14 2013 22:28 Swift118 wrote: Wouldn't B+/A- be closer related to grandmasters? I agree that the the term masters is maybe not a true reflection of quite a decent portion of the players in the league, but I just tend to ignore the literal terming and view it as just a league name. Sheth said that he found that maintaining an A- was a lot more difficult than GM... in terms of effort to reach the skill it's something like D = Platnum D+ = Diamond C- = Low to mid masters C = Mid masters C+ = High masters B- = Also High masters B = GM skill level ... A+ = Korean Courage players/Low ranking practice partners for korean teams Olympic (Didn't actually happen a lot because it's a lot more efficient at this level to you know... Practice with other pros...) = Average proffesional players. Most ex BW players would probably agree with the above. BW had a lot more variation in terms of skill and it was a lot more apparent | ||
|
AmericanUmlaut
Germany2594 Posts
On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote:Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. No, it's better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the high end. SC2's is better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the low end. The problem with both is that they use too few buckets. Go uses a system with potentially infinite buckets*: The best players in your playing population are first dan (1d). Anyone who can hold their own against 1d players with the advantage of getting to play black (black gets the first move) every game is 2d. This logic recurses until 9d, then the next-weakest rank is first kyu (1k), which goes by the same logic but counts upwards (2k, 3k, ...) until you've categorized the weakest player in your population. A system like that is great, because the granularity is by definition exactly as large as it needs to be to say something meaningful about your chances of defeating another player in a straight-up match. The problem with it is that there aren't enough kinds of metal (or metastable allotropes of carbon) to use catchy names for the rankings, which is obviously something Blizzard considers an important point. * I know that there is a separate set of professional dan ranks that are finer-grained: I'm simplifying. | ||
|
thezanursic
5500 Posts
On March 14 2013 23:20 spalding wrote: I would really like to see the masters league be split up in 3 different leagues i am sorry, but I assumed that any intelligible person would see that this is a feel good excercise.... Hahhahahah quoted the wrong guy, sorry wrong guy | ||
|
thezanursic
5500 Posts
On March 14 2013 23:25 AmericanUmlaut wrote: No, it's better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the high end. SC2's is better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the low end. The problem with both is that they use too few buckets. Go uses a system with potentially infinite buckets*: The best players in your playing population are first dan (1d). Anyone who can hold their own against 1d players with the advantage of getting to play black (black gets the first move) every game is 2d. This logic recurses until 9d, then the next-weakest rank is first kyu (1k), which goes by the same logic but counts upwards (2k, 3k, ...) until you've categorized the weakest player in your population. A system like that is great, because the granularity is by definition exactly as large as it needs to be to say something meaningful about your chances of defeating another player in a straight-up match. The problem with it is that there aren't enough kinds of metal (or metastable allotropes of carbon) to use catchy names for the rankings, which is obviously something Blizzard considers an important point. * I know that there is a separate set of professional dan ranks that are finer-grained: I'm simplifying. 1+... Why did they get rid of copper though : / . | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
I think this is mainly to keep that extreme bottom end more segregated from the rest of the community. Edit: It is probably worth mentioning that the very bottom of master league (for those that haven't looked) is usually populated by people that get masters and then quit playing that account. Basically, if you are masters and active, you are almost guaranteed to be in the top 50 or so (mid master), so there really isn't an active "low master" set of players a few weeks after the season starts. | ||
|
HardlyNever
United States1258 Posts
On March 14 2013 23:28 thezanursic wrote: 1+... Why did they get rid of copper though : / . Master and Grandmaster aren't metals at all. SICK BUURRRNNN J/k | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote: Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. ICCUP is better at determining skill at the high end of the spectrum (the top few percent of players), while the SC2 ladder is better at determining the skill for the other part. You could split master league into 10 new leagues ranging from "promoted-due-to-lucky-winstreak-master" to "super-hyper-gosu-why-havent-you-won-gsl-yet-master" and you'd have the same effect that the ICCUP ranking has. But currently, I think the SC2 ranking is better. Once you're in masters, you can use your points ranking as a rough indication of how you're doing, but more importantly, once you're high masters or GM, you should know enough about the game to have your own metric of how you're performing and improving instead of relying on ladder stats. For the 98% of players that aren't in masters, having a 5 different leagues to differentiate their skill level is quite informative. | ||
|
Rannasha
Netherlands2398 Posts
On March 14 2013 23:28 thezanursic wrote: 1+... Why did they get rid of copper though : / . Bronze is the new copper. Copper was removed in the same patch that introduced diamond as the new top-end league. So effectively everyone just shifted up a league and nothing really changed other than the names. | ||
|
blackbrrd
Norway477 Posts
On March 14 2013 23:28 thezanursic wrote: 1+... Why did they get rid of copper though : / . Lots of fun names they could use: Pewter, copper, tin, stone, wood. Nothing better than being able to brag about getting out of wood-league and into stone.  | ||
| ||
