|
On November 14 2013 22:20 Salient wrote:
An official announcement would be awesome so we would know how many games we must play to avoid this (and when we must play those games). Due Process FTW.
Based on current knowledge based on research you need to play 1 game in a time frame less than 2 weeks to avoid the decay. But if you are inactive for more than 2 weeks, then decay ramps up very quickly. If you face maximum decay, then you need some 20 wins more than loses to overcome it (e.g. 20W - 0L).
And yes. It would be great if they would publicly acknowledge the problem & do something.
|
On November 14 2013 22:33 korona wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 22:20 Salient wrote:
An official announcement would be awesome so we would know how many games we must play to avoid this (and when we must play those games). Due Process FTW. Based on current knowledge based on research you need to play 1 game in a time frame less than 2 weeks to avoid the decay. But if you are inactive for more than 2 weeks, then decay ramps up very quickly. If you face maximum decay, then you need some 20 wins more than loses to overcome it (e.g. 20W - 0L). And yes. It would be great if they would publicly acknowledge the problem & do something.
I went from Diamond to gold in 2 season of semi-inactivity. Still I find ladder decay to be a good thing, people should not be able to stay in the higher leagues if they don't play anymore.
Nothing frustrated me more than people showing off their 1-game-a-season master league they got off of 4 gating in 2010.
|
I don't understand why Blizz doesn't just display your MMR and your opponent's MMR. It's like a chess rating right? That's not private, you always know the rating of your opponent. Why is it such a big secret in SC2?
|
On November 14 2013 22:42 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 22:33 korona wrote:On November 14 2013 22:20 Salient wrote:
An official announcement would be awesome so we would know how many games we must play to avoid this (and when we must play those games). Due Process FTW. Based on current knowledge based on research you need to play 1 game in a time frame less than 2 weeks to avoid the decay. But if you are inactive for more than 2 weeks, then decay ramps up very quickly. If you face maximum decay, then you need some 20 wins more than loses to overcome it (e.g. 20W - 0L). And yes. It would be great if they would publicly acknowledge the problem & do something. I went from Diamond to gold in 2 season of semi-inactivity. Still I find ladder decay to be a good thing, people should not be able to stay in the higher leagues if they don't play anymore. Nothing frustrated me more than people showing off their 1-game-a-season master league they got off of 4 gating in 2010.
Agreed, but a less aggressive decay or reset would accomplish that without the side effects.
|
On November 14 2013 22:55 iPhoneAppz wrote:
I don't understand why Blizz doesn't just display your MMR and your opponent's MMR. It's like a chess rating right? That's not private, you always know the rating of your opponent. Why is it such a big secret in SC2?
The assumption is that most of the long time players have reached a plateau, and their actual MMR stays more or less the same over time. Blizzard thinks that such a thing, if made plain, would deprive the players of any sense of accomplishment, hence all the fake ladder points, which you naturally increase along the season (even if you are playing bad). For Blizzard, ladder (especially below master) isn't about showing who's best or where you are exactly standing among other players, but rather a way to keep people playing giving false senses of accomplishments (even when you are not accomplishing anything).
Note that's not actually a total bad thing, since it is meant to keep more people in the game.. but I agree that for those interestend in a decent ladder system, that's really really bad.
|
On November 14 2013 21:21 korona wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 00:20 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
I just get the impression they can’t make up their minds.
First they adjusted the range of players you can be matched against.. having legit masters playing platinums just for variety.. yeaaa..
Then Two seasons it was super easy to get promoted. I made it to masters and I should not be in masters.. I’m barely diamond.
Then they adjust it so you can’t get demoted in mid season.. what prompted that?
Now this decay is completely falsifying the ranking at the start of the each season.
If you think a moment you realize that most of these things are connected. First they made MMR ranges of each league considerably smaller in beginning of HotS (S12). They also seemed to abandon moving average regarding promotions (you seem to be promoted immediately when you cross league thresholds). E.g. if you were low to mid gold league player and had a win streak of 10, you would likely have been promoted to platinum. Similar loss streak would have dropped your MMR to low to mid silver. 15 to 20 losses would have dropped you to high bronze MMR range. As leagues were small, demotions would have been much more frequent. They adjusted the league sizes in beginning of third HotS season (S14). The MMR ranges are now larger, but still small compared to MMR ranges of WoL era leagues: + Show Spoiler +End of WoL offsets in MMR tool scale (bronze-silver, s-g, g-p, p-d, d-m, master-gm. Note that the dynamic GM entry barrier is much higher than the offset would suggest):
585, 345, 345, 255, 380, 590
HotS S12-S13:
200, 185, 180, 185, 200, 290
HotS S14 -:
280, 300, 280, 250, 250, 400
I have not checked if the max decay was smaller during S12 to S13. If it was & as leagues were smaller, it would have been faster to overcome it (less games). I wonder did they increase the max decay in comparable size to the league size increase.
Second they introduced MMR decay in beginning of HotS (it is possible that already in 2.0.x patch that was applied ~month before HotS). If there were mid season demotions, then the decay would be immediately evident when you come back from a hiatus - You would likely have been demoted immediately. It seems that Blizzard wanted that players would not know about the decay mechanism - They are still avoiding to acknowledge it, even if even the most casual end of players who don't read community forums have likely noticed that something is wrong. Third they adjusted the matchmaker. It now picks primarily opponents from your own league who have similar MMR as you (secondarily from other leagues). Thus if you are in gold, but your MMR is e.g. in low silver, you are still most of the time matched against gold players (golds that have low silver MMR). This mechanism was likely added to hide possible MMR decay (+ decrease amount of complaints such as 'I am in silver, why I am matched against a gold player'). E.g. if a mid gold MMR player faces max decay his MMR drops to low to mid silver. If this mechanism was not implemented then most of his opponents would be silver players. But now as the opponents are mostly from gold, the decayed player won't necessarily even realize that he is not anymore a gold player based on MMR. He is still able to get very high rank in his gold division, especially as now he plays against players with much lower MMR than before (his adjusted points are much higher than typical non-decayed player with so low MMR would have).
"corrected" is relative.. there would be no reason to change things if they didn't keep mucking with it. the point is its frustrating. That's an opinion shared amongst many here.. so that's indisputable.
|
On November 15 2013 00:29 Malhavoc wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 22:55 iPhoneAppz wrote:
I don't understand why Blizz doesn't just display your MMR and your opponent's MMR. It's like a chess rating right? That's not private, you always know the rating of your opponent. Why is it such a big secret in SC2? The assumption is that most of the long time players have reached a plateau, and their actual MMR stays more or less the same over time. Blizzard thinks that such a thing, if made plain, would deprive the players of any sense of accomplishment, hence all the fake ladder points, which you naturally increase along the season (even if you are playing bad). For Blizzard, ladder (especially below master) isn't about showing who's best or where you are exactly standing among other players, but rather a way to keep people playing giving false senses of accomplishments (even when you are not accomplishing anything). Note that's not actually a total bad thing, since it is meant to keep more people in the game.. but I agree that for those interestend in a decent ladder system, that's really really bad.
I think that these are really good insights and great points. I find it a little odd because SC is so competitive and an eSport and all. I guess I should think of the ladder more as a business model for Blizzard and less of a formalized competitive structure like chess.
|
Match making seems honestly messed up thanks to this right now. I would like Blizzard to at least address the concerns with some explanations.
|
On November 14 2013 22:42 Douillos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 22:33 korona wrote:On November 14 2013 22:20 Salient wrote:
An official announcement would be awesome so we would know how many games we must play to avoid this (and when we must play those games). Due Process FTW. Based on current knowledge based on research you need to play 1 game in a time frame less than 2 weeks to avoid the decay. But if you are inactive for more than 2 weeks, then decay ramps up very quickly. If you face maximum decay, then you need some 20 wins more than loses to overcome it (e.g. 20W - 0L). And yes. It would be great if they would publicly acknowledge the problem & do something. I went from Diamond to gold in 2 season of semi-inactivity. Still I find ladder decay to be a good thing, people should not be able to stay in the higher leagues if they don't play anymore. Nothing frustrated me more than people showing off their 1-game-a-season master league they got off of 4 gating in 2010.
Yeah, I fully agree with inactivity demotions! I just don't think the current decay is... balanced.
|
Yeah, dump the league if needed. But if you dump the MMR as well, then at the very least the it be possible to get the MMR back up to about previous level in, say 5 games or so, rather than 20. I'm fine with it taking 20 games to get the league back, I don't care about my league, but I don't want to be bashing noobs in the meanwhile
|
On November 15 2013 08:24 Ignorant prodigy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 14 2013 21:21 korona wrote:On November 14 2013 00:20 Ignorant prodigy wrote:
I just get the impression they can’t make up their minds.
First they adjusted the range of players you can be matched against.. having legit masters playing platinums just for variety.. yeaaa..
Then Two seasons it was super easy to get promoted. I made it to masters and I should not be in masters.. I’m barely diamond.
Then they adjust it so you can’t get demoted in mid season.. what prompted that?
Now this decay is completely falsifying the ranking at the start of the each season.
If you think a moment you realize that most of these things are connected. First they made MMR ranges of each league considerably smaller in beginning of HotS (S12). They also seemed to abandon moving average regarding promotions (you seem to be promoted immediately when you cross league thresholds). E.g. if you were low to mid gold league player and had a win streak of 10, you would likely have been promoted to platinum. Similar loss streak would have dropped your MMR to low to mid silver. 15 to 20 losses would have dropped you to high bronze MMR range. As leagues were small, demotions would have been much more frequent. They adjusted the league sizes in beginning of third HotS season (S14). The MMR ranges are now larger, but still small compared to MMR ranges of WoL era leagues: + Show Spoiler +End of WoL offsets in MMR tool scale (bronze-silver, s-g, g-p, p-d, d-m, master-gm. Note that the dynamic GM entry barrier is much higher than the offset would suggest):
585, 345, 345, 255, 380, 590
HotS S12-S13:
200, 185, 180, 185, 200, 290
HotS S14 -:
280, 300, 280, 250, 250, 400
I have not checked if the max decay was smaller during S12 to S13. If it was & as leagues were smaller, it would have been faster to overcome it (less games). I wonder did they increase the max decay in comparable size to the league size increase.
Second they introduced MMR decay in beginning of HotS (it is possible that already in 2.0.x patch that was applied ~month before HotS). If there were mid season demotions, then the decay would be immediately evident when you come back from a hiatus - You would likely have been demoted immediately. It seems that Blizzard wanted that players would not know about the decay mechanism - They are still avoiding to acknowledge it, even if even the most casual end of players who don't read community forums have likely noticed that something is wrong. Third they adjusted the matchmaker. It now picks primarily opponents from your own league who have similar MMR as you (secondarily from other leagues). Thus if you are in gold, but your MMR is e.g. in low silver, you are still most of the time matched against gold players (golds that have low silver MMR). This mechanism was likely added to hide possible MMR decay (+ decrease amount of complaints such as 'I am in silver, why I am matched against a gold player'). E.g. if a mid gold MMR player faces max decay his MMR drops to low to mid silver. If this mechanism was not implemented then most of his opponents would be silver players. But now as the opponents are mostly from gold, the decayed player won't necessarily even realize that he is not anymore a gold player based on MMR. He is still able to get very high rank in his gold division, especially as now he plays against players with much lower MMR than before (his adjusted points are much higher than typical non-decayed player with so low MMR would have). "corrected" is relative.. there would be no reason to change things if they didn't keep mucking with it. the point is its frustrating. That's an opinion shared amongst many here.. so that's indisputable.
'Connected'... Not 'corrected'. Yes it is annoying as many mechanisms seem to be there mainly for hiding information. Before decay mechanism, the MMR in general gave nice info regarding players' skill level. But now as Blizzard tampers it directly & considerably, it often does not represent skill anymore, but is only a rating that is used for matchmaking.
|
On November 15 2013 15:57 Cascade wrote:
Yeah, dump the league if needed. But if you dump the MMR as well, then at the very least the it be possible to get the MMR back up to about previous level in, say 5 games or so, rather than 20. I'm fine with it taking 20 games to get the league back, I don't care about my league, but I don't want to be bashing noobs in the meanwhile
Note that most players require much larger amount of matches to overcome the max decay, especially as they are also playing against other decayed players. If you win 100% then the minimum generalized case is 20 W - 0 L. But if you e.g. win 66.7% it becomes 40W - 20L, if you win 55.6% then you need 100W - 80L. Some don't reach their old MMR level anymore even with much more games & positive win ratio.
Regarding the ladder system: I think the current system would be fine, if they adjust decay mechanism (or remove it + communicate how it functions), separate ranked & unranked queues and add visible MMR. The current system gives people goals & something to play for. And the visible MMR would communicate where they actually are compared to other people.
|
But doesn't this system also make preventing multiple teams from decaying too much of a commitment? I still haven't understood (if anybody knows for sure) if the 2 week before decaying starts is separated for each ladder (1v1, all Random teams, and all arranged teams), or just between 1v1+Random Teams and every single arranged team.
To sum it up:
1) Do I have to play each random team ladder to prevent them from decaying, even if I play 1v1 constantly? Same question the other way around.
2) If the question to the above is "no", is it different if the teams are instead arranged teams?
|
On November 15 2013 19:41 Malhavoc wrote:
But doesn't this system also make preventing multiple teams from decaying too much of a commitment? I still haven't understood (if anybody knows for sure) if the 2 week before decaying starts is separated for each ladder (1v1, all Random teams, and all arranged teams), or just between 1v1+Random Teams and every single arranged team.
To sum it up:
1) Do I have to play each random team ladder to prevent them from decaying, even if I play 1v1 constantly? Same question the other way around.
2) If the question to the above is "no", is it different if the teams are instead arranged teams?
Unknown. Regarding MMR tool we can only calculate 1v1 ratings. And some ranked 1v1 accounts are unaffected even if having had long inactivity period --> some other activities prevent the decay.
For example regarding season transitions the 1v1 MMR is linked to random team MMR. Your 1v1 MMR is only reseted if you have neither 1v1 or random team MMR from the previous season. Similarly these MMRs _could_ be linked also regarding the MMR decay.
|
i probably misunderstood the text cuz to me there is no "decay" 13 weeks not played (16 if u take out the single game that took place 13 weeks ago) and first game i played today cuz i wanted to start playing again is vs #156 in gm. thats fun (no its not)
|
On November 15 2013 19:10 korona wrote:
Regarding the ladder system: I think the current system would be fine, if they adjust decay mechanism (or remove it + communicate how it functions), separate ranked & unranked queues and add visible MMR. The current system gives people goals & something to play for. And the visible MMR would communicate where they actually are compared to other people.
Yes. All of your suggestions, yes. Having ranked and unranked queue together is dumb. But, I understand that Blizz probably has to do it because there are probably a lot more players queued in unranked than in ranked.
|
On November 15 2013 19:41 Malhavoc wrote:
But doesn't this system also make preventing multiple teams from decaying too much of a commitment? I still haven't understood (if anybody knows for sure) if the 2 week before decaying starts is separated for each ladder (1v1, all Random teams, and all arranged teams), or just between 1v1+Random Teams and every single arranged team.
To sum it up:
1) Do I have to play each random team ladder to prevent them from decaying, even if I play 1v1 constantly? Same question the other way around.
2) If the question to the above is "no", is it different if the teams are instead arranged teams?
In my experience, the separate arranged teams seem to decay independently. This is ofc only anecdotal evidence, so I don't claim proof or even discovery for this, but I play every weekend with some friends, but in general different friends. Every time I play with a configuration of friends that I haven't payed with for a while we get a long win streak (like 10-0, 15-1 or so...) and only towards the end are the games even remotely close. The numbers seem to roughly agree with having to go 20-0 to return to previous MMR. These teams can be 2on2, 3on3 and 4on4.
This makes it extra annoying for us, because we are not taking breaks. We play maybe 20 games per weekend, but we still suffer a lot from this decay, to the extent that a large prtion of the games I am playing these days are pure noob-bashes. Not even close... We can go whatever silly builds, get caught by proxy whatever, mis-micro horribly, but still win. It gets kindof boring, and I'm sure the people we play against feel the same (almost all of them seem to have bad allies as well, or so they claim...  ).
|
United States12240 Posts
On November 15 2013 22:34 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On November 15 2013 19:41 Malhavoc wrote:
But doesn't this system also make preventing multiple teams from decaying too much of a commitment? I still haven't understood (if anybody knows for sure) if the 2 week before decaying starts is separated for each ladder (1v1, all Random teams, and all arranged teams), or just between 1v1+Random Teams and every single arranged team.
To sum it up:
1) Do I have to play each random team ladder to prevent them from decaying, even if I play 1v1 constantly? Same question the other way around.
2) If the question to the above is "no", is it different if the teams are instead arranged teams? In my experience, the separate arranged teams seem to decay independently. This is ofc only anecdotal evidence, so I don't claim proof or even discovery for this, but I play every weekend with some friends, but in general different friends. Every time I play with a configuration of friends that I haven't payed with for a while we get a long win streak (like 10-0, 15-1 or so...) and only towards the end are the games even remotely close. The numbers seem to roughly agree with having to go 20-0 to return to previous MMR. These teams can be 2on2, 3on3 and 4on4. This makes it extra annoying for us, because we are not taking breaks. We play maybe 20 games per weekend, but we still suffer a lot from this decay, to the extent that a large prtion of the games I am playing these days are pure noob-bashes. Not even close... We can go whatever silly builds, get caught by proxy whatever, mis-micro horribly, but still win. It gets kindof boring, and I'm sure the people we play against feel the same (almost all of them seem to have bad allies as well, or so they claim... ).
Yeah, it would have been my guess too that each team decays independently. I also have to wonder if unranked play instead of ranked causes decay, because that's an interesting question. Because unranked and ranked aren't connected except to provide seed values, it's very possible that you would still decay.
|
Note: for me this is slowly starting to level out. I'm 6x plat, now in gold, and I'm no longer playing many ex-masters guys, mostly ex-diamond or ex-plat 
I'm inly worried that the beginning of each season will be similar 
Half of my initial 20 games were against ex-masters guys, which was terrible.
|
On November 16 2013 01:11 tili wrote:Note: for me this is slowly starting to level out. I'm 6x plat, now in gold, and I'm no longer playing many ex-masters guys, mostly ex-diamond or ex-plat I'm inly worried that the beginning of each season will be similar Half of my initial 20 games were against ex-masters guys, which was terrible. They're all too busy playing me now. I played 8 games yesterday, 6 were 3+ time Master players (one 9 time Master). I guess it might have to do with where you are MMR-wise though. I am playing mostly people currently ranked Diamond now but were previously Master.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
