|
On March 31 2014 19:44 SEA KarMa wrote:
I would suggest straight up ELO number like broodwar. Broodwar had unlimited accounts, whereas SC2 you have to dish a bit of money to get another account, and hence much harder to farm points.
iirc it took people almost a month or two to get their first win in the BW system unless they hunted for lowbies specifically. Not sure if that's the best strategy for gaining a bigger casual audience.
|
United States12235 Posts
On April 01 2014 01:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2014 19:44 SEA KarMa wrote:
I would suggest straight up ELO number like broodwar. Broodwar had unlimited accounts, whereas SC2 you have to dish a bit of money to get another account, and hence much harder to farm points. iirc it took people almost a month or two to get their first win in the BW system unless they hunted for lowbies specifically. Not sure if that's the best strategy for gaining a bigger casual audience.
There were a couple of problems that I sort of glossed over because they're inherent to an Elo system. The first is stagnation. I mentioned before that my ladder rating was 1337, and I kept it that way for obvious reasons, but my rating stayed at 1337 as long as I chose not to play any more ladder games. One common problem (in addition to wintrading and map/disc-hacking) was that people would get to a high rating and then sit on it, and the percentage of players who played ladder was pretty low anyway. The second problem, somewhat related, was dodging. Because you could see the rating of your opponent, you could decide whether it would be worth your time to play against them. Is it worth it for me as a 1300 player to play against a 900 player when I only stand to gain maybe 0 or 1 point or lose 25? Or, should I wait for a 1400 player to come along? Maybe the 1400 will dodge because he has more to lose than to gain.
|
On April 01 2014 02:01 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 01:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:On March 31 2014 19:44 SEA KarMa wrote:
I would suggest straight up ELO number like broodwar. Broodwar had unlimited accounts, whereas SC2 you have to dish a bit of money to get another account, and hence much harder to farm points. iirc it took people almost a month or two to get their first win in the BW system unless they hunted for lowbies specifically. Not sure if that's the best strategy for gaining a bigger casual audience. There were a couple of problems that I sort of glossed over because they're inherent to an Elo system. The first is stagnation. I mentioned before that my ladder rating was 1337, and I kept it that way for obvious reasons, but my rating stayed at 1337 as long as I chose not to play any more ladder games. One common problem (in addition to wintrading and map/disc-hacking) was that people would get to a high rating and then sit on it, and the percentage of players who played ladder was pretty low anyway. The second problem, somewhat related, was dodging. Because you could see the rating of your opponent, you could decide whether it would be worth your time to play against them. Is it worth it for me as a 1300 player to play against a 900 player when I only stand to gain maybe 0 or 1 point or lose 25? Or, should I wait for a 1400 player to come along? Maybe the 1400 will dodge because he has more to lose than to gain.
No disagreement from me. I guess I'm kind of cold to almost any ranking system--which is problematic when a group is trying to decide which is the closest to being objectively accurate. I just feel that no matter what system is used, low level players will point out some flaw in it and create a shit storm blaming that that one tiny aspect of the system is the only reason that they are unfairly ranked. In the end it doesn't matter as much as self reflection.
|
I just dont understand why your argument that "there will always be complaints", which I dont think anyone is disputing, leads to your opinion that all matchmaking systems are equal. Thats a non sequitur. Why not match people based on their achivement points in that case? Or do you draw the line at that? In which case what is wrong with drawing the line at no decay when a very logical argument exists for doing so...
|
On April 01 2014 11:34 Spirit09 wrote:
I just dont understand why your argument that "there will always be complaints", which I dont think anyone is disputing, leads to your opinion that all matchmaking systems are equal. Thats a non sequitur. Why not match people based on their achivement points in that case? Or do you draw the line at that? In which case what is wrong with drawing the line at no decay when a very logical argument exists for doing so...
Because it's only logical to those who prefer no decay.
I'm not arguing all versions are the same *because people complain* I am arguing that a ladder system is in end always arbitrary. And because it's arbitrary, each of them will have their fans and haters who all give "logical" arguments why one is better than the other. No ladder system will be better than self reflection and personal experience.
|
Well I guess I disagree that its always arbitary... a matchmaking ststem that involves a random number generator is clearly less effective than one that does not.
Decay is an awful awful idea for all the reasons given before. No one seems to come up with any argument for it more convincing than "well I like it". And they are far in the minority anyway. Ask korona what he thinks seeing as he has to deal with it mucking up attempts to see real skill tracking. Or see if chess players would like to see thir Elo drop by random amounts periodically?where is this equally logical argument in favour of it?
Unless you are high ranked player who is never inactive it is universally bad for your matchmaking.
|
On April 01 2014 11:34 Spirit09 wrote:
I just dont understand why your argument that "there will always be complaints", which I dont think anyone is disputing, leads to your opinion that all matchmaking systems are equal. Thats a non sequitur. Why not match people based on their achivement points in that case? Or do you draw the line at that? In which case what is wrong with drawing the line at no decay when a very logical argument exists for doing so...
I always wondered. In what course or lectures do you native english speakers learn fancy latin logic and rhetorics terminology?
(That's an honest question btw, I'm not trying to troll anyone here. I always found that some people on the TL forums always know some precise term for any given logical fallacy. It's a bit weird, yet impressive).
|
On April 02 2014 03:08 Spirit09 wrote:
Well I guess I disagree that its always arbitary... a matchmaking ststem that involves a random number generator is clearly less effective than one that does not.
Decay is an awful awful idea for all the reasons given before. No one seems to come up with any argument for it more convincing than "well I like it". And they are far in the minority anyway. Ask korona what he thinks seeing as he has to deal with it mucking up attempts to see real skill tracking. Or see if chess players would like to see thir Elo drop by random amounts periodically?where is this equally logical argument in favour of it?
Unless you are high ranked player who is never inactive it is universally bad for your matchmaking.
Decay, by its nature, is a system that favors consistent player skill over time instead of bursts of player skill. By adding a decay, you only are able to keep on top by not only playing well, but by also either predicting or dictating the metagame. As opposes to a non-decay system where players can cheese to a high rank, then stop playing until a new cheese shows up.
It favors the learning of a consistent playstyle that does not fade with random fluctuations of meta shifts. In doing so, only players who actually care about the game gets to be rewarded by the game. That is what point decay is for.
No decay also has its pluses while both point decay and point stagnation also have their minuses. You disliking point decay is literally no different than people disliking point stagnation. You guys sound the same, and you guys both act as vitriolic.
In the end it doesn't matter which system is used. Change it, don't change it, doesn't matter. Nothing gets revolutionized in either case.
|
On April 02 2014 03:13 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 01 2014 11:34 Spirit09 wrote:
I just dont understand why your argument that "there will always be complaints", which I dont think anyone is disputing, leads to your opinion that all matchmaking systems are equal. Thats a non sequitur. Why not match people based on their achivement points in that case? Or do you draw the line at that? In which case what is wrong with drawing the line at no decay when a very logical argument exists for doing so... I always wondered. In what course or lectures do you native english speakers learn fancy latin logic and rhetorics terminology? (That's an honest question btw, I'm not trying to troll anyone here. I always found that some people on the TL forums always know some precise term for any given logical fallacy. It's a bit weird, yet impressive).
Wikipedia.
I bet that majority of forum posters had no idea about fallacies until wikipedia taught them.
|
On April 02 2014 04:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 03:13 ZenithM wrote:On April 01 2014 11:34 Spirit09 wrote:
I just dont understand why your argument that "there will always be complaints", which I dont think anyone is disputing, leads to your opinion that all matchmaking systems are equal. Thats a non sequitur. Why not match people based on their achivement points in that case? Or do you draw the line at that? In which case what is wrong with drawing the line at no decay when a very logical argument exists for doing so... I always wondered. In what course or lectures do you native english speakers learn fancy latin logic and rhetorics terminology? (That's an honest question btw, I'm not trying to troll anyone here. I always found that some people on the TL forums always know some precise term for any given logical fallacy. It's a bit weird, yet impressive). Wikipedia. I bet that majority of forum posters had no idea about fallacies until wikipedia taught them.
Well I know I personally look up the jargon in Wikipedia every time someone comes up with a fancy cool term ;D
In my logic and advanced logic classes, we just tried to prove or refute shit, not invent cool names for flawed reasoning processes ;D
I guess that you learn this shit in logic classes for philosophy or something. Goddammit Wikipedia even has a list of those haha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies.
On topic though, I think the matchmaking is a bit better these days, but I wish they could make the decay global and not queue-bounded.
|
On April 02 2014 04:26 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:15 Thieving Magpie wrote:On April 02 2014 03:13 ZenithM wrote:On April 01 2014 11:34 Spirit09 wrote:
I just dont understand why your argument that "there will always be complaints", which I dont think anyone is disputing, leads to your opinion that all matchmaking systems are equal. Thats a non sequitur. Why not match people based on their achivement points in that case? Or do you draw the line at that? In which case what is wrong with drawing the line at no decay when a very logical argument exists for doing so... I always wondered. In what course or lectures do you native english speakers learn fancy latin logic and rhetorics terminology? (That's an honest question btw, I'm not trying to troll anyone here. I always found that some people on the TL forums always know some precise term for any given logical fallacy. It's a bit weird, yet impressive). Wikipedia. I bet that majority of forum posters had no idea about fallacies until wikipedia taught them. Well I know I personally look up the jargon in Wikipedia every time someone comes up with a fancy cool term ;D In my logic and advanced logic classes, we just tried to prove or refute shit, not invent cool names for flawed reasoning processes ;D I guess that you learn this shit in logic classes for philosophy or something. Goddammit Wikipedia even has a list of those haha: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies. On topic though, I think the matchmaking is a bit better these days, but I wish they could make the decay global and not queue-bounded.
In the US you're also supposed to learn the fallacies in English and History classes. More specifically, you should learn the difference between proper and improper argumentation when taking any Humanities class as well as be taught the nature of evidence based articulation. But as far as I know, that doesn't happen here in the US.
On the topic of the ladder--I actually love that in the new ladder system lowbies get to face off against subpar highbies so that we no longer get the whole "I'm actually diamond but the league is too full" bullcrap we used to get. Now even bronze and silver players *have* to up their game because at any point they might face a gold/plat player. Lazy play is no longer acceptable in this new format. Soon Bronze, Silver, and gold will no longer be the league for bad players, but will become the league for the true casual players filled with the good and bad players who don't have the time to donate to SC2.
|
On April 02 2014 04:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Decay, by its nature, is a system that favors consistent player skill over time instead of bursts of player skill. By adding a decay, you only are able to keep on top by not only playing well, but by also either predicting or dictating the metagame. As opposes to a non-decay system where players can cheese to a high rank, then stop playing until a new cheese shows up.
Neither system favours any play style. And if you really want players to have to face players of higher and lower skill than themselves (not a good idea!) then that can easily be accomplished by widening the range of mmr that you can be matched with. We don't need to justify decay by saying some side effect is (highly questionably) beneficial. The whole point of matchmaking is to have even games. A non even game is one where one player has little to no chance to win (probably promoting cheese!) and the other gains little to no benefit when they win. Its clearly a bad idea and the match making has never been designed with the intention it should ever happen.
On April 02 2014 04:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It favors the learning of a consistent playstyle that does not fade with random fluctuations of meta shifts. In doing so, only players who actually care about the game gets to be rewarded by the game. That is what point decay is for.
No its not what it is for. The stated aim is to make it easier to return to the game... so the exact opposite of what you are saying because that is a benefit only to less frequent players! The actual aim is to encourage activity, which could be cheese or otherwise. And another point, who are you to say players SHOULD play in a particular way?
On April 02 2014 04:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
No decay also has its pluses while both point decay and point stagnation also have their minuses. You disliking point decay is literally no different than people disliking point stagnation. You guys sound the same, and you guys both act as vitriolic.
Wrong. As I've said time and time again but you don't seem to acknowledge, having a decay system causes fundamental flaws in matchmaking. Specifically that mmr is inaccurate so players get less even matches, and also that there is a continual decay in the entire ladder population. Let me make it really clear, with decay you get less good matches and everyone drops over time until there are mass demotions. No one cares about points, the issue is the impact on finding even matches.
On April 02 2014 04:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On the topic of the ladder--I actually love that in the new ladder system lowbies get to face off against subpar highbies so that we no longer get the whole "I'm actually diamond but the league is too full" bullcrap we used to get.
What? Dude that makes no sense at all. This is like saying sports teams should play against teams from several leagues above them. The whole point of having leagues is specifically to avoid this! You want people to face opponents as close to their own skill level as possible. If anyone really wants to play a higher league player there are custom games for that, the ladder is specifically there to give you an even match.
On April 02 2014 04:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Now even bronze and silver players *have* to up their game because at any point they might face a gold/plat player. Lazy play is no longer acceptable in this new format.
Again dictating to others how they SHOULD play. What is wrong with players wanting to play casually and still get even games? In any case you make this statement with no evidence to back it up. Its completely wrong because if a player always gets even matches they must up their game to win more than 50% and get a promotion, so there is already the incentive to improve, you don't need some random threat of "you're opponent might at any minute be much much better than you... so you'll have to play much much better than your average all the time just in case". See the problem with that statement? You can't play above average all the time.
On April 02 2014 04:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Soon Bronze, Silver, and gold will no longer be the league for bad players, but will become the league for the true casual players filled with the good and bad players who don't have the time to donate to SC2.
Wow. This more than anything else demonstrates that you just don't get what the match making, or ladder, is. The system is intended to give ANY player, casual or hardcore, an opponent of even skill so that everyone gets to play games that are fun for them. The entire purpose of the ladder is to find you even games. Leagues are NOT supposed to be an indication of how "committed" you are to playing the game. If it worked like you want here then eventually players in these leagues full of "good and bad players" would find that the "good" players always won and the "bad" players always lost. This is exactly the thing the match making was implemented to avoid.
In all the above you still haven't made any argument in favour of decay because you either advocate the ladder performs in a way opposite to what it is intended to achieve, or you describe alleged benefits from decay that can be achieved via methods other than decay and therefore do not come with the fundamental flaws associated with decay.
|
On April 02 2014 12:24 Spirit09 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Decay, by its nature, is a system that favors consistent player skill over time instead of bursts of player skill. By adding a decay, you only are able to keep on top by not only playing well, but by also either predicting or dictating the metagame. As opposes to a non-decay system where players can cheese to a high rank, then stop playing until a new cheese shows up.
Neither system favours any play style. And if you really want players to have to face players of higher and lower skill than themselves (not a good idea!) then that can easily be accomplished by widening the range of mmr that you can be matched with. We don't need to justify decay by saying some side effect is (highly questionably) beneficial. The whole point of matchmaking is to have even games. A non even game is one where one player has little to no chance to win (probably promoting cheese!) and the other gains little to no benefit when they win. Its clearly a bad idea and the match making has never been designed with the intention it should ever happen. Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
It favors the learning of a consistent playstyle that does not fade with random fluctuations of meta shifts. In doing so, only players who actually care about the game gets to be rewarded by the game. That is what point decay is for.
No its not what it is for. The stated aim is to make it easier to return to the game... so the exact opposite of what you are saying because that is a benefit only to less frequent players! The actual aim is to encourage activity, which could be cheese or otherwise. And another point, who are you to say players SHOULD play in a particular way? Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
No decay also has its pluses while both point decay and point stagnation also have their minuses. You disliking point decay is literally no different than people disliking point stagnation. You guys sound the same, and you guys both act as vitriolic.
Wrong. As I've said time and time again but you don't seem to acknowledge, having a decay system causes fundamental flaws in matchmaking. Specifically that mmr is inaccurate so players get less even matches, and also that there is a continual decay in the entire ladder population. Let me make it really clear, with decay you get less good matches and everyone drops over time until there are mass demotions. No one cares about points, the issue is the impact on finding even matches. Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
On the topic of the ladder--I actually love that in the new ladder system lowbies get to face off against subpar highbies so that we no longer get the whole "I'm actually diamond but the league is too full" bullcrap we used to get.
What? Dude that makes no sense at all. This is like saying sports teams should play against teams from several leagues above them. The whole point of having leagues is specifically to avoid this! You want people to face opponents as close to their own skill level as possible. If anyone really wants to play a higher league player there are custom games for that, the ladder is specifically there to give you an even match. Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Now even bronze and silver players *have* to up their game because at any point they might face a gold/plat player. Lazy play is no longer acceptable in this new format.
Again dictating to others how they SHOULD play. What is wrong with players wanting to play casually and still get even games? In any case you make this statement with no evidence to back it up. Its completely wrong because if a player always gets even matches they must up their game to win more than 50% and get a promotion, so there is already the incentive to improve, you don't need some random threat of "you're opponent might at any minute be much much better than you... so you'll have to play much much better than your average all the time just in case". See the problem with that statement? You can't play above average all the time. Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 04:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Soon Bronze, Silver, and gold will no longer be the league for bad players, but will become the league for the true casual players filled with the good and bad players who don't have the time to donate to SC2.
Wow. This more than anything else demonstrates that you just don't get what the match making, or ladder, is. The system is intended to give ANY player, casual or hardcore, an opponent of even skill so that everyone gets to play games that are fun for them. The entire purpose of the ladder is to find you even games. Leagues are NOT supposed to be an indication of how "committed" you are to playing the game. If it worked like you want here then eventually players in these leagues full of "good and bad players" would find that the "good" players always won and the "bad" players always lost. This is exactly the thing the match making was implemented to avoid. In all the above you still haven't made any argument in favour of decay because you either advocate the ladder performs in a way opposite to what it is intended to achieve, or you describe alleged benefits from decay that can be achieved via methods other than decay and therefore do not come with the fundamental flaws associated with decay.
I don't know what you are arguing since I have said time and time again that I don't care which of the two is implemented. The whining sounds the same regardless and the results will be the same regardless.
Heck, just listen to yourself. Your only argument *for* no decay is you want ladder to be this very specific experience that you prefer and then disregarding the preferences of others because you're assuming your preferences are superior to the preferences of others.
For example, I don't have a preference. They could change the ladder tomorrow to be about 100% fairness and you only play against a 100% random opponent. No league, no points, you sometimes face a first timer or you sometimes face MKP; and I wouldn't mind. Or they could change it tomorrow so that each continent is just a massive game of swiss where it resets you after every x-0 wins. Once again, I wouldn't mind. Because it really never matters who your opponent is if you're honestly trying to get better at the game. Your builds don't change, your plans don't change, nothing actually changes whether your opponent is bronze or GM other than you lose/win more often.
Which means that if you play a lot--then the ladder doesn't matter since you can always learn from your play no matter how good/bad the opponent is. And if you rarely play then the ladder system doesn't matter because why the fuck would you care what the ladder system is if you already don't play much?
Which means the only people that make and argue in threads like these are people who care about something that in the end doesn't matter much at all.
|
On April 02 2014 15:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
For example, I don't have a preference. They could change the ladder tomorrow to be about 100% fairness and you only play against a 100% random opponent. No league, no points, you sometimes face a first timer or you sometimes face MKP; and I wouldn't mind. Or they could change it tomorrow so that each continent is just a massive game of swiss where it resets you after every x-0 wins. Once again, I wouldn't mind. Because it really never matters who your opponent is if you're honestly trying to get better at the game. Your builds don't change, your plans don't change, nothing actually changes whether your opponent is bronze or GM other than you lose/win more often.
Maybe a platinumscrub doesn't care, because he will face about 50~50 better and worse players but such a system would be horrible for anyone at the top or the bottom. Imagine getting rolled in 95% of your games or rolling the opponent 95% of the time. Most people don't like such a system, you are the minority.
|
United States12235 Posts
The fact is that besides wanting to know where they stand, players also want to be given a reason to keep playing the game. "Play to improve" only satisfies a very small niche of players who are capable of dissecting and analyzing their own play. Therefore, extra layers are needed. Sometimes you'll see forum threads pop up that say "how do I get better", but those are dwarfed by the avalanche of "why is the matchmaking broken" and "when will I get promoted" threads.
The leagues have weight partially because Blizzard defines what they mean, but the community would develop a definition for them anyway if Blizzard never did. And even within the same league, players like to create artificial subdivisions of what constitutes "high/mid/low". Players like to think they're getting better, and they like to see feedback that reinforces that belief, so getting from Bronze to Silver or from low Master to high Master is an accomplishment for them. The problem is that in reality, either you really are improving, but you're improving at the same rate as everyone else thereby stagnating your relative improvement, or you're not improving at all. Some players realize that and just stop playing because they've plateaued and they know it, but others can stick with the game long enough to show legitimate improvement simply by creating arbitrary goals for themselves.
|
On April 02 2014 16:02 Excalibur_Z wrote:
The fact is that besides wanting to know where they stand, players also want to be given a reason to keep playing the game. "Play to improve" only satisfies a very small niche of players who are capable of dissecting and analyzing their own play. Therefore, extra layers are needed. Sometimes you'll see forum threads pop up that say "how do I get better", but those are dwarfed by the avalanche of "why is the matchmaking broken" and "when will I get promoted" threads.
The leagues have weight partially because Blizzard defines what they mean, but the community would develop a definition for them anyway if Blizzard never did. And even within the same league, players like to create artificial subdivisions of what constitutes "high/mid/low". Players like to think they're getting better, and they like to see feedback that reinforces that belief, so getting from Bronze to Silver or from low Master to high Master is an accomplishment for them. The problem is that in reality, either you really are improving, but you're improving at the same rate as everyone else thereby stagnating your relative improvement, or you're not improving at all. Some players realize that and just stop playing because they've plateaued and they know it, but others can stick with the game long enough to show legitimate improvement simply by creating arbitrary goals for themselves.
I find it much more motivating to improve meaningful measurements of my skill. And the fact that people are so interested in matchmaking and ladder is a sign that they also want to know how strong they are playing imo. Besides, MMRdecay isn't really about showing the player that he is better than he is. It is about improving matchmaking by assuming that people that don't play for a long time get worse.
In my opinion though it's not really well calibrated. Either it is cummulative or simply too strong. This season I started playing after 2 months and I had to win like 20-30 games more than I lose just to get to the position where I was before. That's just a demotivating chore, because my opponents were so bloody bad that it wasn't even a challange. Simply a waste of time like when Hearthstone resets its ladder and you start facing super scrubby decks again. This kind of crap is demotivating for me.
Btw.: Who cares about people that just let their ELO/MMR stagnate after they are high? A couple of guys with too high MMR in Goldleague don't really hurt much.
|
I find ladder decay quite good. It might be little too strong, but it's way better than not having it.
Before I knew that after few weeks of pause I would get owned at least first 10 games. That obviously meant I wouldn't be too keen on laddering again. Now you know you get some free wins during those you remember again builds and hotkeys. Getting back to ladder is much more friendly now.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On April 02 2014 20:34 Tuczniak wrote:
I find ladder decay quite good. It might be little too strong, but it's way better than not having it.
Before I knew that after few weeks of pause I would get owned at least first 10 games. That obviously meant I wouldn't be too keen on laddering again. Now you know you get some free wins during those you remember again builds and hotkeys. Getting back to ladder is much more friendly now.
You do realize that your "free wins" can mean "horrible loss" for your opponent? It's funny how you like the winning part of the decay but let me show you that there are people who see it from the other side. I personally met 10 ex-masters with decay in a row at the start of this season(I'm dia) and that was NOT a pleasant day at all(after all I had the score 3-24 or something, I cannot remember exactly). Yaaaay, they had a free win and I had a feeling that I cannot win no matter how much I try that week.
(and because I play around 200 games a season you cannot tell me that the system doesn't know how bad I am, also last 3 seasons ended for me with win ratio below 50 %!! Though I was getting harder and harder opponents(and frankly, I think I improved a lot, my builds were more crisp etc. - but this doesn't give me my wins, I play because I want to have fun, I do not want to improve, I have a job where I have to improve...))
After this I just switched to unranked. First of all I can play Daedalus Point again because I just leave any PvZ, why bother, and if I feel my opponent was way better than me after the game, who cares, I did not lose any points, enjoy your free win... Though the bitter taste from that game still remains, it's not pleasant at all to lose like this...
Also, if someone asks me whether I play ranked or unranked and then wants me to leave for free win, I can be evil and do the evil laugh(and say no, obv.) :D Mwahahahaha!!!
Ranked for me is killed with the decay too bad experience. And the moral? Now I tell to everyone interested "do not play SC2" instead of "The game is awesome"
Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.
Edit>
Sorry for wall of text but I hate this "friendly return to ladder" so much because it ruined ladder experience for me so I cannot help myself from time to time ><
|
Which is what makes it arbitrary. Some people like the decay experience because it allows them to be able to both face better opponents (if they play consistently) or allows them a ramp up period if they are forced to stop playing for a while.
It hurts players who don't want to play often and don't want to face challenging opponents.
It's not a clear cut thing, which is why it's arbitrary.
|
On April 02 2014 16:00 Greenei wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2014 15:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:
For example, I don't have a preference. They could change the ladder tomorrow to be about 100% fairness and you only play against a 100% random opponent. No league, no points, you sometimes face a first timer or you sometimes face MKP; and I wouldn't mind. Or they could change it tomorrow so that each continent is just a massive game of swiss where it resets you after every x-0 wins. Once again, I wouldn't mind. Because it really never matters who your opponent is if you're honestly trying to get better at the game. Your builds don't change, your plans don't change, nothing actually changes whether your opponent is bronze or GM other than you lose/win more often.
Maybe a platinumscrub doesn't care, because he will face about 50~50 better and worse players but such a system would be horrible for anyone at the top or the bottom. Imagine getting rolled in 95% of your games or rolling the opponent 95% of the time. Most people don't like such a system, you are the minority.
First off, that's pretty much how the ELO system in BW worked since people would see their opponents rank and leave the game before it started if it wasn't a rank they liked. Which meant a lot of players did have a 90% winstreak since they only played lowbies, or you had a 90% losing streak since you were a D player that couldn't get your first win until after playing for a month. Some players only played people of equal skill while others had no choice since if they were too picky then they were no longer playing the game. Why? Since it was a truly random system because it was not automated for you with a click of a button.
Second off, a swiss system would be an even harsher ladder system because you would not be considered advancing unless you're undefeated and not just by having a "high winrate."
I picked those extremes to show that I really don't care which direction the ladder goes. I just find it silly for people to think that there is a "right" system. Some people like one system, some people like other systems. If you don't care about improving, then it doesn't matter who you face since you'll be doing the same build regardless. If you do care about improving, then you don't care who you face because self reflection and learning from your mistakes is what you would do regardless. If all you care about is whether or not you lose points at the end of each round, then there is unranked where you can ignore points altogether.
See, that is the problem--those who care/don't care about their play are not affected by the ladder system since they either focus on themselves or they (by definition) don't care.
Those that do care about points and pretty badges will always complain because people like that always want to blame their losses on the system--otherwise they'd only care about self reflection and self improvement.
Here's the truth.
If you only play Bronze players, you will only learn how to beat bronze players. You will then lose in silver until you are thrown back to bronze/"low silver" and then complain why your anti-bronze strats don't beat non-bronze. You then have to "forget" everything you learned and start from scratch if you want to beat silver and so on. Pitting Bronzies and Silvers with Plat/Diamond/Masters will, in the long run, teach them how to play the game MUCH better and MUCH faster and with MUCH less long term frustration than feeling stuck fighting Silvers/Gold/Bronze players. Because then they will have to learn *how* to beat players than are better than them instead of learning how to beat players who don't know what they're doing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
