EPTI needed over 80 games this season (with 78-7 score) to get back into master.
Situation Report: The SC2 Multiplayer Ladder - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
I needed over 80 games this season (with 78-7 score) to get back into master. | ||
|
fastr
France902 Posts
On December 19 2013 02:39 Excalibur_Z wrote: - Our data shows that the maximum impact of decay is over 310 rating. Though it does cap around this value, that's still the equivalent of losing 20 straight same-skill games. That's more than "a few" in my glossary. - They said that decay starts at 14 days where it starts at 0 adjustment. That's something I've said as well and it's important for players to understand that. If you take a 15 day break, you're only a game and a half behind (in sports terms). Same with "if you play one game every two weeks, you won't decay" -- very important for players to remember that because people were getting paranoid. Interesting data. I don't really know much about MMR but a 310 rating drop roughly corresponds to one league's MMR span, if that makes sense? Like gold would be 500-799, platinum 800-1100 right? If it is, that's certainly not "a few games" indeed. Based on that, if this statement is correct "Once it kicks in, the adjustment ramps from zero adjustment to our maximum adjustment over a period of two weeks It means you could lose 310 rating in a month, right? How about someone who doesn't play for a month, play one game, and doesnt play for another month. Does the decay reset? Does he lose 620 rating?Man, this all thing is messed up. | ||
|
Yrr
Germany804 Posts
On December 19 2013 Battlenet wrote:
Thatswhy I might be bronze next season in 1v1s. A max in decay is worthless if you play from time to time because the decay between every session adds up. They should add teamgames somewhere into the check for inactivity. Or ask the individual player if he wants the decay when he comes back. My concerns are not about the leaguesymbols but about the skilllevel of my opponents. I play maybe 5-20 1v1 per season and win almost all of them. But I dont want to play like 50 to 100 games until I get decent opponents, thats not fun. Before they introduced this I was diamond with my 5-20 games per season. But since then I got demoted 1 league per season. | ||
|
Ctone23
United States1839 Posts
On December 19 2013 03:20 Nimix wrote: High diamond to low gold = losing a few games. Okay blizzard. This. Winning a placement match and still getting demoted after finishing previous season rank 2 Plat. Okay. Really glad they are going to fix it though. Frustrating to play a match in Gold league only to find out the opponent who just beat you is a 12X Master league player, stuck in Gold for some reason. | ||
|
las91
United States5080 Posts
Then again I'm just coming forward with more anecdotal evidence  | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
On December 19 2013 03:42 fastr wrote: Interesting data. I don't really know much about MMR but a 310 rating drop roughly corresponds to one league's MMR span, if that makes sense? Like gold would be 500-799, platinum 800-1100 right? If it is, that's certainly not "a few games" indeed. Based on that, if this statement is correct It means you could lose 310 rating in a month, right? How about someone who doesn't play for a month, play one game, and doesnt play for another month. Does the decay reset? Does he lose 620 rating? Man, this all thing is messed up. That's exactly what it means. If a season is 3 months long and you play on day 1, day 29, and day 57, then by the end of the season you will have decayed around three leagues' worth of rating. | ||
|
Incubus1993
Canada140 Posts
On December 19 2013 00:38 storywriter wrote: I think the 6% figure is if they only count people who are active. A lot of people play very few games per season and have kept their leagues that way for a long time . That doesn't mean those people have gotten so bad they need to be placed two or three leagues below their original league. They should be demoted though, their slots should be open for people ACTUALLY PLAYING the game. There are so many "Masters" players that play their placement game and leave it at that for the entire season. | ||
|
saltis
159 Posts
GM league Toss players - America 94/199 Europe 92/200 Korea 81/198 Taiwan 88/198 SE Asia 7/13 China 82/198 Global 444/ 1006 44% Protoss global GM Masters League - US P - 37% T - 24% Z - 36% KR P - 36% T - 28% Z -32% EU P - 37% T - 27% Z - 34% On what basis Blizzard states " "There isn't an exaggeration of Protoss players."" ? | ||
|
captainwaffles
United States1050 Posts
also this: "We continue to investigate ways to improve the experience of climbing the ladder. We want players to know when they’re moving up, and for those who want more granular details, better indications of how they’re doing competitively. We’re exploring ways to let you know when you are getting close to a promotion." Just make the MMR the actual ladder rank then, what purpose does it serve to have a near meaningless rank and a hidden rank that actually matters? | ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
| ||
|
boxerfred
Germany8360 Posts
Placement matches lead to the following: 0/5 wins - Bronze 1/5 wins - Bronze 2/5 wins - Silver 3/5 wins - Gold 4/5 wins - Platinum 5/5 wins - Diamond Then, you can use the MMR to determine how fast a player will be promoted/demoted to adjust his ladder placement. I do know I'm kind of oversimplifying it, but I don't think that the approach is too bad, or is it? | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
Recently decided to get back into HOTS, got placed directly into bronze. Basically beat everyone back into high gold, which is apparently a good ceiling for me right now. It only took my about 15 games to get back to a comfortable level of challenge. Dunno why it's fucking so many other people over | ||
|
dcemuser
United States3248 Posts
On December 19 2013 04:00 saltis wrote: On what basis Blizzard states " "There isn't an exaggeration of Protoss players."" ? # of players of a race does not correlate to balance. Certain races have always dominated certain brackets due to being easier/harder/more popular (not better). Therefore, Blizzard could have the historical race %s in front of them for all time, and they could see that there was no noticeable rise in protoss players from X to Y period of time, which means that this current influx of Protoss players is not primarily due to balance issues. | ||
|
Ignorant prodigy
United States385 Posts
On December 19 2013 03:51 Excalibur_Z wrote: That's exactly what it means. If a season is 3 months long and you play on day 1, day 29, and day 57, then by the end of the season you will have decayed around three leagues' worth of rating. wwwwoooooowwwww poorly designed... to say the least. I'm a business analyst by trade and it's my job to look at the "what if's".. and I don't think they looked hard enough... especially at the team decay.. that's nuts | ||
|
Faust852
Luxembourg4004 Posts
On December 19 2013 04:09 dcemuser wrote: # of players of a race does not correlate to balance. Certain races have always dominated certain brackets due to being easier/harder/more popular (not better). Therefore, Blizzard could have the historical race %s in front of them for all time, and they could see that there was no noticeable rise in protoss players from X to Y period of time, which means that this current influx of Protoss players is not primarily due to balance issues. So if there are more protoss in GM it's not because it's shinny and stuff ? :o | ||
|
saltis
159 Posts
On December 19 2013 04:09 dcemuser wrote: # of players of a race does not correlate to balance. Certain races have always dominated certain brackets due to being easier/harder/more popular (not better). Therefore, Blizzard could have the historical race %s in front of them for all time, and they could see that there was no noticeable rise in protoss players from X to Y period of time, which means that this current influx of Protoss players is not primarily due to balance issues. First of all, there is pretty much equal number of race distribution. Second, in balanced game there shouldn't be easier/harder race, all races should require equal skill to play. "Popular" makes sense, but in this case there isn't popular race, ± 2% all races are equally distributed on the ladder as a whole. Third, Terrans are dropping out of GM and Masters not because Toss became "popular" race. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
On December 19 2013 04:18 Faust852 wrote: So if there are more protoss in GM it's not because it's shinny and stuff ? :o Remember, that's the argument people used to explain why 80% of Code S was terran back in the day. Although, "easiness" and balance are essentially the same thing. It is "easier" to 1 base your way to plat with protoss. It's "easier" to win GSL with zerg. | ||
|
larse
1611 Posts
| ||
|
Phanekim
United States777 Posts
On December 19 2013 03:25 atrox_ wrote: this post has so many words in it yet it says absolutely nothing. It's full of "we will look intos" and "we will consider" those guys should run for political office. | ||
|
Virium
United States20 Posts
| ||
| ||
