EPTThe latter needs to be addressed. It is no fun losing to someone with seemingly superhuman awareness. I don't know how prevalent hacking is on the ladder exactly or if a few rotten apples are spoiling the bushel but as long as there is the possibility to production and map hack the thought will always be there.
SC2 Ladder needs to be reworked. - Page 6
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
The latter needs to be addressed. It is no fun losing to someone with seemingly superhuman awareness. I don't know how prevalent hacking is on the ladder exactly or if a few rotten apples are spoiling the bushel but as long as there is the possibility to production and map hack the thought will always be there. | ||
|
Agh
United States1037 Posts
1.14 AMM (Automated matchmaking) was absolutely amazing for anyone that remembered it. Basically there were levels. Beating a higher level player would grant more experience, and losing to a lower level player would result in a larger penalty. You could only match somebody within X levels of you (war3 initially had this set at 7), and would only expand to that high based on search times. | ||
|
TRaFFiC
Canada1448 Posts
http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/forum/topic/15354636929 We get 6 free mmrs. MMR takes a long time to adjust (dozens of games). So what's happening is high level players matching low level players on accounts that haven't leveled out or that were purposely tanked. Bottom line: ranked should NEVER match unranked. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26265 Posts
The MMR decay is much, much too steep. I'm so fucking inactive now due to the accursed realm known as 'real life', come back and grind 30-40 games over a day or two, stomp the majority of opponents in one-sided BS games, start to get back league wise to a bit below my 'peak'. Then I have a period of inactivity that sets me back to square one after a week or so of not playing. I can still hang with many of the guys I used to play with, or at least not get stomped and those guys are active Dia players on the most part. When I go to ladder I'm stuck playing my way from silvers upwards. It's really not fucking fun at all. The only game mode I particular enjoy is 1v1 and I like testing myself against random opponents instead of always customing so there's less of a metagaming element (although I do like that too). I literally don't play at all anymore because it seems unless I'm playing steadily I'll be undergoing the fucking trial of Sisyphus for the rest of my laddering life. To be honest I'm mystified this isn't mentioned more often among the semi-regular ladderers among us. | ||
Excalibur_Z
United States12240 Posts
So, a lot of people like to blame MMR decay, and it's evident that MMR decay has caused deflation in the overall ladder, but I think in a lot of individual cases MMR decay isn't a factor at all. Not playing for one week doesn't impact your MMR at all. Taking a week off is completely fine. Even taking 2 weeks off is completely fine; no decay. It's only after that point that you start decaying, but it's only at a rate of about 1.5 games per day, and that caps out after another 2 weeks. But, MMR decay exists and people know it exists, but they don't always have the facts so you get players who are fearful of not playing for a day or they'll end up in Bronze. That's not to say that MMR decay isn't a problem in its current state, because it is. The GM demotion requirement is a legitimate problem as well that needs to be addressed. The initial concept of a bonus pool threshold made sense because at the time, bonus pool was only spent through wins, meaning you had to win. Now that bonus pool is also spent through losses, you run into bizarre issues where a boosted GM player can stay in the league for the entire season (but obviously the booster has to get them in first) without winning a single game. That's not in the spirit of what the GM league represents. I had my own ideas for what should be changed about MMR decay specifically which I posted on the Bnet forums. My recommendation would be something along these lines: - Wins double (or triple or quadruple?) the amount of MMR gained until the total gain, not the net gain, is equal to the amount decayed. This means that if you decayed -315 and your MMR changed +64 per win and -16 per loss, after your fifth win you'd revert back to +16 per win, even if your record by that point was 5-20. - Losses drop MMR as normal. - Decay has a hard and permanent cap of 315 rating. Not just per decay segment, but overall. No more "serial decayers" who drop further and further down the ladder due to inactivity streaks. However, if you were at -315 one month and played back up to -100, after another month of decay you would fall back to -315 instead of -415. - Arranged teams do not decay. - Random teams decay at the same rate as 1v1, but their decay timers are shared with 1v1 and with each other. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
Apart from that, just give me a matchup picking feature for unranked and I'm happy, overall I like how the MMR/ladder works. Just that I'd like to have a permanent benchmark and when I don't want to rank up, that I can play the matchup I want to play. | ||
|
Xinzoe
Korea (South)2373 Posts
| ||
|
NKexquisite
United States911 Posts
| ||
|
geokilla
Canada8245 Posts
| ||
|
korona
1098 Posts
On February 10 2015 11:31 Big J wrote: What bugs me is the constant adjustment of league distributions. It's annoying. It is really hard to know where you stand and what progress you are making (or if you are making some). There has not been frequent adjustments from Blizzard's side. But as global MMR is decreasing due MMR decay and other lesser reasons, the players are slowly but surely drifting towards lower league MMR ranges. The major league offset / threshold change times have been following during HotS era (if there has been more changes they have been very small): 2013-03-12: HotS offsets #1 (HotS release / start of season 12) 2013-06-10: HotS offsets #2 (Start of season 14) 2014-01-24: HotS offsets #3 (21 days after start of season 17, 2 days after patch 2.1) 2014-05-01: HotS offsets #4 (17 days after start of season 18) Based on community managers on Bnet forums Blizzard is planning to do new offset / threshold changes in the coming weeks. But those changes have not arrived yet. | ||
|
ETisME
12683 Posts
| ||
|
Cricketer12
United States13991 Posts
| ||
|
RampancyTW
United States577 Posts
On February 10 2015 13:00 Cricketer12 wrote: Not sure if sarcasticICCUP allows me to not have to play ZvZ, sc2 ladder system is shit in comparison | ||
|
freakhill
Japan463 Posts
On February 10 2015 11:19 Excalibur_Z wrote: - Decay has a hard and permanent cap of 315 rating. Not just per decay segment, but overall. No more "serial decayers" who drop further and further down the ladder due to inactivity streaks. However, if you were at -315 one month and played back up to -100, after another month of decay you would fall back to -315 instead of -415. That is a really really good idea! | ||
|
freakhill
Japan463 Posts
On January 18 2015 09:50 Clonester wrote: Only a 3rd Party Bnet will resolve these issues. Everything else wount be changed. Play unranked. You get the same enemys, but you dont care about points. I dont know how to solve the issues else. Blizzard does not care at all. Why do I say this? Look a Dota or LoL: how many maphackers are there? Nearly zero. Why? Because the client does not know what is behind the fog of war. In SC II since WoL Beta the client of each player knows the whole map and just fogs it. Easiest to hack, just extract the informations, you client allready has from the server. Same for the production tab hack. They just extract the informations out of their clients, because this really bad netcode sends them the whole information about their enemy. And you even do not need these informations. Blizzard knows this since brood war or at least since the "ban waves" in wc3 times. But they never cared and continued with this bad netcode and clientsystem. And why do they? A guy who cant hack would not play their game. A Hacker that gets banned, buys the game twice. More profit. They would serious engange their bad netcode and tune up their anticheat, if they wouldnt think that it hurts their income. The problem with the MMR and the pointsystem will only be solved via external battlenets. I hope they will come fast, otherwise this game dies. We see clearly, that blizzard doesnt even understand these demands. Wooohooo they get automated tournaments as a BRAND NEW BATTLENET FEATURE for LotV. Hey this BRAND NEW BATTLENET FEATURE... i saw it somewhere, oh year, in WC3 tft 12 years ago. Serious. This game will not survive without non blizzard multiplayersystems. Broodwar needed ICcup, Fish and Co. Wc III needed WC III Arena. SC II will need its own thing. And better fast, because the status quo will be the status dead. You do not realize what you are talking about. Transferring only the relevant data to each player would necessitate simulating each game on blizzard server. See how 1 game can max out your CPUs. Now imagine dozens thousands of games (1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4) at the same time on blizzard servers for a game with no subscription plan, or auction house or anything. That would be extremely costly and the game would have never been released. And I am not even talking about the gameplay impact and the amount of cry and whine when the server would get laggy. I am working on an improved anti maphack RTS netcode with a few friends, but let me tell you that such a thing has deep (unavoidable) impact on the game design. Such a game would pretty much not be starcraft. | ||
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
On February 10 2015 15:10 freakhill wrote:+ Show Spoiler + On January 18 2015 09:50 Clonester wrote: Only a 3rd Party Bnet will resolve these issues. Everything else wount be changed. Play unranked. You get the same enemys, but you dont care about points. I dont know how to solve the issues else. Blizzard does not care at all. Why do I say this? Look a Dota or LoL: how many maphackers are there? Nearly zero. Why? Because the client does not know what is behind the fog of war. In SC II since WoL Beta the client of each player knows the whole map and just fogs it. Easiest to hack, just extract the informations, you client allready has from the server. Same for the production tab hack. They just extract the informations out of their clients, because this really bad netcode sends them the whole information about their enemy. And you even do not need these informations. Blizzard knows this since brood war or at least since the "ban waves" in wc3 times. But they never cared and continued with this bad netcode and clientsystem. And why do they? A guy who cant hack would not play their game. A Hacker that gets banned, buys the game twice. More profit. They would serious engange their bad netcode and tune up their anticheat, if they wouldnt think that it hurts their income. The problem with the MMR and the pointsystem will only be solved via external battlenets. I hope they will come fast, otherwise this game dies. We see clearly, that blizzard doesnt even understand these demands. Wooohooo they get automated tournaments as a BRAND NEW BATTLENET FEATURE for LotV. Hey this BRAND NEW BATTLENET FEATURE... i saw it somewhere, oh year, in WC3 tft 12 years ago. Serious. This game will not survive without non blizzard multiplayersystems. Broodwar needed ICcup, Fish and Co. Wc III needed WC III Arena. SC II will need its own thing. And better fast, because the status quo will be the status dead. You do not realize what you are talking about. Transferring only the relevant data to each player would necessitate simulating each game on blizzard server. See how 1 game can max out your CPUs. Now imagine dozens thousands of games (1v1 2v2 3v3 4v4) at the same time on blizzard servers for a game with no subscription plan, or auction house or anything. That would be extremely costly and the game would have never been released. And I am not even talking about the gameplay impact and the amount of cry and whine when the server would get laggy. I am working on an improved anti maphack RTS netcode with a few friends, but let me tell you that such a thing has deep (unavoidable) impact on the game design. Such a game would pretty much not be starcraft. isnt it possible to encrypt the data that is not visible to the player? | ||
|
graNite
Germany4434 Posts
| ||
|
Caihead
Canada8550 Posts
On February 10 2015 14:54 RampancyTW wrote: Not sure if sarcastic Actually being able to choose who you play for ranked games and avoid obvious hackers and people you can black list or block is worth alot. And while some might argue that grinding one match up you are good at up the ladder would be abusive to some degree, at least it's a much better training environment and dare I say more fun than rolling the roulette of terrible online bull shit? | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On February 10 2015 15:51 Caihead wrote: Actually being able to choose who you play for ranked games and avoid obvious hackers and people you can black list or block is worth alot. And while some might argue that grinding one match up you are good at up the ladder would be abusive to some degree, at least it's a much better training environment and dare I say more fun than rolling the roulette of terrible online bull shit? I agree with blocking, I don't agree with 1 MU only for ranked(!), but if you desire, you should play 1 MU only for no points, but with ranked people and with ranked matchmaking system. Now, if you use unranked, you have much wider range of enemies, resulting in playing against people who cannot defeat you no matter what they try(and vice versa, obv. the 2nd extreme) I still think you are supposed to use blocking(the chat ignore thing) to not play anymore vs. the player, it is easy system to use. | ||
|
freakhill
Japan463 Posts
On February 10 2015 15:40 graNite wrote: After almost 5 years of SC2 I wont accept any other league system as an ELO-like ranking as a good solution. Any other system is lying to the players or just making them believe there is progress through more playing although there isnt. isnt it possible to encrypt the data that is not visible to the player? Nope it is not, in any meaningful way | ||
| ||
