|
United States12235 Posts
On June 28 2016 09:08 NonY wrote:Looks good. I don't mind that they tried another style of ladder and rank presentation first. Of course the argument was made from the start that StarCraft is a competitive game with players who prefer transparency and a focus on progression of skill rather than a vague ranking with types of progression that don't necessarily correlate to skill. And now Blizzard agrees to take it in that direction. But it doesn't mean it was wrong to try the other way. In fact we still can't determine if we would have been better off all along if we always had this system. I think GM having daily promotions and demotions is something that should have been in from the start. I suppose the idea was to give a strong incentive for everyone to be very active at the beginning of every season but that idea never really caught on and the result was many people occupying GM spots who do not belong. Now players can compete for the top of the ladder even if they didn't reserve a spot in GM at the start of a season. Show nested quote +On June 23 2016 07:09 Charoisaur wrote:this looks great On June 23 2016 06:18 Ctone23 wrote:On June 23 2016 06:06 Legobiten wrote:On June 23 2016 05:56 JonnySC2 wrote:
I don't get why they still need the pointsystem. Just use the MMR instead. The points displayed are the MMR. No, there's still points. Yes, rankings within your division are still based on division points. MMR and division points are not correlated. Source I wonder what the point of the points is  when there is already MMR showed. The games still must be played. MMR is estimating the skill of each player by estimating the probability of winning against other players, but the games still must be played and there must be an actual winner and loser! The point system is the quantifier that reflects the actual games played for that period of competition. Imagine Zest played NA for a season and achieved an MMR far higher than anyone else. He isn't the winner of the next season too just because no one is able to reach his MMR. Imagine the finals of a tournament. One player is heavily favored based on recent tournament results. He'd have the highest MMR if we pretended all tournament games were actually ladder games. He still needs to play the games and win them to be the winner, to be declared the best at that tournament. It's not enough to say "I have the highest MMR. I am the best." Being the best is something that has to be continually proven. That's why points and actual rank matter more than MMR and that's part of the purpose of bonus pool.
That's a good point Tyler about activity being a core component. It absolutely needs to be. I don't know if bonus pool is the best way to go about that because it creates a weird moving target depending on when in the season you're talking about (is 500 points "good"? 1000? 2000? it depends on whether you're talking about week 1 or week 10), but everyone is used to what the bonus pool does by now so it's probably fine.
As for the GM league refactor, I know people had a problem with the ranks being locked-in for a full season, but it was also self-correcting to a certain degree in its initial design. The floor for GM was so high that if you were fighting Diamond opponents you would get only 1 point (+1 bonus) for a win, and wins were the only way to spend bonus pool, which meant that you had to win a ton of games just to be able to tread water if you were boosted. It wasn't until they changed bonus pool to absorb losses that it became really exploitable.
|
Would be nice if they could give us an ETA like within a month or within the next three months "Very soon" could mean a lot of things.
|
There should also be a way for official tournament organizers to have games that affect the MMR, just like in Chess any championship, even the smaller one, changes your elo rank. That way, top players, who mainly play big tournaments on there main account, would have an MMR that means something. This MMR could replace aligulac.
This would also be very interesting for viewers to see the actual MMR of top koreans and top foreigners.
|
On June 24 2016 03:31 MockHamill wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:On June 24 2016 01:12 MockHamill wrote:
I am surprised it took so long.
I work as a programmer and a change like this would only take 1-2 days to program, maybe 2-3 for design and 1-2 days for testing.
Even if you add a few days on brainstorming different ideas I do not understand how it could take so long to develop. 1. Add it to the backlog. 2. Flesh out design with design team. 3. Open meeting to gather feedback. 4. Generate wireframe. 5. Establish acceptance criteria. 6. Have preliminary discussions with the team (Eng, UI, Design, QA, Loc) to determine relative cost/level of effort. 7. Meet with stakeholders to determine business value. 8. Prioritize accordingly against other backlog items based on results from steps 4 and 5. 9. Refine acceptance criteria if necessary and recost. 10. Create sub-tasks. 11. Resolve dependencies and blockers. 12. Full team playtest to record bugs. 13. Resolve bugs. 14. Push to Staging environment to mirror expected Live behavior. 15. Full team playtest to record bugs. 16. Resolve bugs. 17. Send to QA for final approval. 18. Resolve bugs. 19. Schedule final deployment date. 20. Release. With daily stand-ups and sync meetings, it absolutely makes sense that a feature like this could take weeks or months, even though it's relatively simple. I really doubt it would take more than a week. Maybe I am just used to working in smaller organisations but we typically go from customer idea to final delivery in 1-2 weeks for smaller things like these and 2-3 months for a large order. There is nothing in these changes that are complex, a single programmer and a single designer straight out of university (i.e. very inexperienced) would not take this much time to deliver these changes.
First of all we dont know how long it took. But its not the coding which takes time. The design of the model, of math, if it will work as intended and more which takes time. If I had to create such a system, I would easily take 2 month to test everything through if it works as intended and at least 1 month for the basic idea.
The good part is that the math and the development of model doesnt cost much. The cost starts with the develpment process, where you have to coordinate a lot of things (as listed above) and different teams for different tasks.
|
On June 24 2016 04:17 BaneRiders wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 04:03 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 24 2016 03:31 MockHamill wrote:On June 24 2016 03:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:On June 24 2016 01:12 MockHamill wrote:
I am surprised it took so long.
I work as a programmer and a change like this would only take 1-2 days to program, maybe 2-3 for design and 1-2 days for testing.
Even if you add a few days on brainstorming different ideas I do not understand how it could take so long to develop. 1. Add it to the backlog. 2. Flesh out design with design team. 3. Open meeting to gather feedback. 4. Generate wireframe. 5. Establish acceptance criteria. 6. Have preliminary discussions with the team (Eng, UI, Design, QA, Loc) to determine relative cost/level of effort. 7. Meet with stakeholders to determine business value. 8. Prioritize accordingly against other backlog items based on results from steps 4 and 5. 9. Refine acceptance criteria if necessary and recost. 10. Create sub-tasks. 11. Resolve dependencies and blockers. 12. Full team playtest to record bugs. 13. Resolve bugs. 14. Push to Staging environment to mirror expected Live behavior. 15. Full team playtest to record bugs. 16. Resolve bugs. 17. Send to QA for final approval. 18. Resolve bugs. 19. Schedule final deployment date. 20. Release. With daily stand-ups and sync meetings, it absolutely makes sense that a feature like this could take weeks or months, even though it's relatively simple. I really doubt it would take more than a week. Maybe I am just used to working in smaller organisations but we typically go from customer idea to final delivery in 1-2 weeks for smaller things like these and 2-3 months for a large order. There is nothing in these changes that are complex, a single programmer and a single designer straight out of university (i.e. very inexperienced) would not take this much time to deliver these changes. just put an end to the argument and make ur own game. it should take a few weeks. Yeah, because that is exactly what this update is, a whole new game. Or wait, maybe they are just displaying data they already generated all along? 
But he isnt false. You say the same stuff, i said, when i was a child (started to code with 7). The development process in a company is big and doesnt compare to a garage project with one or two coders.
|
|
|
On June 28 2016 16:04 nightshade2109 wrote:
Would be nice if they could give us an ETA like within a month or within the next three months "Very soon" could mean a lot of things.
WoL was "in the home stretch" according to Browder in February 2009. this quote is burned into my memory.
|
|
|
On June 24 2016 03:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 01:12 MockHamill wrote:
I am surprised it took so long.
I work as a programmer and a change like this would only take 1-2 days to program, maybe 2-3 for design and 1-2 days for testing.
Even if you add a few days on brainstorming different ideas I do not understand how it could take so long to develop. 1. Add it to the backlog. 2. Flesh out design with design team. 3. Open meeting to gather feedback. 4. Generate wireframe. 5. Establish acceptance criteria. 6. Have preliminary discussions with the team (Eng, UI, Design, QA, Loc) to determine relative cost/level of effort. 7. Meet with stakeholders to determine business value. 8. Prioritize accordingly against other backlog items based on results from steps 4 and 5. 9. Refine acceptance criteria if necessary and recost. 10. Create sub-tasks. 11. Resolve dependencies and blockers. 12. Full team playtest to record bugs. 13. Resolve bugs. 14. Push to Staging environment to mirror expected Live behavior. 15. Full team playtest to record bugs. 16. Resolve bugs. 17. Send to QA for final approval. 18. Resolve bugs. 19. Schedule final deployment date. 20. Release. With daily stand-ups and sync meetings, it absolutely makes sense that a feature like this could take weeks or months, even though it's relatively simple.
Thats great, we just need another 10-15 years for the 'appear offline' option they announced 3 years ago :D
|
|
|
On June 29 2016 03:02 Hadronsbecrazy wrote:
when is it reaching?
Next season seems a safe assumption, which is in a week.
|
On June 29 2016 02:45 ColterTV wrote:Show nested quote +On June 24 2016 03:03 Excalibur_Z wrote:On June 24 2016 01:12 MockHamill wrote:
I am surprised it took so long.
I work as a programmer and a change like this would only take 1-2 days to program, maybe 2-3 for design and 1-2 days for testing.
Even if you add a few days on brainstorming different ideas I do not understand how it could take so long to develop. 1. Add it to the backlog. 2. Flesh out design with design team. 3. Open meeting to gather feedback. 4. Generate wireframe. 5. Establish acceptance criteria. 6. Have preliminary discussions with the team (Eng, UI, Design, QA, Loc) to determine relative cost/level of effort. 7. Meet with stakeholders to determine business value. 8. Prioritize accordingly against other backlog items based on results from steps 4 and 5. 9. Refine acceptance criteria if necessary and recost. 10. Create sub-tasks. 11. Resolve dependencies and blockers. 12. Full team playtest to record bugs. 13. Resolve bugs. 14. Push to Staging environment to mirror expected Live behavior. 15. Full team playtest to record bugs. 16. Resolve bugs. 17. Send to QA for final approval. 18. Resolve bugs. 19. Schedule final deployment date. 20. Release. With daily stand-ups and sync meetings, it absolutely makes sense that a feature like this could take weeks or months, even though it's relatively simple. Thats great, we just need another 10-15 years for the 'appear offline' option they announced 3 years ago :D
Do we have paid namechanges already?^_^
|
8748 Posts
On June 28 2016 09:37 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 09:08 NonY wrote:Looks good. I don't mind that they tried another style of ladder and rank presentation first. Of course the argument was made from the start that StarCraft is a competitive game with players who prefer transparency and a focus on progression of skill rather than a vague ranking with types of progression that don't necessarily correlate to skill. And now Blizzard agrees to take it in that direction. But it doesn't mean it was wrong to try the other way. In fact we still can't determine if we would have been better off all along if we always had this system. I think GM having daily promotions and demotions is something that should have been in from the start. I suppose the idea was to give a strong incentive for everyone to be very active at the beginning of every season but that idea never really caught on and the result was many people occupying GM spots who do not belong. Now players can compete for the top of the ladder even if they didn't reserve a spot in GM at the start of a season. On June 23 2016 07:09 Charoisaur wrote:this looks great On June 23 2016 06:18 Ctone23 wrote:On June 23 2016 06:06 Legobiten wrote:On June 23 2016 05:56 JonnySC2 wrote:
I don't get why they still need the pointsystem. Just use the MMR instead. The points displayed are the MMR. No, there's still points. Yes, rankings within your division are still based on division points. MMR and division points are not correlated. Source I wonder what the point of the points is when there is already MMR showed. The games still must be played. MMR is estimating the skill of each player by estimating the probability of winning against other players, but the games still must be played and there must be an actual winner and loser! The point system is the quantifier that reflects the actual games played for that period of competition. Imagine Zest played NA for a season and achieved an MMR far higher than anyone else. He isn't the winner of the next season too just because no one is able to reach his MMR. Imagine the finals of a tournament. One player is heavily favored based on recent tournament results. He'd have the highest MMR if we pretended all tournament games were actually ladder games. He still needs to play the games and win them to be the winner, to be declared the best at that tournament. It's not enough to say "I have the highest MMR. I am the best." Being the best is something that has to be continually proven. That's why points and actual rank matter more than MMR and that's part of the purpose of bonus pool. That's a good point Tyler about activity being a core component. It absolutely needs to be. I don't know if bonus pool is the best way to go about that because it creates a weird moving target depending on when in the season you're talking about (is 500 points "good"? 1000? 2000? it depends on whether you're talking about week 1 or week 10), but everyone is used to what the bonus pool does by now so it's probably fine.
Yeah I think GM players no longer being able to spend bonus pool will be good. I'm interested to see how it'll look but I think it'll be an improvement. I don't think someone will be able to achieve a number of points early in the season that will remain #1 for the whole season so activity (beyond the 10 games every 3 weeks minimum) will still matter.
|
On June 28 2016 09:37 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2016 09:08 NonY wrote:Looks good. I don't mind that they tried another style of ladder and rank presentation first. Of course the argument was made from the start that StarCraft is a competitive game with players who prefer transparency and a focus on progression of skill rather than a vague ranking with types of progression that don't necessarily correlate to skill. And now Blizzard agrees to take it in that direction. But it doesn't mean it was wrong to try the other way. In fact we still can't determine if we would have been better off all along if we always had this system. I think GM having daily promotions and demotions is something that should have been in from the start. I suppose the idea was to give a strong incentive for everyone to be very active at the beginning of every season but that idea never really caught on and the result was many people occupying GM spots who do not belong. Now players can compete for the top of the ladder even if they didn't reserve a spot in GM at the start of a season. On June 23 2016 07:09 Charoisaur wrote:this looks great On June 23 2016 06:18 Ctone23 wrote:On June 23 2016 06:06 Legobiten wrote:On June 23 2016 05:56 JonnySC2 wrote:
I don't get why they still need the pointsystem. Just use the MMR instead. The points displayed are the MMR. No, there's still points. Yes, rankings within your division are still based on division points. MMR and division points are not correlated. Source I wonder what the point of the points is when there is already MMR showed. The games still must be played. MMR is estimating the skill of each player by estimating the probability of winning against other players, but the games still must be played and there must be an actual winner and loser! The point system is the quantifier that reflects the actual games played for that period of competition. Imagine Zest played NA for a season and achieved an MMR far higher than anyone else. He isn't the winner of the next season too just because no one is able to reach his MMR. Imagine the finals of a tournament. One player is heavily favored based on recent tournament results. He'd have the highest MMR if we pretended all tournament games were actually ladder games. He still needs to play the games and win them to be the winner, to be declared the best at that tournament. It's not enough to say "I have the highest MMR. I am the best." Being the best is something that has to be continually proven. That's why points and actual rank matter more than MMR and that's part of the purpose of bonus pool. That's a good point Tyler about activity being a core component. It absolutely needs to be. I don't know if bonus pool is the best way to go about that because it creates a weird moving target depending on when in the season you're talking about (is 500 points "good"? 1000? 2000? it depends on whether you're talking about week 1 or week 10), but everyone is used to what the bonus pool does by now so it's probably fine. As for the GM league refactor, I know people had a problem with the ranks being locked-in for a full season, but it was also self-correcting to a certain degree in its initial design. The floor for GM was so high that if you were fighting Diamond opponents you would get only 1 point (+1 bonus) for a win, and wins were the only way to spend bonus pool, which meant that you had to win a ton of games just to be able to tread water if you were boosted. It wasn't until they changed bonus pool to absorb losses that it became really exploitable.
agree about skill needing to be proven again and again. The points system is good.
|
China6329 Posts
|
I find league distributions weird, especially 4% Bronze.
|
Canada8157 Posts
every day at 5:00 p.m. local time, the bottom 5% of Grandmaster League will be automatically demoted to Masters League
This is key, 10 players will be demoted every day at least
|
4% masters, it won't feel that special to be in master league anymore. But everything else I like very much.
|
Before Blizzard revamp ladder, they need to revamp their servers. Sudden lag and delay of seconds and no announcement?
|
CruiseR
Poland4014 Posts
On June 29 2016 08:04 Shield wrote:
Before Blizzard revamp ladder, they need to revamp their servers. Sudden lag and delay of seconds and no announcement?
That's probably because of big Overwatch patch, which brings ranked play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
