EPTInstead of saying "I am rank 20 Master", say "I am 1500 points Master". Whether or not you actually have 1500 points and 0 unspent bonus pool, or 1000 points and 500 unspent bonus pool is irrelevant. Then other players will see your post (and note the date it was posted. As time goes on, there is points inflation due to bonus pool increasing which everyone must account for) and will instantly be able to tell your rough position in the ladder.
Credibility of ladder rank - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Not_That
287 Posts
Instead of saying "I am rank 20 Master", say "I am 1500 points Master". Whether or not you actually have 1500 points and 0 unspent bonus pool, or 1000 points and 500 unspent bonus pool is irrelevant. Then other players will see your post (and note the date it was posted. As time goes on, there is points inflation due to bonus pool increasing which everyone must account for) and will instantly be able to tell your rough position in the ladder. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On July 16 2011 22:41 Not_That wrote: Ranks are irrelevant, because divisions are irrelevant. If you want to compare yourself to other players, then simply either add on unspent bonus pool to all the players' points, or substract the total bonus pool earned from all players' points. Then simply factor in league and division tier modifiers, and you have the actual ladder position for all players. Since division tiers and most leagues modifiers are unknown, sometimes you can not get an absolute comparison. In such cases, a relative position can still be drawn more often than not. Currently, all division modifiers are unknown. So this doesn't work. There's no way to get a "true" rank for players under Masters. On July 16 2011 22:41 Not_That wrote:Instead of saying "I am rank 20 Master", say "I am 1500 points Master". Whether or not you actually have 1500 points and 0 unspent bonus pool, or 1000 points and 500 unspent bonus pool is irrelevant. Then other players will see your post (and note the date it was posted. As time goes on, there is points inflation due to bonus pool increasing which everyone must account for) and will instantly be able to tell your rough position in the ladder. Yeah that would work, but only for Masters and above. It is a tacky workaround to this bonus pool system, and ladder system overall, which tries to obfuscate your "true" rank as much as possible. | ||
|
craz3d
Bulgaria856 Posts
On July 15 2011 15:26 NicoLoco wrote: I guess that is my point. Why don't we have a system that gives a credible rank? I wouldn't mind being in platinum if that was my true rank, because at least then I would have a clear direction as to where my skill is. It is hard for people to measure their own skill, and as of now ladder rank is the only way to go. I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". Consider that in the TSL2 qualifiers, only Idra hit A+. Also consider that usually, the top 200 on iccup was all south korean, except for maybe two chinese guys and white-ra. The current system does reward people who ladder a lot due to bonus pool. | ||
|
EmilA
Denmark4618 Posts
| ||
|
JediGamer
United States656 Posts
First off hes pretty good in general in macro. 2nd off- he maphacks on ladder now, not too hard to pick a GM slaying strategy with good macro mechanics and a hack | ||
|
PopcornColonel
United States769 Posts
I never played BW, but people talk about A+ like the holy grail. Grandmaster seems to be more like: "meh.. He just ladders a lot". Not really... destiny was masters rank 1 for a long, long time after GM was released, and he played a TON. | ||
|
BlizzrdSlave
161 Posts
On July 17 2011 23:27 JediGamer wrote: People using combatex as an example of why rank means nothing are stupid. First off hes pretty good in general in macro. 2nd off- he maphacks on ladder now, not too hard to pick a GM slaying strategy with good macro mechanics and a hack not true, you actually do have to understand the game in order to pick the proper units and number of units even IF you maphack. think about this. roaches soft counter zerglinsg, but zerglings in huge numbers and with good surround actually counter them for cost effectiveness. So its not just picking the face value counter unit, its picking the unit that will counter better in circumstances where the alternate true counter either isn't available or would be subpar because you couldnt make enough to actually kill off all those roaches before losing your expensive counter unit to the mob. Which is why most ZvZ games are mass roach vs mass roach stupidity. Good games arent, but most games are. Speaking of which, the only proper counter to roach is utlra, which takes forever to get, and gets raped when in low numbers. I mean, you have to be a certain level of competency at something in the game in order to stay master or GM, even if you're otherwise a pretty bad player. I think combatEX is a prime example of my next points below. On July 17 2011 23:40 PopcornColonel wrote: Not really... destiny was masters rank 1 for a long, long time after GM was released, and he played a TON. exactly just because you play a lot doesnt mean you get higher. Its more likely that playing a lot will keep you in a lower league, while people who play once or twice a week and get lucky wins will shoot into master or GM much easier. Granted, it still takes skill to get that high, but if they get easy mode opponents who appear slightly or just favored, they're going to get that much more MMR quicker that someone who plays consistently and fights all skill levels regardless of the MMRs favor rating system. My problem with bonus pool is that it doesn't motivate players to play more, it only motivates them to play enough to keep their bonus pool low. It doesn't reward mass games, it actually rewards fewer games which shouldn't be the case. If I play 1000 games in the first month of a ladder reset with a decent win percentage say I have 1500 points. After that month someone else starts laddering, has an inflated bonus pool, will have the same amount of points as me after just 100 games. That doesn't reward or motivate players to play more it actually does the opposite. It's funny, the person above me says "you're officially stupid if you want bonus pool removed because it motivates the casual player to play" but that makes no sense. The casual player is actually persuaded to play less. They know playing over their bonus pool will risk losing more points so they will play only to keep the advantage of bonus pool. If there is no bonus pool they would be motivated to play more to keep up with other players. A system that rewards mass gaming is what motivates people to mass game. Logically a system that rewards minimal play cannot motivate more play. If I know that I have a better chance of keeping my points high by not playing, why would I play more? First of all the argument in favor of bonus pool, which is for the casual gamer, would imply that the casual gamer cares a lot about points. If that's the case, like I have said then there is no reason for them to ever play past their bonus pool. But I would argue that if you're a casual player then you play for fun and should not care about points. But when you have a factor such as bonus pool it puts more emphasis on points which would, in my opinion, discourage mass gaming. Take a ladder system like ICC for example, mass gamers are rewarded and those who don't play a lot won't get a high rank. How is that not how it should be? Why should someone who plays at the very end of a season be the same rank as someone who's play 10 times as many games? Not to mention Bonus Pool makes no real skill bars, points are only important for whatever is the current time. 1000 points in the first few weeks is a cool thing but a couple weeks after that it's nothing. In a system like ICC points are a reflection of skill, if you're A+ you're one of the best players, but that's a set rank where other players of the same rank are equally skilled. When I play a game and I see +20 points I want that to mean something, as should everyone else, casual and competitive alike. taken from http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=238569 this is exactly what I was saying about the bonus pool system, yet people in here were saying I was wrong, but apparently someone else has seen the same situation correctly, as myself. So with combatEX, you either have to accept that hes a really good player, or you have to accept that the ladder works as I've described it, which is the only way he can get high in M or GM. because stream cheating, like he said, works to his detriment and is harder, especially now that most streamers add a delay of about 15-20 seconds, sometimes more, or people can just turn their stream off. People saying he's hacking are dumb because this is just another rumor that got started because people mistook how he was cheating (via straeming) and word of mouthed it around the community and it's come back as "hes hacking". simple telephone game logic. | ||
|
Meldrath
United States620 Posts
| ||
|
Tryxtira
Sweden572 Posts
| ||
|
BlizzrdSlave
161 Posts
On July 18 2011 03:38 Meldrath wrote: Masters and Grand master players are good, Diamond players are not bad, anything else is well sub par play. Ladder rank is a good way to get a broad idea of how you stack against someone else. If you consider the games played and the bonus pool of both players.. you can guess with some degree of certainty who will win. It is no fool proof system though... and alot of players shoot way up 1 week and waaaayyy down the next as is expected with outside factors (players who play while stoned/drunk or tired) etc etc Im plat and I eat top 8 diamonds regularly when I play them. try again. | ||
|
SecondChance
Australia603 Posts
What do you suggest, that they make public your MMR? Probably wouldn't be an accurate way to do it either as not everyone will have the same base games played to sample from. So yea, what do you suggest? On July 18 2011 03:42 BlizzrdSlave wrote: Im plat and I eat top 8 diamonds regularly when I play them. try again. I'll try for him: You're in platinum. /end | ||
|
BlizzrdSlave
161 Posts
On July 18 2011 03:44 SecondChance wrote: It's a bit hard to quantify skill with only 7 badges. I take it you're implying that this isn't enough. I guess points are out of the question due to bonus pool. What do you suggest, that they make public your MMR? Probably wouldn't be an accurate way to do it either as not everyone will have the same base games played to sample from. So yea, what do you suggest? I'll try for him: You're in platinum. /end /facepalm. really? I mean, seriously? That was the entire point. He said that M or GM is good diamonds are not bad, and everyone else is subpar. Im lower than diamond in leagues, yet I consistently beat top 8 diamonds when I do get matched with them. So clearly, the subpar people are better than the "not bad" people, by his logic. That is the entire point I was making. You and him are both saying rank is a strict indicator of skill when its not true at all. so what rank are you so I can laugh in your face? | ||
|
imareaver3
United States906 Posts
On July 18 2011 03:56 BlizzrdSlave wrote: /facepalm. really? I mean, seriously? That was the entire point. He said that M or GM is good diamonds are not bad, and everyone else is subpar. Im lower than diamond in leagues, yet I consistently beat top 8 diamonds when I do get matched with them. So clearly, the subpar people are better than the "not bad" people, by his logic. That is the entire point I was making. You and him are both saying rank is a strict indicator of skill when its not true at all. so what rank are you so I can laugh in your face? Consistently beat top diamonds and in plat? You obviously are hiding part of the story... Let me guess, either you have a massive weakness against cheese, you don't ladder very much, you're a rank 1 plat a few days away from a promotion, or "consistently" is being used very subjectively? | ||
|
blabber
United States4448 Posts
| ||
|
Meldrath
United States620 Posts
On July 18 2011 03:56 BlizzrdSlave wrote: /facepalm. really? I mean, seriously? That was the entire point. He said that M or GM is good diamonds are not bad, and everyone else is subpar. Im lower than diamond in leagues, yet I consistently beat top 8 diamonds when I do get matched with them. So clearly, the subpar people are better than the "not bad" people, by his logic. That is the entire point I was making. You and him are both saying rank is a strict indicator of skill when its not true at all. so what rank are you so I can laugh in your face? You're being dense. very dense... if you read my entire post and got what it said not what you wanted it to say you would understand.. You're platinum becuase you're macro sucks alittle worse then those in diamond and I am happy that you beat someone of a higher league "some" of the time. Doesn't mean you consistantly play at that level I bet you 100 dollars there are days you play like shit and lose to gold rank 1 players as well.. so the system loses confidence in you and you never get your promotion. Stop being a dense easily offended newb and realize you are where you are for a reason. I know you wanna think your better then that and you might be but you havent proven it yet. | ||
|
BlizzrdSlave
161 Posts
On July 18 2011 05:57 Meldrath wrote: You're being dense. very dense... if you read my entire post and got what it said not what you wanted it to say you would understand.. You're platinum becuase you're macro sucks alittle worse then those in diamond and I am happy that you beat someone of a higher league "some" of the time. Doesn't mean you consistantly play at that level I bet you 100 dollars there are days you play like shit and lose to gold rank 1 players as well.. so the system loses confidence in you and you never get your promotion. Stop being a dense easily offended newb and realize you are where you are for a reason. I know you wanna think your better then that and you might be but you havent proven it yet. lol. and while his post was simply wrong, your post was strawmanned and trollish to the extreme. it had absolutely no content, so Im going to treat it as such. additionally, I AM likely on the verge of promotion, yet its locked ladder so i cant really do that can I? See how someone can be different in skill than their league? Of perhaps what about the so called tiers or brackets, where an MMR of plat in one league is comparable to the MMR of gold or the MMR of diamond of another league, because there's a graduated system at work, which is what everyone else here has been explaining. all this leads back to my central point, that league is not an indicator of skill like people like you think it is. so brandish your e-peen more and dodge my question of what league you are. I really don't care that you're being obstinate in the face of facts. for the record, my macro is quite good. I learned rhythmic perfect queen injects three weeks ago. I bought this game about 5 weeks ago. I also dont have any weakness against low league cheeses. having seen (and done) them all, and having perfected early game macro and BO, I can easily defend any cheese with a generic opening, into a drone cut or tech rush as necessary. wall off paylon cannon rushes are perhaps the most easy for me to beat, next in order being marine scv all in, banshee rush, VR rush, etc. you're now going to say "VR and banshee isnt cheese lol nub". Except that low league people learn this, and they suddenly start winning every game until they meet someone who counters it perfectly, whether they know its coming or not. that is by definition cheese. | ||
|
DaemonX
545 Posts
With the single-player chaff taken out the bottom and the best removed from diamond, the middle leagues are all much better indicators than they were in Season 1, where anything lower than diamond meant you didn't know how to play RTS games, but the top of diamond had players like IdrA. Now, you can be legitimately proud of being in platinum. You are a pretty decent player of SC2. To the OP, you don't give yourself enough credit. If you're a high placed master, you're pretty damn good. Just because someone with similar rank who didn't quite make the cut into GM this season is 10x better than you doesn't change this. I hope as the ladder matures down the road, even division rank will start to be more meaningful. As it stands, going from facing lower ranks to top 8 is a consistent indicator that you are starting to move toward promotion, and that wasn't the case in S1. | ||
|
NicoLoco
Norway159 Posts
On July 18 2011 03:42 BlizzrdSlave wrote: Im plat and I eat top 8 diamonds regularly when I play them. try again. This topic has gone far away from what I was trying to point out, but suddenly this post came to prove my point. If you are "top diamond", which we all know is supposed to be close to master league, and you are losing to Platinum league players, where is the credibility of the ranking system? I haven't said anything about MMR being a bad system, just trying to point out that your placement on ladder doesn't matter for ANYTHING. I have faced rank 10 to 20 master league players that I have demolished, but if I try to play against my rank 50 master league friend he will demolish me 100% of the time if nothing out of the ordinary happens. I will ask my question again: What is the point in having a ranking system that doesn't say anything about your skill other than put you in a "box" where you are either good, not so good, or really good. | ||
|
bEwArE
United Kingdom121 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On July 18 2011 03:42 BlizzrdSlave wrote: Im plat and I eat top 8 diamonds regularly when I play them. try again. That doesn't make you the better player... I've taken games off some people I should not have just because of timings attacks and abusing maps/ units and their weaknesses. | ||
| ||
