|
On January 19 2011 09:56 Dionyseus wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:52 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:46 god deezy yo wrote:On January 19 2011 09:43 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:38 WhiteDog wrote:On January 19 2011 09:34 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 08:45 Slardar wrote:
I got into Masters League with approximately 30 games. 24-6. I can't be top 200 of anything with that amount of games played.
I did beat 3 Master League players in a row though(I believe) It's obviously basing it off your hidden MMR, not actual points. I was in Platinum League, I won a single game --> Diamond. Played another right after, won it, straight into Master League. No offense to you, but to me this screams "broken matchmaking system". Two games to go from plat to master is a joke. On the other hand, I had over 500 games played and was around 2.7k diamond, won 15 of 19 games, and still wasn't promoted. It actually doesn't surprise me that the top 200 is totally freaking screwed up. Something is wrong with the entire system right now in my opinion. By the way, I'm saying this AFTER I finally got to Master league, so it's not just me complaining. Well, this MMR system need you to play a lot so that your MMR become stable. Someone like you, with 500 games and a good diamond rating is "fixed" statisticly and your MMR doesn't change a lot from a game to another, the match making system can match you with player that are close to you, and so a loss or a win is not much. On the other side, someone with 24-6 has a MMR that goes russian mountains after each loss. I understand MMR, but it simply shouldn't be possible for someone with under 30 games to get to Master's league. Also, you're implying that someone with 23 wins had a higher MMR than a 2.7k diamond player, which shouldn't be possible in my opinion. If MMR could jump that quickly, my 15-4 streak should have put me in Master league easily. Broken shit. again, why the fuck shouldn't they? how many games should you need to play beating master level players before it promotes you? why should there be some lower bound of games played if you're clearly of that skill level and no, when you already have over 500 games played a 15-4 streak should not make your mmr jump that much, because chances are you didn't get twice as good at starcraft 2 overnight, you just had a good little streak. it's not broken whatsoever (in this situation at least). if someone goes 23-0, playing people with an mmr much higher than 2.7k (which they would be, because your mmr goes up fucking fast starting out!) then of course he should have a higher mmr than a 2.7k diamond player. think before you post. going 24-6 is much better than going 15-4 regardless, even without considering the fact that the 26-4 player was playing much higher level opponents I did, and apparently I disagree with how the system works. There's not nearly as much...i donno "exclusivity" in a Master league when someone can achieve it in a couple hours. I know this isn't Chess, but humor me for a second: if I come out of nowhere and beat 3 chess GMs in a row, that does not (and should not) make me a GM. I'd have to work my way through thousands of games and many tournaments to have a chance. In chess, achieving GM means something. In SC, it means very little. You could get lucky with a few cannon rushes and become a "Master" which just tarnishes the title in my opinion. Master isn't the same as Grandmaster. It's a lot easier to become a Master in chess than a Grandmaster. There will be a Grandmaster league coming soon.
Agree, but for now "Master" is highest level you can achieve in SC.
On January 19 2011 09:57 Zalfor wrote:
if u came out of nowhere and beat 3-4 chess grand masters in a row, i will consider you of at least master level strength.
Thanks, but you considering me a FM/IM/GM is different than actually being recognized as an FM/IM/GM. I just wish it was a little bit harder to achieve in SC2 in terms of time spent. Like maybe instead of winning against a 2.7mmr and then getting paired with a 3k mmr, you get get paired with a 2.8k mmr next. Oh well.
|
United States12224 Posts
On January 19 2011 09:53 random user wrote:
Is it possible to pull historical data to see how many wins/losses they had before they got into masters?
That might shed some light on this.
I'm looking at some info now... not sure if I will find anything...
There was a Top 200 post last week but I didn't do it because the snapshot was taken around 36 hours before the blog post appeared, causing too much of the data to be inaccurate to be useful. Additionally it didn't contain any Master league data which was useless in light of the fact that everyone's points were reset after promotion anyway.
|
On January 19 2011 10:03 absolutionsc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:56 Dionyseus wrote:On January 19 2011 09:52 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:46 god deezy yo wrote:On January 19 2011 09:43 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:38 WhiteDog wrote:On January 19 2011 09:34 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 08:45 Slardar wrote:
I got into Masters League with approximately 30 games. 24-6. I can't be top 200 of anything with that amount of games played.
I did beat 3 Master League players in a row though(I believe) It's obviously basing it off your hidden MMR, not actual points. I was in Platinum League, I won a single game --> Diamond. Played another right after, won it, straight into Master League. No offense to you, but to me this screams "broken matchmaking system". Two games to go from plat to master is a joke. On the other hand, I had over 500 games played and was around 2.7k diamond, won 15 of 19 games, and still wasn't promoted. It actually doesn't surprise me that the top 200 is totally freaking screwed up. Something is wrong with the entire system right now in my opinion. By the way, I'm saying this AFTER I finally got to Master league, so it's not just me complaining. Well, this MMR system need you to play a lot so that your MMR become stable. Someone like you, with 500 games and a good diamond rating is "fixed" statisticly and your MMR doesn't change a lot from a game to another, the match making system can match you with player that are close to you, and so a loss or a win is not much. On the other side, someone with 24-6 has a MMR that goes russian mountains after each loss. I understand MMR, but it simply shouldn't be possible for someone with under 30 games to get to Master's league. Also, you're implying that someone with 23 wins had a higher MMR than a 2.7k diamond player, which shouldn't be possible in my opinion. If MMR could jump that quickly, my 15-4 streak should have put me in Master league easily. Broken shit. again, why the fuck shouldn't they? how many games should you need to play beating master level players before it promotes you? why should there be some lower bound of games played if you're clearly of that skill level and no, when you already have over 500 games played a 15-4 streak should not make your mmr jump that much, because chances are you didn't get twice as good at starcraft 2 overnight, you just had a good little streak. it's not broken whatsoever (in this situation at least). if someone goes 23-0, playing people with an mmr much higher than 2.7k (which they would be, because your mmr goes up fucking fast starting out!) then of course he should have a higher mmr than a 2.7k diamond player. think before you post. going 24-6 is much better than going 15-4 regardless, even without considering the fact that the 26-4 player was playing much higher level opponents I did, and apparently I disagree with how the system works. There's not nearly as much...i donno "exclusivity" in a Master league when someone can achieve it in a couple hours. I know this isn't Chess, but humor me for a second: if I come out of nowhere and beat 3 chess GMs in a row, that does not (and should not) make me a GM. I'd have to work my way through thousands of games and many tournaments to have a chance. In chess, achieving GM means something. In SC, it means very little. You could get lucky with a few cannon rushes and become a "Master" which just tarnishes the title in my opinion. Master isn't the same as Grandmaster. It's a lot easier to become a Master in chess than a Grandmaster. There will be a Grandmaster league coming soon. Agree, but for now "Master" is highest level you can achieve in SC. Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 09:57 Zalfor wrote:
if u came out of nowhere and beat 3-4 chess grand masters in a row, i will consider you of at least master level strength. Thanks, but you considering me a FM/IM/GM is different than actually being recognized as an FM/IM/GM. I just wish it was a little bit harder to achieve in SC2 in terms of time spent. Like maybe instead of winning against a 2.7mmr and then getting paired with a 3k mmr, you get get paired with a 2.8k mmr next. Oh well.
so you want the ladder to be more of a grind than it already is? i don't understand why someone should have to spend 100 games playing their way up the ranks if they're already at a high skill level. if anything your analogy points to a flaw in the chess rating system rather than starcraft's. the difference is that in chess you only get one "account" and no one really starts off as a master level player, so it's not relevant. starcraft is different.
|
On January 19 2011 10:09 god deezy yo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:03 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:56 Dionyseus wrote:On January 19 2011 09:52 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:46 god deezy yo wrote:On January 19 2011 09:43 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:38 WhiteDog wrote:On January 19 2011 09:34 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 08:45 Slardar wrote:
I got into Masters League with approximately 30 games. 24-6. I can't be top 200 of anything with that amount of games played.
I did beat 3 Master League players in a row though(I believe) It's obviously basing it off your hidden MMR, not actual points. I was in Platinum League, I won a single game --> Diamond. Played another right after, won it, straight into Master League. No offense to you, but to me this screams "broken matchmaking system". Two games to go from plat to master is a joke. On the other hand, I had over 500 games played and was around 2.7k diamond, won 15 of 19 games, and still wasn't promoted. It actually doesn't surprise me that the top 200 is totally freaking screwed up. Something is wrong with the entire system right now in my opinion. By the way, I'm saying this AFTER I finally got to Master league, so it's not just me complaining. Well, this MMR system need you to play a lot so that your MMR become stable. Someone like you, with 500 games and a good diamond rating is "fixed" statisticly and your MMR doesn't change a lot from a game to another, the match making system can match you with player that are close to you, and so a loss or a win is not much. On the other side, someone with 24-6 has a MMR that goes russian mountains after each loss. I understand MMR, but it simply shouldn't be possible for someone with under 30 games to get to Master's league. Also, you're implying that someone with 23 wins had a higher MMR than a 2.7k diamond player, which shouldn't be possible in my opinion. If MMR could jump that quickly, my 15-4 streak should have put me in Master league easily. Broken shit. again, why the fuck shouldn't they? how many games should you need to play beating master level players before it promotes you? why should there be some lower bound of games played if you're clearly of that skill level and no, when you already have over 500 games played a 15-4 streak should not make your mmr jump that much, because chances are you didn't get twice as good at starcraft 2 overnight, you just had a good little streak. it's not broken whatsoever (in this situation at least). if someone goes 23-0, playing people with an mmr much higher than 2.7k (which they would be, because your mmr goes up fucking fast starting out!) then of course he should have a higher mmr than a 2.7k diamond player. think before you post. going 24-6 is much better than going 15-4 regardless, even without considering the fact that the 26-4 player was playing much higher level opponents I did, and apparently I disagree with how the system works. There's not nearly as much...i donno "exclusivity" in a Master league when someone can achieve it in a couple hours. I know this isn't Chess, but humor me for a second: if I come out of nowhere and beat 3 chess GMs in a row, that does not (and should not) make me a GM. I'd have to work my way through thousands of games and many tournaments to have a chance. In chess, achieving GM means something. In SC, it means very little. You could get lucky with a few cannon rushes and become a "Master" which just tarnishes the title in my opinion. Master isn't the same as Grandmaster. It's a lot easier to become a Master in chess than a Grandmaster. There will be a Grandmaster league coming soon. Agree, but for now "Master" is highest level you can achieve in SC. On January 19 2011 09:57 Zalfor wrote:
if u came out of nowhere and beat 3-4 chess grand masters in a row, i will consider you of at least master level strength. Thanks, but you considering me a FM/IM/GM is different than actually being recognized as an FM/IM/GM. I just wish it was a little bit harder to achieve in SC2 in terms of time spent. Like maybe instead of winning against a 2.7mmr and then getting paired with a 3k mmr, you get get paired with a 2.8k mmr next. Oh well. so you want the ladder to be more of a grind than it already is? i don't understand why someone should have to spend 100 games playing their way up the ranks if they're already at a high skill level. if anything your analogy points to a flaw in the chess rating system rather than starcraft's. the difference is that in chess you only get one "account" and no one really starts off as a master level player, so it's not relevant. starcraft is different.
I don't wholly disagree. But in WoW, I don't become level 80 in an hour just because I know the tricks to every raid boss in the game. Different game type, but still. Sometimes the "grind" is part of the journey to get to the top level. I'm not saying it should take 500 games, but *IMO* it should take a lot more than 30.
|
Unfortunately, there are no prizes in SC2 for "effort". Nor do I see why there should be. If someone who has played 50 games consistently defeats another who has played 1000 games, should we not consider the 50-game player more skilled? I don't think the criteria for promotion should be based on number of games. Rather it should be based on the required number of games to reliably assign a skill rating (as appears to be the system in fact used by Blizzard).
As to how the system can "confidently" promote a person to "Master" after only 30 games, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_power (and related links). One can, in certain circumstances, be highly confident about a result with a sample size as small as 20.
|
On January 19 2011 10:15 absolutionsc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 10:09 god deezy yo wrote:On January 19 2011 10:03 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:56 Dionyseus wrote:On January 19 2011 09:52 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:46 god deezy yo wrote:On January 19 2011 09:43 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 09:38 WhiteDog wrote:On January 19 2011 09:34 absolutionsc wrote:On January 19 2011 08:45 Slardar wrote:
I got into Masters League with approximately 30 games. 24-6. I can't be top 200 of anything with that amount of games played.
I did beat 3 Master League players in a row though(I believe) It's obviously basing it off your hidden MMR, not actual points. I was in Platinum League, I won a single game --> Diamond. Played another right after, won it, straight into Master League. No offense to you, but to me this screams "broken matchmaking system". Two games to go from plat to master is a joke. On the other hand, I had over 500 games played and was around 2.7k diamond, won 15 of 19 games, and still wasn't promoted. It actually doesn't surprise me that the top 200 is totally freaking screwed up. Something is wrong with the entire system right now in my opinion. By the way, I'm saying this AFTER I finally got to Master league, so it's not just me complaining. Well, this MMR system need you to play a lot so that your MMR become stable. Someone like you, with 500 games and a good diamond rating is "fixed" statisticly and your MMR doesn't change a lot from a game to another, the match making system can match you with player that are close to you, and so a loss or a win is not much. On the other side, someone with 24-6 has a MMR that goes russian mountains after each loss. I understand MMR, but it simply shouldn't be possible for someone with under 30 games to get to Master's league. Also, you're implying that someone with 23 wins had a higher MMR than a 2.7k diamond player, which shouldn't be possible in my opinion. If MMR could jump that quickly, my 15-4 streak should have put me in Master league easily. Broken shit. again, why the fuck shouldn't they? how many games should you need to play beating master level players before it promotes you? why should there be some lower bound of games played if you're clearly of that skill level and no, when you already have over 500 games played a 15-4 streak should not make your mmr jump that much, because chances are you didn't get twice as good at starcraft 2 overnight, you just had a good little streak. it's not broken whatsoever (in this situation at least). if someone goes 23-0, playing people with an mmr much higher than 2.7k (which they would be, because your mmr goes up fucking fast starting out!) then of course he should have a higher mmr than a 2.7k diamond player. think before you post. going 24-6 is much better than going 15-4 regardless, even without considering the fact that the 26-4 player was playing much higher level opponents I did, and apparently I disagree with how the system works. There's not nearly as much...i donno "exclusivity" in a Master league when someone can achieve it in a couple hours. I know this isn't Chess, but humor me for a second: if I come out of nowhere and beat 3 chess GMs in a row, that does not (and should not) make me a GM. I'd have to work my way through thousands of games and many tournaments to have a chance. In chess, achieving GM means something. In SC, it means very little. You could get lucky with a few cannon rushes and become a "Master" which just tarnishes the title in my opinion. Master isn't the same as Grandmaster. It's a lot easier to become a Master in chess than a Grandmaster. There will be a Grandmaster league coming soon. Agree, but for now "Master" is highest level you can achieve in SC. On January 19 2011 09:57 Zalfor wrote:
if u came out of nowhere and beat 3-4 chess grand masters in a row, i will consider you of at least master level strength. Thanks, but you considering me a FM/IM/GM is different than actually being recognized as an FM/IM/GM. I just wish it was a little bit harder to achieve in SC2 in terms of time spent. Like maybe instead of winning against a 2.7mmr and then getting paired with a 3k mmr, you get get paired with a 2.8k mmr next. Oh well. so you want the ladder to be more of a grind than it already is? i don't understand why someone should have to spend 100 games playing their way up the ranks if they're already at a high skill level. if anything your analogy points to a flaw in the chess rating system rather than starcraft's. the difference is that in chess you only get one "account" and no one really starts off as a master level player, so it's not relevant. starcraft is different. I don't wholly disagree. But in WoW, I don't become level 80 in an hour just because I know the tricks to every raid boss in the game. Different game type, but still. Sometimes the "grind" is part of the journey to get to the top level. I'm not saying it should take 500 games, but *IMO* it should take a lot more than 30.
WoW and SC2 are two very different games. Grinding in MMORPG's is pretty much essential so that the company that makes them can continue getting the $15 a month from the subscription service.
If your skill level can be determined in 30 games, why not? Why should you play a lot more than 30 games for the system to determine your skill level when it can do it in under 30 games?
If I were the greatest player in SC2, what difference would it be if I only played 30 games on my new account or hundreds? Seems logical that if I go 30-0 against the best in the server I should be placed in the top league.
|
I agree there should be at least a minimum number of games criteria. If someone wants to be considered a good player, they should be made to prove themselves continually, rather than hitting one good streak and then not playing again (to maintain their master league status).
For instance, there is no indication of how a person got their MMR for their first 30 games. They could've cheese heavily during the first week (when no one knew how to play) and hence got a good MMR. They have not proven themselves over a longer period of time.
|
United States12224 Posts
On January 19 2011 11:02 Azzur wrote:
I agree there should be at least a minimum number of games criteria. If someone wants to be considered a good player, they should be made to prove themselves continually, rather than hitting one good streak and then not playing again (to maintain their master league status).
For instance, there is no indication of how a person got their MMR for their first 30 games. They could've cheese heavily during the first week (when no one knew how to play) and hence got a good MMR. They have not proven themselves over a longer period of time.
That's not a concern because if the player remains active, he would just get demoted if he failed to maintain that level of performance over a longer period of time.
|
YOU DO NOT NEED A LOT OF GAMES PLAYED TO GET INTO MASTER LEAGUE
I hear some people saying that you need to be really active or something, but a guy in my master league division is 24-7, so it doesn't exactly take a ton of games. I really feel like the big issue here is that so many people think they are better than they really are. They see their big point score (massed a ton of games) and think they are top players. That's the problem with the SC2 ladder 
edit: edited post to bring clarity to main point.
|
On January 19 2011 11:02 Azzur wrote:
For instance, there is no indication of how a person got their MMR for their first 30 games. They could've cheese heavily during the first week (when no one knew how to play) and hence got a good MMR. They have not proven themselves over a longer period of time.
The thing about a small sample size is that additional "units" will very quickly change the overall picture. In the situation you describe, if they went on to lose consistently in the next 30 games, I infer their MMR would decrease quickly and they would be demoted [Edit: as Excalibur_Z quite rightly states above].
Trickier would be if this same person "fluked" one game with the cheese, were promoted, and then stopped laddering. In this case, they would lurk somewhere as the bottom of their Master division. I personally don't see this as a problem for two reasons. Firstly, the "inactive-undeserving-Master" would not "take up" a spot in Masters from a more deserving player, as the Master population is based on a % of active players. Secondly, as with Diamond, the players who played 30 or so games, got diamond and stopped were never really taken seriously anyway.
|
2790 diamond here
i do win streaks against master league players and 2800+ diamonds all day and i lose even like 15 pts against them so i assume i got high mmr and i dont get the promote, can anyone explain me why is this happening? is it probably because i didnt play for 1 month and the system consider me inactive and if that so when the system consider u active?
|
On January 19 2011 11:29 summoner503 wrote:
2790 diamond here
i do win streaks against master league players and 2800+ diamonds all day and i lose even like 15 pts against them so i assume i got high mmr and i dont get the promote, can anyone explain me why is this happening? is it probably because i didnt play for 1 month and the system consider me inactive and if that so when the system consider u active?
I hadn't played for 2 weeks when I was promoted. I logged in after 2 weeks, played 1 game, promoted.
|
Well I just got promoted to master league hurray for me. I was 84-53 with like 1680 and like 1140 in my bonus pool in the lowest class division on imaginable. I was top 20 with like 1200 points right before the patch came out... maybe that's a reference point for some of you other guys.
|
On January 19 2011 12:00 Neo.NEt wrote:
Well I just got promoted to master league hurray for me. I was 84-53 with like 1680 and like 1140 in my bonus pool in the lowest class division on imaginable. I was top 20 with like 1200 points right before the patch came out... maybe that's a reference point for some of you other guys.
woah u were only 1700 point diamond? :O and u got into masters?
thats weird, i just have no idea how to know how close/far i am for masters.
are there any indicators as to how i know if i may be getting close to promotion?
|
On January 19 2011 13:04 Subversion wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 12:00 Neo.NEt wrote:
Well I just got promoted to master league hurray for me. I was 84-53 with like 1680 and like 1140 in my bonus pool in the lowest class division on imaginable. I was top 20 with like 1200 points right before the patch came out... maybe that's a reference point for some of you other guys. woah u were only 1700 point diamond? :O and u got into masters? thats weird, i just have no idea how to know how close/far i am for masters. are there any indicators as to how i know if i may be getting close to promotion?
Yeap, look at your opponents league. If 50% of them is on master, than you are really close. If 100% of them are on master, then you are there already most likely. If 10% of them are on master, then you are probably close and could actually get in soon, or never. 
|
United States293 Posts
Is there anyone who demote from master to diamond?
|
On January 19 2011 13:54 vradovic wrote:
Is there anyone who demote from master to diamond?
Yes. Don't ask me who, but there is more than 1 already.
|
On January 19 2011 11:06 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 11:02 Azzur wrote:
I agree there should be at least a minimum number of games criteria. If someone wants to be considered a good player, they should be made to prove themselves continually, rather than hitting one good streak and then not playing again (to maintain their master league status).
For instance, there is no indication of how a person got their MMR for their first 30 games. They could've cheese heavily during the first week (when no one knew how to play) and hence got a good MMR. They have not proven themselves over a longer period of time. That's not a concern because if the player remains active, he would just get demoted if he failed to maintain that level of performance over a longer period of time.
That's correct, but then the player can just be inactive and keep the Master League icon. I just feel that for someone to consider themselves a good player, they need to continually prove themselves. A way around this I guess is for inactive players to get demoted, but I'm not sure if Blizzard will do that.
|
Does anyone think that over time it will become much more difficult to get into master league as casual players drop off?
2% of players will represent an absolute number that is much smaller in the future.
Is there any evidence that players with 10 or less ladder games get permanent MMRs? Will these only be reset when the ladder does?
|
On January 19 2011 11:06 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On January 19 2011 11:02 Azzur wrote:
I agree there should be at least a minimum number of games criteria. If someone wants to be considered a good player, they should be made to prove themselves continually, rather than hitting one good streak and then not playing again (to maintain their master league status).
For instance, there is no indication of how a person got their MMR for their first 30 games. They could've cheese heavily during the first week (when no one knew how to play) and hence got a good MMR. They have not proven themselves over a longer period of time. That's not a concern because if the player remains active, he would just get demoted if he failed to maintain that level of performance over a longer period of time.
and if they dont continue playing they will stay in there forever and block spots and god i would be really really surprised if this wont happen in large numbers
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
