|
Source:Battle.net
Seems like Blizz wants fewer players stuck in Bronze. They decreased the Bronze percentage to 8% an gave the 12 missing percent to Gold, saying that Bronze had a too wide skill-range while Gold was too narrow:
While it appears to display an equal distribution of skill level across the board, we found that the current system brought about scenarios in which Bronze encompassed a skill range that was too broad to be meaningful, while Gold was too narrow. As a result, the lowest ranked players in Bronze often tended to be far removed from the skill level of those at the top, or even the middle of the league. As such, we're going to alter the population percentages for Bronze, Silver, and Gold leagues in order to equalize these skill gaps, and help each feel more meaningful.
New League Distribution will be:
|
So it's going to more like a bell curve now?
No complaints, really.
|
I think you mean "less" players stuck in bronze?
|
28057 Posts
Interesting. Doesn't affect me, but it might help the lower leagues.
|
This means that bronze is worse than ever and that gold and silver players should'nt be proud of being out of bronze
|
On March 12 2013 02:13 bennedik wrote: I think you mean "less" players stuck in bronze? "Fewer", if we're being pedantic
|
Well if that is your only concern, I will comply
|
kind of interesting~ I think there's a pretty huge variance in skill towards the the top end too. The top end of masters compared to the bottom may as well be the difference between bronze and masters.
|
Source link isn't working for me.
Edit: Works now.
|
Everyone likes a good confidence boost. If your a more casual player staying your "stuck" in gold does not sound so shameful as bronze/silver
|
I stay in chat channels a lot and stuff, and I like see either the lower league players bronze-silver, or the higher leagues plat-master, but like gold is much more rare for some reason. Maybe it's just me though, but still I guess that will increase the gold population and decrease the giant skill range between the lower and upper parts of bronze.
|
I like this change, it just feels better playing Starcraft once you're promoted
|
Bronze now the most exclusive league after GM and Masters.
|
On March 12 2013 02:53 KillerDucky wrote: Bronze now the most exclusive league after GM and Masters.
The bronze border looks pretty good actually.
|
I feel like this is going to lower the skill level for silver/gold, allowing for players that may not be skilled enough for Platinum league to get promoted by playing players who were formerly bronze/silver in skill.
|
On March 12 2013 02:59 c0ldfusion wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 02:53 KillerDucky wrote: Bronze now the most exclusive league after GM and Masters. The bronze border looks pretty good actually. Best border after unranked.
On March 12 2013 03:08 vultdylan wrote: I feel like this is going to lower the skill level for silver/gold, allowing for players that may not be skilled enough for Platinum league to get promoted by playing players who were formerly bronze/silver in skill. That's not how that works. You're promoted by MMR. You have to play mid platinum players and win consistently against them to be able to get a promotion. No worries there.
|
Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved...
|
So what are the percentages now? I thought I read somewhere that the size of masters was decreased in the last patch of WOL. Could that be correct? 8%, 20%, 32%, 20%, 18%, 2%, 200?
|
Makes sense to me if what they're saying checks out, good change
On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved...
Chill out man, like you said, it's not the top top so it's not like they're giving up spots of great players to bad ones and somehow "tainting" what it means to be in gold lol I don't think anyone really cares, most people are still trying to rise up the ranks at gold. Plus if it's going to more balance out skill levels like they say, it's a good change.
Edit: oh oops, I didn't read the second part properly haha
|
|
|
On March 12 2013 03:23 Inori wrote: Wouldn't that mean that there will be a huge variety of skill level at gold league? Not really, they're all still terrible...
|
On March 12 2013 03:23 Inori wrote: Wouldn't that mean that there will be a huge variety of skill level at gold league? Not as much as WoL bronze. If player skill is a bell curve, the lower 20% has a huge range of skill (from "what is a starcraft" to "vaguely recognizable as someone trying to play SC2"). But HotS gold is from the 28th to 60th percentile, which is the center of the bell curve, so the differential is lower.
|
haha so funny how apollo almost laughed when the oracle started killing
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On March 12 2013 03:08 vultdylan wrote: I feel like this is going to lower the skill level for silver/gold, allowing for players that may not be skilled enough for Platinum league to get promoted by playing players who were formerly bronze/silver in skill.
Your league has nothing to do with who you are going to play, it is a result of who you have played.
|
On March 12 2013 03:23 Inori wrote: Wouldn't that mean that there will be a huge variety of skill level at gold league?
It will be bigger than before, at least. If what they are saying is true, that the Gold skill range was too narrow in WoL, maybe it won't be "huge", though.
|
I'm not at all a fan of this adjustment. There are so many better solutions.
1) There should be a cutoff point established somewhere to protect the real practice league level newbs from smurfs, trolls, and farmers. For example, if an account reaches Gold level (league or MMR) they are no longer permitted to be matched up against bronze league level players.
As it stands, a bronze league consisting of 8% of the player-base will consist almost entirely of trolls and smurfs, greatly increasing the likelihood that a brand new player encounters these people and becomes readily discouraged. The lower leagues should be protected, similar to the practice league, to ensure that experienced and advanced level players cannot demote themselves to that level but with an 8% bronze league this only increases the likelihood.
2) It undermines the accomplishment of reaching Gold league, significantly. Promotions are fun and rewarding, for any player. The 20/20/20/20/18/2 system makes each promotion feel valuable and increases the level of difficulty needed to attain each subsequent promotion. With the majority of the player base in the middle of the spectrum at gold, the only meaningful promotions are now platinum and above.
|
This is a very reasonable move. There's a big difference between a Gheed bronze and a higher tier bronze who knows what to do in the game but just isn't good at it. When I started playing starcraft 2 I didn't know hotkeys, produced nothing whenever I was moving my army, took 15 minutes to expand, and didn't know what units countered what. It's my first RTS. When I was at the top of bronze I knew I needed to macro and knew what every unit in the game did, but my execution was just bad and didn't know how to hold a cheese.
|
Sounds way better. They should just go for the full system that Riot uses and make 5 divisions in Bronze, Silve, Gold, Plat and so on. Riot's system makes progression much more attinable and makes climb out of Bronze league more than just going on a sick winning streak. It would be fine for SC2 as well.
|
Clever idea by Blizzard. Deifinitely makes HotS more casual friendly and rewarding at the lower level whilst not affecting the top level of play (or actually the uppermost 40%) at all. Bronze now works as a some sort of introductory league rather than a sign of ones total inability to play starcraft. I like this!
|
more of a normal distribution is better imo
|
United States12175 Posts
The funny thing about this change is that I bet when we look at the total distribution (like SC2Ranks takes, as opposed to Blizzard's "active player" metric) Bronze through Gold will probably look like 20%/20%/20%.
For a long time, Bronze has always had the most accounts. For some reason people get to Bronze and then just sit there, and there could be any number of reasons for this. Right now it's close to 35% in Bronze and around 23% in Silver and 18% in Gold in total accounts. Now, the intended ranges are 20%/20%/20%, so if they change this to 8%/20%/32% for active players, then the total accounts numbers may shift toward 20%/20%/20%, which would be pretty funny.
As to the reasoning behind this change, my guess is that the bottom 8% or so are probably portrait farmers, so perhaps Blizzard wants people who actually try to play the game for real to be Silver and above.
|
On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
i loled right there.
personally i like the change
|
So now people who get in bronze know they REALLY suck.
|
They have a point about the distribution - Bronze has a huge range from people that have no clue and can't expand, to having people that have a reasonable idea but are hampered by something in their execution. The distribution really doesn't change much (compared to Masters/GM, we're ALL horrible and have no idea how to play from Bronze through at least Platinum and only slightly better at Diamond) except maybe make some people feel a little better because their border will be shiny shiny or canary yellow.
(I only this season made Gold. I am in no way upset by the change. Maybe if I had just made Masters and they changed that end of the distribution...)
|
I just want to throw it in there: The old distribution were supposed to be 20-20-20-20-18-2. But in reality (I checked several times on sc2ranks.com) The distribution was more something like 40-18-15-14-9-4. So now well have an inflation of gold (which totally makes sense according to a Bell-curve btw), and less bronzies. But still probably more than the 8% planned (since 20% became 40%+ in wol).
|
sweet, i just made it to gold!
|
Sounds good, that'll help newbies feel less alienated and "promote" easier so they feel like they're progressing and have less chance of getting bronze account trollers.
|
Speaking of leagues, the player placement in leagues today is pretty funny. Everyone in platinum was atleast mid masters last season, while the grandmasters and top masters are in diamond. You'll find many masters players in gold too.
|
On March 12 2013 02:13 InfCereal wrote: So it's going to more like a bell curve now?
No complaints, really.
Cool observation. Agree with the change!
|
On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I will only quote half of your post, pretend you're being serious and call this the funniest thing I've read this year.
|
This seems quite legitimate as well as an interesting change. Thing is, a lot of Bronze accounts were basically just inactive, so I wonder whether much of Bronze will just soak up those inactive accounts or something.
|
On March 12 2013 17:47 Aerisky wrote: This seems quite legitimate as well as an interesting change. Thing is, a lot of Bronze accounts were basically just inactive, so I wonder whether much of Bronze will just soak up those inactive accounts or something. maybe being bronze will ultimately mean being inactive, for everyone active will be silver very fast.
On March 12 2013 18:03 MateShade wrote: LOL. Yeah doesn't affect anything. Laughing at all the butt hurt gold players though. I can t tell the different between plat and lower anyway yeha, I don't think someone at goldlevel (where i'm horrifyingly close) should be worried about these things.
Doesn't this somewhat relate to the removal of copper league at the beginning of wol?
|
On March 12 2013 02:17 algue wrote: This means that bronze is worse than ever and that gold and silver players should'nt be proud of being out of bronze
Hahah so funny XD
|
LOL. Yeah doesn't affect anything. Laughing at all the butt hurt gold players though. I can t tell the different between plat and lower anyway
|
I feel like it's another Blizzard move to stop bad players from getting demotivated.
|
So now it's gonna be "I'm stuck in high gold low diamond mmr but I'm basically mid-high plat because I beat a mid-low diamond player once!"
|
Cool. Wonder if it will affect me considering im always starting and quitting but always seem to remain in plat, maybe i'll drop and it'll actually give me incentive to play xD
|
Austria24413 Posts
Not gonna really affect me at all but I mean... why not. People get encouraged by promotion and rank. Being in "gold league" sounds way better than being in bronze. I guess it's mostly about catering to casuals but in this case I think it's a good idea. I just hope that gold doesn't get too wide a range of skill levels.
|
I dont see any benefits or drawbacks here, really. It just shows that people are not too smart easily motivated and are being treated like that. You were a good silver player all the time? Daww, come on mate, we give you gold without you needing to improve.
Wat?
|
it might make gold/silver players feel less worse when they defeat a bronze level player, knowing that their rank is not bronze.
|
Too much people carrying the "Ladder Anxiety" on this thread. When you see people whining about how much "work" he had to be gold. Really? In this videogame?
|
Hahahaha. Blizzard shouldn't have told us because now the people who are in Bronze won't be able to say that they have a FlasH level understanding of the game, but they just don't have the time to invest into improving their mechanics.
|
On March 12 2013 18:18 Glurkenspurk wrote: So now it's gonna be "I'm stuck in high gold low diamond mmr but I'm basically mid-high plat because I beat a mid-low diamond player once!"
xD. Heard that one so many times.
|
its actually good for the new players.
have 2 friends that will pick up SC2 with hots soon , and hopefully this will make for a better starting experience and not as stressful.
one of them actually quit playing sc2 when he started to get owned in bronze league back in wol launch... we tend to forget theres people who doesnt know about build orders , probes & pylons and all the stuff we take for granted.
Im actually at WOL gold and i couldnt care less about having more dudes in my division , matchmaking still works by MMR so it doesnt matter your actual rank to find ppl to play at your lvl.
|
On March 12 2013 17:55 Yorbon wrote:
Doesn't this somewhat relate to the removal of copper league at the beginning of wol?
Not really. The Copper League only existed in the first part of the WoL beta. It got removed at the same time the Diamond League was added (before then, Platinum was the highest). So effectively everyone moved up one league (Copper -> Bronze, ..., Platinum -> Diamond).
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22271 Posts
I support using normal distributions for almost everything so I like this change.
|
On March 12 2013 19:40 Rannasha wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 17:55 Yorbon wrote:
Doesn't this somewhat relate to the removal of copper league at the beginning of wol?
Not really. The Copper League only existed in the first part of the WoL beta. It got removed at the same time the Diamond League was added (before then, Platinum was the highest). So effectively everyone moved up one league (Copper -> Bronze, ..., Platinum -> Diamond). Remove bronze, open up master for 20% of the players, and GM for about 2-5%. Introduce a new "Gosu" (or something) league above GM that takes the best 100 players from the server.
Now THAT would change how the ladder works. Certainly would bring my motivation back.
|
On March 12 2013 02:18 Kasu wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 02:13 bennedik wrote: I think you mean "less" players stuck in bronze? "Fewer", if we're being pedantic
I like to think it was a clever joke about how people stuck in bronze are lesser in terms of skill
|
btw is there anything beyond diamond yet? i havent seen anybody higher than platin
|
On March 12 2013 20:55 SpikeStarcraft wrote: btw is there anything beyond diamond yet? i havent seen anybody higher than platin
I wonder the same. Hope it wont be too long until the leagues are back to normal. Right now its messy :D. GM players playing diamonds is not fun
|
On March 12 2013 20:06 Cascade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 19:40 Rannasha wrote:On March 12 2013 17:55 Yorbon wrote:
Doesn't this somewhat relate to the removal of copper league at the beginning of wol?
Not really. The Copper League only existed in the first part of the WoL beta. It got removed at the same time the Diamond League was added (before then, Platinum was the highest). So effectively everyone moved up one league (Copper -> Bronze, ..., Platinum -> Diamond). Remove bronze, open up master for 20% of the players, and GM for about 2-5%. Introduce a new "Gosu" (or something) league above GM that takes the best 100 players from the server. Now THAT would change how the ladder works. Certainly would bring my motivation back.
Isn't that just shifting every league up and then changing the percentages a little bit?
|
Awesome. It will actually look like a bell curve and hopefully act like it. Those that are truly bronze will be bronze. I have a few friends that play like they're in high silver/low gold but are stuck in bronze. Hopefully they get pushed up soon and that motivates them to get even better at the game. The leagues really don't mean all that much anyway.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved...
Hahaha, sums up many people so well.
|
On March 12 2013 02:13 bennedik wrote: I think you mean "less" players stuck in bronze?
No, fewer is correct.
On topic: I don't see a particular problem with changing the percent of players in bronze. It should make more people happy. The new skewed distribution should be just fine
|
On March 12 2013 02:31 Joedaddy wrote: kind of interesting~ I think there's a pretty huge variance in skill towards the the top end too. The top end of masters compared to the bottom may as well be the difference between bronze and masters.
This is quite true. IMO masters should be restricted to those who are currently considered high master. That would make it truly the "master" league. Low and mid master players are, quite frankly, really bad at this game, myself included. There are low master Terrans who will only make 50 SCVs in a long game. And it's not because they think its okay to stop at 50, it's because they lack the mechanical skill to maintain worker production on 2-3 bases even when their armies are idle. And then there are zergs who float 3000+ minerals. That's really fucking bad, and the mechanical difference create a fundamental and gaping skill gap between high master and the rest of the league. You can't call yourself good at Starcraft until your mechanics are such that you are capable of executing all the strategies, reactions and decisions that are available to you. This why I think blizzard should have tweaked master too because right now it's just diamond 2.0.
|
On March 12 2013 22:54 JazVM wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 20:55 SpikeStarcraft wrote: btw is there anything beyond diamond yet? i havent seen anybody higher than platin I wonder the same. Hope it wont be too long until the leagues are back to normal. Right now its messy :D. GM players playing diamonds is not fun
Masters league is up, but any idea when GM is coming out? Don't wanna miss it because I'm out the day it opens again ><
|
Just make one big ass ladder already... no divisions/leagues.
And give point win/loss according to the rank you are playing vs, so ranking/points actually has some meaning.
|
Makes a lot of sense actually. It's always exciting to get promoted, and this should help newer players reach their 1st promotion.
Also, anybody know if masters is currently active? I know you can't get placed directly from placements, so it seems odd if it is already open.
|
lol bronze players will so much even more bad now
|
On March 12 2013 23:22 Technique wrote: Just make one big ass ladder already... no divisions/leagues.
And give point win/loss according to the rank you are playing vs, so ranking/points actually has some meaning.
A lot of players wouldn't necessarily like being part of a nearly endless ladder, because being ranked #18,293 becomes a practically meaningless statistic to most people- especially the casual gamers and most ladder players- whereas having the current benchmarks of divisions with tiers (Top 8, Top 25, etc.) and different leveled leagues (master, gold, etc.) reward progress in no uncertain terms with more concrete accomplishments. It's much harder to motivate yourself by setting the goal to move up from number ten thousand to number nine thousand nine hundred and fifty-four, then it is to move up to the next clear-cut tier in your smaller, more organized group.
On March 12 2013 23:29 dpurple wrote: lol bronze players will so much even more bad now
Did you seriously just write this to make fun of other people's bronze-level skills?
|
On March 12 2013 23:22 Technique wrote: Just make one big ass ladder already... no divisions/leagues.
And give point win/loss according to the rank you are playing vs, so ranking/points actually has some meaning.
One massive ladder is not that impressive for the majority of players and knowing that you are 23,480th in NA is pretty underwhelming. Its cool for those in high masters or GM, but for most of us it is simply irrelevant and to be ignored. I am only really interested in knowing how I fair against people of my skill level.
I would prefer that Blizzard go the route that Riot went with LoL(where you can also figure out your overall rank) and set their ladder up with divisions within each of the leagues. It has two great effects, which is making sure people have obtainable goals and making sure that people can see their progress directly. In LoL, I can set a goal for the week, which may be to get to may advancement matches by Sunday, for example. It is a system that makes getting promoted seem more rewarding, but also something that is always like 5-10 games away.
|
|
Gold is the new purgatory
|
On March 12 2013 23:29 dpurple wrote: lol bronze players will so much even more bad now
Ok, if you are going to mock people, you need to avoid massive and borderline comical grammatical errors. Primary language or not, mocking people requires that you do not also sound like a doop.
|
On March 12 2013 23:43 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 23:29 dpurple wrote: lol bronze players will so much even more bad now Ok, if you are going to mock people, you need to avoid massive and borderline comical grammatical errors. Primary language or not, mocking people requires that you do not also sound like a doop. 20 % --> 8 %, the worst 40% remain. So it may sound harsh, but its true.
OT: I really would like to see a change in the diamond - masters region. I think the skill differences are way too big between the higher leagues. Maybe:
high masters 1% masters 2% high diamond 4% diamond 13%
|
On March 12 2013 23:37 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 23:22 Technique wrote: Just make one big ass ladder already... no divisions/leagues.
And give point win/loss according to the rank you are playing vs, so ranking/points actually has some meaning. So you mean like MMR? Well a overall mmr ladder would already be a improvement, but it's not what i'm suggesting...
I actually prefer to just be matched with similar ranks on the ladder and work your way up like that instead of being ranked based on skill trying to keep everyone at around ~50% win rate and in seemingly isolated 100 player ladders.
|
On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved...
I went through such a wide range of emotions during this post! From rage to agreement to realizing I was trolled.
I started SC2 with almost no RTS background, and getting into Gold was actually a pretty solid achievement for me. It seems like everyone on TL is "mid masters", but for me, getting to top 8 Gold was a big success. I really don't mind of some high silvers make it into Gold though, it does feel much better to have a Gold symbol than a Silver symbol.
Plus, my roomie is just getting into the game. If he can get to Silver quickly, he'll be more likely to stay with the game. This, plus unranked play is actually a really solid idea to break the entry barriers to enjoying 1v1/preventing ladder anxiety.
|
Good change overall.
On March 12 2013 23:56 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... I went through such a wide range of emotions during this post! From rage to agreement to realizing I was trolled. I started SC2 with almost no RTS background, and getting into Gold was actually a pretty solid achievement for me. It seems like everyone on TL is "mid masters", but for me, getting to top 8 Gold was a big success. I really don't mind of some high silvers make it into Gold though, it does feel much better to have a Gold symbol than a Silver symbol. Plus, my roomie is just getting into the game. If he can get to Silver quickly, he'll be more likely to stay with the game. This, plus unranked play is actually a really solid idea to break the entry barriers to enjoying 1v1/preventing ladder anxiety.
Exactly. - Timed well with HotS should keep some new blood flowing into the SC2 scene.
|
On March 12 2013 23:56 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... I went through such a wide range of emotions during this post! From rage to agreement to realizing I was trolled. I started SC2 with almost no RTS background, and getting into Gold was actually a pretty solid achievement for me. It seems like everyone on TL is "mid masters", but for me, getting to top 8 Gold was a big success. I really don't mind of some high silvers make it into Gold though, it does feel much better to have a Gold symbol than a Silver symbol. Plus, my roomie is just getting into the game. If he can get to Silver quickly, he'll be more likely to stay with the game. This, plus unranked play is actually a really solid idea to break the entry barriers to enjoying 1v1/preventing ladder anxiety.
My friends and I referred to Platinum league as “grown up league” as an inside joke because we all have full time jobs, wives/girlfriends and houses(houses cut into practice time, FYI). Its not an excuse, but 1.5 hour commutes, life and relationships limit the time you can dump into a hobby. It is just a fact of getting older. It really felt like we were a bunch of guys who were on a college sports team, but joined a pick up league to keep playing. We weren’t as good as we used to be(at games in general), but we still played because we liked it.
Also, having a wider gold league means that people are less likely to get knocked into silver. SC2 has one of the hardest skilled degradations for being out of practice. Taking over a week off would kick my ass, but there are days after work where I shouldn’t ladder(unless I hate myself). Improving the system to not crush the mid-low tier people for just having a busy week is good. At gold league, we should just be pumped people are playing. Let high diamond, masters and GM be the world of harsh realities.
|
|
I see this as a good thing. Getting stuck in worst league can be demotivating, and SC2 will only lose newbies if they are forever bronze. Active silver newb > bronze who gave up.
At least that's how I see it.
|
Good for bad players, doesn't make much of a difference for anyone else. Larger player-base is -almost- always good.
|
On March 12 2013 06:06 NubainMuscle wrote: I'm not at all a fan of this adjustment. There are so many better solutions.
1) There should be a cutoff point established somewhere to protect the real practice league level newbs from smurfs, trolls, and farmers. For example, if an account reaches Gold level (league or MMR) they are no longer permitted to be matched up against bronze league level players.
As it stands, a bronze league consisting of 8% of the player-base will consist almost entirely of trolls and smurfs, greatly increasing the likelihood that a brand new player encounters these people and becomes readily discouraged. The lower leagues should be protected, similar to the practice league, to ensure that experienced and advanced level players cannot demote themselves to that level but with an 8% bronze league this only increases the likelihood.
2) It undermines the accomplishment of reaching Gold league, significantly. Promotions are fun and rewarding, for any player. The 20/20/20/20/18/2 system makes each promotion feel valuable and increases the level of difficulty needed to attain each subsequent promotion. With the majority of the player base in the middle of the spectrum at gold, the only meaningful promotions are now platinum and above.
The only difference is that instead of having a system that places you in a league according to population, it will place you in a league according to skill.
This was a needed change in my opinion.
edit: Both systems use population & skill, but the newer system puts greater emphasis on skill rather than pop.
|
A lot of people in this thread apparently still don't understand that your league has no influence on who you get matched against. Your league is just a label, all that matters is your MMR. So no, this doesn't greatly increase the likelyhood of any matches, it has absolutely no influence on that.
|
I wish that they would do something about the "stuck in master" syndrome i am feeling, i have no way to track my own progress and im 2,5 years stuck in masters almost. There is just no way to track progress over seasons or even track progress during a season more than analyse the mathematical confidence intervall of the stochastian variable that is your win/loss ratio. The system is way to hard to understand to even get a general feeling if you are progressing in masters, most master leagues dont understand the system enough to determine wether they are low or high master league.
|
On March 13 2013 00:46 Fus wrote: I wish that they would do something about the "stuck in master" syndrome i am feeling, i have no way to track my own progress and im 2,5 years stuck in masters almost. There is just no way to track progress over seasons or even track progress during a season more than analyse the mathematical confidence intervall of the stochastian variable that is your win/loss ratio. The system is way to hard to understand to even get a general feeling if you are progressing in masters, most master leagues dont understand the system enough to determine wether they are low or high master league.
Use MMR tool with SC2Gears?
|
On March 13 2013 00:46 Fus wrote: I wish that they would do something about the "stuck in master" syndrome i am feeling, i have no way to track my own progress and im 2,5 years stuck in masters almost. There is just no way to track progress over seasons or even track progress during a season more than analyse the mathematical confidence intervall of the stochastian variable that is your win/loss ratio. The system is way to hard to understand to even get a general feeling if you are progressing in masters, most master leagues dont understand the system enough to determine wether they are low or high master league.
i wish masters was split into three separate leagues, like it is in reallity.
on the subject of the thread, i welcome this change, because it will give you incentive to keep on trying. and lets face it, bronze is not what it used to be, i have a friend who would be platinum after WoL beta but was stuck in bronze for a month. why not tell him, hey you're improving, keep at it
|
On March 13 2013 01:02 snailz wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 00:46 Fus wrote: I wish that they would do something about the "stuck in master" syndrome i am feeling, i have no way to track my own progress and im 2,5 years stuck in masters almost. There is just no way to track progress over seasons or even track progress during a season more than analyse the mathematical confidence intervall of the stochastian variable that is your win/loss ratio. The system is way to hard to understand to even get a general feeling if you are progressing in masters, most master leagues dont understand the system enough to determine wether they are low or high master league. i wish masters was split into three separate leagues, like it is in reallity. on the subject of the thread, i welcome this change, because it will give you incentive to keep on trying. and lets face it, bronze is not what it used to be, i have a friend who would be platinum after WoL beta but was stuck in bronze for a month. why not tell him, hey you're improving, keep at it
Making divisions within the leagues would be great and at least let people know where they stood. Low level bronze and high level bronze are worlds apart. The same goes for masters.
|
On March 13 2013 00:46 Fus wrote: I wish that they would do something about the "stuck in master" syndrome i am feeling, i have no way to track my own progress and im 2,5 years stuck in masters almost. There is just no way to track progress over seasons or even track progress during a season more than analyse the mathematical confidence intervall of the stochastian variable that is your win/loss ratio. The system is way to hard to understand to even get a general feeling if you are progressing in masters, most master leagues dont understand the system enough to determine wether they are low or high master league.
Was thinking the same thing. People think it's bad being stuck in bronze for a few seasons. How about being stuck in masters for 2 years with thousands of games played. =/
|
I definitely agree with this. I know there has been a HUGE disparity between the top and bottom of bronze before. It was arguably as large a difference from bottom bronze to top bronze as from bottom gold to top platinum. This will mean that those top bronze people will be silver instead and the leagues will better represent that ability of the player.
|
On March 13 2013 00:17 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 23:56 Crownlol wrote:On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... I went through such a wide range of emotions during this post! From rage to agreement to realizing I was trolled. I started SC2 with almost no RTS background, and getting into Gold was actually a pretty solid achievement for me. It seems like everyone on TL is "mid masters", but for me, getting to top 8 Gold was a big success. I really don't mind of some high silvers make it into Gold though, it does feel much better to have a Gold symbol than a Silver symbol. Plus, my roomie is just getting into the game. If he can get to Silver quickly, he'll be more likely to stay with the game. This, plus unranked play is actually a really solid idea to break the entry barriers to enjoying 1v1/preventing ladder anxiety. My friends and I referred to Platinum league as “grown up league” as an inside joke because we all have full time jobs, wives/girlfriends and houses(houses cut into practice time, FYI). Its not an excuse, but 1.5 hour commutes, life and relationships limit the time you can dump into a hobby. It is just a fact of getting older. It really felt like we were a bunch of guys who were on a college sports team, but joined a pick up league to keep playing. We weren’t as good as we used to be(at games in general), but we still played because we liked it. Also, having a wider gold league means that people are less likely to get knocked into silver. SC2 has one of the hardest skilled degradations for being out of practice. Taking over a week off would kick my ass, but there are days after work where I shouldn’t ladder(unless I hate myself). Improving the system to not crush the mid-low tier people for just having a busy week is good. At gold league, we should just be pumped people are playing. Let high diamond, masters and GM be the world of harsh realities.
I feel this way about all games now. Years ago, I could be Master's level in any game I wanted- I was scrimming CS 1.6 5 nights a week for 3 hours with my team, then after that was 5 day weeks of WoW arena...
Now I have a career, a life, long commute, need to gym more often to stay in shape. After working 8 hours on a PC all day, coming home to a long game session isn't as rewarding. Being high Plat, playing mostly Plat, some Diamond players is honestly the best I can hope for with SC2, especially with my game time divided between SC2 and LoL.
|
Purely cosmetic change. Matchmaking based on MMR is still the core of the system, so I really don't mind in any case. If it actually results in more people playing and getting less disheartened, then this is a success for both Blizzard and the entire community.
Also, I think I've seen maybe one vaguely negative serious comment about this change in the entire thread, yet 10+ "lol at all the raging goldies" posts. I don't think people read past the first sentence of Treehead's post, haha.
|
On March 12 2013 11:27 Excalibur_Z wrote: The funny thing about this change is that I bet when we look at the total distribution (like SC2Ranks takes, as opposed to Blizzard's "active player" metric) Bronze through Gold will probably look like 20%/20%/20%.
For a long time, Bronze has always had the most accounts. For some reason people get to Bronze and then just sit there, and there could be any number of reasons for this. Right now it's close to 35% in Bronze and around 23% in Silver and 18% in Gold in total accounts. Now, the intended ranges are 20%/20%/20%, so if they change this to 8%/20%/32% for active players, then the total accounts numbers may shift toward 20%/20%/20%, which would be pretty funny.
As to the reasoning behind this change, my guess is that the bottom 8% or so are probably portrait farmers, so perhaps Blizzard wants people who actually try to play the game for real to be Silver and above.
Well my gues would be that they have made a change becouse the MMR spread (diference between MMR required to get to Gold and MMR required to be promoted to Plat) for gold league players was too low. So it was dificult to put and keep someone in the gold league. If Small changes within your MMR might have put you in Plat or Silver. Blizz decided to increase the spread. you think about it gold league is a middle ground so the population of people with gold skill level should be highest.
|
|
Bisutopia19027 Posts
Now I have to try even harder to be in bronze. Rushing overseers may not be enough.
|
So if you thought bronze was bad before... lol. Doesn't affect me so I don't really care, but it's got to be seriously discouraging if you're stuck in bronze now.
|
On March 13 2013 01:16 Crownlol wrote:Show nested quote +On March 13 2013 00:17 Plansix wrote:On March 12 2013 23:56 Crownlol wrote:On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... I went through such a wide range of emotions during this post! From rage to agreement to realizing I was trolled. I started SC2 with almost no RTS background, and getting into Gold was actually a pretty solid achievement for me. It seems like everyone on TL is "mid masters", but for me, getting to top 8 Gold was a big success. I really don't mind of some high silvers make it into Gold though, it does feel much better to have a Gold symbol than a Silver symbol. Plus, my roomie is just getting into the game. If he can get to Silver quickly, he'll be more likely to stay with the game. This, plus unranked play is actually a really solid idea to break the entry barriers to enjoying 1v1/preventing ladder anxiety. My friends and I referred to Platinum league as “grown up league” as an inside joke because we all have full time jobs, wives/girlfriends and houses(houses cut into practice time, FYI). Its not an excuse, but 1.5 hour commutes, life and relationships limit the time you can dump into a hobby. It is just a fact of getting older. It really felt like we were a bunch of guys who were on a college sports team, but joined a pick up league to keep playing. We weren’t as good as we used to be(at games in general), but we still played because we liked it. Also, having a wider gold league means that people are less likely to get knocked into silver. SC2 has one of the hardest skilled degradations for being out of practice. Taking over a week off would kick my ass, but there are days after work where I shouldn’t ladder(unless I hate myself). Improving the system to not crush the mid-low tier people for just having a busy week is good. At gold league, we should just be pumped people are playing. Let high diamond, masters and GM be the world of harsh realities. I feel this way about all games now. Years ago, I could be Master's level in any game I wanted- I was scrimming CS 1.6 5 nights a week for 3 hours with my team, then after that was 5 day weeks of WoW arena... Now I have a career, a life, long commute, need to gym more often to stay in shape. After working 8 hours on a PC all day, coming home to a long game session isn't as rewarding. Being high Plat, playing mostly Plat, some Diamond players is honestly the best I can hope for with SC2, especially with my game time divided between SC2 and LoL.
If I didn't have to work out three-four times a week, I would have so much more free time to game and pratice. Also if I was single, but then I would just be bummed out.
That is why I love that they added in AI mode and unranked matches. I used to play 1-2 matches of Macro or Die a night against the hard AI. Not because I thought it made me better, but just to touch the keyboard and keep my skills in tune for when I really praticed.
And if you like LoL, but are terrible like, you should PM me. We are tying to put together a terrible team called "Taric and the holograms". Its as bad as it sounds.
|
Canada13372 Posts
On March 12 2013 02:31 Joedaddy wrote: kind of interesting~ I think there's a pretty huge variance in skill towards the the top end too. The top end of masters compared to the bottom may as well be the difference between bronze and masters.
That is a very different disparity though and you would be breaking apart an already small 2% number of people.
|
Players are matched by MMR, so this won't effect who you play just how good they appear. As far as gold having a huge skill variety...they said it was to narrow, i'm sure the 32% was based on what they see MMR wise. They have the whole picture we merely get to see league levels, and ranks within those leagues.
It's all a cosmetic change, but one aimed at accurately depicting the skill base of the players (as they explained).
|
United Arab Emirates7 Posts
Gold-Plat lever player here. Dropped games to get to bronze twice to learn the other two races. The skill differential in bronze was indeed scary. One game I play this guy who hasn't even finished the campaign on normal (expands after 20 minutes, has one barracks all game long), the next against a guy who appears to be doing a regular "build" but has very poor execution. Then back to the super-new guy. No it wasn't because I was winning and meeting stronger guys. Many games in bronze and the difference between back-to-back games was massive.
I can totally see why someone genuinely new to the game would be thrown off by the diversity of skill in bronze. In a league like gold, players have small differences in quality of execution - most of my games feel fair and I learn something. But when you don't know anything about the game, any player with a slight sense of build order can demoralize you, and yet could be quite close to your MMR.
If narrowing the definition of bronze helps to insulate those totally new players, then it is good. And from my experience playing in the league with higher-level understanding of the game, this is solving a problem that really exists.
|
so all it means is, if you still stuck in bronce, you get so frustrated you stop playing ? ... dont know if i wanna do that to the lowest 8% but i think its quite fair ebcause high bronce vs low broncies who dont know how to build was kinda strange i guess
|
On March 12 2013 02:34 DreamChaser wrote: Everyone likes a good confidence boost. If your a more casual player staying your "stuck" in gold does not sound so shameful as bronze/silver
i've been stuck in bronze forever and i feel no shame you know~
|
Hey guys, I was currently a masters toss and terran on my US account and just played my placements on HOTS and got placed in Gold... I am looking at all of my friends list and my GM friend got placed in plat as well as other top masters friends being placed in Plat.. What is going on?
|
On March 14 2013 10:53 WhiteFlash wrote: Hey guys, I was currently a masters toss and terran on my US account and just played my placements on HOTS and got placed in Gold... I am looking at all of my friends list and my GM friend got placed in plat as well as other top masters friends being placed in Plat.. What is going on?
MMR/league reset
|
On March 12 2013 03:23 Inori wrote: Wouldn't that mean that there will be a huge variety of skill level at gold league? Not according to Blizzard. They say there's a whole bunch of people at similar skill levels that they couldn't squeeze into Gold before, and people in Bronze ranged from merely "bad" to "loses to the AI on Easy".
Now only those loses to the AI folks are in Bronze, bad people are in silver, ok people are in gold, decent players are in Plat, reasonably proficient players are in Diamond, good players are in Masters and great players are in GM.
Before, ok people were squeezed out of gold and into plat and silver, whilst some silver players were squeezed to bronze and some plats were squeezed to diamond.
|
I think this new parsing of players is much better than WoL, its a step in the right direction for sure. As someone who spent a lot of time coaching newbs and lower ranked players in WoL, I can tell you that there is a huge group of people who are stuck in bronze/silver even though they are a million times better than your average bronze player. New players become frustrated easily and they want some type of positive reinforcement that they are indeed getting better, I think having a larger grouping of people in gold league, and making gold league the Standard "average" starcraft player is a great way at moving this issue forward.
|
On March 14 2013 10:53 WhiteFlash wrote: Hey guys, I was currently a masters toss and terran on my US account and just played my placements on HOTS and got placed in Gold... I am looking at all of my friends list and my GM friend got placed in plat as well as other top masters friends being placed in Plat.. What is going on? The highest you can be placed from placement matches right now is Plat
|
I guess this is the same rationale as that behind hiding MMR and losses.. delude players into thinking they're better than they really are, as if this will somehow get them to play more.
|
On March 12 2013 23:29 dpurple wrote: lol bronze players will so much even more bad now "English" a good skill toi have...
|
|
On March 14 2013 15:08 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... Is there really a big difference between bronze and gold players... No offence but they are all awful :p
Hurdur I'm an elitist on the internet.
There is a very obvious difference between every league. A couple games with anybody in a particular league makes those differences obvious to /you/.
|
On March 14 2013 10:46 freakhill wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 02:34 DreamChaser wrote: Everyone likes a good confidence boost. If your a more casual player staying your "stuck" in gold does not sound so shameful as bronze/silver i've been stuck in bronze forever and i feel no shame you know~ There is no shame as some players will be in bronze regardless, because the relative skill is rated.
|
On March 14 2013 15:08 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... Is there really a big difference between bronze and gold players... No offence but they are all awful :p You are better than me in SC2 (I am in gold league) but you lack social skills. And the insight what the game is about.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On March 14 2013 15:06 Zerg.Zilla wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 23:29 dpurple wrote: lol bronze players will so much even more bad now "English" a good skill toi have...
lol that sentense is lol, i can type not like that even when try
|
So now if you are in bronze you know you REAAALY suck. I guess it is cool to separate those that make some effort vs those that make none at all.
|
|
I feel skill should be measured relatively to other people. Not to some norm of what "good" is, since that norm is often formed by those at the top. Would you call a football player "godawful" just because he plays in the 4th division?
What you are doing is saying everyone below the top 2-20% of active players is horrible at the game. I find that unfair, regardless of what sport or game it concerns.
I am "only" Gold (and proud of it), so I'm biased when it comes to StarCraft II, but I try to see the broader perspective. I'm a decent speedcuber (solving Rubik's Cube quickly, yes it's a sport) and I can assure you no one in that community would consider someone who is right below the top 50% in skill "awful". At that level you solve the cube in about 20-25 seconds on average, while the top 10% solve it in about 8-12 seconds on average. Sure, there is a big gap, but it still takes some skill to get your times down below 30 seconds, i.e. you are not bad for having those times.
I'm just tired of this elitism.
|
|
This is good!
I like the proactive changes Bliz is making.
|
On March 14 2013 10:53 WhiteFlash wrote: Hey guys, I was currently a masters toss and terran on my US account and just played my placements on HOTS and got placed in Gold... I am looking at all of my friends list and my GM friend got placed in plat as well as other top masters friends being placed in Plat.. What is going on?
That's just what happens when everyones MMR gets reset. Usually you would get it back up very quickly because you would get matched against players with high MMRs, but since everyone restarted there were no players with high MMRs so most people got placed in to platinum or lower and have to work their way back up.
|
On March 14 2013 15:08 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... Is there really a big difference between bronze and gold players... No offence but they are all awful :p there are different levels of awful where bronze is high awful, silver are moderate awful and gold is lightly awful.
What differentiates these levels are things like speed, understanding, determination to win, goal or aim at playing multiplayer and overall understanding of the game.
Hope this helped you to see the differences between leagues.
|
On March 14 2013 17:08 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 16:37 [F_]aths wrote:On March 14 2013 15:08 Emzeeshady wrote:On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... Is there really a big difference between bronze and gold players... No offence but they are all awful :p You are better than me in SC2 (I am in gold league) but you lack social skills. And the insight what the game is about. + Show Spoiler + He could've worded it better or not say it at all, but doesn't mean he's wrong. I can guarantee you that everyone below masters is just one mass of awful skill (myself included, so no, not elitism). Look at it this way: if we were on iccup then everyone below masters would be D. But that is not the point. Of course, causal gamer do not play the game on the level the top 2% do. But SC2 is not intended to cater only to the best. It is fun with lower skill, too. Except for a handful of players, the game is played to have fun playing around, not to become in any reasonable sense good.
|
On March 14 2013 17:08 Inori wrote: Look at it this way: if we were on iccup then everyone below masters would be D.
Sure, but there were huges difference in a iccup ranking too. Everyone who started out and lost 24 of their first 25 games can tell you that.
|
|
On March 14 2013 19:56 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 19:44 blackone wrote:On March 14 2013 17:08 Inori wrote: Look at it this way: if we were on iccup then everyone below masters would be D. Sure, but there were huges difference in a iccup ranking too. Everyone who started out and lost 24 of their first 25 games can tell you that. Of course, but everyone were under one letter for a reason. Didn't matter if you were D+ or D-, you were still awful and worlds apart from solid C.
I don't see why that is inherently better.
|
Also, dont forget who is playing HotS right now. Mostly dedicated players who played until the end of WoL, have higher ladder ranks etc. WoL's lower players are not even playing or going to play HotS. That makes it even harder to get a higher ranking right now.
|
i dont know. i think that many players who have stoped playing wol month ago will come back and try again
|
Probably, but I don't they'll start laddering right away.
|
On March 14 2013 19:56 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 19:44 blackone wrote:On March 14 2013 17:08 Inori wrote: Look at it this way: if we were on iccup then everyone below masters would be D. Sure, but there were huges difference in a iccup ranking too. Everyone who started out and lost 24 of their first 25 games can tell you that. Of course, but everyone were under one letter for a reason. Didn't matter if you were D+ or D-, you were still awful and worlds apart from solid C. A ranking system where your only possibilites are "you suck" and then varying levels of elite-level skill where you've got 95% of the playing population in the same category is useless. I'm not saying it's not true that most players are objectively nowhere near "good" - I play at a low Master level and I'm very aware of how much room for improvement there still is when you reach that point - but that a ranking system that gives the vast majority of players the same rank is completely useless to almost everyone.
|
There's a big chance that those "lower tier" players will play more unranked games in any case.
|
|
On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: ICCUP ranking system was relative to skill, SC2 one is relative to other people.
When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you!
It's the same idea. Game mastery is always relative to other people. I don't see how the iCCup ranking is more definitive in that regard. There isn't an objective measure that can gauge how close someone is to mastering the game since there is always room for massive improvement. That is the beauty of RTS, macro, micro, BO's, and timings can always be further refined and perfected.
|
On March 14 2013 20:27 graNite wrote: Also, dont forget who is playing HotS right now. Mostly dedicated players who played until the end of WoL, have higher ladder ranks etc. WoL's lower players are not even playing or going to play HotS. That makes it even harder to get a higher ranking right now.
I'm sure there will be an increase in casual interest and activity with the new release. The spike will be small, compared to WOL debut, and it will die down faster, but I think it will be easier to get a higher ranking early on then it will be a few seasons from now.
|
That's just numbers changed, but in reality it does not matter, you still gonna lose your ~50% of games no matter where you are :D
|
On March 14 2013 15:08 Emzeeshady wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... Is there really a big difference between bronze and gold players... No offence but they are all awful :p
There is a massive difference. Even as a relatively high plat WoL player, I find stomping bronzies and silver players about as easy as Masters players find it.
|
One thing that I just realized is genius about the new league distribution: We will have a lot of middle league players coming back to laddering with HotS, and they will not be frustrated by being stuck in silver or even bronze for a long time, but will quickly get back to gold. That means, there is probably a higher chance that they continue playing for a longer period of time.
|
On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: ICCUP ranking system was relative to skill, SC2 one is relative to other people.
When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you!
ICCUP ranking is not that much different from the current SC2 ranking. In ICCUP you gain and lose points depending on how your opponent ranks compared to you and the different ranks are related to different point counts. The exact same thing is true with the current SC2 system, except that SC2 obfuscates the issue by not showing your MMR (which is your true rank) and having some level of overlap between leagues.
The ICCUP ranking dropped way too many people in the same rank for it to be an effective ranking system for most players. Sure, it works to differentiate between high level players, as there's a clear difference between A+ and A- ranked players. But for the largest part of the population, there was no way to tell yourself apart from someone else, because you have the same rank.
SC2 does it the other way around, to some extent, providing lower level players with more different ranks to differentiate themselves.
Your notion of a ranking system relative to skill is silly. There is no way of measuring how skillful you are in a game like BW (or SC2) other than by comparing yourself to other players. There's no number you can assign to someones performance that can be evaluated in the absence of other players.
|
On March 14 2013 19:11 Integra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 15:08 Emzeeshady wrote:On March 12 2013 03:16 Treehead wrote: Just another example of Blizzard shamelessly catering to casuals. I personally feel offended by the amount of work I had to put into playing at the Gold level to have it just GIVEN to horrible players.
I keed, I keed. Doesn't affect me either. I would find it hilarious and amusing, though, if they did something like this and greatly expanded master's league. I wonder how differently that would be receieved... Is there really a big difference between bronze and gold players... No offence but they are all awful :p there are different levels of awful where bronze is high awful, silver are moderate awful and gold is lightly awful. What differentiates these levels are things like speed, understanding, determination to win, goal or aim at playing multiplayer and overall understanding of the game. Hope this helped you to see the differences between leagues.
This is pretty on point. I would say that players in high gold to high platinum had a solid understanding of the game and what they are supposed to be doing, but lacked depth and consistent execution. I found I could hold my own in any match up as a whole, but my expansion timings or control were not optimal.
Someone is Platinum league is the equivalent to someone who players in a week pick up league for baseball or lacrosse. They are not amazing, but they know how the game works.
|
|
They could further split Silver, Gold and Platinum into various subleagues in order to further differentiate them and provide that progression people are looking for.
Diamond could act as a gatekeeper to Masters and Masters could be split into the three leagues that it is in most peoples mind right now (Lower, Mid and Upper), GM can stay as it is.
|
On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:05 Rannasha wrote: Your notion of a ranking system relative to skill is silly. There is no way of measuring how skillful you are in a game like BW (or SC2) other than by comparing yourself to other players. There's no number you can assign to someones performance that can be evaluated in the absence of other players. Yeah, the wording was stupid, both systems are obviously relative to other players. I actually wanted to deleted that phrase, no idea why I ended up leaving it. My main point still stands: Show nested quote +When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success. Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill.
Wouldn't B+/A- be closer related to grandmasters? I agree that the the term masters is maybe not a true reflection of quite a decent portion of the players in the league, but I just tend to ignore the literal terming and view it as just a league name.
|
On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you!
Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something.
But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one.
|
On March 12 2013 03:08 vultdylan wrote: I feel like this is going to lower the skill level for silver/gold, allowing for players that may not be skilled enough for Platinum league to get promoted by playing players who were formerly bronze/silver in skill.
I don't see how this will happen. If you can't beat a plat player, you can't get into platinum. Doesn't matter how they distribute the leagues below.
|
|
But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one.
I think this is a weird and somehow twisted idea. Why is loosing to an all-in or a cheese somehow less significant? Shouldn't a great player be able to hold cheese or an all-in from a weaker opponent? Actually that is (or used to be) the largest tell between a bronze and a silver player.
In ladder where it is up to a point very hard or almost impossible to prepare for a specific opponent it should be natural to use safer builds and scout more. That's why players like Kas in EU are such ladder gods, they play ladder as a different game from online/offline cups where they actually now their opponents and can prepare for their playstyles.
Got sidetracked a bit.
|
Hahahaha, such a bullshit excuse from blizzard.
|
On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one.
This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”.
We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world.
|
I would really like to see the masters league be split up in 3 different leagues
|
On March 14 2013 23:12 thezanursic wrote: Hahahaha, such a bullshit excuse from blizzard. Since you are the only one who knows the real reason, do you mind telling us what it is?
|
On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. But if we really compare ourselves to the entire world then we'd all be in the Master league.
I think this discussion got off track. I like the new distribution even though I'm somewhere at the bottom of diamond league.
I think when people say everyone below high master is actually bad it's because it's simply true. It's not a comparison to other pro players or GM players. It's a comparison to their knowledge of the game. Low league players have an inflated sense of their skill. As the knowledge increases on the game as a whole, so does the knowledge of how many incompetencies you actually have at the game. I don't have to compare my play to anyone to point out consistent glaring mistakes that could lose me the game if my opponent had any real skill/ability.
I don't think it's really elitism. I think its' just a culture of understanding. If you admit to yourself that you're bad and make mistakes, then you are less likely to make the mistake of hubris. If you lie to yourself, like I do about my poker skills, then you are more likely to lose a lot (in the case of poker it's money that I lose).
Even if this is elitism, it doesn't really hurt anyone (unless you count egos, which I don't). The elitism that hurts is when people say SC2 is the only real e-sport or Starcraft is the only pure game. I think it hurts even when people rag on consoles because they're PC elitists.
Just my two cents.
|
On March 14 2013 22:28 Swift118 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote:On March 14 2013 22:05 Rannasha wrote: Your notion of a ranking system relative to skill is silly. There is no way of measuring how skillful you are in a game like BW (or SC2) other than by comparing yourself to other players. There's no number you can assign to someones performance that can be evaluated in the absence of other players. Yeah, the wording was stupid, both systems are obviously relative to other players. I actually wanted to deleted that phrase, no idea why I ended up leaving it. My main point still stands: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success. Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. Wouldn't B+/A- be closer related to grandmasters? I agree that the the term masters is maybe not a true reflection of quite a decent portion of the players in the league, but I just tend to ignore the literal terming and view it as just a league name.
Sheth said that he found that maintaining an A- was a lot more difficult than GM...
in terms of effort to reach the skill it's something like
D = Platnum D+ = Diamond C- = Low to mid masters C = Mid masters C+ = High masters B- = Also High masters B = GM skill level ... A+ = Korean Courage players/Low ranking practice partners for korean teams Olympic (Didn't actually happen a lot because it's a lot more efficient at this level to you know... Practice with other pros...) = Average proffesional players.
Most ex BW players would probably agree with the above. BW had a lot more variation in terms of skill and it was a lot more apparent
|
On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote:Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. No, it's better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the high end. SC2's is better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the low end.
The problem with both is that they use too few buckets. Go uses a system with potentially infinite buckets*: The best players in your playing population are first dan (1d). Anyone who can hold their own against 1d players with the advantage of getting to play black (black gets the first move) every game is 2d. This logic recurses until 9d, then the next-weakest rank is first kyu (1k), which goes by the same logic but counts upwards (2k, 3k, ...) until you've categorized the weakest player in your population.
A system like that is great, because the granularity is by definition exactly as large as it needs to be to say something meaningful about your chances of defeating another player in a straight-up match. The problem with it is that there aren't enough kinds of metal (or metastable allotropes of carbon) to use catchy names for the rankings, which is obviously something Blizzard considers an important point.
* I know that there is a separate set of professional dan ranks that are finer-grained: I'm simplifying.
|
On March 14 2013 23:20 spalding wrote: I would really like to see the masters league be split up in 3 different leagues i am sorry, but I assumed that any intelligible person would see that this is a feel good excercise....
Hahhahahah quoted the wrong guy, sorry wrong guy
|
On March 14 2013 23:25 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote:Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. No, it's better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the high end. SC2's is better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the low end. The problem with both is that they use too few buckets. Go uses a system with potentially infinite buckets*: The best players in your playing population are first dan (1d). Anyone who can hold their own against 1d players with the advantage of getting to play black (black gets the first move) every game is 2d. This logic recurses until 9d, then the next-weakest rank is first kyu (1k), which goes by the same logic but counts upwards (2k, 3k, ...) until you've categorized the weakest player in your population. A system like that is great, because the granularity is by definition exactly as large as it needs to be to say something meaningful about your chances of defeating another player in a straight-up match. The problem with it is that there aren't enough kinds of metal (or metastable allotropes of carbon) to use catchy names for the rankings, which is obviously something Blizzard considers an important point. * I know that there is a separate set of professional dan ranks that are finer-grained: I'm simplifying. 1+... Why did they get rid of copper though : / .
|
If you read the Gheed blogs, you'd probably know that very bottom of bronze was bots, portrait farmers, or the extremely new. The "top" end of bronze was people actually trying to play and learn the game to some degree.
I think this is mainly to keep that extreme bottom end more segregated from the rest of the community.
Edit: It is probably worth mentioning that the very bottom of master league (for those that haven't looked) is usually populated by people that get masters and then quit playing that account. Basically, if you are masters and active, you are almost guaranteed to be in the top 50 or so (mid master), so there really isn't an active "low master" set of players a few weeks after the season starts.
|
On March 14 2013 23:28 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 23:25 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote:Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. No, it's better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the high end. SC2's is better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the low end. The problem with both is that they use too few buckets. Go uses a system with potentially infinite buckets*: The best players in your playing population are first dan (1d). Anyone who can hold their own against 1d players with the advantage of getting to play black (black gets the first move) every game is 2d. This logic recurses until 9d, then the next-weakest rank is first kyu (1k), which goes by the same logic but counts upwards (2k, 3k, ...) until you've categorized the weakest player in your population. A system like that is great, because the granularity is by definition exactly as large as it needs to be to say something meaningful about your chances of defeating another player in a straight-up match. The problem with it is that there aren't enough kinds of metal (or metastable allotropes of carbon) to use catchy names for the rankings, which is obviously something Blizzard considers an important point. * I know that there is a separate set of professional dan ranks that are finer-grained: I'm simplifying. 1+... Why did they get rid of copper though : / .
Master and Grandmaster aren't metals at all. SICK BUURRRNNN
J/k
|
On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote: Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill.
ICCUP is better at determining skill at the high end of the spectrum (the top few percent of players), while the SC2 ladder is better at determining the skill for the other part. You could split master league into 10 new leagues ranging from "promoted-due-to-lucky-winstreak-master" to "super-hyper-gosu-why-havent-you-won-gsl-yet-master" and you'd have the same effect that the ICCUP ranking has.
But currently, I think the SC2 ranking is better. Once you're in masters, you can use your points ranking as a rough indication of how you're doing, but more importantly, once you're high masters or GM, you should know enough about the game to have your own metric of how you're performing and improving instead of relying on ladder stats. For the 98% of players that aren't in masters, having a 5 different leagues to differentiate their skill level is quite informative.
|
On March 14 2013 23:28 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 23:25 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote:Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. No, it's better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the high end. SC2's is better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the low end. The problem with both is that they use too few buckets. Go uses a system with potentially infinite buckets*: The best players in your playing population are first dan (1d). Anyone who can hold their own against 1d players with the advantage of getting to play black (black gets the first move) every game is 2d. This logic recurses until 9d, then the next-weakest rank is first kyu (1k), which goes by the same logic but counts upwards (2k, 3k, ...) until you've categorized the weakest player in your population. A system like that is great, because the granularity is by definition exactly as large as it needs to be to say something meaningful about your chances of defeating another player in a straight-up match. The problem with it is that there aren't enough kinds of metal (or metastable allotropes of carbon) to use catchy names for the rankings, which is obviously something Blizzard considers an important point. * I know that there is a separate set of professional dan ranks that are finer-grained: I'm simplifying. 1+... Why did they get rid of copper though : / .
Bronze is the new copper. Copper was removed in the same patch that introduced diamond as the new top-end league. So effectively everyone just shifted up a league and nothing really changed other than the names.
|
On March 14 2013 23:28 thezanursic wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 23:25 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 14 2013 22:12 Inori wrote:Obviously there's no static algorithm that can calculate my skill in a game. ICCUP obviously uses a very similar system to SC2. Difference is in the distribution percentages. Don't know how ICCUP chose theirs, but it was definitely better at determining skill. No, it's better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the high end. SC2's is better at reflecting gradiations in skill at the low end. The problem with both is that they use too few buckets. Go uses a system with potentially infinite buckets*: The best players in your playing population are first dan (1d). Anyone who can hold their own against 1d players with the advantage of getting to play black (black gets the first move) every game is 2d. This logic recurses until 9d, then the next-weakest rank is first kyu (1k), which goes by the same logic but counts upwards (2k, 3k, ...) until you've categorized the weakest player in your population. A system like that is great, because the granularity is by definition exactly as large as it needs to be to say something meaningful about your chances of defeating another player in a straight-up match. The problem with it is that there aren't enough kinds of metal (or metastable allotropes of carbon) to use catchy names for the rankings, which is obviously something Blizzard considers an important point. * I know that there is a separate set of professional dan ranks that are finer-grained: I'm simplifying. 1+... Why did they get rid of copper though : / . Lots of fun names they could use: Pewter, copper, tin, stone, wood.
Nothing better than being able to brag about getting out of wood-league and into stone.
|
On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world.
It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad.
|
I don't really mind the league layout. My buddy is in Bronze, and I can see why it can be challenging because people do anything and everything, most of them want to get the game over with asap. Silver and mainly gold you start to see more definitive meta game strats and people tending to play better and actualy want to play longer better executed games. I think Bronze is about learning how to not die to randomness. I think Silver and gold are where you learn strats and how to counter things. Platnium/diamond is really more of improve mechanics and learn how to execute builds and stay up to date with that meta game. I really think the majority of people who play this game will fall into silver and gold, because lets face it if you were stuck in bronze you would quit playing too because bronze is not how the game is meant to be played.
|
On March 14 2013 23:42 HeeroFX wrote:I really think the majority of people who play this game will fall into silver and gold, because lets face it if you were stuck in bronze you would quit playing too because bronze is not how the game is meant to be played. This line of reason always makes me laugh. If everyone who's stuck in bronze quit, then there would be a massive shift downward in ladder rankings every season due to the vacuum at the bottom. That hasn't happened, so it's obviously not the case that bronze-leaguers are leaving the game en masse. And even if that process went on indefinitely, you still wouldn't have the majority of players in silver and gold, because the ladder is set up to have a fixed percentage of players in each league. Eventually you'd just have six people, one in each league, then the worst of them would get fed up with being "stuck in bronze", quit the game, and the ladder would break.
|
On March 14 2013 23:39 Swift118 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad.
Well context is completely lost on the internet. Even when someone happy with their progress from silver to platinum, there will also be that person cannot control themselves and say “Why? You are still terrible.” It is why I don’t really care how I stack up to people on TL, because I don’t need to compare myself to every player world wide. It keeps the game more fun and progress obtainable. That is why I like the changes to the ladder, because it keeps people out of the worst league, which is depressing to be in for new players. And I, for one, don’t think we need more barriers for new players, the game itself is enough.
|
On March 14 2013 23:39 Swift118 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad.
Have to agree with these statements. These young players often protest that videogames nowadays aren't just for kids anymore. But they seem to want to lump everyone with a real, professional job into the same league, out of sight and out of mind.
|
On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world.
It's all relative. I played in high masters a lot and my macro/multitasking past 15 minute mark was horrible but i was still winning games. I consider master players bad, but again they are good compared to lower league players. If speaking overall, then you can't say who is good or bad.
|
|
On March 12 2013 02:34 DreamChaser wrote: Everyone likes a good confidence boost. If your a more casual player staying your "stuck" in gold does not sound so shameful as bronze/silver
Being in gold is about as shameful as playing basketball with your friends in the yard as opposed to playing in at least some semi-casual city wide youth leagues, or better a national league. Let's not get too obsessed with improving and advancing.
|
Blizzard make a small change that doesn't effect the game that much at all, and people start discussing about being in a certain league means your good, bad or nothing at all.
It's just a game were it's fun to get achievements, and like some say; in the end it doesn't tell anything about skill, because ladder is by far a lot different than playing real tournament games. For me personally I can even say that I am a much better player in off-line events and playing at home in front of the computer, based on experience.
It is a discussion that can't be discussed about, because it variates from person to person.
|
How is it that people can justify "masters players aren't even good" when they are top 2% of people in the region. Sure, they're nothing close to pros, but how can you not be good when you are in the top 2% of everyone lol
Relativity people, relativity. That's like saying no one that's not in the NBA is good at basketball... smh
|
Personally I think it's a good change. I was Bronze when WoL launched, then sat in Silver for the remainder of the game because I didn't get a chance to play very much. Now I'm in Bronze again and will have a better chance of getting past Silver.
They aren't handing it to the casual players at all. Lets say that the 8% of Bronze is all those trolls, smurfs, and farmers. New players have to start playing against all the crap that seems impossible to beat, but with some practice you can easily defend it. Once they've got that stuff figured out they'd advance to Silver; where they would be playing against people who are more likely to play macro games, and use different strategies. Then after they've got that type of gameplay knowledge under their belt they'll be up against the Golds who can do all the same stuff, just faster.
Practice makes perfect.
Oh, and to all the people saying "Now we really know we're crap if we're in bronze!": THE GAME WAS JUST RELEASED! (Also it's a game, so STFU and have fun.)
|
On March 15 2013 00:30 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 00:24 andrewlt wrote:On March 14 2013 23:39 Swift118 wrote:On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad. Have to agree with these statements. These young players often protest that videogames nowadays aren't just for kids anymore. But they seem to want to lump everyone with a real, professional job into the same league, out of sight and out of mind. Yes, because everyone with a competitive mindset is obviously a kid with too much free time.
That is no what he is saying and you know it. He is talking about members of the community who call masters players passable and anyone below that “bad”. It has nothing to do with being competitive in any way. It has to do with context . An amateur player who can only find enough time to get to platinum league is not “bad” at SC2 when compared to other people with same level of practice and time. If you compare him/her to a professional who players 8 hours a day against the best players in the world, everyone is “bad”. And he is saying do that is stupid, beause it is.
When someone in GM starts talking down to players in gold and platinum, it is like a division one college basket ball player talking down to a bunch of guys playing a pick up game. It is silly and inmature. It is all about context.
|
HUH, i thought it was super easy to get outha bronze/silver and into gold... this is good news.
i was platinum in WOL and i'll probably get placed into silver or such with my luck so yeah,,good news.
|
|
|
On March 15 2013 00:56 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 00:51 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2013 00:30 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:24 andrewlt wrote:On March 14 2013 23:39 Swift118 wrote:On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad. Have to agree with these statements. These young players often protest that videogames nowadays aren't just for kids anymore. But they seem to want to lump everyone with a real, professional job into the same league, out of sight and out of mind. Yes, because everyone with a competitive mindset is obviously a kid with too much free time. That is no what he is saying and you know it. He is talking about members of the community who call masters players passable and anyone below that “bad”. It has nothing to do with being competitive in any way. It has to do with context . An amateur player who can only find enough time to get to platinum league is not “bad” at SC2 when compared to other people with same level of practice and time. If you compare him/her to a professional who players 8 hours a day against the best players in the world, everyone is “bad”. And he is saying do that is stupid, beause it is. When someone in GM starts talking down to players in gold and platinum, it is like a division one college basket ball player talking down to a bunch of guys playing a pick up game. It is silly and inmature. It is all about context. If you have time to play 3-5 games per day, you have time to be in masters.
I do not have time to play 3-5 good games a day, as I detailed previously. Some people are that busy and have other parts of their life going on. Some players have kids, believe it or not. Acting like anyone can just “get to masters” and belittling people for not being “competitive” enough only make you look like a jerk.
|
|
On March 15 2013 01:10 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:01 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2013 00:56 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:51 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2013 00:30 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:24 andrewlt wrote:On March 14 2013 23:39 Swift118 wrote:On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad. Have to agree with these statements. These young players often protest that videogames nowadays aren't just for kids anymore. But they seem to want to lump everyone with a real, professional job into the same league, out of sight and out of mind. Yes, because everyone with a competitive mindset is obviously a kid with too much free time. That is no what he is saying and you know it. He is talking about members of the community who call masters players passable and anyone below that “bad”. It has nothing to do with being competitive in any way. It has to do with context . An amateur player who can only find enough time to get to platinum league is not “bad” at SC2 when compared to other people with same level of practice and time. If you compare him/her to a professional who players 8 hours a day against the best players in the world, everyone is “bad”. And he is saying do that is stupid, beause it is. When someone in GM starts talking down to players in gold and platinum, it is like a division one college basket ball player talking down to a bunch of guys playing a pick up game. It is silly and inmature. It is all about context. If you have time to play 3-5 games per day, you have time to be in masters. I do not have time to play 3-5 good games a day, as I detailed previously. Some people are that busy and have other parts of their life going on. Some players have kids, believe it or not. Acting like anyone can just “get to masters” and belittling people for not being “competitive” enough only make you look like a jerk. I don't believe you. I had time for 3-5 games (that's less than 1 hour btw), while working 2 (two) jobs, spending time with family, self-studying on coursera, working out 2-3 times a week, reading books and blah blah blah. Believe it or not you're not the only one with a busy life. Crying that you're not skilled enough because you don't have time for something just makes you seem like whiny tool who can't manage his time.
No, it makes you look like a pillock. I'm working one full job (PhD), reading books, etc etc and I sometimes struggle to fit any games into my life in addition to socialising. The most I've played SC2 in the last month has been while I've been ill.
It is also not less than 1 hour. 5 games for me can sometimes be upwards of 2 and a half hours. There are also other problems that people have which distract them, cause them to not improve, etc. Someone might have a near perfect theoretical understanding of the game, but not necessarily be very good at playing it.
Maybe you just aren't doing the kind of work we're doing. Maybe the bulk of our competitiveness goes elsewhere and we can't afford to spend a huge amount of time keeping up on the metagame.
|
On March 15 2013 00:11 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On March 14 2013 23:42 HeeroFX wrote:I really think the majority of people who play this game will fall into silver and gold, because lets face it if you were stuck in bronze you would quit playing too because bronze is not how the game is meant to be played. This line of reason always makes me laugh. If everyone who's stuck in bronze quit, then there would be a massive shift downward in ladder rankings every season due to the vacuum at the bottom. That hasn't happened, so it's obviously not the case that bronze-leaguers are leaving the game en masse. And even if that process went on indefinitely, you still wouldn't have the majority of players in silver and gold, because the ladder is set up to have a fixed percentage of players in each league. Eventually you'd just have six people, one in each league, then the worst of them would get fed up with being "stuck in bronze", quit the game, and the ladder would break. I don't think this is true. First of all, there are no fixed percentages. The league boundaries are set manually. There is no automatic adjustment. Then there is the question about what happens if everyone in bronze quits. The answer is: nothing. Bronze would be empty. MMR measures relative skill. A specific winning percentage between two players translates to a specific MMR difference. There will be no "stretching" of the MMR scale to fill out the empty space.
|
On March 15 2013 01:01 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 00:56 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:51 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2013 00:30 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:24 andrewlt wrote:On March 14 2013 23:39 Swift118 wrote:On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad. Have to agree with these statements. These young players often protest that videogames nowadays aren't just for kids anymore. But they seem to want to lump everyone with a real, professional job into the same league, out of sight and out of mind. Yes, because everyone with a competitive mindset is obviously a kid with too much free time. That is no what he is saying and you know it. He is talking about members of the community who call masters players passable and anyone below that “bad”. It has nothing to do with being competitive in any way. It has to do with context . An amateur player who can only find enough time to get to platinum league is not “bad” at SC2 when compared to other people with same level of practice and time. If you compare him/her to a professional who players 8 hours a day against the best players in the world, everyone is “bad”. And he is saying do that is stupid, beause it is. When someone in GM starts talking down to players in gold and platinum, it is like a division one college basket ball player talking down to a bunch of guys playing a pick up game. It is silly and inmature. It is all about context. If you have time to play 3-5 games per day, you have time to be in masters. I do not have time to play 3-5 good games a day, as I detailed previously. Some people are that busy and have other parts of their life going on. Some players have kids, believe it or not. Acting like anyone can just “get to masters” and belittling people for not being “competitive” enough only make you look like a jerk.
What you being busy have to do with anything here? If you have kids/job/uni/whatever, then it's okay to be bad at this game. Just because you are better than my grandmother does not mean that you are good. Being in platinum means you are really bad, and if you don't agree than we just use different measurement scales. After being in SC scene for quite a long time it does not sound good for me to compare all players to silver ;p
|
On March 15 2013 01:21 ALPINA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:01 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2013 00:56 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:51 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2013 00:30 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:24 andrewlt wrote:On March 14 2013 23:39 Swift118 wrote:On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad. Have to agree with these statements. These young players often protest that videogames nowadays aren't just for kids anymore. But they seem to want to lump everyone with a real, professional job into the same league, out of sight and out of mind. Yes, because everyone with a competitive mindset is obviously a kid with too much free time. That is no what he is saying and you know it. He is talking about members of the community who call masters players passable and anyone below that “bad”. It has nothing to do with being competitive in any way. It has to do with context . An amateur player who can only find enough time to get to platinum league is not “bad” at SC2 when compared to other people with same level of practice and time. If you compare him/her to a professional who players 8 hours a day against the best players in the world, everyone is “bad”. And he is saying do that is stupid, beause it is. When someone in GM starts talking down to players in gold and platinum, it is like a division one college basket ball player talking down to a bunch of guys playing a pick up game. It is silly and inmature. It is all about context. If you have time to play 3-5 games per day, you have time to be in masters. I do not have time to play 3-5 good games a day, as I detailed previously. Some people are that busy and have other parts of their life going on. Some players have kids, believe it or not. Acting like anyone can just “get to masters” and belittling people for not being “competitive” enough only make you look like a jerk. What you being busy have to do with anything here? If you have kids/job/uni/whatever, then it's okay to be bad at this game. Just because you are better than my grandmother does not mean that you are good. Being in platinum means you are really bad, and if you don't agree than we just use different measurement scales. After being in SC scene for quite a long time it does not sound good for me to compare all players to silver ;p
That is the point though. People in platinum league know they are “bad”, just like a weekend golfer knows he is “bad” in the larger scale of the world. But when the golfer goes to hang out with his buddies at the golf club, people don’t point that out. Its no like he takes a shot and someone says “You know that was terrible compared to people on the PGA tour”. The players know they are bad at their hobby. That’s why it’s a hobby.
|
as someone who has been stuck in bronze since launch (then again, I frequently take several month long breaks from the game... have had the game since launch, have only played 450 career games), this is a great change. And to those who say that it's just "for the sake of making players feel better", you're wrong. As a bronze player, I can tell you that is it massively frustrating to play against a player one game who doesn't even expand, and then next game to play against someone who executes an excellent 1rax FE, and stomps your face. What do those two very different players have in common? They are both in bronze, and they shouldn't be.
I'm far from great at Starcraft 2. In fact, I'm pretty bad at it. But I expand around the 6-9 minute mark (depending on scouting), I get upgrades, and I am pretty good and pumping SCVs for a majority of the game. I get supply blocked, I float too many minerals, and I usually forget to get gas at my expos, but I still beat a number of silver and gold players when I face off against them.
The problem is that the MMR system is... well... flawed. I made a post in the Simple QA where I asked about the MMR matchmaking right now. As a rank 50 bronze, I got matched against someone who, in this season, is currently in Masters. Facing off against silver and the occasional gold I can handle. Matching off against Plat, Diamond, and Masters is absurd, and I can tell you that it is very, very discouraging.
One last thing: this notion about being "good" at Starcraft. I know that Starcraft is a pretty serious eSport, and I watch plenty of pro replays. But for a lot of people (like me), when I play, it's just a game. No different than Dishonored, Far Cry 3, or Call of Duty. I don't look down on people who treat the game more seriously than I do! But at the same time, I don't feel bad that I'm not a platinum player, just like I don't feel bad for not playing Skyrim on that new insanely hard difficulty they just patched in. Games should be what you make of them. If you want to be a GM player, I applaud your ambition, and wish you luck. If you are like me, and want nothing more than to reach Gold, that's great too. But players need to stop ripping on each other for what rank they hold. In one of my unranked games against a Silver player, I saw that his highest career rank was Silver, and he had played 1800 career games. I don't think less of him for not being a higher rank. I think he probably has as much fun as he wants in the game, without worrying about being "pro" at it.
Then again, I am a bronze player, so chances are a lot of people will refuse to take this post seriously
|
the amount of elitism in this thread lol, if your anything but top 2% your terrible LOL.. only on teamliquid.
|
On March 15 2013 01:10 Inori wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:01 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2013 00:56 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:51 Plansix wrote:On March 15 2013 00:30 Inori wrote:On March 15 2013 00:24 andrewlt wrote:On March 14 2013 23:39 Swift118 wrote:On March 14 2013 23:13 Plansix wrote:On March 14 2013 22:30 ALPINA wrote:On March 14 2013 21:30 Inori wrote: When you achieve B+/A- you know you're getting close to mastering the game. In SC2 when you reach MASTERs league you quickly realize you don't know shit.
I'd rather know that I'm only 1/3 way there than that I'm in top2% of the playerbase. First gives me a realistic point of view, second gives an illusion of success.
But to each his own I guess, if you feel proud about getting into gold - hey, don't let a random guy on the internets stop you! Well Master players are not good by any means, that's not even the highest league Now talking about GM, it does not show real skill whatsoever. all it shows that player is quite decent at this game. Some player like MKP can be on Top40 while another relatively unknown player will be in top 20 or something. But that's the problem not with ranking system, but more with game itself. There are so much cheesy/allinish/abusable builds and strategies that mediocre player can defeat much better one. This is sort of a messed up sentiment and it implies that no one is good at SC2, except maybe GSL level players. No one is talking about the professional level of SC2 and saying that GM players are not good at SC2 is just silly(weird cases like the guy who six pooled to GM might be the exception). I have friends who are really good at golf, but no one follows that statement up with “Are they as good at Tiger Wood?”. We need to reign in our standards here on TL. Being “good” at something does not mean you need to be able to compete with professional players. When I say that I am “pretty good” at SC2, it is in relation to my peers, not the entire world as a whole. No one ever uses the phrase “I am good at BLANK” when comparing themselves to the entire world. It's hard to rationalise with people in gaming communities becuase there is a significant percentage of young players and immature players. If one compares everyone to the pros then of course the vast majority of the playerbase are bad, without a dought. But if one is paying on ladder at a reasonable level and living a productive life outside of gaming I would find it hard to say they are bad. Have to agree with these statements. These young players often protest that videogames nowadays aren't just for kids anymore. But they seem to want to lump everyone with a real, professional job into the same league, out of sight and out of mind. Yes, because everyone with a competitive mindset is obviously a kid with too much free time. That is no what he is saying and you know it. He is talking about members of the community who call masters players passable and anyone below that “bad”. It has nothing to do with being competitive in any way. It has to do with context . An amateur player who can only find enough time to get to platinum league is not “bad” at SC2 when compared to other people with same level of practice and time. If you compare him/her to a professional who players 8 hours a day against the best players in the world, everyone is “bad”. And he is saying do that is stupid, beause it is. When someone in GM starts talking down to players in gold and platinum, it is like a division one college basket ball player talking down to a bunch of guys playing a pick up game. It is silly and inmature. It is all about context. If you have time to play 3-5 games per day, you have time to be in masters. I do not have time to play 3-5 good games a day, as I detailed previously. Some people are that busy and have other parts of their life going on. Some players have kids, believe it or not. Acting like anyone can just “get to masters” and belittling people for not being “competitive” enough only make you look like a jerk. I don't believe you. I had time for 3-5 games (that's less than 1 hour btw), while working 2 (two) jobs, spending time with family, self-studying on coursera, working out 2-3 times a week, reading books and blah blah blah. Believe it or not you're not the only one with a busy life. Crying that you're not skilled enough because you don't have time for something just makes you seem like whiny tool who can't manage his time.
You can play 5 games of SC2 in under an hour, you must be magic. Or your lying to make your point. And as the guy posted previously, you just look like a jerk for posting this stuff and telling people they are whiny bitches for not committing to SC2.
|
|
|
|
|
On March 15 2013 02:54 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:19 Evangelist wrote: Someone might have a near perfect theoretical understanding of the game, but not necessarily be very good at playing it. This is one of the biggest myths out there. Funny how it's still prevalent.
indeed, if you had near perfect understanding of everything you can get to masters with less then 100apm and minimal hotkey usage.
|
I think this will help people to get more motivated to play, since it is easier to get out of Bronze league, however it will also give some people left in Bronze a really bad feeling, because now it is less people that are in Bronze..
However, I think this change is more positive than negative
|
On March 15 2013 01:20 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 00:11 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 14 2013 23:42 HeeroFX wrote:I really think the majority of people who play this game will fall into silver and gold, because lets face it if you were stuck in bronze you would quit playing too because bronze is not how the game is meant to be played. This line of reason always makes me laugh. If everyone who's stuck in bronze quit, then there would be a massive shift downward in ladder rankings every season due to the vacuum at the bottom. That hasn't happened, so it's obviously not the case that bronze-leaguers are leaving the game en masse. And even if that process went on indefinitely, you still wouldn't have the majority of players in silver and gold, because the ladder is set up to have a fixed percentage of players in each league. Eventually you'd just have six people, one in each league, then the worst of them would get fed up with being "stuck in bronze", quit the game, and the ladder would break. I don't think this is true. First of all, there are no fixed percentages. The league boundaries are set manually. There is no automatic adjustment. Then there is the question about what happens if everyone in bronze quits. The answer is: nothing. Bronze would be empty. MMR measures relative skill. A specific winning percentage between two players translates to a specific MMR difference. There will be no "stretching" of the MMR scale to fill out the empty space. I think there will be:
Let everyone on Battle.net stand in a long line (please shower before participating in this Gedankenexperiment), starting with the worker rushers and with Curious, RorO and Life in front. Your MMR roughly reflects your position in the line. It stabilizes when you're at a postion where, getting matched against people within some range, you have a 50/50 win rate.
Now fill a high-speed t-shirt cannon with frozen capybaras and mow down the worst 20% of players. The lucky fellow who managed to be just good enough to be the first survivor goes online and searches for a game. Before, about half his opponents would have been worse than him, half better, but now the matchmaking algorithm can't find anyone worse than him, so he's going to start losing more than half his games. His MMR falls and falls. The guy in front of him has the same problem, except sometimes he gets matched up against the only surviving person on Earth who is worse than him. He wins more than 50% of those games, but since the poor bastard's MMR is falling, he won't get enough of a boost from those wins to balance out his losing average against the rest of the playing population.
And so on and so on until a new generation of players are in the crosshairs.
I do know that Blizzard sets the MMR boundaries manually, but regardless of that, I'm also pretty sure you'd get MMR drift if you removed everyone in Bronze from the playing population. Also, Blizzard has demonstrated that they will update the MMR boundaries as necessary to keep the league populations approximately consistent with the percentages they've defined for them.
|
|
The elitism in some of the comments here is hilarious.
A Gold player is by definition an average player. A Platinum player is better than 2/3 of his peers. He isn't rocking the world, but he's decent at the game. A Diamond player is better than 80 percent of all players. He is good. Just like a girl who is better looking than 80 percent of all girls is definitely good looking even if she will never be America's next top model.
|
On March 15 2013 05:33 AmericanUmlaut wrote: Before, about half his opponents would have been worse than him, half better, but now the matchmaking algorithm can't find anyone worse than him, so he's going to start losing more than half his games. His MMR falls and falls No, the system is smarter than that. If you only have two players on the ladder, and one player wins 90% of the games, both players will stabilise, and the MMR difference will be directly related to that 90% winning chance.
I'm also pretty sure you'd get MMR drift if you removed everyone in Bronze from the playing population. I think not. This question has come up before, and Excalibur_Z actually asked some dev about it. In that example I think it was "every gold player quits" or something, and the answer is that gold will stay empty, because MMR difference translates directly to winning chance, and that prevents any stretching or contracting of the MMR scale. There is of course the question of where the complete MMR scale is "anchored". My theory is that it's anchored at the top, and in that case removing all bronze players will have no effect.
|
On March 15 2013 05:39 monkybone wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 04:54 EleanorRIgby wrote:On March 15 2013 02:54 monkybone wrote:On March 15 2013 01:19 Evangelist wrote: Someone might have a near perfect theoretical understanding of the game, but not necessarily be very good at playing it. This is one of the biggest myths out there. Funny how it's still prevalent. indeed, if you had near perfect understanding of everything you can get to masters with less then 100apm and minimal hotkey usage. it's just that people overestimates their own understanding of the game.
I do think it's possible to have a better theoretical understanding than an ability to play. Theory is about having the time and objectivity to watch things play out. It's like chess in a sense. But having the ability to play it out requires a much more diverse and active skill set. Your understanding is far from perfect though. Plus, in a theory understanding, especially when spectating, you have a better view of the field, which makes it easier to know what each player should be doing. So in a sense, you can be better in theory than in practice, but you're right, if your theory was perfect, you may not be in grandmaster, but you'd be in at least Diamond.
|
On March 15 2013 06:27 Salient wrote: A Gold player is by definition an average player. A Platinum player is better than 2/3 of his peers. He isn't rocking the world, but he's decent at the game.
"Average" is by definition a comparison, but good, bad or decent aren't. For example, when Starcraft 1 came out, nobody was immediately good at it. Even the guy who was better than 6 billion people on earth wasn't "good". You can easily define Starcraft still by non-relative measures, and if you do that, you can call people bad even when they're among the best 20% of players or whatever. All just a question of what scale you use.
|
|
page five of this thread: wow, great change! so it works like a bell curve now?
page nine of this thread: IF YOUR NOT GRANDMASTER. YOUR BAD AND SHOULD FEEL BAD.
seriously guys?
on topic though, i think its a great change by blizzard.
|
United States12175 Posts
On March 15 2013 05:33 AmericanUmlaut wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 01:20 Mendelfist wrote:On March 15 2013 00:11 AmericanUmlaut wrote:On March 14 2013 23:42 HeeroFX wrote:I really think the majority of people who play this game will fall into silver and gold, because lets face it if you were stuck in bronze you would quit playing too because bronze is not how the game is meant to be played. This line of reason always makes me laugh. If everyone who's stuck in bronze quit, then there would be a massive shift downward in ladder rankings every season due to the vacuum at the bottom. That hasn't happened, so it's obviously not the case that bronze-leaguers are leaving the game en masse. And even if that process went on indefinitely, you still wouldn't have the majority of players in silver and gold, because the ladder is set up to have a fixed percentage of players in each league. Eventually you'd just have six people, one in each league, then the worst of them would get fed up with being "stuck in bronze", quit the game, and the ladder would break. I don't think this is true. First of all, there are no fixed percentages. The league boundaries are set manually. There is no automatic adjustment. Then there is the question about what happens if everyone in bronze quits. The answer is: nothing. Bronze would be empty. MMR measures relative skill. A specific winning percentage between two players translates to a specific MMR difference. There will be no "stretching" of the MMR scale to fill out the empty space. I think there will be: Let everyone on Battle.net stand in a long line (please shower before participating in this Gedankenexperiment), starting with the worker rushers and with Curious, RorO and Life in front. Your MMR roughly reflects your position in the line. It stabilizes when you're at a postion where, getting matched against people within some range, you have a 50/50 win rate. Now fill a high-speed t-shirt cannon with frozen capybaras and mow down the worst 20% of players. The lucky fellow who managed to be just good enough to be the first survivor goes online and searches for a game. Before, about half his opponents would have been worse than him, half better, but now the matchmaking algorithm can't find anyone worse than him, so he's going to start losing more than half his games. His MMR falls and falls. The guy in front of him has the same problem, except sometimes he gets matched up against the only surviving person on Earth who is worse than him. He wins more than 50% of those games, but since the poor bastard's MMR is falling, he won't get enough of a boost from those wins to balance out his losing average against the rest of the playing population. And so on and so on until a new generation of players are in the crosshairs. I do know that Blizzard sets the MMR boundaries manually, but regardless of that, I'm also pretty sure you'd get MMR drift if you removed everyone in Bronze from the playing population. Also, Blizzard has demonstrated that they will update the MMR boundaries as necessary to keep the league populations approximately consistent with the percentages they've defined for them.
It's a little difficult to tell but let's delve into the theory. Mendelfist is right (and Josh the former ladder designer pointed this out as well) that if you were to lop off the bottom 20%, the relative positions between players won't change, and this is what the Elo format measures. Blizzard would necessarily step in and redefine the boundaries if this happened, of course. However, what makes a Silver player Silver? It's because most of the time, he beats Bronzes and loses to Golds.
Let's say everyone starts at the same Elo rating of 1500. If you had two players who always go 60-40/40-60 against each other and they were the only people on the ladder, the gap between them would be fixed and they wouldn't keep drifting apart. The ratings would fluctuate a little bit after each game but the gap would gravitate toward a fixed number that defines their skill differential, let's say 100 points. Therefore, as long as Player B is beating Player A 60% of the time, he'll be 100 rating ahead such that B would be 1550 and A would be 1450 or something like that. If you were to add a third player who is better than both of the others, and he's beating Player B 60% of the time, then Player C will be 100 rating ahead of Player B. This would cost Player B some rating because when C started, he would be 1500, but by extension it would also cost Player A some rating as well because the gap between A and B will be maintained as long as they keep playing each other. The ladder would then look like C 1600, B 1500, A 1400, right? Then if A dropped out, B and C would maintain that 100-rating separation.
In the actual ladder, many more players are playing which would perhaps have multiple side effects. If players on the low end of the spectrum tend to play only a few games and then quit, then they would only serve to feed higher players and inflate ratings. We know that higher level players are more active on average than low level players. As a player's rating decreases, the matchmaker finds matches lower and lower in the spectrum. A player who starts at 1500 and is actually 500 but quits at 1000 feeds the 500 rating he lost to those 1000-1500-rated players without propping up the 500-1000-rated players.
Running out of time to discuss this but I hope this sparks some further discussion =)
|
On March 15 2013 04:54 EleanorRIgby wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 02:54 monkybone wrote:On March 15 2013 01:19 Evangelist wrote: Someone might have a near perfect theoretical understanding of the game, but not necessarily be very good at playing it. This is one of the biggest myths out there. Funny how it's still prevalent. indeed, if you had near perfect understanding of everything you can get to masters with less then 100apm and minimal hotkey usage.
Are you saying that there can't be a person with excellent understanding of the game and awful reaction time?
Edit: I suppose someone could argue that it's impossible to gain such an understanding of the game without actually playing at that level. I think this is a hard argument to make, because watching a game presents a person with all the same (in fact often more!) information than the players see. Of course, such a person would have to be a great talent who's held back in some fundamental mechanical way.
|
On March 15 2013 07:36 Excalibur_Z wrote: It's a little difficult to tell but let's delve into the theory. Mendelfist is right (and Josh the former ladder designer pointed this out as well) that if you were to lop off the bottom 20%, the relative positions between players won't change, and this is what the Elo format measures. Blizzard would necessarily step in and redefine the boundaries if this happened, of course. However, what makes a Silver player Silver? It's because most of the time, he beats Bronzes and loses to Golds.
Just looking at MMR (or Elo) numbers, if you lop off the bottom 20%, the person who's at the 20.0000001th %-ile will begin to lose a much higher percentage of his games, and his score will drift downward as a result. This will pull everyone else with them until the system achieves a new equilibrium in which the score accurately predicts win/loss likelihood once more.
Thus, everyone's actual rating number will decrease, and depending on how the math works they may or may not spread out, but like you say, they'll retain the same relative positions.
|
On March 15 2013 06:27 Mendelfist wrote:Show nested quote +I'm also pretty sure you'd get MMR drift if you removed everyone in Bronze from the playing population. I think not. This question has come up before, and Excalibur_Z actually asked some dev about it. In that example I think it was "every gold player quits" or something, and the answer is that gold will stay empty, because MMR difference translates directly to winning chance, and that prevents any stretching or contracting of the MMR scale. There is of course the question of where the complete MMR scale is "anchored". My theory is that it's anchored at the top, and in that case removing all bronze players will have no effect.
I tend to think that the scale is not "anchored" at all. Yes, relative positions remain the same, but if you took off either end of the scale, the new lowest player would always lose, causing the scale to drift downward and the new highest player would always win. Only if you remove the league in the middle does the system fail to drift up or down.
|
This is a good move from blizzard. That's a way to keep a good amount of active players. I think it would be even better if it was: B 8% S 20% G 25% P 25% D 20% M 2% GM[200]
|
On March 15 2013 07:45 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 07:36 Excalibur_Z wrote: It's a little difficult to tell but let's delve into the theory. Mendelfist is right (and Josh the former ladder designer pointed this out as well) that if you were to lop off the bottom 20%, the relative positions between players won't change, and this is what the Elo format measures. Blizzard would necessarily step in and redefine the boundaries if this happened, of course. However, what makes a Silver player Silver? It's because most of the time, he beats Bronzes and loses to Golds. Just looking at MMR (or Elo) numbers, if you lop off the bottom 20%, the person who's at the 20.0000001th %-ile will begin to lose a much higher percentage of his games, and his score will drift downward as a result. This will pull everyone else with them until the system achieves a new equilibrium in which the score accurately predicts win/loss likelihood once more. Thus, everyone's actual rating number will decrease, and depending on how the math works they may or may not spread out, but like you say, they'll retain the same relative positions. No, I understand Excalibur_Z's explanation and I'm pretty sure he's right and I'm wrong. With all my capybara-cannon victims dead, the lowest-ranked survivor suddenly starts losing (say) 60% of his games because of the lack of weaker opponents. But his ranking already reflects the fact that he's expected to lose about 60% against the range of players he's being matched up against, so his MMR should stay put.
|
Good change! I never understood why games such as LoL and SC2 insists on having tons of leagues for the few highest ranked players and then have huge percentile of players in the few lower leagues.
|
I did my placement matches yesterday and received gold. I was hoping for plat, but oh well. I wonder if I'm real gold or fool's gold?
|
On March 15 2013 07:39 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 04:54 EleanorRIgby wrote:On March 15 2013 02:54 monkybone wrote:On March 15 2013 01:19 Evangelist wrote: Someone might have a near perfect theoretical understanding of the game, but not necessarily be very good at playing it. This is one of the biggest myths out there. Funny how it's still prevalent. indeed, if you had near perfect understanding of everything you can get to masters with less then 100apm and minimal hotkey usage. Are you saying that there can't be a person with excellent understanding of the game and awful reaction time? Edit: I suppose someone could argue that it's impossible to gain such an understanding of the game without actually playing at that level. I think this is a hard argument to make, because watching a game presents a person with all the same (in fact often more!) information than the players see. Of course, such a person would have to be a great talent who's held back in some fundamental mechanical way.
There are examples of people who have a ton of knowledge about the game as a whole, but maybe not professionals or GM players. The prime example is: Artosis. Every pro says he has an amazing level of knowledge about the game, builds and players.
So when someone say that they are a low level player with great game knowledge, ask yourself. Are they the Artosis of Gold/Plat players? 98% of the time the answer is going to be no and the person just believes they are.
Or you can look at the: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning_kruger_effect
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will: 1. tend to overestimate their own level of skill; 2. fail to recognize genuine skill in others; 3. fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy; 4. recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they are exposed to training for that skill.
This simple theory explains 90% of the internet and SC2.
|
Top 2% is still the top 2%. This makes me happy.
|
On March 15 2013 07:39 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2013 04:54 EleanorRIgby wrote:On March 15 2013 02:54 monkybone wrote:On March 15 2013 01:19 Evangelist wrote: Someone might have a near perfect theoretical understanding of the game, but not necessarily be very good at playing it. This is one of the biggest myths out there. Funny how it's still prevalent. indeed, if you had near perfect understanding of everything you can get to masters with less then 100apm and minimal hotkey usage. Are you saying that there can't be a person with excellent understanding of the game and awful reaction time?Edit: I suppose someone could argue that it's impossible to gain such an understanding of the game without actually playing at that level. I think this is a hard argument to make, because watching a game presents a person with all the same (in fact often more!) information than the players see. Of course, such a person would have to be a great talent who's held back in some fundamental mechanical way.
The point is that if you have excellent understanding of the game you won't be in Bronze or Silver, no matter what your reaction time is (not accounting for physical disablilities). People often claim great insight and blame lack of execution for their lower rankings, which seems absurd.
|
On March 16 2013 00:36 Vorenius wrote: The point is that if you have excellent understanding of the game you won't be in Bronze or Silver, no matter what your reaction time is (not accounting for physical disablilities). People often claim great insight and blame lack of execution for their lower rankings, which seems absurd.
I agree the vast bulk of people who make such claims don't know what they're talking about (and I would never, ever make such a claim myself), but there are a number of reasons someone might not be able to play at top levels and still have a strong understanding of the game. (Having trouble clicking accurately, having trouble with the coordination involved in hitting the right keys, reaction time, issues with focus that cause one to pay attention to the wrong things, etc.)
|
On March 15 2013 20:02 AmericanUmlaut wrote: No, I understand Excalibur_Z's explanation and I'm pretty sure he's right and I'm wrong. With all my capybara-cannon victims dead, the lowest-ranked survivor suddenly starts losing (say) 60% of his games because of the lack of weaker opponents. But his ranking already reflects the fact that he's expected to lose about 60% against the range of players he's being matched up against, so his MMR should stay put.
Thanks for this, I see the argument now, and I think you're probably right.
|
On March 16 2013 03:45 Lysenko wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2013 00:36 Vorenius wrote: The point is that if you have excellent understanding of the game you won't be in Bronze or Silver, no matter what your reaction time is (not accounting for physical disablilities). People often claim great insight and blame lack of execution for their lower rankings, which seems absurd. I agree the vast bulk of people who make such claims don't know what they're talking about (and I would never, ever make such a claim myself), but there are a number of reasons someone might not be able to play at top levels and still have a strong understanding of the game. (Having trouble clicking accurately, having trouble with the coordination involved in hitting the right keys, reaction time, issues with focus that cause one to pay attention to the wrong things, etc.)
I think in that case its more of a physical disability when it comes to clicking. And as the above poster said that doesn't really count.
And game knowledge at a lower level is like, he built mutas so if i build a stargate i can counter and win. While in theory that should work, it won't due to the fact that he will have way too many mutas for you to deal with by the time you get 4 phoenix.
|
On March 12 2013 03:23 Inori wrote: Wouldn't that mean that there will be a huge variety of skill level at gold league?
The move actually makes sense. Skill isn't uniformly distributed. I'm not sure it's normally distributed either (bell curve), but this isn't one. They're probably trying to make it look something like a gamma distribution, which makes sense as the best first-order approximation to me. Look those up on wikipedia if you don't have a stats background.
|
United States12175 Posts
On March 18 2013 02:04 Bombadil819 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 12 2013 03:23 Inori wrote: Wouldn't that mean that there will be a huge variety of skill level at gold league? The move actually makes sense. Skill isn't uniformly distributed. I'm not sure it's normally distributed either (bell curve), but this isn't one. They're probably trying to make it look something like a gamma distribution, which makes sense as the best first-order approximation to me. Look those up on wikipedia if you don't have a stats background.
It's not a gamma distribution, but it's doesn't 100% mirror a normal distribution either. It's a normal distribution with a little extra bump in the direction of the Diamondish region where the more hardcore players tend to gather, but that's not reflected in my graphical representation because it's not clear where exactly the bump is, so I just omitted it.
|
Hopefully will make the game more pleasant for newer players and, keep them playing. This is very smart of Blizzard. Hopefully, we will see less players quit HOTS after a couple months as a result of this. We will see I guess.
|
|
|
|