|
On December 19 2015 10:32 11cc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 10:26 Djzapz wrote:On December 19 2015 10:09 11cc wrote:On December 19 2015 10:03 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:On December 19 2015 09:56 Naracs_Duc wrote: Ladder worries are not an SC2 issue, its a player base issue. Does not matter if its a quick match button or iccup. Don't agree. In SC2, 98% of the people win and lose exactly 50% of their games. We can't have 51% of the people winning 51% of their games. Let alone 90% winning 70% of their games. Iccup is something completely different. So where are these stats of yours coming from? Surely not from your ass, right? The SC2 matchmaking system will match you to opponents of your strength. If you win more than 50%, you'll get to play opponents who are better than you until you lose. Essentially, the system makes it so unless you're a top tier player, you'll always have a win rate that'll be around 50%. But isn't that how iccup works as well, except it isn't automated?
SC2 doesn't drop everyone back down into bronze league on season resets. If iccup didn't have the rank decay every few months with the resets, D-rankers wouldn't continually need to be fodder for higher level players all the time.
|
On December 19 2015 14:24 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Sometimes I think it would be better if seasons didn't reset so often or not at all My friend who plays GO (not CS:GO... the game of GO) told me about their ladder system that doesn't reset. The result is that it reflects skill a lot better than ours! I can see the appeal of having seasonal goals but resetting ladder, for me this has made me stop to want to get higher ranks. I could try to get B to prove my skill is B, but it takes too many games in 3 months for me to achieve Especially since I almost never keep playing daily for 3 months in a row and like to try stuff. Then there is the frustration for people at D skill level, and some amount of "waste of time" for people who want to play against higher skilled players but have to grind a lot before that... Yes I think in the end it would be better to have a simple ELO ladder system that doesn't reset.
Ladder resets were requested by the player base in SC2.
Blizzard did not have resets in SC2 ladder, then players whined so they added resets. Most of the bad stuff in SC2 come from players who think they know better than developers. Its really funny.
|
If I can recall, ladders reset, but MMR doesn't.
If you don't log in and latter for a super long period of time, then MMR resets.
I might be mistaken, but that's my understanding.
|
On December 19 2015 12:02 trulojucreathrma.com wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 11:01 11cc wrote: That is totally possible btw, unlike 1+1=3
How can you say that with a straight face? Obviously, any game is a zero sum game. For every winner you need a loser. Now that I think about it, I should have realized that a statement like this isn't intuitive to everyone. There's quite some inferior intellects out there, if you are a top intellect yourself. Only when I tried to write it down I actually realized it is not an easy problem to explain or to offer a proof. Maybe someone will come along that has more patience and can explain it to you. I think what you actually mean is that it's impossible for 100% of players to have 51% winrate, because that would actually be impossible. For 51% of players to have 51% winrate, the rest (49%) just have to have slightly less than 49% winrate to balance it out, no? Please explain what I'm missing here, mr. top intellect.
|
On December 19 2015 17:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 14:24 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Sometimes I think it would be better if seasons didn't reset so often or not at all My friend who plays GO (not CS:GO... the game of GO) told me about their ladder system that doesn't reset. The result is that it reflects skill a lot better than ours! I can see the appeal of having seasonal goals but resetting ladder, for me this has made me stop to want to get higher ranks. I could try to get B to prove my skill is B, but it takes too many games in 3 months for me to achieve Especially since I almost never keep playing daily for 3 months in a row and like to try stuff. Then there is the frustration for people at D skill level, and some amount of "waste of time" for people who want to play against higher skilled players but have to grind a lot before that... Yes I think in the end it would be better to have a simple ELO ladder system that doesn't reset. Ladder resets were requested by the player base in SC2. Blizzard did not have resets in SC2 ladder, then players whined so they added resets. Most of the bad stuff in SC2 come from players who think they know better than developers. Its really funny. to be fair I think there has been a lot of bad things in SC2 even before people complain about it or suggest other possibly bad things^^ also there may not have been the most competent picks out of the players suggestions by whoever makes the calls at blizzard to make the game good/better^^ it's their job to do that, and I don't think everyone makes bad suggestions from what I read far from that. Company being focused on financial profit damages its ability to make good choices in creating or modifying games, so it may have gone the "superficially please everyone" road for too long.
|
SW7 was good ; D Ill read all comments when I get some reading power back!
|
There is some drama development.. I will give examples in my next cast...
|
Hey Proll this is Rorge. The Terran was hacking in the proxy gate game I ran it through BWHF agent. Multi-command hack was found.
|
On December 20 2015 02:14 JadeFist wrote: Hey Proll this is Rorge. The Terran was hacking in the proxy gate game I ran it through BWHF agent. Multi-command hack was found.
if we are talking about a ICCup ladder game (not sure of the context you are talking in here) pleas DO report it here
|
On December 19 2015 17:52 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2015 17:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 19 2015 14:24 ProMeTheus112 wrote:Sometimes I think it would be better if seasons didn't reset so often or not at all My friend who plays GO (not CS:GO... the game of GO) told me about their ladder system that doesn't reset. The result is that it reflects skill a lot better than ours! I can see the appeal of having seasonal goals but resetting ladder, for me this has made me stop to want to get higher ranks. I could try to get B to prove my skill is B, but it takes too many games in 3 months for me to achieve Especially since I almost never keep playing daily for 3 months in a row and like to try stuff. Then there is the frustration for people at D skill level, and some amount of "waste of time" for people who want to play against higher skilled players but have to grind a lot before that... Yes I think in the end it would be better to have a simple ELO ladder system that doesn't reset. Ladder resets were requested by the player base in SC2. Blizzard did not have resets in SC2 ladder, then players whined so they added resets. Most of the bad stuff in SC2 come from players who think they know better than developers. Its really funny. to be fair I think there has been a lot of bad things in SC2 even before people complain about it or suggest other possibly bad things^^ also there may not have been the most competent picks out of the players suggestions by whoever makes the calls at blizzard to make the game good/better^^ it's their job to do that, and I don't think everyone makes bad suggestions from what I read far from that. Company being focused on financial profit damages its ability to make good choices in creating or modifying games, so it may have gone the "superficially please everyone" road for too long.
As someone who works in a company that cares a lot about "customer feedback" I know all too well what happens when Product teams let Customers tell engineers and designers how to engineer/design things...
|
Really? I think it's just a matter of listening to the wrong people then. There's been plenty of EXCELLENT advice regarding Sc2 such as Lalush' depth of micro or some of the economy analysis threads..
|
Because the game is hard as a "motherfucker", thats why. Plus most people that still play the game are veterans and its hard to get repeatedly beaten to a pulp every game by smurfs.
|
good foreigners dont even play BW anymore, and yet, ppl are such elitists with their ranks
|
I wouldn't say everyone. But it's easy to understand why in my book. Most people coming in now are used to other RTS with so called "modern" structure. Things like MBS, mass selection, automining, pathing that is intuitive, etc. When you come from sc2 to BW you go from feeling like you can at least play the game to feeling like it's hopeless to even do the basics of what you want.
This has been the experience for all the friends I have that have played other games first and come to BW. They just dislike the fact that they don't feel like they can 'play' the game at all. This wasn't such an issue in the early 2000s because there weren't "modern" expectations about how a game should work that players would get used to.
None of them are willing to put in the time, which could easily be 50-100hrs or more of work to be able to macro half decently and do some basic army control, to try and appreciate the game.
In the case of more experienced people, the problem is usually more just "it sucks just dying to shit and not evening knowing wtf happened". Interesting, this is why I never got much into sc2. Didn't like that I couldn't just macroll 50apm guys anymore combined with dying to random things for reasons I could not understand. Didn't feel enough desire to ever play past that.
On December 21 2015 10:50 KalWarkov wrote: good foreigners dont even play BW anymore, and yet, ppl are such elitists with their ranks
The good foreigners today are better than the good foreigners from 2009.
|
On December 20 2015 06:56 B-royal wrote: Really? I think it's just a matter of listening to the wrong people then. There's been plenty of EXCELLENT advice regarding Sc2 such as Lalush' depth of micro or some of the economy analysis threads..
Let me put it this way.
80% of your paying customers asks for item A 10% asks for item B 5% asks for item C 30 random guys in a Broodwar website asks for item D Lalush asks for item E
Which one would the CEO listen to?
|
Korea (South)11558 Posts
no one, and say that item G is better than anyone can hope for, and that it's in development while you release item F
|
On December 19 2015 12:54 B-royal wrote: Have 10 people:
9 out of 10 are mediocre players and win 50% against each other. One player (X) is just a mess and loses 100% of his games.
Now you have 9 players (>51% of the population) with higher than 51 win percentage, which can get higher and higher the more they play mister X.
edit: Purely from intuition, this does seem very much possible. Maybe someone can bring some math in here and prove it haha.
As someone studying to become a math teacher, this is basically 90% of a proof.
If a statement is "x is impossible/always true", the only thing you need to disprove this statement is a counterexample. Because if it isn't true in one single case, it is obviously not always true.
You could make the statement more exact, and formulate your example out a bit more, but basically you have done what needs to be done to disprove that ridiculous statement.
|
On December 21 2015 10:50 KalWarkov wrote: good foreigners dont even play BW anymore, and yet, ppl are such elitists with their ranks the foreigner scene is stronger skillwise than it has ever been, i don't know what "good" foreigners you're referring to but there are american and EU zergs with 350+ apm in B/A on fish.....
|
There's no American players like that, and I can only think of Trutacz reaching B. I haven't heard of any foreigner reaching A on Fish. Overall play is better now, but not the top tier of players.
|
On December 21 2015 17:51 CaucasianAsian wrote: no one, and say that item G is better than anyone can hope for, and that it's in development while you release item F
You have not worked in corporate is what I can see from your post.
|
|
|
|