Leagues != Skill?

[tagg1080]

The leagues seem to be very loose, in that not all silvers can beat all bronze, and not all diamond(yes, you snobby, snooty, smug bastards), are actually better than gold/plats.

I have found that gold/plat/low diamond seems to be extremely close.



Not going into details, but I am an avid martial artist, and one of the concepts and arguements that arises in that field is that a black belt can beat a brown belt, no matter what, all the time, without effort.

This is NOT how is it with the sc2 leagues.



1. Do you guys think the leagues should be very different levels of skill? ie. every plat CAN beat EVERY gold, and every diamond can beat EVERY plat, etc...
2. Do you think the current system could be improved? if so then how?
3. Do you like the current system and think it needs tweaks?


Just wanted to get some general chit-chat going around the actual mechanics and the ideas behind the league system itself, as it is a huge part of sc2.



I honestly think the leages need to be a little more seperated, but I am not 100% sure how that could be done.

 

[PurplePoot]

That's because your MMR is only your estimate of skill and not your actual skill. However, someone who has say over 500 games in diamond will probably on average beat someone who has say over 500 games in plat. Note that the "on average" is important: individual games can have weird things happen.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Also do not forget the strange distribution of skill. Most people are probably situated in the middle as far as skill goes.

 

[tagg1080]

Also do not forget the strange distribution of skill. Most people are probably situated in the middle as far as skill goes.

Having the population spread being:
2% 18% 20% 20% 20% 20% is probably not accurate at all, heh
(master, diam, plat, gold, silv, bronz)

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Also do not forget the strange distribution of skill. Most people are probably situated in the middle as far as skill goes.

I also bothered to read once the TL 'theories' of MMR formation. But then I was like, heyy did you know that what good players do is they play, they win, they go up. They don't care what equation stands behind or if there is a bug in the system or not. Skill>bug, ∞

 

[Dr Super Good]

Most people who play SC2 regually will be at the same skill level thus why 3 leagues can beat each other some times. The people at the far top will be almost undefeated against middle skilled people while the people at the bottom (bronze) will generally lose all the time however they will never play for that reason so their results are meaningless.

Leagues must be based on player number, as such they do not give evidence of skill expect the very top league where the numbers are greatly reduced.

 

[tagg1080]

Most people who play SC2 regually will be at the same skill level thus why 3 leagues can beat each other some times. The people at the far top will be almost undefeated against middle skilled people while the people at the bottom (bronze) will generally lose all the time however they will never play for that reason so their results are meaningless.

Leagues must be based on player number, as such they do not give evidence of skill expect the very top league where the numbers are greatly reduced.

Then why have so many leagues if they really are not different?

I range from beating diamonds to losing to silvers. That is just insane.


That just seems wrong to me.

 

[Dr Super Good]

Wrong maybe, but it gives people a feeling of more achievement than just being in "middle league" like a million other people.

 

[tagg1080]

Wrong maybe, but it gives people a feeling of more achievement than just being in "middle league" like a million other people.

So now this "competative" game has turned into a "I feel good about myself" kind of thing?

That is just wonderful


What about systems like the chess ratings kind of systems, those points? You gain more by closer opponents, etc, I don't remember what it was called.

That seems to be a little more accurate, no?



If you play a game like sc2, and know that there are as many people as there are, you should know that you are going to have to be #600,000th in the world. Common sense people...

 

[RegisteredID]

well, indirectly.. yes. but not absolute. Going up the ranks means u have been winning quite alot of games. Thus they rank you up. Of course u can say it is possible to say that the player plays with noobs etc etc, but then after that if u lose consecutive games they drop your rank.... so in conclusion... yea.. it kinda shows your skills.

Fyi, cheesing takes skills

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

... yea.. it kinda shows your skills.

Agree with you here.

Fyi, cheesing takes skills

And here. If you're stuck in the same league for too long and I dont mean Diamond, then you are bad. Im talking about people with 500-500 gold, 300-300 gold, 300-300 platinum, etc.. Yes you improve with the games but unless you start matching Diamonds and just match lower, well then you are not Diamond and not better than someone that's in Diamond in say under 100 wins/losses.

One obviously newb called me cheese cause I MMed him in the 9th minute. Another called me cheese after he firstly tried to pylon and gate on XNC map inside my base (what is this called, meat?), then he whines I cheesed him when owned him with MM ROFL.

And unfortunately SC2 Ladder means 'I will abuse, you will abuse but my abuse bigger than your abuse so gg'. Either way even that requires proper skill. And SC2 is open for lower skilled to win vs higher... In war3 it was impossible to lose from lower skilled due to shit or it happened very rarely. Yes SC2 has this very bad side, I saw some BW players complaint too in TL. Didnt Blizzard say once this game will be newb friendly? Well it is..

But again, why did I allow to lose from someone low? Why am I playing vs such? Obviously my fault. It's also part of your skill. Just dont be nice in BNet abuse as much as you can, cause they do it all the time.

 

[tagg1080]

No offense, but I fail to see how abuse or cheese has anything to do with the subject...



RegisteredID: This whole "you must win to go up" thing, is somewhat nonsense, considering the way that the system is currently set up.

I just auto-gg'd all of my placements, and started in bronze.

I was well over a 3:1 win ratio before I was moved to silver.

I was well over a 2:1 win ration before I was moved to gold.


Now that I am in gold, my games range from Silver to Diamond opponents. I win about 50/50 of the games, but the league of the other person has NO effect what soever on if I win or not. I have beaten diamonds like nothing and then had a silver rolf-pwn-stomp me.


I don't understand why the leagues have to be so meaningless, except for the tip top and very bottom.

 

[PurplePoot]

Leagues aren't meaningless. Diamond players are on average better than platinum players, who are on average better than gold players and so on and so forth. Yes, there are good silver players and bad diamond players, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Also, cheesing/all in takes some skill but nowhere near as much as playing straight up. There are plenty of players who are ranked higher than me because they 4gate every game and lots of players are bad against it, but if they were to get matched up exclusively against me they would lose almost every game.

 

[tagg1080]

Leagues aren't meaningless. Diamond players are on average better than platinum players, who are on average better than gold players and so on and so forth. Yes, there are good silver players and bad diamond players, but they are the exception rather than the rule.

Just curious, how would you know what the skill levels are of those in the lower levels?

To be honest, I don't think you have played a lot of games in the silver/gold/plat leagues, so how do you know the skill differences?

 

[RegisteredID]

lol none taken. Cause abuse/cheese if done successfully wins you a game which will affect the ranks.

Like what imtor said, about all the weaker player winning stronger players. Ranks are just a classification on the average strength ( by calcuating win/lose ratio or by consecutive wins, i am not sure but maybe someone that knows could clarify with me? ). Basically, it's an estimate.

I don't understand why the leagues have to be so meaningless, except for the tip top and very bottom.

I guess it's to show which percentile you are in? it would be more interesting to move up the ranks from copper.. bronze.. etc etc.. masters... rather than.. noob to pro.

 

[MGCǂSpectre]

Even your win:loss ratio my not be determining. If you're platinum and you match Diamonds like half of the time and you win 50% of them and say lose the other 50%, you will still get promoted and you would be like 50% or even have some more losses. It's the MMR that is said to be a hidden determining thing that I also cant explain how it works.

Basically if you beat Diamonds early, you get such opponents, if you match them almost never and you still get gold/plat opponents that's not good. You may end up like hundreds of games and no move. Heck, I've played vs 700-700 Gold, 900-900 Platinum I still beat them and that's more SC2 games than I've made.. Mb some war3 skill helps me too and they started from Bronze? Well you don't wanna end up like that.

Say you have some stats like 15 wins more and you still match gold/plat. But you win lose win lose win lose stay like that - that's gotta change or the same thing will happen for hundreds of games. You gotta go out of these 15 wins more and say have 20 wins more where you start matching Diamonds and when you win/lose win/lose to Diam rather than win/lose win/lose to gold/plat at 15 wins, it would act the same way as in paragraph 1 that is you could get promoted /that's how promotion to Diamond works I think/