SCLegacy SC2Ranks Division Discussion

[Genopath]

Damn, top3 is all EU. Sweeeet!

Different story for 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 random. Lucky I don't do 1v1 much these days .

[Hammy]

Different story for 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 random. Lucky I don't do 1v1 much these days .

Never heard of them.

[Genopath]

Never heard of them.

All you have to do is change the bracket from 1v1 to something else.

[Zabimaru]

Different story for 2v2, 3v3 and 4v4 random.

I don’t think team games are an accurate representation of skill. But I’m 2nd place in 3v3, ohh yeah. XD

[Todie]

cool. me & peanut have a good win% in 2v2 ... but its harder to compare these ratings in a good way, i mean, you cant really spend your bonus points for 1v1 AND 2v2 .... i wish they'd slow down the rate of bonus gain, in team at least..

[Genopath]

I don’t think team games are an accurate representation of skill. But I’m 2nd place in 3v3, ohh yeah. XD

It's a different type of skill. It's called teamwork. I could say in some way it could be slightly "inferior" with regards to general RTS skill. Some strats that are good in 2v2 don't translate to 1v1 but the same thing can be said on the opposite.

[Hammy]

I hate to derail the thread any further, but it's hardly a "different" type of skill.

The metagame is altered (in the same way ZvP's metagame is different from ZvZ's metagame), but the general strategy guidelines and the importance of solid mechanics are still the same.

The main difference is that you need to syncronize your attacks and strategies with your allies, but that's hardly a "skill". The true skill is knowing how to cope with dumb allies, which is completely random, hence non-representative of skill.

Imo switching from 1v1 to 2v2 is comparable to changing matchups or races, and 1)changing races doesn't exactly require different "skills", 2)team games are much more random and less balanced, which makes it harder to establish a representative ranking system.

[TheEconomist]

Team games are much more about not having shitty allies and not getting cheesed. They are no indication of skill, compared to 1v1. An example of this would be the fact that I can 1v1 2000+ score Diamond players no problem but I have hard time with mid-Gold players in 2v2 because I seem to keep getting matched with the worst noobs on battle.net. I just played a game where my ally 14 hatched even though I had already scouted two 10ping Zergs. I said, "Cancel that hatch!" and he said "No, watch this. Roaches FTW"

He died.

Then I died.

Stupid shit like kept happening all morning so I decided to stop being a wuss and just get back into 1s despite my rustiness. I hope the match maker finds out I'm too low and adjusts me quickly.

Which brings me to my next point, speaking of indicators of skill, score doesn't mean anything either. I haven't 1v1'd in 3.5 months but I just hopped on today and now I'm beating 2000-2300 score opponents. Won about six games straight against them. That should not be happening considering I felt like a bumbling fool fish out of water through out the mid-game. I'm no where near where I used to be. I know the hidden rank adjusts quickly and they were probably having a bad day, but, wtf. The meaning of your score seems to have been ruined since the beta days, as far as I can tell. People (not aimed at anyone particular, as I haven't read many of the posts here) should stop using score as an indicator of skill.

/pointlessrant

[JackhammerIV]

2v2 with randoms....sucks. Really badly. More a place to screw around. Only gets more serious if you have a partner to 2v2 with which I don't.:P

[Todie]

I haven't 1v1'd in 3.5 months

but you have played and apparently improved. for the very reason that you havnt played 1v1 ladder, your MMR nor your rating+bonus reflects your current skill. playing some more games will either give you a losing streak & prove you right in the assumption these guys were having a bad day, or improve your rating and sum of rating+bonus to properly reflect your superiority over these 2000-2300 opponents (actually, your sum of rating+bonus is already at 2175 so you aught to have been favoured against several of the players you referred to (higher MMR and lower point gain per win even though you may not have viewed as favoured, like 11+11 bonus on that game on sands))

I find this makes some sort of sense, becasue as you have been inactive, the system cant know if you have improved or went rusty; had you not improved or "gotten worse" you would have lost plenty more and had your rating+bonus sum reduce with MMR 'till you got back in shape or settled at a new MMR balance... no kind of matchmaking system can guesstimate the standing of inactive players compared to those that stay active, so the system we have is jsut about as good as any.

People should stop using score as an indicator of skill.

its the one indicator we've got to compare relatively active players. everyone knows t had flaws, but still, we're gonna use it.

personally i dont view it as very flawed at all; sure rating, isnt a good tell on someone who's not playing reasonably actively, even adjusted with unspent bonus points. (for example, Zabimaru keeps beating me but she doesnt play enough ladder for it to show even in sum of rating+bonus) However, among those that are "playing enough", i cant remember a single time ive looked at someone who's got a higher rating and felt confident in my ability to beat them.. maybe my mind is weak but i have a hard time believing thats all psychology.


as for team games, any potential for true competitive thrill in playing random team is counteracted by the big random factor in gameplay-coordination with the random allied compared to the opposing coordination; these factors are quite unrelated to other gameplay qualities.

arranged team with voice however, can be kind of cool. (after getting into a decent flow with this i got so hooked on it that ive become hesitant to play team without voice at all) ... Never confused RT with AT!