SCLegacy SC2Ranks Division Discussion

[TheEconomist]

Let me put my statement into context: I've had some terribad teammates who would blame me for the loss. When I explain that its not my fault, they'll pull the "I'm a rank [insert bullshit number]". Because my score was only 792 because of drops during patch v1.1, they'll always assume I'm terrible. Its annoying and I've always got to explain that I've been inactive but they never believe me.

In a semi-ladder system like this topic contains, score is the best we've got, like you said. I meant this in terms of Battle.net hence why I said this wasn't aimed at one in this topic.

As for AT, a 2v2 partner I had during beta gave me some of the best games I've had to date. 2v2 can be even more exciting than one-on-one if done correctly. Sadly, I can't find anyone close enough to my skill level that would want to regularly play. In order to get up our level, we'd need 15-20 games. I can never get that

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

Its beyond suckage. I almost never get angry in a match but these 2s have been quite annoying, mostly because it seems I'm trapped with terribad allies for a few dozen games and I don't want to suffer through that

-- Also, I don't really think I got any better in 1s. I think scores have just gotten a whole lot more inflated than they used to be. A 1000 3 months ago is about the same skill as 2000 as far as I can tell.

[Todie]

-- Also, I don't really think I got any better in 1s. I think scores have just gotten a whole lot more inflated than they used to be. A 1000 3 months ago is about the same skill as 2000 as far as I can tell.

just stop looking at rating alone and start looking at rating + bonuspool

... ok, you didnt get better, but if your rating was low before due to disconnects then there you have it; you are lower than you would have been without those disconnects, so its kind of obvious you'll be getting some easy wins.

[TheEconomist]

I only lost ~150 points due to drops

Also, can you see someone's bonus pool?

[Genopath]

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.

Here I fully disagree and I believe that's the opinion of many around TL (if you value their opinion on this matter). That is of course if you are referring to strategic guildelines. I'll give you a quick example. A cheese strategy which is dominated in 1v1 can't be said the same for 2v2. If you aren't sharing bases and you get cheese attacked you are playing 2v1 and some cases it isn't just a viable strat it could be the best-response strategy. You could argue it has the same micro and macro elements but not the same strategic guidelines.

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.

I didn't say that was a different skill. It's a different gameplay that requires considerations as I mentioned above. You are correct coping with dumb allies isn't representative of skill but that not what I'm arguing.

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.

Again, you are soley referring to "skills". Even so I think there will be many people disagreeing here with you. Micro and macro, the biggest two elements of skill in an RTS game are required to play all 3 races. However some races are more macro or micro intense than others. Zerg for one is a much more macro-oriented race to give an example.

[Todie]

I only lost ~150 points due to drops

i might be thinking about this the wrong way, but i would expect you to get 10-15 semi-easy wins after the point you stoped getting disconects; essentially, enough to catch back up to the rating you'd 'a belonged at without the discs. (with concerns to skill; when matched vs an opp thats in any way "favored" it'd probably be a closer match)

Also, can you see someone's bonus pool?

yes. battlenet profile -> 1v1 ladder -> top right of the page ... (available for both web and ingame profiles)

its a bit cumbersome to check this out for everyone you want an estimate on and its ridiculously iffy that its not straightfowaradly obvious that this is the only viable way to compare rating between players with irregular activity.

... i'd like my primary profile card to view my 1v1 rating + bonuspool as two numbers rather than viewing my wtf-who-cares-noobstamp points (achievment points)

Woland: i think what Hammy is getting at is that the strategies used in team-games have the same foundations; not just mechanical micro/macro skills but actual understanding of the game and player/unit interaction; I would argue 1v1 is the best way to learn this, and if you have a decent grasp on 1v1 its not a all a huge leap to become good at 2v2 if you have a compatible ally. ofcourse there are exceptions and intricacies - possibly bigger than those in emagame differances between different racial matchups in 1v1, but in big strokes, thats it, in my humble opinion.

[TheEconomist]

Sorry, forgot to mention: I played a game here and there so I got past that hump.

... i'd like my primary profile card to view my 1v1 rating + bonuspool

I couldn't agree more. How is that they think that achievement points (which is basically "how patient are you against AI") is more important than how well you play against humans.

-- Unfortunately, it appears my not-so-random Zerg curse has come back into full swing. I've gotten Zerg 5 out of 5 times this morning Good news, though, is that I just beat two 2300~ and one ~2050 players as Zerg (my worst race). Something is up ... but I think I like it

EDIT: Because I just remembered Hammy comes to this topic, I'll post some pics. If you think this is out of place, then, good, you don't get upset over nothing.

[Gradius]

Which brings me to my next point, speaking of indicators of skill, score doesn't mean anything either.

Blizz's system is actually pretty genius. Basically, you can be #1 in your division as long as you simply play more games. Divisions are actually sorted by skill. Like you have that one division w/ HuK and a bunch of other beasts. If you're #74, it's simply because you haven't played enough games, and your ratio tends to be higher at that point since the more games you play the closer you get to 50%, giving you confidence.

[Todie]

Blizz's system is actually pretty genius. Basically, you can be #1 in your division as long as you simply play more games.

i resent that. i remember being top 10 at one point and having like top 5 within some sort of reasonable grasp, but by now, tehre are hundreds of points in disparity. i would need to improve a sick lot to beat enough good pople to get that many points.

Divisions are actually sorted by skill.

to some extent it appears so, however, keep in mind that if this is the case, it only happens that one time when these players get promoted to diamond

there are surely (and apparently) large disparities of how representative this initial placement is and how players in these divisions evolve

we can speculate that come season2 and later seasons, everyone's MRR's will be reliable enough to allow for not only near instant league placement but also far more accurate division placement..

i remain sceptical though; this system might have its merits, but the division fanciness needs to take the back-seat to straightforward convenience of comparing skill-estimates of all players; at least all players within the same league.. the way it works now is frankly embracing.

[Twilice]

Damned master league is coming soon, and there is no way I am going to find time to rank up my score... going away for about a week soon (no sc2!) . . . . since I guess I don't have enough points to join it?

[Hammy]

@Gradius: how do you figure they're ranked by skill? I don't get how there could be a ranking if there aren't even numbers, only random names... And couldn't it be that you find lots of "famous" players in the same division because they're the guys who started playing really early and won all their games? Its pretty clear that old division > new division, but that doesn't mean they are "ranked"... that's just an intrinsic property of the league system from what I can tell.

@Twilice: I doubt Master league is about points. Its probably about hidden rank, which means that if you're accumulating points and you get upgraded to master league, you're probably better off, since you'll have tons of bonus points once you get upgraded.