[nirvAnA]

The list is out and can be viewed under Leagues & Ladders > Grandmaster.

Apparently you have to play 1 match more and if you're grandmaster they will put you into this new league.
Your points will be reset to about 200+ but your stats will remain.

MASS gaming to victory!

+ Show +

The first Grandmasters of SEA.

+ Show +

My first thought - The Grandmaster icon looks way better then the masters icon.

My second thought - Wow even more hurdles for players if they want to get to the top of GM. For e.g if they ever fall out of GM and decide to start playing again, they have to wait a week to get promoted to GM(not sure about this). Then they lose all their points and have to start again climbing again from 200+. Not cool at all the "XP Decay" feels like too big of a obligation/commitment if you wanna maintain GM status.

Along with the GM list comes a new patch which is more of a bug fix than anything.

+ [Patch Notes] +

General
Fixed an issue where maps would not appear in the Single Player vs. AI screen (China only).
Fixed an issue where the Leagues & Ladders Friends page would stop displaying information if a player had more than 100 ranked friends.
Fixed a crash that would sometimes occur when players received an alert in-game while 3D portraits were turned on.

StarCraft II Editor
Fixed a crash that could occur on Editor startup if players had improperly configured variables.
Fixed an issue where the Editor would display incorrect cliff height on ramps facing directly N, S, E or W; this issue prevented proper unit vision in game.
Fixed an issue where the pathing visualizer in the Terrain Editor would sometimes display incorrect pathing.

[Xeen]

Blizzard doing its best to make laddering a full-time job.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Xeen

Blizzard doing its best to make laddering a full-time job.

100% agree. GM league will probably be accurately reflect skill for the first few weeks while everyone is laddering, but as nirvana says (or perhaps asks?), if you go inactive for two weeks and hit 180 bonus, you lose all your points and have to start from scratch. Personally, whenever I get busy at work for a few weeks, my bonus pool shoots over 180 in no time.

So as Xeen said (and nirvana alludes to) the guys up the top of GM league will be those who can afford the time to consistently ladder every week, week in and week out, non-stop, the entire season.

What is the alternative? There is a superficial attraction to displaying actual MMR rather than points (eg a proper ELO rating), but the obvious problem is that someone could have a very high rating early on in the season, then stop playing, and by the end of the season their high rating may not be justified in light of the increase in average player skill over the season. This is the problem the bonus point system (which is in reality a decay system) intends to address ("unjustified rating problem").

I actually think a decay system (read bonus point accumulation) is necessary to avoid the unjustified rating problem, but at the moment it seems to me the rate of ladder decay is too high (ie bonus pool accumulates too rapidly). Blizzard could halve the rate of decay (even if for GM league only) and still adequately address the unjustified rating problem. They already recognised this problem in arranged team games, where the bonus pool accumulating has now been considerably reduced as it was simply not possible for higher rated teams to play enough games to use up their bonus pool.

One reason why the bonus pool currently accumulates so quickly is because in a normal distribution, many people would be sitting at 0 (or theoretically negative) points. But by the time we're dealing with GMs league, I think its time for people to suck it up for the sake of accuracy.

[Roz]

Originally Posted by Tom

100% agree. GM league will probably be accurately reflect skill for the first few weeks while everyone is laddering, but as nirvana says (or perhaps asks?), if you go inactive for two weeks and hit 180 bonus, you lose all your points and have to start from scratch. Personally, whenever I get busy at work for a few weeks, my bonus pool shoots over 180 in no time.

So as Xeen said (and nirvana alludes to) the guys up the top of GM league will be those who can afford the time to consistently ladder every week, week in and week out, non-stop, the entire season.

What is the alternative? There is a superficial attraction to displaying actual MMR rather than points (eg a proper ELO rating), but the obvious problem is that someone could have a very high rating early on in the season, then stop playing, and by the end of the season their high rating may not be justified in light of the increase in average player skill over the season. This is the problem the bonus point system (which is in reality a decay system) intends to address ("unjustified rating problem").

I actually think a decay system (read bonus point accumulation) is necessary to avoid the unjustified rating problem, but at the moment it seems to me the rate of ladder decay is too high (ie bonus pool accumulates too rapidly). Blizzard could halve the rate of decay (even if for GM league only) and still adequately address the unjustified rating problem. They already recognised this problem in arranged team games, where the bonus pool accumulating has now been considerably reduced as it was simply not possible for higher rated teams to play enough games to use up their bonus pool.

One reason why the bonus pool currently accumulates so quickly is because in a normal distribution, many people would be sitting at 0 (or theoretically negative) points. But by the time we're dealing with GMs league, I think its time for people to suck it up for the sake of accuracy.

Believe it or not, most of us at the top of the ladder the past season only played around 5-10 games a week. Just spend your bonus and that's pretty much all you had to do to maintain ur rank....and when the points get higher and the distribution is closer to people's mmr, it would only require 5-10 games a week to maintain ur rank in the top 10.

The reason for this is because the SEA ladder at the top isn't very active. What you get is usually +1 to +4 points when no one else at the top is playing, that means you will lose -20 to -23 points a game if u lose. Without bonus, it's not a very effective way to gain points and hence most people just dont play lol.

[TAEdgE]

Originally Posted by Roz

Believe it or not, most of us at the top of the ladder the past season only played around 5-10 games a week. Just spend your bonus and that's pretty much all you had to do to maintain ur rank....and when the points get higher and the distribution is closer to people's mmr, it would only require 5-10 games a week to maintain ur rank in the top 10.

The reason for this is because the SEA ladder at the top isn't very active. What you get is usually +1 to +4 points when no one else at the top is playing, that means you will lose -20 to -23 points a game if u lose. Without bonus, it's not a very effective way to gain points and hence most people just dont play lol.

*cough* emphasize 5+ minute waits *cough*
80% of the people i vs on ladder are on my real ID friend list .

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Roz

Believe it or not, most of us at the top of the ladder the past season only played around 5-10 games a week. Just spend your bonus and that's pretty much all you had to do to maintain ur rank....and when the points get higher and the distribution is closer to people's mmr, it would only require 5-10 games a week to maintain ur rank in the top 10.

I'm not sure if you mean this literally, but it doesn't seem to add up. Assuming 1 to 4 points per win, that equates to 1 to 4 bonus points per win. 90 bonus points accumulate per week, which means you need to win 23 to 90 games per week to keep up with the rate of bonus pool accumulation, with a mid point of 45 wins.

Assuming you win 60% of the time, you would need to actually play just over 80 1v1s per week to keep up with your bonus pool if you are in the top 10 (using Roz's assumed average points per win).

That seems to me to be a lot of games, but I suspect the assumption of 1 to 4 points per win is a little low.

[deL]

Originally Posted by Tom

I'm not sure if you mean this literally, but it doesn't seem to add up. Assuming 1 to 4 points per win, that equates to 1 to 4 bonus points per win. 90 bonus points accumulate per week, which means you need to win 23 to 90 games per week to keep up with the rate of bonus pool accumulation, with a mid point of 45 wins.

Assuming you win 60% of the time, you would need to actually play just over 80 1v1s per week to keep up with your bonus pool if you are in the top 10 (using Roz's assumed average points per win).

That seems to me to be a lot of games, but I suspect the assumption of 1 to 4 points per win is a little low.

Maybe Roz is just referring to games in which he doesn't 4gate.

[Roz]

Originally Posted by Tom

I'm not sure if you mean this literally, but it doesn't seem to add up. Assuming 1 to 4 points per win, that equates to 1 to 4 bonus points per win. 90 bonus points accumulate per week, which means you need to win 23 to 90 games per week to keep up with the rate of bonus pool accumulation, with a mid point of 45 wins.

Assuming you win 60% of the time, you would need to actually play just over 80 1v1s per week to keep up with your bonus pool if you are in the top 10 (using Roz's assumed average points per win).

That seems to me to be a lot of games, but I suspect the assumption of 1 to 4 points per win is a little low.

What i mean is the reason we don't mass games is because of the low point gains if we do. However, like Edge said, a lotta times we just play when we see someone on our friend list search and we know they will give us decent points if we win.

[Dox]

Originally Posted by Xeen

Blizzard doing its best to make laddering a full-time job.

I don't see it that way at all. I see it as Blizzard doing it's best to give recognition to those who already treat ladder as a full-time job.

[toasti0]

that no.1 guy has 36 wins 46 loses and has a 288 points? wtf how did that happen

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by toasti0

that no.1 guy has 36 wins 46 loses and has a 288 points? wtf how did that happen

GM League resets your points, so all that matters is that he won a few upon being promoted (which is MMR based, not point based).

[Crankenstein]

Perhaps he lost/threw a whole heap of games after his placement match. You can't loose points if you are already on 0.

[SiZeMaTTeRs]

Ash is on top .. sweet

[Benji]

Hang on a second, can ash (who laughably has a <50% win rate) go 33% for the rest of the season (1 win to every 2 losses) and maintain Grand Master?

[Cosmos]

Originally Posted by Benji

Hang on a second, can ash (who laughably has a <50% win rate) go 33% for the rest of the season (1 win to every 2 losses) and maintain Grand Master?

Yeah why not? One will only drop out if he has excess unspent bonus pool.

I heard there's this saying that GM players will only gain points from fellow GM players.
e.i. Winning matches from master players won't gain points.

Significance: Only the true deserving players will remain in top 200, a GM player who has his MMR dropped to the level of masters will stop gaining points and thereby accumulating unspent bonus pool. And if that continues, he will soon be removed from the GM league.

Effective way to differentiate the players but won't this be too pressurizing on the GM players? =\

[Benji]

Originally Posted by Cosmos

Yeah why not? One will only drop out if he has excess unspent bonus pool.

I heard there's this saying that GM players will only gain points from fellow GM players.
e.i. Winning matches from master players won't gain points.

Significance: Only the true deserving players will remain in top 200, a GM player who has his MMR dropped to the level of masters will stop gaining points and thereby accumulating unspent bonus pool. And if that continues, he will soon be removed from the GM league.

Effective way to differentiate the players but won't this be too pressurizing on the GM players? =\

I don't believe the GM's only getting points from GM's for a second.

[Cosmos]

Originally Posted by Benji

I don't believe the GM's only getting points from GM's for a second.

Unlikely, I agree.

Probably like what Excalibur suggested in TL forums, it's extremely hard to gain points from non-GM players so in order to prevent bonus pool accumulation a GM player has to keep his MMR high and match against other GMs.

[Tom]

Originally Posted by Cosmos

Probably like what Excalibur suggested in TL forums, it's extremely hard to gain points from non-GM players so in order to prevent bonus pool accumulation a GM player has to keep his MMR high and match against other GMs.

Or mass game. If a player can't be demoted for any reason other than bonus pool accumulation, they just need to play enough to use up their bonus pool against weaker players. This is possible even if a win vs a weaker player only gives a handful of points - the GM just needs a lot of games vs such players. Their MMR would of course fall well below the top 200, but this is not a criteria for demotion.

This is my issue with the league - highly skilled players who don't have the time to constantly mass game (2 weeks of inactivity will see you demoted) will fall out of GM league, whereas people who play lots of games, but generally win only against relatively lower skill players, will remain.

[deL]

Originally Posted by Benji

Hang on a second, can ash (who laughably has a <50% win rate) go 33% for the rest of the season (1 win to every 2 losses) and maintain Grand Master?

Change avatar you homo.

[mGMUSE]

I'm pretty sure Blizzard knows what they are doing when it comes to ladder. As usual you have to give it a week or two for the system to stabalize like how it did with the new season.

And from what I know Benji if he began with a high MMR it's theorectically possible if he doesn't play too much. Also you can't tell that much from W/L ratio, he might have high MMR and play people like ice/glade/rev all the time so 33% against those guys will still allow him a GM spot for quite some time.

[Benji]

It should refresh every week, take the top 200 MMR's with the active requirement. That way if you go inactive (like Tom said), you'll get demoted but once you're active again (MMR permitting) you'll get promoted at the start of the next week.

[AlphaWhale]

The prettier your star, the better you are at starcraft. Makes sense.

[Starhunter]

Oh oh oh!! Pretty star!!! i got one i got one!!

[JacziE]

So many sex kittens...

[nirvAnA]

MASS gaming to victory!

[inFeZa]

this list has changed 3 times since i looked at it.

[sandyph]

moonglade is going 17-1 , nice

[jason]

Originally Posted by sandyph

moonglade is going 17-1 , nice

24-1 now. nice

[SiZeMaTTeRs]

yea .. grats Nirvana

[NDG.Stitch]

Yea you can tell who is really the best out there with the W/L ratios
i wish they left W/L in BSGPD

[nGenLight]

Originally Posted by StitchStarcraft

Yea you can tell who is really the best out there with the W/L ratios
i wish they left W/L in BSGPD

I could get an account with 200-20 into GM (lose 20 to drop to lowest of bronze, then win the next 200), doesn't make me "better" than many of the players that would have a "worser-looking record". Win percentage does give a nice indication of skill, as well as looking so damn pretty, but it has always been overrated as they don't seem to tell the overall story(like a "hot girl" in a bikini):
1) Players with absolute "sick records" generally spend less time laddering and more time "training" or "custom-gaming" which aren't recorded, this also creates a "elite" effect of how little games they seem to have played, they still appear to be freaking good.
2) There are ways that you can manipulate the system for a nice win percentage record, so that people who really care and aim for those records are going to get it.

I don't agree with Blizzard taking the W/L out of BSGPD, I really think they should have at least an option to display it to others or only to yourself. But I guess this way it motivates more BSGPD players to play, a very good marketing ploy.

Gogogo SEA GM!

[ETL.Santi]

I think people should stop playing on other servers and just play on SEA, that way our ladder would be better.

[TAEdgE]

Originally Posted by Santi

I think people should stop playing on other servers and just play on SEA, that way our ladder would be better.

Even still, our player base is still very low and for high mmr's it's very repetitive opponents and/or long waits.

[Benji]

Originally Posted by Santi

I think people should stop playing on other servers and just play on SEA, that way our ladder would be better.

Said top players would then get better slower. They need to play on NA/KR to increase their own skill level.

[Canx]

Blizzard had revived the pros in the SEA region, all who want to be the top in this new league xD

[Jabberwocky]

I like the idea of not seeing W/L for leagues under Masters as that also means you can't see your total games played. Less guilt from seeing how much time I spend on SC2

[Xeen]

At first I was just being dramatic by saying we'd have to play all the time.

Now I see that my games are going to be +4/-20 against other GMs around my rank. Let's assume I go 50% wins - that's a lot of games I need to play to continually keep bonus down. As a chore.

God forbid I do anything else and thus come back to having to clear 100 bonus at once.

Looks like it's time to all-in people.

[DuckSauce]

What's stupid is according to Blizzard's post on the GM league, they specify people will remain in the GM spot until the season ends unless their bonus pool piles up. By that rule, people could lose 100 games in a row to bring their MMR down to a Bronze level, then win a lot of games to keep their bonus pool down, while still maintaining the GM league status.
(Blizzard never mentioned there was a demotion, they only said once you're in, you stay in)

What a joke.

[Xeen]

That's far less of a joke than practically having to play 1-2 hours a day to maintain your position (never mind rank) in GM league.

[DuckSauce]

90 BP a week means 12.85 BP a day. If you won 2-3 games a day (depending on if you're favoured or not) then that's not hard to maintain. The stupid thing is once you're in, you can be vsing players from Bronze, and maintaining GM League (according to Blizzard...)

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by DuckSauce

90 BP a week means 12.85 BP a day. If you won 2-3 games a day (depending on if you're favoured or not) then that's not hard to maintain. The stupid thing is once you're in, you can be vsing players from Bronze, and maintaining GM League (according to Blizzard...)

2-3 wins, assuming you're evenly placed, is 4-6 games total. 15-20 minutes per game, that's 1-2 hours to stay even. A day.

nope

[Tom]

Originally Posted by DuckSauce

90 BP a week means 12.85 BP a day. If you won 2-3 games a day (depending on if you're favoured or not) then that's not hard to maintain. The stupid thing is once you're in, you can be vsing players from Bronze, and maintaining GM League (according to Blizzard...)

Yeah it might be 3 wins per day assuming you can play that consistently. But if you can only log on 1 or 2 days per week, suddenly it becomes 10-20 wins (20-30 1v1s, assuming a decent winrate) per day.

Unfortunately I can't play most weekdays due to work, and its not exactly my idea of fun to make that up by grinding ladder for hours on the weekend. Despite the fact that I played (literally) 5-10 times fewer 1v1 games than most players in top 200, I still managed to finish the last season in a respectable top 30 overall (and with 190 unused bonus points, so I would actually have been demoted!)

Long story short, the current rate of bonus pool accumulation does seriously disadvantage casual/time poor gamers, albeit who have MMRs that mean they consistently face (and win) against top 10 GMs on ladder.

[DuckSauce]

If you're only playing 1-2 games per week, you don't really deserve to be there then. It's a ladder which ranks users who are constantly playing, not inactive players. That still makes sense. Ladder is in a way an ongoing competition.

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by DuckSauce

If you're only playing 1-2 games per week, you don't really deserve to be there then. It's a ladder which ranks users who are constantly playing, not inactive players. That still makes sense. Ladder is in a way an ongoing competition.

And here we were thinking Grandmaster was about actually being good.

I guess we were wrong, it was all about who masses more games. You've really opened our eyes, thanks.

PS: Playing a few games a week at best is not 'inactive'. This is not supposed to be some MMO where you have to dedicate time every day.

[DuckSauce]

Originally Posted by Xeen

And here we were thinking Grandmaster was about actually being good.

I guess we were wrong, it was all about who masses more games. You've really opened our eyes, thanks.

PS: Playing a few games a week at best is not 'inactive'. This is not supposed to be some MMO where you have to dedicate time every day.

Partly true, but not entirely. The GM system is very flawed, but the way it's based is whoever is an actively good player, not a semi-active good player. It wouldn't make sense if there was two good players (1 of which played 10 games a day, 1 of which played 2 games a day) and they were both ranked evenly with different amounts of games being played.

[DuckSauce]

Just played a few games then, it only took 1 game to use 11 bonus pool.
I'm beating a bunch of GM League players, with a lot of points now gathered up, but no promotion when there's still 5 slots (bummer..)

[Azure]

grats to all those grand masters

[Xeen]

I disagree. I think someone going 6-4 should be exactly the same rank (division wise) as someone going 60-40 on the ladder, assuming they're playing people of the same level, because they are playing and performing equally against players of the same level.

[DuckSauce]

Not necassarily. Who is to say that when the user with 6-4 wins plays the same amount of games asthe 60-40 lad, he will retain that ratio? Your argument is based off someone who can potentially match another user, there was no guarantee.

[Xeen]

That is far less important than the fact he's performing at that standard against players of whatever league. Within the division, the one with 100 games would (and should) be ranked higher, which seems to be what you're arguing - but saying the one with 10 shouldn't be in the same division is ridiculous.

Remember, MMR and points are separate - MMR is not supposed to be effected by massgaming, and is what determines your division - except GM inverts this. It makes perfect sense for 6-4 and 60-40 to both be ranked GM playing the same players, because they are playing the same players. Pushing one down for bonus pool is silly.

[DuckSauce]

No it's not. The player who only has a few games isn't secured the same win ratio if he/she continues on, whereas the player with more games has played more, and has kept that ratio. Someone with more games, of the same win ratio is much more deserving than someone who could potentially meet his ratio (and for arugment sake, rise higher).

[Tom]

Originally Posted by DuckSauce

No it's not. The player who only has a few games isn't secured the same win ratio if he/she continues on, whereas the player with more games has played more, and has kept that ratio. Someone with more games, of the same win ratio is much more deserving than someone who could potentially meet his ratio (and for arugment sake, rise higher).

I am probably going to get nowhere with this, but here goes...

The problem with small sample sizes

I agree that in the example of a 60-40 player versus a 6-4 player, there is truth to what DuckSauce is saying. Results derived from a sample size of 10 could easily be an artefact, whereas a sample size of 100 allows one to be far more confident that the result is not due to sampling error (ie the more games they play at the same win%, the more confident we can be the player didn't simply fluke the results).

Carried across MMR

But I think we are across purposes in this "debate". I am not asking the system to assign me a rating based on a small handful of games. My previous season's MMR was carried across to this season, and I have played more than enough games for the system to be confident in my MMR. While it is necessary to play further games to "test" whether or not I am still "deserving" of my rating, it is not necessary to play mass games for the following reason:

Diminishing effect on confidence levels of increasing sample size

As anyone with a basic knowledge of statistics will know, once a certain sample size is reached, there is a diminishing effect on the confidence level in the results. For example, whilst a sample size of 30 might give you a confidence level of 95% +/- whatever (ie, there is a 1 in 20 chance the result is a fluke and a 19 in 20 chance the result is accurate), doubling the sample size may only increase the confidence level in the result by a couple of percentage points.

Obviously, it is necessary for a player to play more games as their relative skill may change over time. But this doesn't require many games. If the player only plays 3 or so games per week, but continues to win against high MMR players at a similar rate, we can reasonably infer the player still deserves their rating.

Level of decay should reflect number of games necessary to be confident in player's assigned rating

If the decay system is designed to test the continued accuracy of the rating it has assigned to a player (which in my view is the only reason to have a decay system), then it should be desiged to decay at a level that encourages a player to play the amount of games necessary for the system to be confident that player's rating is accurate, but not at a greater level. Anything more than that is cruel and unusual punishment.

It seems to me the present system of decay requires an unnecessary number of games to "test" whether a player still deserves their rating, and is therefore too high.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

love your posts tom

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by Tom

It seems to me the present system of decay requires an unnecessary number of games to player, and is therefore too high.

Ayup.

Players with mid/low GM MMR get incredibly low point values for wins. That forces a lot of games to even keep bonus pool down. I don't understand a GM player getting +3/+4 for another GM player, at all.

Originally Posted by DuckSauce

Someone with more games, of the same win ratio is much more deserving than someone who could potentially meet his ratio (and for arugment sake, rise higher).

Please note that all of my posts mention 'playing players of the same level' - ie: this is their score within GM league. Both example players have already achieved top 200 MMR by whatever means.

To carry on that point, I'm currently 4-2 in GM league (burning a total of 19 bonus points for the wins). By your reasoning, I'm not deserving of being in GM, even though I maintain wins at that level (MMR not falling), and have already reached that MMR in previous games. However, I would have to repeat those 6 games (assuming all the same) every 1.5 days to satisfy Blizzard.

There are players with 100s of games after reaching GM rank, and quite a few of them are rightfully ranked higher than me. And some are ranked below, due to much worse winrates (and falling MMR). Yet I would be the one demoted, purely due to playing less games, rather than the ones who may have lost their promotion criteria of top 200 MMR.

[Tom]

I think that's a different issue Xeen - I suspect (and please correct me if someone knows this is not the case) that players getting very few points for wins, and losing a lot of points for losses, are playing against relatively low ranked GMs. Personally, I've found my point gains/losses have been reasonable since GMs league was introduced, but I've only played against nirvana, iceiceice, roz and jazbas so far.

I conjecture that people unable to win against players with a sufficiently high MMR may indeed have difficulty remaining in GMs league. But it will not be impossible - those players may need to beat 10 low ranked GMs to get the same points as beating 1 high-ranked GM. This may indicate a different issue - that Blizzard has set the points/MMR "bar" too high for a small server like SEA.

It also suggests the distribution of MMR is extremely wide in SEA, with the MMR of say the top 20 players being far far higher than those in say the bottom 100. This is evident from the fact that if you are winning v high ranked GMs you are getting plenty of points; if you are winning against low ranking GMs, you are getting virtually nothing.

I hypothesise this issue would not be present in a large server like NA, where the MMR of the top 200 would probably be similar to the MMR of the top 20 on SEA.

[sandyph]

I notice that there is a GM named eizcaj in NA Server

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2368894/1/Eizcaj/

is this SEA's Jaczie ?

[TAriiChard]

Originally Posted by sandyph

I notice that there is a GM named eizcaj in NA Server

http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/profile/2368894/1/Eizcaj/

is this SEA's Jaczie ?

indeed it is ^^v

[sandyph]

Originally Posted by riiChard

indeed it is ^^v

nice

she should tell Kelly to show it to Artosis

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by sandyph

nice

she should tell Kelly to show it to Artosis

Given the conversion rate some people mention, Diamond in SEA is roughly equal to Grandmaster NA.

Looks legit.

[clock]

well i am either favoured(some GM, masters, even diamond) or slightly favoured(vs GM players, some are much higher in GM than me, yet still im slightly) since joining GM, and my bonus pool is at 130.

I have ladderred ALL DAY today trying desperately to stay in, and im still at 100 bonnus pool... i cant keep this up.

on another interesting note, the stress (i hope its that and im not just crap now) is causing me to play alot worse, and i am checking a players profile after a match, and even losing vs high diamond players, i do not understand why it is matching me against diamond, when it was just masters league, it was VERY rare i faced a diamond, but at the moment its quite common.

surely my MMR could not suddenly go from GM, to low low master (low enough to face diamonds, albeit favoured.)

either way, I am at a loss here of how to clear this pool and manage to keep it there, while still having a normal 9-5 job.

GM league, has... really made laddering stressful, i was a ladder fanatic, one of those ppl whoe check their points all the time and really take their rating seriously(even though its not the best way to look at ur skill level, but hey i love numbers)

I actually dont want to play sc2 lately, as this situation has really ruined things for me.

if anyone has any ideas or comments pls let me know

[DM.MCZ.Shondy]

Originally Posted by clock

well i am either favoured(some GM, masters, even diamond) or slightly favoured(vs GM players, some are much higher in GM than me, yet still im slightly) since joining GM, and my bonus pool is at 130.

I have ladderred ALL DAY today trying desperately to stay in, and im still at 100 bonnus pool... i cant keep this up.

on another interesting note, the stress (i hope its that and im not just crap now) is causing me to play alot worse, and i am checking a players profile after a match, and even losing vs high diamond players, i do not understand why it is matching me against diamond, when it was just masters league, it was VERY rare i faced a diamond, but at the moment its quite common.

surely my MMR could not suddenly go from GM, to low low master (low enough to face diamonds, albeit favoured.)

either way, I am at a loss here of how to clear this pool and manage to keep it there, while still having a normal 9-5 job.

GM league, has... really made laddering stressful, i was a ladder fanatic, one of those ppl whoe check their points all the time and really take their rating seriously(even though its not the best way to look at ur skill level, but hey i love numbers)

I actually dont want to play sc2 lately, as this situation has really ruined things for me.

if anyone has any ideas or comments pls let me know

its difficult to clear away bonus pool, thats why they drop GM away once they hit a certain amount of bonus pool stored..

So you have to stay active and most importantly(win) to clear the bonus pool else will drop drop and the seat will be replace by another person.

For idea to clear bonus pool.. i think either ask a friend play for you~
or
(not sure about this) - since you keep losing and your MMR go lower which will have you facing lower league opponents(while staying in GM) increasing your winning chance and you will start to win and also clear to bonus pool

[clock]

Originally Posted by riceballz

its difficult to clear away bonus pool, thats why they drop GM away once they hit a certain amount of bonus pool stored..

So you have to stay active and most importantly(win) to clear the bonus pool else will drop drop and the seat will be replace by another person.

For idea to clear bonus pool.. i think either ask a friend play for you~
or
(not sure about this) - since you keep losing and your MMR go lower which will have you facing lower league opponents(while staying in GM) increasing your winning chance and you will start to win and also clear to bonus pool

hehe thx for ideas man, but i think that they have a system in place where, as your MMR drops, you become more and more favoured in your games, thus trying to force you out of GM league unless u can win enouigh for your MMR to climb again, so even my MMR drops heaps as long as im still in GM league this trigger stays that means im always favoured i think.

[cruxis]

You could always not care about being in GM. Sure, it's nice, but it's not like you're going to get sponsored or invited to GSL just because you're in it.

[deL]

Originally Posted by cruxis

You could always not care about being in GM. Sure, it's nice, but it's not like you're going to get sponsored or invited to GSL just because you're in it.

Quick Comments

cruxis:

.

[cruxis]

Originally Posted by deL

I love how when I post an image reply, I get an infraction, yet when you do, it's just ignored.

Awesome moderation is awesome.

Quick Comments

TAavanar:

its because noone likes you

[Xeen]

Originally Posted by cruxis

I love how when I post an image reply, I get an infraction, yet when you do, it's just ignored.

Awesome moderation is awesome.

If you are a new member and **** up, and a previously-banned member fucks up equally, the latter will be punished harder while the first may only get a warning. Nobody disputes this, it seems logical enough.

Yet people cry when the opposite situation occurs; someone who's heavily contributed to the community gets additional leeway compared to random posters. This is not different logic.

In conclusion, lol.

[JacziE]

I'm only diamond in SEA but Grandmaster rank #1 in NA... SEA server is harder than NA I'm pro like that.

(just kidding - it's not me playing on it)

[sandyph]

Originally Posted by JacziE

I'm only diamond in SEA but Grandmaster rank #1 in NA... SEA server is harder than NA I'm pro like that.

(just kidding - it's not me playing on it)

ow ok
mind telling who's playing or is it a secret ?

[Xeen]

The amusing thing is even if you drop out of the top 200 due to 'inactivity', you'd either instantly get put back in because you still have top 200 MMR, or proceed to only play GM players anyways and dish out -23s everywhere.

Holy shit, that actually sounds awesome. It's like smurfing on your own account.

Quick Comments

nirvAnA:

hahaha

[clock]

hehe true maybe high masters is where its at now ^^

[cruxis]

Yep, awesome moderation is awesome.

[FiDeZ]

It's started! People have been dropping out of GM. There's now 4 spots available.