[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

[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..)

[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.

[jason]

Originally Posted by sandyph

moonglade is going 17-1 , nice

24-1 now. nice

[Azure]

grats to all those grand masters

[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.

[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

[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

[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.