|
Charles Bukowski posted:Everyone is bronze, despite what the game tells you. I surprised myself by placing Silver 1 in team league, and I have no reason to believe that this isn't where I belong and may honestly be a bit high all things considered.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 06:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
Kai Tave posted:I think it's real weird personally how everyone always divides the playerbase between "oh these players are super godlike and so far away from reality that it can never be comparable to anyone" and "everybody else," like people are just born with inherent Grandmaster Video Game Genes or something. If you want to climb fast, I dunno, get way better? It seems pretty obvious but a bunch of people seem to think it's this impossible hurdle (except for all the high ranked players for some inexplicable reason). This is just silly. Here's the current ranking distribution targets straight from a Blizzard employee: quote:Bronze: 7% So, realistically, the only way for people plat and below to get master/GM is for pretty much everyone above them to quit, not for them to just "get way better," because the algorithms are aiming for putting 92% of all players in plat and below. There is no such thing as just getting way better quickly. It's a slow, gradual process. Also, since the placement algorithms are (usually not placing people +/- 4 leagues above/below where they should be placed, the differences between the skill level of the avg player complaining about ELO hell and where they should be placed are going to be significantly smaller than the skill gap between of all these moronic bronze-to-GM "elo hell isn't real, guys" challeges and the poor saps they're getting matched with (which are probably also making even more people at those low ranks bitch about bad matchmaking).
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 06:56
|
|
|
In my experience there isn't much skill gap between like Silver-Gold-Plat and maybe Diamond. Master seems like the real jump. So climbing is a lovely slog unless you're actually a Grand Master that can carry a load of schlub-lords.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 07:48
|
|
|
If the number makes you this angry, just... don't play ranked. Do 10 games of TL a season for the mount du jour and play UD or QP. ~free your mind~
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 12:17
|
|
|
An important skill for hl is being positive and thus reducing the amount of times you lose due to internal conflict. Just simple stuff like using smilies, asking people to take it easy, maybe tell a joke or an amusing anecdote. Then if you wanna be a master, you can actually lead the team, call shots, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 12:27
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:If the number makes you this angry, just... don't play ranked. The number makes me significantly less angry than people trying to claim that bronze-to-GM challenges are anything other than an excuse to gently caress up the game experience for all the other people they get matchmade with. It's an "experiment" to disprove elo hell that in no way, shape, or form proves anything, other than "wow, those bronze people were not good enough to deal with an opponent who punishes every mistake they make."
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 14:39
|
|
|
I do think there is a difference between "I am a master player stuck in bronze due to elo hell" and "I used to be bad, but then I started learning how to get better, now I know how the game should be played and have a 55% win rate, but the grind makes me want to kill myself because I am still stuck playing with people who don't know how to play the game and hearding cats is super stressful." Sometimes the answer is to just avoid competitive mode, like 99% of the playerbase does. Did anyone else see the reddit post about hots having 6.5m active accounts, ie, 2/3 of DOTA? I'm guessing most of those are QM/AI games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Erdricks posted:Sometimes the answer is to just avoid competitive mode, like 99% of the playerbase does. Did anyone else see the reddit post about hots having 6.5m active accounts, ie, 2/3 of DOTA? I'm guessing most of those are QM/AI games. 45% QM 30% HL 15% UD 10% TL
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 15:08
|
|
|
Erdricks posted:I do think there is a difference between "I am a master player stuck in bronze due to elo hell" and "I used to be bad, but then I started learning how to get better, now I know how the game should be played and have a 55% win rate, but the grind makes me want to kill myself because I am still stuck playing with people who don't know how to play the game and hearding cats is super stressful." Yeah I would say the biggest problem is ranking up takes too long. Even a 60% win rate means you need to play 125 games to go up one league. 55% win rate means 250 games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 15:13
|
|
|
Give me a GM to Bronze challenge instead with a low bronze player given a GM account who's trying his absolute hardest
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 17:31
|
|
|
bamhand posted:Yeah I would say the biggest problem is ranking up takes too long. Even a 60% win rate means you need to play 125 games to go up one league. 55% win rate means 250 games. It's true, but if they changed this, you could lucky winstreak your way to grandmaster. Orthodox Rabbit posted:Give me a GM to Bronze challenge instead with a low bronze player given a GM account who's trying his absolute hardest Hanjo one trick.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 17:32
|
|
|
pyromance posted:Except a GM in bronze just proves that a GM should not be in bronze. No loving poo poo? It does nothing to show what a silver player in bronze would be capable of doing, or even a gold, in the same situation. This seems to be assuming there is a massive, or at least noticeable, difference in skill between Bronze and Silver (or Gold.)
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 17:39
|
|
|
Orthodox Rabbit posted:Give me a GM to Bronze challenge instead with a low bronze player given a GM account who's trying his absolute hardest It's not fun for anyone when it happens. bamhand posted:Yeah I would say the biggest problem is ranking up takes too long. Even a 60% win rate means you need to play 125 games to go up one league. 55% win rate means 250 games.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 17:42
|
|
|
pyromance posted:Except it doesn't prove that? You can be better than the people you're matched with but not good enough to carry an entire team to victory. Yes, a person who is better than where they're placed will eventually get out of there over time, but the speed at which it happens is slow enough that it can get frustrating for people. The question of ELO hell is whether or not you should have to be way better than who you're getting matchmade with to rise in ranks. If you're even (consistently) slightly better than the other players at your level, you will hit at least 51% winrate and climb no matter what. This whole elo hell bullshit mentality exists in every single moba and it's never true.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:25
|
|
|
Eraflure posted:If you're even (consistently) slightly better than the other players at your level, you will hit at least 51% winrate and climb no matter what. This whole elo hell bullshit mentality exists in every single moba and it's never true. A 51% win rate would let you rank up in +120 hours of play time. You would essentially be stuck unless you're playing HotS like a full time job.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:36
|
|
|
bamhand posted:A 51% win rate would let you rank up in +120 hours of play time. You would essentially be stuck unless you're playing HotS like a full time job. That seems about right for losing half the games you play though?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:40
|
|
|
Winning 45 to 55% of your games, what a failure of matchmaking.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:42
|
|
|
Well he was arguing that you would rise out of your "elo hell" but you really wouldn't. A 60% win rate would require +12 hours to rank up. Which is kinda long imo. I doubt most people can get that kind of win rate unless they're mismatched by 2+ leagues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:44
|
|
|
You wouldn't really be stuck, you'd rise very slowly, as you should, because you lose half the time you play. Also, 12 hours isn't long. If you played 1 hour per day, that would be less than two weeks to rank up. And if they can only really manage to play that infrequently, I am not sure why they would be that concerned about HL rankings in the first place. Crying about Elo Hell and then playing only a few hours a week is hilariously stupid entitled bs.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 19:50
|
|
|
No Wave posted:Winning 45 to 55% of your games, what a failure of matchmaking. Just because it evens out at 50% doesn't mean they were good games. The goal of MMR and ranked play is to have good games, but you can be a gold player in bronze games, but incapable of carrying, where the level of play is just not where you want it. People who complain about MMR hell who are where they deserve to be are one thing, but sometimes you get hosed in your placement matches and it sucks to climb out so slow. This is the first season I've done ranked, and it had me start out at silver 4 and I climbed to gold 3 and the quality of games was so noticeably improved. Im really happy with the types of games i get now and dont feel a nee to climb as much. It doesn't feel bad to lose when you feel like everyone is at a similar skill level.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:00
|
|
|
quote:Also, 12 hours isn't long. If you played 1 hour per day, that would be less than two weeks to rank up. And if they can only really manage to play that infrequently, I am not sure why they would be that concerned about HL rankings in the first place. Crying about Elo Hell and then playing only a few hours a week is hilariously stupid entitled bs. So only people who play the game as a job should be placed correctly in HL? 7 hours a week isn't really an insignificant amount of time to devote to a hobby tbh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:01
|
|
|
I went from plat to master in SC2 playing a couple hours a week over a year with probably a 55% win rate. This would take 360 hours in HotS.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:05
|
|
|
bamhand posted:I went from plat to master in SC2 playing a couple hours a week over a year with probably a 55% win rate. This would take 360 hours in HotS. So, a couple of hours a week over a year?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:09
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:So, a couple of hours a week over a year? Check your math friend.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:10
|
|
|
Hm I wonder how the 1v1 SC2 matchmaker can be more confident about your skill level than hots.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:11
|
|
|
pyromance posted:So only people who play the game as a job should be placed correctly in HL? Why are you so convinced your placement is incorrect?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:18
|
|
|
Dietrich posted:So, a couple of hours a week over a year? 360 hours is an hour a day. I define couple as 2-3. No Wave posted:Hm I wonder how the 1v1 SC2 matchmaker can be more confident about your skill level than hots. I don't know how other mobas do it but having 5 ranks per league and then 5 wins per rank ends up being a ton of games needed to move up. Plus your actual MMR and your league is only loosely correlated. I get the feeling that if your skill suddenly went up or down (say you got coaching or suffered brain damage) your league wouldn't really reflect your new skill until you played a really, really large amount of matches. I'm not sure why the game just doesn't display MMR or at the very least create fewer divisions between leagues.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:23
|
|
|
pyromance posted:So only people who play the game as a job should be placed correctly in HL? 7 hours a week isn't really an insignificant amount of time to devote to a hobby tbh. Kyrosiris posted:Why are you so convinced your placement is incorrect? If 7 hours a week is too much time to devote to playing a game of skill, then maybe you shouldn't be concerned with your ranking and just enjoy the time that you have. Again, it seems pretty entitled to say "I literally can't AFFORD to play this game much, but I DESERVE high placement in its ranking system." And as a more direct answer to your question, yes, people who play more will provide more data to the system and would likely get a more accurate rating. This is a fine way for a system to work. The idea that the system should just hand out high ranks to people because they are big babies who think they deserve it despite admitting they don't actually have time to even play the game is ridiculous. HL is literally there for people who want to take the game seriously, not for people who can barely play to feel better about themselves. I almost never play HotS, so I avoid HL. I would love to be able to have the time and energy to play HotS enough to see where I rank, but right now I don't . And if I forced placements on myself, I wouldn't sit here and cry when I inevitably end up in the lowest leagues. Because I barely play the game.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:25
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:If 7 hours a week is too much time to devote to playing a game of skill, then maybe you shouldn't be concerned with your ranking and just enjoy the time that you have. Again, it seems pretty entitled to say "I literally can't AFFORD to play this game much, but I DESERVE high placement in its ranking system." I'm plat in TL and silver in HL. I stopped playing HL because I was sick of getting placed with idiots and didn't feel like slogging through hundreds of hours to get a similar experience as TL. Not sure why that's a controversial opinion to have. You seem to be of the opinion "gently caress you, got mine" except you don't even have anything. I really don't see what the downside of a system that more quickly gets you to the right skill level is. I mean obviously it may be hard to implement but I don't see what's wrong about working toward that goal instead of accepting the status quo. As people have mentioned Blizzard tried performance based match making to try and help with the issue so they don't like the current system either. bamhand fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:29
|
|
|
Hots posted a new interview to Facebook. I can’t listen now someone sum it up tia.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:31
|
|
|
bamhand posted:I'm plat in TL and silver in HL. I stopped playing HL because I was sick of getting placed with idiots and didn't feel like slogging through hundreds of hours to get a similar experience as TL. Not sure why that's a controversial opinion to have. The game shouldn't fragment the game modes into different MMR. If you've got a 50% winrate at 2400 MMR in QM, there's no reason to match you with 1700 MMR players while in HL or UD. They just need to kill the stupid tier system per game type and display a single MMR number for each player.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:35
|
|
|
bamhand posted:I'm plat in TL and silver in HL. I stopped playing HL because I was sick of getting placed with idiots and didn't feel like slogging through hundreds of hours to get a similar experience as TL. Not sure why that's a controversial opinion to have. I don't think there is anything controversial about the idea that people playing as a group will do better and have more fun than 5 randos who think everyone else on the team is beneath them. But that is part of the problem of HL isn't it? Everyone seems to think they are better than they are, and is shocked when teamwork falls apart because no one respects each other. If even half the HL players didn't play the game as if they had to suffer the indignity of playing with lower class plebs on their way to GM, perhaps HL would be less of a slog for everyone. This isn't to say that truly "awful" players don't exist. Blizzard has admitted as much, and thankfully, they are looking into ways to lessen the impact on having leavers and afkers, etc on a team.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:38
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:Why are you so convinced your placement is incorrect? ToastyPotato posted:If 7 hours a week is too much time to devote to playing a game of skill, then maybe you shouldn't be concerned with your ranking and just enjoy the time that you have. Again, it seems pretty entitled to say "I literally can't AFFORD to play this game much, but I DESERVE high placement in its ranking system." I'm just trying to get a bead for what the hell you two think is a reasonable amount of time for someone to get placed correctly for good matches in a hobby. I also love that I'm now "entitled" for realizing that their system has virtually no mobility and that expecting someone to maintain a 60% winrate for an unreasonable amount of time to advance doesn't encourage people to stick with the game long term, which just exacerbates the problem of poor match quality.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:40
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I don't think there is anything controversial about the idea that people playing as a group will do better and have more fun than 5 randos who think everyone else on the team is beneath them. But that is part of the problem of HL isn't it? Everyone seems to think they are better than they are, and is shocked when teamwork falls apart because no one respects each other. If even half the HL players didn't play the game as if they had to suffer the indignity of playing with lower class plebs on their way to GM, perhaps HL would be less of a slog for everyone. Shouldn't this apply to both teams though? It's not like TL has me in a plat team vs a silver HL team or vice versa. If teams overall play worse in HL than TL then that should apply to both teams, a person shouldn't suddenly be down 2 leagues when switching from one mode to the other.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:45
|
|
|
Likee many players I use my crap characters in UD and my good characters in TL. Please keep the MMRs separate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:51
|
|
|
pyromance posted:I'm just trying to get a bead for what the hell you two think is a reasonable amount of time for someone to get placed correctly for good matches in a hobby. Not for epeen, but to calculate the odds of your outcome or a more extreme outcome given a true 50% winrate. No Wave fucked around with this message at 20:57 on Apr 30, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:52
|
|
|
bamhand posted:Shouldn't this apply to both teams though? It's not like TL has me in a plat team vs a silver HL team or vice versa. If teams overall play worse in HL than TL then that should apply to both teams, a person shouldn't suddenly be down 2 leagues when switching from one mode to the other. Doesn't TL allow for all kinds of weird mismatched team ups? Like, can't GMs team up with silver and gold players? Also isn't the playerbase on TL so low that you get crazy mismatches in skill on opposing teams sometimes? TL seems like a horrible way to measure skill level due to the low population. As for the HL both teams thing, isn't most of the playerbase below diamond? I would think that is a likely reason. I don't think it is a coincidence that gold is the largest league. pyromance posted:I'm just trying to get a bead for what the hell you two think is a reasonable amount of time for someone to get placed correctly for good matches in a hobby. It is entitlement because you are basically demanding that Blizzard squash the rankings and basically just make everyone in Silver, jump to Gold or Plat, for no other reason than to feel better. And that is precisely what you are asking because if they significantly lowered the number of games to proceed, it wouldn't effect just you. All those people you hate playing with? They would be playing under the same new system, and now you will be complaining about Plat or Diamond Elo Hell. And people already do. I think I have seen people call every league under Masters Elo/MMR Hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 20:54
|
|
|
The other issue that no one ever seems to answer is: what is "correct" in the context of a nebulous and subjective system like the HL ranking system?
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 21:05
|
|
|
Kyrosiris posted:The other issue that no one ever seems to answer is: what is "correct" in the context of a nebulous and subjective system like the HL ranking system? That's the big issue. Until we know what the actual difference in skill level is between the leagues, it is kind of silly to believe you belong in Gold, not Silver, or Plat, not Gold. The separation might be slight enough that perhaps that is why people are getting "stuck" there. In which case, Blizzard COULD change the rank definitions, but that is only going to A: upset people who think they should have been adjusted higher and B: end up right back where we started with people's new ranks becoming the new hell.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 21:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 16:03 |
|
|
the only real ranking system is how often you get upvotes from your teammates at the end of a match which makes me an easy platinum for sure, maybe even diamond. i got like a 75% win rate in upvotes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2018 21:34
|
|
