Warcraft II Forum
Warcraft II => Server.War2.ru => Topic started by: BHC-JesK on January 05, 2015, 04:15:52 PM
-
I know it has been discussed in the past, but i want to bring this idea back.
Apart from top10 the current ladder system is pretty boring, ppl can easily jump to very high ranks within few wins vs low/mid skilled players.
imo the ICCUP ladder is far superior to the current ladder system.
its fair, rewarding (points), motivating (climb ladder/ranks) and people can find opponents in their skill lvl (ok - we don't have that many players to choose from atm...). people can see the players rank in the chat and don't have to visit a website all the time. i don't know if a integration in the ingame ladder would be possible.
Separate ladders for classic/bnet and custom maps come to my mind
More ideas? Pros, Cons?
Ranking System:
h ttp://iccup.com/starcraft/sc_rating_system.html
Map of the Week as nice gimmick:
h ttp://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft/ICCup
€: I'm not allowed to post external links
-
Good idea. One of the main flaws with the current system is the fact that there is no real penalty for losing (unless playing the guy directly below you). So in theory you could be 250-3000 and be rank 1. You just need to spam games against high ranked players and eventually you will fluke a win and move up regardless of if your better than him or not.
-
People like this come to mind (no offence to the player)
12 ilyich[as] 515 - 1352
Guys with a winrate like this should be way down the ladder not anywhere near top 10 because they fluke a win every now and then against a top 10 player.
-
iccup-style scares people from playing/losing
-
iccup-style scares people from playing/losing
only ladder hosted games could count as ladder then?
scares some, motivates others. the only kind of this elo kind ladder i seriously played was the war3 ladder and it was pretty good. you went up in levels instead of a or b ratings. for the newbies who didn't play competitively there were non ladder games and icons for wins per race to motivate them... hard to realize fancy 3d icons in w2 tho.
the only thing that makes myself take a look at the ladder is to use it as a database to check wins/loss ratios between players. i'am pretty sure that most people don't care about the current ladder ranking because its so worthless atm.
-
iccup-style scares people from playing/losing
exactly what i was thinking
-
the only reason people like me/adam/ilyich/getyatipwet/poiuyt are top 10 right now is because people are inactive or not playing 1v1s ... in theory we are actually the top 10-20 active 1v1 players right now.... its kinda pathetic but thats just the way it is lol.
-
No other ladder in any game in the world would a player be top10 with a 30% winrate, its broken.
-
Good luck with your 20 members.
-
you are absolutely right, jesk, current ladder system is garbage.
however, afro americans like blid always pretend its awesome lol
iccup-style scares people from playing/losing
that wouldnt be true if:
1. smaller point loss/gain when point difference is large
2. a slight point inflation (winner gets 110% of what loser loses, sp for example +55 for winner, -50 for loser) resulting in games being EV+
3. could implement the "map of the week/month" system promoting new and different maps with bonuses to points, making the point bonus 150% or w/e, diversity is always a good thing
the ONLY downside is: people wouldnt be willing to play smurfs, to which i respond: fuck smurfs
gg pwned eot
-
I actually have plans for another ladder system for future.
Not sure how iccup thing works, my thought are about the best possible rating system.
Something like this maybe: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
Any thoughts?
-
What is wrong with built in ladder again?
you are absolutely right, jesk, current ladder system is garbage.
however, afro americans like blid always pretend its awesome lol
iccup-style scares people from playing/losing
that wouldnt be true if:
1. smaller point loss/gain when point difference is large
2. a slight point inflation (winner gets 110% of what loser loses, sp for example +55 for winner, -50 for loser) resulting in games being EV+
3. could implement the "map of the week/month" system promoting new and different maps with bonuses to points, making the point bonus 150% or w/e, diversity is always a good thing
the ONLY downside is: people wouldnt be willing to play smurfs, to which i respond: fuck smurfs
gg pwned eot
this is basically the same thing as the built in ladder
-
not. at. all.
-
whats different?
-
whats different?
-
Good luck with your 20 members.
Good luck with your appeal in court for trying to hack an online gambling site for money because you're too retarded to play poker smart.
And good luck with your appeal when Blizzard bans you on WoW for hacking too.
-
NONONONONONONONONONONONONONO all ppl wont play it, and anyway serious u need be #1 ladder?...
We are playing FOR FUN, NOT FOR STATS or BE BEST its to late if u "want be THE BEST "u should play in 2000 not now.........
in iccup there are MANY ppl not like in w2 online 20-30 members..
ofc this system is garbage, it should be closed forever
who care me>you you>me he>he .......................................
and if u remember w3 ladder style when u had lvl +30 u need play 15? games in week if u didnt .. u lost lot of points..
-
Uhm. The built in ladder IS an Elo system. It's only slightly modified to reward playing 1000's of games rather than actual skill, but thats how elo works and thats why so many people like it, it's easier to rank up by playing terrible 20W-250L noobs in an ELO system and inch your way up 1-10 points at a time. And it sux. Cases style ladders are the best method for competitive play. Think of this, how would the NFL playoffs go if they used an "ELO" system. It would suck. But they dont, they use a similar ladder style to that of cases in that you have to beat everyone ABOVE you to move up. Example, the pats play the SIXTH seed this coming week, not the 3rd seed. Why? Because it would make no sense for the lower seed, it would prove nothing. If you want to move up, play someone better than your own skill level. Thats how Cases style ladders work as well as most tournaments (such as the NFL), they've been proven to work for war2 for years, and changing it would be utter non-sense. Just because the population is low doesnt mean you should mess with a perfect ladder methodology.
-
pretty much all the statements here r correct.
yes, our ladder iz very fucking crap. but however, i dont c how more accurant ladder would matter cause we have so small player base. now newbiez can actually compete and get something.
but finally. i dont care what ladder we have, all i care it is automated.
reporting gamez like in igl is too old fashinoed , slow , boring, too easy to cheat ( just not reporting)
wud b annoyin to find game reports 247 to show wins to admins.
whatever, new or old ladder, just keep it automated plz.
ps. what i liked in old ladder (i guess it was lances) u could see games of ppl played in different maps, like jesk vs ripe b2b total: 5-3 , alltho that doesnt matter either. 90% of time iz played olfgow, 9 % nwtr, and 1% other mapz.
ps2. im drunk
:]]]
my pointz r valid still :DDD
-
There should be some kind of a penalty for losing. Maybe demote a rank or something? That would stop these 300-1000 guys from getting high by massing games vs high ranks and fluking wins every now and then. This would make it based somewhat off skill instead of just massing games vs high ranks.
Anyone could just play all their games against top 10 guys and go 50-500 and be on top. Makes no sense.
-
There should be some kind of a penalty for losing
no dummy, that would nullify the ENTIRE point of cases ladder lol. They like it this way ;p
-
That is the point. It should be harder to KEEP a rank. Not attain it. You should be able to quickly attain AND hold a rank. Thats how proper ranking works. If it takes you 500 years to grind to the rank you "should" be at, then the ranking system is flawed. If it takes you 500 years to get to a rank you arent suppose to be at, then you shouldnt be there for very long as other better players will come along and push you out of the rank by beating you over and over and over. Thats a proper ladder system. The only downfall to such a system is that a low population will result in the bottom tier being closer to the top (which is actually SUPPOSE to happen since the skill level is dwindling, so should the power rankings).
-
BTW, Hearthstone uses cases ladder style ranking for pre-legendary ranks and it's been said that HS's ranking system outclasses all others it has created in the past. It isnt until you hit legendary that you see elo style rankings and it's not until legendary that you get complaints about it's ranking and the "Legendary grind". Its no coincidence that complaints start at the ELO point.
-
anyhoo, what about automated ladder iconz for top50? synchonized every day at midnight for example
-
I don't see the problem with losing 1 ranking everytime you lose. This WOULD make it harder to keep your rank. By beating 1 high ranked person, you move up a million ranks so losing 1 rank for losing isn't a big deal (unless you have a 30% winrate). People with 30-40% winrates shouldn't be near the top of the ladder in any circumstances, name 1 other game where this is the case. This means there is a problem.
Any average player can beat a pro probably like 20% of the time just by pure luck, and by playing high people regularily, you will end up in the top regardless of your skill. A ladder is supposed to be based on SKILL not on who plays the most.
-
:-*
-
There should be some kind of a penalty for losing
no dummy, that would nullify the ENTIRE point of cases ladder lol. They like it this way ;p
Losing 1 rank is hardly significant unless you have a bad winrate.
-
That is the point. It should be harder to KEEP a rank. Not attain it. You should be able to quickly attain AND hold a rank. Thats how proper ranking works. If it takes you 500 years to grind to the rank you "should" be at, then the ranking system is flawed. If it takes you 500 years to get to a rank you arent suppose to be at, then you shouldnt be there for very long as other better players will come along and push you out of the rank by beating you over and over and over. Thats a proper ladder system. The only downfall to such a system is that a low population will result in the bottom tier being closer to the top (which is actually SUPPOSE to happen since the skill level is dwindling, so should the power rankings).
if you take a look at the iccup ladder top50, you will see most players have 30-100 games in the top 100 (with a few K ppl in the ladder) and ppl with a skill lvl of rank #200 are probably ranked somewhere there
on top of that there could be a ladder reset once in a while to prevent players with alot of games sitting on top
iccup has some good rules to prevent abusing too (which sucked in the bnet ladder)
anyhow, we should either improve the current ladder or create a new one, anything will be better and maybe help to keep some newbs/people
(http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150106/9kz4hux2.png) (http://www.directupload.net)
-
Nice looking ladder, also all the players at the top have good winrates like it should be.
-
I work like a fucking dog to make the best ladder league ever and you all spit on it.
Your all fucking lazy, get a new ladder from il gonna take 8 month, it already take him 2 week to put a new banner on lobby Lol.
Good luck bunch of delusional.
-
I work like a fucking dog to make the best ladder league ever and you all spit on it.
Your all fucking lazy, get a new ladder from il gonna take 8 month, it already take him 2 week to put a new banner on lobby Lol.
Good luck bunch of delusional.
You did nothing. Your league means nothing when your shoving it down everybodys throat to sign up for your meaningless site (Which might I add no one should trust a site made by you of all people) when you can simply make a thread and get it stickied on the forums.
Also it's funny that you call me the dog not long ago. But look whos calling themselves a dog now LOL.
-
That is the point. It should be harder to KEEP a rank. Not attain it. You should be able to quickly attain AND hold a rank. Thats how proper ranking works. If it takes you 500 years to grind to the rank you "should" be at, then the ranking system is flawed. If it takes you 500 years to get to a rank you arent suppose to be at, then you shouldnt be there for very long as other better players will come along and push you out of the rank by beating you over and over and over. Thats a proper ladder system. The only downfall to such a system is that a low population will result in the bottom tier being closer to the top (which is actually SUPPOSE to happen since the skill level is dwindling, so should the power rankings).
if you take a look at the iccup ladder top50, you will see most players have 30-100 games in the top 100 (with a few K ppl in the ladder) and ppl with a skill lvl of rank #200 are probably ranked somewhere there
on top of that there could be a ladder reset once in a while to prevent players with alot of games sitting on top
iccup has some good rules to prevent abusing too (which sucked in the bnet ladder)
anyhow, we should either improve the current ladder or create a new one, anything will be better and maybe help to keep some newbs/people
([url]http://fs1.directupload.net/images/150106/9kz4hux2.png[/url]) ([url]http://www.directupload.net[/url])
You do realize that Win Percentage has absolutely NOTHING to do with skill level correct? Why bother lumping win percentage in with a subject of skill ranking? That's like saying you wont get a flat tire because you have a V8 engine. It makes zero sense. Also, why are you saying 75-100% win ratios are good to begin with? Where did you get that idea? Maybe you need edgu-ma-cay-tion on what a TRUE ranking system should look? Here's a reason why your "good win ratio" makes about as much sense as your ass. Just because you have a high win percentage DOES NOT MEAN YOU ARE A GOD. What it DOES mean is that you're continually beating players WITH LESS SKILL. So thank you for showing a screenshot that proves why cases ladder is WAY better than ELO ratings. This SS does nothing more than prove that the upper echelon are playing against noobs, not other highly ranked players. Otherwise they wouldnt be winning so much. A real ladder will have the top players with between 50-60 win percentage because of the high skill of the players they are playing. This SS doesnt show that at all.
One CRITICAL statistic that is missing (that my own ladder had) was an Avg played rank. It tells you the average rank that the user is playing. For example, if you are #1 and you have an avg played rank of 85 and the #2 player has an Avg play rank of 10, then the real #1 player is actually #2 IMO and if they were to play, my bet is that the current #1 player is going to lose his spot VERY soon.
-
Wrong the best Hots player in the world has a 72.70% winrate and the 8th guy has 75.62% winrate and this is with a ladder system that AUTO matches you up with opponents of equal skill and is ELO based.
http://www.sc2ranks.com/ (http://www.sc2ranks.com/)
-
You do realize that a proper ELO implementation wont have a rating anywhere near 2000 let alone 6000+. The best chess players in the world rarely achieve 2800+. The sc2 link looks more like a better implementation than that of iccup, whoever, rung style (AKA cases/igl style) can achieve the same results with lower populations and less math. And there is no such thing as a "series" in an ELO world. You simply grind until you're at the top. You dont even have to play the top 5 players to take the #1 spot and that is just retarded. This is why rung style IMO clips ELO's fancy schmancy algorithms. ELO was not really invented to determine who is #1. It was created to determine who MIGHT win. Thus, it should NOT be used as a ranking method and instead should be used as a MATCH MAKING statistic. That's where Blizzard goes wrong. It uses it for ranks as well as match making and that's improper use of the ELO system.
-
anyhoo if me remembur correctly, there was a parralel Elo (stop capitalizing ELO, its not an acronym you dumb retards) ranking in IGL ladder? the actual rank was cases style, but there was a "skill/elo points" field there too? we could do that with current ladder to see how the point ladder system behaves. peepul might like it
-
anyhoo if me remembur correctly, there was a parralel Elo (stop capitalizing ELO, its not an acronym you dumb retards) ranking in IGL ladder? the actual rank was cases style, but there was a "skill/elo points" field there too? we could do that with current ladder to see how the point ladder system behaves. peepul might like it
League of legends uses an elo system, nothing cases about it.
-
My own ladder also had Elo as well but it was not the ranking method. It was simply a "statistic". If 2 players play, you should be able to predict who has a higher probability of winning based on the Elo. As the difference in numbers increase, the probability of the higher Elo ranked player of winning goes. Why Elo is continuously used for a "Ranking" system is baffling to me and Blizzard is the biggest abuser of this. It's not a ranking method. It's a probability algorithm that "can" be used for Matchmaking random people (Of which War2 does NOT have and thus why I believe its a completely irrelevant stat other than for bragging rights).
-
anyhoo if me remembur correctly, there was a parralel Elo (stop capitalizing ELO, its not an acronym you dumb retards) ranking in IGL ladder? the actual rank was cases style, but there was a "skill/elo points" field there too? we could do that with current ladder to see how the point ladder system behaves. peepul might like it
League of legends uses an elo system, nothing cases about it.
thats great bro but if you dont know what IGL is or you cant read (IGL != LOL) you shouldnt pretend that you have an opinion about the subject
-
My own ladder also had Elo as well but it was not the ranking method. It was simply a "statistic". If 2 players play, you should be able to predict who has a higher probability of winning based on the Elo. As the difference in numbers increase, the probability of the higher Elo ranked player of winning goes. Why Elo is continuously used for a "Ranking" system is baffling to me and Blizzard is the biggest abuser of this. It's not a ranking method. It's a probability algorithm that "can" be used for Matchmaking random people (Of which War2 does NOT have and thus why I believe its a completely irrelevant stat other than for bragging rights).
I think blizzard uses elo based ranking since they use auto match making and its really the only viable solution. Think about how the cases ranking would work with auto matchmaking, one person in the match would always have nothing to lose and nothing to gain while the other player has something to gain and nothing to lose. The higher player might be inclined just to leave the game or do some quick all in strat instead of wasting their time playing when they get nothing even for winning. Its really not fair to the higher ranked player. Also, how would it determine how often you play a higher ranked player vs a lower ranked player and how much higher etc. It really would be a mess.
-
anyhoo if me remembur correctly, there was a parralel Elo (stop capitalizing ELO, its not an acronym you dumb retards) ranking in IGL ladder? the actual rank was cases style, but there was a "skill/elo points" field there too? we could do that with current ladder to see how the point ladder system behaves. peepul might like it
League of legends uses an elo system, nothing cases about it.
thats great bro but if you dont know what IGL is or you cant read (IGL != LOL) you shouldnt pretend that you have an opinion about the subject
I had LOL on my mind and quickly skimmed through your post and I misread it. My apologies.
-
Also, the ICCUP icons are pretty sexy and would be a way to get people more active as everyone would want to have a higher grade.
-
rewrite the built in ladder to be cases style.....with a good set map pool
-
there already is a cases style ladder.war2.ru
-
I'm still not sure which system is the best. Maybe we should start to make the current ladder system more competitive and interesting which will be way less work than building a new ladder from scratch.
-
the only reason people like me/adam/ilyich/getyatipwet/poiuyt are top 10 right now is because people are inactive or not playing 1v1s ... in theory we are actually the top 10-20 active 1v1 players right now.... its kinda pathetic but thats just the way it is lol.
Lol, didn't think i'll run into my name in the forum. Although i finally got more ladder wins then losses, so maybe i'll climb my way DOWN the ladder ranking [emoji6]
-
A competitive ladder would put some drive back into war2. The current ladder that we have is OK and it works but I just don't feel like it has any credibility due to nothing negative happening when you lose. Perhaps instead of a ladder we could do a league format similar to the Bloodsport league I hosted a few years ago in the mean time. I would be willing to throw 50$ or so to someone who could code a decent ladder system, though.
-
there is currently a ladder?