Thread: From Gold 1 to Legendary with 49% win

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 40
  1. #1
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0

    From Gold 1 to Legendary with 49% win

    So i feel like the rank inflation seems a bit high, i can't say that i know how it works but it seems wrong that im capable of losing more games than winning and still rank up 3 times.

  2. #2
    Online
    Senior Game Master Account Icon
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Quebec, Canada
    Posts
    4,906
    Rep Power
    13
    Perhaps you win the important matches against a high rated team and lose the ones where your team is higher ranked.

    I would suppose the "hard" matches give way more experience.

    Game Masters are not Frostburn Studios employees. My posts in no way represent the view of Frostburn Studios or any of its staff.


    -----------------------------


  3. #3
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dav787 View Post
    Perhaps you win the important matches against a high rated team and lose the ones where your team is higher ranked.

    I would suppose the "hard" matches give way more experience.
    Sure, that idea appeals to me, but it also seems pretty unlikely.

  4. #4
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4
    The bonus experience for win streaks make it so you can make it to legendary losing more games than you win. I'm sure there will be 3 or 4 times more legendary players than there is now by the time the season ends. It's rating that's added to the pool that comes from nowhere. As opposed to rating you took from the opponent, it will gradually inflate all players up.

  5. #5
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Newerth
    Posts
    624
    Rep Power
    0
    The system is broken. 1500 1700 in legendary bracket.

  6. #6
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    41
    Rep Power
    0
    If the win streak bonus really is a thing then its pretty damn stupid, and should obviously be removed instantly, If you let people get more rating for win streaks but not lose for more lose streaks, then you are creating a system that is made to push everyone to high rating, and thats obviously wrong.

  7. #7
    Offline
    HoNored Account Icon
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,319
    Rep Power
    12
    Honestly, I'm not fond of the 'climb the ladder' approach used to make players feel better about themselves. It's just a bad form of matchmaking, in my opinion...

    I would rather be the same rank for a month and have great, closely matched games rather than climb multiple 'ranks' and play mediocre games the whole time.
    Quote Originally Posted by PrestonLee View Post
    ...Merrick is some teleporting voodoo merchant that just teleports to you and hands out free gold rewarding prolongued abstinence of violence whenever you kill something...

  8. #8
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    West Ukraine -Lviv
    Posts
    157
    Rep Power
    0
    How to get gold 1 with 20% wr?

  9. #9
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by ZLOfm View Post
    How to get gold 1 with 20% wr?
    By losing 80 games then winning 20*
    Last edited by MasterGanja`; 02-13-2017 at 02:21 AM.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterGanja` View Post
    By losing 100 games in a row then winning 20.
    20/120 = 1/6 = 17% :]]]]]]]

  11. #11
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    266
    Rep Power
    0
    The streak bonus is retarded. I took an account with 1300 legacy mmr and got to diamond 2 within 13 games. I'm about 2 wins from legendary now, with only 27 games played (23 wins, 4 loses). So have gone from 1300 (approx bronze 3) to legendary in 30 games (assuming I win the next 2).

    Quite funny really.

  12. #12
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    98
    Rep Power
    6
    Its insane how much bonus you get for five or more games won in a row.
    = one shot

  13. #13
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    821
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by MasterGanja` View Post
    The bonus experience for win streaks make it so you can make it to legendary losing more games than you win. I'm sure there will be 3 or 4 times more legendary players than there is now by the time the season ends. It's rating that's added to the pool that comes from nowhere. As opposed to rating you took from the opponent, it will gradually inflate all players up.
    Sounds very much like capitalism - I guess I know where the idea came from now.

    Anyways, as long as you fix the inflation from time to time by simply taking away from everyone, adding rating "out of nothing" isn't necessarily bad (think about that one yo capitalists). It simply provides you with an higher rating if you play a lot, so it's kind of an automatic MMR-loss for everyone who doesn't play much.
    I guess above 1800 that never appeared, but in lower brackets you occasionally run into someone with very much rating, stating "first game in 5 years" and he clearly should have lost 200 mmr in that time, since he doesn't know anything anymore.
    This system kinda fixes such cases, so there are objective reasons to do it this way. The more obvious reason probably being "hey you play a lot of our game, take this free rating" to encourage people to play more games. And I appreciate this effort even more! I want people to play on their top accounts to get better ratings and not switch to a lower one so the high one doesn't loose it's rating (as I've done it the last few years ;-)). So it also kinda fixes the smurf problem in its own way.
    The problem being that all those issues don't have a good influence on the balance. BUT it should have one over time. As if you play with better players, you'll most likely get better and so players that play much will improve and we'll get more good players. While those that don't play as often stay at lower brackets, loosing their skill over time. Potentially this could lead to enough good players to have a competitive scene again, but that would take a long time. Anyways it's probably the best effort to achieve this I can think of.

  14. #14
    Offline
    HoNored Account Icon
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,319
    Rep Power
    12
    It sounds like the system right now rewards playing more games in the MMR system rather than just focusing on wins/losses.

    Suppose you have player A and player B of equal skill level. Player A plays a lot of games. Player B plays a moderate number of games. Player A will have a much higher rank in CoN seasons than player B (and matchmaking will make appropriate accommodations).

    This is a bit unfortunate, in my opinion, because Player A and Player B have an equal chance of winning the game - but the matchmaking system will treat them differently.
    Quote Originally Posted by PrestonLee View Post
    ...Merrick is some teleporting voodoo merchant that just teleports to you and hands out free gold rewarding prolongued abstinence of violence whenever you kill something...

  15. #15
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    1,262
    Rep Power
    11
    I suppose it's because of the winstreaks xp bonus. Even with a 50% winrate, winstreaks are bound to happen, since we're not living in a mathematical utopia. And since a winstreak gives more rank than an equivalent losestreak takes away...

  16. #16
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    342
    Rep Power
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by VHD View Post
    It sounds like the system right now rewards playing more games in the MMR system rather than just focusing on wins/losses.

    Suppose you have player A and player B of equal skill level. Player A plays a lot of games. Player B plays a moderate number of games. Player A will have a much higher rank in CoN seasons than player B (and matchmaking will make appropriate accommodations).

    This is a bit unfortunate, in my opinion, because Player A and Player B have an equal chance of winning the game - but the matchmaking system will treat them differently.
    This!

  17. #17
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    27
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Manu311 View Post
    Sounds very much like capitalism - I guess I know where the idea came from now.

    Anyways, as long as you fix the inflation from time to time by simply taking away from everyone, adding rating "out of nothing" isn't necessarily bad (think about that one yo capitalists). It simply provides you with an higher rating if you play a lot, so it's kind of an automatic MMR-loss for everyone who doesn't play much.
    I guess above 1800 that never appeared, but in lower brackets you occasionally run into someone with very much rating, stating "first game in 5 years" and he clearly should have lost 200 mmr in that time, since he doesn't know anything anymore.
    This system kinda fixes such cases, so there are objective reasons to do it this way. The more obvious reason probably being "hey you play a lot of our game, take this free rating" to encourage people to play more games. And I appreciate this effort even more! I want people to play on their top accounts to get better ratings and not switch to a lower one so the high one doesn't loose it's rating (as I've done it the last few years ;-)). So it also kinda fixes the smurf problem in its own way.
    The problem being that all those issues don't have a good influence on the balance. BUT it should have one over time. As if you play with better players, you'll most likely get better and so players that play much will improve and we'll get more good players. While those that don't play as often stay at lower brackets, loosing their skill over time. Potentially this could lead to enough good players to have a competitive scene again, but that would take a long time. Anyways it's probably the best effort to achieve this I can think of.
    1. This isn't similar to inflation in a monetary sense.
    2. Inflation of prices isn't exclusive to capitalism.

  18. #18
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Posts
    52
    Rep Power
    4
    This inflation can't be good for the game, if gold is really silver and diamond really gold, then everyone gets bunched into the same games with huge differences in skill.

  19. #19
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Posts
    129
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dav787 View Post
    Perhaps you win the important matches against a high rated team and lose the ones where your team is higher ranked.

    I would suppose the "hard" matches give way more experience.
    You lose more if your team is higher ranked than the enemy, less if your team is lower ranked than the enemy.

  20. #20
    Offline
    Account Icon
    Chat Symbol
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,508
    Rep Power
    9
    Could also be that the guy won many games in a streak - which gives a nice hefty bonus to the climb.
    Medical studies have confirmed and proved:

    Your penis size (in cm) IRL = (K/D) * 10

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •