It seems to me like the people high on the ladder just play a shit ton of games. Or is it that they play so many games so they are more practiced and better?

I haven't played any other RTS with as many players as SC2 with a ladder, but it seems that in order to compete on the ladder you have to play massive amounts of games.

I know there are a few freaks with a ton of points and only a few games played but they are a rarity.

unrelated but searching sc2ranks... there are about 15 players with over 6,000 games played. Holy fucking shit.

http://www.sc2ranks.com/us/1788532/thepunisher

I saw a post on team liquid that the first person to get the highest achievement (I think its like 1k wins with each race) will get $2,000 or $10,000. It's probably a scam but still.

Do the people with 6k games have a ton of users playing same account or what the fuck??

Didn't it take swift and space years and years to play their 15k games???

3 months since release = 90 days, 6600 games in 90 days = an average of 74 games per day.

I will paypal $10 if someone can find me a picture of any of the guys who have played 6k+ games in 3 months...

well if you think about it someone with 51% win rate if he just masses games and as long as he maintans that 51% win rate hes just going keep going up in points. The ladder is flawed and very badly designed imo

Hell apart from the fact it easy to abuse i think the warcraft 2 bnet ladder was even better

In general yes, the more you play the more points you get. But the bonus pool skews things as well. You can be really active and still have less points than someone who just plays when they have bonus points. Check out my division. Drunken has over twice as many wins as wcgmichael but only has about a 200 point lead:

quote:

---

Originally posted by DrunkeN
Bonus pool is a bitch for those who play every day. Look at my division http://sc2ranks.com/div/16064/division-torus-november I keep catching up to the guy in first then he comes on and plays til his bonus pool is gone and jumps up like 75+ pts. I play like 6-8 games a day and only get like 40-50+ pts or so.

---

you've got to remember that games only grant you so many pts based on your opponents' favorability. So if you're 51% and you lose to all of your favored opponents , most of your even favored and win vs most of your lesser favored opponents, your 1% isn't going to translate into many pts.

anyway I don't worry about it. I've said since the beginning that the matchmaking system does a good job , if you're winning 50% of your games then your opponents are relatively evenly matched with you. You don't want to aspire to be or even play against the dudes out there playing 500 custom games on multiple accounts training for their prime time to ladder. I usually log on and just play a ladder game because it's got me sorted out pretty well so I'm usually getting paired up with equally skilled opponents which translates into fun games. I'm starting to get to know a lot of my regular opponents since I've played quite a few players multiple times.

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
you've got to remember that games only grant you so many pts based on your opponents' favorability. So if you're 51% and you lose to all of your favored opponents , most of your even favored and win vs most of your lesser favored opponents, your 1% isn't going to translate into many pts.

anyway I don't worry about it. I've said since the beginning that the matchmaking system does a good job , if you're winning 50% of your games then your opponents are relatively evenly matched with you. You don't want to aspire to be or even play against the dudes out there playing 500 custom games on multiple accounts training for their prime time to ladder. I usually log on and just play a ladder game because it's got me sorted out pretty well so I'm usually getting paired up with equally skilled opponents which translates into fun games. I'm starting to get to know a lot of my regular opponents since I've played quite a few players multiple times.

---

let's say that u gain 10 pts for even matches, 5 pts for lesser opponents, and 15 pts for higher opponents

u lose 10 pts for even matches, 15 pts for lesser opponents and 5 pts for higher opponents

u play 100 games.
you win 51 games.
of your wins, 30 vs lesser opponents (150 pts)
15 vs even opponents (150 pts)
6 vs favored (90 pts)
you gained 390 pts

You lost 49 games.
of your losses, 30 vs favored opponents (-150 pts)
15 vs even opponents (-150pts)
4 vs lesser opponents (-60 pts)
-360 pts

this would put you at +30 pts , 2 games over winning. 15 pts per game.

same scenario with favored/lesser favored numbers flipped:
wins
30 vs favored opponents (450 pts)
15 vs even opponents (150 pts)
6 vs lesser (30 pts)
you gained 630 pts

losses
30 vs lesser opponents (-450 pts)
15 vs even opponents (-150pts)
4 vs favored opponents (-20 pts)
-620 pts

You gained 10 pts for 2 games instead of 30 pts. This is just the disparity of two games. If you were 20 games over .500 using the same ratios, the difference would be 100 pts to 300 pts. (200 pt difference assuming you were winning/losing games to opponents at this ratio) So although odds are that you're going to beat opponents less favored than you and lose to favored opponents, it does matter and when you lose to a lesser opponent, it hurts your rating quite a bit.

your idea that if you beat a favored opponent, you must lose to a lesser opponent to keep the same winning percentage doesn't make any sense you can win/lose to any favored opponent in any sequence, the only thing that contributes to your winning percentage is how many games you won and lost.

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
let's say that u gain 10 pts for even matches, 5 pts for lesser opponents, and 15 pts for higher opponents

u lose 10 pts for even matches, 15 pts for lesser opponents and 5 pts for higher opponents

u play 100 games.
you win 51 games.
of your wins, 30 vs lesser opponents (150 pts)
15 vs even opponents (150 pts)
6 vs favored (90 pts)
you gained 390 pts

You lost 49 games.
of your losses, 30 vs favored opponents (-150 pts)
15 vs even opponents (-150pts)
4 vs lesser opponents (-60 pts)
-360 pts

this would put you at +30 pts , 2 games over winning. 15 pts per game.

same scenario with favored/lesser favored numbers flipped:
wins
30 vs favored opponents (450 pts)
15 vs even opponents (150 pts)
6 vs lesser (30 pts)
you gained 630 pts

losses
30 vs lesser opponents (-450 pts)
15 vs even opponents (-150pts)
4 vs favored opponents (-20 pts)
-620 pts

You gained 10 pts for 2 games instead of 30 pts. This is just the disparity of two games. If you were 20 games over .500 using the same ratios, the difference would be 100 pts to 300 pts. (200 pt difference assuming you were winning/losing games to opponents at this ratio) So although odds are that you're going to beat opponents less favored than you and lose to favored opponents, it does matter and when you lose to a lesser opponent, it hurts your rating quite a bit.

your idea that if you beat a favored opponent, you must lose to a lesser opponent to keep the same winning percentage doesn't make any sense you can win/lose to any favored opponent in any sequence, the only thing that contributes to your winning percentage is how many games you won and lost.

---

Seems pretty simple to me. The more you play the better you get. The ratings will reflect this in the long run and the internal ratings will be an accurate gauge of your strength anytime.

I'm guessing Blizzard is using a stable rating system to judge true skill. They just had to copy one of the many chess rating systems which are well tested.
_________________
I have hacks in my brain and I use them.

quote:

---

This reasoning is flawed since you HAVE to asume that your games against lesser, even and favoured opponents is the same in both cases for every match up. You did not do this, so the difference between points between one case and another is due to this..

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can

---

quote:

---

This reasoning is flawed since you HAVE to asume that your games against lesser, even and favoured opponents is the same in both cases for every match up. You did not do this, so the difference between points between one case and another is due to this..

---

quote:

---

you've got to remember that games only grant you so many pts based on your opponents' favorability. So if you're 51% and you lose to all of your favored opponents , most of your even favored and win vs most of your lesser favored opponents, your 1% isn't going to translate into many pts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggs.

I don´t think this is true, since if you are favored in a game and loose it, you loose more points than you would in an even game. Therefore, your winning percentage is what matters, not who you win or loose against, since if you get to defeat a favoured opponent, in order to keep that 51% win rate you will have to loose a match against a lesser opponent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggs.

You really didn`t understand what I said. In the pool of games you use as example, you MUST have a fixed amount of games against favoured, even and non favoured games. If you compare different games of course results will be different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can

---

quote:

---

you've got to remember that games only grant you so many pts based on your opponents' favorability. So if you're 51% and you lose to all of your favored opponents , most of your even favored and win vs most of your lesser favored opponents, your 1% isn't going to translate into many pts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggs.

I don´t think this is true, since if you are favored in a game and loose it, you loose more points than you would in an even game. Therefore, your winning percentage is what matters, not who you win or loose against, since if you get to defeat a favoured opponent, in order to keep that 51% win rate you will have to loose a match against a lesser opponent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggs.

You really didn`t understand what I said. In the pool of games you use as example, you MUST have a fixed amount of games against favoured, even and non favoured games. If you compare different games of course results will be different.

---

what are you talking about? I used the same sample of games, I just changed how the games were won/lost. The same amount of games were won and lost in both comparisons. If you're saying that by changing how the games were won/lost it is invalid, then what's the point of doing a comparison since you're basically saying that you can't accurately make a comparison unless you say that 1 = 1.

I think you're confused

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
what are you talking about? I used the same sample of games, I just changed how the games were won/lost. The same amount of games were won and lost in both comparisons. If you're saying that by changing how the games were won/lost it is invalid, then what's the point of doing a comparison since you're basically saying that you can't accurately make a comparison unless you say that 1 = 1.

I think you're confused

---

I agree but like I said, this is basically just like saying 1=1. For every change you make, it would be counterbalanced on the other end. So you're not measuring anything. If you have 100 games played, those games are already played so you can dice up how they were won/lost while maintaining the same percentages and it won't impact your point total because that's already set. The points have already been assigned to your account. This doesn't mean anything.

If I log on right now with my 1500pts or whatever, and I play 10 games, and I lose 5 to lesser opponents and win 5 to even opponents, my rating will be go down (not counting bonus pool) by 25 points. so my new rating will be 1475.

If I log on right now and win 5 games to favored opponents and lose 5 to even opponents, my new rating will be 1525.

After these games are played, you can take my new rating and dice up the games that were played and throw around numbers and come to your conclusion that 1=1, but it doesn't change the fact that I either went up or down 25pts by the type of opponents I was winning/losing to.

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
you've got to remember that games only grant you so many pts based on your opponents' favorability. So if you're 51% and you lose to all of your favored opponents , most of your even favored and win vs most of your lesser favored opponents, your 1% isn't going to translate into many pts.

anyway I don't worry about it. I've said since the beginning that the matchmaking system does a good job , if you're winning 50% of your games then your opponents are relatively evenly matched with you. You don't want to aspire to be or even play against the dudes out there playing 500 custom games on multiple accounts training for their prime time to ladder. I usually log on and just play a ladder game because it's got me sorted out pretty well so I'm usually getting paired up with equally skilled opponents which translates into fun games. I'm starting to get to know a lot of my regular opponents since I've played quite a few players multiple times.

---

I honestly dislike the system a bit. It punishes long-way players that become good after playing tons of games. Players that are in trouble at start. Lets say you have played 50 games and you have lost 30 of them and won 20 of them. It takes a long time before you can start gaining rank and advancing to the top 1 or 2 leagues. My record in 1v1 is 265 wins 240 losses (many of them are from stupid hazard rushes[drone rushes XD, photon cannon rushes, barracks rushes or gateway rushes or just attacking mid game with troops that are half-wounded] for getting bored of long games). Still im on the shitty golden league (well im first in my league) and waiting for getting in platinum. Things are even more absurd on 4vs4. In 4vs4, i was able to get to the golden league with record of 15/4 or something like that and some of the wins were lucky. They should punish less from losing and give hard-learners more chances.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
you've got to remember that games only grant you so many pts based on your opponents' favorability. So if you're 51% and you lose to all of your favored opponents , most of your even favored and win vs most of your lesser favored opponents, your 1% isn't going to translate into many pts.

anyway I don't worry about it. I've said since the beginning that the matchmaking system does a good job , if you're winning 50% of your games then your opponents are relatively evenly matched with you. You don't want to aspire to be or even play against the dudes out there playing 500 custom games on multiple accounts training for their prime time to ladder. I usually log on and just play a ladder game because it's got me sorted out pretty well so I'm usually getting paired up with equally skilled opponents which translates into fun games. I'm starting to get to know a lot of my regular opponents since I've played quite a few players multiple times.

---

I was answering this, specifically the 1st paragraph. You tried to say that with fixed winning percentages it matters a lot who you win or loose to. I said it doesn´t, as long as you keep that winning percentage.
Well, it is all clear now. Still don´t understand what is the point of comparing things that can´t be compared...[/b]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can

quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggs.

quote:

---

Originally posted by turtleman@can
you've got to remember that games only grant you so many pts based on your opponents' favorability. So if you're 51% and you lose to all of your favored opponents , most of your even favored and win vs most of your lesser favored opponents, your 1% isn't going to translate into many pts.

anyway I don't worry about it. I've said since the beginning that the matchmaking system does a good job , if you're winning 50% of your games then your opponents are relatively evenly matched with you. You don't want to aspire to be or even play against the dudes out there playing 500 custom games on multiple accounts training for their prime time to ladder. I usually log on and just play a ladder game because it's got me sorted out pretty well so I'm usually getting paired up with equally skilled opponents which translates into fun games. I'm starting to get to know a lot of my regular opponents since I've played quite a few players multiple times.

---

I was answering this, specifically the 1st paragraph. You tried to say that with fixed winning percentages it matters a lot who you win or loose to. I said it doesn´t, as long as you keep that winning percentage.
Well, it is all clear now. Still don´t understand what is the point of comparing things that can´t be compared...[/b]

---

All I did was take two players with the same win/loss totals and compare how points are distributed differently based on who they win/lose against. I think you just got confused and thought that I should be using the same ratio of favored opponents in each case because I never implied that in any way and it has nothing to do with the point that I was trying to make.

---

It proves what my original point was (which you disagreed with)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kalmah
I honestly dislike the system a bit. It punishes long-way players that become good after playing tons of games. Players that are in trouble at start. Lets say you have played 50 games and you have lost 30 of them and won 20 of them. It takes a long time before you can start gaining rank and advancing to the top 1 or 2 leagues. My record in 1v1 is 265 wins 240 losses (many of them are from stupid hazard rushes[drone rushes XD, photon cannon rushes, barracks rushes or gateway rushes or just attacking mid game with troops that are half-wounded] for getting bored of long games). Still im on the shitty golden league (well im first in my league) and waiting for getting in platinum. Things are even more absurd on 4vs4. In 4vs4, i was able to get to the golden league with record of 15/4 or something like that and some of the wins were lucky. They should punish less from losing and give hard-learners more chances.

---

im guessing the point hes making is some people learn at a slower pace, and you'll amass a ton of losses early that way and once you do start gettin good the uphill climb is that much harder. but.. i think it should be. so idk