No. Silver is not considered good. Plat is okay. Diamond is good. Master and Grandmaster is very good.
1 Like
I thought HotS players are the ones that want to play with Blizz characters and that’s all.
Like for them to come here due to “the others so much harder”, they had to play those first and fail in it, butvI dunno what points to that.
1 Like
Playing LoL or DotA2 is like playing spreadsheets with last hits where the multiplayer parts doesn’t start until the 15 minute mark.
3 Likes
Diamond is where the players are so distracted by thinking they are good that they play like bronze while arguing with each other about whose to blame for the loss a round into draft.
1 Like
Oh the irony :’ D
The irony is that I continue to play a mode that is systemically broken.
NOT that I think I’m better than anyone else.
And how did you make the “conclusion” that the system is broken if not from the “I can’t climb further despite being better than these” attitude?
1 Like
From conversations with the man who built it. Reading the documentation on how the system works. And testing the system.
Ahahaha, good one :'D Proof?
Josh is well known. You can find him on twitter if you are so incline to strike up your own conversation.
He will defend his product as a successful predictor of match outcomes. I don’t dispute his stance on that. What I disagree with him on is the net results. His claim is that the system accurately predicts match outcomes and that this is how the system can product fair matches. He also claims that this is a product of player skill, which we disagreed on. He will agree that making the predictions in team games is less accurate than those with 1 on 1 games. This is just the nature of the beast. No single game is the product of a single players actions. It’s only the statistical analysis over many games that actually matter.
He eventually conceded that the system do not describe skill in anything specific, only that the player can be predicted to have a sort of “winningness” skill, and that could be anything so long as the player won using it. The example he gave to highlight this was from his work on Halo Multiplayer. The data showed that players with the highest “winningness” skills were those that got the most headshots. No other factor mattered to the results of the game. So if the game was Capture the flag, players running the flag (and all the associated skills) were irrelevant to the outcome of the game.
You can extrapolate this to suggest that all of the “skills” that Heroes players moan on and on about are equally meaningless if they don’t produce wins. Thus the system doesn’t identify players who hare skilled so much as players who can win games. If they can win games, for example, by one-tricking, by picking heroes that you can troll the enemy team with, or by racking up kills by any cost, that’s all that matters for your rating.
These are the facts, supported by the data, corroborated by the very man who designed the system.
ADDITIONALLY, the ranking system was designed for engagement, not for competition. Josh doesn’t like the word engagement but he does concede that they provided players with an experience that they felt was more engaging over one that was more competitive. Players wanted solo queue, even though solo queue was less accurate in predicting good matches. Players also want to get into games faster than into games with better matches. He has all the data to support the conclusions. These two considerations are why we don’t have a built in tournament system or team roster rankings, because they found that despite the fact that such a systems would be more competitive sound, players just wouldn’t engage with them. He even cites Starcraft 2’s tournament system and Division based ranking system as methods that were “better” but were players just wouldn’t engage with them.
Players don’t want competition. They want the appearance of competition. Players don’t want a meaningful ladder experience, they want RPG-esque progression. And while he steadfast disagreed that these systems used skinner box techniques, anyone with any experience with them can easily identify their existence.
Thanks for asking.
This is why I am rigorously demanding that you back your claims up. I would support your claims of “getting better” and thus “getting ranked higher” if you were able to articulate what it was that ACTUALLY produced “winningness” for you.
Much like Joshes example, where headshots were the only metric that produced winning results, there are objective skills in HotS that a player could practice and put into action to progressively better themselves as players.
Winning in a skill based game is about the skills the produce result. They are objective and measurable. AND sometimes, they aren’t at all intuitive.
This is what infuriates me about your commentary. It’s naive and ill considered. It doesn’t by any measure, ring of competence. Its a reflection of not at all understanding the nature or context of the outcome.
Thats why I reply to you that you are clueless. Its because, despite your declared results, you have no clue how you achieved them. Ultimately its useless except to stroking your own ego.
Big kek here.
And does this prove you two know each other and had a 1v1 conversation? Or you don’t know him and it’s from some AMA-esque thing that is linkable?
Like I can claim I talked with the Queen about politics and when ppl ask for proof I can just say “well, she is well known, google her”, like wut.
And what is your “testing”? Is it playing ranked? Such tests.
And I did say what I did, and I say to you more directly, that just post replays and I can analyse it. Like what would I did differently.
I can also go into detail on what I did, but I can’t give a more satisfyimg tldr I already gave, but anything else needs context. Like what is and what isn’t a mistake is not a question, and in tldr I just fixed my mistakes, but maybe it’s not your mistakes (tho you proved them to be and when I said you should fix them you said you already did and denied the existence of said mistakes), so in the end, I need context.
Or I need to write a wall of text, much bigger than this.
2 Likes
I didn’t say we were best buds. I said I had conversations with him.
Your analysis would be pointless if you cannot definitively identify the objective attributes that lead to better rankings on the ladder.
Do you have access to the data that shows, for example, that players who, (insert whatever metric you want) win more games and have higher ranks?
Yes?
No?
If you told me to practice headshots in Halo Multiplayer, at the expense of any other measurable skill, you would be giving good advice. The data will back you up. Otherwise you would just be giving people bad information.
You don’t know why you win. You just have a guess. Just like I have a guess. You have your results, I have my results. Your results might be that you win more games when you focus on XZY, I may have results that say I win more games when I focus on ABC. Whether you or I believe these to be relevant skills doesn’t matter. The only thing that matters are the results because that is the only thing that the rating and ranking system measures.
Adaptability, flexibility, maximising value/uptime, and making as few mistakes as possible.
You made a mistake? Try to never do that again. You died? Got punished for anything? You was bad, never do that again.
This is the tldr you keep demanding while also refusing to accept, because the bases requires that you accept it’s on you and was all along.
This is not an rts or an fps or a cardgame for cookiecutter oneliners.
And you don’t have results, because you are “stuck”.
This thread is like the Titanic movie, Avatar and it’s next 6 sequels, long and everyone gets wet.
5 Likes
Again, these are just your guesses.
They are meaningless.
They are not objective and measurable. They are not supported by accompanying data.
Im not “stuck”.
If anything my rank wildly fluctuates by significant amounts over the course of multiple seasons and depending on the heroes I play.
Being inconsistent are not “results”.
You spam the same thing without adapting and thus you fluctuate, and you inflate your ego when you win, and blame your allies and the system when you lose.
1 Like
Being inconsistent is a product of not consistently employing what is objectively the major factor that produces wins.
It’s not…
You just rattle these off as if I’m not already engaged with these practices.
These are your romantic ideals of what should promote progress on the ladder when it’s more likely that players progress because they have a willingness to adapt to and engage in actions that produce results, most of which won’t be so romantic. (e.g. cannon rushing, proxy builds, etc in Starcraft)
1 Like