| 1 |
[q]Percentile is only calculated among the active players (played in last 30 days). Unranked players don't get a percentile.[/q]
|
1 |
[q]Percentile is only calculated among the active players (played in last 30 days). Unranked players don't get a percentile.[/q]
|
| 2 |
Well that's even less work then. :P
|
2 |
Well that's even less work then. :P
|
| 3 |
\n
|
3 |
\n
|
| 4 |
[q]That's exactly what I started out with, but there was protest to separate the ratings. Some, like RUrankizirayd even ask for FFA ladders.[/q]
|
4 |
[q]That's exactly what I started out with, but there was protest to separate the ratings. Some, like RUrankizirayd even ask for FFA ladders.[/q]
|
| 5 |
Meh, I guess that was an issue since MM started. Treating MM as special only causes problems compared to how it used to work where any qualifying game counted towards rating. Splitting the ladders organically according to game type (1v1, Teams, FFA) makes a lot more sense than MM vs everything else, and you can still have an overall rating that counts all qualifying games of all types.
|
5 |
Meh, I guess that was an issue since MM started. Treating MM as special only causes problems compared to how it used to work where any qualifying game counted towards rating. Splitting the ladders organically according to game type (1v1, Teams, FFA) makes a lot more sense than MM vs everything else, and you can still have an overall rating that counts all qualifying games of all types.
|
| 6 |
\n
|
6 |
\n
|
| 7 |
Rating is supposed to be a measure of skill, and that breaks down when you make arbitrary restrictions on what counts vs what doesn't. I mean why should a high rating 1v1 on public hosts count differently than a high rating 1v1 under MM? MM was supposed to be a convenient feature for finding games rather than some dictatorial arena mode.
|
7 |
Rating is supposed to be a measure of skill, and that breaks down when you make arbitrary restrictions on what counts vs what doesn't. I mean why should a high rating 1v1 on public hosts count differently than a high rating 1v1 under MM? MM was supposed to be a convenient feature for finding games rather than some dictatorial arena mode.
|
| 8 |
\n
|
8 |
\n
|
| 9 |
[q]If MM was to receive easier ranks than casual I'd just go with equal amounts of players per rank for each ladder. So if there are 14 purples from casual there'd also be 14 competitive purples. This would mean that the lowest ranked competitive player would already get somewhere around a yellow rank.[/q]
|
9 |
[q]If MM was to receive easier ranks than casual I'd just go with equal amounts of players per rank for each ladder. So if there are 14 purples from casual there'd also be 14 competitive purples. This would mean that the lowest ranked competitive player would already get somewhere around a yellow rank.[/q]
|
| 10 |
\n
|
10 |
\n
|
| 11 |
That's lame. Colors should have meaning, whether it's "xth percentile+" or "top x players". What you're suggesting is more like a participation award.
|
11 |
That's lame. Colors should have meaning, whether it's "xth percentile+" or "top x players". What you're suggesting is more like a participation award.
|
| 12 |
\n
|
12 |
\n
|
|
|
13 |
I mean we have awards for that. Like you could get a "duelist award" for winning competitive 1v1s, a "lobster pot award" for winning competitive teams, and maybe a "chaos general" award for FFA. Better than "here have a free gold star".
|
| 13 |
\n
|
14 |
\n
|
Ladder rework