Im dropping out, im sick

@Nuggets said in 1v1 Ladder:

My point is that it was once discussed if dual gap should have a separated rating category, to not inflate or falsify global rating, but got "immediately" denied.

because this doesn't fix the problem. dualgap isn't the only map rating can be farmed on.
even just playing mapgen leads to an "inaccurate" rating because you don't play human made maps as well as others (throwback to the canis/hilly/wonder games a month back where everyone seriously sucked).

1. i don't clown on your 1v1 rating
2. the problem with inflated ratings is that you won't know which to believe. currently, 1v1 rating is more meaningful than all other ratings combined. most people's 1v1 rating is already accurate because they played a number of ladder games at some point in their life. all ranking custom 1v1 games does is create opportunities for people to get ratings they don't deserve
3. global is not the most relevant rating category when it comes to assessing somebody's skill. all of the top players rely on player knowledge and completely ignore global rating. it would be sad if 1v1 rating met the same fate

I don't get your point

If all custom 1v1s count towards ladder rating then the rating can be abused or at the very least players will play maps they enjoy, are better at, and still end up with an inflated rating. And now we have nothing to gauge a player's 1v1 ability with

btw bringing back a !to ladder command, the client notifying you when someone in your range is searching, and not getting disconnected from aeolus are probably the 3 best ways of bringing back some activity to ladder

btw bringing back a !to ladder command and the client notifying you when someone in your range is searching are probably the 2 best ways of bringing back some activity to ladder

@Nuggets said in 1v1 Ladder:

Not quite the right topic ...but, I dont remember who i've told this, but i think 1v1 games hosted in global should automatically count towards 1v1 rating instead of global. I can guarantee way more people will play 1v1 (custom 1v1 in this case) and it will solve way more problems than it creates

this would suck, it would devalue ladder rating just like global rating

Signing up

ill sign up if @Sladow-Noob signs up

xd alright

@LoliChan in what way?

grimplex no seed

Will the players be seeded according to rating or will it be random like in screenshot?

If it's not changed you risk losing strong players early in tournament and get weaker quarter and semi finals. Of course up to you but just a heads up

@Sainse said in Unify TMM rankings & leagues:

Since it's very rare to find and 2v2 & 4v4 game, those rankings do not represent any value. They are not realistically achievable and are not correct. The mere calibrating to get gold or diamond badge can take up more time searching in queue than in game.

1v1 is easily the rarest for me but that doesn't mean it has no value. It shows my level of 1v1 the same way 2v2 shows my level of 2v2

Guys stop feeding the troll!

sign up 2116

I already do challenges on my main account occasionally, not as extreme as engineer only, but its probably frustrating anyway for a new player to play a handicapped pro for the pro's enjoyment. I think this idea should be limited to 0 to x series

Cybran shields are not "tolerable". They are disgustingly bad. ED5 costs 1.18x more than a seraphim t3 shield, for 78% of its shield hp. That makes seraphim shields 1.5x better, or cybran shields 66% as effective as seraphim t3 shields. On the contrary aeon shields have the most shield HP per mass and as a result are the cheapest to assist. On top of that the aeon artillery is far and away the strongest for its mass, with cybran, again, being the weakest.

If you really have the game balance's best interest in mind and want to complain about shielding (in relation to t3 artillery), then complain about cybran

Just make another shield then

@IndexLibrorum said in Proposal for [Challenge Accounts] | Feedback Wanted!:

This might be a consequence of the rating in the beginning not yet being settled. An account that already has a bit of a 'steady' rating at ~800 would help, I think.

Or at 0 rating, so that <800 can be instructed. And perhaps that trueskill deviation be decreased manually at some points if possible, so that a winstreak doesn't bring the account from e.g. 1200 to 1800 too quickly?

@IndexLibrorum said in Proposal for [Challenge Accounts] | Feedback Wanted!:

Not sure what you mean with 'not play more than one game at a time'. You mean per day, or?

One game per few hours, because if players play what is pretty much a smurf account even twice in a row it may demotivate them from queueing more.
This would mean the content isn't streamable but guide videos are still great for putting out educational content

Rating compensation should also be considered so that players won't complain about losing elo in unfair games

I think a challenge account for educational purposes, i.e. a "road to grandmaster" guide series, is justifiable. An actual challenge account less so, with how small our community is. Considering this I think there should be 1 MAYBE 2 of these accounts active at a time, and that the user does not play more than 1 game at a time because playing more could temporarily drive people away from matchmaker.

Also, currently elo is gained too quickly for an actually educational "road to grandmaster" series. They'd hit 1500 in like 5 games and that's way too little to teach an 800 how to get past 800.

I think the td is aware but just wants to host a tournament his way