|
Anyone else feel like they get smurfed alot?
Like they are playing fine versus their friends, you get on Iccup play some good 1v1's and 2v2's and then all the sudden you get crushed for like 4 games straight and feel like you suck?
I looked back at my game history on Iccup and find that my losing streaks always start with games against people that have a >80% win rate...
I'm a D player and I look back to see that those people are like 17-2 and are now C-.
Anyone else hate when this happens?
Since some people don't believe me here's a link to my iccup profile (Don't laugh in scorn, I do suck lol, but I don't exclusively play starcraft, I mean someones got to help their team win all the COD4 pc tournies)
http://www.iccup.com/gamingprofile/traveler80.html
Anyways, I invite you people who doubt what I'm saying to check the people that I play during losing streaks...
I'm not complaining I'm just saying is there anyway to fix this problem, and I was posting this blog to make sure all this wasn't my imagination...
|
I was doing decent on my TSL account and then a couple nights ago I just ran into a huge bad streak where I played the people at my rank but I got squashed. I went 1-12 so I just quit and went to sleep.
|
It can be annoying when it happens too often. But if it is only once in a while it doesn't hurt to play vs better people imo.
I also feel kinda sry for the C/reset tards bashing on D. It makes me even more motivated to beat them and enjoying their next reset.
|
i thought i was playing good and still lost badly to this toss on iccup once. Saw he was A and then cleared stats;; No wonder...
|
On December 01 2009 02:32 Boblion wrote:
It can be annoying when it happens too often. But if it is only once in a while it doesn't hurt to play vs better people imo.
I also feel kinda sry for the C/reset tards bashing on D. It makes me even more motivated to beat them and enjoying their next reset.
Me too, used to happen me a lot. Now i've improve and can easly take a game out at a C- players  .
So now i actually enjoy, cheking stats and see i gave that guy his loss.
|
I feel like there's a smurfing topic at least every week, that's what I feel :/
|
Could just be that they are using a strat that you are weak against or that they themselves suck and only cheese their way into C-... Like people who think hitting a rank makes them that rank, it doesn't you need to actually have that skill level and not just abuse/cheese into that rank.
|
United States43557 Posts
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion.
|
About a week ago I played against this one guy "gsptest" who I found was B high while I was laddering up for TSL in a D/D+ game. Searched his iccup id and found he made 18 different smurf accounts starting with "gsptest" followed by numbers 1-18... I really don't understand how it's fun to smash D level players (I'm not D level, but it's where he smurfs at). I'm like barely C-/C and I find it really boring to play against D-/D. Then just today I saw him make a "1v1 D" game.
|
Generally most of the "smurfs" I've met at D were all just D+ or C- players. No one drastically good. The few times I do meet someone who just started and are ranking up they usually never reset and just blast to C+ or something.
|
On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion.
Yeah, I've played one B+ who reset and maybe a few C's. Other than that, in the 80-100 games I've played around the D/D+ level I haven't been "smurfed" at all. And even then, it was still an awesome feeling to make the B+ build a shield battery when my FD reached his nat (granted, he didn't have to use it... but still  )
|
On December 01 2009 02:37 Sadistx wrote:
I feel like there's a smurfing topic at least every week, that's what I feel :/
I'm pretty sure they come up more often then that 
on topic: you get smurfed. So do we (unless you're C+/B-). Deal.
|
Smurfs remind me of the South Park episode :D MY SMURFBERRIES!!!!
Also the Imaginationland episode: "We gotta get to the castle, smurf smurf."
|
What is it with BW players and excuses for loses? It started with the OMG PVZ IS IMBALANCED shit a few years ago. Now it's your loses coming from smurfs. Ever think it might be your individual skill?
|
On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion. you're assuming "smurf = B". for D players a C- player who reset his stats is considered a smurf. imagine how difficult it is for them for a mediocre D player to beat a mediocre C- player.
|
Stop complaining about getting stomped and practice more sc please.
|
United States43557 Posts
On December 01 2009 03:22 redtooth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion. you're assuming "smurf = B". for D players a C- player who reset his stats is considered a smurf. imagine how difficult it is for them for a mediocre D player to beat a mediocre C- player.
D and D+, +130 for a win, -50 for a loss. That means that if two D rank players play 24 or so games, at least one, or possibly both, will now be D+. Obviously they're not allowed to play each other that much but the principle works for a larger pool of players. The principle also works for D+. All D rank players are C- if they play enough games against other players like them (ie as good as them and there by virtue of massgaming).
|
All the time. I always check the reps later and it sucks to find out that random korean T you played 3 AM was actually some 250 APM B+ player. (happened to me)
|
What feels really good though is beating a B- player when your highest rating ever is like 3050.
|
On December 01 2009 03:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 03:22 redtooth wrote:On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion. you're assuming "smurf = B". for D players a C- player who reset his stats is considered a smurf. imagine how difficult it is for them for a mediocre D player to beat a mediocre C- player. D and D+, +130 for a win, -50 for a loss. That means that if two D rank players play 24 or so games, at least one, or possibly both, will now be D+. Obviously they're not allowed to play each other that much but the principle works for a larger pool of players. The principle also works for D+. All D rank players are C- if they play enough games against other players like them (ie as good as them and there by virtue of massgaming). i'm sorry but i don't understand what you are trying to prove there. in your scenario, i could theoretically get to olympic class by killing a D- player enough times. besides, this has nothing to do with what i said.
are you claiming that a mediocre D player is equal in skill to a mediocre C- player? sure there are those instances where a C- player isn't really deserving of C- and a D player might be better than his rank suggests but that is definitely not the norm. a C- player consistently resetting his stats whenever he gets to a yellow rank is going to have a relatively easy time beating on D players and thus cause all these "omfg smurf" posts.
|
On December 01 2009 02:56 djcube wrote:
About a week ago I played against this one guy "gsptest" who I found was B high while I was laddering up for TSL in a D/D+ game. Searched his iccup id and found he made 18 different smurf accounts starting with "gsptest" followed by numbers 1-18... I really don't understand how it's fun to smash D level players (I'm not D level, but it's where he smurfs at). I'm like barely C-/C and I find it really boring to play against D-/D. Then just today I saw him make a "1v1 D" game.
gsp is a korean clan on west. I'm not familiar at all with how they recruit but it could be they're required to play a specific amount of games on a numbered id. So in that sense no you weren't smurfed (ya mass delusion go o_o').
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion.
+ Show Spoiler +On December 01 2009 03:23 Jonoman92 wrote:
Stop complaining about getting stomped and practice more sc please.
Correct... however it's hypocritical of me to reply to this instead of doing something more constructive with myself.
|
Don't discount the fact that C and higher level players have to start at the bottom of the ladder in every new season, so if you play a C player they might not be smurfing or D bashing.
|
United States43557 Posts
On December 01 2009 03:40 redtooth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 03:29 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2009 03:22 redtooth wrote:On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion. you're assuming "smurf = B". for D players a C- player who reset his stats is considered a smurf. imagine how difficult it is for them for a mediocre D player to beat a mediocre C- player. D and D+, +130 for a win, -50 for a loss. That means that if two D rank players play 24 or so games, at least one, or possibly both, will now be D+. Obviously they're not allowed to play each other that much but the principle works for a larger pool of players. The principle also works for D+. All D rank players are C- if they play enough games against other players like them (ie as good as them and there by virtue of massgaming). i'm sorry but i don't understand what you are trying to prove there. in your scenario, i could theoretically get to olympic class by killing a D- player enough times. besides, this has nothing to do with what i said. are you claiming that a mediocre D player is equal in skill to a mediocre C- player? sure there are those instances where a C- player isn't really deserving of C- and a D player might be better than his rank suggests but that is definitely not the norm. a C- player consistently resetting his stats whenever he gets to a yellow rank is going to have a relatively easy time beating on D players and thus cause all these "omfg smurf" posts.
The only way a mediocre player can be stable at any rank below B is if he's losing significantly more games than he's winning. You gotta ask yourself who is winning those games he's losing, if it's another mediocre player that player is gonna move up the ranks. If there wasn't smurfing and people played enough, every single player on iccup would be at least B-, even if none of them improved at all. So yeah, I don't think there's all that much difference between a D and a C-. Opponent selection and about 50 games vs people just like him.
Of course, just playing the 50 games would probably significantly boost the skill of a D so whatever, it's self proving.
|
On December 01 2009 03:47 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
Don't discount the fact that C and higher level players have to start at the bottom of the ladder in every new season, so if you play a C player they might not be smurfing or D bashing.
That's pretty much only true for most players at the beginning of a new season, not near the end of a season like right now.
|
On December 01 2009 03:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 03:40 redtooth wrote:On December 01 2009 03:29 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2009 03:22 redtooth wrote:On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion. you're assuming "smurf = B". for D players a C- player who reset his stats is considered a smurf. imagine how difficult it is for them for a mediocre D player to beat a mediocre C- player. D and D+, +130 for a win, -50 for a loss. That means that if two D rank players play 24 or so games, at least one, or possibly both, will now be D+. Obviously they're not allowed to play each other that much but the principle works for a larger pool of players. The principle also works for D+. All D rank players are C- if they play enough games against other players like them (ie as good as them and there by virtue of massgaming). i'm sorry but i don't understand what you are trying to prove there. in your scenario, i could theoretically get to olympic class by killing a D- player enough times. besides, this has nothing to do with what i said. are you claiming that a mediocre D player is equal in skill to a mediocre C- player? sure there are those instances where a C- player isn't really deserving of C- and a D player might be better than his rank suggests but that is definitely not the norm. a C- player consistently resetting his stats whenever he gets to a yellow rank is going to have a relatively easy time beating on D players and thus cause all these "omfg smurf" posts. The only way a mediocre player can be stable at any rank below B is if he's losing significantly more games than he's winning. You gotta ask yourself who is winning those games he's losing, if it's another mediocre player that player is gonna move up the ranks. If there wasn't smurfing and people played enough, every single player on iccup would be at least B-, even if none of them improved at all. So yeah, I don't think there's all that much difference between a D and a C-. Opponent selection and about 50 games vs people just like him. Of course, just playing the 50 games would probably significantly boost the skill of a D so whatever, it's self proving.
Well i know a protoss who claims to be A- just by map and opponent picking.
But tbh it is quite sad to see him going 1-3 PvP vs a 250-300 B-
Hence i think there aren't a lot of differences between A- and B- 
|
more like everyone dogdes me just cause i have tsl in my name cause u suck
|
When all the good players are playing TSL it's probably even a smaller chance that you meet any good foreigner smurfing than usual. It should be quite easy at the lower ranks currently.
|
i love playing people with fantastic records. especially people that are like 30-0. always want that chance to put the first lose on their accounts
|
|
|
intrigue
Washington, D.C9934 Posts
to the op, just keep at it. in a few months (hopefully) you will begin to realize that the difference between d and c- is much less than you think, and you won't be as intimidated. for other people claiming to be running into former blue ranks or korean pros, i don't know what to say. it's bound to happen of course, but... iccup profile links please!
|
United States43557 Posts
On December 01 2009 04:19 Boblion wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 03:57 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2009 03:40 redtooth wrote:On December 01 2009 03:29 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2009 03:22 redtooth wrote:On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion. you're assuming "smurf = B". for D players a C- player who reset his stats is considered a smurf. imagine how difficult it is for them for a mediocre D player to beat a mediocre C- player. D and D+, +130 for a win, -50 for a loss. That means that if two D rank players play 24 or so games, at least one, or possibly both, will now be D+. Obviously they're not allowed to play each other that much but the principle works for a larger pool of players. The principle also works for D+. All D rank players are C- if they play enough games against other players like them (ie as good as them and there by virtue of massgaming). i'm sorry but i don't understand what you are trying to prove there. in your scenario, i could theoretically get to olympic class by killing a D- player enough times. besides, this has nothing to do with what i said. are you claiming that a mediocre D player is equal in skill to a mediocre C- player? sure there are those instances where a C- player isn't really deserving of C- and a D player might be better than his rank suggests but that is definitely not the norm. a C- player consistently resetting his stats whenever he gets to a yellow rank is going to have a relatively easy time beating on D players and thus cause all these "omfg smurf" posts. The only way a mediocre player can be stable at any rank below B is if he's losing significantly more games than he's winning. You gotta ask yourself who is winning those games he's losing, if it's another mediocre player that player is gonna move up the ranks. If there wasn't smurfing and people played enough, every single player on iccup would be at least B-, even if none of them improved at all. So yeah, I don't think there's all that much difference between a D and a C-. Opponent selection and about 50 games vs people just like him. Of course, just playing the 50 games would probably significantly boost the skill of a D so whatever, it's self proving. Well i know a protoss who claims to be A- just by map and opponent picking. But tbh it is quite sad to see him going 1-3 PvP vs a 250-300 B- Hence i think there aren't a lot of differences between A- and B-
If you're refering to me I've never claimed to be A- level and yeah, my pvp is plain bad. Even if I hit A- it won't make me A- level because A ranks work the opposite way to D ranks. To be a solid A- you need to be better than A-s.
You seem to have completely missed the point. To be a stable D you need to be losing the majority of your games against stable Ds. As such there can be no such thing as a stable D, the rank is inflationary. The difference between D and C- is purely one of game number. You took that point and applied it to A where rank is deflationary.
Try again.
|
Kwark you also miss the point that there is a real difference between a C/resetard and a D player.
There are people who are stable at D you know... People with a 30% win ratio for example.
|
On December 01 2009 04:56 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 04:19 Boblion wrote:On December 01 2009 03:57 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2009 03:40 redtooth wrote:On December 01 2009 03:29 KwarK wrote:On December 01 2009 03:22 redtooth wrote:On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion. you're assuming "smurf = B". for D players a C- player who reset his stats is considered a smurf. imagine how difficult it is for them for a mediocre D player to beat a mediocre C- player. D and D+, +130 for a win, -50 for a loss. That means that if two D rank players play 24 or so games, at least one, or possibly both, will now be D+. Obviously they're not allowed to play each other that much but the principle works for a larger pool of players. The principle also works for D+. All D rank players are C- if they play enough games against other players like them (ie as good as them and there by virtue of massgaming). i'm sorry but i don't understand what you are trying to prove there. in your scenario, i could theoretically get to olympic class by killing a D- player enough times. besides, this has nothing to do with what i said. are you claiming that a mediocre D player is equal in skill to a mediocre C- player? sure there are those instances where a C- player isn't really deserving of C- and a D player might be better than his rank suggests but that is definitely not the norm. a C- player consistently resetting his stats whenever he gets to a yellow rank is going to have a relatively easy time beating on D players and thus cause all these "omfg smurf" posts. The only way a mediocre player can be stable at any rank below B is if he's losing significantly more games than he's winning. You gotta ask yourself who is winning those games he's losing, if it's another mediocre player that player is gonna move up the ranks. If there wasn't smurfing and people played enough, every single player on iccup would be at least B-, even if none of them improved at all. So yeah, I don't think there's all that much difference between a D and a C-. Opponent selection and about 50 games vs people just like him. Of course, just playing the 50 games would probably significantly boost the skill of a D so whatever, it's self proving. Well i know a protoss who claims to be A- just by map and opponent picking. But tbh it is quite sad to see him going 1-3 PvP vs a 250-300 B- Hence i think there aren't a lot of differences between A- and B- If you're refering to me I've never claimed to be A- level and yeah, my pvp is plain bad. Even if I hit A- it won't make me A- level because A ranks work the opposite way to D ranks. To be a solid A- you need to be better than A-s. You seem to have completely missed the point. To be a stable D you need to be losing the majority of your games against stable Ds. As such there can be no such thing as a stable D, the rank is inflationary. The difference between D and C- is purely one of game number. You took that point and applied it to A where rank is deflationary. Try again. you and i are talking about two totally different types of players. i think you are talking about the C- players who have 600+ games on their account. yeah they are probably stuck at C- (i remember hot_bid once saying that if you are stuck at a level then you are that level). but i am talking about the guys who get to C- with a 90% winrate then reset and repeat. the "average" D player does not stand much of a chance against these guys.
i'm going to be honest. when i'm bored i jump onto an AKA and start offracing, doing weird strategies, playing while watching tv, etc. the majority of D players still don't stand a chance, not because i am one of the top players but because there is a large discrepancy in skill (mechanics, game knowledge, confidence) between me and my opponent. and there are a LOT of players better than me so yes it doesn't seem too outrageous that there are that many "smurfs" out there, at least in the perspective of a D player.
|
United States43557 Posts
On December 01 2009 05:09 Boblion wrote:
Kwark you also miss the point that there is a real difference between a C/resetard and a D player.
There are people who are stable at D you know... People with a 30% win ratio for example.
Who are those guys playing? Eventually everyone better than them will become D+. Once those 30% win ratio players start playing each other, someone has to win more than 30%.
|
On December 01 2009 05:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 01 2009 05:09 Boblion wrote:
Kwark you also miss the point that there is a real difference between a C/resetard and a D player.
There are people who are stable at D you know... People with a 30% win ratio for example.
Who are those guys playing? Eventually everyone better than them will become D+. Once those 30% win ratio players start playing each other, someone has to win more than 30%.
Hence the C/resetards problem huhuhuhu
The guys who got 40%+ win ratio will climb to D+ or higher.
Those with 30% ratio remain at D ranks to play vs people starting the season ( some D but also some more skilled ), others 30% D guys or reseters.
So they can basicly stay at D level with 30% win during the whole season if some idiots keep reseting or if more skilled people start to play late in the season.
|
United States43557 Posts
Maybe they should enjoy the opportunity to play higher ranked people when it hands itself to them on a silver platter and stop whining and check records when they want to play people like them.
|
On December 01 2009 03:47 AcrossFiveJulys wrote:
Don't discount the fact that C and higher level players have to start at the bottom of the ladder in every new season, so if you play a C player they might not be smurfing or D bashing.
I think this is the case more than anything. I know this happened to me just recently with somebody just starting a TSL account. People tend to just jump to the assumption that if a player was D when they played them and C+ now, must have been a smurf. It makes people not feel bad about the loss, but it also prevents them from improving as fast as they could.
|
On December 01 2009 05:41 KwarK wrote:
Maybe they should enjoy the opportunity to play higher ranked people when it hands itself to them on a silver platter and stop whining and check records when they want to play people like them.
I have to agree with KwarK here. I'm one of the types that doesn't mind playing higher level players. I could care less if the gamer has 300 APM, just means if I beat them I'm f-ing baller! If I lose, o well, I was supposed to lose. Plus it gives me a great replay to highlight my mistakes. To me the replay part alone makes it worth it.
I'm the different type tho, I want to play the best. The whole time I've been working with Artosis and Day[9] on this Strong BO's section, I have been asking them to play a BO3 vs me sometime. I'll get mauled for sure (I'm a mid to high D+), but it will put huge exclamation points on my flaws in my play. Playing against a player like that would help more than the loss would hurt. In this game a loss isn't a big deal.
Again that's just how I am, b4 I started training MMA I was talking to a friend about this show he saw where they threw this average joe in there with a "amateur boxer" (or so he was told) and than as he was in the ring, it was revealed to be Oscar De La Hoya. We were talking if someone did that to us and say it was GSP or BJ Penn. He said he would just tapout as soon as the match started, but I told him (and meant this) I would do it, just to say I competed against the words best, plus like above it would expose my holes in my fight game.
ne ways enjoy the smurfs, they r here to stay, and you're not going to do nuttin bout it. i'm sry it's the truth, but there is like one thread a week here and like 6 a week at the iCCup forums and nothing has changed. plus it's not that bad, I've played like 110 games and had maybe 8-15 players over 200 APM. If all you want is a good win record tho, iCCUp might not be the place.
|
On December 01 2009 02:22 kOre wrote:
I was doing decent on my TSL account and then a couple nights ago I just ran into a huge bad streak where I played the people at my rank but I got squashed. I went 1-12 so I just quit and went to sleep.
Similar for me, I was playing, doing fine and then all of a sudden I went like 1-9.
Though the critical games were people whose real skill lvl was like low C+ Protoss... a lvl which I thought I could beat pretty well... made it all the more depressing :/
And then I just got angry and played bad and got cheesed etc. pp.
|
On December 01 2009 02:52 KwarK wrote:
You're not getting smurfed. You're just bad and delusional and lying to yourself to make your losses alright. You're like the people who go "i lost to a 300apm terran, I think it's NaDa, check hotkeys pls" at C- guys with a negative record. Numerically there simply aren't enough B ranks to infest the 3/4 of games that Ds claim they're in. Only the top 10% of players make B- or better and they generally spend their time in Ladder A-B. A minority of that 10% may be smurfing lower ranks but even then they can't spend that much time there before they move out of it again.
It just doesn't add up. Statistically the chances of playing a smurf are pretty low, like 1/20 or so. That everybody believes they play 4 or 5 smurfs in a row on a nightly basis is mass delusion.
The funny thing is that most of the games I play are against D/D+ people with around my record. But I run into people who are Smurfs... I'm pretty sure that a C- player with a 12-3 record is a smurf especially considering the games are not cheeses. Every game is usually a long game 15 min+.
I don't believe I'm playing smurfs on I nightly basis, in fact I know I'm not. But if you want go look at my iccup and look at the people I play before 5-6 game losing streaks, they usually are 80% or so in win rate and I do run into some of them in a row.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://argentina.indymedia.org/uploads/2008/03/smurfs.jpg)
