|
OK so I've been playing brood war on ICCUP again and I've actually been playing well this time.
I've beaten a few pretty good players but I've also lost to a few bad players...
I just played this PvT vs what appears to be a very good korean terran, I think it was my best PvT so far as the guy played a really annoying style and I think I did well against it the game is about 30 minutes long but the last 5 minutes is him being bad manner -_-;; It's the first replay on the list.
My APM has risen a lot since my last comeback and it's around 220-240 now for shorter games. Longer games around 190 or 200 I think.
http://www.iccup.com/gamingprofile/SaddleS.html
-SaddleS American (ghetto style) Protoss
Edit: to add some more reps
http://repdepot.net/replay.php?id=34258 PvT vs NateChild 32-12 C- (best player I've played I think)
http://repdepot.net/replay.php?id=34256 PvZ vs LostChild 51-13 C+
 
|
ugh sorry for using MegaUpload it was the first one I thought of does anyone know a good site to upload BW replays to?
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
If a lot of your games are short, does that mean that you're still often 2 gating vs Z?
EDIT: repdepot is probably the best place to upload reps.
|
Cant beat repdepot.net for hosting bw reps, thats what the site is for 
|
On April 11 2010 14:27 Bibbit wrote:Cant beat repdepot.net for hosting bw reps, thats what the site is for
thank you I had forgotten about that site but will be using it now!!
|
Austin10833 Posts
Can you host some replays of a nice colossus rush?
|
On April 11 2010 14:29 BroOd wrote:
Can you host some replays of a nice colossus rush?
That would definitely be impressive as hell if you could pull that off in bw.
|
[QUOTE]On April 11 2010 14:26 motbob wrote:
If a lot of your games are short, does that mean that you're still often 2 gating vs Z?
Yah I am -_-;;; but really it's just to get through the lower ranks faster, my main PvZ is definitely based on FE.
A lot of these zergs don't practice early game ling/drone micro and just get crushed by someone who can micro their zealots correctly... I've gone like 15-3 using 2 gate PvZ and have beaten some pretty good zergs with it..
|
motbob
United States12546 Posts
BTW please keep playing, don't get to 50% win ratio and then give up, try to get the highest rank you can. It's frustrating to see every single iccup account of yours at like 25-5 where it's clear that you just didn't feel like trying to beat C+ Koreans. I assume you really do want to improve your game.
GL
|
[QUOTE]On April 11 2010 14:32 JoeSaddles wrote:
[QUOTE]On April 11 2010 14:26 motbob wrote:
If a lot of your games are short, does that mean that you're still often 2 gating vs Z?
Yah I am -_-;;; but really it's just to get through the lower ranks faster, my main PvZ is definitely based on FE.
A lot of these zergs don't practice early game ling/drone micro and just get crushed by someone who can micro their zealots correctly... I've gone like 15-3 using 2 gate PvZ and have beaten some pretty good zergs with it..
[/QUOTE]
It's even worse when I bunker rush. 80% of zergs can't react to it at all and just die within the first 5 minutes or are seriously crippled because of it.
|
Austin10833 Posts
On April 11 2010 14:32 JoeSaddles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2010 14:26 motbob wrote:
If a lot of your games are short, does that mean that you're still often 2 gating vs Z?
Yah I am -_-;;; but really it's just to get through the lower ranks faster, my main PvZ is definitely based on FE.
A lot of these zergs don't practice early game ling/drone micro and just get crushed by someone who can micro their zealots correctly... I've gone like 15-3 using 2 gate PvZ and have beaten some pretty good zergs with it..
15-3 is pretty impressive. When I play zvp my worst nightmare is when protoss players micro their zealots. I should really take your advice and practice my drone ling micro. How have you been faring at the B~ level?
|
i've decided to go thru ur match list to determine how good ur opponents r and if u belong at ur rank
here r all 51 games:
+ Show Spoiler +(opponents recs)
1. LOSS vs C- (91-128)
2. LOSS vs D+ (16-11) - probably C-
3. WIN vs D+ (14-7) - probably C-
4. WIN vs D (13-28) - probably D-
5. WIN vs same guy
6. WIN vs same guy
7. WIN vs same guy
8. WIN vs same guy
9. WIN vs D (15-24) - probably D-
10. WIN vs D+ (24-29)
11. WIN vs D+ (24-25)
12. WIN vs D (2-2) - not enough data
13. LOSS vs C (45-20) - probably C+
14. WIN vs C- (61-20) - at first i thought this guy was probably C, but his match list is him beating on D's. like 25-0 vs D's at C- rank lol
15. WIN vs C- (23-14)
16. WIN vs D+ (18-13)
17. WIN vs D+ (16-10)
18. WIN vs C- (23-11)
19. WIN vs D (8-3) - probably D+
20. WIN vs D+ (17-7)
21. WIN vs D+ (22-29)
22. WIN vs D+ (22-20)
23. WIN vs D (22-51)
24. LOSS vs C- (25-15)
25. WIN vs D+ (12-3) - probably C-
26. WIN vs C- (50-32)
27. LOSS vs C- (63-50)
28. WIN vs C- (42-28)
29. WIN vs C- (44-39)
30. WIN vs C- (117-187)
31. LOSS vs C- (40-41)
32. WIN vs same guy
33. WIN vs C- (82-108)
34. WIN vs D+ (22-17) - probably C-
35. WIN vs D (57-105)
36. WIN vs same guy
37. LOSS vs C- (39-21) - probably C
38. LOSS vs C (62-59) - right between C-/C
39. WIN vs D+ (17-13)
40. WIN vs C (65-51) - right between C-/C
41. LOSS vs C- (83-115)
42. WIN vs D+ (36-29) - probably C-
43. WIN vs same guy
44. WIN vs C- (24-11)
45. LOSS vs C- (90-104)
46. WIN vs C (56-51) - right between C-/C
47. WIn vs C- (38-39)
48. WIN vs C- (92-103)
49. LOSS vs C+ (60-36)
50. WIN vs C (52-14) - nice win!
51. WIN vs C (193-232) - nice win!]
52. LOSS vs same guy
53. WIN vs C- (u posted his rep here)
first things first, the korean u beat in the rep u posted is prty good. he's 32-12 C- rank. his record breaks down to 24-6 vs D/D+ and 8-6 vs C-, so he's very likely solid C-.
for ur breakdown, i took into account players current/previous records and estimated what they should be based on their recs so theres no "omg hes actually B- but on a C- account" kind of whining (look at full breakdown)
ur breakdown:
6-0 vs D-
4-0 vs D
8-0 vs D+
16-7 vs C-
2-2 vs C
1-2 vs C+
judging from ur record, its pretty safe to say ur solid C, since ur .500 on it while easily winning most of ur games (16-7) vs C- players (like the guy whose rep u posted). congrats on getting C, not many ppl get up that high.
if u can stay .500 at C (only 2 wins vs C players) then u can show u "belong" there, its a great rank. i think with lots of practice u might be able to get to C+ even.
|
On April 11 2010 14:27 Bibbit wrote:Cant beat repdepot.net for hosting bw reps, thats what the site is for
repdepot is niceee I just changed the original rep to there and added 2 more
|
sick record, next foreign bonjwa?
|
Ehh you're joking right? What are you trying to imply here hahaha
|
plz delete me was going off false info
|
On April 11 2010 15:17 KawaiiRice wrote:Ehh you're joking right? What are you trying to imply here hahaha
heres his profile http://www.iccup.com/gamingprofile/galford.html
he was 90-66 B+ season 13.
he got first place in an iccup C / B ranks tournament
he got first place in an iccup C- / C / C+ tournament
he got second place in another C-/ C/ C+ tourney
|
|
|
On April 11 2010 15:20 JoeSaddles wrote:
although I agree with most of your breakdown you have to look at the records of the C- players I've won against, (a lot of them should be C) and the records of the 2 C+ players I lost to...
lost to 2 C+ players
60-36 (he's better than C+ for sure)
and 45-20 (probably also better than C+)
then if you look at my wins vs C- players, you will see that some of the records include 42-28, 24-11, 33-12, 23-14, and 50-32. I think it's safe to say those players probably belong at C rank instead of listing them as C- players.
Also the last thing is that you're counting the win vs at 52-14 player as C rank, when really he is at 4900 points and was C+ rank when I beat him.. he definitely belongs as a win vs C+.
other than those few things your analysis is good but I think I will prove to you that I'm better than a C player =p
i did take that into consideration, wtf?
the guys i listed at C- have .500 records or worse at C-. i listed a bunch of guys as C- who had good stats at D+. if ur winning half ur games at C, ur C. the 2 guys u played at C+ being better than C+ means nothing cuz u lost to them both.
if they win 50% of their games at C-, THEY ARE C-. there's no question about that, it doesn't matter if some1 goes 18-0 at D/D+ and 6-6 at C, oh wow 24-6 looks great but they r actually C-
like i said, ur 17-7 at C- and 2-2 at C, and 0-2 at C+. i don't see how u can possibly say ur "better than a C player" when u havent even proven that u belong at C yet
|
didn't realize you checked their games also.. alright then the only thing that I disagree with is that LostChild should be considered C+
|
your analysis is very very good and quite deep I have to say O_O
|
I refuse to believe a B+ can get 23-11. Must have had his friend play on his acc several times...
Edit: Of course, if it's Combat-EX I'd believe anything from 25-0 vs D's to 70-100
|
On April 11 2010 15:28 JoeSaddles wrote:
didn't realize you checked their games also.. alright then the only thing that I disagree with is that LostChild and Galford should both be considered C+ or players (especially galford)
ur prolly right about lostchild
galford is 3-3 this season vs C- when u played him, previous season B+? that strongly suggests someone played on his account. even if it was him, hes clearly nowhere near B+ shape now, going 50% winrate vs C- players :p
even assuming galford is C (he's C- now) amended record for u looks like:
6-0 vs D-
4-0 vs D
8-0 vs D+
16-7 vs C-
2-2 vs C
1-2 vs C+
u still belong at highest, C rank
nothing 2 be ashamed of there, C is a great rank. i never got to C, 90% of ppl don't get as high as C-.
|
you also have to take into consideration that you would have to check the records of every player HE lost to in order to see the quality of C- players that beat him, and then check the stats of the ones that beat them, etc.
it's very mathematical and precise quite impressive O_O
|
On April 11 2010 15:33 baller wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2010 15:28 JoeSaddles wrote:
didn't realize you checked their games also.. alright then the only thing that I disagree with is that LostChild and Galford should both be considered C+ or players (especially galford) ur prolly right about lostchild galford is 3-3 this season vs C- when u played him, previous season B+? that strongly suggests someone played on his account. even if it was him, hes clearly nowhere near B+ shape now, going 50% winrate vs C- players :p even assuming galford is C (he's C- now) amended record for u looks like: u still belong at highest, C rank nothing 2 be ashamed of there, C is a great rank. i never got to C, 90% of ppl don't get as high as C-.
yeh I agree I think maybe someone played on his account also, I played really sloppy in that PvP don't think he is a B player either
|
That's really good work and a good point how you can show that people with "flashy" records don't really belong at certain ranks, they just beat up on lower competition to get there..
I also agree that the one dude I played who was like 195-195 was definitely one of the best players I've played, even though records should say otherwise...
really really sick analysis I can't wait till tomorrow so I can try to play more C players
|
On April 11 2010 15:34 JoeSaddles wrote:
you also have to take into consideration that you would have to check the records of every player HE lost to in order to see the quality of C- players that beat him, and then check the stats of the ones that beat them, etc.
it's very mathematical and precise but I think it's being biased against a few other factors
no?
galford's 11 losses:
1. C (41-10, Saddles, you!)
2. C- (101-135), barely C- 3043
3. C- (89-119)
4. C- (19-2) probably C
5. C- (38-37)
6. C (29-9) possibly C+
7. C (35-26) between C-/C
8. C (51-37)
9. C- (no rec, but seems better than C-, probably C)
10. D (13-13) probably D+
11. C- (61-62)
he's not B+, not even close. he's probably C-, C at best
|
On April 11 2010 15:38 JoeSaddles wrote:
That's really good work and a good point how you can show that people with "flashy" records don't really belong at certain ranks, they just beat up on lower competition to get there..
I also agree that the one dude I played who was like 195-195 was definitely one of the best players I've played, even though records should say otherwise...
really really sick analysis I can't wait till tomorrow so I can try to play more C players
word, play more ppl who r actually C and see what record u get. i give u respekt, this is how a man plays brood wars.
all these dumb blogs where ppl post oh i got 2 B- or oh im B+ player, 99% of those guys r not actually that rank. they just like pretty stats. i wish ICC would just erase all ur stats once u reach a new rank, then u'd really see true ranks.
|
On April 11 2010 15:40 baller wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2010 15:34 JoeSaddles wrote:
you also have to take into consideration that you would have to check the records of every player HE lost to in order to see the quality of C- players that beat him, and then check the stats of the ones that beat them, etc.
it's very mathematical and precise but I think it's being biased against a few other factors no? galford's 11 losses: Show nested quote +1. C (41-10, Saddles, you!)
2. C- (101-135), barely C- 3043
3. C- (89-119)
4. C- (19-2) probably C
5. C- (38-37)
6. C (29-9) possibly C+
7. C (35-26) between C-/C
8. C (51-37)
9. C- (no rec, but seems better than C-, probably C)
10. D (13-13) probably D+
11. C- (61-62) he's not B+, not even close. he's probably C-, C at best
yeh agreed I deleted my rep vs him and my post about him, I was just going off blind info instead of digging deeper
|
I think since a lot of ppl might read your analysis you should amend my record on the front page vs C+ players to 1-2 =)
|
On April 11 2010 15:48 JoeSaddles wrote:
I think since a lot of ppl might read your analysis you should amend my record on the front page vs C+ players to 1-2 =)
yah ok thats only fair
|
wow for sure I'm definitely going off feel of the game from now on instead of just worrying about records...
I thought that natedrive guy was the best I've played and I think he definitely is,
his next 5 games after I won vs him he has gone 5-0 and slaughtered a few ppl in mere minutes
I'm very glad that I played a long , legitimate macro game vs him..... gives me some hope that i can still play "normal" style instead of just winning with cheese/ all-in or rush etc
|
baller seems overly invested in saddles iccup endeavors.
|
awesome job saddles! nice to see people improving =]
keep us updated with new blogs please
|
|
|
hmm you're masturbating to match list far too early, reminds me of myself when I could never break the C+ barrier. I'd speculate about how many B-/B rank players I beat to get to C+ and suggested I was good enough to get those ranks.
Then some months later I mass gamed and realised I really couldn't break the C+ barrier, then finally after having stopped analysing my match list and just played the damned game I ended up getting to B- with an 85% win ratio and I could repeat this time and time again eventually getting B with a decent ratio.
|
On April 11 2010 16:26 KrAzYfoOL wrote:
hmm you're masturbating to match list far too early, reminds me of myself when I could never break the C+ barrier. I'd speculate about how many B-/B rank players I beat to get to C+ and suggested I was good enough to get those ranks.
Then some months later I mass gamed and realised I really couldn't break the C+ barrier, then finally after having stopped analysing my match list and just played the damn game I ended up getting to B- with an 85% win ratio and I could repeat this time and time again eventually getting B with a decent ratio.
sure, every1 gets to B+ with 80% win ratio in "past seasons"
|
You missed my point completely, how did you manage to do that?
|
On April 11 2010 16:26 KrAzYfoOL wrote:
hmm you're masturbating to match list far too early, reminds me of myself when I could never break the C+ barrier. I'd speculate about how many B-/B rank players I beat to get to C+ and suggested I was good enough to get those ranks.
Then some months later I mass gamed and realised I really couldn't break the C+ barrier, then finally after having stopped analysing my match list and just played the damned game I ended up getting to B- with an 85% win ratio and I could repeat this time and time again eventually getting B with a decent ratio.
I'm having trouble believing this ... link to account that shows B rank in past season??
B- with 85% win ratio?? thats like 55-12...........
|
On April 12 2010 00:52 JoeSaddles wrote:Show nested quote +On April 11 2010 16:26 KrAzYfoOL wrote:
hmm you're masturbating to match list far too early, reminds me of myself when I could never break the C+ barrier. I'd speculate about how many B-/B rank players I beat to get to C+ and suggested I was good enough to get those ranks.
Then some months later I mass gamed and realised I really couldn't break the C+ barrier, then finally after having stopped analysing my match list and just played the damned game I ended up getting to B- with an 85% win ratio and I could repeat this time and time again eventually getting B with a decent ratio. I'm having trouble believing this ... link to account that shows B rank in past season?? B- with 85% win ratio?? thats like 55-12...........
http://www.iccup.com/gamingprofile/KawaiiRice.html
These things actually exist yo
|
On April 12 2010 01:02 KawaiiRice wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 00:52 JoeSaddles wrote:On April 11 2010 16:26 KrAzYfoOL wrote:
hmm you're masturbating to match list far too early, reminds me of myself when I could never break the C+ barrier. I'd speculate about how many B-/B rank players I beat to get to C+ and suggested I was good enough to get those ranks.
Then some months later I mass gamed and realised I really couldn't break the C+ barrier, then finally after having stopped analysing my match list and just played the damned game I ended up getting to B- with an 85% win ratio and I could repeat this time and time again eventually getting B with a decent ratio. I'm having trouble believing this ... link to account that shows B rank in past season?? B- with 85% win ratio?? thats like 55-12........... http://www.iccup.com/gamingprofile/KawaiiRice.htmlThese things actually exist yo
that doesn't show much.... 1 season? no stats in other seasons? B- not B?
the other guy is claiming a lot more than "one time I got to B- late in the season with a good ratio"
|
ranks obviously lost their weight... unless you are kor. being a B+ foreigner means absolutely shit now. This season is kind of different though, alot harder it seems... but it is the actual first season where I played from the start.
|
I think getting to B+ would be pretty impressive as a foreigner
|
On April 12 2010 09:46 JoeSaddles wrote:
I think getting to B+ would be pretty impressive as a foreigner
Not really anymore, getting to A- and keeping it is impressive. The majority of "top" foreigners, that include people like Gamtja, who are terribad, can get B+.
But, getting B+ in korean hours IS impressive as a foreigner.
|
On April 12 2010 10:06 ZZangDreamjOy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2010 09:46 JoeSaddles wrote:
I think getting to B+ would be pretty impressive as a foreigner Not really anymore, getting to A- and keeping it is impressive. The majority of "top" foreigners, that include people like Gamtja, who are terribad, can get B+. But, getting B+ in korean hours IS impressive as a foreigner.
i dunno I find it hard to say that top foreigners are terribad... maybe compared to koreans yes.. but still being better than everyone outside of korea is not bad
|
Here's an idea: instead of judging how good people are by their rank and the rank of other people that they beat to get there, perhaps try looking at how good their play is. Do they micro well in most situations? Are their build orders tight and fully optimized? Do they do things that make no sense whatsoever like taking another expo while they're being pushed? Foreigner rank and rec gives very little information about how good they actually are. It seems like White-Ra and this guy http://www.iccup.com/gamingprofile/eNjoyMacroing.html and everything in between can get about the same rank and stats.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
