|
And obviously that makes my opinion fucking matter...
Seriously getting SUPER tired of anytime someone states an opinion that might not be very popular that they preface it with. "Well I'm mid diamond" or "I'm high diamond" my favorite "1800 rated Diamond here..."
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/C8mk9.jpg)
Proven fact this is what you look like when you try to use your ranking as an argument
Don't get me wrong I don't mind this when people are talking about their PLAY. IE when they're posting about a stream or signing up for a limit slot tournament that is not first come first serve.
BUT your ranking has absolutely 0.00% of a factor to do with you having an opinion about the game. If you think something should be changed don't bring your ranking into the equation just fucking back up your argument. People keep using their ladder ranking in arguments instead of like FACTS you know those things that people like to use in debates. Apparently the only fact I need is HEY IM IN DIAMOND!
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/AeV0o.jpg)
Hey it still counts right? RIGHT?
Ladder ranking not only doesn't tell us anything, but at this point points don't say much either as the bonus points have completely destroyed the rating system. Inflation is completely out of control all telling us your rank tells us is you might know how to play the game but that doesn't mean you have any clear understanding of the game as a whole. Wow you're 2000+ good job do you know any races besides your own?
![[image loading]](http://i43.tinypic.com/dbgvur.jpg)
What's a baneling again?
"Err... well I know the Protoss match ups." Good job my point exactly, I've known Silver players who had deep understanding of the game just didn't know how to fucking play it. So next time you're tempted to start off an argument with "Hey 2100 Zerg here!" Just slap yourself real good across the face then use a real argument.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/fb1mK.gif)
Internet slapfights almost as stupid as listing your rank as an argument
Ragecun out
 
|
from a broodwar perspective, sc2 ladder points are worth almost as much as the turds that brag about them
|
People should just have their ranking in their sigs at all times. This would be nice
Nothing fancy, just a half a line of text that says "1800 Diamond Rank 30 US" or something
|
On November 07 2010 01:40 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Ragecunt out
As a 1337 point diamond player, I find that isn't always true at my level of play. Maybe if you provided some replays I could see what you are talking about.
:D lolz, good blog post though.
|
As much as I agree with you it'll never change.
Teamliquid has an abundance of people who have this notion that they're way better than everyone else.
Some serious superiority complex breeding around here.
High 2000 Diamond Terran out.
|
I remember when we were in DC I said to Shiver and Orb (I think) that I bet at least 5 people tell us their ranking within the first 2 sentences to us.
I won, 12 was the end number.
"Hey Ret I'm a big fan, I mean I'm only an 1800 point zerg but...."
Don't worry Raelcun, this trend will not stop and only get worse with time...
|
'BUT your ranking has absolutely 0.00% of a factor to do with you having an opinion about the game'
Erm, actually it's quite important. I think it's very important to state your rank, it gives you a sort of credibility so the poster can't just say 'oh, he's probably a gold scrub, his opinion doesn't matter.'
Also, at the high level strategy is actually a factor. Below mid-diamond you can win every game with just macroing properly. You can say any unit counters any unit just by having more of it.
|
On November 07 2010 01:48 Iamsmart wrote:
'BUT your ranking has absolutely 0.00% of a factor to do with you having an opinion about the game'
Erm, actually it's quite important. I think it's very important to state your rank, it gives you a sort of credibility so the poster can't just say 'oh, he's probably a gold scrub, his opinion doesn't matter.'
Also, at the high level strategy is actually a factor. Below mid-diamond you can win every game with just macroing properly. You can say any unit counters any unit just by having more of it.
You're completely missing the point below mid diamond you could have an idea of what you're supposed to be doing but lack the skills to actually do them. Read that quote again it has 0 factor with you having an opinion. Thats the thing anyone can have an opinion and as long as they back it up with solid facts why the fuck does it matter what their rank is? Guess what it doesn't the whole "oh he's probably a gold scrub his opinion doesn't matter" is the elitist bullshit I'm talking about that has no place in any argument as you should be evaluating the argument not the person.
|
How could you possibly know what you're supposed to be doing though? You don't have the proper skills to get to a point where you're maximizing your units, and therefore unit composition actually is a huge factor. Below mid-diamond you'd never know if the strategy you did actually worked, or if you just macro'd better in the game. (or if your opponent macro'd poorly etc etc)
It's called ethos - To state an opinion you have to have some sort of credibility behind you to be persuasive. How can a gold player present a proper replay that effectively show's maximized play by both players, to show that a certain tech build order works? Their skill level can be too volatile from game to game for it to be correctly compared.
|
100% agree, it's so obnoxious when people post the rating :/
|
On November 07 2010 01:56 Iamsmart wrote:
How could you possibly know what you're supposed to be doing though? You don't have the proper skills to get to a point where you're maximizing your units, and therefore unit composition actually is a huge factor. Below mid-diamond you'd never know if the strategy you did actually worked, or if you just macro'd better in the game.
It's called ethos - To state an opinion you have to have some sort of credibility behind you to be persuasive. How can a gold player present a proper replay that effectively show's maximized play by both players, to show that a certain tech build order works? Their skill level can be too volatile from game to game for it to be correctly compared.
See the problem is you're right except for one thing, ethos isn't based completely on your rank. Your rank doesn't matter there's guys in high diamond who are just fodder and have no deep understanding of the game. While there are on the other side of the equation players who watch lots of games pay attention to top players and have a good idea on how the game is played but their mechanics are terrible. Like it or not there are people who understand this game yet don't play it very often and to give a blanket statement like anyone below mid diamond has no opinion is just ignorant.
|
I never said they have no right to have an opinion. Every friend I have in the Starcraft community bar 1-2 are below Diamond.
But surely you have to see there has to be some SIGNIFICANT correlation between rank and understanding the game - Even if it's not a true 100% factor, or even very close, (nothing worth studying is) it has a damned good place to at least put some credibility to your statement.
|
On November 07 2010 01:56 Iamsmart wrote:
How could you possibly know what you're supposed to be doing though? You don't have the proper skills to get to a point where you're maximizing your units, and therefore unit composition actually is a huge factor. Below mid-diamond you'd never know if the strategy you did actually worked, or if you just macro'd better in the game. (or if your opponent macro'd poorly etc etc)
It's called ethos - To state an opinion you have to have some sort of credibility behind you to be persuasive. How can a gold player present a proper replay that effectively show's maximized play by both players, to show that a certain tech build order works? Their skill level can be too volatile from game to game for it to be correctly compared.
Tell that to Jaehoon.
Ohh poor guy.
|
I think that you might have a point there. The forums are full of posts like that and in all honesty I
am sick of that shit.I think it would be great if they made that strategy section where you have to be
1500 point atleast ( or more like 2000 due to inflation) to post. Over 2000 is the level where every
point really starts to matter and therefore real skill and insight to the game are needed. So being
diamond would mean shit and then probably those dicks would stop posting like idiots. Those guys
suck... bad. Most of them simply cheese their way up to 1500, no skill involved there. The ladder,
it is badly "made", the system needs a complete overhaul. Too bad Blizzard doesn´t care, nothing
you can do. So we are left with these 10 post idiots who get to diamond and rush to TL just like a
scrub who doesn´t even notice acrostic writing when it´s in front of his eyes.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
You're wrong again, Raelcun. I mean you're kinda right in that POINTS don't mean anything, but server rank on sc2 rank means a whole fucking LOT actually.
BUT your ranking has absolutely 0.00% of a factor to do with you having an opinion about the game. If you think something should be changed don't bring your ranking into the equation just fucking back up your argument. People keep using their ladder ranking in arguments instead of like FACTS you know those things that people like to use in debates.
That's completely ass backwards. When you're a top200 player, chances are your opinion will be correct more often and come closer to actual reality. Argument from experience is a valid part of Ethos - one of the parts of rhetoric according to Aristotle.
There's a REASON people LISTEN to EXPERTS in their field. And top players whether you like it or not ARE experts, so when one of them says something, it's YOU who better damn make sure you're not whining or speaking out of your ass, and not the top200 player, because chances are way better that he knows what he's talking about and YOU dont.
The problem is that 99% of people can't tell a real fact from their opinion if their life depended on it. You would see people (wood leaguers) making an "argument" that X units are cost ineffective, and in their MIND, they made a _good_ argument, when in fact it was nothing but their dumbass anecdotal experience in bronze league that is not a valid support for anything.
|
That's completely ass backwards. When you're a top200 player, chances are your opinion will be correct more often and come closer to actual reality. Argument from experience is a valid part of Ethos - one of the parts of rhetoric according to Aristotle.
Sure, the top 200 guys are the best people to listen to, but I think he's arguing that your average 1800 point player doesn't necessarily have that much more understanding of the game than anyone else, they just have better mechanics.
|
On November 07 2010 02:09 Sadistx wrote:You're wrong again, Raelcun. I mean you're kinda right in that POINTS don't mean anything, but server rank on sc2 rank means a whole fucking LOT actually. Show nested quote +BUT your ranking has absolutely 0.00% of a factor to do with you having an opinion about the game. If you think something should be changed don't bring your ranking into the equation just fucking back up your argument. People keep using their ladder ranking in arguments instead of like FACTS you know those things that people like to use in debates. That's completely ass backwards. When you're a top200 player, chances are your opinion will be correct more often and come closer to actual reality. Argument from experience is a valid part of Ethos - one of the parts of rhetoric according to Aristotle. There's a REASON people LISTEN to EXPERTS in their field. And top players whether you like it or not ARE experts, so when one of them says something, it's YOU who better damn make sure you're not whining or speaking out of your ass, and not the top200 player, because chances are way better that he knows what he's talking about and YOU dont. The problem is that 99% of people can't tell a real fact from their opinion if their life depended on it. You would see people (wood leaguers) making an "argument" that X units are cost ineffective, and in their MIND, they made a _good_ argument, when in fact it was nothing but their dumbass anecdotal experience in bronze league that is not a valid support for anything.
Notice how I didn't mention any of the top 200 thing? This is mostly about the people who are barely high diamond or just past mid diamond. The experts are one thing and thats the thing they don't validate their posts by saying HEY IM IN DIAMOND! Cuz they can rely on the fact that they are experts and ranked highly and well known to give them credibility without having to stand on the street corner shouting HEY LISTEN TO ME!
See people like qxc if they post don't say hey I'm 2300+ they just let the fact that they're qxc speak for themselves. Once again completely missed the point. I never said that you should listen to all wood leaguers just look at the argument not the person because if you completely ignore someone just because they're ranked low you're going to miss out on stuff.
|
Well yes, I was only talking about top200.
I actually LOVE when people DO post their points, as that saves a lot of time from reading their giant 3 page OP, that describes the PERFECT BUILD ORDER that they found in XvX matchup, when it turns out their opponent just sucked ;\
So I guess I actually agree with this blog.
|
If you win a bunch of games and have a relatively high point score you probably have more clue than some random scrub.
It's only a problem is the post contains no actual evidence or logic and relies on that number.
|
Again - Just because you don't DEFINITELY have better grasp of the game doesn't mean you don't PROBABLY have a better grasp of the game. There is a small, distinct, and important value in that. If you don't see that, then I guess there's not much point in arguing over this.
|
1800 diamond here
I would disagree that ladder ratings mean nothing. Ladder ratings are quite important when discussing in the strategy section. We can't see people's MMR but by people's ladder ratings, we can expect that they are playing against people with similar ladder ratings. If someone says that they are 2000 point, their game is more based around strategy and tactics, while if someone says they are in platinum, their game is more based around not doing something fundamentally wrong. Also, certain strategies work better at certain ladder ratings. A 2000 point protoss should never 4 gate in PvZ because it simply doesn't work, but a 500 point Protoss will be able to. At the same time, there are strategies that a 2000 point player can pull off that is completely obsolete in tournament level play, but we don't view his strategies as competitive strategies, rather ladder strategies. If your MMR is the same as another player's, you will be playing the same people that he does. Therefore if you adopt his style of play and what works for him, you will be successful at that certain ladder rating as well. Lower point players can try to adopt that strategy as well in hopes that they can move up to your position in the ladder. So basically what I'm saying is that your ladder rating is important because you are talking about a specific strategy that works at a specific ladder rating, not because it will work in the highest level play.
|
I don't understand this. What holds true at bronze 200 level is rarely relevant for someone 1800 diamond, which is hardly ever relevant for a 2200 diamond. Who seriously brags about their rank? If someone posts some inquiry regarding their own play why wouldn't they state their rank? Unless they did, most of the replies would hold little value for them as the responses would apply to entirely different levels of play.
And we all know most theory-crafting is utter bullshit be it from a 2k diamond or a .2k bronze unless tested and proven valid in game.
|
Being a good player doesn't mean you're right; but if you're not even in diamond league it means theres a really big chance you're wrong if you're talking about something that affects balance. For example: If some silver terran says void rays are too strong, it doesn't matter because he's not spending his money he's not being anywhere close to efficient. If jinro says void rays are too storng because if you don't scout it most builds lose to it, then thats a much better argument. Jinro would still easily beat the silver protosses doing void rays so the silver league terrans opinion still doesn't matter.
qxc doesn't say he's X rated in diamond because everyone reads the name and knows that he's good, so they don't question it.
Diamond people can be wrong too though, like when somebody was complaining about mass thors and people were quoting other guys saying omg he had Roach/BL and lost, and it turns out he let the T get 3 free bases and made tons of more subtle macro mistakes, but had the right unit composition, something that would escape the majority of the sc community.
the fact is you don't find any silver players that understand the game well, they might understand certain unit compositions being good, but that isn't what starcraft is about. The reason people like ret and nony can come and play 100 games and be better than people playing 1000 games is that they already understand the way to optimize their micro and macro and thus make excellent build orders that will steamroll almost everybody but somebody of an equal skill - they just need basic knowledge of unit composition and use the superior mechanics to win.
For example the DJwheat coaching session. DJwheat had a pretty good idea on the outside of how zvz works, with the whole, mutas are great for harass, roaches are a counter to hydra, etc. However he was randomly making units and drones and didn't really know exactly what he could get away with and always had like 50% of the drones he should have had. Coupled with bad macro that day was trying to get rid of but that wasn't the only issue.
Wow you're 2000+ good job do you know any races besides your own?
Anyone 2000+ can easily play their offraces at a similar level unless they're not zerg and going into zerg (mechanics are a bit different so you can't learn straight away) because they know how to macro and how to be efficient. They'll take maybe 20 games to learn basic unit compositions and then they'll play not at the same level but able to play probably with 500 points of their main race rating.
i'll finish off with a quote from the MBC coach papa bear
"If watching pro games makes you a progamer then everyone in korea can do it"
|
On November 07 2010 01:51 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
You're completely missing the point below mid diamond you could have an idea of what you're supposed to be doing but lack the skills to actually do them. Read that quote again it has 0 factor with you having an opinion. Thats the thing anyone can have an opinion and as long as they back it up with solid facts why the fuck does it matter what their rank is? Guess what it doesn't the whole "oh he's probably a gold scrub his opinion doesn't matter" is the elitist bullshit I'm talking about that has no place in any argument as you should be evaluating the argument not the person.
I have to disagree. My roommate had never played a video game before in his life and got to diamond as terran with 30 apm in the first two weeks. If you are silver or gold, you have no understanding of the game at all.
|
@Ray
Are you serious? You almost made a valid point then you threw in the random thing about a 4 gate never working at 2k point level. The issue with this is there are multiple ways of 4 gating, if you're trying to use the most basic level I'm going to make 4 warpgates not care where my chrono boosts go and make zealots and sentries... Well yes that's not going to work against a 2000 point Zerg. Also the maps matter, obviously on blistering sands mixing in some stalkers to break the rocks and get into their base quickly is rather potent if you do it correctly. Watch the koreans who stream on teamliquid they're rather highly rated for the most part and both win with that, or lose to it.
Go watch Capoch replays that dude is super aggressive with 4 gates if you watch his series vs TTOne it wasn't working but he adjusted his timings on the build and then suddenly won 3 games in a row. That's PvP but it shows how 4 gates can be adjusted to the player, the map etc. At the point where Capoch likes to add a robo and make a warp prism if you've done any sort of damage at all with the initial push you can expand and go into a more of a macro game. Simply saying 4 gate doesn't tell me anything.
Did you save chrono boosts? If you did were they all blown on warpgates? Did you save some for your warpgates too? Where did you put your pylon? Making a great 4 gate strategy is all about streamlining the build as much as possible and using your Chrono Boosts intelligently. Go watch Nony replays he has a lot of builds where he uses his Chronos differently than any other protoss at the moment but if you sit back and think "Why did he do that." Then you realize he actually winds up slightly ahead out of it. Yes there are strategies that have high skill limitations because if you misclick you're going to fucking die IE Kyhol's TvP cutting a reactor for the fastest possible ghost off 2 rax for a solid EMP rush. If his emp misses he's kind of screwed but that doesn't make it a bad strategy.
The point is there are a lot of good sources of commentary around (and bad sources) there are people who watch this game far more than play it and if they're listening to the right people and absorbing data they know a lot. If you're talking to someone and the first thing you do is look up the rank you're really only hurting yourself. And all the people assuming all low level players are bad go watch some of Day9's newbie tuesday shows. I know a lot of people who arent newbies ignore those shows but a lot of the times the low rank players in those games all of their mistakes are stemming from one problem. Personally I find it interesting to see Day9 using replays of only low rank/league players and how surprisingly some of them look as good if not better than Diamond players I've seen.
|
On November 07 2010 02:07 ShadeR wrote:Show nested quote +On November 07 2010 01:56 Iamsmart wrote:
How could you possibly know what you're supposed to be doing though? You don't have the proper skills to get to a point where you're maximizing your units, and therefore unit composition actually is a huge factor. Below mid-diamond you'd never know if the strategy you did actually worked, or if you just macro'd better in the game. (or if your opponent macro'd poorly etc etc)
It's called ethos - To state an opinion you have to have some sort of credibility behind you to be persuasive. How can a gold player present a proper replay that effectively show's maximized play by both players, to show that a certain tech build order works? Their skill level can be too volatile from game to game for it to be correctly compared. Tell that to Jaehoon. Ohh poor guy.
LOL
![[image loading]](http://img231.imageshack.us/img231/3776/80066933.gif)
+ Show Spoiler +
Stolen from here.
Back on topic, you can be a total noob at playing starcraft but have an incredibly deep understanding of each matchup or you can be a extremely strong mechanical player that just bang their heads against people with lesser mechanics to grind up the ladder. In game skill, much less ladder points, does not equal good theorycrafting. Though it definitely helps to have experience against people at a high level it matters more how much the person thinks about the game and how critically they examine aspects of each matchup. Take for example commentators. Commentators are often not very good at the game but a good one will still be quite knowledgable. There's also people who just play custom games vs practice partners
|
I don't mind people stating their rank (as irrelevant as it is) so much as I hate the people who are in "high diamond" yet feel the need to berate anyone who states and opinion and includes "I'm in mid siler!" or what-not in their thread.
Next thing you know the entire thread devolves into LOL YOUR OPINION IS USELESS GET TO DIAMOND FIRST OMG LOL NOT DIAMOND WTF UR DOIN SOMETHIN WRONG NOOOB!, regardless if the player has a really strong argument or evidence of something that could use a change.
You don't have to get to diamond to understand the game a ton either. You can even just watch "pro-gamer" commentated games, tournaments like MLG, or even just watch the Day9 Daily consistently to have a grasp on the game. While I was never higher then a D- in SC1 because I was horrible with APM and mechanics of Terran, I still completely understood the strategies for all (if not most) match ups just from watching months of Proleague/MSL/OSL.
That being said..
- theres a bunch of posts by silver players saying to OMG NERF THIS because they don't know the mechanics of the game (but not ALL silver players are in this group).
- theres a bunch of "high 2000+ diamond" players who spew absolute crap in the strategy forum because they're trying to flex their e-dick or raging because they got 6pooled and they feel the need to start up a thread because of it.
|
Everyone seems to do it as a sign of humility, "I'm only this rank" etc. Whether or not it's false and they actually think their mid diamond rating actually means something I can't say for certain but I really don't care if people put it in their posts.
And it's true that more or less anyone below diamond is borderline retarded or they just don't know very much about the game, and that definitely does factor into the credibility of what they say about the game.
Is it such a crime that people want others to see their rank and give them the benefit of the doubt instead of just assuming they are another idiot who doesn't know how to play? At the end of the day is it truly that much different than latching onto iccup for example? I mean not one of you have a russian accent so you clearly aren't from theabyss (also the incredible lack of knowledge of the bw scene), but using the iccup name lends you recognizability and some credibility among forum goers..
|
I think a lot of people are misinterpreting this a bit. Sure, a diamond player probably has a better understanding of the game than a bronze player. But it becomes less distinct when you start looking at a diamond player vs a platinum level player. Who's to say that the platinum level player simply hasn't gotten enough games in to get promoted to diamond? Or who is to say that they care enough about their rank to really focus on getting it up? Personally I just dick around on ladder, no prepared build order or plan. Just scout, react, try something fun.
As a platinum random player with about 50 games under my belt, I have to agree with raelcun. I get matched with platinum and diamond players, both in matchmaking and in custom games, and a lot of the time there's no real distinction between their understanding, decision making, or skills. I've seriously had diamond players go 4 gate push, then expand, then colossi, even though they scout my mech play. And to top it all off, they forcefield my siege tank line, protecting it from zealots.
|
I agree with this post entirely but on the same point, I hate it when silver players start theorycrafting and say "I'm only in silver but I feel like I have a really good understanding of the game and can occasionally beat diamond players".
+ Show Spoiler + Nono, you're just terrible. (jk, nothing against lower level players)
I guess the reason most lower level players get ignored is because the majority of them, not all, just write random, nonsensical crap and most people, including me, do not want to read through every single one of them so instead just use a heuristic approach of disregarding all of them.
The only players' inputs that I place value in are from pros whom I have heard of, and even then, you have to take it with a grain of salt.
|
@gurppThe fact that you played him means you were similar skill level, which kind of means your point is moot.
|
Canada2480 Posts
On November 07 2010 01:40 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
"Err... well I know the Protoss match ups." Good job my point exactly, I've known Silver players who had deep understanding of the game just didn't know how to fucking play it. So next time you're tempted to start off an argument with "Hey 2100 Zerg here!" Just slap yourself real good across the face then use a real argument.
this is so true
|
On November 07 2010 02:45 gurrpp wrote:
I think a lot of people are misinterpreting this a bit.
Definitely.
People need to prove that they have an understanding. That was the whole point. It all comes from facts. If you have facts to back up your opinion, then your rank won't change that.
|
Oh Raelcun i am so with you on this :D haha
Look, i'm diamond too: Took me 23 games only, without ever having played 1v1 on any rts before. Damn, i must be a god of strategy!
/edit: wtfpwn  i have 8 more bonus pool than you, but you have 20 more achievement points. Guess i lose. xD This is why i watch your stream, and not the other way around for sure!
|
rank 100 Diamond? You're obviously a scrub and I'm not going to waste my time responding to your argument....
Yea people who bring ranking into discussion are annoying as hell.
|
K, so here's what the OP is saying:
Bunch of scrubs claim they're diamond "xxxx" point ladder ranking.
Bunch of scrubs believe this holds as a valid argument against others in a strategy/skill debate.
OP and a bunch of others facepalm as scrubs make an ass out of themselves.
Sure it is more probable that a solid silver player may not be as good or knowledgeable about the game, but objectively speaking, it is ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT to the argument at hand, meaning it holds no ground when presenting whatever claim you have about the game.
|
The ladder system creates a situation where you can be rank1 diamond with a very low ELO. It makes you look decent no matter how bad you are as long as you continue mass gaming to get ladder points. Just go to the Bnet forums you can see some 2000 diamond protoss players talking about gas steals and archons in PvP. ELO is what means something but you only get to see the top 200 ELO rankings =/
|
On November 07 2010 02:34 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
@Ray
Are you serious? You almost made a valid point then you threw in the random thing about a 4 gate never working at 2k point level. The issue with this is there are multiple ways of 4 gating, if you're trying to use the most basic level I'm going to make 4 warpgates not care where my chrono boosts go and make zealots and sentries... Well yes that's not going to work against a 2000 point Zerg. Also the maps matter, obviously on blistering sands mixing in some stalkers to break the rocks and get into their base quickly is rather potent if you do it correctly. Watch the koreans who stream on teamliquid they're rather highly rated for the most part and both win with that, or lose to it.
Go watch Capoch replays that dude is super aggressive with 4 gates if you watch his series vs TTOne it wasn't working but he adjusted his timings on the build and then suddenly won 3 games in a row. That's PvP but it shows how 4 gates can be adjusted to the player, the map etc. At the point where Capoch likes to add a robo and make a warp prism if you've done any sort of damage at all with the initial push you can expand and go into a more of a macro game. Simply saying 4 gate doesn't tell me anything.
Did you save chrono boosts? If you did were they all blown on warpgates? Did you save some for your warpgates too? Where did you put your pylon? Making a great 4 gate strategy is all about streamlining the build as much as possible and using your Chrono Boosts intelligently. Go watch Nony replays he has a lot of builds where he uses his Chronos differently than any other protoss at the moment but if you sit back and think "Why did he do that." Then you realize he actually winds up slightly ahead out of it. Yes there are strategies that have high skill limitations because if you misclick you're going to fucking die IE Kyhol's TvP cutting a reactor for the fastest possible ghost off 2 rax for a solid EMP rush. If his emp misses he's kind of screwed but that doesn't make it a bad strategy.
The point is there are a lot of good sources of commentary around (and bad sources) there are people who watch this game far more than play it and if they're listening to the right people and absorbing data they know a lot. If you're talking to someone and the first thing you do is look up the rank you're really only hurting yourself. And all the people assuming all low level players are bad go watch some of Day9's newbie tuesday shows. I know a lot of people who arent newbies ignore those shows but a lot of the times the low rank players in those games all of their mistakes are stemming from one problem. Personally I find it interesting to see Day9 using replays of only low rank/league players and how surprisingly some of them look as good if not better than Diamond players I've seen.
My point regarding the 4 gate wasn't about the validity of it at higher levels, it was used as an example to state how certain strategies depreciate and change as you go higher in the ladder. If a platinum player posts a PvZ Lost Temple help thread, we may tell him to try a certain 4 gate build. If a 2000 point diamond posts the same thread, maybe a 4 gate isn't the best idea. Even if it is, it's going to be some tuned variation of it. As another example, take PvZ on Xel Naga. An early 4-6 stalker push usually wins the game outright at lower level diamond, but at higher level diamond, it's done as pressure to force Zerg to react in a certain way. As you stated yourself, there are different builds that require different skill levels. A silver player, no matter how deep of an understanding he has of the game, is not going to effectively perform a strategy where misclick=death such as your Kyhol's TvP example, and while it's not a bad strategy as a whole, it's a terrible strategy for low ranking players. That's the sort of strategy we tell higher diamond players to do instead. We wouldn't be able to know if they don't tell us their ladder ratings.
Ladder ratings are not a representation of someone's understanding of the game, but rather an estimate in regards to the skill level of players that he plays. Certain builds work on certain ladder ratings, and have different skill requirements as well. It's not a bad idea for a silver player to be 4 gating with zealots and sentries and never doing chrono boost. That's how they learn fundamental mechanics of the game while performing a strong build at the silver level. We wouldn't tell a top diamond player to do that. In order for us to know what kinds of things we should be teaching a certain individual, we need to know his ladder ratings.
|
Obviously, it is much more likely that a high-rated player will know more / understand more about the topic in question than a low-rated player. Obviously, having a high rank doesn't mean you actually do know anything about the game. It goes both ways - claiming that a statement you make is legitimate because of a high SCII rank makes me angry, but all the children just throwing in opinions with no sound reasoning / basis for argument are just as annoying...
|
i am a 1000 diamond player and i approve this message
|
When you make a topic you SHOULD say what rating you are! It's very important to know if (for example) a topicstarter is a 500 diamond or a 2000 diamond.
|
i vote that we ban people who use their ladder points to validate their argument
|
On November 07 2010 04:26 Lightswarm wrote:
i vote that we ban people who use their ladder points to validate their argument
haha good idea
|
OK so I had to go to the phone store and talk warranty with them but I'm back skimming the thread not much new information.
I guess to back off a little bit theres two key things here MOST low level players do not know what they're talking about granted. But blanket statements are bad in this situation so what I"m trying to say is don't exclude everyone look at their statements not the person. Because you can usually tell someone what their league is based on information they give. But on the other hand there are mid to high level diamond players who have zero understanding on the game by finding one build that works well vs each race and not experimenting at all. They have no real game knowledge because they never branch out.
But also on the other hand we have Capoch who does 4 warpgate a LOT but because you can do different things with 4 warpgates don't call him one of those players. He's tried other things I"ve seen him do other strategies but he always goes back to the 4 warpgate it fits his style. So the problem is when someone tells you their rating it doesn't give you any information is my point. Knowing your league and point number doesnt tell me anything about how well you understand the game...
I think one of the biggest problems is people put WAY too much stock in their ladder rating to the point where they go out of their way to try and inflate their point pool. They get mad when they're matched up vs people with higher points etc etc so then they get into this well I have more points than you you're not allowed to argue with me on strategy.
So the problem here is two different factors and people only ever talk about one side of the equation.
|
Hyrule19045 Posts
You're completely wrong! Ladder rank means everything! Trust me, I'm a 900 point Platinum player.
But seriously, I tend it immediately ignore the entire post once I read "I'm a Z point Y player". It usually means the person actually doesn't know what the hell they are talking about, and are attempting to justify their post to themself (that's not a word, but I'm a 900 point Plat so I don't care).
|
That seriously boggles my mind tofucake. You actually LOSE respect and IGNORE someone for stating their general rank (so people can get a grasp of what sort of advice they might need)? Or provide a general idea of what level of play their advice/strategy is viable at?
And you guys are calling the people who post their points elitists.
|
Yeah that is going too far in the other direction it annoys me but I still think people should judge by their posts not by their rank even if they are posting their rank in the thread lol.
|
I agree for the most part, however I think theres an exception: If youre trying to prove a point by referencing your experience in an actual game then its important to set the context. What someone experiences in a bronze level game isnt close to what theyd experience in a 1500+ diamond game.
I think a situation like that warrants a description of your ladder ranking because it lends credence to your in game examples.
If you are only theorycrafting and not drawing on your experiences of specific in game situations then listing your league and points is definitely useless.
|
On November 07 2010 06:47 iCCup.Raelcun wrote:
Yeah that is going too far in the other direction it annoys me but I still think people should judge by their posts not by their rank even if they are posting their rank in the thread lol.
+epeen for me either way
I think they should stack!
Oh I thought you meant post count. Post means nothing because a lot of it is people giving you solutions you haven't tried, and if its executed at a low level of play its not worthwhile because he's not facing a proper response.
|
950 Diamond Zerg here, sitting on 800 bonus points. Why do I bring up bonus points, you ask? Because they are exactly the reason why ~1800 ranking doesn't matter.
At this point, players who have been in Diamond since day 1 have over 1000 bonus points (used or unused).
Unless you're extremely extremely good, Battle.net matches you up against players that give everybody approximately a 1:1 Win/Loss ratio. Often times that will result in a 1.5:1 for the first 100 games and then slowly average out.
Given that players will be recieving 22 points per win and losing 10 points per loss (on average), it's safe to assume that the majority of players with 1500-1800 are simply people who have the patience to play a lot of games and spend their bonus points, a task which has no definition of skill attached to it.
You may be very good or very knowledgeable, but being 1500-1800 isn't grounds for claiming expertise. It means nothing other than that you have little-to-no bonus points left. Because of the ever-inflating amount of bonus points, soon 2000 won't mean anything, either.
Results and facts are all that matter. Do well in a tournament or use critical thinking to back your arguments. "I'm 1800+" does not make you credible. I'm a 950 zerg and beat 1600+ people all the time, I just don't have the patience to grind through ladder.
|
Yep, the other day I had someone tell me that in a craft cup game, roxkis pomi made the correct play to 6 gate off one base against a terrible zerg and never expand from his 1.5 mining bases, and to cut probes at 35.
BUT THE GUY WHO TOLD ME I WAS WRONG WAS 1600 DIAMOND (and wouldn't say his account name) and since he looked up Zlasher on sc2 ranks and 'im only 650 points (with 65% win rate) that my arguments invalid.
I banned him from chat.
|
On November 07 2010 08:52 ZlaSHeR wrote:
Yep, the other day I had someone tell me that in a craft cup game, roxkis pomi made the correct play to 6 gate off one base against a terrible zerg and never expand from his 1.5 mining bases, and to cut probes at 35.
BUT THE GUY WHO TOLD ME I WAS WRONG WAS 1600 DIAMOND (and wouldn't say his account name) and since he looked up Zlasher on sc2 ranks and 'im only 650 points (with 65% win rate) that my arguments invalid.
I banned him from chat.
holy shit that guys an asshole! LOL, it's really terrible this "Diamond Playaz here..." argument.. usually, when I check the strategy forums in SC 2, some can cause brain damage so I usually check the most logical strategy and it wouldn't matter if you're a gold or a higher diamond.
|
Protip: you can 6pool your way to 1500.
Well, not actually a protip, just a scrub tip.
|
I always include my rank when I post advice. Why? Well no one would want some advice from a random bronze player, at least no one would ever use that advice. When people post their rank then you know that their information is credible and used in high level play (or low level, depending on the rank of the person). Sure, people can have opinions on certain things, but unless it was actually helpful and applicable, I don't see the point of those people posting these kinds of things. Seems like a waste to me.
I'm not saying all advice from a "1800+ diamond player" is credible and useful and all advice from a "bronze league player" is useless, thats why teamliquid is a forum where people can discuss their strats and help each other improve on what they are doing "wrong" or inefficient. Though you have to admit, a "2500+ diamond zerg's" advice seems more helpful than a "bronze league, 200+ games played zerg's".
|
it ain't perfect but ladder rank is a better objective indicator of skill than anything else you can point to, besides maybe tournament wins.
|
Well it's the same psychologic deviation that market advertising / politics / journalists use when they are backing a controversial matter by saying M. PhD in Y said "this is good/bad" and everybody not having a fucking clue about what he is saying follows it (reminds me of priests... ).
This is backing up with credibility and subjectiveness and not facts and objectiveness.
|
Well, actually in these early day on SC2. Ladder ranks sometimes make some arguments go easier. What I meant is in the day of BW, almost all of the community has some decent sense about the game 'cos lot of things about BW was set in stone and people know it
But in SC2, this is still time of chaos, nothing is set in stone, lots of people out their just realize their is a genre called RTS games exist, so sometime arguments about balance, map, race etc going nowhere. The points and ranking are just an indicator nothing more.
Speaking of which, I never state my league and points when I join a discussion. I just assume everybody is diamond and know what they are talking about as well as understand what I am talking about :D
|
On November 07 2010 02:08 HwangjaeTerran wrote:I think that you might have a point there. The forums are full of posts like that and in all honesty I am sick of that shit.I think it would be great if they made that strategy section where you have to be 1500 point atleast ( or more like 2000 due to inflation) to post. Over 2000 is the level where every point really starts to matter and therefore real skill and insight to the game are needed. So being diamond would mean shit and then probably those dicks would stop posting like idiots. Those guys suck... bad. Most of them simply cheese their way up to 1500, no skill involved there. The ladder, it is badly "made", the system needs a complete overhaul. Too bad Blizzard doesn´t care, nothing you can do. So we are left with these 10 post idiots who get to diamond and rush to TL just like a scrub who doesn´t even notice acrostic writing when it´s in front of his eyes. + Show Spoiler +
I love you, man.
I really, really do. That was incredible.
|
On November 07 2010 10:30 Offhand wrote:
Protip: you can 6pool your way to 1500.
Well, not actually a protip, just a scrub tip.
probably a bit of an exaggeration...
|
Hey guys I 4 gated to 2100 toss, my opinion means something. /sarcasm
Your ladder ranking is about as related to your understanding of the game as APM is to your skill.
It's not wrong to include your ranking in a post though, using it to validate a point is completely wrong though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/6745/48636644.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/ev0bf.jpg)
