|
As a person who plays BW with improvement as a priority over winning, I hate cheesing or cheap build order wins. I don't feel like it's an honest way to win that displays what my actual game skill is capable of (at least at my level). I realize to say that I understand that cheesing/deception is an important mind-game aspect of starcraft, especially in a tournament or any other setting where you are expected to play a given number of rounds. Personally feel this is a win attributed to the build itself, and not because the given person played well, thus not making the cheesing winner necessarily better than the other player.I play with the belief that up to B rank (or insert any high rank letter here) or so, you probably have evident flaws in your macro game/normal non-cheese game gameplay that you need to fix. Thus, I feel like cheesing is something you have to "earn" to consider as legitimate wins, as when you cheese with big flaws in your macro gameplay, it just becomes a crutch to get wins in situations where you normally wouldn't win. This has got my mind in a dilemma in regards to my playstyle/BO choice on iccup.
It's obvious that somebody who 4 pools his way to, say c-, isn't really a c- level player. On that note, I have been playing with very minimal non-standard builds for 90 percent of matches I play... not that I mean I will doggedly do an exact build regardless of what I scout, but I play matches with the intention to go into macro games. That way, anytime I progress in rank, I can't attribute it to anything but my own skill that got me there.... so I don't have the gnawing doubt that the one game I cheesed and won is what got me to say, 4000 points, before I drop back down.
Yet cheese obviously constitutes a part of the rank of the people I play against, which made me think: if I can consistently hold 3800-3900, could I count that as a C in relation to the rest of iccup players who probably cheese more often than I do? at what point do you draw the line when determining how much cheese is too much cheese to consider your rank legitimate? Should wins based on pure build order choice be considered "skillful" wins?
oh, and almost happy new year guys!
|
imo you need to be 100-200 above the starting point unless its A- or higher...then u just have to reach it
the reason for the 100-200 is to ensure that you are able to compete with the lower of the rank, like you arent just going to fall back down instantly (in A- or higher you fall back down w/a 50% winrate...so i leave that one off)
|
On January 01 2011 17:08 unit wrote:
imo you need to be 100-200 above the starting point unless its A- or higher...then u just have to reach it
the reason for the 100-200 is to ensure that you are able to compete with the lower of the rank, like you arent just going to fall back down instantly (in A- or higher you fall back down w/a 50% winrate...so i leave that one off)
I see the reasoning behind this, but in my opinion I would say it's where you can consistently (obviously not 100% of the time) beat players of the previous rank. I.E. you are C if you usually beat C- players and have gotten C. If you get to C with a 50% winrate (because you gain more from wins that you lose from losses [also motw]) after mass gaming then I wouldn't say true C.
|
Personally, I use the "kwark meter": the more I feel like him, the less legit I know my rank is. Since I don't want to see the day I feel like him, I try to stay at 0 on the meter. Unless you like to cheese a lot, you're probably putting too much thought into this. Unless you're going to be playing in a tourney where you know you're simply not a favorite if you don't cheese, or you're just really godawful at a map (could be imbalanced), then I don't really see the point in practicing much cheese.
A ladder should be for practicing to become a better player. If you feel like glorified 4 pool strats make you a better player... then I guess you should do that, but obviously not a large percentage of time.
|
On January 01 2011 17:18 Grobyc wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2011 17:08 unit wrote:
imo you need to be 100-200 above the starting point unless its A- or higher...then u just have to reach it
the reason for the 100-200 is to ensure that you are able to compete with the lower of the rank, like you arent just going to fall back down instantly (in A- or higher you fall back down w/a 50% winrate...so i leave that one off) I see the reasoning behind this, but in my opinion I would say it's where you can consistently (obviously not 100% of the time) beat players of the previous rank. I.E. you are C if you usually beat C- players and have gotten C. If you get to C with a 50% winrate (because you gain more from wins that you lose from losses [also motw]) after mass gaming then I wouldn't say true C.
I think you should already know what skill level you play at before actually getting that rank, which kinda makes it insignificant to get it: if you win the majority of the games you play and you view your opponents' iccup history and see that you're consistently beating players that have gotten, say, B- in previous seasons, then the "official" validation of being a b- player yourself is merely a formality.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On January 01 2011 17:31 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2011 17:18 Grobyc wrote:On January 01 2011 17:08 unit wrote:
imo you need to be 100-200 above the starting point unless its A- or higher...then u just have to reach it
the reason for the 100-200 is to ensure that you are able to compete with the lower of the rank, like you arent just going to fall back down instantly (in A- or higher you fall back down w/a 50% winrate...so i leave that one off) I see the reasoning behind this, but in my opinion I would say it's where you can consistently (obviously not 100% of the time) beat players of the previous rank. I.E. you are C if you usually beat C- players and have gotten C. If you get to C with a 50% winrate (because you gain more from wins that you lose from losses [also motw]) after mass gaming then I wouldn't say true C. I think you should already know what skill level you play at before actually getting that rank, which kinda makes it insignificant to get it: if you win the majority of the games you play and you view your opponents' iccup history and see that you're consistently beating players that have gotten, say, B- in previous seasons, then the "official" validation of being a b- player yourself is merely a formality.
Let's keep rank extrapolation a bw thing okay? We don't need SC2 people to start saying they should be at 2600 Diamond if they played some more because they have 600 bonus points and a 70% win rate.
|
On January 01 2011 17:31 playa wrote:Show nested quote +On January 01 2011 17:18 Grobyc wrote:On January 01 2011 17:08 unit wrote:
imo you need to be 100-200 above the starting point unless its A- or higher...then u just have to reach it
the reason for the 100-200 is to ensure that you are able to compete with the lower of the rank, like you arent just going to fall back down instantly (in A- or higher you fall back down w/a 50% winrate...so i leave that one off) I see the reasoning behind this, but in my opinion I would say it's where you can consistently (obviously not 100% of the time) beat players of the previous rank. I.E. you are C if you usually beat C- players and have gotten C. If you get to C with a 50% winrate (because you gain more from wins that you lose from losses [also motw]) after mass gaming then I wouldn't say true C. I think you should already know what skill level you play at before actually getting that rank, which kinda makes it insignificant to get it: if you win the majority of the games you play and you view your opponents' iccup history and see that you're consistently beating players that have gotten, say, B- in previous seasons, then the "official" validation of being a b- player yourself is merely a formality.
It is just a formality, but sometimes it's nice to have that formality regardless. If someone asks you for your highest rank after you beat them you can't say "well I've beaten B+ players before" for example. I don't aim for a rank to help myself believe in my skills, I do it mainly for bragging rights 
|
Lol. Well, if you ever want to brag in my presence, I do accept approximations of skill level based upon who you have beaten and how you did so. So don't worry about me asking for that iccup link  . It just becomes kinda tedious if your true skill level is a high rank. Not only does it take a lot of games played in a season to reach it, but you have to reach it at certain points in the season, as obviously an A- player on Iccup wouldn't be A- now, figuring that no one is.
|
On January 01 2011 17:25 playa wrote:
Personally, I use the "kwark meter": the more I feel like him, the less legit I know my rank is. Since I don't want to see the day I feel like him, I try to stay at 0 on the meter. Unless you like to cheese a lot, you're probably putting too much thought into this. Unless you're going to be playing in a tourney where you know you're simply not a favorite if you don't cheese, or you're just really godawful at a map (could be imbalanced), then I don't really see the point in practicing much cheese.
A ladder should be for practicing to become a better player. If you feel like glorified 4 pool strats make you a better player... then I guess you should do that, but obviously not a large percentage of time.
Kwark's reputation really proceeds him huh?
|
What ever rank you are, that's what rank you are. duh 
It just so happens that the large majority of players on iCCup have a weakness to early game aggression.
Honestly, I feel like this just happens because people use builds they don't understand. I have no doubt that if I 4 pool flash's 1 rax expo, I will lose every time. I don't have the ling micro, multitask, apm, or game sense to keep up. Almost all of the "standard" builds now are greedy builds. In order to use them, you have to have a certain skillset. For instance, when I laddered, I would always use 9 hatch in zvz. But before I laddered, I made sure to practice, over and over, my build vs 4pool, 5pool sunken rush, 9 pool speed, 1 base muta, etc. Basically everything I could think of. People utilize builds like "12 nexus" and "1 rax expo" and "12 hatch" assuming they are safe. They are only safe if you have the skill set required.
If you don't want to practice the skills required for the standard builds, I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you could open something like 1 rax expo with an extra marine squeezed in before making the CC and easily make it past C+ level.
Bottom line, if you can 4pool your way to C rank with D level micro/multitask, then all those C level players you beat were the ones not deserving of getting to C rank.
|
Skill includes being able to deal with cheese and all-in build orders as much as NR20 afk macroing which most beginners who play passively like to do. If you are truly better than your opponent you shouldn't lose more than you win no matter what builds you face.
|
go by number of wins to determine if your rank is accurate. What ever that means to you, as in what u feel to be a good amount of games and effort.
Cheese is a legit strategy and if u can 6 pool your way to 3k Diamond then fucking do it cause its their fault for letting it happen. If a cheese is continuously successful then its their fault for not adapting to the game. doubt i'd work but ya :D.
Even Jaedong 4 pools. and i'd have alot more respect for Idra if he 6 pooled once since everyone goes heavy econ anyways against him, assuming hes gonna macro it up.
|
Australia7069 Posts
in my opinion, it doesn't matter HOW you got your rank, its that you have the rank. Its as simple as that, winning is winning, whether you're cheesing, or playing low ranked opponents or whatever. Theres risks and rewards with either method, and the person doing them accepts those risks. Just because they're not playing standard doesn't mean they dont deserve the rank or anything, and if you are a 3800 ranked C- player, than you're C-, simple as that, if you push it over 4k, you're C, thatsit.
|
You know, as a competitive player who came from the fighting game background, and before that, CnC Red Alert 2, it never ceases to amaze me how everyone thinks that playing a certain way can be "cheap" and a lot of people in the community, even top pros, embrace that idea.
This idea, meaning, that you can have made up rules about the game. Sounds like some people need to read sirlin's playing to win. Not only that but you need to go play some street fighter and say to a pro that throws are cheap, or that abusing the range of that one move is cheap. That's all competition is, using whatever means within the game necessary to winning the match. You don't play a tournament match to "learn" the game, and you don't play a ladder match to "learn" the game. You play ladder matches to improve your ladder score. People generally play ladder to play to win.
Just because they do something that beats you, and you don't think it was right, or it was the wrong way to play the game or whatever, doesn't mean you are right in that assertion. You said that in BW you could only get to c- by 4 pooling. What if someone found a way to make it into the b's like that. Then would you say that 4 pool is broken, too strong, etc...
|
In the wise words of the Inkmeister, gaining rank on the ladder is a way of being able to consistently play better players. If your goal is improving and getting a good challenge, then it's in your own interest to play whatever style will help you improve most. It does seem silly to flaunt a iccup ranking that one achieves by playing a very limited subset of the game / dodging / etc., but if you know you're playing that person in a practice game then you should be the favorite? Don't let other people get to you :p
|
i say at least 50% win rate with the people at your rank.
|
On January 01 2011 19:44 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Skill includes being able to deal with cheese and all-in build orders as much as NR20 afk macroing which most beginners who play passively like to do. If you are truly better than your opponent you shouldn't lose more than you win no matter what builds you face.
well, my post isn't directed against other people cheesing me.... i accept that as something unavoidable, and know how to adapt most of my builds with ebay timing/unit placement and such in order to maximize my defenses versus cheese. im just asking that if playing cheesier than i do now would be an accurate assessment of my own skill
On January 02 2011 00:16 Aberu wrote:
You know, as a competitive player who came from the fighting game background, and before that, CnC Red Alert 2, it never ceases to amaze me how everyone thinks that playing a certain way can be "cheap" and a lot of people in the community, even top pros, embrace that idea.
This idea, meaning, that you can have made up rules about the game. Sounds like some people need to read sirlin's playing to win. Not only that but you need to go play some street fighter and say to a pro that throws are cheap, or that abusing the range of that one move is cheap. That's all competition is, using whatever means within the game necessary to winning the match. You don't play a tournament match to "learn" the game, and you don't play a ladder match to "learn" the game. You play ladder matches to improve your ladder score. People generally play ladder to play to win.
Just because they do something that beats you, and you don't think it was right, or it was the wrong way to play the game or whatever, doesn't mean you are right in that assertion. You said that in BW you could only get to c- by 4 pooling. What if someone found a way to make it into the b's like that. Then would you say that 4 pool is broken, too strong, etc...
im not complaining that other people cheese me. that's just a fact i have to accept, and i know how to deal with most cheeses (including 4 pools). my point is that a win from a cheesy game is less taxing than a long endurance macro game, which makes me not like to cheese as I feel that inflates my rank above my actual skill level. and i think you make an unfair assumption that people ladder to win. For me, rank is an indicator of how much ive progressed. if i could play vs a B level player who i will lose against for sure but will teach me a thing or two, id rather lose vs him than play vs a C- that i have a good chance of beating. if i played with lots of cheese in my play (playing to win, in your words), the rank I attained is not a fair marker of my actual progress.... its just an indicator of how I abused builds to inflate my rank. at some point, you will no longer be able to get away with pure cheesiness as you will hit a level where people have a much better cheese-detecting/countering sense, so once you reach that point, ur kinda fucked if that was your trump card the entire time.
|
Australia7069 Posts
my question is this. Do you feel you have a better chance of winning a game if you cheese? if so, you really should be doing it. The game is there to be won unless you're specifically trying to practice. In my opinion, you should always be playing to win, so if you honestly are sure you'd be better off cheesing at this level, my question is, why aren't you doing it?
|
While getting high on the ladder is an impressive achievement, it doesn't really say anything about your BoX play, and I consider BoX to be the truest form of StarCraft. If you play on the ladder you can use one build every game. How is that any better than cheesing? Wow, I'm glad you really got your FE into 4gate legs timing down, but if you do that every game against a good player, even if you win the first two games you'll lose the next 3 after they've figured you out. It's possible to increase your rank in so many ways... Playing on only one map, playing only one build, playing only one matchup. People used to brag about how they are B rank PvZ even though they've never played another matchup. Everyone complains about the users who cheese, but what about the users who only use one map and one build? Isn't what they're doing not a reflection of SC skill either?
IMO you can only know that you're better than the players you win BoXes against often. Ladder at A rank demands you know more than one build because you'll end up playing the same people a lot, which is good, but below that everyone is just doing their one stupid build cause that's what every fool in the strategy forum is telling them they should do (AND THEY ARE WRONG).
|
On January 02 2011 03:27 Kiante wrote:
my question is this. Do you feel you have a better chance of winning a game if you cheese? if so, you really should be doing it. The game is there to be won unless you're specifically trying to practice. In my opinion, you should always be playing to win, so if you honestly are sure you'd be better off cheesing at this level, my question is, why aren't you doing it?
i feel i would definitely win more often if i cheesed, but that's just my problem with it. i stated earlier that i play to improve, not to win. my improvement will manifest itself by making me win more. i define improvement as having better macro/mechanics and game sense. I know with the current skills I have, I could definitely squeeze out more wins by using sneaky or abusive builds. But i know these strategies are less demanding of me and will leave out a lot of elements of the game that only appear once you have several bases (ie, defending far expos, late game army control, etc) that I must master in order for me to be able to carry out standard games with a good chance of winning if i progress by a rank.
On January 02 2011 03:57 Chef wrote:
While getting high on the ladder is an impressive achievement, it doesn't really say anything about your BoX play, and I consider BoX to be the truest form of StarCraft. If you play on the ladder you can use one build every game. How is that any better than cheesing? Wow, I'm glad you really got your FE into 4gate legs timing down, but if you do that every game against a good player, even if you win the first two games you'll lose the next 3 after they've figured you out. It's possible to increase your rank in so many ways... Playing on only one map, playing only one build, playing only one matchup. People used to brag about how they are B rank PvZ even though they've never played another matchup. Everyone complains about the users who cheese, but what about the users who only use one map and one build? Isn't what they're doing not a reflection of SC skill either?
IMO you can only know that you're better than the players you win BoXes against often. Ladder at A rank demands you know more than one build because you'll end up playing the same people a lot, which is good, but below that everyone is just doing their one stupid build cause that's what every fool in the strategy forum is telling them they should do (AND THEY ARE WRONG).
i agree with what you said. but the reason i play very standard most of the time is that i want to master what is more difficult (meaning standard rather than cheesy play) before i start to utilize builds that will get me easier wins. I feel that at my level (I hit C last season and am mid c- atm) I agree that the game exposure you get is narrow if you play only standard, but at the same time, I believe you get a more balanced training regimen if you play that way, meaning you get to work on your macro, multitask, late game unit positioning sense, large army control, expo timing, harassment, and other mid-late game elements that you miss out on if you use a cheese build where pretty much everything hinges on your all in attack.
|
i agree with aberu and kiante.. you legitimately reached a rank when you've legitimately (read: no ladder abuse, wintrading, hacking etc) reached that rank. there's nothing more to it. if you barely squeezed into a c- with 3004 points, cheesing every game after 500 games, you still reached C-. you may not be a solid C- player (in fact it's quite likely that you're not), but you still reached C-.
being a solid C- or A or whatever rank is different than just reaching it. it's more subjective, but for me, being a solid X rank is you playing quite some games on that rank, not really ranking down (or if you do, you bounce right back up, etc). the actual strategies you use don't matter at all. saying that 10-0 2050 point cheeser is less deserving of D+ than a 10-0 2050 point standard player is ridiculous.
also, giving higher credit to standard plays than effective cheeses is also silly. who is better in this scenario? (this is a real scenario btw, i am one person, and my friend is the other)
player A -- played for a while, but lately not active with bad mechanics.
player B - started playing recently, and is active, better mechanics than A
A vs B -- in a standard macro, no early-aggression game, B will usually win
in a non-standard game (read: totally unorthodox strategies, cheeses, new maps etc), A will usually win.
and when we'd play, (i'm A btw), i would use weird strategies, abuse maps, super-early aggression until B plays very defensive/careful early on and then i'd open up with super greedy builds, etc. overall i won every BoX we ever played over like 2-3 months until i stopped playing completely, although i don't recall winning a single standard macro game.
|
Norway28701 Posts
two options
a) you are whatever rank you achieve
b) you are whatever rank you can maintain a 50% winrate at.
|
There's some flawed logic going on if you ask me. The OP has already made a simple example that illustrates just because you achieve a certain rank with cheese doesn't mean you are truly as good of a player as your rank suggest. I have seen players who 4 pool 100% of the time reach b-. If half of the D ranked players were to 4 pool every game against the other half that are playing normally/standard, everyone that 4 pooled should be guaranteed to get at least c-, despite them not being anymore skilled than the other half that remain D.
Anytime your skill level can disappear by someone simply knowing your reputation, you're using smoke and mirrors. As for the you should do w/e strategy you think will give you the best chance to win mentality, I think that makes sense in a tournament; on a ladder, that is nothing but short-sighted. Sure, you might win more games in the short term using that mentality, but in the long-term, practicing becoming a better player (macro and micro) should yield more wins, thus that shouldn't be your line of thinking.
|
To me you are the rank that you achieve. I call myself a (peak) C- player (I now estimate my skill to be D/D+ level since I haven't played for a while) because I reached C- near the end of one season with a 62-112 record. The reason for this is very simple. The way that the iccup ladder is set up, at D/D+ level you will rise in rating with anything over a 1/3 win rate. Everyone knew it, and I knew it, so I rose through the ladder by simply playing games and maintaining the 35.6% winrate that you see.
Do I claim to be able to beat borderline C- players 50% of the time? Yes (talking about when I was in practice). Why? I have a 35.6% winrate! Well, there is a very simple reason why you will rise in rating with less than a 50% winrate: everyone starts at 1000 points. You might think, now wait a second, anyone who's any good will get out of D in about 10 games. That is true, but it isn't actually relevant. The relevant factor is the number of players who are better than D level and for whatever reason reset their stats or start a new account or just start laddering for the new season. This number is quite high, and it will drive down legitimate D level players' winrates substantially below 50%, with the number rising regularly as rank increases until at A level you actually have a 50% winrate if you are at your real skill (since there are fewer people who are better than C climbing through C than there are better than D climbing through D, and so on).
If you look at my iccup profile (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/gamingprofile/[AdeaD]Hamster.html) you will see that I have terrible records for most of the seasons that I actually played. This is because when I was active I would use the first week of the season as a time to seek out the best players (who now had to ladder out of D again) and play against them and get horribly outmatched. By doing this, I got the honor of playing names like  Hyuk (got crushed PvP) and  Rudy (an amateur who some people thought might be the next big thing but then didn't pan out) Therefore, I would usually start the second week of the season with a winrate probably under 30%, and those wins would be against the real D level players. The losses would mostly be from people who seriously outclassed me, so I never felt like a 35% winrate at the end of a season was something to be ashamed of.
This is actually the first time I've thought about the iccup system seriously, and I'm more confident now than ever that your real ranking is pretty close to the number that iccup says you are (although these are deflated early season and inflated late season -- that is pretty much undeniable), and that iccup actually has very good protection for noobs against smurfs, by giving them so much leeway in their winrate in order to maintain a constant rating. If you are going to comment on how ridiculously low the 33% cutoff is, and you are a C or higher player, then you should realize that there are a lot of D+ players who get tired of losing at D+ or feel like their 33% record is terrible and reset stats to go 7-0 against D players. You just don't notice them because you're better than them so you beat them like any other D player.
Good work iCCup on designing your ladder system. After writing this post I believe it was extraordinarily well thought out.
|
Personally I believe that if you can't beat those cheesy plays you don't deserve to play at a higher level.
If you've made a rank then you are that rank.
|
Because I never pooled early. I've 9 pooled once on steppes zvz telling my opponent 1st also.
|
On January 02 2011 12:21 Hamster1800 wrote:To me you are the rank that you achieve. I call myself a (peak) C- player (I now estimate my skill to be D/D+ level since I haven't played for a while) because I reached C- near the end of one season with a 62-112 record. The reason for this is very simple. The way that the iccup ladder is set up, at D/D+ level you will rise in rating with anything over a 1/3 win rate. Everyone knew it, and I knew it, so I rose through the ladder by simply playing games and maintaining the 35.6% winrate that you see. Do I claim to be able to beat borderline C- players 50% of the time? Yes (talking about when I was in practice). Why? I have a 35.6% winrate! Well, there is a very simple reason why you will rise in rating with less than a 50% winrate: everyone starts at 1000 points. You might think, now wait a second, anyone who's any good will get out of D in about 10 games. That is true, but it isn't actually relevant. The relevant factor is the number of players who are better than D level and for whatever reason reset their stats or start a new account or just start laddering for the new season. This number is quite high, and it will drive down legitimate D level players' winrates substantially below 50%, with the number rising regularly as rank increases until at A level you actually have a 50% winrate if you are at your real skill (since there are fewer people who are better than C climbing through C than there are better than D climbing through D, and so on). If you look at my iccup profile ( http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/gamingprofile/[AdeaD]Hamster.html) you will see that I have terrible records for most of the seasons that I actually played. This is because when I was active I would use the first week of the season as a time to seek out the best players (who now had to ladder out of D again) and play against them and get horribly outmatched. By doing this, I got the honor of playing names like Hyuk (got crushed PvP) and Rudy (an amateur who some people thought might be the next big thing but then didn't pan out) Therefore, I would usually start the second week of the season with a winrate probably under 30%, and those wins would be against the real D level players. The losses would mostly be from people who seriously outclassed me, so I never felt like a 35% winrate at the end of a season was something to be ashamed of. This is actually the first time I've thought about the iccup system seriously, and I'm more confident now than ever that your real ranking is pretty close to the number that iccup says you are (although these are deflated early season and inflated late season -- that is pretty much undeniable), and that iccup actually has very good protection for noobs against smurfs, by giving them so much leeway in their winrate in order to maintain a constant rating. If you are going to comment on how ridiculously low the 33% cutoff is, and you are a C or higher player, then you should realize that there are a lot of D+ players who get tired of losing at D+ or feel like their 33% record is terrible and reset stats to go 7-0 against D players. You just don't notice them because you're better than them so you beat them like any other D player. Good work iCCup on designing your ladder system. After writing this post I believe it was extraordinarily well thought out.
you make some good points here - i agree its well thought out and explained, and your points are 100 percent valid. but it kinda misses the point of my OP... you are just looking at the end goal (the numerical rank) when you are considering the trueness of rank, but i am questioning the means of reaching this end goal (via lots of cheese or via standard play or a mix of both) which makes 2 people with similar numerical stats different from each other in skill level.
On January 02 2011 13:25 CoMaS wrote:
Personally I believe that if you can't beat those cheesy plays you don't deserve to play at a higher level.
If you've made a rank then you are that rank.
my op isnt against other people cheesing. i know how to scout and deal with most cheeses and adjust my build accordingly. my point is i cant comfortably call myself a C rank player if i just BBS'd every game up to that rank, versus if i played mostly long macro games to earn the same letter. i really dont think you can say that the BBSing way makes you C in terms of skill; undeniably, they are C rank since they have the numbers, but their game skills are inferior to those who reached the rank through normal builds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
