On December 14 2009 13:03 Chef wrote: Even though this is clearly bullshit, I kind of like the idea of new ranks.
Suppose this: You can choose to either start at D rank (1000 points) or if you're honest to god totally new to StarCraft, volunteer to become E rank and start at like -1000 points. At E rank you never lose points when you lose a game, and you get to play with people who are just figuring stuff out like you. After screwing around for awhile you'll eventually build up to 0 points which is D-, and then your games count normally.
For a lot of people iCCup being a ladder isn't really that important. They just want to find games. This caters to that audience.
This is an awesome idea. I can`t see any argument against it, it would be so perfect for new players and other n00bs. There could be just some simple optional command that would turn you in E rank with - 2000 points . No points to be lost after lost game. For new players it would be a lot better place to start playing , since getting owned at D- lvl against dude who is 5x better is really demotivating and most often a lot less useful than playing someone around your level or little below/above
Doesn't solve the problem of anyone getting to prey on noobs... some people would choose to go E just to bash noobs.
Why on earth would anyone want to do this? For the stats? People care about that shit still? :p I only end up bashing people at the D/D+ level because I have to get through them to get to the C level and play with people that are around my skill level. Why would I want to start at an even lower level to bash people who can't even utilize the fundamentals of the game?
On December 14 2009 13:03 Chef wrote: Even though this is clearly bullshit, I kind of like the idea of new ranks.
Suppose this: You can choose to either start at D rank (1000 points) or if you're honest to god totally new to StarCraft, volunteer to become E rank and start at like -1000 points. At E rank you never lose points when you lose a game, and you get to play with people who are just figuring stuff out like you. After screwing around for awhile you'll eventually build up to 0 points which is D-, and then your games count normally.
For a lot of people iCCup being a ladder isn't really that important. They just want to find games. This caters to that audience.
This is an awesome idea. I can`t see any argument against it, it would be so perfect for new players and other n00bs. There could be just some simple optional command that would turn you in E rank with - 2000 points . No points to be lost after lost game. For new players it would be a lot better place to start playing , since getting owned at D- lvl against dude who is 5x better is really demotivating and most often a lot less useful than playing someone around your level or little below/above
Doesn't solve the problem of anyone getting to prey on noobs... some people would choose to go E just to bash noobs.
Why on earth would anyone want to do this? For the stats? People care about that shit still? :p I only end up bashing people at the D/D+ level because I have to get through them to get to the C level and play with people that are around my skill level. Why would I want to start at an even lower level to bash people who can't even utilize the fundamentals of the game?
You severely underestimate the fragile ego of teenage boys. Pokebunny is right, if you give people the easy option of simply setting themselves to a lower rank, they will gladly do it in order to face-smash noobs all day.
If new lower ranks are to be put in, then don't give players an option to instantly go there if they want.
Forcing noob-bashers to intentionally throw 5+ games in order to noob-bash is much more of a deterrent than something like a "/noob-bash YES" option
On December 15 2009 01:39 SirGlinG wrote: I just hope that there's some regulation with the new lower ranks. For example, u can only create an account at E if you have reached E/E- from D earlier. In that case a noob basher would have to loose 20 games to be able to play these players, that should scare him off.
The skill range at D is just so wide, I belive it will be good, if not they'll just remove it, no harm done.
Edit: By D I also mean D-, specifically all the D- players who reset to D to get games and then just loose, I get boring free wins.
Instead of doing this shit, how about fixing existing problems? Like not being able to check the stats of players who are outside of the ongoing game, for example. Or making their fucking website work properly..
ICCUP - creeping featurism comes to SC.
Oh, I wish ICCUP would just be a server with a ladder and an anti-hack to go along with that.. no moron-infested forum, no abusive/dysfunctional admin team, just people who ban hackers and abusers and keep the ladder running. That would be so awesome.
P.S.
Adding maphack function to SC is one of the most idiotic ideas ever. One of the main concepts in this game is to be able to use strategy to out-wit and otherwise trick the opponent by being cunning and hiding what you are doing.. even at low levels this is important.
EDIT:
Actually, I don't care about that.. whatever.
I guess it is just another "joke" by Unk.. if only he would start making funny jokes...
the best idea i saw in that thread was: make E rank 500 points and lower when E rank, players would only receive/lost like 25 points so they stay E rank longer (otherwise two wins a you're back to D-) new accounts/clear stats still starts at D (1000 pts) to "protect" E players from smurfs/...
On December 15 2009 00:20 IdrA wrote: they should worry about the b+/a- split before a sub D rank having such a drastic jump in point loss creates a no mans land every A- player goes through at some point in the season where they're better than B+'s but cant make progress in A- because of the -140, so you end up getting bad games both ways until everyone's rank inflates a bit more.
Normally I would not disagree with Idra, but I can see the lower ranks being a higher priority than the B+/A- split. There are what a couple hundred A-'s? And like a couple thousand D-'s....
I'm not saying it's not a problem (I actually have no clue I'm a High D+) but it seems the lower ranks would be more helpful to the community.
Just because it would be no use to you does not make it a bad idea.
Now as for the B+/A- Split if you say it , I am sure it's a real problem, but let's focus on one thing at a time ! lol.
Although I figure this is all just Unk being an ass again, I wish he would pick funny jokes, not dumb shit like legal maphack...
Edit: I did some quick counting, and there is a combined total of 847 A- and B+ players. I don't even want to have to count the D-'s lol!
If you count foreign-only there is only 248 players with a rank of A- or B+.
i think d- is fine as the lowest rank. Even when i had hardly played starcraft i could hold my own at d-. I can't really imagine any person who is being serious being worse than that and if they are they can just play on east
On December 14 2009 13:03 Chef wrote: Even though this is clearly bullshit, I kind of like the idea of new ranks.
Suppose this: You can choose to either start at D rank (1000 points) or if you're honest to god totally new to StarCraft, volunteer to become E rank and start at like -1000 points. At E rank you never lose points when you lose a game, and you get to play with people who are just figuring stuff out like you. After screwing around for awhile you'll eventually build up to 0 points which is D-, and then your games count normally.
For a lot of people iCCup being a ladder isn't really that important. They just want to find games. This caters to that audience.
This is an awesome idea. I can`t see any argument against it, it would be so perfect for new players and other n00bs. There could be just some simple optional command that would turn you in E rank with - 2000 points . No points to be lost after lost game. For new players it would be a lot better place to start playing , since getting owned at D- lvl against dude who is 5x better is really demotivating and most often a lot less useful than playing someone around your level or little below/above
Doesn't solve the problem of anyone getting to prey on noobs... some people would choose to go E just to bash noobs.
We have ladder admins for a reason. I don't think it'd be hard to report people who are clearly being jerkoffs.
That and seriously, it's not fun to play against someone with 15 apm no matter how bored you are.
EDIT: I also think earning E rank is dumb. It makes it seem like a punishment for bad players, rather than a learning tool. People should be able to start there if they want. Yeah, there's gonna be some idiots but they're gonna get IP banned just like any other abuser.
On December 14 2009 13:03 Chef wrote: Even though this is clearly bullshit, I kind of like the idea of new ranks.
Suppose this: You can choose to either start at D rank (1000 points) or if you're honest to god totally new to StarCraft, volunteer to become E rank and start at like -1000 points. At E rank you never lose points when you lose a game, and you get to play with people who are just figuring stuff out like you. After screwing around for awhile you'll eventually build up to 0 points which is D-, and then your games count normally.
For a lot of people iCCup being a ladder isn't really that important. They just want to find games. This caters to that audience.
This is an awesome idea. I can`t see any argument against it, it would be so perfect for new players and other n00bs. There could be just some simple optional command that would turn you in E rank with - 2000 points . No points to be lost after lost game. For new players it would be a lot better place to start playing , since getting owned at D- lvl against dude who is 5x better is really demotivating and most often a lot less useful than playing someone around your level or little below/above
Doesn't solve the problem of anyone getting to prey on noobs... some people would choose to go E just to bash noobs.
We have ladder admins for a reason. I don't think it'd be hard to report people who are clearly being jerkoffs.
That and seriously, it's not fun to play against someone with 15 apm no matter how bored you are.
EDIT: I also think earning E rank is dumb. It makes it seem like a punishment for bad players, rather than a learning tool. People should be able to start there if they want. Yeah, there's gonna be some idiots but they're gonna get IP banned just like any other abuser.
AFAIK it's not against the rules to bash on noobs. So you can't 'report' people who do this.
It's not fun for you to play against a 15 apm noob, but it IS fun for lots and lots of other people. Please keep that in mind.
Why do you view E rank as punishment? It's simply another arbitrary rank to help separate skill levels.
Myself and the other iccup admins are still discussing the E rank. About what Idra is saying about B+/A- though, i dont think thats any different from C+/B- and D+/C- . it is experienced all across the board and thats the nature of the ladder from what i see. there will always be that gap because of the change in point less. looking at it though it seems unavoidable.
On December 14 2009 13:03 Chef wrote: Even though this is clearly bullshit, I kind of like the idea of new ranks.
Suppose this: You can choose to either start at D rank (1000 points) or if you're honest to god totally new to StarCraft, volunteer to become E rank and start at like -1000 points. At E rank you never lose points when you lose a game, and you get to play with people who are just figuring stuff out like you. After screwing around for awhile you'll eventually build up to 0 points which is D-, and then your games count normally.
For a lot of people iCCup being a ladder isn't really that important. They just want to find games. This caters to that audience.
This is an awesome idea. I can`t see any argument against it, it would be so perfect for new players and other n00bs. There could be just some simple optional command that would turn you in E rank with - 2000 points . No points to be lost after lost game. For new players it would be a lot better place to start playing , since getting owned at D- lvl against dude who is 5x better is really demotivating and most often a lot less useful than playing someone around your level or little below/above
Doesn't solve the problem of anyone getting to prey on noobs... some people would choose to go E just to bash noobs.
Why on earth would anyone want to do this? For the stats? People care about that shit still? :p I only end up bashing people at the D/D+ level because I have to get through them to get to the C level and play with people that are around my skill level. Why would I want to start at an even lower level to bash people who can't even utilize the fundamentals of the game?
On December 15 2009 05:42 JiYan wrote: Myself and the other iccup admins are still discussing the E rank. About what Idra is saying about B+/A- though, i dont think thats any different from C+/B- and D+/C- . it is experienced all across the board and thats the nature of the ladder from what i see. there will always be that gap because of the change in point less. looking at it though it seems unavoidable.
I don't think you understand what IdrA is saying.
B+/A- is different from any other rank transition, for a simple reason (that IdrA plainly stated). I will reiterate:
Starting at A-, you lose more points from a loss than you gain from a win.
As an admin, I'm sure you can understand the implications from this?
i understand the implications, and granted it may be a harder transition than lets say D+/C-, but the system stands. IF it is a problem, what would you propose?
I know unk's been an ass a few times with bans, but I dont know enough about him to automatically assume hes also a tricker/liar, so im inclined to believe him.
I agree with new E+, E, E- ranks with negative point scores. I was a D- once and I could see the huge disparities that are inside the D and D- rank. For instance, on the Iccup ranking page there are two full pages with people with only 1 point. Those people should be on the E rank instead of D- for sure.
On December 15 2009 02:42 GreEny K wrote: Wow... Would people really want to have a rank lower than D-? That embarrassing.
ya its totally embarassing that people wanna start playing but dont have any experience yet. I mean everyone starts at D+ like you right? This is a GAME. People want to enjoy it. If newcomers come online and lose 5k games in a row, they get dissuaded and quit. If they win some and lose some at a lower rank, they get the motivation to reach a rank higher then that. You have no idea how frustrating it is to hear 'go play with computer' if you're at that level, because really, who wants to train and force themselves to work so hard for a game they've never really played before? Its supposed to be a game, not a job.
There's no point in letting people who don't understand the fundamentals play vs other people who are equally as bad. When you beat people who don't even have a grasp of the basics, they're just hurting themselves.
For example, my 1st game, I got dragoon rushed on python. When his 5 dragoons faced my one tank (E level macro), he took out my tank and went straight for my SCV line. If I was playing at E level, then chances are, i'd get zealot rushed, or his goons would start killing all my supply depots. But the fact is that I was playing vs someone who has the most basic understanding; that killing my scvs meant i'd be poorer. I never had this idea before, and even if I didn't go completely in depth in analyzing my reps, I would've still figured out just by playing people who get the basics rather than the games that end up being a game of luck.
On December 15 2009 07:55 dhe95 wrote: There's no point in letting people who don't understand the fundamentals play vs other people who are equally as bad. When you beat people who don't even have a grasp of the basics, they're just hurting themselves.
For example, my 1st game, I got dragoon rushed on python. When his 5 dragoons faced my one tank (E level macro), he took out my tank and went straight for my SCV line. If I was playing at E level, then chances are, i'd get zealot rushed, or his goons would start killing all my supply depots. But the fact is that I was playing vs someone who has the most basic understanding; that killing my scvs meant i'd be poorer. I never had this idea before, and even if I didn't go completely in depth in analyzing my reps, I would've still figured out just by playing people who get the basics rather than the games that end up being a game of luck.
I don't think this logic works. If you are correct, this argument would seem to justify forcing us all to play against only pros, so that we see "real strategies" and not "ones at our level." Furthermore, ladders have ranks for a reason, and they're called ladders for a reason. There are different rungs to climb. Ranks represent different levels. The whole idea is that you play someone closer to your skill, and you're basically saying that the idea is bunk... why have ranks at all then? What's a ladder for?
EPT
! lol.
