|
On December 15 2009 09:06 old times sake wrote:Show nested quote +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?
having people learn from people who know something more is always a great part of learning. by his logic, we don't necessarily need to play against the pros, but we should play against people better than us, like a D playing D+ or D+ playing C- or B+ playing A-. all of these people will eventually learn more strategies and figure out ways to counter them.
|
Obsmode like the old penguin plug days would be absolutely sexy.
Having lower ranks doesn't seem all that necessary in my mind. I was a D- player once, and honestly I did not learn a thing from playing other D- players. At that level, if I could beat my opponent then playing that game was absolutely worthless. D- players learn way more from outside sources than from playing the game themselves anyway.
But I suppose that the lower ranks are more to avoid C and higher players who are climbing the ranks from smashing low level players repeatedly. And again, I don't think its all that necessary to avoid this, but I suppose it could make things more enjoyable for those D- players.
|
We don't need a new lower rank. Instead invest in trying to learn people how to not suck monkeyballs and show them the path that leads above the D- rank. Seriously, It's not that hard.
|
I like the idea of a lower rank - broadening the scope of players participating is a good thing. It may encourage new players to convert from battle.net or LAN with mates earlier and enjoy the iCCup experience sooner without getting creamed every game. Also they are the future D+/C- players so it should help keep the population around those ranks healthy too.
|
On December 15 2009 05:19 BlasiuS wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2009 04:50 Chef wrote:On December 15 2009 02:05 Pokebunny wrote:On December 15 2009 02:01 UFO wrote: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.
If it's a new arbitrary level there is ZERO point to having it. You should be able to assume that because people are choosing ESPECIALLY to have a negative score, the spirit of the choice is that they are new to the game. Admins aren't unthinking retards who can't understand that. Yes, obviously noobbashing at E rank WOULD be against the rules. It's not technically in the spirit of the ladder, it's just an idea to help people enjoy StarCraft since iCCup is very popular and a lot of people can't find fair games on other servers. I think of E rank as iCCup's off the book rank and learning service.
As far as people having difficulty learning from other E rank players... How many times have you seen people on this forum ask how to introduce a friend who is completely new to StarCraft... sometimes even just to games in general, to learn StarCraft? E rank is basically for people to learn what the units are, what they do, and just generally become aware of them. You can't lose points, so you basically get out of E rank after 10 wins, which may be about 15-25 games. Someone who doesn't know what a reaver is doesn't need to be worrying about early game timings or bullshit. This is just funner than playing alone with a computer because you get to learn with other people who are playing SC for the first time. It's also intense bullshit that people don't learn from playing same skill players. You're more likely to develop BAD habits if you never play your own skill (hence 1000 people who play super nitty at D because they're afraid of cheese, and wonder why they can't get past D+).
The flaws I can see in the idea lie within the extra work load it might be giving admins (possibly negligible since these people already report games at D-) and the fact that E rank might be a ghost town if people don't know how to access it, which would be discouraging and worthless. But I really don't think admins won't be willing to ban noobbashers from E. It could be written right in the instructions about how to make yourself E rank.
|
Oo man the skill range in D- is huge  I've seen a guy on Longinus take a min only outside his base but not his nat... He had 1 point.
|
On December 15 2009 13:09 Chef wrote:
If it's a new arbitrary level there is ZERO point to having it. You should be able to assume that because people are choosing ESPECIALLY to have a negative score, the spirit of the choice is that they are new to the game. Admins aren't unthinking retards who can't understand that. Yes, obviously noobbashing at E rank WOULD be against the rules. It's not technically in the spirit of the ladder, it's just an idea to help people enjoy StarCraft since iCCup is very popular and a lot of people can't find fair games on other servers. I think of E rank as iCCup's off the book rank and learning service.
As far as people having difficulty learning from other E rank players... How many times have you seen people on this forum ask how to introduce a friend who is completely new to StarCraft... sometimes even just to games in general, to learn StarCraft? E rank is basically for people to learn what the units are, what they do, and just generally become aware of them. You can't lose points, so you basically get out of E rank after 10 wins, which may be about 15-25 games. Someone who doesn't know what a reaver is doesn't need to be worrying about early game timings or bullshit. This is just funner than playing alone with a computer because you get to learn with other people who are playing SC for the first time. It's also intense bullshit that people don't learn from playing same skill players. You're more likely to develop BAD habits if you never play your own skill (hence 1000 people who play super nitty at D because they're afraid of cheese, and wonder why they can't get past D+).
The flaws I can see in the idea lie within the extra work load it might be giving admins (possibly negligible since these people already report games at D-) and the fact that E rank might be a ghost town if people don't know how to access it, which would be discouraging and worthless. But I really don't think admins won't be willing to ban noobbashers from E. It could be written right in the instructions about how to make yourself E rank.
You're way over-complicating it. E ranks are simply sorely needed additional ranks that are below the default account.
To truly represent the different skill levels in SC, iccup would need at least 100+ ranks, not 13 (or 16 with E-/E/E+).
On December 15 2009 13:09 Chef wrote:
If it's a new arbitrary level there is ZERO point to having it.
Completely false. Every rank is arbitrary. You could call the ranks 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12, & 13, it would still mean the same thing: separation of skill. Look at other RTS ladders, they all use some kind of level system (WC3 uses level 1-60, with experience points to differentiate between levels). It's all arbitrary. What really makes a difference is how many ranks there are, not what ranks there are.
|
If they make an E I bet I will be the first E
|
|
|
On December 15 2009 13:33 Nub4ever wrote:Oo man the skill range in D- is huge I've seen a guy on Longinus take a min only outside his base but not his nat... He had 1 point.
I do hope youre being sarcastic. Otherwise youre a fucking dickhead
|
Nah just need new colors. Rank system is fine.
|
who gives a %$#% what unk has to say.
|
imo just give it a chance see how it goes..
|
Why not?
ok seriously... alot of elitist here i see, having a new rank here definately gives newer players an easier time, mind u starcraft is not an easy game and a new player is gonna struggle even at low end D- rank at the beginning.
don turn away potential fans for starcraft... think of the casual players!
|
Change the colors please, just that would be amazing.
|
The rank system is very broken. There's a phantom rank between B+ and A- where players are too good for B+ but not good enough for A- which creates a problem. I think the ranks should be adjusted to something like this (referring to points lost)
A: -140
B: -125
C: -100
D: -75
E: -50
F: -10
As it is now players have to jump from a rank where they are +30 from going 1:1 to a rank where they're going -10 from going 1:1 (assuming motw played).
|
I am for including a new rank, but not like some people seem to understand. like this post:
On December 15 2009 02:13 Amber[LighT] wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2009 02:05 Pokebunny wrote:On December 15 2009 02:01 UFO wrote: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 would still start at D, but there would be a rank below D-, I think most people who support this have this same idea.
BUT, I don't think we can't do better than that to help new players.
Imagine you had a friend who consideres playing a few games after you talked to him about SC..
unless he's gifted with awesome drive to succeed at everything, chances are he won't even see how great SC is.
We need some brainstorming first, and then a super cool initiative to attract new players.
|
On December 16 2009 01:31 niteReloaded wrote:I am for including a new rank, but not like some people seem to understand. like this post: Show nested quote +On December 15 2009 02:13 Amber[LighT] wrote:On December 15 2009 02:05 Pokebunny wrote:On December 15 2009 02:01 UFO wrote: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 would still start at D, but there would be a rank below D-, I think most people who support this have this same idea. BUT, I don't think we can't do better than that to help new players. Imagine you had a friend who consideres playing a few games after you talked to him about SC.. unless he's gifted with awesome drive to succeed at everything, chances are he won't even see how great SC is. We need some brainstorming first, and then a super cool initiative to attract new players.
Actually, amber was referring specifically to the option to choose to start at E, instead of D.
|
Canada5565 Posts
The iCCup rankings obviously suck, to make it as good as it should be would require a huge overhaul and I don't really think it's worth it. Just wait for SC2.
|
you get 130 pts for win and 50 pts for loss. Thats good enough not to add any more ranks. Even if your win % is like 25, you can still become C- or so. E levels would be humiliating.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
