Poll: Do you think we will see new ranks next season? (Vote): Yes, Unk is a cleverly hiding this info in plain sight! (Vote): No, this is just Unk being Unk....
I saw a blog Unk put up on iCCup earlier stating they are adding a legal full maphack to the iCCup launcher next season. Now having been fooled by Unk b4 I right away thought "yea, right..."
than he deleted the blog, and posted a new one about the same thing but made mention of a rank under D-. Now I know the under D- HAS been a ongoing discussion on the admin forums, so i can't help but wonder if this might be a true piece of info buried in a usual Unk prank.
Ne one else think they might add under D- next season, or is Unk just being himself?
If we're talking about ranks, I doubt we'll see any new ranks below D-. I think the system is fine as of now, and didn't unk say last season was the last iCCup season or something before?
Yeah I think for people trying to get into the game a rank below D- could be a good idea. Maybe if somehow possible keep people from smurfing there. Im not sure, just blabbing stuff out.
On December 14 2009 12:39 tree.hugger wrote: Oh, chages? I thought you were talking about changing tanks. I have no idea what chages are in store for us. + Show Spoiler +
(-_-)
Proofread post titles? I think so.
DOUBLE DAMNIT!!! I should not make new posts when I have only slept 10 hrs since 6AM Firday. UFC 107 weekend in Memphis messed with my sleeping schedule bad.
Mods: Very sorry for the stupid title, can you fix "ranks" and "changes" for me, very sorry!!"
On December 14 2009 12:47 Amber[LighT] wrote: I don't understand how players are worse than "D-" level. Are there really that many people who can't get above 500 points or something?
There seems to be some huge talent gaps in the D-. I have played against D- players that just have a couple major holes in their game that make them lose, but they are sound otherwise. THan I have played D- players that Proxy Barracks right at my choke in HBR (i kid you not....), like I would not see it....
D- is a crap shoot, I think it could help in the long run.
It also can help against smurfing as it's worth even less pts than it does now.
On December 14 2009 12:47 Amber[LighT] wrote: I don't understand how players are worse than "D-" level. Are there really that many people who can't get above 500 points or something?
On December 14 2009 12:47 Amber[LighT] wrote: I don't understand how players are worse than "D-" level. Are there really that many people who can't get above 500 points or something?
There seems to be some huge talent gaps in the D-. I have played against D- players that just have a couple major holes in their game that make them lose, but they are sound otherwise. THan I have played D- players that Proxy Barracks right at my choke in HBR (i kid you not....), like I would not see it....
D- is a crap shoot, I think it could help in the long run.
It also can help against smurfing as it's worth even less pts than it does now.
its true. i've played games where a toss would build 2 probes and a pylon then gateway and then stream zealots scouting around the entire freaking map looking for me, and when he finds me attacks my nexus. no unit other than zealots are built. no buildings other than mentioned are built. there are players THAT BAD
but yeah, games amongst these players must be entertaining.
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.
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.
I could see this being a good idea since it also prevents those newbie players from getting bashed by the C- --> B- players who reset on occasion. They've almost got like a mini-league for themselves to play in so they can learn the game at their own pace. I just feel that because the skill level might get so low that they will not progress, and just stick to the builds that are working at that level...
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.
I'm hoping that the MH-feature is something like this:
Instead of a black mini-map you'lll see terrain and the map layout, but not your opponent nor his units.
For ex. like when you type 'Black Sheep Wall' (you get full vision) in Single Player and then when you type 'Black Sheep Wall' again to deactivate you can see everything on the minimap. And yes the location where your opponent spawned :/.
So isn't there any way to prevent you from seeing your opponent? This would be so awesome, learning new maps/remembering old ones would be so much more easier and more FUN too. Note: This function is today a standard in most good RTS.
Maybe with this function more casual players would stop only playing Python and try some new maps..
I don't even know if this is possibly but. This and maybe some new MH-function which only activates when observing someone (abuse anyone?) would be so fucking awesome, goodbye to obs-maps?.
but i think thats the same with every junmp from a "+" to a "-" rank. many people are to good for D+ but to bad for C- or C+ and B- and same with B+ and A-. i think that dont need a fix, its normal^^
remake the A ranks to 1k instead of 1.5 and add gosu rank+ and - being 1k also after that. and if anyone manages to get past gosu+ they get olympic )
oh and speaking about fixing stuff for the new season; fix the /r command that it doesnt get affected by server messges like "friend left a game". this really bums me out xd
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.
On December 15 2009 00:26 MeProU_Kor wrote: but i think thats the same with every junmp from a "+" to a "-" rank. many people are to good for D+ but to bad for C- or C+ and B- and same with B+ and A-. i think that dont need a fix, its normal^^
no its not, because once you hit A- you lose more for losses than you gain for wins which means at A- you have to be better than the average A- cuz you have to hold a winning record just to maintain the rank. makes the jump much more exaggerated than any other rank.
On December 15 2009 00:26 MeProU_Kor wrote: but i think thats the same with every junmp from a "+" to a "-" rank. many people are to good for D+ but to bad for C- or C+ and B- and same with B+ and A-. i think that dont need a fix, its normal^^
no its not, because once you hit A- you lose more for losses than you gain for wins which means at A- you have to be better than the average A- cuz you have to hold a winning record just to maintain the rank. makes the jump much more exaggerated than any other rank.
If they're going to try something else with the rank system, I think it definitly would be a good idea to try something new at the A- aswell.
But then again, the A- jump when u loose more than u gain will then perhaps be at A instead and then at the end of next season we'll speak of changing The 140p loss at A to A+ etc..
Also this:
On December 15 2009 01:39 SirGlinG wrote: I like the idea. The difference between D- players can be huge, no noob basher should be willing to loose 3000 points to bash noobs.
D "1000-2000 D- "0-1000 E+ "-1000 -0 E "-2000-(-3000)" E- "-3000-(-3000)"
And this
On November 24 2009 20:17 SirGlinG wrote: Hopefully there'slots of D- players reading this thread, here's to all of you: those of you who complain about D+players joining your D- games please just ban them instead of playing them and complaining. I've seen too much of that on icc Forums.
I do it if a D+ joins my D games, ask the player if he can read or if he is a noob bashing retard and ban. + Show Spoiler +
Sometimes they even get mad and call u noob. Then u reply. Yes, that's why I don't want to play against you.
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
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.
I wish that the win and loss points would be more balanced at all ranks. It doesn't seem good to me that at D rank, if you win more than 28% of your games, your rating will tend to increase over time. With that winrate, you're clearly a lot worse than the average D player, and will get more appropriate games by staying at D or even dropping to D-.
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?
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 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.
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.
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
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!
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).
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 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.
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.
D doesn't have to be at 1000 points, but make E (or F) 1000 points (what a lot of people seem to understand...)
ALL ranks will be better divided then, and consequently the gaps between ranks (A-B etc.) will be smaller
Players will have a much better insight on whether they are improving or not, because they play players with a more equal skill level (not counting the /clearstats tards ofcourse)
And even if it appears to be a bad change, they can just remove when the season is finished
On December 16 2009 02:09 cafaro wrote: Why not add 1 or 2 additional ranks below D?
D doesn't have to be at 1000 points, but make E (or F) 1000 points (what a lot of people seem to understand...)
ALL ranks will be better divided then, and consequently the gaps between ranks (A-B etc.) will be smaller
Players will have a much better insight on whether they are improving or not, because they play players with a more equal skill level (not counting the /clearstats tards ofcourse)
And even if it appears to be a bad change, they can just remove when the season is finished
just my 2 cents
skill != rank
if you get +1 rank so quickly with few all-in/cheese's, you won't be better at all, and in fact when you play against higher rank players (assuming they didn't cheesed their way), you will get crushed continuously which will demotivate you and force you into believing that you started "slumping" etc. I know many C rank players (yes, mostly protosses) with D/D+ player's skill. With that being said, increasing number of ranks is a bad idea, and I hope admins won't make that mistake.
On December 16 2009 02:09 cafaro wrote: Why not add 1 or 2 additional ranks below D?
D doesn't have to be at 1000 points, but make E (or F) 1000 points (what a lot of people seem to understand...)
ALL ranks will be better divided then, and consequently the gaps between ranks (A-B etc.) will be smaller
Players will have a much better insight on whether they are improving or not, because they play players with a more equal skill level (not counting the /clearstats tards ofcourse)
And even if it appears to be a bad change, they can just remove when the season is finished
just my 2 cents
skill != rank
if you get +1 rank so quickly with few all-in/cheese's, you won't be better at all, and in fact when you play against higher rank players (assuming they didn't cheesed their way), you will get crushed continuously which will demotivate you and force you into believing that you started "slumping" etc. I know many C rank players (yes, mostly protosses) with D/D+ player's skill. With that being said, increasing number of ranks is a bad idea, and I hope admins won't make that mistake.
Isn't that the case already?
and players shouldn't cheese in the first place if they don't want to get raped on a higher rank
There are only a few hundred B+/A- players on ICCup, but there are nearly 50,000 D and D- players. If we add a rank, we will add it where it will be the most effective. And why does everyone assume this was unk's idea in the first place? I was the one who brought it up in the admin forum, and that was after someone posted in the technical forums asking about it happening after reading a thread HERE where 74% of people who voted (300~) said adding a new rank under D- would be a good idea.
If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at yourselves :|
On December 16 2009 02:09 cafaro wrote: Why not add 1 or 2 additional ranks below D?
D doesn't have to be at 1000 points, but make E (or F) 1000 points (what a lot of people seem to understand...)
ALL ranks will be better divided then, and consequently the gaps between ranks (A-B etc.) will be smaller
Players will have a much better insight on whether they are improving or not, because they play players with a more equal skill level (not counting the /clearstats tards ofcourse)
And even if it appears to be a bad change, they can just remove when the season is finished
just my 2 cents
skill != rank
if you get +1 rank so quickly with few all-in/cheese's, you won't be better at all, and in fact when you play against higher rank players (assuming they didn't cheesed their way), you will get crushed continuously which will demotivate you and force you into believing that you started "slumping" etc. I know many C rank players (yes, mostly protosses) with D/D+ player's skill. With that being said, increasing number of ranks is a bad idea, and I hope admins won't make that mistake.
Isn't that the case already?
and players shouldn't cheese in the first place if they don't want to get raped on a higher rank
What I've meant to say is, playing less games will get you to the higher rank than it would normally, that means more players that didn't deserve it will get it, and they will get raped in there. It's not a good motivation or training expierience since we all know that the best training is vs your skill level or a little higher skill level players, not the ones that can rape you 10 times in a row anytime.
I think part of the problem is smurfing...where is it carved in stone that "a player must be able to clearstats" (however often it is, I never do it) and "each season everyone must begin at that same rank again"...why not change these things as well? I also think if there was something like a 'career rank' added in with the season rank mode then this might help. no? any thoughts? I have some suggestions on this but no time to type out everything I want to explain.
Yes, I do think there should be more ranks to help out those just beginning. Should've happened a long time ago
On December 16 2009 03:47 pRo9aMeR wrote: I think part of the problem is smurfing...where is it carved in stone that "a player must be able to clearstats" (however often it is, I never do it) and "each season everyone must begin at that same rank again"...why not change these things as well? I also think if there was something like a 'career rank' added in with the season rank mode then this might help. no? any thoughts? I have some suggestions on this but no time to type out everything I want to explain.
Yes, I do think there should be more ranks to help out those just beginning. Should've happened a long time ago
I think that's a terrible idea. Not only would that increase dodging, but it would defeat the whole purpose of playing iCCup on day one to play vs really good players. People who don't like to play vs better players due to their stats need to learn they'll never improve that way. You take a lot more away from a loss than a win.
On December 16 2009 03:47 pRo9aMeR wrote: I think part of the problem is smurfing...where is it carved in stone that "a player must be able to clearstats" (however often it is, I never do it) and "each season everyone must begin at that same rank again"...why not change these things as well? I also think if there was something like a 'career rank' added in with the season rank mode then this might help. no? any thoughts? I have some suggestions on this but no time to type out everything I want to explain.
Yes, I do think there should be more ranks to help out those just beginning. Should've happened a long time ago
I think that's a terrible idea. Not only would that increase dodging, but it would defeat the whole purpose of playing iCCup on day one to play vs really good players. People who don't like to play vs better players due to their stats need to learn they'll never improve that way. You take a lot more away from a loss than a win.
Wrong. You take nothing away from Jaedong beating your BBS with 4 drones. You'll definately learn more from games where the player you are fighting is sliiightly above your skill level. This way you'll learn actual strategy. You could pit me up against any programer, and tell me his exact build order, and I probably wouldn't be able to do much about it because of sheer mechanics. You need to actually learn WHEN you can punish WHAT, which you won't learn by playing someone who is vastly superior because they will win anyway.
On December 16 2009 03:47 pRo9aMeR wrote: I think part of the problem is smurfing...where is it carved in stone that "a player must be able to clearstats" (however often it is, I never do it) and "each season everyone must begin at that same rank again"...why not change these things as well? I also think if there was something like a 'career rank' added in with the season rank mode then this might help. no? any thoughts? I have some suggestions on this but no time to type out everything I want to explain.
Yes, I do think there should be more ranks to help out those just beginning. Should've happened a long time ago
I think that's a terrible idea. Not only would that increase dodging, but it would defeat the whole purpose of playing iCCup on day one to play vs really good players. People who don't like to play vs better players due to their stats need to learn they'll never improve that way. You take a lot more away from a loss than a win.
You think the whole purpose of playing iccup is to play vs really good players on day 1?
I'll...disagree, to put it mildly.
Also, I don't think it will increase dodging. I think it will increase dodging between players that have a huge skill gap. Which I think is great.
On December 16 2009 04:21 LuckyFool wrote: honestly I'd rather have less ranks so people focus more on improving at the game rather than becoming more ridiculously obsessed with a letter rank.
honestly, I'd rather people focus on neither of those things, but rather enjoying the game.
And adding some additional ranks ultimately helps people get more enjoyable games
On December 16 2009 04:21 LuckyFool wrote: honestly I'd rather have less ranks so people focus more on improving at the game rather than becoming more ridiculously obsessed with a letter rank.
honestly, I'd rather people focus on neither of those things, but rather enjoying the game.
And adding some additional ranks ultimately helps people get more enjoyable games
huh? Who says focusing on improving is not enjoying the game? I think anyone who is playing starcraft obviously enjoys the game already, otherwise why would they continue to play it? To alot of people, being able to improve and show results is one of the most enjoyable experiences the game can offer.
I have always thought of Bnet as the filter for players worse then D-. I mean you have to have been playing BW for a while and met some people who play the game competitively too just hear about iccups. I guess not however lol.
I really like the idea of having a rank for players below D-
the people at that level know that there is a competitive scene, and know that they want to get better, but they get frustrated at the massive skill differences within D/D- (some are really bad like them, and others know build orders, but just can't get above D)
On December 16 2009 03:17 tofucake wrote: There are only a few hundred B+/A- players on ICCup, but there are nearly 50,000 D and D- players. If we add a rank, we will add it where it will be the most effective. And why does everyone assume this was unk's idea in the first place? I was the one who brought it up in the admin forum, and that was after someone posted in the technical forums asking about it happening after reading a thread HERE where 74% of people who voted (300~) said adding a new rank under D- would be a good idea.
If you want to be angry at anyone, be angry at yourselves :|
it's hard to argue with those stats. the guys is an admin on iCCup after all.
And tofu, your welcome for the link to the discussion here lol ! that was me that put it up.
the community thought it was a good idea, why can't the few remaining nay-sayers jump on board ?
On December 15 2009 10:38 Boundz(DarKo) wrote: 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.
We got a real cool kid here guys. Watch out for this one.
i am for the idea of having lower ranks for people under D-
I also think they should add a new icon, not rank, for when people get 20000 pts just cause it would be cool to look at when people look at the 1v1 ladder page
On December 16 2009 05:03 eXigent. wrote: huh? Who says focusing on improving is not enjoying the game?
All the people who keep complaining that getting stomped on by higher-level players isn't fun. Technically they're still 'improving', but clearly it's no fun. What I mean is that you shouldn't focus on improving at the expense of having fun (yes this can happen).
On December 16 2009 05:03 eXigent. wrote: I think anyone who is playing starcraft obviously enjoys the game already, otherwise why would they continue to play it? To alot of people, being able to improve and show results is one of the most enjoyable experiences the game can offer.
Uh, look at all the complaints about people in the D/D- level not being able to find games around their skill level. Clearly there can be improvements made to iccup to make it more enjoyable for everyone.
I'm not talking about enjoying starcraft as an rts game. I'm talking about enjoying the experience of playing on the iccup ladder.
There has been a serious lack of iCCup admins being mysterious in this thread what happened? Used to be so much fun making you wonder if we were agreeing with you or not.
Anyways the thing is iCCup is a competative ladder. If its going to take a rewriting of the ladder code I wouldnt expect to see an E rank. Because honestly E rank players arent our market, they're not why people come and play the ladder. If it can be done simply then okay maybe you'll see it. I have no idea how it works but honestly I don't see why since most people who would get down that low would just /clearstats or make a new account anyway.
Ahh the start of a new iCCup season AND NEW RANKS?
Probably shouldn't be E if anything, rather F. E just reminds me of the highest grade you can get in elementary school. Regardless, a legal maphack...wtf
This sounds like a great idea actually, ICCUP is very scary to newcomers and my friend was so excited about his first win the other day. But maybe there can be a section people can play under for first timers. This might be free of those true b+ people who just like beating d players.
On December 16 2009 06:20 iCCup.Raelcun wrote: Anyways the thing is iCCup is a competative ladder. If its going to take a rewriting of the ladder code I wouldnt expect to see an E rank. Because honestly E rank players arent our market, they're not why people come and play the ladder. If it can be done simply then okay maybe you'll see it. I have no idea how it works but honestly I don't see why since most people who would get down that low would just /clearstats or make a new account anyway.
On who's behalf are you to say we are rejecting markets? Last I checked, iCCup wants as many players playing the ladder as possible. Saying "we don't want them to play our game" sounds ridiculous. Unless you are 2easy or something, speak for yourself and watch yourself before speaking on the behalf of the entire iccup admin team.
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.
No one's going to be that huge of a douchebag to go all the way down to sub-D level just to bash kids who don't know what the hell they're doing ... unless their name is Empyrean.
After beating campaign and playing my friends a couple times, I was at the ~800 point range. The people there (with the exception of the more than occasional smurf) were exactly my skill level, and I was able to progress. The current ladder system is great, imo.
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.
No one's going to be that huge of a douchebag to go all the way down to sub-D level just to bash kids who don't know what the hell they're doing ... unless their name is Empyrean.
lmao empyrean
I don't think it's super necessary. ICCup's scope is the competitive scene, not people who don't know what a build order is
On December 16 2009 12:04 GW.Methos wrote: :-( iccup is down
On December 16 2009 06:20 iCCup.Raelcun wrote: Anyways the thing is iCCup is a competative ladder. If its going to take a rewriting of the ladder code I wouldnt expect to see an E rank. Because honestly E rank players arent our market, they're not why people come and play the ladder. If it can be done simply then okay maybe you'll see it. I have no idea how it works but honestly I don't see why since most people who would get down that low would just /clearstats or make a new account anyway.
On who's behalf are you to say we are rejecting markets? Last I checked, iCCup wants as many players playing the ladder as possible. Saying "we don't want them to play our game" sounds ridiculous. Unless you are 2easy or something, speak for yourself and watch yourself before speaking on the behalf of the entire iccup admin team.
He never said you were rejecting markets.
He also never said "we don't want them to play our game" You're putting words into his mouth.
On December 16 2009 06:20 iCCup.Raelcun wrote: Anyways the thing is iCCup is a competative ladder. If its going to take a rewriting of the ladder code I wouldnt expect to see an E rank. Because honestly E rank players arent our market, they're not why people come and play the ladder. If it can be done simply then okay maybe you'll see it. I have no idea how it works but honestly I don't see why since most people who would get down that low would just /clearstats or make a new account anyway.
On who's behalf are you to say we are rejecting markets? Last I checked, iCCup wants as many players playing the ladder as possible. Saying "we don't want them to play our game" sounds ridiculous. Unless you are 2easy or something, speak for yourself and watch yourself before speaking on the behalf of the entire iccup admin team.
He never said you were rejecting markets.
He also never said "we don't want them to play our game" You're putting words into his mouth.
Partially what he said, okay by the definition of a ladder the people at the bottom aren't what drive the competition. People do not log onto the ladder to play with D- players. I'm not saying we don't want them, iCCup exists for people to compete and judge their skill level this means we want people of EVERY skill level. I'm not trying to speak for the entire admin team it's a fact. Yes we want people to come play our ladder but in order to do that we need to attract high level players or else theres no guarantee that you're getting a good measure of your actual skill level.
Yes there are D- level players who will not /clearstats or make a new account because they genuinely want to work hard to get out of D- and good for them but they are the vast minority. My point here? I don't speak for iCCup but I've been a member of iCCup for roughly a year and a half. I worked on the PGTour before that for over 4 seasons maybe consider the fact that I might have a clue what I'm talking about. All I said was if it would take a major overhaul and lots of time reworking the code to do it then it probably won't happen.
any stats on the 50,000ish players' number of games played? I think there might be lots of them with 10, maybe 5 or less games...I don't think these accounts should factor in as much.
And a question about high level people making a new account or /clearstats in order to practice a build order....why not just make a melee game with a friend?
Or how about altering /clearstats to just drop your points to the plus level of the rank below? i.e. A+,A, or A- does /clearstats to go to B+ B+,B, or B- go down to C+ all C ranks go down to D+ and D ranks I guess just back to D?
Adding a new rank is trivial in the programming aspect. I'm fairly sure everyone will start and clearstats will return you to D, while E is for those who are genuinely not good. When I started playing ICCup I was definitely E level. That didn't mean I was just bad, I wanted to PLAY and get better, but having an E rank would have simplified things.
I joke in my signature about being the worst SC player in Korea, but got damn I've seen some really bad players on battle.net / Iccup.
opponent going Bunker wall on python only to die to cloaked wraiths. opponent going mass cannons only to have them busted through because of siege tanks. opponent building mass sunkens in his main at the beginning... wtf!?
Speaking as a new D- player who would be E if the rank existed, I'm sort of indifferent about the idea. I'm not mad that I have to play people better than me at the lowest rank, playing people who at least know what they're doing will help give me a better feel for timings and such. It's quite the opposite, I feel bad because they have to play ME. They want to get better too and they probably aren't learning from me since my game falls apart after 5 minutes. Not sure if this is actually a problem or if i am making it up, but it would be the only good reason for an E rank that I can think of.
On December 15 2009 06:13 JiYan wrote: 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?
What I'd suggest is having, at all ranks, a point loss of 130 for losing to equal rank. Then (when playing MOTW), a player needs to win more than half of his games to go up in rank, and if that player wins less than half of his games for a while, he'll go down in rank. Maybe I'm being naive, but this seems like the most natural way to do it.
This is already implimented blue the higher rank you are the more points you lose for losing to an equal rank player. This means that if you are a 0.500 player you will never stay in the A- rank you can only attain B+. When you reach the A ranks you lose 140 points for losing to the same rank. B rank loses 100, C is 75, D is 50. Thats one way the ladder is designed to create a spread between the ranks. If ALL ranks lost 130/140 points then the ranks wouldn't spread out there would be lots of higher rank but inconsistant players stuck in lower ranks.
actually raelcun, i think what would happen is that there would be too many lower ranks and not enough higher ranks. thinking about it, why would increasing the points LOST add to the higher ranks? i think what would happen is a HUGE amount of lower ranked players imo.
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.
No, no, let's be clear here. dhe95 says that there's no point in bad players playing each other because they will lose to bad strategies instead of good ones--for instance, a zealot rush defeating a Terran instead of 5 goons (his example). He says that if they play against players who at least do proper strategies, they will learn "true things" instead of the "false things" they learn from players their level.
I think what he's saying ignores the basic fact that even among top pros there are strategies that they do which their opponents shouldn't do. There is no such thing as a "true strategy" for everyone--every skill level has its own good and bad strategies. If a C+ player tries to do A level strategies he may very well lose to something which is easier for a C+ player to do well which no A player would ever try. Every level has a different set of "best" strategies, and to say that the very lowest players must therefore copy "at least" the "middle" or "standard" is simply to select one standard as official when there are countless others none of which more right than the other.
Furthermore, if you say that we should all play someone better than us, then why would they play us? Shouldn't THEY play someone better too? And then, no one can play anyone, if we follow this advice. The only equitable solution is to strive to have similar players play eachother, which is in fact the idea which a ladder centers around. While it may be a good opportunity to play against people better than yourself, it is quite stupid to design your ladder to intentionally maximize such incidents--it's bad for the good players, and it's very anti-ladder at its core.
On December 18 2009 04:56 illu wrote: I don't understand the rationale behind the legal maphack.
What is wrong with you? Maphacking is clearly the best way to practice timings... If they make some sort of "UMS" mode with maphack option, that would be ridiculously good for practicegames...
In anticipation of the new season on iCCup we are happy to present you with a small list of additional features to try. These new innovative features should help to improve your iCCup experience.
The first innovation is the rank limit command / rl. Now you do not have to spend a long time searching for a player at your skill level, or kicking time-wasters who are far above or below your own skill level. All you need to do is specify the rank of the player or the ladder point limit of the players that you wish to join your game.
Here's an example: / rl 6000 7000 (Only those players who from 6000 to 7000 points may join). / rl 10000 (Only a player who has more 10000 points may join) / rl c-c + (yOnly those who are ranked between C- to C+ may join)
Are you tired of players are not using antihack? Now this problem is easily solved. By utilising yet another new command / nah (no antihack) players not using iCCup's AntiHack feature will not be able to join your game. Additionally, the country that a player is playing from will be displayed when you join a game with a tag ([KR] for Korean, [AU] for Australian, etc.).
The next new feature is specifically helpful for those active in a clan. The list of new commands available is found below:
/ clan help (/ ch; Help) / clan list (/ cl; Shows a list of everyone who is in the clan) / clan msg (/ cm, / cw; Send a message to all clanmates) / clan online (/ co; Show all clan mates who are online) / clan off (/ c off; Disable all clan notifications) / clan on (/ c on; Include all clan related alerts) / clan state (/ c state; Shows the current status regarding clan alerts, i.e. ON or OFF)
Also worth noting is that now all the clans have at their disposal clan channels, to which the player will be automatically directed when you log on to the server.
Finally, and perhaps the most interesting new innovation — a new rank. A distinguishing letter has not been assigned as of yet, but the beginner rank will be identified by this icon . This rank is positioned even lower than the D- to help those who have only just recently met with StarCraft and their level of play is significantly lower than the average D- player. Accordingly, in order to be demoted to D- you must fall to 900 ladder points, instead of the previous 850 points. Also, players in the lowest rank will lose 20 ladder points for a loss.
We hope you enjoy the latest additions to iCCup and good luck achieving your goals in Season 11!
Is there that much of a point in squishing the low ranks as they did? It doesn't really seem like the beginner rank will be all that much different from the old D-
It seems kinda useless since everyone who gets that low will probably reset their stats or just quit completely tbh it seems pretty discouraging to be down that low. it's like riding the special bus to school or something.
On December 18 2009 11:41 Sunny Afternoon wrote: tbh it seems pretty discouraging to be down that low. it's like riding the special bus to school or something.
I agree, I've always believed that if we're gonna make new lower ranks, then everyone starts at the bottom and works there way up. Honestly, think about it, its a LADDER...you always start at the very bottom and work your way up.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://img5.imageshack.us/img5/4904/wtfminus.jpg)
)
! lol.
