On February 16 2012 16:07 sluggaslamoo wrote: The difference between D- and D+ is massively huge compared to C- and C+.
A C- player can take a game off a C+ player in a macro game, a D- will never beat a D+, actually there is a huge discrepancy in the C ranks which you don't get in the D's. You will often find some C- rank players who are really good, and some that are terrible.
Sometimes I will be consistently taking games off a C-/C player as a D+, and other times I get my ass kicked. I think its due to the fact that a lot of really good players simply can't be assed playing enough games to get to C, compared to some people who will mass ladder. Its almost the same situation in the D ranks where often you will play anyone between D- and B+, where as in D+ you can be certain that most of your games will be against a legit D+.
If you're a D+ player, why do you think you have any idea what the level difference between C rank players is.
That is exactly what I thought. IMO the skill discrepancy between C- and C+ is much bigger then D- and D+, since D- is most likely someone who just got started and if you put in enough effort you can get to D+ pretty easy. But working your way up to C+ from C- needs much more then effort, it needs a lot of training and gamesense. Both (especially the first one ) cannot be taught by BOs or the strategy forums.
On February 16 2012 16:07 sluggaslamoo wrote: The difference between D- and D+ is massively huge compared to C- and C+.
A C- player can take a game off a C+ player in a macro game, a D- will never beat a D+, actually there is a huge discrepancy in the C ranks which you don't get in the D's. You will often find some C- rank players who are really good, and some that are terrible.
Sometimes I will be consistently taking games off a C-/C player as a D+, and other times I get my ass kicked. I think its due to the fact that a lot of really good players simply can't be assed playing enough games to get to C, compared to some people who will mass ladder. Its almost the same situation in the D ranks where often you will play anyone between D- and B+, where as in D+ you can be certain that most of your games will be against a legit D+.
What makes you think a C- player will ever take a game off of a C+ player in a long macro game? This does not happen unless maybe if the C+ player starts off killing one or two of his workers...
I can assure you quirinus is definitely not in the C range if it's the same guy from croatia.
It's not dsaqwe, dsaqwe gave quirinus the B
dsaqwe (LocDog) was my padawan for a while so we know each other and I let him play on my acc which was around C. He didn't want to play/grind D -> C, he just wanted to play vs decent people, so he got it to B. I can give you names of a score of my smurfs and they're all around C.
Besides, I barely play any BW at the moment.
I think I can play any race at C ish level if I get in shape again. Some matchups better than that.
I'm still thinking about playing or not, since I don't have much time atm. But I guess I'm playing for now.
If I recall correctly, real teams don't always get players trough draft, there are other means too.
As far as I know, you can get to C by doing stupid shit, but doing it well and consistently. (I tried it, you can get to Cish with mass scouts vs all races, and similar stuff) Above C you can't do that much stupid shit, and on top of that, you have to be a lot more "in the game" and practice more. ~B you now know what should be done pretty well, and are able to do it reasonably well (execution). ~A you know almost exactly what you're supposed to do and how to do it, and you generally do it very well.
There are variations like, player knows very well what he should do, but his execution is not good, then he can't reach let's say B, but he's better than all the Cs. Or a player that executes things well, but isn't that good with decision making and adapting, but his macro/micro/positioning is just so great that it pulls him out in the end.
At B- and above levels it's more about practice/thinking than it is about "talent". Generally almost all players there can get very very good, but only if they put in the hours. I don't think that can be said about people at lower ranks.
Got to C with mass scouts? Show replays. I bet you made some scouts after big advantage when you basicaly won the game. If you mean 3000 points, its possible.
On February 17 2012 08:17 burbon wrote: Got to C with mass scouts? Show replays. I bet you made some scouts after big advantage when you basicaly won the game. If you mean 3000 points, its possible.
I met one guy doing some 2stargate scout build in C- last season. I could tell that he was a lot better than me, but sadly hydras>scouts and one can't be all cute with harassing when your nat is getting razed...
But this is getting way offtopic. A guy who hits C with scout builds is at least blue playing seriously.
i hope there will be a lot of fun with not many players > yellow ranks and not too much d+ that grabs a c- just to play here xD anyway the captans will chose, i shoud make a nice face like chose me chose me haha =_0 <--- angry pirat
On February 16 2012 16:07 sluggaslamoo wrote: The difference between D- and D+ is massively huge compared to C- and C+.
A C- player can take a game off a C+ player in a macro game, a D- will never beat a D+, actually there is a huge discrepancy in the C ranks which you don't get in the D's. You will often find some C- rank players who are really good, and some that are terrible.
Sometimes I will be consistently taking games off a C-/C player as a D+, and other times I get my ass kicked. I think its due to the fact that a lot of really good players simply can't be assed playing enough games to get to C, compared to some people who will mass ladder. Its almost the same situation in the D ranks where often you will play anyone between D- and B+, where as in D+ you can be certain that most of your games will be against a legit D+.
If you're a D+ player, why do you think you have any idea what the level difference between C rank players is.
Huh... Regardless if he knows the difference between C- and C+, he can still say that C- has a better chance of taking games off of a C+ rank because at least a C- player can do basic things such as Hydra bust and ling allin. D- players can't even do these simple things, I've seen a D- player lose to D+ where the D- player attempted to hydra bust, it went unscouted and he failed to hydra bust against 1 cannon. So, returning to my main point, regardless if you know what the skill difference looks like in C ranks, you can say with certainty what I just said above because D- ranks will forget 5 of their first 20 probes, they'll get supply blocked at every corner and at this point, you have no econ, no army and your opponent can be maxed.
I offer 2 examples, when I first started playing on iCCup, I didn't even know a build order, I didn't know anything about what I was doing, I played zerg, got a bunch of ZvZs and I just built drones and at some point I would get raped by mutalisk... I was like how the fuck did he get so many muta, my spire just started... I would be supply blocked at 9 I would be supply blocked at 18. I mean, I just didn't know anything about BW, I didn't scout I didn't build overlords till it told me I was supply blocked... D-, never won a game.
Second example, at this point I'm D and I move into residence at the college, my roomates all play SC. So, I'm like... I'm pretty bad, but we can play. So I played the best of them and it was... Really the situation described above. I mean, ZvT, he did, bunker at his ramp, second bunker at his ramp, starport, 3 wraiths. At this point I ran in with about 5-10 ultralisk and killed him (which I understand doesn't make sense because anyone should know that they are supposed to go muta or lurkers in ZvZ, I didn't have confidence in my muta so I just stuck lurkers at my base - Obviously I was by no means good either, but his extreme lack of knowledge would cause him to lose every game).
EPT
) cannot be taught by BOs or the strategy forums.
