On February 24 2013 06:42 arb wrote: people should really stop being so salty over people being better than them. saying someone shouldnt be in a league because you cant beat them is literally the stupidest thing ive ever heard
that's exactly what a league with a max skill cap is though
So If you can't beat a particular player they're too high level and should be in another league? ok
Guise I'm 2:2 against Telecom who is C+, I totally have some point I should be making about how I'm D ranked but can beat C+ 50% of the time so we should allow C+ and also stop complaining about OP players because there are none.
On February 24 2013 06:42 arb wrote: people should really stop being so salty over people being better than them. saying someone shouldnt be in a league because you cant beat them is literally the stupidest thing ive ever heard
that's exactly what a league with a max skill cap is though
So If you can't beat a particular player they're too high level and should be in another league? ok
i mean, that is literally the point of having a league where the max skill is X. it's to prevent people whose skill is above X from beating people whose skill is below X, because the majority of players in that league are below X.
obviously it's fuzzy and effectively unenforceable which is why people should stop whining about it and just play for fun, but it should be similarly obvious that if there's a person in the league who is significantly better than everyone else in the league maybe he's too high level to be playing there because that defeats the purpose of everyone having fun in the league.
On February 24 2013 08:18 Birdie wrote: Guise I'm 2:2 against Telecom who is C+, I totally have some point I should be making about how I'm D ranked but can beat C+ 50% of the time so we should allow C+ and also stop complaining about OP players because there are none.
On February 23 2013 14:09 ninini wrote: I agree, Lmaster, that maybe it's not such a big deal if some players are a bit stronger than they should be, but to claim that iccup ranks doesn't mean anything is silly. I don't think you actually believe that, but if you do, I would like to hear your reasoning why.
Iccup ranks aren't the main problem here. The problem is the fact that some ppl don't ladder enough for us to make clear assumptions on their rank, and I don't mean only prophecy. I also mean the ppl with 10-5 scores. You can't tell if 10-5 is a lucky streak, or actual skill. The only problem with iccup is the fact that stats gets reset, but that is only an issue for ppl who haven't played let's say 40 games in a fairly recent season.
Yes, when a 1000-1999 D rank player joins your game on iccup, he could actually be anything from E to A+, but it evens out in the end if you play many games.
All of us have a max rank on iccup that we can reach. Anyone who claims otherwise have clearly not laddered enough games in a single season.
Here's some stats to show how huge the difference is between reaching and sustaining different ranks.
To reach D+, you need a 33+% winrate against D players. To reach C-, you need a 45+% winrate against D, and 33+% against D+. To reach C, you need a 69+% winrate against D and 45+% winrate against D+, and 33+% against C-.
Someone who can get a 60% winrate against D, and 40% against D+, would drop down to D+ now and again, but would be strong enough to spend around 2/3 of their time as C-. That's where I would put the border between high D+ and C-. If I ever reach that skill, I'm out of here.
In my eyes you are C- when you have a 50% against other C-s players. I can personally get an above 70% winrate against D and 50% winrate against D+, but no way near 50% against C- and I am pretty sure that there are people in this league who are better than me. If somebody with a 50% against D+ can't play in this a league this isn't a D rank league.
I actually saw a B+ account on iccup that only massed games against D and D- and had a 97% winratio. I am pretty sure that a solid C can achieve that if he made sure that the D opponent wasn't a smurf and hasn't reached a higher rank by looking him up. All I am trying to say that ranks only matter if you can maintain a rank via only playing people from the same rank (We could get to how inflation of players and games played can change the meaning of a rank, but thats besides the point).
If you can accomplish above 70% and 50% against D+ consistently, you could easily achieve C rank, and currently max rank C rank is not allowed, with the exception of ppl who accomplished it a long time ago. What's your id?
Anyway, with that way of looking at iccup ranks, very few of the players here would even categorize as D rank. Iccup rank is about what ranking you can hold, not which ranking group you are the most similar to in skill. If you would rather categorize players in your way, then go ahead, but then keep in mind that your D+ is way different to what most ppl would call D+.
The problem with looking at a ranking group and comparing yourself against them is the fact that most of those players are rising, and the d rank player you played yesterday, will be d+ today, and c- tomorrow. If you made sure to only play true D players, I agree that a mid D rank player, should get a 50% winrate against other D rank players, but with all the smurfs on iccup, and the season resets, it doesn't work that way.
I've never hit C- or C, but I could if I only played D ranks with losing records, but I am still clearly a D+ player especially since I don't play consistantly I just tried to poing out that referring to ranks is meaningless. i know that there are a lot of players in this league who can easily reach C- and even C if they just massed tons of game, but that truly doesn't mean anything.
If you manipulate the system, by playing only players who you know are not stronger than their current rank, you can reach higher than you deserve, but why would anyone here want to do that? If you just ladder like a normal person, your rank will be quite accurate. No matter if you play "D players" or "D+ players", you will always run into a few C, B and maybe even A ranks.
I wouldn't be surprised if one or two of the players in the league could reach C by mass gaming, but I haven't seen any player showing consistent enough results at that kind of level. People who haven't hit C even once should just stop acting like it's so easy.
Like I've pointed out before. I don't feel like it's necessary to "hunt down" players that are suspected of being too high level. I believe more in a system where the players comes to that conclusion on their own, but in order for that to work, we need to know where the boundaries lies. So reading all these attempts at devaluing the iccup ranking system annoys me. You can't follow iccup to 100%, but for players who have played 30-40 games in a recent season it's pretty accurate as a tool for categorizing skill, obviously the more games the better. In all the prior seasons we've put the boundary at max rank C-, and max sustain rank D+ and I don't see any good reason why we should abandon that guideline, that is unless Birdie (or anyone else for that matter) can create a system that is better.
On February 25 2013 09:46 L_Master wrote: Well folks, sTAKKed is going to get a little less so today, as L3g just hit C rank and won't be eligible to play.
On February 25 2013 09:46 L_Master wrote: Well folks, sTAKKed is going to get a little less so today, as L3g just hit C rank and won't be eligible to play.
Super TAKK lost both Artanis and L3g now? TAKK is getting alot more balanced now.
On February 25 2013 09:46 L_Master wrote: Well folks, sTAKKed is going to get a little less so today, as L3g just hit C rank and won't be eligible to play.
Super TAKK lost both Artanis and L3g now? TAKK is getting alot more balanced now.
So are we going by Super TAKK or sTAKKed?
Don't worry about our Zergs though, we still got our amazing Terran lineup :D
On February 25 2013 18:08 art_of_turtle wrote: If I didn't mention it yet, I'm looking for a team... You can contact me by skype. Skype: brainsmasher80
Also here is a replay, if you want to see about where I am.