EPT[R] What do you think of it? Platinum League - Page 4
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
leecH
Germany385 Posts
| ||
|
KarlSberg~
731 Posts
On October 13 2010 21:42 Drathmar wrote: Not all Bronze players are really bad. Some of us just can't get promoted. Like all my matches this week have been against high plat players, and last week were pretty much top 5 gold players and some low plat. It's funny how they get pissed when I tell them I'm in bronze as I'm beating them though (with macro/micro and not cheesing, only time I cheese is if they leave my probe in their base alone and I then do it to punish them.) Good to read I'm not the only one getting matched against people ranked 3 leagues above and not getting promoted. I was wondering if there was a bug or something... I guess that just means the ladder system is not only obscure but stupid. | ||
|
Champ24
177 Posts
On October 13 2010 22:29 Inori wrote: I'm 1500, I'm terrible at this game. (Not being modest, I know this for a fact). Just because 99% other people can't reach this level doesn't mean 1400-1500 is good, it just means 99% are bad. I'd say 1400-1600 is low diamond 1700-1900 mid 2000+ top And it constantly shifts foward thanks to retarded bonus pool, so in 2 weeks 1900 will be low. Also, you can't really bring that analogy with chess because that game is out for millenia and sc2 for about 2 months. How long the game has been out is irrelevant. I used a percentile reference to distinguish excellent players in chess in relation to current sc2 percentiles. If you are in the top 1% of all sc2 players, you don't suck. 3 years from now you have better learned a thing or two to keep that percentile, but you certainly have a leg up on those that are in the top 10 percentile, or high platinum. Similarly, if the top players stopped learning right now they will get waxed 3 years down the road too. But to say they suck because they don't know everything right now is quite naive. | ||
|
Dental Floss
United States1015 Posts
On October 13 2010 22:38 KarlSberg~ wrote: Good to read I'm not the only one getting matched against people ranked 3 leagues above and not getting promoted. I was wondering if there was a bug or something... I guess that just means the ladder system is not only obscure but stupid. That just means that the system has decided that you're a candidate for promotion and its trying to decide if it should put you in platinum or diamond, but it can take a long time if you hover at the margin. Play a few more games and you'll stabilize. | ||
|
Noxie
United States2227 Posts
To put things in perspective when I got the game (opening night) I played placements and disconnected twice. Going overall 3-2. I was placed in gold (was pretty damn pissed, because I wanted to get into a strong diamond league) I had to play roughly 30-40 games before shooting into the diamond league. The system will place you where you will need to be. But the way to get that to go faster is to simply play more. I am now a 1500 Terran.. but I spent a bulk of games in the gold league. Do not be discouraged. | ||
|
MrMotionPicture
United States4327 Posts
| ||
|
Enervate
United States1769 Posts
| ||
|
Jameser
Sweden951 Posts
 for your own mental health's sake I mean | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
On October 13 2010 22:29 Inori wrote: I'm 1500, I'm terrible at this game. (Not being modest, I know this for a fact). Just because 99% other people can't reach this level doesn't mean 1400-1500 is good, it just means 99% are bad. I'd say 1400-1600 is low diamond 1700-1900 mid 2000+ top And it constantly shifts foward thanks to retarded bonus pool, so in 2 weeks 1900 will be low. Also, you can't really bring that analogy with chess because that game is out for millenia and sc2 for about 2 months. Your perception is warped from broodwar. In that game, one expected quite a high level of mechanical and strategic competency even at "low" ladder ranks. A C player is better than the vast majority on iccup (http://www.iccup.com/content/news/Rank_Distribution_on_iCCup..html), and iccup is a self-selecting group of competitive players who want to ladder and who have generally been playing the game for years. C, however, is a very mediocre letter grade in the academic sphere that we're used to seeing it in, and the ranking system itself was set up in a rather odd manner so as to include a very large number of ranks for separating the top tier and a few broader rungs for those lower down. Another factor is the existence of a truly professional league of players who practice full time and push the skill ceiling to a place it never gets with most video games, a place that is unobtainable unless you are both very gifted and willing to devote several years of your life to the game. All of these have come together to create a perception that all but the absolute highest tier of player is "bad". I've seen B players label themselves as being bad. I guess this could be helpful for a small number of competitive people who are driven by this feeling of inadequacy and the pursuit of an impossible standard of perfection, but for the common player it can be very demoralizing. I only know 1 person irl who has reached platinum who didn't play bw competitively. If you don't have a background in competitive rts, it is certainly an accomplishment. Your description of yourself as "terrible" is completely subjective and statistically groundless. Even the lowest Diamond player is in the top 7% of sc2 players. The 93rd percentile of any other measure would be quite commendable. The 93rd percentile of grades in a class would certainly be an A, perhaps an A+. The 93rd income percentile in the United States is almost $150k. I recognize that Teamliquid is a very competitive community and that a Diamond ranking is par for the course, but the type of discourse that abounds claiming everyone below the top 99.99 percentile is "bad" is discouraging for new (and many experienced) players who are climbing the ladder. Not to mention that the term has no real meaning when used independently of the statistical reality. | ||
|
Deleted User 61629
1664 Posts
| ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
| ||
|
sleepingdog
Austria6145 Posts
since my connection is terribad (meaning: sc2 sometimes doesn't even recognizes that I'm actually connected to the internet and lets me only play offline...lol....) I can't practice; everytime I play against people of 1.5k+ I feel like I could beat them if I wouldn't screw up stupid things like putting workers on gas on expansions way too late, getting supply-blocked in mid-game because I don't throw up pylons fast enough when my economy is kicking in, don't get upgrades fast enough, etc. etc. when watching my games I feel like double-face-palming myself at least 2-3 times; the best way to distinguish "bad" players and "mediocre" players (starting imo at 1.4k as I said) is, if you can't "immediately" tell from their reps why they lost; more often than not a semi-pro steamrolls a "good" player and you couldn't say that the "good" player has made any obvious blunders - then it's fair to say that the latter one didn't suck; but when you watch games from players around or below 1.4k and see how they don't produce workers constantly, get supply-blocked, stack up minerals, don't have any expo-timing at all and just randomly throw down hatch/cc/nex, don't have micro etc......then seriously it's simply not justified to call them "good" I hate that ppl work with percentages - just because 95% of the players are "worse" than you, this doesn't "automatically" mean, that the remaining 5% are actually good; it's simply flawed logic EDIT: 3clipse, you perfectly proved my point; getting an A in class means you are "good" because the measure of your competence will be "standardized"; nevertheless, what would be if 95% got a D on a test and only 5% managed to be above D? would you call all of these 5%-ers good? obviously not; just because a majority is bad at something, doesn't make the minority "good by default" | ||
|
Aikin
Austria532 Posts
| ||
|
Slower
Australia6 Posts
On October 13 2010 21:44 Champ24 wrote: I find it amazing that the common consensus here is that unless you are 1400+ diamond you are bad at this game. 1400+ is about the top 0.5% of all players. That is ridiculously hard to crack! Starcraft takes a lot of games to learn. The diversity all off 3 races openings and what you need to do to beat it takes a very long time to learn. Even the dudes who play this game for a living have barely scratched the surface on its complexity. If you have made diamond you have a very solid understanding of the basics...and in my opinion you have really gotten down 1 base play. Which at this point in the metagame is good. But you also have a LONG ways to go. Every once in a while I get a 1v1 vs a guy who has about 500 points in diamond And like 45 games under their belt with a 65%+ win percentage. More often than not, I steamroll them. I'll watch a replay and they have a solid 1 base build order, but they get lost after that since at the lower levels the game is decided on that very first push and they don't learn how to progress. It takes time. It doesn't mean he sucks, he just hasn't gone swimming in those waters before. Point being, you don't "suck" if you aren't 1400 diamond, you just have a lot to learn before you hit a point in the ladder where a deep understanding of game mechanics and timings are required to win. Until then, learn the units and basic build orders (yes, plural. 4 gate and proxy reapers every game will only get you so far). You will need those tools as you progress. Edit: to further my point, a USCF "master" represents the top 1% of all tournament chess players (rated 2200+). You are extremely talented to reach that level. Anyone even close to that rating is very very good at chess. You just described how i play and my games. Currently im in platinum, and i know a few strats; hellion thor vs zerg, tank viking vs terran, mmm vs toss. I dont know shit about expanding and play 1 base all time. A lot of my games end in early pushes. If the game goes I start to play really sloppy and i either win due to the other player handling 2-3base worse or lose due to them being better at it. How do i improve? How do i get out of this style of play and move into diamond? | ||
|
mkfk1
United Kingdom153 Posts
On October 13 2010 21:24 shannn wrote: Platinum was the highest league(in beta) now the 2nd highest but there are so many sc2 players compared to beta that the level in diamond is so bad unless you reach 2000+ (at the time of writing) which you would be decent. Most people have the idea of Diamond is the highest league so that means if you reach Diamond means you're good which is such an illusion. There are about 750k active bnet users on sc2(?) which lowers the bar to reach Diamond severely. Unless you place good in high level tournaments don't think you're good. This post just show how stupid and unreasonable elitist some poster can be. As of my writing, there are less than 250 players in the entire world who have 2k + rating. So only 250 players are decent? With that being said, it is true that not all diamond players have good understanding of the game, and there are definitely all in cheeser sneaking into diamond. But to say only 2k+ rating are decent player are just pure bull shit. Hell, as of this writing, I see guys like Lzgamer, and people in the prime and werra clan in the 1900-1800 rating. Are you telling me that those guys are not decent player? Instead of saying what rating is consider "good" or "bad", people should define what people at those rating are capable of doing. | ||
|
Champ24
177 Posts
| ||
|
hoovehand
United Kingdom542 Posts
diamond = wide range of experienced players below diamond = inexperienced players | ||
|
Chriamon
United States886 Posts
| ||
|
Chriamon
United States886 Posts
On October 13 2010 23:06 MrMotionPicture wrote: People in platinum seem to know the fundamentals of the game and have good macro/micro. I wouldn't mind being in platinum (I am gold right now) Naw, I know a bunch of people in platinum who have terrible micro/macro, they just know how to pull off a 4gate/3rax. (although I guess that compared to gold level micro/macro they might be considered good...) On October 13 2010 21:44 Champ24 wrote: Point being, you don't "suck" if you aren't 1400 diamond, you just have a lot to learn before you hit a point in the ladder where a deep understanding of game mechanics and timings are required to win. "Point being, you don't 'suck' if you aren't 1400 diamond, you just (explanation of sucking follows) Also, the chess analogy doesn't work. SC2 has only been out since July. A current "master" at SC2's current skills would become completely average when compared to future "average" players. Compare people in chess from ancient times (Greco or something) to a modern day decent chess player (~1600+ ELO sounds right) I'm sure Greco would get destroyed, but that 1600 player is by no means a master, even though Greco was a master of his time. Right now, we are in the Greco time, and we are comparing who is "good" and "bad" to modern times (i.e. the highest potential we see for SC2 play). Its easier to see the potential SC2 has because we have seen BW players play BW, and we know what RTS is capable of. | ||
| ||
