EPTCounter-Strike: Global Offensive - Page 380
| Forum Index > General Games |
|
Qbek
Poland12923 Posts
| ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
On April 08 2014 20:52 gTank wrote: I have one major problem with ranks in this game as well. Most of the time, I play with friends that are all GN or even below while I play on double AK range. Still we lose so many games that my rank goes down to 3 star and back to AK sometimes. Basically, I feel that I am sacrificing my rank (and fun to play) for being social with ppl I know. And I don't wanna soloqueue because I can't stand playing with yet another russian guy who ruins this game even more than my low skill friends. No offence, but 90% of the times I see a player with cyrillic letters in his nick or chat and has 90+ ping, we lose badly because of TK, being afk, not understanding a damn whats going on on the map or not caring about teamplay in general. It might be just bad luck or coincidence that these guys are russian (or russian speaking) but I had the same in dota2 which made me quit playing that alltogether. They could take lessons from Blizzard on this. A team rank that is unique to the 5man you play with. Like in SC2. - Solo 2vs2 have its own rank - 2vs2 with your wife have its own rank - 2vs2 with your neighboor have its own rank. You could be - Silver - Master - Gold They could do something about that in CS maybe? | ||
yamato77
11589 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
tofucake
Hyrule19269 Posts
On April 08 2014 23:38 Dangermousecatdog wrote: lol, so much elitism over the pass few posts. There are 18 ranks in the game guys. There isn't a distinct rank where players are super bad, which happens to be the rank below you, and the rank after is instant death with everyone being aware of all the skills, which happens to be the rank you are on. What are you talking about? Silvers are objectively terrible at competitive. Novas are objectively bad. MGs are the beginning of not-good-but-not-so-bad. DMG has huge variance, going from okay all the way up to really good. Eagle+LEM are really good. SMFC is 3 very good players, and from what I understand, the rest are all blatant hackers. GE is boosted people who never play and pros. | ||
|
yamato77
11589 Posts
On April 09 2014 00:31 FFW_Rude wrote: They could take lessons from Blizzard on this. A team rank that is unique to the 5man you play with. Like in SC2. - Solo 2vs2 have its own rank - 2vs2 with your wife have its own rank - 2vs2 with your neighboor have its own rank. You could be - Silver - Master - Gold They could do something about that in CS maybe? I, and others, play with too many different combinations of players for that to be feasible. The difference between only having 1 other partner and 4 teammates to account for in forming a team is drastic. I think the current system of balancing is fairly good. While the range of skill on my premade might be greater than the pub team we get matched against, we almost always play relatively close games and the best players on my team usually make up for my shortfalls, because they have greater individual skill than most of the players we are matched against. Also, even being a much lower rank than my opponents, I am still not completely useless because I can still provide some information, or throw a few good smokes, or get the occasional pick. In SC2, the mechanical skill of playing the game is so much more important than in CS: GO that I would never be able to make up for the deficit in macro between myself, a lowlie silver, and a diamond level player, even if my teammate was grandmaster. | ||
|
FFW_Rude
France10201 Posts
On April 09 2014 00:46 yamato77 wrote: I, and others, play with too many different combinations of players for that to be feasible. The difference between only having 1 other partner and 4 teammates to account for in forming a team is drastic. I think the current system of balancing is fairly good. While the range of skill on my premade might be greater than the pub team we get matched against, we almost always play relatively close games and the best players on my team usually make up for my shortfalls, because they have greater individual skill than most of the players we are matched against. Also, even being a much lower rank than my opponents, I am still not completely useless because I can still provide some information, or throw a few good smokes, or get the occasional pick. In SC2, the mechanical skill of playing the game is so much more important than in CS: GO that I would never be able to make up for the deficit in macro between myself, a lowlie silver, and a diamond level player, even if my teammate was grandmaster. Yeah i realized after i posted that it was stupid since i would have like 10 or 12 rankings if that was the case. And i don't play that much... | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On April 09 2014 00:40 tofucake wrote: What are you talking about? Silvers are objectively terrible at competitive. Novas are objectively bad. MGs are the beginning of not-good-but-not-so-bad. DMG has huge variance, going from okay all the way up to really good. Eagle+LEM are really good. SMFC is 3 very good players, and from what I understand, the rest are all blatant hackers. GE is boosted people who never play and pros. What? Did you misread the post or something? Why quote me if you agree that there is a broad range of skill across the ranks, that the difference between one rank and the next isn't clear cut? Btw, "objectively"; you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19269 Posts
| ||
|
yamato77
11589 Posts
To list a few of the most important: Aim Crosshair Placement Map Awareness Grenade Usage Economy Management Map Positioning Information Gathering/"Peeking" Map Movement/Rotation Movement in general (strafe shooting, bunny hopping, boosting, etc.) Map/Location Knowledge You can observe any of these traits in a player. You can objectify their skill. The ranking system broadly averages their skill across these areas as they relate to the importance of success at their current rank. As you get higher up, the overall average is higher for every player, but some of them may grow or lessen in importance, as the cap of skill each category has may be finite. But to argue that skill at Counter Strike is somehow subjective would be silly. | ||
keit
1584 Posts
In dota the mmr realistically spans from around 2k mmr at the lower end to 6k for the professional gamers, and 3.2-3.5k is around the average. | ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19269 Posts
| ||
|
yamato77
11589 Posts
EDIT: But yeah, Valve doesn't release those statistics so nobody really knows for sure. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
On April 09 2014 01:24 yamato77 wrote: There are definitely objective skills in CS that determine how "good" you are. The game is not one full of "intangibles", as a sports broadcaster would say. To list a few of the most important: Aim Crosshair Placement Map Awareness Grenade Usage Economy Management Map Positioning Information Gathering/"Peeking" Map Movement/Rotation Movement in general (strafe shooting, bunny hopping, boosting, etc.) Map/Location Knowledge You can observe any of these traits in a player. You can objectify their skill. The ranking system broadly averages their skill across these areas as they relate to the importance of success at their current rank. As you get higher up, the overall average is higher for every player, but some of them may grow or lessen in importance, as the cap of skill each category has may be finite. But to argue that skill at Counter Strike is somehow subjective would be silly. why is that silly? it could be considered subjective because out of the skills you listed, one person might value say map awareness more and another person might value aim more. you can't objectively measure an overall thats based largely in opinion | ||
|
keit
1584 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19269 Posts
| ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19269 Posts
| ||
|
yamato77
11589 Posts
On April 09 2014 01:45 travis wrote: why is that silly? it could be considered subjective because out of the skills you listed, one person might value say map awareness more and another person might value aim more. you can't objectively measure an overall thats based largely in opinion Are any one of those skills opinion based? Like, is your opinion on what makes good aim different than mine? I don't think so. You could say you value aim more, but there is definitely an average level of all of the skills that produces the players that are the best (professional players on elite teams like Titan). Some players may be better at one thing (like Shoxie at murdering people en masse), but that does not make them "the best player" if they are worse at something else than other players. Different skills does not equal subjective evaluation. You have to take into account all relevant skill levels to get an objective sense of someone's rank. Some will be more heavily weighted than others, but many things are realistically impossible to perfect, so there will always be variance in those categories, even at the highest level. Most skills that are not perfectable should be equally weighted. Those that are finite, such as knowledge of maps or guns, should be weighted less. There is little room for opinion. | ||
|
Sn0_Man
Tebellong44238 Posts
| ||
| ||
