scsz, highest rated silver player in the US

On March 14 2010 15:32 Lz wrote:
did u mention the rematch of me vs. sczc where he lost and didnt gg? ye.. didnt think so ^^

On March 14 2010 15:34 agorist wrote:
How are the points awarded? If he's still unfavored do to his position in silver and getting 20-30 points per game, well, that's retarded.

On March 14 2010 15:35 nc[retaliator] wrote:
also if hes advancing in leagues he will lose alot of hes points when hes promoting ... its like blizzard making adjusments .. so this high score in silver wont be equal with 1800 in gold or so ... so wait till he gets to platinum to he hes score and stop be enthusiastic about silver divisions guys!!!! kk thx

On March 14 2010 15:37 Integra wrote:
no, ratings between leagues are not the same, considering his win/loss ratio he will get bashed pretty fast once he reaches gold/platinum, if he barely maintains a 50 win ratio in silver he wont really stand a chance in the higher leagues.

On March 14 2010 15:37 Integra wrote:
no, ratings between leagues are not the same, considering his win/loss ratio he will get bashed pretty fast once he reaches gold/platinum, if he barely maintains a 50 win ratio in silver he wont really stand a chance in the higher leagues.

On March 14 2010 15:39 huameng wrote:


Your division doesn't totally determine the division of the players you play.

On March 14 2010 15:40 Integra wrote:

doesn't matter, my argument is still valid.

On March 14 2010 15:41 QibingZero wrote:
I've played him twice (I'm middling platinum right now, don't have a ton of ladder games played). Both TvT, I won the first and lost the second. I think he's chinese - occasionally my name elicits a ni hao and such, heh.

First game he went 2rax and immediately expanded when I held it with a bunker. I then rolled him over with marine/tank.

Second game was on blistering sands and he siege rushed, broke down the rocks near my base before I put a supply there to scout it, and got in right before my siege finished and won.

Neither was a particularly good game, honestly, so I can't really judge.

On March 14 2010 15:40 AnEsotericMan wrote:
The rough impression I've gotten from playing is that each league up is a 200-250 point difference. So he's roughly as skilled as a platinum ranked 1932-2032. Not the highest rated, but certainly among the top players. Very odd that he's still in silver.

On March 14 2010 15:55 Dionyseus wrote:


Yea that sounds about right. He's probably getting favored against platinums under 1900. I just noticed he only got 4 points for a win against Quick, a rank 7 platinum division 16 rated 1614.

On March 14 2010 15:39 CheeC[h] wrote:
strange, i feel like beating people like that he would have been placed in gold or plat from the beginning. i assume this account is being shared by 2 or more people which is throwing off the accounts player statistics.

On March 14 2010 15:49 Integra wrote:
Don't worry guys, Blizzard will put up a F.A.Q about the ladder system soon, you will understand then.

On March 14 2010 15:55 Dionyseus wrote:


Yea that sounds about right. He's probably getting favored against platinums under 1900. I just noticed he only got 4 points for a win against Quick, a rank 7 platinum division 16 rated 1614.

On March 14 2010 16:08 Disarray wrote:
Also, the title name wasn't innacurate. he may be in silver, but im pretty sure 2400 is still the highest rating, among all leagues.

On March 14 2010 16:31 Rothbardian wrote:
Well one of the posts over at SCL (Take this with a grain of salt), where a guy has a friend who works at Blizzard on SC II, said that the placement takes into account APM, Unspent/Spent, and other game statistics in conjunction with win/loss. Yeah, like I said, a grain of salt. So, who knows.....

To the guy who said Blizzard and FAQ about Ladders. Funny. Funny man.

On March 14 2010 16:23 Ftrunkz wrote:
I think its like wc3 in that, you can be visually a silver player, or visually a platinum player, however your 'real skill' elo (which isnt displayed) matches you up against appropriate players, and only certain things allow people to move up and down in divisions.

What i mean is, this guy probably is a platinum level player, and is playing mostly other platinum level players right now, and his 'real skill' would be equal to somewhere in platinum or high gold, however until another beta wave comes out and theres more players to add into the ranks (more divisions open up), he wont get moved.

On March 14 2010 16:33 Dionyseus wrote:


Using apm doesn't make much sense to me, but taking the final score into account does sound plausible.

On March 14 2010 16:43 QibingZero wrote:


And iirc, this guy is over 100 (displayed) APM, and in silver. There are many platinum players who aren't hitting that.

On March 14 2010 16:45 Rothbardian wrote:


This is true. My APM hovers around 100-120, and many other Plat's I play are in the 60-90 range. ;/

On March 14 2010 19:03 danl9rm wrote:



if you play a 12 minute game and your average APM is 120 then you are absolutely wasting those actions.

On March 14 2010 15:40 Integra wrote:

doesn't matter, my argument is still valid.

On March 14 2010 15:49 Integra wrote:
Don't worry guys, Blizzard will put up a F.A.Q about the ladder system soon, you will understand then.

On March 14 2010 19:19 Artrey wrote:
Once again before all cry: leagues overlap. The league difference just translates into a rating offset. Imho it is 225 per league, and 450 between copper and bronze. That means his 2432 silver equal 1982 platinum. Sure I have no proof for this, but the data reported speaks for itself.

This means people finally need to get over the idea of "platinum > all". We do neither know how the reranking is working, nor whether it is the same concept as in the final version. There might be skill gaps in leagues with outstanding players frequently and it might take some weeks or months until they are placed higher. Why not? The system translates between leagues fluently and there is no need for a hard distinction.

And I think the comments from people saying 1200 got favored against 1600 in the same league just mixed the stats up when they checked it and checked for 2v2 or something, as those reports are pretty rare. :D

I have been checking my opponents in the past days and it always confirmed the theory so far.

On March 14 2010 21:55 Artrey wrote:
Because it is a theory and not final. Maybe the offset between gold and platinum is 450 too. ;-)
Or maybe every promotion takes 450 from you, no matter the gap you pass.

On March 14 2010 21:56 Rothbardian wrote:


Or maybe point evaluations are dynamic and not static....

On March 14 2010 21:59 Artrey wrote:


To many people reporting a change of exactly 450 for that imho.

On March 14 2010 15:37 Integra wrote:
no, ratings between leagues are not the same, considering his win/loss ratio he will get bashed pretty fast once he reaches gold/platinum, if he barely maintains a 50 win ratio in silver he wont really stand a chance in the higher leagues.

On March 14 2010 15:37 Integra wrote:
no, ratings between leagues are not the same, considering his win/loss ratio he will get bashed pretty fast once he reaches gold/platinum, if he barely maintains a 50 win ratio in silver he wont really stand a chance in the higher leagues.

On March 14 2010 19:56 Vasoline73 wrote:
Ok I'm Scrapper (number 2 in the pic) and I just got put into platinum league after hitting about 1800 points.. so I don't know what's wrong with sczc

On March 15 2010 01:51 member1987 wrote:
so what, hes not even in gold division and winning a single game against platinum division gives him like 30-40 points.

On March 15 2010 01:51 member1987 wrote:
so what, hes not even in gold division and winning a single game against platinum division gives him like 30-40 points.

On March 14 2010 15:39 CheeC[h] wrote:
strange, i feel like beating people like that he would have been placed in gold or plat from the beginning. i assume this account is being shared by 2 or more people which is throwing off the accounts player statistics.

On March 15 2010 15:03 bodysnatcher21 wrote:
At the moment in order to get a good gauge of someones skill level, you need their rank and ELO rating. Then calculate the differential blah blah blah. It's so pointless. Platinum should mean you are better then gold.

On March 15 2010 17:35 FREEloss_ca wrote:
I have no idea how this league system works.

I'm ranked 11th in Bronze Division 45. All my opponents I face are either mid-range Gold or top 10 Silver, and in some cases, Platinum.

I have a rating of 1450ish and a score of 34-34, and played a guy who's 1550'sh and is ranked 5th in my division with a score of 96-88. He was AWFUL. Like, what I'd imagine an AI set on Medium or Hard would be....

I really don't get how this works. He has a better rating than me, and a higher rank, because everyone he faces (and beats), is bad like he is? Where as my rating and rank are lower because everyone I have to face is in Gold/Silver?

Why am I not in a Gold league, or at least a silver league, if everyone I'm facing is? Why are players who are far worse than me able to have better ranks in my division? AAARRRRGGGHHH.

But if the Colour of your league is meaningless, then it's still bullshit that a lower-skilled player gets a higher rank and rating because he's able to beat his lower skill opponents.

On March 16 2010 01:16 yomi wrote:
IMO the idea was to make people feel better about their starcraft performance. With this current system more players can be top 10, make it into a tournament, win a tournament, etc. It will make a lot of casual players feel emotionally better about the game and won't hurt serious gamers (who will all be in plat or pro) down the road. Obviously there are some bugs and anomalies now but I think it works overall to draw in casuals.

My biggest problem with it is that once the system is made more transparent players will likely try to intentionally dump games to stay at the top of a lower league rather than be moved up to the bottom of a tougher league, so that they can still play in and win tournaments. The risk of this type of abuse will make Blizzard likely to not release almost any additional information about the ladder, though the system will be reverse engineered eventually.

On March 16 2010 01:06 Chill wrote:
I just can't even imagine how this system got approved in the first place. It's like 80 meaningless divisions where you can play anyone but you're grouped into these meaningless leagues. I understand what they're trying to do (8-man groups for the final tournament) but they should have simply had ONE platinum division, taken the top X players (by whichever criterium they wanted), and seeded them eight-man groups.

There's just so many things wrong with BNet 2 like this. I cannot fathom someone sitting at his desk getting pitched this idea and said "yes, this is a good idea - we should do this." Same with the friends / messaging system. It's so bulky. How did they think this was good?

On March 16 2010 01:16 yomi wrote:
Pretty much everything stated in this post it's a reward system that in the end doesn't affect serious game play at all it feels good to be top 20 in your division even if it's only out of 100 random people, also don't cry about a ranking system being broken so soon it's only been out for a few weeks =x.

On March 16 2010 02:05 Disastorm wrote:

Theoretically it actually could affect serious game play as one division could have more competitive players then another and so it would be harder for people to get in the top 8. For example imagine 2 divisions, 1 has 16 competitive players and the other has 0. in the tournament, there would then be 8 competitive players as opposed to 16, which there would have been had they all been in the same single division.

On March 16 2010 01:28 starcraft911 wrote:
Using rating to determine someones skill is pretty bad. I'm kinda confused as to why he hasn't moved up though. My friend did all the placement games for one of the ID we share and he got it placed in gold going 8-2. After playing for 1 day and stomping noobs it put me into a platinum division. His ratio is 1.7/1 which might be part of it.

On March 16 2010 13:34 Ghoflz wrote:
lite vs sczc TVT
Lost Temple
Platinum 1 vs Silver 1
Pretty tense back and forth game. Lite goes for m&m&m tank vs thor tank and bc.

http://www.mediafire.com/?nwidkwbjyzj

On March 16 2010 16:54 Blankets wrote:
definitely a shared account, he has some ridiculously bad games and some ridiculously good ones.

On March 16 2010 17:54 Kiante wrote:
As long as they're going to do "seasons" like iccup, i dont see a problem with the not being moved after 30 games thing.

On March 14 2010 16:02 Xxio wrote:


This ladder is so messed up. The placement matches are weighed to heavily, in fact I don't even know why they exist, it would be much better if everyone just started at the bottom and worked their way up. I've seen people in platinum with under 100 games ffs.

On March 16 2010 17:54 Kiante wrote:
As long as they're going to do "seasons" like iccup, i dont see a problem with the not being moved after 30 games thing.

On March 16 2010 18:04 Insane wrote:

Seems to be a big problem to me. I thought the whole point of the leagues was that there's incentive to improve because you keep reaching new leagues and stuff. Where's the incentive if you get stuck in your current league?

Also all platinum should be > all gold, and all platinum should be directly comparable to all other platinum, etc.

Right now it's a clusterfuck and no one really has any idea except like #1 platinum is probably better than #1 gold and #1 gold is probably better than #40 platinum etc....

On March 16 2010 22:29 JoshSuth wrote:
I've seen evidence of people being moved at or after 500 games as well. It looks like he's played over 350 by now.

On March 16 2010 16:49 billyX333 wrote:


a silver player beats #1 rated platinum player on beta
best ranking system ever

On March 17 2010 03:14 mnofstl007 wrote:
I mean its cool getting 35+ points per win, but im just not at the level to compete against platinum players continually.right now.


And lastly it seems to be completely obvious its a shared account, and if u account for 1 player being a copper and 1 being a platinum the middle = silver/bronze. Silver= the plat one plays more, but the copper plays enough to kep him out of gold/plat. So if anything i think this proves the divisions are more balanced than we thought. This also acounts for his insane amount of points. The copper play keeps him in lower division, but he is obvious a top platinum player in reality = 30-50 points a win and when the copper person plays he is losing 1-5 = he only need 1 for every 7-10 games the copper person plays.

On March 17 2010 03:19 fyyer wrote:


Which game is that from? Post a replay?

On March 17 2010 08:54 StayFrosty wrote:
does your ELO get reset to a default value when you graduate a division?

On March 16 2010 01:06 Chill wrote:
I just can't even imagine how this system got approved in the first place. It's like 80 meaningless divisions where you can play anyone but you're grouped into these meaningless leagues. I understand what they're trying to do (8-man groups for the final tournament) but they should have simply had ONE platinum division, taken the top X players (by whichever criterium they wanted), and seeded them eight-man groups.

There's just so many things wrong with BNet 2 like this. I cannot fathom someone sitting at his desk getting pitched this idea and said "yes, this is a good idea - we should do this." Same with the friends / messaging system. It's so bulky. How did they think this was good?

On March 16 2010 17:17 Dionyseus wrote:
Anyone willing to post a rep of scsz, I don't care if it's a bad one. Maybe looking at his hotkeys someone could figure out who he is. btw the guy is now 2532.

nvm it turns out that scsz is a user here (Ghoflz) and he posted a replay of his vs Lite earlier today. Here's his post:

On March 21 2010 14:46 Wintermute wrote:
What's interesting/troubling to me is that this guy hasn't been promoted. How can you be consistently beating top platinum players, be 800 points above the next closest guy in your division, and not get promoted.

What's the point of having different leagues if high platinum caliber players are stuck in Silver?

On March 14 2010 15:50 LF9 wrote:

He isn't Chinese, he's American, but he took a Chinese course in college so he thinks he can speak chinese.

On April 21 2010 00:34 HalfAmazing wrote:
I strongly suspect this guy map hacks.

On April 21 2010 00:34 HalfAmazing wrote:
I strongly suspect this guy map hacks.

On March 21 2010 14:54 Dionyseus wrote:


Their review schedule for promoting/demoting is messed up, I'm hoping they rework it because I agree it makes no sense. Reviews should probably be done every 50 games. Should go something like this:

1st review: placement matches
2nd review: 20 games
3rd review: 30 games
every review afterwards is done after 50 games

On April 21 2010 02:01 omnigol wrote:
How long will it take for people to make iccup servers for SC2?

On April 21 2010 00:34 HalfAmazing wrote:
I strongly suspect this guy map hacks.

On April 21 2010 07:25 0neder wrote:

That is the wrong question. The right question is: How can we help Blizzard make bnet2 even better then iccup, and maintain an united community for SC2?

On April 21 2010 07:17 Brad wrote:
It's loner, a Chinese player that plays for Team China, according to Artosis.

On April 21 2010 09:08 Terrakin wrote:

are you serious? did you even look at a replay? Where did you base your suspicions on??

On April 21 2010 00:34 HalfAmazing wrote:
some stuff