EPTOn March 04 2011 07:56 Kipsate wrote:
I don't think he meant SC2 but he meant ICCup rankings.
I don't think he meant SC2 but he meant ICCup rankings.
Believeable comparison is impossible, because BW and SC2 are totally different games.
The Truth About Diamond League - Page 59
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Axeinst
Belize281 Posts
Believeable comparison is impossible, because BW and SC2 are totally different games. | ||
|
PointyBagels
United States90 Posts
On March 04 2011 07:57 Axeinst wrote: Believeable comparison is impossible, because BW and SC2 are totally different games. In the end, It comes down to this. | ||
|
AcrossFiveJulys
United States3612 Posts
On March 04 2011 07:57 Axeinst wrote: Believeable comparison is impossible, because BW and SC2 are totally different games. The scale is meant to capture what rank people would be if you transferred the amount of time and thought that went into their current sc2 skill level into bw experience instead and had them ladder on iccup. The reason 90% of people are D- and lower on these scales is that the vast majority of bw players years ago didn't even know about iccup/proscene and were poor players in comparison. | ||
|
Shiladie
Canada1631 Posts
Bronze-gold: public B-net/E platinum: E/D- Low diamond: D-/D mid Diamond: D High diamond: D+ Low masters: D+/C- mid masters: C through B high masters: B+/A- top masters A-/A top 200: A/A+/olympic I find it funny that people are calling elitism here without knowing how brutal iccup was. It didn't have the casual people, if you were playing on iccup, you were competative, you were playing to get better. This is because you had to seek it out, download a client, sign up on the website, etc. If you just wanted to play some casual fun games, you'd play on public b-net. This is not elitism, this is simply how iccup was, so please, if you didn't play on iccup, don't judge by what these letter grades usually mean, I was damn proud of myself to hit D+, and my goal was to hit C-, not like a week or 2 goal, but a multi-year goal of C- | ||
|
eXigent.
Canada2419 Posts
On March 04 2011 08:09 Shiladie wrote: I really don't think you can map things to specific numbers at all, it's more like this: Bronze-gold: public B-net/E platinum: E/D- Low diamond: D-/D mid Diamond: D High diamond: D+ Low masters: D+/C- mid masters: C through B high masters: B+/A- top masters A-/A top 200: A/A+/olympic I find it funny that people are calling elitism here without knowing how brutal iccup was. It didn't have the casual people, if you were playing on iccup, you were competative, you were playing to get better. This is because you had to seek it out, download a client, sign up on the website, etc. If you just wanted to play some casual fun games, you'd play on public b-net. This is not elitism, this is simply how iccup was, so please, if you didn't play on iccup, don't judge by what these letter grades usually mean, I was damn proud of myself to hit D+, and my goal was to hit C-, not like a week or 2 goal, but a multi-year goal of C- comparisons like these are pointless, and extremely inaccurate. There are players like Huk who were only around b- in BW but are at the very top for SC2. Another problem lies in the promotion system. There are plenty of diamond players that are beating mid-high level master players but still in diamond due to not being promoted (could be bonus pts,inactivity etc). Lastly, the top 200 should not be compared to A/A+/olympic rank at iccup. The level of play to reach the top 200 in SC2 is MUCH lower than what it took to reach A rank on iccup. Your basically stating that 200 ppl on US and 200 ppl on euro are equalivalent to what it takes to reach A+ on iccup when in fact barely any non-koreans have ever attained such a score. The games are not comparable as they require different skillsets, and levels of mechanics etc. IMO nothing in sc2 equates to the skill level and mechanics of olympic level broodwar players, and alot of the top 200 wouldnt ever be able to achieve such success on iccup. | ||
|
PointyBagels
United States90 Posts
On March 04 2011 08:09 Shiladie wrote: I really don't think you can map things to specific numbers at all, it's more like this: Bronze-gold: public B-net/E platinum: E/D- Low diamond: D-/D mid Diamond: D High diamond: D+ Low masters: D+/C- mid masters: C through B high masters: B+/A- top masters A-/A top 200: A/A+/olympic I find it funny that people are calling elitism here without knowing how brutal iccup was. It didn't have the casual people, if you were playing on iccup, you were competative, you were playing to get better. This is because you had to seek it out, download a client, sign up on the website, etc. If you just wanted to play some casual fun games, you'd play on public b-net. This is not elitism, this is simply how iccup was, so please, if you didn't play on iccup, don't judge by what these letter grades usually mean, I was damn proud of myself to hit D+, and my goal was to hit C-, not like a week or 2 goal, but a multi-year goal of C- I find it funny how you talk about how it's not elitism, a likely reference to my post, and then post pretty much the same comparison. This is all assuming this is a reference to me, of course. | ||
|
SecondChance
Australia603 Posts
| ||
|
Trezeguet
United States2656 Posts
Being higher up in diamond doesn't mean jack squat. | ||
|
SOB_Maj_Brian
United States522 Posts
As a D+ player my most impressive accomplishment was beating a C- player who got to B+ a few seasons ago. Otherwise I rarely ever ever beat anyone higher than C. Playing on ICCUP made you realize that battles could come down to 1 unit to a few extra resources, that you cannot ever be supplied block, losing your scouting probe; all would lead to a loss, I think the orginal SC was a little more refined and that there was a little less luck involved. For instance in chess a 1700 rated player will almost always beat some thats 1100 rated (because there is not much luck involved), with SC2 there is a little more variation and a little less infallibility. I don't play SC2 very often but I am 50-50 in my games against mid-masters level players, and I was low D+ and I never got close to C-. | ||
|
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
On March 04 2011 07:57 silentsaint wrote: Strange.. I just read the opening post and the last 10 pages. From the opening post its seems like the topic is about forum discussions and players using their rating and not their arguments as a legitimation to tell other players with lower ratings to shut it. From the last 10 pages It seems like its about mapping ratings or elitism.. Really, really strange. Thank you. | ||
|
cHaNg-sTa
United States1058 Posts
Not to mention is was a lot harder to advance with cheesy strategies because there were a lot less players meaning you will play the same players more often and thus gimmicky tactics that rely on your opponent having absolutely no clue what your style is to win is less reliable. That's why it's not that hard to reach a decent masters level by just 4gating your way there. There's so many players that you will rarely play people multiple times (unless you get the common "since there is no one else online, you only get to play this person"). People don't expect a hardcore 4gate and under commit to defending it and losing to the lesser player who plays like crap past 8 minutes. | ||
|
GreenFaction
United States82 Posts
Another point: it is difficult to know how much I ought to respect someones opinion on a TL forum. I try to be respectful of everyone's opinion and evaluate based on their opinions. If I see a name I recognize or an ID with a lot of posts, I tend to weigh their opinion more heavily. Sometimes theorycrafting by a pro can sound as vague as theorycrafting from a nub, though, so it's hard. I think the only thing to do is to be respectful. If theory crafting is what you want to do, then provide evidence (replays), be precise as you can with timings, and be modest. | ||
|
CookieMaker
Canada880 Posts
| ||
|
VTArlock
United States1763 Posts
On March 04 2011 12:01 CookieMaker wrote: On this topic, are we ever going to see invite-only threads?? I constantly skim the threads for blue dye but rarely (if ever) see any They already exist. Its the super secret Moderator section that nobody gets to see. So no, you wont get to see them, but yes..they do exist. Its like air, you cant see it but you know its there. | ||
|
Bubble-T
Australia105 Posts
On March 04 2011 07:42 Axeinst wrote: Bronze league definetly has big differences in skill level, afterall it is the first league. But people often undervalue, what bronze league player knows. They often know alot of things, but their execution is poor. And nowadays, it is alot harder to advance in leagues than it was 6 months ago. You need to be a very solid and good average player to even get in platinum league. This is only true to a minor extent. SC2 is not that taxing mechanically until you get to a very high level of play, the major difference between bronze and at least gold/plat level is game knowledge - build orders, transitions, correct thinking about 'counters', how to read and respond to scouting information etc. Bronze leaguers for the most part lose to shit because they do not know what it is, or they can't tell what it is even if they've heard about it, or they can tell what it is but don't know how to respond - not because they've got a bit less APM than the guy in gold/plat (which you can reach with pretty poor mechanics too). Most of those players who think they're "held back by execution" would win a decent amount in sub-diamond at the least if they had a pro player telling them what to do. Sure, they probably know more than the "I clicked Find Match, what does it do?" ratings people attach to bronze implies but for the most part they do not understand how the game works, certainly not well enough to be contradicting other players. Bronze players with few games can be a bit different I guess because some of them will improve quickly and move up but they shouldn't really be theorycrafting about a game if they just left placement matches anyway  | ||
|
RHMVNovus
United States738 Posts
On March 04 2011 12:10 Bubble-T wrote: This is only true to a minor extent. SC2 is not that taxing mechanically until you get to a very high level of play, the major difference between bronze and at least gold/plat level is game knowledge - build orders, transitions, correct thinking about 'counters', how to read and respond to scouting information etc. Bronze leaguers for the most part lose to shit because they do not know what it is, or they can't tell what it is even if they've heard about it, or they can tell what it is but don't know how to respond - not because they've got a bit less APM than the guy in gold/plat (which you can reach with pretty poor mechanics too). Most of those players who think they're "held back by execution" would win a decent amount in sub-diamond at the least if they had a pro player telling them what to do. Sure, they probably know more than the "I clicked Find Match, what does it do?" ratings people attach to bronze implies but for the most part they do not understand how the game works, certainly not well enough to be contradicting other players. Bronze players with few games can be a bit different I guess because some of them will improve quickly and move up but they shouldn't really be theorycrafting about a game if they just left placement matches anyway When were you last in Bronze? Just curious. | ||
|
neo_sporin
United States516 Posts
It's pretty bad to make the comparison because iCCup's pool of players right now are all "very good". Even D+ players have decent knowledge of the game and APM isn't too bad. If SC2 follows the same road as BW, less and less players will play and only the good players will remain. This is only natural in all competitive games. /QUOTE] This is what I've been telling people for months. As the game goes on the natural decline will see the "casual"s and lower league players leave the game at a higher rate than the people who are "good" as people are more incline to stick with things that the excel at. So if you think about the redistribution of 20% active players per league, I see myself (currently top diamond) eventually falling to platinum/gold as the active player number drops. Simpler version: Right now I am top 3% of a LOT of people. As people quit it is more likely the people quitting are below me, therefore my percentile will lower and at some point I will fall to platinum not because my skill has decreased, but because of the distribution system. In short, once people start dropping out of the game the leagues will really start to be competitive as it is more likely the competitive people keep playing. | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On March 04 2011 08:09 Shiladie wrote: I really don't think you can map things to specific numbers at all, it's more like this: Bronze-gold: public B-net/E platinum: E/D- Low diamond: D-/D mid Diamond: D High diamond: D+ Low masters: D+/C- mid masters: C through B high masters: B+/A- top masters A-/A top 200: A/A+/olympic I find it funny that people are calling elitism here without knowing how brutal iccup was. It didn't have the casual people, if you were playing on iccup, you were competative, you were playing to get better. This is because you had to seek it out, download a client, sign up on the website, etc. If you just wanted to play some casual fun games, you'd play on public b-net. This is not elitism, this is simply how iccup was, so please, if you didn't play on iccup, don't judge by what these letter grades usually mean, I was damn proud of myself to hit D+, and my goal was to hit C-, not like a week or 2 goal, but a multi-year goal of C- mapping ratings is fun! however i think it's a lot more like this top 200: B/B- 3500-3300: C+/C 3200-3100: C-/D+ 3000: D everything else D-/computer | ||
|
Turbo.Tactics
Germany675 Posts
To add some flavor to Saracens point: I fear the changes of battlenet 2.0. because if they really plan on not showing losses in the future, the bragstorm of < Masters will go to a whole new level. | ||
|
Bubble-T
Australia105 Posts
On March 04 2011 12:17 RHMVNovus wrote: When were you last in Bronze? Just curious. Fair question... I didn't place in bronze so never, though I'm absolutely not saying I'm great at the game and I'm going to stay away from theorycrafting here on TL for that reason. I have a bunch of friends in Bronze/Silver that I help out when they're trying to improve, based on watching them and the people they get matched up against it's not mechanics that is keeping any of them or their opponents in bronze. High masters players I know say basically the same thing. Mechanics are obviously important too but the Bronze player who understands the game at a high level and just can't hit the buttons fast enough is pretty much a myth. | ||
| ||
