EPTOn September 15 2010 00:31 Snowfield wrote:
I like their banner
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://us.media3.battle.net/cms/blog_header/97QZC4ZBAHIB1281572337132.jpg)
Notice the terran symbol
I like their banner
+ Show Spoiler +
Notice the terran symbol
lol that's awesome
The latest official SC2 rankings for NA - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Ghazwan
Netherlands444 Posts
lol that's awesome | ||
|
sibbes
Sweden13 Posts
On September 15 2010 01:32 Fayth wrote: koreans do better as zerg cuz they try harder Slush is one of the very good zerg and I don't see him crying imba all the time, we all agreed some things needed tweaks, but he still tries to find ways to win his games and just get better Yeah totally. Progamers should try harder. | ||
|
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
But I'm a random player. Point being, if I played enough, I could get into the top 20 in no time, even as a Zerg player. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 15 2010 00:31 Iraoidja wrote: how is a population of 20...statistic relevant? post top 5% of players than we will see ^^ Is that... a joke...? Because I can't tell. On September 15 2010 00:26 Oddysay wrote: most zerg player give up because of all the whiner . they got owned and just think '' OMG IMBA'' they dont check the replay , check the error they have done ect , they stop at omg imba . just reading what you guy say completly demotive any zerg trying to become good probably . you just repeat the fact that zerg are not strong , but no one try to find anything to fix that , that would be better no ? im sure they are some way for make the zerg realy good at higher level because they got the most potential from all the race . baneling/infestor/ultralisk = z v t . that the main reason protoss and terran skill level get higher and higher while zerg stay low that the confidence , hell just reading topic like that motivate me in t v z . ( the korean on the other hand are still realy trying and dont wait for blizzard patch ) im not saying that because korean are better , but im sure you find less whine about zerg in korean website and forum . and my english suck , you can make fun of me if you want to feal better . i was realy writing that for help zerg player , no hate plz . You have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. You have no idea whether I, or other Zerg players check our replays. Out of all the random bullshit you could fabricate, don't say something that has utterly ZERO evidence to back up your claims. No, I'm not whining imbalance (atm!). But god where the hell do all these conspiracy theories come from? Because you're zerg you're automatically lazy despite it generally being agreed it's harder to play than Terran? (I won't comment on Toss, I have no idea how hard it is to play Toss but I've successfully offraced Terrans and have around ~66% win vs Z on Diamond players between ~800-1200). Also, you have no idea about Korean whining I'm sure. Do I? No. So I'm not going to make claims about what's happening there. Your speculative posts do nothing but provide flame bait. At least provide something to even suggest what you're saying. The main reason I'm griping about your post because you're dumbing the situation down to "baneling/infestor/ultralisk = zvt." You posting that shows you have absolutely no idea what other Zergs are even complaining about in the first place. At least read what they are saying before rambling. | ||
|
Ghazwan
Netherlands444 Posts
On September 15 2010 01:48 SniXSniPe wrote: I like playing Terran the most, to me, they are just the funnest race of the three. Zerg honestly seems quite dull... But I'm a random player. Point being, if I played enough, I could get into the top 20 in no time, even as a Zerg player. So what you are arguing is that T is the most fun to play and Z is dull and the point of this argument is that you can get to top 20 in no time, even as a Z player? OK! Btw, you can't. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 15 2010 01:48 SniXSniPe wrote: I like playing Terran the most, to me, they are just the funnest race of the three. Zerg honestly seems quite dull... But I'm a random player. Point being, if I played enough, I could get into the top 20 in no time, even as a Zerg player. highly doubt it. If you're a random player you've never played vs 2gate proxy at natural. I bet you have zero experience holding that off. | ||
NonY
8751 Posts
On September 15 2010 00:29 Klive5ive wrote: Why don't you explain what you're saying? What I see from the stats is that Terran is too versatile. You have gimmicky Terrans, all-in Terrans, strategic Terrans and then a few "actually good" Terrans, like Morrow. All the Zerg players are patient macro masters like IdrA and Dimaga. So yes there might be a playstyle that Zerg can be played with that allows them to win at very high level BUT the lack of versatility is very worrying. As I said before, these stats can't show high level balance, but to me what they show is a very poorly constructed game where one race has far too much versatility. What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance anywhere on the forum and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. | ||
|
Mongery
892 Posts
On September 15 2010 01:32 Fayth wrote: koreans do better as zerg cuz they try harder Slush is one of the very good zerg and I don't see him crying imba all the time, we all agreed some things needed tweaks, but he still tries to find ways to win his games and just get better Really well said. Crying "imba here and there" is not going to help u improve at all. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 15 2010 02:09 Liquid`Tyler wrote: What I'm saying is that it is foremost a player ranking, not a snapshot of race distribution. And even if it was a snapshot of race distribution (like if Blizzard didn't publish names, just races) then it's totally uninteresting because this forum is 90% full of people talking about race balance. It'd be just another drop in the bucket and absolutely nothing new would be discovered other than "the trend of a large number of Terrans and a small number of Zergs is still going strong on NA server" It is bad for the forum when every single topic that can potentially be turned into a discussion about race balance is turned into a discussion about race balance. There are other things to talk about. If no one was talking about race balance and this ranking was published and someone said "oh shit look at all those Terrans and where are the Zergs?!?!" that would be reasonable. But unfortunately the only thing really going on here is the stifling of any potential discussion about a player ranking by people who want to repeat the same thing about race balance for the 1000th time. What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
On September 14 2010 12:02 Liquid`Tyler wrote: It'd be so much more interesting if people discussed players and not races. btw I'm gonna be #1 on the next ranking I wish people would too, but with 15 terran, 4 protoss, and 1 zerg in the top 20, that does seem fairly indicative or imbalance or at least an extremely low proficiency among NA zerg players. | ||
|
Relickey
United States145 Posts
| ||
|
shannn
Netherlands2891 Posts
If so, is it an overall standing of this season (meaning every weekly rankings) or just a ranking at the end of the deadline the top xx will be invited? | ||
|
drlame
Sweden574 Posts
Fortunately top 20 will soon be dominated by zerg, they just need to learn how to play their race. (sarcasm for anybody not familiar with it) | ||
|
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
On September 15 2010 02:09 FabledIntegral wrote: highly doubt it. If you're a random player you've never played vs 2gate proxy at natural. I bet you have zero experience holding that off. Sure I have. I also know when/how to scout properly. Besides that... 2gate proxy. I haven't seen this since like... placement matches, or some 2v2 games. On September 15 2010 02:03 Ghazwan wrote: So what you are arguing is that T is the most fun to play and Z is dull and the point of this argument is that you can get to top 20 in no time, even as a Z player? OK! Btw, you can't. Perhaps the reason Zerg has a lower player count than the other races is because it is not a very appealing race/seems quite dull, compared to say, Terran, thus a lower percentage of players are in the top 200, as there is a lower population (also contributions from "imba"). But has anyone taken a look at the average diamond player zerg stats? That would be the most interesting to me. Also I could. Are you mad that I could with any of the three races? It's really not that difficult for any good player, so long as they have plenty of time to play games. | ||
|
FlamingTurd
United States1059 Posts
| ||
|
crappen
Norway1546 Posts
On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote: What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. I agree with Tyler here, even though its somewhat tempting to discuss racial balance, it would be a much better read if people just discussed the players. What is SelecT really doing, what is his style? Basically, discussing the players. I am a zerg player, I get it, they lack in every department and have an uphill battle. My eyes are cried out, I have no more tears left, and right now, I just want to see the forums here settle down, discussing more interesting things beside balance in every freaking thread. Patch is around the corner, small changes, that might help boost our economy to make it not feel like such an uphill battle. Further concerns will be seen in tournaments by blizzard, no need to cry so much, as I have cried. | ||
|
FabledIntegral
United States9232 Posts
On September 15 2010 02:33 SniXSniPe wrote: Sure I have. I also know when/how to scout properly. Besides that... 2gate proxy. I haven't seen this since like... placement matches, or some 2v2 games. Perhaps the reason Zerg has a lower player count than the other races is because it is not a very appealing race/seems quite dull, compared to say, Terran, thus a lower percentage of players are in the top 200, as there is a lower population (also contributions from "imba"). But has anyone taken a look at the average diamond player zerg stats? That would be the most interesting to me. Also I could. Are you mad that I could with any of the three races? It's really not that difficult for any good player, so long as they have plenty of time to play games. So since it wasn't used vs you since the placement matches, I'm guessing you have no experience actually holding it off. Case in point. It's almost never done in 2v2 as there's no reason to do it in 2v2, unless you proxy outsided your opponent's natural/near his base, which is completely different than building it outside your own natural, which is for the purpose of defense and keeping your opponent on 1 base while you expand yourself. There's no way you could have possibly faced this strat on random, it would mean your opponent scouting before they even built their second probe. By scouting so early you lose the entire effectiveness of the build. On September 15 2010 02:46 crappen wrote: I agree with Tyler here, even though its somewhat tempting to discuss racial balance, it would be a much better read if people just discussed the players. What is SelecT really doing, what is his style? Basically, discussing the players. I am a zerg player, I get it, they lack in every department and have an uphill battle. My eyes are cried out, I have no more tears left, and right now, I just want to see the forums here settle down, discussing more interesting things beside balance in every freaking thread. Patch is around the corner, small changes, that might help boost our economy to make it not feel like such an uphill battle. Further concerns will be seen in tournaments by blizzard, no need to cry so much, as I have cried. So what can you tell me exactly about select then that will fuel this discussion? | ||
|
NonY
8751 Posts
On September 15 2010 02:13 FabledIntegral wrote: What is the number 1 thing that sticks out in the OP? Obviously the dominance of T and the lack of any actual NA Z. People are naturally going to discuss why this occurred. What exactly do you propose should be the topic of discussion? "Damn, Fenix is baller." "Select is massing some games, yeah!" There's no discussion there, just comments, and the thread would have died by page 3 (although maybe you'd prefer that over it degenerating into something worse). Just think it's more appropriate in this topic than most others. If you've been following the GSL then you've probably heard many people wanting to hear more about the players so that they have some history and context and trivia to spice up the games. Ladder ranking is one of those things. That's all the topic needs to be. Not every topic has to start some huge interesting discussion. Select kinda got famous for being #1 on ladder. Yeah that's a point of interest. And if you look carefully at the ladder, you'd see there are actually some people playing quite a few games and failing to pass up Select. It's interesting. If those people then play in a tournament and do better than Select, that's interesting. But people don't know what the hell is going on on the ladder except what the race distribution is. It'd be absolutely ridiculous if someone thought "well this thread isn't going anywhere so I think I'll point out the race distribution and start up the 200th discussion about Terran's dominance and Zerg's troubles. I know that this weekly NA ranking isn't going to help us advance this discussion at all, so it'll just be more of the same, but I've gotta at least bring it up" Nobody should care about what the race distribution is at this point. If you hadn't been to TL.net in the past month and you stumbled upon this topic then yeah you might have a reason to care. But no, it's this circle jerk of newbies discussing race balance that goes from topic to topic looking for any thread to pollute with their bullshit balance discussions. | ||
|
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
Actions speak louder than words (or text). | ||
|
crappen
Norway1546 Posts
On September 15 2010 02:46 FabledIntegral wrote: So since it wasn't used vs you since the placement matches, I'm guessing you have no experience actually holding it off. Case in point. It's almost never done in 2v2 as there's no reason to do it in 2v2, unless you proxy outsided your opponent's natural/near his base, which is completely different than building it outside your own natural, which is for the purpose of defense and keeping your opponent on 1 base while you expand yourself. There's no way you could have possibly faced this strat on random, it would mean your opponent scouting before they even built their second probe. By scouting so early you lose the entire effectiveness of the build. So what can you tell me exactly about select then that will fuel this discussion? I was hoping you could tell me, I dont know SelecT, but I am curious how he is so good in ladder. | ||
| ||
