EPTSEA and NA server differences - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
| ||
|
KezseN
Singapore1450 Posts
I would be a bit BM when i lose and find out that its 3 freaking AM and i should really get some sleep. | ||
|
divinesage
Singapore649 Posts
I also find NA players to be more cheesy, I guess there's a larger ratio of people who cheese to get up there, now you know why the general skill level in NA is lower in the Diamond level. | ||
|
madnessman
United States1581 Posts
| ||
|
gaggyfish
Australia4 Posts
On January 24 2011 21:16 Mitchlew wrote: Completely agree. I am Mid diamond NA and high plat/ very low diamond SEA. It's weird cause i'm the opposite. Early on I ranked up to diamond on SEA then NA. It was far easier going to diamond on NA. However, it's been very different now I'm there. I was only playing on SEA till recently at rank 3 diamond (2600~), then went over to NA for a change, with about 1700 bonus pool, at rank 53. I'm losing the majority of games in NA as a mid diamond, and winning the majority as high diamond in SEA. I find NA are more aggressive early on, more 4gates, earlier MMM, etc. I play Zerg and am fairly macro oriented, so SEA suits my playstyle more (which is why I'm gonna try stick with NA for a bit to get better at defending earlier on). I also find the attacks themselves are more sophisticated in NA (multifaceted, leaving when necessary, more harrass based, whereas in SEA there tends to be a lot of macro macro macro - bigger army wins). In saying this, the longer the game goes, the more comfortable I feel a SEA is. Very broad, generalised analysis I know, but that's just my experience of the two. | ||
|
Rodregeus
Australia126 Posts
I haven't been able to play much lately so this may have changed, but one thing i did notice when i first went to NA was that NA players were, not so much cheesy, but tried smaller cuter tactics a lot. Smaller groups of units with the intention of dealing a bit of damage but nothing more. Or bunkers or cannons for contains even if the contain was weak. Like the guys that line the bottom of my cliff near the ramp with cannons that had no vision, when I play terran. Siege tanks not hard to get. :S Or a lot of drop harass, or HT warp ins whatever you like. Where as SEA was always kinda, build 100+ food worth of army as fast as freakin possible, then shove it up their ramp and down their throat. Basically just who can macro faster while trying to get a couple run bys or drops in before your big killer death ball arives. It effectively came down to who had more production capacity after the 2 death armies suicide into eachother. :S But hey, Bronze on SEA soooooo  | ||
|
Jumpy
Australia22 Posts
I just play both servers for a bit of everything since I can. * Yes I suck. No it's not normally macro, it's the other stuff I mentioned. Yes everyone will still tell me it's macro without watching my replays. Yes I'd only be too happy to provide replays; free coaching is free coaching  | ||
|
SushilS
2115 Posts
| ||
|
emythrel
United Kingdom2599 Posts
On January 24 2011 22:48 decaf wrote: What is buggin me is if Europe or NA is better.. didnt want to start an extra thread though I am from EU and started a US account a couple weeks ago. I got to diamond within 70 games and on EU i am still plat, but thats mainly due to the fact i sucked when i started playing and have racked up 1000 games so my MMR is pretty stable on EU and thus, atleast it seems this way, while i play mainly 2500 diamond players I don't get promoted there. I played on the EU server today for 2 games against plat players, lost both to strats i haven't seen in 2 weeks. The game is played quite differently from server to server so the styles can be hard to adapt to but in general I am playing 2500 diamond players on both servers and so it seems my skill level is equal on both servers | ||
|
ANALBUFFET
Australia4 Posts
| ||
|
nihoh
Australia978 Posts
| ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
| ||
|
HappyEvilSlosh
New Zealand2 Posts
That might be true if the games played on each are inequal however I have racked up 105 games on SEA, where I am fairly solidly bronze, and 100 on NA where I'm gold (and I think that's appropriate - although I think I might also fit in silver). I would think that would mean by MMR has stabilised more or less equally so I dunno that your argument is necessarily true. Something I've casually wondered is, if you assume the distribution of skills of players is equivalent across servers, whether that and different numbers of players is sufficient for there to be oddities where some levels seem less good and others seem more good in terms of being bronze, gold, etc. I'm not sure, if only my stats was a little better and I had any idea how players might be distributed. | ||
|
ZealotMaster
United Kingdom15 Posts
On NA I'm currently 2400 Masters with 700 bonus pool, implying a rating of 3100. I am mostly playing top 200 NA players now, with ratings between 3000 and 3200. Based on my experience laddering on both servers, I think as a rule of thumb, you can basically subtract 300 points from a NA player (or add 300 points to a SEA player) and you will have a rough equivalence. I don't think this is anything to do with either server having proportionally "better" players. Its just that the "pyramid base" on NA is much broader, so the "peak" is higher. That being said, I would have to agree that the highest tier of NA players is considerably stronger than the highest tier of SEA players. But the reason for this is that most top tier SEA players have either stopped laddering entirely, or only ladder on NA (Kowi being a great example). Overall, whilst I think the skill distribution between the servers is largely the same, on NA you have to grind your way through 300 or 400 more points (lets say 12 to 16 wins) before you reach your "level". I can say though that, at least for me, top 200 NA players are ballers! | ||
| ||
