| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
PopoChampion
Australia91 Posts
Do you guys know which server is better in terms of skill? Keep in mind that I am a mid-level Master League Zerg on NA, so you can get an idea of where I am in terms of skill. Perhaps the NA server has bad players in the lower ranks but better players in the higher ranks, or vice versa etc. Thanks! | ||
|
michaelhasanalias
Korea (South)1231 Posts
I think many people would agree that there are both a higher number and higher quotient of good players on NA than SEA. This is supported by the data here: http://sc2ranks.com/stats/league/all/1/all SEA has the highest percent of Bronze players (re: casual/inactive players), while NA has the lowest. | ||
|
Svetz
Australia311 Posts
| ||
|
klauz619
453 Posts
It's like, until you get to the top 10-15 players, the NA region is just below par to EU/SEA. | ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
By virtue of the size of NA, there are more poor players on NA, bu there are a lot more quality players on NA than SEA too, especially since most top players on SEA have moved to NA anyway. If your 2500 Masters you should probably stay in NA, if you were less I doubt it would matter. | ||
|
Mitchlew
Australia428 Posts
| ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
| ||
|
justjuice
New Zealand165 Posts
| ||
|
michaelhasanalias
Korea (South)1231 Posts
| ||
|
ThunderGod
New Zealand897 Posts
| ||
|
Dommk
Australia4865 Posts
On January 24 2011 20:33 mlbrandow wrote: You're also probably not going to get balanced opinions until NA wakes up. Yeah that is what i was thinking as well, at first I found NA a little bit easy but then I realized I was playing people who were staying up till 3-5am US time, in the mornings here in Australia when its Peak time in US there is a noticeable change with the type of players you meet | ||
|
Comma20
Australia138 Posts
1) There are probably 30-50 fantastic players on the NA ladder. SEA probably have 3-5 2) The point spread is less tight on NA, because there are 'more' better people, you can play against people who are higher than you and get more points. 3) Likewise there are 'more' bad people. 'More' cheesy people etc 4) The Meta-Game on SEA is different from NA. Due to the timezone similarity with Korea, lots of SEA players watch the GSL and try and copy builds. So there's probably a quicker translation of the 'newest' build to SEA as opposed to NA. 5) Lower population garners lower queue times, however queue times during SEA peak are better than queue times in NA off peak. All in all, if you have a SEA account, there is NO REASON whatsoever you shouldn't play both servers, work both ladders and thus be a more rounded player, since you can adapt to both metagames. That is unless you think "HAVING A BAZILLION POINTS AND ICONS MUST MEAN I'M GOOD" | ||
|
Benjilol
Australia244 Posts
| ||
|
GQz
Australia168 Posts
| ||
|
Seagal_Pwns
Australia17 Posts
| ||
Plexa
Aotearoa39261 Posts
| ||
|
Mitchlew
Australia428 Posts
On January 24 2011 21:06 Plexa wrote: On the whole SEA is a harder server since there are less overall people (meaning platinum on SEA is often mid diamond on NA). However, there are more good players on NA so the skill cap of NA is significantly higher than that of SEA which makes the upper end of NA harder than SEA (and more playable). Completely agree. I am Mid diamond NA and high plat/ very low diamond SEA. | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
On January 24 2011 20:33 mlbrandow wrote: You're also probably not going to get balanced opinions until NA wakes up. I will have to disagree with you here, as the majority of NA players will not have an SEA account so they will not be able to judge (unless I'm mistaken and the cross-realm offer from Blizz works both ways). | ||
|
mrjameslo91
Malaysia27 Posts
| ||
|
Dfgj
Singapore5922 Posts
| ||
|
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! | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
RSL Revival
Cure vs Rogue
Maru vs TBD
MaxPax vs TBD
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
BSL
Afreeca Starleague
Wardi Open
Replay Cast
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Kung Fu Cup
The PondCast
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
