|
Just some rambling thoughts from me since I'm bored at work. This isn't going to really apply to higher level foreigners - but it's just a consideration of "true rank"... Here's what I mean.
You hear people saying a lot that they could get a certain rank if they tried, or "I got C- but I could get C+ if I just played more"... A lot of people get up to a certain rank with some cute stats and just stop - using their stats as evidence that they could get higher. Some players play to a rank (let's say B-) with several hundred games and a losing record, and people say they aren't really a B- player because of their ugly stats.
Who is correct here, and how can you determine your "true" rank?
Other arguments include how many games you play vs Koreans. Is your C rank more legitimate if you play vs mostly Koreans than if you played vs foreigners? I think it depends on your viewpoint: from my point of view - it's all the same because when I play to compete, and almost every non-Korean player, you're not competing directly against Koreans so it doesn't matter if you get a rank without playing many Koreans... because they aren't part of your competitive pool.
When I'm judging myself based on rank and trying to compare myself to people, I'm comparing myself to other players outside of Korea, it makes no sense for me to think of my relative skill in terms of 100,000 random Koreans who I have nothing in common with.
So again... what is one's "true" rank?
Although I have several definitions I use to determine what my rank is, I like to consider my true rank as being one rank BELOW what I have actually achieved. Why? Well, let's say I get C+ and stop laddering. Does this mean I could have gotten to a higher rank if I didn't stop? Not necessarily - perhaps I would go on a massive loss streak and my rank would cap at C+ because I wouldn't be able to progress further. Would I then be able to call myself C+? In my opinion, no. I don't think a player should declare himself a certain rank that he can't hold indefinitely. So, if I'm able to get C+ and barely maintain it, it's much safer for me to say that I'm a solid C player than to really call myself C+. At this point, I know I can play with confidence at C, and then struggle mightily at C+, so I'm not quite C+ yet.
Another way that I look at it is in terms of matchup specific. So I'd say things like, my PvT is probably B- level, my PvZ is C, and my PvP is C-, it's more difficult to characterize your rank matchup-specific because it's not as if everyone plays accounts with only ONE matchup and sees what rank they can get (I've always wanted to actually do it but have never really had the dedication to pull it off).
Also another random note - I always respect the player who plays 500 games and gets B- with lame stats than someone who gets B- with an 80% ratio and stops.
So ya, conclusion: I'll be very happy if I'm able to reach B- this season... but really I think I'm only a C+ player at this time; I have too many glaring weaknesses to consider myself B- : (
 
|
There is no such thing as a true rank, because rank as such is a way to put all your starcraft skill into a single letter, so controversies are bound to happen.
Anyway, what first crossed my mind while reading this is that this is all about the feeling you get. If someone gets to B-, but from your experience playing him doesn't feel quite like playing B- players, you're probly gonna raise a question like in the OP.
This will always be a problem, if you wanna make it a problem, until we get a pure ELO rating for each of the 9 matchups.
|
True rank is so debatable. And it brings up the discussion of how there are flaws with having letter ranks associated with players. Sure it's an easy way to judge how good a player is but too many times people let their entire game be defined by their iccup rating/letter grade.
We've seen people go as far to outright hack just for a higher rating on iccup which is absurd. Playing for the sake of improving is an important skill that some people lose sight of very easily since iccups introduction in early 2007. I could cheese and abuse my way to B- but have I actually improved as a player? Is my "true rank" really B-?
I could have a winning record against a B+ player, does that make my true skill in that matchup B+?
These questions are not so easily answered, starcraft is such a tangible game there are so many variables, so many different player styles and ways the game can be played it's impossible to really figure out a players "true rank"
In my opinion the physical rank the player is is their true rank, it's the only measure we have honestly. Some players prefer to play and practice vs friends more than ladder (like me) which keeps their overall ladder game numbers down.
|
IMO true rank is the rank you end up with at the end of a season (usually with a losing record until you get to like... B+/A-)
I think if you hit a rank and never play at it or lose it every time you get it you are X/X
like a C+/B- player can hit B-, but can't hold it
but he is better than a C+ player who can't get to B-
but by that logic, everyone is X/X, because if you play enough you'll either drop down or go up
its complicated o.o
The most important thing for me is that LATE SEASON is your true rank. I hate when people say "you aren't really X because you got it at the end of the season when it's really easy", that just means you got it when most of the players were closer to their real rank
|
true rank doesn't exist imo
there is one rank, which is on your account.
and on the other hand, you got your skill level which can't be exactly measured.
|
I actually like that definition -- I've never gotten past D+ myself, but there are plenty of "D+" and even some "C-" players that I'm over 50% against.
|
On November 18 2009 06:18 Pokebunny wrote:The most important thing for me is that LATE SEASON is your true rank. I hate when people say "you aren't really X because you got it at the end of the season when it's really easy", that just means you got it when most of the players were closer to their real rank I totally agree with this.
Holy crap I hate this so much: "Oh u got X rank at the end of the season? lawl."
end of the season is when the ranks are as spread out and realistic as they are ever going to get whatever you are at the end of the season is really a true indication depending on how many games u've played.
Sure C is "easier" late in the season because the people at C are honestly C players and not A- players moving through.
|
Imo your true rank is when you get stuck and can't get higher despite really trying. Is it an evidence of skill? Sure it is to some extent. You cna give or take 1-2 ranks depending on maps, MUs and such. But in general they are pretty accurate.
|
Related, not totally offtopic
When i got back from inactivity iccup season was already running for quite awhile so I thought "hmpf I'll ezly get to C- before I start having some sort of problems winning games.." - I was dead wrong - Despite the fact that i (kinda) switched race, tryed to play Zerg (thank you nongmin for your imba streams) and PvZ (P is my main) I got to C- with like 18-10 (not 100% accurate). Most of the games were C(++) level (i suppose), sometimes my opponent would be way better than me (koreans almost always) and ofc I'd catch some random D low-skilled players. Anyway, when I hit C- and started playing C- users I noticed games were a lot easier than playing D/D+ players, it didn't take long when i reached C (my max with protoss, my main). Surprisingly or not, it was almost as easy going from C- to C as from C to C+ (with zerg) - I did not cheese in any game - .
My point is that true rank depends on who you play on iccup. It all depends on which players you can defeat and which players you can give a hard time. It also depends on what strategy you use to achieve victories (I know a few A- players any decent C/C+ player could take down in mid/late game - Yes that means they cheesed their way to the top) Anyway you can't get an accurate rank on anyone if B to A+ players keep creating new accounts at D level (i'm not saying they shouldn't, in fact I appreciate playing some skilled players i would never be able to face otherwise).
|
rank is to skill what IQ is to intelligence.
IQ is the score you get on an IQ test. Your rank is the score you possess on iccup. Skill and intelligence are as ungraspable as much as they are talked about.
|
On November 18 2009 06:23 freelander wrote:
true rank doesn't exist imo
there is one rank, which is on your account.
and on the other hand, you got your skill level which can't be exactly measured.
this is pretty much how i feel about it as well
a lot of times i hear people say things like "I'm really C skill but i keep getting cheesed/smurfed back down to D+" etc, but the iccup ladder works the same way for everyone. if someone says they could get a higher rank than they got if only they'd played more games i for the most part agree with them, until you reach the rank where losses start taking away more points than wins give you points inflation alone will give you a higher rank- that's just how the iccup system works. (i remember one guy who played something like 1600 games and got B- with and then couldn't go any higher) rating yourself based on matchup makes a little bit more sense, but if there just happens to be a lot of terran players on iccup and you're a genius at TvT, your rank will still be real because all of the other players are against the exact same terran-heavy player pool as you are. as far as i'm concerned, if you dont pick and choose your opponents to purposely play against weaker players, then you are whatever rank you happened to achieve in the most recent iccup season
|
On November 18 2009 07:28 Navane wrote:
rank is to skill what IQ is to intelligence.
IQ is the score you get on an IQ test. Your rank is the score you possess on iccup. Skill and intelligence are as ungraspable as much as they are talked about.
/thread.
|
Damn Xeris, B- PvT but C- PvP :O
Maybe I will stand a chance at the D.C. lan even with my teribad PvP then ^o^
Also, I think it's fair to say you are say B- rank in something even if your iCC record only got as far as say, C, if you consistently beat B- ranked players (who are either smurfs or playing not for points), even if you haven't massed games as a B- yourself.
|
I completely agree with Xeris.
To be honest, I'm more afraid to play people who are 500-500 B- than people who are 40-0 B-.
|
I've always though of it as the rank you simply cant get passed. It would most likely take a losing record to actually figure out what your true high rank is in my opinion.
|
On November 18 2009 08:17 jimminy_kriket wrote:
I've always though of it as the rank you simply cant get passed. It would most likely take a losing record to actually figure out what your true high rank is in my opinion.
This is how I have thought of it as well, it's the rank you get stuck at and you can't progress any further. However it's important to note that ladders aren't ALWAYS the best indicator of overall skill. ie: Some players may perform well on a particular map that they play every single ladder game on, but on other maps they couldn't beat the same players. Likewise, some players step it up come tournament or CW time but they perform worse on ladders (and vice-versa.)
It's like how some pros (Boxer) was/is specifically known for preparing for a particular series. He probably wouldn't be a good ladderer (in terms of an all-pro ladder) but when it comes to series it's a whole different ball game (or at least for him... it used to be  .)
|
There is a huge difference of B- playing all foreigners and B- playing during all s.korean hours. It is not that hard to grasp why.
|
Korea (South)11568 Posts
On November 18 2009 08:42 avilo wrote:
There is a huge difference of B- playing all foreigners and B- playing during all s.korean hours. It is not that hard to grasp why.
But what if your playing 50% koreans and 50% foreigners?
Are you B rank vs foreigners, and C+ vs koreans?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
