EDIT: My method got scrapped, any idea on how to seperate all the players into grades?
This isn't very reliable. Going against a comp player is a completely different strategy than facing a human opponent. I could be frickin' awesome against the best computer AI out there, but could be slaughtered by a human player.
It's two completely different playstyles.
Quote from: Gamewiz on March 01, 2010, 02:28:54 PM
This isn't very reliable. Going against a comp player is a completely different strategy than facing a human opponent. I could be frickin' awesome against the best computer AI out there, but could be slaughtered by a human player.
It's two completely different playstyles.
Exactly, a human has what a comp wont for a long time, reasoning skills. We can make on the fly strategies and decisions while comps can only look through a list of "if's" and "else's". Not only that but it could work backwards also, someones weak strats against a comp could be very effective against humans.
Was piece of cake for me against 5.1 so far ^^. You can add me to the list.
You should also include a list for people that aren't bad but they neither are extremely good. Can't find the right word now...
Quote from: Gamewiz on March 01, 2010, 02:28:54 PM
Thisisn't very reliable. Going against a comp player is a completelydifferent strategy than facing a human opponent. I could be frickin'awesome against the best computer AI out there, but could beslaughtered by a human player.
It's two completely different playstyles.
Its the closest we can come up with right now.
Quote from: RaTcHeT302 on March 01, 2010, 03:05:00 PM
You should also include a list for people that aren't bad but they neither are extremely good. Can't find the right word now...
Yeah, thats basically mediocre, I think.
Anyways, the point of this threads is that the newbies won't get slaughtered by the pros, due to basic and advanced knowledge on how the game works.
I suppose if that's the criteria put me as Pro
Oh, and By the way, since the 5.1 isn't so hard I will adjust this after the next version or something :)
Why not grouping people based on they Iccup ranks on sc1 ;P?
Quote from: ProoM on March 01, 2010, 03:30:05 PM
Why not grouping people based on they Iccup ranks on sc1 ;P?
Because everyone haven't played SC1.
I don't even know what Iccup is, but I still know alot of different builds and strategies thanks to youtube and SC2.
Besides, SC2 is a different game. :)
I believe im in the mediocre section although i beat it so many times.
I think iccup ratings would be best.
Someone who was "good" at starcraft broodwar WILL be better than someone who plays different RTS's occasionally and has watched some starcraft 2 streams and knows all the units, simply because if you are very good at the basics you can adjust in game.
I never watched any SC2 streams or anything, and Ive been playing 1v1/FFA against the AI's sense v4 and have yet to lose a game or even come close using random build orders and random matchups. I think this is because I was a "strong" (using that vaguely) SC:BW player (C+/B- iccup).
I think a rating should go...
New to RTS's
Casual gamer (this would be beating comps or on their relative level)
RTS gamer (beating comps easily)
ICCUP ranking (starcraft was one of the most competetive RTS's and most iccup gamers were very good compared to the competition in other RTS games)
Thats just my opinion
So people who haven't played starcraft online is autonoob?
This method is just plain stupid.
I'm no pro and I can beat 5.1 AI using the mouse with my left hand.
No doubt Iccup are not bad players however, I only played 1 game on Iccup.
Does that make me bad?
I played TAOW, and Toyland, and Pogi.
No ratings there, Iccup rankings are irrelevant, on a forum where half of the people haven't played on it.
Hmm...
Any suggestions on how we should separate new players from medium players from pro players?
Quote from: itsarabbit on March 01, 2010, 04:29:01 PM
Hmm...
Any suggestions on how we should separate new players from medium players from pro players?
Not sure. Because I don't consider myself a "pro" player by any means, but I definitely can defeat pretty much any AI that gets thrown at me. It's been a long time since I played SC1 against human players, and since I'm not in Beta I obviously haven't played SC2 against a human. But I've watched probably 75 videos with commentaries on SC2 multiplayer and pretty much know every unit now inside and out. I've perfected my terran build with varying strategies.
But, until I've played against a bunch of players, I couldn't tell you where I rank, as I just have no idea. I could be way worse than I think, or I could be awesome and annihilate everyone that goes against me. There is just no way of knowing.
Retarded method.
If anyone loses to the comp they should be castrated. With any eco harrasing or containment the comp buckles so fast. They have no idea how to trap, so you can keep zergling/helions, in their base harassing workers down for like 12 minutes. Also the zerg have no idea how to cope with overlord ganking.
this is simple only if we have emulated server. :D
I think there is no way to rank players until you get a emulated server or till SC2 is up to all of us.
I played a bit of iCCup back when I was still in school, got up to C+, so I have an advantage over people that just sit on youtube all day watching others play. Different game but the playstyle is identical, im just using different hotkeys and subbing abilities in for others.
Some strats got completely erased but replaced by new ones, example: Reav/sair and reav drops are no longer viable, obviously. But prism's give the same idea, adding the ability to warp units in aswell. Long story short, experience in SC will take maybe 3-4 games per race to bend them into SC2, and you'll be back to the same ranking you were for SC.
3-4 games and you'll be at the same rank you were in broodwar? lol?
I would say at least 75-100 games before you'd start to get a solid idea of whats going on. Sure the same overall concept applies, and with strong macro/micro you can put up a fight. But if your playing someone else who can micro/macro then its really up for grabs.
Builds are just starting to take place, im positive they will change, but id bet a million dollars that in 3-4 games you will not be understanding SC2 at the level you understood SC:BW. Not even 100 games. Probably not 500.
Anyway, I dont think a way to rank people BEFORE we even get a server up is even needed.
How about this as a ranking:
1. I fail! (lose against AI)
2. I build armies/defend and win!
3. I use caster units and like to do a bit of micro/own the AI hugely :P (where i fit)
4. I played starcraft online a bit and switching was easy so i am god at this :D (AI.. may as well be sandbox because it does nothing)
5. I played competitivly and my starcraft 2 skills are just as good as my SC1 Skills.
6. David Kim Level ???
Just my idea... hope u like it
Edited: moved ranks around a bit.
Quote from: TokeGaming on March 01, 2010, 07:31:18 PM
3-4 games and you'll be at the same rank you were in broodwar? lol?
I would say at least 75-100 games before you'd start to get a solid idea of whats going on. Sure the same overall concept applies, and with strong macro/micro you can put up a fight. But if your playing someone else who can micro/macro then its really up for grabs.
Builds are just starting to take place, im positive they will change, but id bet a million dollars that in 3-4 games you will not be understanding SC2 at the level you understood SC:BW. Not even 100 games. Probably not 500.
Anyway, I dont think a way to rank people BEFORE we even get a server up is even needed.
Not same rank but like, same understanding of the game. All it is, is rock paper scissors^3, figure out what works against what and the rest is just the micro/macro behind it. Builds and all that shit will change sure but im just talking about from my end. I never stopped changing the way I played BW, always a better way to do something or learning something that was buckwild.
3-4 is too little maybe but guaranteed if it takes you 100 games to get used to the game, you dont have much hope anyway, or youll dedicate WAY more time to get to the same level
but i doagree ranking now is stupid, even ranking one month after the game comes out isn't too accurate for the reasons everyones said
hahaha speaking of rank
did you guys notice the crack. our stats in battlenet in sc2 is 390/670 not bad for a beginner huh :D
and his achievement is something like a private or something. i dont know if its available for those guys playing battlenet 2.0 but on youtube i heard the commentator saying you can gain 2pts in ladder even if you play with a tight match.