Just a reminder about how all of us were at one point:

https://www.warlight.net/MultiPlayer?GameID=10331578

I honestly feel sorry for him.

lol....there are noobs at every ranking....even a lot ranked in the 50s....and your winning percentage is pretty awful actually...which begs the question, how do they get so high ranked, and playing so poorly....

Edited 1/20/2016 11:26:04

So he only picked 3 spots and didn't get the most important one (To him at least)

No need to forum shame for it =/ Especially when your %s are just as bad as mine (Which is real sad as mine are awful).

I am a quick learner, Hot Beach Bum. 200 games is not a large sample size either.

I try to play the most difficult opponents I can find, and I do not farm a whit, so there is that fact as well. I also was not intending to shame him, I wanted to express how sorry I felt for him.

Edited 1/20/2016 17:36:01

I'm not sure I'd agree that you're a fast learner. Not trying to be a dick, but if you're going to make a false claim I'm going to point it out.

2 years is way more than enough time to get better at warlight than you are. 200 1v1's is also not all that few. I've seen people hit top 10 on the 1v1 ladder with their first account with similar amount of 1v1 games.

Ladder Statistics

1 v 1 ladder: Not Ranked with a rating of 2125.
Ranked Games

Completed 213 ranked games (164 / 213)

1v1: 77 / 93 (83%)


That is a new player, not an alt. That is a quick learner.

If you played the most difficult opponents you could find you'd have under a 10% winrate.

I'm far from the best at strat 1v1, but watching your ladder games makes me able to state with absolute confidence that I'd beat you 19 games out of 20.

Edited 1/20/2016 17:43:38

Naushror, 2 years is a misnomer. I have gone through 3 hiatuses on this account, the latest being 6 months. And do not tell me I do not know myself. When I am focused, I can learn pretty quickly. You must understand that. When I got on in December, I had less than 50 1v1's, and a 1v1 win rate of 17%. It took me a lot to get that to 40%, where it is now. I never focused on the strategical aspect of the game until I came back, took the lead in my clan, and realized that if I wanted it to be successful, there needed to be a presence in the ladder.

It is against my nature to lie. It upsets me that you think I do.

Also, note that "difficult opponent" is a bit arbitrary here. I don't play the best players, I play ones better than me. It is how I learn.

Edited 1/20/2016 17:47:32

Aura,

It's awesome that you seek to improve your skill in 1v1. It's an admirable goal. I will say however, that 1v1 winning percentage should not be considered an indicator of skill. You should instead be using statistics on the RT and 1v1 ladders, as they are much more honest. I could play only the top ten on the 1v1 ladder and have a 1v1% of 30%, and then join an auto game and trash someone with an 80% 1v1 because he only plays noobs. Ladder statistics will give you a much truer reflection on where you currently stand.

As another example, one of my previous alts, Calculator, was able to win 30+ 1v1s in a row, in auto games, but it never played the ladders so the % meant absolutely nothing. I then found a relatively simple way to earn 100% free-for-all statistics using 0armies per turn, 1-min manual boot times and pure-skill settings, but the statistics meant zilch--winning 10/10 ffas has no meaning whatsoever to skill.

Edited 1/20/2016 21:09:59

I agree with you completely, Legacy. I just do not like it when people use my 1v1 win percentage against me. I am perfectly aware that I am not yet a great player, perhaps not even a good one. I never claimed this. You can look at my profile. However, I do feel that I am improving. The fact that Nauzhror used that argument to try to show me in the light of slow learner that "doesen't get it" prompted me to explain my situation and use the identical argument.

Since I have not compiled a sufficient amount of information on any ladder, no one has any way to argue for or against the fact of whether or not I am a slow or fast learner. Therefore, any argument for or against these principles cannot be yet determined, and no one should comment on it. Therefore, I was wrong myself to proclaim that I am a fast learner of the game. That has yet to be determined.

I am still a little bit upset about being called a "slow learner". In the game, this fact may yet be ambiguous, but I know from my life experience, any concept presented to me in any class is easy for me to pick up and apply. I have never had an issue with it. This is what prompted my response to Naushror, and after years of schooling, one can imagine why that is upsetting.

I forgive anyone for any false claims that I may have stated, and I also hope that they may forgive me for my false claims. But just to clarify, I never claimed to be a good player.

Edited 1/20/2016 21:21:36

Meanwhile, I'm still that bad.

HotBeachBum: Played in 9405 multi-player games (94% real-time)

Good god. Nearly 10k games and I haven't heard of him before...

I could play only the top ten on the 1v1 ladder and have a 1v1% of 30%

Could you? o.O

Edited 1/21/2016 04:50:23

1 v 1 ladder: Not Ranked with a rating of 2125.
Ranked Games

Completed 213 ranked games (164 / 213)

1v1: 77 / 93 (83%)


That is a new player, not an alt. That is a quick learner.

I know who you're talking about aha^, his ladder rating is a lot more impressive than the 83% win rate though. I know he spends a lot of time on each game, thinking about his turns. I suppose this means if we're talking about quick learner by the amount of time spent on the game, it's not as quick, but he definitely gets the most out of every single game.

I think the best indication of skill is the realtime ladder, aslong as you're not under-rated thanks to getting constantly booted, like erm... some people...
It's a variety of templates, with opponents spending similar amounts of time on each turn.

Wow. Thank you Nauzhror and Hades. You guys are awesome. <3