Avoiding good players as koala suggests is totally wrong. If you play bad players, you will just get on their level or slightly above. If you don't mind losing try to get games against good opponents, watch and analyze every turn of the game and ask if something is unclear
My point is to not focus on competing with high skill players (yet). Especially as a clan. Because stuff has to be sustainable. If they wanna get hard core about improving, then yes, by all means go ZBD. But most people don't do that. And if they were like that, they wouldn't be asking here...?
If we really want to argue semantics, their goal should be throwing down with "decent" players, at least players trying to improve. I don't remember mentioning bad players anywhere at all. If this is in reference to the autogame suggestion, I outlined my specific reasons above. I also think it can aid in practicing counting, since picks are more... diverse.
Additionally. We could argue that the only goal is to practice appropriate principles. To that end, it literally doesn't matter who you fight, because the goal isn't to beat your opponent. It's to play accurately, given what you end up with each turn.
Even with that, at least we confirmed that picking good players to lose to can still be viable as a learning strategy.
Thanks koala and mod for your input, I'll keep it in mind! @riskyboy, yeah, that was a cheeky thing on my part to provoke a reaction. Thanks for supplying it! ð
I can teach you on Small Earth. It's very basic, but it does provide a quick and effective template for improving your strategic play. Once you master the basics on a small map like that, it's easier to implement them on a larger template.
I don't mind helping people improve if they're willing to put in the work. I'm far from the best player, but definitely good enough to teach anyone the basics of a large variety of templates.
Thanks all for the responses! Atm I'm playing mobile and so it's a bit fiddly to create games to certain templates, but I am happy for you to invite me to them. If you can't be bothered doing this (understandably), I'll just wait till I've bought a laptop (sometime in the next month or two) and then be prepared for the invites to stream in...
The number after the dash is the players peak 1v1 ladder rating if applicable.
The level 65 is the best player to have responded, but that's a coincidence, not an expectation that the highest level player in a group is the best. There are 6 people that responded that are higher level than me, mod (the level 65) is the only one I wouldn't expect to beat at least 8-9 times out of 10 aside from maybe koala who might potentially win 3-4.
Things like ladder stats, or tournament wins, etc. are far more meaningful than level or even winrate.
Ladder ratings use elo, which means a rating of 1500 is average for people on the ladder. Below 1500 is under average.
Someone who is level 60+ with a 1200 ladder rating is still a punching bag, just a punching bag that's played a lot.
That's a 11-9 record this month vs average opponent rating of 1202. That puts you at an estimated rating of 1237 over your past 20 games. Games expire. Your earliest games aren't impacting your rating at all.
