Your personal trainer team

[Voodoo]

Yep, it's very hard to talk about what your are doing when you play a ranked. Many times you are just doing it because you always do it without thinking about why you do it. Also you have to pay attention to the game and not much time to talk about it. Only a woman could do this

[palombhp]

Any female trainers around then

[Lu_Xun_17]

I know i didn't find time to do some new ones recently, but i try to explain some concept in some of my videos. Those are especially targetting the 1700-2000 players that would like to go one step further.

http://www.youtube.com/user/17LuXun

Voodoo you're asking for >2000 1vs1 rating players, but only 7 players in the community have this. that's not a lot.

In my opinion, the most effective training way is to be trained by someone with +200 rating than you.

[Mad`Mozart]

So how can we help someone to improve his skills from moderate to "pro"?

Well there's actually a lot of things that 1600 players miss and do wrong. Those really depend on the players, their playstyle and experience. Eco management, unit management, scouting, expanding, defending, attacking, decision making, switching to t2/t3, etc etc etc. Just all those things they miss or dont know.

Also i'd say there is a "good" tier between "moderate" and "pro" Im sure i can help people improve to "good", especially after taking Zock lesson i started to understand this game even more Only takes time and actual effort from them.

What i usually do is watch the problem replays together from the player's perspective and tell what he was doing wrong in the game, explain some game mechanics, point out mistakes, what leads to them and how can they be avoided, teach how to judge your and your enemy current position, discuss possible decisions to make and all other stuff.

Ofc i wont be able to teach 2k players to play better, but make some 1400-1600 gain ~200 points... easy. Just time and effort

[Nombringer]

I generally end up with players around 400-1200, it could be a timezone thing, because oftentimes I am afk when I get PM'd (Sorry guys! D: )


LuXy I dont really think there is an ideal rating difference

When your +200 difference in rating points it's a different dynamic then when you are teaching players who are further below you, like +1000.
At +200 your both "on the same page" so to speak, and your thinking in the same terms, only one person is better at it. This means it's easier to get good discussion going, but there are a lot more grey area's where the trainer might not be completely sure, or might not be completely right, or might be right but not actually understand the why correctly.

e.g. 1500 player explaining things to 1300 player.

With a larger rating difference, it becomes harder to put yourself into the mindset of the other player, however you can give examples of what their thought process should be, however there is less discussion and player are thinking on different terms.

i.e. 1900 player may be explaining finer points of eco balance to a 400 player who does not fully understand why the eco even needs to be balanced

In this situation it's up to the trainer not to overload the student by critiquing his gameplay in his terms, as opposed to the students. However he can offer more valuable information or idea's that a person only 200 rating points ahead might not fully appreciate or understand.

[Aulex]

Yea I kind of agree with nom here, the ideal rating difference is around 500. If you compare an 1800 player and a 1300 player there is a large skill and knowledge gap, but 1300 player isn't clueless and can learn quite a lot. Again we see this if you compare like 1800 to 2300, when zock was teaching me, I understood exactly what he was talking about and it all made sense, but I never actually really noticed the things he was pointing out.

[Blackheart]

I agree to Lulette here. The best way is to play people about 200 higher than yourself, that way you get some wins and longer games instead of getting raped every game at min 8 (and having a lost position after min 2 because of crappy earlygame). That is by far the best way to get pretty decent fast.

[Nombringer]

I agree to Lulette here. The best way is to play people about 200 higher than yourself, that way you get some wins and longer games instead of getting raped every game at min 8 (and having a lost position after min 2 because of crappy earlygame). That is by far the best way to get pretty decent fast.

Yes for playing, 200 is about right, but if you are going over replays for example, it's better to have a bit more of a difference

[palombhp]

Hi,

one question. Does someone know what is the level range at 1vs1 ranked games to match players?

I mean, when I am at 700, are the guys I play against on +/- 200 (->500 - 900) or is that mechanism different? Does the matchmaking depend on the division I am in?
I guess it's different as I can remember to have played against guys with more than 200 above/below me.

Would it make sense to adjust it to your remarks above ?

HP

[Vee]

I think it can go up to +- 400 for typical players. However, for new players who still have a big deviation, the range can be much larger.