Loading...
  OR  Zero-K Name:    Password:   
Title: TEAMS: All welcome!
Host: FRrankSpadsium
Game version: Zero-K v1.2.1.0
Engine version: 91.0
Battle ID: 224488
Started: 10 years ago
Duration: 17 minutes
Players: 6
Bots: False
Mission: False
Rating: Casual
Watch Replay Now
Manual download

Team 1
Chance of victory: 46.1%

EErank[ISP]Lauri
UArankProlbo
FRrankStimo
Team 2
Chance of victory: 53.9%

USranksomekid
RUrankbanana_Ai
USrankDeeDiebS
Spectators
SErank[Er0]Godde

Show winners



Preview
Filter:    Player:  
sort
Well, here's 224488...

On that note, it really looks like a balance joke. I mean, seriously?
+0 / -0


10 years ago
No, that's the sad fact that "teams elo" is actually "all-elo", which includes 1v1 -- and Lauri has harvested quite a lot of 1v1 elo recently :P
+1 / -0
FIrankFFC
10 years ago
now need 336699...
+0 / -0
1vs1 makes you better at expanding/early game from what i found, but most 1vs1'ers don't know how to deal with late game which is why i always proposed separating the 2.

Plus they are not used to helping teammates, if you want high elo for example klon, you have to be able to play a certain way (hv) not lose your shit, and be able to support your buddies when they are losing on a front. I seen it with my own eyes.

He really good at supporting the nubs.

I would go as far to say, that getting 2200 elo in 1vs1 is much easier to get then getting 2200 in team games and keeping it because team games are twice as hard, where you have to be the shit and everything.

+1 / -1
quote:
I would go as far to say, that getting 2200 elo in 1vs1 is much easier to get then getting 2200 in team games and keeping it because team games are twice as hard, where you have to be the shit and everything.

Yeah, and also you can easily beat Godde, as we've seen you claim.

I'm pretty certain teams elo easier to get. While current rankings are a tainted source, there is at least three times more teams only players with 2200 than duel players with that much. There's no need to extrapolate even: burp and sfireman never play 1v1, both almost have 2200 - and second place in 1v1 ladder is ~2050.
+0 / -1

10 years ago
sfireman got his elo from rushes/nukes. which is the basic strategy in massive team games. in 2vs2 3vs3, 4v4. it much more vital to support to each other especially if one player is of much higher elo.

Burp is like klon.
+0 / -0

10 years ago
I would go as far to have 3 elo. 1vs1, small teams elo, clusterfuck elo lol.
+0 / -0
quote:
sfireman got his elo from rushes/nukes. which is the basic strategy in massive team games

That's actually an argument towards "team elo is easier". Or would be, if it wasn't irrelevant.

Team ladder generally has 200 more elo on each player at the same rank, that's an easily verifyable fact even if you adjust for inflation caused by 1v1.

Please stop claiming things that are so obviously false, that makes you look bad.

quote:
Burp is like klon.

I've never played Burp in 1v1 because he never plays 1v1. I've played Klon in 1v1 enough to recognize him by one glance on the minimap. They are nowhere alike.
+2 / -0

10 years ago
sweet, agree to disagree.

my last point.
I think 3 different elo ladders would promote some diversity. adding some longevity to the game.
+1 / -0


10 years ago
Elo is not a score.
+0 / -0
10 years ago
It is. It is a number that indicates skill and increases your position on the ladder, therefor it is a score.
+0 / -0

10 years ago
It's not an absolute score, it is a relative score. Team elo and 1v1 elo are not comparable (i think that's what USrankCrazyEddie was trying to imply with his out-of-context post).
+0 / -0
Nope. I was trying to imply this. Or this.

Or this, this, this, this, or this (ctrl-f "not a score" since I can't link to individual comments).

+0 / -0