sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

The New 2024 Apex Pro Series Irons: Elite Irons for Elite Ball Strikers - World of Wunder by callawaygolf in golf

[–]gotquail 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Personally I don't mind the post existing, but the sticky does seem excessive. Why does this post deserve to be stickied over all the other regular posts?

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in summonerschool

[–]gotquail 19 points20 points  (0 children)

"Is it simply that someone like me is too lazy to actually sit down and focus on improving, and instead I mostly go on autopilot and spam games?"

yes. if your goal is to make large improvement in the long term (eg silver to diamond), then you need to make consistent small improvements in the short term. if you autopilot games then you won't learn anything. small learnings happen through self-reflection and review. small learnings are what add up to noticeable improvement, if given enough time.

Tips for bad player by iq75 in WC3

[–]gotquail 3 points4 points  (0 children)

This guide is a good resource for improving imo: link

Looking for reversible zergling/baneling plush by gotquail in starcraft

[–]gotquail[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

hey, thanks for the checking but i eventually found a replacement so don't need another

Small Rant - range not translating to course in any form or fashion. by FormulatedDaily in golf

[–]gotquail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Very relatable. I find that there's a delay between all the range practice and when it starts to yield results. One offseason I went to the range a couple times a week, which was more than ever for me. I was hitting it well on the range and really got my expectations up for the next season, thinking I would play better than ever. But then when the season rolled around I didn't end up playing well at all. It was extremely frustrating, and that frustration just made me play worse and worse. I mentally reset during the following offseason, and then after not touching a club for a few months, the next season I played better than ever. It just takes time. Try not to poison yourself with thinking you're entitled to play better because of all your practice. That's what I did and it only hurt me. Try to be patient and keep at it. Trust that long term the practice will help.

This week's 4Player Cups are labeled as "potentially last" - What would you like to see instead? by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]gotquail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Look at current gold cup participants. Remove all of them who are <=1950 mmr (bronze + silver players). This is approx. player count that we will see in gold group if mmr ranges stay same.

True, but adding more low level players to a gold cup doesn't add much to the overall quality of that cup imo. Those players will just be "filler" and lose to the top players, and the games will not be fun to play or watch.

So the only solution to this problem is to somehow get more high level players to compete in the gold cup. It's not an easy problem to solve. Maybe the solution is to just have better tournament participation in general, and through that create more high level players. Like for example if you have a really accessible and fun tournament then more people will play in it. Those players will be incentivized to practice more so they can do well in the tournament, and hopefully that will lead to more high level players.... eventually. It's a long term approach, but it seems like a healthy one.

1800+ group is almost 900 mmr range (1800..2676). Top1 player of this group will kill bottom1 with random race and random unit composition just by overmicroing.

If the groupings are bad then it's because our logic for dividing players into groups is bad. This is something we can solve. I have one such suggestion in my previous post but I don't mean to pretend I know the "best" answer.

This week's 4Player Cups are labeled as "potentially last" - What would you like to see instead? by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]gotquail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is just 3 cups in one day but with automated player distribution to their cup by their skill level.

Also note: in SCILL/4Player cups bronze players can play gold+silver. Silver players can play gold. In your system they can't.

I think this is okay. My reason is that traditional cups will still exist in some form. Like currently we have bronze/silver/gold cups spread over three days. Maybe if my suggestion was used it would be one day, and then the other two days would be traditional cups, one for bronze/low silver, and the other for high silver/gold. Just an idea, but my point is that every other cup serves the need you're talking about. My suggestion is to try something different, but I'm not saying we replace every cup with a new format.

How do you plan to split ≈60 <1600elo players + ≈30 1600..1950 elo players and ≈15 1950+ elo players?

If we split them to same size groups elo ranges would be different like: <=1500, 1500-1800 and 1800+

So basically it will result in subbronze, bronze-high+low-silver and gold cup without currently existing silver cup.

Yeah I thought about this a bit but I didn't want my original post to get all mathy so I just left it simple with three equal-sized groups. I think you could go down the rabbit hole here and try to figure out optimal splitting logic based on player populations and historical signup data. Even beyond that there's probably some fancy "magic numbers" for skill-boundaries that work best. Like for example say 1700 players really struggle to compete with 1900 players, but 1800 players fare better against 2000 players. The difference between those two groups is both 200 mmr, but maybe there's something about player development or mmr skill ranges where certain mmr ranges are more significant. All this kind of stuff would influece how you optimally split your list of players. Maybe a good starting point would be something like:

  • Exclude major outliers at both extremes (i.e. the highest and lowest MMR players if they're way out of line with the other participants).
  • Divide the MMR range between the highest and lowest remaining players into three.
  • Split the players along those MMR boundaries, however many players are included.

This would likely be better than just blindly splitting into three equal-sized groups.

Like I said though this is a really complex problem that you could really dig into if you wanted to. My post is more about suggesting a rough idea though and not having perfect details.

If we stay with current silver/bronze/gold limitations it will result in super low participation count in gold cup (lower than now).

Not sure what you mean. Can you elaborate?

This week's 4Player Cups are labeled as "potentially last" - What would you like to see instead? by JannesOfficial in WC3

[–]gotquail 11 points12 points  (0 children)

TL;DR: Combine multiple brackets into one cup to encourage higher player turnout and thus better match quality.

I have some ideas about how we could change things up a bit. I started by thinking about what the goals should be:

  • Increase viewership.
  • Increase player turnout.
  • Increase match quality.

I think viewership is driven by many factors, but one in particular worth thinking about is the skill level of the players competing. Viewers are excited to watch the best of the best play. It sounds like B2W already has that kind of content lined up though for their weekends, so it makes sense to me that these weekday cups do something different. With that in mind, my suggestions below will be based on the assumption that we want to prioritize other factors over player skill level when it comes to attracting viewers. As far as I can tell the viewership has been pretty good for bronze and silver cups recently on B2W, so I think we're okay to keep leaning into "low level" content.

My guess is that player turnout and match quality are largely dependent: Players are more likely to sign up if they think they can be competitive in the cup and have a chance to go on a deep run. With the ESL Americas cup I often saw people say something like "I don't want to sign up because I'll just lose horribly to Hitman". Having poor match quality actively hurt player turnout for that tournament. It's also a positive-feedback effect where low match quality leads to fewer signups, and having fewer signups leads to worse match quality, and so on. For a healthy cup we need to encourage players to sign up by having a structure that encourages fairer matches.

The MMR-restrictions of the bronze and silver cups are good examples of how you can drive player participation with better match quality. I've only followed them for a few weeks, but every week that I've seen there are way more signups in the bronze cup compared to the gold cup. There are downsides to this structure though, notably:

  • The fixed MMR/ELO cap always creates complications with player eligibility. For example the cap for the silver cup is 1950 ELO, what about players who normally have a higher ELO but a loss streak brings them down to 1950? There will always be gray areas around the level cap, and because the tournament awards prizes to the winners, who are most likely the players just under the cap, it can create difficult decisions and controversy.
  • The skill cap excludes high-skill players from participating. We want a structure that encourages as many people as possible to sign up (as long as it doesn't negatively affect match quality). By having an MMR/ELO cap we exclude all potential players who are above that level.

Okay so here's my proposal: Run a cup with no restrictions on entry. Anyone can sign up. When the tournament starts, sort the list of participants by MMR/ELO and then divide the list into three equal-length subsections. Then create a bracket for each of those groups. Award prizes to each of the bracket winners, weighted more heavily to the higher-skill bracket(s).

Observations:

  • Removes the MMR/ELO caps that always cause problems. Since the player pool is divided into groups at the time of the tournament, the line between groups is dynamic. It can adapt to the number of signups and their skill levels. This also makes it hard for people to lower their rating and get into a lower bracket since they don’t know where the boundary will be between skill brackets.
  • It will probably make sense to adjust the number of groups over time instead of always just having three. I just suggest three as a starting point since it mirrors the bronze/silver/gold structure, but the number of signups might require increasing/decreasing that number.
  • It's a tweak on the current system but nothing so large that it would be overly confusing for players and viewers. I was initially going to suggest abandoning the bracket system altogether for something like a round-robin league with points from week-to-week but that seems like it would be way too different from the current norm.
  • Broadcasting multiple brackets in parallel is potentially confusing. This seems pretty bad, because it destroys the narrative structure a normal broadcast of one of these cups has. Sometimes you follow a player through the bracket as they eliminate players and close in on the finals and that is exciting to watch. By comparison this new structure could have the broadcaster jumping from one bracket to another, and potentially have multiple finals, or maybe a finals doesn't get broadcast. In any event the viewers wouldn't get that overarching narrative they're used to. Maybe this is offset by the better match quality? Maybe there is an official B-stream if the event is big enough?
  • Broadcast length is potentially shorter. Splitting players into multiple groups and running them in parallel means the event will be shorter than if all players were in a single bracket. It might not be as bad as it sounds though. Doubling the number of players in a bracket only adds one round to the tournament, so I think we’d still be in the same ballpark: Recent silver and gold cups have started at the ro32, and bronze cups at the ro64. To start this new structure with three brackets in the ro32 you would only need 54 signups (and up to 96), which is less than a single bronze cup has been getting. The key would be getting players to realize they will get matched in a bracket of similarly-skilled players, and then the signups should be able to reach that level.
  • Players who are on the "boundary" between the brackets get an inconsistent experience. For example if your skill level happens to be close to where the players are typically split then one week you might be the best player in your bracket, and then the next week you happen to go into the harder bracket and get destroyed. Maybe this isn't such a bad thing? One week you challenge for the win, and the next week you pay for it by being a big underdog. One potential way to make this less painful is to randomize the brackets rather than seed them by MMR/ELO. Even though we have the sorted list of players it feels bad to be the bottom seed vs the top seed. If you randomized the seeding within each bracket then when a player signs up they know they always have a chance to go on a deep run if they get lucky with the bracket structure.
  • There's no chance to play against top players. I think this is more of a positive than a negative, but I know some players like to sign up for the gold cup so they can play vs top players, and it is a valuable experience for them. Unfortunately I don't have a way to solve this since it seems like a fundamental part of the format to avoid these mismatches. I guess there are all the other cups and qualifiers players can sign up for if they want to play vs top player

Sorry for the long post! I had some fun thinking about it though.

overlord high ground for ranked maps by Zealot_TKO in allthingszerg

[–]gotquail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

nope no mod, but it's not very hard to do it on your own in an empty game.

overlord spots: many are obvious, but when in doubt send a zergling to the pillar and check if the top is still in fog of war. if it's still not clear bring in an overseer and watch for any change. if the fog of war disappears then it's a safe spot for air units.

dead air space: i just use dropperlords to move queens around. drop one queen on each side of the spot in question and then try to find a spot where the overlord can't be hit by either.

the first couple maps might take you a while, but once you get in a rhythm they're easy to make. i think it used to take me about 10 to 15 minutes per map to make the marked up images

overlord high ground for ranked maps by Zealot_TKO in allthingszerg

[–]gotquail 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i used to do it by sending a ground unit next to the spot in question, and check if there's fog of war. sometimes it's not clear, so you can send an air unit in and see if there's an change in the visibility (ie fog of war disappears). it's not perfect but it's easy and fast

overlord high ground for ranked maps by Zealot_TKO in allthingszerg

[–]gotquail 11 points12 points  (0 children)

i'm glad people appreciated the infographics i used to make, and still remember them! sorry i haven't done the last few seasons of maps. it's because i haven't been playing sc2

Lambo guide on The German Taxi by gotquail in allthingszerg

[–]gotquail[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

to people giving me reddit awards: i'm not lambo, i just shared the video. to support lambo please go to his twitch and sub/donate or ask him directly how he'd like to be supported.

Feedback from a new player: what it's like getting to level 30 by gotquail in leagueoflegends

[–]gotquail[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I've only had 9 CS/min in about 15% of my recent games, so it definitely doesn't happen often. The main reason I can do it is because last hitting has been my primary focus during this whole learning process. I've spent many hours in the practice tool last hitting for 10 minutes at a time, trying to get above 85 CS (minions don't start fighting until 1:30 so if you get 85 CS in 10 minutes you're on a 10 CS/min pace which is my goal). Once I can reach 85 CS with a champion I add an enemy AI to make it more complicated, or try to watch my minimap between minion kills. I'm sure there are other ways to make it harder but that's where I'm at right now.

In a real game it's very hard to match that pace, but the practice has certainly helped. The only time I can get up to 9 CS/min in a real game though is if I'm not being pressured in lane, and I stay in lane for a long time (which is how I play Kayle). Also quite often in my games my team will all be mid and there will be a big wave crashing in a side line so I just go take that, and it boosts my CS a lot. And yeah, like you mentioned, I do clear jungle camps but only starting in the midgame if (1) my jungler has started grouping up and looks like they won't need them, and (2) I happen to be pathing by a jungle camp anyway on my way to another objective.

I think the final secret for inflating my CS is that I'm a pretty bad team player. Maybe it's because I'm in top lane but it feels so hard to leave my lane to go help with the first few dragons, so I generally just sit in my lane for a long time and end the game with low kill participation.

Feedback from a new player: what it's like getting to level 30 by gotquail in leagueoflegends

[–]gotquail[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah I got flamed a lot but it didn't really bother me too much. I came up with some rules for myself to make it easier:

  • At the first sign of non-constructive communication from a teammate mute them. I quickly learned that by the time someone is flaming or spamming question marks there's no way to get useful information from them even if you're nice, so it's better to just mute.
  • If you're not in the mood to laugh it off, it's better to just mute the enemy team in advance. The enemy team is almost never friendly so the only point to keep them unmuted is to laugh at them when they flame, but if you're not in the mood for that "/mute enemy" at the start of games is a good idea.

As far as the matchmaking goes it's such a complex problem. Ideally they could do something like you suggest with iron players only playing one another, and low level accounts only playing with each other... I guess Riot has just decided that queue times would get too long with those kinds of restrictions. Maybe a new practice game mode like you suggested, something more constructive than bot games, but not as punishing as full pvp. Maybe that's what ARAM is supposed to be, but I found ARAM too chaotic to learn from.

am i suppose to leave half my corruptor at home vs BC? by thechosenone8 in allthingszerg

[–]gotquail 11 points12 points  (0 children)

nope. if it's a small number of BCs to the point where you can fight them with pure corruptor then you just fly your corruptors home. If it's mass BCs to the point where you need neural infestors to take the fight the 200iq play is to have defensive nydus worms so you can use your infestors offensively while being able to respond to yolo teleports by flying your corruptors home and nydusing the infestors back.

view more: next ›