fight me now

I don't think 2300+ is possible purely depending on skills. In my opinion a 1900 can beat a 2300 just by getting lucky on picks. So you need luck (or lack of unluck) to hit that sweet number. That being said, part of the problem with 2300 is the ladder system itself. When I did my run a little while ago, my picking was focused on reducing the possibility if "unluck" rather then what was the best picks. For example I tried to avoid having two territories bordering after picks.

Likely you will have a bunch of 19 and 18 hundreds opponents. What you need is to play against as many of 2k + as possible. At that rating the level of risk/reward is more in your favor. (Wins gives more, loss hurts less)

In order to get 2300+ i think you need a record of something like 27-3. (assuming same as Buns opponents) I don't think that is possible, without having luck on your side. The way I read it you have already reached top 5 on another account. So the skill is not really the issue. If you just count the games out/use custom scenario then you are already good enough to reach 2300+. (Along with many others as well. However being good enough =/= being able too :P )

DISCLAIMER: Some of the information below deals with gaming the system/cheating. If you decide to use it the wrong way, keep in mind that actual penalties exist (and have been enforced) for cheating on ladders. I strongly advise that you don't use the information below to cheat on ladders and instead use it as a toolkit to recognize when your opponents may be cheating and report them.

Recognizing when your opponent is exploiting the ladder

Pulsey's guide: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/44437-guide-ladder1-stall-boot-choose-opponent-etc

Qi's guide: https://www.warlight.net/Forum/28007-manipulate-ladder-system

Don't read them to cheat/stall, but to understand that some things is good for getting a high rating. It is not really deepening on skills.

(you are ofc welcome to prove me wrong, and get 2300+ while having more then 50 unexpired games.

Edited 8/1/2016 21:41:21

My goal is to improve. Not to get a high rating. That is a side effect. Not interested in stalling to get a higher rating than I deserve.

I can currently get top 10 without stalling, most likely rank 1 (top 3 for sure) if I do stall. That is irrelevant to me, it's not something I will ever even debate doing.

Edited 8/1/2016 21:48:16

If you lose to a 1954 in your initial 15 game run, there's very little chance you'll be hitting 2300+ without stalling

little chance only for those whose "true" rating is below 2300 and who needs luck to hit 2300. Not an issue for those whose "true" rating is 2300+.

I am way below 2300, but I know the rating dynamics around 1800. I used to change my account frequently before starting using this one. Each time I started a new run on RT ladder, my rating stabilized roughly the in same range in the long run (1700-1900). I didn't worry about not being able to reach 1700 after being booted against a <1000 in my first 15 games. It just prolong the stabilization process of my rating.

I guess the same thing can be said about 2300. Had my "true" rating been 2400, I wouldn't worry about not being able to hit 2300 after losing to a beginner in my first 15 games.

If you want to get better and again a deservedly high rating, just play the ladder.

If you want to get an undeserved high rating, stall.

Playing the ladder in fits and starts and restarting runs on different alts accomplishes neither.

Edited 8/1/2016 22:06:21

since noone really got my point.

If 2500 is perfect rating, with perfect play. Absulutely no misstakes.

Then I dont think 2500 (or 2400) can be achived. Becouse the skill level of 2150+ is so close to perfect play that your win % will never be good enogh. You can ofc get lucky and have only won games, but in the top of the ladder the misstakes are not really there. Hence luck decides.

There is a resone that stalling was a big thing on the ladders. It was the best way to get a high rating.

PS, the numbers are a bit arbitary since rating inflation and such can happen. But think of it as how often a 99% perfect player beats a 100% perfect player. It is very close to a 50/50 score between the two.

This account was originally made as a troll account of sorts. It's "Greatest Ever" written in Chinese,

*sighs* great, the guy with 94% win rate, YET claims hes the greatest ever when we all confirmed there were infact ppl with better win rate...

most likely rank 1 (top 3 for sure

then why are you asking for advice...?!?

@Good Kid aka chinese letter guy (I just assume you are the guy who argued with the great Wally Balls in his most funny thread): At first step I recommend you succeeding your 1994 peak (with neither stalling nor going for a run or "going for a run with a tini tiny bit of stalling") and as second step you can then attack a legitimate the 2300 rating.

1994 will be broken within ~48 hours.

Set to debut around 2070. And yes, that's with no stalling.

Is rouxburg a Nauz alt? I thought he was just using rouxburg's win against Buns to illustrate that you can lose to a 1900-rated player and still break 2300.

Reading comprehension failure. He was simply an example of a low rated player beating rank 1, thus proving anyone decent can beat anyone.

1 v 1 ladder: Not Ranked with a rating of 1947.

is me, I have three games at the moment that I feel confidently "ahead" in, which will raise that to ~2060ish. I'm nowhere near 2300 now, but I don't think aiming for it is setting my hopes too high.

If I wanted to stall to 2300, I could already pull it off IMO with a bit of luck, but I don't.

Edited 8/2/2016 07:10:12

What I think is funny is how during the "luck setting" phase, people got much higher ratings:

Latnox 2552
Piggy 2400s
Belzebu 2400s

Well I'm not Nauz. And also Semice, it was a boot win...

After reading both pages, I have to agree with Tbest.

Assuming old ladder settings, too much is dependent on luck - getting first pick, first order, getting the crucial 3v2, plus the rock-papers-scissors nature of picking approaches on a map . At a high rating, picks will be very good and knowledge of play will be near perfect, usually its the little bit of skill consistency and luck that makes the difference.

I guess that being at the top is also about being unpredictable too. Buns often does weird things most wouldnt expect him to do.

"1994 will be broken within ~48 hours.

Set to debut around 2070. And yes, that's with no stalling."

2075 exactly.

I have 3 losses, I'm not sure hitting 2300 with those 3 losses, even if I won my next 10 games in a row would be feasible, but I'll keep playing this account and try to raise current rating to at least 2200. Might try a fresh start at that point and give 2300 a real attempt. This time I didn't even expect to hit top 10 so am perfectly happy with the rank 7 I currently have.

Edited 8/4/2016 04:08:55

You should check what Beren just said.

Edited 8/4/2016 04:10:16

What Beren said is what Beren always says.

It's not particularly new or necessarily right though. Old games hold down ratings for a long time, it's hard to track improvement over time when you reach the point that wins vs. good opponents raise rating by 2-3, and wins vs. bad opponents (read: most opponents) don't raise your rating at all.

Know what raises buns rating frequently? Wins expiring.

The real problem IMO is the awful matchmaking code. The range of people you can be matched vs. is much too large. A smaller range would result in a much better ladder.

Firstly, the rise would be slower. You wouldn't be able to play a 1800 rated player after 3 games and then start playing 2,000's. You'd gradually play higher and higher ratings if you continued winning. Secondly, when you are at the top of the ladder you wouldn't be getting matchups that are lose-lose in nature. Win, get mildly punished, lose, get totally destroyed.

If you play 50 games, and wind up 2100, and then join with a different account and are 2300+ when it hits the 50 game marker I don't feel that you got an undeservedly high rating by doing so, you got the rating your current play dictates rather than a rating influenced by how well you played months beforehand.

Edited 8/4/2016 05:02:33

Well, everybody knows that 1v1 ladder rating system sucks. But many people play under that condition (look at HBB), so that's the only way to play it.

I also do not feel that 2150+ is anywhere near as flawless as TBest makes it out to be. I am 19-3 with over 2100 rating right now, and of those 19 wins, only 1 is what I'd consider an error-free game. Even then people would likely make valid arguments that there were better picks than mine - and they'd probably be right.

If I could remove even just the "large" errors from my gameplay completely I think I'd be able to crack 2600.

Latnox went over 2550, if you think his games were error-free you're grossly mistaken.

And yes, this is hypothetical, I am not claiming I will ever eliminate all major errors or hit 2500.

Edited 8/4/2016 09:51:03