Jump to content

Should "Basic" and "Beginner" be changed back to "Bad" and "Very Bad"?

Community Poll #1  

251 members have voted

  1. 1. Should "Basic" and "Beginner" be changed back to "Bad" and "Very Bad"?

Recommended Posts

Baddies don't use XVM. 

I voted to retain the Beginner and Basic ratings. While Bad and Very Bad may well be more accurate the fact of the matter is you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

I agree that I prefer Rexxie's suggestion to Beginner/Basic and Very Bad/Bad.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The change has already been made, but one option is to call it "poor" and "very poor" instead of bad. In my opinion, poor is less aggressive.

I agree.

I'd argue this, but too many egos here don't get how the whole "human nature" thing works. Suffice to say I think Rexxie has the right idea.

You're right, a lot of people don't get human nature or understand basic psychology.  Insulting bads won't do anything other than make you look like a jerk because if they cared about their stats, 95% of them wouldn't be bad. 

So I thought about this.  Shouldn't we just cut to the chase and get down to what we're really arguing/measuring here?  Fuck unicum.  It's a terrible name any how.  Let's just have:



Link to post
Share on other sites

Being a new player (started march 15), the terms already given are adequate. When i first looked myself up i had 1k rating and 46% wr, at about 1k battles.

There's a bigger problem there. Your mediocre WN8 and very low winrate just meant that you were a tier rusher.

It's a general problem with putting a skill scale on winrate, when a relatively small fraction of winrate is dependent on skill. You could have a scale for winrate that went something like Tier rusher -> ... -> T2 sealclubber and it wouldn't be much less true.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...