Quote:

IMO

Newb ,new to the game and doesnt know much about it... Rookie knows a little bit but doesnt have experiance....inter is starting to learn a bit about the game and has a good bit of experiance.. Expert has plenty of experiance and knows the game up and down

Well, there is no perfect definition.

Generally, it is accepted that a "statistically repeatable" zone rating defines the level of play of an individual.

Unfortunately, there is know set piece that defines what skills are necessary. Outside of the widely played "Huns on Arabia", there is little to correlate between two given players in terms of real ability and game knowledge. There are plenty of folks who have built high ratings doing nothing but michi for example.

In general, and I am sure there will be differing opinions, here is a thumbnail of zone ratings vs. player definitions:

0-1400 Newb
1400-1500 Rook
1500-1600 Good Rook
1600-1700 Low Inter
1700-1800 Inter
1800-1900 High Inter
1900-2000 Low Expert
2000+ Expert

I would say:

0-1550 Newb
1550-1600 Rook
1600-1700 Good Rook
1700-1750 Low Inter
1750-1850 Inter
1850-2000 High Inter/Low expert/whatever
2000+ Expert

Pale Horse:
How accurate are those divisions any more? I wouldn't say I'm a grook, let alone a low inter, but I'm 1622 in rated. I think everyone has gotten better since the game has been out (except of course, newbs, who can't really have gotten better over time by definition). I mean, even some brooks know how to Flush. [EDIT: Yeah, I think Ornlu's got it ]

For me, the distinctions are: Newbs are people either new to the game or who don't play much. Rooks are the majority, who play maybe a few days a week, don't really read any strats much, but have a basic idea of Flush, Krush, FC, booming, etc. Brooks are those who don't really know the strats too well and who aren't very good at using them, though they know what they are in general. Grook is someone who's better at these strats than the average rook. I'm not too sure on inter on up, but I think inters usually know all of the basic strats and builds and how and when to use them. Experts are of course those folks who understand the game on a whole different level (IMHO). You don't see them discussing too much about games except in terms that I don't get. They state things as obvious facts that I see as iffy ("Of course I had to go Castle there, did you see how my gold was placed?").

There's also stuff like micro control, econ management, etc. which come into play. These seem to be different for each player. You can have a rook with great micro, but who can't manage his econ or pick a good strat to save his life.

[This message has been edited by Gordon B (edited 05-25-2004 @ 02:00 PM).]

Well, I would generally call myself a good rook. I know how to play the game. I know all of the units and counter units. I'm starting to utilize flush, grush, crush, etc. but Im not that good at them.

BTW, I don't play rated.

Quote:

It's at: http://www.geocities.com/germanophile16/

Want a better site? Check out mormon.org.

[This message has been edited by Chewmen_ldr (edited 05-25-2004 @ 02:20 PM).]

Gordon B,

I think the numbers are pretty well meaningless. Always have been, always will be, with the exception of the Huns on Arabia crowd. They might mean something for those who only play a particular map and with/against a particular civ. That is a controlled test. A good number of people adhere to those criterion. Makes for a population you can correlate.

The rest of the BF only, or Michi only, or (insert map/civ here) only crowd don't correlate to Huns/arabia or any other unlike combo.

There are two facets that correspond to good play, in my experience.

1) High repitition practice. I think alot of the Huns/arabia crowd at least start out this way. Practice/Play a build order/strat 100's of times until your able to do it in your sleep. The only problem I see with this is that you can get a nice rating out of it. But put them in a blind random/random civ game and the first thing they will do is Hit H-cccc (or whatever hotkeys) on a Mayans on Migration draw.

Perhaps that is an extreme example, but I have seen it done more than once. A player whose Hun flush is dynamite after a few months, but is out of their depths doing something else.

2) Pure game knowledge. There are tons of data references out there. Play testing available. It takes tons of games with all the differenct civs and maps to be able to make the most out of every conceivable map/civ(s) combo (the 's' meaning team bonuses).

About a year ago, Macdaddy hosted the Battle of the Clans. My clan, AFK, entered a team. We almost exclusivley play random map team games, a few of us do 1v1's on the zone. Almost no one has a zone rating much above 1600. Well, we won every matchup, and scarcely lost a game.

Description

Description

We even scored wins over Myll_Slaghter and Stevay, two of the more knowledgeable players here, before the whole thing fell apart do to lack of interest on the part of alot of people in some of the clans. Thanks again Mac' for setting that up, it was alot of fun.

I dunno what that proves, but for me, I have little use for the zone rating system.

[This message has been edited by Pale Horse (edited 05-25-2004 @ 03:00 PM).]

im around the 1600 or the 1550 mark in rated so i would call myself a rook.

1-20 zone games played is a Newbie
-1550 bad rook
1550-1650 Good Rook
1650-1750 Low Inter
1750-1800 Inter
1800-1900 High Inter
1900-2200 Low Expert
2200+ Expert

is 1550 a good rook? Im not so sure about that.

The widely accepted version i go by is
-1550 Newb
1550-1600 Brook
1600-1699 Rook
1700-1750 Grook/LowInter --- no difference is usually made
1750-1850 Inter
1850-1950 High Inter
1950-2000 Low Expert
2000+ Expert

Depends what you mean by skill.... but for 1v1 arabia i'd say.

Below 1500 = "Newbie"
1500-1650 = "Rook"
1650-1750 = "Grook"
1750-1850 = "Inter"
1850-2200 = "High Inter"
2200+ = "Expert"

These are only really a guideline and it has to be your average rating. IE. Somebody who is 1780 but is usually just around the 1730 area in not an "Inter" just a "Grook" on the verge of becoming one.

Wow, I suck. I am a newb.

NEWBIE: Knows very little about the game, and brags that he can complete the William Wallace campaign on hard. Imposes all sorts of "no attack until imperial" rules in the games he plays.

ROOK: Better then the newbie, as in he knows about BOs and flushing/FCing/grushing, but still can't do them very well. Works hard at improving his game.

INTER: A fairly good player. Flushes by 13:xx, castles at around 20:xx, and generally has all the ideas, strategies, and concepts of the game down pat. A worthy opponant.

EXPERT: Extremely good. Wins a lot of the games he plays. May have his special areas, but is generally good at all aspects of the game.

EXTREME Don't play this guy unless you are masoschistic. He plays insanely well. Often ends up as a smurf.

That rough guide may be innacurate in some areas.

1550-1650 Good Rook

If you have played 100 rated zone games and maintained 1550-1650 that makes you rook/grook IMO.

smelly''s/largebikes list is pretty accurate IMO