[None293823]

Heh I have never called myself pro, not even semi-pro , even in those bad threads. Im just an average player, no noob, no lamer because i use the top player's strats but sometimes i even add something of mine like - i never saw how they use scrolls of healing in the last 30 games vs orc ive watched i do it since it works vs wave+ lightning to save my casters. Also i never saw tops owning orcs with mortars and retraining to use blizzard. I sometimes do it since its better than getting your WEs dispelled by mass spirit walkers. And blizz and morts vs pults kicks the ass of mass spirits and pults asi i did in the game vs Sirius. But im just an average player and making lvl 30 soon doesnt make me more than average. If i have to make a scheme :

Players' Skills and their skill ranks
(throughout my opinion and i'm trying to be as precise as possible)

-Noobs have no micro or it is very poor, dont use the correct strats, suck in all aspects of the game and are even unmannered . Their best lvls are from 1 to lvl 27 on 400 wins and more. Lvl 27 on 300-400 lol. And APM is below 100 and they just stay in the base with mass towers.

- I call lamers those who just win with non-standard strats, here goes the undead with dread lord 1st and mass surround becasue he can never surround a moving hero without sleep, and if that player still has the characteristics of the noobs mentioned above he can still be a noob. Stats may be that noobish but definitely not that of average players or above. 'Lamer' for me can be also Angry_Korea_Man, he may have better micro than total noobs but it still sucks, he uses lame strats so 'Lamer' can also mean not only low lvl but also higher lvl player with stupid stats. APM they can have or they may not.

- Average players is where i no longer belong - actually i am smth more than average lets say almost belong to the good and very good group. There are many players whose stats suck like mine - being almost lvl 30 on 200 wins is far not good. Averag-ers, have better micro than those below, but still not enough, still you lose units which as better you can save. Still you lose from many of the 30thies and get raped by 40ies but you beat 20ies. Some may have high APM of 170+ like i have 180+ and this is how one average-er is better than another averag-er. With faster actions in battles and as a whole a person with more APM and thus faster reactions can be better than another. But some may not have high apm and still win.


- Good players and very good ,I would say, are those who are above lvl 30 and can beat a lot of 30ies and maybe even 40ies. APM here can be high or low, but usually those with at least 130+ dominate. Others have like 170-180+

- Semi pro I think are now even 40ies who beat 30ies and 40ies and who knows - may even beat some top players but not of the best ! They always have high apm like 170-200 and above.

- If we have to differenrtiate them from ToP players, pro-s can be our best players from Bulgaria for instance, who are in top clans, beat some top players, play in WC3L, WEG and other smaller tourneys but are still not famous, not as good as top players. Same thing - awlays high apm of 170-200 and above.

-Top players well you know - they are the best and beat many other top players, win WCGs. There are almost now top players to be without very high apm of 200 +. Actually some azeroth players who dont have that high APM have at least 140-150 + which is also not bad but you will hardly see someone with below 100 even below 130.

NOTE that when i talk about stats and levels (you may say they dont mean so much especailly for lower lvls liek 20ies) i also mean players who have the skill of a very good player and thus for example - a pro may be 7:0 and he's lvl 7 but he beats lvl 40ies. Sure this means he can become easily lvl 40 if he plays, since he has the skill to beat 40ies.

Maybe someone else will give his opinion like if average are actually higher than i think ? But we're talking about solo and i think im exactly average.