EPTLadder just not fun anymore? - Page 2
| Blogs > Matt44au |
|
ymir233
United States8275 Posts
| ||
|
TheGlassface
United States612 Posts
If you get eliminated, you lose. If you lose to an off beat strategy, you lose. If you get "cheesed," you lose. If you get eliminated by units you can not attack back, you lose. Delaying expos don't win you games. It's not because they were some kind of lesser player, or that they played the low-road. You got outplayed, or surprised by an unorthodox strategy. It happens. If you were truly the better player, you could hold it off and win. Good lord. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 30 2011 01:45 TheGlassface wrote: What in the hell is this "legitimate" win b.s? If you get eliminated, you lose. If you lose to an off beat strategy, you lose. If you get "cheesed," you lose. If you get eliminated by units you can not attack back, you lose. Delaying expos don't win you games. It's not because they were some kind of lesser player, or that they played the low-road. You got outplayed, or surprised by an unorthodox strategy. It happens. If you were truly the better player, you could hold it off and win. Good lord. You do realize that half of the things you are saying was never said. You also realize that by saying that we didn't win is obvious. We all know that, but finding a reason to be happy about a match is the ultimate goal and interest in continuing to ladder. No one called them lesser players. Sit back. You're just shitting on ideas without any solution or remedy of your own. edit: fixed it. All in all, what do you suggest for the OP | ||
|
Disquiet
Australia628 Posts
the feeling when you lose, no matter how, is just really bad, i'll probably get over it in time but for now thats what stops me from playing very much. | ||
|
FreshNoThyme
United States356 Posts
On July 30 2011 01:47 Torte de Lini wrote: You do realize that half of the things you are saying was never said. You also realize that by saying that we didn't win is obvious. We all know that, but finding a reason to be happy about a match is the ultimate goal and interest in continuing to ladder. No one called them lesser players. Sit back. You're just shitting on ideas without any solution or remedy of your own. edit: fixed it. All in all, what do you suggest for the OP He was using examples, not quoting from the thread. I've seen all of those posted constantly with people saying "I won, but then this happened, and now I'm mad!" when in reality, they simply lost. He is saying (and I agree) that making excuses for losses never helps. Ever. Not once. Ever. Two ways it "could" help, but in reality, never does: Improvement- If you think that you outplayed someone and still lost, you don't have a realistic grasp on how well you played. You ignore some the things you should have fixed since you already think you outplayed them. Fun- If you think that you outplayed someone and still lost, you don't have a realistic grasp on how well you played. You continue to play thinking you're better than people you're losing to, which results in you taking losses harder emotionally because you're convinced that you're the better player. I would say the guy who posted above is a little rude, but really, he wasn't at all. I am sick of these threads just as much as he is. People making excuses gets old, and it never helps. "Yeah, I legitimately won at the 10 minute mark because I was almost doubling his economy, but then he beat me at the 25 minute mark." Notice how no one would ever say that, because it is clearly a false statement. Yet, when people post about "legitimately winning" at the 12 minute mark and then actually losing at the 13 minute mark, people just glance over it. There is little difference other than technicalities of time. You still lost within the rules set forth by the game. You lost legitimately. This is definitely the appropriate place for Glassface's post because it is an issue that faces competition everywhere. Convincing yourself that you've won when you've lost is definitely not healthy for improvement, or your mindset when you go about anything in life. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 30 2011 02:03 RANDOMCL wrote: He was using examples, not quoting from the thread. I've seen all of those posted constantly with people saying "I won, but then this happened, and now I'm mad!" when in reality, they simply lost. He is saying (and I agree) that making excuses for losses never helps. Ever. Not once. Ever. Two ways it "could" help, but in reality, never does: Improvement- If you think that you outplayed someone and still lost, you don't have a realistic grasp on how well you played. You ignore some the things you should have fixed since you already think you outplayed them. Fun- If you think that you outplayed someone and still lost, you don't have a realistic grasp on how well you played. You continue to play thinking you're better than people you're losing to, which results in you taking losses harder emotionally because you're convinced that you're the better player. I would say the guy who posted above is a little rude, but really, he wasn't at all. I am sick of these threads just as much as he is. People making excuses gets old, and it never helps. "Yeah, I legitimately won at the 10 minute mark because I was almost doubling his economy, but then he beat me at the 25 minute mark." Notice how no one would ever say that, because it is clearly a false statement. Yet, when people post about "legitimately winning" at the 12 minute mark and then actually losing at the 13 minute mark, people just glance over it. There is little difference other than technicalities of time. You still lost within the rules set forth by the game. You lost legitimately. This is definitely the appropriate place for Glassface's post because it is an issue that faces competition everywhere. Convincing yourself that you've won when you've lost is definitely not healthy for improvement, or your mindset when you go about anything in life. Hm, you're right. I apologize. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On July 30 2011 00:58 Torte de Lini wrote: I played my placement match a few days ago. I 9-pooled an expanding protoss and delayed his expo. Destroyed his army 3 times before he went +3 mass dark templars and wrecked my buildings incredibly fast. I had made 13 overseers but couldn't find them at all nor did they come in time to save my structures. I lost even though I demolished him. I was annoyed and bothered, but I still technically won by the fact that he made DTs and relied on an alternative than fighting me (not wrong, just shows that I beat him in the main aspect of the game). Frustrating, yes. But if you find something you enjoyed about the match, it lessens the blow. Actually I think that technically you lost, and realistically/strategically you won, rather than the reverse- since technically you lost all your buildings and/or left the game first despite overwhelming his main army and strategy, and he was forced to do a mass cloak gimmick as his only chance to win. This means you basically out-thought and out played him but technically lost. That being said, I can see how ladder is not always rewarding. Here's what I think ladder is good for: 1) increasing the size of your e-ego by getting out of plat and into diamond (I think this is a common reason to ladder) 2) playing against people of similar skill level, since if you play often enough you will win or lose until this is the case, and against styles not represented in your group of friends / practice partners 3) meeting new people Unless you want to do those specific things, maybe just meet people in TL IRC and play customs and team games with them-- it's more fun and relaxing to play with friends for a lot of people. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 30 2011 02:11 Blazinghand wrote: Actually I think that technically you lost, and realistically/strategically you won, rather than the reverse- since technically you lost all your buildings and/or left the game first despite overwhelming his main army and strategy, and he was forced to do a mass cloak gimmick as his only chance to win. This means you basically out-thought and out played him but technically lost. That being said, I can see how ladder is not always rewarding. Here's what I think ladder is good for: 1) increasing the size of your e-ego by getting out of plat and into diamond (I think this is a common reason to ladder) 2) playing against people of similar skill level, since if you play often enough you will win or lose until this is the case, and against styles not represented in your group of friends / practice partners 3) meeting new people Unless you want to do those specific things, maybe just meet people in TL IRC and play customs and team games with them-- it's more fun and relaxing to play with friends for a lot of people. In essence, that's what I meant. So thanks for fixing it~ | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On July 30 2011 02:14 Torte de Lini wrote: In essence, that's what I meant. So thanks for fixing it~ Yeah it took me forever to write that post while like not sounding like a dick. How to you start a post "Actually I think that you technically lost" without sounding like an asshole? Well, at least all those writing classes are good for something :| It seems to be a fairly common theme that players who are down substantially do some sort of mass investment into cloak units in an attempt to win. I wonder if I should try to grab detectors when I'm ahead, just to avoid such a circumstance... as terran this usually means Ravens. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 30 2011 02:17 Blazinghand wrote: Yeah it took me forever to write that post while like not sounding like a dick. How to you start a post "Actually I think that you technically lost" without sounding like an asshole? Well, at least all those writing classes are good for something :| It seems to be a fairly common theme that players who are down substantially do some sort of mass investment into cloak units in an attempt to win. I wonder if I should try to grab detectors when I'm ahead, just to avoid such a circumstance... as terran this usually means Ravens. http://www.teamliquid.net/blogs/viewblog.php?id=247250 Though this is my opinion or stance, feel free to comment about it. If you don't condemn, complain and look for a fair middle ground, most people wont complain. Those who don't see your intentions or motives will be offended either way. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32049 Posts
On July 30 2011 02:11 Blazinghand wrote: Actually I think that technically you lost, and realistically/strategically you won, rather than the reverse- since technically you lost all your buildings and/or left the game first despite overwhelming his main army and strategy, and he was forced to do a mass cloak gimmick as his only chance to win. This means you basically out-thought and out played him but technically lost. That being said, I can see how ladder is not always rewarding. Here's what I think ladder is good for: 1) increasing the size of your e-ego by getting out of plat and into diamond (I think this is a common reason to ladder) 2) playing against people of similar skill level, since if you play often enough you will win or lose until this is the case, and against styles not represented in your group of friends / practice partners 3) meeting new people Unless you want to do those specific things, maybe just meet people in TL IRC and play customs and team games with them-- it's more fun and relaxing to play with friends for a lot of people. Realistically you lost because the end screen did not say you won. Strategically, you lost because you were clearly out thought because you didn't see banshees coming, and because despite putting on constant pressure, you did not break through and get victory. there's a big difference between analyzing your play and looking for a silver lining, and then some completely wrong assertion that you somehow won the strategical battle but somehow lost the game in a real time strategy game | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On July 30 2011 03:06 Hawk wrote: Realistically you lost because the end screen did not say you won. Strategically, you lost because you were clearly out thought because you didn't see banshees coming, and because despite putting on constant pressure, you did not break through and get victory. there's a big difference between analyzing your play and looking for a silver lining, and then some completely wrong assertion that you somehow won the strategical battle but somehow lost the game in a real time strategy game That's fair. I guess what I mean to say is, you never lose if you outplay your opponents in all respects-- but you can lose if you outplay your opponent in many respects but get quite outplayed in others (such as not having detectors and your opponent massing cloak units, despite having a macro lead). From the situation described, it sounds like he shouldn't have lost, although he did because he made some mistakes he shouldn't have re: detection. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
If I had poor unit control, but had an amazing economy. I can say that my economy won overall, I didn't win the fight, I didn't win the match nor my units against his. If I beat his initial army and his follow-up army and he switches it out to something more devious and less confrontational, that says something or tells me that an aspect of my game was sufficiently better than him. To say you "won" in an aspect of the match is to see a positive side despite losing. It gives you confidence and allows you to focus more on why you lost or on aspects that aren't up to par or to the standards of another aspect of your game. If he goes DTs or Banshees after I demolished his army twice and did severe damage to his bases (and thus, as a last final attempt to win, he goes a stealthy unit), that says something. To avoid those who are dismissing this viewpoint, we can replace all the "win" words with comparative descriptive adjectives and it'd be the same thing. "An aspect of your game was sufficiently better than the other player but due to other components of your play, you lost the match and will need to work on it." I may have lost because of a minor but essential key part: detection or minimap awareness or proper scouting later in the game. That's us, the players, fault and he won technically. But to completely dismiss a person's achievements and trying to give a "reality-check" helps no one. You may be right in one part or another, but you're not helping. It feels more obnoxious than blunt. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32049 Posts
On July 30 2011 03:15 Torte de Lini wrote: If I beat his initial army and his follow-up army and he switches it out to something more devious and less confrontational, that says something or tells me that an aspect of my game was sufficiently better than him. No, that is simply what you assume to be true. For all you know, he deliberately lulled you into thinking you could waltz in and take his base due to those prior engagements. You'd also go out to engage the enemy even if you're outnumbered so that the engagement takes place away from the base so you can't swing it back. And using 'won' in the place of 'well i did good here and i did not here' is really sore loser-ish and certainly not analytical | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 30 2011 03:35 Hawk wrote: No, that is simply what you assume to be true. For all you know, he deliberately lulled you into thinking you could waltz in and take his base due to those prior engagements. You'd also go out to engage the enemy even if you're outnumbered so that the engagement takes place away from the base so you can't swing it back. And using 'won' in the place of 'well i did good here and i did not here' is really sore loser-ish and certainly not analytical Fortunately, none of these are assumptions when we have the replay. It being sore "loserish" is a cop-out. This is purely for you and only you, you're not telling the person anything and the mannerisms in and outside the game remain the game. You acknowledge you lost the match, but seeing a fair point in it all. Is telling your players that they all put up a good effort "sore loserish" too? Analytical? It's a step towards pinpointing where your major faults are and it can be confirmed with the replays. You're not good at all, but if you feel there is an aspect of your play that could use more work than another, then this mindset will not only keep your confidence up, but help you in a direction. | ||
|
QuanticHawk
United States32049 Posts
On July 30 2011 03:39 Torte de Lini wrote: Fortunately, none of these are assumptions when we have the replay. It being sore "loserish" is a cop-out. This is purely for you and only you, you're not telling the person anything and the mannerisms in and outside the game remain the game. You acknowledge you lost the match, but seeing a fair point in it all. Is telling your players that they all put up a good effort "sore loserish" too? Analytical? It's a step towards pinpointing where your major faults are and it can be confirmed with the replays. You're not good at all, but if you feel there is an aspect of your play that could use more work than another, then this mindset will not only keep your confidence up, but help you in a direction. You'd know if he came into the game planning to transition to banshees if he couldn't get the win on the ground? and no, saying that you put in a good effort is not at all saying 'I won in this aspect' or I should have won but did not. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
On July 30 2011 03:51 Hawk wrote: You'd know if he came into the game planning to transition to banshees if he couldn't get the win on the ground? and no, saying that you put in a good effort is not at all saying 'I won in this aspect' or I should have won but did not. And the contrasting viewpoint would be: You think he planned to go out all banshees after losing XYZ bases, all his previous production structures and was on his last shred of economy? It works both ways, that point is moot. "I won in this aspect' or I should have won but did not." You're clearly confused here. Saying you've won in an certain aspect of the game but acknowledging that you lost the match due to another lesser-improved part of your game/mechanics/strategy or gameplay is not the same as being in denial and saying you should have won. If you lose a Soccer game with your teammates but told them that you had good passing, coordination and/or your defense was good, but realize that you lost the match due to either lack of openings, proper control of the ball or poor placement of your players. Where's being a sore loser and how is it similar to "We should of won"? It's: We could have won if we improved this part of our game and yours is: we should have won. One's a possibility and another is an absolute and will lead to discouragement. | ||
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On July 30 2011 03:54 Torte de Lini wrote: And the contrasting viewpoint would be: You think he planned to go out all banshees after losing XYZ bases, all his previous production structures and was on his last shred of economy? It works both ways, that point is moot. "I won in this aspect' or I should have won but did not." You're clearly confused here. Saying you've won in an certain aspect of the game but acknowledging that you lost the match due to another lesser-improved part of your game/mechanics/strategy or gameplay is not the same as being in denial and saying you should have won. If you lose a Soccer game with your teammates but told them that you had good passing, coordination and/or your defense was good, but realize that you lost the match due to either lack of openings, proper control of the ball or poor placement of your players. Where's being a sore loser and how is it similar to "We should of won"? It's: We could have won if we improved this part of our game and yours is: we should have won. One's a possibility and another is an absolute and will lead to discouragement. On the other hand it's fair to say that were he to hold your force at bay, he'd need a different strategy which is why he teched up to DT. If he thinks your army's just gonna roll he's got to play for map control. And if you go into his base he'll use his DTs to make it a race. I've seen this early game as well: 3 gate DT expo makes a Terran's life hell. I don't think either player lacks skill, so maybe we should all just chill. | ||
|
Torte de Lini
Germany38463 Posts
| ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
i usually don't want to ladder, and it's out of some sort of fear that has yet to go away before i start playing 1v1 more competitively, so i play team games with the sort of mindset that it's risk free though challenging myself to play risky builds which normally wouldn't work well in a team game. there are still points in a team game where i get frustrated--like say with my teammates when they don't play to the level that i'd hope for. when i lose after a clear advantage, i will go tell myself that, 'the game was played out stupidly, it was going to be such an easy win' when i know very well that the game would have gone as planned if i just played the game to my own high standards. so there is a difference for me between laying some sort of blame on players other than myself, and simply blaming my inconsistency and lack of experience, etc. thankfully there's only one player to 'blame' in a 1v1, being yourself. i think what's interesting to me is when an old teammate of mine is once again agonizing over a zerg being played in a team game, because he isn't comfortable with early zerg cheese/pressure etc.; our level of comfort is very different, and so becomes of our play styles too when a certain race or mixtures of races is involved. so when you call it something of a risk to 'PvP', matt44au, this reminds me of what i try to understand about my friend and why he feels that way about playing against a certain race. i really treasure an attitude of someone continually bettering themself so i can only hope to think sometimes that with some perseverance and maybe something like an epiphany, you will eventually have the opposite feeling with a matchup. ---the same as i think my friends will eventually be happy that they're facing zerg in the future it is notttt uncommon to be uncomfortable, but what's most important to me is some sort of consistent effort that would help you to progress | ||
| ||
