|
On February 17 2012 01:01 how wrote:
You should pay a few bucks and get some coaching. Micro is most important in zvz, but even then if you just go fast roaches every game you don't have to worry about ling/bling micro with is the real bitch. Outside of that, just really focus on macro, not missing injects, spreading creep, and knowing when to make drones or army
Pretty sure he's terran
|
On February 17 2012 00:58 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 00:30 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 16 2012 21:39 Tobberoth wrote:On February 16 2012 17:10 Frostfire wrote:
I strongly believe that talent can be created. I think even a monkey, after some amount of time practicing, will be able to understand that "e" is the key for probes and colossus are overpowered(Loljk) but seriously, the only way I think to get better is to play more under a stable schedule and environment. If you feel you aren't improving at expected rate, try either practicing more or practicing differently.
But hey, what do I know. Depends on your definition of talent. Personally, I prefer to consider talent to be an excuse. If you're not good at something and someone else is, it's easy to brush it off as the other person having talent and you don't. I believe, like you, that anyone can have "talent" because there's no such thing. You're not born with the ability to become pro at SC2, you practice until you're good enough. How you practice and your personality can certainly have an impact, but overall, if 2 people train something for 1000 hours, they will probably be comparably good after that time. Your philosophy makes no sense. There are people who naturally spend a much shorter amount of time and effort to achieve a level of mastery. That's called talent. There are people who no matter how hard they practice and train will never reach a certain level of greatness. That's considered a lack of potential. These things exist in life. You can't just sit down one day and tell yourself I'm going to sing as well as Adele and then proceed to practice for ten years and achieve your goal. There is such thing as innate talent. There are people born with the ability to become pro at SC. There are plenty of people who practice and put more hours in than Stork, yet they are nowhere near as good. How do you explain this disparity? It's utter rubbish to claim that if 2 people train at something for 1k hours they'll be comparably good. There are people who try to write novels for decades and never get anywhere even after countless thousands of hours. There are others who sit down at 16 yrs old and very shortly thereafter they produce something good enough to get published. I could go on for hours and hours about this bogus concept of hard work trumps all. Being talented doesn't mean you don't work hard. But a talented person who works hard is going to always beat the NOT talented person who works just as hard. The problem with what you're saying is that it's circular logic. He's a progamer because he's talented. He's talented because he's a progamer. It's not strong evidence. You can explain any phenomena any number of ways. Maybe he was chosen by God. Maybe he had more helpful people teaching him the basics when he started, better teachers. Maybe he had more motivation due to other experiences in his life. There's no reason for talent to be the explanation. In a time before matured science you could have looked at the rain and said "how else do you explain why it rains, but because we have pleased the rain god?" And not having science, I might have had to say "I don't know." That doesn't make it strong evidence. Talent is a human construction. Whether we ever find evidence to support it is another matter entirely. We know that physically we are different in many ways, but is that significant enough to say we can't be great? Perhaps Flash's brain is much faster than a normal human's. Or perhaps he experienced wins at the right time and gained confidence, or just plain played this game with professionals teaching him from a very young age (which is true). To just say it was "talent" is indeed a copout, because you can't prove it convincingly. It's better to say I don't know.
I disagree. A talented individual proves his talent by achieving greater heights of mastery with less time and effort spent. The result IS the evidence.
Input + Talent = Output (Evidence of talent).
Input + Lesser Talent = Lesser Output (Evidence of lack of talent).
Greater Talent Output > Lesser Talent Output.
There's nothing circular about the logic whatsoever. Nothing in that dynamic is self-defining.
It's also easy to disprove the theories that you postulate.
1.Chosen by God: Nonsensical. I don't know why you bothered to write that other than to obfuscate the fact you have no argument.
2. More helpful people teaching him the basics: Irrelevant. By the time he reaches the KT training house he is on an equal footing with the other Terran players on his team. The fact that he stands head and shoulders above them shows it had nothing to do with his early coaches. That may help to explain his younger age, a la Baby etc., but he's so far beyond merely being young and skilled. Weak argument.
3. More motivation: This can be gauged by the amount of hours spent working at getting better in SC. Flash is known for his insane work ethic. Then again, so are most pro-gamers in general. I'd argue that statistically speaking Flash does not invest a significantly higher number of hours per week practicing than other KT Terrans to warrant his massively better winrates and consistency.
Honestly, nothing in your post makes sense. "Talent is a human construction." If you're going to argue semantics, I could claim reality is a human construction. Time and space are relative, etc, etc. You argue semantics but the concept of talent is quite easy to understand. Merely because you are incapable of explicating and understanding all the mechanics behind talent does not mean it does not exist. To base an argument on that logic is absolute balls.
Can you explain the mechanics behind gravity? I'm pretty sure you can't. I'm pretty sure science can't either. By your logic, that means gravity is a human construct.
|
I know EXACTLY how you feel. I actually got to mid masters at one point, and lemme tell you, it feels better than you expect. It's a really great feeling to achieve that and feel like you're not utter shit anymore, and that you're not being held back by your hands -- only your mind. I love it.
I couldn't maintain it (got psyched out) and I got "reclassified" as diamond, too, except down instead of up. I'm in the middle of a break from it all, myself, because I'm really genuinely horrible at StarCraft II regardless of my devotion to it. I probably won't ever come back full throttle like I was before, anything to improve, so we'll see how that plays out.
All I can say is... it might feel good to find something else more relaxing to do to let yourself be free of it. Good luck with whatever you choose.
|
On February 17 2012 00:39 .Sic. wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 00:30 StorkHwaiting wrote:On February 16 2012 21:39 Tobberoth wrote:On February 16 2012 17:10 Frostfire wrote:
I strongly believe that talent can be created. I think even a monkey, after some amount of time practicing, will be able to understand that "e" is the key for probes and colossus are overpowered(Loljk) but seriously, the only way I think to get better is to play more under a stable schedule and environment. If you feel you aren't improving at expected rate, try either practicing more or practicing differently.
But hey, what do I know. Depends on your definition of talent. Personally, I prefer to consider talent to be an excuse. If you're not good at something and someone else is, it's easy to brush it off as the other person having talent and you don't. I believe, like you, that anyone can have "talent" because there's no such thing. You're not born with the ability to become pro at SC2, you practice until you're good enough. How you practice and your personality can certainly have an impact, but overall, if 2 people train something for 1000 hours, they will probably be comparably good after that time. Your philosophy makes no sense. There are people who naturally spend a much shorter amount of time and effort to achieve a level of mastery. That's called talent. There are people who no matter how hard they practice and train will never reach a certain level of greatness. That's considered a lack of potential. These things exist in life. You can't just sit down one day and tell yourself I'm going to sing as well as Adele and then proceed to practice for ten years and achieve your goal. There is such thing as innate talent. There are people born with the ability to become pro at SC. There are plenty of people who practice and put more hours in than Stork, yet they are nowhere near as good. How do you explain this disparity? It's utter rubbish to claim that if 2 people train at something for 1k hours they'll be comparably good. There are people who try to write novels for decades and never get anywhere even after countless thousands of hours. There are others who sit down at 16 yrs old and very shortly thereafter they produce something good enough to get published. I could go on for hours and hours about this bogus concept of hard work trumps all. Being talented doesn't mean you don't work hard. But a talented person who works hard is going to always beat the NOT talented person who works just as hard. To the guy above and the OP:There's a lot of research that suggests that it's not talent or genius that lets the few succeed, but effective practice. http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_colvin.fortune/index2.htm (someone above linked it, but let me relink so YOU can read it) http://calnewport.com/blog/2011/12/23/flow-is-the-opiate-of-the-medicore-advice-on-getting-better-from-an-accomplished-piano-player/Regarding your sc1 player argument, there's a lot of people who may "practice" just as hard, but have terribly stubborn mindsets that hinder them from improving or trying new things. This will make their practice ineffective and make them worse than top players like jaedong bisu stork or flash. And I don't think you're right about every sc1 practicing just as hard as them. From what I've heard in many interviews, people like jaedong and flash generally practice MORE than everyone else.
I read the article but I don't think it disproves the concept of talent. Instead, it talks about a lot of other factors involved in success which by their existence should downplay the role of talent in success. But nobody ever claimed talent is everything. What I did say is that talent is a necessary condition to success, NOT a sufficient condition. There's a difference between the two. Talent, along with hard work, along with effective training methods all contribute. Just because effective training methods matter doesn't mean talent no longer matters. I don't get why these crappy media fluff articles love to ignore basic logic.
But moving along. To discuss the concept of deliberate practice: Based on this theory, all individuals training under the proper system can achieve the same level of excellence. Seeing as how this article claims "talent" is derived from training in the proper manner, one has only to find out the correct methodology and then log hours doing so.
So, according to this theory, anyone who was coached by Archie Manning and followed his advice correctly would be a QB as good as Peyton and Eli Manning. Does that even sound credible? Do people really think the entire NFL has failed to create proper training systems that only Archie Manning is privy to? Would NFL teams bother to pay millions of dollars to specific athletes if they could just plug someone else into a system of QB training with a good work ethic and reliably create all-star QBs?
Somehow, I don't buy it.
But even if I did, what factors help a person identify more effective ways to train? Why do some people identify what's effective so quickly while others do not? Luck? Better teachers? I think intelligence and talent.
|
I just want to shed a little light to the discussion:
We are now in Seadon 6, right? SC2 is now one year and 7 months old. Since release a great number of people left the game (really casual players). What happened is that what is left are players that play the game because they really like to play it. There is still many players that despite not playing anymore, they still enjoy seeing streams and tournaments. Those that remain, and actually play it, are people that have an higher understanding the game (when comparing with people of the same level that played it one year ago, six months ago and last month). That's because the people who still ladder, also want to improve in some way. Maybe not as hard as you try but nonetheless, improving. You have to take in account that the difficulty of SC2 has made that many people just quit of playing it. That leaves you with mostly people that check streams from the pros, study openings and strats, and steal strats and ideas. The later incorporate them in the ladder, just like you!
If you look at the level of play of the Master's league today and look back six months ago, you'll see that the level has increased very much. And if you do the same in the Diamond, Platinum, Gold and Silver, you'll reach the same conclusion. Hell, even in Bronze that happens. The difference is that in Bronze many don't give a shit about improving and seem like every day is Funday Monday!! But compare it to the league six months ago and you'll see the diference.
Want I'm trying to say is: what if the problem is not you stalling in your improving but everyone is improving just like you? If you compare it to the others around you, you wouldn't notice it, so try to compare it to yourself about 3 months ago. What do you see? ^^
|
If you look at the level of play of the Master's league today and look back six months ago, you'll see that the level has increased very much. And if you do the same in the Diamond, Platinum, Gold and Silver, you'll reach the same conclusion. Hell, even in Bronze that happens. The difference is that in Bronze many don't give a shit about improving and seem like every day is Funday Monday!! But compare it to the league six months ago and you'll see the diference.
Not really imo, I still beat gold players even though I basically haven't played in over a year and thus is totally out of the loop for the metagame and am rusty overall. They are just too slow with bad micro and/or macro and in general have no understanding how to adapt to what I do and when to fight when to run. At least gold is roughly on the same level today as they were a year ago. I used to be platinum btw. The biggest difference is that today they use different builds but with so poor basics I can beat them even if their build counters mine.
|
On February 17 2012 02:41 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +
If you look at the level of play of the Master's league today and look back six months ago, you'll see that the level has increased very much. And if you do the same in the Diamond, Platinum, Gold and Silver, you'll reach the same conclusion. Hell, even in Bronze that happens. The difference is that in Bronze many don't give a shit about improving and seem like every day is Funday Monday!! But compare it to the league six months ago and you'll see the diference.
Not really imo, I still beat gold players even though I basically haven't played in over a year and thus is totally out of the loop for the metagame and am rusty overall. They are just too slow with bad micro and/or macro and in general have no understanding how to adapt to what I do and when to fight when to run. At least gold is roughly on the same level today as they were a year ago. I used to be platinum btw. The biggest difference is that today they use different builds but with so poor basics I can beat them even if their build counters mine.
Gold had no "metagame." The winner in gold league (and platinum) is the player who doesn't fuck up as much in their macro or decision making. I agree with you that his point doesn't really hold true below diamond because there people have fundamental flaws holding them back. But in diamond/master/GM, I certainly think that the overall group is improving. Especially because of the point he brought up about casual players dropping out, leaving only the truly passionate left to play together. After a while it happens, and is happening, and that definitely brings the overall skill level up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
