|
So I logged on to battlnet yesterday. I played my placement match; I lost. Its against protoss, so meh. I had been on the brink of a promotion so I wasn't all that surprised when was "reclassified" as diamond league. But instead of feeling a warm sense of accomplishment, it felt more like receiving a paycheck. I guess this is understandable; I had regularly been practicing with diamond players and went about 50/50 with them on the ladder. I knew I was good enough for the league. I had made it to the league one time before with a different race. Not quite as special the second time.
I get on today and I lost a few matches. I have weaknesses in my game; there are just certain situations against protoss and zerg where I rarely win. This didn't stop me from being really frustrated about it. Fed up with terran, I switched to laddering with my previous race (zerg). Rolled three zvzs in a row that basically ended in ten minutes to ling rushes. Quite fed up at this point I logged out of battlenet and took a walk.
As I vented my frustration I started thinking about my starcraft II career. I have been playing this game since october of 2010, and since I started I have been nothing short of obsessed. The call to challenge, the strive to improve and get better, this has captured me for the last 18 months. I have failed more then one of my college classes as an indirect result of my complete devotion to the game (not blaming the game, it was all my fault there). My other hobbies have all been shafted to make more room for laddering, for watching player streams, for studying the pros so I could get better at this game.
Where I wanted to end up eventually is in masters. I really want to be a really solid, mid masters level player. Someone who clearly understands the game. Someone who could take a game of a b level pro once in a blue moon. I wanted to be able to empathize with my favorite players in tense moments when I watch them in tournaments. To feel my fingers twitch as I watched good micro or excellent execution.
And to a much smaller degree, I have accomplished this. I think my understanding of the game is really pretty good, and as a result my appreciation of pros has only increased. But it is becoming harder and harder to ignore the fact that I am just not progressing. I have played this game for so long and put so much energy too it; with two different races. I have manged to get to the point of reasonable competency, but true excellence seems quite far away.
I blame my micro. It was by far my major weakness when I played zerg, and it is holding me back as I play terran. I don't think any amount of practice will fix this; some people just have faster and more accurate fingers then others. My penmanship is sloppy. I had a hard time in band when I played an instrument. In general I lack precision and accuracy with my hands in fingers; not just in starcraft II but in everything I do. I am not terribly upset about this; my livilhood nor my ego is dependent on my being able to micro well in starcraft II. But I think its one of my things I have to accept about myself; especially in relationship to this game. If I were going to be a masters level player, truthfully it probably would have happened by now. With a lot more practice and dedication I could probably get there in another 18 months. Maybe. But I eventually I would reach a point where I just needed excellent mechanics to progress and I think that would be well short of where I eventually want to be.
Its ok for a person to just not have a natural aptitude for something. Being mediocre at best at starcraft II doesn't make me any less of a person and I know that. I could play the game casually and just try and enjoy it, but I don't feel like that is impossible. I am fiercely competitive; I really, really, really fucking hate to lose. I don't think I can be anything less then 100% focused with starcraft II. With this new understanding, however, of my skills and my likelihoods of success I am beginning to think it might be time to give up on my goals as a player. It doesn't seem worth it to me to devote all this time and energy just to be "sort of good" at the game. The intensity and frustration this game draws out of me, while exciting and invigorating, is draining; and if I can't derive some satisfaction from it on a regular basis then it just isn't quite worth struggle. I love starcraft II, and I don't think I will leave the community or stop watching the games. But maybe its ok if I am just a spectator of the sport. Maybe, instead of spending ten to twenty hours a week of my time playing and studying the game, maybe there are other things that are more worth my time and might give me more satisfaction.
I haven't completely decided yet whether or not I will quite the ladder. But I think I am going to take a break. See how a week without starcraft feels. Then maybe after that, a month, and I will take it from there. I am not very good at this game... maybe I never will be. Maybe that's ok.
 
|
talent is overrated
by all means, take a break. but don't quit because you don't feel naturally talented.
|
It's ok if you're not great at the game. There is such thing as natural talent. Don't listen to the lies of people who talk about hard work (Naruto etc.) If you've been playing 18 months and pouring everything into the game, you should be in GM. If you're not, you probably just don't have what it takes to be a great gamer. No big deal. There's a reason GM and high masters are so coveted. Even mid-Masters. SO yeah, there's a lot more to life than a game. Sometimes it's best to take the path of least resistance.
|
Losers whine about their best, winners go home and fuck the prom queen.
|
I don't understand what your ultimate goal is here. You say
Its ok for a person to just not have a natural aptitude for something. Being mediocre at best at starcraft II doesn't make me any less of a person and I know that. I could play the game casually and just try and enjoy it, but I don't feel like that is impossible. I am fiercely competitive; I really, really, really fucking hate to lose. I don't think I can be anything less then 100% focused with starcraft II
Does this mean you want to be a pro gamer or something? Even pro gamers lose. You'll play casually if you hit masters? There is no limit really.
|
interesting my thoughts starcraft isn't worth failing some college classes for i mean if it means that much to you why not drop out get a part time job and play starcraft. really STUPID and BAD idea but why use the money in classes that your just going to fail because you busy at trying to be good at starcraft. seems to me starcraft is a little more then a hobby witch is fine and all but you have to make a line somewhere. talent dose not mean much too me i mean anyone can be good at anything if they first enjoy it and they learn from it.
seems to me your not learning from loses you say your micro is bad then play more customs just too work on your micro after 2-3 weeks of 3-4 hours of micro work you may start to become better at it. iv been playing starcraft 2 since day 1 i started out in bronze rank 100. am now diamond it was a hell ish road with a lot of loses i played Terran before i switched too zerg i lost 93 games in a row in 4 days dropped down too silver from plat in season 5 i went from sliver too diamond. was it because of my talent no, was it because of my hard work maybe but i think it was just from the love of playing i could play for endless hours at a time win or lose just because i liked the game. i knew when i won it was because of me not because of something else. when i lost it was because i played bad but that means with some time maybe i can improve on what i messed up on.
i think you can take a lot away from people like day9 and some of the quotes he has said. i agree with everyone above me take a few days off maybe don't even watch starcraft just relax your mind come back clear and ready to go. but becoming mid masters whats your rush? if its just a hobby take your time and enjoy everything the game has to give. i played broodwar for 8 years on and off i was rank d on iccup my first 6 years i was d- e- funny rings f rank but i played for fun. :O this has become a little long winded sorry :D good luck am sure you will improve over time if you stay with it :D school and real life should come first keep starcraft as a hobby :D
|
Hey man, let me tell you my story, maybe it will make you feel better.
I first picked up this game in February of 1999. I was playing the campaign at my friend's house. It was love at first sight. I bought the game as soon as I returned to the States, and played the shit out of it. I netted 3500 games on the old battle.net ladder system by 2001, not to mention a few thousand regular games as well. I was often close to the top of the rankings, less and less so due to winbots and such, but hey that's life - you always seem less strong on paper than the skill-less cheating bastards around you. I played in a few minor tournaments, failed pretty hard, lost my motivation to play. Like you, my interest in other activities such as sports and school declined, girlfriends (multiple, due to the short tenure of individuals filling this role) were often a second priority to SC as I would not pick up the phone and pretend to be busy, or try to play while talking and totally zone out the conversation. SC was my girlfriend, and I played her like a violin.
Then a dark era enveloped me - I started playing BGH. Then fastest. Then UMS. Then Diablo 2. Then I started to care about girls again. Before I knew it, it was 2003 and I was a shitty player. I played RaceWars and FFA on huge Blizz maps, because I just played for fun. Around 2007, I began to play competitively again. I played ICCup from the first season onward. In the first season I went 9-16. Second season, 35-30. After that, I would hit C- every season. Every. Damn. Season.
I knew I was getting better - but only at the same rate as my compatriots. I had a limitation too, for me it was the opposite of you - my macro blows. I am decent at micro, but my desire to play standard adequately forced me to practice my macro and lategame. It took me 3 years on ICCup, admittedly playing less than 100 games a season (competitively, I still played at least 100-200 in that time period of casual 1v1, 2v2, RaceWars, etc.) to get to C. I got to C last year, around this time, with a decent record. Since then, I have never even touched C. This season, I am 89-166, 35% winrate D+. I had regressed so completely compared to my peers. I used to joke, "My self-esteem is directly proportional to my ICCup ranking." It was never more true than it is now. I have spent 13 years playing this game, and all I have to show for it are some failed romances, a few friends, a broken keyboard and a shitty, yellow C with some numbers next to it. Oh, wait, I'm D+ now.
Basically, I've given up on improving, or even returning to the level of play I was capable of a year ago. My brain is hardwired into certain patterns of "micro, winning the engagement is more important than producing units," and I rarely seem to get out of it, if ever. I know it's technically possible for me to overcome this hurdle, but it's too much work. Fuck it. Fuck everything, you know? Who gives a shit? Just play when you feel like it; if you're getting mad, then you're doing it wrong. I play with people around my level or a bit worse on East now. It's fun. I feel competent in a smaller pond. I know that it's a farce, but in the end it's just a game. Not every person who kicks a soccer ball strives to be Messi. Why does every person who touches StarCraft have to be Flash? They don't. Fuck this game, for it convinces you that you aren't adequate unless you're within a stone's throw of the top. Guess what, for 99.9% of us, it will never happen for one reason or another.
Learn to deal with it, maybe get your life back on track. Best of luck.
|
Dude you'll literally never get to a point where you say "I'm good" at a competitive video game, unless you're a professional and even they get bashed a lot. Being "good" is always a comparative thing, and there's almost always somebody better than you out there somewhere. Don't play to "get good", play for other reasons (ex. fun, winning, competition, money, etc.).
|
The skill ceiling is to high for casual players. Every time you are frustrated just play a IRL friend and you will see how good you are ^_^
|
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.
|
On February 16 2012 15:40 Grobyc wrote:I don't understand what your ultimate goal is here. You say Show nested quote +Its ok for a person to just not have a natural aptitude for something. Being mediocre at best at starcraft II doesn't make me any less of a person and I know that. I could play the game casually and just try and enjoy it, but I don't feel like that is impossible. I am fiercely competitive; I really, really, really fucking hate to lose. I don't think I can be anything less then 100% focused with starcraft II Does this mean you want to be a pro gamer or something? Even pro gamers lose. You'll play casually if you hit masters? There is no limit really.
Hi. My ultimate goal is I wanted to be able to play the game "well". I think that is kind of a problem too, "well" is a subjective measurement, and If I ever made mid level masters I would feel compelled to shoot for grand master, and then pro, ect. Its part of my competitive personality.
I guess what is making sc2 not enjoyable for me at the moment, is I really feel pretty shitty about myself when I don't play as well as I want to. I could put more effort to get there, but I am questioning both whether this is possible and whether it is worth it. When I play a game as much as I do this one, I should really like it right? Its not that I hate the game, I am just entertaining the idea that I might be happier doing something else. Just watch tournaments, enjoy it as a spectator instead of as a player.
Its hard though, because even now as I write this I am feeling the urge to hit up my friends and grind through some customs. I can fix my mistakes with a hundred more hours of practice, I know it (says the little voice inside my head).!
|
On February 16 2012 17:42 mothergoose729 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 15:40 Grobyc wrote:I don't understand what your ultimate goal is here. You say Its ok for a person to just not have a natural aptitude for something. Being mediocre at best at starcraft II doesn't make me any less of a person and I know that. I could play the game casually and just try and enjoy it, but I don't feel like that is impossible. I am fiercely competitive; I really, really, really fucking hate to lose. I don't think I can be anything less then 100% focused with starcraft II Does this mean you want to be a pro gamer or something? Even pro gamers lose. You'll play casually if you hit masters? There is no limit really. Hi. My ultimate goal is I wanted to be able to play the game "well". I think that is kind of a problem too, "well" is a subjective measurement, and If I ever made mid level masters I would feel compelled to shoot for grand master, and then pro, ect. Its part of my competitive personality. I guess what is making sc2 not enjoyable for me at the moment, is I really feel pretty shitty about myself when I don't play as well as I want to. I could put more effort to get there, but I am questioning both whether this is possible and whether it is worth it. When I play a game as much as I do this one, I should really like it right? Its not that I hate the game, I am just entertaining the idea that I might be happier doing something else. Just watch tournaments, enjoy it as a spectator instead of as a player. Its hard though, because even now as I write this I am feeling the urge to hit up my friends and grind through some customs. I can fix my mistakes with a hundred more hours of practice, I know it (says the little voice inside my head).!
So you're a type A personality. You'll rarely be satisfied with your results, even if you were a grandmaster. I used to be like that, then I quit SC, then I came back and realized SC isn't all that important. For most of us, SC/SC2 is a luxury, which is used for entertainment. This type of mindset allowed me to play more games without caring if I played "well" or lost or won, because regardless of the result I was playing my game, enjoying myself and didn't pressure myself to win. Of course, I also managed to play better than I ever did because this attitude leads you to being more relaxed, which in turn leads you to being more focused on the game, rather than your shortcomings as a player.
|
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.
|
On February 16 2012 21:39 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Ah yes, i see your point of view as well. Truly, the only time i think qnybody has true natural-born talent, is when said people teach themsleves instruments, very few people cqn do that efficiently
|
I can relate. No matter how much i play i just continue to fail. Its so weird, in other games i can just play and enjoy them for what they are but in SC2 i always need to be getting better and when i lose a game i get so angry. I have been playing since launch, Watching Day9, GSL and whatever else SC2 related extremely regularly.
I am still utterly bad at this game and teeter around platinum and diamond. I would be solid diamond if it wasn't for going on tilt after losses and continuing to play games. It doesn't sound like i enjoy the game much now does it? The thrill of winning is so good to me that i'm willing to go through all the fits of rage to get it.
I think if i get over my poor mindset i will be able to stabilize in diamond and push for masters one day. But even then i'm still going to be self hating and knowing im still terrible. I feel like i wont get better, but i never feel like completely quitting. I would just like all my time in this game not to be shown as a complete scrub like i am now.
|
On February 16 2012 21:39 Tobberoth wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On February 16 2012 15:12 StorkHwaiting wrote:
It's ok if you're not great at the game. There is such thing as natural talent. Don't listen to the lies of people who talk about hard work (Naruto etc.) If you've been playing 18 months and pouring everything into the game, you should be in GM. If you're not, you probably just don't have what it takes to be a great gamer. No big deal. There's a reason GM and high masters are so coveted. Even mid-Masters. SO yeah, there's a lot more to life than a game. Sometimes it's best to take the path of least resistance.
I don't really agree with that. If you're doing something for 18 months, pouring everything you have into that game (legitly too and not just like hahaha for fun), then you're doing something wrong or not that efficiently.
That's really it. This game isn't that hard. You might not hit GM but you should at least hit your goal.
|
On February 17 2012 00:30 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +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.
To the OP:
Maybe it's a talent to naturally find ways to effectively practice? But what does that mean for the people who think that they're untalented? All they have to do is figure out how to get good practice. So why don't you ask high masters/GM or even progamers how they practice?
One tip I can give the OP right now as a relatively high level player myself is, ALWAYS focus on shit that you suck at. If you just pointed out that your micro sucks, you should go into every game with a build that requires intense micro and make sure you're damn good at executing it. Your paragraph about how you were never gonna get better at micro was almost insulting to read for me. When I had trouble against 3cc builds on maps where zergs could not take a quick third, I got a terran practice partner and made sure he played greedy as fuck and forced myself to play macro games without punishing his greediness until I outmacro'd him. In 3 days I was owning every terran on ladder from high masters to top 100 GMs. To identify what and how to improve as I did in that situation is how you improve. Yes, this is pretty much really tough to do all the time, but once you do, you'll see yourself getting better and better.
From what I read, your attitude towards the game is piss poor. It seems like you have the passion, but because your hard work towards your passion is not being rewarded fast enough, you just sit there whining about how you have no talent. The reality is, people with that kind of mindset will fail. If you're truly dedicating so much time into the game (which I am starting to question now) that it's starting to affect your grade, your goal should be to become the fucking best player in the world, work on improving what you're bad at so that you can become a flawless player. If you sit there aiming for mediocrity and avoid fixing the shit you're bad at, you're never even gonna get into masters. And I can tell you right now, the goal of getting into masters should be a joke to anyone who is as serious about this game as you make yourself out to be.
|
On February 17 2012 00:30 StorkHwaiting wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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
|
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
