If you're below Master League, you've probably heard something unusual. You've heard it either here among your fellow TL forumgoers or perhaps in chat rooms or custom/team games with your Master friends. Something weird. Something incomprehensible. It's a statement that makes no sense whatsoever-- even with your admittedly shallower knowledge of Sc2, this commonplace phrase is completely unreasonable. It's something almost anyone at the bottom of Master League says or has said at some point:
"I'm really bad at Sc2 // Everyone I play on the ladder is bad like me // I'm awful, have no skill, etc."
And you think, "well, this guy's in the top 2% of players... is he just trying to be an ass to the other 98% of Sc2 players or what?" and it's a reasonable question to ask. I'll do my best to address it here. I think this exposition is best begun, though, with a bit of context.
If you're active in Platinum League, you probably want to be in Diamond League. I say this because people who play actively/well enough to be in Plat usually want to be the best they can be, and for most people this is Master-- but Diamond is the next step. For a Plat player in particular, although you're not right on the cusp of making that top 2%, you're just one league away. It's a pretty steep jump in skill, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility that you improve and make Master someday. But when we say "top 2%", what do we really mean? Well, Master League (in theory) represents the top 2% of active 1v1 ladder players in Sc2 by MMR. Assuming MMR (and by extension, laddering*) is an accurate representation of skill, this means getting into the top 2% of active 1v1 ladder players. What this really means, though, is something entirely different than what most people think it means.
This is a filler pic cause pics are the shit.
First off, most of the time Sc2 players do not play 1v1s when they click Find Match. Most of the time, they're queuing up with a friend, either for 2v2s or some randomized team games. Team games are relaxing, low-pressure, and let you feel like you're really playing Sc2. You can blame your teammates or "cheesers" for every loss, and believe in your own competence for every win. Team games are an epistemological trap. They're also boatloads of fun-- where else are you going to build up your massive Carrier Victory Fleet? Taking into account the fact that a 30 minute 4v4 takes up 4 man-hours (contrast: 30 minute 1v1 takes up 1 man-hour) and you get a better idea of how most people play sc2.
The Average Ladder Player's Experience
Just by playing 1v1 instead of team ladder, you're already probably in the top half of ladder players. But things get even crazier. Most starcraft players don't solo ladder regularly, not because they're playing team games, but because they don't ladder at all. In fact, the average starcraft player spends most of his time playing... Probes vs Zealots or something. And it's not just that he spends most of his time playing customs, the average Sc2 player spends ALL his time playing customs. The custom map system is no War3 system, but there's still an enormous cornucopia of games that aren't Melee Sc2 to play... and that's not even counting the hilarity of monobattles mod maps, 1v1 obs maps, and the like.
What most Sc2 players are like.
If you ever play any popular custom with Sc2Gears turned on, after the game is over it'll diligently produce a post-game instant analysis for you, and notify you of the ranks, apms, eapms... and, uh, LWs, of your adversaries. In this case, outside of me and my friends, most players in this game don't ladder, and those who do play team games exclusively.
We live in a world of casual gamers. There's nothing shameful about playing Sc2 for the team games, or playing Sc2 for the custom games, or even playing Sc2 for the campaign, or not at all. So, addressing a platinum, or even a top gold player, I'll say this: you're in the top half of active 1v1 ladder players. Most Sc2 ladder players don't even play 1v1-- if they did, would be quite bad. Most Sc2 players don't even ladder-- if they did, would be even worse. Relative to the general Sc2 population, you're actually a really damn good player. You could actually crush most active sc2 players in a 1v1. And if we expand this beyond the a small fraction of people Sc2 still play it regularly today and include all those who bought Sc2 ever, you're freaking July 2011 IMNesTea. Expanding it further to people who COULD have bought the game but didn't, or to all humans, you're actually an unbelievably good Sc2 player, beyond any sort of reasonable comparison to any but those within your elite cadre.
At some point along this path, though, you said "this particular comparison is ridiculous". Maybe you don't consider Team ladderers to be real players. Maybe custom gamers aren't real players. Maybe people who don't play aren't real players. But at some point you said "yes, technically those people are worse than me, but they don't put time into the game like I do. They're not even close to on my level mechanically." When I said "what about all humans?" you said "ok, look, obviously these people can technically play Sc2, but I don't even consider them to be competition. Yes, I'm better than most people, but I'm still bad, okay?"
And now you're thinking like someone at the bottom of Master League.
I'm bad. Everyone worse than me is bad, too, and yes, that's MOST PEOPLE, but that doesn't mean I'm good. I don't compare myself to diamond and plat and gold and team and custom and non-players. If I did, I'd still think they're bad-- the bar for being "good" is still above me, and always will be. When some master player says he's bad, don't be confused-- think about how you call yourself "bad" when really you're better than most people who play Sc2, or most people who own Sc2. And really, it's hard to improve unless you're willing to see the badness in your own play. Master League isn't like some ridiculous feat of strength, but I like to think (when I'm deluding myself) that it takes some sort of acceptance that you're bad and a willingness to improve to get here.
Then I see that my practice partner literally 3 gate roboed every MU every map into Master League and is as good as me.
and I sigh, and smile
You, me, us? We're
*: "But Blazinghand, ladder isn't representative because blah blah blah blah MMR is broken, allins, noobs, cheese, 7 pool, blah blah blah" -- look dude just stop talking. If you don't think ladder is representative of skill then this blog isn't for you, okay? Just... just get out.
I am a poor gold zerg. I have fun. I try to be better at StarCraft but I don't feel the need to be a "Winner" at everything I do. That's a way of life.
Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
On March 04 2012 23:34 young J wrote: Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
@ young J, I think you're missing the point of this post. The point of this post is that when Master League players say they're bad, it's because they have a different perspective on what "bad" means than what a Plat or Gold player might have. That graph is way off the mark anyways because it only looks at players who play 1v1s. Bronze isn't the lowest league: "doesn't play starcraft 2" is the lowest league, or "doesn't play ladder/melee" or "doesn't play 1v1s" or whatever you determine. For some people, they view the lowest "real" league as Master. Bad is relative. We're all George Thorogood and we're all NesTea.
Edit: Like, the very fact that you're trying to place people into leagues when they don't play 1v1 shows that you've missed the point because I articulated it poorly or something. You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
Edit : as I was reading and took a pause to get a coffee, I was mentally planing to write something like "This is surprisinngly good, and despite the lack of source I still... ".
But fuck that, it's actually a brilliant post with a great demonstration, spotlight worthy imo.
Still, could you please define :
- epistemological (looked for a definition but i didn't make sense when put back in your context) - cornucopia (wtf is that)
On March 04 2012 23:37 Blazinghand wrote: You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
And you seem to be measuring the entire range of SC2 skill as "1v1"?
When a Master League player says he's "bad" he's not talking about his performance in bed. Or his skill playing 4v4 while drunk at 3 am Saturday night.
On March 04 2012 23:34 young J wrote: Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
@ young J, I think you're missing the point of this post. The point of this post is that when Master League players say they're bad, it's because they have a different perspective on what "bad" means than what a Plat or Gold player might have. That graph is way off the mark anyways because it only looks at players who play 1v1s. Bronze isn't the lowest league: "doesn't play starcraft 2" is the lowest league, or "doesn't play ladder/melee" or "doesn't play 1v1s" or whatever you determine. For some people, they view the lowest "real" league as Master. Bad is relative. We're all George Thorogood and we're all NesTea.
Edit: Like, the very fact that you're trying to place people into leagues when they don't play 1v1 shows that you've missed the point because I articulated it poorly or something. You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
Why young J?
I was trying to clarify for myself, I don't know anything about SC2 ladder. This post clarified it a lot. I will defend my graph in this case, as there is a relative 0 point before Bronze (the line goes all the way to the axis). I think you misunderstood ME, I never claimed that this was the entire range of skill... Obviously I did not place pro players on this graph lol. So, with those 2 explanations, does this not still fit your description of how skill is distributed according to your post?
On March 04 2012 23:37 Blazinghand wrote: You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
And you seem to be measuring the entire range of SC2 skill as "1v1"?
Traditionally, the only other play mode that is widely considered as indicative of skill is 2v2, because 1v1 and 2v2 (to a much lower degree nowadays) are all that pro gamers play.
On March 04 2012 23:34 young J wrote: Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
@ young J, I think you're missing the point of this post. The point of this post is that when Master League players say they're bad, it's because they have a different perspective on what "bad" means than what a Plat or Gold player might have. That graph is way off the mark anyways because it only looks at players who play 1v1s. Bronze isn't the lowest league: "doesn't play starcraft 2" is the lowest league, or "doesn't play ladder/melee" or "doesn't play 1v1s" or whatever you determine. For some people, they view the lowest "real" league as Master. Bad is relative. We're all George Thorogood and we're all NesTea.
Edit: Like, the very fact that you're trying to place people into leagues when they don't play 1v1 shows that you've missed the point because I articulated it poorly or something. You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
Why young J?
I was trying to clarify for myself, I don't know anything about SC2 ladder. This post clarified it a lot. I will defend my graph in this case, as there is a relative 0 point before Bronze (the line goes all the way to the axis). I think you misunderstood ME, I never claimed that this was the entire range of skill... Obviously I did not place pro players on this graph lol. So, with those 2 explanations, does this not still fit your description of how skill is distributed according to your post?
I have no idea what the shape of the curve is, and my post makes no statements as to what the shape of the skill curve is. In fact, my post doesn't give a dick whether the curve is shaped
liek this:
Or like this:
Or even like this:
THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY POST. SHAPE OF GRAPH NOT RELEVANT OK
EDIT:: anyone looking for a graphic designer email me: blazinghand at gmail dot com I am cheap and can work weekends if you got the $$$
On March 04 2012 23:37 Blazinghand wrote: You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
And you seem to be measuring the entire range of SC2 skill as "1v1"?
Traditionally, the only other play mode that is widely considered as indicative of skill is 2v2, because 1v1 and 2v2 (to a much lower degree nowadays) are all that pro gamers play.
Indicative of skill at what, though?
Let's pretend in some fairy tale land Blizzard DotA gets really popular and played professionally somehow. Would you say you're a better StarCraft 2 player than a BDotA pro who gets paid money to play his SC2 custom map, just because you can beat him 1v1 on ladder?
Maybe I'm missing the point of the thread, but it seems weird to me to suggest you're better at SC2 because you can beat UMS players on ladder.
On March 04 2012 23:37 Blazinghand wrote: You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
And you seem to be measuring the entire range of SC2 skill as "1v1"?
Traditionally, the only other play mode that is widely considered as indicative of skill is 2v2, because 1v1 and 2v2 (to a much lower degree nowadays) are all that pro gamers play.
Indicative of skill at what, though?
Let's pretend in some fairy tale land Blizzard DotA gets really popular and played professionally somehow. Would you say you're a better StarCraft 2 player than a BDotA pro who gets paid money to play his SC2 custom map, just because you can beat him 1v1 on ladder?
Maybe I'm missing the point of the thread, but it seems weird to me to suggest you're better at SC2 because you can beat UMS players on ladder.
The point of the thread is to explain to non-GM players why GM players genuinely say and think they are bad. Imo.
On March 04 2012 23:34 young J wrote: Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
@ young J, I think you're missing the point of this post. The point of this post is that when Master League players say they're bad, it's because they have a different perspective on what "bad" means than what a Plat or Gold player might have. That graph is way off the mark anyways because it only looks at players who play 1v1s. Bronze isn't the lowest league: "doesn't play starcraft 2" is the lowest league, or "doesn't play ladder/melee" or "doesn't play 1v1s" or whatever you determine. For some people, they view the lowest "real" league as Master. Bad is relative. We're all George Thorogood and we're all NesTea.
Edit: Like, the very fact that you're trying to place people into leagues when they don't play 1v1 shows that you've missed the point because I articulated it poorly or something. You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
Why young J?
I was trying to clarify for myself, I don't know anything about SC2 ladder. This post clarified it a lot. I will defend my graph in this case, as there is a relative 0 point before Bronze (the line goes all the way to the axis). I think you misunderstood ME, I never claimed that this was the entire range of skill... Obviously I did not place pro players on this graph lol. So, with those 2 explanations, does this not still fit your description of how skill is distributed according to your post?
I have no idea what the shape of the curve is, and my post makes no statements as to what the shape of the skill curve is. In fact, my post doesn't give a dick whether the curve is shaped
EDIT:: anyone looking for a graphic designer email me: blazinghand at gmail dot com I am cheap and can work weekends if you got the $$$
Lol J-money. I like.
Anyways, the way I saw it was your post included skill because you're talking about why people consider themselves 'bad' But, if you say it didn't, lets drop it here.
On March 04 2012 23:39 Murlox wrote: Still, could you please define :
- epistemological (looked for a definition but i didn't make sense when put back in your context) - cornucopia (wtf is that)
Maybe it's the booze talking but I THINK epistemological means "having to do with the structure of the way you approach thinking" or something. So an "epistemological trap" is like a self-reinforcing cognitive thinking-loop. When you play in team games, you FEEL good because you think your wins are due to yourself and your losses are due to stuff that isn't you! in a 1v1 if you lose it's basically your own fault. So what happens is you feel good playing team games, so this faulty logic builds up and makes you feel better, and then you play more team games, and then jargzl the underlord lays a dark finger across your soul, binding you into the team game continuum forever, forsaken by the light, forsworn to become one of his cursed champions until there is no good left in the world. when the final candle is snuffed out you will return to the surface and find it remade not in jargzl's image, but in your own, and holding a mirror to your face you see that in time you have come to resemble him through years of foul depravityjkle;a93901
They say they're bad because they know how good the good players are, and they know serious issues they have in their gameplay. You find this in any competitive field where you have be very self-critical to improve.
On March 04 2012 23:37 Blazinghand wrote: You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
And you seem to be measuring the entire range of SC2 skill as "1v1"?
Traditionally, the only other play mode that is widely considered as indicative of skill is 2v2, because 1v1 and 2v2 (to a much lower degree nowadays) are all that pro gamers play.
Indicative of skill at what, though?
Let's pretend in some fairy tale land Blizzard DotA gets really popular and played professionally somehow. Would you say you're a better StarCraft 2 player than a BDotA pro who gets paid money to play his SC2 custom map, just because you can beat him 1v1 on ladder?
Maybe I'm missing the point of the thread, but it seems weird to me to suggest you're better at SC2 because you can beat UMS players on ladder.
This is true, but all I was saying was that when people talk about 'skill in SC2' I believe they are almost always referring to 1v1 unless specified otherwise, because SC2 1v1 is the current pro standard, not BDotA.
On March 04 2012 23:34 young J wrote: Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
@ young J, I think you're missing the point of this post. The point of this post is that when Master League players say they're bad, it's because they have a different perspective on what "bad" means than what a Plat or Gold player might have. That graph is way off the mark anyways because it only looks at players who play 1v1s. Bronze isn't the lowest league: "doesn't play starcraft 2" is the lowest league, or "doesn't play ladder/melee" or "doesn't play 1v1s" or whatever you determine. For some people, they view the lowest "real" league as Master. Bad is relative. We're all George Thorogood and we're all NesTea.
Edit: Like, the very fact that you're trying to place people into leagues when they don't play 1v1 shows that you've missed the point because I articulated it poorly or something. You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
Why young J?
I was trying to clarify for myself, I don't know anything about SC2 ladder. This post clarified it a lot. I will defend my graph in this case, as there is a relative 0 point before Bronze (the line goes all the way to the axis). I think you misunderstood ME, I never claimed that this was the entire range of skill... Obviously I did not place pro players on this graph lol. So, with those 2 explanations, does this not still fit your description of how skill is distributed according to your post?
This is what I think he's saying in analogy form. Imagine that you are an amateur runner/enthusiast. You run pretty much every single day. Most people chomping down McDonalds in the drive through would probably be panting at the end of a jog through the neighborhood, but you don't compare yourself to people who don't exercise. However, when you compare yourself to other serious runners who are better than you, you will realize that you will never achieve times that would get you in the spotlight.
On March 04 2012 23:34 young J wrote: Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
@ young J, I think you're missing the point of this post. The point of this post is that when Master League players say they're bad, it's because they have a different perspective on what "bad" means than what a Plat or Gold player might have. That graph is way off the mark anyways because it only looks at players who play 1v1s. Bronze isn't the lowest league: "doesn't play starcraft 2" is the lowest league, or "doesn't play ladder/melee" or "doesn't play 1v1s" or whatever you determine. For some people, they view the lowest "real" league as Master. Bad is relative. We're all George Thorogood and we're all NesTea.
Edit: Like, the very fact that you're trying to place people into leagues when they don't play 1v1 shows that you've missed the point because I articulated it poorly or something. You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
Why young J?
I was trying to clarify for myself, I don't know anything about SC2 ladder. This post clarified it a lot. I will defend my graph in this case, as there is a relative 0 point before Bronze (the line goes all the way to the axis). I think you misunderstood ME, I never claimed that this was the entire range of skill... Obviously I did not place pro players on this graph lol. So, with those 2 explanations, does this not still fit your description of how skill is distributed according to your post?
This is what I think he's saying in analogy form. Imagine that you are an amateur runner/enthusiast. You run pretty much every single day. Most people chomping down McDonalds in the drive through would probably be panting at the end of a jog through the neighborhood, but you don't compare yourself to people who exercise. However, when you compare yourself to other serious runners who are better than you and you realize that you will never achieve times that would get you in the spotlight.
I got an account from a friend, so I had to play through all the ranks again. It was quite fun, exactly because gold/platinum/diamond players are so willing to blame the game or their opponent instead of theirselves. I've had players call me a complete noob, because I ''abused'' something. Me as high master/gm player who gets called bad, and abuser by gold players. I sure had a good laugh. People in Master tell themselves they are bad, because they see the obvious and (NUMEROUS) flaws in their play, whilst gold and platinum players don't. They have just become good enough to truly understand how bad they are.
Nice blog, at the start I was like, wtf is he talking about (comparing urself to all non-sc2players :D), but it all gets clear in the end and I totally agree
A player doesn't compare himself with the people below him, but the ones above him (if you can be critical about yourself at least).
That being said, I like what OP is trying to do, but this is something that I at least assumed was the general consensus, that we're all really fucking bad. Even some pros are horrible at the game, heck even the Code S, MLG National, and Dreamhack Champions are bad. 10000000000^10000000 times better than us more casual, but there is so much to be refined.
In BW it would take years to get to a reasonable ladder ranking, I wish it was as hard in sc2.
By the way, ladder position slash league you belong to in SC2 is not a valid way to measure anyone's skill. It really isn't. If it really has to mean something, I'd say one can use it to measure the progress made since a given moment, but to use it to compare players... it sounds silly for me.
Also, getting into masters is already challenging, but you have to realize that most people that get there have the ambitions to improve, and achieving the promotion or one of the top spots there is quite a feat. Hence people, who are concious about their mistakes and faults tend to overcriticize themselves, as they believe that way they can develop a proper mindset with which they should approach the game.
That being said, I like what OP is trying to do, but this is something that I at least assumed was the general consensus, that we're all really fucking bad. Even some pros are horrible at the game, heck even the Code S, MLG National, and Dreamhack Champions are bad. 10000000000^10000000 times better than us more casual, but there is so much to be refined.
In BW it would take years to get to a reasonable ladder ranking, I wish it was as hard in sc2.
You misunderstood the OP too then, like many others ;p
it's about the perspective that a player has, not the actual skills of the player. It's more abstract. That's why he said that graph should gtfo and isn't related at all.
The better you become at Starcraft, the more obvious your lack of understanding becomes. I've always liked comparing it to martial arts. A black belt in a martial art isn't a symbol of your mastery. It's something that other martial artists can look at and say "okay, now he finally has the tools to really start learning."
Most decent Masters players say they're bad because they realize it's true. Learning to macro is just the beginning of the skill tree and I think it's at Masters where people start accumulating a good amount of losses to things that cannot be attributed purely to bad macro. It's when both players start churning out close to the optimal amount of stuff given their build where a lot more strategy and mechanical skills comes into play.
Stuff like positioning, unit composition, multitask, scouting, knowledge on when to attack or defend, micro and build order sudenly becomes way more important in separating yourself from other players.
The leagues are based off active 1v1 players, not active sc2 accounts which you seem to claim?. Allthough that counts everyone playing at least their placement match/matches. In the end master players say they are bad because they play like shit compared to pro's and they know it. edit: i have been guilty of calling myself shit, but thinking about it a master league player calling himself bad is pretty much a dick move towards anyone in leagues lower than him and not really a thing that should be encouraged!
On March 05 2012 00:28 MrBitter wrote: I think you can sum it up like this:
The better you become at Starcraft, the more obvious your lack of understanding becomes. I've always liked comparing it to martial arts. A black belt in a martial art isn't a symbol of your mastery. It's something that other martial artists can look at and say "okay, now he finally has the tools to really start learning."
Wow this is definitely like the condensed version of the OP's post (no offense), but I so happen to be doing English homework and I was wondering when he was going "get to the point" of his blog.
I think a lot of the pro gamers have beat this idea to the ground though, about how they are bad compared to Korean players. Usually it goes like this:
bronze-gold league players: need assistance in understanding the game and are usually stuck in a casual gaming sense until the light bulb turns on.
and then you have the plat/diamond players: trying to find ways to quickly get to master league without actually understanding the game as a whole. So IF they do get to master's league, then they are like "Shit, now what do I do?"
masters/G. masters - As the OP said, they consider themselves bad at the game, because they have a greater grasp of the game's competitive concept. They try to perfect their timing attacks, they analyze replays for hours on end, they attempt to understand the matchup from beginning to end.
Professionals: think of master's/Grandmaster's thought process and MORE. Now we're talking about meta-gaming, adjusting to game patches, constant repetition and practice, custom games with fellow professional gamers to learn their mindset for BoX series.
This is actually very well written and has some good insight into the mindset, It hits home because I often tell people i'm awful and they're like "wtf?".
I think the OP is awesome, because I get your point and can follow your arguments even though I have a completely different opinion. I think that's what really shows a quality argumentation.
Myself, I am gold and pretty ok with being average by definition of all 1v1 players. If I would think I would suck in everything even 0.1% of all people are better than me, I would have used a strong rope already. Think positive
Why play Starcraft, the game populated by the most masochistic bunch of gamers who all collectively wallow in a feeling of self-disgust at how horrible they are, even if they are decent?
I'm in masters league and I am bad, I don't say it to make lower players or the 98% as you put it feel like shit. Simply compared to the best people in the game who we watch on streams and in tournaments daily I am in fact. Bad.
On March 05 2012 01:12 grs wrote: I think the OP is awesome, because I get your point and can follow your arguments even though I have a completely different opinion. I think that's what really shows a quality argumentation.
Myself, I am gold and pretty ok with being average by definition of all 1v1 players. If I would think I would suck in everything even 0.1% of all people are better than me, I would have used a strong rope already. Think positive
I understand your mindset, although I must disagree with your conclusion. Right now, you're in gold league, and you say that you would figuratively kill yourself if you thought you were terrible as a high masters player, I would consider you simply consider this a matter of perspective. currently you're gold, and you don't consider yourself very good, yes? but lets say you continue to play this game, and you eventually get promoted to platinum, why, you've indeed gotten better, but as you get better the holes in your play become more apparent. if you've ever seen a recursive painting, if one zooms in on the focal point of the picture to 100x zoom, it will look like the same picture, and yet to someone at 1x zoom it will look like a distant speck. That zoom is your opinion of your own play, and as you progress that zoom increases, and yet the picture, or your opinion of your play, remains essentially the same, for while you can acknowledge that you can SEE more than you once did, you can also see how much further room there is for improvement. Food for thought...
You know what also sucks? Anyone who plays on NA gets no recognition for being GM, because "the GM system is broken". They don't even get the privelege of thinking they're bad; if anyone says they're GM in NA (actually SEA too, to a greater extent), everyone just shits all over them and says it takes no skill. :/
On March 05 2012 01:12 grs wrote: I think the OP is awesome, because I get your point and can follow your arguments even though I have a completely different opinion. I think that's what really shows a quality argumentation.
Myself, I am gold and pretty ok with being average by definition of all 1v1 players. If I would think I would suck in everything even 0.1% of all people are better than me, I would have used a strong rope already. Think positive
I understand your mindset, although I must disagree with your conclusion. Right now, you're in gold league, and you say that you would figuratively kill yourself if you thought you were terrible as a high masters player, I would consider you simply consider this a matter of perspective. currently you're gold, and you don't consider yourself very good, yes? but lets say you continue to play this game, and you eventually get promoted to platinum, why, you've indeed gotten better, but as you get better the holes in your play become more apparent. if you've ever seen a recursive painting, if one zooms in on the focal point of the picture to 100x zoom, it will look like the same picture, and yet to someone at 1x zoom it will look like a distant speck. That zoom is your opinion of your own play, and as you progress that zoom increases, and yet the picture, or your opinion of your play, remains essentially the same, for while you can acknowledge that you can SEE more than you once did, you can also see how much further room there is for improvement. Food for thought...
an example of a recursive painting,
Yes, I fully agree: that's a matter of perspective; that's what I meant with "Think positive". I have done a lot of competitive sports in my life and I think I was "low master league" in one of them for some time.
At the age of 15 I played table tennis in the highest adolescence league in Germany. It had multiple divisions with about 12 teams of 6 players each, but still it was the highest league at that time. Our team got utterly chrushed and we got demoted a season afterwards, and while I was able to win about 1/3rd of my games, me and really all of us were pretty down after that season and - if recall correctly - we all stopped playing competitively after that year. We considered ourselves terrible (likeminded with the idea of the masters SC2 players from the OP).
This still was the best competitive result I ever had in my life and most of us will never be truly elite in any competition. For me there is a big difference in recognizing, that there are people much better and thinking you are terrible yourself.
Fun fact for everyone - i'm actually the blue Zerg in the second picture.
Blazinghand probe rushed and left me, his only source of defense, to die.
Edit:
On March 05 2012 00:28 MrBitter wrote: I think you can sum it up like this:
The better you become at Starcraft, the more obvious your lack of understanding becomes. I've always liked comparing it to martial arts. A black belt in a martial art isn't a symbol of your mastery. It's something that other martial artists can look at and say "okay, now he finally has the tools to really start learning."
Not sure if you have done martial arts, MrBitter, but coming from someone who has, this statement is 100% correct, and is a very good comparison to the article by BH.
On March 05 2012 00:28 MrBitter wrote: I think you can sum it up like this:
The better you become at Starcraft, the more obvious your lack of understanding becomes. I've always liked comparing it to martial arts. A black belt in a martial art isn't a symbol of your mastery. It's something that other martial artists can look at and say "okay, now he finally has the tools to really start learning."
Not sure if you have done martial arts, MrBitter, but coming from someone who has, this statement is 100% correct, and is a very good comparison to the article by BH.
When you do something more and more, you realize that you need to learn more and more to get better and better. It's not about the actual skill level of a master level player, it's about the horizon that a master level player has.
Off-topic: Mr.Bitter has been doing MMA for... I don't remember correctly... 5 years? Maybe more.
On March 04 2012 23:46 Chef wrote: Meh, it is just people trying to be GM/people who know how much better pros are.
It's a phenomenon known as 'modesty.'
If you think it's "modesty", you're sorely mistaken in the vast majority of cases. It's self-deprecation in an attempt to protect their own ego. If they come out of the gate saying they suck, then that's that.
The fact of the matter is, even people in Diamond are better than most players. It's all relative. Yeah, the skill gap might be a lot higher between high masters and legitimate top players, but the fact remains. It's like saying you suck at chess if you have a 2200 FIDE rating. Well, compared to a few hundred/thousand people, yeah...you do. But you don't suck overall. As a matter of fact, you're quite good. Most people in Masters are afraid to believe/say that because someone can always smack them down. It's one step away from ladder anxiety.
On March 05 2012 01:45 Jitsu wrote: Fun fact for everyone - i'm actually the blue Zerg in the second picture.
Blazinghand probe rushed and left me, his only source of defense, to die.
Edit:
On March 05 2012 00:28 MrBitter wrote: I think you can sum it up like this:
The better you become at Starcraft, the more obvious your lack of understanding becomes. I've always liked comparing it to martial arts. A black belt in a martial art isn't a symbol of your mastery. It's something that other martial artists can look at and say "okay, now he finally has the tools to really start learning."
Not sure if you have done martial arts, MrBitter, but coming from someone who has, this statement is 100% correct, and is a very good comparison to the article by BH.
When you do something more and more, you realize that you need to learn more and more to get better and better. It's not about the actual skill level of a master level player, it's about the horizon that a master level player has.
Off-topic: Mr.Bitter has been doing MMA for... I don't remember correctly... 5 years? Maybe more.
If I could go off in a slightly different direction with this thought, I have a masters degree in music composition, meaning that to the average individual I know a metric ton of shit about music. However, sometime during my masters program I began to realize just how much knowledge I needed to have in order to reach 'competency' (of course my definition for being competent changed during this time as well). The scary thing about this knowledge is just how gargantuan it is. I could sit down in the best music libraries of the world for 8hrs a day for 5 years straight and still not feel as if I had amassed enough knowledge to comfortably call myself a 'master' of my craft.
It's scary once you realize just how much you need to know in order to be truly competent at something.
It's actually quite simple - in relative terms, Masters players are the top 2% of active players, and hence, in layman terms, really should be considered good. The reason why they all call themselves bad is what I call "false modesty". I portraying themselves as "bad", they are actually saying that their opponents are "worse", if they lose to a "bad" player.
Anyways, I quote the part of the blog where I agree mostly. Except that this will not be true at the top levels since alot of pros don't play 100% on the ladder.
On March 04 2012 23:15 Blazinghand wrote: *: "But Blazinghand, ladder isn't representative because blah blah blah blah MMR is broken, allins, noobs, cheese, 7 pool, blah blah blah" -- look dude just stop talking. If you don't think ladder is representative of skill then this blog isn't for you, okay? Just... just get out.
On March 05 2012 00:28 MrBitter wrote: I think you can sum it up like this:
The better you become at Starcraft, the more obvious your lack of understanding becomes. I've always liked comparing it to martial arts. A black belt in a martial art isn't a symbol of your mastery. It's something that other martial artists can look at and say "okay, now he finally has the tools to really start learning."
That's kind of what I've always said. When you reach master (diamond when it was the highest) is when you finally start learning SC2 and improving, before then you're still just learning the very basics.
Calling yourself bad is either to revel in the gloriousness of how difficult Starcraft is, or it's an insult to other players ("if I'm bad, imagine how much worse you are"). It's borderline and there are better ways of putting it. Unless one is unable to grasp the idea that you can be both relatively good at something yet still have much to learn.
And to the OP, you looked at the stats of people that play custom games and discovered they play mostly custom games and team games? That seems like a sound use of statistics.
if they are saying: "i am bad compared to a pro, like you (gold) am bad compared to me (master)."
then maybe that's true. but if they are saying:
i (low tier pro) am bad compared to DRG, like you (bronze) are bad compared to masters."
then i don't think that's true at all. the skill difference between a top-tier pro and a low-tier pro is often one of small things that are more mechanical in nature. most of the time, the low-tier pro has almost as good, if not as good, at understanding of the basic game and all the basic units and builds etc, as a top-tier pro. most bronze players do not have an understanding of even the most basic things about the games.
i think back to when i was a bronze noob. i was utterly convinced that expanding before you mined out your main was stupid. isn't the point of the game to build units? i see some noob with three bases at ten minutes and no units and i crush him with my massive 50 supply army and 22 SCVs. dude is spending money on buildings when i spend money on troops. what an idiot.
then, one fateful day, i decided to see how grandmasters play. this was around the time that Select was number 1 or number 2 on the NA ladder. so i type in "Select SC2" into youtube.
my worldview was shattered. looking back, he probably wasn't even playing that well. he was up against some toss player and he was going basically 100% marauder/medvac. he schooled the toss. i couldn't believe my eyes. he had three bases and a 200 army before i thought it was possible. and what is this crap he's doing that looks like his bio-ball is stutter-stepping? how is that possible? i had just discovered the a-move, i would still usually click my entire army on one troop and then let them duke it out, or just move the army in the general direction of the stuff i wanted to kill and let the comp AI take care of it.
it's an extreme example, but the fact is, there is, in my opinion, a far greater skill/understanding difference between a master's player and a bronze player than there is between a master's player and a grandmaster. probably even between a master and a pro. most bronze players use hotkeys rarely, rarely expand, rarely build beyond 30 SCVs, and rarely micro at all. a lot of them have no clue what "micro and macro" even mean. some of them scout by moving their 200 supply army of thors and BCs out to look for the guys base at 45 minutes. when they find it, it's a-attack and then they get lost trying to drag the screen back to their base so they can click the thor and BC icon because the idea of a locational hotkey never even occurred to them.
if you compare everyone to Michael Jordan, almost everyone is terrible at basketball, even other pros. but that's ridiculous. they aren't terrible at basketball at all. they are extraordinarily good at basketball. if i compare every master to DRG, ok fine they are bad. but that's ridiculous. they are very, very good at the game. they can say, "oh man, i have so much i need to improve" that;s legitimate. but saying they are bad is just straight up untrue, unless they qualify it. the truth is that there is a massive difference between a bronze player and silver player, and a huge difference between a silver player and a gold player. an even bigger difference separates gold from plat. beyond that i don't know because i struggle to get into plat and feel comfortable in gold.
rest easy in the fact that if you are a Master, you are very good at the game. you have probably figured out almost everything there is to figure out. the only thing separating you is probably mechanics and practice. i think the skill difference gets much smaller as you go up, not bigger.
On March 05 2012 04:38 sc2superfan101 wrote: i think it has to be qualified.
if they are saying: "i am bad compared to a pro, like you (gold) am bad compared to me (master)."
then maybe that's true. but if they are saying:
i (low tier pro) am bad compared to DRG, like you (bronze) are bad compared to masters."
then i don't think that's true at all. the skill difference between a top-tier pro and a low-tier pro is often one of small things that are more mechanical in nature. most of the time, the low-tier pro has almost as good, if not as good, at understanding of the basic game and all the basic units and builds etc, as a top-tier pro. most bronze players do not have an understanding of even the most basic things about the games.
i think back to when i was a bronze noob. i was utterly convinced that expanding before you mined out your main was stupid. isn't the point of the game to build units? i see some noob with three bases at ten minutes and no units and i crush him with my massive 50 supply army and 22 SCVs. dude is spending money on buildings when i spend money on troops. what an idiot.
then, one fateful day, i decided to see how grandmasters play. this was around the time that Select was number 1 or number 2 on the NA ladder. so i type in "Select SC2" into youtube.
my worldview was shattered. looking back, he probably wasn't even playing that well. he was up against some toss player and he was going basically 100% marauder/medvac. he schooled the toss. i couldn't believe my eyes. he had three bases and a 200 army before i thought it was possible. and what is this crap he's doing that looks like his bio-ball is stutter-stepping? how is that possible? i had just discovered the a-move, i would still usually click my entire army on one troop and then let them duke it out, or just move the army in the general direction of the stuff i wanted to kill and let the comp AI take care of it.
it's an extreme example, but the fact is, there is, in my opinion, a far greater skill/understanding difference between a master's player and a bronze player than there is between a master's player and a grandmaster. probably even between a master and a pro. most bronze players use hotkeys rarely, rarely expand, rarely build beyond 30 SCVs, and rarely micro at all. a lot of them have no clue what "micro and macro" even mean. some of them scout by moving their 200 supply army of thors and BCs out to look for the guys base at 45 minutes. when they find it, it's a-attack and then they get lost trying to drag the screen back to their base so they can click the thor and BC icon because the idea of a locational hotkey never even occurred to them.
if you compare everyone to Michael Jordan, almost everyone is terrible at basketball, even other pros. but that's ridiculous. they aren't terrible at basketball at all. they are extraordinarily good at basketball. if i compare every master to DRG, ok fine they are bad. but that's ridiculous. they are very, very good at the game. they can say, "oh man, i have so much i need to improve" that;s legitimate. but saying they are bad is just straight up untrue, unless they qualify it. the truth is that there is a massive difference between a bronze player and silver player, and a huge difference between a silver player and a gold player. an even bigger difference separates gold from plat. beyond that i don't know because i struggle to get into plat and feel comfortable in gold.
rest easy in the fact that if you are a Master, you are very good at the game. you have probably figured out almost everything there is to figure out. the only thing separating you is probably mechanics and practice. i think the skill difference gets much smaller as you go up, not bigger.
I'm sorry but you really are nnot getting it. Being masters is NOT "being very good at this game" Being masters is nnot "probably figured out almost everything there is to figure out." The difference between a mid master player and even a mid tier pro is most likely bigger than the difference between a bronze player and a master player. You don't understand just how huge the difference actually is, and how the average mid master player knows literally nothing compared to an actual pro.
can i have some examples of what they don't know? it seems to me that they don't have mechanical skills and are not nearly as refined as pros, but that is a much smaller difference than not knowing even the most basic things about the game.
basically, saying that a decent college basketball player is further away from being MJ than someone who doesn't even know the rules of basketball is from being a decent college BBall player is, in my opinion, flat out untrue.
On March 05 2012 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: can i have some examples of what they don't know? it seems to me that they don't have mechanical skills and are not nearly as refined as pros, but that is a much smaller difference than not knowing even the most basic things about the game.
basically, saying that a decent college basketball player is further away from being MJ than someone who doesn't even know the rules of basketball is from being a decent college BBall player is, in my opinion, flat out untrue.
So you want me to tell you the exact things that I don't know that someone like DRG or nestea or Idra know? Well, if I knew those things and was able to tell them, I would certainly be higher up than mid master. But things like timings, economy management, exact responses to builds etc... The pros notice such subtle things about an opponents timings/building positioning that give clues as to what the opponent is doing that the average master player and commentators don't know and just ignore it. And the basketball analogy is a very bad one. Basketball is a lot more about just reaction and how well you can play with a ball, SC2 is a lot more about using your brain. Your analogy would work if SC2 was only mechanics and no strategy or thinking. In SC2 mechanics are not what separate players most of the time, it's their game knowledge. Like I can tell you that with my bad mechanics if I could have nesteas brain, I would easily be at the very worst a B team player, with my awful mechanics.
It's not even that. It's that ladder has almost no correlation to actual skill. Because of the way BO1 works, as well as the terrible maps that even today still get played, someone who has very little skill can pull a 55% win ratio and move up steadily in MMR til they're in GM, just by doing a couple well executed cheeses (LOL REMEMER BITBYBITPRIME). There's no incentive to have a broad array of skills, builds, and reactions, nor to have a deep understanding of the game.
If you're playing BO1, there's no incentive to have a diverse playstyle. It's not like you're going to see that person again. Only at the very top of the ladder does that occur. You won't see true skill display until you get to BOx matches, and a LOT of them. Again, SC2 is a very fragile game and sometimes really good players lose to really bad players just by luck. It happens in BW too, but SC2 simply more volatile, and so you're going to see an awful lot of that. You cannot gauge skill at all until you see repeated tournament performances. That's why repeated practice with inhouse practices is so important, because it gives good metrics for whether you're actually improving.
It's actually weird. When you do sports, like Tennis, you usually don't think you're awfull for not being as well as Rafael Nadal. In Starcraft, when i look at my play, i will compare it to proplayer's play, even if i try to not do it. And god i'm awfull at this game.
On March 05 2012 06:27 Noocta wrote: It's actually weird. When you do sports, like Tennis, you usually don't think you're awfull for not being as well as Rafael Nadal. In Starcraft, when i look at my play, i will compare it to proplayer's play, even if i try to not do it. And god i'm awfull at this game.
I experience this phenomenon as well.
For SC2, the more you know, the more you know you don't know.
Man I just woke up and wanted to say: I'm so glad I ended this post with Bad to the Bone cause really that's what Sc2 is all about. Just listened to it, and realized that I need to get rid of my alarm clock tone and replace it with Bad to the Bone. What a sexy song.
Mr Bitter has the right of it when he writes about this:
On March 05 2012 00:28 MrBitter wrote: I think you can sum it up like this:
The better you become at Starcraft, the more obvious your lack of understanding becomes. I've always liked comparing it to martial arts. A black belt in a martial art isn't a symbol of your mastery. It's something that other martial artists can look at and say "okay, now he finally has the tools to really start learning."
This is the totally reasonable perspective of someone with a high level understanding of starcraft.
I guess basically what I'm trying to say here is that Master players who call themselves bad aren't insulting everyone else, they just have a different point of view of what bad means, and who they consider themselves to be in competition with. I'm sure hanging out on TL which is basically the home of tryhards everywhere adds to it as well.
Also that graph really has nothing to do with what I'm saying ;_; this is a blog about perspective, not about literal skill. If you want some graphs let me point you towards my reply here.
Why is this a case peculiar to SC2, I wonder? I think I am (or at least was) a good table tennis player, i.e., I could beat the shite out of almost everyone at my school and most other schools, even some dedicated clubs. But hell, I wasn't comparing myself to the top seeded Chinese national players. That's insane; this wasn't my profession.
I'm a good writer, but I'm no Hemingway. In my college days I did well with girls, but I was no Don Juan. A good student, but not in the top 10 of the country.
It seems a strange and depressing world in which you can't be anything but "terrible" unless you are literally one of the top 0.00001% of the people who engage that activity. Obviously, in any endeavour, it's possible to strive and improve, no matter if you're a rank novice or the best in the world. But that basic fact is subtext for every other field; it seems to be shouted from the rooftops here.
Being the top 2% in the world means you're bad? Why not just say "I still have a lot to learn"? There's a line between genuine and false modesty, after all.
I think its more common with bw/sc2 players just because to get to that level of play takes a pretty competitive person and because they are that competitive they will be a lot more harder and honest on themselves. Like I don't play sc2 but I remember in bw getting even a solid d+ on iccup was probably only possible by a minority of the bw community but the people who do get it are usually the more competitive ones so they will realize that the reason most people don't get d+ is just that they don't put in the effort or have the drive. If they did they would have hit d+ so their accomplishment doesn't feel that good. Its like why feel proud of getting d+ when its something that anyone who puts time into it can do but its just that the majority of people don't which is why so little people reach that level.
Well yeah but being good at ANYTHING requires dedication and a good mindset (that hates losing but can deal with setbacks constructively etc.) and it would require a very ignorant starcraft elitist to argue otherwise. Do you think College varsity BBall or football players can get to their level by being slackers or untalented? Its really hard, and they still aren't and probably never will be as good as the best pros. But nobody calls them BAD.
I wonder if in SC2 since you CAN theoretically play against the best in the business (when they're smurfing/laddering anyway) this "modesty" is actually ego in disguise. "Yeah I'm terrible...oh, no, not compared to YOU obviously, I mean I don't have words to describe what your Gold League ass is...but y'see I'm comparing myself to the top Korean Pros. Shucks, I suck."
it takes some sort of acceptance that you're bad and a willingness to improve to get here.
Best quote from the article.
This mind state is something that really really separates players. We've all met the arrogant "high diamond/low masters" who thinks they have an extremely complex understanding of the game, and imbalance/cheese/bad luck is the only thing keeping them from the next league.
That quote represents the mindset that led me from literally bronze league at release, to my biggest SC2 accomplishment: getting matched against (and destroyed by) Liquid'Ret on the ladder.
On March 05 2012 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: can i have some examples of what they don't know? it seems to me that they don't have mechanical skills and are not nearly as refined as pros, but that is a much smaller difference than not knowing even the most basic things about the game.
basically, saying that a decent college basketball player is further away from being MJ than someone who doesn't even know the rules of basketball is from being a decent college BBall player is, in my opinion, flat out untrue.
So you want me to tell you the exact things that I don't know that someone like DRG or nestea or Idra know? Well, if I knew those things and was able to tell them, I would certainly be higher up than mid master. But things like timings, economy management, exact responses to builds etc... The pros notice such subtle things about an opponents timings/building positioning that give clues as to what the opponent is doing that the average master player and commentators don't know and just ignore it. And the basketball analogy is a very bad one. Basketball is a lot more about just reaction and how well you can play with a ball, SC2 is a lot more about using your brain. Your analogy would work if SC2 was only mechanics and no strategy or thinking. In SC2 mechanics are not what separate players most of the time, it's their game knowledge. Like I can tell you that with my bad mechanics if I could have nesteas brain, I would easily be at the very worst a B team player, with my awful mechanics.
let's just say that i'm not surprised that no one here has provided a single specific example of what the pro knows but the rest of us don't. im sure there are some little things that they do that the rest of us don't do, and they are surely on the forefront of developing builds and counters, but i seriously doubt that there is anything as big as the difference between having no idea that you should build more than 22 SCVs.
i think a lot of basketball players would be more than a little annoyed by that statement. maybe not, but then just substitute it with any sport. american football, being a QB for example.
On March 05 2012 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: can i have some examples of what they don't know? it seems to me that they don't have mechanical skills and are not nearly as refined as pros, but that is a much smaller difference than not knowing even the most basic things about the game.
basically, saying that a decent college basketball player is further away from being MJ than someone who doesn't even know the rules of basketball is from being a decent college BBall player is, in my opinion, flat out untrue.
So you want me to tell you the exact things that I don't know that someone like DRG or nestea or Idra know? Well, if I knew those things and was able to tell them, I would certainly be higher up than mid master. But things like timings, economy management, exact responses to builds etc... The pros notice such subtle things about an opponents timings/building positioning that give clues as to what the opponent is doing that the average master player and commentators don't know and just ignore it. And the basketball analogy is a very bad one. Basketball is a lot more about just reaction and how well you can play with a ball, SC2 is a lot more about using your brain. Your analogy would work if SC2 was only mechanics and no strategy or thinking. In SC2 mechanics are not what separate players most of the time, it's their game knowledge. Like I can tell you that with my bad mechanics if I could have nesteas brain, I would easily be at the very worst a B team player, with my awful mechanics.
let's just say that i'm not surprised that no one here has provided a single specific example of what the pro knows but the rest of us don't. im sure there are some little things that they do that the rest of us don't do, and they are surely on the forefront of developing builds and counters, but i seriously doubt that there is anything as big as the difference between having no idea that you should build more than 22 SCVs.
i think a lot of basketball players would be more than a little annoyed by that statement. maybe not, but then just substitute it with any sport. american football, being a QB for example.
Something can be tiny and make a huge difference. A good example is the numerous version of the 1-1-1 that you can polish and perfect, and it's tiny differences (reactor timing, cloack or not, number of raxes, raven or not, timing of the push) which open an infinite amount of possibilities regarding the map, your opponent, your scouting and so on. You seem (without disrepecting you) to ignore the wideness of things a build order can open. It's really mindblowing how you can lose or get a free win if you change some tiny things based on your scouting/knowledge of your opponents. It can seem stupid but how many worker you put on gaz can determine if you'll be able to afford/need a bunker ie.
I think that the more you understand the game, the more you see the wideness available to get advantages just with your builds. And that's related to everything in the game. Yes it's tiny things but there are so many of them that's it just enough to destroy someone who don't know them.
What you're failing to realize is that GM's suck too, on every single server except Korea, MAYBE being top 10 or top 20 EU is an achievement of some sort of skill, but still I doubt it, since all it requires is to ladder enough and bash on the terrible gm's while dodging the true top foreigners.
Anyhow, if you teach someone gold-level or something a simple way to macro up to 100psi in some build and then have them attack, teach them this build over and over, they will get your glorified "masters" cuz thats all it is, is macro, or a build order.
I taught a silver player in 10mins my 3 variations of 2rax, he was rank 3 diamond 2days later using only these builds. This was enough proof for me that the ranks of GM and below(excluding KR/High masters KR) means basically nothing, just means something has more cognitive memory to remember a build and execute it than others, their micro all appears to be the same when i see them play, and their psychology-game are just as awful.
TL;DR everyone is bad except a few players, just depends on if you have the brain/game knowledge to see them for being bad.
On March 05 2012 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: can i have some examples of what they don't know? it seems to me that they don't have mechanical skills and are not nearly as refined as pros, but that is a much smaller difference than not knowing even the most basic things about the game.
basically, saying that a decent college basketball player is further away from being MJ than someone who doesn't even know the rules of basketball is from being a decent college BBall player is, in my opinion, flat out untrue.
So you want me to tell you the exact things that I don't know that someone like DRG or nestea or Idra know? Well, if I knew those things and was able to tell them, I would certainly be higher up than mid master. But things like timings, economy management, exact responses to builds etc... The pros notice such subtle things about an opponents timings/building positioning that give clues as to what the opponent is doing that the average master player and commentators don't know and just ignore it. And the basketball analogy is a very bad one. Basketball is a lot more about just reaction and how well you can play with a ball, SC2 is a lot more about using your brain. Your analogy would work if SC2 was only mechanics and no strategy or thinking. In SC2 mechanics are not what separate players most of the time, it's their game knowledge. Like I can tell you that with my bad mechanics if I could have nesteas brain, I would easily be at the very worst a B team player, with my awful mechanics.
let's just say that i'm not surprised that no one here has provided a single specific example of what the pro knows but the rest of us don't. im sure there are some little things that they do that the rest of us don't do, and they are surely on the forefront of developing builds and counters, but i seriously doubt that there is anything as big as the difference between having no idea that you should build more than 22 SCVs.
i think a lot of basketball players would be more than a little annoyed by that statement. maybe not, but then just substitute it with any sport. american football, being a QB for example.
There are so many things pros know that we don't. For example, how does Protoss punish a Zerg who opens gas instead of no gas? I'm a high master player and I don't have an answer. There must be a way, because every single GSL level Zerg switched over to no gas openings. Yet I doubt you'll find many Protoss players outside of Korea who scout a Zerg opening gas and think "easy win, I'm so glad he didn't open no gas". coLRyze opens gas every game despite it being an outdated style, and I think it's likely because the foreigner metagame is too behind the Korean one for superiority of the no gas opening to make any difference.
On March 05 2012 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: can i have some examples of what they don't know? it seems to me that they don't have mechanical skills and are not nearly as refined as pros, but that is a much smaller difference than not knowing even the most basic things about the game.
basically, saying that a decent college basketball player is further away from being MJ than someone who doesn't even know the rules of basketball is from being a decent college BBall player is, in my opinion, flat out untrue.
So you want me to tell you the exact things that I don't know that someone like DRG or nestea or Idra know? Well, if I knew those things and was able to tell them, I would certainly be higher up than mid master. But things like timings, economy management, exact responses to builds etc... The pros notice such subtle things about an opponents timings/building positioning that give clues as to what the opponent is doing that the average master player and commentators don't know and just ignore it. And the basketball analogy is a very bad one. Basketball is a lot more about just reaction and how well you can play with a ball, SC2 is a lot more about using your brain. Your analogy would work if SC2 was only mechanics and no strategy or thinking. In SC2 mechanics are not what separate players most of the time, it's their game knowledge. Like I can tell you that with my bad mechanics if I could have nesteas brain, I would easily be at the very worst a B team player, with my awful mechanics.
let's just say that i'm not surprised that no one here has provided a single specific example of what the pro knows but the rest of us don't. im sure there are some little things that they do that the rest of us don't do, and they are surely on the forefront of developing builds and counters, but i seriously doubt that there is anything as big as the difference between having no idea that you should build more than 22 SCVs.
i think a lot of basketball players would be more than a little annoyed by that statement. maybe not, but then just substitute it with any sport. american football, being a QB for example.
There are so many things pros know that we don't. For example, how does Protoss punish a Zerg who opens gas instead of no gas? I'm a high master player and I don't have an answer. There must be a way, because every single GSL level Zerg switched over to no gas openings. Yet I doubt you'll find many Protoss players outside of Korea who scout a Zerg opening gas and think "easy win, I'm so glad he didn't open no gas". coLRyze opens gas every game despite it being an outdated style, and I think it's likely because the foreigner metagame is too behind the Korean one for superiority of the no gas opening to make any difference.
This is a really nice example, but also somewhat flawed in saying that opening gas vs Protoss is always bad, it's not always bad, but yes, most of the time it can be.
Anyway another example, there is about literally 15 different ways to react to scouting a 1-1-1 in TvT, each way changes depending on every little detail, if they have 1 or 1 less marine, what time the techlab was placed, did they have to float the port to switch it, when was the reactor made, when was the second gas made, was it a 15oc or 16oc. Most "top foreigner" Terrans dont even know these answers, but I assure you people that are actually serious about the game do.
On March 05 2012 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote: can i have some examples of what they don't know? it seems to me that they don't have mechanical skills and are not nearly as refined as pros, but that is a much smaller difference than not knowing even the most basic things about the game.
basically, saying that a decent college basketball player is further away from being MJ than someone who doesn't even know the rules of basketball is from being a decent college BBall player is, in my opinion, flat out untrue.
So you want me to tell you the exact things that I don't know that someone like DRG or nestea or Idra know? Well, if I knew those things and was able to tell them, I would certainly be higher up than mid master. But things like timings, economy management, exact responses to builds etc... The pros notice such subtle things about an opponents timings/building positioning that give clues as to what the opponent is doing that the average master player and commentators don't know and just ignore it. And the basketball analogy is a very bad one. Basketball is a lot more about just reaction and how well you can play with a ball, SC2 is a lot more about using your brain. Your analogy would work if SC2 was only mechanics and no strategy or thinking. In SC2 mechanics are not what separate players most of the time, it's their game knowledge. Like I can tell you that with my bad mechanics if I could have nesteas brain, I would easily be at the very worst a B team player, with my awful mechanics.
let's just say that i'm not surprised that no one here has provided a single specific example of what the pro knows but the rest of us don't. im sure there are some little things that they do that the rest of us don't do, and they are surely on the forefront of developing builds and counters, but i seriously doubt that there is anything as big as the difference between having no idea that you should build more than 22 SCVs.
i think a lot of basketball players would be more than a little annoyed by that statement. maybe not, but then just substitute it with any sport. american football, being a QB for example.
There are so many things pros know that we don't. For example, how does Protoss punish a Zerg who opens gas instead of no gas? I'm a high master player and I don't have an answer. There must be a way, because every single GSL level Zerg switched over to no gas openings. Yet I doubt you'll find many Protoss players outside of Korea who scout a Zerg opening gas and think "easy win, I'm so glad he didn't open no gas". coLRyze opens gas every game despite it being an outdated style, and I think it's likely because the foreigner metagame is too behind the Korean one for superiority of the no gas opening to make any difference.
This is a really nice example, but also somewhat flawed in saying that opening gas vs Protoss is always bad, it's not always bad, but yes, most of the time it can be.
Anyway another example, there is about literally 15 different ways to react to scouting a 1-1-1 in TvT, each way changes depending on every little detail, if they have 1 or 1 less marine, what time the techlab was placed, did they have to float the port to switch it, when was the reactor made, when was the second gas made, was it a 15oc or 16oc. Most "top foreigner" Terrans dont even know these answers, but I assure you people that are actually serious about the game do.
I really like this. Every once in a while, you will catch a glimpse of one of these things on stream, and it even takes a player with already pretty decent understanding of the MU, and a very high number of games to even be able to notice a variance in build or specific trigger, that is slightly out of the norm or basic BO.
As a mid-masters player myself i think the reason that I think i am bad is because its the truth. Gettingto masters basically means that you can macro quite well, and have a decent knowledge of strategy. Like iamke55 said,
For example, how does Protoss punish a Zerg who opens gas instead of no gas? I'm a high master player and I don't have an answer
For lower tier players the problem is often macro wise. But after learning to macro you've only mastered the first skill that will let you master the others. I think if it as a tree, where the stump is macro (core of your tree) and all the other branches are skills that you have yet to master.
Once you learn to macro, and start getting higher and higher in master league you realize that you need to start finding answers that are based on your own personal expierence, because not very many other people can help you. You play PvT and even though some poeple say protoss is favored, i still regularly get my butt kicked by a skilled terran. They have multiple BFH drops going on and a small force outside of my base just waiting for me to commit to defending his drops so that he can do real damage. If they keep this pressure througought the whole game its quite hard to deal with.
In all sports, thingys that you can get really good at you start improving, climbing the ladder, and it goes well, for awhile. Take sprinting for instance, you can keep running better, faster for years, then you get to a point, where you need to spend x10 as long, to increase by 1/10 as much, and that's when you start to realize how sick the sickest people are, and it kinda hits you.
I think a lot of high masters get frustrated and overwhelmed when they get up there and see "holy shit, the gap is still this big".
Thinking getting to masters and i'll be really really sick, then realizing, crap, I need to get x10 better, and it'll take me x10 as long, fuck!! I really am bad lol.
At least that's how it feels for me, but have gotten much sicker lately letting myself be happy with my preformance even though I deep down feel kinda shit at the game. I had this idea that if I don't cuss or say negative shit when I fuck up, but rather after the game, I don't link playing with something negative, and when I am playing I'm only allowed to give compliments and cheer myself on xD (Much to the people on skype's satisfaction I may add lol)
* Hoho!! This guy doesn't even know what micro's about to occur*
* I'll just send a worker to his base and he'll be occupied for the next 3 minutz lol *
* That's right, this is how you forcefield *
* mm, not one stalker down *
* Pffth, even pro gamers sometimes miss storm their army, just letting him catch up a bit hehe *
* Hah!! It's like I'm related to Hero wtf lol!! *
* Ohhh, no GG, need to hurry and spam GG before I get ignored yay *
Then after the games you can critizise when going through replay and you don't feel that sinking, annoying, frustrated feeling I feel a lot of people give themself, due to being so hard on themselves xD
Onereason that bw or sc2 players have a skewed perspective on skill is the fact that we can play pros whenever we want as long as we're good enough to be matched on ladder. I think if people couldnt play anyone outside of their own city and only occasionally met players from just within their own province or state bianually for a statewide tournament people would have much higher opinions of themselves.
On March 06 2012 08:42 rauk wrote: Onereason that bw or sc2 players have a skewed perspective on skill is the fact that we can play pros whenever we want as long as we're good enough to be matched on ladder. I think if people couldnt play anyone outside of their own city and only occasionally met players from just within their own province or state bianually for a statewide tournament people would have much higher opinions of themselves.
This is part of it. Another part is the "iccup mindset" which allowed only elite players to even become B rank (something which we associate with an average grade). People also tend to dislike being seen as boastful (barring narcissists like combatEX). Another aspect is simply how long this game has been around and how many resources have been available to use to help us improve; for many of us who played bw from near the beginning, we can't even REMEMBER what it was like to be learning this game as a complete noob with no mechanical skill or higher level game knowledge. It has become intuitive to the competitive community.
I've made a couple posts like this before (and I may have expressed myself more eloquently back then), but I'll say it again. I am a high diamond/low masters player right now, and I will never refer to myself as "bad". I think it's frankly disrespectful to the majority of more casual players (and everyone I know IRL who plays that I didn't meet through tl). OF COURSE I'm good at this game. I've put thousands upon thousands of hours into it. I am worse than many, many people on teamliquid, but statistically, I am much better than the "average" starcraft player. That is the best possible measure of what is good and what is bad, not some theoretical model of perfection. You don't see biologists and kinesthesiologists calling olympic runners "bad" because they are not reaching the theoretical limits of their bodies; yet this is how we critique many sc2 GMs.
Edit: I also think this mindset can be rather demoralizing to many people. I think a powerful drive to improve and better oneself can easily exist independently of this sort of negative self-talk. I wouldn't want to see this kind of discourse be interpreted as elitism by newcomers and be one of the reasons why they are too intimidated to 1v1 ladder.
On March 06 2012 08:42 rauk wrote: Onereason that bw or sc2 players have a skewed perspective on skill is the fact that we can play pros whenever we want as long as we're good enough to be matched on ladder. I think if people couldnt play anyone outside of their own city and only occasionally met players from just within their own province or state bianually for a statewide tournament people would have much higher opinions of themselves.
This is part of it. Another part is the "iccup mindset" which allowed only elite players to even become B rank (something which we associate with an average grade). People also tend to dislike being seen as boastful (barring narcissists like combatEX). Another aspect is simply how long this game has been around and how many resources have been available to use to help us improve; for many of us who played bw from near the beginning, we can't even REMEMBER what it was like to be learning this game as a complete noob with no mechanical skill or higher level game knowledge. It has become intuitive to the competitive community.
I've made a couple posts like this before (and I may have expressed myself more eloquently back then), but I'll say it again. I am a high diamond/low masters player right now, and I will never refer to myself as "bad". I think it's frankly disrespectful to the majority of more casual players (and everyone I know IRL who plays that I didn't meet through tl). OF COURSE I'm good at this game. I've put thousands upon thousands of hours into it. I am worse than many, many people on teamliquid, but statistically, I am much better than the "average" starcraft player. That is the best possible measure of what is good and what is bad, not some theoretical model of perfection. You don't see biologists and kinesthesiologists calling olympic runners "bad" because they are not reaching the theoretical limits of their bodies; yet this is how we critique many sc2 GMs.
Edit: I also think this mindset can be rather demoralizing to many people. I think a powerful drive to improve and better oneself can easily exist independently of this sort of negative self-talk. I wouldn't want to see this kind of discourse be interpreted as elitism by newcomers and be one of the reasons why they are too intimidated to 1v1 ladder.
it's also really obvious how bad you are when you look at your own replay and you're banking 1k resources in the midgame, are supply blocked, and aren't even microing or trying to multitask, even though you're masters. being in the top 2% doesn't mean you're executing anything even remotely correctly.
rather than calling all players below masters beyond terrible, i just consider them to not have a firm grasp on the basics of playing RTS.
On March 06 2012 08:42 rauk wrote: Onereason that bw or sc2 players have a skewed perspective on skill is the fact that we can play pros whenever we want as long as we're good enough to be matched on ladder. I think if people couldnt play anyone outside of their own city and only occasionally met players from just within their own province or state bianually for a statewide tournament people would have much higher opinions of themselves.
Well, in brood war you would pretty much never get the chance to play a progamer if you weren't a progamer yourself cuz most of them were/are practicing on LAN inhouse or if u had a really high rank on iccup during the few seasons 2009(?) when alot of progamers were smurfing on iccup. That was something special to play a game against a progamer or just someone well known in general during that time. Now, every sucker out there hit well known players on ladder all the time even if they are really bad at this game, because the ranking system in sc2 is so flawed.
On March 06 2012 08:42 rauk wrote: Onereason that bw or sc2 players have a skewed perspective on skill is the fact that we can play pros whenever we want as long as we're good enough to be matched on ladder. I think if people couldnt play anyone outside of their own city and only occasionally met players from just within their own province or state bianually for a statewide tournament people would have much higher opinions of themselves.
Well, in brood war you would pretty much never get the chance to play a progamer if you weren't a progamer yourself cuz most of them were/are practicing on LAN inhouse or if u had a really high rank on iccup during the few seasons 2009(?) when alot of progamers were smurfing on iccup. That was something special to play a game against a progamer or just someone well known in general during that time. Now, every sucker out there hit well known players on ladder all the time even if they are really bad at this game, because the ranking system in sc2 is so flawed.
Agreed on not playing actual Korean superpros but I think you had a better chance to hit well known foreigners in BW than you do in Sc2. I mean yeah the Sc2 system isn't perfect but it doesn't really entirely reset. I've been mid-masters at best and I assure you I never hit a pro on the ladder. But in iCCup, even though I was just a D scrub, the way the ladder system works makes you have to work your way up from the bottom every few months. I've played a few people who had been formerly A- or so including someone who the old "Who's Who" threads said was Ret !
On March 04 2012 23:34 Jealous wrote: Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
Yes?
tbh even though ur graph misses the point, its not true at all.
i'm masters, and If I make a new account and go through diamond I will go like 20-2 until I hit masters league, the skill difference is REALLY big. that is is I play standard macro games and play cheese-proof.
On March 06 2012 08:42 rauk wrote: Onereason that bw or sc2 players have a skewed perspective on skill is the fact that we can play pros whenever we want as long as we're good enough to be matched on ladder. I think if people couldnt play anyone outside of their own city and only occasionally met players from just within their own province or state bianually for a statewide tournament people would have much higher opinions of themselves.
Well, in brood war you would pretty much never get the chance to play a progamer if you weren't a progamer yourself cuz most of them were/are practicing on LAN inhouse or if u had a really high rank on iccup during the few seasons 2009(?) when alot of progamers were smurfing on iccup. That was something special to play a game against a progamer or just someone well known in general during that time. Now, every sucker out there hit well known players on ladder all the time even if they are really bad at this game, because the ranking system in sc2 is so flawed.
Agreed on not playing actual Korean superpros but I think you had a better chance to hit well known foreigners in BW than you do in Sc2. I mean yeah the Sc2 system isn't perfect but it doesn't really entirely reset. I've been mid-masters at best and I assure you I never hit a pro on the ladder. But in iCCup, even though I was just a D scrub, the way the ladder system works makes you have to work your way up from the bottom every few months. I've played a few people who had been formerly A- or so including someone who the old "Who's Who" threads said was Ret !
the point i was trying to make is that no matter where you are in the world you can play pretty much any pro at your leisure on ladder if you're good enough but if you're a promising young tennis player you can't play nadal/federer/whoever without flying out and being well known enough that they'd even give you a game.
On March 04 2012 23:34 Jealous wrote: Maybe I am not understanding something, but if people don't ladder, how do they get stratified into Gold/Plat/Diamond? Do you mean that it is purely representative of activity (and placement matches I guess)?
If I had to sum up this post in one sentence, it would be: "Until you reach Masters league, mass gaming gives equal results to actual skill, and the actual skill level is still low." In other words, something like this:
Yes?
tbh even though ur graph misses the point, its not true at all.
i'm masters, and If I make a new account and go through diamond I will go like 20-2 until I hit masters league, the skill difference is REALLY big. that is is I play standard macro games and play cheese-proof.
I agree with this as well. There's obviously a big skill difference between top GM's and low GM's, but the former do occasionally lose to the latter if they're off their game that day or they get caught off guard by a certain build. A masters player will almost never lose to a platinum player, and a platinum player will almost never lose to a silver player. The skill gap at the top may be very large if measured by the amount of inherent talent and invested time needed to make it from semi-pro to pro, but if you are measuring by consistency of result, it is much less dramatic. I would say that this was less true for a more mechanically-oriented game like bw.
But I guess this is neither here nor there when debating the central point of the thread.
I haven't played SC2 for a while now but when I did, I would ponder about a build order (for days) against a race and think through the outcomes and try to play a game, then when I played, I'd get matched up against the races i don't want to play against (usually ends up being 5 PvPs in a row). Hell, I tried to do a Bisu style PvZ (Phoenix DT, 4gate 2 archon), but I did not have the ability to utilize it.
Yes I'm bad at SC2 considering i'm only diamond. I know I could be better if I were to play 10 hours every day but I really don't have the time for that (and I don't want to devote so much time). I keep my macro at a good level every game, my micro is horrible, decision making even worse, please don't talk about my multi-tasking and base layouts.
If you're Master league, then you'd probably comparing your play to the SC2 pros you see in tournaments, you understand deep in your heart that you could play like them but your body just can't keep up and that is why you say you're bad.
For a 10 year old top-8 bronze leaguer, his friends might think that he's 'pretty good'.
I haven't played SC2 for a while now but when I did, I would ponder about a build order (for days) against a race and think through the outcomes and try to play a game, then when I played, I'd get matched up against the races i don't want to play against (usually ends up being 5 PvPs in a row). Hell, I tried to do a Bisu style PvZ (Phoenix DT, 4gate 2 archon), but I did not have the ability to utilize it.
Yes I'm bad at SC2 considering i'm only diamond. I know I could be better if I were to play 10 hours every day but I really don't have the time for that (and I don't want to devote so much time). I keep my macro at a good level every game, my micro is horrible, decision making even worse, please don't talk about my multi-tasking and base layouts.
If you're Master league, then you'd probably comparing your play to the SC2 pros you see in tournaments, you understand deep in your heart that you could play like them but your body just can't keep up and that is why you say you're bad.
For a 10 year old top-8 bronze leaguer, his friends might think that he's 'pretty good'.
Yea basically. The better you get the more you realize how bad you are.
From my personal experience from real life friends. It is the platinum/diamond/low master players who play 1v1 regularly that tend to think highly of themselves and want others to take them seriously. The players who truly have potential tend to think they are bad or have huge egos. So from my experience I agree with most of your post. However I can only speak for myself based on what I have seen.
I would think a low masters player that was smart enough to know what exactly holds him back from the ceiling would also understand the inarguable time sink required in reaching that level. They're aware they can't practice 8 hours a day to reach that level in a matter of a few months, and are content to climb casually.
On March 04 2012 23:37 Blazinghand wrote: You're trapped in the contextualization of 1v1 ladder as "the entire range of sc2 skill".
And you seem to be measuring the entire range of SC2 skill as "1v1"?
Traditionally, the only other play mode that is widely considered as indicative of skill is 2v2, because 1v1 and 2v2 (to a much lower degree nowadays) are all that pro gamers play.
2v2 isn't considered indicative of skill... at least not MMR because the skill level is so much lower that there isn't a league high enough to be the same as plat in 1v1.
I tend to fall victim to thinking too good of myself, but it's okay. At least, I play until I lose often and then when i calm down, I adjust and play more.
It's interesting for me, because right now im in the limbo between diamond and masters on EU server. I'm still in diamond because I don't have a stable enough win rate against masters yet, but I play basically exlusively against low-mid masters because as soon as it matches me vs a diamond I win again.
I'm hoping that I can just refine a couple more aspects of my builds and then I will get my promote and can finally consider myself "bad" instead of horrible
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RBHwVl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/jyWm4l.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/NJuEOl.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i41.tinypic.com/bz9j9.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/yR694.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Xieja.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/DdFrF.png)
![[image loading]](http://www.greatfunnypictures.com/pictures/4391-Amazing-Recursive-Painting.jpg)
