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.
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)
