|
Just some ramblings about stuff I want people to comment on.
So as of this month i have been playing zerg for exactly a year now, my apm/multitasking is still low, 170 ish, but I am able to most of the time, react correctly in most situations i face, which is how i manage to win at all. When I look at foreign zergs there are several types, the slow/smart zergs: Incontrol/kaaz/testie/mondragon's zvp/crayon, the polish zergs: hullah/paranoid (mass hatch mass drones mass everything don't need hive or most tech), the korean types: midian/day/sen, really good mechanically, set builds, very "clean". In comparison, when I watch the baba, ygclan replays, people such as nsp_destiny, kt.mgw)ggaemo, 7color-raid, etc I feel make really stupid decisions like, really often, even in games they win. Stupid decisions i'm sure most top foreigners wouldn't make. But at the same time they're probably better or equal to most top foreign zergs. Why? Because they click fast and have half a brain. And that's something i'm disappointed about. That so many korean amateuers can be dumb starcraft players, but because they've played the game 8 hours a day for 5 years, they can be good at multitasking and beat someone else who's practiced half the time (foreigners) just by being faster, not smarter. And for a foreigner that wants to become good, he has to be 2x as smart to make up for mechanics.
For example, sorry to pick on you but, Midian, he's both fast and has the foreign brain, and in turn during his prime he was top 3 or maybe even the best amateur zvp/zvt? on west. Yet he's for sure played way less than a lot of koreans. So essentially, I want to make the assumption that in general, most top foreigners are smarter than most top amateur koreans.
In my own case, I know that to become good I either have to be faster or smarter, although i know im probably destined to be a slow zerg. Only way I can get faster is by playing for another year, which i don't want to do. Only way to get smarter is, well, by being smart, learning from random replays and advice from gosus, figuring out things, which I think should be rewarded more than getting raped by retarded 300 apm terrans. Anyways thats my two cents, if starcraft was more strategy and less mechanics, I feel like it would be more fair and rewarding for the people that don't spend ridiculous hours on it while gaining largely nothing. And progamers will have to distinguish themselves more on true innovation, strategy, reaction, than practice. I don't know if i made any sense, im on 0 hour sleep and probably being midianish but right now thats how i feel. comments?
|
Savior is one of the slowest pro-gamers of all time. You just need to find a style to match your significant strengths and progress with it ~_~
Hell savior is not that innovative, but very intelligent in everything he does. His macro/micro, imo, is sub-par when compared to the macro of gorush or the micro of julyzerg. (But it's still damn good though ;P, coming through probably, years of practice.)
IMO, zerg is the race where it requires the most intuition and timing. Starting with that wouldn't be a bad idea.
|
is awesome32277 Posts
I HATE LT.
Always happens the same, i got so used to the new map trends that i play more aggressively and never take care of my cliff in neither 1v1 nor 2v2. So usually i'm winning and i see my cliff dropped and totally covered in turrets + whatever. I feel like banging my head against the walls. I usually just lift or leave the expo and counter.
I HATE LT
|
at the same time, i think it was hot_bid thats said, by being faster, it makes starcraft more of a sport, cuz the pros can do thing we can't do physically, which also makes sense. I guess for any art, you have to put lots and lots of time energy work into it. Or else it would be easy and shallow and anyone can be good at it.
|
why is being smarter superior to being good mechanically?
theyre strengths, those who have both are pros, or very very good. beyond that its a balance. starcraft has become more mechanical so it turns out its better to have good mechanical skills and enough strategy to get by than the other way around.
|
On November 16 2006 12:45 QuietIdiot wrote:
Savior is one of the slowest pro-gamers of all time. You just need to find a style to match your significant strengths and progress with it ~_~
Hell savior is not that innovative, but very intelligent in everything he does. His macro/micro, imo, is sub-par when compared to the macro of gorush or the micro of julyzerg. (But it's still damn good though ;P, coming through probably, years of practice.)
IMO, zerg is the race where it requires the most intuition and timing. Starting with that wouldn't be a bad idea.
IMO savior is just a faster "slow/smart" zerg. He's very very innovative, especially his all gas no lings zvt style. It changed the way zvt is played as much as fe changed tvz. Above that he's gifted at reacting, countering, just intelligent overall, which makes him the best zerg in the world. As for zerg macro, a 160 apm zerg can produce the same amount of units gorush can. What makes a zerg good at macroing is expo timing, drone count, unit management, not apm/multitasking like terran.
|
Baltimore, USA22258 Posts
On November 16 2006 12:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
And progamers will have to distinguish themselves more on true innovation, strategy, reaction, than practice.
They do. When was the last time a purely mechanical player won anything major?
|
For example hullah can get more units with 120 apm than pretty much every other faster zerg. Blackman has sick macro too but hes 400. And also savior is mid 200s apm which is plenty fast.
|
On November 16 2006 12:52 EvilTeletubby wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2006 12:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
And progamers will have to distinguish themselves more on true innovation, strategy, reaction, than practice. They do. When was the last time a purely mechanical player won anything major?
Chojja, whom from his replays vs super, and various vods ive seen him, is i think one of those "dumb" zergs. again in my humble opinion, i think what separates a "dumb" zerg from a "smart" one is zvt, which is all timing reaction builds, not just massing and abusing. That's why chojja and, bad example but suncow are significantly better at zvp than zvt.
edit: zergstory_namoo would be another example
|
also i never experience this frustration more when im tvzing. I lose to a lot of bad zergs simply because i physically can't hotkey, reinforce, macro fast enough. Sure I can start being gay like kouros[fou] but i don't want to play that way
|
I don`t get it. What is this about? You are basically saying if you are decent in bw and low apm player you are always going to get raped by dumb 400 apm player?
Are you training to be pro? If you are then that is something you have to face, and fight against. You have to evolve as a player, and learn, learn, learn. If if was so easy, we all would be pros.
|
On November 16 2006 13:07 zulu_nation8 wrote:
also i never experience this frustration more when im tvzing. I lose to a lot of bad zergs simply because i physically can't hotkey, reinforce, macro fast enough. Sure I can start being gay like kouros[fou] but i don't want to play that way
being able to hotkey/reinforce/macro is a skill. you're losing because you're not good enough.
i dont know why people value strategy more than mechanics. you need both to play this game.
|
On November 16 2006 12:40 zulu_nation8 wrote:
Only way I can get faster is by playing for another year, which i don't want to do.
so you basically want to become better but you dont want to work for it.
if thats your attitude i dont know why the hell you were flaming the guy who made the 'General BW' thread, bcuz that guy had good intentions while this whiny little thread of yours is just a waste of space.
|
|
|
Braavos36387 Posts
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few.
|
Braavos36387 Posts
bump because this thread was reopened
someone should change the title to "true value of strategy" or something
edit: and to steve, the guy asked that his thread be reopened, check the closed
|
Valhalla18444 Posts
or "hot bid has serious pull with the mods"
big man around here
|
Sigh..
There people go again thinking that savior or oov are slow players because others have higher apm. All actions do not take equal amount of time. There, now you know! Nada can press 2345623456 twice when savior has selected one of hatcheries at an expansion and built drones and order them to mine, but what did nadas move accomplish with more APM compared to that one of savior? Savior progresses strategically and financially in his gameplan, while Nada only makes use of the resources he has at the moment. Thus Savior progresses faster in the game compared to Nada.
I'll agree though that a guy like Nada has a bit faster hands and fingers than Savior or oov, but he doesn't get much benefit from it the way he usually plays.
It's also not about brains. It's about preference. All progamers know how you win games, just like all mediocre players. You get more money, more units and tech faster use them better than your opponent etc. The difference is the amount of time they spend doing what and when, and this is from comfort. What they like to do and feel safe with and second nature to them they stick with.
Savior is NOT slow. LOL!
Or do you guys think a player like goodfriend is 30% faster than him and oov as well? Get real!
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
haha I'm the one who made the General BW thread.
Ugh, I feel so far behind everyone who's been playing so much longer than me. #__<
I realize now from talking to a lot of TL members that I have so many things to work on. My main problem currently (I think) is dealing with pressure. Even if I'm a casual player, I'm sure I'll get better over time ^^;
|
On November 16 2006 12:48 IdrA wrote:
why is being smarter superior to being good mechanically?
theyre strengths, those who have both are pros, or very very good. beyond that its a balance. starcraft has become more mechanical so it turns out its better to have good mechanical skills and enough strategy to get by than the other way around.
I think this pretty much sums it up. Sad but true.
|
On November 17 2006 14:30 infinity21 wrote:
haha I'm the one who made the General BW thread.
Ugh, I feel so far behind everyone who's been playing so much longer than me. #__<
I realize now from talking to a lot of TL members that I have so many things to work on. My main problem currently (I think) is dealing with pressure. Even if I'm a casual player, I'm sure I'll get better over time ^^;
of course you'll get better over time. just have to keep playing.
|
On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few.
But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level.
|
For example if Chojja was given the task to create a zvt build to counter oov's fe he would feel stupid because he wouldn't be able to do it. Whereas savior did the same thing and came up with the most perfect anti fe build there is down to every larva.
|
but if every pro has the same mechanics, then something else must be separating the top players from the rest? this contradicts with what you were saying earlier about players winning purely on mechanics.
|
On November 17 2006 14:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:
For example if Chojja was given the task to create a zvt build to counter oov's fe he would feel stupid because he wouldn't be able to do it. Whereas savior did the same thing and came up with the most perfect anti fe build there is down to every larva.
then thats a good thing isn't it? this is the same thing you were frustrated about earlier, saying that mechanics is outplaying strategy, but you're giving a good example of how smarter play wins.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level.
I don't think your APM is your problem Zulu.. people like iloveoov have APM in the low 200s and he owned everyone with his hand speed. 170 should be sufficient for a casual gamer, imo. We see people with high APM losing to people with low APM all the time. NaDa, with his 400+ APM only wins about 65% of his games (not sure. can anyone confirm this?) and I'm sure some of those 35% had 200 APM.
Maybe you're just feeling depressed because you're in a slump or something. I'm sure you're a good player from reading some of your threads, so keep at it and good luck.
Though I also think that people should just use what they're exceptionally good at. For example, Xellos, with his 300+ APM, can attack 4 different Zerg expansions to make it really hard for the Zerg to defend everything. Some others may be content just making it a macro war. In the end, I think it really comes down to abusing personal strengths & other people's weaknesses.
|
Braavos36387 Posts
On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level.
this is not true. the game is evolving. basketball has been around what, a half century? while BW only a few years at true pro competition level?
after 50 years of game development and starleagues do you think everyone would be able to achieve pro level multitasking? esp if the progamers were being paid $10-15 million per year?
obviously this won't happen, but hypothetically the technical gap could be just as large, we just haven't seen it yet.
|
On November 17 2006 14:42 YoUr_KiLLeR wrote:
but if every pro has the same mechanics, then something else must be separating the top players from the rest? this contradicts with what you were saying earlier about players winning purely on mechanics.
I think they have nearly the same mechanics, but Chojja wins because he's a multitasking machine, he's very fluid even by pro standards. ZvZ it's whoever executes the best wins, so naturally he's godly at it. ZvP is easy so he doesn't suck at it. ZvT you have to adapt, react, use smart builds, and thus it is his worst matchup. I'm not a big stats guy but I'm sure if you look at chojja's record vs good, smart terrans its probably awful. I respect chojja because he's probably the only zerg who can pull off stuff like, late game dropping three places at once with defilers/lurkers and swarming, plaguing buildings, while attacking a fourth place when toss/terran has his hands full. But other than he stands for everything in bw i'm not.
|
On November 17 2006 14:57 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level. this is not true. the game is evolving. basketball has been around what, a half century? while BW only a few years at true pro competition level? after 50 years of game development and starleagues do you think everyone would be able to achieve pro level multitasking? esp if the progamers were being paid $10-15 million per year? obviously this won't happen, but hypothetically the technical gap could be just as large, we just haven't seen it yet.
I think BW has achieved a level where big progress cannot be made anymore (on pro level of course). Take the preliminaries for example, rookies were beating established progamers everywhere, to quote Garimto, the gap between rookies and established pros is non-existant (of course this is an overstatement, but the gap _is_ very small).
Moreover, everyone's style is more or less the same now. If I was to give you a vod of the Terran top 20, I'm positive you wouldn't be able to tell me which player is playing which game. Zerg's the same, heck even Mingu had acceptable muta harass in his games against Xellos. Protoss is the only race where most players still have their distinctive style.
This is the reason why I believe BW is eventually going to die, the potential progress that can be made is too small.
|
Braavos36387 Posts
it was a hypothetical, assuming that bw is a professional sport with the appropriate skill depth
also, i think they can introduce new concepts, like randomly generated maps (pros would get like 10 minutes to look at it then they play) or other stuff like that
|
On November 17 2006 14:57 Hot_Bid wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level. this is not true. the game is evolving. basketball has been around what, a half century? while BW only a few years at true pro competition level? after 50 years of game development and starleagues do you think everyone would be able to achieve pro level multitasking? esp if the progamers were being paid $10-15 million per year? obviously this won't happen, but hypothetically the technical gap could be just as large, we just haven't seen it yet.
In terms of american sports yea, every year athletes get stronger and faster. But is that truely what you want? More guys like preston wilson couple years back hitting .220 with 35 home runs while hitting into double plays every other at bat? Or guys like Nomar before wrist injury who are truly gifted hitters. At the pro level of starcraft it is very balanced as only the smartest/most talented players win while we get the occasional chojja. But at amateur levels which isn't really that amateur I think it's unfair cuz its koreans who are like say, stupid 7'2 bosnians who can only rebound and score on putbacks being better at basketball than 6'10 undersized centers who can shoot, pass, have court vision, but is too slow and unathletic. Although if the undersized centers take steroids or play 8 hours a day, he can become athletic too and dominate.
|
On November 17 2006 14:51 infinity21 wrote:
...In the end, I think it really comes down to abusing personal strengths & other people's weaknesses.
I agree entirely. at the pro level and at the higher amatuer levels, the weaknesses are less severe and not as easily exploited. the pros that have the least amount of weakness are the ones that are more dominant. oov is the best example because during his reign as being unstoppable, his gameplay was solid all around(he barely had weaknesses in his play).
|
basically to make it simpler, using soccer as an analogy. Brazil is better than england at soccer not because the people there play more, but because of their culture, the way they think, their teachings, their system, etc. Which is beautifully balanced and completely fair. But on the other hand, Korea is better than Poland at starcraft for the one and only reason that they're exposed to it more, they play the game more often.
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 17 2006 15:38 zulu_nation8 wrote:
basically to make it simpler, using soccer as an analogy. Brazil is better than england at soccer not because the people there play more, but because of their culture, the way they think, their teachings, their system, etc. Which is beautifully balanced and completely fair. But on the other hand, Korea is better than Poland at starcraft for the one and only reason that they're exposed to it more, they play the game more often.
I don't know, is that such a bad thing? When I created my infamous "General BW" thread, everyone at TL told me: play more games. You can't become a professional StarCraft player without playing thousands and thousands of games and spending countless hours studying strategies / creating your own strategy. Development of mechanics is a big part of the game. You're just being selfish by trying to take away from the people who literally spent thousands of hours into StarCraft and rewarding those who think more.
It may sounds harsh but, it's just the rule of life. What you get back is directly proportional to the amount of time you put into it. You seem "frustrated" as the thread states. Just relax and don't compare so much. Perhaps you're just thinking too much. Try to remember the time when you first started playing StarCraft and find the joy that you felt back then.
|
yes but my point is that you can get good by ONLY playing thousands and thousands of games but being a dumbass at the same time. In football, many lower division players have probably played the same amount of football in their lives compared to say the likes of Ryan Giggs, however they're not as good as he is because they're just naturally less talented.
|
On November 17 2006 14:51 infinity21 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2006 14:37 zulu_nation8 wrote:On November 16 2006 15:26 Hot_Bid wrote:
i think this was a good discussion and probably shouldn't have been closed because the thread creator said so.
i just think your expectations have to be adjusted to meet the growing skill level among the pros. the definition of "slow" and "fast" as well as "pro" and "amateur" has just changed. the base level of speed required to be “good” has increased.
compare it to basketball, for instance… a decade or two ago most guards were barely taller than six feet, then came magic johnson and now look, we have guys like lebron who is 6’8” and can play guard. its evolution as the field gets better. there are just more players that can play with 250-300+ apm.
"strategy" is simply a word that is overvalued by people incapable of having the technical skills. for instance, i can be a physics expert, know the perfect technique to kick a soccer ball, and the perfect strategies for soccer offense and defense, but i’ll never be able to play as good as pele without the actual ability.
yes some pros are stupid and make dumb decisions, but is it easier to teach them a new strategy or whatever or is it easier for you to suddenly have 300 apm? i think that’ll answer your question about which is truly more valuable.
the POS coach when TL interviewed him a while back said that progaming development now is about finding fast guys, not strategically sound guys because strategy can always be taught. you can’t teach speed. yes you can get faster slowly but there’s a cap for most people.
nowadays, the speed seems to be a prerequisite, and strategy, practice and intuition get you to become great.
edit: and if you don't have that baseline speed, you can't really be even "very good." yes i know there are a few exceptions but they are very, very few. But the thing is though, unlike basketball, near perfect multitasking is achievable by nearly EVERYONE that was born with above 100 IQ. You can be 200 apm and have near perfect, pro level multitasking, or you can be 400 like nada and have pro multitasking. Every progamer has pretty much the same level of mechanics. But I can say many aren't born with the intelligence whether to be strategically dominant or hard working to compete at the highest level. I don't think your APM is your problem Zulu.. people like iloveoov have APM in the low 200s and he owned everyone with his hand speed. 170 should be sufficient for a casual gamer, imo. We see people with high APM losing to people with low APM all the time. NaDa, with his 400+ APM only wins about 65% of his games (not sure. can anyone confirm this?) and I'm sure some of those 35% had 200 APM. Maybe you're just feeling depressed because you're in a slump or something. I'm sure you're a good player from reading some of your threads, so keep at it and good luck. Though I also think that people should just use what they're exceptionally good at. For example, Xellos, with his 300+ APM, can attack 4 different Zerg expansions to make it really hard for the Zerg to defend everything. Some others may be content just making it a macro war. In the end, I think it really comes down to abusing personal strengths & other people's weaknesses.
u dont need to be a 300+ apm but 170 is kinda low~ =(
i think that first u need to have a minimum apm (to not lose to a 500+ dumb player)
after that u can think about strategies..
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 17 2006 15:56 zulu_nation8 wrote:
yes but my point is that you can get good by ONLY playing thousands and thousands of games but being a dumbass at the same time.
Ok, now I see your point. And I do agree, what you say is completely true. But again, is that such a bad thing? I'll generalize BW into two categories: strategy and mechanics.
My understanding of StarCraft is limited, but this is what I think. You can be a good player with good strategy & acceptable mechanics. You can also be a good player with by-the-book strategies & great game mechanics. However, you will never become an elite player without being great at both.
I believe it was Garimto who said "Sense of Star". Without that instinct, that perfect understanding of the game-flow, you can never get to the top. I read in an article once that lots and lots of rookies are at the same level as experienced players. What separates NaDa and Boxer from your dumbass 300 APM amateur (sorry more like 500) is not game mechanics, but the "sense of star", their distinct game style that they excel at and makes them unique, and their experience.
Yes, some "dumbasses" may be really good at StarCraft, but that's because they practiced a lot, and frankly, it (i.e. game mechanics) is what they're good at. Perhaps they're just not naturally good with strategy. As I've said above, it's abusing your strengths. There is a reason why you still manage to win. You are superior to the opponent in something, most likely strategy.
To really simplify this, one might say:
StarCraft skills = strategy + mechanics
If you don't want to develop your mechanics, try to go for a better strategy that suits you best, or try to increase your understanding of the dynamic flow of the game.
edit: Well, at the amateur level, I really think 170 APM would be sufficient if you have near perfect efficiency (i.e. not clicking like 5 times, but clicking once and doing something else in that time)
|
I once tried not spamming a single time in the beginning, which my apm is usually around 450 if I do spam, and I restrained my spamming the whole 25 minute game and my overall high apm was 170. What this means is that your apm does not have to be 200, but you will have to be able to multitask like hell in midgame, going everywhere in the screen. So in one sense you need to be fast, you're right, but your apm doesn't have to be higher. Some spamming methods produce far higher apm than even the way NaDa does it. For example, I have very old reps of me where I had 450-500 apm in 20 minute games, but this is when I was entirely focused on spamming, and the way I was spamming it was 60% hotkeys and I would constantly keep hotkeying my hatcheries holding down the control button often and doing 565656. Now, mine is 300 flat.
What I'm saying is that if you want to increase APM you can do it if you want to sacrifice your brain to just focus on moving your hands and macroing constantly. Koreans have always been doing this, yet Savior in my eyes actually uses his brain in zvt and zvp to a point where you go like "wow this guy's perfect." You have to focus on 1 thing only and then combine both your brain and your apm to improve your game. It's like practicing the violin or music, you don't just throw everything together.
There was a point where when people saw me in bwchart they would always wonder about my apm highness, but I wasn't confident in my game until Savior showed me how important it is to play mind tricks on the opponent and justify the production of your larva and even managing your economy and predicting proxies. By the way I'm korean but I was born in America so trust me I really dont' think I inherintly got high apm. After all, I was a huge UMSer and a CSer and a big game hunters person before lost temple. I didn't even hotkey in sc for like 3 years.
|
On November 17 2006 14:41 zulu_nation8 wrote:
For example if Chojja was given the task to create a zvt build to counter oov's fe he would feel stupid because he wouldn't be able to do it. Whereas savior did the same thing and came up with the most perfect anti fe build there is down to every larva.
Actually... you're wrong and thinking in short trends. Chojja DID come up with an anti-oov build. KTF started using fast hive/defiler. Think of how much the game has evolved in 1 years time... 2005 Oov was still dominating with his FE builds... And no SL Champ is stupid. Chojja figured out RH3 like the back of his hand and owned it.
You wanna see stupid? Watch Mumyung vs Soul Toss in recent STX vs SKT1. You underestimate the strategic superiority of pros, sure it's mechanical to a certain aspect but everything is "mechanical"... just because you don't see queen rushes or stupid rushes like that doesn't mean the games strategy is gone.
I think you should watch more VODs... because I still don't understand where you are coming from. Everyone has SICK macro and SICK micro nowadays but if you want some examples of smart and unique play etc..
check out...
Casy vs Never_V_ - Casy still has the sickest TvT around, it's aggresive and ends games at 20 minutes unless you are top 5 TvT's in existance. His timing and build, and his read on his opponant is gross. He knows the consequences of every build and knows how to attack and when. Does this make him mechanical? No... it makes him superior to you in terms of SC understanding. Just because they know a counter and do it doesn't make them mech like.
LuxuryGsP vs Canata - Canata plays a very cool game on Arcadia reading Luxury's main gameplan like a book, but Luxury goes about outplaying Canata for another 20 minutes to snatch a win. Unorthodox play until the late game, where Luxury chooses better options and wins.
Etc etc... To say the game has become mechanical is to say the Pro's macro has become near perfect, which is pretty true. Not a huge macro gap nowadays, but timing attacks execution is still skill and strategy.
To say the game has stopped evolving because Savior has created a monster build order is... to me. short sighted.
People were saying the same stupid Nonsense when Oov was dominating everyone with "The Age of Micro has Ended" but... excuse me... Define Anytime and Casy for me... they are great Micro heavy users. Then with Nada's age, it was the same nonsense.... but I just can't be convinced. What seems perfect now will become yesterday's story sooner or later.
Think of how much Nada himself has evolved while keeping his own unique style.
Or how someone like TT actually does ok in SL... or Rainbow?
Even people like Iris and GF have shown innovation and non mechanical play quite often, especailly nowadays.
Pros themselves say nowadays you can't play mechanical and win. Savior is just sublime on an unfathomable level but he does his build order because terrans always try the same shit vs him. It took progamers a year to figure out how to stop Oov's build. Now it's Savior's turn.
|
Your knowledge of the game is the limit of your skills, but to get to that limit you must improve your speed/multitasking..
I always losed to a guy who had less strategy than me and less vision of the game flow, but nevertheless he won everytime we played because he was able to pull things better.
Time passed and now i beat him. Why? because i watched more reps and studied the game more, therefore i could aim higher.
|
I will watch more vods definitely, but what you say I am not arguing against. The casy game is an example of winning with smarts, not mechanical ability. At the pro level say in the OSL, no one loses because they have worse mechanics, it's all strategy and that's why progaming is so great. My frustration is with the amateur level where not everyone practices so much.
With that said I do recall one game i've seen that showed a difference in mechanical skill. Sea.Jy vs Boxer for dual league I believe, it was the osl where boxer lost to shinhwa. Jy and boxer were on equal footing until boxer started attacking.. and attacking and attacking, jy couldn't keep up and was slowly losing and then a dropship lands in his main. That was when you could see Jy was outclassed. But at that time he was a fresh rookie that was just getting on tv.
What I would like though is for you to recommend me some games where chojja plays "smart" zvt. I've seen the game vs oov on rush hour, it was a hive defiler rush. I hardly consider that a counter because it's too low eco.
|
Well... Chojja has always been an enigma to me and you know i'm not his fan. Chojja's RH3 games were usually pretty smart. His Guardian positioning, his fast hive usage, the way he ran terrans around on that map.... but to call Chojja stupid is going a lil far. Sure he's lame and boring, but stupid is mumyung. You can truly see the difference in understanding of the game between those two.
At amateur level, maybe they do have perfect mechanics through practice and the only thing that makes them not pro is stupidity, but I think you overlook a lot of smarts that players use and just say it's mechanical.
And it wasn't just the hive defiler rush. It was that plus utilizing the map to gain a lot of time.
Also Check out Much vs Reach. Reach shoulda raped Much but Much pulls a Kingdom on Reach AGAIN.. it was definately a LOL moment. Go Much~ He's the best 'new' toss in awhile.
|
You're just jealous that you don't have their apm! XD
JkJk  Mechanics seems alot easier to improve than playing smart. I guess if you're lazier than its easier to improve playing smart because playing faster requires alot more effort, but personally for me playing smart seems impossible but the mechanics part is easy to improve.
|
United States5262 Posts
Yay I thought this thread had a really good point to discuss. Gogogo keep discussing so I can become gosu like all y'all.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
