|
I really just think the key difference is the concept of them taking it more seriously back then. They consider 20 games "a ton" in today's era. 10+ games is a massive difference. They just played more back then.
But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical.
|
On September 09 2019 21:44 SuGo wrote:
I really just think the key difference is the concept of them taking it more seriously back then. They consider 20 games "a ton" in today's era. 10+ games is a massive difference. They just played more back then.
But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical.
Since most of the players are the same players that were around during KeSPA era but almost 10 years older, I don't think one can argue that they have more "potential" than they did 10 years ago.
|
On September 09 2019 23:10 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 21:44 SuGo wrote:
I really just think the key difference is the concept of them taking it more seriously back then. They consider 20 games "a ton" in today's era. 10+ games is a massive difference. They just played more back then.
But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical. Since most of the players are the same players that were around during KeSPA era but almost 10 years older, I don't think one can argue that they have more "potential" than they did 10 years ago.
What I'm saying is, even today with a much lesser degree of practice, they're still very competitive. It's not like back then they were Gods and now they're mere mortals. They're still "Gods" today, too. My point is - even with much less dedication, they're still in the same playing field. It's because they retained most of this skill / new meta / whatever else. It's not like Zero today is 10x worse than he was 10 years ago, maybe he's 0.2x worse (marginally worse; using some arbitrary numbers as an example here). More or less, he's maintained himself while playing less but leveraging his raw skills to continue his domination.
You couple this with the same dedication of the past, and they very likely could pass their former selves. This is why I say in the current era they have more potential and a higher raw skill threshold. Once again, a lot of this turns into hypothetical and "what-if" scenarios.
|
On September 09 2019 23:40 SuGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 23:10 Jealous wrote:On September 09 2019 21:44 SuGo wrote:
I really just think the key difference is the concept of them taking it more seriously back then. They consider 20 games "a ton" in today's era. 10+ games is a massive difference. They just played more back then.
But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical. Since most of the players are the same players that were around during KeSPA era but almost 10 years older, I don't think one can argue that they have more "potential" than they did 10 years ago. What I'm saying is, even today with a much lesser degree of practice, they're still very competitive. It's not like back then they were Gods and now they're mere mortals. They're still "Gods" today, too. My point is - even with much less dedication, they're still in the same playing field. It's because they retained most of this skill / new meta / whatever else. It's not like Zero today is 10x worse than he was 10 years ago, maybe he's 0.2x worse (marginally worse; using some arbitrary numbers as an example here). More or less, he's maintained himself while playing less but leveraging his raw skills to continue his domination. You couple this with the same dedication of the past, and they very likely could pass their former selves. This is why I say in the current era they have more potential and a higher raw skill threshold. Once again, a lot of this turns into hypothetical and "what-if" scenarios.
Ah, okay, I thought you meant that they had more potential to be even greater than they did when they were younger and in teamhouses. So, like, if in the team houses they were "x" and had potential to be 1.3x, but now they have potential to be 1.5x.
|
On September 09 2019 23:51 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 23:40 SuGo wrote:On September 09 2019 23:10 Jealous wrote:On September 09 2019 21:44 SuGo wrote:
I really just think the key difference is the concept of them taking it more seriously back then. They consider 20 games "a ton" in today's era. 10+ games is a massive difference. They just played more back then.
But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical. Since most of the players are the same players that were around during KeSPA era but almost 10 years older, I don't think one can argue that they have more "potential" than they did 10 years ago. What I'm saying is, even today with a much lesser degree of practice, they're still very competitive. It's not like back then they were Gods and now they're mere mortals. They're still "Gods" today, too. My point is - even with much less dedication, they're still in the same playing field. It's because they retained most of this skill / new meta / whatever else. It's not like Zero today is 10x worse than he was 10 years ago, maybe he's 0.2x worse (marginally worse; using some arbitrary numbers as an example here). More or less, he's maintained himself while playing less but leveraging his raw skills to continue his domination. You couple this with the same dedication of the past, and they very likely could pass their former selves. This is why I say in the current era they have more potential and a higher raw skill threshold. Once again, a lot of this turns into hypothetical and "what-if" scenarios. Ah, okay, I thought you meant that they had more potential to be even greater than they did when they were younger and in teamhouses. So, like, if in the team houses they were "x" and had potential to be 1.3x, but now they have potential to be 1.5x.
Exactly. If they were "2x" back in 2008 and in 2019, they're 1.8x (so marginally worse). But in 2023, if they worked just as hard as they did in 2008, they might be able to become 2.2x instead (so marginally better). The potential is there, but the dedication isn't there to unlock it. So I don't necessarily feel they're worse, it's just a matter of the circumstance and their own life choice.
|
On September 10 2019 00:56 SuGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2019 23:51 Jealous wrote:On September 09 2019 23:40 SuGo wrote:On September 09 2019 23:10 Jealous wrote:On September 09 2019 21:44 SuGo wrote:
I really just think the key difference is the concept of them taking it more seriously back then. They consider 20 games "a ton" in today's era. 10+ games is a massive difference. They just played more back then.
But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical. Since most of the players are the same players that were around during KeSPA era but almost 10 years older, I don't think one can argue that they have more "potential" than they did 10 years ago. What I'm saying is, even today with a much lesser degree of practice, they're still very competitive. It's not like back then they were Gods and now they're mere mortals. They're still "Gods" today, too. My point is - even with much less dedication, they're still in the same playing field. It's because they retained most of this skill / new meta / whatever else. It's not like Zero today is 10x worse than he was 10 years ago, maybe he's 0.2x worse (marginally worse; using some arbitrary numbers as an example here). More or less, he's maintained himself while playing less but leveraging his raw skills to continue his domination. You couple this with the same dedication of the past, and they very likely could pass their former selves. This is why I say in the current era they have more potential and a higher raw skill threshold. Once again, a lot of this turns into hypothetical and "what-if" scenarios. Ah, okay, I thought you meant that they had more potential to be even greater than they did when they were younger and in teamhouses. So, like, if in the team houses they were "x" and had potential to be 1.3x, but now they have potential to be 1.5x. Exactly. If they were "2x" back in 2008 and in 2019, they're 1.8x (so marginally worse). But in 2023, if they worked just as hard as they did in 2008, they might be able to become 2.2x instead. The potential is there.
I really don't think so - first of all, the motivation is not there. Second of all, the support is not there (coaching, teamhouse practice partner structure, ajumma cleaning and cooking for you, etc.). Third of all, as ZerO said, they are simply older - as we get older, reaction times get slower, life priorities shift, etc.
Overall, this has become very much a consumer market in the sense that streamers' #1 priority is attracting daily viewers and donations. While winning tournaments does that, for every player that doesn't have a chance at winning one, it makes more sense to go the crowd-pleasing route a la Britney. So, the pyramid that was present in KeSPA era (practice partners, B-teamers, A-teamers, S class players, with each group trying to advance to the next level) is simply not there for most streamers IMO.
|
On September 10 2019 01:00 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2019 00:56 SuGo wrote:On September 09 2019 23:51 Jealous wrote:On September 09 2019 23:40 SuGo wrote:On September 09 2019 23:10 Jealous wrote:On September 09 2019 21:44 SuGo wrote:
I really just think the key difference is the concept of them taking it more seriously back then. They consider 20 games "a ton" in today's era. 10+ games is a massive difference. They just played more back then.
But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical. Since most of the players are the same players that were around during KeSPA era but almost 10 years older, I don't think one can argue that they have more "potential" than they did 10 years ago. What I'm saying is, even today with a much lesser degree of practice, they're still very competitive. It's not like back then they were Gods and now they're mere mortals. They're still "Gods" today, too. My point is - even with much less dedication, they're still in the same playing field. It's because they retained most of this skill / new meta / whatever else. It's not like Zero today is 10x worse than he was 10 years ago, maybe he's 0.2x worse (marginally worse; using some arbitrary numbers as an example here). More or less, he's maintained himself while playing less but leveraging his raw skills to continue his domination. You couple this with the same dedication of the past, and they very likely could pass their former selves. This is why I say in the current era they have more potential and a higher raw skill threshold. Once again, a lot of this turns into hypothetical and "what-if" scenarios. Ah, okay, I thought you meant that they had more potential to be even greater than they did when they were younger and in teamhouses. So, like, if in the team houses they were "x" and had potential to be 1.3x, but now they have potential to be 1.5x. Exactly. If they were "2x" back in 2008 and in 2019, they're 1.8x (so marginally worse). But in 2023, if they worked just as hard as they did in 2008, they might be able to become 2.2x instead. The potential is there. I really don't think so - first of all, the motivation is not there. Second of all, the support is not there (coaching, teamhouse practice partner structure, ajumma cleaning and cooking for you, etc.). Third of all, as ZerO said, they are simply older - as we get older, reaction times get slower, life priorities shift, etc. Overall, this has become very much a consumer market in the sense that streamers' #1 priority is attracting daily viewers and donations. While winning tournaments does that, for every player that doesn't have a chance at winning one, it makes more sense to go the crowd-pleasing route a la Britney. So, the pyramid that was present in KeSPA era (practice partners, B-teamers, A-teamers, S class players, with each group trying to advance to the next level) is simply not there for most streamers IMO.
Yes, but still the fact remains, they're not really that much worse off compared to their 2008-selves. You really think that if they had the same motivation and dedication, they couldn't surpass their old selves even slightly? With far less dedication, they're still 'right there' - that is the very premise of my argument/thought here.
|
On September 10 2019 01:08 SuGo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 10 2019 01:00 Jealous wrote:On September 10 2019 00:56 SuGo wrote:On September 09 2019 23:51 Jealous wrote:On September 09 2019 23:40 SuGo wrote:On September 09 2019 23:10 Jealous wrote:On September 09 2019 21:44 SuGo wrote:
I really just think the key difference is the concept of them taking it more seriously back then. They consider 20 games "a ton" in today's era. 10+ games is a massive difference. They just played more back then.
But here's some food for thought: if the current era pros played the 30+ of back in the day, then would they actually be better? It's hard to compare because you've already got 1 sample size playing admittedly much less, yet, are still clearly very competitive in comparison.
So for playing 10+ games less, are the current pros really that behind? Sounds to me like the current pros actually have more raw skill/potential, if that makes sense. In terms of absolute skill, sure, the older era is better because of their clear dedication to practice.
For total raw skill, I'll say that today's players are better in terms of potential and if they matched the rigor of the older era. Though, of course, this is a big "if" ... probably why Zero didn't really step into this type of discussion because it's a bit too hypothetical. Since most of the players are the same players that were around during KeSPA era but almost 10 years older, I don't think one can argue that they have more "potential" than they did 10 years ago. What I'm saying is, even today with a much lesser degree of practice, they're still very competitive. It's not like back then they were Gods and now they're mere mortals. They're still "Gods" today, too. My point is - even with much less dedication, they're still in the same playing field. It's because they retained most of this skill / new meta / whatever else. It's not like Zero today is 10x worse than he was 10 years ago, maybe he's 0.2x worse (marginally worse; using some arbitrary numbers as an example here). More or less, he's maintained himself while playing less but leveraging his raw skills to continue his domination. You couple this with the same dedication of the past, and they very likely could pass their former selves. This is why I say in the current era they have more potential and a higher raw skill threshold. Once again, a lot of this turns into hypothetical and "what-if" scenarios. Ah, okay, I thought you meant that they had more potential to be even greater than they did when they were younger and in teamhouses. So, like, if in the team houses they were "x" and had potential to be 1.3x, but now they have potential to be 1.5x. Exactly. If they were "2x" back in 2008 and in 2019, they're 1.8x (so marginally worse). But in 2023, if they worked just as hard as they did in 2008, they might be able to become 2.2x instead. The potential is there. I really don't think so - first of all, the motivation is not there. Second of all, the support is not there (coaching, teamhouse practice partner structure, ajumma cleaning and cooking for you, etc.). Third of all, as ZerO said, they are simply older - as we get older, reaction times get slower, life priorities shift, etc. Overall, this has become very much a consumer market in the sense that streamers' #1 priority is attracting daily viewers and donations. While winning tournaments does that, for every player that doesn't have a chance at winning one, it makes more sense to go the crowd-pleasing route a la Britney. So, the pyramid that was present in KeSPA era (practice partners, B-teamers, A-teamers, S class players, with each group trying to advance to the next level) is simply not there for most streamers IMO. Yes, but still the fact remains, they're not really that much worse off compared to their 2008-selves. You really think that if they had the same motivation and dedication, they couldn't surpass their old selves even slightly? With far less dedication, they're still 'right there' - that is the very premise of my argument/thought here.
The effects of coaching are incredibly important, and most KeSPA era progamers practiced for PL and not SLs, whereas the way people practice now is much more freeform and far less targeted. Living in a practice environment also meant that they were living eating and breathing Starcraft, take any game or sport and you'll find how big the effects of mental coaching and mental practice are.
|
One positive thing about the current scene I want to point out though is the seemingly less stressful/healthier conditions for players. Yeah 30+ games a day will give you incredibly strong mechanics, but it destroys your body. Almost every player today seems to still suffer from periodic wrist issues from their time as pros. Not to mention that back in the old days only A-teamers would get paid "reasonably", but most players (B-teamers and practice partners) on the team made little to nothing despite working full-time on the team.
The team house system created the best players ever, but it was pretty bad for the well-being of most players in it.
|
On September 10 2019 05:04 Ideas wrote:
One positive thing about the current scene I want to point out though is the seemingly less stressful/healthier conditions for players. Yeah 30+ games a day will give you incredibly strong mechanics, but it destroys your body. Almost every player today seems to still suffer from periodic wrist issues from their time as pros. Not to mention that back in the old days only A-teamers would get paid "reasonably", but most players (B-teamers and practice partners) on the team made little to nothing despite working full-time on the team.
The team house system created the best players ever, but it was pretty bad for the well-being of most players in it.
This is actually true for almost any sport at the highest level: It destroys your body.
|
KeSPA era = team house, many players are at one place, live along, always opened to ask/help for some practice games.
NOW = busy watching other streamers, everyone has their time schedule to play starcraft, lonely doing ladder games.
Try military comparison of active vs inactive. inactive ones may still decent enough(like workout a lot still), but not at their peak level + used to modern easy, comfort life. Probably even the weapons/rifles are better and easier to use. Which can be compared to like "new 111" vs "old 111 from iloveoov game @sin chupungryeong".
|
TLADT24920 Posts
Interesting video. Thanks for sharing! On one hand, I tend to agree. Playing more games in a day will definitely increase your mechanics and 10 more games is pretty big when you consider that we are talking about a total of 30 games. From watching old vods, I noticed in the past that their reaction times were better and I can only think of playing more games as the factor.
From another perspective, it feels like the current knowledge, builds, game theory etc... are just on another level and that those should give someone a big advantage. I saw someone talk about moving pros from the past to the present with the current game knowledge and that they would win. That's a given, however I believe the argument would be: if you had present day Flash vs 2009 Flash, who would win? That's a much rougher argument because while you can argue that mechanically, 2009 Flash would be ahead (I honestly don't think Flash's mechanics have gotten that much worse), present day Flash could also potentially beat him just due to the game knowledge.
You can't have the best of both worlds after all because the KeSPA era ended back in 2012. It's been over 7 years since the last PL and OSL has been played. Just think about that for a second. The game itself has changed quite a bit so trying to erase the last couple of years (if you ignore 2013-2015) doesn't seem right when you make this comparison. Also, as someone mentioned, motivation and life goals is extremely different right now and the motivation is probably a huge factor.
Here's an example:
One of the stories I heard was that back during ASL5, Mind's main donator was unhappy with his results or whatever and I guess they threatened to stop donating so Mind started taking ASL5 seriously. In all the years that I've watched Mind play the game in the post-KeSPA, I have never ever seen his game look so good. He may have lost to hero 2-3, but his reaction, macro (he seems to lack this later in the game for some reason lol) etc... were the best I've seen in years. Other part of it is that as mentioned, these guys can choose to play 30 games, but having to consider their life goals and rely on streaming, it'll be smarter to just do team games, play some sponmatches, talk to other pros on stream or tell stories to retain viewers etc... then to go all in on practicing.
Another example:
During KSL1, Last finally decided that he wanted to win something lol. Great news for Last fans! As folks remember, he shut off his stream for most of that month and lost streaming income, especially when his gf was opening up a macroon shop and he needed the money. He ended up making a fantastic run to win that season. I think he did something similar for ASL7, but could be misremembering there.
Either way, I think team houses and more games made for mechanically stronger players, but there's an argument to be had about how well a 2009 player would fare against a current expros. Someone even wrote that a random A-teamer would beat Flash nowadays... Seriously guys lol.
|
On September 11 2019 13:32 BigFan wrote:
Someone even wrote that a random A-teamer would beat Flash nowadays... Seriously guys lol.
To be 100% fair, no player is perfect and no one wins every game. Looking at the last couple dozen of matches that FlaSh played in the KeSPA era, he dropped games to Reality, Shine, Horang2, and Dear. Perhaps not the most "random" of A-teamers but certainly not TBLS level and not aces for their teams IIRC, and he was still losing. So, making the the assertion that a random A-teamer from late KeSPA could beat current Flash is not that farfetched.
|
On September 11 2019 14:50 Jealous wrote:Show nested quote +On September 11 2019 13:32 BigFan wrote:
Someone even wrote that a random A-teamer would beat Flash nowadays... Seriously guys lol. To be 100% fair, no player is perfect and no one wins every game. Looking at the last couple dozen of matches that FlaSh played in the KeSPA era, he dropped games to Reality, Shine, Horang2, and Dear. Perhaps not the most "random" of A-teamers but certainly not TBLS level and not aces for their teams IIRC, and he was still losing. So, making the the assertion that a random A-teamer from late KeSPA could beat current Flash is not that farfetched.
L O L this post geezus what happend here jealous ??
|
Northern Ireland26433 Posts
On September 10 2019 05:04 Ideas wrote:
One positive thing about the current scene I want to point out though is the seemingly less stressful/healthier conditions for players. Yeah 30+ games a day will give you incredibly strong mechanics, but it destroys your body. Almost every player today seems to still suffer from periodic wrist issues from their time as pros. Not to mention that back in the old days only A-teamers would get paid "reasonably", but most players (B-teamers and practice partners) on the team made little to nothing despite working full-time on the team.
The team house system created the best players ever, but it was pretty bad for the well-being of most players in it.
Most snippets I’ve read about team houses, they seemed quite ad hoc and inefficient as environments. Which makes sense I suppose because this pro gaming thing was a new thing being explored.
I think the more interesting prospect to consider alongside the team house to current era, is not if playing full time in a house makes you somewhat better at the game, but could the level in the Kespa era have been even higher than it was with more optimal practice?
I can’t really think of a comparable activity to Starcraft exactly, but neither can I think of many where world class exponents practice 10 hours a day either. Regular sports that’s usually too fatiguing to be worth it, concert musicians don’t have an opponent and that reactive element to their art, they’re practicing and reproducing something more static.
Perhaps there’s a cultural lens to be applied here as well, to my sensibilities and I imagine many others, grinding 10 hours a day in that environment would just kill my love of Starcraft and ultimately I’d end up burning out. Plus I can’t see, from my perspective over here where I’m from people being as tolerant of some of the hierarchy and rigidity.
Moving forward and looking at eSports more generally, Brood War does seem to jut out as an exception where you basically need to be in a full time team house just to be competitive in a purely mechanical sense, never mind strategically.
That said, it was the only eSport really of the TV era, things were quite closed off both with teams keeping stuff in-house and the infrastructure of the era in terms of internet speed and platforms meant streams weren’t a factor for years.
Contrasted with SC2 where I don’t even have to actively play and can still improve just by watching the top players stream and making notes both mental or physically written down, not just on builds but on their hotkeys and base mechanics.
I wonder what BW’s level would have been at play wise if we hypothetically mashed together the rigid practice of the Kespa era with more of the openness and access to information we have in the streaming era.
They’re different games of course, some SC2 players ended up performing better when playing more independently, many needed the team environment. Perhaps some in BW may have prospered in something more fluid and pushed on from being B teamers?
|
I wonder if foreigners from back in the day could consistently take games off korean streamers now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
