|
Ok I know this statement might force me to put on my fire(flame) resistance gear, but I believe the solution to this problem (which OP desribes) is StarCraft 2.
I am one of the few people who hope that StarCraft 2 won't require 10 hours macro practice a day just to be in the top 500 players in the world. Skill should be decided by creativity and innovation, not pure mechanics.
Hypothetically, I think if someone put enough time in it, they could make an AI opponent that was capable of beating 99,99% of the current StarCraft players. Just because the game is so mechanics-based. Imagine an AI that macroed perfectly, and also did the most effective build orders. That would be extremely hard to beat.
StarCraft 2 seems to be better at this point though, as the interface seems to be much more comfortable. The focus seems to be on gameplay rather than mechanics. I hope so.
|
playing 10 hours a day is easy -_-
And they obviously take breaks to eat and stuff too.
And they live in a house with guys that play and play.
I quess it could be a very nice atmosphere to play that 10+ hours x)
I also hear that teams do take care of the players' health. They make their players do sports and stuff (i think)
|
actually many of the progamers chose to practice in thire freetime, beside the ~10 hours practice
|
On May 29 2009 19:02 Whalecore wrote:
I am one of the few people who hope that StarCraft 2 won't require 10 hours macro practice a day just to be in the top 500 players in the world. Skill should be decided by creativity and innovation, not pure mechanics.
But that is what its decided by... the mechanics of the top players isn't that different. Basically you just want the game 'easier' so you can do better, but even if it was people who played 10 hours a day would still beat you.
And i dunno what the point of your AI comment exactly is, but um no an SC AI will never beat a top player or even anyone D level or above without cheating.
|
|
|
On May 29 2009 19:19 KrAzYfoOL wrote:
holy shit OP is a moron.
great arguing skills, man
also you probably read the rest of the thread
|
why are you guys still countering the op when on page 2 he admitted he was wrong ...
|
They should have classes like
- strategies
- games analysis, theory
- free training
- pro vs pro training
So they can alter between real games and something else to rest the brain.
|
I think this would decrease the quality of games and be unfair to the people that want to practice even more than the average player. Plus it's not like that's ALL they do, the teams ensure that they regularly exercise and I'm sure they do other things in their free time too.
|
The teams shouldn't make their players practice so much anyway. I've read studies showing that any more than 40 hours work per week (as a longterm average - short bursts of harder working are ok) and your performance/productivity will eventually start to go down from burnout. That might help explain the slump phenomenon too, which is much more pronounced in SC than in most sports.
|
The top pro-gamers like the ones cited (Flash, Bisu, Jaedong) all make 100k+ a year in a country where the average income is 17k per person. It takes hard work to make that sort of money in any society. Doctors do 14+ hours in residence regularly, successful business people I know work 12+ hours a day (even if it isn't recorded), lawyers do 12+ hours depending on case stage. While professional athletes don't physically practice 10+ hours a day due to the body's limitations, they spend their time studying film, being coached, etc.
People who have the drive to become successful financially are all workaholics. You should stop being so condescending. They know exactly what they're doing, and no, you don't know better than them.
|
Well, suppose they did put a 5 hour limit.
What's to stop teams from sneaking in extra training hours and getting a ridiculous advantage? Not to mention the fact that in a sense, Korean pro gamers will lose their abilities over time and Korean amateurs (Who still get to play on their own accord) will rise above them in skill. Amateur is the new Pro? I think not.
|
kespa cant stop it ..
progamer need train more 2 win more ?o.O
|
On May 29 2009 15:50 Jumperer wrote:Better analogy would be overclocking. Better short term performance but shot for long term. Also, yes I realized this rules would never be implement but hey, I enrolled for a debate class for next semester and I thought I would argue with you guys to warm up 
I've seen so many people use this excuse about debate classes/groups. haha
Progamers practice because it's their job.
|
On May 29 2009 22:01 gravity wrote:
The teams shouldn't make their players practice so much anyway. I've read studies showing that any more than 40 hours work per week (as a longterm average - short bursts of harder working are ok) and your performance/productivity will eventually start to go down from burnout. That might help explain the slump phenomenon too, which is much more pronounced in SC than in most sports.
I have a problem with comparing StarCraft to other sports / fields like this. StarCraft is different because the maps change every 3-4 months. Sports are mostly static; you train, you become successful, you're set until you lose your physical edge. It's much more dynamic in StarCraft and we see a much more dynamic list of top players.
I won't get into it too much, but in a game of muscle memory, comfort, builds, and delicate balance, when you change the maps at such a fast rate, they have to affect player performance. If Savior still had the same map pool as when he was successful, it's hard to say if he'd decline nearly as much or as fast. Take WC3 for example, the maps have changed very little over the years, and Moon (who practices 12+ hours a day just like the SC players), Grubby, etc. have dominated for the duration with no slumps.
|
Hey Jumperer I'm gonna try to support your idea in the case that I think if this was America it would work. Considering I think the US is one of the most humane countries it would work, but since programing is done in Korea, (not to say my motherland is inhumane) but you can't limit their amount of determination they put into something =P When they want to get good at something odds are they WILL get good ^^
For your debating prowesses you should definitely pay attention to the circumstances and settings that revolve around your topic of arguement. For example in this case you're talking about something that happens in Korea, and their culture for everything having to be good (and the measures they'll take to get there).
|
The idea that older players have brains less capable of playing SC is totally baseless.
The idea that older players burn out is clearly documented and exactly what you would expect. Buring out is the biggest risk any progamer has.
|
Uhh, I'd rather watch progamers play the best they can play. If playing the best they can play means practicing day and night, then so be it.
|
Didn't read this dumb thread but it's the reason they are pros. Professional athletes when they aren't "practicing" they are hitting the gym / travelling on their bus. Limiting the practice time is stupid and the coaches have exercise regiments to keep them healthy and in good physical shape. It's all abou the mental discipline required to play that much. Limiting their play time is stupid.
|
Braavos36374 Posts
On May 29 2009 19:02 Whalecore wrote:
Ok I know this statement might force me to put on my fire(flame) resistance gear, but I believe the solution to this problem (which OP desribes) is StarCraft 2.
I am one of the few people who hope that StarCraft 2 won't require 10 hours macro practice a day just to be in the top 500 players in the world. Skill should be decided by creativity and innovation, not pure mechanics.
Hypothetically, I think if someone put enough time in it, they could make an AI opponent that was capable of beating 99,99% of the current StarCraft players. Just because the game is so mechanics-based. Imagine an AI that macroed perfectly, and also did the most effective build orders. That would be extremely hard to beat.
StarCraft 2 seems to be better at this point though, as the interface seems to be much more comfortable. The focus seems to be on gameplay rather than mechanics. I hope so.
Everyone loves the "creativity and innovation > pure clicking" argument, but frankly nobody is that smart or special. You realize every single creative innovation in Pro-SC comes as a result of not in spite of the huge mechanical tax on the players?
Do you really think SC or any game can be purely decided on strategy and creativity? No game is like that. Optimal strategies will be discovered and the game will stagnate and have no skill depth. Nobody can consistently innovate over their entire career and beat people with new stuff every time. There will come a point where people will either copy or adapt, and you run out of crazy stuff to do.
In order for a game to have enough skill depth to sustain a pro scene, there MUST be a very strong physical requirement, or else it'll die. That's the bottom line, and I truly hope Blizzard understands this, because "deciding on creativity and innovation" is a pipe dream that will never happen. Whatever pro game it is, it will be won by the freak that practices 10+ hours a day AND is very smart, creative, and innovative.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
