|
hi im just writing this thread to ask what is the difference between masters and diamond?
For me i can take games of master players (im diamond zerg) but i can't consistently beat them. Sometimes i feel there is a huge gap between masters and diamond players.
So i can ask you TL people! what is the difference? how can one overcome being in diamond and making it to masters?
Personally i think that mechanics and macro are the key elements but i myself think i have good macro good scouting and mechanics to get into masters but my decision making and unit control is not up to par with the masters players as well as multitasking and doing so many things at once.
But this is just my opinion and i was wondering if its more than that so ye what are your guys thoughts?
|
Im thinking about this too as i am also diamond protoss but i think the main difference is the level of multitasking and decision making.
|
Time laddering.
A lot of top masters/grandmasters simply ladder grind thousands of games over time, but they are not necessarily better than everyone else. Same applies to an extent in diamond masters. Some people just don't ladder enough to get the promotion to masters/points needed to advance.
|
Masters is done by MMR and not timing laddering.
It's small things like fending off all-ins or better scouting. If masters players played diamond players the win rate would be like 60:40. But if masters players played gold it'd be like 95:5 whereas diamond would be around 75:25.
In other words, they're just more solid.
|
I would say their general decision making is way better than diamond players
|
The difference in skill is gradual. Looking at someone who's at the very top of the MMR of diamond and someone at the very bottom of the MMR for masters will likely yield the same type of play.
Asking "what can get me into masters" is an odd question, because it really depends on where you are and what part of masters you're talking about.
The easy answer is to simply play more games and get acclimated with build timings (both yours and your opponents), and let your mechanics (building units/buildings, unit control, etc) get better with repetition.
|
Game sense - awareness of what the other player [can possibly] have or is doing given what you have/ are doing.
A lot of diamond players build up for one big push but are disturbed and can't react to earlier pressure or a failed push, whereas masters always have a next step in mind (so I guess you could say better end-game as well)
|
The only difference is there is more bm in diamond. I know from experience
|
On April 26 2011 08:31 Oceaniax wrote:
The difference in skill is gradual. Looking at someone who's at the very top of the MMR of diamond and someone at the very bottom of the MMR for masters will likely yield the same type of play.
Asking "what can get me into masters" is an odd question, because it really depends on where you are and what part of masters you're talking about.
The easy answer is to simply play more games and get acclimated with build timings (both yours and your opponents), and let your mechanics (building units/buildings, unit control, etc) get better with repetition.
Ye i kinda agree here but i been mass laddering for the past 5 days and i feel like i have hit a wall lol but ye i guess its just decisions mainly i guess
|
I just got promoted to Masters just the other day for the first time and I feel my play has been getting better through keeping my money low the whole game, being able to hold off cheese a lot better and decision making. Also the rough estimate of a 6gate push/marine tank push/standard timings so you know when to drone or when to make units. The knowing the general timings of standard pushes applies to all races.
|
On April 26 2011 08:30 awu25 wrote:
I would say their general decision making is way better than diamond players
Pretty much this. I'm master's on ladder but play mostly customs where I encounter a lot of diamond players. A lot of them have really wonky timings on their builds and decide to attack at odd times. They also tend to get pretty sloppy once they get over 2 bases.
|
Split-second decision making and "thinking outside the box," i.e. widening your build to make it flexible while still maintaining an overall game plan. Macro alone and decent mechanics, along with a basic game sense, can get you to Diamond, but consistent adaptation and crisis management are both what (in my opinion) define Masters.
|
To me, masters is the middle of the pack in terms of skill. This sounds ridiculous, but let me explain.
Think of skill as something that can be quantitatively measured. I'm not talking elo or mmr. Instead imagine that theres a certain number that each player is given and thats how good they are. For example, player with 100 skill twice as better than players with 50 skill(i know its hard to imagin what twice as better would mean, but bear with me).
If the average skill of bronze level players is 100, and if MC's skill is 100 000, then i think masters would be like 50 000 skill. Which is why I (as a diamond player) say that Masters is average. You might be better than 98% of all players, but in the grand scheme of things, you are average.
|
I can definitely say that the skill gap is fairly large, but that ladder ranking doesn't mean a whole lot. Last season I never laddered, it was customs and teams. I decided to start laddering (600 pt diamond hehe). I went on a 15 win streak and was promoted to master league. I respect anyone I'm against because you never know how good someone could really be, and they could very well not ladder alot.
Having said that, the diamond master skill gap is definitely significant.
|
On April 26 2011 08:36 DragonDefonce wrote:
To me, masters is the middle of the pack in terms of skill. This sounds ridiculous, but let me explain.
Think of skill as something that can be quantitatively measured. I'm not talking elo or mmr. Instead imagine that theres a certain number that each player is given and thats how good they are. For example, player with 100 skill twice as better than players with 50 skill(i know its hard to imagin what twice as better would mean, but bear with me).
If the average skill of bronze level players is 100, and if MC's skill is 100 000, then i think masters would be like 50 000 skill. Which is why I (as a diamond player) say that Masters is average. You might be better than 98% of all players, but in the grand scheme of things, you are average.
What does this have to do with the OP....?
|
Mass gaming is NOT what separates diamonds from masters. It's everything else. Mechanics, micro, macro, scouting, game sense, decision making, etc. You need to be watching every single replay of games you lose and figuring WHY you lost. Otherwise you're just gonna brush off losses thinking "oh I just didn't have enough X unit" or something like that. If you actually go back and watch said replays you'll actually find that you could have won that game doing something else different. I know it's vague, but I found that most of the games I was losing was because of poor unit control. I then made a conscious effort to make sure I'm controlling my army better. I also discovered other things like timings I could have just walked in to my opponent's base and killed him, but I didn't punish him for doing something greedy that I should have scouted. It's simpler than you think really.
|
The differences aren't obvious but they're certainly there. I'd say its just overall being slightly better at everything, leading to more solid play. Just a bit extra better macro and unit control leads to better awareness. In ZvZ, they make better decisions about attacking/droning. I can't really tell the difference between Protoss masters/diamonds. Terran do a better job in unit compositions.
|
On April 26 2011 08:36 DragonDefonce wrote:
To me, masters is the middle of the pack in terms of skill. This sounds ridiculous, but let me explain.
Think of skill as something that can be quantitatively measured. I'm not talking elo or mmr. Instead imagine that theres a certain number that each player is given and thats how good they are. For example, player with 100 skill twice as better than players with 50 skill(i know its hard to imagin what twice as better would mean, but bear with me).
If the average skill of bronze level players is 100, and if MC's skill is 100 000, then i think masters would be like 50 000 skill. Which is why I (as a diamond player) say that Masters is average. You might be better than 98% of all players, but in the grand scheme of things, you are average.
That's a very cynical way of thinking because although you have a very valid point, this can be said with everything in life. Yea you get a 4.0 GPA in your university, but there's some genius out there that is 1000x smarter than you, making you "average". Fuck that your smart and not average. Masters and diamond players are definetally above average in this game, but from high diamond to low masters can be as small as defending early cheese or scouting.
|
On April 26 2011 08:43 Ruyguy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 08:36 DragonDefonce wrote:
To me, masters is the middle of the pack in terms of skill. This sounds ridiculous, but let me explain.
Think of skill as something that can be quantitatively measured. I'm not talking elo or mmr. Instead imagine that theres a certain number that each player is given and thats how good they are. For example, player with 100 skill twice as better than players with 50 skill(i know its hard to imagin what twice as better would mean, but bear with me).
If the average skill of bronze level players is 100, and if MC's skill is 100 000, then i think masters would be like 50 000 skill. Which is why I (as a diamond player) say that Masters is average. You might be better than 98% of all players, but in the grand scheme of things, you are average. That's a very cynical way of thinking because although you have a very valid point, this can be said with everything in life. Yea you get a 4.0 GPA in your university, but there's some genius out there that is 1000x smarter than you, making you "average". Fuck that your smart and not average. Masters and diamond players are definetally above average in this game, but from high diamond to low masters can be as small as defending early cheese or scouting.
Pretty well said, I just wanted to add that it all depends on what you use as your population. I'm in masters and if you compare me to the top 5 players in the world, I am AWFUL. If you compare me to other master's players, I am probably average. However the most logical way for most people to see it is to use all of Starcraft 2, in which case I am quite good. It all depends on who sets the context.
|
From the few Master players I've played (I'm Platinum who plays mostly Diamond and low master when I get to ladder, which is rare these days), it is stability and decision making. I've played diamonds with solid macro but silver level decision making where as most Master level players seem to make the right call most of the time and be able to macro behind their attacks. Most higher platinums have either okay decision making and terrible mechanics or diamond mechanics and abysmal decision making that literally fixing one or two things would put them in diamond or master. A lot of the diamonds and platinums with good mechanics and bad decision making usually win by out producing their opponents (I do this on my random account when I offrace as zerg by beating them down with roaches until they surrender) but as soon as they encounter someone who knows how to make a more cost-efficient and better army they fall apart.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
