|
On April 26 2011 08:25 Mailing wrote:
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.
nope, if you are good enough you can definitely get into masters in <20 games. If you are bad enough, you can be bronze with 10000 games.
there is obviously overlap between top diamond and bottom masters, its just a continuum, and everyone is different so you can't just point to one aspect of the game and say something like masters players have better macro or better micro or whatever.
If you are good enough you will be promoted, its pretty much as simple as that.
|
I think another good point is the actual fight engagement itself. Some lower league players may have excellent macro/awareness but when it comes down to the most crucial 1-2 seconds of two 200/200 armies engaging, your position is crucial and will determine who wins the game. Late game army positioning is huge.
|
The difference between diamond and masters is skill-level... I want my Nobel prize now please.
User was warned for this post
|
It's gradual. before I dropped a bunch of games due to router failures, I was like #100 Diamond in NA. played masters occasionally, sometimes won, sometimes didn't. Apart from less BM >.>
|
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.
your argument is invalid because the 'scale' you are using is an exponential scale to begin with
it is about as dumb as arguing that 4.5 earthquake is average since it is twice as weak as 9.0 earthquake - which is false. 9.0 earthquake is 10000- times stronger than 4.5 . and average (most) earthquakes are undetectable low levels
|
On April 26 2011 08:25 Mailing wrote:
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.
Not necessarily. What he's searching is an answer for people who DON'T grind a lot, what does it take for them to get masters. It has been proven that you don't need a lot of games to get in Masters, you just need to prove than you get beat the majority of your games against both people in your league and higher leagues.
So to answer the original question, I think a high diamond will be able to execute a build almost flawlessly, but will not know how to adapt if it the game doesn't go how you want to. Masters will also often have more multitasking skills, which leads them to better macro and micro eventually.
P.S.: I'm talking here about people who don't cheese/allin the majority of their games; they will get in Masters without having good decision making abilities or multitasking, but won't be as good.
|
I would say it's having at least 1 solid game plan for each popular style in each matchup. As well as better macro while microing.
|
If you're at or near the top of diamond, it might not be that great of a difference.
However, when you compare perhaps the bottom half of diamond to masters, you can spot differences in mechanics, decision making, reflexes, apm, etc.
|
its gonna be different for each person because not every player is equally good at all aspects of the game.
for me going from diamond to masters was entirely about learning timings and organizing my game so im slowly teching all game instead of in chunks that left me with bigger vulnerability windows than are necessary. overall having a 20minute game plan instead of a 10 minute game plan.
i didint have to micro/macro better, use better unit compositions or scout more, those werent my weaknesses (though i still have alot to learn and need to improve everything to get to high masters). you pretty much need to identify what you need to work on and do it. play some games against someone whose considerably better than you and see where your game starts to fall apart.
|
Personally I made the jump when I refined the first 3 minutes of my build order to be perfect.
|
I believe there are some factors (albeit unknown to me) that seperate higher diamond, low masters, mid-masters and high masters players because everytime I play on the ladder and I hit about mid/high masters then go on like 5-6 loss streaks and afterwards I get matched up against high diamond players. In which I then go on 4-10 win streaks and the cycle repeats because I haven't really put in a lot of effort to see what I am doing wrong.
My guess is it usually comes down to not doing a build order correctly so I lose to a perfectly executed 4 gate (or any other perfectly executed build, really) or I don't know when to stop droning or didn't scout etc. Or my mid/late game management slips a long way after some banshee/DT/phoenix harassment of sorts.
But regardless, I think the ladder is working as intended.
|
On April 26 2011 08:57 Alver wrote:
overall having a 20minute game plan instead of a 10 minute game plan.
This is my biggest advice to people. You don't need to play that many games to be in the high end of masters (I know I don't lol), just refine your builds and flesh out a well thought out game plan (build) that transitions well, is efficient and has responses for every contingency (I will do a then b then c, but if opponent does x I will respond with y, etc).
|
On April 26 2011 08:36 DragonDefonce wrote:You might be better than 98% of all players, but in the grand scheme of things, you are average.
Wrong, if you are better than 98% of the total players, you are by definition, above average.
|
Not much difference at all, Masters just play more.
|
I would say the difference is actually Real Terms APM.
By this I mean doing things like checking your work saturations, using inject tricks, checking your supply cap before building units to keep yourself uncapped, and just general finesse.
In normal terms APM there was some thread where you could see actual APM/Rank analysed and you could see each rank up was a rank up in APM also. So i'd say getting your APM up without counting spaming is a definite factor.
Other then that i'd say being able to use builds where you adjust your worker saturations for timings and making timings is another ability to have.
@HaeHei: I've watched your stream a few times and I've seen your spam but never check your saturations enough or scout aggressively and its been a factor in a good few of your games.
Also watching your own replays when you have no idea how you lost a game is always good advice.
|
difference between high diamond and low masters - nothing
mid masters - good and lazy
high masters - legit
grandmasters - pro
i could write walls of text to justify this, pretty objectively, but no time atm..
|
It's not skill what separates masters from diamonds - it's winning against people with a high enough MMR. Sure, you need skill for that, but if all your opponents simply leve you will be in GM very soon. The system doesn't measure skill, it measures what kind of people youre winning against, no matter how you do it.
|
Not a good damn thing more then that the ones in masters are better in some area and the daimond player are worse in some area. And those who say time or just play more its not necesarry, just if you are familiar with rts games you should be in masters even if you only can play 1 game every 2 days.
And I've seen more and more of high/mid/low masters terms, how are people defining this. Seems as this ranges a lot depending who uses the term.
|
On April 26 2011 08:50 kaisr wrote:
nope, if you are good enough you can definitely get into masters in <20 games. If you are bad enough, you can be bronze with 10000 games.
there is obviously overlap between top diamond and bottom masters, its just a continuum, and everyone is different so you can't just point to one aspect of the game and say something like masters players have better macro or better micro or whatever.
Is it possible in under 20 games? Took me 44 on a new account TT Was high diamond the season before tho, so I'm still happy.
And as someone who was high diamond/is masters now I can only second your other statement: it's not just one single thing, I personally just focussed on improving my mechanics, which does not mean that improved mechanics get you into masters, it was just what I had to improve because my mechanics were really bad imo.
|
i think biggest difference is macro.
as a long time bw player, i'm used to expanding everywhere, setting up random turrents and if i'm far ahead, i'd even build cannon/turrent to contain the opposing player. in the end, between two good players the map will be split in half. (my macro makes up a lot of my bad decision making...still learning the game, less than 400 games as random :[ )
when i play against diamond players, this is far less common. when it gets to late late game, they tend to get lost. they have 3/3 upgrades and fearsome army but lack map presence. i'd contain them to 3 base and i' take over the whole map just by trading army and not allowing expansion, obviously, this is not the case against many master players i've played, they got their macro down.
macro just isn't the ability to produce units constantly but putting in the effort to build stuff to maintain map presence, such as building 2nd main in preparation of base trade and timed late game attack to destroy the new main when resources are scarce. building cannon/turrent wall along the borders of the bases, setting up random turrets to catch drops off guard, building 10 OC when you're able to, building PF at chokes, add 30 gateways, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
