|
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.
|
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.
|
I smurfed my way throught diamond rediculously easy. And im only a 3600 Master
|
|
|
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.
I disagree. The skill difference between the average (amateur) Masters League player and the average professional player is MASSIVE - IMO one would have a harder time going from diamond to masters than bronze to diamond.
|
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 like saying that a good college basketball player is only average because there are some NBA players that are way better than them. Average means average skill level, considering all players. Yeah, there are pros that are way better than other good players, but just because .001% of players are 1000x better than someone doesn't make that person bad. You really can't use your logic, it doesn't work.
@OP Basically think of everything that makes a diamond player good (practiced build, good macro and micro, decent multitasking) and bump it up a notch and then throw in things like better decision making and you've basically a Master player. I think someone said it before, it's just someone more solid overall than diamond, there isn't really one or two things that sets people apart.
|
the only think i notice thats differant is there is much more cheese in diamond, thats it
|
everything you can do to play in diamond, they do a little bit better in masters. pretty easy, no?
|
On April 26 2011 09:48 S.O.L.I.D. 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 like saying that a good college basketball player is only average because there are some NBA players that are way better than them. Average means average skill level, considering all players. Yeah, there are pros that are way better than other good players, but just because .001% of players are 1000x better than someone doesn't make that person bad. You really can't use your logic, it doesn't work. @OP Basically think of everything that makes a diamond player good (practiced build, good macro and micro, decent multitasking) and bump it up a notch and then throw in things like better decision making and you've basically a Master player. I think someone said it before, it's just someone more solid overall than diamond, there isn't really one or two things that sets people apart.
You are correct in what you said, but the post you quote is talking about skill level... and he is accurate.
The difference in skill from bronze to masters is actually probably smaller than the skill difference from masters to pro(top of skill level)... so by that thought process: yes, a masters player is averagely skilled although he is WAY better than most people.
It is like a mediocre guitar player saying he is an above average skilled player because he is better than 50% of the people who own a guitar. When really there are just a large number of EXTREMELY lowed skilled people who own a guitar...or sc2
|
|
|
Decision-making. I play alot of random customs though and I drop games to a diamond player once in a while trying stuff out or whatever. When I do lose to lower league players its always to terran and always to some obscure stim timing while im trying stuff out.
|
On April 26 2011 10:00 Maetl wrote:
Average is not median.
That's a good observation
I guess to flesh out that statement you would say
The Average skill level would lie probably somewhere below the gold/plat level (add the skill of all players/total players)
The median skill level would probably be low-mid master-ish (meaning where 50% of skill occurs)
|
Decision making, scouting, and minor mechanics issues. That's what I think is keeping me out of Masters currently.
Like for example I never thought, until recently, that it really mattered, playing as Protoss, if you get supply blocked at 10/10 for a few seconds. Wrong. That attitude means you're going to also be making other minor mistakes that add up eventually to a loss that should have been a win. Those lost seconds by the end of a game turn into cumulative lost minutes.
Decision making ties in to scouting. If you don't know what the opponent is doing, you're definitely going to be at a disadvantage and probably a loss if your opponent has superior scouting on you or his build is superior. You're going to miss opportunities to harass or take advantage of a weak point or an understrength army, or you may be walking into a buzzsaw and suffer a defeat you can't recover from. You may try to bust his army head-on when you should be going around because he hasn't covered a rocks-blocked path or an open path to his army, so you attack in a way that nullifies your potential advantage.
|
This could just be my experience, but I feel like it's a lot easier to get into Diamond on pure mechanics than it is masters. You start to hit a point where you really have to know timings for pushes, upgrades, expos and the like and it's a lot harder to just wing it with "This feels like a decent army".
|
I can tell you for sure that it has to be mechanical problems. Because i am a high master player and i sometimes feel my decision making and unit control are bad even though lately they have been improving.
|
I feel like it is just that most really good masters players have their mechanics down solid, but the main thing is that they have a build that takes them well into a match.
To quoth Day[9] the great thought hammer, masters players have a firm and solid mid game plan, and they get there in an efficient order.
|
Game sense, hammered out transitions, macro timings, and general game timings is all I can really think of.
I smurfed/leveled a friend from 80pt diamond to 400 point masters. I did awful. I went 44-9. I could still be beaten, but my scouting/game sense and reaction was just too good for them to handle, as I dealt with their attacks, and then countered + expoed until it was just too much units for them.
It's really easy to win with a solid build order, good scouting sense and a reaction to what you do see. If you no sling speed after 4-6 minutes, expect roaches or spanishwa mass macro. Then you gotta repoke to see mass spines = aka spanishwa.
There's a lot of subtle timings lower (even I) players don't know of. Watch pros closely, they hit at +1 attack, shields, and siege all within like 15-20 seconds max of eachother to abuse a certain timing window of a strategy. There are timing gaps, and timing windows you have to learn if you want to get better as a real player, and not just a ladder all star.
Any schmoe can mass game and get masters with just 4gate/proxy2gate etc etc. It's the what happens when they react and you have to transition out, and figure when to attack, when to not, when to drop, when to go head on, etc etc etc.
It's a multiprong issue that cannot be summed up. You may have micro and macro, but suck at counters and game sense.
|
Why do we keep getting threads like these lol. Masters > Diamond players according to Blizzard's match making system. That's all it is.
Masters is a step above diamond, nothing more nothing less. Looking at the difference between gold or silver would yield the same answer and it can be achieved just by thinking about it for a second.
|
Except for the very top players/teams in NA 2v2 masters. Everyone else in masters has the equivalent skill of diamond 2v2 players on SEA.
|
On April 26 2011 08:27 Pwnographics wrote:
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.
Way to pull numbers out of your ass.
|
On April 26 2011 09:22 clusen wrote:Show nested quote +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've seen a guy with the id "oGsMC" on the NA server do it in 22 straight wins.
|
I just jumped from high diamond to mid-masters just by learning how to scout the front effectively and divulge the correct information from the scouting. I also became much more aggressive as a result.
That was the difference for me, not sure about others.
|
On April 26 2011 08:27 Pwnographics wrote:
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.
Idk Diamond to plat is like 95/5 for me and gold is a joke. But my masters is like 40:60.
Its really hard to say what the difference is between top diamond and low masters. It seems like solid build orders has a lot to do with it.
|
As someone flirting with the border (still sadly on the Diamond side  ), I think the biggest thing I find is the multi-tasking. Mostly when I lose it is to terrans who drop all over and do a much better job controlling everything than me. ZvZ is such a rock/paper/scissors opening build order at all levels nothing much can be taken from it. ZvP is just smarter movement, pushes, harassment and again, keeping up the macro (not too hard), but doing more tp mess with the opponent as well.
|
On April 26 2011 10:00 Maetl wrote:
Average is not median.
Mean and median are both types of averages, though most people speak of "average" to refer to the "mean."
Skill cannot be measured absolutely -- it's relative, dependent entirely on likelihood of beating another specific player. Speaking of the mean skill level is meaningless.
However, the median player probably has about a 50/50 chance of beating a randomly selected other player without regard to skill level -- so it's fair to call that person the average.
|
The answer is basic decision making and macro. You should never hit 1k mins until 3 base/180 food, and even then it should be because you're saving supply for gas units. The ability to read your opponent is just as crucial - if you scout on 12 and your opponent is close positions with no barracks, you should expect double proxy rax instantly. If a protoss player is missing a second pylon at 17-18 food, check your hatch for a cannon rush. These sorts of 'reads' can be made all game long, and make the real difference. Gas, expo, tech timings... if you can make solid decisions based on what you scout, you'll hit masters soon enough.
|
As a Master league Zerg, I notice most Diamond players (playing Custom 1v1s, not ladder ~_~) choose to go with unsafe builds that, when scouted, are obvious that they are outside of their bounds of stable play and can be then capitalized on. For instance, they may try to expand too early, tech too hard, not be aggressive when it is needed etc. The step into masters begin when you can evaluate your build and your opponent's build and make good decisions based on the data that you have, or estimates based on the data you don't have.
|
From my experience, Master players are able to do more harass while maintaining good macro, whereas diamond revolves around big battle.
Once I start doing more harassing, as well as learning how to defend them, I begin to consistently win against Masters.
|
High level diamond players aren't that far off from low masters players, most of it is just the little things.
Also late game macro, high diamond players tend to fall apart while low masters players will notice a surplus of money and spend it while the high diamond players will just seem lost trying to spend it (like not getting enough production buildings).
|
I'd say that the masters are more "refined" for lack of a better word. I play a lot of customs and obs some games, and I feel like I watch a master and I can tell that everything they do is deliberate and timed specifically to take an advantage over their opponent, while diamond players may struggle to keep up with what is going on/what they are trying to execute.
And I do think the ladder is rather gradual, as I have taken a respectable percentage of my games against diamond players despite kinda sucking. I don't think that it is anywhere near diamond having a 95% win rate vs. platinum, unless we're talking top 8 diamond vs. bottom 20 platinum.
|
The difference is a lot of subtle little things. Those sensor towers you wouldn't think of placing, those smooth transitions you don't expect, smoothish macro, better multitask/crisis control.
if it helps, I went 41-20 this season to get promoted to masters, and I was a Master's player last season that went on tilt.
|
There's not a big difference between top diamond and low masters. But theres a huge difference between mid masters and top masters.
|
The difference is mainly multitasking and crispness of macro in the presence of fights/drops/scouting. Most diamond players miss workers at many points in a game, queue units when they shouldn't, and just in general play more sloppy when there's multitasking to be done.
|
there's a huge difference between low masters and high masters. Low masters is pretty much in the same range of skill compared to a diamond players imo.
|
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.
Wrong. It's about the MMR, not points. You can ladder 20 games a day if you want, but if you can't consistently beat other players with high MMR, you're not getting out of diamond.
On April 26 2011 13:31 nitdkim wrote:
there's a huge difference between low masters and high masters. Low masters is pretty much in the same range of skill compared to a diamond players imo.
Points don't really mean much. It just shows how much you ladder.
|
TBH, I'm a diamond player and I know what I need to work on, macro and decision making, but 8/10 its my decision making that costs me games.
|
On April 26 2011 09:22 clusen wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Yeah I played a Grandmasters from SEA and he was on a blitz to make GM here and I checked his profile, he made top masters in like 25 or so games I believe. Just rolled everyone he played.
Diamond is really big. Low diamond players get stomped on by high diamond players, who are even with a lot of masters players. So it all depends where in Diamond/masters you are.
|
On April 26 2011 08:30 awu25 wrote:
I would say their general decision making is way better than diamond players
I have to agree with this.
There are multiple ways to improve your decision making : be it experience (playing) or analyzing (streams/leagues). Personally, I think both are good and to a certain extent, necessary.
I got into masters with a relative low win count (32 with Random), but what I can say, is that I watched a lot of GSL (builds!) and used to play Random in late beta, the later which definitely helped me with timings.
|
Difference? Masters players are much more rude, less talkative and most likely haters.
In terms of skill? Consistency and having a decent decision making.
|
I believe most masters players just play more...and have been since the beta. They are better at everything because they have played so much more then the average player and are on teamliquid finding new strategies and constantly wanting to get better, it's the same as anything...practice makes perfect right? So every game is a test of your knowledge and execution and the better you are the higher grade mmr you get. If your an S class student then you play in Gsl, masters isn't even A class.
|
Yes, as you said, the difference is stable macro play, and some "mastered" mechanics, be certain of what course of action to take aganist every (or almost every) threat.
Once you reach that level of mechanics and macro, you eventually get promoted.
|
I was high diamond last season, mid masters now as protoss. I think a big difference is crisp timings.. especially in PvP. For example, if I'm going korean 4 gate and I get a 10 gate, 14 cyber and my opponent doesn't have good timings and goes 13 gate 18 cyber, they pretty much auto lose. This is a big thing that contributed to me getting promoted.
Masters zergs tend to have newer play styles. Diamond zergs often go roach / hydra / corruptor bceause it's easy to do, but Master zergs will do stuff like infestor / ultra/ ling / bane or roach ling infestor baneling. Crazy stuff like that that require a BIT more micro to pull off but overall a lot better.
Awareness. If i try to go speshul tactics (3 gate expo into carrier) they will sniff it out and attack at a correct time. If I try to tech, upgrade, and expand, a masters terran will see it and be hyper aggresive.
3rd base timing. I'm finding master terrans love to take a quick third base, which I think is really smart because as terran in TvP you should be up 1 base so u can mass your cheap units more effectively. Diamond terran will sit on the same bases as me, lose to my colossus / ht army and complain at the end of the game about protoss.
And finally multi tasking.. I've had master zergs hit my 3rd on metal with 3/4 of his army, then doom drop my main with the other 1/4. If i send to much to my main to deal w/ it, i will lose my 3rd.. which is pretty much game if the zerg is on 4 base by then.
|
The difference between diamond and master is obviously the skill level, measured in MMR and/or ladder points.
There's no guarantee that the skills found in one master level player will be present in another master level, and as such you can't write a list of things that you must accomplish in order to rank up.
|
Completely player dependant, you simply win more games so your MMR is higher, and why you win more games can be completely different from one person to another.
|
The way I feel it, everyone below Dia, either lacks the RTS experience, APM, basic mechanics or understanding of their race matchups, they usually just get worse and worse the longer the game goes on.
Diamond are people who are 'decent' at the game, they got all the basics down, normally below 100 APM and play to the best of their ability from the early to mid-game. However often their decision making and game sense is poor, I lose all the time with Dia allies against Masters because they 'think' they know better, always makes up some flawed plan WITHOUT even scouting or feeling how the game evolves depending on what the enemy players does.
Master's are normally people who will play to the best of their ability from early to late game, they rarely make mistakes, normally will have a game sense and understanding of timings. They make good decisions but they suffer from an arrogance that their 'plan' will always work (There's no fail safe if it doesn't work.) You can quickly tell the difference between a Dia and a Master, one will make more mistakes than the other and be much harder to take advantage of.
As for rankings having something to say with different tiers of skill within a league, honestly only if their Top 8 material, I've completely outplayed top ranked Masters last season that are now mediocrely ranked. Just because someone has grinded tons of games doesn't mean they're 'better', I would be more afraid of those that have less games but more points/win ratio.
IN THE END, trying to discuss the leagues is useless, it's just a gimmick like GM, the only true indicator of skill difference is the complex MMR system and that is hidden from us all...
|
Everything a little bit better, but most important their macro is better. When I play diamond players they just have much less stuff than masters usually.
|
u wanna know the secret to master level play?
its as simple as: rarely getting supply blocked, ALWAYS (srsly, always) building probes, and spending your money on not horrible army composition. harder than it sounds but thats all it really takes. to play well in masters, scouting, control, and tactics help. or u can be really, really good at cheese.
|
Diamond players typically have weak macro but Masters players tend to have ok macro at least until mid-late game. Many Diamond players tend to scout badly past early game. I also think there is a difference in APM, in Diamond you can get away with 50 APM but I do not think that is possible in Masters (except maybe if you specialize in some all-in strat).
|
For me the biggest difference is that those masters player I played were actually better than me at macroing. That was quite a new and unpleasent feeling.
|
On April 26 2011 08:27 Pwnographics wrote:
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.
Yeah but unless your MMR is insanely high it will take a while for your uncertainty value to be low enough for you to be promoted into masters. Read the thread explaining the ladder and MMR system for more details.
|
I feel my main improvement is being able to macro from more then 2 bases. It used to become too much to defend 3 bases from mutas, still think about throwing down 5 extra gates and building pylons at the same time.
|
I think some of it, is time spent playing. I am diamond, but I play 40 ranked masters players and beat them, even a few higher than 20 ranked. The problem is I don't play very much and mostly play custom. I have less than 10 games played on 1v1 ladder but all wins.
|
To summarize it pretty simply I'd say a lot of it is mid game execution, which would be things like the players macro, deciding when to expo, getting your upgrades, keeping up your scouting and lastly deciding when and where to attack.
|
On April 26 2011 08:27 Pwnographics wrote:
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 don't know from where you took your numbers. I'm in masters and have ~5 diamond league friends with whom I play couple a games per week. Ratio is not 60:40, more like 90:10, where I have to screw up really bad for them to win. If master league player is behind in macro, he can micro his way back, and other way round.
|
I just recently pushed through to Masters after being stuck in Diamond all of Season 1.
Really, the difference between being promoted to any division is whatever your weakest link is. Do you have constant probe production? Yes? Well what about expansion timing?
For me, I can only comment on things as a Z player, but my weakest links, and what really pushed me from diamond to masters, were these things:
1) I stopped being surprised by things players were doing. Rather, I became familiar with most timing attacks and signs of cheese. Doyou know how to scout AND tell the difference between a 3 gate expand, a blink stalker rush and a DT rush? Not losing stupidly to these things really helps your MMR.
2) I really changed the way I thought about my economy. I'm constantly aware of my drone count and saturation levels now. I'm also better at not over or under-droning
3) I really improved my worst matchup. Which for me, was ZvZ. I was clueless about this matchup, so I started watching streams. Mr. Bitter's 12 weeks with the pros was really helpful for me.
|
Astonishingly, I think I disagree with most around here lol. Notice that we are NOT discussing "advanced" master play, but we are discussing what it takes for a diamond to get into masters. Low masters for that matter. I think most of you are already talking about how to take it to the next level, while I believe that the differences between high diamonds and low masters are to be found elsewhere than just macro.
The OP has pointed out that he can take the occasional game of a master but can't beat them consistently. This is - in my opinion - already the crucial point of this matter.
High diamond players, at least the ones I know, HAVE what it takes to get into masters already, they just happen to screw up a considerable number of games. With that I don't mean macro, supply-blocks etc. but faulty DECISIONMAKING. I don't think that low masters have that much better execution and macro than high diamonds. At least not that it would matter. What low masters have is, they play safer, they don't take risks that often and generally make less gamedeciding mistakes.
Simple example: two PvZ games that look exactly the same. The high diamond does NOT scout for the broodlord tech-switch, misses the timing and just dies against 10 broodlords some minutes later when he could've killed the zerg comfortably before that. Such mistakes have nothing to do with macro/etc. Other example: two PvT games, the high diamond player doesn't protect his third against drops consistently. Every other game a 2-dropship-drop kills the expo. And that's game, doesn't matter if his macro was maybe even "slightly" better than that of his opponent up to that point.
To cut the long story short (TL; DR): from observing and talking to friends I noticed that top diamond players usually have low master-league-ish macro but have a couple SERIOUS flaws in their overall game, flaws that in most cases are gamedeciding. Which is the reason why they lose more games than they should, the reason why they lose some games even when they are ahead. Which ultimately is the reason why they don't get promoted.
|
There is very little difference between high diamond and low masters. I believe what people actually want to know is what the difference is relative to the position in each league. Middle diamond vs Middle Master. High diamond vs high master. low silver vs low gold etc.
|
Imo, diamond players are stuck in diamond for up to two reasons.
Build orders. Most diamond players follow a build for maybe the first 50 supply then they sort of wing it for the rest of the match, not trying to hit any build order timings etc. Others follow a build order but don't understand the reason why they work.
Being able to think while executing play. Pretty sure this is the biggest reason. Most diamond players are able to watch a mid masters replay from one player's perspective and understand every decision that the player makes, but when they actually play, they can't think like they do watching replays because they're busy macroing. This is my biggest problem because I don't play very often. I could rival my high masters friend with mechanics but he can think while he plays so it becomes a roflstomp after 20 minutes.
|
For me personally (as a Master Protoss) I can feel when the game goes to easy that my opponent is Diamond, i had this feeling around 20 times now, and i was always right :D
People were always High diamond, even Rank #1 sometimes but their play was so ...well .. "bad" in some ways that it didnt fit into normal masters, for example their approach of my army so that i could easily forcefield them etc.
|
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.
i would not say this.
as i can see most of the gamers in my master league even season one have less then 100 games including me.
i generelly think its decision making and execution of strategys
also i think generelly a master player not even have to notice the strats of the other player, its just the kind of play make him often so save that u cant "allin" break him without perfect execution and this exectution is the difference
|
I'm a high masters playing and I constantly meet up and play against top 50 of the GM league. I recently played on my friend's diamond account because he wanted me to boost it to masters. I went on a 25-0 winning streak as zerg. The main difference between high masters and diamond is mechanics and game sense. A player in high masters/GM has a goal and a tight build/cheese planned. They will also scout and try to deny and find what they can. Diamond players never seemed like they had enough units and they don't know how to adapt to what is actually happening in the game (I could 13pool 15gas into 2-3 expos and the player will continue with his 3gate expo build). Mainly though, its mechanics.
|
I'm diamond p (was diamond r before) and I think what set us apart is knowing timings.
|
I don't think its just grinding. For me its harder to maintain a good enough win rate to stay high in ranks the more games you play because the game finds harder and harder players. At the same time, I think Masters players do play more, but they give more to each game, and not just grind out games for xp.
If you are looking to get into masters, watch *your own* replays, and try to push your win rate to max. But i think top ten diamond players can easily fit into the bottom half of a masters league in terms of skill.
|
bronze-platinum = learning macro
diamond = learning micro
masters= actually start thinking and understanding the game eg. interpreting scouting, why you do the things you do, how to do transitions.
KR master league is another step up though, they can maintain constant aggression while doing macro at the same time
|
Two main things IMO:
- timings
- anticipation
|
There is no main difference, it's a constant ladder, it's not like you need to fulfill any requirements to get masters or anything. As i see it master players are just better than diamond players. Some might have better macro, some better micro and so on. There is no 1 trait.
|
Well I've been in master even since it came out, then I got demoted to diamond, then I got back into master.
My experience with diamond players is that they don't know what they are doing, but they do it well.
Master players don't risk as much, we want to get better, a win from an all in doesn't really feel that great, but diamond players do stupid wierdly timed all ins all the time, that's why I had trouble with them. I was used to playing master players and I was greedy, but when I realised that against diamond players I don't have to be greedy I quickly got back into master.
The difference in my opinion is that master players have an idea of what's optimal and they try to do it, while diamond players have pretty good execution of their own little risky, wierd timing attacks.
|
id like to chime in a bit, i've been a number one ranked diamond player for the last two seasons. i don't exactly play on a consistent basis, sometimes i played 5 hours a day, sometimes i dont play for a week. i have a few master player practice partners, i have no problem beating them, they beat me. it feels pretty equal. but the ladder is a whole 'nother story. i regularly lose to random 1 base builds, poor unit control, bad decision making.
i have the mechanics from being a C level zerg player in broodwar, but when it comes to everything else, i'm not very good due to lack of playing. i really only got to C in broodwar from pure mechanics+builds. sc2 has a low mechanical skill ceiling, so the strategy part is way more integral to actually being good. after watching my own replays, i'm slowly playing more masters players, and will soon be promoted. so, to summarize my 6:20 am rambling, basically its solid macro (that alone takes you to diamond), with good decision making, micro, actually being able to interpret scouting information. so if you're stuck at high diamond, its most likely one of those things i listed. watch yo reps son!
|
It's either one or more of many things. For example I play random and my mechanics are not any better than any diamond player. But I make much better decisions than diamond players. On the other hand, another player might have much better mechanics than a diamond player but equal decision making and be in masters. Other variables may include but are not limited to: micro, game sense, transitioning, and maybe even very broad stuff like apm.
Of course there are the players who are better at like everything, and they're in grandmasters or at least high masters.
EDIT and it's not grinding, cause plenty of players have played many times more games than me and are stuck in plat let alone diamond/masters. if you check plenty of masters players don't have hundreds or thousands of games played.
|
from my experience(i've been from diamond to masters), my army composition contains more marauders now when compared to my composition in diamond.
|
Masters knows how to hold of most of the early rushes/timings with a good eco behind it
Diamonds does not.
At least that's the only really notable difference to me without the obvious a little better micro/macro
|
I am diamond and I think the only thing holding me back is good decision making. I can micro/macro pretty well and hold off cheese... but I dont have a really good idea of what my opponent is doing and how to counter.
|
I would say that main difference is in the head. macro and mechanics are almost the same in high diamond / low master but masters players just scouting and reacting better.
|
On April 26 2011 21:40 BigJoe wrote:
I am diamond and I think the only thing holding me back is good decision making. I can micro/macro pretty well and hold off cheese... but I dont have a really good idea of what my opponent is doing and how to counter.
That is something where analyzing your own replays helps very much, just to compare you to your opponent at certain points. It is so much easier to see your flaws in decision making when you have an image of both sides. Stuff like "oh, I should've counter attacked at that point" becomes sooo obvious all of a sudden.
|
I am in Masters myself, and I've noticed that in Masters (Vs High Level Diamond) there are more:
1) more harassing (scv/probe/drone harass, etc in the early game) - if they can delay a building for a few seconds they are ahead by a few seconds
2) lots of drops / multi-tasking - the other day I was fending off a stalker/colissi ball and there was a DT in my mineral line killing me that was warped in from who knows where. distraction attacks.
3) positioning - sending 3-4 scouts out to see where the army is - hit and run against buildings, plyons, fungals on stray groups of units, etc.
4) I would say the APM is way higher in Masters too; better unit splits, micro, etc.
|
On April 26 2011 09:04 fishjie wrote:Show nested quote +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.
His point was that you're still crap compared to the competitive scene, the scene that "matters", in which case he's right, but his point is still shitty and badly worded.
|
i play games for shits and giggles on my friends diamond account. the biggest difference has always been macro and APM. in masters i generally face people with around 180-200 apm, with some sub 100 apm outliers, but in diamond it's pretty rare for me to find someone with over 130 apm. also in 9/10 games i play by the 15 minute mark i've got double their supply because they just can't macro and keep their money down.
i've found that decision making and reaction to build orders is generally equally terrible between masters and diamond. maybe a masters player would defend a 4gate better one out of every five games, but i don't feel like it's the determining factor.
|
On April 27 2011 07:49 rauk wrote:
i play games for shits and giggles on my friends diamond account. the biggest difference has always been macro and APM. in masters i generally face people with around 180-200 apm, with some sub 100 apm outliers, but in diamond it's pretty rare for me to find someone with over 130 apm. also in 9/10 games i play by the 15 minute mark i've got double their supply because they just can't macro and keep their money down.
i've found that decision making and reaction to build orders is generally equally terrible between masters and diamond. maybe a masters player would defend a 4gate better one out of every five games, but i don't feel like it's the determining factor.
APM-wise, do you mean ingame APM or sc2gears proper calculated APM? I've yet to see/play against someone with 180 APM even through sc2gears and I've seen/played some masters.
|
On April 27 2011 09:00 Dalavita wrote:Show nested quote +On April 27 2011 07:49 rauk wrote:
i play games for shits and giggles on my friends diamond account. the biggest difference has always been macro and APM. in masters i generally face people with around 180-200 apm, with some sub 100 apm outliers, but in diamond it's pretty rare for me to find someone with over 130 apm. also in 9/10 games i play by the 15 minute mark i've got double their supply because they just can't macro and keep their money down.
i've found that decision making and reaction to build orders is generally equally terrible between masters and diamond. maybe a masters player would defend a 4gate better one out of every five games, but i don't feel like it's the determining factor. APM-wise, do you mean ingame APM or sc2gears proper calculated APM? I've yet to see/play against someone with 180 APM even through sc2gears and I've seen/played some masters.
both. i average 202 apm over 1053 games. however, i set sc2gears to ignore the first 4 minutes of apm because i spam a lot. that actually probably causes other players' apm to go up a bit because they don't spam in the start, though i don't think that'll make a huge difference. but yeah i've found diamond players just do everything slower.
|
hmmm apm? i don't think its finger apm but mental apm cause tbh i can get 500+ apm but thats just spam my avg is like 160+ apm so i don't think apm really has a part in what sets diamond to masters unless its mental apm where you remember things and can do them real fast which gets you slightly ahead but ye i still mainly think its multitasking and the decisions that the master players make compared to the diamond
|
I think Gretorp put it perfectly when he said, that when it comes down to it, you can get into Diamond and possibly masters with good mechanics. The difference between the leagues is knowing how to dominate the core mechanics of the game, as well as to dictate the flow of the game.
The difference between diamond and masters players is a fine line, considering the new grandmaster league, the difference will likely become more like the difference in Platinum and diamond when there was a master league. There isn't really a difference, and there is at the same time. I would like to say that the more able a person is to multi-task the higher they would be a on a ladder system, but that is also true as there are some progammers that have low APM and still make VERY good game decisions and do wonderfully. All in all, I think the differences are so minute that it doesn't make a world of difference.
If you're not playing this game professionally, it shouldn't really matter.
|
On April 26 2011 21:40 BigJoe wrote:
I am diamond and I think the only thing holding me back is good decision making. I can micro/macro pretty well and hold off cheese... but I dont have a really good idea of what my opponent is doing and how to counter.
Im also in Diamond and have pretty much the same problem as you, i have my builds set and doing it right but its the decisions and how to counter what i see that is the problem, and sometimes scouting in general for tech and so on.
I pretty much think its the decision making that is the difference between a diamond and a masters player. You should have your build set for each matchup and having good macro and decent micro if you are in Diamond.
|
Diamond players get derailed so easily. They bite on every bait too. They usually have a plan or no plan at all. So they are very weak to early aggressions. Even if I fail to do damage, they screw themselves up because they can't capitalize on their advantage.
Mostly inexperience with RTS in general.
|
Zurich15325 Posts
Master players are on average better than Diamond players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
