|
On April 26 2011 23:36 Yaotzin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 23:32 Aleski wrote:On April 26 2011 23:30 Yaotzin wrote:
Seriously. There must be a science to this. Why is it, that in any single tournament, any player can take sets and even Bo3/5s from any other player.
I'm not really sure from where comes the idea that this shouldn't be happening. It's normal. Perhaps it seems like it's happening a lot simply because there are a ton of games being played these days. So it can seem like MC is getting upset a lot, even when he's winning tournaments at his normal pace, and maintaining his outstanding win %. Of course, there is also the fact that as the game is young, it is easy for a player to lose to some strange shit they've never seen. Look at MC's poor response to Thorzain on Crossfire. He clearly simply didn't know how to respond to that build. In a more "solved" game, this is unlikely to happen as he would know the correct response and the better player would win (not saying this is MC for sure). The "everyones near the skill ceiling" option is a bit comical to be honest. The number of terribad mistakes in the GSL has been unbelievable. Pros amoving their infestors into the deathballs, Rain's game against Inca.... dont get me wrong, its not my personal opinion, i can just see how someone probably COULD make a semi decent arguement to suggest that that is possible Responding to the last point? I'm not sure how you could. If it was a case of the games skill ceiling being hit, everyone would be playing really well, with games decided by small things. Instead we have even the best players making a laundry list of errors - big and small - in every single game they play. It's nowhere near perfect play, and that's even with our still limited understanding of what perfect play in SC2 actually is.
Well, perhaps ceiling is the wrong word. I kind of meant the pace that people are increasing in skill, has slowed to the point where the slower gamers or the late arrivals have managed to get right in the mix. I didnt mean that games are bieng knocked out flawlessly, but yeah, ceiling is clearly not the word i was thinking of reading it back.
|
On April 26 2011 23:37 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
By the way, the fuck is "meta meta meta mode?"
Well wiki defined Metagaming is kind of what i mean, but i see sc2 as a more hyper mode version, so i figured it was meta, meta, META 
|
8751 Posts
On April 26 2011 23:42 Aleski wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 23:37 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
By the way, the fuck is "meta meta meta mode?" Well wiki defined Metagaming is kind of what i mean, but i see sc2 as a more hyper mode version, so i figured it was meta, meta, META
That players watch previous games that their opponents have played and then blindly counter those strategies rather than responding to what they're seeing in the game?
|
Well yeah, that falls into the category of meta gaming, but it isnt the entirety of metagaming. Its things like going hellions to force roaches then go banshees, but the other guy out meta's your ass and sees your hellions, goes queens and cancels out your banshees before they are even out.
BUT THEN
you out meta him by meta meta gaming and saying "i know he's gonna go queens, so ill just go hellions into a tank marine push" knowing he hasnt got anything bar lings and queens.
BUT THEN
he out meta's you again, by just seeing the hellions and making banelings anyway. Casters screaming saying "what is he doing!" but then they realise he is countering the counter to the counter that was going to be used as a counter.
Yeah, thats meta meta meta gaming and thats sc2
|
On April 26 2011 23:52 Aleski wrote:Well yeah, that falls into the category of meta gaming, but it isnt the entirety of metagaming. Its things like going hellions to force roaches then go banshees, but the other guy out meta's your ass and sees your hellions, goes queens and cancels out your banshees before they are even out. BUT THEN you out meta him by meta meta gaming and saying "i know he's gonna go queens, so ill just go hellions into a tank marine push" knowing he hasnt got anything bar lings and queens. BUT THEN he out meta's you again, by just seeing the hellions and making banelings anyway. Casters screaming saying "what is he doing!" but then they realise he is countering the counter to the counter that was going to be used as a counter. Yeah, thats meta meta meta gaming and thats sc2
This Is so unbelievably wrong... Top players aren't gonna have that train of thought. What is more likely is they scout and deduce the most likely strategy and attempt to counter it. They will notice much more than you will and therefore have a better idea of how to counter play.
|
On April 26 2011 23:33 Liquid`Tyler wrote:
Some players don't really belong in Code S and others don't really belong in Code A so there will always be "upsets" going on.
It's really the nature of a healthy competitive SC scene that anyone can beat anyone. Being significantly better than someone means you win ~60% of your games against them and dominating them means you win ~70% of your games against them. Single game matches and best of three games matches can easily go either way. And even if you're better than an opponent in general, you might be bad against the one thing they do best, so you have a tough time winning. Every match has the potential to be a roadblock.
It's the same for SC1. You can be the champion of MSL and fail to get through the offline qualifiers of OSL. It's incredibly rare for a player to be doing well in both leagues at once. You'd need to give your top 5 players outrageously high chances to win each game in order to get them to consistently be at the top of every league they play.
For people who aren't familiar with SC1 and OSL and MSL: Imagine that aside from GomTV's GSL, there was a 2nd league that was run in essentially the same manner, HomTV's HSL. Everyone plays in both leagues and tries equally hard in both of them. They each have rough equivalents to Code S, Code A, and Code B. Then what we saw in SC1 was that it's not uncommon for someone to be the champion, or top 4 or top 8 of Code S of GSL, while being unable to make it out of Code B of HSL. Of course, it wasn't always so extreme. But there's no magical barrier between players that GSL has somehow detected and drawn a line upon. Being #1 in the world doesn't mean you win 99% of the time against #50 in the world, especially not when #50 could possibly play you with any race and on any map and in any context.
Holy shit, I'm gonna save this quote for whenever someone comes around to claiming the game's volatility. This is absolutely right on target and crystal clear. Epic quote is epic.
I really think there should be more Korean tournaments to follow besides GSL. Having to judge players based off of one tournament can lead to some extremely flawed thinking. A lot of players start dominating or slumping in other lesser-known tournaments before being judged via GSL results.
|
On April 26 2011 23:58 Pokebunny wrote:Show nested quote +On April 26 2011 23:52 Aleski wrote:Well yeah, that falls into the category of meta gaming, but it isnt the entirety of metagaming. Its things like going hellions to force roaches then go banshees, but the other guy out meta's your ass and sees your hellions, goes queens and cancels out your banshees before they are even out. BUT THEN you out meta him by meta meta gaming and saying "i know he's gonna go queens, so ill just go hellions into a tank marine push" knowing he hasnt got anything bar lings and queens. BUT THEN he out meta's you again, by just seeing the hellions and making banelings anyway. Casters screaming saying "what is he doing!" but then they realise he is countering the counter to the counter that was going to be used as a counter. Yeah, thats meta meta meta gaming and thats sc2 This Is so unbelievably wrong... Top players aren't gonna have that train of thought. What is more likely is they scout and deduce the most likely strategy and attempt to counter it. They will notice much more than you will and therefore have a better idea of how to counter play.
hey, i didnt say this is exactly waht happens. Ofcourse not. But a lot of "blind countering" is just evaluating what they can see, to make a judgement on what they WILL see. which is still meta gaming. What are you trying to do? prove my point?
|
I voted other. For reference, refer to the "What is starcraft 2 missing" thread, and read the majority of posts there, along side with Lalush's comments. I think some features of starcraft 2 are just made to please noobs, forcefields, concussive shells, and fungal growth all negate the ability to micro and have fun with your units (unless your the executer xD)
All that aside the game is still young, things have yet to develop fully. I think however the skill is definitlly starting to even out, I mean, compare this gsl, with gsl seaons 1, 2 or 3. This season it is very hard to distinguish who is the best, where as with previous seasons we were all thinking the same thing.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
Complacency of pros. MC for example just did what Tyler predicted, a risky strategy and was punished for it. Nothing to do with the meta game or skill ceilings.
And, as has been pointed out, sometimes players just loose.
If you have a 70% competitive win ratio (i.e. you are really good) you will still loose 30% of the time, some times in the first round, some times in the final. That's just the way it works.
|
Calgary25993 Posts
This title and OP make my head fucking explode.
|
Calgary25993 Posts
For clarity, look: You can't just ask a bold question and then offer potential solutions without going through the analysis yourself.
Is the SC2 proscene volatile? Yes. Is it more volatile than BW? No. Case closed. No further analysis needed.
|
Calgary25993 Posts
Bump. I hate your thread title with every fiber of my being.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
