EPTForeigners Suck #3 - Page 9
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
no.1
516 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
| ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:16 Hot_Bid wrote: i don't see how it really is that insulting that they think they are better than you, is it really a big deal that some random guys that don't even play this game anymore think they are better than you? insulting was the wrong word i think theyre wrong and their opinion is somewhat stupid. | ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
| ||
Hot_Bid
Braavos36389 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:14 Skew wrote: Uhh.. yes it is. Talent doesn't _mean_ anything and people aren't born with innate abilities. "talent doesn't mean anything" is completely different than "people aren't born with innate abilities" i cannot believe how someone born and raised in the 20th century would not think people are born with innate abilities. people are born with a wide range of intelligence, personality, and other factors that will influence how good they are or are not at something. lebron james didn't workout a day in his life before going to the NBA, but he was strong, 6'8" and coordinated. while you could say he wasn't "born specifically with basketball skill" he WAS born with a combination of genetic abilities that contribute to him being good at sports, basketball being one of those sports. so you can draw the same analogy to starcraft, someone who is born with insanely fast hands, great hand-eye coordination, quick learning brain, intelligent, etc. is born with "talent factors" that make him have the potential to be a better starcraft player than some random retarded dude. i agree if this person doesn't work hard or doesn't play starcraft his talent won't be realized. but you saying it "doesn't mean anything" is ridiculous--it means EVERYTHING to a pro-team. Savior, Bisu, and Boxer, whoever the champions are, they are born with simply MORE of that stuff i listed. You could even argue that work-ethic and determination are partially innate too. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36389 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:21 Skew wrote: Talent isn't used right if it ever was. Bid and every other person on this forum use it when they see someone who's better than another, but are unable to explain why. So they slap the talent sticker on it and call it a day. Unfortunately that's not how things work, and most people are not better than others because they were born a different way, but I guess explaining it is too difficult (if only I was more talented T_T). 1. Don't make assumptions about me. 2. You're saying that when you look at michael jordan you think you are born exactly the same as him? He's not better than you at sports because he's born in a different way? Albert Einstein wasn't born differently than you? 3. Haha I agree about the last sentence. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36389 Posts
but to think that everyone is born with the ability/potential to be picasso or mozart or einstein is just flat stupid. starcraft is just a different level of that extreme example. there are "einsteins" in starcraft: Savior, Boxer, etc. these guys are players born with certain qualities that no matter how hard you practiced you can't be as good as them. accepting this isn't "using talent wrong." | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
my initial post i actually said talent only defines the nadas and the saviors kinda got warped from there i just think 'talent' is pretty much meaningless outside of the very very best, because anyone with the dedication and practice environment can become a good progamer, given time. | ||
|
Skew
United States1019 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:23 Hot_Bid wrote: 1. Don't make assumptions about me. 2. You're saying that when you look at michael jordan you think you are born exactly the same as him? He's not better than you at sports because he's born in a different way? Albert Einstein wasn't born differently than you? I'm talking about StarCraft... argggg, and I said 'most'. The other thing wasn't to you. Anyways I'm glad you are finally talking about things that exist, instead of a cover word ;p | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36389 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:29 IdrA wrote: ya that i can agree with my initial post i actually said talent only defines the nadas and the saviors kinda got warped from there i just think 'talent' is pretty much meaningless outside of the very very best, because anyone with the dedication and practice environment can become a good progamer, given time. again, "anyone" in this context is someone who is reasonably coordinated, reasonably intelligent, can learn, is dedicated, etc... these are "talent" factors. the average "anyone" can't be a good progamer. i think talent affects everyone on the progaming spectrum, from the worst player ever all the way up to Savior and Bisu. when you get to korean proleagues you're already dealing with the best of the best, so the differences are really small (60% win ratio is amazing) but given how tiny the margins are between victory/defeat, those small differences due to talent are significant. i.e. if you accept that talent separates a champion Savior and Bisu from a "good" progamer, you surely would accept that talent separates a "good" progamer like Mania or Lomo from a mediocre or bad one like Clon? I don't see why its only applicable to the very top. | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36389 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:30 Skew wrote: I'm talking about StarCraft... argggg, and I said 'most'. The other thing wasn't to you. Anyways I'm glad you are finally talking about things that exist, instead of a cover word ;p starcraft is just a different level of that einstein example. there are "einsteins" in starcraft: Savior, Boxer, etc. these guys are players born with certain qualities that no matter how hard you practiced you can't be as good as them. accepting this isn't "using 'talent' wrong." | ||
|
Guybrush
Spain4744 Posts
Chances are Maynard wouldnt be the clearly best american player if he would\'ve continued playing. Others would most likely surpass him and hed reach his peak, but he got a headstart due to his talent of understanding the game. Nowadays that isnt as important as when something is new like BW was then. So in a way the oldschoolers are right about the talent needed back then was much more evident than now. However the ability to reach a certain level also requires a talent, and many oldschoolers overrate themselves in this type of talent saying if they had continued playing they would have been much better than the current elite. That is wrong, and in that way some of the newer players might be more talented in ability to reach a peak. The peak has been marginal from the Oov domination days to Savior and Bisu days though, and the foreign elite has barely changed, other than some good players quitting. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:35 Hot_Bid wrote: again, "anyone" in this context is someone who is reasonably coordinated, reasonably intelligent, can learn, is dedicated, etc... these are "talent" factors. the average "anyone" can't be a good progamer. i think talent affects everyone on the progaming spectrum, from the worst player ever all the way up to Savior and Bisu. when you get to korean proleagues you're already dealing with the best of the best, so the differences are really small (60% win ratio is amazing) but given how tiny the margins are between victory/defeat, those small differences due to talent are significant. i.e. if you accept that talent separates a champion Savior and Bisu from a "good" progamer, you surely would accept that talent separates a "good" progamer like Mania or Lomo from a mediocre or bad one like Clon? I don't see why its only applicable to the very top. because mediocre players can become very good players. look at iris, he was a fairly constant starleaguer, never really did anything. was more known for being shitty tvz than for anything else. and all the sudden he busts out and almost beats savior at the height of savior's reign, and starts owning everyone else. he didnt suddenly get smarter or more coordinated. the only reason i say it does define the very best is because (unless im forgetting someone) you never see some mediocre player all the sudden become undefeatable. nada,oov,savior all burst out onto the scene and fucked everyone up. and even those people arent constantly on top, which i would view as just another indicator that practice and determination and mental state are far more important factors in a players performance than some innate aptitude. | ||
|
{ToT}Strafe
Thailand7026 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:20 IdrA wrote: insulting was the wrong word i think theyre wrong and their opinion is somewhat stupid. How about I challenge you for a bo5 at old maps that I can pick and I'm willing to bet money on it? Would you take it? | ||
|
Hot_Bid
Braavos36389 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:45 IdrA wrote: because mediocre players can become very good players. look at iris, he was a fairly constant starleaguer, never really did anything. was more known for being shitty tvz than for anything else. and all the sudden he busts out and almost beats savior at the height of savior's reign, and starts owning everyone else. he didnt suddenly get smarter or more coordinated. the only reason i say it does define the very best is because (unless im forgetting someone) you never see some mediocre player all the sudden become undefeatable. nada,oov,savior all burst out onto the scene and fucked everyone up. and even those people arent constantly on top, which i would view as just another indicator that practice and determination and mental state are far more important factors in a players performance than some innate aptitude. i can see your point but the subset of players you named (iris, savior, nada, oov) already all have crazy talent. that's like saying "among kobe bryant, dwayne wade, lebron james, and carmelo anthony, work ethic matters more than talent" well obviously in a group of players that are already the most innate ability, those factors like "practice, determination, and mental state" will matter more than innate aptitude because they all have ridiculous amounts of innate aptitude but lets say "among nada, oov, savior, iris, bisu, and rekrul, practice,determination, and mental state matter more than innate aptitude" people will be like no fucking way | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
but lets say "among nada, oov, savior, iris, bisu, and rekrul, practice,determination, and mental state matter more than innate aptitude" people will be like no fucking way i would agree with that wholeheartedly. rek went to korea, and essentially blew it off (from his own stories). went out and partied, spent his time playing poker instead of practicing. little practice, no apparent determination, and he failed. and my whole point was that iris didnt have 'crazy talent'. he was just another standard terran who looked like hed never amount to anything real. and all the sudden he got top 4 in 2 consecutive starleagues and was beating the scariest players around. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On October 13 2007 23:52 {ToT}Strafe wrote: How about I challenge you for a bo5 at old maps that I can pick and I'm willing to bet money on it? Would you take it? so you want to try to beat me at imbalanced maps i dont know? you're a manly man~ | ||
|
rei
United States3594 Posts
how do you judge starcraft talents? I know in basketball it's the hight of the person, agility of the person, skill and knowledge is not a natural ability. In football what really matters is speed, everything else you can teach, and grind with hardwork. Knowledge of the game is not part of the talent pool, because that comes with experience. apm is not part of the talent pool, because that comes with partice Strategy, timmng are not part of the talent pool, that comes from watching replays over and over. In order to end this debate you guys must aggree up on one thing: What do you consider to be a natural talent in the game of starcraft. What do you think the Korean have in different from the rest of the world? My definition for talent in broodwar is the willingness to do Hard WorK. What's yours? | ||
|
Thinkingling
Sweden15 Posts
In addition, the _relative importance_ of talent vs practice can differ. What I am about to say has been mentioned previously, but this might be a clearer illustration: Player A has an incredible creative talent for strategizing new build orders and unit mixes. He relies 70 percent on talent och 30 percent on practice. Now, replays start getting distributed. Everyone learns his plays. Proteams starts perfecting build orders mechanically. He can no longer rely 70 percent on talent because the circumstances are changing. If he is to continue competing at a high level, he has to step up his practice and perhaps instead rely 40 percent on talent and 60 percent on practice. Player B has a great talent for sensing when to attack and when to fall back. To sense when macro is more important than micro, and vice versa. Like Player A, Player B initially relies 70 percent on talent and 30 percent on practice. This "sense-of-star"-talent is more subtle than the "build order"-talent of Player A, so Player B initially gets defeated by Player A. Now, as the game of Starcraft is analyzed, Player A's talent is less effective, as described above. However, the talent of Player B is much more difficult to copy, so Player B can still rely perhaps 55 percent on talent and 45 percent on practice. In addition, now it is Player B that defeats Player A. Conclusion: The importance of talent might differ between different players, and between different circumstances. | ||
|
Gandalf
Pakistan1905 Posts
When people say someone is "talented" for, say, Starcraft, they dont mean he was born with the innate ability to macro or micro well. It doesnt mean he or she has special neuronal processes designed specifically to improve starcraft performances, or extra fine hand muscles for that perfect micro. They mean he has the physical/mental/emotional skills to give him an advantage over other people. Fine motor skills, for example, vary a lot from person to person, and they obviously play a role in micro. Similarly, people who react faster will have an edge. So will people who are smarter, or more creative. The example about a 100 IQ guy losing to a 200 IQ guy actually only reinforces what hotbid is saying, since having a 200 IQ equips the person with a greater degree of understanding of the game, the ability to learn faster, and possibly to be more innovative. In other words, its one of his "talents" that'll help him be better at SC. That said, hard work and practice will, of course, help one improve, irrespective of talent. But when we talk about korea, where everyone plays their skin off, the people who reach the top arent just the ones who practice a lot, they're also those who are mentally and physically better equipped to master the game. In an environment like that, the amount of practice and hard work probably becomes the constant factor. I agree with Idra that nerves do play a role, being on stage and being aware god knows how many people are watching you. I do think hes exaggerated it a bit, though, and that people learn to control them somewhat with experience. I also think that the ability to remain calm and completely lucid under pressure is a "talent" that will help a person in any televised, widely followed sport. | ||
| ||
