|
On February 12 2012 14:41 lorkac wrote:
Correcting something that is both argumentatively and empirically wrong is called common sense.
Article said top 300 could dominate--top 100 couldnt handle code A while forGG couldn't even beat leenock who's BW resume is that he laddered a bit.
Argument wrong.
Prediction wrong.
Evidence available wrong.
Correcting something wrong is called common sense.
The prediction can't be fulfilled yet because no more than two GOOD BW pros have switched to SC2 in the last year, one which only just started in November.
It should be obvious the numbers used in this article can't carry be applied today because of how different and evolved the game has become from when this was written. I certainly think even the best BW players will have to work hard to become great at SC2 but the top32 players all have the talent and work ethic to make it into the top ranks of GSL given sufficient time. If Boxer can still make it to Code-S I'm confident many who are still competing in BW can supplant those who we now consider the best players in SC2.
|
I think the use of "skill ceiling" is used poorly in this thread often. Reaching a skill ceiling is extremely unlikely for such a dynamic game with such a vast amount of variables.
Things like tic-tac-toe have skill ceilings. They have few variables and they're pretty simple games. Two at the skill ceiling can only draw the game. Obviously the skill ceiling destroys the possibility of this being competitive.
But then you look at chess. As the skill and knowledge of chess has increased, it has still yet to get to a point where it can be solved meaning the skill ceiling is still too high even for super computers and over a century of competitive play to reach. And chess is a game with a very limited amount of pieces, limited amounts of moves, and a small board. Relative to something like SC, it is very very few variables.
So when you take something like SC which basically has endless amounts of variables compared to traditional strategy games, how could you imagine that someone could possibly reach a point where the game becomes trivial and solved? Certainly you could not. No matter how much we play this game, we will never reach a point where it becomes so trivial, that the game becomes decided purely based on the initial conditions (Which would either mean one player will win no matter what given their starting location, or both players will draw no matter what. Both will play perfectly.)
So I think this discussion that often comes up about "skill ceilings" is just silly and we should stop bringing it up. It is completely unreasonable and irrational to imagine a point where human players will reach a skill ceiling in a game like StarCraft.
----
As for the Elephant subject, I gave my opinion when this article was originally posted and I still think the article is ridiculous. It used so much over-the-top language and so many exaggerated statements and numbers that it was almost impossible to even take it seriously. It is very reasonable to imagine that players at the top of BW may find lots of success in SC2, but the idea that the current field was simply some sort of farce is foolish.
And even if it were a farce in that BW players switching would completely dominate the scene, I still don't see why that would take away from the enjoyment of watching the game.
Imagine if the whole world started playing BW and endless amounts of money was poured into improving practice and research on the game, then we would be seeing much higher levels of competition in BW. The current BW lineup would simply not compare. But why would we ever let this purely hypothetical scenario take away from our current enjoyment of viewing competitive BW? We wouldn't, the simple reality that the current competitive level could potentially be better doesn't have to diminish the current competition.
We can enjoy the current competitive group, and then when more BW pros switch over, we can enjoy their contribution to the competitive level of SC2. It can all just be positive, no need to search for something to whine about.
|
On February 12 2012 16:04 Oktyabr wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 15:59 whatusername wrote:On February 12 2012 15:42 Trashie wrote:
Stop talking about skill ceilings. No, it will never happen. We're physically incapable of hitting a skill ceiling. Yes, SC2 is a mechanically easier game than BW - obviously, but please stop the skill ceiling crap.
As for this drawn out and boring discussion, I'm pretty sure only the S-class monsters will be able to dominate as hard as you want. Not because they're somehow fueled by the magic of BW, but because they're god damn RTS prodigies. Give them any game, and they will be a force to be reckoned with. skill ceiling doesnt matter? sweet, who wants to play me at tic-tac-toe? He's saying that it wouldn't be reached, not that it doesn't matter.
he's saying that it doesn't matter because it won't ever be reached. lol
|
On February 12 2012 16:17 whatusername wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 16:04 Oktyabr wrote:On February 12 2012 15:59 whatusername wrote:On February 12 2012 15:42 Trashie wrote:
Stop talking about skill ceilings. No, it will never happen. We're physically incapable of hitting a skill ceiling. Yes, SC2 is a mechanically easier game than BW - obviously, but please stop the skill ceiling crap.
As for this drawn out and boring discussion, I'm pretty sure only the S-class monsters will be able to dominate as hard as you want. Not because they're somehow fueled by the magic of BW, but because they're god damn RTS prodigies. Give them any game, and they will be a force to be reckoned with. skill ceiling doesnt matter? sweet, who wants to play me at tic-tac-toe? He's saying that it wouldn't be reached, not that it doesn't matter. he's saying that it doesn't matter because it won't ever be reached. lol
Uh, no? He's saying that it can't be reached in SC2, despite it being easier than BW, and that's why that isn't really a point of contention at all.
|
This is horrendously inaccurate and ignores all opposing viewpoints.
|
On February 12 2012 14:41 lorkac wrote:
Correcting something that is both argumentatively and empirically wrong is called common sense.
Article said top 300 could dominate--top 100 couldnt handle code A while forGG couldn't even beat leenock who's BW resume is that he laddered a bit.
Argument wrong.
Prediction wrong.
Evidence available wrong.
Correcting something wrong is called common sense.
ForGG lost to Leenock, therefore argument wrong. Nice one.
On February 12 2012 15:04 writer22816 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 13:56 lorkac wrote:On February 12 2012 09:08 writer22816 wrote:On February 12 2012 00:31 lorkac wrote:
A.) hyun and forGG haven't even faced MVP yet. So far taeja and leenock are too much for them.
B.) hyun is in the top 100 of bw players if you simply go to liquipedia and physically count the number of programmers.
The top 50-100 bw players will be about as good and dominating as players like Yugioh and tassadar. In that they'll be good enough to conquer code a but get raped in code s.
it's arguable that the top 50-25 will possibly be as good as alive and genius. Solid code s presence, not clear favorites.
When you get to the top 20 of flash and jangbi and stork and fantasy--if they train hard enough, they could be at least as consistent and threatening as nestea, MC and MVP.
Which would mean that the competition in BW is exactly the same as the competition in SC2 if you're argument transForma into "the top 20 in bw will do as well as the top 20 in SC2"
So you are extrapolating the results of 2 to fit the results of hundreds... Specifically I'm using the failures of the top 100 BW players to suggest that the top 300 are most likely not going to do as well unless, of course, BW experience doesnt matter in which case the OP is wrong. If BW experience does matter then 100% of the only evidence is only doing as well as they're respective "ranks" ie, two players below rank 50 are able to beat the sc2 players who are below rank 50 in the world--suggesting that the players above rank 50 in BW will do as well as players in the top 50 of sc2. Unless of course BW experience matters less than overall RTS experience--in which case the OP is wrong. In both cases the OP would be wrong regardless. No, you are using the results of 2 BW players, who are not even definitely above the skill level of MVP to extrapolate for the entire scene. I don't know if BW players will dominate (that will depend on SC2's skill ceiling which quite frankly I am worried about) but your conclusion is hasty and fallacious. Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 00:59 lorkac wrote:
If they take more than a few months of practice--then its no longer their BW past but their strong practice ethic that is pushing them past first round code A.
Did you read the article? I don't think you understand the article. The reason why people think BW players will dominate SC2 is not because they play BW and SC2 is the sequel. It's because of experience in playing a highly competitive game in a highly competitive scene that has been around for over a decade. Call it practice ethic, general RTS skill, whatever, these players have the skill to be the best at any competitive RTS. The incredibly high level of skill in BW scene is unmatched by any other RTS and most likely any other game. MVP, MC, Nestea etc were also part of that scene except they were literally the bottom of the barrel.
Don't worry. I already explained that and other things to him and them but they just don't wish to listen. Hoi polloi and such.
|
Hah..people keep changing the requirements of what it takes to prove that there is no elephant in the room. If you're so bold as to claim that the current SC2 competition is a farce, you'd better stand by your claim and definitions as well as the classifications of players. Don't shift the goal posts as more and more evidence are coming out that there really is no elephant in the room.
|
Nice to read this, quite interesting of you think about it.
|
Saying SC2 has a low skill ceiling is just a roundabout way of saying how BW is harder than SC2 and how people wish SC2 kept the old things from BW.
I know BW has that immaculate place in a lot of old fans' hearts, but let's be realistic here.
1.Even pros make tons of macro or mechanic mistakes. People have been arguing that pros in SC2 suck compared to pros in BW, and we can't really confirm or deny that notion until those players deemed good BW players make the shift and either prosper or fail in the SC2 scene.
2.A lot of changes from BW to SC2 are just quality of life changes. Sure they are "easier", but that's no different than doing complicated math with a calculator or screwing in bolts with an electric screwdriver: the tools improve. If you really want to play the old way you can limit yourself to 12 units per control group, set your miner rally next to mineral lines, and individually group up casters to avoid smartcasts. I do not have a good proposal of how to make your Stalkers mimic the retarded Dragoon movement in BW though.
|
On February 12 2012 21:27 kheldorin wrote:
Hah..people keep changing the requirements of what it takes to prove that there is no elephant in the room. If you're so bold as to claim that the current SC2 competition is a farce, you'd better stand by your claim and definitions as well as the classifications of players. Don't shift the goal posts as more and more evidence are coming out that there really is no elephant in the room.
You said it better than I could. Absolutely agree with this post.
|
The level of play nowadays is really high. Maybe half a year ago I could see just a basic dissatisfaction with the top players: they were the most successful, but their games were hardly involving or seemed to demonstrate too much skill. However, if you see the Jjakji vs Leenock GSL finals you might think that while these two players possibly don't compare to the truly top tier talent, they still demonstrate so much skill and talent that you can hardly call the competition a farce. Even if the top 20 of Brood War would switch over it would still take them months and months of practice before they even got to this level, let alone surpassed it.
One thing I always find interesting is how different skill sets are rewarded with games that are figured out versus ones that are new. In the latter case you often have quite clever people with a lot of talent for innovation and strategy (or a lot of background experience in it, at the very least) that are the most successful. I had a random look at an old "top 200 in Korean ladder" thread of over a year back and you can see a lot of names in there that are absolutely top tier now, like DRG, Jjakji, aLive and these players had very little success in even qualifying for the GSL back then despite being already top players. I don't know what the cause of their lack of success back then was, but I honestly doubt if they would be able to beat players like FruitDealer and Rainbow then. A lot has changed since then and they have proved themselves to be more solid, but it's still FD and Rainbow that have the success in the earlier open seasons. FruitDealer also didn't practice too much even then, though he said in an interview he was always good at new games (he was maybe the top beta player too).
This is just to say that if Heart of the Swarm gets finally released it might be somewhat as big a change from Wings of liberty as that game was from Starcraft: Brood War. Obviously it's not of the same scale, and since there is a lot of infrastructure for SC2 now the period where the game state is in complete disarray might be a lot less longer than for WoL. If the SC:BW pros would want to pick a time to switch over, the best one would probably be late 2012, so that they can start practicing HotS while the other pros are still playing WoL (since Blizz said they want WoL to be played all of 2012, only switching over to HotS in 2013). They have the advantage of a mostly clean slate to reset a lot of knowledge so they are a lot less behind the current SC2 pros. However, since it's a new game it might still be that some wildly out of the blue person starts dominating with unheard of strategies before the game rewards more solid play again.
|
Look, it is difficult for BW fans to take the competition in SC2 seriously because the players who dominate the scene now - and every one who switched really, except maybe ForGG (but he too were no where near the top when he switched) - were bad at BW. If you compare MVP with Flash, Jaedong or Bisu, or even Baby, Leta, Zero, Best etc etc, MVP was lacking in ALL aspects of the game: game sens, micro, macro, timing, strategical understanding, work ethics. It is hard to imagine that these players wouldn't dominate him in a game that is so similar to BW.
The only argument would be that ForGG isn't doing that great despite being good at BW. The problem is that he, like Nada, Boxer and Julyzerg, was not doing good when he stoped playing BW. He was closer to his peak form than the others, but he almost never got to play for KT in proleague. And if you think you can compare ForGG to the best right now in BW you are very, very wrong: he said in an interview not long ago that he practiced one whole day TvT with Flash without winning a single game.
|
On February 12 2012 19:02 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 14:41 lorkac wrote:
Correcting something that is both argumentatively and empirically wrong is called common sense.
Article said top 300 could dominate--top 100 couldnt handle code A while forGG couldn't even beat leenock who's BW resume is that he laddered a bit.
Argument wrong.
Prediction wrong.
Evidence available wrong.
Correcting something wrong is called common sense. ForGG lost to Leenock, therefore argument wrong. Nice one.
Well to him, HuK, MC, finale, EXTREME and a lot of other people.
ForGG is not that amazing, people only have that impression of him because of his Code A run.
|
On February 12 2012 16:12 Befree wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
I think the use of "skill ceiling" is used poorly in this thread often. Reaching a skill ceiling is extremely unlikely for such a dynamic game with such a vast amount of variables.
Things like tic-tac-toe have skill ceilings. They have few variables and they're pretty simple games. Two at the skill ceiling can only draw the game. Obviously the skill ceiling destroys the possibility of this being competitive.
But then you look at chess. As the skill and knowledge of chess has increased, it has still yet to get to a point where it can be solved meaning the skill ceiling is still too high even for super computers and over a century of competitive play to reach. And chess is a game with a very limited amount of pieces, limited amounts of moves, and a small board. Relative to something like SC, it is very very few variables.
So when you take something like SC which basically has endless amounts of variables compared to traditional strategy games, how could you imagine that someone could possibly reach a point where the game becomes trivial and solved? Certainly you could not. No matter how much we play this game, we will never reach a point where it becomes so trivial, that the game becomes decided purely based on the initial conditions (Which would either mean one player will win no matter what given their starting location, or both players will draw no matter what. Both will play perfectly.)
So I think this discussion that often comes up about "skill ceilings" is just silly and we should stop bringing it up. It is completely unreasonable and irrational to imagine a point where human players will reach a skill ceiling in a game like StarCraft.
----
As for the Elephant subject, I gave my opinion when this article was originally posted and I still think the article is ridiculous. It used so much over-the-top language and so many exaggerated statements and numbers that it was almost impossible to even take it seriously. It is very reasonable to imagine that players at the top of BW may find lots of success in SC2, but the idea that the current field was simply some sort of farce is foolish.
And even if it were a farce in that BW players switching would completely dominate the scene, I still don't see why that would take away from the enjoyment of watching the game.
Imagine if the whole world started playing BW and endless amounts of money was poured into improving practice and research on the game, then we would be seeing much higher levels of competition in BW. The current BW lineup would simply not compare. But why would we ever let this purely hypothetical scenario take away from our current enjoyment of viewing competitive BW? We wouldn't, the simple reality that the current competitive level could potentially be better doesn't have to diminish the current competition.
We can enjoy the current competitive group, and then when more BW pros switch over, we can enjoy their contribution to the competitive level of SC2. It can all just be positive, no need to search for something to whine about.
Since players in SC2 have imperfect information, there are other possibilities. For instance, it could turn out to be like rock-paper-scissors. I assume the solved version of SC2 looks like that, at least for mirror matchups.
|
I like how ppl are using ForGG as a reference to a "good BW player" trolololo
ForGG was still horrendously bad (except for his specialty, random TvP timing pushes which eventually died out due to good goon micro) during a time where Flash was still killing every zerg left, right, and center with what is considered now to be a standard build that every Z should know how to counter (e.g.: Soulkey). I don't get how he can be used as any sort of reference, esp. with the level of play nowadays.
|
On February 12 2012 22:28 ymir233 wrote:
I like how ppl are using ForGG as a reference to a "good BW player" trolololo
ForGG was still horrendously bad (except for his specialty, random TvP timing pushes which eventually died out due to good goon micro) during a time where Flash was still killing every zerg left, right, and center with what is considered now to be a standard build that every Z should know how to counter (e.g.: Soulkey). I don't get how he can be used as any sort of reference, esp. with the level of play nowadays.
What a high quality post right here. -_-
|
Well, if people find every single pro that have swapped over from BW "bad", then it's just all speculation right now?
It's the same as "my dad can beat up your dad", but until a pro that people considered really good in the pro scene swap over succeed or fail, we can't really draw any conclusions, right?
|
On February 12 2012 22:36 Bayyne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 22:28 ymir233 wrote:
I like how ppl are using ForGG as a reference to a "good BW player" trolololo
ForGG was still horrendously bad (except for his specialty, random TvP timing pushes which eventually died out due to good goon micro) during a time where Flash was still killing every zerg left, right, and center with what is considered now to be a standard build that every Z should know how to counter (e.g.: Soulkey). I don't get how he can be used as any sort of reference, esp. with the level of play nowadays. What a high quality post right here. -_-
Yes, I believe posting specifics with correct chronology and references to prove my point is indeed a post of some quality, quite unlike yours. gtfo.
|
On February 12 2012 21:27 kheldorin wrote:
Hah..people keep changing the requirements of what it takes to prove that there is no elephant in the room. If you're so bold as to claim that the current SC2 competition is a farce, you'd better stand by your claim and definitions as well as the classifications of players. Don't shift the goal posts as more and more evidence are coming out that there really is no elephant in the room.
Well, naturally. The argument was that the competition was a farce then. The argument is that the competition is a less of a farce now but is still missing the single most talented pool of established RTS players. It is a temporal argument. Shifting goal posts is entirely fine.
On February 12 2012 22:16 HappyVlane wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2012 19:02 Squeegy wrote:On February 12 2012 14:41 lorkac wrote:
Correcting something that is both argumentatively and empirically wrong is called common sense.
Article said top 300 could dominate--top 100 couldnt handle code A while forGG couldn't even beat leenock who's BW resume is that he laddered a bit.
Argument wrong.
Prediction wrong.
Evidence available wrong.
Correcting something wrong is called common sense. ForGG lost to Leenock, therefore argument wrong. Nice one. Well to him, HuK, MC, finale, EXTREME and a lot of other people. ForGG is not that amazing, people only have that impression of him because of his Code A run.
You should be careful when putting weight on small online cups. Of course it is still evidence but not that much. I do agree, he is not that amazing (whatever that means). But he still made it to Code S on his first try. That is quite amazing. Especially since he did now when the skill level is high and not a year ago.
On February 12 2012 22:41 david0925 wrote:
Well, if people find every single pro that have swapped over from BW "bad", then it's just all speculation right now?
It's the same as "my dad can beat up your dad", but until a pro that people considered really good in the pro scene swap over succeed or fail, we can't really draw any conclusions, right?
It is not only speculation because there is also evidence. The scene is dominated by former BW players. The problem that obscures the issue is that the BW players who play SC2 now were either in decline in BW or not noticeable in BW. Those who were the closest to being noticeable and not in decline in BW would probably be HyuN, MVP and ForGG. Of those one is, I dare say, considered the best player in SC2. One made it into Code A after around a month of proper practise. One has played for a longer time, but there is a reason to believe that he didn't play very seriously (he didn't enter tournaments), for the majority of that time. And on his first try he goes to Code S. For some reason people think that because they haven't crushed the competition now, a year after the article was released, the elephant is dead. But the truth is, of course, that they just don't understand the argument. The competition was a farce back then. It is a less of a farce now but it is still far from what it could be if the BW pros switched. If the entire scene would switch, I don't think you would see guys like MMA hanging at the top very long.
|
how absurd. you can't just change the argument now that players have gotten better. these players are still the same plays since last year, even if they have gotten much better. the fact they put in their hard work training combined with their dreams, to reach where they are today. it is downright disrespectful to just say "oh well they got better so it's no longer a farce"
face it, this article is downright wrong. it would be correct to say flash, jaedong, and top s class players would have a high probability to dominate sc2, but to say 300, or even 100, is downright ignorant. do not make such silly speculations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
