| Forum Index > Final Edits |
|
Ribbon
United States5278 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:00 getSome[703] wrote: Yes, having only 5 GSL championships as opposed to 12 will make winning it more meaningful. In fairness, a lot of things shouldn't have counted last year. The Super Tournament, the open tournaments, and the Blizzard Cup were all major tournaments, but I don't consider any of them proper GSLs. | ||
|
Diglett
600 Posts
or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote: kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?" or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? Best rts gamer would easily be Flash/Jaedong/Nada imo. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote: kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?" or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? I'm an SC2 player and honestly have not seen more than 5 games of pro BW in my life and until SC2 I didn't know there was such a thing as esports, but when I think best RTS player I think of jaedong, maybe because I'm zerg. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On February 13 2012 14:55 Biggun69 wrote: Well its 5 per year this year, so i guess winning a gsl championship will be more meaningful now? Definitely, before it was like having the Olympics twice a year, it simply loses its magic. Having only 5 GSLs with bigger prize pools should make a big difference to excitement. Although I think it should be twice a year only, like the OSL, and allow other tournaments to compete. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 13 2012 07:24 Squeegy wrote: They are bad players when compared to players like Flash. And not only to Flash but to players like Sea, players like every good A-teamer. They are, or were, at the same level as the top 300 of BW. That is the entire point. MVP was in that top 300. So was MC. So was MMA. There weren't 300 players better than them. There aren't 300 A-teamers. This is of course very obvious and clear to anyone who knows the context. But I guess it only shows that you don't, in which case you not being able to think of a context, well, that's not something to brag about. And you don't have to take my word for it. You can go search the BW ranking databases for yourself. You also don't want to put in quotes something you made up yourself. Intrigue talked about potential to dominate. He was not saying everyone will (instantly) dominate. Also, I think the example that there is absence of proof of a bomb explosion in my room is proof of absence. Don't you think? It's very obvious to me that there weren't 300 players better than MMA, MVP etc. But there also weren't 300 players better than Forgg/Fin, Hyun and the countless names that are written in the OP, yet those are far from dominating. So maybe we got to ask ourselves: If MMA, MVP and NesTea are dominating others that were in the top300, why shouldn't they (have the potential to) dominate/crush most of the other top300? And if a lot of the other top300 pros can't compete with those 3 (and a bunch of others), why should someone who is 1.5years late to the party have better chances? | ||
|
canikizu
4860 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote: kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?" or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? I'm thinking Moon tbh lolz. imo, If a person is a great basketball player, it doesn't mean he's gonna be a great wheelchair basketball player and vice versa. If he's great with his legs, I don't think his transition from normal basketball to wheelchair basketball gonna be smooth, and vice versa. It all depend on how he works and adapts, and that current competitive level. and yes, I think RTS is a little too broad. It's like calling algebra and geometry are all maths, and the person who is excelled in algebra is als great in geometry, but in reality, we all know that there're people who are good at one but not another, there're people who have great memories, other have good graphical imagination,.v.v.v....v.v. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote: kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?" or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? Way to broad of a category... I can't think of a lot of things that would transfer well from SC2/BW to a game like Codename: Panzers (micro only game) or The Settlers 2 (macro only game). You need way too much specific knowledge to master a PC game, that someone could really become good without tons of specific training in a competitive atmosphere. It's like asking "who is the best sportsman". | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:16 blade55555 wrote: Best rts gamer would easily be Flash/Jaedong/Nada imo. If we're going to include "of all time", we definitely need to include Savior. However shitty a person he may have been, he was an absolutely fantastic player. I think Savior in his prime would even have had a solid chance of taking games off of Flash, if not an entire series. That's not something that can be said of every player, especially not 270 APM players. Also, you should probably rank iloveoov over Nada. | ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:58 Acritter wrote: If we're going to include "of all time", we definitely need to include Savior. However shitty a person he may have been, he was an absolutely fantastic player. I think Savior in his prime would even have had a solid chance of taking games off of Flash, if not an entire series. That's not something that can be said of every player, especially not 270 APM players. Also, you should probably rank iloveoov over Nada. Definitely Savior. The fact that Effort was the only one that could take down Flash in his prime in a grand final says a lot about Savior (Efforts coach was Savior).. And Flash was so outplayed in the last 3 games, even in proleague he used to just dismantle Flash with mind-games (but only Flash lol). It sucks that Savior lost interest in BW so fast (oov mentioned it in an interview) causing his massive decline and eventually losing on purpose to get money. If SC2 came out earlier who knows what would have happened. Although while I think Oov would do much better than Nada in SC2 because of his amazing intellectual capability (insane macro/strategy/very low apm), Nada's overall record is much better than Oov. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:08 Ribbon wrote: In fairness, a lot of things shouldn't have counted last year. The Super Tournament, the open tournaments, and the Blizzard Cup were all major tournaments, but I don't consider any of them proper GSLs. The super tournament if anything was the ultimate GSL. If MVP or Nestea had won it no one would be saying it was anything other than the biggest tournament of season but since Polt did everyone looks past it. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On February 13 2012 16:22 sluggaslamoo wrote: Definitely Savior. The fact that Effort was the only one that could take down Flash in his prime in a grand final says a lot about Savior (Efforts coach was Savior).. And Flash was so outplayed in the last 3 games, even in proleague he used to just dismantle Flash with mind-games (but only Flash lol). It sucks that Savior lost interest in BW so fast (oov mentioned it in an interview) causing his massive decline and eventually losing on purpose to get money. If SC2 came out earlier who knows what would have happened. Although while I think Oov would do much better than Nada in SC2 because of his amazing intellectual capability (insane macro/strategy/very low apm), Nada's overall record is much better than Oov. Actually, I think what Savior really needed was for Bisu to show up earlier. He was losing interest because he didn't have anyone to exercise his incredible milirary mind against. By the time Bisu appeared, the Savior whose position as the greatest player to ever lay hands on the game has only really been threatened by Flash was already gone. He'd already lost his spark. If Bisu had come up with his ingenious build when Savior was still at his mental prime, he would have likely inspired the Zerg Bonjwa to continue interest in the game. Savior might have come up with Jaedong's innovations in ZvP, or possibly something even better, and probably wouldn't have entered into matchfixing in the first place. And because Savior's play is so much based on his mind and so little on his handspeed, he wouldn't have declined in skill as the years worn on. We could have seen that unparalleled genius match up against Flash with both players in their absolute primes... that indeed would be a battle for the ages. A match that would go down in history as the single best series of Starcraft to ever be played, and that no match in the future could ever compare to. A battle between the Ultimate Weapon, a player with untouchable refinement of the game's basic principles, and the God of the Battlefield, a player who never once played Starcraft, but instead preferred to dismantle his opponents from their innermost thoughts out... In the end, who could tell which would win? It's so incredibly sad, isn't it? | ||
|
Jebusrocks
Canada62 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:37 Big J wrote: It's very obvious to me that there weren't 300 players better than MMA, MVP etc. But there also weren't 300 players better than Forgg/Fin, Hyun and the countless names that are written in the OP, yet those are far from dominating. So maybe we got to ask ourselves: If MMA, MVP and NesTea are dominating others that were in the top300, why shouldn't they (have the potential to) dominate/crush most of the other top300? And if a lot of the other top300 pros can't compete with those 3 (and a bunch of others), why should someone who is 1.5years late to the party have better chances? well theres a HUGE difference in skill level in bw between players in the lower tier of the top 300, and top 10-20 in bw. A player like Fin and mvp were probably around 100ish mark, maybe higher, but thats still a huge difference with the players in the top ten (like Jangbi, flash, jaedong, etc.etc). So yes, if players from not just the top 300, but top 20 transition, i think it is safe to assume that they will do exceptionally well in sc2, tho i won't b too quick to say that they will b the best | ||
|
Arir
Finland60 Posts
That being said. I dont think Savior at his prime would have a chance vs most "modern" broodwar players. The reason he dominated was becouse he was ahead of his time and people didnt play vs his builds with optimal strategies. Jaedong and Flash are the products of the most established training methods / skill and correct strategies. No progamer of past could compete against them during their prime time. | ||
|
Acritter
Syria7637 Posts
On February 13 2012 17:08 Arir wrote: I`m one of the biggest Savior fans and followed him during his prime when he was completely unstoppable vs P and terrans couldnt handle his 3 hatch macro build. He was a genious and thats why he dominated. That being said. I dont think Savior at his prime would have a chance vs most "modern" broodwar players. The reason he dominated was becouse he was ahead of his time and people didnt play vs his builds with optimal strategies. Jaedong and Flash are the products of the most established training methods / skill and correct strategies. No progamer of past could compete against them during their prime time. I disagree. He would be able to optimize his builds in turn, and then use his incredible tactical and strategic mind to make some incredible things happen. Savior's dominance wasn't just build orders. It was that he was a genius on every level except for handspeed. For all the time players have put into it, Broodwar hasn't been "figured out" yet. There's always room for a Boxer or a Nada or an iloveoov or a Savior or a Bisu or a Jaedong to discover more miracles hidden deep within the game. | ||
|
tpmraven
United States833 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote: kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?" or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? My first thought, even if it was incorrect, was Moon. It was just my gut reaction. I never followed BW, never watched replays with rapt attention, I did this with wc3, and it left an impression. Its kind of odd that Moon was my gut reaction, since i have long struggled with who i feel was the best wc3 pro. Was it sky, or moon... Bah way off topic. Yeah bw pros wont, and dont, rule the momemnt they switch. But they could, if the play with the same dedication, become one of the best. | ||
|
Longshank
1648 Posts
On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote: Ah, so it is yet another case of not understanding the argument! I see I was right again. The dictionary definition of dominate is not as important as what Intrigue meant by it. I'll explain it in very simple terms what I mean. I use MVP only as an example to illustrate my point. He represents the top of SC2. I could use other players too but using MVP is much less controversial since his level was better established than most others. 1. Intrigue knows BW scene 2. MVP is a top 100 BW player 3. Intrigue knows MVP is a top 100 BW player 4. Intrigue argues that BW skill is (at least to an extent) proportional to SC2 skill 5. Intrigue argues that the best 300 BW players have the potential to dominate SC2 6. Intrigue claims that MVP dominates SC2 7. Intrigue's argument would not be internally consistent if he argued top 300 (excluding the top 100) had the potential to dominate the top 100* 8. Intrigue did not argue that the best 300 BW players (excluding the top 100) would dominate MVP 9. Intrigue meant something else than what you think by dominate 10. I claim Intrigue meant something else than what you think by dominate 11. I am correct * I suppose in a way they do have the potential (anybody can beat anybody). But not in the way Intrigue means. And as for the second part, you really have trouble understanding this, don't you? It is still the non-BW players who are being dominated by the BW players. It is the BW players who are dominating the scene now. The best 300 BW players who would switch would also dominate the scene, but they would not dominate those BW players (who are already dominating) as they are both part of the same group. MVP and MC are amongst the best 300 BW players. But once we are more specific and talk about the A-teamers and such we get from dominating to crushing. It was a very clear distinction made by Intrigue. I hope you don't analyze things for a job! What kind of misunderstandings would that lead to! You should try something like an assembly line. You might find it more suitable for your skills. You are correct, I truly do not understand, and I probably never will. Much like a child being taught algebra by a donkey, it's futile. I just hope you understand why there is confusion when by 'dominate' he meant 'playing roughly at the same level as', 'SC2 scene' was really 'non ex-BW players' and now when the 300 players that could come in and dominate at any given time also includes the current(at the time) 40-50 ex-bw pros that had already switched. On February 13 2012 13:54 sluggaslamoo wrote: Although badly worded imo, I think I get what the 300 player thing is coming from. Basically its not saying that the top 300 would beat MVP as that doesn't really make any sense as MVP was at least in the top 100. Its more or less saying that if the top 300 switched over, the competition and skill level would rise dramatically. But most of the foreign SC2 players would probably be as they were in BW, and most of the code A players would be replaced with these BW players (at the time of the writing). The average skill level would inevitably rise dramatically and the less experienced/dedicated [SC2 only] players would fall down, it seems like an obvious point when you think about it. Perhaps at the fringes we may still see MVP/Nestea/MC still in code S. However, I'm sure TBLS would still be the top four, their skills are out of this world even without BW micro. I agree 100% with this. The problem is the language and the construction of the OP. He could have chosen a different approach, one more balanced and leveled, one that wouldn't alienate 90% of the readers. He didn't unfortunately. I'm done with this topic, the ugly thing can not die if I keep bumping it :/ | ||
|
archonOOid
1983 Posts
If there is a diminishing player base in bw and time goes on for the top player their skill will deteriorate while the new players will be less skilled. Then there is no way for either a up and coming player or a top level bw player in a stagnate bw universe to compete with players from a flourishing game like sc2. | ||
|
FuRRyChoBo
United States218 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: imo, If a person is a great basketball player, it doesn't mean he's gonna be a great wheelchair basketball player rofl at comparing bw to basketball and sc2 to being in a wheelchair and +1 to the savior discussion...he'll always be ma bonjwa to me, regardless of what anyone says. On February 13 2012 19:31 archonOOid wrote: the only way for bw pros to enter the sc2 battlefield and become a major champion is that the sc2 starts dieing. Otherwise I don't see how well they can overcome the fact that sc2 pro-gamers have a major "time spent" advantage and a similar training regime. this doesn't make any sense at all. sc2 is still a ridiculously young game. compare today's builds to what you saw a year ago...they're not even close. a year ago literally you needed was decent macro and a primitive understanding of timings to be high masters, which isn't the case now. "time spent advantage" doesn't exist after a certain amount of time spent by the player learning the game. it's hard to say exactly how much time that is, but it's not THAT long by any standards. | ||
|
ChrysaliS_
United States261 Posts
On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote: kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?" or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? Anyone who doesn't acknowledge the BW greats as the best RTS players is simply delusional. | ||
| ||
|
|
WardiTV European League
ByuN vs NightPhoenix
HeRoMaRinE vs HiGhDrA
Krystianer vs sebesdes
MaxPax vs Babymarine
SKillous vs Mixu
ShoWTimE vs MaNa
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
OSC
WardiTV European League
Scarlett vs Percival
Jumy vs ArT
YoungYakov vs Shameless
uThermal vs Fjant
Nicoract vs goblin
Harstem vs Gerald
FEL
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
RSL Revival
FEL
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
