|
On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 07:27 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:24 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 06:24 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 05:47 Longshank wrote:
This is amazing. So now dominating actually means(if I read your graphics right) being a step behind to top players? Code B/A-ish? And would this mean that Incontrol is in fact dominating the NA scene? As usual, you read it wrong. The upper line represents the 300 BW players that haven't switched. The line below shows where the current top SC2 players rank on that line. In other words, the current top SC2 players are on the same level as the top 300. But not on the same level as say the top 50 (right-hand side of the line). Point being that Intrigue, knowing the scene, was aware of this. This is why he made a distinction between dominating (doing as well as the current top players, who, quite literally, dominate the scene) and crushing (doing better than the current top players). proof/argumentation for this? And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (= good) BW players. And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") 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? On February 13 2012 07:22 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 05:47 Longshank wrote:
This is amazing. So now dominating actually means(if I read your graphics right) being a step behind to top players? Code B/A-ish? And would this mean that Incontrol is in fact dominating the NA scene? Actually, he means only BW pro team members. Which means LiquidTyler is dominating the foreign scene according to him. Not scrubs like naniwa and huk. Oh, it's you again. Could you, for once, try to reply in an intelligent way to my rebuttals of your arguments? Or is it that you just can't. Tyler? The player who seems to be facing motivational and other personal issues? You should try harder, I'm not even breaking a sweat! I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored. Article said top 300 would dominate. Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros. MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others. So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2. Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 06:24 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 05:47 Longshank wrote:
This is amazing. So now dominating actually means(if I read your graphics right) being a step behind to top players? Code B/A-ish? And would this mean that Incontrol is in fact dominating the NA scene? As usual, you read it wrong. The upper line represents the 300 BW players that haven't switched. The line below shows where the current top SC2 players rank on that line. In other words, the current top SC2 players are on the same level as the top 300. But not on the same level as say the top 50 (right-hand side of the line). Point being that Intrigue, knowing the scene, was aware of this. This is why he made a distinction between dominating (doing as well as the current top players, who, quite literally, dominate the scene) and crushing (doing better than the current top players). proof/argumentation for this? And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (= good) BW players. And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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. Show nested quote +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 :/
Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line.
So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind.
On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him.
|
On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 07:27 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:24 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 06:24 Squeegy wrote:
[quote]
As usual, you read it wrong. The upper line represents the 300 BW players that haven't switched. The line below shows where the current top SC2 players rank on that line. In other words, the current top SC2 players are on the same level as the top 300. But not on the same level as say the top 50 (right-hand side of the line). Point being that Intrigue, knowing the scene, was aware of this. This is why he made a distinction between dominating (doing as well as the current top players, who, quite literally, dominate the scene) and crushing (doing better than the current top players). proof/argumentation for this? And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (= good) BW players. And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") 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? On February 13 2012 07:22 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 05:47 Longshank wrote:
This is amazing. So now dominating actually means(if I read your graphics right) being a step behind to top players? Code B/A-ish? And would this mean that Incontrol is in fact dominating the NA scene? Actually, he means only BW pro team members. Which means LiquidTyler is dominating the foreign scene according to him. Not scrubs like naniwa and huk. Oh, it's you again. Could you, for once, try to reply in an intelligent way to my rebuttals of your arguments? Or is it that you just can't. Tyler? The player who seems to be facing motivational and other personal issues? You should try harder, I'm not even breaking a sweat! I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored. Article said top 300 would dominate. Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros. MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others. So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2. Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 06:24 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 05:47 Longshank wrote:
This is amazing. So now dominating actually means(if I read your graphics right) being a step behind to top players? Code B/A-ish? And would this mean that Incontrol is in fact dominating the NA scene? As usual, you read it wrong. The upper line represents the 300 BW players that haven't switched. The line below shows where the current top SC2 players rank on that line. In other words, the current top SC2 players are on the same level as the top 300. But not on the same level as say the top 50 (right-hand side of the line). Point being that Intrigue, knowing the scene, was aware of this. This is why he made a distinction between dominating (doing as well as the current top players, who, quite literally, dominate the scene) and crushing (doing better than the current top players). proof/argumentation for this? And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (= good) BW players. And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him.
Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet)
Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet)
Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet)
2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to)
Other objective indicators?!
Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons.
Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox.
Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him.
Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky...
|
On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:
So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind.
The basic idea behind it, of course, that's pretty obvious stuff. The OP failed however in his attempt to convey it by writing a trash piece, The article is shit, the general idea is not. He'd be more than welcome to give it another go.
¨
My posts for the last few pages has been more aimed at the amusement and hilarity in seeing you bending over backwards, drawing graphs, rewriting the article and boiling up a Finglish dictionary in desperate attempts to make the pieces fit. I'm sorry, it wasn't very nice but it feels like everything there is to be said on this topic was so 200 pages ago.
Now I'll leave it fo' reelz.
|
The real question here though, is since BW skill translates so well to SC2, and since its so obvious that the better a BW player, the better he is at SC2, and that the best BW players would so obviously end up being the best SC2 players...
How come the BW pros that switched over arent still ranked exactly the same way amongst themselves in SC2 as they were in BW?
Thats what puzzles me here.
Wouldnt it be logical if the skill translated over so incredibly exactly, that then you could just look at these ex BW players, see which one was the best in BW, and have him be the uncontested SC2 champion, and then the second best ex BW player would be the uncontested second best SC2 player, and so on?
So far, even though all the ex BW pros, that have great RTS experience, dedication, know how to practice for RTS games effectively, are less stressed out when in the spotlight because they are used to it, have high APM and mechanical skill, and so on, they have all those skills that carry over from BW and even though they are obviously useful No one is actually talking about them as being a factor.
Instead there are all of these other skills, such as a perfect understanding of a certain BW matchup or map, or of BW timings, or BW unit AI, and so on, those skills that were pretty much what put some BW pros way above the others. Those are what everyone is talking about as far as making a BW player awesome in SC2.
Thats something I find quite interesting.
|
The pros who are most successful in BW don't really have much incentive to switch to SC2. Changing not only your team, your coach and your practice environment but also the actual game that you're playing is not a guaranteed recipe for success. SC2 is probably going to keep receiving the would-be rookies and the washed-up veterans of BW and not the star players at their peaks. So I doubt we'll ever see how, say, top-form Bisu performs in SC2; I think he's the highest-paid BW player (other than maybe Flash?). Of course, if BW teams just switch wholesale to SC2 (which would kill professional BW, so let's hope they don't), then none of this applies.
But if the following players switched while they were still good, they could definitely be at the very top of SC2:
Jaedong and Bisu. They're both successful because of their insane mechanics and work ethics. If they fully applied themselves (instead of, say, getting a girlfriend and a college degree --- some people in their early-to-mid-20's like this sort of thing), they'd do amazingly. I think their strengths (superb control, multitasking) are more suited to BW than SC2, but they have no weaknesses and their diligence and experience would set them apart.
Best. Unlike Jaedong and Bisu, I think his particular skills are well-suited to SC2. He might seem like a brute-force player, but there's a lot of finesse going into his decisions on when to tech, expand, or mass units. He's great at rapidly assembling a huge army with perfect unit composition at engaging at the right moment at the right angle.
Stats. This guy is just rock solid. His play is methodical, reactive, and usually just spot-on. He's not gimmicky, he just expands, attacks and defends at all the right times. (This might seem like hyperbole, but he reminds me of a Protoss version of Flash, except he's not immortal and omniscient like Flash is.) He's got good instincts and good game sense. If he switched to SC2 right now, I think he'd be shredding top opponents within a year.
Soulkey. Same as Stats, really. Dependable and non-gimmicky player who brings great results and is currently on the rise. Plays a solid, reactive game with frequent moments of brilliance. I think he could really crush people in SC2.
Flash. It's hard to imagine him ever switching. He loves BW and thinks it's a great game, and according to him he keeps learning more about it and getting better at it (although nobody else can tell the difference because he stopped losing a while back). If he switched, the big question is: would he bring the same dedication and willpower that he brought to BW? If not, he'd probably only be a top 8 player. If so, he'd be #1 within a year and a half. This guy has every skill necessary to succeed in BW or SC2, in huge amounts. Micro, macro, star sense, concentration under pressure, fluid adaptability, multitasking, tournament preparation, you name it, he has it. You can't proxy him, you can't play greedy, you can't throw him off with something new and surprising, and you sure as hell can't play standard. This is the guy whose scouting pattern against proleague protosses is to look in the center for proxy gates and then look in every natural for a 12-nex because nothing else would even matter --- and people still 12-nex him because they figure there's a 1 in 3 chance he scouts them last and maybe then they can stay in the game long enough to DT rush him. If he were to bring the same passion to SC2 as he does to BW, nobody would stand a chance.
I hope none of these people switch though. Aside from Flash, nobody is actually guaranteed to do well --- the bottom line is motivation, the only the player that brings the same intensity that Flash/Jaedong/Bisu bring to BW can rise to the top of SC2 and stay there. Maybe that's MVP, maybe it's someone currently in BW, and maybe it's someone we haven't even seen yet.
On February 14 2012 01:00 morimacil wrote:
The real question here though, is since BW skill translates so well to SC2, and since its so obvious that the better a BW player, the better he is at SC2, and that the best BW players would so obviously end up being the best SC2 players...
How come the BW pros that switched over arent still ranked exactly the same way amongst themselves in SC2 as they were in BW?
Thats what puzzles me here.
Wouldnt it be logical if the skill translated over so incredibly exactly, that then you could just look at these ex BW players, see which one was the best in BW, and have him be the uncontested SC2 champion, and then the second best ex BW player would be the uncontested second best SC2 player, and so on?
So far, even though all the ex BW pros, that have great RTS experience, dedication, know how to practice for RTS games effectively, are less stressed out when in the spotlight because they are used to it, have high APM and mechanical skill, and so on, they have all those skills that carry over from BW and even though they are obviously useful No one is actually talking about them as being a factor.
Instead there are all of these other skills, such as a perfect understanding of a certain BW matchup or map, or of BW timings, or BW unit AI, and so on, those skills that were pretty much what put some BW pros way above the others. Those are what everyone is talking about as far as making a BW player awesome in SC2.
Thats something I find quite interesting.
SC2 has so far been the stomping ground of BW players who either couldn't make it or were already washed up, so it's natural to wonder what would happen if the elite players switched over. I think a lot of players would be pushed out of contention and the level of play would rise dramatically, especially if the existing team structure of BW teams remained intact (that is, the players could transition in a stable environment). But the skills don't translate directly, so the rankings wouldn't be exactly the same --- of course they wouldn't.
I'm curious as to how you'd rank the ex-BW players in SC2 right now. I understand MVP is pretty far ahead of everyone. How would the rest of the list look?
|
On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 07:27 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:24 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:
[quote]
proof/argumentation for this?
And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (=good) BW players.
And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") 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? On February 13 2012 07:22 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 05:47 Longshank wrote:
This is amazing. So now dominating actually means(if I read your graphics right) being a step behind to top players? Code B/A-ish? And would this mean that Incontrol is in fact dominating the NA scene? Actually, he means only BW pro team members. Which means LiquidTyler is dominating the foreign scene according to him. Not scrubs like naniwa and huk. Oh, it's you again. Could you, for once, try to reply in an intelligent way to my rebuttals of your arguments? Or is it that you just can't. Tyler? The player who seems to be facing motivational and other personal issues? You should try harder, I'm not even breaking a sweat! I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored. Article said top 300 would dominate. Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros. MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others. So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2. Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 06:24 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 05:47 Longshank wrote:
This is amazing. So now dominating actually means(if I read your graphics right) being a step behind to top players? Code B/A-ish? And would this mean that Incontrol is in fact dominating the NA scene? As usual, you read it wrong. The upper line represents the 300 BW players that haven't switched. The line below shows where the current top SC2 players rank on that line. In other words, the current top SC2 players are on the same level as the top 300. But not on the same level as say the top 50 (right-hand side of the line). Point being that Intrigue, knowing the scene, was aware of this. This is why he made a distinction between dominating (doing as well as the current top players, who, quite literally, dominate the scene) and crushing (doing better than the current top players). proof/argumentation for this? And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (= good) BW players. And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky...
This is a truly ridiculous post. Just unbelievably absurd.
|
On February 14 2012 01:17 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 07:27 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:24 Squeegy wrote:
[quote]
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? On February 13 2012 07:22 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
Actually, he means only BW pro team members.
Which means LiquidTyler is dominating the foreign scene according to him. Not scrubs like naniwa and huk. Oh, it's you again. Could you, for once, try to reply in an intelligent way to my rebuttals of your arguments? Or is it that you just can't. Tyler? The player who seems to be facing motivational and other personal issues? You should try harder, I'm not even breaking a sweat! I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored. Article said top 300 would dominate. Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros. MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others. So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2. Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 06:24 Squeegy wrote:
[quote]
As usual, you read it wrong. The upper line represents the 300 BW players that haven't switched. The line below shows where the current top SC2 players rank on that line. In other words, the current top SC2 players are on the same level as the top 300. But not on the same level as say the top 50 (right-hand side of the line). Point being that Intrigue, knowing the scene, was aware of this. This is why he made a distinction between dominating (doing as well as the current top players, who, quite literally, dominate the scene) and crushing (doing better than the current top players). proof/argumentation for this? And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (= good) BW players. And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... This is a truly ridiculous post. Just unbelievably absurd.
you care to say why, or is it just a rediculous post?
Like green is just the same as blue.
|
On February 14 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 01:17 Seraphone wrote:On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 07:27 Squeegy wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Oh, it's you again. Could you, for once, try to reply in an intelligent way to my rebuttals of your arguments? Or is it that you just can't.
Tyler? The player who seems to be facing motivational and other personal issues? You should try harder, I'm not even breaking a sweat! I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored. Article said top 300 would dominate. Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros. MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others. So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2. Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:
[quote]
proof/argumentation for this?
And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (=good) BW players.
And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... This is a truly ridiculous post. Just unbelievably absurd. you care to say why, or is it just a rediculous post? Like green is just the same as blue.
I'd tend to think the best RTS player is Flash, but maybe I just don't understand how good Moon was at WC3. I'd also tend to think BW is a better RTS than WC3, but maybe I just don't understand how good WC3 is.
Basically, it's a meaningless comparison. But if I gave each of them one year to master an RTS and then play a Bo7, I'd bet on Flash to win every single match (including SC2) except WC3.
(Wow, I looked at Moon's wiki page and it seems like he's won a lot. That is cool!)
|
On February 14 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 01:17 Seraphone wrote:On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 07:27 Squeegy wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Oh, it's you again. Could you, for once, try to reply in an intelligent way to my rebuttals of your arguments? Or is it that you just can't.
Tyler? The player who seems to be facing motivational and other personal issues? You should try harder, I'm not even breaking a sweat! I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored. Article said top 300 would dominate. Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros. MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others. So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2. Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:
[quote]
proof/argumentation for this?
And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (=good) BW players.
And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... This is a truly ridiculous post. Just unbelievably absurd. you care to say why, or is it just a rediculous post? Like green is just the same as blue.
It really shouldn't need explanation (it really is that bad) but okay.
Why are they the only games counted? (who says Flash isn't better at Dawn of War, DOW2, C&C, AOE, Rise of Nations, Hello Kitty's RTS Adventure, Viva Pinjata or any other random games)
Why are the three games you listed of completely equal value (when everyone, even Wc3 pro's accept it is far, far, far harder to be the best in Brood War than any other RTS, it's not even at all comparable).
Why are you criticising a player for being bad (although you have no evidence) at a game he doesn't even play. Is Cypher a bad FPS player because he doesn't have any 50's in Halo 3?
Flash is probably as good as Moon at Sc2 anyway given Nestea stated on the IM stream that Flash was practicing Sc2 and was "really good". I wouldn't call Moon "really good" right now.
Why do you bring up prize money at all? That random COD team won $1million, are they better at COD than Flash is at BW? Of course not. Is MVP better at Sc2 than say Stats or even Jangbi is at BW? Not even in the same universe of mastery of the game, but MVP has won more.
|
This guy has every skill necessary to succeed in BW or SC2, in huge amounts. Micro, macro, star sense, concentration under pressure, fluid adaptability, multitasking, tournament preparation, you name it, he has it.
He has this, just like pretty much all other BW pros, or WC3 pros, and so on.
All RTS pros have these basic fundamental skills that translate well into any game, making them at least decent at any other RTS.
What sets flash apart from other BW players is certainly not the fact that he can concentrate under pressure, pretty much every other pro can do that. And also not the fact that he can prepare for a tournament, all the other pros and ex pros and washed up pros and whatever can also do that. And so on.
Anyone who has all the basic RTS skills will be good at pretty much any RTS.
What does it take to be better than good? What does it take to be the very best?
Having great macro is important. Its important in SC2, and its important in BW. Thus BW players that have great macro will obviously always at least be good in SC2, and vice-versa.
But then if you look at flash, and think that all he has is just great macro and mechanical skills, well you are not doing him justice.
And if you think that an intimate understanding of BW maps, matchups, timings, and so on, means anything at all in SC2, or WC3, and so on, you would just be wrong.
|
On February 14 2012 01:37 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 01:17 Seraphone wrote:On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored.
Article said top 300 would dominate.
Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros.
MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others.
So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2.
Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:
[quote]
Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... This is a truly ridiculous post. Just unbelievably absurd. you care to say why, or is it just a rediculous post? Like green is just the same as blue. It really shouldn't need explanation (it really is that bad) but okay. Why are they the only games counted? (who says Flash isn't better at Dawn of War, DOW2, C&C, AOE, Rise of Nations, Hello Kitty's RTS Adventure, Viva Pinjata or any other random games) Why are the three games you listed of completely equal value (when everyone, even Wc3 pro's accept it is far, far, far harder to be the best in Brood War than any other RTS, it's not even at all comparable). Why are you criticising a player for being bad (although you have no evidence) at a game he doesn't even play. Is Cypher a bad FPS player because he doesn't have any 50's in Halo 3? Flash is probably as good as Moon at Sc2 anyway given Nestea stated on the IM stream that Flash was practicing Sc2 and was "really good". I wouldn't call Moon "really good" right now. Why do you bring up prize money at all? That random COD team won $1million, are they better at COD than Flash is at BW? Of course not. Is MVP better at Sc2 than say Stats or even Jangbi is at BW? Not even in the same universe of mastery of the game, but MVP has won more.
To add to the prize money argument, BW only has 2 relevant tournaments where you can win a lot of cash, MSL and OSL and MSL isnt there anymore and we all know how hard it is to even win it once, whereas wc3 is a lot more like sc2 in that regard where there are a lot of tournaments thus it's a lot easier to win more prize money ( although it's still a great achievement by Moon obviously).
And how is 500k in 3 years the best in all of e-sports? Flash used to earn like 200-300k anually which comes down to more money.
|
Actually though, if you believe that flash isnt good at BW because of his understanding of the game, but instead is good at BW because hes just insanely good at anything in a superhuman way, then I guess it makes sense to think hed be the best at SC2.
If you think hes good at BW because he practiced it sooo much, has such a ton of experience, and such a great understanding of the game, on top of his good mechanical skills, and then realize that his mechanical skills would be less important in SC2 and probably on par with other BW players, then it makes sense to think that all his BW practice, knowledge and experience wouldnt translate to SC2 all that well.
However though, if you think flash isnt good because he practised a lot, but hes just good because hes a natural genius, then it also makes sense to say that in a short time hed be owning everyone in SC2.
So the question is, did he practice a ton and aquire vital skills to BW, making him good, or is he just a natural genius that can pick up anything and do great, no matter the game, and is just such a genius and a god that if he wanted to, he could even switch to medicine instead of switching to SC2, and then hed be curing cancer by next week.
|
On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete wrote:
I'd tend to think the best RTS player is Flash, but maybe I just don't understand how good Moon was at WC3. I'd also tend to think BW is a better RTS than WC3, but maybe I just don't understand how good WC3 is.
Basically, it's a meaningless comparison. But if I gave each of them one year to master an RTS and then play a Bo7, I'd bet on Flash to win every single match (including SC2) except WC3.
(Wow, I looked at Moon's wiki page and it seems like he's won a lot. That is cool!)
Moon is pretty much a combination of Flash and Savior, He did for night elf what savior did for zerg, and he was consistently as dominant as flash has been, where moon only lost occasionally to grubby, who was the jaedong to moon's flash.
alot of WC3 fans hold moon in the hardest regard as the pinnacle of RTS players, that being said i don't like WC3. 
|
I really, really, do not understand all the debate surrounding the premise here...
Is a game that's been played and refined for 14 years going to have much, much stronger competition than a game that's been out less than 2 years?
OF COURSE! That's called COMMON SENSE.
|
On February 14 2012 01:00 morimacil wrote:
How come the BW pros that switched over arent still ranked exactly the same way amongst themselves in SC2 as they were in BW?
Thats what puzzles me here.
They kind of are, though. A teamers generally do better than B teamers, B teamers generally do better than non-progamers / practice partners, and even those generally do better than brand new players. Of course there are individual exceptions, and the ranking isn't always as accurate between individual players but that's already too much precision to ask for.
Then again, you also have to consider the human factor and the fact SC2 was around for almost 2 years already and as the time passes, things will naturally change (they might have changed even if the same players kept playing BW as well).
There's also the fact that SC2 doesn't have real professional teams and training environment that some of these players are used to, and related things such as the lack of motivation and the same kind of competitive drive can be a big deal. Adaptation on the mental side and coming to terms with your ambition and goals in SC2 is probably a lot more difficult for players that switch from BW than adaptation in terms of gameplay and learning the game.
|
On February 14 2012 01:52 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete wrote:
I'd tend to think the best RTS player is Flash, but maybe I just don't understand how good Moon was at WC3. I'd also tend to think BW is a better RTS than WC3, but maybe I just don't understand how good WC3 is.
Basically, it's a meaningless comparison. But if I gave each of them one year to master an RTS and then play a Bo7, I'd bet on Flash to win every single match (including SC2) except WC3.
(Wow, I looked at Moon's wiki page and it seems like he's won a lot. That is cool!) Moon is pretty much a combination of Flash and Savior, He did for night elf what savior did for zerg, and he was consistently as dominant as flash has been, where moon only lost occasionally to grubby, who was the jaedong to moon's flash. alot of WC3 fans hold moon in the hardest regard as the pinnacle of RTS players, that being said i don't like WC3.
Except Moon did it in a far easier and less competitive scene. Select did the same in Dawn of War, is that comparable to Moon or Flash? Definitely not. BW is way above and beyond Wc3 in difficulty. Sase and Naniwa have both said that being a pro in Sc2 is far more difficult than Wc3 so I wouldn't even rank Wc3 as the second most competitive RTS game and this is after only one year of Sc2.
|
Ah now the discussion has gone into comparing apples and pears, awesome. There's no way of ever deciding who was best in their respective genre of game (or maybe respective game of the rts-genre). Pretty hilarious watching both sides of BW(Flash) vs WC(Moon) trying to prove which one is better.
We can all agree that both players are fucking gods that needs to be praised for their performance and dedication.
|
On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 01:17 Seraphone wrote:On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored.
Article said top 300 would dominate.
Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros.
MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others.
So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2.
Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:
[quote]
Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... This is a truly ridiculous post. Just unbelievably absurd. you care to say why, or is it just a rediculous post? Like green is just the same as blue. I'd tend to think the best RTS player is Flash, but maybe I just don't understand how good Moon was at WC3. I'd also tend to think BW is a better RTS than WC3, but maybe I just don't understand how good WC3 is. Basically, it's a meaningless comparison. But if I gave each of them one year to master an RTS and then play a Bo7, I'd bet on Flash to win every single match (including SC2) except WC3. (Wow, I looked at Moon's wiki page and it seems like he's won a lot. That is cool!)
This is a really interesting conversation. And I'm glad everybody (except Seraphone but he sounds like a duesh) is keeping it civil. I don't really know either's history very well but I'd lean towards Flash because it sounds like he truly dominates the scene in a way Moon never did with WC3 (from what I can tell). Still, two players who were the best at their specific games... It's a valid question as far as best RTS player definitely.
Edit: Also, I don't know about WC3 being less competitive. It was the first truly globally competitive e-sport. An argument could be made that it was "easier to learn" but as SCBW was only truly competitive in Korea, while WC3 had top players from around the world (Grubby, Sky, and Moon being the pinnacle of the three main regions), I've got to give it to WC3 for being more competitive as it had a larger competitive player base to draw from.
|
On February 14 2012 01:40 morimacil wrote:Show nested quote +This guy has every skill necessary to succeed in BW or SC2, in huge amounts. Micro, macro, star sense, concentration under pressure, fluid adaptability, multitasking, tournament preparation, you name it, he has it. He has this, just like pretty much all other BW pros, or WC3 pros, and so on. All RTS pros have these basic fundamental skills that translate well into any game, making them at least decent at any other RTS. What sets flash apart from other BW players is certainly not the fact that he can concentrate under pressure, pretty much every other pro can do that. And also not the fact that he can prepare for a tournament, all the other pros and ex pros and washed up pros and whatever can also do that. But then if you look at flash, and think that all he has is just great macro and mechanical skills, well you are not doing him justice. And if you think that an intimate understanding of BW maps, matchups, timings, and so on, means anything at all in SC2, or WC3, and so on, you would just be wrong.
I didn't write that Flash's advantage is solely in that he can concentrate under pressure. And I certainly did not write that Flash's skills are all mechanical (star sense, concentration under pressure, adaptability, and tournament preparation are all part of why he's mentally the best, as I mention in the post you quoted).
If you think all pros are equally good at tournament preparation, you are dead wrong. Flash is exceptionally good at it, and that's why he shut out Stork (world's best PvT) in the OSL finals in record time (literally, shortest OSL finals ever) on unfavorable maps. That's also why he is 3-1 over Jaedong in OSL/MSL finals --- Jaedong is one of the few people who can play a straight-up game on even terms with Flash, and Flash usually doesn't let him.
It's true that Flash's mastery of BW-specific elements would not carry him far in SC2. Rather, the skills and mindset that make him an expert of maps and timings would carry him far. Flash has won with every timing attack in the book, deflected every timing attack in the book, rewritten a few chapters, and taught them to others the hard way. Similarly, map balance means nothing to him. The reason he'd do fine on SC2 maps with SC2 timings is not that he knows BW maps and BW timings, it's that he's incredibly good at discovering the intricacies of the game and exploiting them at the expense of his opponents.
My point is that the degree to which Flash possesses all the skills I listed, in general and individually, exceeds practically every other progamer. There are very few players that actually exceed Flash in any department (Jaedong springs to mind); but Flash is more consistently excellent than anyone else.
Anyway, did you have a point? I didn't catch it, except that you were saying ways in which all players are the same, which they aren't.
EDIT: Just to be clear, I'm not trying to compare Flash with Moon. Like I said, I don't know nearly enough about Moon and WC3. I'm just replying to someone who apparently took issue with my post.
|
On February 14 2012 01:37 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 01:17 Seraphone wrote:On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored.
Article said top 300 would dominate.
Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros.
MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others.
So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2.
Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:
[quote]
Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... This is a truly ridiculous post. Just unbelievably absurd. you care to say why, or is it just a rediculous post? Like green is just the same as blue. It really shouldn't need explanation (it really is that bad) but okay. Why are they the only games counted? (who says Flash isn't better at Dawn of War, DOW2, C&C, AOE, Rise of Nations, Hello Kitty's RTS Adventure, Viva Pinjata or any other random games) Why are the three games you listed of completely equal value (when everyone, even Wc3 pro's accept it is far, far, far harder to be the best in Brood War than any other RTS, it's not even at all comparable). Why are you criticising a player for being bad (although you have no evidence) at a game he doesn't even play. Is Cypher a bad FPS player because he doesn't have any 50's in Halo 3? Flash is probably as good as Moon at Sc2 anyway given Nestea stated on the IM stream that Flash was practicing Sc2 and was "really good". I wouldn't call Moon "really good" right now. Why do you bring up prize money at all? That random COD team won $1million, are they better at COD than Flash is at BW? Of course not. Is MVP better at Sc2 than say Stats or even Jangbi is at BW? Not even in the same universe of mastery of the game, but MVP has won more.
It really shouldn't need explanations like this, but OK:
The 3games are listed because they are the only ones the mentioned players played competitively and thereby achieved something. We can't say anything about anything else, because we have no evidence. But if you would rather see a completle list of every RTS ever made, you can imagine I wrote "Moon=Flash in random crap game without competetive background which noone of them ever played (from what we know)" for every other RTS.
It would still end with +2 for Moon, +1 for Flash.
They are equivalent value, because the question was who is better at RTS generally. The question was not "is WC3 harder to get good at than SC2". If you can find OBJECTIVE factors which game should be multiplied by how much, go on, post them. But I just guess you can't find a different factor from {0,1} how much RTS is in a game, because it a game is either considered RTS or not.
Did I say Flash is bad? I merely said Moon has achieved more (and if you want so more recently), therefore we have to rank him over Flash. (Flash has achieved NOTHING so far in SC2)
I guess you gonna tell me now how I could be better, which is all fine and dandy, but there is no objective criteria for it and therefore you absolutly don't have anything to back it off, until he reaveals his skills in SC2.
Also just to mention it, neither Flash nor Moon has been training SC2 fulltime yet...
I bring up prize money, because the economy behind games is a universal factor in which we can compare different games. I simply can't compare Flash's Marine micro with Moon's archer play... just not possible...
But if you find better objective categories to compare those games, you are free to post them. If not, then you simply can't compare them and then you have NOTHING to back up why someone is better than Moon.
On February 14 2012 01:44 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 01:37 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 01:27 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 01:17 Seraphone wrote:On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:
[quote]
But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it?
[quote]
What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. 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 :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote: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. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... This is a truly ridiculous post. Just unbelievably absurd. you care to say why, or is it just a rediculous post? Like green is just the same as blue. It really shouldn't need explanation (it really is that bad) but okay. Why are they the only games counted? (who says Flash isn't better at Dawn of War, DOW2, C&C, AOE, Rise of Nations, Hello Kitty's RTS Adventure, Viva Pinjata or any other random games) Why are the three games you listed of completely equal value (when everyone, even Wc3 pro's accept it is far, far, far harder to be the best in Brood War than any other RTS, it's not even at all comparable). Why are you criticising a player for being bad (although you have no evidence) at a game he doesn't even play. Is Cypher a bad FPS player because he doesn't have any 50's in Halo 3? Flash is probably as good as Moon at Sc2 anyway given Nestea stated on the IM stream that Flash was practicing Sc2 and was "really good". I wouldn't call Moon "really good" right now. Why do you bring up prize money at all? That random COD team won $1million, are they better at COD than Flash is at BW? Of course not. Is MVP better at Sc2 than say Stats or even Jangbi is at BW? Not even in the same universe of mastery of the game, but MVP has won more. To add to the prize money argument, BW only has 2 relevant tournaments where you can win a lot of cash, MSL and OSL and MSL isnt there anymore and we all know how hard it is to even win it once, whereas wc3 is a lot more like sc2 in that regard where there are a lot of tournaments thus it's a lot easier to win more prize money ( although it's still a great achievement by Moon obviously). And how is 500k in 3 years the best in all of e-sports? Flash used to earn like 200-300k anually which comes down to more money.
Give me a source and I'm more than happy to give this point to Flash. I just couldn't find anything else but something on Moons Wikipedia page, that said that he got the best contract. I'm just as dependend on databases for such things as you are.
Take the prize money arguement for whatever you want, but like anywhere else on this planet, money is an indicator of success.
On February 14 2012 02:04 aderum wrote:
Ah now the discussion has gone into comparing apples and pears, awesome. There's no way of ever deciding who was best in their respective genre of game (or maybe respective game of the rts-genre). Pretty hilarious watching both sides of BW(Flash) vs WC(Moon) trying to prove which one is better.
We can all agree that both players are fucking gods that needs to be praised for their performance and dedication.
well, that was pretty much what I was saying (it's not really comparable), if you read my post on this. It just seems that anything but "BW pros are the best at RTS no matter what." is not a sufficient answer for some people here. 
Also on a note, I would be very willing to say that any BW (or SC2) is the best RTS gamer generally, rather than a WC3 gamer (a game I didn't like very much). But at some point you simply have to step down from fanbias and look at the facts:
A lot of different games in RTS --> a lot of specific skill needed and a lot of time needed to master them all --> there can't be someone who is plainly better generally; if anything we can compare objective "Outside of the game" things and say X has been more successful in his are than Y his...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
