|
On February 14 2012 02:41 Big J 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. 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.
Jesus, you just don't know when to stop do you?
Are you actually serious with this or trolling?
Why are you pretending that being good (which Moon isn't, he's Code B level) at Sc2 after one year is of equal value to being the best player of all the time by miles in a game which is the most difficult and competitive ESport of all time?
Select is the best Dawn of War 2 player ever and he's also decent (better than Moon at Sc2), is he also a superior RTS player to Flash?
It's just such an unbelievably stupid point.
John O'Shea can play more positions on a football pitch professionally than Lionel Messi, is he better at football than Messi?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletes
Are all those guys superior sportsmen to Maradona, Pele, Muhammed Ali or Tiger Woods because they managed to be professional in more than one Sport?
And by the way you couldn't be more wrong about money meaning anything in Sc2. Unless you are insane enough to think Puma is a better player than DRG. Or Fruitdealer is better than Leenock.
|
|
|
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...
Saying Moon is better than Flash is like saying "whose the best sportsman ever?" and then citing Phil Taylor because his record in darts owns everybody elses in other sports. The competition is higher in brood war than wc3 and brood war is harder than wc3. You simply can't use statistics to back up that sort of a claim.
|
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.
..but he didn't say "dominate" he said "potential to dominate with a latency of a few months" which, given the rather wide range of players who have been successful in SC2 thus far and the amount of players that have switched, still seems accurate. Read that carefully he wrote "potential" and not "could come in and dominate at any time" for a reason. In fact the only group he explicitly predicts will be dominant is the top tier of Bisu, Flash, Jaedong, etc. He even quotes Hot_Bid saying he has "no idea" if ZerO, Leta, etc. will come in and be in the top tier. Now I'm not some kind of esports seer and thus have no idea if thats right, but that doesn't seem that out of bounds at all.
I agree the article hasn't aged well as the games have gotten better, but I think your getting irrational and angry over an article thats reasonable on the surface even if its written with (admittedly) over the top rhetoric and a couple of tabloid-ish parts (i.e. "the competition in sc2 thus far has been a farce").
|
On February 14 2012 02:20 TheDougler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete 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. 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!) 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.
Quoting the part I edited in after a half hour. The more I think about that actually the more true I believe it is that WC3 was the more competitive game. Yeah Korea has a HUGE population of SCBW players, and a few competitive international players as well of course... But WC3 has all that, more europeans and MOTHERFUGGIN CHINA. So I mean... that's a SERIOUS note in the talk of "best RTS player". But still, I agree that it's an awful lot like asking "who is the best player at sports". Most will realize it's a stupid question, others (such as myself) will vehemently claim Wayne Gretzky, or Mohamed Ali, or Michael Jordan because we fucking love Wayne Gretzky or "those other guys". It's fanboyism and it's awesome but it often gets taken to extremes, which has happened a lot in this thread. Even if CLEARLY the Great One is the best. 
|
On February 14 2012 02:48 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 02:41 Big J wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Jesus, you just don't know when to stop do you? Are you actually serious with this or trolling? Why are you pretending that being good (which Moon isn't, he's Code B level) at Sc2 after one year is of equal value to being the best player of all the time by miles in a game which is the most difficult and competitive ESport (opinion; you have no proof for that) of all time? Select is the best Dawn of War 2 player ever and he's also decent (better than Moon at Sc2), is he also a superior RTS player to Flash? (can't say; at least he competed in various RTS games unlike flash who only competed in one specific RTS game)It's just such an unbelievably stupid point. ( opinion) John O'Shea can play more positions on a football pitch professionally than Lionel Messi, is he better at football than Messi? ( bad comparison; we are talking about comparing two players of different disciplines, your comparison compares players of the same discipline <--> RTS is not a single discipline; football is a single discipline)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletesAre all those guys superior sportsmen to Maradona, Pele, Muhammed Ali or Tiger Woods because they managed to be professional in more than one Sport? (no, if you actually read my posts I have been saying that all along; you can't say someone is the best sportsman, just like you can't say someone is the best RTS player <--> just too many disciplines)And by the way you couldn't be more wrong about money meaning anything in Sc2. Unless you are insane enough to think Puma is a better player than DRG. Or Fruitdealer is better than Leenock. (google the word "indicator", before you put words in my mouth)
Code B level is approximatly top100 in SC2, surely top300. Be careful when you write a top100 or top300 player of a game is bad in this very thread...
Furthermore, you have absolutly no arguement. To demonstrate this, I added some notes to your post. Nothing more to talk about that, unless you find something objective instead of biased phrases. (note: I don't disagree with some of the things I commented on, but at least I know the difference between an opinion and an objective arguement)
|
On February 14 2012 03:01 BritWrangler 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... Saying Moon is better than Flash is like saying "whose the best sportsman ever?" and then citing Phil Taylor because his record in darts owns everybody elses in other sports. The competition is higher in brood war than wc3 and brood war is harder than wc3. You simply can't use statistics to back up that sort of a claim.
big j is using a voting strategy for the best option of the two. (plurality voting: basically the winner is whoever has the most 1st place rankings so in this case, moon is the "best option"). hes right if you go by plurality voting, but only because its plurality voting. kinda closed loop. its more useful when youre deciding which pizza to get for your pizza party rather than who the best rts player is though
|
On February 14 2012 03:01 BritWrangler 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... Saying Moon is better than Flash is like saying "whose the best sportsman ever?" and then citing Phil Taylor because his record in darts owns everybody elses in other sports. The competition is higher in brood war than wc3 and brood war is harder than wc3. You simply can't use statistics to back up that sort of a claim.
Broodwar is harder than wc3? Learning something new everyday!
|
On February 14 2012 03:09 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 02:48 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 02:41 Big J wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Jesus, you just don't know when to stop do you? Are you actually serious with this or trolling? Why are you pretending that being good (which Moon isn't, he's Code B level) at Sc2 after one year is of equal value to being the best player of all the time by miles in a game which is the most difficult and competitive ESport (opinion; you have no proof for that) of all time? Select is the best Dawn of War 2 player ever and he's also decent (better than Moon at Sc2), is he also a superior RTS player to Flash? (can't say; at least he competed in various RTS games unlike flash who only competed in one specific RTS game)It's just such an unbelievably stupid point. ( opinion) John O'Shea can play more positions on a football pitch professionally than Lionel Messi, is he better at football than Messi? ( bad comparison; we are talking about comparing two players of different disciplines, your comparison compares players of the same discipline <--> RTS is not a single discipline; football is a single discipline)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletesAre all those guys superior sportsmen to Maradona, Pele, Muhammed Ali or Tiger Woods because they managed to be professional in more than one Sport? (no, if you actually read my posts I have been saying that all along; you can't say someone is the best sportsman, just like you can't say someone is the best RTS player <--> just too many disciplines)And by the way you couldn't be more wrong about money meaning anything in Sc2. Unless you are insane enough to think Puma is a better player than DRG. Or Fruitdealer is better than Leenock. (google the word "indicator", before you put words in my mouth) Code B level is approximatly top100 in SC2, surely top300. Be careful when you write a top100 or top300 player of a game is bad in this very thread... Furthermore, you have absolutly no arguement. To demonstrate this, I added some notes to your post. Nothing more to talk about that, unless you find something objective instead of biased phrases. (note: I don't disagree with some of the things I commented on, but at least I know the difference between an opinion and an objective arguement)
You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in.
You're completely backing down from your point because it is absurd. You can't apply one logic to RTS games and then not to other sports. It's the exact same principle yet you realise how retarded a point it is in sport but because it suits your (completely wrong) opinion about Moon you continue to push the logic you've dismissed at stupid in another field.
The that your ridiculous logic has caused you to entertain the idea that Select is a superior RTS player to Flash demonstrates quite how absurd your logic is.
|
On February 14 2012 03:08 TheDougler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 02:20 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete 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:
[quote]
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!) 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. Quoting the part I edited in after a half hour. The more I think about that actually the more true I believe it is that WC3 was the more competitive game. Yeah Korea has a HUGE population of SCBW players, and a few competitive international players as well of course... But WC3 has all that, more europeans and MOTHERFUGGIN CHINA. So I mean... that's a SERIOUS note in the talk of "best RTS player". But still, I agree that it's an awful lot like asking "who is the best player at sports". Most will realize it's a stupid question, others (such as myself) will vehemently claim Wayne Gretzky, or Mohamed Ali, or Michael Jordan because we fucking love Wayne Gretzky or "those other guys". It's fanboyism and it's awesome but it often gets taken to extremes, which has happened a lot in this thread. Even if CLEARLY the Great One is the best.
Your point is wrong because while Wc3 was more international there was far more people in Korea alone making a living (i.e playing professionally not needing to work/study/sponge off parents) playing BW in Korea than in the entire Wc3 scene.
It doesn't matter which country something happened in so long as it is on a greater scale.
Also the sole fact Wc3 was international is testament to how much easier it was to be good. You literally had zero chance of every being at all competitive in BW without living in a Korean pro house. You could easily play from home and grind Battle.net and be good at Wc3.
Why do you think you know more than Sase and Naniwa who have both stated that it is much harder to be a top player in Sc2 than Wc3 nevermind BW.
|
On February 14 2012 03:12 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:09 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 02:48 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 02:41 Big J wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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. Jesus, you just don't know when to stop do you? Are you actually serious with this or trolling? Why are you pretending that being good (which Moon isn't, he's Code B level) at Sc2 after one year is of equal value to being the best player of all the time by miles in a game which is the most difficult and competitive ESport (opinion; you have no proof for that) of all time? Select is the best Dawn of War 2 player ever and he's also decent (better than Moon at Sc2), is he also a superior RTS player to Flash? (can't say; at least he competed in various RTS games unlike flash who only competed in one specific RTS game)It's just such an unbelievably stupid point. ( opinion) John O'Shea can play more positions on a football pitch professionally than Lionel Messi, is he better at football than Messi? ( bad comparison; we are talking about comparing two players of different disciplines, your comparison compares players of the same discipline <--> RTS is not a single discipline; football is a single discipline)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletesAre all those guys superior sportsmen to Maradona, Pele, Muhammed Ali or Tiger Woods because they managed to be professional in more than one Sport? (no, if you actually read my posts I have been saying that all along; you can't say someone is the best sportsman, just like you can't say someone is the best RTS player <--> just too many disciplines)And by the way you couldn't be more wrong about money meaning anything in Sc2. Unless you are insane enough to think Puma is a better player than DRG. Or Fruitdealer is better than Leenock. (google the word "indicator", before you put words in my mouth) Code B level is approximatly top100 in SC2, surely top300. Be careful when you write a top100 or top300 player of a game is bad in this very thread... Furthermore, you have absolutly no arguement. To demonstrate this, I added some notes to your post. Nothing more to talk about that, unless you find something objective instead of biased phrases. (note: I don't disagree with some of the things I commented on, but at least I know the difference between an opinion and an objective arguement) You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in. You're completely backing down from your point because it is absurd. You can't apply one logic to RTS games and then not to other sports. It's the exact same principle yet you realise how retarded a point it is in sport but because it suits your (completely wrong) opinion about Moon you continue to push the logic you've dismissed at stupid in another field. The that your ridiculous logic has caused you to entertain the idea that Select is a superior RTS player to Flash demonstrates quite how absurd your logic is.
"You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in."
Words fail me to describe how little sense this makes.
|
On February 14 2012 03:16 Mosquitow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:12 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:09 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 02:48 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 02:41 Big J wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. Jesus, you just don't know when to stop do you? Are you actually serious with this or trolling? Why are you pretending that being good (which Moon isn't, he's Code B level) at Sc2 after one year is of equal value to being the best player of all the time by miles in a game which is the most difficult and competitive ESport (opinion; you have no proof for that) of all time? Select is the best Dawn of War 2 player ever and he's also decent (better than Moon at Sc2), is he also a superior RTS player to Flash? (can't say; at least he competed in various RTS games unlike flash who only competed in one specific RTS game)It's just such an unbelievably stupid point. ( opinion) John O'Shea can play more positions on a football pitch professionally than Lionel Messi, is he better at football than Messi? ( bad comparison; we are talking about comparing two players of different disciplines, your comparison compares players of the same discipline <--> RTS is not a single discipline; football is a single discipline)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletesAre all those guys superior sportsmen to Maradona, Pele, Muhammed Ali or Tiger Woods because they managed to be professional in more than one Sport? (no, if you actually read my posts I have been saying that all along; you can't say someone is the best sportsman, just like you can't say someone is the best RTS player <--> just too many disciplines)And by the way you couldn't be more wrong about money meaning anything in Sc2. Unless you are insane enough to think Puma is a better player than DRG. Or Fruitdealer is better than Leenock. (google the word "indicator", before you put words in my mouth) Code B level is approximatly top100 in SC2, surely top300. Be careful when you write a top100 or top300 player of a game is bad in this very thread... Furthermore, you have absolutly no arguement. To demonstrate this, I added some notes to your post. Nothing more to talk about that, unless you find something objective instead of biased phrases. (note: I don't disagree with some of the things I commented on, but at least I know the difference between an opinion and an objective arguement) You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in. You're completely backing down from your point because it is absurd. You can't apply one logic to RTS games and then not to other sports. It's the exact same principle yet you realise how retarded a point it is in sport but because it suits your (completely wrong) opinion about Moon you continue to push the logic you've dismissed at stupid in another field. The that your ridiculous logic has caused you to entertain the idea that Select is a superior RTS player to Flash demonstrates quite how absurd your logic is. "You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in." Words fail me to describe how little sense this makes.
The fact that even Wc3 players like Thorzain, Naniwa and Sase accept and agree than Warcraft 3 is easier to be a top player in the both Sc2 and Brood War say all that needs to be said.
|
I always found this thread kind of hilarious, as it's basically a bunch of facile comments that we are supposed to accept as being some sort of revelation.
I guess, according to the OP, if Flash and Jaedong retire without playing SC2, there will never be a truly great SC2 player since apparently BW is the only place that can come from.
There is no such thing as star sense or an 'it' factor or being clutch. MJ and Kobe, and Flash and Jaedong for that matter, are the best players because they have the best understanding of the game (and yes a lot of natural ability). And it's this understanding of the game that Flash and Jaedong would be a year and a half behind if they came to SC2. Could they become successful? Probably, based on their work ethic and rts mechanics, but it would take them much longer than the OP is suggesting.
|
On February 14 2012 03:18 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:16 Mosquitow wrote:On February 14 2012 03:12 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:09 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 02:48 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 02:41 Big J wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Jesus, you just don't know when to stop do you? Are you actually serious with this or trolling? Why are you pretending that being good (which Moon isn't, he's Code B level) at Sc2 after one year is of equal value to being the best player of all the time by miles in a game which is the most difficult and competitive ESport (opinion; you have no proof for that) of all time? Select is the best Dawn of War 2 player ever and he's also decent (better than Moon at Sc2), is he also a superior RTS player to Flash? (can't say; at least he competed in various RTS games unlike flash who only competed in one specific RTS game)It's just such an unbelievably stupid point. ( opinion) John O'Shea can play more positions on a football pitch professionally than Lionel Messi, is he better at football than Messi? ( bad comparison; we are talking about comparing two players of different disciplines, your comparison compares players of the same discipline <--> RTS is not a single discipline; football is a single discipline)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletesAre all those guys superior sportsmen to Maradona, Pele, Muhammed Ali or Tiger Woods because they managed to be professional in more than one Sport? (no, if you actually read my posts I have been saying that all along; you can't say someone is the best sportsman, just like you can't say someone is the best RTS player <--> just too many disciplines)And by the way you couldn't be more wrong about money meaning anything in Sc2. Unless you are insane enough to think Puma is a better player than DRG. Or Fruitdealer is better than Leenock. (google the word "indicator", before you put words in my mouth) Code B level is approximatly top100 in SC2, surely top300. Be careful when you write a top100 or top300 player of a game is bad in this very thread... Furthermore, you have absolutly no arguement. To demonstrate this, I added some notes to your post. Nothing more to talk about that, unless you find something objective instead of biased phrases. (note: I don't disagree with some of the things I commented on, but at least I know the difference between an opinion and an objective arguement) You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in. You're completely backing down from your point because it is absurd. You can't apply one logic to RTS games and then not to other sports. It's the exact same principle yet you realise how retarded a point it is in sport but because it suits your (completely wrong) opinion about Moon you continue to push the logic you've dismissed at stupid in another field. The that your ridiculous logic has caused you to entertain the idea that Select is a superior RTS player to Flash demonstrates quite how absurd your logic is. "You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in." Words fail me to describe how little sense this makes. The fact that even Wc3 players like Thorzain, Naniwa and Sase accept and agree than Warcraft 3 is easier to be a top player in the both Sc2 and Brood War say all that needs to be said.
How about Stephano for exemple. Do you think he found it easier to be a top player in wc3 or sc2? Of course the players you mentioned find wc3 easier to be a top player in since they are not as good as they were when they played wc3. However does that mean wc3 is easier? Ahem
|
269 pages later still no relevent BW pro has switched over, but this discussion is still being had. It is rumored that soon some BW pros will be switching and they all got PC upgrades for this purpose. When this happens you will know, but arguing over ForGG who was actually cool to watch during his run, but then fell off HARD is going to get you nowhere. He wasn't going to be the one to prove this thread right/wrong anyway even though he does fit the description of the OP.
|
On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:08 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 02:20 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete 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:
[quote]
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!) 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. Quoting the part I edited in after a half hour. The more I think about that actually the more true I believe it is that WC3 was the more competitive game. Yeah Korea has a HUGE population of SCBW players, and a few competitive international players as well of course... But WC3 has all that, more europeans and MOTHERFUGGIN CHINA. So I mean... that's a SERIOUS note in the talk of "best RTS player". But still, I agree that it's an awful lot like asking "who is the best player at sports". Most will realize it's a stupid question, others (such as myself) will vehemently claim Wayne Gretzky, or Mohamed Ali, or Michael Jordan because we fucking love Wayne Gretzky or "those other guys". It's fanboyism and it's awesome but it often gets taken to extremes, which has happened a lot in this thread. Even if CLEARLY the Great One is the best. Your point is wrong because while Wc3 was more international there was far more people in Korea alone making a living (i.e playing professionally not needing to work/study/sponge off parents) playing BW in Korea than in the entire Wc3 scene.
It doesn't matter which country something happened in so long as it is on a greater scale.Also the sole fact Wc3 was international is testament to how much easier it was to be good. You literally had zero chance of every being at all competitive in BW without living in a Korean pro house. You could easily play from home and grind Battle.net and be good at Wc3. Why do you think you know more than Sase and Naniwa who have both stated that it is much harder to be a top player in Sc2 than Wc3 nevermind BW.
Lionel Messi is the best active football player (by professional voting, the generally accepted decisionmaking for that term in football; 3times in a row). Football is the biggest sport (greater scale than any other sport; more active players, professionals, fans, viewers).
By your logic Lionel Messi is the one true and undisputed best active sportsman in the world.
I rest my case, your logic has beaten me.
|
On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:08 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 02:20 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete 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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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!) 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. Quoting the part I edited in after a half hour. The more I think about that actually the more true I believe it is that WC3 was the more competitive game. Yeah Korea has a HUGE population of SCBW players, and a few competitive international players as well of course... But WC3 has all that, more europeans and MOTHERFUGGIN CHINA. So I mean... that's a SERIOUS note in the talk of "best RTS player". But still, I agree that it's an awful lot like asking "who is the best player at sports". Most will realize it's a stupid question, others (such as myself) will vehemently claim Wayne Gretzky, or Mohamed Ali, or Michael Jordan because we fucking love Wayne Gretzky or "those other guys". It's fanboyism and it's awesome but it often gets taken to extremes, which has happened a lot in this thread. Even if CLEARLY the Great One is the best. Your point is wrong because while Wc3 was more international there was far more people in Korea alone making a living (i.e playing professionally not needing to work/study/sponge off parents) playing BW in Korea than in the entire Wc3 scene.
It doesn't matter which country something happened in so long as it is on a greater scale.Also the sole fact Wc3 was international is testament to how much easier it was to be good. You literally had zero chance of every being at all competitive in BW without living in a Korean pro house. You could easily play from home and grind Battle.net and be good at Wc3. Why do you think you know more than Sase and Naniwa who have both stated that it is much harder to be a top player in Sc2 than Wc3 nevermind BW. Lionel Messi is the best active football player (by professional voting, the generally accepted decisionmaking for that term in football; 3times in a row). Football is the biggest sport (greater scale than any other sport; more active players, professionals, fans, viewers). By your logic Lionel Messi is the one true and undisputed best active sportsman in the world. I rest my case, your logic has beaten me.
Messi is the best active sportsman in the world so no problem.
|
On February 14 2012 03:37 Mosquitow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:18 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:16 Mosquitow wrote:On February 14 2012 03:12 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:09 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 02:48 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 02:41 Big J wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Jesus, you just don't know when to stop do you? Are you actually serious with this or trolling? Why are you pretending that being good (which Moon isn't, he's Code B level) at Sc2 after one year is of equal value to being the best player of all the time by miles in a game which is the most difficult and competitive ESport (opinion; you have no proof for that) of all time? Select is the best Dawn of War 2 player ever and he's also decent (better than Moon at Sc2), is he also a superior RTS player to Flash? (can't say; at least he competed in various RTS games unlike flash who only competed in one specific RTS game)It's just such an unbelievably stupid point. ( opinion) John O'Shea can play more positions on a football pitch professionally than Lionel Messi, is he better at football than Messi? ( bad comparison; we are talking about comparing two players of different disciplines, your comparison compares players of the same discipline <--> RTS is not a single discipline; football is a single discipline)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_multi-sport_athletesAre all those guys superior sportsmen to Maradona, Pele, Muhammed Ali or Tiger Woods because they managed to be professional in more than one Sport? (no, if you actually read my posts I have been saying that all along; you can't say someone is the best sportsman, just like you can't say someone is the best RTS player <--> just too many disciplines)And by the way you couldn't be more wrong about money meaning anything in Sc2. Unless you are insane enough to think Puma is a better player than DRG. Or Fruitdealer is better than Leenock. (google the word "indicator", before you put words in my mouth) Code B level is approximatly top100 in SC2, surely top300. Be careful when you write a top100 or top300 player of a game is bad in this very thread... Furthermore, you have absolutly no arguement. To demonstrate this, I added some notes to your post. Nothing more to talk about that, unless you find something objective instead of biased phrases. (note: I don't disagree with some of the things I commented on, but at least I know the difference between an opinion and an objective arguement) You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in. You're completely backing down from your point because it is absurd. You can't apply one logic to RTS games and then not to other sports. It's the exact same principle yet you realise how retarded a point it is in sport but because it suits your (completely wrong) opinion about Moon you continue to push the logic you've dismissed at stupid in another field. The that your ridiculous logic has caused you to entertain the idea that Select is a superior RTS player to Flash demonstrates quite how absurd your logic is. "You find me a quote from any RTS player who doesn't think BW is the hardest RTS to be the best in." Words fail me to describe how little sense this makes. The fact that even Wc3 players like Thorzain, Naniwa and Sase accept and agree than Warcraft 3 is easier to be a top player in the both Sc2 and Brood War say all that needs to be said. How about Stephano for exemple. Do you think he found it easier to be a top player in wc3 or sc2? Of course the players you mentioned find wc3 easier to be a top player in since they are not as good as they were when they played wc3. However does that mean wc3 is easier? Ahem
You really put no thought into this at all did you?
Warcraft 3 was basically dead in Europe by late 2009. So no shit that as a 15 year old Stephano was unable to make it pro in a dying scene and nor was he as a 12-14 year old able to make it big in a flourishing scene when Wc3 was actually at it's peak.
|
On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:08 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 02:20 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete 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:
[quote]
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!) 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. Quoting the part I edited in after a half hour. The more I think about that actually the more true I believe it is that WC3 was the more competitive game. Yeah Korea has a HUGE population of SCBW players, and a few competitive international players as well of course... But WC3 has all that, more europeans and MOTHERFUGGIN CHINA. So I mean... that's a SERIOUS note in the talk of "best RTS player". But still, I agree that it's an awful lot like asking "who is the best player at sports". Most will realize it's a stupid question, others (such as myself) will vehemently claim Wayne Gretzky, or Mohamed Ali, or Michael Jordan because we fucking love Wayne Gretzky or "those other guys". It's fanboyism and it's awesome but it often gets taken to extremes, which has happened a lot in this thread. Even if CLEARLY the Great One is the best. Your point is wrong because while Wc3 was more international there was far more people in Korea alone making a living (i.e playing professionally not needing to work/study/sponge off parents) playing BW in Korea than in the entire Wc3 scene. It doesn't matter which country something happened in so long as it is on a greater scale. Also the sole fact Wc3 was international is testament to how much easier it was to be good. You literally had zero chance of every being at all competitive in BW without living in a Korean pro house. You could easily play from home and grind Battle.net and be good at Wc3. Why do you think you know more than Sase and Naniwa who have both stated that it is much harder to be a top player in Sc2 than Wc3 nevermind BW.
Really buddy? Are you actually telling me there were more people playing SCBW at it's peak in Korea than playing WC3 at it's peak in China, Korea and Europe combined? Hell, I'm pretty certain that even if you just compared SCBW in Korea to WC3 in China, Korea get's it's ass handed to it. And of course WC3 players are saying it's harder to be a top player in SC2 than WC3, it's a different game than the game that they had grown up playing and being competitive players in. SC2 and SCBW are economy based RTS games, WC3 is not. That doesn't mean that WC3 is less competitive just that they are different games
|
On February 14 2012 03:50 TheDougler wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:08 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 02:20 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 01:29 Djabanete 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:
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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:
[quote]
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!) 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. Quoting the part I edited in after a half hour. The more I think about that actually the more true I believe it is that WC3 was the more competitive game. Yeah Korea has a HUGE population of SCBW players, and a few competitive international players as well of course... But WC3 has all that, more europeans and MOTHERFUGGIN CHINA. So I mean... that's a SERIOUS note in the talk of "best RTS player". But still, I agree that it's an awful lot like asking "who is the best player at sports". Most will realize it's a stupid question, others (such as myself) will vehemently claim Wayne Gretzky, or Mohamed Ali, or Michael Jordan because we fucking love Wayne Gretzky or "those other guys". It's fanboyism and it's awesome but it often gets taken to extremes, which has happened a lot in this thread. Even if CLEARLY the Great One is the best. Your point is wrong because while Wc3 was more international there was far more people in Korea alone making a living (i.e playing professionally not needing to work/study/sponge off parents) playing BW in Korea than in the entire Wc3 scene. It doesn't matter which country something happened in so long as it is on a greater scale. Also the sole fact Wc3 was international is testament to how much easier it was to be good. You literally had zero chance of every being at all competitive in BW without living in a Korean pro house. You could easily play from home and grind Battle.net and be good at Wc3. Why do you think you know more than Sase and Naniwa who have both stated that it is much harder to be a top player in Sc2 than Wc3 nevermind BW. Really buddy? Are you actually telling me there were more people playing SCBW at it's peak in Korea than playing WC3 at it's peak in China, Korea and Europe combined? Hell, I'm pretty certain that even if you just compared SCBW in Korea to WC3 in China, Korea get's it's ass handed to it. And of course WC3 players are saying it's harder to be a top player in SC2 than WC3, it's a different game than the game that they had grown up playing and being competitive players in. SC2 and SCBW are economy based RTS games, WC3 is not. That doesn't mean that WC3 is less competitive just that they are different games
There are absolutely more professional BW players than Wc3 players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
