|
On February 14 2012 05:53 dsousa wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 05:29 Squeegy wrote:On February 14 2012 05:18 dsousa wrote:
MMA had 5 career appearances in BW... one less than Idra. DRG and Leenock had 0.
Data shows BW experience is counting for less and less as SC2 moves along.
Many of the players with the most BW experience have faded away. Fruitdealer, Tester, Rainbow even Boxer, July and Nada.... they are not as strong now as there were a year ago.
Its going the other direction, the Elephant in the Room is that BW players WILL NOT have a career waiting for them in SC2. They missed the boat. SC2 players are too good and too young for older BW pro's to ever catch up now The reason why they had few appearances is that they didn't get to play. They weren't good enough. That is how BW works. Not everyone gets to play in the tournaments. Only the best do. Fruitdealer, Tester, Rainbow and Boxer played their games quite a while ago. They got to play but not in the recent memory. That is to say, they weren't that good anymore. The point holds. The top SC2 players now don't have as much experience in BW as the top SC2 pro's a year ago. The top BW players who moved to SC2, are not as good in SC2 now as there were a year ago. The trend is down for ex-BW pro's in SC2. I'm sorry to be the one to tell all the BW lovers this, but its only going to get worse. I like BW and agree it compiled an unprecedented amount of gaming talent among its player base, but the data seems to be pointing to a diminishing influence of BW, not an increasing one.
MC Nestea MVP and MMA are all ex-BW pros. The trend is down?
Scenario: Skill Ceilings (supposed) in both games and our current players abilities.
Flash JD Bisu - Are doing everything as close to perfect as humanly possible in BW. To do that is much harder in BroodWar.
MC Nestea MVP and MMA - Are not even close to making the best decisions in a game where macro is a breeze. That is right you take having to manually select every building to macro you units to SC2 where a few hotkeys can build an entire army and our current SC2 top players still are lacking in that macro. Then even with the units they do pump out they don't micro or multitask with them nearly as efficently as a BW pro does. So, these current players nowhere near this lowered skill ceiling are winning big tournaments. They win because they have BW experience and are still playing with that mentality. They know what they need to do better than most current players, but much much more could be done.
It might not be Flash JD Bisu leading the charge if/when the BW pros switch over, hell it might not even be a current BW pro, but so far all signs point to they can do better than our current players. People who thought the Gods of Old were going to be the shit in this game were mistaken. Boxer, Nada, Forgg, JulyZerg all fell off long ago, missed the bus, they couldn't hit that skill ceiling even when giving it their all, and trust me they're not giving it their all. At the moment everyone who has switched over still plays like shit. MMA could dominate for the rest of SC2, but not in his current form.
That last part might seem a bit here and there, but now I want to adress the OP. I do think the Elephant in the Room exists to a certain extent. Current pros are bad. But I also believe that it doesn't have it be the ex-BW pros coming over that makes or breaks the ceiling. Newcommers, Current SC2 pros, Current BW pros will all be at the top eventually. They will weed out those who don't do enough to gain the edge that currently isn't in SC2 even though it has become better. In the end the Elephant in the Room isn't that ex-BW pros are going to destroy what we have now, but that what we have now are players that aren't nearly as good as they should be and we know there are better out there.
|
On February 14 2012 04:24 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 04:20 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:06 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:08 TheDougler wrote:[quote] 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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem  I take that back actually, Tiger Woods is the best. then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best. Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi. Moon is the greatest of all time (only just over Grubby) in a far inferior game which is much easier to be the best in. Where as he's up against the absolute undisputed greatest of all time in a superior game in Flash. There is a balance to be struck and Moon falls way short of it, where as Tiger Woods does not. From wikipedia At the turn of the 21st century, the game was played by over 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport. - football has the greater scale --> Messi is the best by your logic. Also I wrote active sportsman. Not in the last post, but if you have something called memory, I'm sure you will remember it. You completely missed the point.
OK, so your point is that the less popular, smaller sport can be the one that scales greater? Sounds like a counterargument to what you said about BW and SC2.
On February 14 2012 04:57 zawk9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 04:20 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:06 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:08 TheDougler wrote:[quote] 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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem I take that back actually, Tiger Woods is the best. then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best. Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi. Moon is the greatest of all time (only just over Grubby) in a far inferior game which is much easier to be the best in. Where as he's up against the absolute undisputed greatest of all time in a superior game in Flash. There is a balance to be struck and Moon falls way short of it, where as Tiger Woods does not. From wikipedia At the turn of the 21st century, the game was played by over 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport. - football has the greater scale --> Messi is the best by your logic. Also I wrote active sportsman. Not in the last post, but if you have something called memory, I'm sure you will remember it. No sorry your assuming the difference between those sports is smaller than it is. Brood War and SC2, like those physical sports share some commonalities in terms of skill set, but aren't identical. I'd argue the skills involved far more similar than the two sports you cite (which is actually quite easy to objectively evaluate).
that's not my opinion. I'm only using his "logic".
On February 14 2012 05:03 zawk9 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote: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:
[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. 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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem This is wrong as well. There have been extremely short basketball players who make up for it with sheer athleticism, speed, agility, or other various skills. As I said the skill sets are different, but they do translate and this is why there are so many multisport stars on college teams in the United States. Think of Bo Jackson for instance- an undeniable star in both of the two ridiculously different sports he played.
so you think that Lionel Messi would indeed crush the NBA in a matter of months if he switched, showing that there is an "elephant in the NBA"? (football players are better than basketball players by Seraphone's logic)
On February 14 2012 05:11 Squeegy 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... Regional champion Joe has won local tournament in Omaha and Black Jack. Professional player X has only won in holdem. Regional champion Joe is the better card player. Does that sound right to you? Clearly, your logic is flawed. Prize money is of course not very relevant as BW had only OSL, MSL and WCG for some years. There wasn't as much prize money available. The claim of his contract being the best is of course wrong. It wasn't the best. Moreover, it is not that good of an indicator. Look at Jaedong's contract. It does not represent his skill. It looks like your objective indicators are not very good indicators at all. And sometimes of course very wrong. 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. Well, it is nice that you think. But you should think intelligent thoughts, as that is more useful. WC3 despite being more popular in Europe and China was still the smaller game. Many top broodwar players tried WC3 in it's early stages but gave up claiming it was too easy. They didn't like it. Some stayed with the game playing it alongside of BW, like Elky, and still being among the best. Among best, as in finishing the second in a Korean league while playing poker and BW at the same time. But let us ignore the fact that WC3 was the easier game and look at it from the other side. Freedom easily one of the best WC3 players. He switched to BW and ended up a B-teamer. But we are not asking who is the best sports player. We are asking a question more along the lines of who is the best driver. WC3 is like a small rally league. Is is nice and dandy that you are the best in your league. But that does not mean you compare, say, to Schumacher. Just like Select does not compare to Flash. Just as Moon does not compare to Flash. It seems to me that WC3 people have some kind of inferiority complex. You don't see small time rally league drivers claiming they are as good as the F1 drives are, or do you? But I guess it is understandable. BW gave us the better poker players (Elky for example). BW gave us the better casters (Tastosis). BW gave us the better players (Flash). I guess it is not nice for me to point out but I'm only making an observation.
completly agree. The indicators are bad, but they are the best I could think of to compare superspecific BW skill with superspecific WC3 skill and get at least something we can talk of when aruging best RTS gamer.
I haven't seen any other objective indicators apart from size of the scene yet in these discussions. And apart from it only being an indicator again (and noone showing any proof for it), it doesn't necessarily mean that someone gets generally better at RTS in a bigger scene, but after the first phase of a game, there is nothing RTS-general to learn from it anymore, but only gamespecific knowledge and skill achieveable.
That WC3 was an easier game... How do you measure that? It might have been easier to get to the top, but you can't say that the people on top would not have been on top in a bigger competition as well. So you can't say that those on top of WC3 are generally worse than those on top of BW or SC2.
I stand by my point. It is impossible to say someone is generally better at RTS, like it is impossible to say someone is generally better at sports.
And your rally arguement hinks as well, because F1 pilots don't claim or have shown to be the better rally drivers.
|
On February 14 2012 05:38 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 04:46 Taiki wrote:On February 14 2012 04:15 dsousa wrote:
Check out the top players on the right hand side of this page ---->
Even in Korea..... MMA, DRG and Leenock were not BW pro's. A year ago the top 5 had more BW representation (with people like Rainbow, Tester and Fruitdealer being much more relevant
BW influence on SC2 in waning, as is evident by the up and coming crop of players.
The elephant in the room is that there are 10 million 12-15 year old kids, who will soon be entering their prime while having grown up playing SC2. That's what current pro's need to worry about, not people playing another game.
Wait. I'm pretty sure that MMA was on SKT (remember a interview where Oov said that he was sad that MMA switched to SC2) , according to Liquidpedia DRG was on CJ, MvP was on Woongjin and Nestea was on KT. The only one I couldn't find any BW info on was Leenock. I don't really support any side, but right is right. As for my own opinion. I think that if all the BW players switched at the time when this article was writting, most of them would've been the top of SC2 along with those who were already playing the game and the best of the best at BW would've settled comfortably in top10 of SC2. I also don't think there is enough room (in SC2) for a player like Flash to dominate a player like MvP as hard as he would've done in BW. You really don't think Flash would tear MVP a new one? Watch some of these GSL matches. I understand that the skill ceiling map be believed to be lower in SC2, but nobody plays anywhere near where the top could be. In BW these guys were scrubs in this game they will be scrubs if the badasses of BW dedicate the time to this game. MVP forgetting depot during 2 marine bunker pressure. Multitasking has been forgotten. Dropping a base with 8 marines only to lose them just because mutas are harassing a turret. Floating up to 2k/1k without being maxed. When maxed not using the extra money wisely. When the day comes there will Gods of SC2 and I think that nobody from the Early Days will be left around. It doesn't have to be JD/Flash, but it will be someone who much closer to the skill ceiling than our current "pros".
See, the premise of this thread is that it DOES have to be JD/Flash.
Would you say that the early years of Boxer winning in BW were a "farce" because eventually the game changed so much? Fuck no, Boxer is the man and you're an asshole for even thinking that. The game has simply evolved. Just because play has gotten so much better since then doesn't mean that Boxer didn't represent the highest level of play.
The whole argument of this thread is that SC2 is a joke because the best SC2 players aren't even playing SC2, they're still in BW. So our current level of play isn't the highest level of play, it's second to players that aren't even playing the game.
So, having the game evolve doesn't support the Elephant argument in any way. The only thing that will support it is having BW pros switch and dominate the SC2 scene like no one has before. Will Flash do that if/when he switches? No one knows, it's all speculation. Based on the evidence we do have of previous BW pros though, he will do very well, but he won't do well enough to completely invalidate 2 years of SC2 competition.
|
On February 14 2012 06:08 fraktoasters wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 05:29 Squeegy wrote:On February 14 2012 05:18 dsousa wrote:
MMA had 5 career appearances in BW... one less than Idra. DRG and Leenock had 0.
Data shows BW experience is counting for less and less as SC2 moves along.
Many of the players with the most BW experience have faded away. Fruitdealer, Tester, Rainbow even Boxer, July and Nada.... they are not as strong now as there were a year ago.
Its going the other direction, the Elephant in the Room is that BW players WILL NOT have a career waiting for them in SC2. They missed the boat. SC2 players are too good and too young for older BW pro's to ever catch up now The reason why they had few appearances is that they didn't get to play. They weren't good enough. That is how BW works. Not everyone gets to play in the tournaments. Only the best do. Fruitdealer, Tester, Rainbow and Boxer played their games quite a while ago. They got to play but not in the recent memory. That is to say, they weren't that good anymore. So because DRG was worse than FD.. he was actually better. What you're saying doesn't really disprove his point unless we believe players only have a small window in their lives where they'll be good at a game.
No. Read what is written, not what you want to read. Just because FD got to play at one point in time does not mean he was better than DRG. Boxer in his prime wasn't as good as Flash is now. That is to say just because you got to play years ago does not mean you'd be good enough now. That is to say if you are a B-teamer right now it most likely means that you are better than a B-teamer in the past was. The skill level has gone up. You can't just look at the list of games and say this guy played more and was better than the other guy. You have to consider more variables.
|
On February 14 2012 05:11 Squeegy wrote:
Prize money is of course not very relevant as BW had only OSL, MSL and WCG for some years. There wasn't as much prize money available.
Moon's prize money, sum of quantities on wikipedia page: $359,800 (I rounded up to nearest hundred and had to convert some currencies)
Flash's prize money: 3 OSL's + 3 MSL's + GSI + GSL ($40k each) + 1 silver each in OSL/MSL/GSL ($10k each) + Gom 4-person tournament (Flash/Savior/Mind/Stork) in 2008 ($10k) = $360,000
This is probably not counting Moon's finishes lower than 1st and Flash's finishes lower than second. And prize money doesn't take into account team league victories, of which both players have a few. But all in all their prize winnings are remarkably comparable. I'm quite surprised.
Jaedong and Nada must be up there as well. Jaedong has 6 golds and 4 silvers (counting GSL among golds) and Nada has at least 6 golds and I don't know how many silvers. So yeah, BW has a lot of prize money for the best of the best.
On February 14 2012 06:17 Big J wrote:
I stand by my point. It is impossible to say someone is generally better at RTS, like it is impossible to say someone is generally better at sports.
Yup.
|
that's not my opinion. I'm only using his "logic".
If by "using his logic" you mean "make up a ridiculous strawman and beat it to a bloody pulp" I think our positions are pretty close on this one!
Its okay though I get the importance of the issues at stake here for you. He's arguing the "bad side" and therefore its cool for you to just attribute whatever ridiculous argument pops into your head to your opponent.
so you think that Lionel Messi would indeed crush the NBA in a matter of months if he switched, showing that there is an "elephant in the NBA"? (football players are better than basketball players by Seraphone's logic)
No you need to work on your reading comprehension. I said there were commonalities between the two games (athleticism) and that you didn't need to be tall to be a good basketball player.
Reading my two posts as coming from the same person or being the least bit charitable would help you here and might clarify your confusion. For instance nowhere in the above post did I even mention Messi or say that the skill differences between the professional NBA and international soccer are just like the differences between playing Starcraft 2 or Brood War professionally.
(football players are better than basketball players by Seraphone's logic)
The games are far more different than SC2 and Brood War, but we still can evaluate several commonalities between the two sports (or objective measures of athleticism). My point (contra seraphone) is that the two video games above have far closer skill sets and that we can, in fact, make a few more objective comparisons.
|
On February 14 2012 06:17 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 04:24 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:20 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:06 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem I take that back actually, Tiger Woods is the best. then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best. Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi. Moon is the greatest of all time (only just over Grubby) in a far inferior game which is much easier to be the best in. Where as he's up against the absolute undisputed greatest of all time in a superior game in Flash. There is a balance to be struck and Moon falls way short of it, where as Tiger Woods does not. From wikipedia At the turn of the 21st century, the game was played by over 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport. - football has the greater scale --> Messi is the best by your logic. Also I wrote active sportsman. Not in the last post, but if you have something called memory, I'm sure you will remember it. You completely missed the point. OK, so your point is that the less popular, smaller sport can be the one that scales greater? Sounds like a counterargument to what you said about BW and SC2. Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 04:57 zawk9 wrote:On February 14 2012 04:20 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:06 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem I take that back actually, Tiger Woods is the best. then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best. Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi. Moon is the greatest of all time (only just over Grubby) in a far inferior game which is much easier to be the best in. Where as he's up against the absolute undisputed greatest of all time in a superior game in Flash. There is a balance to be struck and Moon falls way short of it, where as Tiger Woods does not. From wikipedia At the turn of the 21st century, the game was played by over 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport. - football has the greater scale --> Messi is the best by your logic. Also I wrote active sportsman. Not in the last post, but if you have something called memory, I'm sure you will remember it. No sorry your assuming the difference between those sports is smaller than it is. Brood War and SC2, like those physical sports share some commonalities in terms of skill set, but aren't identical. I'd argue the skills involved far more similar than the two sports you cite (which is actually quite easy to objectively evaluate). that's not my opinion. I'm only using his "logic". Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 05:03 zawk9 wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem This is wrong as well. There have been extremely short basketball players who make up for it with sheer athleticism, speed, agility, or other various skills. As I said the skill sets are different, but they do translate and this is why there are so many multisport stars on college teams in the United States. Think of Bo Jackson for instance- an undeniable star in both of the two ridiculously different sports he played. so you think that Lionel Messi would indeed crush the NBA in a matter of months if he switched, showing that there is an "elephant in the NBA"? (football players are better than basketball players by Seraphone's logic) Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 05:11 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:On February 13 2012 07:27 Squeegy wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
Oh, it's you again. Could you, for once, try to reply in an intelligent way to my rebuttals of your arguments? Or is it that you just can't.
Tyler? The player who seems to be facing motivational and other personal issues? You should try harder, I'm not even breaking a sweat! I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored. Article said top 300 would dominate. Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros. MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others. So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2. Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 06:58 Big J wrote:
[quote]
proof/argumentation for this?
And I mean one that is consistent with the OP, so not the "ex-BWs like MVP/Nestea are dominating SC2"-argument. Because the OP clearly says that those are bad players and I honestly can't think of a context in which you can say that bad players could compete on the same level as the top300 (=good) BW players.
And I also don't take examples. You can not proof something with an example, you can only falsify something with a counterexample. (like you can falsify the "the top300 BW pros will instantly dominate SC2" with the one counterexample "Forgg/Fin was top300 before he switched; He is not dominating") Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. Ah, so it is yet another case of not understanding the argument! I see I was right again. The dictionary definition of dominate is not as important as what Intrigue meant by it. I'll explain it in very simple terms what I mean. I use MVP only as an example to illustrate my point. He represents the top of SC2. I could use other players too but using MVP is much less controversial since his level was better established than most others. 1. Intrigue knows BW scene 2. MVP is a top 100 BW player 3. Intrigue knows MVP is a top 100 BW player 4. Intrigue argues that BW skill is (at least to an extent) proportional to SC2 skill 5. Intrigue argues that the best 300 BW players have the potential to dominate SC2 6. Intrigue claims that MVP dominates SC2 7. Intrigue's argument would not be internally consistent if he argued top 300 (excluding the top 100) had the potential to dominate the top 100* 8. Intrigue did not argue that the best 300 BW players (excluding the top 100) would dominate MVP 9. Intrigue meant something else than what you think by dominate 10. I claim Intrigue meant something else than what you think by dominate 11. I am correct * I suppose in a way they do have the potential (anybody can beat anybody). But not in the way Intrigue means. And as for the second part, you really have trouble understanding this, don't you? It is still the non-BW players who are being dominated by the BW players. It is the BW players who are dominating the scene now. The best 300 BW players who would switch would also dominate the scene, but they would not dominate those BW players (who are already dominating) as they are both part of the same group. MVP and MC are amongst the best 300 BW players. But once we are more specific and talk about the A-teamers and such we get from dominating to crushing. It was a very clear distinction made by Intrigue. I hope you don't analyze things for a job! What kind of misunderstandings would that lead to! You should try something like an assembly line. You might find it more suitable for your skills. You are correct, I truly do not understand, and I probably never will. Much like a child being taught algebra by a donkey, it's futile. I just hope you understand why there is confusion when by 'dominate' he meant 'playing roughly at the same level as', 'SC2 scene' was really 'non ex-BW players' and now when the 300 players that could come in and dominate at any given time also includes the current(at the time) 40-50 ex-bw pros that had already switched. On February 13 2012 13:54 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Although badly worded imo, I think I get what the 300 player thing is coming from.
Basically its not saying that the top 300 would beat MVP as that doesn't really make any sense as MVP was at least in the top 100. Its more or less saying that if the top 300 switched over, the competition and skill level would rise dramatically.
But most of the foreign SC2 players would probably be as they were in BW, and most of the code A players would be replaced with these BW players (at the time of the writing). The average skill level would inevitably rise dramatically and the less experienced/dedicated [SC2 only] players would fall down, it seems like an obvious point when you think about it. Perhaps at the fringes we may still see MVP/Nestea/MC still in code S. However, I'm sure TBLS would still be the top four, their skills are out of this world even without BW micro. I agree 100% with this. The problem is the language and the construction of the OP. He could have chosen a different approach, one more balanced and leveled, one that wouldn't alienate 90% of the readers. He didn't unfortunately. I'm done with this topic, the ugly thing can not die if I keep bumping it :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote:On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote:
kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?"
or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? I'm thinking Moon tbh lolz. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... Regional champion Joe has won local tournament in Omaha and Black Jack. Professional player X has only won in holdem. Regional champion Joe is the better card player. Does that sound right to you? Clearly, your logic is flawed. Prize money is of course not very relevant as BW had only OSL, MSL and WCG for some years. There wasn't as much prize money available. The claim of his contract being the best is of course wrong. It wasn't the best. Moreover, it is not that good of an indicator. Look at Jaedong's contract. It does not represent his skill. It looks like your objective indicators are not very good indicators at all. And sometimes of course very wrong. 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. Well, it is nice that you think. But you should think intelligent thoughts, as that is more useful. WC3 despite being more popular in Europe and China was still the smaller game. Many top broodwar players tried WC3 in it's early stages but gave up claiming it was too easy. They didn't like it. Some stayed with the game playing it alongside of BW, like Elky, and still being among the best. Among best, as in finishing the second in a Korean league while playing poker and BW at the same time. But let us ignore the fact that WC3 was the easier game and look at it from the other side. Freedom easily one of the best WC3 players. He switched to BW and ended up a B-teamer. But we are not asking who is the best sports player. We are asking a question more along the lines of who is the best driver. WC3 is like a small rally league. Is is nice and dandy that you are the best in your league. But that does not mean you compare, say, to Schumacher. Just like Select does not compare to Flash. Just as Moon does not compare to Flash. It seems to me that WC3 people have some kind of inferiority complex. You don't see small time rally league drivers claiming they are as good as the F1 drives are, or do you? But I guess it is understandable. BW gave us the better poker players (Elky for example). BW gave us the better casters (Tastosis). BW gave us the better players (Flash). I guess it is not nice for me to point out but I'm only making an observation. completly agree. The indicators are bad, but they are the best I could think of to compare superspecific BW skill with superspecific WC3 skill and get at least something we can talk of when aruging best RTS gamer. I haven't seen any other objective indicators apart from size of the scene yet in these discussions. And apart from it only being an indicator again (and noone showing any proof for it), it doesn't necessarily mean that someone gets generally better at RTS in a bigger scene, but after the first phase of a game, there is nothing RTS-general to learn from it anymore, but only gamespecific knowledge and skill achieveable. That WC3 was an easier game... How do you measure that? It might have been easier to get to the top, but you can't say that the people on top would not have been on top in a bigger competition as well. So you can't say that those on top of WC3 are generally worse than those on top of BW or SC2. I stand by my point. It is impossible to say someone is generally better at RTS, like it is impossible to say someone is generally better at sports. And your rally arguement hinks as well, because F1 pilots don't claim or have shown to be the better rally drivers.
I'm not sure what kind of indicators you are looking for. How would you indicate that a low level rally tournament takes less skill than F1? Surely you don't think they require the same amount of skill though? And that was also the point. I was not comparing rally drivers to F1 drivers. I don't know enough to know which scene is actually more competetive. That is why I compared a low level rally tournament to F1. Because one is the top competition in the sport in the world and the other isn't. I can find a better example too, if you so wish, but I don't see what difference it makes.
|
On February 14 2012 05:31 babylon wrote:
Think there's a correlation-does-not-equal-causation thing going on here. Probably a little causation, but I don't think it's huge.
There are far, far, far more Korean SCBW players than Korean War3 players (or current pros without previous RTS experience). Why is KR SC2 dominated by ex-BW players? Kind of the same reason why foreigner SC2 is dominated by ex-War3 players. Not to mention, I would also hazard a guess that many of the Korean War3 players also have SCBW background by virtue of BW being the more popular game; people who gravitated towards progaming would naturally try it out, while those who enjoyed War3 more went to War3, unless they were too young. Moon especially did have a fairly extensive BW background -- apparently enough to be able to have a 25% win-rate against WMF's B-teamers while he was a full-time War3 pro. I believe he was going to go BW pro until his friend threw War3 on him, and he liked it enough to go for it. Also, for those saying that War3 is an easier game and that BW pros could trounce all the War3 pros -- maybe, maybe not. No way to know now, unless they all decide to play War3. Keep in mind that Midas and Moon did play a bit of War3 together, with Moon on a no-hero handicap (this is huge, btw, for those of you who don't know), and Moon crushed him. Midas incidentally also said that Moon is actually good at BW and that if he played on a similar level of handicap, he wouldn't win against Moon in BW. (Midas, btw, is the guy who said that SC2 is too easy, lumping it in the same category as LoL, and that he tried War3 but that he didn't like the hero-system, which was his main complaint. There was nothing said about War3 being "too easy." Ofc, if Squeegy, our resident War3 hater, can find some quotes from Korean progamers about it, sure, go ahead. AFAIK, most BW progamers either simply didn't like War3 for its hero-system or haven't ever played it.)
Skimmed through the rest of the discussion, and I see someone saying it's "impossible to be good at BW without living in a Korean pro-house." Well, it's impossible to be truly competitive at War3 at the highest level right now unless you up and move to China and basically live there a la ReMinD and Lyn.
It would be great, anyways, if people unfamiliar with certain scenes (whether War3, BW, or SC2) would just not talk about it like they know something about it when they really, really don't. Seeing "July, Boxer, NaDa, fOrGG, Hyun, [insert BW pro here] are failing at SC2 right now, what's up now, bitches???" (lolwat) is as annoying as it was reading "fOrGG's gonna crush through everyone and he's not even a good player!" (... okaaaaay?) and "Lolol, War3 players are shit, even the big-name players aren't putting up results!!11!" (Check was the only "big" Korean War3 player to have been playing SC2 exclusively since the beginning, with Moon, Lyn, and viOlet all playing hybrid for an extensive period of time until recently. Moon also is much more like NaDa in that his glory days were years ago, and he hasn't been able to achieve near the same amount of success in War3 in recent times, when it's much more dominated by players like TH000 and Infi.)
Moon is an exceptional case. Like you said, he was very close to going pro in BW and I'm not surprised by has results in WCIII either. As he has what most players don't: raw talent.
Of course there's a difference in talent pool between the scenes. BW is an integral part of Korea's gaming culture, whereas the international competitive sc:bw scene is segregated and isolated.
A lot of the Korean's we're talking about now were either professional BW players or practice partners. Anyway, like I said Moon is an exceptional case and I wouldn't read too much into the games he played against Midas considering Midas hasn't been relevant for quite some time (another one of those guys who was on a downward spiral like NaDa, July and BoxeR). -_-
I already commented on those players so I don't need to go more into it.
|
On February 14 2012 06:21 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 05:38 NoobSkills wrote:On February 14 2012 04:46 Taiki wrote:On February 14 2012 04:15 dsousa wrote:
Check out the top players on the right hand side of this page ---->
Even in Korea..... MMA, DRG and Leenock were not BW pro's. A year ago the top 5 had more BW representation (with people like Rainbow, Tester and Fruitdealer being much more relevant
BW influence on SC2 in waning, as is evident by the up and coming crop of players.
The elephant in the room is that there are 10 million 12-15 year old kids, who will soon be entering their prime while having grown up playing SC2. That's what current pro's need to worry about, not people playing another game.
Wait. I'm pretty sure that MMA was on SKT (remember a interview where Oov said that he was sad that MMA switched to SC2) , according to Liquidpedia DRG was on CJ, MvP was on Woongjin and Nestea was on KT. The only one I couldn't find any BW info on was Leenock. I don't really support any side, but right is right. As for my own opinion. I think that if all the BW players switched at the time when this article was writting, most of them would've been the top of SC2 along with those who were already playing the game and the best of the best at BW would've settled comfortably in top10 of SC2. I also don't think there is enough room (in SC2) for a player like Flash to dominate a player like MvP as hard as he would've done in BW. You really don't think Flash would tear MVP a new one? Watch some of these GSL matches. I understand that the skill ceiling map be believed to be lower in SC2, but nobody plays anywhere near where the top could be. In BW these guys were scrubs in this game they will be scrubs if the badasses of BW dedicate the time to this game. MVP forgetting depot during 2 marine bunker pressure. Multitasking has been forgotten. Dropping a base with 8 marines only to lose them just because mutas are harassing a turret. Floating up to 2k/1k without being maxed. When maxed not using the extra money wisely. When the day comes there will Gods of SC2 and I think that nobody from the Early Days will be left around. It doesn't have to be JD/Flash, but it will be someone who much closer to the skill ceiling than our current "pros". See, the premise of this thread is that it DOES have to be JD/Flash. Would you say that the early years of Boxer winning in BW were a "farce" because eventually the game changed so much? Fuck no, Boxer is the man and you're an asshole for even thinking that. The game has simply evolved. Just because play has gotten so much better since then doesn't mean that Boxer didn't represent the highest level of play. The whole argument of this thread is that SC2 is a joke because the best SC2 players aren't even playing SC2, they're still in BW. So our current level of play isn't the highest level of play, it's second to players that aren't even playing the game. So, having the game evolve doesn't support the Elephant argument in any way. The only thing that will support it is having BW pros switch and dominate the SC2 scene like no one has before. Will Flash do that if/when he switches? No one knows, it's all speculation. Based on the evidence we do have of previous BW pros though, he will do very well, but he won't do well enough to completely invalidate 2 years of SC2 competition.
Because you called me an asshole I will keep this short.
Does not have to be Flash/JD has to be someone who is grabbing at the ceiling rather than being content with sitting on a couch.
Boxer's wins are not a farce, but are now, only remembered because they were innovative and micro intensive rather than that they were solid play. MC's 1 and 2 base all-ins will be forgotten when the day is done.
Never said the game needs to evolve. Current metagame forever is fine with me as long as people start playing better.
|
On February 14 2012 06:21 TrickyGilligan wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 05:38 NoobSkills wrote:On February 14 2012 04:46 Taiki wrote:On February 14 2012 04:15 dsousa wrote:
Check out the top players on the right hand side of this page ---->
Even in Korea..... MMA, DRG and Leenock were not BW pro's. A year ago the top 5 had more BW representation (with people like Rainbow, Tester and Fruitdealer being much more relevant
BW influence on SC2 in waning, as is evident by the up and coming crop of players.
The elephant in the room is that there are 10 million 12-15 year old kids, who will soon be entering their prime while having grown up playing SC2. That's what current pro's need to worry about, not people playing another game.
Wait. I'm pretty sure that MMA was on SKT (remember a interview where Oov said that he was sad that MMA switched to SC2) , according to Liquidpedia DRG was on CJ, MvP was on Woongjin and Nestea was on KT. The only one I couldn't find any BW info on was Leenock. I don't really support any side, but right is right. As for my own opinion. I think that if all the BW players switched at the time when this article was writting, most of them would've been the top of SC2 along with those who were already playing the game and the best of the best at BW would've settled comfortably in top10 of SC2. I also don't think there is enough room (in SC2) for a player like Flash to dominate a player like MvP as hard as he would've done in BW. You really don't think Flash would tear MVP a new one? Watch some of these GSL matches. I understand that the skill ceiling map be believed to be lower in SC2, but nobody plays anywhere near where the top could be. In BW these guys were scrubs in this game they will be scrubs if the badasses of BW dedicate the time to this game. MVP forgetting depot during 2 marine bunker pressure. Multitasking has been forgotten. Dropping a base with 8 marines only to lose them just because mutas are harassing a turret. Floating up to 2k/1k without being maxed. When maxed not using the extra money wisely. When the day comes there will Gods of SC2 and I think that nobody from the Early Days will be left around. It doesn't have to be JD/Flash, but it will be someone who much closer to the skill ceiling than our current "pros". See, the premise of this thread is that it DOES have to be JD/Flash. Would you say that the early years of Boxer winning in BW were a "farce" because eventually the game changed so much? Fuck no, Boxer is the man and you're an asshole for even thinking that. The game has simply evolved. Just because play has gotten so much better since then doesn't mean that Boxer didn't represent the highest level of play. The whole argument of this thread is that SC2 is a joke because the best SC2 players aren't even playing SC2, they're still in BW. So our current level of play isn't the highest level of play, it's second to players that aren't even playing the game. So, having the game evolve doesn't support the Elephant argument in any way. The only thing that will support it is having BW pros switch and dominate the SC2 scene like no one has before. Will Flash do that if/when he switches? No one knows, it's all speculation. Based on the evidence we do have of previous BW pros though, he will do very well, but he won't do well enough to completely invalidate 2 years of SC2 competition.
No because there was no scene prior to BW when Boxer dominated. Boxer was the best there was then. Just like Flash is now. But Flash is not playing this game.But Boxer was playing BW back then. That is why the competition is called a farce. (Of course I don't mean just Flash, but I'm sure you get my point.)
|
On February 14 2012 06:33 Squeegy wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:17 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:24 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:20 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:06 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem I take that back actually, Tiger Woods is the best. then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best. Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi. Moon is the greatest of all time (only just over Grubby) in a far inferior game which is much easier to be the best in. Where as he's up against the absolute undisputed greatest of all time in a superior game in Flash. There is a balance to be struck and Moon falls way short of it, where as Tiger Woods does not. From wikipedia At the turn of the 21st century, the game was played by over 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport. - football has the greater scale --> Messi is the best by your logic. Also I wrote active sportsman. Not in the last post, but if you have something called memory, I'm sure you will remember it. You completely missed the point. OK, so your point is that the less popular, smaller sport can be the one that scales greater? Sounds like a counterargument to what you said about BW and SC2. On February 14 2012 04:57 zawk9 wrote:On February 14 2012 04:20 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:06 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem I take that back actually, Tiger Woods is the best. then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best. Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi. Moon is the greatest of all time (only just over Grubby) in a far inferior game which is much easier to be the best in. Where as he's up against the absolute undisputed greatest of all time in a superior game in Flash. There is a balance to be struck and Moon falls way short of it, where as Tiger Woods does not. From wikipedia At the turn of the 21st century, the game was played by over 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport. - football has the greater scale --> Messi is the best by your logic. Also I wrote active sportsman. Not in the last post, but if you have something called memory, I'm sure you will remember it. No sorry your assuming the difference between those sports is smaller than it is. Brood War and SC2, like those physical sports share some commonalities in terms of skill set, but aren't identical. I'd argue the skills involved far more similar than the two sports you cite (which is actually quite easy to objectively evaluate). that's not my opinion. I'm only using his "logic". On February 14 2012 05:03 zawk9 wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem This is wrong as well. There have been extremely short basketball players who make up for it with sheer athleticism, speed, agility, or other various skills. As I said the skill sets are different, but they do translate and this is why there are so many multisport stars on college teams in the United States. Think of Bo Jackson for instance- an undeniable star in both of the two ridiculously different sports he played. so you think that Lionel Messi would indeed crush the NBA in a matter of months if he switched, showing that there is an "elephant in the NBA"? (football players are better than basketball players by Seraphone's logic) On February 14 2012 05:11 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 23:03 Big J wrote:On February 13 2012 22:31 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 19:18 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 09:17 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 08:23 Longshank wrote:On February 13 2012 07:49 Squeegy wrote:On February 13 2012 07:40 lorkac wrote:
[quote]
I did actually. Several pages ago. I don't like reposting the same argument over and over when it's simply ignored.
Article said top 300 would dominate.
Top 100 is doing as well as low lever sc2 pros.
MVP, MC and Nestea are slowly getting replaced by DRG, MVP and others.
So far, by empiracle proof, there is no relation between skill rank in BW and skill rank in SC2.
Do you have a non-theorycraft rebuttal? But I did reply to it. Why don't you reply to my rebuttal of it? On February 13 2012 07:40 Longshank wrote:
[quote]
Oh alright, gotcha. Judging by the size of it, there still ought to be a good 50-100 players in that SC2 bracket though, which would mean Incontrol is indeed dominating the NA scene. Someone should tell him quick! What does Incontrol have to do with Korean BW players. You should try being right for a change. It's more useful than being wrong all the time. Not much. It's about what you put in your home-made definition of the word dominating, I thought that was obvious. Besides, a page ago you said it was the non-BW players, whoever they may be, they were supposed to dominate(or play at the same level as according to your definition), not the top SC2 players who are ex-BW players. By such flawless logic and use of the terms 'SC2 scene' and 'dominate', Inrigue was indeed correct. You win the argument. Ah, so it is yet another case of not understanding the argument! I see I was right again. The dictionary definition of dominate is not as important as what Intrigue meant by it. I'll explain it in very simple terms what I mean. I use MVP only as an example to illustrate my point. He represents the top of SC2. I could use other players too but using MVP is much less controversial since his level was better established than most others. 1. Intrigue knows BW scene 2. MVP is a top 100 BW player 3. Intrigue knows MVP is a top 100 BW player 4. Intrigue argues that BW skill is (at least to an extent) proportional to SC2 skill 5. Intrigue argues that the best 300 BW players have the potential to dominate SC2 6. Intrigue claims that MVP dominates SC2 7. Intrigue's argument would not be internally consistent if he argued top 300 (excluding the top 100) had the potential to dominate the top 100* 8. Intrigue did not argue that the best 300 BW players (excluding the top 100) would dominate MVP 9. Intrigue meant something else than what you think by dominate 10. I claim Intrigue meant something else than what you think by dominate 11. I am correct * I suppose in a way they do have the potential (anybody can beat anybody). But not in the way Intrigue means. And as for the second part, you really have trouble understanding this, don't you? It is still the non-BW players who are being dominated by the BW players. It is the BW players who are dominating the scene now. The best 300 BW players who would switch would also dominate the scene, but they would not dominate those BW players (who are already dominating) as they are both part of the same group. MVP and MC are amongst the best 300 BW players. But once we are more specific and talk about the A-teamers and such we get from dominating to crushing. It was a very clear distinction made by Intrigue. I hope you don't analyze things for a job! What kind of misunderstandings would that lead to! You should try something like an assembly line. You might find it more suitable for your skills. You are correct, I truly do not understand, and I probably never will. Much like a child being taught algebra by a donkey, it's futile. I just hope you understand why there is confusion when by 'dominate' he meant 'playing roughly at the same level as', 'SC2 scene' was really 'non ex-BW players' and now when the 300 players that could come in and dominate at any given time also includes the current(at the time) 40-50 ex-bw pros that had already switched. On February 13 2012 13:54 sluggaslamoo wrote:
Although badly worded imo, I think I get what the 300 player thing is coming from.
Basically its not saying that the top 300 would beat MVP as that doesn't really make any sense as MVP was at least in the top 100. Its more or less saying that if the top 300 switched over, the competition and skill level would rise dramatically.
But most of the foreign SC2 players would probably be as they were in BW, and most of the code A players would be replaced with these BW players (at the time of the writing). The average skill level would inevitably rise dramatically and the less experienced/dedicated [SC2 only] players would fall down, it seems like an obvious point when you think about it. Perhaps at the fringes we may still see MVP/Nestea/MC still in code S. However, I'm sure TBLS would still be the top four, their skills are out of this world even without BW micro. I agree 100% with this. The problem is the language and the construction of the OP. He could have chosen a different approach, one more balanced and leveled, one that wouldn't alienate 90% of the readers. He didn't unfortunately. I'm done with this topic, the ugly thing can not die if I keep bumping it :/ Now, now, don't be so hard on yourself. But when you are willing to learn, do come back to me. I will gladly teach you. Meanwhile, make sure you don't strain yourself working at that assembly line. So you agree 100% with what the article tried to convey. That is with what I've been saying. I think you are a very confused one. You should make up your mind. On February 13 2012 15:47 canikizu wrote:On February 13 2012 15:15 Diglett wrote:
kind of a tangent but i want to ask...when you guys think about the "best rts player" who do you think of? personally, my brain goes straight to bw and says flash. do sc2 fans immediately think to immvp as the "best rts player?"
or is "rts" too broad of a category to discuss (sc2 and bw are different, etc)? I'm thinking Moon tbh lolz. You'd think the best RTS player would do better in an RTS. No, there are many BW players better than him. Moon>Flash in WC3 (from what they have achieved yet) Moon>Flash in SC2 (from what they have achieved yet) Flash>Moon in BW (from what they have achieved yet) 2-1 for Moon in terms of in how many categories they have competed on high level. (Flash is just an example... read Jaedong/Bisu/anyone who has played BW only until now if you want to) Other objective indicators?! Prize money? I think Moon is the one who won the most money with gaming yet, but don't know. Couldn't google the exact stats, but I think Artosis mentioned it somewhere in the OpenGSL seasons. Market value? He had best contract up to now of all esport gamers with 500.000$ for 3years at WeMadeFox. Not saying he is the best (I don't think anyone can be the best in a such a huge genre... that's like saying Albert Einstein was the best scientist ever...), but a lot of objective indicators that I know of all point towards him. Of course if you argue NaDa or Boxer or even Grubby, it will become a lot more tricky... Regional champion Joe has won local tournament in Omaha and Black Jack. Professional player X has only won in holdem. Regional champion Joe is the better card player. Does that sound right to you? Clearly, your logic is flawed. Prize money is of course not very relevant as BW had only OSL, MSL and WCG for some years. There wasn't as much prize money available. The claim of his contract being the best is of course wrong. It wasn't the best. Moreover, it is not that good of an indicator. Look at Jaedong's contract. It does not represent his skill. It looks like your objective indicators are not very good indicators at all. And sometimes of course very wrong. 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:
[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. 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. Well, it is nice that you think. But you should think intelligent thoughts, as that is more useful. WC3 despite being more popular in Europe and China was still the smaller game. Many top broodwar players tried WC3 in it's early stages but gave up claiming it was too easy. They didn't like it. Some stayed with the game playing it alongside of BW, like Elky, and still being among the best. Among best, as in finishing the second in a Korean league while playing poker and BW at the same time. But let us ignore the fact that WC3 was the easier game and look at it from the other side. Freedom easily one of the best WC3 players. He switched to BW and ended up a B-teamer. But we are not asking who is the best sports player. We are asking a question more along the lines of who is the best driver. WC3 is like a small rally league. Is is nice and dandy that you are the best in your league. But that does not mean you compare, say, to Schumacher. Just like Select does not compare to Flash. Just as Moon does not compare to Flash. It seems to me that WC3 people have some kind of inferiority complex. You don't see small time rally league drivers claiming they are as good as the F1 drives are, or do you? But I guess it is understandable. BW gave us the better poker players (Elky for example). BW gave us the better casters (Tastosis). BW gave us the better players (Flash). I guess it is not nice for me to point out but I'm only making an observation. completly agree. The indicators are bad, but they are the best I could think of to compare superspecific BW skill with superspecific WC3 skill and get at least something we can talk of when aruging best RTS gamer. I haven't seen any other objective indicators apart from size of the scene yet in these discussions. And apart from it only being an indicator again (and noone showing any proof for it), it doesn't necessarily mean that someone gets generally better at RTS in a bigger scene, but after the first phase of a game, there is nothing RTS-general to learn from it anymore, but only gamespecific knowledge and skill achieveable. That WC3 was an easier game... How do you measure that? It might have been easier to get to the top, but you can't say that the people on top would not have been on top in a bigger competition as well. So you can't say that those on top of WC3 are generally worse than those on top of BW or SC2. I stand by my point. It is impossible to say someone is generally better at RTS, like it is impossible to say someone is generally better at sports. And your rally arguement hinks as well, because F1 pilots don't claim or have shown to be the better rally drivers. I'm not sure what kind of indicators you are looking for. How would you indicate that a low level rally tournament takes less skill than F1? Surely you don't think they require the same amount of skill though? And that was also the point. I was not comparing rally drivers to F1 drivers. I don't know enough to know which scene is actually more competetive. That is why I compared a low level rally tournament to F1. Because one is the top competition in the sport in the world and the other isn't. I can find a better example too, if you so wish, but I don't see what difference it makes.
thats the argument. There is no overall skill for rally and F1.
Some things transfer well, but in the end you have to be good at rally to be good at rally.
|
On February 14 2012 07:07 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:33 Squeegy wrote:On February 14 2012 06:17 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:24 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:20 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:06 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:
[quote]
Messi is the best active sportsman in the world so no problem.
Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem I take that back actually, Tiger Woods is the best. then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best. Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi. Moon is the greatest of all time (only just over Grubby) in a far inferior game which is much easier to be the best in. Where as he's up against the absolute undisputed greatest of all time in a superior game in Flash. There is a balance to be struck and Moon falls way short of it, where as Tiger Woods does not. From wikipedia At the turn of the 21st century, the game was played by over 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport. - football has the greater scale --> Messi is the best by your logic. Also I wrote active sportsman. Not in the last post, but if you have something called memory, I'm sure you will remember it. You completely missed the point. OK, so your point is that the less popular, smaller sport can be the one that scales greater? Sounds like a counterargument to what you said about BW and SC2. On February 14 2012 04:57 zawk9 wrote:On February 14 2012 04:20 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:08 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 04:06 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:
[quote]
Messi is the best active sportsman in the world so no problem.
Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem I take that back actually, Tiger Woods is the best. then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best. Nope, wrong again I'm afraid. Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi. Moon is the greatest of all time (only just over Grubby) in a far inferior game which is much easier to be the best in. Where as he's up against the absolute undisputed greatest of all time in a superior game in Flash. There is a balance to be struck and Moon falls way short of it, where as Tiger Woods does not. From wikipedia At the turn of the 21st century, the game was played by over 250 million players in over 200 countries, making it the world's most popular sport. - football has the greater scale --> Messi is the best by your logic. Also I wrote active sportsman. Not in the last post, but if you have something called memory, I'm sure you will remember it. No sorry your assuming the difference between those sports is smaller than it is. Brood War and SC2, like those physical sports share some commonalities in terms of skill set, but aren't identical. I'd argue the skills involved far more similar than the two sports you cite (which is actually quite easy to objectively evaluate). that's not my opinion. I'm only using his "logic". On February 14 2012 05:03 zawk9 wrote:On February 14 2012 04:02 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:45 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:44 Big J wrote:On February 14 2012 03:15 Seraphone wrote:On February 14 2012 03:08 TheDougler wrote:On February 14 2012 02:20 TheDougler wrote:
[quote]
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. Ok... I just hope he is never gonna switch to basketball. I heard you gotta be really tall for that sport. (not even want to think about him playing chess or something) But by your logic... no problem This is wrong as well. There have been extremely short basketball players who make up for it with sheer athleticism, speed, agility, or other various skills. As I said the skill sets are different, but they do translate and this is why there are so many multisport stars on college teams in the United States. Think of Bo Jackson for instance- an undeniable star in both of the two ridiculously different sports he played. so you think that Lionel Messi would indeed crush the NBA in a matter of months if he switched, showing that there is an "elephant in the NBA"? (football players are better than basketball players by Seraphone's logic) On February 14 2012 05:11 Squeegy 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... Regional champion Joe has won local tournament in Omaha and Black Jack. Professional player X has only won in holdem. Regional champion Joe is the better card player. Does that sound right to you? Clearly, your logic is flawed. Prize money is of course not very relevant as BW had only OSL, MSL and WCG for some years. There wasn't as much prize money available. The claim of his contract being the best is of course wrong. It wasn't the best. Moreover, it is not that good of an indicator. Look at Jaedong's contract. It does not represent his skill. It looks like your objective indicators are not very good indicators at all. And sometimes of course very wrong. 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:
[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. 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. Well, it is nice that you think. But you should think intelligent thoughts, as that is more useful. WC3 despite being more popular in Europe and China was still the smaller game. Many top broodwar players tried WC3 in it's early stages but gave up claiming it was too easy. They didn't like it. Some stayed with the game playing it alongside of BW, like Elky, and still being among the best. Among best, as in finishing the second in a Korean league while playing poker and BW at the same time. But let us ignore the fact that WC3 was the easier game and look at it from the other side. Freedom easily one of the best WC3 players. He switched to BW and ended up a B-teamer. But we are not asking who is the best sports player. We are asking a question more along the lines of who is the best driver. WC3 is like a small rally league. Is is nice and dandy that you are the best in your league. But that does not mean you compare, say, to Schumacher. Just like Select does not compare to Flash. Just as Moon does not compare to Flash. It seems to me that WC3 people have some kind of inferiority complex. You don't see small time rally league drivers claiming they are as good as the F1 drives are, or do you? But I guess it is understandable. BW gave us the better poker players (Elky for example). BW gave us the better casters (Tastosis). BW gave us the better players (Flash). I guess it is not nice for me to point out but I'm only making an observation. completly agree. The indicators are bad, but they are the best I could think of to compare superspecific BW skill with superspecific WC3 skill and get at least something we can talk of when aruging best RTS gamer. I haven't seen any other objective indicators apart from size of the scene yet in these discussions. And apart from it only being an indicator again (and noone showing any proof for it), it doesn't necessarily mean that someone gets generally better at RTS in a bigger scene, but after the first phase of a game, there is nothing RTS-general to learn from it anymore, but only gamespecific knowledge and skill achieveable. That WC3 was an easier game... How do you measure that? It might have been easier to get to the top, but you can't say that the people on top would not have been on top in a bigger competition as well. So you can't say that those on top of WC3 are generally worse than those on top of BW or SC2. I stand by my point. It is impossible to say someone is generally better at RTS, like it is impossible to say someone is generally better at sports. And your rally arguement hinks as well, because F1 pilots don't claim or have shown to be the better rally drivers. I'm not sure what kind of indicators you are looking for. How would you indicate that a low level rally tournament takes less skill than F1? Surely you don't think they require the same amount of skill though? And that was also the point. I was not comparing rally drivers to F1 drivers. I don't know enough to know which scene is actually more competetive. That is why I compared a low level rally tournament to F1. Because one is the top competition in the sport in the world and the other isn't. I can find a better example too, if you so wish, but I don't see what difference it makes. thats the argument. There is no overall skill for rally and F1. Some things transfer well, but in the end you have to be good at rally to be good at rally.
There doesn't have to be. There is no overall skill for walking and knowing quantum physics. I bet you the latter is much harder though.
|
On February 14 2012 06:44 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 06:21 TrickyGilligan wrote:On February 14 2012 05:38 NoobSkills wrote:On February 14 2012 04:46 Taiki wrote:On February 14 2012 04:15 dsousa wrote:
Check out the top players on the right hand side of this page ---->
Even in Korea..... MMA, DRG and Leenock were not BW pro's. A year ago the top 5 had more BW representation (with people like Rainbow, Tester and Fruitdealer being much more relevant
BW influence on SC2 in waning, as is evident by the up and coming crop of players.
The elephant in the room is that there are 10 million 12-15 year old kids, who will soon be entering their prime while having grown up playing SC2. That's what current pro's need to worry about, not people playing another game.
Wait. I'm pretty sure that MMA was on SKT (remember a interview where Oov said that he was sad that MMA switched to SC2) , according to Liquidpedia DRG was on CJ, MvP was on Woongjin and Nestea was on KT. The only one I couldn't find any BW info on was Leenock. I don't really support any side, but right is right. As for my own opinion. I think that if all the BW players switched at the time when this article was writting, most of them would've been the top of SC2 along with those who were already playing the game and the best of the best at BW would've settled comfortably in top10 of SC2. I also don't think there is enough room (in SC2) for a player like Flash to dominate a player like MvP as hard as he would've done in BW. You really don't think Flash would tear MVP a new one? Watch some of these GSL matches. I understand that the skill ceiling map be believed to be lower in SC2, but nobody plays anywhere near where the top could be. In BW these guys were scrubs in this game they will be scrubs if the badasses of BW dedicate the time to this game. MVP forgetting depot during 2 marine bunker pressure. Multitasking has been forgotten. Dropping a base with 8 marines only to lose them just because mutas are harassing a turret. Floating up to 2k/1k without being maxed. When maxed not using the extra money wisely. When the day comes there will Gods of SC2 and I think that nobody from the Early Days will be left around. It doesn't have to be JD/Flash, but it will be someone who much closer to the skill ceiling than our current "pros". See, the premise of this thread is that it DOES have to be JD/Flash. Would you say that the early years of Boxer winning in BW were a "farce" because eventually the game changed so much? Fuck no, Boxer is the man and you're an asshole for even thinking that. The game has simply evolved. Just because play has gotten so much better since then doesn't mean that Boxer didn't represent the highest level of play. The whole argument of this thread is that SC2 is a joke because the best SC2 players aren't even playing SC2, they're still in BW. So our current level of play isn't the highest level of play, it's second to players that aren't even playing the game. So, having the game evolve doesn't support the Elephant argument in any way. The only thing that will support it is having BW pros switch and dominate the SC2 scene like no one has before. Will Flash do that if/when he switches? No one knows, it's all speculation. Based on the evidence we do have of previous BW pros though, he will do very well, but he won't do well enough to completely invalidate 2 years of SC2 competition. Because you called me an asshole I will keep this short. Does not have to be Flash/JD has to be someone who is grabbing at the ceiling rather than being content with sitting on a couch. Boxer's wins are not a farce, but are now, only remembered because they were innovative and micro intensive rather than that they were solid play. MC's 1 and 2 base all-ins will be forgotten when the day is done. Never said the game needs to evolve. Current metagame forever is fine with me as long as people start playing better.
Sorry, wasn't actually trying to call you an asshole, since you didn't actually say anything to insult Boxer. I was just pointing out that the common sentiment is that criticizing Boxer is hurting esports, while criticizing SC2 play is acceptable. I feel that there's some cognitive dissonance going on when people are able to rationalize both of those stances into one argument.
Also, I'm not sure you appreciate how closely related strategy and mechanics are. There's no way that the current builds are going to stay competitive if people start playing better. If one player is able to drop in more places or have more units at an early timing, all other builds are going to have to change to reflect that reality. Saying that the current strategies could survive such a skill increase is simply not realistic.
Also, I think we can all agree that the level of SC2 play is only going to increase as the game matures. The point I'm trying to make though is that such an evolution isn't bad in any way, it's just something that happens as people figure the game out and get better at playing it. The question then is who will continue to advance the level of play in SC2,. Will it be the current SC2 pros, the BW pros, or a new generation of gamers? There's really nothing to do other than wait and see, but the premise of this article is that it will be the BW pros, which is looking less and less likely based on all the evidence we've seen.
|
On February 14 2012 06:15 NoobSkills wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 05:53 dsousa wrote:On February 14 2012 05:29 Squeegy wrote:On February 14 2012 05:18 dsousa wrote:
MMA had 5 career appearances in BW... one less than Idra. DRG and Leenock had 0.
Data shows BW experience is counting for less and less as SC2 moves along.
Many of the players with the most BW experience have faded away. Fruitdealer, Tester, Rainbow even Boxer, July and Nada.... they are not as strong now as there were a year ago.
Its going the other direction, the Elephant in the Room is that BW players WILL NOT have a career waiting for them in SC2. They missed the boat. SC2 players are too good and too young for older BW pro's to ever catch up now The reason why they had few appearances is that they didn't get to play. They weren't good enough. That is how BW works. Not everyone gets to play in the tournaments. Only the best do. Fruitdealer, Tester, Rainbow and Boxer played their games quite a while ago. They got to play but not in the recent memory. That is to say, they weren't that good anymore. The point holds. The top SC2 players now don't have as much experience in BW as the top SC2 pro's a year ago. The top BW players who moved to SC2, are not as good in SC2 now as there were a year ago. The trend is down for ex-BW pro's in SC2. I'm sorry to be the one to tell all the BW lovers this, but its only going to get worse. I like BW and agree it compiled an unprecedented amount of gaming talent among its player base, but the data seems to be pointing to a diminishing influence of BW, not an increasing one. MC Nestea MVP and MMA are all ex-BW pros. The trend is down? Scenario: Skill Ceilings (supposed) in both games and our current players abilities. Flash JD Bisu - Are doing everything as close to perfect as humanly possible in BW. To do that is much harder in BroodWar. MC Nestea MVP and MMA - Are not even close to making the best decisions in a game where macro is a breeze. That is right you take having to manually select every building to macro you units to SC2 where a few hotkeys can build an entire army and our current SC2 top players still are lacking in that macro. Then even with the units they do pump out they don't micro or multitask with them nearly as efficently as a BW pro does. So, these current players nowhere near this lowered skill ceiling are winning big tournaments. They win because they have BW experience and are still playing with that mentality. They know what they need to do better than most current players, but much much more could be done. It might not be Flash JD Bisu leading the charge if/when the BW pros switch over, hell it might not even be a current BW pro, but so far all signs point to they can do better than our current players. People who thought the Gods of Old were going to be the shit in this game were mistaken. Boxer, Nada, Forgg, JulyZerg all fell off long ago, missed the bus, they couldn't hit that skill ceiling even when giving it their all, and trust me they're not giving it their all. At the moment everyone who has switched over still plays like shit. MMA could dominate for the rest of SC2, but not in his current form. That last part might seem a bit here and there, but now I want to adress the OP. I do think the Elephant in the Room exists to a certain extent. Current pros are bad. But I also believe that it doesn't have it be the ex-BW pros coming over that makes or breaks the ceiling. Newcommers, Current SC2 pros, Current BW pros will all be at the top eventually. They will weed out those who don't do enough to gain the edge that currently isn't in SC2 even though it has become better. In the end the Elephant in the Room isn't that ex-BW pros are going to destroy what we have now, but that what we have now are players that aren't nearly as good as they should be and we know there are better out there.
The fact that you think Flash, JD and BIsu are as close to perfect as humanly possible - to me - shows that you have a bad case of hero worship and a limited understanding of human/gaming/sporting history. You underestimate the will of the next generation to be better than their heroes.... they usually are.
Everything gets improved upon
|
On February 14 2012 05:59 StarStruck wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 05:38 Jerubaal wrote:On February 14 2012 05:29 Squeegy wrote:On February 14 2012 05:18 dsousa wrote:
MMA had 5 career appearances in BW... one less than Idra. DRG and Leenock had 0.
Data shows BW experience is counting for less and less as SC2 moves along.
Many of the players with the most BW experience have faded away. Fruitdealer, Tester, Rainbow even Boxer, July and Nada.... they are not as strong now as there were a year ago.
Its going the other direction, the Elephant in the Room is that BW players WILL NOT have a career waiting for them in SC2. They missed the boat. SC2 players are too good and too young for older BW pro's to ever catch up now The reason why they had few appearances is that they didn't get to play. They weren't good enough. That is how BW works. Not everyone gets to play in the tournaments. Only the best do. Fruitdealer, Tester, Rainbow and Boxer played their games quite a while ago. They got to play but not in the recent memory. That is to say, they weren't that good anymore. If the reason Boxer, Nada and July haven't dominated in SC2 is because they are too old/on the back-end, then you have to admit that the reason some of these other players didn't succeed in BW could be because they weren't in their prime yet. Or should someone go back in time and tell MC not to leave BW because no matter how well he does in SC2, he'll always be shit? In many cases it's because they weren't good enough. It's a number of things. NaDa, BoxeR and July.. Been there; done that. They were already slumping when they switched. Boxer never got air time after returning from ACE, NaDa was demoted and the same could be said for July. Like I said before, they all have their reasons and from what I've seen NaDa, BoxeR and July don't have the same hunger/drive and their motivations are completely different. They are humbled. As far as age goes. We've already had FD, Nestea, MC, MVP show their worth in SC2 and none of them were go to guys for their teams in BW (MVP was mediocre at best when he switched) and everyone in your list has been around a BW pro team for a while. You would have made a better argument if you listed off players like Leenock and co. as they were relatively young, fresh up-and-comers in BW when they switched. -_- That works; the other guys not so much. A lot of the young pro's switched at an opportune time. Show nested quote +the data seems to be pointing to a diminishing influence of BW, not an increasing one. That has more to do with the diminishing talent pool as a lot of ex-BW players have already made the switch and the fact the amount of pro teams is decreasing and there just isn't enough roster slots. Really need more sponsors to invest.
My point is that your argument is full of 'could'ves' , 'would'ves' and 'at certain times'. You have no idea how any of these players would have done had they stayed in BW or if the two are even comparable. You just want to assign the players some skill value and not take into account how time or game environment effects the outcome.
I guess according to you, if Flash and Jaedong don't switch now there will never be a great SC2 player because they only come from BW.
|
i've been thinking a lot about this thread in the context of Halo ... I think the transition from Halo CE/Halo 2 to Halo 3/Halo Reach is roughly similar to the BW > SC2 transition (the games are different, but not THAT different; there's a slightly lower skill gap; etc.)
the very best Halo CE/2 players did not always transfer over all that well ... though the loose equivalent of Flash in Halo (Ogre2) has stayed on top, the mid-tier CE/2 players grew bored with the lackluster gameplay of the later games (which might happen with BW pros), or just weren't as good, and ended up either retiring or placing at the equivalent of BW B-team levels (outside the money). and then there's a whole new generation who grew up playing Halo 3/Reach, and they're winning events and doing just as well as the top-tier pros from earlier games ...
anyway I think something equivalent might happen with BW > SC2. a couple BW S-class players will stay on top (Flash, Fantasy, Bisu, etc); many BW pros will quit; and the rest will end up scattered throughout GSL Code S/A (and the OSL equivalent). they certainly won't crush all of the new, younger SC2 players.
|
What argument are you talking about? I'm not the same guy.
I was simply commenting on the fact that you used poor examples to make your point.
We can talk about what if's all day, but that gets us no where. Plus, the guys you were talking about were on BW teams for a while man.
In other words, you're focusing on the wrong guys. I'm not going to comment on the young guys because I know how motivated they can be. You would have done yourself a favor by talking about the younglings opposed to the veterans.
I did no such comparisons and your last line is absolutely absurd.
dsousa,
That's obvious isn't it? You expect athletes in every sport to get better and become more posh. Besides that, have you seen JD and Bisu lately? Nothing to get amped about.
|
On February 14 2012 04:52 Seraphone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 14 2012 04:45 Zorkmid wrote:On February 14 2012 04:11 Seraphone wrote:
Then either you are wrong with that, or your logic is wrong, because your logic says Messi is the best.
Nope, wrong again I'm afraid.
Football might be the most popular sports but Golf is also extremely popular and difficult and Messi is not the greatest footballer of all time, he's just the current best, where as Tiger Woods is the greatest of all time. Which puts him ahead of Messi.
Tiger being the best golfer ever is debatable. Jack is like Boxer/Nada and Tiger is like Flash. There's a few nostalgics who still maintain Boxer/Nada are the greatest but objectively Flash/Tiger are the more successful and better players.
No. Once Tiger has more tournament and major wins than Jack, THEN you could objectively say what you just said about the Flash v Boxer/Nada thing.
|
On February 14 2012 07:39 jtp118 wrote:
i've been thinking a lot about this thread in the context of Halo ... I think the transition from Halo CE/Halo 2 to Halo 3/Halo Reach is roughly similar to the BW > SC2 transition (the games are different, but not THAT different; there's a slightly lower skill gap; etc.)
the very best Halo CE/2 players did not always transfer over all that well ... though the loose equivalent of Flash in Halo (Ogre2) has stayed on top, the mid-tier CE/2 players grew bored with the lackluster gameplay of the later games (which might happen with BW pros), or just weren't as good, and ended up either retiring or placing at the equivalent of BW B-team levels (outside the money). and then there's a whole new generation who grew up playing Halo 3/Reach, and they're winning events and doing just as well as the top-tier pros from earlier games ...
anyway I think something equivalent might happen with BW > SC2. a couple BW S-class players will stay on top (Flash, Fantasy, Bisu, etc); many BW pros will quit; and the rest will end up scattered throughout GSL Code S/A (and the OSL equivalent). they certainly won't crush all of the new, younger SC2 players.
Its similer in a sense but the difference is that Reach is almost unanimously considered a bad game and shrunk the size of halo. A better comparison would probably be between halo 1 and halo 2 if you were to use the halo franchise. Both were great games in there own right but different as well and the comparison goes further in that halo 2 was easily so much bigger than halo 1 just because of it being the best online shooter ever.
The key difference between halo and starcraft is that virtually every pro transitioned so we have a pretty good idea of what the result would be which is that most are able to adapt and be as good as they were, with a decent amount of people who take to new game better than old one and fill the spots of the previous generation.
|
God this stupid thread still alive?
Stupid, irrelevant and illogical thread, insulting all high level and pro players of this game. If anyone else had posted it, it would have been an instaban.
And yes, Hot Bid, the game IS different. Otherwise, by the logic of the OP, July would have been a GSL finalist every single time: if the competition level is THAT MUCH BETTER in Brood War, and the players are THAT MUCH more skilled, then even an aging bonjwa down on his luck would be crushing the scrubs playing SC2, right??
God sake, how someone gets off with foementing stupid false contraversy on TL, while simultaneously when there are actual real issues facing this community, is beyond me.
You know the real reason why the remaining Brood War players didn't switch? It's because they all tried SC2 quietly one day, found their skills didn't translate directly into it (since in BW, perfect mechanics elevates you over a tactical genius with only excellent ones), and realised they'd be in Code B. That's why they haven't switched. Very few have the balls of Boxer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
