EPTOn February 20 2012 12:24 hunts wrote:
He would agree with me, since unnlike you he knows what the word correlation means, and that correlation =/= causation. Given the proof we have so far, we can safely say that there is no evidence to support BW skill transfering directly over to SC2. So all you have left is theory craft and plugging your ears with your hands going "lalalala sc2 is worse than bw lalala i can't hear you." The fact that you still try to argue this in face of actual facts, proves that you are in fact just theory crafting and making up stuff.
Show nested quote +
'On February 20 2012 12:20 Squeegy wrote:
Only that it isn't my logic, so you too build strawmen. You can quote the part where I say something like it though as you probably won't take my word for it. Then again you won't quote me the part either because it does not exist.
"The fact that you have players like hyun (BW A teamer I believe) getting knocked out of code A, proves that there is no direct correlation between BW skill and SC2 skill."
What do you think, if you go tell that to statistician, will he agree with you or laugh you out of his office?
On February 20 2012 12:07 hunts wrote:
I don't think correlation means what you think it means. The fact that you have players like MVP (a BW A teamer) repeatedly losing to players like MMA (I believe a BW semi-pro? AKA: should never beat MVP according to your logic), the fact that you have players like forgg (won an MSL or OSL or something) getting demolished by players like Mc (10% win rate in BW) and leenock (BW ameture I believe) If there were, forgg hyun and MVP would all be in code S right now, but none of them are. Please learn a little bit about what you're trying to argue, and stop using such silly hard headed arguments. You're just giving BW supporters a bad name.
On February 20 2012 10:07 Squeegy wrote:
RTS experience entails BW experience. If I played BW I have RTS experience. If I ate a banana I ate a fruit. If I ate an apple I ate a fruit. If RTS experience matters then BW experience matters. But I admit, the part I quoted seems to have nothing to do with that. My bad. But it seems to be dumb in a whole new way. If I were good in RTS, it does not mean I am good in RTS. Well, of course. But generally if I were good in RTS (within a reasonable period of time), I am still good in RTS.
There is direct correlation. There is not perfect correlation. Once again you don't understand the terms you use. Also you confuse causality with correlation. How many times do I have to point these things out before you bother learning what they mean and how they are used?
So you tried to show that the argument brought up by BW supporters is false by bringing it up. But it is not a counter-example to anything said by the BW supporters. It is therefore a strawman.
Yet again, you don't understand what correlation and perfect correlation are. The hard data shows that if you did well in BW, you also do well in SC2. There is correlation. You'd look a lot less stupid if you even bothered to google what these words mean. But since you obviously won't, let me try to teach you. Not everyone dies of a gunshot wound. There is therefore no correlation between dying and gunshot wounds. That is your logic. But what it actually means is that there is no perfect correlation. The correlation is very much there.
I have no idea what that Europe example is supposed to show. Yes, top players in Europe from those games are also top players in Europe in SC2. So, yet again, there is correlation between success in previous RTS games and success in SC2. What is your point?
Finally you say something that is not utterly stupid! Good job! But. The correlation is very much consistent. Top players from BW are already dominating SC2. If you were top 1% in BW, chances are high that you are also top 1% in SC2. If you were top 200 in BW, chances are high that you are also top 200 in SC2. Yes, it is true that you might be worse but chances are that you are at least equal. The part of the chances which is very relevant part you, of course, left out. Nice.
On February 20 2012 09:11 lorkac wrote:
RTS experience does not mean Broodwar experience. It simply means RTS experience. Much like saying "I ate a fruit" can both mean "I ate an apple" and "I ate an banana." It is a general term than requires more data before you can accurately make state the specificity of the statement.
You see, when you try to be "specific" and look at the data--you'll see that there is no direct correlation between how well you did in BW and how well you do in SC2. The only thing the evidence shows is that the people who played in SC2 also played BW at some point in varying levels. The levels that they played at so far does not show any correlation between their current results in SC2. Why? Because the specificity of their RTS experience is showing no relevance to their results. Because what matters is that they played a lot of RTS games, in general. That they played BW is arbitrary.
As for the Flash debate--BW supporters are the ones who brought it up--not SC2 supporters. Technically, SC2 supporters are pointing at Hyun and ForGG as the main people to focus on. It was BW supporters who brought up the argument that Flash would beat MVP in SC2 and suggesting that SC2 is a farce because of it--I was simply showing that trying to make that argument is silly because pointing that framework towards BW shows that the argument is silly. Bringing up Flash's skill is a pointless exercise because Flash isn't actually trying to play SC2 competitively and hence any arguments made on either side is pointless and faith based.
I did not bring up anything new that was not already talked about. Hence, no straw man, it was already in the discourse. Please keep up.
If there is no correlation between their level of play in BW and their level of play in SC2 then there is no argument. Why would flash beat MVP just because Flash was good in BW? Why would MC be farce just because he has a 10% win rate in BW? The whole thread would be closed if his argument didn't care about correlation. The whole point of the OP is that SC2 is a farce *because* the current crop did bad in BW and hence the people who did well in BW *should* do better then the current crop of SC2 players. But what we see is that there really isn't much of a correlation. What we see is that players win or lose against others despite what their BW records show. The fact that the correlation is "not perfect" is because the hard data shows that there isn't one. What the data shows is that video game players in Korea who play a lot of video games competitively also played BW--so surprising huh?
Europe that had both WC3 and BW players who played in it competitively have a demographic that includes both. Why? Because the specificity of the game does not matter. Did the BW players do better than the WC3 players? Did the WC3 players do better than the BW players? Did it matter? Or is SC2 a different game than either BW or WC3 and so players only do as well as they are able?
If one's success in BW does not correlate perfectly--then you can't make predictions like "The top players of BW would dominate SC2" because the correlation isn't consistent enough to make that prediction. Without a consistent correlation, then the best you can guess is "Top BW players may or may not be as good/better/worse than the people who play SC2 currently--maybe.
That is hardly an elephant.
On February 20 2012 05:10 Squeegy wrote:
Yet again you say there is no correlation and then you say there is correlation. Why do you keep doing this? Here, let me help you by pointing it out so you don't feel confused:
"The fact that you played BW previously only means that you were really good at RTS games before, so there should be no reason you'd be good at playing RTS games now."
So in other words being good at BW correlates with being good in SC2. They are both RTS games you know.
"He then made the claim that the top SC2 players ranked in correlation to their ranks in BW."
And they do. But not in perfect correlation. You wish to quote me the part where he says that they will rank exactly as they did in BW? Because that is what you keep arguing against but nobody, not even the op, argued for it. In other words, a strawman.
I didn't say it was an argument. I said it's a strawman. Strawman is not an argument. It's a fallacy. You really should first know what you are talking about before acting so bold. Definition of terms? What does that mean? What terms did you define? It's a strawman because nobody ever said that competition before or after Flash will be a farce. You brought it up to defeat some point we made. If not, why did you bring it up?
Level of competition in BW is higher than in other RTS games. The higher the level of competition, the more skill* required for success. Skill in previous RTS games correlates with success in SC2. Therefore, BW pros have been and will be** more succesful in SC2 than players from other games. SC2 is missing many top players from BW**. Therefore, the level of competition is not what it could be in SC2.
* I use the word skill by which I mean something like the combination of talent, work-ethic and skill (for example in macromanagement and micromanagement).
**I am leaving the option for new talent to challenge BW pros of course. As I've said before, Flash was a new talent once too.
*** I am saying many top players instead of specifically talking about A-teamers because there are indeed more people than the A-teamers who can make waves.
On February 20 2012 04:22 lorkac wrote:
Actually no--it seems you haven't read anything I said.
People who defend SC2 as being a legitimate sport say so because there has been no correlation between how good you are in BW with how well you do in SC2. The fact that you played BW previously only means that you were really good at RTS games before, so there should be no reason you'd be good at playing RTS games now.
That's the entirety of the belief structure of SC2 supporters. No correlation or causation he said/she said BS. The only time that correlation and causation is relevant is when BW supporters who wish to attack SC2 want to say that top BW players would crush SC2 players *because* they were top BW players and the current SC2 players are not top BW players. This has so far been false based on results.
Sure, the top players have played BW. That was never in contention--in fact, the OP opens up with the fact that SC2 sucks for the reason that the current players were former BW players. He then made the claim that the top SC2 players ranked in correlation to their ranks in BW. This has been proven false--once again, based on hard data and actual results. OP has no argument, OP is false. Based on evidence.
If you want to now make the argument that SC2 is a farce because the top players played BW and the bad players didn't really play BW--then that is a different argument that needs a different thread.
Also.
"Pre-Flash BW is not a farce just because Flash wasn't there yet. Much like post-Flash BW will not be a farce if Flash decides to call it quits one day."
Is not a strawman argument. It's not even an argument. It a definition of terms. The success of Flash now does not define the relevance of the game before Flash or after Flash. That is not an argument--that is a statement that I am assuming people already accept as true. I did not feel that I should "prove" that BW was a good game in the early 2000's.
The only reason it *feels* like a strawman argument is because most BW supporters who bash SC2 on this thread use it as an argument against SC2 by essentially saying that SC2 is a farce because, hypothetically, Flash can beat MVP.
Please, understand what "argument" means before trying to throw terms like strawman.
My argument has not changed in the last several pages.
The success rate of former BW pros has not matched up equally with their success rate in SC2. While DRG was never an A class player, he's still ahead of both Ganzi, Supernova, Hyun, Forgg, etc... On the other hand, MVP and MMA were both A class players and they're doing better than a lot of other players out there. Ret and Idra do really well in foreign tournaments--but so do Stephano and Naniwa. The most you can say is that players who played a lot of RTS games in the past tend to do well in the newly released RTS of today. There has been no correlation--which means there's no point in making the argument.
If you feel that my perception of your argument was false, then by all means spell it out specifically. Make it clear that you're not simply saying that BW pros will do better than SC2 pros because you feel BW is a better game.
On February 20 2012 03:41 Squeegy wrote:
I think you don't know what a strawman is. Here, let me show you a strawman: "Pre-Flash BW is not a farce just because Flash wasn't there yet. Much like post-Flash BW will not be a farce if Flash decides to call it quits one day." That is a strawman. A textbook example of a strawman in fact.
How does it go from you claiming there is no correlation to "Now you want to bring up correlation. Please understand that correlation does not equal causation."? I really don't understand. You brought up correlation. That it is not there. What kind of answer is it to tell me that it was I who brought up correlation and that it does not imply causation? What does that have to do with anything? Did I say correlation implies causation somewhere? Your response is, I'm sorry to say, so dumb it's mindboggling. I really cannot understand why you would think that response somehow counters what I said.
My argument in a nutshell? Oh, so now you wish to talk about my argument! How nice. But instead of talking about my argument (or the op's for that matter) you build a strawman yet again. Ah well. I do like the premise you made up for why competition in SC2 is a farce though. But that is because it is such a terrible misrepresentation that I wonder if you know what the word 'precision' means.
"This assumption is outright false based on empirical evidence. Frankly--the results aren't showing us anything that allows us to say that there is a correlation between success rate in BW with success rate in SC2 apart from "A lot of successful SC2 players played BW heavily" which, ironically enough, is also true about a lot of the not so successful SC2 players."
This I also like. It shows quite clearly how you don't grasp basic concepts and why it is pointless to argue about the actual point with you. You basically say there is no correlation and then right after you say there is indeed a correlation. Okay. But since you use such an interesting wording in what there is a correlation to, let me ask you: How many people who were actually bad in BW do you see at the top of SC2? I mean people who were D and C level with tons of games played when they switched? 0? How many of those who were in proteams are actually bad in SC2? That is, say, below code B level? Seems to me like there is clear correlation between success in BW and success in SC2.
On February 20 2012 02:07 lorkac wrote:
Actually, I'm sticking with the OP of the thread. Talking about the OP's argument is the point of having a thread. If you wish to have a different argument, start your own thread. I have not made any strawmans unless you believe it the original post is the strawman.
the original post made a prediction, that prediction is proving false. Both in the BW players switching as well the performance of the BW players who are playing. There are multiple former A-Team players who are not doing as well as B Team players and below. And many who aren't even doing as well as players like Leenock who simply played in iCCup. That is fact. Not something I made up, not some theorycrafted statement with a bunch of "what ifs" and "maybes." Their what's actually in front of us--Hard Data.
This Hard Data contradicts the OP. Hence the OP is wrong.
Now you want to bring up correlation. Please understand that correlation does not equal causation. By rule of logic, you can never argue that since Flash is better at BW than MVP that Flash will automatically be better at SC2 than MVP because correlation does not equal causation. If you don't understand that concept in argumentation--then you really don't know how to argue.
Here is your argument in a nutshell.
Since BW is a harder game, it's obvious that if you're successful in BW that you'll be successful in SC2. Saying that, it must also be true that your capabilities in BW should also be able to determine your success rate in SC2. The better you are at BW, the better you are at SC2. The SC2 competition is a farce because the A-Teamers who switched are players we consider to be bad BW players in reference to Flash and his ilk.
The problem with your argument is that in order for the last part to be true, the first part must also be true. But it is riddled with assumptions.
This is an irrelevant part of the argument since at its core it is "BW > Non-BW RTS games" and hence is not only off topic, but a twisting of already assumed truths. Past RTS experience helps current and future RTS endeavors. Being that BW is an RTS then yes it will help your understanding of how to play SC2 and will more than likely give you a massive head start in learning progression. If you don't have to learn the basic concepts such as "building workers is good" and "don't get supply capped" then you're already ahead of 90% of the players out there. If you played an RTS competitively then there's even more things you could skip having to learn in the new RTS game you are playing. But that's all that past experiences in something provide--a faster learning curve.
This assumption is outright false based on empirical evidence. Frankly--the results aren't showing us anything that allows us to say that there is a correlation between success rate in BW with success rate in SC2 apart from "A lot of successful SC2 players played BW heavily" which, ironically enough, is also true about a lot of the not so successful SC2 players.
Which means that when you make comments similar to
Then it's a purely theory crafted statement because it assumes that the talent progression in BW automatically translates to a similar talent progression in SC2 where the top of SC2's graph would be starting at a ridiculously low portion of BW's graph--all without needing evidence to show it. In fact, the evidence goes against it.
There is no need to devolve this thread into a religious faith based argument where you say statement X because obviously X sounds really really true and I say "But the evidence doesn't show it" and you say "Stop making strawman arguments!"
If you're attempting to make an argument that is separate from the OP's argument, you are welcome to start your own thread or even simply just PM the people you think are worth talking to about your own argument about BW being better than SC2. However, the OP's argument has been proven false. Most of the people on this thread attacking SC2 have no evidence to back them up. The whole thread has devolved into the success of any individual in SC2 is obviously because they played BW and not because they are good in SC2.
The thread began by saying players like Nestea and MC were a farce because they were bad A-Teamers and has now devolved to "DRG was a B-Teamer" and "Leenock did really really well in iCCup!" Defenders of the elephant-argument have to say stuff like this because evidence does not support them. We currently can't even prove that your success rate in BW translates to a similar success rate in SC2 with simply the players we currently have in SC2--let alone the players who have not yet transferred. B-Teamers are doing better than A-Teamers, non-pros are doing as well as seasoned vets, WC3 players are giving people fits.
MVP is the flagship "top BW player owning everyone" but it took him a year to finally start giving consistent results and his current domination is beginning to be overtaken by players who were less successful at BW than he was. Why? Because MVP's success is not from the fact that he played BW, his success is from the fact that he worked hard for a year to begin producing results in SC2 and unless he ups his game even more, he will be overtaken.
If you tell me that a person with a lot of RTS experience can spend a year practicing a game, and after which there is a chance he will possibly produce good results--then I would agree with you whether that RTS experience is Age of Mythology or Starcraft: Broodwar. For the same reason that "lots of continual practice over time in combination with past experiences produces positive results" is true in all competitions. In order for SC2 to be a farce then the incumbent player has to not need that much practice, and be able to do better than low tier SC2 players. Because if a player switching needs a lot of practice, and are not expected to beat the top level pros, then that makes them no different than any other random SC2 pro. In which case SC2 stops being a farce.
So please, try to stick to evidence and not "what if" scenarios.
On February 19 2012 23:17 Squeegy wrote:
[quote]
I noticed it too that it is rather pointless to argue with Lorkac and a few others when they don't understand basic concepts such as correlation. But that does not stop them from claiming it does not exist. And the constant strawmans like that pre-Flash BW claim. And the idea that time does not exist. It really seems to be the case that they just don't understand the argument. In fact, I'll go even further and claim they don't understand argument.
[quote]
I noticed it too that it is rather pointless to argue with Lorkac and a few others when they don't understand basic concepts such as correlation. But that does not stop them from claiming it does not exist. And the constant strawmans like that pre-Flash BW claim. And the idea that time does not exist. It really seems to be the case that they just don't understand the argument. In fact, I'll go even further and claim they don't understand argument.
Actually, I'm sticking with the OP of the thread. Talking about the OP's argument is the point of having a thread. If you wish to have a different argument, start your own thread. I have not made any strawmans unless you believe it the original post is the strawman.
the original post made a prediction, that prediction is proving false. Both in the BW players switching as well the performance of the BW players who are playing. There are multiple former A-Team players who are not doing as well as B Team players and below. And many who aren't even doing as well as players like Leenock who simply played in iCCup. That is fact. Not something I made up, not some theorycrafted statement with a bunch of "what ifs" and "maybes." Their what's actually in front of us--Hard Data.
This Hard Data contradicts the OP. Hence the OP is wrong.
Now you want to bring up correlation. Please understand that correlation does not equal causation. By rule of logic, you can never argue that since Flash is better at BW than MVP that Flash will automatically be better at SC2 than MVP because correlation does not equal causation. If you don't understand that concept in argumentation--then you really don't know how to argue.
Here is your argument in a nutshell.
Since BW is a harder game, it's obvious that if you're successful in BW that you'll be successful in SC2. Saying that, it must also be true that your capabilities in BW should also be able to determine your success rate in SC2. The better you are at BW, the better you are at SC2. The SC2 competition is a farce because the A-Teamers who switched are players we consider to be bad BW players in reference to Flash and his ilk.
The problem with your argument is that in order for the last part to be true, the first part must also be true. But it is riddled with assumptions.
Since BW is a harder game, it's obvious that if you're successful in BW that you'll be successful in SC2.
This is an irrelevant part of the argument since at its core it is "BW > Non-BW RTS games" and hence is not only off topic, but a twisting of already assumed truths. Past RTS experience helps current and future RTS endeavors. Being that BW is an RTS then yes it will help your understanding of how to play SC2 and will more than likely give you a massive head start in learning progression. If you don't have to learn the basic concepts such as "building workers is good" and "don't get supply capped" then you're already ahead of 90% of the players out there. If you played an RTS competitively then there's even more things you could skip having to learn in the new RTS game you are playing. But that's all that past experiences in something provide--a faster learning curve.
Saying that, it must also be true that your capabilities in BW should also be able to determine your success rate in SC2. The better you are at BW, the better you are at SC2.
This assumption is outright false based on empirical evidence. Frankly--the results aren't showing us anything that allows us to say that there is a correlation between success rate in BW with success rate in SC2 apart from "A lot of successful SC2 players played BW heavily" which, ironically enough, is also true about a lot of the not so successful SC2 players.
Which means that when you make comments similar to
The SC2 competition is a farce because the A-Teamers who switched are players we consider to be bad BW players in reference to Flash and his ilk.
Then it's a purely theory crafted statement because it assumes that the talent progression in BW automatically translates to a similar talent progression in SC2 where the top of SC2's graph would be starting at a ridiculously low portion of BW's graph--all without needing evidence to show it. In fact, the evidence goes against it.
There is no need to devolve this thread into a religious faith based argument where you say statement X because obviously X sounds really really true and I say "But the evidence doesn't show it" and you say "Stop making strawman arguments!"
If you're attempting to make an argument that is separate from the OP's argument, you are welcome to start your own thread or even simply just PM the people you think are worth talking to about your own argument about BW being better than SC2. However, the OP's argument has been proven false. Most of the people on this thread attacking SC2 have no evidence to back them up. The whole thread has devolved into the success of any individual in SC2 is obviously because they played BW and not because they are good in SC2.
The thread began by saying players like Nestea and MC were a farce because they were bad A-Teamers and has now devolved to "DRG was a B-Teamer" and "Leenock did really really well in iCCup!" Defenders of the elephant-argument have to say stuff like this because evidence does not support them. We currently can't even prove that your success rate in BW translates to a similar success rate in SC2 with simply the players we currently have in SC2--let alone the players who have not yet transferred. B-Teamers are doing better than A-Teamers, non-pros are doing as well as seasoned vets, WC3 players are giving people fits.
MVP is the flagship "top BW player owning everyone" but it took him a year to finally start giving consistent results and his current domination is beginning to be overtaken by players who were less successful at BW than he was. Why? Because MVP's success is not from the fact that he played BW, his success is from the fact that he worked hard for a year to begin producing results in SC2 and unless he ups his game even more, he will be overtaken.
If you tell me that a person with a lot of RTS experience can spend a year practicing a game, and after which there is a chance he will possibly produce good results--then I would agree with you whether that RTS experience is Age of Mythology or Starcraft: Broodwar. For the same reason that "lots of continual practice over time in combination with past experiences produces positive results" is true in all competitions. In order for SC2 to be a farce then the incumbent player has to not need that much practice, and be able to do better than low tier SC2 players. Because if a player switching needs a lot of practice, and are not expected to beat the top level pros, then that makes them no different than any other random SC2 pro. In which case SC2 stops being a farce.
So please, try to stick to evidence and not "what if" scenarios.
I think you don't know what a strawman is. Here, let me show you a strawman: "Pre-Flash BW is not a farce just because Flash wasn't there yet. Much like post-Flash BW will not be a farce if Flash decides to call it quits one day." That is a strawman. A textbook example of a strawman in fact.
How does it go from you claiming there is no correlation to "Now you want to bring up correlation. Please understand that correlation does not equal causation."? I really don't understand. You brought up correlation. That it is not there. What kind of answer is it to tell me that it was I who brought up correlation and that it does not imply causation? What does that have to do with anything? Did I say correlation implies causation somewhere? Your response is, I'm sorry to say, so dumb it's mindboggling. I really cannot understand why you would think that response somehow counters what I said.
My argument in a nutshell? Oh, so now you wish to talk about my argument! How nice. But instead of talking about my argument (or the op's for that matter) you build a strawman yet again. Ah well. I do like the premise you made up for why competition in SC2 is a farce though. But that is because it is such a terrible misrepresentation that I wonder if you know what the word 'precision' means.
"This assumption is outright false based on empirical evidence. Frankly--the results aren't showing us anything that allows us to say that there is a correlation between success rate in BW with success rate in SC2 apart from "A lot of successful SC2 players played BW heavily" which, ironically enough, is also true about a lot of the not so successful SC2 players."
This I also like. It shows quite clearly how you don't grasp basic concepts and why it is pointless to argue about the actual point with you. You basically say there is no correlation and then right after you say there is indeed a correlation. Okay. But since you use such an interesting wording in what there is a correlation to, let me ask you: How many people who were actually bad in BW do you see at the top of SC2? I mean people who were D and C level with tons of games played when they switched? 0? How many of those who were in proteams are actually bad in SC2? That is, say, below code B level? Seems to me like there is clear correlation between success in BW and success in SC2.
Actually no--it seems you haven't read anything I said.
People who defend SC2 as being a legitimate sport say so because there has been no correlation between how good you are in BW with how well you do in SC2. The fact that you played BW previously only means that you were really good at RTS games before, so there should be no reason you'd be good at playing RTS games now.
That's the entirety of the belief structure of SC2 supporters. No correlation or causation he said/she said BS. The only time that correlation and causation is relevant is when BW supporters who wish to attack SC2 want to say that top BW players would crush SC2 players *because* they were top BW players and the current SC2 players are not top BW players. This has so far been false based on results.
Sure, the top players have played BW. That was never in contention--in fact, the OP opens up with the fact that SC2 sucks for the reason that the current players were former BW players. He then made the claim that the top SC2 players ranked in correlation to their ranks in BW. This has been proven false--once again, based on hard data and actual results. OP has no argument, OP is false. Based on evidence.
If you want to now make the argument that SC2 is a farce because the top players played BW and the bad players didn't really play BW--then that is a different argument that needs a different thread.
Also.
"Pre-Flash BW is not a farce just because Flash wasn't there yet. Much like post-Flash BW will not be a farce if Flash decides to call it quits one day."
Is not a strawman argument. It's not even an argument. It a definition of terms. The success of Flash now does not define the relevance of the game before Flash or after Flash. That is not an argument--that is a statement that I am assuming people already accept as true. I did not feel that I should "prove" that BW was a good game in the early 2000's.
The only reason it *feels* like a strawman argument is because most BW supporters who bash SC2 on this thread use it as an argument against SC2 by essentially saying that SC2 is a farce because, hypothetically, Flash can beat MVP.
Please, understand what "argument" means before trying to throw terms like strawman.
My argument has not changed in the last several pages.
The success rate of former BW pros has not matched up equally with their success rate in SC2. While DRG was never an A class player, he's still ahead of both Ganzi, Supernova, Hyun, Forgg, etc... On the other hand, MVP and MMA were both A class players and they're doing better than a lot of other players out there. Ret and Idra do really well in foreign tournaments--but so do Stephano and Naniwa. The most you can say is that players who played a lot of RTS games in the past tend to do well in the newly released RTS of today. There has been no correlation--which means there's no point in making the argument.
If you feel that my perception of your argument was false, then by all means spell it out specifically. Make it clear that you're not simply saying that BW pros will do better than SC2 pros because you feel BW is a better game.
Yet again you say there is no correlation and then you say there is correlation. Why do you keep doing this? Here, let me help you by pointing it out so you don't feel confused:
"The fact that you played BW previously only means that you were really good at RTS games before, so there should be no reason you'd be good at playing RTS games now."
So in other words being good at BW correlates with being good in SC2. They are both RTS games you know.
"He then made the claim that the top SC2 players ranked in correlation to their ranks in BW."
And they do. But not in perfect correlation. You wish to quote me the part where he says that they will rank exactly as they did in BW? Because that is what you keep arguing against but nobody, not even the op, argued for it. In other words, a strawman.
I didn't say it was an argument. I said it's a strawman. Strawman is not an argument. It's a fallacy. You really should first know what you are talking about before acting so bold. Definition of terms? What does that mean? What terms did you define? It's a strawman because nobody ever said that competition before or after Flash will be a farce. You brought it up to defeat some point we made. If not, why did you bring it up?
Level of competition in BW is higher than in other RTS games. The higher the level of competition, the more skill* required for success. Skill in previous RTS games correlates with success in SC2. Therefore, BW pros have been and will be** more succesful in SC2 than players from other games. SC2 is missing many top players from BW**. Therefore, the level of competition is not what it could be in SC2.
* I use the word skill by which I mean something like the combination of talent, work-ethic and skill (for example in macromanagement and micromanagement).
**I am leaving the option for new talent to challenge BW pros of course. As I've said before, Flash was a new talent once too.
*** I am saying many top players instead of specifically talking about A-teamers because there are indeed more people than the A-teamers who can make waves.
RTS experience does not mean Broodwar experience. It simply means RTS experience. Much like saying "I ate a fruit" can both mean "I ate an apple" and "I ate an banana." It is a general term than requires more data before you can accurately make state the specificity of the statement.
You see, when you try to be "specific" and look at the data--you'll see that there is no direct correlation between how well you did in BW and how well you do in SC2. The only thing the evidence shows is that the people who played in SC2 also played BW at some point in varying levels. The levels that they played at so far does not show any correlation between their current results in SC2. Why? Because the specificity of their RTS experience is showing no relevance to their results. Because what matters is that they played a lot of RTS games, in general. That they played BW is arbitrary.
As for the Flash debate--BW supporters are the ones who brought it up--not SC2 supporters. Technically, SC2 supporters are pointing at Hyun and ForGG as the main people to focus on. It was BW supporters who brought up the argument that Flash would beat MVP in SC2 and suggesting that SC2 is a farce because of it--I was simply showing that trying to make that argument is silly because pointing that framework towards BW shows that the argument is silly. Bringing up Flash's skill is a pointless exercise because Flash isn't actually trying to play SC2 competitively and hence any arguments made on either side is pointless and faith based.
I did not bring up anything new that was not already talked about. Hence, no straw man, it was already in the discourse. Please keep up.
And they do. But not in perfect correlation. You wish to quote me the part where he says that they will rank exactly as they did in BW? Because that is what you keep arguing against but nobody, not even the op, argued for it. In other words, a strawman.
If there is no correlation between their level of play in BW and their level of play in SC2 then there is no argument. Why would flash beat MVP just because Flash was good in BW? Why would MC be farce just because he has a 10% win rate in BW? The whole thread would be closed if his argument didn't care about correlation. The whole point of the OP is that SC2 is a farce *because* the current crop did bad in BW and hence the people who did well in BW *should* do better then the current crop of SC2 players. But what we see is that there really isn't much of a correlation. What we see is that players win or lose against others despite what their BW records show. The fact that the correlation is "not perfect" is because the hard data shows that there isn't one. What the data shows is that video game players in Korea who play a lot of video games competitively also played BW--so surprising huh?
Europe that had both WC3 and BW players who played in it competitively have a demographic that includes both. Why? Because the specificity of the game does not matter. Did the BW players do better than the WC3 players? Did the WC3 players do better than the BW players? Did it matter? Or is SC2 a different game than either BW or WC3 and so players only do as well as they are able?
If one's success in BW does not correlate perfectly--then you can't make predictions like "The top players of BW would dominate SC2" because the correlation isn't consistent enough to make that prediction. Without a consistent correlation, then the best you can guess is "Top BW players may or may not be as good/better/worse than the people who play SC2 currently--maybe.
That is hardly an elephant.
RTS experience entails BW experience. If I played BW I have RTS experience. If I ate a banana I ate a fruit. If I ate an apple I ate a fruit. If RTS experience matters then BW experience matters. But I admit, the part I quoted seems to have nothing to do with that. My bad. But it seems to be dumb in a whole new way. If I were good in RTS, it does not mean I am good in RTS. Well, of course. But generally if I were good in RTS (within a reasonable period of time), I am still good in RTS.
There is direct correlation. There is not perfect correlation. Once again you don't understand the terms you use. Also you confuse causality with correlation. How many times do I have to point these things out before you bother learning what they mean and how they are used?
So you tried to show that the argument brought up by BW supporters is false by bringing it up. But it is not a counter-example to anything said by the BW supporters. It is therefore a strawman.
Yet again, you don't understand what correlation and perfect correlation are. The hard data shows that if you did well in BW, you also do well in SC2. There is correlation. You'd look a lot less stupid if you even bothered to google what these words mean. But since you obviously won't, let me try to teach you. Not everyone dies of a gunshot wound. There is therefore no correlation between dying and gunshot wounds. That is your logic. But what it actually means is that there is no perfect correlation. The correlation is very much there.
I have no idea what that Europe example is supposed to show. Yes, top players in Europe from those games are also top players in Europe in SC2. So, yet again, there is correlation between success in previous RTS games and success in SC2. What is your point?
Finally you say something that is not utterly stupid! Good job! But. The correlation is very much consistent. Top players from BW are already dominating SC2. If you were top 1% in BW, chances are high that you are also top 1% in SC2. If you were top 200 in BW, chances are high that you are also top 200 in SC2. Yes, it is true that you might be worse but chances are that you are at least equal. The part of the chances which is very relevant part you, of course, left out. Nice.
I don't think correlation means what you think it means. The fact that you have players like MVP (a BW A teamer) repeatedly losing to players like MMA (I believe a BW semi-pro? AKA: should never beat MVP according to your logic), the fact that you have players like forgg (won an MSL or OSL or something) getting demolished by players like Mc (10% win rate in BW) and leenock (BW ameture I believe) If there were, forgg hyun and MVP would all be in code S right now, but none of them are. Please learn a little bit about what you're trying to argue, and stop using such silly hard headed arguments. You're just giving BW supporters a bad name.
Only that it isn't my logic, so you too build strawmen. You can quote the part where I say something like it though as you probably won't take my word for it. Then again you won't quote me the part either because it does not exist.
"The fact that you have players like hyun (BW A teamer I believe) getting knocked out of code A, proves that there is no direct correlation between BW skill and SC2 skill."
What do you think, if you go tell that to statistician, will he agree with you or laugh you out of his office?
He would agree with me, since unnlike you he knows what the word correlation means, and that correlation =/= causation. Given the proof we have so far, we can safely say that there is no evidence to support BW skill transfering directly over to SC2. So all you have left is theory craft and plugging your ears with your hands going "lalalala sc2 is worse than bw lalala i can't hear you." The fact that you still try to argue this in face of actual facts, proves that you are in fact just theory crafting and making up stuff.
But I didn't say anything of causation. I spoke of correlation and so did you. You said that it does not exist. Now why would he agree correlation does not exist because correlation does not imply causation? Do you have any good replies to that?
