|
On April 12 2011 06:26 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 06:03 FabledIntegral wrote:Think of it this way: the people in the top 10% of the SC2 ladder on the North American server are ten times better than the people in the top 50%. The people in the top 1% are 10 times better than the people in the top 10%. The people in the top .01% are 1000 times better than the people in the top 1%. This might sound strange if it's the first time you've heard it, but in reality it rings truer than you'd think.
Completely and utterly false. People in the top 1% can take games off the top 0.01% easily. Someone who's "top 50%" aka a midlevel gold/platinum player would have a much harder time beating someone ranked in the top 10%. I'm in the top 1% (actually more top .1%). The top .01% is the top 200 players of Master's league (global), and I don't think I'd be able to very easily take a game off of that. Actually, I bet I'd lose 10/10 times against that.
Ok, I have consistency qualified as top 200 or are hovering right outside (typically around 215). I have taken games off the top players no problem, and have also lost games to people far below me. To say that people in the top 0.01% are 1,000x better than people in the top 1% is mindblowing levels of ignorance. The skill differential isn't that much. If you're 1,000x better than someone else, you're not going to drop a single game in a Bo21 or something. It's just highly exaggerated, the tiny nuances of the game that the top tier know and the average masters don't are exactly that, tiny nuances, not mindblowing things that are HOLY CRAP WTF.
The difference between top 50% and top 10% is much, much, much larger. I'm not saying that the top 0.1% can't regularly smash the top 1%, I'm just saying that someone in the top 10% will smash someone who is just top 50% much harder.
|
On April 12 2011 06:57 FabledIntegral wrote:The difference between top 50% and top 10% is much, much, much larger. I'm not saying that the top 0.1% can't regularly smash the top 1%, I'm just saying that someone in the top 10% will smash someone who is just top 50% much harder.
Well I disagree. Also top 200 of what? Top 200 of NA is nothing like the top 200 of KR, so I think you're view is a bit distorted by misjudging where you lie.
Anyways, who cares if you've taken some games off of what you think to be top players, or lost some to lower players. We've already established that winning != skill range.
|
On April 12 2011 07:15 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 06:57 FabledIntegral wrote:The difference between top 50% and top 10% is much, much, much larger. I'm not saying that the top 0.1% can't regularly smash the top 1%, I'm just saying that someone in the top 10% will smash someone who is just top 50% much harder. Well I disagree. Also top 200 of what? Top 200 of NA is nothing like the top 200 of KR, so I think you're view is a bit distorted by misjudging where you lie. Anyways, who cares if you've taken some games off of what you think to be top players, or lost some to lower players. We've already established that winning != skill range.
Winning is exactly what matters. You seem to have quite a distorted view yourself on how large the skill gaps exactly are. You will not win, even occasionally, against someone who is 1,000 times better than you. But it's not even uncommon for someone in the top 1% to beat someone in the top 0.1%. Sure, maybe they'd more than likely lose a Bo9 without winning a single game. But if they played 20 games, they'd probably win at least one. It simply doesn't happen when you're 1,000x better than someone.
Yet if you have someone who's around 50%, I'd wager money they couldn't even manage to pull a single game of someone top 10% in a Bo51. The skill difference there is immense, to the point the person in the top 10% knows what an early double gas means, and so forth, while the person sitting in gold league has utterly NO concept of timings, even from allins. You find gold players that still miss their first depot, or have idle scvs sitting for 10+ seconds within a few minutes into the game.
In short - if you were 1,000x better than someone you could EASILY beat those calibre of players in a 1v3 or 1v4. There's no way even MC or MVP could beat 2 of me at once in a 1v2. Yet I've taken Platinum/low Diamonds in 2v1's before. The distance between MC and I is much more marginal (despite the fact he could trounce me repeatedly for the longest time ever) than me and someone in say low diamond (aka my roommate, who I can regularly beat using 60% handicap).
|
On April 12 2011 07:27 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 07:15 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 12 2011 06:57 FabledIntegral wrote:The difference between top 50% and top 10% is much, much, much larger. I'm not saying that the top 0.1% can't regularly smash the top 1%, I'm just saying that someone in the top 10% will smash someone who is just top 50% much harder. Well I disagree. Also top 200 of what? Top 200 of NA is nothing like the top 200 of KR, so I think you're view is a bit distorted by misjudging where you lie. Anyways, who cares if you've taken some games off of what you think to be top players, or lost some to lower players. We've already established that winning != skill range. Winning is exactly what matters. You seem to have quite a distorted view yourself on how large the skill gaps exactly are. You will not win, even occasionally, against someone who is 1,000 times better than you. But it's not even uncommon for someone in the top 1% to beat someone in the top 0.1%. Sure, maybe they'd more than likely lose a Bo9 without winning a single game. But if they played 20 games, they'd probably win at least one. It simply doesn't happen when you're 1,000x better than someone. Yet if you have someone who's around 50%, I'd wager money they couldn't even manage to pull a single game of someone top 10% in a Bo51. The skill difference there is immense, to the point the person in the top 10% knows what an early double gas means, and so forth, while the person sitting in gold league has utterly NO concept of timings, even from allins. You find gold players that still miss their first depot, or have idle scvs sitting for 10+ seconds within a few minutes into the game.
Okay now we're going in circles.
I'm in the top 1% (actually more top .1%). The top .01% is the top 200 players of Master's league (global), and I don't think I'd be able to very easily take a game off of that. I would lose a BoAnything against the top 200 of the world. Sounds like you're talking about top 1% and top .01% of Master's league on NA, when I've been referring globally the whole time.
|
On April 12 2011 07:32 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 07:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 12 2011 07:15 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 12 2011 06:57 FabledIntegral wrote:The difference between top 50% and top 10% is much, much, much larger. I'm not saying that the top 0.1% can't regularly smash the top 1%, I'm just saying that someone in the top 10% will smash someone who is just top 50% much harder. Well I disagree. Also top 200 of what? Top 200 of NA is nothing like the top 200 of KR, so I think you're view is a bit distorted by misjudging where you lie. Anyways, who cares if you've taken some games off of what you think to be top players, or lost some to lower players. We've already established that winning != skill range. Winning is exactly what matters. You seem to have quite a distorted view yourself on how large the skill gaps exactly are. You will not win, even occasionally, against someone who is 1,000 times better than you. But it's not even uncommon for someone in the top 1% to beat someone in the top 0.1%. Sure, maybe they'd more than likely lose a Bo9 without winning a single game. But if they played 20 games, they'd probably win at least one. It simply doesn't happen when you're 1,000x better than someone. Yet if you have someone who's around 50%, I'd wager money they couldn't even manage to pull a single game of someone top 10% in a Bo51. The skill difference there is immense, to the point the person in the top 10% knows what an early double gas means, and so forth, while the person sitting in gold league has utterly NO concept of timings, even from allins. You find gold players that still miss their first depot, or have idle scvs sitting for 10+ seconds within a few minutes into the game. Okay now we're going in circles. I'm in the top 1% (actually more top .1%). The top .01% is the top 200 players of Master's league (global), and I don't think I'd be able to very easily take a game off of that. I would lose a BoAnything against the top 200 of the world. Sounds like you're talking about top 1% and top .01% of Master's league on NA, when I've been referring globally the whole time.
Irrelevant if it's global or not, considering I've taken games off top players that play on the international scene. Highest calibre player I can think of is Fenix. Also, if players were 1,000x better they could trounce us even with their offraces, but I've beat both TT1 and Strelok on their offraces before. It's not a massively skill discrepancy like you say, which is why you hear players like Avilo saying he's beaten the top tiered players as well.
What you're saying is just simply not true, it's blatantly and utterly false. You're comparing members that are solidly in Diamond at top 10% to those who are meager in Gold. Gold players don't have a clue what they're doing, Diamond players can go with semi-refined builds, react to opponent's, etc. You're going to tell me that the skill differential there is not only less than those between the top .1% and .01%, but it's hundreds of times less?
EDIT: In short, what you're essentially saying is that someone who was an A (possibly A-) in BW is 1,000x worse than someone who was Olympic status on iCCup, and that someone who was a B/B+ on iCCuP is only 10x better than someone who is a TERRIBLE D- player (D- was still probably better htan 50% of the starcraft community). It's ABSURD.
|
On April 12 2011 07:38 FabledIntegral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 07:32 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 12 2011 07:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 12 2011 07:15 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 12 2011 06:57 FabledIntegral wrote:The difference between top 50% and top 10% is much, much, much larger. I'm not saying that the top 0.1% can't regularly smash the top 1%, I'm just saying that someone in the top 10% will smash someone who is just top 50% much harder. Well I disagree. Also top 200 of what? Top 200 of NA is nothing like the top 200 of KR, so I think you're view is a bit distorted by misjudging where you lie. Anyways, who cares if you've taken some games off of what you think to be top players, or lost some to lower players. We've already established that winning != skill range. Winning is exactly what matters. You seem to have quite a distorted view yourself on how large the skill gaps exactly are. You will not win, even occasionally, against someone who is 1,000 times better than you. But it's not even uncommon for someone in the top 1% to beat someone in the top 0.1%. Sure, maybe they'd more than likely lose a Bo9 without winning a single game. But if they played 20 games, they'd probably win at least one. It simply doesn't happen when you're 1,000x better than someone. Yet if you have someone who's around 50%, I'd wager money they couldn't even manage to pull a single game of someone top 10% in a Bo51. The skill difference there is immense, to the point the person in the top 10% knows what an early double gas means, and so forth, while the person sitting in gold league has utterly NO concept of timings, even from allins. You find gold players that still miss their first depot, or have idle scvs sitting for 10+ seconds within a few minutes into the game. Okay now we're going in circles. I'm in the top 1% (actually more top .1%). The top .01% is the top 200 players of Master's league (global), and I don't think I'd be able to very easily take a game off of that. I would lose a BoAnything against the top 200 of the world. Sounds like you're talking about top 1% and top .01% of Master's league on NA, when I've been referring globally the whole time. You're going to tell me that the skill differential there is not only less than those between the top .1% and .01%, but it's hundreds of times less? I'm about .1%, oGs players are about .01%. Yes, I'd say they are 100 times better than me (probably more). Yes, I think this skill difference is larger than Diamond to Gold.
Edit:
On April 12 2011 07:38 FabledIntegral wrote:
Irrelevant if it's global or not
It kinda is relevant, as the population of global to local makes the skill difference to percentage ratio very different.
|
On April 12 2011 07:41 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 07:38 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 12 2011 07:32 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 12 2011 07:27 FabledIntegral wrote:On April 12 2011 07:15 CecilSunkure wrote:On April 12 2011 06:57 FabledIntegral wrote:The difference between top 50% and top 10% is much, much, much larger. I'm not saying that the top 0.1% can't regularly smash the top 1%, I'm just saying that someone in the top 10% will smash someone who is just top 50% much harder. Well I disagree. Also top 200 of what? Top 200 of NA is nothing like the top 200 of KR, so I think you're view is a bit distorted by misjudging where you lie. Anyways, who cares if you've taken some games off of what you think to be top players, or lost some to lower players. We've already established that winning != skill range. Winning is exactly what matters. You seem to have quite a distorted view yourself on how large the skill gaps exactly are. You will not win, even occasionally, against someone who is 1,000 times better than you. But it's not even uncommon for someone in the top 1% to beat someone in the top 0.1%. Sure, maybe they'd more than likely lose a Bo9 without winning a single game. But if they played 20 games, they'd probably win at least one. It simply doesn't happen when you're 1,000x better than someone. Yet if you have someone who's around 50%, I'd wager money they couldn't even manage to pull a single game of someone top 10% in a Bo51. The skill difference there is immense, to the point the person in the top 10% knows what an early double gas means, and so forth, while the person sitting in gold league has utterly NO concept of timings, even from allins. You find gold players that still miss their first depot, or have idle scvs sitting for 10+ seconds within a few minutes into the game. Okay now we're going in circles. I'm in the top 1% (actually more top .1%). The top .01% is the top 200 players of Master's league (global), and I don't think I'd be able to very easily take a game off of that. I would lose a BoAnything against the top 200 of the world. Sounds like you're talking about top 1% and top .01% of Master's league on NA, when I've been referring globally the whole time. You're going to tell me that the skill differential there is not only less than those between the top .1% and .01%, but it's hundreds of times less? I'm about .1%, oGs players are about .01%. Yes, I'd say they are 100 times better than me (probably more). Yes, I think this skill difference is larger than Diamond to Gold. Edit: Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 07:38 FabledIntegral wrote:
Irrelevant if it's global or not It kinda is relevant, as the population of global to local makes the skill difference to percentage ratio very different.
First of all, you said 1000x difference. Second, you're not just saying that "the skill difference between mid-Gold and mid-Diamond is smaller than the skill difference between top 0.1% and top 0.01%" (which is preposterous in itself), you're saying that it's not just smaller, but 100x smaller.
As I said before, how do you account that an oGs would undoubtedly lose in a 1v2 vs two players of my calibre, but a top 10% leveled Diamond player could easily beat two Gold level players? I would simply WALK over MC if I had two of me, but he's supposed to be 1,000x better than me?! Hardly! I just don't understand your logic in why you think this.
|
Fabled Integral, I think you have the idea that skill comparison to performance is linear. This is not true. A person ranked at to 50% will lose more often to a person ranked in top 10%. This is not because the 10% person's skill gap is larger. It's simply because skill increases have diminishing returns. As a lower player, it's more difficult to realize the differences in skill because the main results we can acquire from viewing is the win/loss. Further, the skills that make a player 1000 times better than another will obviously be issues that most people are not as aware of because our skill is not there yet. Given that we are not aware of it, it won't be as apparent.
Now, I'm not saying I agree with the differences stated by Cecil. However, I don't think it is far off (if not pretty correct) to what is true. I think as an example of skill difference, it is true.
|
On April 12 2011 08:04 FabledIntegral wrote:First of all, you said 1000x difference. Second, you're not just saying that "the skill difference between mid-Gold and mid-Diamond is smaller than the skill difference between top 0.1% and top 0.01%" (which is preposterous in itself), you're saying that it's not just smaller, but 100x smaller.
As I said before, how do you account that an oGs would undoubtedly lose in a 1v2 vs two players of my calibre, but a top 10% leveled Diamond player could easily beat two Gold level players? I would simply WALK over MC if I had two of me, but he's supposed to be 1,000x better than me?! Hardly! I just don't understand your logic in why you think this.
.1 -> .01 = 100x is the same as 1 -> .01 = 1000x. Also it's not fair to say that skill in 1v1 necessarily = winning, and is very unfair to say that skill in 1v1 = ability to win 1v2.
What you're seeing when a Diamond beats 2 Gold players, is a smaller skill difference, but at that level of play the benefit from that skill difference translates into winning much more efficiently. As you get higher ranked it becomes harder for a rise in skill to equal a rise in rank. You're simply describing the effects that I detailed in the OP showing I'm right.
On April 12 2011 08:08 To3-Knee wrote:
Fabled Integral, I think you have the idea that skill comparison to performance is linear.
Ah! Thanks! This is what I was trying to say. The higher ranked you are the more skill it takes it rise in ranks. Thus, at lower levels of player a smaller skill difference between to players translates into a major discrepancy in win/loss ratios between the two. Like I said in the OP, the skill to rank ratio is non-linear.
|
On April 12 2011 08:08 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 08:04 FabledIntegral wrote:First of all, you said 1000x difference. Second, you're not just saying that "the skill difference between mid-Gold and mid-Diamond is smaller than the skill difference between top 0.1% and top 0.01%" (which is preposterous in itself), you're saying that it's not just smaller, but 100x smaller.
As I said before, how do you account that an oGs would undoubtedly lose in a 1v2 vs two players of my calibre, but a top 10% leveled Diamond player could easily beat two Gold level players? I would simply WALK over MC if I had two of me, but he's supposed to be 1,000x better than me?! Hardly! I just don't understand your logic in why you think this. .1 -> .01 = 100x is the same as 1 -> .01 = 1000x. Also it's not fair to say that skill in 1v1 necessarily = winning, and is very unfair to say that skill in 1v1 = ability to win 1v2. What you're seeing when a Diamond beats 2 Gold players, is a smaller skill difference, but at that level of play the benefit from that skill difference translates into winning much more efficiently. As you get higher ranked it becomes harder for a rise in skill to equal a rise in rank. You're simply describing the effects that I detailed in the OP showing I'm right.
".1 -> .01 = 100x is the same as 1 -> .01 = 1000x." Care to explain that? Because you already said it was exponential, but whatever. That doesn't hold whatsoever with any of the math you tried to present thus far.
I can better comprehend what you're saying now, at the very least, when you state that as you get higher ranked it becomes harder for a rise in skill to equal a rise in rank. But you're massively, massively overestimating the skill differentials and I'd maintain in a second that the skill difference between Gold and mid-Diamond is unquestionably larger (let alone 100x smaller) than that between 0.1% and 0.01%. You'd have a much, much better case if it were BW, but even in BW it wasn't even remotely as different as you're attempting to portray it (I'm only so insistent on this topic because it felt like reading a sensationalist tabloid).
Would you argue a person who's A-/A in BW iCCuP is a full 1,000x less skilled than Olympic status, but a person who's B+ is only 10x more skilled than someone who is D- status?
|
On April 12 2011 08:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
".1 -> .01 = 100x is the same as 1 -> .01 = 1000x." Care to explain that? Because you already said it was exponential, but whatever. That doesn't hold whatsoever with any of the math you tried to present thus far
Well okay, non-linear, as in a changing ratio depending on where you lie. The exact numbers I have are definitely off, but probably not by much. So for example in lower areas, perhaps the jump of top 1% to top .1% could, for example, be a 10x jump. But the jump from .1 to .01 could be 100x (just as an example, not that is is the exact case).
Sorry for saying it confusingly, but I'm somewhere between the top 1 and .1% of players, so you could say I'm somewhere around 100-1000 times worse than oGs players, which I think is realistic.
On April 12 2011 08:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
But you're massively, massively overestimating the skill differentials and I'd maintain in a second that the skill difference between Gold and mid-Diamond is unquestionably larger (let alone 100x smaller) than that between 0.1% and 0.01%. You'd have a much, much better case if it were BW, but even in BW it wasn't even remotely as different as you're attempting to portray it (I'm only so insistent on this topic because it felt like reading a sensationalist tabloid).
I think you're still confusing skill difference with winning differences. Winning is not the end all be all of measure skill. A small skill jump of a Gold player can improve their play drastically, thus bumping them into Diamond. This can be as simple as constantly making probes, pylons, and army units from their production facilities. I think we'd both agree that the skill of making probes, pylons, and army units from production facilities isn't a very large skill jump, but it makes it so a diamond player will defeat anyone in gold league that doesn't do those things properly.
Now, if I'm about .1% and oGs players are about .01%, then how could the skill difference between me and oGs players be smaller than simply making making probes, pylons, and army units from production facilities? oGs players have vast skillsets, strategies, and a very deep understanding of the game that sets them apart from me. The vast vast differences in skills between me and an oGs player still only makes them jump ahead of .09% of the total population, even though back in gold league to diamond league the tiny skill difference can make players jump over like 30% of the population.
On April 12 2011 08:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
Would you argue a person who's A-/A in BW iCCuP is a full 1,000x less skilled than Olympic status, but a person who's B+ is only 10x more skilled than someone who is D- status?
Absolutely not. The population of iCCup is much different than the global SC2 ladder.
|
Long time lurker here, first time poster.
Cecil, I want to thank you for this guide. Applying the stuff you wrote helped me really analyze my play a ton. Today I hit Masters and it felt really great. I appreciate you taking the time to do this to help the community. =]
|
On April 12 2011 08:30 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 08:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
".1 -> .01 = 100x is the same as 1 -> .01 = 1000x." Care to explain that? Because you already said it was exponential, but whatever. That doesn't hold whatsoever with any of the math you tried to present thus far Well okay, non-linear, as in a changing ratio depending on where you lie. The exact numbers I have are definitely off, but probably not by much. So for example in lower areas, perhaps the jump of top 1% to top .1% could, for example, be a 10x jump. But the jump from .1 to .01 could be 100x (just as an example, not that is is the exact case). Sorry for saying it confusingly, but I'm somewhere between the top 1 and .1% of players, so you could say I'm somewhere around 100-1000 times worse than oGs players, which I think is realistic. Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 08:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
But you're massively, massively overestimating the skill differentials and I'd maintain in a second that the skill difference between Gold and mid-Diamond is unquestionably larger (let alone 100x smaller) than that between 0.1% and 0.01%. You'd have a much, much better case if it were BW, but even in BW it wasn't even remotely as different as you're attempting to portray it (I'm only so insistent on this topic because it felt like reading a sensationalist tabloid). I think you're still confusing skill difference with winning differences. Winning is not the end all be all of measure skill. A small skill jump of a Gold player can improve their play drastically, thus bumping them into Diamond. This can be as simple as constantly making probes, pylons, and army units from their production facilities. I think we'd both agree that the skill of making probes, pylons, and army units from production facilities isn't a very large skill jump, but it makes it so a diamond player will defeat anyone in gold league that doesn't do those things properly. Now, if I'm about .1% and oGs players are about .01%, then how could the skill difference between me and oGs players be smaller than simply making making probes, pylons, and army units from production facilities? oGs players have vast skillsets, strategies, and a very deep understanding of the game that sets them apart from me. The vast vast differences in skills between me and an oGs player still only makes them jump ahead of .09% of the total population, even though back in gold league to diamond league the tiny skill difference can make players jump over like 30% of the population.
Well, now I think I think I'm just coming to the conclusion you came to before I did, that we're just going to be going in circles! At the very least, I'll agree with you in that I gave a flawed example concerning the 1v2's earlier, as I would agree that it's not linear as the other poster (sorry, forgot the name!) mentioned earlier. But beyond that, I just think you're completely wrong. But then we're just determining numbers, while you think that there's a 100x difference between top 0.1% and top 0.01%, I'd say there's like a ~2-3x difference.
On April 12 2011 08:18 FabledIntegral wrote:
Would you argue a person who's A-/A in BW iCCuP is a full 1,000x less skilled than Olympic status, but a person who's B+ is only 10x more skilled than someone who is D- status?
Absolutely not. The population of iCCup is much different than the global SC2 ladder.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't comparing specifically to the population of iCCup, otherwise D- would refer to the bottom 20%ish or whatever it is, I was referring to the global BW population, where someone of D- calibre (obviously not like 100pts losing everything, but maintaining themselves around 800+ points) would represent a mid-gold level player.
In short, I think you're vastly, vastly overestimating the skill differential, but as I said before, we're going in circles now (well, you said it first, sorry if I dragged it along).
|
On April 12 2011 09:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
But beyond that, I just think you're completely wrong. But then we're just determining numbers, while you think that there's a 100x difference between top 0.1% and top 0.01%, I'd say there's like a ~2-3x difference.
Well I'll take that as a compliment I suppose. If you want to think GSL players are only 2-3x better than me go ahead...
|
On April 12 2011 09:05 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 09:02 FabledIntegral wrote:
But beyond that, I just think you're completely wrong. But then we're just determining numbers, while you think that there's a 100x difference between top 0.1% and top 0.01%, I'd say there's like a ~2-3x difference. Well I'll take that as a compliment I suppose. If you want to think GSL players are only 2-3x better than me go ahead...
I think even you're underestimating how much that is... take what you have, completely double that knowledge base, and you're possibly at the bare minimum they are... you have to encompass everything when looking at school, including knowledge of the basics, mechanics, etc. I think it'd be safe to say their mechanics aren't even remotely close to 100x better than yours, so there's a lot of things bringing it down.
|
You two realize you're flooding the thread with this arguement when it's basically you two saying the SAME thing in different words and views?
|
Hey cecil have you read "Play to win" by David sirlin?
|
On April 12 2011 09:28 gr8ape wrote:
Hey cecil have you read "Play to win" by David sirlin?
No, I have not. Why do you ask?
|
On April 12 2011 09:31 CecilSunkure wrote:Show nested quote +On April 12 2011 09:28 gr8ape wrote:
Hey cecil have you read "Play to win" by David sirlin? No, I have not. Why do you ask?
Youre gonna love this, basically a book on competitive gaming, from chess to street fighter (sirlin himself was a street fighter player)
Very good read.
http://www.sirlin.net/ptw/ (whole book)
|
CecilSunkure thank you so much for this excellent thread. Your post has given me a LOT of insight into how to improve and things to focus on. Looking forward to seeing more quality posts from you in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
