|
On January 07 2012 07:13 discobaas wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 06:16 ContactKilla wrote:
Theres a reason why Diamond is higher than Plat. Diamonds are just better. Plats seem like players that like the game, but aren't really improving in mechanics. They dont seem to take that extra effort to be a better player. They kind of just do the same thing and it works some games and doesnt work in others.
I think the skill gap thats the closest is High Diamond - Mid Masters. I was top Diamond last season and am now Mid Masters and I cant feel the difference at all. Well your thought on the skill gap is incorrect. Due to the Gaussian "skill" distribution, the difference in skill is the smallest in the middle, which would be around Gold. As you go up after Gold, it gets harder and harder to get further.
You're assuming something called "skill" has some unambiguous numerical value and that value follows a Gaussian distrubtion. That makes no sense whatsoever. How you decide to numerically capture skill changes the distribution. Given one numerical assignment which follows distribution A I can apply an increasing smooth function which also gives a valid numerical assignment which then follows distribution B. Just 'cause you know a fancy word doesn't mean you get to call someone else incorrect 
|
Something to keep in mind is that it's a big difference between top and low diamond.
|
There's no one thing that diamond players do that platinum players don't. It's just that, on average, they're a bit better at everything.
|
Platinums in lack even basic knowledge of 'standard' strategies; they just play whatever weird strategy they're used to.
Scouting abilities- while they do scout they dont know what to look for and when they find it, they don't know what it means or how to respond to it.
Generally poor game sense in any timing pushes (if they want to execute one). They dont know when to expand or attack.
Macro abilities- constantly not remembering to make workers, getting supply blocked, forgetting the injects/chronos/mules
Micro abilites- while some of them may have the micro ability of a diamond or even low master, it doesn't compensate for the other flaws.
Diamonds have a general knowledge of 'standard' strategies
scouting- they may know how to respond in some situations and how to scout better, but still lacking in many situations
game sense- this sets them really apart from the masters: game sense is maybe slightly better than a platinum. Lack of knowledge of timing windows, when to expand/attack, etc
macro abilities- less getting supply blocked, using macro mechanics more often, making more workers
|
On January 07 2012 08:02 diophan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 07:13 discobaas wrote:On January 07 2012 06:16 ContactKilla wrote:
Theres a reason why Diamond is higher than Plat. Diamonds are just better. Plats seem like players that like the game, but aren't really improving in mechanics. They dont seem to take that extra effort to be a better player. They kind of just do the same thing and it works some games and doesnt work in others.
I think the skill gap thats the closest is High Diamond - Mid Masters. I was top Diamond last season and am now Mid Masters and I cant feel the difference at all. Well your thought on the skill gap is incorrect. Due to the Gaussian "skill" distribution, the difference in skill is the smallest in the middle, which would be around Gold. As you go up after Gold, it gets harder and harder to get further. You're assuming something called "skill" has some unambiguous numerical value and that value follows a Gaussian distrubtion. That makes no sense whatsoever. How you decide to numerically capture skill changes the distribution. Given one numerical assignment which follows distribution A I can apply an increasing smooth function which also gives a valid numerical assignment which then follows distribution B. Just 'cause you know a fancy word doesn't mean you get to call someone else incorrect
I mean what he is saying is correct. The higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are (a gold and plat player may split 60/40 where as a top .01% player (MC-MVP-Nestea etc) will likely never lose to a top .1% player (mid-high GM semi pro)
Now just because the ladder doesn't perfectly distribute the skill curve (high diamond being basically equal to low/mid masters in terms of skill) doesn't mean that skill differences don't become more acute as you increase in overall skill.
|
I'm pretty sure it's just decision making, as plat is where people have general mechanics down, and it becomes a little bit more about strategy.
Still probably just better at macroing and mechanics and game sense.
|
On January 07 2012 08:21 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 08:02 diophan wrote:On January 07 2012 07:13 discobaas wrote:On January 07 2012 06:16 ContactKilla wrote:
Theres a reason why Diamond is higher than Plat. Diamonds are just better. Plats seem like players that like the game, but aren't really improving in mechanics. They dont seem to take that extra effort to be a better player. They kind of just do the same thing and it works some games and doesnt work in others.
I think the skill gap thats the closest is High Diamond - Mid Masters. I was top Diamond last season and am now Mid Masters and I cant feel the difference at all. Well your thought on the skill gap is incorrect. Due to the Gaussian "skill" distribution, the difference in skill is the smallest in the middle, which would be around Gold. As you go up after Gold, it gets harder and harder to get further. You're assuming something called "skill" has some unambiguous numerical value and that value follows a Gaussian distrubtion. That makes no sense whatsoever. How you decide to numerically capture skill changes the distribution. Given one numerical assignment which follows distribution A I can apply an increasing smooth function which also gives a valid numerical assignment which then follows distribution B. Just 'cause you know a fancy word doesn't mean you get to call someone else incorrect I mean what he is saying is correct. The higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are (a gold and plat player may split 60/40 where as a top .01% player (MC-MVP-Nestea etc) will likely never lose to a top .1% player (mid-high GM semi pro) Now just because the ladder doesn't perfectly distribute the skill curve (high diamond being basically equal to low/mid masters in terms of skill) doesn't mean that skill differences don't become more acute as you increase in overall skill.
I agree with you're observation that "the higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are" but that's not what he said at all. There are a ton of distributions that have that property. I have no idea what makes him think it's Gaussian, and then based on that premise which has no justification he calls someone else wrong.
It also doesn't really make sense that it's Gaussian. If MVP is the best player in the world and Bomber is the 50th best, Gaussian means the skill difference between MVP and Bomber is the same and that between the worst player in the world and the 50th best. Anyway, /rant
|
On January 07 2012 08:29 diophan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 08:21 stokes17 wrote:On January 07 2012 08:02 diophan wrote:On January 07 2012 07:13 discobaas wrote:On January 07 2012 06:16 ContactKilla wrote:
Theres a reason why Diamond is higher than Plat. Diamonds are just better. Plats seem like players that like the game, but aren't really improving in mechanics. They dont seem to take that extra effort to be a better player. They kind of just do the same thing and it works some games and doesnt work in others.
I think the skill gap thats the closest is High Diamond - Mid Masters. I was top Diamond last season and am now Mid Masters and I cant feel the difference at all. Well your thought on the skill gap is incorrect. Due to the Gaussian "skill" distribution, the difference in skill is the smallest in the middle, which would be around Gold. As you go up after Gold, it gets harder and harder to get further. You're assuming something called "skill" has some unambiguous numerical value and that value follows a Gaussian distrubtion. That makes no sense whatsoever. How you decide to numerically capture skill changes the distribution. Given one numerical assignment which follows distribution A I can apply an increasing smooth function which also gives a valid numerical assignment which then follows distribution B. Just 'cause you know a fancy word doesn't mean you get to call someone else incorrect I mean what he is saying is correct. The higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are (a gold and plat player may split 60/40 where as a top .01% player (MC-MVP-Nestea etc) will likely never lose to a top .1% player (mid-high GM semi pro) Now just because the ladder doesn't perfectly distribute the skill curve (high diamond being basically equal to low/mid masters in terms of skill) doesn't mean that skill differences don't become more acute as you increase in overall skill. I agree with you're observation that "the higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are" but that's not what he said at all. There are a ton of distributions that have that property. I have no idea what makes him think it's Gaussian, and then based on that premise which has no justification he calls someone else wrong. It also doesn't really make sense that it's Gaussian. If MVP is the best player in the world and Bomber is the 50th best, Gaussian means the skill difference between MVP and Bomber is the same and that between the worst player in the world and the 50th best. Anyway, /rant
o, is that how that distribution works? Then yea that's probably not exactly accurate.
Why is it the 50th player? Wouldn't it be a fraction not a number?
|
On January 07 2012 08:34 stokes17 wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 08:29 diophan wrote:On January 07 2012 08:21 stokes17 wrote:On January 07 2012 08:02 diophan wrote:On January 07 2012 07:13 discobaas wrote:On January 07 2012 06:16 ContactKilla wrote:
Theres a reason why Diamond is higher than Plat. Diamonds are just better. Plats seem like players that like the game, but aren't really improving in mechanics. They dont seem to take that extra effort to be a better player. They kind of just do the same thing and it works some games and doesnt work in others.
I think the skill gap thats the closest is High Diamond - Mid Masters. I was top Diamond last season and am now Mid Masters and I cant feel the difference at all. Well your thought on the skill gap is incorrect. Due to the Gaussian "skill" distribution, the difference in skill is the smallest in the middle, which would be around Gold. As you go up after Gold, it gets harder and harder to get further. You're assuming something called "skill" has some unambiguous numerical value and that value follows a Gaussian distrubtion. That makes no sense whatsoever. How you decide to numerically capture skill changes the distribution. Given one numerical assignment which follows distribution A I can apply an increasing smooth function which also gives a valid numerical assignment which then follows distribution B. Just 'cause you know a fancy word doesn't mean you get to call someone else incorrect I mean what he is saying is correct. The higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are (a gold and plat player may split 60/40 where as a top .01% player (MC-MVP-Nestea etc) will likely never lose to a top .1% player (mid-high GM semi pro) Now just because the ladder doesn't perfectly distribute the skill curve (high diamond being basically equal to low/mid masters in terms of skill) doesn't mean that skill differences don't become more acute as you increase in overall skill. I agree with you're observation that "the higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are" but that's not what he said at all. There are a ton of distributions that have that property. I have no idea what makes him think it's Gaussian, and then based on that premise which has no justification he calls someone else wrong. It also doesn't really make sense that it's Gaussian. If MVP is the best player in the world and Bomber is the 50th best, Gaussian means the skill difference between MVP and Bomber is the same and that between the worst player in the world and the 50th best. Anyway, /rant o, is that how that distribution works? Then yea that's probably not exactly accurate. Why is it the 50th player? Wouldn't it be a fraction not a number?
You can convert it to a fraction if you want but it doesn't matter, something like 100% vs. 99.99% and 0% .01%. You just switch from actual player ranks to %s by dividing by the number of people that play SC.
|
If you have to ask the forums what the difference is, can't you figure out for yourself then? Like if you are in platinum and you can't make it to diamond, obviously it is a lot harder to get there. Or you are already in diamond and were in platinum at one point and you know the difference. Or you are in platinum and you are so close to diamond that you can't tell the difference, if you can't tell the difference cause you are so close to diamond you just need to play and win more games.
|
Platinum players don't know proper builds, when to expand to two bases, and how to saturate their two bases properly.
|
On January 07 2012 08:44 diophan wrote:Show nested quote +On January 07 2012 08:34 stokes17 wrote:On January 07 2012 08:29 diophan wrote:On January 07 2012 08:21 stokes17 wrote:On January 07 2012 08:02 diophan wrote:On January 07 2012 07:13 discobaas wrote:On January 07 2012 06:16 ContactKilla wrote:
Theres a reason why Diamond is higher than Plat. Diamonds are just better. Plats seem like players that like the game, but aren't really improving in mechanics. They dont seem to take that extra effort to be a better player. They kind of just do the same thing and it works some games and doesnt work in others.
I think the skill gap thats the closest is High Diamond - Mid Masters. I was top Diamond last season and am now Mid Masters and I cant feel the difference at all. Well your thought on the skill gap is incorrect. Due to the Gaussian "skill" distribution, the difference in skill is the smallest in the middle, which would be around Gold. As you go up after Gold, it gets harder and harder to get further. You're assuming something called "skill" has some unambiguous numerical value and that value follows a Gaussian distrubtion. That makes no sense whatsoever. How you decide to numerically capture skill changes the distribution. Given one numerical assignment which follows distribution A I can apply an increasing smooth function which also gives a valid numerical assignment which then follows distribution B. Just 'cause you know a fancy word doesn't mean you get to call someone else incorrect I mean what he is saying is correct. The higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are (a gold and plat player may split 60/40 where as a top .01% player (MC-MVP-Nestea etc) will likely never lose to a top .1% player (mid-high GM semi pro) Now just because the ladder doesn't perfectly distribute the skill curve (high diamond being basically equal to low/mid masters in terms of skill) doesn't mean that skill differences don't become more acute as you increase in overall skill. I agree with you're observation that "the higher you go on the skill curve the more pronounced any differences in skill are" but that's not what he said at all. There are a ton of distributions that have that property. I have no idea what makes him think it's Gaussian, and then based on that premise which has no justification he calls someone else wrong. It also doesn't really make sense that it's Gaussian. If MVP is the best player in the world and Bomber is the 50th best, Gaussian means the skill difference between MVP and Bomber is the same and that between the worst player in the world and the 50th best. Anyway, /rant o, is that how that distribution works? Then yea that's probably not exactly accurate. Why is it the 50th player? Wouldn't it be a fraction not a number? You can convert it to a fraction if you want but it doesn't matter, something like 100% vs. 99.99% and 0% .01%. You just switch from actual player ranks to %s by dividing by the number of people that play SC.
O wait, Gaussian is just normal distribution(psych student hehe)? Yes, SC2 skill is normally distributed. It might be positively skewed, but the idea still holds. A top 50 player is more than 10x as good as a top 500 player. Just like a top 2% player (masters) is more than 10x as good as a 20% player(low diamond)
|
On January 07 2012 08:12 arcane1129 wrote:
There's no one thing that diamond players do that platinum players don't. It's just that, on average, they're a bit better at everything.
I think this is the main thing to be aware of. Until you're high masters there are just so many different areas that people can develop in. One player might have higher apm, but worse decision making. One might have better economy management cause he took a lesson and was taught that, while another saw a pro practice forcefield micro and he has a better grasp of that. I don't think any patterns of development can be made until you get to the highest level play, if it can even be seen there.
|
On January 07 2012 08:51 aebriol wrote:
Platinum players don't know proper builds, when to expand to two bases, and how to saturate their two bases properly.
I'd say that about Diamond. Only diamonds breaking into masters really do build orders.
Even many diamonds don't do proper builds. I'd say in diamond though, people start to do 'semblances' of proper builds.
Like they will go reactor hellion, expand, and then go cloaked banshees. A masters would never do that, but a diamond would. It's a terrible build, and against a zerg who macros correctly, it won't work because both mutas and overseers will be out from a 55 supply lair, but that's just what happens. They think it's a proper build because they went reactor hellion expand, but it's not to follow up with cloaked banshees instead of mech or rine/tank...
I've also seen a LOT of forge/gateway 1 base builds, 3 rax from terran, and 4 gate is common in diamond (in masters, it's unheard of, and I've actually lost to 4 gate in high masters because I hadn't seen it in so long and was simply totally confused what the opponent was doing i thought he was going like hidden base lol). Diamond is full of 1 base cheese too, whereas Masters it's more 2 base or 3 all-ins or turtle deathballs or gimmicky timings (marine/marauder, 6 gate void ray, 7 gate all-ins, etc). Zergs never hatch first in diamond either, almost all go 14/14, while in masters they all go hatch first, and never lose to 14/14. I dont think i ever see 1 base all-ins in masters, but diamond is just all 1 base cheese (if they cheese).
I don't think there is much difference from platinum and diamond. Platinum just has glaring macro mistakes... but ive seen diamonds and masters with that too. I don't know. I think diamonds have a sort of play that fails at emulating pro play, while platinums just don't even attempt it.
|
i wondered a similar thing except high diamond and masters
|
As someone who goes back and forth between the Platinum and Diamond leagues I can confidently say that two of the biggest dividing lines are economy and decision making.
Economy for me is the biggest hurdle that I have not been able to overcome. Sometimes I'll end a game with like 30 scvs  . This of course makes macroing very hard when you don't have a good economy. You might some times feel very proud of keeping your money below 1k for a game but it means nothing if your income is trash to begin with.
The other problem I come across a lot is poor decision making. Attack right before a critical upgrade finishes, deciding to pump units instead of expanding, expanding instead of pumping units, suiciding armies when I'm in an amazing position.
I get promoted to diamond when I am doing these things well, I get demoted when I play to win (rather than to improve), take short cuts and try kill my opponent (rather than to play solid and win the game).
|
Weird, I was diamond, got demoted to plat at season 5. Now I'm facing diamonds again. To me, there's no difference. I'll probably be promoted within the next 50 games. I play exactly the same.
|
In general Diamond players play better than Platinum players in every way as they would have probably played more games and therefore have more refined skills. The thing I've found is it is largely being able to react and scout that is a huge factor in the jump from Platinum to Diamond.
|
Good thread, I myself am in High Plat justtttttt a little bit away from Diamond.
And for those who say Diamonds are better than Plats, are you joking me? Did you know that Grandmasters are better than Masters and Gold are better than silvers? Interesting, huh?
On topic, I think it is just mostly Macro. Mostly that is. Yes, other things can play an important factor such as micro and etc,. but the major thing has got to be macro. I think Diamond players are more confident, so psychologically they are a lot stronger. Skill-wise.....I dont think its THAT big, but yeah, mostly Macro. Just keep practicing and you should be in Diamond.
Havent played much this season though, soon will :D
|
On January 07 2012 10:34 aznkukuboi wrote:
Weird, I was diamond, got demoted to plat at season 5. Now I'm facing diamonds again. To me, there's no difference. I'll probably be promoted within the next 50 games. I play exactly the same.
There's no difference because you're either facing high plat or low diamond, so basically the exact same MMR
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
