|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On February 17 2012 07:02 architecture wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 07:00 Blazinghand wrote:On February 17 2012 06:59 hunger wrote:On February 16 2012 03:59 CrtBalorda wrote:
1. Anyone can be masters
2. Masters still sucks So you're in GM? Or are you in Gold and talking shit about masters players because you are a godly macro king who is stuck in Gold because of the all-inning n00bs? I think what he's saying is "Starcraft 2 is a game with a high skill cap. As such, there's a lot of room to improve, even if you're in Master league already." No, what he's saying is that Masters represents a huge range in skill level, essentially everything from D to A+ in ICCUP (though probably not D-). It doesn't mean anything.
Oh yeah. There's definitely an enormous diversity of skill in Master League. Like, just within the league there are people who could 100% crush people who could 100% crush people who could crush me horribly. There's an enormous height of skill in Master, even not including GM.
|
As for the OP, have you heard the idea that it takes 10000 hours to master something?
You list out your league progression, but there is no mention of how many games, or how many hours you've spent. Does that make sense to you?
Can you imagine for anything else, saying "how come I'm progressing so slowly learning piano, 3 months ago I was this, now I'm that", when you don't mention how many hours you've practiced?
There's no way to judge your performance because you haven't even analyzed it in the right dimensions.
|
A lot of people in the Master League are not very good . . . AT ALL. Half a year ago I was able to reach masters with a new race with minimal effirt. So yes I believe given enough time anyone, except for some rare exceptions, can reach masters.However in order to reach it in a reasonable amount of time it helps to have good mechanics or spend time actually analyzing replays in depth. By doing so you learn how to improve faster unlike the thousands of terrible players that plague TL who will always be terrible so long as they convince themselves that they "get it" and the only thing holding them back is mechanics. This game is incredibly complex and for anyone to just say they "get it" is lying to themselves. If you are planning on getting better please make an effort to do it in an efficient way. You will enjoy the game a lot more. Best of luck.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On February 17 2012 07:17 BearStorm wrote:
A lot of people in the Master League are not very good . . . AT ALL. Half a year ago I was able to reach masters with a new race with minimal effirt. So yes I believe given enough time anyone, except for some rare exceptions, can reach masters.However in order to reach it in a reasonable amount of time it helps to have good mechanics or spend time actually analyzing replays in depth. By doing so you learn how to improve faster unlike the thousands of terrible players that plague TL who will always be terrible so long as they convince themselves that they "get it" and the only thing holding them back is mechanics. This game is incredibly complex and for anyone to just say they "get it" is lying to themselves. If you are planning on getting better please make an effort to do it in an efficient way. You will enjoy the game a lot more. Best of luck.
If you claim your mechanics are fine and you just don't "get it" you're gonna be in trouble too. A critical look at all the stuff that causes you trouble is the best way to improve. Mechanics hold a lot of people back, honestly.
|
if you mean by the if any one individual can practice their way into have the skill level to compete with a master's league player? yes.
can everyone make it into master league (by virtue of statistics) no.
|
On February 16 2012 03:59 CrtBalorda wrote:
1. Anyone can be masters
2. Masters still sucks
This sadly is true. Masters is the top 2%, unfortunately, only the top .75% can be considered good.
|
On February 17 2012 06:57 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 06:49 celeryman wrote:
It's the top 3% in NA that are in master, actually. And the idea that every single Master player has a smurf account that is in master is preposterous. If, say, half of them did, it'd still be 2/3rds legit players, and we're back at 2%.
I'm not sure your SAT question is a good one though, since everyone who takes the SAT is trying to get into college. Not everyone who plays Sc2 does so in a competitive fashion. I have friends all the way up through Diamond League who basically just dick around. A better question would be: Did you take the SATs? since most people do not.
I never said "every single Master player has a smurf." But there are likely some that have more than 2. At the very least the active masters players are better than 98% of all other active players. My 2140/1450 numbers also represent the 98% anyway. I was being conservative in my estimates. And the SAT comparison itself is apt. There were about 2.6 million college freshman in 2004 and about 1.4 million took the SATs in 2006 (rough comparisons here). So if 50% of the population on SC2 are at least nominally trying, it would be a great comparison. The idea that 50% of the population of Sc2 is trying to actively compete and get better is preposterous to me. Most people just play this game to dick around and have fun-- TL is a unique group of tryhard players, a subset of people who are striving to be the best at a higher rate than the general populace. Show nested quote +
Your unstated point is that if nobody's trying very hard, then for the few that do the statistics inflate the degree of accomplishment. A few points, first the league percentages are calculated on active players, so the non competitive (this would include your 3% numbers too) players are accounted for to some extent. Second, you refer to "competitive fashion" but what does that matter. The fact still stands that masters skill represents the top 2% of active players. You can't restrict the subset of meaningful data to a factor you've created called "competitive" play as opposed to "dick[ing] around" play. I could do a similar treatment to the SAT data and with the same result.
It's a handy yardstick to demonstrate what top 2% actually means, and to have some perspective.
Again, it's the top 3% on NA, not the top 2%. Furthermore, "Active players" is just "someone who has played 1 ladder game during the 8-week season" so there are tons of inactive players. EDIT: even my master division for last season, 25 of the 100 players had fewer than 10 wins because there are casuals all the way up here. I only had like 25 because I haven't been laddering as competitively this year. Most people play this game casually...
You're overusing the word "preposterous". Where are you getting this 3% number? http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2053471 still says 2%. Perhaps you're drawing it out of sc2ranks distribution? I've heard discussions about how those numbers aren't the best to use for evaluating MMR populations. Even if "active" means played just 1 game a season (I was under the assumption it was a higher burden but I don't see anything detailed about it in Excalibur's guide), my statistical points remain.
|
On February 17 2012 07:27 Nightshade_ wrote:Show nested quote +On February 16 2012 03:59 CrtBalorda wrote:
1. Anyone can be masters
2. Masters still sucks This sadly is true. Masters is the top 2%, unfortunately, only the top .75% can be considered good.
I heard that this also depends on the region , for example KR is tougher than NA and so on .
I feel like just playing a lot is not helping me , i played 1500 games and im heading to diamond soon , im kindoff worried and feel like im doing something wrong , ust not sure what .
|
3h a day is actually a lot. Best use of those 3h would probably be watching like 1 Terran replay/stream game of a player whos good and you like and then spam laddergames without interruption. Watch replays of yourself losing when you don't know what your opponent did, but in my opinion the statistics after the game already tell a lot...
Achieving average masters level is extremely easy and I am certain anyone can do it even without a lot of effort.
|
The master players today that can play actively and stay in masters, I'd say are significantly better than Masters players 1 year or even 6 months ago.
There is a huge gap in skill between even the bottom and the middle of masters for the reason that some players are hinging off old MMRs, and then there is a big gap in skill again between mid masters and high masters where you've got people that are really good but arent quite active or consistent enough to be GM.
Its all about context - if you only deem professional and tournament level players as "good" then only a few dozen people in all of North America are "good", if you deem only Korean tournament competitors or even korean high masters/GM level players as "good" then you would have a hard time finding more than 3 people in the western hemisphere that are "good".
At what point is the standard for "good" too harsh?
|
On February 17 2012 07:41 willyallthewei wrote:
The master players today that can play actively and stay in masters, I'd say are significantly better than Masters players 1 year or even 6 months ago.
There is a huge gap in skill between even the bottom and the middle of masters for the reason that some players are hinging off old MMRs, and then there is a big gap in skill again between mid masters and high masters where you've got people that are really good but arent quite active or consistent enough to be GM.
Its all about context - if you only deem professional and tournament level players as "good" then only a few dozen people in all of North America are "good", if you deem only Korean tournament competitors or even korean high masters/GM level players as "good" then you would have a hard time finding more than 3 people in the western hemisphere that are "good".
At what point is the standard for "good" too harsh?
This is a very good point. My earlier post is that if we get so embroiled in the idea that nobody's "good," let alone great, we seem out-of-touch and immature. And that has the real potential to hinder e-sport's broader acceptance.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On February 17 2012 07:30 celeryman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 06:57 Blazinghand wrote:On February 17 2012 06:49 celeryman wrote:
It's the top 3% in NA that are in master, actually. And the idea that every single Master player has a smurf account that is in master is preposterous. If, say, half of them did, it'd still be 2/3rds legit players, and we're back at 2%.
I'm not sure your SAT question is a good one though, since everyone who takes the SAT is trying to get into college. Not everyone who plays Sc2 does so in a competitive fashion. I have friends all the way up through Diamond League who basically just dick around. A better question would be: Did you take the SATs? since most people do not.
I never said "every single Master player has a smurf." But there are likely some that have more than 2. At the very least the active masters players are better than 98% of all other active players. My 2140/1450 numbers also represent the 98% anyway. I was being conservative in my estimates. And the SAT comparison itself is apt. There were about 2.6 million college freshman in 2004 and about 1.4 million took the SATs in 2006 (rough comparisons here). So if 50% of the population on SC2 are at least nominally trying, it would be a great comparison. The idea that 50% of the population of Sc2 is trying to actively compete and get better is preposterous to me. Most people just play this game to dick around and have fun-- TL is a unique group of tryhard players, a subset of people who are striving to be the best at a higher rate than the general populace.
Your unstated point is that if nobody's trying very hard, then for the few that do the statistics inflate the degree of accomplishment. A few points, first the league percentages are calculated on active players, so the non competitive (this would include your 3% numbers too) players are accounted for to some extent. Second, you refer to "competitive fashion" but what does that matter. The fact still stands that masters skill represents the top 2% of active players. You can't restrict the subset of meaningful data to a factor you've created called "competitive" play as opposed to "dick[ing] around" play. I could do a similar treatment to the SAT data and with the same result.
It's a handy yardstick to demonstrate what top 2% actually means, and to have some perspective.
Again, it's the top 3% on NA, not the top 2%. Furthermore, "Active players" is just "someone who has played 1 ladder game during the 8-week season" so there are tons of inactive players. EDIT: even my master division for last season, 25 of the 100 players had fewer than 10 wins because there are casuals all the way up here. I only had like 25 because I haven't been laddering as competitively this year. Most people play this game casually... You're overusing the word "preposterous". Where are you getting this 3% number? http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2053471 still says 2%. Perhaps you're drawing it out of sc2ranks distribution? I've heard discussions about how those numbers aren't the best to use for evaluating MMR populations. Even if "active" means played just 1 game a season (I was under the assumption it was a higher burden but I don't see anything detailed about it in Excalibur's guide), my statistical points remain.
Oh yes that's a good point the blog from january 2011 is more up to date than current statistics on who's in master league. I concede defeat.
|
I think anyone can get into masters if they try hard enough.
I started in S1 as bronze and went through all of the leagues, eventually reaching masters in S3 or something. It just takes a good attitude and some dedication. I don't think it's possible to get to masters off 3 games a week, but even if you play 20 ladder games every day you won't get to masters if you refuse to put effort into improving.
|
Think about it this way, if you are rank 49 masters, you are in the top 1% of the active 1v1 laddering community.
That 1v1 laddering group is probably around a quarter of the active multiplayer community, once you factor in all the players playing marine arena, 2v2s, spin offs and custom games.
The multiplayer communities for even the most multiplayer focused games like Unreal tournament often adds up to less than half of the total game install base. That total game install base happens to be even a fraction of the people that have ever tried or played Starcraft, of which many do not own a copy (such as players in china and people in korea who play on internet cafe's)
That brings us to a number closer to the area of .1% of the Starcraft install base.
Lets say WOL gets around 9 million in install base, then there are roughly 9,000 masters players worldwide.
Lets say that 200 KR players outside of GSL are good, then that means we have 264 high level pros in Korea before we factor in the rest of the world. If we say that the rest of the world provides even 1 third of that number in high level pro players, we are looking at a overall "high level professional" roster of roughly 350 players worldwide. That's roughly 3.33% to 4% of all masters players being "high level pros". That's impressive to me, masters players are as rare in the active Sc2 community as pros are amongst masters players worldwide...
My point is, masters players are REALLY FREAKING GOOD compared to your average Joe, for comparisons I scored in the top 1% in the LSAT coming out of college, I was a competitive candidate for Harvard Law, statistically, I was 1/3 as rare compared to my peers applying to law school as a masters player is compared to the SC2 install base. Even counting only active laddering players, i was only equally as rare amongst my peers.
Would you say that a Harvard Law student is "good" at school? I would...
The thought process that its not hard because you know someone who did it when they tried hard enough is common amongst just about all competitive activities... think about all your friends who said "its not that hard" about something someone else did, but only 1 guy did it.
Yeah its kind of hard, and no, if you worked all day at it without sleep, you still probably wont' be as good as idra, not because you aren't smart or fast enough, but because you likely don't have the discipline and neurotic need to win that he has.
If you start the conversation with - only Koreans are good, everyone else sucks and its not that hard if you just work hours at it and read strategies, adjust your mindset and study replays - then all you're doing is marginalizing the hardwork that other people put into getting to masters.
How many hobbies can you think of where proper practice for 2-3 hours per day every day for 6 months was necessary to be really "good" at?
Masters are "good" in my opinion and getting to it is "hard" compared to most of the other hobbies you can take up.
Sure, there are sports and careers significantly harder, but there's always something harder. For some real perspective, the game considered by all websites as the hardest game ever made is "I wanna be the guy." The game is made for only its difficulty. Now if you took every minute you ever spent reading/learning/watching and playing starcraft into "I wanna be the guy," do you really think you would have trouble not only beating it, but putting up a video of a perfect run on it?
Most masters players put more energy, focus, and dedication into Sc2 than they realize.
|
Yes, you can be masters at SC2, because decision making outweighs mechanics by a good bit atleast at the higher levels.
|
I would say yes and no for a mix of reasoning.
Yes in the sense that anyone is able achieve masters given the effort and time. However, I also believe that being able to put in the effort and time is a skill in itself. I've seen many threads both here and on reddit of people 'plagued' with the inability to hit that find match button, or sheer inability to play after a few games and relegate their limited time and resources to watching streams or various other agendas. Half of me believes this can boil down a lot of the time to "man up", but there's the odd legitimate reason.
Long story short, if you put in the time and effort, yes.
|
I got into master league on the NA server within 3 months of player about 1 hour a day, with my only prior gaming experience being starcraft 1 fastest maps with my friends. I would say that absolutely anyone can get into masters, the only thing that differs is the amount of time different people might need to put in.
|
On February 17 2012 08:05 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 07:30 celeryman wrote:On February 17 2012 06:57 Blazinghand wrote:On February 17 2012 06:49 celeryman wrote:
It's the top 3% in NA that are in master, actually. And the idea that every single Master player has a smurf account that is in master is preposterous. If, say, half of them did, it'd still be 2/3rds legit players, and we're back at 2%.
I'm not sure your SAT question is a good one though, since everyone who takes the SAT is trying to get into college. Not everyone who plays Sc2 does so in a competitive fashion. I have friends all the way up through Diamond League who basically just dick around. A better question would be: Did you take the SATs? since most people do not.
I never said "every single Master player has a smurf." But there are likely some that have more than 2. At the very least the active masters players are better than 98% of all other active players. My 2140/1450 numbers also represent the 98% anyway. I was being conservative in my estimates. And the SAT comparison itself is apt. There were about 2.6 million college freshman in 2004 and about 1.4 million took the SATs in 2006 (rough comparisons here). So if 50% of the population on SC2 are at least nominally trying, it would be a great comparison. The idea that 50% of the population of Sc2 is trying to actively compete and get better is preposterous to me. Most people just play this game to dick around and have fun-- TL is a unique group of tryhard players, a subset of people who are striving to be the best at a higher rate than the general populace.
Your unstated point is that if nobody's trying very hard, then for the few that do the statistics inflate the degree of accomplishment. A few points, first the league percentages are calculated on active players, so the non competitive (this would include your 3% numbers too) players are accounted for to some extent. Second, you refer to "competitive fashion" but what does that matter. The fact still stands that masters skill represents the top 2% of active players. You can't restrict the subset of meaningful data to a factor you've created called "competitive" play as opposed to "dick[ing] around" play. I could do a similar treatment to the SAT data and with the same result.
It's a handy yardstick to demonstrate what top 2% actually means, and to have some perspective.
Again, it's the top 3% on NA, not the top 2%. Furthermore, "Active players" is just "someone who has played 1 ladder game during the 8-week season" so there are tons of inactive players. EDIT: even my master division for last season, 25 of the 100 players had fewer than 10 wins because there are casuals all the way up here. I only had like 25 because I haven't been laddering as competitively this year. Most people play this game casually... You're overusing the word "preposterous". Where are you getting this 3% number? http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2053471 still says 2%. Perhaps you're drawing it out of sc2ranks distribution? I've heard discussions about how those numbers aren't the best to use for evaluating MMR populations. Even if "active" means played just 1 game a season (I was under the assumption it was a higher burden but I don't see anything detailed about it in Excalibur's guide), my statistical points remain. Oh yes that's a good point the blog from january 2011 is more up to date than current statistics on who's in master league. I concede defeat.
Well I don't know where you're getting your statistics from. You just keep saying 3%.
You don't have to be snarky about it either.
Tbh I'm not sure it's possible to convince you, or what threshold of skill it'd take for you to deem someone "good."
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On February 17 2012 08:40 celeryman wrote:Show nested quote +On February 17 2012 08:05 Blazinghand wrote:On February 17 2012 07:30 celeryman wrote:On February 17 2012 06:57 Blazinghand wrote:On February 17 2012 06:49 celeryman wrote:
It's the top 3% in NA that are in master, actually. And the idea that every single Master player has a smurf account that is in master is preposterous. If, say, half of them did, it'd still be 2/3rds legit players, and we're back at 2%.
I'm not sure your SAT question is a good one though, since everyone who takes the SAT is trying to get into college. Not everyone who plays Sc2 does so in a competitive fashion. I have friends all the way up through Diamond League who basically just dick around. A better question would be: Did you take the SATs? since most people do not.
I never said "every single Master player has a smurf." But there are likely some that have more than 2. At the very least the active masters players are better than 98% of all other active players. My 2140/1450 numbers also represent the 98% anyway. I was being conservative in my estimates. And the SAT comparison itself is apt. There were about 2.6 million college freshman in 2004 and about 1.4 million took the SATs in 2006 (rough comparisons here). So if 50% of the population on SC2 are at least nominally trying, it would be a great comparison. The idea that 50% of the population of Sc2 is trying to actively compete and get better is preposterous to me. Most people just play this game to dick around and have fun-- TL is a unique group of tryhard players, a subset of people who are striving to be the best at a higher rate than the general populace.
Your unstated point is that if nobody's trying very hard, then for the few that do the statistics inflate the degree of accomplishment. A few points, first the league percentages are calculated on active players, so the non competitive (this would include your 3% numbers too) players are accounted for to some extent. Second, you refer to "competitive fashion" but what does that matter. The fact still stands that masters skill represents the top 2% of active players. You can't restrict the subset of meaningful data to a factor you've created called "competitive" play as opposed to "dick[ing] around" play. I could do a similar treatment to the SAT data and with the same result.
It's a handy yardstick to demonstrate what top 2% actually means, and to have some perspective.
Again, it's the top 3% on NA, not the top 2%. Furthermore, "Active players" is just "someone who has played 1 ladder game during the 8-week season" so there are tons of inactive players. EDIT: even my master division for last season, 25 of the 100 players had fewer than 10 wins because there are casuals all the way up here. I only had like 25 because I haven't been laddering as competitively this year. Most people play this game casually... You're overusing the word "preposterous". Where are you getting this 3% number? http://us.battle.net/sc2/en/blog/2053471 still says 2%. Perhaps you're drawing it out of sc2ranks distribution? I've heard discussions about how those numbers aren't the best to use for evaluating MMR populations. Even if "active" means played just 1 game a season (I was under the assumption it was a higher burden but I don't see anything detailed about it in Excalibur's guide), my statistical points remain. Oh yes that's a good point the blog from january 2011 is more up to date than current statistics on who's in master league. I concede defeat. Well I don't know where you're getting your statistics from. You just keep saying 3%. You don't have to be snarky about it either. Tbh I'm not sure it's possible to convince you, or what threshold of skill it'd take for you to deem someone "good."
It's fine, you've convinced me. Master League MMR is set so that the top 2% of players in any region fall into Master League, and you have to be pretty good. In fact, it's an incorrect to say "everyone" can get into Master League, since if everyone tried, only 2% could get in-- as the game gets more competitive, it will become harder and harder to get in as the less competitive players stop playing, also.
|
the reason that you're stuck is simple, you don't learn much after each game you play. you need to think about the mistakes you make after every game, so you can avoid making the same mistakes over and over.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
