|
I (finally) made it to Masters league recently (yay :D) after I worked out a few kinks in my mechanics. Now, for the most part, I have fairly good macro with enough game sense to know when things are coming.
Now the question is: What differentiates a mid-high level Masters player with presumably good macro with a Grandmasters player? Mainly, what can a Masters player improve on to significantly improve his or her level of play?
Admittedly, Grandmaster players, primarily pro-gamers, have a large range of build orders/styles to play from, but for single 1v1 matches, having one solid build for each MU wouldn't be too much worse than having a variety of builds.
I'm stumped; is the their (GM's) slightly-more consistent macro really that big of a difference to separate GM players from M? Is having perfect micro for early game battles really that game-changing as opposed to having good micro? Is there some different strategic mindset that truly separates GM players as the best of the best?
Any thoughts are welcome.
|
Everything a gm player does (or knows) is, on average, slightly better than a masters player. There's no secret. It's the same thing for any other 2 leagues, such as plat and diamond.
|
GM players are (generally speaking) better at every phase of the game. Better macro, better army movements, better minimap awareness, better micro, better multi-tasking, better scouting, etc. When someone is a little bit better at everything, it makes it so a GM v. Master game can quickly get out of hand for the master player, unless it's a 1-base all-in or something.
|
A lot of it is micro. GM level players micro extremely well in maxed engagements and know how to engage opponents at favorable positions to maximize their army's effectiveness. Someone did a statistical analysis and also found that GM level players have, on average, better macro than master level players as well. A combination of both macro and micro differentials separates them... similar to how it is with any other two leagues.
|
Surprised no wonder mentioned game sense. A GM knows what to do better than the average Master player and what to build, when to move out, how far ahead they are, etc.
|
28086 Posts
It can be different for each person as well. I was high masters based purely off macro/micro mechanics, but had horrible knowledge of builds, and general game sense. But some high masters might have great game sense and lack mechanics,etc.
|
Starcraft is 95% mechanics - you can figure it out from that.
The game is too well-understood now to strategically overcome your opponent despite mechanical deficiencies. Improving on this game is as simple as following the metagame and improving your mechanical skill via massing games using solid builds.
|
Timing & execution, control, decision making. Macro is a fairly broad term that isn't quite correct to describe the differences in inefficiencies between masters players and grandmasters players imo.
On December 12 2012 15:08 riser wrote:
A lot of it is micro. GM level players micro extremely well in maxed engagements and know how to engage opponents at favorable positions to maximize their army's effectiveness. Someone did a statistical analysis and also found that GM level players have, on average, better macro than master level players as well. A combination of both macro and micro differentials separates them... similar to how it is with any other two leagues.
I'm curious: did the statistical analysis cover ranges of ratings in masters and GM, or did they merely clump GM and masters each into one big group, respectively? In my own observations, the top end of masters' macro is generally indistinguishable from the lower half of GM, with various exceptions between each. That, and the skill disparity between low masters and high masters when put against GM is fairly huge.
|
28086 Posts
On December 12 2012 15:26 rd wrote:Timing & execution, control, decision making. Macro is a fairly broad term that isn't quite correct to describe the differences in inefficiencies between masters players and grandmasters players imo. Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 15:08 riser wrote:
A lot of it is micro. GM level players micro extremely well in maxed engagements and know how to engage opponents at favorable positions to maximize their army's effectiveness. Someone did a statistical analysis and also found that GM level players have, on average, better macro than master level players as well. A combination of both macro and micro differentials separates them... similar to how it is with any other two leagues. I'm curious: did the statistical analysis cover ranges of ratings in masters and GM, or did they merely clump GM and masters each into one big group, respectively? In my own observations, the top end of masters' macro is generally indistinguishable from the lower half of GM, with various exceptions between each. That, and the skill disparity between low masters and high masters when put against GM is fairly huge.
I would say decision making is one of the biggest differences between M and GM players. When to attack,where, and how. What units to produce,etc.
|
My question is what is the difference between top GM and GSL champions
|
On December 12 2012 15:37 uberism wrote:
My question is what is the difference between top GM and GSL champions
Same differences as with every league but just a much greater degree of refinement.
|
What is the difference between your average GM ranked 100-200 to the top 25 GM guys (who are usually all pro gamers)?
|
On December 12 2012 15:45 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 15:37 uberism wrote:
My question is what is the difference between top GM and GSL champions Same differences as with every league but just a much greater degree of refinement.
Theres also entirely different skillsets programers (and GSL champions) use in high level tournament settings that aren't really applicable when competing on ladder. It's difficult in that regard to directly compare one player based on their ladder success and put it up against another player by evaluating their tournament success -- both top level players, of course.
|
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm.
|
Masters is an entire skillset in itself.
I can go pure reaper and beat pretty much any low masters in TvZ, TvT, or TvP.
I can do similar ridiculous strategies ZvX and PvX. Vs a low masters, I can completely dick around and throw units around at whim.
I'm not a GM either, just high masters.
|
most of this is prabably said already, but the difference is pretty big, the higher the ceiling the harder it is to improve, and gm basicly does everything slightly better than a master player. control, execution, timings.
|
It's not really a slight difference in mechanics, if you're talking the difference between a newly promoted masters player and even the lowest GM player, it's a huge difference. They aren't perfect, but I guess it's hard to know just how bad your mechanics are without comparing it to someone like them.
|
On December 12 2012 16:03 Rickyvalle21 wrote:
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm.
I don't think this is true at all. A diamond player can beat a bronze or even silver (possibly gold) player only using their mouse. I seriously doubt any non-pro could beat a low masters like that, and even then it would be very challenging.
I think there's a difference in all areas, but the main difference is in unit control and multitask.
|
On December 12 2012 14:46 dasfewfawdx wrote:
I (finally) made it to Masters league recently (yay :D) after I worked out a few kinks in my mechanics. Now, for the most part, I have fairly good macro with enough game sense to know when things are coming.
Now the question is: What differentiates a mid-high level Masters player with presumably good macro with a Grandmasters player? Mainly, what can a Masters player improve on to significantly improve his or her level of play?
Admittedly, Grandmaster players, primarily pro-gamers, have a large range of build orders/styles to play from, but for single 1v1 matches, having one solid build for each MU wouldn't be too much worse than having a variety of builds.
I'm stumped; is the their (GM's) slightly-more consistent macro really that big of a difference to separate GM players from M? Is having perfect micro for early game battles really that game-changing as opposed to having good micro? Is there some different strategic mindset that truly separates GM players as the best of the best?
Any thoughts are welcome.
I grantee that your macro is no where near GM macro. There are so many small things that you may gloss over but will have a huge impact on your ability to get things out.
For example even if you don't get supply blocked that doesn't mean you aren't building supply at the optimal time (optimal being as late as possible).
Infrastructure is another example and should not have resources invested into it unless it is getting maximum use.
Stepping away from macro, GM multitasking and crisis management is phenomenal as well as their ability to make in game decisions. All of these things are not even needed to achieve masters and no doubt any masters players skills in these areas are very underdeveloped compared to a GM.
|
1)GM Macro and mechanics are A LOT better then an average mid-master.
2) Timings. Just an example : parting doing the immortal/sentry allinn leaves his base at 8.40, an average gm maybe at 9.00, a mid-master 9.30 (based on my experience). Thats a huge difference.
3)Engagements : most of the master players just a-move and spam storm/emp/fungal. GMs takes very refined engagements.
4)Litttle details that makes the difference.
|
On December 12 2012 17:27 Defenestrator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 16:03 Rickyvalle21 wrote:
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm. I don't think this is true at all. A diamond player can beat a bronze or even silver (possibly gold) player only using their mouse. I seriously doubt any non-pro could beat a low masters like that, and even then it would be very challenging. I think there's a difference in all areas, but the main difference is in unit control and multitask.
I see Dragon beating a high diamond player on the eu server (which means master level on NA) using only the mouse and without wearing glasses (so one-handed and blind) :D
|
I think the main difference could be that some GM players are used to play on their level and thats all. Some GM are really good, but not everyone.
|
Well, in the first seasons, when i played only terran and i got to high masters, i got the chance to play gm's as well on the ladder, not only in online cups. Mostly it ended badly, as i only had a few builds, and when something went wrong, i didn't have the same improvisation skills as them. Sure, i beat some as well, but keep in mind that back then many got to GM by only doing 4-gates or 3 rax rushes, so that didn't say much about true SKILL. With the map pool we have now allins and cheeses are a lot harder to pull off, so yeah, those who are GM's now are really good players.
You can see a sence of finesse in their play, making every unit count, and coming up with unique builds that everyone else then copies  Not missing a worker beat, avoiding supply block all the time, and making the best use of early game units will put a GM more and more ahead vs a master player the more the game goes. You know the saying the more the game takes, the better player will win. Also, keep in mind, in order to maintain this skill level, you need to play at least a few hours every day...
|
I would say that low masters is about the same in skill level as a top Diamond, but the same can not be said for high masters/low GM... think about it in percentages of players -> masters is top 2% of players.. but there are A LOT of players on each server... GM is the top 200 players out of all the players.
This SHOULD tell you that they are basically better at everything than the normal masters players, with the exception of some really "toptop" masters players who aren't in GM because they simply can't fit into it.
Although, if you need a specific answer to the MAIN reason they are better, I would definitely say: decision making in all stages of the game -> what build, how to react to what, when to attack, what units to make.. etc...
|
depends on the race
protoss - much, much crisper timings, slightly better at engaging
zerg - better mechanics, more specifically for map awareness (higher apm to scout more, better injects)
terran - micro, unit cost efficiency
source: I'm gm
|
On December 12 2012 15:19 iEchoic wrote:
Starcraft is 95% mechanics - you can figure it out from that.
The game is too well-understood now to strategically overcome your opponent despite mechanical deficiencies. Improving on this game is as simple as following the metagame and improving your mechanical skill via massing games using solid builds.
I would say my ladder experience mostly contradicts this statement, while at the same time, this is the reason why I have never broken that barrier between top masters and GM.
I am quite honestly, pretty bad at SC2 mechanically, but I am very good at making up builds that abuse the current metagame.
Most people below GM generally get why a build is good and think they understand everything about it, but they don't know all the ins and outs of it.
For example: I have been doing a proxy hatch vs Nexus first FFE for like a year and people still don't get that it's a BO win. They think they fucked up their micro or something when all they had to do was cancel the nexus.
Most GM players could see and understand this, and while they may lose THAT game, they wouldn't lose the next.
Most masters players would talk shit to me about how bad I am at SC2 while they continually lose over and over because nexus first is how you play.
|
For example: I have been doing a proxy hatch vs Nexus first FFE for like a year and people still don't get that it's a BO win. They think they fucked up their micro or something when all they had to do was cancel the nexus.
Funny to see that others are doing the same as I am. I've refined the build, and am now placing it directly on the protoss natural at the same timing as a standard 15 hatch at my natural. Its brilliant to see the tons of different responses... Most of them ending up in a massive lead for me. Anyway, onto the point:
In my, somewhat limited experience, GM players are not neccesarily of another world. Its not that they don't get thrown off of their gameplan. Its not that they don't make mistakes. Its not that their decision making or micro is so much better. In my experience, what GM players do better than mostly everyone else is to compose themselves when something goes awry. Also, having had a few sessions with GM players, what interests me most is their ability to read a players playstyle. I am not talking about reading a build, I am talking about reading what an opponents mindset is.
When we were talking, I called my opponent on doing an upgraded Marine-Medivac opening into Marine-Tank. 'Beware of drops.' That was literally what I thought about. The units, the immediate possibilities. What I didn't consider was my opponents mindset. What my buddy was thinking was; "I need to place my buildings slightly different since this area is where he's going to be dropping me at the 11 min mark. Meanwhile a tankpush is going to start while he attempts to pull me out of position. Burrowed banelings here, creepspread at this mark will be VITAL to shutting down his plans."
So while we looked at the replay, and tried to enter the Terrans mindset, it suddenly made a whole lot of sense. Static D + a few lings to shut down the drops. No vision of the majority of the army. Creep past the spots where we would like to siege up. While I may have done the exact same things, I wouldn't have considered the game ''right now'' from my opponents side. I think that is one of they key differences. In how great detail are you capable of viewing the game from the opposing side?
|
France12775 Posts
Its pointless to compare mid or lower master to GM so I guess you talk about top and high+ master players.
It depends on the race, but for every one I guess massing more games while trying to improve is what separates regular top master (the one who is struggling to go into gm, not an ancient gm that didnt play enough or something).
Basically being that bit better at everything which comes with practice.
For terran in particular pre patch mindset is key : good angryness management because of the difficulty, unfairness and poor balance of the race.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
On December 12 2012 15:19 iEchoic wrote:
Starcraft is 95% mechanics - you can figure it out from that.
The game is too well-understood now to strategically overcome your opponent despite mechanical deficiencies. Improving on this game is as simple as following the metagame and improving your mechanical skill via massing games using solid builds.
Sums it up all too well.
Just keep looking at things to improve on (there's still a LOT) and mass games. That's how I got to GM.
Oh, and 1 build for each match-up is still sufficient to get into GM. At least outside KR.
|
On December 12 2012 20:08 CCalms wrote:
depends on the race
protoss - much, much crisper timings, slightly better at engaging
zerg - better mechanics, more specifically for map awareness (higher apm to scout more, better injects)
terran - micro, unit cost efficiency
source: I'm gm
Thank you! I'm very curious. I'm just mid master, but would love to be GM one day.
What does it take to make it from mid master to GM? A ton of practice?
|
A ton of practice AND talent imho
I think everyone (with a normal IQ) can be master but for gm you should have some talent...
|
United Kingdom20284 Posts
On December 12 2012 17:27 Defenestrator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 16:03 Rickyvalle21 wrote:
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm. I don't think this is true at all. A diamond player can beat a bronze or even silver (possibly gold) player only using their mouse. I seriously doubt any non-pro could beat a low masters like that, and even then it would be very challenging. I think there's a difference in all areas, but the main difference is in unit control and multitask.
Lastshadow did it to a mid master NA zerg.. In post-patch TvZ.
|
On December 12 2012 20:08 CCalms wrote:
depends on the race
protoss - much, much crisper timings, slightly better at engaging
zerg - better mechanics, more specifically for map awareness (higher apm to scout more, better injects)
terran - micro, unit cost efficiency
source: I'm gm
I like this answer, sums it up very nicely, at least for what I can see watching pros.
|
the ability to perform a 6 pool
|
On December 12 2012 22:18 Bad_Habit wrote:
the ability to perform a 6 pool
Are you the only player to ever make GM with pure 6 pool? It's awesome that you were able to succeed with micro in this macro centric game.
|
The journey from completely new player to master is a lot shorter than the journey from newly promoted master to GM, IMO. So you have a long road ahead, but good luck!
|
It must be the same for every league and the next. I've been stuck in Plat for 2.5 years... So the barrier from Plat to Diamond to me is just as massive as Masters to GM. I wouldn't forget to factor in your own skill ceiling.
|
On December 12 2012 22:55 Salient wrote:Are you the only player to ever make GM with pure 6 pool? It's awesome that you were able to succeed with micro in this macro centric game.
still think im the only one to ever perform this.
edited the rest out. just nonsense
|
You don't need some innate "talent" to make it into the higher leagues, all you need is dedication and the ability to learn through practice. For every musical prodigy there is another musician who mastered their instrument through thousands of hours of practice. You can do the same thing. You just need to learn HOW to practice in such a way that you are meaningfully improving your play or you will not progress.
|
gms aren't some kind of special snowflake, they still make huge mistakes sometimes, just less frequently than people in masters and below
|
Bosnia-Herzegovina439 Posts
GM players macro perfectly/nearly perfectly while doing all the aggressive and defensive shit at very high level.
Masters players, except highest master players slip with their macro often throughout the game, and loose games because of basic mistakes they do because they aren't quite skilled in certain aggressive or defensive aspect of sc2.
IMO the difference is huge, it's like silver - diamond ratio. Yes, they can take a game occasionally from gm player, but mid and lower master players are miles away from gm. I'm not even talking about aggressive/cheeser/one2base players that can easily sit in masters league yet have very low macro play skill.
|
On December 12 2012 19:08 Putty wrote:
1)GM Macro and mechanics are A LOT better then an average mid-master.
2) Timings. Just an example : parting doing the immortal/sentry allinn leaves his base at 8.40, an average gm maybe at 9.00, a mid-master 9.30 (based on my experience). Thats a huge difference.
3)Engagements : most of the master players just a-move and spam storm/emp/fungal. GMs takes very refined engagements.
4)Litttle details that makes the difference.
Ive never played a gm, but i think the 9:30 or later move outs are a different variant that throws down the robo after the 3rd pylon. This variant is slightly stronger than partings variant because you get +1 armor and more sentry energy. Most players at even dia can move out at 9 using partings variant of the allin.
|
There is no perfect answer for this question.
I have read some good answers but none is perfect. (Mine will also not be a perfect one, but at least It is a honest opinion)
My advice would be to improve at least these 4 concepts we all know:
- Build Orders
- Micro
- Macro
- Multi Tasking
There are many GM that are not so strong at these 4 concepts, they are good but you can notice that they are usally very strong only in 2 or 3.
When we talk about mechanics, we refer to the concepts above but decision making and reaction/timing on situations you encounter yourself during the game may have alot of impact in the outcome of a game.
I was Master for a while in EU and I am still Diamond playing less than 5 games a week on ladder. My mechanics are very sloppy and my 200 apm went down to a modest 100. The reason I keep winning games against Masters and top Masters is only because of my decisions and experience.
I must agree with TheEmulator when he says that the difference may be either mechanics or decision making.
To improve your decision making you need experience. I have played SC since 98 and I still do for fun because the community is amazing and the game is amazing. To improve decision making you need to put yourself in situations that are new to you... and this is hard as hell.
A good way to make your improvement grow faster is playing a massive amount of games or discuss your decisions within a game with a person at the same level as you (it can be higher). The second option for me is the best since it is the faster one.
When you discuss your decisions usually you absorb them easier and you are able to work around your decision in a taylor made fashion making it almost perfect. Now, a game can have many decisions... weather we attack or defend, weather we expand or tech... and so on.
I can tell you one thing, while teaching alot of friends I always said this and I will repeat it... copying a gamestyle usually works bad. Your mechanics become very good but your receptiveness to new strategies becomes very debilitated.
Note: Attention, I do think watching replays is good to learn faster, what I mean is don't copy reactions... try to understand the decisions, sometimes they are good and you might agree. Even great players can make bad decisions and win games because of their mechanics! Same goes the other way around.
Work the 4 concepts I mentioned above, after that you are 50% on your way to GM. The next 50% is knowing how react to each situation and understand the timings (I haven't talked about scouting because I consider at this level scouting your enemy is a fundamental part of your game).
In conclusion, I would like to wish you the very best of luck for your journey to achieve GM status!
Have fun and good games.
PS: I am already 29, working in a international company, doing gym and being with family and friends makes playing this wonderful game hard because the lack of time.. but I am happy because I can still play it!
|
For me difference between okay player(read master) and good player(read high master/gm) is that they understant what are they dooing.
To an okay player you can show build and he will probably play it somewhere up to 80% of its strenght when he masters it. Problem is you cant play it more efficiently untill you understant what is it that you are doing. You can play the build near perfect everygame but if you dont understant why it will never be in its fullest potentional. The more you understant the "behind the scenes" of the game the more you are getting into the "good player" category.
|
Before asking what's the difference between Low Masters and GM, ask yourself what's the difference between MKP and MVP.
Although they're at about the same skill level, MVP just has that difference that is almost invisible. His macro is not as immaculate, his micro is not as sexy, but time and time again when MKP would normally crumble under the pressure--MVP soars.
The higher up the ranks you go in anything--the more difficult it is to bridge the skill gap. Why? Because you're already doing everything essentially "perfectly"
It's just not perfect enough yet.
|
United States2186 Posts
A combination of small details matter so much. I was helping out a friend who is top 150 masters (NA) earlier this week in tvp and our games were pretty illustrative.
In short, his builds weren't crisp enough (multiple losses to standard pressure in the first 10 minutes), he was slower (had to think during the game, thus was out position versus drops), didn't have a full game plan for each moment, made wrong decisions (i,e trying to attack while on 2 bases) and didn't understand how to play certain strategies (tried to transition from templar to colossus on 2 bases), and he lacked proper knowhow to hide his allins. The last point was rather interesting. In the games where he didn't allin, I didn't even scout for it because I felt all was fine. When he did allin, I scouted at all the right times because something felt wrong. Overall it felt like I could do pretty much anything and get way ahead.
|
On December 13 2012 03:36 Ver wrote:
A combination of small details matter so much. I was helping out a friend who is top 150 masters (NA) earlier this week in tvp and our games were pretty illustrative.
In short, his builds weren't crisp enough (multiple losses to standard pressure in the first 10 minutes), he was slower (had to think during the game, thus was out position versus drops), didn't have a full game plan for each moment, made wrong decisions (i,e trying to attack while on 2 bases) and didn't understand how to play certain strategies (tried to transition from templar to colossus on 2 bases), and he lacked proper knowhow to hide his allins. The last point was rather interesting. In the games where he didn't allin, I didn't even scout for it because I felt all was fine. When he did allin, I scouted at all the right times because something felt wrong. Overall it felt like I could do pretty much anything and get way ahead.
I do all of these things but lose cuz my unit control is god awful.
I probably have a solid 50% or so I my losses that I can blame on poor control, but don't really have the time or knowhow to fix it. 
|
On December 13 2012 04:10 Jermstuddog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 03:36 Ver wrote:
A combination of small details matter so much. I was helping out a friend who is top 150 masters (NA) earlier this week in tvp and our games were pretty illustrative.
In short, his builds weren't crisp enough (multiple losses to standard pressure in the first 10 minutes), he was slower (had to think during the game, thus was out position versus drops), didn't have a full game plan for each moment, made wrong decisions (i,e trying to attack while on 2 bases) and didn't understand how to play certain strategies (tried to transition from templar to colossus on 2 bases), and he lacked proper knowhow to hide his allins. The last point was rather interesting. In the games where he didn't allin, I didn't even scout for it because I felt all was fine. When he did allin, I scouted at all the right times because something felt wrong. Overall it felt like I could do pretty much anything and get way ahead.
I do all of these things but lose cuz my unit control is god awful. I probably have a solid 50% or so I my losses that I can blame on poor control, but don't really have the time or knowhow to fix it.
Kinda hard to practice battles since there are so many scenarios and all map-dependent. I wish there were some way to practice control on actual parts of actual in-use maps or something so if you wanted to figure out how to hold something on (for example), Cloud Kingdom, you'd know exactly where to pick fights, etc.
|
On December 13 2012 04:14 sCCrooked wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 04:10 Jermstuddog wrote:On December 13 2012 03:36 Ver wrote:
A combination of small details matter so much. I was helping out a friend who is top 150 masters (NA) earlier this week in tvp and our games were pretty illustrative.
In short, his builds weren't crisp enough (multiple losses to standard pressure in the first 10 minutes), he was slower (had to think during the game, thus was out position versus drops), didn't have a full game plan for each moment, made wrong decisions (i,e trying to attack while on 2 bases) and didn't understand how to play certain strategies (tried to transition from templar to colossus on 2 bases), and he lacked proper knowhow to hide his allins. The last point was rather interesting. In the games where he didn't allin, I didn't even scout for it because I felt all was fine. When he did allin, I scouted at all the right times because something felt wrong. Overall it felt like I could do pretty much anything and get way ahead.
I do all of these things but lose cuz my unit control is god awful. I probably have a solid 50% or so I my losses that I can blame on poor control, but don't really have the time or knowhow to fix it. Kinda hard to practice battles since there are so many scenarios and all map-dependent. I wish there were some way to practice control on actual parts of actual in-use maps or something so if you wanted to figure out how to hold something on (for example), Cloud Kingdom, you'd know exactly where to pick fights, etc.
Assuming resume from replay comes (as described by Blizzard) with HotS, you should hopefully be able to load up a real-game situation over and over again with a practice partner to see how battles turn out differently if you engage in different locations.
|
On December 12 2012 19:54 MrFraische wrote:
I would say that low masters is about the same in skill level as a top Diamond, but the same can not be said for high masters/low GM... think about it in percentages of players -> masters is top 2% of players.. but there are A LOT of players on each server... GM is the top 200 players out of all the players.
This SHOULD tell you that they are basically better at everything than the normal masters players, with the exception of some really "toptop" masters players who aren't in GM because they simply can't fit into it.
Although, if you need a specific answer to the MAIN reason they are better, I would definitely say: decision making in all stages of the game -> what build, how to react to what, when to attack, what units to make.. etc...
Pretty often top masters are as good if not better than low GM players. It's just a matter of how active you feel like being to bridge the MMR gap to actually get in at that point.
|
On December 13 2012 03:36 Ver wrote:
and he lacked proper knowhow to hide his allins. The last point was rather interesting. In the games where he didn't allin, I didn't even scout for it because I felt all was fine. When he did allin, I scouted at all the right times because something felt wrong. Overall it felt like I could do pretty much anything and get way ahead.
Can you elaborate on that Ver? I am currently stuck in Diamond and I have no idea what you are talking about. What is this "sense" that people talk about? Is it the lack of units? Lack of pressure? What is it about the game that changes when a person decides to all-in?
|
On December 13 2012 04:45 HanSomPa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 03:36 Ver wrote:
and he lacked proper knowhow to hide his allins. The last point was rather interesting. In the games where he didn't allin, I didn't even scout for it because I felt all was fine. When he did allin, I scouted at all the right times because something felt wrong. Overall it felt like I could do pretty much anything and get way ahead.
Can you elaborate on that Ver? I am currently stuck in Diamond and I have no idea what you are talking about. What is this "sense" that people talk about? Is it the lack of units? Lack of pressure? What is it about the game that changes when a person decides to all-in?
3rd attempt at responding to this:
Scouting tends to go the same way every game unless your opponent is trying to be sneaky. So you develop this sense that "things don't feel right" and you don't necessarily know why, but you know that you need to know.
Great players find ways to get a scout past the front line where they can reveal everything their opponent is trying to hide. Sometimes even then, it's not about seeing what they're doing, but simply seeing what they NOT doing that can clue you off to what's in store.
|
On December 12 2012 16:03 Rickyvalle21 wrote:
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm.
Not entirely true. I've beaten high masters before (as a low master) by using strange unit compositions that they might not know how to combat.
|
i would say the average GM has better decision making in terms of unit tasks (what youre doing with your stuff) and money. for instance, i often see high masters or mdi master terrans get supply blocked , this happens to GMs of every race as well. However, the difference is the GM terran will throw down a macro CC or add extra raxes quicker while the cash floats. though other players might do it it too, it seems the top level players are always finding useful ways to spend their money right as they get it and micro effectively while they do it
|
I'd also like to ask the question; When are you High Master? - When are you TOP master? When are you Mid Master?
Its been a bit hard to pry out information about how many Masters league players there actually are, yet a sound number ranges from 8-9000 per server. Cutting the number down severely, we'll have a good safety net I recon. Since there's 5 servers total, we can assume that at least 30.000 accounts are currently in Masters or GrandMasters.
So are you Mid-Master when you're top 15.000 in the world, or do you need to go higher?
When are you High Masters?
Currently SC2 ranks lists me as ~3800 in the world with ~840 points.
|
Blazinghand
United States25551 Posts
On December 13 2012 17:03 Keilkan wrote:
I'd also like to ask the question; When are you High Master? - When are you TOP master? When are you Mid Master?
Its been a bit hard to pry out information about how many Masters league players there actually are, yet a sound number ranges from 8-9000 per server. Cutting the number down severely, we'll have a good safety net I recon. Since there's 5 servers total, we can assume that at least 30.000 accounts are currently in Masters or GrandMasters.
So are you Mid-Master when you're top 15.000 in the world, or do you need to go higher?
When are you High Masters?
Currently SC2 ranks lists me as ~3800 in the world with ~840 points.
You're Low Masters if you can lose a few games in a row and start seeing diamond leaguers. This is where I am. You're Mid Master when you stop seeing Diamond Leaguers on the ladder, ever, even when you lose some games. You're High or Top Master when you play against GM players on the ladder.
Personally, the thing that holds me back from becoming a better player is my mechanics. I think too slow and act too slow, and my macro and micro get slipped up. I make my decisions too slowly, execute them poorly, and read my opponent poorly. I know a few specific timing attacks and build orders kinda okay, which means I can beat any diamond leaguer and below, but they crumble in the face of superior opponents who use a combination of solid mechanics, snap decision making, and critical thinking that doesn't cause different parts of the game to stumble over each other.
I can't micro a drop, macro, move my army, and make decisions at the same time. I can probably do 2, maybe 3 of those things at once, and not perfectly. This is what holds me back.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 13 2012 17:39 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 17:03 Keilkan wrote:
I'd also like to ask the question; When are you High Master? - When are you TOP master? When are you Mid Master?
Its been a bit hard to pry out information about how many Masters league players there actually are, yet a sound number ranges from 8-9000 per server. Cutting the number down severely, we'll have a good safety net I recon. Since there's 5 servers total, we can assume that at least 30.000 accounts are currently in Masters or GrandMasters.
So are you Mid-Master when you're top 15.000 in the world, or do you need to go higher?
When are you High Masters?
Currently SC2 ranks lists me as ~3800 in the world with ~840 points.
You're Low Masters if you can lose a few games in a row and start seeing diamond leaguers. This is where I am. You're Mid Master when you stop seeing Diamond Leaguers on the ladder, ever, even when you lose some games. You're High or Top Master when you play against GM players on the ladder. Personally, the thing that holds me back from becoming a better player is my mechanics. I think too slow and act too slow, and my macro and micro get slipped up. I make my decisions too slowly, execute them poorly, and read my opponent poorly. I know a few specific timing attacks and build orders kinda okay, which means I can beat any diamond leaguer and below, but they crumble in the face of superior opponents who use a combination of solid mechanics, snap decision making, and critical thinking that doesn't cause different parts of the game to stumble over each other. I can't micro a drop, macro, move my army, and make decisions at the same time. I can probably do 2, maybe 3 of those things at once, and not perfectly. This is what holds me back.
|
i'm not sure why there seems to be such an obsession with what magical x factors separate gm and masters. it's like people think that if they can fix "one thing" in their gameplay they'll magically rise to gm. gms do literally everything better than masters. just multiply your own game sense, micro, macro, knowledge of builds etc by several factors and that's how much you need to improve to get to gm yourself.
|
United Kingdom14103 Posts
On December 12 2012 19:14 Putty wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 17:27 Defenestrator wrote:On December 12 2012 16:03 Rickyvalle21 wrote:
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm. I don't think this is true at all. A diamond player can beat a bronze or even silver (possibly gold) player only using their mouse. I seriously doubt any non-pro could beat a low masters like that, and even then it would be very challenging. I think there's a difference in all areas, but the main difference is in unit control and multitask. I see Dragon beating a high diamond player on the eu server (which means master level on NA) using only the mouse and without wearing glasses (so one-handed and blind) :D
To start off, Diamond EU is way below Masters NA, EU is only slightly better than NA, and it only really makes a difference at a pro level.
Diamond compared to Masters is a massive change, Diamond players won't compare to a pro player like Dragon.
|
The difference between top master and GM is playing more at a certain time in the season.
|
On December 12 2012 16:09 FabledIntegral wrote:
Masters is an entire skillset in itself.
I can go pure reaper and beat pretty much any low masters in TvZ, TvT, or TvP.
I can do similar ridiculous strategies ZvX and PvX. Vs a low masters, I can completely dick around and throw units around at whim.
I'm not a GM either, just high masters.
There's a large skill gap between high masters and low masters. A very small skill gap between high masters (rank 1-3) and low GM (100-200). Once you eclipse 100 GM, there is once again a large skill gap.
|
On December 12 2012 17:27 Defenestrator wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2012 16:03 Rickyvalle21 wrote:
The difference between a low master and a high master is about just as big as bronze to diamond. A low master literally has no chance vs a high master. With that being said if it took you 1 year to get from bronze to master then it will probably take you another year to get from master to gm. I don't think this is true at all. A diamond player can beat a bronze or even silver (possibly gold) player only using their mouse. I seriously doubt any non-pro could beat a low masters like that, and even then it would be very challenging. I think there's a difference in all areas, but the main difference is in unit control and multitask.
Look up lastshadow mouse only. He beats a masters with his mouse.
|
Canada1184 Posts
There's really a massive knowledge difference between masters and gm. Most low-mid masters players really have a superficial (at best) understanding of the matchups and of the purpose of their builds, and how to react in various situations.
|
Winning at a high level is primarily about:
(1) Efficient build orders down to the timing on every last unit and building, including great detail in all possible branches and responses,
(2) Executing that build order cleanly for maximum supply and crisp timing attacks, and
(3) Unit control and getting maximum efficiency in your engagements.
Players have different strengths and weaknesses, but the combination of skills that a GM brings to the table is going to be better than what a high Masters player offers.
For example, I'm a high Masters player and I know exactly what's holding me back. I'm slow on the keyboard and innacurate with my mouse, I don't use camera hotkeys which slows me down further, I have poor micro including bad forcefielding instincts, no ability to micro a warp prism, pathetic blink micro, and merely passable multi-tasking. I also tend to rush into attacks rather than focusing on positioning and taking perfect engagements.
I'm just as strong as many GM players in terms of build order efficiency because that's an aspect that I really focus on. My execution for the first 10 minutes or so is usually close to perfect, and my late-game transitions are timely. But when you look at my forcefields as compared to a player like Minigun or my warp prism control as compared to a player like Leiya, it's not even close. They consistently win fights that I would lose.
|
Pretty high masters here, I have played both high masters and low masters fairly recently and in general it is just that high masters know how to respond and will dictate the flow of the game as they wish. It's possible to be low masters and still be around the level of high diamond, twas the case for me for a while. From games I have played vs pro players and GM's (not many tbh) the difference is quite large however if the GM player messes up he can easily lose to a mid master. In a macro game the higher skilled player will dominate; similar to a diamond vs a gold (bronze is a bit extreme). When you reach mid masters improvement is a whole new thing than before. Until there you can improve just by making less mistakes but to improve past there you need too make nearly no mistakes, capitalize on your opponents mistakes and have solid mechanics to improve on. I think Grand masters have just developed every skill to a greater level generally, the most important of which is decision making some of their mechanics are the same as high masters. But to get to gsl standard..... ye you need pretty flawless mechanics and know the best decisions to make. I made it from low masters to a 900 point master with a really good w/l fairly quick so contrary to what some people say i think low masters to high masters is not gonna take you a year if you play allot.... but after you reach high masters you will progress slowly; very slowly. Be prepared for a long haul 
|
On December 15 2012 03:15 figaro wrote:Pretty high masters here, I have played both high masters and low masters fairly recently and in general it is just that high masters know how to respond and will dictate the flow of the game as they wish. It's possible to be low masters and still be around the level of high diamond, twas the case for me for a while. From games I have played vs pro players and GM's (not many tbh) the difference is quite large however if the GM player messes up he can easily lose to a mid master. In a macro game the higher skilled player will dominate; similar to a diamond vs a gold (bronze is a bit extreme). When you reach mid masters improvement is a whole new thing than before. Until there you can improve just by making less mistakes but to improve past there you need too make nearly no mistakes, capitalize on your opponents mistakes and have solid mechanics to improve on. I think Grand masters have just developed every skill to a greater level generally, the most important of which is decision making some of their mechanics are the same as high masters. But to get to gsl standard..... ye you need pretty flawless mechanics and know the best decisions to make. I made it from low masters to a 900 point master with a really good w/l fairly quick so contrary to what some people say i think low masters to high masters is not gonna take you a year if you play allot.... but after you reach high masters you will progress slowly; very slowly. Be prepared for a long haul
I agree with everything you say, but 900 points isn't high masters, it's mid. I'm 2000 MMR and 900 points (if I spent bonus pool haha). And 2000 MMR is actually below the halfway point between Master<->GM. And I have a good winrate (nearly 60% last time I checked).
High masters is like 2400+ MMR, or >~1.2k points I believe. Other than that your post is most true
|
On December 15 2012 03:32 Mavvie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2012 03:15 figaro wrote:Pretty high masters here, I have played both high masters and low masters fairly recently and in general it is just that high masters know how to respond and will dictate the flow of the game as they wish. It's possible to be low masters and still be around the level of high diamond, twas the case for me for a while. From games I have played vs pro players and GM's (not many tbh) the difference is quite large however if the GM player messes up he can easily lose to a mid master. In a macro game the higher skilled player will dominate; similar to a diamond vs a gold (bronze is a bit extreme). When you reach mid masters improvement is a whole new thing than before. Until there you can improve just by making less mistakes but to improve past there you need too make nearly no mistakes, capitalize on your opponents mistakes and have solid mechanics to improve on. I think Grand masters have just developed every skill to a greater level generally, the most important of which is decision making some of their mechanics are the same as high masters. But to get to gsl standard..... ye you need pretty flawless mechanics and know the best decisions to make. I made it from low masters to a 900 point master with a really good w/l fairly quick so contrary to what some people say i think low masters to high masters is not gonna take you a year if you play allot.... but after you reach high masters you will progress slowly; very slowly. Be prepared for a long haul I agree with everything you say, but 900 points isn't high masters, it's mid. I'm 2000 MMR and 900 points (if I spent bonus pool haha). And 2000 MMR is actually below the halfway point between Master<->GM. And I have a good winrate (nearly 60% last time I checked). High masters is like 2400+ MMR, or >~1.2k points I believe. Other than that your post is most true
I'm 2385 and 1.25k so I think you're about right on the translation, I consider myself mid masters though. Not really "high" if I'm still 300 points away from GM.
Theres about a 1100 MMR gap between masters and GM, and I have a theory that the skill gap between each league bronze to diamond is worth about 100MMR and diamond to masters about 150MMR.
|
On December 13 2012 17:39 Blazinghand wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2012 17:03 Keilkan wrote:
I'd also like to ask the question; When are you High Master? - When are you TOP master? When are you Mid Master?
Its been a bit hard to pry out information about how many Masters league players there actually are, yet a sound number ranges from 8-9000 per server. Cutting the number down severely, we'll have a good safety net I recon. Since there's 5 servers total, we can assume that at least 30.000 accounts are currently in Masters or GrandMasters.
So are you Mid-Master when you're top 15.000 in the world, or do you need to go higher?
When are you High Masters?
Currently SC2 ranks lists me as ~3800 in the world with ~840 points.
You're Low Masters if you can lose a few games in a row and start seeing diamond leaguers. This is where I am. You're Mid Master when you stop seeing Diamond Leaguers on the ladder, ever, even when you lose some games. You're High or Top Master when you play against GM players on the ladder.
With the expanded match-making which increased the level of variance in opponent MMRs, mid masters players can still see high diamond opponents pretty frequently. It's really only top masters that will see frequent GM players, where its otherwise fairly rare for high masters. And top masters really are just low GM players barely out of range of promotion.
|
The Low-Mid-High master lines are really hard to draw out. Some go by MMR, some go by just who they get matched vs. Almost everyone's definition will be similar but also have differences. I usually consider low masters almost no different from high diamonds as they make a lot of mistakes, can't handle more than 1 battle-front and usually lack in macro.
Mid-masters is when I feel you're really on your way up. Mid-masters already will win a great deal of the time vs lower masters and are probably sitting around 700-1000 points on ladder right now. Top ones right now have between 1200-1500. Most all "top" or "high" masters are facing a decent amount of GMs because they're literally in the same MMR pool and thusly of comparable rank. You could really consider bottom 100 GM ranking to just be "The First 100" to hit that MMR rating. A lot of people don't ladder hardcore at the beginning of the season and thusly don't get into GM league right away (sometimes later if a spot opens) but once its locked, a lot of people who are otherwise perfectly capable of playing at that level get stuck in Masters instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
