|
On March 11 2013 09:43 oneofthem wrote:
at the time of the elephant article people like intotherainbow and other retired/obsolete bw players were still doing well and being talked about.
the gsl guys who are doing well now are iether former kespa trainees or very young and promising players who would have been drafted by proteams.
Lol I think saying intotherainbow was still doing well is a bit of an exaggeration. Just checked and the article was written May 12th 2011.
|
On March 11 2013 09:03 Maghetti wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 08:45 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 08:37 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:23 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 08:14 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:02 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 07:56 Maghetti wrote:
My persona view of the elephant in the room article is that you have to look at it in a sort of neo elephant way. At the time the article was written the level of competition in sc2 was much lower than it is now so it is not unreasonable to say the kespa players maybe would have quickly dominated at the time, but since the switch came much later we have to make adjustments for the article. The time frame and level of competition means expectations for the idea behind the article to be right has to be greatly extended. Another thing the article didn't account for is players who do not like the game as much, are more distracted by things in their lives, and other similar issues that pop up. Bisu or Stork may just be past their prime, distracted, etc. Therefore, to me, for the elephant in the room article to be applied to what is happening in the sc2 scene today we must look at what eventually happens rather than focusing on the articles time lines. If kespa ultimately dominates the scene I will consider the article correct, even if not all kespa players dominate as expected.
With a kespa player winning the gsl and more and more kespa players making it to code a and code s I consider the correctness of the article still up in the air. But the article is wrong, it made bold predictions that didn't come true. What you are basically doing is editing the article so it makes more reasonable predictions that are likely to come true. If it made reasonable predictions that accounted for everything you have stated in the first place then it could be correct. At this moment it not unreasonable that eventually Kespa will get the upper hand, hell everyone believes that it will eventually happen. Incorrect. The article does not apply to the here and now. It simply doesn't. Had the kespa players switched the day of this article and kespa players improved over time like they are now, only then would it be incorrect. So we can either say it was never tested, or we can try to adjust it to a new time frame. This is how you have to handle anything that is from a different time line. Constitions and laws have to be adjusted to new conditions appear. All modern day supporters of the elephant concept are neo elephanters because there is no other way to look at that article. This isn't constitutional law though, (even if it was, laws are adjusted and changed because the original was insufficient/not good enough/wrong in some areas.) It was a bold-prediction that gave zero shits for possible failure, they knew Kespa wouldn't switch at the time of the article, they gave zero shits about timeframe. They just outright predicted dominance when the switch happened and says so right there. Predicting that Kespa will over a long period of time eventually be the major force isn't anything that the Elephant article predicted at all (as they predicted "CRUSH" when they do switch).......it's a reasonable prediction that almost everyone would make (and did make to counter the Elephant article). Sorry but the specifics only apply to that time frame. Sure you can say they were "wrong" but the only people who cares about that are people who were against the article to begin with. The only thing that should matter is that they get to the point of dominance in a reasonable time frame. That is the heart of the article, that the kespa players are better and the elite of the kespa players are even better than that. This is still up in the air and undecided, but if you want to argue specifics by all means, it wont matter to anyone you are trying to convince. Saying kespas betters will eventually be better is perfectly reasonable and not something any denies. If that was only it's point no one would be slamming it. Read the article thoroughly once again if you want to see why people are slamming it because they threw caution out of the air. It states right there that they will dominate within a few months, and that didn't happen. People were against it because it made a lot of assumptions, and threw caution out of the air. Had they been more caution and reasonable, no one would be slamming it. Most people already believe the Elephant articles specific predictions are wrong....anyways...it's slowly dying. But it's still a fun little trash talk thing between kespa and esf. Well I hate to be the one to tell you but you're arguing with a shadow. The position kespa supporters hold is that reasonable position. You're not actually arguing against anyones position by pointing out the article specifics didn't happen.
Well, there is a wide range of Kespa supporters. I think many felt the article was applicable even during the switch I n 2012. Remember the WCS Korea threads when Kespa players won? There were dozens of elephant pictures posted everytime a Kespa players won and a lot of people predicted the GSL 5 would be 80% Kespa.
When that didn't happen, some of these posters have stopped posting and some have kept moving the goal posts. So no, I don't think you can make the statement that Kespa supporters hold is that reasonable position. Just as the same for eSF supporters, there was a wide range of expectations.
|
On March 11 2013 09:59 vthree wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 09:03 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:45 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 08:37 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:23 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 08:14 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:02 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 07:56 Maghetti wrote:
My persona view of the elephant in the room article is that you have to look at it in a sort of neo elephant way. At the time the article was written the level of competition in sc2 was much lower than it is now so it is not unreasonable to say the kespa players maybe would have quickly dominated at the time, but since the switch came much later we have to make adjustments for the article. The time frame and level of competition means expectations for the idea behind the article to be right has to be greatly extended. Another thing the article didn't account for is players who do not like the game as much, are more distracted by things in their lives, and other similar issues that pop up. Bisu or Stork may just be past their prime, distracted, etc. Therefore, to me, for the elephant in the room article to be applied to what is happening in the sc2 scene today we must look at what eventually happens rather than focusing on the articles time lines. If kespa ultimately dominates the scene I will consider the article correct, even if not all kespa players dominate as expected.
With a kespa player winning the gsl and more and more kespa players making it to code a and code s I consider the correctness of the article still up in the air. But the article is wrong, it made bold predictions that didn't come true. What you are basically doing is editing the article so it makes more reasonable predictions that are likely to come true. If it made reasonable predictions that accounted for everything you have stated in the first place then it could be correct. At this moment it not unreasonable that eventually Kespa will get the upper hand, hell everyone believes that it will eventually happen. Incorrect. The article does not apply to the here and now. It simply doesn't. Had the kespa players switched the day of this article and kespa players improved over time like they are now, only then would it be incorrect. So we can either say it was never tested, or we can try to adjust it to a new time frame. This is how you have to handle anything that is from a different time line. Constitions and laws have to be adjusted to new conditions appear. All modern day supporters of the elephant concept are neo elephanters because there is no other way to look at that article. This isn't constitutional law though, (even if it was, laws are adjusted and changed because the original was insufficient/not good enough/wrong in some areas.) It was a bold-prediction that gave zero shits for possible failure, they knew Kespa wouldn't switch at the time of the article, they gave zero shits about timeframe. They just outright predicted dominance when the switch happened and says so right there. Predicting that Kespa will over a long period of time eventually be the major force isn't anything that the Elephant article predicted at all (as they predicted "CRUSH" when they do switch).......it's a reasonable prediction that almost everyone would make (and did make to counter the Elephant article). Sorry but the specifics only apply to that time frame. Sure you can say they were "wrong" but the only people who cares about that are people who were against the article to begin with. The only thing that should matter is that they get to the point of dominance in a reasonable time frame. That is the heart of the article, that the kespa players are better and the elite of the kespa players are even better than that. This is still up in the air and undecided, but if you want to argue specifics by all means, it wont matter to anyone you are trying to convince. Saying kespas betters will eventually be better is perfectly reasonable and not something any denies. If that was only it's point no one would be slamming it. Read the article thoroughly once again if you want to see why people are slamming it because they threw caution out of the air. It states right there that they will dominate within a few months, and that didn't happen. People were against it because it made a lot of assumptions, and threw caution out of the air. Had they been more caution and reasonable, no one would be slamming it. Most people already believe the Elephant articles specific predictions are wrong....anyways...it's slowly dying. But it's still a fun little trash talk thing between kespa and esf. Well I hate to be the one to tell you but you're arguing with a shadow. The position kespa supporters hold is that reasonable position. You're not actually arguing against anyones position by pointing out the article specifics didn't happen. Well, there is a wide range of Kespa supporters. I think many felt the article was applicable even during the switch I n 2012. Remember the WCS Korea threads when Kespa players won? There were dozens of elephant pictures posted everytime a Kespa players won and a lot of people predicted the GSL 5 would be 80% Kespa. When that didn't happen, some of these posters have stopped posting and some have kept moving the goal posts. So no, I don't think you can make the statement that Kespa supporters hold is that reasonable position. Just as the same for eSF supporters, there was a wide range of expectations.
Fair enough on the wide range of expectations, though I would argue that many people were discovering they had to shift their position in this time. Also the elephant pictures would still be posted if the admins didn't put a stop to it. I love the elephant pictures personally.
|
opterown
Australia54784 Posts
On March 11 2013 10:11 Maghetti wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 09:59 vthree wrote:On March 11 2013 09:03 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:45 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 08:37 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:23 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 08:14 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:02 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 07:56 Maghetti wrote:
My persona view of the elephant in the room article is that you have to look at it in a sort of neo elephant way. At the time the article was written the level of competition in sc2 was much lower than it is now so it is not unreasonable to say the kespa players maybe would have quickly dominated at the time, but since the switch came much later we have to make adjustments for the article. The time frame and level of competition means expectations for the idea behind the article to be right has to be greatly extended. Another thing the article didn't account for is players who do not like the game as much, are more distracted by things in their lives, and other similar issues that pop up. Bisu or Stork may just be past their prime, distracted, etc. Therefore, to me, for the elephant in the room article to be applied to what is happening in the sc2 scene today we must look at what eventually happens rather than focusing on the articles time lines. If kespa ultimately dominates the scene I will consider the article correct, even if not all kespa players dominate as expected.
With a kespa player winning the gsl and more and more kespa players making it to code a and code s I consider the correctness of the article still up in the air. But the article is wrong, it made bold predictions that didn't come true. What you are basically doing is editing the article so it makes more reasonable predictions that are likely to come true. If it made reasonable predictions that accounted for everything you have stated in the first place then it could be correct. At this moment it not unreasonable that eventually Kespa will get the upper hand, hell everyone believes that it will eventually happen. Incorrect. The article does not apply to the here and now. It simply doesn't. Had the kespa players switched the day of this article and kespa players improved over time like they are now, only then would it be incorrect. So we can either say it was never tested, or we can try to adjust it to a new time frame. This is how you have to handle anything that is from a different time line. Constitions and laws have to be adjusted to new conditions appear. All modern day supporters of the elephant concept are neo elephanters because there is no other way to look at that article. This isn't constitutional law though, (even if it was, laws are adjusted and changed because the original was insufficient/not good enough/wrong in some areas.) It was a bold-prediction that gave zero shits for possible failure, they knew Kespa wouldn't switch at the time of the article, they gave zero shits about timeframe. They just outright predicted dominance when the switch happened and says so right there. Predicting that Kespa will over a long period of time eventually be the major force isn't anything that the Elephant article predicted at all (as they predicted "CRUSH" when they do switch).......it's a reasonable prediction that almost everyone would make (and did make to counter the Elephant article). Sorry but the specifics only apply to that time frame. Sure you can say they were "wrong" but the only people who cares about that are people who were against the article to begin with. The only thing that should matter is that they get to the point of dominance in a reasonable time frame. That is the heart of the article, that the kespa players are better and the elite of the kespa players are even better than that. This is still up in the air and undecided, but if you want to argue specifics by all means, it wont matter to anyone you are trying to convince. Saying kespas betters will eventually be better is perfectly reasonable and not something any denies. If that was only it's point no one would be slamming it. Read the article thoroughly once again if you want to see why people are slamming it because they threw caution out of the air. It states right there that they will dominate within a few months, and that didn't happen. People were against it because it made a lot of assumptions, and threw caution out of the air. Had they been more caution and reasonable, no one would be slamming it. Most people already believe the Elephant articles specific predictions are wrong....anyways...it's slowly dying. But it's still a fun little trash talk thing between kespa and esf. Well I hate to be the one to tell you but you're arguing with a shadow. The position kespa supporters hold is that reasonable position. You're not actually arguing against anyones position by pointing out the article specifics didn't happen. Well, there is a wide range of Kespa supporters. I think many felt the article was applicable even during the switch I n 2012. Remember the WCS Korea threads when Kespa players won? There were dozens of elephant pictures posted everytime a Kespa players won and a lot of people predicted the GSL 5 would be 80% Kespa. When that didn't happen, some of these posters have stopped posting and some have kept moving the goal posts. So no, I don't think you can make the statement that Kespa supporters hold is that reasonable position. Just as the same for eSF supporters, there was a wide range of expectations. Fair enough on the wide range of expectations, though I would argue that many people were discovering they had to shift their position in this time. Also the elephant pictures would still be posted if the admins didn't put a stop to it. I love the elephant pictures personally.
well that should be fairly obvious why, being a kespa supporter. there are many who dislike them
|
|
|
On March 11 2013 10:11 Maghetti wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 09:59 vthree wrote:On March 11 2013 09:03 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:45 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 08:37 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:23 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 08:14 Maghetti wrote:On March 11 2013 08:02 Thrillz wrote:On March 11 2013 07:56 Maghetti wrote:
My persona view of the elephant in the room article is that you have to look at it in a sort of neo elephant way. At the time the article was written the level of competition in sc2 was much lower than it is now so it is not unreasonable to say the kespa players maybe would have quickly dominated at the time, but since the switch came much later we have to make adjustments for the article. The time frame and level of competition means expectations for the idea behind the article to be right has to be greatly extended. Another thing the article didn't account for is players who do not like the game as much, are more distracted by things in their lives, and other similar issues that pop up. Bisu or Stork may just be past their prime, distracted, etc. Therefore, to me, for the elephant in the room article to be applied to what is happening in the sc2 scene today we must look at what eventually happens rather than focusing on the articles time lines. If kespa ultimately dominates the scene I will consider the article correct, even if not all kespa players dominate as expected.
With a kespa player winning the gsl and more and more kespa players making it to code a and code s I consider the correctness of the article still up in the air. But the article is wrong, it made bold predictions that didn't come true. What you are basically doing is editing the article so it makes more reasonable predictions that are likely to come true. If it made reasonable predictions that accounted for everything you have stated in the first place then it could be correct. At this moment it not unreasonable that eventually Kespa will get the upper hand, hell everyone believes that it will eventually happen. Incorrect. The article does not apply to the here and now. It simply doesn't. Had the kespa players switched the day of this article and kespa players improved over time like they are now, only then would it be incorrect. So we can either say it was never tested, or we can try to adjust it to a new time frame. This is how you have to handle anything that is from a different time line. Constitions and laws have to be adjusted to new conditions appear. All modern day supporters of the elephant concept are neo elephanters because there is no other way to look at that article. This isn't constitutional law though, (even if it was, laws are adjusted and changed because the original was insufficient/not good enough/wrong in some areas.) It was a bold-prediction that gave zero shits for possible failure, they knew Kespa wouldn't switch at the time of the article, they gave zero shits about timeframe. They just outright predicted dominance when the switch happened and says so right there. Predicting that Kespa will over a long period of time eventually be the major force isn't anything that the Elephant article predicted at all (as they predicted "CRUSH" when they do switch).......it's a reasonable prediction that almost everyone would make (and did make to counter the Elephant article). Sorry but the specifics only apply to that time frame. Sure you can say they were "wrong" but the only people who cares about that are people who were against the article to begin with. The only thing that should matter is that they get to the point of dominance in a reasonable time frame. That is the heart of the article, that the kespa players are better and the elite of the kespa players are even better than that. This is still up in the air and undecided, but if you want to argue specifics by all means, it wont matter to anyone you are trying to convince. Saying kespas betters will eventually be better is perfectly reasonable and not something any denies. If that was only it's point no one would be slamming it. Read the article thoroughly once again if you want to see why people are slamming it because they threw caution out of the air. It states right there that they will dominate within a few months, and that didn't happen. People were against it because it made a lot of assumptions, and threw caution out of the air. Had they been more caution and reasonable, no one would be slamming it. Most people already believe the Elephant articles specific predictions are wrong....anyways...it's slowly dying. But it's still a fun little trash talk thing between kespa and esf. Well I hate to be the one to tell you but you're arguing with a shadow. The position kespa supporters hold is that reasonable position. You're not actually arguing against anyones position by pointing out the article specifics didn't happen. Well, there is a wide range of Kespa supporters. I think many felt the article was applicable even during the switch I n 2012. Remember the WCS Korea threads when Kespa players won? There were dozens of elephant pictures posted everytime a Kespa players won and a lot of people predicted the GSL 5 would be 80% Kespa. When that didn't happen, some of these posters have stopped posting and some have kept moving the goal posts. So no, I don't think you can make the statement that Kespa supporters hold is that reasonable position. Just as the same for eSF supporters, there was a wide range of expectations. Fair enough on the wide range of expectations, though I would argue that many people were discovering they had to shift their position in this time. Also the elephant pictures would still be posted if the admins didn't put a stop to it. I love the elephant pictures personally.
I thought the elephant pictures were quite funny as well (even in this thread with the upside down one, etc). But there was just too much of it in the WCS threads.
As with regards to the training, although the article did highlight Kespa training. It also stated that because some of the eSF pros were just not talented enough to play BW (thus their switch) so they were just innately less talent in RTS. So no amount of training would enable to them play with TLBS when they switched. And I think a lot of the eSF fans had problems with that statement. As it has been shown, the 'talent'/skillset is not identical for the 2 games. Although obviously a lot of the mechanical skills translate over.
|
On March 11 2013 08:20 theMagus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 07:16 HolyArrow wrote:On March 11 2013 06:35 VManOfMana wrote: On March 11 2013 04:55 HolyArrow wrote:On March 10 2013 22:38 figq wrote:On March 10 2013 22:22 vthree wrote:
I am not sure I would consider people who visit TL an average SC2 fan. They(we) are not. We are something like 20-30k, at most 50k, and the large SC2 population is in the low millions. There's a huge number of them who don't know yet that the GSL exists. (: On March 10 2013 22:23 opterown wrote:
the prediction was not that kespa would become a major factor, it would become the unquestioned dominant factor very soon as it switched I know, at face value that prediction was clearly incorrect. Some meaning of that article persists though - that the scene was incomplete. And I say that saying the scene was "incomplete" just because there were good players playing a different game of the same genre is idiotic. It would be nice if you didn't ignore my previous post, unless it was just too hard for you to respond to. So I guess the LoL scene is incomplete because of Dota 2, the CS 1.6 scene was incomplete because of Quake and other FPSes, the list goes on. All you're doing is dealing in hypotheticals, which is stupid. Let's try to make this as clear as possible for you. You said that we weren't actually seeing the best of SC2 back in the day because there was a bunch of untapped SC2 talent playing a different game. Let's apply this shitty logic more broadly and see how stupid it is. I am going to take exactly what you said and replace words, while keeping the core logic intact. "A major portion of acting talent was missing from the movie scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of movie acting. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there's a whole other scene of acting (theater) that can claim its stake on what "the best" really means." "A major portion of FPS talent was missing from the CS 1.6 scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of CS 1.6. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there are whole other scenes of FPSes that can claim their stakes on what "the best" really means.""A major portion of LoL talent was missing from the LoL scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of LoL. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there are whole other scenes of MOBAs that can claim their stakes on what "the best" really means."Your logic singlehandedly undermines the accomplishments of the respective participants of almost any activity, because, as you say, if a bunch of people are competing in activity X, and there are other talented people doing similar activities Y and Z, then the best of activity X aren't actually "the best" because who knows what would happen if people doing activities Y and Z also switched to doing activity X. Your analogy falls down because you assume X and Y are unrelated groups, and being "the best" is a deliberate call. Generally speaking, the CS and Halo scenes, the Smash and Street Fighter scenes, and other "similar" scenes developed in parallel. This is not the case with the BW and SCII scenes, where one of them pretty much branched off the other from the bottom of the ranks. It was well stablished that the Korean Brood War was the single most skillfull and competitive RTS scene in the world. Thats what made them "the best", rather than a deliberate call between game fanboys. It was also well stablished that within the Korean RTS scene, KeSPA teams had the best players. Either because of talent, hard work, or both. WCG was a yearly reminder of how far Korea was compared to the rest of the world. The Courage tournament was proof that KeSPA had the best players within Korea. At the time the Elephant article was written, the Starcraft II eSports scene was mainly made out of former BW players: the foreigners who were crushed in WCG, and the Koreans who struggled to stay competitive. If you know where a lot of these players came from, and saw them compete prior to SCII, you don't need to be a genius to deduce that moving to the new game while you can is the smartest move. Because learning from history, its also only a matter of time before the foreigner scene becomes competitively irrelevant (this is what I consider the other Elephant in the Room). The elephant article also explains why KeSPa players are the best: hard work and dedication. There is a whole section explaining this, but it gets lost with the constant bickering on specific players and counting months. The article singles out S-class players, but not because they will magically transition into SCII S-class. Flash and Jaedong were the epitome the epitome of KeSPA work ethic. Fantasy was the best example of a team working together to dissect an opponent. If anything, Roro winning GSL is a great example of how a player can reach the top with both hard work and help from his coaches, team, and other team's players. From the interview, you can see there was a lot of preparation. The Elephant article was brutally written, but it was honest and based on facts. It was incendiary because it revealed an inconvenient truth to the hordes of new TL posters who were oblivious or simply refused to acknowledge eSports were a reality before and without Starcraft II and Blizzard's intervention. On the other hand, the article did not consider other factors. KeSPAs delayed adoption of SCII too much, first by Blizzard and then hybrid Proleague. There is also a new generational transition that brought extremely talented players like Life. I wouldn't be surprised if under the right circumstances, Life would make it to be a top BW player. I assume X and Y are unrelated groups? What exactly is your definition of "related"? Lol. I explicitly use terms like "similar activities" and "different game of the same genre", and for the purposes of the analogy, that's related enough. You're trying to discredit my analogy by conveniently nitpicking a very specific point about how the scenes developed (developed in parallel vs. branched off), but the main point is that figq's logic can basically be distilled down to what I summarized it to be. The only difference between scenes developing in parallel vs. branching off is that you can observe that the players who branched off into SC2 were the ones who weren't doing well in BW so they had to switch, so you have a tangible skill comparison somewhere down the line. However, that doesn't change the fact that my analogy involves groups doing similar activities and hence will have roughly similar abilities, similar enough to transfer from one activity to the other. And just having one tangible skill comparison in Starcraft's case hardly even matters at this point because it's already been seen that skill in BW doesn't perfectly correlate at all to skill in SC2. You claim that the elephant article was based on facts, but that's only a half-truth. It certainly did USE facts, but just because someone uses facts in their argument doesn't make the argument itself valid. One can use facts and then jump to a nonsensical conclusion by using those facts, giving the conclusion a false aura of legitimacy. it's sad that all the things he mentioned about the history of broodwar flew by you. your analogies didn't even come close to being similar to this kespa situation in sc2. 
What you perceive to have flown over my head isn't the sad thing here.
|
On March 11 2013 07:16 HolyArrow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 06:35 VManOfMana wrote: On March 11 2013 04:55 HolyArrow wrote:On March 10 2013 22:38 figq wrote:On March 10 2013 22:22 vthree wrote:
I am not sure I would consider people who visit TL an average SC2 fan. They(we) are not. We are something like 20-30k, at most 50k, and the large SC2 population is in the low millions. There's a huge number of them who don't know yet that the GSL exists. (: On March 10 2013 22:23 opterown wrote:
the prediction was not that kespa would become a major factor, it would become the unquestioned dominant factor very soon as it switched I know, at face value that prediction was clearly incorrect. Some meaning of that article persists though - that the scene was incomplete. And I say that saying the scene was "incomplete" just because there were good players playing a different game of the same genre is idiotic. It would be nice if you didn't ignore my previous post, unless it was just too hard for you to respond to. So I guess the LoL scene is incomplete because of Dota 2, the CS 1.6 scene was incomplete because of Quake and other FPSes, the list goes on. All you're doing is dealing in hypotheticals, which is stupid. Let's try to make this as clear as possible for you. You said that we weren't actually seeing the best of SC2 back in the day because there was a bunch of untapped SC2 talent playing a different game. Let's apply this shitty logic more broadly and see how stupid it is. I am going to take exactly what you said and replace words, while keeping the core logic intact. "A major portion of acting talent was missing from the movie scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of movie acting. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there's a whole other scene of acting (theater) that can claim its stake on what "the best" really means." "A major portion of FPS talent was missing from the CS 1.6 scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of CS 1.6. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there are whole other scenes of FPSes that can claim their stakes on what "the best" really means.""A major portion of LoL talent was missing from the LoL scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of LoL. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there are whole other scenes of MOBAs that can claim their stakes on what "the best" really means."Your logic singlehandedly undermines the accomplishments of the respective participants of almost any activity, because, as you say, if a bunch of people are competing in activity X, and there are other talented people doing similar activities Y and Z, then the best of activity X aren't actually "the best" because who knows what would happen if people doing activities Y and Z also switched to doing activity X. Your analogy falls down because you assume X and Y are unrelated groups, and being "the best" is a deliberate call. Generally speaking, the CS and Halo scenes, the Smash and Street Fighter scenes, and other "similar" scenes developed in parallel. This is not the case with the BW and SCII scenes, where one of them pretty much branched off the other from the bottom of the ranks. It was well stablished that the Korean Brood War was the single most skillfull and competitive RTS scene in the world. Thats what made them "the best", rather than a deliberate call between game fanboys. It was also well stablished that within the Korean RTS scene, KeSPA teams had the best players. Either because of talent, hard work, or both. WCG was a yearly reminder of how far Korea was compared to the rest of the world. The Courage tournament was proof that KeSPA had the best players within Korea. At the time the Elephant article was written, the Starcraft II eSports scene was mainly made out of former BW players: the foreigners who were crushed in WCG, and the Koreans who struggled to stay competitive. If you know where a lot of these players came from, and saw them compete prior to SCII, you don't need to be a genius to deduce that moving to the new game while you can is the smartest move. Because learning from history, its also only a matter of time before the foreigner scene becomes competitively irrelevant (this is what I consider the other Elephant in the Room). The elephant article also explains why KeSPa players are the best: hard work and dedication. There is a whole section explaining this, but it gets lost with the constant bickering on specific players and counting months. The article singles out S-class players, but not because they will magically transition into SCII S-class. Flash and Jaedong were the epitome the epitome of KeSPA work ethic. Fantasy was the best example of a team working together to dissect an opponent. If anything, Roro winning GSL is a great example of how a player can reach the top with both hard work and help from his coaches, team, and other team's players. From the interview, you can see there was a lot of preparation. The Elephant article was brutally written, but it was honest and based on facts. It was incendiary because it revealed an inconvenient truth to the hordes of new TL posters who were oblivious or simply refused to acknowledge eSports were a reality before and without Starcraft II and Blizzard's intervention. On the other hand, the article did not consider other factors. KeSPAs delayed adoption of SCII too much, first by Blizzard and then hybrid Proleague. There is also a new generational transition that brought extremely talented players like Life. I wouldn't be surprised if under the right circumstances, Life would make it to be a top BW player. I assume X and Y are unrelated groups? What exactly is your definition of "related"? Lol. I explicitly use terms like "similar activities" and "different game of the same genre", and for the purposes of the analogy, that's related enough. You're trying to discredit my analogy by conveniently nitpicking a very specific point about how the scenes developed (developed in parallel vs. branched off), but the main point is that figq's logic can basically be distilled down to what I summarized it to be. The only difference between scenes developing in parallel vs. branching off is that you can observe that the players who branched off into SC2 were the ones who weren't doing well in BW so they had to switch, so you have a tangible skill comparison somewhere down the line. However, that doesn't change the fact that my analogy involves groups doing similar activities and hence will have roughly similar abilities, similar enough to transfer from one activity to the other. And just having one tangible skill comparison in Starcraft's case hardly even matters at this point because it's already been seen that skill in BW doesn't perfectly correlate at all to skill in SC2. You claim that the elephant article was based on facts, but that's only a half-truth. It certainly did USE facts, but just because someone uses facts in their argument doesn't make the argument itself valid. One can use facts and then jump to a nonsensical conclusion by using those facts, giving the conclusion a false aura of legitimacy.
You just explained yourself why your analogy has no credit: it is an oversimplifcation that does not consider the fact that the Starcraft scene, unlike ther scenes, has had an actual comparison of skills. What you call "nitpicking" actually makes a huge difference, because it is the illustration of the Elephant article's conclusion.
Premise 1: more practice translates to more skill.
Premise 2: KeSPA players practice more.
Conclusion: KeSPA players will dominate, just like how it was before SCII was released.
The article does not state the premise that playing BW inherently means more skill, or that BW skill translates into SC2 skill. What the artcle says is that being a KeSPA player means having a stricter practice regime, which is what translates into skill.
In fact, the article does say that if non-Kespa players negate premise 2, the conclusion will not happen:
But unless they can keep it up in the less structured environment of SC2 houses, they will certainly fall behind when high-level BW pros bring over their work ethic and determination.
|
On March 11 2013 14:11 VManOfMana wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 07:16 HolyArrow wrote:On March 11 2013 06:35 VManOfMana wrote: On March 11 2013 04:55 HolyArrow wrote:On March 10 2013 22:38 figq wrote:On March 10 2013 22:22 vthree wrote:
I am not sure I would consider people who visit TL an average SC2 fan. They(we) are not. We are something like 20-30k, at most 50k, and the large SC2 population is in the low millions. There's a huge number of them who don't know yet that the GSL exists. (: On March 10 2013 22:23 opterown wrote:
the prediction was not that kespa would become a major factor, it would become the unquestioned dominant factor very soon as it switched I know, at face value that prediction was clearly incorrect. Some meaning of that article persists though - that the scene was incomplete. And I say that saying the scene was "incomplete" just because there were good players playing a different game of the same genre is idiotic. It would be nice if you didn't ignore my previous post, unless it was just too hard for you to respond to. So I guess the LoL scene is incomplete because of Dota 2, the CS 1.6 scene was incomplete because of Quake and other FPSes, the list goes on. All you're doing is dealing in hypotheticals, which is stupid. Let's try to make this as clear as possible for you. You said that we weren't actually seeing the best of SC2 back in the day because there was a bunch of untapped SC2 talent playing a different game. Let's apply this shitty logic more broadly and see how stupid it is. I am going to take exactly what you said and replace words, while keeping the core logic intact. "A major portion of acting talent was missing from the movie scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of movie acting. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there's a whole other scene of acting (theater) that can claim its stake on what "the best" really means." "A major portion of FPS talent was missing from the CS 1.6 scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of CS 1.6. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there are whole other scenes of FPSes that can claim their stakes on what "the best" really means.""A major portion of LoL talent was missing from the LoL scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of LoL. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there are whole other scenes of MOBAs that can claim their stakes on what "the best" really means."Your logic singlehandedly undermines the accomplishments of the respective participants of almost any activity, because, as you say, if a bunch of people are competing in activity X, and there are other talented people doing similar activities Y and Z, then the best of activity X aren't actually "the best" because who knows what would happen if people doing activities Y and Z also switched to doing activity X. Your analogy falls down because you assume X and Y are unrelated groups, and being "the best" is a deliberate call. Generally speaking, the CS and Halo scenes, the Smash and Street Fighter scenes, and other "similar" scenes developed in parallel. This is not the case with the BW and SCII scenes, where one of them pretty much branched off the other from the bottom of the ranks. It was well stablished that the Korean Brood War was the single most skillfull and competitive RTS scene in the world. Thats what made them "the best", rather than a deliberate call between game fanboys. It was also well stablished that within the Korean RTS scene, KeSPA teams had the best players. Either because of talent, hard work, or both. WCG was a yearly reminder of how far Korea was compared to the rest of the world. The Courage tournament was proof that KeSPA had the best players within Korea. At the time the Elephant article was written, the Starcraft II eSports scene was mainly made out of former BW players: the foreigners who were crushed in WCG, and the Koreans who struggled to stay competitive. If you know where a lot of these players came from, and saw them compete prior to SCII, you don't need to be a genius to deduce that moving to the new game while you can is the smartest move. Because learning from history, its also only a matter of time before the foreigner scene becomes competitively irrelevant (this is what I consider the other Elephant in the Room). The elephant article also explains why KeSPa players are the best: hard work and dedication. There is a whole section explaining this, but it gets lost with the constant bickering on specific players and counting months. The article singles out S-class players, but not because they will magically transition into SCII S-class. Flash and Jaedong were the epitome the epitome of KeSPA work ethic. Fantasy was the best example of a team working together to dissect an opponent. If anything, Roro winning GSL is a great example of how a player can reach the top with both hard work and help from his coaches, team, and other team's players. From the interview, you can see there was a lot of preparation. The Elephant article was brutally written, but it was honest and based on facts. It was incendiary because it revealed an inconvenient truth to the hordes of new TL posters who were oblivious or simply refused to acknowledge eSports were a reality before and without Starcraft II and Blizzard's intervention. On the other hand, the article did not consider other factors. KeSPAs delayed adoption of SCII too much, first by Blizzard and then hybrid Proleague. There is also a new generational transition that brought extremely talented players like Life. I wouldn't be surprised if under the right circumstances, Life would make it to be a top BW player. I assume X and Y are unrelated groups? What exactly is your definition of "related"? Lol. I explicitly use terms like "similar activities" and "different game of the same genre", and for the purposes of the analogy, that's related enough. You're trying to discredit my analogy by conveniently nitpicking a very specific point about how the scenes developed (developed in parallel vs. branched off), but the main point is that figq's logic can basically be distilled down to what I summarized it to be. The only difference between scenes developing in parallel vs. branching off is that you can observe that the players who branched off into SC2 were the ones who weren't doing well in BW so they had to switch, so you have a tangible skill comparison somewhere down the line. However, that doesn't change the fact that my analogy involves groups doing similar activities and hence will have roughly similar abilities, similar enough to transfer from one activity to the other. And just having one tangible skill comparison in Starcraft's case hardly even matters at this point because it's already been seen that skill in BW doesn't perfectly correlate at all to skill in SC2. You claim that the elephant article was based on facts, but that's only a half-truth. It certainly did USE facts, but just because someone uses facts in their argument doesn't make the argument itself valid. One can use facts and then jump to a nonsensical conclusion by using those facts, giving the conclusion a false aura of legitimacy. You just explained yourself why your analogy has no credit: it is an oversimplifcation that does not consider the fact that the Starcraft scene, unlike ther scenes, has had an actual comparison of skills. What you call "nitpicking" actually makes a huge difference, because it is the illustration of the Elephant article's conclusion. Premise 1: more practice translates to more skill. Premise 2: KeSPA players practice more. Conclusion: KeSPA players will dominate, just like how it was before SCII was released. The article does not state the premise that playing BW inherently means more skill, or that BW skill translates into SC2 skill. What the artcle says is that being a KeSPA player means having a stricter practice regime, which is what translates into skill. In fact, the article does say that if non-Kespa players negate premise 2, the conclusion will not happen: Show nested quote +
But unless they can keep it up in the less structured environment of SC2 houses, they will certainly fall behind when high-level BW pros bring over their work ethic and determination.
Awesome, I took the time to anticipate and directly address the counterpoint regarding the actual comparison of skills, and you go ahead and ignore the part where I address it,and claim that the counterpoint (which I brought up solely in anticipation of it being brought up by your side) now proves me wrong.
Put more simply, I anticipated the counterargument, I countered the counterargument, and you ignore the part where I counter the counterargument and just say "Oh look, you brought up the counterargument, and that counterargument proves yourself wrong. Ahha!"
Uh... ok. Why do I even bother?
That annoying ignoring of my countering the counterpoint aside, I do see what you're trying to say regarding work ethic and such. However, those subjects were hardly the focus of the article. The main focus of the article (and it's tagline, I might add) was that the competition of SC2 thus far had been a farce, blah blah blah, offensive shit, blah blah blah. I do agree that the players who practice the hardest and work the hardest should theoretically come out on top. Honestly, this isn't even why I started posting, and you're trying to drag me into a completely different argument that's barely relevant to the analogy I was making.
The original argument was regarding the stupid logic of "we weren't actually seeing 'the best' of SC2 because the Kespa players hadn't switched yet", and I still stand by the points I made regarding that. One annoying thing people do in arguments is nitpick every little point you try to make, hoping that the nitpicking less relevant, tangential points will somehow discredit your well-supported main point, and that's what is going on right now. I'm done posting about this because I've said all that I can say. If people want to twist common sense to somehow come to the conclusion that saying "the SC2 scene was incomplete" and "we weren't really seeing 'the best' of SC2" is true, then they're welcome to live in their ridiculous hypothetical-driven world.
|
For me, the interesting question right now is: what is the skill difference between KeSPA players and eSF players now and what will it be in the future?
It is not: does the KeSPA domination right now correspond to the domination that was expected by Intrigue in an article?
|
In before someone claims to "win" the "argument" by superior logic derived from his studies of philosophy.
|
On March 11 2013 14:56 HolyArrow wrote:The original argument was regarding the stupid logic of "we weren't actually seeing 'the best' of SC2 because the Kespa players hadn't switched yet", and I still stand by the points I made regarding that.
Why? Most of the top SC2 players today weren't at the top of the scene back when the article was written. Life, Parting, Symbol, DRG, Squirtle, Creator, to list several top ELO players today.
The articles was absolutely correct in saying that SC2 back then sucked because the overall talent wasn't there. The only difference from real life and hypotheticals in the article, is where the infusion of talent would come from. Instead of existing Kespa teams at the time, that talent infusion came from Kespa B-teamers, young progamer wannabes who chose SC2 instead of BW, and other avenues. If Kespa had made the switch on May of 2011 when the article came about, most of these talent would've likelygrown within Kespa teams who had the best funding for developing talent.
|
On March 11 2013 16:05 Daswollvieh wrote:
In before someone claims to "win" the "argument" by superior logic derived from his studies of philosophy.
I don't think this is reddit / r atheism.
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
Basically the summary of this entire thread after the games ended is
WHAT IF [insert scenario] THEN [insert obvious outcome], totally proves me right.
You can all stop now.
|
Kespa team have more players, practice more, and offer better salaries.
Thus, they will probably end up having the better players, but still, these elephant theory like bullshit claiming best BW/War3 players would become the best Starcraft II players has already been proven utterly false.
I predicted during beta that the best players would be B-teamers. And this, for a very simple rational reason : even assuming that the better BW/War3 player have a better individual chance of doing well in Sc2, they're so outnumbered that in the end their expected value among the top would still be inferior.
With HoTS, there will be more and more new players who haven't plaid any serious War3/BW, so these arguments will probably end just before Lotv.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On March 11 2013 15:57 Elroi wrote:
For me, the interesting question right now is: what is the skill difference between KeSPA players and eSF players now and what will it be in the future?
It is not: does the KeSPA domination right now correspond to the domination that was expected by Intrigue in an article?
What KeSPA domination? :o
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
|
On March 11 2013 19:08 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 15:57 Elroi wrote:
For me, the interesting question right now is: what is the skill difference between KeSPA players and eSF players now and what will it be in the future?
It is not: does the KeSPA domination right now correspond to the domination that was expected by Intrigue in an article? What KeSPA domination? :o
The one where a guy wins a series.
|
|
|
On March 11 2013 14:11 VManOfMana wrote:Show nested quote +On March 11 2013 07:16 HolyArrow wrote:On March 11 2013 06:35 VManOfMana wrote: On March 11 2013 04:55 HolyArrow wrote:On March 10 2013 22:38 figq wrote:On March 10 2013 22:22 vthree wrote:
I am not sure I would consider people who visit TL an average SC2 fan. They(we) are not. We are something like 20-30k, at most 50k, and the large SC2 population is in the low millions. There's a huge number of them who don't know yet that the GSL exists. (: On March 10 2013 22:23 opterown wrote:
the prediction was not that kespa would become a major factor, it would become the unquestioned dominant factor very soon as it switched I know, at face value that prediction was clearly incorrect. Some meaning of that article persists though - that the scene was incomplete. And I say that saying the scene was "incomplete" just because there were good players playing a different game of the same genre is idiotic. It would be nice if you didn't ignore my previous post, unless it was just too hard for you to respond to. So I guess the LoL scene is incomplete because of Dota 2, the CS 1.6 scene was incomplete because of Quake and other FPSes, the list goes on. All you're doing is dealing in hypotheticals, which is stupid. Let's try to make this as clear as possible for you. You said that we weren't actually seeing the best of SC2 back in the day because there was a bunch of untapped SC2 talent playing a different game. Let's apply this shitty logic more broadly and see how stupid it is. I am going to take exactly what you said and replace words, while keeping the core logic intact. "A major portion of acting talent was missing from the movie scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of movie acting. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there's a whole other scene of acting (theater) that can claim its stake on what "the best" really means." "A major portion of FPS talent was missing from the CS 1.6 scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of CS 1.6. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there are whole other scenes of FPSes that can claim their stakes on what "the best" really means.""A major portion of LoL talent was missing from the LoL scene, which meant we were not seeing really "the best" of LoL. We were crowning "the best", and ignoring the fact that there are whole other scenes of MOBAs that can claim their stakes on what "the best" really means."Your logic singlehandedly undermines the accomplishments of the respective participants of almost any activity, because, as you say, if a bunch of people are competing in activity X, and there are other talented people doing similar activities Y and Z, then the best of activity X aren't actually "the best" because who knows what would happen if people doing activities Y and Z also switched to doing activity X. Your analogy falls down because you assume X and Y are unrelated groups, and being "the best" is a deliberate call. Generally speaking, the CS and Halo scenes, the Smash and Street Fighter scenes, and other "similar" scenes developed in parallel. This is not the case with the BW and SCII scenes, where one of them pretty much branched off the other from the bottom of the ranks. It was well stablished that the Korean Brood War was the single most skillfull and competitive RTS scene in the world. Thats what made them "the best", rather than a deliberate call between game fanboys. It was also well stablished that within the Korean RTS scene, KeSPA teams had the best players. Either because of talent, hard work, or both. WCG was a yearly reminder of how far Korea was compared to the rest of the world. The Courage tournament was proof that KeSPA had the best players within Korea. At the time the Elephant article was written, the Starcraft II eSports scene was mainly made out of former BW players: the foreigners who were crushed in WCG, and the Koreans who struggled to stay competitive. If you know where a lot of these players came from, and saw them compete prior to SCII, you don't need to be a genius to deduce that moving to the new game while you can is the smartest move. Because learning from history, its also only a matter of time before the foreigner scene becomes competitively irrelevant (this is what I consider the other Elephant in the Room). The elephant article also explains why KeSPa players are the best: hard work and dedication. There is a whole section explaining this, but it gets lost with the constant bickering on specific players and counting months. The article singles out S-class players, but not because they will magically transition into SCII S-class. Flash and Jaedong were the epitome the epitome of KeSPA work ethic. Fantasy was the best example of a team working together to dissect an opponent. If anything, Roro winning GSL is a great example of how a player can reach the top with both hard work and help from his coaches, team, and other team's players. From the interview, you can see there was a lot of preparation. The Elephant article was brutally written, but it was honest and based on facts. It was incendiary because it revealed an inconvenient truth to the hordes of new TL posters who were oblivious or simply refused to acknowledge eSports were a reality before and without Starcraft II and Blizzard's intervention. On the other hand, the article did not consider other factors. KeSPAs delayed adoption of SCII too much, first by Blizzard and then hybrid Proleague. There is also a new generational transition that brought extremely talented players like Life. I wouldn't be surprised if under the right circumstances, Life would make it to be a top BW player. I assume X and Y are unrelated groups? What exactly is your definition of "related"? Lol. I explicitly use terms like "similar activities" and "different game of the same genre", and for the purposes of the analogy, that's related enough. You're trying to discredit my analogy by conveniently nitpicking a very specific point about how the scenes developed (developed in parallel vs. branched off), but the main point is that figq's logic can basically be distilled down to what I summarized it to be. The only difference between scenes developing in parallel vs. branching off is that you can observe that the players who branched off into SC2 were the ones who weren't doing well in BW so they had to switch, so you have a tangible skill comparison somewhere down the line. However, that doesn't change the fact that my analogy involves groups doing similar activities and hence will have roughly similar abilities, similar enough to transfer from one activity to the other. And just having one tangible skill comparison in Starcraft's case hardly even matters at this point because it's already been seen that skill in BW doesn't perfectly correlate at all to skill in SC2. You claim that the elephant article was based on facts, but that's only a half-truth. It certainly did USE facts, but just because someone uses facts in their argument doesn't make the argument itself valid. One can use facts and then jump to a nonsensical conclusion by using those facts, giving the conclusion a false aura of legitimacy. You just explained yourself why your analogy has no credit: it is an oversimplifcation that does not consider the fact that the Starcraft scene, unlike ther scenes, has had an actual comparison of skills. What you call "nitpicking" actually makes a huge difference, because it is the illustration of the Elephant article's conclusion. Premise 1: more practice translates to more skill. Premise 2: KeSPA players practice more. Conclusion: KeSPA players will dominate, just like how it was before SCII was released. The article does not state the premise that playing BW inherently means more skill, or that BW skill translates into SC2 skill. What the artcle says is that being a KeSPA player means having a stricter practice regime, which is what translates into skill. In fact, the article does say that if non-Kespa players negate premise 2, the conclusion will not happen: Show nested quote +
But unless they can keep it up in the less structured environment of SC2 houses, they will certainly fall behind when high-level BW pros bring over their work ethic and determination.
From the article " Among this group there are a notable few that CRUSH any other players in terms of raw talent and/or work ethic and/or ability to learn."
Because of the term raw talent, it does state the premise that S Class players inherently have more innate 'RTS' skill which would translate to SC2. I am not sure what else it can imply.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
