| Forum Index > SC2 General |
Chill
Calgary25991 Posts
It's got nothing to do with new players. You inferred that. Edit: I actually find it scary how many new TL members are inferring that they are being slighted against when in reality it is criticism for 99.999999% of the TL membership. Edit 2: To take this further, if a new TL member is scolded by a veteran, it seems they ignore the criticism altogether and play the victim. | ||
|
Zerksys
United States569 Posts
Edit: I feel like I should comment on this. Even though I agree with the original post 100% I have to stop to state something that I feel should have been added as a qualifier in the main post. Just because you followed brood war and played brood war for years doesn't mean you should automatically have a sense of overwhelming superiority over all other players. True understanding of starcraft only comes with time and practice. I knew players who were C+ at one point in BW who are now struggling to get into platinum league in SC2. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
| ||
|
Zevah
Argentina187 Posts
I should be on gold at most.... Diamond league looks like easy to achieve.. It should be the elite of SC2, not something where you can be easily. Either way... I think that comparing this to the ICCup is stupid... There's no point on doing it... There are awsome SC2 players that are 1200 Diamond and prolly are better than B. | ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On August 25 2010 02:19 Saracen wrote: You see, there's a huge difference between how much you win and how much you understand the game. Points and ranking are a good indicator of how much you win, but they do jack shit when it comes to reflecting your game knowledge. Thank you. Thank you so much. Arguing about who's right and who's wrong based on who has the bigger Diamond e-peen cannot end well. The best way to tell someone who knows what he's talking about from someone who doesn't, sadly, requires the reader to know a good deal about the game himself, so he can discriminate between promising ideas, facts, and complete bull. That, and knowing from reiterated interaction that someone is sensible (or not). | ||
|
TurpinOS
Canada1223 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:40 Tenryu wrote: Micro and Macro is a form of experience and practice. Of course he will win. Edit: Which is what Saracen is arguing about. "Nothing can replace experience" The discussion is not about who would win, its about who would be right in strategy, next time, at least try to read, you are just proving my point there, the experienced player with good micro and macro would win but still would not know as much as the other. Lets put it easy for you : Saracen : The most experienced player knows more about the game than the less experienced. Me : The most experienced would win (or would win more then lose), but doesnt necessarily knows more about the game, he is just better at it. Coaches, in any sports, tend to prove my example, they usually know more about strategies then their players (and by that I mean at a high level of competition), but still would get murdered playing the game against them. If that wasnt true, coaches in sports would be completely useless. | ||
|
GGDaverave
Scotland38 Posts
| ||
|
Tenryu
United States565 Posts
| ||
|
vyyye
Sweden3917 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:42 NihiloZero wrote: Perhaps you might also recognize that strong analysis can come from people with much lower rating as wells. Let's compare it to another game... A young pitcher in baseball may throw 105mph strikes, and such a player would be an elite all star -- but it doesn't mean that this pitcher would truly have a deep understanding of the game simply due to an ability to execute. Think of the movie Bull Durham with Tim Robbins as the rookie phenom and Kevin Costner as the more knowledgabIe, experienced, and less talented catcher. My point is that even the highest levels of execution might have some flaws that could be criticized by those who actually don't have the APM or practice time to perfect certain tactics or strategies. I freely admit that I am a weak player in terms of my win rate (partly owing to some early technical difficulties)... but I study the game, watch the commentaries, and feel I have enough sense (game & common) to make an occasional contribution to this thread that is worthwhile. And dismissing people because of their rank (or number of posts) is just cheap, weak, and intellectually dishonest. Obviously fools are going to post foolish things, but just because someone isn't a pro or recognized expert doesn't mean that they won't have incredibly profound thoughts to contribute to any given discussion. Difference between being a pro at Starcrat and being a pro pitcher is that while the pitcher can reach high levels by simply having perfect execution, the Starcraft player won't get anywhere without an understanding of the game. Compare it to chess instead, you won't know how to play chess until you've actually sat your ass down and played it, while you might pick up quite a few tidbits watching it's nothing like actually having experience. He's not even saying lower ranked players or low post count..ers cannot make contributions to strategy threads, but that being a diamond player just doesn't mean that you're right as diamond means fuck all, and if a really good player (any pro gamer) contradicts you, odds are he's right and you're not. Why? Because he's experienced. I don't know anything in life you can learn perfectly without getting experience. I can learn a few cooking recipes by heart, doesn't mean I can cook until I've actually made a few dishes and there's no fucking way I'll pretend I'm a better cook than a head chef, no matter how many cooking shows I've seen on TV. | ||
|
Scorcher2k
United States802 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:36 Tenryu wrote: Uh, i dont think he's saying its impossible. He's saying that there are too many people that obs and study the game rather then playing and learning by experience, which in my opinion, is much more effective then just studying. Thats where the whole "They don't know timings. They dont know production capabilities. They don't know about responding to situations given limited information." come in play. And obviously, if your a top gamer, you have those experiences down and it becomes second nature and you react instinctively to certain situations. I would much rather get tips and help from those people than the ones who think they know everything because they read forums and obs 1000 SC2 games. If you are playing at a diamond level then it isn't like you don't have any game experience and these are the people that he is making feel like shit with his elitist view. The difference between top players and mid diamond players is much more their ability to execute rather than their understanding of the game. It isn't very hard to learn about timing windows, build orders, counters, etc but it is hard to stay on top of it all and do what you need to during a game. He should not have focused on players simply because they aren't TOP PLAYERS but instead brought light to the mouth breathers who never have a wrong opinion. Sadly this thread seems very much like one of those posts. | ||
|
Bair
United States698 Posts
While "I'm a XXX point diamond" might not really be a valid thing to say now, as time goes on and the playerbase gets better asa whole, I think that this will be a legitimate way (if not a dick way) to backup what you are saying. | ||
|
Saracen
United States5139 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote: So you're saying that it is impossible to study a game in order to understand it? You really need to get the elitism in check. Why are you trying to single out players who by normal standards are good at this game and actually do understand it much better than the vast majority of the population to feel like shit instead of simply focusing on the know-it-alls who assert their opinions as fact. You know, the people crying "boo hoo elitism" are getting even more annoying than the alleged elitists. Yes, I am saying you have to play the damn game in order to understand it. Is it really so hard to come to terms with this concept? Is it really so hard to see that if you don't macro and micro properly, you're not going to be able to comment well on the viability of certain strategies since there are going to be flaws in your experience that dilute your perception of what works and what doesn't? Is it so hard to believe that no matter how many Day[9] dailies or HD/Husky commentaries you watch, you'll never have valuable insight to give unless you actually play the game? Here's I'll give you a little analogy to help you out. Let's say you love computer programming. You read every single book you can get your hands on about it. But you've never touched a computer in your life. Do you honestly think you're going to be able to write good code? Absolutely not. I promise you if you spend one ounce of the time you dedicate to theorycrafting and then whining when your ideas get shot down and complaining about elitism to actually sitting down and playing the game, you would understand what I'm saying. I really hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as "strategizing on a diamond level" when your mechanics are stuck in silver. Believe it or not, these things go hand in hand. With experience, you gain both, not just one or the other. There's no such thing as mindless macrobots who just pump out units and win but don't understand what they're doing. Nor is there such a thing as a master strategist who is only held back by a lack of fundamentals. You would realize this if you actually played the game. Let me tell you something. I respect bronze, silver, and gold players who work hard to get better at the game. I respect platinum and diamond players who put in an effort. But I absolutely do not respect people who think they can sit back, watch a few "super-in-depth HD/Husky commentaries," and think they're veritable authorities at the game. | ||
|
gm.tOSS
Germany898 Posts
(feel free to pm me on those questions, don't polute the thread - thanks in advance). edit: thanks Vandal for answering | ||
|
Chill
Calgary25991 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:44 Zato-1 wrote: Thank you. Thank you so much. Arguing about who's right and who's wrong based on who has the bigger Diamond e-peen cannot end well. The best way to tell someone who knows what he's talking about from someone who doesn't, sadly, requires the reader to know a good deal about the game himself, so he can discriminate between promising ideas, facts, and complete bull. Which is why it's somewhat cyclic. If you first look within and decide you don't have good game knowledge, then you can find someone who does and try to use their comments / replies as a barometer. If I disagree with something but someone I respect agrees with it, then I'm probably going to take another look. This leads back to humility. It's not that hard to look inside and say you don't know anything. I just wish people would stop inflating their egos and consider that they don't know everything, they haven't experienced everything, they haven't solved the game, and there are many, many better players out there. | ||
|
FarbrorAbavna
Sweden4856 Posts
Of course there needs to be some sort of way to enlighten people about the thread and it's status but that can be solved in a bunch of different ways. One easy way would be to just colorcode it, or have an icon next to the thread title. Just to name a few different options. How would one come about attaining said status? through a poll where everyone can vote, certain staff @ tl voting etc etc. There are many ways to go about it. This way you would get the discussion of pro's but everyone can see how it unfolds and take pointers on how to go about such a discussion. | ||
|
Dragonsven
United States145 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote: You know, the people crying "boo hoo elitism" are getting even more annoying than the alleged elitists. Yes, I am saying you have to play the damn game in order to understand it. Is it really so hard to come to terms with this concept? Is it really so hard to see that if you don't macro and micro properly, you're not going to be able to comment well on the viability of certain strategies since there are going to be flaws in your experience that dilute your perception of what works and what doesn't? Is it so hard to believe that no matter how many Day[9] dailies or HD/Husky commentaries you watch, you'll never have valuable insight to give unless you actually play the game? Here's I'll give you a little analogy to help you out. Let's say you love computer programming. You read every single book you can get your hands on about it. But you've never touched a computer in your life. Do you honestly think you're going to be able to write good code? Absolutely not. I promise you if you spend one ounce of the time you dedicate to theorycrafting and then whining when your ideas get shot down and complaining about elitism to actually sitting down and playing the game, you would understand what I'm saying. I really hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as "strategizing on a diamond level" when your mechanics are stuck in silver. Believe it or not, these things go hand in hand. With experience, you gain both, not just one or the other. There's no such thing as mindless macrobots who just pump out units and win but don't understand what they're doing. Nor is there such a thing as a master strategist who is only held back by a lack of fundamentals. You would realize this if you actually played the game. Let me tell you something. I respect bronze, silver, and gold players who work hard to get better at the game. I respect platinum and diamond players who put in an effort. But I absolutely do not respect people who think they can sit back, watch a few "super-in-depth HD/Husky commentaries," and think they're veritable authorities at the game. This post is pretty elitist. Edit: You can tell by the 5 or 6 assertions you make that you mention as fact. Edit 2: Guess I better give an example: "I really hate to break it to you, but there's no such thing as "strategizing on a diamond level" when your mechanics are stuck in silver." I guess Bill Belichick can throw 50 yards. | ||
|
moogleii
United States4 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:28 gdroxor wrote: My issue is the need for the old guard to constantly revalidate their superiority ad-nauseum. Yes, many have been on the site forever, followed hundreds of BW games, seen the game evolve time and time again. I understand and respect that. What I don't understand is the recurring compulsion to put new members in their place. If you truly believe yourselves to be better, more seasoned players, then why do these threads keep popping up? One would wonder if some of the older members feel threatened by SC2 and its playerbase. Probably because the "new guard" (although I wonder how many of the top players the OP is referencing are truly old players) are constantly implicitly invalidating the "old guard's" superiority. I'm silver btw. I don't claim to be good. But what the OP wrote is not particularly new. It's been true since forever in almost everything, from government structure to fictional stories of the young'ns ignoring their wise elders to global warming, from pros vs really good amateurs to armchair quarterbacks. Everyone has an opinion, and everyone wants to be right. And usually there's no filter. No one has any explicit credentials other than people recognizing their username (hey it's Tiger Woods!) or people posting their scores, which I think should continue to happen, because again, there's no real way to provide a ..."resume" so to speak. I think what the OP is concerned about is that the people at the bottom are overrunning the people at the top. Because there is no Reddit-like filter, the writings of the less skilled are overwhelming the more skilled, and hence you have "old" players putting new players in their place (far less often than the number of garbage posts I bet). Ideally the push from the new would equate the push from the old. But it's not equal, and you have players like qxc who don't even want to bother. I see this when I play tennis. The really good players don't want to bother saying anything to the newbies (unless the newbies actually ask), because they'll just get peppered with sass or resent in response. Personally I don't really think it's a old vs new thing, rather than a quality vs faux quality. It seems more like a fundamental problem with the forum structure itself, and you'll usually see it in any site using the traditional forum structure. | ||
|
hefty
Denmark555 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: + Show Spoiler + On August 25 2010 05:02 Jayrod wrote: While I agree understanding the game doesnt mean you have to be a top player its for different reasons... reasons that make sense. Take a look at ANY professional sport. Even if I have never picked up a basketball in my entire life, I can understand the game, and theoretically could become the greatest basketball strategist in the world. For this reason, its quite possible that a Computer (E) level player could understand Broodwar more than a B+ or something... let alone in starcraft 2. This is not true at all (especially the comparison you made). It's one of the more common sentiments that's floating around these forums, and it's only there to make less-successful players feel better about themselves. But it's really not true. In this game, there's nothing that can replace experience. Not by watching Day[9], not by watching replays, not by watching livestreams. I really don't know what else I can say to convince you of this. All of the top players know this, and its people who believe otherwise that keep them from posting on these forums. Teamliquid is all about promoting open discussion and getting viewpoints from lots of different people. But it's people who believe they are master strategists but who put zero effort into the game that kill discussions. Because even though they think they know what's going on, the truth is they don't. They don't know timings. They don't know production capabilities. They don't know about responding to situations given limited information. The game's a lot different when you're playing it than when you're watching it. Some truth there, but definitely not all of it. Experience is crucial in many regards - I knew a lot of factual things about brood war but lacked the tacit knowledge (in addition to mechanics) to play at a high level. However, my knowledge in certain matters could occasionally be even with, or superior to, very experienced players. Example: In a tvt discussion about upgrades (namely the relationship between att/def upgrades) a well-known terran (won't name him as I'm not 100% which one of them it was - although I am pretty sure) claimed that +1 def had a significant impact in early sieged tank wars. It's very easy to assure oneself that it doesn't, however, but since his word carried a lot of weight, many must have believed him. I don't know why he would be misguided in this regard, but it is a well-known phenomenon that experience can betray as success can be falsely attributed to part of your habits that aren't helping you (perhabs even detrimental to your results). Point of rant? It's important to differ between different types of knowledge, and it is important to question even experience. Also, your categorization in the OP is rather arbitrary and pointless, but many pointed that out already. I do agree, though, that heed should be taken of the words of the more experienced visitors on these forums. | ||
|
evanthebouncy!
United States12796 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:53 FarbrorAbavna wrote: I like qxc's proposition of having threads that are only available to players of a certain status. I would change one thing though. Have it available to everyone to read but only certain people to post in. I don't know, for someone who just visits the forum for the first time maybe this will come off as being elitist but having some general info(regarding these kind of threads) that they are requiered to read, just like forum rules etc, should remedy it and open their eyes to why it is as it is. Of course there needs to be some sort of way to enlighten people about the thread and it's status but that can be solved in a bunch of different ways. One easy way would be to just colorcode it, or have an icon next to the thread title. Just to name a few different options. How would one come about attaining said status? through a poll where everyone can vote, certain staff @ tl voting etc etc. There are many ways to go about it. This way you would get the discussion of pro's but everyone can see how it unfolds and take pointers on how to go about such a discussion. I think a monthly Q&A sessions with people asking question and top players answering them would be amazing. That or just watch the fcking day9 daily! | ||
|
Immersion_
United Kingdom794 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Grubby4463 summit1g2130 Beastyqt1000 FrodaN959 B2W.Neo579 allub316 Fuzer  247ArmadaUGS134 shahzam119 QueenE106 Livibee87 Liquid`Ken13 OptimusSC26 |
|
PiGosaur Monday
The PondCast
OSC
Clem vs Cure
ByuN vs TBD
TBD vs Solar
MaxPax vs TBD
Krystianer vs TBD
ShoWTimE vs TBD
Big Brain Bouts
Serral vs TBD
BSL 21
BSL 21
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Invitational
|
|
|
EPT
