|
Really? Is this a good post?
All this post did was insult a lot of people and gave people a reason to say something very stupid like
"I'm 800 Diamond but i think im shit"
No shit. if you were good people would know you.
Pros have their own circle. I dont know how many ppl here talk to Flash, Jeadong, Idra or qxc every morning. This is a public forum where people of all skills bring their insights. If you crave for quality "discussions" just watch Day9 where discussion is more insightful because it does not involve YOU making any inputs. Or try adding pros on your messenger programs.
Its not about "Even a bronze player can bring something useful."
Its about every one having the freedom to make their input thats not out of line.
Besides, if TL was complete waste of time, pros mentioned in OP would not visit frequently. They may not post, but it does give them something to think about.
|
The problem is that its too easy to get in the diamond league -,-
Sometimes I meet people in the ladder and they play like crap. They only copy the build (lets take reaper build for example), fail miserably, their follow up is just crap... although they're like 700+ diamond. -_-
Thats why ICCUP ladder system was awesome. Because the rank actually said a lot about your skill imo and it actually was hard to reach a rank like B+/A- etc.
|
As for the example when there was SC:BW coaching going around. You think players would've paid so and so who claimed he was a master at BW strategy and knowledge with a C- high or someone who has proved himself like Incontrol?
People look at results. Results stem from skill. Skill stem from experience. Experience stems from gameplay.
As stated before, i would much rather take advice from some1 who's well known or high in the rankings compared to some1 who claims he knows alot about the game.
|
On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: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. 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.
It depends what we are talking about (what strategy?). Imo you don't need much practise to understand the game well. Ofc you won't be a good player but you can understand certain tactics/strategies/counters without practice. I don't say all of them - ofc not, but you can discuss A LOT without playing a game.
There are players who have good knowledge about the game but just cannot execute that because they practice not enough, but that does not mean they cannot discuss 
|
On August 25 2010 05:53 Dragonsven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: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. 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. 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.
This poster is pretty annoying.
Edit: You can tell by the overwhelming proportion of your posts that are useless one-liners or just outright stupid.
Edit 2: On July 09 2010 05:17 Dragonsven wrote:
There should be an achievement once you reach a year of playtime within the game. The avatar would be like a no smoking sign except instead of a cigarette there would be a vagina.
|
On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: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. 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.
Your general idea is fine BUT there is one major flaw with your whole argumentation.
While it is true that if I never played SC2, and you have played 1000 games, you will definately know more about strategy no matter how many replays/vods/cast I have watched, it is not true that experience is everything.
You are backing up your whole argument with these examples where its basically a player with 10 year experience vs a player with 1 year. Problem is when things get closer.
Sure, the 10 year pro player will know more then the one that recently started and watches a lot of casts, thus why experience means A LOT.
But saying that experience is everything when it comes to strategy (note, I havent said winning) is utterly wrong. If we compare two people that rank closely in tournaments, it could be perfectly possible that, while those two usually win the same amount of games against each other, one knows a LOT more about strategy, while the other just has a way better micro and macro.
(Hey, they are equally skilled but one knows more, how is that possible ?)
Edit : still want to know your opinion as of the use of coaches in top level sports if experience is absolutely everything when it comes to knowing the games strategy.
|
I have 30-60 APM but I reached diamond in beta phrase 2. XD Pro
|
Can people stop making team sports coaching analogies? They don't really apply to solo sports. In almost all solo sports, the best coaches have extensive experience as actual players that played competitively but their bodies just couldn't keep up.
|
I am 100 percent behind Saracen on this one. Just because the S in RTS is for strategy, does not mean you can theory craft your way into every discussion because you watch Day9 and other replays/commentaries. The RT is equally important, and without actual games under your belt, your comments are less than valuable. If you are just regurgitating something you saw on a VOD you might as just let someone else bring it up that's actually tried it in game.
Newer players should not be defensive about this or feel threatened, just try not to post game advice without ample practice under your belt, or else the forums domino into a shit storm of bad advice.
|
On August 25 2010 06:03 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:53 Dragonsven wrote:On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: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. 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. 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. This poster is pretty annoying. Edit: You can tell by the overwhelming proportion of your posts that are useless one-liners or just outright stupid. Edit 2: Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 05:17 Dragonsven wrote:
There should be an achievement once you reach a year of playtime within the game. The avatar would be like a no smoking sign except instead of a cigarette there would be a vagina.
I thought that was pretty funny, I guess we have a different sense of humor. Does that mean I can't talk about Starcraft 2? I just want to write down all these rules you have for posting so I don't put a toe out of line.
Edit: Notice I didn't mention the irony that your post was actually a one-liner. That's manner, you should learn. Oh wait, oops.
|
On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: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. 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.
You are melding together the mid level diamond players and the "I only watch replays" players into one now and also trying to say what I am. Can you be a bigger asshole? The only reason he even drew the analogy is to go against the fact that you said that one diamond player couldn't possibly understand the game as well as a top diamond player.
The issue at hand isn't whether the person who read and memorized every book on CS would be able to write good code or not it is whether he will be able to understand it and make suggestions. If you are saying that he couldn't then you are retarded.
I am fully against people who assert their opinions as fact and I would support someone coming down on those people.. But this is not what you have done what so ever. You have singled out decent players and belittled them for absolutely no reason what so ever. If you want to have a conversation with a top player who feels that it isn't worth posting helpful posts or guides then you can accomplish that yourself.
You need to really take a step back and realize the attitude that comes through in your posts.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:53 Dragonsven wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: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. 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. 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.
I agree with Edit 2 a lot. There's almost no relation on a case-by-case basis between rank and game knowledge. You can make sweeping generalizations across the entire divisions, but you can't say anything about a specific silver player simply based on the fact that he's silver.
|
On August 25 2010 06:03 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: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. 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. Your general idea is fine BUT there is one major flaw with your whole argumentation. While it is true that if I never played SC2, and you have played 1000 games, you will definately know more about strategy no matter how many replays/vods/cast I have watched, it is not true that experience is everything. You are backing up your whole argument with these examples where its basically a player with 10 year experience vs a player with 1 year. Problem is when things get closer. Sure, the 10 year pro player will know more then the one that recently started and watches a lot of casts, thus why experience means A LOT. But saying that experience is everything when it comes to strategy (note, I havent said winning) is utterly wrong. If we compare two people that rank closely in tournaments, it could be perfectly possible that, while those two usually win the same amount of games against each other, one knows a LOT more about strategy, while the other just has a way better micro and macro. (Hey, they are equally skilled but one knows more, how is that possible ?) Edit : still want to know your opinion as of the use of coaches in top level sports if experience is absolutely everything when it comes to knowing the games strategy.
That may be true, but is not what the original poster was talking about.
About coaches: I personally think that I don't have the experience necessary to commentate on what happens on such a high level. However, if you really want to know my opinion, first, you'll notice that no one's going to hire the #1 theorycrafter in the US over someone like Sheth or Qxc as a coach. Second, in Korea, (this is where I feel I have no right to be giving an opinion, but I will anyways since you asked for it) it seems like many coaches are former players, so they have just as deep an understanding and just as much experience. I really doubt the head managers have too much to offer, strategy-wise.
|
Interesting thought, I'll give some people benefit of the doubt though and I consider a lot of that "i am XXX point in XXX division" speaks more not as "these are credentials so listen up!" as to "here's the framework of which this approach can be judged".
This is all certainly a result of Blizzard's approach to the ladder rather than the "Global Village" of most other games. I imagine we should see in a few months most players are in platinum/diamond simply due to the ladder system being more advancement by points, rather than the true ESL (that's what the term is right? a zero-sum method). So it is true that, eventually saying "i am XXX points in diamond" really just means "i play starcraft"
|
Calgary25980 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:03 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:53 Dragonsven wrote:On August 25 2010 05:52 Saracen wrote:On August 25 2010 05:30 Scorcher2k wrote:On August 25 2010 05:14 Saracen wrote: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. 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. 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. This poster is pretty annoying. Edit: You can tell by the overwhelming proportion of your posts that are useless one-liners or just outright stupid. Edit 2: Show nested quote +On July 09 2010 05:17 Dragonsven wrote:
There should be an achievement once you reach a year of playtime within the game. The avatar would be like a no smoking sign except instead of a cigarette there would be a vagina.
What the fuck is this? Instead of addressing his criticism you address him? I'm pretty appalled by this reply and I'd ask you not to do it again.
|
On August 25 2010 06:04 aru wrote:
Can people stop making team sports coaching analogies? They don't really apply to solo sports. In almost all solo sports, the best coaches have extensive experience as actual players that played competitively but their bodies just couldn't keep up.
Thus why experience is very important but not everything.
If experience was the only criteria when it comes to in-depth knowledge of the game, coaches would simply be useless. (What is the use of someone telling you what you should do when playing is the only thing that matters to get better ?)
Again, explain me why proteams in SCBW have coaches (for strategy) when the players are actually more experienced in playing the game.
|
I think the iCCup ranks you posted that correspond to the diamond points are dead on. I've stopped frequenting the strategy forums all together due to incessant whiners and noobs complaining about imbalance, rehashing what the pros are saying or flat out denying it. I would love for the to be an invite-only strategy discussion thread, it would be a more worthwhile read than ANYTHING the strategy forum has ever had to offer.
edit: Also, the new members playing the victim in response to the OP is total bullshit. qxc and some other top players like tlo are relatively new to the starcraft scene as well, and their opinions should be treated higher than people like me who have been here since 2003 but suck at the game. Like Chill said, this post isn't directed at the new people on the site who happen to be competent enough to be in diamond, it's directed at every competent diamond player.
Just to let everyone know, the comparison to the iCCup ranks in the OP is made because something like 70% of brood war players were D+ or lower. That means that if you're below 800-900 points in diamond, and you're citing your points as validation for your argument, all you're doing is saying that you're mediocre at the game, like most players. You shouldn't feel like your opinion is special, or correct, because almost everybody is roughly at your level.
All he's trying to say is the top pros should have more weight in their opinions on the game, and they just haven't been getting the respect that they deserve.
|
On August 25 2010 06:10 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:04 aru wrote:
Can people stop making team sports coaching analogies? They don't really apply to solo sports. In almost all solo sports, the best coaches have extensive experience as actual players that played competitively but their bodies just couldn't keep up. Thus why experience is very important but not everything. If experience was the only criteria when it comes to in-depth knowledge of the game, coaches would simply be useless. (What is the use of someone telling you what you should do when playing is the only thing that matters to get better ?) Again, explain me why proteams in SCBW have coaches (for strategy) when the players are actually more experienced in playing the game.
Do you really think the coaches are there for strategy only purposes?
|
Good read, I agree completely. I was also happy to discover that I'm in the second group of players, those who want to improve rather to ALL-IN WIN every game  Feels good indeed.
|
I know what your saying.
I'm like 400ish diamond but still consider myself to be pretty awful at this game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
