|
On August 25 2010 05:53 Chill wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:44 Zato-1 wrote: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. 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.
True. Then again, TL changed with the influx of new members since the SC2 beta, and will likely continue changing; in a sea of rumbustious posts and threads, being meek will likely mean people will pass you over and instead reply to the more controversial or boisterous posts- leading to an arms race for attention, for seeking to make your posts seem more important. When there are tides of people available to contradict you, I can see why some would prefer to settle arguments by appealing to authority- "My rank is higher than yours".
I guess my point is, humility won't come around by itself. It's easier to be humble AND relevant when you have a special icon; other people must get the impression that you have to choose between one or the other.
|
Anyone with the ability to extract social cues from written media can tell this is sort of "I'm a veteran and you're not" rubbing-your-face-in-shit kind of post. Everyone denying it is either completely unable to socialize using written media or just playing dumb.
I appreciate that this site has a history but all of Saracen's posts just make it look like an ugly history. Look at lines like this:
On August 25 2010 02:19 Saracen wrote:
On the contrary, I find that the existence of these people makes my laddering experience much more rewarding since I know that all I have to do is defend one stupid allin and then the game is mine.
We get it, you have more depth to your play than an all-in, what value does this quote serve? Why did you even write this? If this is about the lack of skill of diamond players, why are you bringing your own skill into it? It's just a gloating, shit-thread, and had any other member without 3k posts had made it, the mods would have flamed him and closed it.
Some of us come from competitive RTS backgrounds and this sort of broad-strokes painting of all new players is insulting. Believe it or not, SC1 knowledge is not required to be knowledgeable about the game. In fact, SC1 is the simplest, most kiddy pc RTS I've literally ever played. It got popular because it was accessible to all, similar to the way Halo did.
I understand that top players' opinions should be respected but idolizing people who are hardly better than the players you're attacking is goofy. The divide between top diamond and pro right now is not very large. It will become large - but as of now, 1-2 months after release, it is not. Top diamond players take games off pro players routinely. There is not a huge skill gap.
Ironically, TL has a much worse reputation for banning and silencing voices of people who have not been a part of the community for a long time, even when they have something valid to say. I wouldn't be surprised if my post receives this treatment.
User was warned for this post
|
I vote you guys do what qxc suggested. It's perfect.
|
On August 25 2010 02:38 rS.Sinatra wrote:
im 150 point rank 1 diamond player, what say is the troofus doofus!
j/k
This article is pretty well written and I agree with most of what it says. With the current league system being what it is (500 divisions full of 100 players each) there is no discerning who is actually good except for those names that are consistently at the very top or have a good win-ratio. Also, there's nothing to be proud if you are 1000 point diamond player with 700 games... it pretty much means you hit your ceiling and are where you belong.
This post kind of annoyed me. I mass game and have a slightly above even win ratio. It has been like that since 400 was top on ladder. I am currently 1100 now. So clearly my ceiling wasn't 400, and it's clearly not 1100. Sure it might be my cap relative to the current ratings. I do belong at the 1100s right now since I am not as good as the 1200-1400 players. Will this change? Most likely. So yes I am proud of being 1100 with my 450 games played. If any of the top players actually massed ladder game, their win ratio would also go down, for obvious reasons. Haven't you noticed how the players with the best win ratios, have the lowest amount of games played?
If I made a brand new account I would have a sickkkkk win % for when I hit 1000. Would that make be a baller then? Nope.
On August 25 2010 02:44 Rikard Krigaren wrote:
I quite agree with you. I almost feel a bit ashamed to be nr 9 diamond in my division since I know how flawed my gameplay is and how much there is to improve on, both mechanics and general game sense.
That's why I don't quite agree with top diamond equaling like a B rank on ICCup. It feels like all you have to do to reach the top of your diamond division is to just spam a hell lot of games. I can't really respect someone who has like 54% win out of like 300 games which is often the case in most divisions.
You can't respect me? Brb cryin~
As you can see I am getting tired of the 'all you gotta do is mass game' comments. I mass game to get better not to be at the top of my ladder. Incidentally, both happen at the same time, I guess I should feel ashamed of that. :\.
|
Why can't everyone just be a little nicer towards one another? This thread has turned into one of those who has the bigger e-penis arguments. I agree with the original post saying that people shouldn't invalidate the opinions of BW seasoned veterans, but in turn the veterans or pros have to show respect to the "lower" players that post on this forum. Using history as an example I shall say this. Ideas have often times come from the most unlikely places. Democritus vs. Aristotle on the nature of matter Democritus's model of the atom was correct; however, Aristotle was the more respected thinker at the time and his view of matter being composed of earth, air, fire, and water was held as the correct way of thinking and Democritus was held as a fool. Which model do we use now? Point is don't throw off an idea just because of reputation or because of alleged superiority. This is how human beings as a whole work. Humanity's collective consciousness comes up with 10000000000000000000000000 ideas a day. Out of all that only one might be correct, but it might come from the most humble of sources.
On August 25 2010 06:15 iEchoic wrote:Anyone with the ability to extract social cues from written media can tell this is sort of "I'm a veteran and you're not" rubbing-your-face-in-shit kind of post. Everyone denying it is either completely unable to socialize using written media or just playing dumb. I appreciate that this site has a history but all of Saracen's posts just make it look like an ugly history. Look at lines like this: Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 02:19 Saracen wrote:
On the contrary, I find that the existence of these people makes my laddering experience much more rewarding since I know that all I have to do is defend one stupid allin and then the game is mine. We get it, you have more depth to your play than an all-in, what value does this quote serve? Why did you even write this? If this is about the lack of skill of diamond players, why are you bringing your own skill into it? It's just a gloating, shit-thread, and had any other member without 6k posts had made it, the mods would have flamed him and closed it. Some of us come from competitive RTS backgrounds and this sort of broad-strokes painting of all new players is insulting. Believe it or not, SC1 knowledge is not required to be knowledgeable about the game. In fact, SC1 is the simplest, most kiddy pc RTS I've literally ever played. It got popular because it was accessible to all, similar to the way Halo did. I understand that top players' opinions should be respected but idolizing people who are hardly better than the players you're attacking is goofy. The divide between top diamond and pro right now is not very large. It will become large - but as of now, 1-2 months after release, it is not.
You know iEchoic. I've read many of your posts and for the most part I thought you knew what you were talking about. All that has changed now due to your one post. SC1 is the most simplest kiddy pcc RTS you've played? Tell me if it's so easy then why are you not a pro? SCBW is far more mechanically and just as strategically demanding as sc2. I don't know where you get off making this assumption, but go play Chill or Saracen in BW and if you win we shall take your opinions as 100 percent accurate.
|
Chill & Sarc I respect and fully agree with your points. However your wasting your time, it really boils down to the mentality of a competitive gamer. My solution is time, seriously shit will just gradually change as those allins peter out or develop and grow into "good" players. Until then the majority of great players will continue to use them as stepping stones to shaping their game.
Leave it to time and their therapists to change them, it's not worth your effort just focus on the good ones...
|
I think we also have to consider (and I'm going to hate myself for saying it) that this is a game. No wait please keep reading! I promise I'm going somewhere! I don't mean that in the "lighten up, it's just a game" sense though.
While blizzard's motivation to make the dive into e-sports is an aspect of it, they still are out to make a game with a huge community of players. So while TL boards here may certainly have more upper echelon players attached to it, there's still a whole majority of players who are simply looking for discussions, tips, tricks, to share information. I think it's only natural to see a lot of "garbage" talk, much in the way you can tell the difference of the 11 o'clock news and the something like c-span or the bbc.
Lastly I'll just add that I've got a theory that there's been a strong influx of WoW players who are now getting into the game and carrying that same culture from WoW to SC2. Just Sayin
|
If someone doesn't have the right mechanics to pull off a BO correctly and therefore can't hit a timing as fast as it would be possible, the assumptions made from his games have litte meaning for high level play, but the advice may be useful for lower level players. The "correct" strategy for someone is dependent on the player who wants to use it.
In BW sometimes meching in TvZ on some maps was considered better, but on low levels this was absolute suicide, because you can't micro a vulture against 6 lings while macroing, if you only have 100 APM.
You can see really high level strategies are quite useless for noobs and vice versa. (for me there are only pros and noobs ^^)
|
I just made my first cheesse on ladder after 80games going for the normal game(600 diamond, crappy macro player) then read this... I feel dirty...
My macro sucks hard i have some kind of understanding of when to put more training buildings, when to push, when to expand, when to scout, were to do all this, but my execution lacks pretty hard, i have been destroy by good macro players and i have destroy them also with lesser mecanics but better strategic play... I mean all opinions are valid because ppl can have a very good understanding of the game but not the skill to pull it off, i suck i know that the times i had loss because i forgot to rally my raxs, build a addon, keep svc production, scout a VR rush... That i losse to this doesn't mean i don't understand the game... It means that i suck at making things hapend they way i want to.
My 2 cents
|
I was C- on ICCup, and although I haven't played enough actual ladder games to get promoted to diamond yet (and virtually always win in custom games against platinum players now), I don't think that platinum players are nearly as bad as you say in the OP. D- maybe, but closer to D than E.
This thread makes me want to go ladder so I can stop being in platinum!
Great post, btw.
|
Moderators should be able to ban people from saying bullshit in the strategy forum. The SC1 strategy sub forum has a sub forum ban option, and I believe the sc2 strategy sub forum has too. Maybe limit the banning of people who make baseless claims to threads which have a warning notice at the top of the op.
Besides the fact that there's people who want to win, versus people who want to improve, there's another divide. People who want to spew opinion and thought as fact, and people who want to discuss. I guess the divide runs along the same lines actually. People who want to 'win the thread' by posting underinformed opinion and bad theorycraft really should not post in the strategy forum.
In effect, the reverse of having invite-only discussion threads towards the same effect.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
In fact, SC1 is the simplest, most kiddy pc RTS I've literally ever played. It got popular because it was accessible to all, similar to the way Halo did.
This is the best thing I've ever read in the forums.
Thank you Saracen, thank you so much.
|
On August 25 2010 06:23 heyoka wrote:Show nested quote +Believe it or not, SC1 knowledge is not required to be knowledgeable about the game. In fact, SC1 is the simplest, most kiddy pc RTS I've literally ever played. It got popular because it was accessible to all, similar to the way Halo did. This is the best thing I've ever read in the forums. Thank you Saracen, thank you so much.
Two resources, pre-defined base slots, max mineral saturation, 3 races.
I expect to get hated on this, but it's the truth. The game became very competitive but it's one of the simplest pc RTSes ever made. Care to disagree?
User was warned for this post
|
On August 25 2010 03:18 japro wrote:Show nested quote +Just judging by the number of people with 70 ish apm with around 1000 points in Diamond league, what OP says is absolutely true.
So how well someone understands the game and his ability to make valid arguments depends on his APM? :D APM comes with experience, experience come with knowledge, knowledge supports valid arguments.
|
On August 25 2010 06:15 iEchoic wrote:Anyone with the ability to extract social cues from written media can tell this is sort of "I'm a veteran and you're not" rubbing-your-face-in-shit kind of post. Everyone denying it is either completely unable to socialize using written media or just playing dumb. I appreciate that this site has a history but all of Saracen's posts just make it look like an ugly history. Look at lines like this: Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 02:19 Saracen wrote:
On the contrary, I find that the existence of these people makes my laddering experience much more rewarding since I know that all I have to do is defend one stupid allin and then the game is mine. We get it, you have more depth to your play than an all-in, what value does this quote serve? Why did you even write this? If this is about the lack of skill of diamond players, why are you bringing your own skill into it? It's just a gloating, shit-thread, and had any other member without 3k posts had made it, the mods would have flamed him and closed it. Some of us come from competitive RTS backgrounds and this sort of broad-strokes painting of all new players is insulting. Believe it or not, SC1 knowledge is not required to be knowledgeable about the game. In fact, SC1 is the simplest, most kiddy pc RTS I've literally ever played. It got popular because it was accessible to all, similar to the way Halo did. I understand that top players' opinions should be respected but idolizing people who are hardly better than the players you're attacking is goofy. The divide between top diamond and pro right now is not very large. It will become large - but as of now, 1-2 months after release, it is not. Ironically, TL has a much worse reputation for banning and silencing voices of people who have not been a part of the community for a long time, even when they have something valid to say. I wouldn't be surprised if my post receives this treatment.
What were you D- iccup? If so then i think you can make a case for that. Anyone who says "Broodwar is the most simple and kiddy rts" they've ever played was either a FMP player d- iccup, or played one game against the AI then gave up because it was too hard. Or think games such as empire earth or age of empires even come close to Starcraft in terms of skill or complexity.
@ OP I must be out of place as i hit C in BW(with terran) a few times and im only about 750~ or so.. 
|
I definitely see what you're saying. I'm not going to get bogged down on arguing whether 600 Diamond is a D or a D- because that's just specifics.
You see a lot of people in Diamond that have one build that's generally pretty effective, but if it fails they have no plan afterward.
For example, in PvP you often see a 4 gate, a Korean style 4 gate all in, or a 2 gate zealot opening. These are strategies that can often catch the opponent off guard and get you a quick win right there. But if you hold off the initial aggression I often notice that these people have no plan for the mid/late game because they never play it. Sure they're diamond, but they get absolutely stomped if their opening fails, at that point they might as well be a gold or platinum player.
I've taken the attitude that for the most part I'm going to out-macro my opponent for wins. So all I have to do is hold off the early aggression (like Idra) and get to the mid/late game without being too far behind.
|
On August 25 2010 06:08 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:03 TurpinOS 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. 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.
The original poster was about the fact that a lower level player should not argue with a higher level player (because he doesnt have as much experience -- your edit added that). What I am trying to say is simply that this is a BIG generalization. In most case, the 1000pt diamond will know more about strategy than the 500pt, but NOT ALWAYS. Same logic applies to top players, QXC will 99.99999% of the time be right when it comes to strategy if he were to argue with me, but saying I shouldnt give out my arguments just because of that is against the whole points of forums. Arguing with him, even though he will be right most of the time, will still produce a discussion that can bring new points. Not only this, but there is still a slight chance that he might be wrong (as far as I know, hes very good at the game but its impossible that he knows EVERYTHING about it, else he would never lose a single game).
As for coaches, Im not talking about things such as Gosucoaching where coaches are used ''so you get better''. I was talking about coaches of top competitive teams (UEFA soccer coach, BW proleague team coach, etc. ) These coaches are not there to train their players to be better at the game, they are there to make the strategies, because they know more about it than the actual players while not being close to the same skill level when it comes to playing the game. Sure a lot of coaches are former player with a lot of experience (thus why experience is very important), but if experience was EVERYTHING, why would the best player in a certain sport need a coach. (Aka, I am the best tennis player in the world, I have the most experience/skill at the game, why then would I need someone to coach me ?)
TLDR : Basically, to be good at starcraft, you need 2 MAIN THINGS
1. Knowledge about the game (in-dept strats etc.)
2. Actual skill at the game (Mechanical skills, micro, macro, etc.)
Having one of the two just wont cut it. Some people will know less about the game but will actually cover this by having bigger skills, while it will be the opposite for someone else.
A player can be better than I am, not because he knows more, but just because he is more skilled than I am.
Experience helps you improve in both departments, but playing the game is not the only thing that can help you know more about it.
(Why would Morrow ask Dimaga to help him on how to do the 5-rax reaper build if all he had to do was practice ?)
|
On August 25 2010 06:25 arb wrote:What were you D- iccup? If so then i think you can make a case for that. Anyone who says "Broodwar is the most simple and kiddy rts" they've ever played was either a FMP player d- iccup, or played one game against the AI then gave up because it was too hard. Or think games such as empire earth or age of empires even come close to Starcraft in terms of skill or complexity.
Never played SC1, I tried it out and didn't like the simplicity of it. AoE had 4 resources, multiple ways to collect each resource, no pre-defined expansion slots, tons more units, etc.
I'm not saying SC didn't take skill. It took loads of skill. I'm just saying that people need to stop acting like SC1 is the end-all to RTS games. Wrapping your head around a game like AoE or EE was literally 50 times harder than SC1 or SC2.
|
Calgary25963 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:15 Zato-1 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 05:53 Chill wrote:On August 25 2010 05:44 Zato-1 wrote: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. 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. True. Then again, TL changed with the influx of new members since the SC2 beta, and will likely continue changing; in a sea of rumbustious posts and threads, being meek will likely mean people will pass you over and instead reply to the more controversial or boisterous posts- leading to an arms race for attention, for seeking to make your posts seem more important. When there are tides of people available to contradict you, I can see why some would prefer to settle arguments by appealing to authority- "My rank is higher than yours". I guess my point is, humility won't come around by itself. It's easier to be humble AND relevant when you have a special icon; other people must get the impression that you have to choose between one or the other.
Being loud will get you attention in the short run; being humble and constantly backing a founded opinion with evidence will get your respect in the long run.
|
Honestly you can't really give a game thats been out for not even a month a valid rating system.
For one, the game still has no set build orders for match-ups, its all just new vs new. Yes, you have some standard strategies but thats it. Nothing big.
With brood war, you have 12 yrs of gameplay and some individuals have played for all 12 of those years.
Not too mention, you have Warcraft 3 Players that did not play Brood War and could very well be 1200+ pts at the moment in Diamond but at the same time can't get above D+ in Iccup.
Yes its a good post, but it has some loose issues or briefly discussed. You can't forget that Starcraft 2 was designed to bring in new players as well as bring out the retired, and help merge over Warcraft 3 and BW together.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
