EPTThe Truth About Diamond League - Page 20
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Jollyburner
Canada190 Posts
| ||
|
digiwaffles
58 Posts
| ||
|
Sfydjklm
United States9218 Posts
On August 25 2010 03:09 Jonoman92 wrote: no way, not even remotely close... I'm 1200 and I am not close to being A- in bw, highest I ever got to was B but more accurately I was B- really. Comparing ICCUP ranking to sc2 ladder points is just not possible, they are 2 different games. I thought this thread was about assigning ranks relatively not about what amount of pts does iccup rank translate into. | ||
|
arb
Noobville17921 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:26 iEchoic wrote: 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. Then my point stands | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
You could become a basketball strategist not playing basketball, but you could never become a good basketball player like that. Why? It's just about body fitness, its about your body knowing how to move and the muscle memory as well as being able to react quickly. You think its all about mechanics? Flash is a master tactician and strategist in starcraft, with solid mechanics to boot to make him possibly the best starcraft player of all time. He doesn't just "click buttons faster" than all the other koreans, because that's just something that takes practice. It doesn't mean you can't have good ideas, but taking a good idea to a build requires so much practice and tuning its normally a top player that patents it. | ||
|
Naib
Hungary4843 Posts
Is it true that SC1 is built on very simple foundations (the gathering of 2 resources, 3 unique races with a theme to them each, "pixelated" yet clean graphics, a few simple spells added in the mix, etc.)? Yes. Does this make it a "simple" compared to other RTS games which have a lot of arbitrary mechanics? (For example: A unit decisively counters B, which counters C, which counters the mega powerful unit D, but that's used to counter other things)? Yes. Does all this make SC1 a simple game? Hell no.Just by the sheer possibilities a "simpler" interface and set of units / spells offer (compared to other games with more but usually imbalanced choices) makes it a really deep game. In other games (CnC series comes to mind) there's usually a few key strategies / 1 type of unit to mass and 1a ftw. Add the mechanically demanding side to that, and SC1 becomes the epitome of e-sports (at least so far, noone can argue with that). Let me cite a helpful example: board games. The more rules / arbitrary stuff there are, the easier it becomes to play after your learning curve is over. There's usually one or a few optimal strategies in games like Risk. Edit: I see he posted again while I was typing this, so here's an added paragraph just for handling AoE. The above point (bolded, being done with the initial learning curve) is extremely important here. Yes, at first glance AoE definitely looks "harder" than SC1, just because there's a ton of shit to grasp - like he said, 4 resource types, no preset expansion types etc. But exactly because of that complexity, the game becomes really simple with only a few strategies working, no real ability to micro (at least nothing close to SC1) after you get the general idea of what to do in the game. Let me reiterate what I wrote in this post a few times: gimmicks like that make it harder to start, and a lot easier to master - making AoE a simple game compared to SC1 in the end. It doesn't matter what you think at first glance, how the game is played near the top which should be compared - and AoE ain't got shit on that compared to SC1. Let's compare Risk to Chess. Simpler playing field, less players (more type of pieces though), no added extra stuff like cards or objectives etc. Just simply beat your opponent. Will anyone argue that chess is a "simple" game compared to Risk? I really hope there isn't such a person  We can go a step further - compare Chess to Go. Now, Go (or Baduk if you like) is board gaming stripped to minimalism. Just 2 colors of identical pieces (rocks) and a simple board...yet the game's so deep (despite being a chess player myself, I wouldn't argue that Go is actually a lot deeper than Chess!). It's really, really simple on the outside, but the depth is there. TL;DR version: a lot of gimmicks doesn't make a game great, the possibility of equally strong strategies do. That's why it's extremely hard to make a good competitive game like SC1 was - most of it is just a freak accident. The area where SC2 excels at are areas from SC1, and that's not a coincidence. Over 'n out. | ||
|
acceL.
United States109 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:40 Sfydjklm wrote: I thought this thread was about assigning ranks relatively not about what amount of pts does iccup rank translate into. DING DING DING That's what I got as well, not really sure why people are taking it as a literal translation. It was just made to give an idea of the skill level difference between the players on ladder for sc2. | ||
|
Stoli
Canada173 Posts
On August 25 2010 03:47 Saracen wrote: Posted the edit since a lot of people seem to be missing the point (which may be entirely my fault): It seems like a lot of you are missing the implications of this thread. First, regardless of points, there are two types of players. Players who want to win and players who want to better understand the game. I am saying that this exists even up to what many people consider to be "high diamond," while still existing in lower leagues. The problem comes when people with a certain number of points start using that as evidence for their advice, even though that says nothing about their understanding of the game. Second, people like Qxc, HuK, Sheth, pretty much all of the top players frequent TL. They actually visit it a lot. But they don't post a lot. You might be wondering why they don't provide insight and contribute to discussions. From an interview with Qxc: It's all a matter of respect. I don't know, maybe you'd rather have wonderful theorycrafting sessions with random SC2 players, but I'd rather have mine with Qxc. Of course, the suggestion Qxc proposed is not going to happen because the administrators actually do care about how TL is perceived by the general public. They really want it to be accessible and friendly to players of every skill level. But that's not saying that as things are, we can't get people like Qxc to post a little more frequently by showing them a bit more respect. well i have no issue being respectful of these players but I would much rather not be involved in the discussion at all.. let the diamond players argue with the gold on the basis of their posts merit, but as a TL newb I love the idea of an invite only forum/discussion, and I know I'm not the only member of the general public who would think the idea of an invite only discussion is awesome | ||
|
TurpinOS
Canada1223 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:33 I_Love_Bacon wrote: I came. Why is elitism shunned upon? If you're on teamliquid, guess what, you're probably already in the top 20% of SC2 players. The simple fact that you're on this site trying to learn at all will put you leaps and bounds above others. I guess we're all eltists because we're not actually tanking our ratings to hang around in bronze lever games and give pointers to people. We're trying to learn and be better at the game and which to discuss the finer points of strategy with other GOOD players... Fuck our elitest views. I'm gonna' go hang out on b-net chat rooms for my strategy advice... oh wait. ''We're trying to learn and be better at the game and which to discuss the finer points of strategy with other GOOD players... '' Quoting you here, totally agree with this, I just dont understand how you ALSO agreed with the OP saying that ''900 pt diamond should not argue with top players since they will be right'' I dont see much discussion if I just take for cash everything QXC/drewbie/idra and company say. Also, if experience is the only factor when it comes to the games knowledge, what is the point of the SC2 Strategy section ? Why do people discuss things ? Shouldnt the most experienced player give its advice, and then everyone blindly go play more ? | ||
|
segfix
United States32 Posts
| ||
|
Kim_Hyun_Han
706 Posts
| ||
|
redwingxviii
United States101 Posts
i think it went right over their heads. for all the bitching about the league system, it has done exactly what it was intended to do - make everyone feel like a winner. | ||
|
SOCOMICEPICK
87 Posts
 .i think rankings will smooth out in a few months. | ||
tofucake
Hyrule19057 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:39 Senx wrote: Saracen touched upon this already, he said it has to with the image the website would project if they had an "exclusive" forum. I guess they feel better of just being inclusive and dealing with the negative that comes with it. Lies. TL has plenty of exclusive forums, you just can't see them. For one, there's the TL Mafia forum, which anyone can get access to if they ask (there's a stick in General I think). There's also a bunch of other boards (as a LP2 editor I see the LP board, for instance). And then there's a rumored x-#-of-posts board. I see no reason why there shouldn't be a procorner (or maybe there is and we can't see it because we aren't granted access to it). Not to mention the Closed board, where staff can post and normal users can't. I say "hire" all the pros on as consultants and give them a publicly viewable discussion board. | ||
|
Dionyseus
United States2068 Posts
On August 25 2010 02:37 sikyon wrote: I'm boiling down your post to the premise that profesional SC players have greater insights than your regular SC player. Sounds about right. But you've forgotten 1 key thing: If a 500pt diamond player posts that some sort of strat is good and you think he's full of it because he's not Idra, well that might be true. However, to a plat player he clearly knows what he's doing relativily speaking and his insight is still valuable. People posting their division/points are not just empty boasts about where they are and why you should take them seriously. It's just information that tells you what level of play this is working for. Your post also smacks of elitism, and somewhat smells like it's trying to attack players instead of strategies. That's a bad idea. In my opinion it's never acceptable to say "oh look you're only in gold your opinion doesn't matter". It is much more appropriate to say "nope, that won't work and this is why: ..." The ladder system is, and always will be, relative. If you don't find someone impressive relative to yourself, you should just not take his advice. It will probably be useful to someone below him. People don't jump from silver to diamond by using diamond strategies all of a sudden. They do it by going gold, then plat, then diamond, whatever that entails. I agree. Advice from a 500pt diamond player should be helpful to anyone ranked lower than that, in fact their advice might be even more helpful to a beginner than advice from the best player simply because most beginners don't understand the way pros think. I also detected some elitism in the op. The sense I got from it is that if you're not over 1100 points in Diamond you're garbage and your opinions mean shit. While the OP might very well be right that mid-level Diamond players would be C or D players on ICCUP, I think he doesn't realize that less than 8% of players are able to make it to the Diamond league. We're at 1.25 million ladder players right now according to SC2Ranks and only 52 thousand players were able to join the Diamond league. | ||
Chill
Calgary25980 Posts
| ||
|
gdroxor
United States639 Posts
On August 25 2010 05:43 Chill wrote: 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. Again - the issue is not criticism directly. It's rather obvious when someone new to the RTS scene who just qualified for silver says X, and a B+ iCCup player who is at the top of their diamond division and has been playing the beta since day one says Y, Y is the vast majority of the time correct. The issue I have is with threads like this. There is no point to them other than to point out the discrepancy between old and new players and making implications that one is inherently better than the other. Nobody is getting game advice. Nobody is being corrected on an errant thought on Protoss strategy. The only reason this thread exists is to draw a line in the sand. That is what I take issue with. | ||
|
Tenryu
United States565 Posts
| ||
|
tofucake
Hyrule19057 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:47 Chill wrote: Did you just write consultants as sultants? Yes...but to be fair I fixed it before I refreshed and saw your comment about it. | ||
|
vileChAnCe
Canada525 Posts
On August 25 2010 06:29 Chill wrote: Well, it's not like I'm huffing and puffing because people don't see the situation in the same light as I do. I'm just throwing my opinion out like everyone else. I didn't assume you were, don't be so defensive I just thought I'd mention that it's completely redundant. Your point is valid you make a good arguement you have the right intention but your target audience does not care, to me that's a waste of time. Maybe I've read you wrong, if you want to continue beating a dead horse that's cool I won't argue it further. | ||
| ||
