|
On August 25 2010 07:26 Lane wrote:
Diamond is something like top 5-7% percentile I believe. So a 500+ diamond player is probably in the top 3% or so. I think the kind of elitism that looks down on people even in the top 3% is a bit too extreme.
Let's be realistic. The only remotely competitive players are in diamond (with maybe some competitive, low-skilled platinum players). So when you're a 500+ diamond player, you may be in the top "3-4%" but in terms of competitive players you are in the bottom 20-40%.
|
Oops, hit post twice. Sorry.
|
I agree with this thread, i'm 600-700~ rated diamond and I have just very sloppy mechanics. I just happen to know build orders and what works to win games, thats about it
|
On August 25 2010 06:50 KakashiX wrote:
the OP, makes me, as a relatively new member of TL and sc2 not want to post anything. I have made the occasional post but because of the amount of crazy awesome players on this website im sure i will get a " you suck bro unistall pl0x" kind of comment, maybe those bad diamond players arn't as good as the thinking ones, but could still be very helpful to the lower tier players....
(:
If it does, it clearly means you didn't read and understand the actual point of the OP. It doesn't say "don't post", it says "don't use your rating as any sort of proof that you know what you're talking about".
|
I think individual strategical suggestions should be judged objectively on their own individual merit.
Mathematics and reasoning should be our tool in sifting through the emerging strategies, not blindly following the perceived elite class of players' opinions. If someone truly is legitimately a great player, his or her view will naturally be recognized as the correct one, anyways. Anything else is only hurting the strategically development of the community.
So, while I agree that your mid-diamond league ranking is irrelevant to your strategical suggestion, I disagree that your status, or experience has any relevance either (Once again, this is because I believe your contribution should speak for itself.)
Balance complaints and overall whining I think is what is most harmful to the strategy section at the moment, though. I hope that can be fixed.
|
On August 25 2010 07:11 Naib wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 07:02 segfix wrote:On August 25 2010 06:51 Naib wrote:On August 25 2010 06:44 segfix wrote:
Chess is the simplest kiddie board game I've ever played. 6 pieces, tiny 8x8 board, turn-based, no unit stats or resources. Wrapping your head around DnD is literally 9000 times harder. My point still stands. It's a lot easier to play any type of DnD game after you're through with the initial wall of crap that hits you (believe me, I played quite a lot of DnD based games). Chess might look easy on the outside, but I bet I'd rape you blindfolded even if you practiced it for years. I'm sure on the other hand, I could catch up to your skill in any DnD game given a few months (if I really cared that is, truth is I don't. Not enough depth you know  ) That's real depth for you. That was my point... No, your point was that it makes chess simple, which it doesn't. Don't you understand this? I'm saddened, I might not be expressing myself as clearly in English as I thought I was 
No good sir, the true intent behind my post was not that "it makes chess simple". Infact, it was quite the opposite. You see, I was responding to a certain poster by the handle "iEchoic", who claimed that Starcraft 1 was a "kiddie" RTS due to the fact that it had "Two resources, pre-defined base slots, max mineral saturation, 3 races". By juxtaposing his analysis of Starcraft with the game of Chess, a timeless game that is widely considered the most complex and intellectually engaging board game ever created, in a similar style of rhetoric, my goal was to caricature and exaggerate his claim to the point of ridicule. I believe this is called "satire" in Western cultures.
|
One thing moderators could do is enforce grammar and capitalization rules in the strategy forum, there seems be a strong correlation between lack of capitalization (and things like "lol" and "u") and bad posts.
Regarding the "pro only" threads, I don't think that they would work based on the fact that most pros won't even comment on balance. I can't imagine getting enough pros to post to produce real strategy talk, and I don't see many pros wanting to give away strategies that they have been practicing.
|
The message of the op is that you should really just shut up unless you'd be willing to bet your right hand that what you're saying is true or relevant...
...albeit a tad less drastic version.
While if that rule was instated it would lead to some pretty empty discussion boards but you could make damn sure that every message there would be worth reading unlike 75% of posts on anything (read: balance and strategy) here.
Diamond means crap seriously. I've sincerely been underwhelmed by play ranging up to 800pts diamond, sure they might become great and most are probably better than me but at least some of these players are making rather basic mistakes which kind of negates this ranking stuff as being any good as an indicator. What does one really have to say on the grander scale of things if one can't even get close to conquering the basics?
I actually find myself just canceling half my posts here before posting them since I kind of find faults with them or don't really think they're warranted, would be nice if the ONFG INBA crowd found the same decency sometimes. Unless you're posting starleague titles I don't really care that you think void rays or banshees are imbalanced when I'm reading a thread about some opening It's been discussed a million times, one more won't change anything except cause a bit more frustration.
Just the sheer amount of logical fallacies and baseless facts getting thrown around :S People should seriously just stop and think sometimes. There are 6 billion+ people in existance and chances are that you just like me are really not anything special so stopping to act like it would be nice.
The message of the op is not tainted by him not being in the "mid-high diamondz*", that is irrelevant. I'm pretty sure that everyone would listen if some bronzer came out with the most solid and exstensive post about some "imbalances" or whatever as long as it were to be well founded, articulated and based on a solid foundation. 99.9990999% of the time this is not the case though unfortunately, I sincerely don't remember a thread that doesn't take a random leap of faith somewhere and or takes some single occurrance and extrapolates it undeservedly**
Would I post this If somewhere down the line I might be losing limbs over it?, probably not but I'd rather be the owner of this post than most of the stuff in the "sc2 strategy" forum and it's not really that close.
To the posters of the imba threads, would you seriously be ready to post half that crap if on the call of your idol or some authority in your race of your postings being inaccurate and or wrong you were to incur some loss? If not do you really have any place posting that stuff (at least without severe thought)?
*I think he's really high diamond anyways
**examples would be like taking ones failiure to do something properly and using that as "evidence" for a global problem.
|
On August 25 2010 07:30 rifi wrote:
We can all thank Blizzard for designing the league/division system to make sure everyone feels like they're a good player.
While that's definitely true, I think the more important thing that the OP is stressing about is that Starcraft 2 is a brand new game. Just because you've managed to get (relatively) high up on the ladder isn't a good indication of how good you are overall yet.
Once the meta-game matures enough, the ladders will be more meaningful.
We'll probably have to wait forladder reset/s though. (Has Blizzard said anything about them?)
|
On August 25 2010 06:43 TurpinOS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 25 2010 06:33 I_Love_Bacon 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. 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 ?
As others have stated, unless you're in a position to actually debate reasonably with the top players then you have no business trying to do so. Unless you have evidence or numbers, statistics, whatever to support your point of view then all you're doing is theorycrafting against somebody who knows what they're talking about. That's not stopping anybody from sharing their opinions on issues, but it should stop them from arguing with the people who know better when the only thing the original poster might bring is some conjecture.
And let's be honest; trimming the fat of 75% of threads/posts by people reading more and posting less to learn more would be a huge step... but that's applicable to every forum.
2nd edit: Also, Jesus... can we drop the iccup/sc2 rank comparison? It was a comment made that isn't entirely accurate but used as a more broad stroke to simply comment that past abilities in other games (most noticeably SC:BW) carry over in obvious ways.
|
On August 25 2010 06:58 EppE wrote:
I would reply with "don't be so sensitive". This is the internet for gods sake. If you can't take someone telling you that "you suck" you're in the wrong place.
This is the wrong way to look at it, in my opinion. A lot of people in this community are extremely excited with all the attention the game is getting (as they should be). Yet this same community who wants this game to have a broader appeal and see competitive gaming grow in the US are also hindering it by feeding into the perception that gamers are a bunch of childish, elitist, dicks. It's always good to have fairly thick skin, but gamers take it to a whole other level.
|
On August 25 2010 07:32 Stets wrote:
I definitely agree with the OP. I'm mid diamond playing random and while all my RL friends think it means im some kind of RTS genius (none of them are above silver league) I honestly don't think I'm all that great. I guess that's why I tend to keep my mouth shut and just lurk around the forums most of the time.
Haha, same boat here man ^_^
Honestly, I don't even look at the sc2 strategy section. Some of the thread titles just make it discouraging.
|
Good summary in the OP. Another point is that a max rank D+ player on ICCUP has ~35-45% winrate to stay at that ranking, whereas a 700~ point diamond player has roughly 55% winrate. The result is that the D+ player is painfully aware of how bad they are, and the diamond player has a false satisfaction of winning more than they lose.
|
Your assement is pretty much spot on, at least in my case.
I came into the beta late and was placed in Gold. I had been watching tons of gameplay, so I had a basic idea of build orders and unit comps for each matchup, which was getting me wins at that level.
I was placed in Platinum after release, when I really started to smooth out a few build orders and my mechanics got a little better.
Now at mid Diamond, I have a few builds and strategies that are not only race specific but map/position specific. My game sense (when to tech/expand/attack) is improving, but still far from perfect, and my multitasking/APM are still far from where they would need to be to compete at the top level.
As someone that never played BW competitively and came into SC2 relatively late, I was able to reach a top percentile in the ladder pretty quickly, despite having around 60-70 APM, just by having a few solid builds and general knowledge of the game. Diamond doesn't necessarily mean you are an elite SC2 player, but mid diamond players are better than average, and chances are their advice on how to win is decent, if you're talking about ladder strats.
|
Zurich15328 Posts
Just read this. Your BW SC2 comparison is pretty accurate from what I can tell.
About the SC2 strat forum. I really wish it would be better. For a while I enforced the bad OP rule pretty stricktly, but it just doesn't help. There is just so much spam.
Invite only: Has been discussed and found impractical and / or was received rather negatively. As you said it certainly runs against the principles TL was run by so far.
|
I laugh at the dissage on fastest map possible players. I can't believe such ignorance is still prevalent.
|
On August 25 2010 07:48 Spartan wrote:
I laugh at the dissage on fastest map possible players. I can't believe such ignorance is still prevalent.
Educate us, please.
|
l10f
United States3241 Posts
I completely disagree. I can beat C ranks in iCCup but I can't get past 600 diamond.
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I'm a mid-level diamond player and I agree that my word is LAW. Everyone should know that because I AM A MID-LEVEL DIAMOND PLAYER!
--glad to clear that all up.
|
I dont understand the point of relating a third party BW ladder with mostly highly skilled players with in depth knowledge of the game, to the SC2 official Battle.net 2.0 ladder. You need to sign up to use ICCup, and it connects you to a different server.
And if you really want to have a top level discussion with top level players, hit them up on a messaging program. In my opinion, creating topics that only allow certain people to participate BUT everyone to view is just shitty and elitist. TL is growing up, and some noobs will too, thats just how it's going to be. TL is a great resource for ALL SC2 players, but the more you already know, the less you are going to learn reading discussions in the strategy forum.
From an elitist standpoint, many diamond players just suck... However, there are millions of people on battle.net 2.0, so if you are in diamond league and crushing everyone, then feel good about it because you are one of the top SC2 players. It seems as if you are trying to compare a SC2 standard league [diamond], open to all who purchased the game, to an expert league where high level players typically play in tournaments that have large cash pool prizes. (For example, many cash prize BW tourneys accepted only players who have C or better, or something like that)
The real truth about Diamond League and the current state of the SC2 league system
The game is new, and there are ALOT of new players. Those really good at BW (esp those who have been playing for 10 years) are really good at SC2 and practically guaranteed to be a Diamond level player. The number of people who moved from BW to SC2 is a verrry small fraction compaired to the number of players who are playing StarCraft for the first time. This means there will be a big skill gap, even in the diamond league. Lower diamond players will be exponentially better than high level diamond players.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
