EPTIt's a corny post but my troll shield is still working.
The Theory of Starcraft 2 TILT. - Page 5
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
KpR
Romania14 Posts
It's a corny post but my troll shield is still working. | ||
|
tskarzyn
United States516 Posts
edit: damn kpr you stole the words out of my mouth... the difference is with poker the individual plays because he believes he has a skill advantage and is looking to earn money (exception being addicts and people playing penny stakes for fun). Losing results in meaningful loss of both $$$ and ego. In SC, there is no real downside to losing. A computer game should be fun whether you have trouble beating a level/opponent/etc.. or whether you win. People just become obsessed with ranks/points to the point that they not only rage when they lose but do anything possible to win (cheese) and turn what should be a fun game into a chore or a job with the goal being to grind as many points as possible. Lots of individuals ITT need to re-evaluate why they play this game and whether it's healthy for them to continue doing so if they can't struggle with losing so much. | ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
| ||
|
MERLIN.
Canada546 Posts
The idea that "these guys play all day long, but I should still win once in awhile even If I can't manage to get to 50food without supply blocking 3 times" Honestly... any diamond or Plat player will generally say, what a load of bull. People devote time to this game, that's why you will never catch them. Not just playing, living. To top 200 players (jinro huk) SC2 is there life, it's there money maker and your saying that you should win once in awhile vs them anyway? hahaha, go tell that to Sydney Crosby or Mike tyson about their respective sport (or thing they trained for A LOT) This post is a joke, no offense... The only valid point was the fact that chat channels are not used, but hey surprise surprise we all know that. Please, I supported your last 2 posts on whining because I generally thought maybe they are valid. This is just stupid, I guess third times the charm, stop posting such ridiclous shit. | ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
On January 04 2011 09:17 tskarzyn wrote: Lots of individuals ITT need to re-evaluate why they play this game and whether it's healthy for them to continue doing so if they can't struggle with losing so much. There is why I dont think the expansions will be as successful ... most times I win I get raged most times I lose I get bm'ed too =X | ||
|
KpR
Romania14 Posts
on topic, every losing streak for me is a learning experience, and if i get on tilt, i take a break, judge and analyze my play, and begin all over again trying to outmatch myself. | ||
|
duk3
United States807 Posts
I wouldn't care about pixelpoints if I knew they were going away next month anyways. For me, the biggest one is rating for sure, I don't want to lose any games so I never play any games. | ||
|
HypaSnipa
64 Posts
On January 04 2011 09:55 MERLIN. wrote: I'm sorry everyone, but only Bronze to Silver (maybe gold) will agree with this post, atleast in my opinion. The idea that "these guys play all day long, but I should still win once in awhile even If I can't manage to get to 50food without supply blocking 3 times" Honestly... any diamond or Plat player will generally say, what a load of bull. People devote time to this game, that's why you will never catch them. Not just playing, living. To top 200 players (jinro huk) SC2 is there life, it's there money maker and your saying that you should win once in awhile vs them anyway? hahaha, go tell that to Sydney Crosby or Mike tyson about their respective sport (or thing they trained for A LOT) This post is a joke, no offense... The only valid point was the fact that chat channels are not used, but hey surprise surprise we all know that. Please, I supported your last 2 posts on whining because I generally thought maybe they are valid. This is just stupid, I guess third times the charm, stop posting such ridiclous shit. I think you're confused? | ||
|
MERLIN.
Canada546 Posts
| ||
|
HypaSnipa
64 Posts
On January 04 2011 10:53 MERLIN. wrote: I think you're confused also? For stating I'm confused, but not explaining how... Very ironic. Well to be honest it doesn't look like you read any posts whatsoever... So yeah I'm confused as to where your post is coming from. So all I can really say is how confused you must be. | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
The comparisons to other games is just incorrect. It's comparing a game of sc2 to a SINGLE KILL in FPSes, which is absurd; like another poster pointed out, the equivalent to that kill in a game of an FPS would be like a person killing a pair of zerglings. If you're going to refer to a whole game of sc2, then common sense points out that it'd be compared to a game of CoD or Team Fortress. Tilting heavily exists here. For instance, the God point: a n00b player could easily have some random kill off a pro. The end score will still be something like 50-1, much like you may kill 2 of TLOs Zerglings, but he'll overall dominate the map by killing 100 units in your army. "Reward for sticking in the game." Um, not really, even if you still get a kill or two, if you're getting slaughtered, then your KDR plummets. "Can't see your losses" See above, KDR is available in pretty much every game. Etc. | ||
|
dibban
Sweden1279 Posts
First of all, we should be comparing the PvP elements of the games, not the aspects where you play against an AI. In every game of PvP, there is a winner and a loser. Therefore there is always a cost for defeat. Whether it be something as abstract as pride or hard-earned points or rating. Failure is never a private thing. Ever heard of "the armory"? Actually I'd say losing is more private in StarCraft 2 than World of Warcraft. The statistics of pretty much any game you have ever played for the past 6 months are publicly shown. And last but not least, a full-geared warrior (customized for pvp), will never, ever, ever, ever, lose to a badly geared mage with equal skill level. Never. Possibly if the skill level would be knowing how to press 1, whereas the mage would then shoot frostbolts and the warrior swing in the air at a distance, but that is just ridiculous. Losing is never hard if you don't have any expectations of yourself. Most wow players don't (as in being oriented towards PvE, which is a joke and any SC2 player who can achieve Gold, which itself is a joke for anyone remotely competitive, will manage flawlessly). Again, don't compare totally unsimilar aspects of two widely different games and do not base an entire wall-of-text whine post solely on assumptions and prejudgement. | ||
|
Believer
Sweden212 Posts
On January 03 2011 19:45 ShadowDrgn wrote: I think the difference is that Chess is a game of perfect information with no sudden surprises, and it's those surprises that trigger tilt. Unless you're really bad at Chess, you're never going to go from thinking you're going to win to being checkmated instantly. In Starcraft, you can go from playing a seemingly perfect game to dead from DTs in a second. In poker, you can get the money in good and lose to a 1 in 990 runner-runner. As a chess player I must comment on this bit of text. To huameng: It is true that 90-99% of the pro games that are heavily dominated by one player is resigned. It does however not always go that way, so it is an inaccuracy to propose that "all games" end in one side surrendering. To ShadowDrgn: You seem to have a very basic understanding of chess. What you say about perfect information is true, I won't deny it. But the most fundamental difference between chess and Starcraft 2 in this context seems to be the victor/loser aspect. In professional chess most games are drawed (spelling?). The highest rated players often have something like a 55-60% win rate. As Starcraft 2 is a game of kill or be killed, the analogy is horribly wrong. I suggest you watch Viswanathan Anand vs Vladimir Kramnik, the latest world champion title games. Anand had probably not at all thought of the Knight sacrifice on G5. Defeat can come quickly and unexpectedly, even at the highest level. EDIT: On January 04 2011 11:20 dibbaN wrote: In every game of PvP, there is a winner and a loser. Therefore there is always a cost for defeat. Whether it be something as abstract as pride or hard-earned points or rating. I largely agree with your post, except for this part which you have gotten wrong. In certain situations of the arena in World of Warcraft a draw can be achieved. If the last players in each team die at the very same time a draw will be in effect. This might not seem like a very high probability, but might I remind you the difference between 0 and 1? | ||
|
Jimmycliff
United States86 Posts
| ||
|
TFB
United Kingdom89 Posts
On January 04 2011 04:54 Treemonkeys wrote: I'm replying because I'm interested, I would really like to hear how you think Blizzard could learn from iRacing (haven't played it), because it sound's like you think Blizzard could learn in the way of offering better statistics, instead of just win/loss. You're certainly spot on with respect to the difference in the available stats compared to iRacing. That said, there are a few items that would transfer directly between the two. First off, iRacing shows actual ratings (it's a bastardised ELO) for drivers. Said ratings aren't perfect, but they are sufficiently representative as to be meaningful, and all results are shown with pre and post race ratings, so after a few races (ie. long enough to work out how the system works) you know exactly how much rating you're putting "on the line" each time you go out there. Personally, I beleive Blizz should let us see precisely how good the system thinks we are, how good it thinks our opponents are, and where the cut-off points reside for leagues as it removes the rather unpleasent ambiguity we've got at the moment, and also removes the possibility of unpleasent shocks. It only takes a brief glance at any general SC2 related forum (including here) to find a couple of "I'm gold, all my recent opponents have been diamond or plat, I keep winning, I've not been promoted" threads, and it presumably follows (as someone's got to lose those games) there are higher league players out there worried about playing as they've got no idea how close or otherwise they are to losing their ratings. Put the raw numbers on show and the fear of the unknown goes away. Second, there's the general attitude to stats, otherwise known as Blizzards reluctance to give us any. iRacing offers an awful lot of stats regarding your own performance, best performances, worst, safety record, yada yada. It's all there, you can't hide from it, but you can judge progress by it. That attitude towards openess, I reckon, could make a big difference to the feel of SC2. Just to pick a few, win\loss ratios on per race basis, average rating of opponent faced, highest rated opponent beaten (or lowest lost to), average duration of winning game, average duration of losing game, average APM, etc., all with the ability to restrict to last N matches, would, in my opinion, really help players judge their progress, and also help them understand who they just played against. Yes, it's fair to say that lifting the veil in this way does mean there's nowhere to hide, but given the competitive nature of SC2, I don't really see that as a problem. Then we've got the way they handle divisions, which is somewhat controversial, primarily because their userbase is a tad to small to work properly with the system in place - for SC2, it's easily big enough. Without going into to much detail, a season is 12 weeks, and drivers as assigned to a division (and remain in it for the duration of the season) based on their rating at the point when they first race during the season. Ignoring the actual division scoring system*, the nice aspect of this vs. SC2 is you know precisely when the season ends and so have something to aim for - it might be an attempt to maximise your position, a "sod it, I'll get ready for next season", or a concerted attempt to move the rating up to get promoted or escape relegation. Personally, I think there are two lessons for Blizz in this one, both of which relate to a fixed and transparent season length... Currently, divisions are a continuous affair, with seasons end being "at some point" and promotion and relegation happening "at some point, depends on who's active plus some numbers we're not showing you". Show the players their actual ratings, run one month seasons, then promote and relegate based on a visible rating moving average against a published target (even if it's a moving one, it should be visible), don't allocate division places to players until they actually play in a season (so no dead players clogging up divisions) and you've suddenly got a system where players have a series of defined, time-limited objectives to aim for, rather than just the nebulous "stay in the top ten, maybe get promoted, try and win stuff" we have now. I suppose, to sum it all up, SC2 is, by it's very nature, a highly competitive environment. The name of the game's (excluding the self-evident 'hf') to get better, and once in game there's absolutely no avoiding it unless your opposition falls asleep at the keyboard. Currently, we have a very schizophrenic environment in which the actual game part is deeply competitive and extremely hard to hide from (thanks to replays), and yet the way in which we're ranked and rated is very fluffy and carebeary - all the "risk and reward" is in the actual games themslves. A more open attitude to stats, and more fluid division system with defined end dates, wouldn't necessarily make losing easier to take**, but it would increase the rewards for winning as players would be able to see themselves moving towards a goal, rather the current system where hope and imagination play a central role. One last plus... Publish actual ratings and the best of the best become a lot more visible. This, in my opinion, would be potentially very good indeed for SC2 as an eSport as it would make it easier for up and coming genuine best-of-the-best types to make a name for themselves and get noticed. * Because it wouldn't suit SC2 at all as it's designed to handle a comparatively low number of results and removes any notion of "he who races the most wins" - one top result per week will win you a division, twenty reasonable ones won't. ** Easier to comprehend and rationalise, but it's still a loss, and if you hate losing, you're still gonna hate it. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
The thing is, especially when he cheesed me so cheaply, I should admit that he played well since I did not noticed in time how he cheesed me. So I want to rage "that guy got the win with NO SKILL" but at the same I know that is entirely my fault he got away with this. Then I just tilt. Sometimes I also get angry when I had 3 hatches and just doubled expanded again and build a good army but then he appears with the perfect counter and just roflstompes me. I already moved an Overlord in place to scout, sadly I forgot to actually scout. So I focussed for 15-20 real-time minutes only to get a loss because I overlooked his tech change. | ||
|
[F_]aths
Germany3947 Posts
On January 04 2011 11:22 Believer wrote: I do To ShadowDrgn: You seem to have a very basic understanding of chess. What you say about perfect information is true, I won't deny it.  Chess is no game of full information because you don't know what the opponent intents to build up. You have vision of the full board (but must remember if castling is still possible, a photograph of a chessboard with its pieces does not always fully describe the state of the game.)If the opponent moves the knight to D4, you don't always know why he did it. May be he is trying to protect a field which will be important 4 or 5 moves later. May be it is a random move to confuse you (though that is probably not likely in high-level tournaments.) You cannot always know with just a look at the board. | ||
|
alphafuzard
United States1610 Posts
On January 03 2011 22:39 Sm3agol wrote: Definitely going to disagree here. I've played quite a few games competitively, but never at a high level. And I've definitely killed some "gods" of their sports in various FPS, in competitive and casual settings. I've killed DaHang twice(in CA, not duel, but still), walter and dtK once apiece in duel, and jones, kgb, Wintergr33n(I think, lol, EG member I thik, been a little while ago) and a bunch of other "pro" ctf players quite often in casual CTF games, and in one competitive game. In CSS I 1 v 3'ed an ESEA invite group in a casual game, where I had the bomb down and they were trying to defuse. I've also killed single "professional" players in ESEA pugs quite often. And all these players are of the caliber that if the same level/skill difference we were at was applied to SC2, I would get hardcore raped. In FPS games, a single lucky shot like a flick 1 deag can get you a kill and win you a round vs a professional player. In SC2, making a single lucky play won't win you anything but another 15 seconds of time you would survive. I've never played any FPS games seriously but isn't the idea the same? Win the battle, lose the war. Even if you get a lucky headshot occasionally, does that mean you won the game? I think not (or else the game would kind of suck....) | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
| ||
|
goldenwitch
United States338 Posts
| ||
| ||
