|
On January 05 2011 04:43 Comprissent wrote:
i've got ~300 games played, sc2 is my very first RTS experience (besides DoTA customs on reign of chaos, if that counts)
I'm a 2300 diamond protoss (i'd guess about 2500 by now if i had played at my normal pace during christmas break; i haven't played a single 1v1 ladder match since dec 20th or so)
I've got a good background in console gaming, and used to play insane amounts of chess, to which i can attribute a lot of my strategy from. I suppose they sort of mix. I'd consider myself a very adept learner as well- i've had to pick up and become semi-proficient in several musical instruments in just several weeks before.
If 2300 diamond equals to D- bw I believe you. Otherwise every player in the top 500 on either server has had plenty of RTS experience, most likely either bw or wc3.
|
On January 05 2011 06:28 Nearsite00 wrote:
To the OP, just keep playing and you will get better eventually. Took me about 600 games to get to Diamond and I use to play BW single player and custom maps for fun. I disagree with all the people that say this game requires any sort of physical superiority to excel in. I'm in great shape and I'm still just a 1700 diamond. I run 2 miles a week for fun and 1 day at the gym. I'm 5'11 and 160lbs. With this game you just sit there, so you don't need much cardio, and you're only pressing buttons and moving a mouse, so it doesn't require you to have muscles.
I'm still at a loss to what this game or any PC game for that matter requires physically from someone? Can anyone define this? Seems like you just have to have some brain power and remember where all your keys are on your keyboard.
Starcraft at a very high level just fucks your brain. you are so damn concentrated that wehn u play lots n lots of games in a row its total stress. and mental stress can also bring you physically down
and lives from your stamina.
|
xD I got diamond within 15 games and this is my first rts!! xD
|
On January 05 2011 06:27 Shadrak wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 05:08 plagiarisedwords wrote:
Also the attitude that you can be good at something with less effort than others is not going to get you far in SC2 or anything else that you do in your life. Especially at lower levels of a sport or an e-sport, practice matters more than natural ability (Diamond is still low levels :-) Blizz sets the bar low to make all of us feel better!) Practice matters more than natural ability, but to say natural ability doesn't matter is just silly. You can take two people who haven't played SC2 before, give them the same number of games and come out with very different rankings. Why do some people have 200 games played and can't get out of gold while others have 200 games played and are playing in diamond? Of course some people take need less effort to get good at something than others. You see that in all aspects of life, be it school, work or games. Effort pays off everwhere, sure, but its not the only thing that helps the successful get to where they are.
There is definitely some amount of "skill" or ability to learn quickly that is genetically based, but most of the time the difference really is effort and time put in. You can't just look at 200 games and say that both players put in the same amount of time and effort.
Which one watched more replays? Which one talked more about strategy with their friends/thought about strategy more? Which one has more experience learning new skills and know how to do so rapidly?
Similarly with school. For all of the people that it appears like they pick up new material more quickly, the vast majority of them have just put in more time and energy throughout their lifetime learning new things.
|
There's definitely some natural talent and knack for rts, but I think it's also partially about playing and practicing properly. Even if you play 1k games, if you only stick with one (bad) build order and constantly focus on the wrong things, you're never going to rise in ranks. However, if you play only 100 games, but those 100 games shows real improvement in using proper build orders, proper mechanics and games sense, then those 100 games will be much more beneficial and show more of a result than the 1k "bad" games.
|
I've only played about 100 1v1s but I got into Diamond in about 40. I'm one of those guys that has no competitive RTS experience yet has a knack for the game.
|
never any previous RTS experience whatsoever, after about 150 games i got into diamond. i lost every single placement match, and i remember being about 35w35l in bronze league, now i am 130w61l or something close to that @ 2k diamond with like 600 bonus pool.
watching replays of pros and top players helped me the most.
|
Some people are just better at things than others. Some people are just smarter than others. Talent exists, but it's nothing without hard work and dedication.
Hard work beats talent if talent does not work hard.
|
Good players can carry themselves with pure skill or pure dedication. The best players are outrageous combinations of both.
|
On January 04 2011 17:45 Leviwtf wrote:
There is no such thing as talent, it has been proven over and over again. The level of expertise you have is directly tired to how much you practice AND how effectively you practice.
I hear people say this on occasion. They say it with such sincerity, and yet it reflects such a willful ignorance of the world around them that it makes me wonder why they hold on to the idea with such ferocity.
People are different. Some people are innately better at some things than others. Some people are good at math. Some people are artistic. Some people have a way with language. Some people are graceful beyond explanation.
That's not to say that effective practice isn't important or even the most important component of success at something. But to ignore innate ability seems very odd to me.
|
On January 05 2011 06:45 Zombo Joe wrote:
I've only played about 100 1v1s but I got into Diamond in about 40. I'm one of those guys that has no competitive RTS experience yet has a knack for the game.
People that were B/B- on iccup for years would never say they had a 'knack for the game'. Yet you make it into a division for people that held mouse before and swim in delusions. Once you achieve somethign you can claim to have a knack, as of now you are just one of millions of newbs.
|
On January 05 2011 06:41 Ryuu314 wrote:
There's definitely some natural talent and knack for rts.
On January 05 2011 07:04 Pylonhead wrote:
I hear people say this on occasion. They say it with such sincerity, and yet it reflects such a willful ignorance of the world around them that it makes me wonder why they hold on to the idea with such ferocity.
People are different. Some people are innately better at some things than others. Some people are good at math. Some people are artistic. Some people have a way with language. Some people are graceful beyond explanation.
That's not to say that effective practice isn't important or even the most important component of success at something. But to ignore innate ability seems very odd to me.
What exactly are you basing this statement on as every single scientific study, dataset, and experiment would disagree with it.
To answer your example, I'd say that it is obvious that everyone has different specialities and things they are skilled in, that is because they have practiced different things. As a result, people are seen to "have a gift with languages" when in reality they have spent more practicing language than you.
Refer:
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdf
Like I said, there is no such thing an innate talent. Anything you think is talent is actually just the result of deliberate practice.
|
I remember my first couple of games in beta where i mostly got ZvZs.
I got heavy agression by zerglings and being a noobie i just fought back with zerglings until the enemy mutas came flying to my base and i wasn't prepared. What i actually did was steal the build and yay, wins wins wins.
I don't think there is such a tallent that you would just get in diamond by playing a lot without analising your mistakes and your opponents strategies and their weaknesses.
|
I would think the ability to understand games would affect the natural talent required to play an RTS. Intellectual people would be able to verify their weaknesses by seeing how they lost, when they lost and why they lost. Naturally good players can get into diamond with basic macro skills. Most bronze-platinum players don't throw down things the second you get the minerals for it. I see naturally good players just keep doing things they find out works. Bronze players don't seem to understand that when they have 1000 minerals its meant to be spent.
|
I think most people who liek me claim to have gotten diamond really easily is not only because of genral rts experience but about specific rts ecperience like starcraft1, once you get the basic changes between the two games it's pretty easy to pick up.
|
On January 05 2011 07:05 Leviwtf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 06:41 Ryuu314 wrote:
There's definitely some natural talent and knack for rts. Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 07:04 Pylonhead wrote:
I hear people say this on occasion. They say it with such sincerity, and yet it reflects such a willful ignorance of the world around them that it makes me wonder why they hold on to the idea with such ferocity.
People are different. Some people are innately better at some things than others. Some people are good at math. Some people are artistic. Some people have a way with language. Some people are graceful beyond explanation.
That's not to say that effective practice isn't important or even the most important component of success at something. But to ignore innate ability seems very odd to me.
What exactly are you basing this statement on as every single scientific study, dataset, and experiment would disagree with it. To answer your example, I'd say that it is obvious that everyone has different specialities and things they are skilled in, that is because they have practiced different things. As a result, people are seen to "have a gift with languages" when in reality they have spent more practicing language than you. Refer: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/blogs/freakonomics/pdf/DeliberatePractice(PsychologicalReview).pdfLike I said, there is no such thing an innate talent. Anything you think is talent is actually just the result of deliberate practice.
How do you explain child prodigies or young geniuses. You can't deliberate intellect or understanding of complex concepts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_prodigy
|
On January 05 2011 07:14 Kefka.dancingmad wrote:
I would think the ability to understand games would affect the natural talent required to play an RTS. Intellectual people would be able to verify their weaknesses by seeing how they lost, when they lost and why they lost. Naturally good players can get into diamond with basic macro skills. Most bronze-platinum players don't throw down things the second you get the minerals for it. I see naturally good players just keep doing things they find out works. Bronze players don't seem to understand that when they have 1000 minerals its meant to be spent.
This is bullshit, proven by progamers being horrible at chess and great young chess players not being able to pick it up. This has very little to do with intellect in general.
|
There is very little relation between intelligence and being good at SC2. I know people who are smart as fuck, like Harvard caliber but they just don't have the dexterity/coordination to control a mouse and keyboard super fast and in sync while they are thinking fast. I also know people who aren't technically book smart and they are rape at SC2. I think it has very little to do with anything.
But there are definitely some people who naturally better. Some people play 600 games and they are still Bronze. Some people are in Diamond in 50 games. I think anyone who played Starcraft 1 at a competitive level would be Diamond in SC2 less than 100 games. I think it took me 40 games to hit Diamond, I didn't even know what the units / abilities were yet.
|
Take this as you will, but when I first started the beta I got into plat (before there was a diamond) in under 100 games, starting about mid silver. This is with no RTS experience in the past, though granted the game was much less developed then. As it stands I am probably as good now as some of the weaker pros were in the early stages of the game.
I have played ~400 games since release and because of my MMR am currently playing against (and beating the majority of) 2800+ diamond players.
|
Of course, some people are better at things than other people but you can still mostly become better by just playing the game. I remember when I picked up SC2 during my vacation over the Philippines. It was last summer, August to be precise. I remember I sucked so horribad and just did random stuff like teching up to Thor with no units to defend my base. Now I'm kinda better at it, low diamond in fact. Just keep playing and you'll eventually get better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
