|
On January 05 2011 07:58 ktimekiller wrote:
If deliberate practice was the only factor in the equation, we would have more than one tiger woods, and more than one jaedongs
There can only one person at the top, that is why there is #2 and #3, they have spent less time in deliberate practice. I also don't really follow what your saying, why would there be more than one tiger woods if deliberate practice is the only factor.
|
On January 05 2011 07:53 Chylo wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 07:32 CatZ.root wrote:
Minigun is highest rated player in North America with no previous RTS experience or super high apm He's also terran. And has the time to play a huge amount. Honestly, the original poster's problem is that he is playing zerg. Zerg is so massively more difficult to play than the other races it's crazy. Zerg is also the worst. You mess up 1 thing and you lose. Basic macro from a terran or toss gets you to diamond. If he switched to toss and was taught the 4 gate he would hit diamond rapidly. Actually hes protoss and probably does not play any more then players of his level.
Second of all blaming silver after 700 games because hes zerg and your presumption that Z is the hardest/worst race is ridiculous. I was primarily Z when i got diamond after about 50 games, no prior RTS experience outside of 3v3 fastest on BW (lol).
|
On January 05 2011 07:53 Kefka.dancingmad wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 07:49 news wrote:On January 05 2011 07:46 Kefka.dancingmad wrote:
Lol trolls trolling trolls. I don't want to be apart of this. I opt out. Run with your tail between legs, good idea. Once my argument gets picked apart I usually choose to depart while proclaiming a victory. No, I don't need to prove anything to Gold/Plat level players. That is all. EDIT:: I mean you, news.
Sorry to hear that, I'd 10-0 you if it had any meaning. I had higher rating on beta than you ever will after release, if that means anything to you. Btw why are you still replying? What a softie.
|
On January 04 2011 17:34 warcralft wrote:
Its not really natural. Those players ( ME ) just have more game sense. Game sense as in they are able to multitask well (real life stuff helps alot). Plays strategy games. And do research!!
Some people with 50-80 games watch streams. Find counters once they lose. Stick to 1 BO.
If you play strategy games, I don't think you qualify for what the OP was saying, he was talking about people with no previous RTS experience.
|
On January 05 2011 01:51 Leviwtf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 01:16 Myles wrote:
Like I said, I agree that practice is most important, but if you really think there aren't physical things that makes a difference we'll just have to disagree on that. Everyone seems to accept there are inherent physical differences between men and women. There's also physical differences(generally less so) between individual people of the same sex. They can be overcome through dedicated practice, but I know it pissed me off in high school that I deliberately worked out 5 days a week and ate healthy and still couldn't get a six pack, while others guys only ever played sports a few hours a week and at whatever they wanted and were still more cut than I was. There are physical things that make a small difference at the initial skill level, but in the long run, at the top of the skill level (professional), those initial genetic advantages don't matter and don't affect a person's chances of reaching that skill level. Height is the only exception as it greatly impacts a person's chances of becoming a professional nba player or a girl becoming a professional gymnast. I'm also saying this not as my opinion but as what the data from numerous studies show. In regards to the six pack, that is something completely else as it is not a game, skill, or sport, its an appearance thing. You probably had much stronger abs but your schoolmates might of also had a higher metabolic rate which means they have a lower body fat percentage and a higher chance of having a six pack.
You act like there's some kind of scientific consensus on this topic. While some parts of what they say is probably true, there have to be some genetic differences outlying differences in ability. They just haven't found them yet and probably won't anytime soon, so obviously they have to look at something they can observe/measure/quantify.
And just take a look at someone like Michael Phelps. The guy is genetic freak. Have you seen the size of his hands? They're like paddles. His whole body is basically tailored towards swimming. Or take a look at Eienstein's brain, it's freaking monstrous compared to the average person and is built differently. Obviously both of these people also had to put in a ton of work to get where they did, but you can't say genetics didn't play any part at all.
|
At least this thread is doing an admirable job at keeping forum E-peen thriving.
|
On January 05 2011 08:45 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 01:51 Leviwtf wrote:On January 05 2011 01:16 Myles wrote:
Like I said, I agree that practice is most important, but if you really think there aren't physical things that makes a difference we'll just have to disagree on that. Everyone seems to accept there are inherent physical differences between men and women. There's also physical differences(generally less so) between individual people of the same sex. They can be overcome through dedicated practice, but I know it pissed me off in high school that I deliberately worked out 5 days a week and ate healthy and still couldn't get a six pack, while others guys only ever played sports a few hours a week and at whatever they wanted and were still more cut than I was. There are physical things that make a small difference at the initial skill level, but in the long run, at the top of the skill level (professional), those initial genetic advantages don't matter and don't affect a person's chances of reaching that skill level. Height is the only exception as it greatly impacts a person's chances of becoming a professional nba player or a girl becoming a professional gymnast. I'm also saying this not as my opinion but as what the data from numerous studies show. In regards to the six pack, that is something completely else as it is not a game, skill, or sport, its an appearance thing. You probably had much stronger abs but your schoolmates might of also had a higher metabolic rate which means they have a lower body fat percentage and a higher chance of having a six pack. You act like there's some kind of scientific consensus on this topic. While some parts of what they say is probably true, there have to be some genetic differences outlying differences in ability. They just haven't found them yet and probably won't anytime soon, so obviously they have to look at something they can observe/measure/quantify. And just take a look at someone like Michael Phelps. The guy is genetic freak. Have you seen the size of his hands? They're like paddles. His whole body is basically tailored towards swimming. Or take a look at Eienstein's brain, it's freaking monstrous compared to the average person and is built differently. Obviously both of these people also had to put in a ton of work to get where they did, but you can't say genetics didn't play any part at all.
This is why there is testing and the scientific process because often times what you think is true actually isn't.
Lets look at your two examples,
Michael Phelps - Are his hands larger than most people of his height? I don't know I haven't measured hands or know the average size of hands for people his height. I agree his hands are large...but are they larger than average? Secondly, does having large hands actually benefit you a substantial amount in swimming? I'm no expert swimmer and literally know nothing but I wonder how much of swimming speed is gained from your legs as opposed from your hands.
Einstein - Is a larger brain better? Could you argue he was born that way or through deliberate practice he actually increased the size of his brain, the power of the nervous connections, etc. It is amazing how the human body/mind adapt when they are pushed, a tennis player's bone structure in their arm becomes more dense as a result of serves for example.
|
On January 04 2011 17:30 hellokitty[hk] wrote:Show nested quote +I've been reading lately about people who claim to have gotten into Diamond within their first 50-80 games without previous RTS experience and I am trying to figure out of it's just me who is really horribad or if these people are lying. I don't doubt it.
i agree, i speculate that at least half of those people who says they were naturally good at this game are fucking lying. it took around 700-900 games before i hit 1.9k during beta (before there was a diamond div and the pros had around 2 - 2.1k in points and when no one knew how to use terran (boy does that feel like a long time ago)). This was also on top of 12 years of bw exp which probably equates to around... 10k games in rts altogether.
|
If you don't learn from your mistakes, it doesn't matter how many games you've played.
So yeah, figure out what you're doing wrong, THEN practice.
|
On January 05 2011 09:29 imyzhang wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2011 17:30 hellokitty[hk] wrote:I've been reading lately about people who claim to have gotten into Diamond within their first 50-80 games without previous RTS experience and I am trying to figure out of it's just me who is really horribad or if these people are lying. I don't doubt it. i agree, i speculate that at least half of those people who says they were naturally good at this game are fucking lying. it took around 700-900 games before i hit 1.9k during beta (before there was a diamond div and the pros had around 2 - 2.1k in points and when no one knew how to use terran (boy does that feel like a long time ago)). This was also on top of 12 years of bw exp which probably equates to around... 10k games in rts altogether.
Hmm I think talent is a thing really needed for sure, I've played starcraft 1 a bit with friends etc but never online, then with sc2 I got into the last month of beta hit diamond pretty quickly. Then at the start when sc2 got released it took me around 14 games to get promoted to diamond, now i am around 2300 diamond mmr rating that is. I play around 4-5 games a day (maybe with 2 v 2's at somedays 15 but weekends I never play so it evens out). I must say that I am sure I have less time in the game then alot of other players but I still manage to be a decent player. I have the same thing with shooters etc, I just learn quickly if I play with friends and we all start the same time and play roughly the same amount I am always better, I just pick it up easier and with the same amount of play I destroy them. So yes Talent is required, but practice and good tips get you pretty far
|
On January 05 2011 09:18 Leviwtf wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 08:45 teamsolid wrote:On January 05 2011 01:51 Leviwtf wrote:On January 05 2011 01:16 Myles wrote:
Like I said, I agree that practice is most important, but if you really think there aren't physical things that makes a difference we'll just have to disagree on that. Everyone seems to accept there are inherent physical differences between men and women. There's also physical differences(generally less so) between individual people of the same sex. They can be overcome through dedicated practice, but I know it pissed me off in high school that I deliberately worked out 5 days a week and ate healthy and still couldn't get a six pack, while others guys only ever played sports a few hours a week and at whatever they wanted and were still more cut than I was. There are physical things that make a small difference at the initial skill level, but in the long run, at the top of the skill level (professional), those initial genetic advantages don't matter and don't affect a person's chances of reaching that skill level. Height is the only exception as it greatly impacts a person's chances of becoming a professional nba player or a girl becoming a professional gymnast. I'm also saying this not as my opinion but as what the data from numerous studies show. In regards to the six pack, that is something completely else as it is not a game, skill, or sport, its an appearance thing. You probably had much stronger abs but your schoolmates might of also had a higher metabolic rate which means they have a lower body fat percentage and a higher chance of having a six pack. You act like there's some kind of scientific consensus on this topic. While some parts of what they say is probably true, there have to be some genetic differences outlying differences in ability. They just haven't found them yet and probably won't anytime soon, so obviously they have to look at something they can observe/measure/quantify. And just take a look at someone like Michael Phelps. The guy is genetic freak. Have you seen the size of his hands? They're like paddles. His whole body is basically tailored towards swimming. Or take a look at Eienstein's brain, it's freaking monstrous compared to the average person and is built differently. Obviously both of these people also had to put in a ton of work to get where they did, but you can't say genetics didn't play any part at all. This is why there is testing and the scientific process because often times what you think is true actually isn't.
Scientific process doesn't necessarily reach concrete conclusions on a more broad scale especially in fields such as these. It's especially hard to separate cause and effect. For example, let's assume for a moment that some of their specific conclusions indeed hold true and what's especially important is determining skill is "deliberate practice". You still can't rule out the possibility that some people are just genetically programmed to be far better at recognizing or applying "deliberate practice". It's obviously something that's extremely hard to teach.
You will never have scientific papers that establish a general conclusion such as the one you made (talent does not exist). I also haven't actually read any studies that were particularly convincing either. Maybe you could link some.
Lets look at your two examples,
Michael Phelps - Are his hands larger than most people of his height? I don't know I haven't measured hands or know the average size of hands for people his height. I agree his hands are large...but are they larger than average? Secondly, does having large hands actually benefit you a substantial amount in swimming? I'm no expert swimmer and literally know nothing but I wonder how much of swimming speed is gained from your legs as opposed from your hands.
Yes, yes and yes. http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/olympics/2008/08/can_anyone_spoil_phelps_pool_p.html
Even the smallest differences count at the olympic level when a few milliseconds is the difference between winning and losing.
Einstein - Is a larger brain better? Could you argue he was born that way or through deliberate practice he actually increased the size of his brain, the power of the nervous connections, etc. It is amazing how the human body/mind adapt when they are pushed, a tennis player's bone structure in their arm becomes more dense as a result of serves for example.
You could, but you don't have anything to back that up with. Either way his brain is different from the average person's and chances are pretty good that it's genetic.
|
wasn't really hard for me to get into diamond. I've played rts games since i was about 8 (roughly 10 years) so for me it is not a very hard transition, already having basic macro/micro tactic knowledge. If you are still in silver as zerg and really want to improve add, bygone 420, maybe i could give some advice on how to improve 
|
I think I am a pretty good example of someone with a lot of natural talent. When new games come out I tend to dominate the vast majority of players. However, I tend not to practice a lot, so the longer the game is out the worse I tend to do as the overall playerbase gets better.
|
My MMR matches me against people with ratings in the 2500-2800 in diamond, and I win roughly 50% of the time even though my own rating is 1400 in diamond. I've played about 140 games since I got the game, plus about 60 games during beta (and maybe 30-40 PvZ's, roughly 80% of which I have won, against a zerg friend who currently stands at 2500 in diamond with a MMR similar to mine.) I think that I don't play a lot at all, and I never watch my own replays (unless I do something awesome!).
When I play, I hardly know what I'm doing against T or especially P. I have no clue how to play PvP so I just go with my gut feeling. I oftentimes lose silly games, and I hardly know how to handle the build where they make a bunch of pylons in your base and start spamming zealots. Also, I don't have build orders besides for the first few minutes of the game, after that I just "make it fit", although sometimes it doesn't. It's astounding to me that I seem to win a decent amount despite the fact that people who play at that level tend to be very methodical, have set build orders while I just wing it every game...
As far as macro goes, mine is excellent although it falls apart when I get above 3 bases or when theres A banshee on the field. My micro is horrible except for my forcefields which apparently are very efficient and quick, and since I use them a lot in PvZ I do well in that MU.
So is it skill, or is it natural? I don't know. I don't seem to have as much experience as the people whom I get matched against - so why can I compete? I think it might be partly because of how much I've listened to Day9, especially before SC2. I ended up knowing a lot of SCBW theory and did very well on iCCup despite having played very very few games overall. I don't think I'm that talented at RTS, but understanding some theory is a big plus. I know things I wouldn't have bothered to infer or deduce if I hadn't found TL.net and Day9.
What do you guys think anyway?
|
Getting better at an RTS does not require pure "games played". It requires thought behind how you lost, and what you could improve upon when you do lose. If you ever lose a game and shrug it off, then go to the next game without thinking about why you lost, you are missing out on valuable information.
I strongly believe that someone who is "inherently" good at SC2 (or any RTS game) just thinks about why he is losing games, and adapts his builds accordingly instead of just copying build orders and trying to macro his way to victory.
|
(orky)asmodey (one of the first bw progamers) once said that you cannot tell much about players' potential until he's played at least 10k games. Take it as you want but I wholeheartedly agree. None of the people above that 'played around 100 games and got into diamond' are worth a damn, they are basically some lowest tier scrubs that beat out 7 year old kids and random people that never played RTS in their lives struggling in gold leagues. Get somewhere, talk about how talented you are.
|
On January 05 2011 10:35 news wrote:
(orky)asmodey (one of the first bw progamers) once said that you cannot tell much about players' potential until he's played at least 10k games. Take it as you want but I wholeheartedly agree. None of the people above that 'played around 100 games and got into diamond' are worth a damn, they are basically some lowest tier scrubs that beat out 7 year old kids and random people that never played RTS in their lives struggling in gold leagues. Get somewhere, talk about how talented you are.
You're confusing. What about people who played about 25 games before they get into diamond and have around 100 games played to date and go up in the ladder, with very few games, are they still some lowest tier scrubs...? Also, wouldn't people who haven't managed to get diamond with a hundred games be even bigger scrubs? I believe that there are people with thousands of games who are still in bronze/silver somehow, do they have more merit than the guys who took a long time to reach diamond?
Seems weird to me. Maybe I just completely misunderstand you.
|
On January 05 2011 08:45 teamsolid wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 01:51 Leviwtf wrote:On January 05 2011 01:16 Myles wrote:
Like I said, I agree that practice is most important, but if you really think there aren't physical things that makes a difference we'll just have to disagree on that. Everyone seems to accept there are inherent physical differences between men and women. There's also physical differences(generally less so) between individual people of the same sex. They can be overcome through dedicated practice, but I know it pissed me off in high school that I deliberately worked out 5 days a week and ate healthy and still couldn't get a six pack, while others guys only ever played sports a few hours a week and at whatever they wanted and were still more cut than I was. There are physical things that make a small difference at the initial skill level, but in the long run, at the top of the skill level (professional), those initial genetic advantages don't matter and don't affect a person's chances of reaching that skill level. Height is the only exception as it greatly impacts a person's chances of becoming a professional nba player or a girl becoming a professional gymnast. I'm also saying this not as my opinion but as what the data from numerous studies show. In regards to the six pack, that is something completely else as it is not a game, skill, or sport, its an appearance thing. You probably had much stronger abs but your schoolmates might of also had a higher metabolic rate which means they have a lower body fat percentage and a higher chance of having a six pack. You act like there's some kind of scientific consensus on this topic. While some parts of what they say is probably true, there have to be some genetic differences outlying differences in ability. They just haven't found them yet and probably won't anytime soon, so obviously they have to look at something they can observe/measure/quantify. And just take a look at someone like Michael Phelps. The guy is genetic freak. Have you seen the size of his hands? They're like paddles. His whole body is basically tailored towards swimming. Or take a look at Eienstein's brain, it's freaking monstrous compared to the average person and is built differently. Obviously both of these people also had to put in a ton of work to get where they did, but you can't say genetics didn't play any part at all.
I agree with you, but Eienstein's brain wasn't so huge. It was 92 grams bigger than average humans brain weight (1492 compared to 1400). The biggest part of his geniuses was suggested to be highly developed convolutions, not the size itself .
|
I don't know of anyone who truly believes that deliberate practice is all there is to it. The proponderence of evidence points to practice explaning the majority of skill differences between people. Those "naturally" good at starcraft are probable transferring skills from other contexts and taking a different fundamental approach to the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
