|
I guess I fit the bill here,
I have 92 games played, 55 won, 37 lost, no previous RTS experience.
my position in diamond is low (because of few games played) but my hidden rating meen i am almost constantly playing against top 20 diamond.
I'd put my success down to 3 things:
1. Experience in old school FPS (counter strike and cod2 (aka when cod was good  )) gives me quick reactions, good mouse/keyboard control and of course fast decision making.
2. Replays, I watched the entire GSL and my APM literally magically increased from 60-70 to around 100 simply from watching how the pro's spend their clicks etc...
3. Simplicity, you can go a long way with 1 built for each match up.
I play protoss so for example vs zerg I almost always try to proxy stargate and attack them when they have only 2 queens out with a void ray, couple of stalkers and a handful of zealots. I'd say that strategy alone is responsible for a good chunk of my wins
vs protoss I just do 1 base collosus wars because people below high tier diamond are just inexplicably bad at macro so I always seem to get more collosus out than them alot quicker.
vs terran i go blink stalker into dark shrine or high templar depending on whether they go MMM or some kind of tech play (this always get raped by banshees and is probably the reason i lose most QQ games against terran)
I still dont regard myself as at all good at the game though. I simpy dont have enough experience so alot of things i should know from scouting end up surprising me. Also my competitive nature means I burn out really quickly if I have even a couple of losses in a row and then i wont play for weeks.
I thinks its just the case that once you are good at a certain computer game, you will be able to be good at almost any just by transfering over the skills you already know.
Very rarely do find people who are godlike at one game but cant play another to save their life
|
The answer is quite obvious. Some people pick up things faster than other people. It's the way of life. It's the reason why the kid sitting next to me gets an A on every single physics test and I barely pass. It's the same reason I smoke that same kid in chemistry. Some people are just naturally gifted at a subject. Gaming is no different.
|
On January 05 2011 11:12 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +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.
My point was - it's useless to judge talent based on something as easily achievable as getting into diamond. Every D- player can get into diamond, it's nothing to be proud of. And all of us (myself included) struggling under 3000 rating or w/e it is nowadays for average trash are neither good nor talented. Unless someone comes out of nowhere and achieves results (the way Koll did on bw) I'm not going to listen. Prove how good you are if you are talented, that's all I'm saying. Every excuse a la 'I am too lazy to put more time into it, but I'd be real good' is pathetic and worthless. Those people will never become relevant no matter how hard they try.
|
On January 05 2011 11:53 news wrote:Show nested quote +On January 05 2011 11:12 Djzapz wrote: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. My point was - it's useless to judge talent based on something as easily achievable as getting into diamond. Every D- player can get into diamond, it's nothing to be proud of. And all of us (myself included) struggling under 3000 rating or w/e it is nowadays for average trash are neither good nor talented. Unless someone comes out of nowhere and achieves results (the way Koll did on bw) I'm not going to listen. Prove how good you are if you are talented, that's all I'm saying. Every excuse a la 'I am too lazy to put more time into it, but I'd be real good' is pathetic and worthless. Those people will never become relevant no matter how hard they try.
I don't know that there's such a threshold for "being good". Being rated 2500 in diamond puts you in the top 0.25% in North America and top 4% in the diamond league. Sure that's not pro level by any means but I would be comfortable qualifying as "good" even though even being in the top 0.25% still means that the top players will beat you easily even though you're "near the top".
Maybe we see it differently, I guess, but I think here's a fine line which represents a huge gap in skill somewhere at the top of the ladder - it doesn't mean that people below that line are completely just garbage.
|
0 rts exp and got diamond in less than ~50 games, no cheese (zerg)
just watched some PsY and downloaded the whole sc2rep.com database
If you're having trouble improving i'd tell you stop playing, and think about your play for a while and try to find out what is missing. also one thing that instantly hugely boosts your improving curve is admitting that you are awful xD
|
I was 13 when I got the beta, got in to platinum on my first 5 games because the placement matches were different. I think being young helps, it is easy for me to learn and drill it in to my brain. I also played Dota, and this helped me with my micro a lot.
|
You can research all you want about what to do with certain situations and how to do certain builds, but if you don't have the speed and focus to keep up with everything that is going on you will not but able to pull off these thing you research. Speed comes with comfort. Comfort comes with practice.
|
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.
of course, no one is subscribing to the belief that hard work will make the next CEO, bill gates, but the idea is that natural talent isn't really all that important UNTIL you get good enough to at least compete at a very high level is true.
i played piano for a lot years as a child, something that displayed almost no talent for when I started (age 7). i had (have) terrible pitch, and there were a lot of kids that I played with who I considered to be way better than myself, but I did practice it a lot (2-3 hours a day, 6hours/day before competitions etc...). I was able to play my first piano concerto in 5th grade, and was playing at about college level in middle school.
of course there is the possibility that you just aren't very good at rts games, there isnt' really anything to be ashamed about.
|
no previous RTS experience, got the game a month after it came out,, went like 75% win ratio to diamond.
i'm PsychonautQQ.218, now a 3250 protoss.
it's all natural baby, QQ
|
OMG thank you so much Uniden, for that amazing funday monday.
I feel like if you read up on some strategy from the pros, listen to state of the game or watch day 9 it helps accelerate your learning. I basically made diamond just because of watching day 9 because he explains the basic stuff so well. I played BW but really only custom games and 3v3 zero clutter maps so starting over and playing strictly 1v1's when sc2 came out was a big transition to make. Just keep at it remember dem pylons and probes...
|
honestly, yes some people pick up faster than others, but at some point people have to practice to get better.
If you're not winning games just yet, consider looking for solutions elsewhere if you're not gonna mass game. Replay analysis is good if you know what to look for.
Things to watch out for:
Cutting workers
Not enough production facilities
High minerals/gas
Supply blocks
Poor decision making
Macroing in and out of battle
Production cycle while/during/after battle
In battle mistakes
basic thing about rts though:
build tons of workers
build tons of units (without these you wont win)
|
I played with Idra through the years when he was horribad, and never of thought he would have been good at BW by the least bit. I don't think he is naturally talented one bit, but just played/studied hard to get where he was at.
So if you feel that you dont have it "naturally" don't feel too bad.
|
Its quite possible to get to Diamant if you just watched some basics right at the beginning; as its way easier to start good and become Diamant than slowly crawling your way from the bottom to the top.
The funny part is that some players can't even defend against simpel Cheese; but as they got promoted to Diamant they might be lucky enough to not face much Cheese at all at that level.
So the theory is that :
Get fast to Diamant => needs more basic "macro" knowledge // or some basic builds executed (4-gate etc.) ; but overall less skill and you might never get a chance to actual learn your lessons.
VS
Slowly walk your way from Bronce to Diamant => needs no skill at all at the beginning; but you must defeat every kind of cheese and random dork in the battle.net ; you end with more skill and experience.
|
On January 04 2011 17:32 piskooooo wrote:
They probably got Diamond from winning 4-5 of their placement matches.
They probably just 4gate, cannon rush, 6pool, 12drone, 2 rax, etc.
They probably got it when the game was new.
They probably lied.
Cant get into diamond via placements.
|
A lot of it is based on talent. You see people with 1000 games in hon or lol that are astoundingly bad. If you don't improve with 5-15 games, you wont be improving(much) with 200+. People with that many games usually lack map awareness and they tend to tunnel-vision.
|
I think that most of it is practise, but the smarter you are, the faster you will progress.
|
I got in diamond with around 60 matches played in 2 months, I mostly played 2v2 random to gain some skill and watch around 10 day 9 dailies. I was BW player, played only with friends but nothing pro, but we were pretty good, not the BGH type.
Anyway if u have your mechanism setted down is easy to get to diamond, for ex i`ve got in diamond in 4v4 after 3 month the game was released with 29 matches played. To be in diamond is not a big deal, it is not a big deal even if u are 1st in diamond, if u want to see your real stats check sc2ranks.com and search for master league.
Anyhow go watch some day9 and download some replay packs and good luck in the future gaming. SC2 rullz 
|
On January 04 2011 22:22 gillon wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2011 18:23 Kimaker wrote: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.
Getting into diamond literally shows very little of your skill level, the easy way is to learn 1 all in build (4gate, 3rax, etc) and just use it always. And even if people have no previous RTS experience they might have played speed chess or something else that would give them previous experience that would be helpful. Hell, even playing video games alot that are 1v1 based in a big help in that you won't be nervous when playing 1v1 like most people are. They also might of watched day9 every day and he gives very helpful tips that many new RTS players take a long time to figure out for themselves.
Also, you will improve immensely when you stop worrying about the outcome (winning/losing and what league your in/your points) and instead focus on improving. That's a load of crock. There CERTAINLY exists natural inclinations toward doing better than others at a given task considering we all think differently, and process information differently. Some ways of thinking would of course be more suited to quickly grasping rts's mechanics than others. I agree, hard work will beat out natural talent 9/10 times, but to say that "There is no such thing as talent..." is just lying. Not gonna argue with the middle portion of your post, but then why are some people at 700+ games, and still in Silver? They probably know what a 4 gate is, and have the damn thing memorized so they could recite it in their sleep. And clearly practice is not the issue (so damn many games) so what is it then? (Exaggeration) Practice well for a 100 games, get to diamond. Play 700 games and durp around and not actually consider what you could've done better/analyze/watch replays etc and you end up still in silver. See where I'm going with this? More games does not necessarily mean more skill earned through practice.
Then why do these people with so many games played continue bitch about it then? They clearly want to get better. Because they lack, within their character or their mental handelings, some aspect that is NOT lacking in a person capable of playing and learning from 100 games. That is just YOU. The person playing, not the actual amount of practice that goes in.
It's like a person who watches you do something they've never done for the first time, and goes and does it. EZ PZ. If you ask them, they'll often tell you they just watched you closely, they watched for THE RIGHT THINGS. Other people you'll have to demonstrated 100 times before they get it. It has to do with how we approach things differently.
|
Hmm I think its just mindset. If your really playing to get better and you know why you lose your games you'll improve.
I know in BW when i started out shitty (went straight to iccup never played bw before may 2009 and still never played campaign). Went from D to D+ in a month then went from D+ to C (1 win away from c+) in a season. Then the sc2 beta came out and didn't touch it sense (I do love bw though awesome game still watch progamers).
Sc2 is kind of the same thing if you have motivation and all that you should improve fairly quickly. its all it comes down too is if your completely flabbergastered to why you lost you should watch the replay. Me I almost always know why I lose games I lose.
I do think there is some just people who just get it alot faster like Nony and what not. But anybody can play at the top you just need the time and motivation ^^
|
"Getting into Diamond League" doesn't mean a lot, but staying in Diamond and having 60% or more win ratio without RTS experience is something. Don't let them get you down anyways-- Everyone is different. Keep playing, and you'll get better. There are so many stories out there about Bronze --> High Diamond, but not very many stories of "naturally in Diamond" into .. anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
