EPTEDIT: TL;DR A lot of people who only play a few games and get into diamond are the ones who have played a "trillion billion" games in BW, so they've still invested a lot of time :D
sc2 skill, learned vs natural - Page 8
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
mierin
United States4943 Posts
EDIT: TL;DR A lot of people who only play a few games and get into diamond are the ones who have played a "trillion billion" games in BW, so they've still invested a lot of time :D | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2011 00:30 Leviwtf wrote: Yes it has been proven in almost every field or game possible. Search for "The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance" for an indepth study of the topic and there are many other studies on the subject. I would argue that the person you describe as having "talent" is actually only practicing more effectively for 8 hours than the person without "talent" who is practicing for 10 hours. Also, there is no skill ceiling for anyone, there is only lack of motivation or time or good practicing methods. What people often mistake for talent is actually someone who has previous experience that benefits them that might not seem to benefit them. Example: I got to diamond in 25 games without any previous RTS experience, however I am a world class speed chess champion, or I have followed and watched starcraft 2 for years, or I am very comfortable playing 1v1 games because I did *insert 1v1 activity here* So what about natural athleticism? Or intelligence? Someone who is smarter then someone else certainly has an advantage in RTS games. Isn't that the same thing as talent? | ||
|
DarkJ3JB
United States1 Post
| ||
|
RushBoxer!
United States173 Posts
| ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 05 2011 00:35 Myles wrote: So what about natural athleticism? Or intelligence? Someone who is smarter then someone else certainly has an advantage in RTS games. Isn't that the same thing as talent? Athleticism is almost always learned/acquired through practice, the only thing that affects performance significnatly that is not majorily determined by practice is height, which is obviously crucial in basketball and gymnastics. Reaction time, muscles, speed are things acquired through practice by breaking down muscle tissue and growing it back, as your body adapts to the stresses you are placing on it. Competitive runners lungs are actually bigger than average peoples, however, when they were young their lungs were all average size. Can you be gifted natrually and maybe have unnatrually large lungs or nasal passages? Yes, but it won't statistically affect your long term chances of becoming a competitive runner versus someone who was born with normal sized lungs. Intelligence is something debated about as it is extremely hard to measure/compare. You would think that being more intelligent would make you better at SC2, or Chess, or other similar things. However, the data shows that when it comes to a game or a skill intelligence level does not follow skill level. In SC2 intelligence is decision making, on the fly adjustment, etc, which are all skills you learn by practicing effectively. Part of practicing effectively or "deliberately practicing" as most people call it, is pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone where you dont' know what to do and you end up making strategies/decisions on the fly which is in effect practicing making decisions on the fly. If you really want to learn more I suggest you read the article since all of these things are mentioned, discussed and tested. I also found this other much easier to read article on the subject than a long and semi dense scholary article http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_colvin.fortune/index2.htm | ||
|
Rakanishu2
United States475 Posts
When I'm playing anyone below diamond I can immediately tell I'm going to win when we both get our natural because I know I'm about to out-macro this player. probes, pylons, gateways, spam units, expand, tech, create your advantage! | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2011 00:45 Leviwtf wrote: Natural athleticism is almost always learned, the only thing that affects performance that is not majorily determined by practice is height, which is obviously crucial in basketball and gymnastics. Intelligence is something debated about as it is extremely hard to measure/compare. You would think that being more intelligent would make you better at SC2, or Chess, or other similar things. However, the data shows that when it comes to a game or a skill intelligence level does not follow skill level. In SC2 intelligence is decision making, on the fly adjustment, etc, which are all skills you learn by practicing effectively. Part of practicing effectively or "deliberately practicing" as most people call it, is pushing yourself outside of your comfort zone where you dont' know what to do and you end up making strategies/decisions on the fly which is in effect practicing making decisions on the fly. If you really want to learn more I suggest you read the article since all of these things are mentioned, discussed and tested. I also found this other much easier to read article on the subject than a long and semi dense scholary article http://money.cnn.com/2008/10/21/magazines/fortune/talent_colvin.fortune/index2.htm I won't argue that practice is the #1 reason the vast majority of people succeed. However, there is a small % that do far less work than the average person and still get far better results. I find it hard to believe that their practice is that more effective then everyone elses. Look at Lebron James. That man is a freak. I guarantee that most NBA players work out just as much as he does, but they will never jump as high or be as athletic. "Can you be gifted natrually and maybe have unnatrually large lungs or nasal passages? Yes, but it won't statistically affect your long term chances of becoming a competitive runner versus someone who was born with normal sized lungs." So then you would argue that two people who are equally dedicated to running, but one has naturally larger lung capacity, would have the same long distance running ability? | ||
|
Mr_Kyo
United States269 Posts
I do find it curious why I found SC2 "easy" (in that I was able to climb ladder) whereas my brother found it very difficult (stuck in silver). | ||
|
Persev
United States127 Posts
1. Look at your apm (actions per minute). The friend I have is around 30apm. Some ways to fix this is to youtube fpvod of good gamers. A good gamer uses both hands and when you begin to get comfortable and efficient with your race it should sound like your in typing class. 2. Adequately scout. In order to win you have to have some kind of advantage over your opponent. Get a general understanding of each race by watching some replays and note when they attack using the in game timer. There are windows in which certain races reach critical mass of units and that usually indicates an attack. 3. Game awareness. Don't be a robot. Don't blindly follow a build and crank out units mindlessly. Try to think what he has and compare to what you have. The silver friend I have just loves sentries but vs mass stalkers or mass marauders they only go so far. 4. Stick with one race that is not random. Repetition is a key foundation for learning anything and going random really skews the learning process because not only do you gotta adjust to his race, the map, you get one more variable in the permutation and u gotta practice alot more matchups. When u got this race going well you should be spending your money well ( < 300) or (< 100) if u train your hands to type while u look around. 5. This is probably the biggest hurdle for my silver friend. Once he has an army. I mentally get scared at this stage. He tends to focus on his base to macro out units and leaves his army "un commanded". This means he sends them out single file on move. What this turns into is the "Conga Line of Doom". They ALL just march right out single file and get mowed down without even killing a single enemy unit. Keep an eye on your army and mentally track them if u arent' already tracking them on the mini map. Its a good habit to keep an eye on the mini map about once every couple seconds. Try to do a "pass by glance". This means swiftly run your eyes from top right, middle, to lower left as often as u can to get a status of your cash, army, and global situation (mini map). | ||
|
NuKedUFirst
Canada3139 Posts
I've played it since beta and first night of retail I was diamond, took a few games though, I think I got placed in gold, 4-1 and got to diamond after a few games, played liquidtyler in my 7th ladder game.. lol | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 05 2011 00:55 Myles wrote: I won't argue that practice is the #1 reason the vast majority of people succeed. However, there is a small % that do far less work than the average person and still get far better results. I find it hard to believe that their practice is that more effective then everyone elses. Look at Lebron James. That man is a freak. I guarantee that most NBA players work out just as much as he does, but they will never jump as high or be as athletic. It comes down to effective practice, like I said. You may put in more hours total in a life time than Lebron James, but how many hours of "deliberate practice" do both of you have? Whoever has more will almost always have the higher skill level. Another example: Driving You take a parent who is 40 years old and has been driving his entire life(20 years lets say). Put him in a car race with a kid who is 15 years old but has been competitively go-karting for 2-3 years. The kid will win. That is because the parent has not been deliberately practicing while the kid has. So in terms of time spent deliberately practicing the kid actually has more than the parent. Practicing does not equal deliberate practicing. The time spent deliberately practicing is what determines a person's skill level. | ||
|
Myles
United States5162 Posts
On January 05 2011 01:01 Leviwtf wrote: It comes down to effective practice, like I said. You may put in more hours total in a life time than Lebron James, but how many hours of "deliberate practice" do both of you have? Whoever has more will almost always have the higher skill level. Another example: Driving You take a parent who is 40 years old and has been driving his entire life(20 years lets say). Put him in a car race with a kid who is 15 years old but has been competitively go-karting for 2-3 years. The kid will win. That is because the parent has not been deliberately practicing while the kid has. So in terms of time spent deliberately practicing the kid actually has more than the parent. Practicing does not equal deliberate practicing. The time spent deliberately practicing is what determines a person's skill level. 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. | ||
|
Klamity
United States994 Posts
as much as experience helps, you really only get better when you start to understand what you're doing wrong. watch videos, see what they're doing. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
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. | ||
|
pxds
Brazil72 Posts
Other than that, he's just being stubborn, he's getting tired and not giving a shit. IMO, 600 games is too much if played in a short period, like 2 months. you can't do well playing 20 games a day on ladder. | ||
|
dicey
142 Posts
PM me if so, am on EU server as well. As for natural vs learned, it's hard to simplify it like that, I believe. Some people have been around PCs constantly since they were little so they have a 'natural' sense of mouse accuracy even without playing games before. Other people don't have technical skills but amazing awareness or abilitly to multitask from playing piano drums or similar activities. Most of it can be learned anyway, I believe. | ||
|
Alejandrisha
United States6565 Posts
 and then there are people who haven't played much at all but pick it up really quickly | ||
|
Nobu
Spain550 Posts
If you want to get better, dont mass games mindlessly, get a BO for each MU, stick to it, watch your replays, watch day[9], and if you still can't keep your minerals low, your best bet to improve fast is to go and play the multitasking trainer for a week or two like 1-2 hours a day, It maybe sound a bit sad to stop playing real starcraft just to get better at a damn videogame, but its just like you go to the gym to get better at physical sports.. P.S: Link to the map if someone want to try it: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=124983 | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
SC2 is my first rts and I only played about 90 games to get from copper to diamond, but i have experience in regular sports and in chess. I knew how to practice learning a game. I also studied the game a little before even playing watching 2 OSLs and some beta tournaments. Playing games doesn't help you improve anything more than game sense. Getting into diamond is about practicing the fundamentals first (micro and macro) and then improving your game by watching your replays and practicing what you did wrong. Fundamentals took me from bronze to gold. Working on micro got me from gold to platinum. Having 5-6 good build orders practiced and executing them got me from platinum to diamond. | ||
|
SilverPotato
United States560 Posts
| ||
| ||
