| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
EDIT: By popular demand, here are some replays, these are just a few games I played in a row: http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/Steppes vs diamond terran #1.SC2Replay http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/ZvT DQ closepos.SC2Replay http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/ZvT scrap.SC2Replay http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/ZvT steppes.SC2Replay http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/ZvT temple crosspos.SC2Replay | ||
|
vileChAnCe
Canada525 Posts
| ||
|
hellokitty[hk]
United States1309 Posts
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. | ||
|
piskooooo
United States351 Posts
They probably just 4gate, cannon rush, 6pool, 12drone, 2 rax, etc. They probably got it when the game was new. They probably lied. | ||
|
nekuodah
England2409 Posts
| ||
|
warcralft
Singapore609 Posts
Some people with 50-80 games watch streams. Find counters once they lose. Stick to 1 BO. | ||
|
TyrantPotato
Australia1541 Posts
for example im one of the lucky sons of a bitchs where everything just comes to me naturally. but i rarely get a chance to practice so i cant reap any benefits from it. then there are people who may not have that spark. but will dedicate themselves to hard practice and will reach the top through sheer determination. personally i feel that those who commit them selves deserve more then those who are just "good" at stuff. but the top top top people "jeadong/flash gosu level" they seem to be born from the ashes of thousand year old phoenixes with the burning pashion of a million suns and practice their skills inside volcanoes whilst tieing 1000kgs of wieght to their arms 12 hours a day | ||
|
Krayze
United States213 Posts
I have been playing all sorts of computer and home console games since I could pick up a controller, so maybe that's how I could naturally pick up SC2? Would be a good research project  Oh I'm zerg by the way, I'm like 300 diamond but play 2400-ish level players. | ||
|
SecondChance
Australia603 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:28 Jago wrote: 735 league games later (about 600 1v1) I am still in Silver. Woah. It's a hard question to answer. I suppose the easiest way to put it would be to say not everyone can play basketball well. Not everybody can play football well. Some can play one well and not the other. Meanwhile, some people can play them both exceptionally well. There is so much variety and diversity between us all, that it is to be expected that not all of us can "excel" (if you call being in diamond excelling) at our chosen hobbies. I think there is a certain measure to which we can perform tasks; and if you can only play at a silver level; then so be it. It doesn't mean you can't the enjoy the game. Furthermore, I'm quite certain there are activities that you could excel at that top tier sc2 players could not. It's all about doing what you enjoy as opposed to what degree of success you can have with the said task. | ||
|
PaPoolee
Netherlands660 Posts
| ||
bkrow
Australia8532 Posts
If you are willing to put in the hard yards you will still get far.. just practice practice practice.. | ||
|
endy
Switzerland8970 Posts
Saying that we all have an equal natural skill is just as wrong as saying everyone has the same IQ (just an example) It's basically the same for everything. I'm extremely skilled at cooking and learned it very quickly. Some old friends don't believe me when I tell them I'm opening my restaurant next year. At the meantime, I played 7000 games on BW and can't get past C- on iccup. | ||
|
FliedLice
Germany7494 Posts
Day[9]-Dailys are the obvious thing to watch if you're in a low league and want to kick some ass. | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:29 Whomp wrote: What race are you playing? Zerg | ||
|
mustache
Switzerland309 Posts
i think there are some fundamental flaws in your game if you're still in silver after 600 games. -Keep making workers the whole game. -when you have too many minerals build extra buildings -at silver its not so important WHAT you build but how MUCH (but pls dont go mass marine vs banelings) -watch your replay and have the production tab open the whole game. -watch your replay and look when you army is bigger than your enemys and try to attack then next game GL! | ||
|
shannn
Netherlands2891 Posts
 I can definitely say that reaching Diamond within 50-60 games is possible without prior experience of RTS games but you'll need to have big talent to recognize the core basics and other mechanics. I spent I think about from copper to gold (now bronze to plat) about 100 games which eventually led me into plat (now diamond) at beta. So I can tell there is definitely some truth in there. Having a coach telling you what to do and teaching you is also very helpfull in progressing very fast. | ||
|
Comma20
Australia138 Posts
| ||
|
DerpDog
Korea (North)62 Posts
http://day9tv.blip.tv/ --> Episode Archive | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
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. | ||
|
Blurb
Denmark55 Posts
The only RTS I've played at a level anywhere competetively was BattleForge, which does not resemble SC2 that much. About 40 1v1 games later, I'm in Diamond. Note that I played a lot of team league before getting into 1v1, which (most likely) gave me neeeded experience and practice. | ||
|
imax
Sweden31 Posts
| ||
|
DerpDog
Korea (North)62 Posts
| ||
|
JayDee_
548 Posts
| ||
|
chenchen
United States1136 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:47 imax wrote: I guess ages has to do with it to. I think 18+ helps. I'd say more like 14+ (don't forgot when Flash won his first OSL) . . . But not everyone picks up things at the same rate | ||
|
Little-Chimp
Canada948 Posts
| ||
|
Poring
Switzerland34 Posts
I think I've had around a hundred ladder games in beta. Back there I was in gold when there was copper league, and after diamond was introduced ... I really don't remember. I think I was too absorbed with playing team games with friends at that point. Later, at release, I got into diamond after 20-30 games, which quite surprised me at first - but only until I saw what kind of other horrible players there are in diamond. No insult to you lower lever players - actually, I personally think people below diamond show a lot more creativity, because they are not accustimed to "standard" play and build orders. But if a terran just continues to spam marine marauder for like 15 minutes and stays on one base, I dont see how that guy deserves "diamond" - and believe me, I've seen 1000-2000 diamond players who do that. I don't consider myself very good. I have no actual builds planned out, am permanently supply blocked, lose to rushes or pushes all the time. I also only ever win ZvZ because my opponents aren't agressive - I am fucking terrible at ZvZ. I see myself around 2200-2400 diamond since I play against guys in that level all the time - I'm roughly 1000 diamond with at least a thousand bonus pool. I really should ladder more. Long story short, there probably is something like natural. Maybe it has to do with general video game / computer (I type decently fast - does that increase my APM? who the hell nows) background, maybe it has to do with intelligence, maybe with reflexes, maybe its just pure random talent. The hell I know. Oh, and to that guy: 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. Wow, you're really contributing a lot. You might be surprised. I rarely ever get cannonrushed or 6pooled on ladder. What the fuck is 12drone. 2 rax is standard, and so is 4gate, even if I dont like it. Also, I dont think I've cheesed in a single game on ladder (except for one game where I accidentally picked terran (offrace) and I simply 3 rax all-in'd a TvP because hell, I can't play terran). Don't let your anger out by making shitty posts. And to end that horrendously long post of mine, you should not be hard on yourself because you are "only" silver. I know some players in bronze that would envy you for that. And hell, maybe you can refine some small things in your play and suddendly improve in skill a lot. Good look | ||
|
shaunnn
Ireland1230 Posts
Some people just can learn alot more from less experience and some people dont learn at all and continue to make the same mistakes over and over, if you actively watch replays with the intent to learn and practice build orders over and over till they are natural for you its quite easy to go from clueless to 2200 diamond in a month edit* im protoss but i havent 4-gated, cannon rushed, proxy gate or 1 based all in in a single ladder game yet, i find those strategys so much more risky then solid 2 base robo play | ||
|
pRo9aMeR
595 Posts
To answer your question as to why you are still in silver, I will ask you some questions: Do you look at your loses (replays) and find out what you did wrong? Do you use your games to focus on a particular aspect of your gameplay? Do you critique yourself harshly or lightly? Do you look at your wins (replays) and find out what you could've done better or what you missed? Do you have someone who is a higher level than you who can directly guide (coach) you in game? What is your motivation for playing? | ||
|
Reggae-Troll
Finland241 Posts
I played beta with no previous RTS experience. After the placement matches I spent some time being awesome in the copper league, not knowing what to do nor how to do it. I didn't play much, since I got the key very late and I was kinda bummed that I was so terrible. I wasn't quite sure if I even wanted to buy the damn game, I'm used to actually being a pretty good player(FPS games on competetive level) and I felt like I just didn't get starcraft. Then a friend of mine linked me to day9, I watched a few videos aimed for beginners (Plugging leaks in silver/gold?) and realized what I had been doing wrong. When the game went retail I got placed straight into platinium and 20ish games later I was in the diamond league. All I needed was a nudge in right direction. | ||
|
SheaR619
United States2399 Posts
| ||
|
iamsatan
United States109 Posts
| ||
Ryndika
1489 Posts
You may only have genetic features in yourself that makes you more competitive/ more adrenaline etc. which may or may not help you. I've got some RTS experience myself by playing WC3, indie RTS games, ALL AoE, some Dota and age of mythology (against insane bots lol). So i got pretty quickly to plat. Now I play rarely ladder... Maybe 3 to 5 games in week because I NEED practice partner that is dedicated but does not take single game seriously so we are both free from pressure. ty | ||
|
Deadlyfish
Denmark1980 Posts
). And i wouldnt really say that i have any natural talent for starcraft.I think that some people might just learn quicker than others. Or maybe they've watched alot before they played. I watched Day9 and read teamliquid before i started to play (played from release). | ||
|
Ulfsark
United States958 Posts
So I suppose it is more about how fast you learn. | ||
|
OriginalBeast
United States709 Posts
| ||
|
goldenwitch
United States338 Posts
Are you analyzing your play to make sure you are constantly building workers and never get supply blocked? Do you have a concrete plan for all 6 match ups in both close and far positions? After a loss, do you adapt your game play to prevent that loss from happening again? Are you struggling with micro? You can play thousands of games, but if you never ask yourself these questions, you will get better at a very slow rate. | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:52 chenchen wrote: I'd say more like 14+ (don't forgot when Flash won his first OSL) . . . But not everyone picks up things at the same rate Well, I am 27. And for the record, I do watch Day9 religiously. | ||
|
Cloak
United States816 Posts
Sure BOs are good, but think about: what wins you your past games, what's effective at certain points, what compositions are good for what, when is it safe to expand, or when is it safe to aggress. When is it best to do this, or to do that. More importantly, look at what you're opponent is doing (directly or indirectly) at all times. You want everything in your control so when you lose a game, you can go back to the replay and say "Hey, this is where I went wrong." Speed and mechanics comes from knowing what to do. | ||
|
mr_tolkien
France8631 Posts
I never played any PC game in my life, yet got to Diamond in less than 200 games, without doing any customs except like 10 VS comp during the beta. Although it's not "fast", it's far from being slow. And I'm a Zerg who never cheesed. If you focus on improving rather than winning and are quite methodical, you get decent very fast. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
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) | ||
|
lim1017
Canada1278 Posts
a few of the most important pieces of information i think you need to know are 1) never stop building workers 2) keep your money low 3) dont get supply blocked if you are just learning build orders without having good mechanics you will lose most macro games. in the early days of the beta i focused almost entirly on Build orders watching matches for new strats i could execute. I my self constructed several early game timing pushes which got me to the mid diamond level, however if my first push fail i stood a very high chance of losing the game... Some games i would do significant damage and still lose in the end.. I began watching some replays of some truly puzzling losses and noticed that even though i killed 1/2 their scvs in a timing push they would rebuild quickly them while i would sit there on my 18-24 scv count and pump from 4 racks for the rest of the game. Practising fast expand builds is a good way to get your mechnics down and become more solid. and in general if you haven't expanded by 10 min its pretty much an all in build, something you should try to avoid doing to often. | ||
|
piskooooo
United States351 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:53 Poring wrote: Wow, you're really contributing a lot. You might be surprised. I rarely ever get cannonrushed or 6pooled on ladder. What the fuck is 12drone. 2 rax is standard, and so is 4gate, even if I dont like it. Also, I dont think I've cheesed in a single game on ladder (except for one game where I accidentally picked terran (offrace) and I simply 3 rax all-in'd a TvP because hell, I can't play terran). Don't let your anger out by making shitty posts. lol how do you even get 1k? That's like "I'm about to be demoted" status. | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
| ||
|
lim1017
Canada1278 Posts
- time your lair so it completely slightly before the banshee attack arrived - build that extra queen - suicide an overlord @ around specific timing (when the starport dropped the techlab) i recently switched to zerg to play around, its useful to have a bunch of timings in your head. for example 4 gate comes between 6-7 min so up until the 5 min mark i have 4 lings and like 25 drones. 2 base 5-6 warp gate push comes around 9-10 min so up until 8 min i try to pretty much have 4 lings and 40 drones Sometimes you just dont have enough "stuff" are your queens constantly low energy? watch a replay you lost and count how many seconds you missed in between your larva injects, or simply check your queens energy at the end of the game, theres really no reason it should go above 50 (still not perfect macro) similarly i have a lot of trouble with getting supply blocked after my recent switch, check how often you get supply blocked. scouting is the most important make sure you know when the push is coming so you can maximize drone count | ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
do you know different openings or just polished one using it exclusively | ||
Pholon
Netherlands6142 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:28 Jago wrote: I was just curious to know how much of their sc2 skill people think was learned through long and hard hours of practice and how much was basically natural. 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. SC2 is also my first serious RTS and 735 league games later (about 600 1v1) I am still in Silver, so if what these people claim is true, it's kinda depressing I guess. You can improve a shitton by learning stuff. Just ask a high-lvel player to watch some of your replays with you. After that it's taking that knowledge and practising it. Natural talent, I think, only determines how high you can get, not how fast you can get there | ||
|
Kokujin
United States456 Posts
| ||
|
alepov
Netherlands1132 Posts
and of course "smarter" people learn a strategy game faster etc, but a good improvement method will get you far anyhow. | ||
|
airen
Sweden82 Posts
On January 04 2011 18:43 Jago wrote: As for watching and analysing my own replays, I have to admit I used to do it, but have basically stopped doing it recently because it seems that either I know immideately what cost me the game (not enough creep spread so couldn't flank/surround enemy army properly, 3rd queen too late so banshee harrass crippled me too badly to recover, things like that) or alternatively I can't figure it out even after I have watched the replay. Seriously I don't ever have time to creep spread and I can still win games as zerg, even when I build a lot of hydras. Sounds a little bit like you don't know what you are doing wrong. For me, I practically pause playing the game completely when I've lost a game and didn't know why. There is no need for me to play more and lose to the same thing again if I don't know what it was or how I should deal with it. Playing more games doesn't solve that (might for some ppl, but not for me!), watching the replay 2-3 times and thinking really hard (hey, it's a strategy game!) perhaps even with pen and paper usually solves my problems though. So... post some replays and maybe we can help you. Edit: On January 04 2011 19:03 Kokujin wrote: secret: build orders are too confining. trying to follow build orders is what holds a lot of players back. Yea I definitely also believe this. There was a thread some time ago where ppl wrote how they reached diamond within 50 games. I think the majority didn't have any specific BO at all. | ||
|
preacha
Norway210 Posts
on topic. i think is something inbetween. you cant really just jump into sc2, expecting to be able to hold yourself against the top. thats why people play alot - to get better, but sometimes you understand something that changes your style/bo/etc faster than another person, which leads to a better understanding of the game and again raising your skills. | ||
|
Epoch
Canada257 Posts
| ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
On January 04 2011 18:58 danielsan wrote: im really curious about the ones getting to diamond that fast: do you know different openings or just polished one using it exclusively | ||
|
storm44
1293 Posts
| ||
|
Dali.
New Zealand689 Posts
I started playing Sc2 in the last few weeks of beta phase 1. I believe I placed in silver there. With phase 2 I went placed in gold then jumped to diamond after 40-50 games. Nowadays I play 2.5-2.7k diamond players (still haven't finished my pool ^^). For me, I think a huge part of the improving is simply thinking about the game and areas where you need improvement. When I have some spare mental time, walking down the street say, think about issues you've had in recent games. Consider ways which you can improve your game strategically and mechanically. Producing a well thought out mindset before laddering is so important because it is so much harder to do under pressure. Other than that its simply about spending time playing and becoming accustomed to the use of a mouse and keyboard and developing muscle memory and unconscious reminders to undertake certain tasks. | ||
|
warshop
Canada490 Posts
| ||
|
Deleted User 101379
4849 Posts
On January 04 2011 18:06 Jago wrote: Well, I am 27. And for the record, I do watch Day9 religiously. This might be one part of the problem. I'm 29 and never played RTS competitively (except for SC/BW at private 8-person LAN parties looooong ago) and i got to diamond as a random player through hard work after about 200-300 ladder matches and a hundred 2v2/3v3/4v4 matches (yes, even those can teach you something). I notice that my APM is quite low and i have trouble keeping up with the things i want to do, just because i'm too slow. Youngsters between 14 and 22 have an unfair advantage imho, they should definatly be nerfed. What helped me to diamond was mostly the custom map YABOT where i repeated a few builds several times to get all the timings right and end up with the maximum amount of workers and units after 10 minutes. I recently made a smurf account which for which i threw the placement matches so i could see how long it takes me to work my way up to diamond with my worst race (terran), and i have to say at least on EU silver is already darn good, there are usually only minor things that need to change to make them diamond, for example better timings for attacks (timing attacks instead of random attacks), better scouting (killed a zerg with a tank/hellion timing push who built 3 spore crawlers and hydra den without scouting any air), better micro (especially with banelings)... macro was usually suprisingly good, though it helps to watch your replays and check on it, too. | ||
|
LilClinkin
Australia667 Posts
| ||
|
warshop
Canada490 Posts
On January 04 2011 19:28 Morfildur wrote: I recently made a smurf account which for which i threw the placement matches so i could see how long it takes me to work my way up to diamond with my worst race (terran), and i have to say at least on EU silver is already darn good, there are usually only minor things that need to change to make them diamond, for example better timings for attacks (timing attacks instead of random attacks), better scouting (killed a zerg with a tank/hellion timing push who built 3 spore crawlers and hydra den without scouting any air), better micro (especially with banelings)... macro was usually suprisingly good, though it helps to watch your replays and check on it, too. I still think Bronze/Silver/Gold/Platinum can play very well, but it's their inability to multitask which hurts them the most, and it's usually where the better player shines. | ||
|
Armsved
Denmark642 Posts
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. I went placement gold and str8 to diamond withing 50 games without any RTS experience during the last 2 month of beta. I did 1 1 1 vs terran, differnt types of thor helion all ins vs zerg and raven tank rine all in vs protoss. So yeah you are part right, but hell while I do call them all ins now, they werent at that time. People just didnt FE back then. | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
| ||
|
Zurachi
Canada289 Posts
| ||
|
deanyo
United Kingdom206 Posts
Maybe you should take a look in the practice partner thread if you dont know anyone that plays sc2, and get on vent/ts/skype and just play a load of games vs them. | ||
|
Talin
Montenegro10532 Posts
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. How exactly has that been "proven over and over again", and where? | ||
|
Grummler
Germany743 Posts
My race was random for a while till i switched to Terran. I never played sc:bw besides the campaign, but i was into wc3 for about 2 years. | ||
|
ChaseR
Norway1004 Posts
| ||
|
Crawly
Philippines8 Posts
It may sound trite, but at the end of the day, the single biggest factor would still be practice. There are even those who've gone as far as saying that it takes 10,000 hours of practice to master something. (Malcom Gladwell is a notable popularizer of this) | ||
|
FeyFey
Germany10114 Posts
I personally played a few games against the ai to get used to the shortcuts (normally i playd mouse only, yeah i am horrible). Didn't played the beta but watched stream. Started with the retail and was pretty good at holding cheese or early pushes and as no one else normally did a macro game i mostly won all the games that went above 10 minutes. Since when you are on your way to rank up, you play people that are going to be ranked down mostly, you have easier opponents most of the time, also a reason why people skyrocket at the start, if they get placed to low by the placement matches. So no worrys the system just works that way. (thats why i got top10 diamond in my division with an avg apm of 30 ... unortodox playstyle ftl ... wanted to play in silver and slowly increase my apm and micro as my only trademark is seeing weakspots from my opponent ) | ||
|
PimpMobeel
120 Posts
| ||
|
IllegalAlien
United States8 Posts
I did not participate in the SCII beta. According to SCIIranks I started playing Oct 15th. One of my coworkers suggested I skip practice league. Because failing on the ladder amused him, I guess. My motivation for getting better was to crush HIM. So I decided to pick one race (toss) learn all I could about it. I did this on the ladder, bronze league is my placement....still. I spent roughly 100 games seriously sucking. I never really tried to perfect any cheese tactics or all in's, but I did dabble in the dark arts so I could see how they worked. Also how to react. I lost games, A LOT of games, just testing things. I would play 3 custom games, then take it against humans to see if it was viable. I tried strange builds , timings, compositions, all manner of things. Then I analysed my replays to see if these ideas were working based on competition or because they were valid. I was working on a build order optimizer for protoss until a much nicer one was released on this forum. This gave me a great appreciation for macro, and the realization that build orders are flexible. The first time I played my coworker, he crushed me 8 - 8. After that, I gradually became more challenging. Taking games from time to time. But nothing as bad as the start. Now, I'm better , and he struggles to beat me at all. I win 70% of my games now, I get matched against top silver and all level golds , even though I am bronze league. I rarely get games vs bronze anymore. I'm waiting for placement/reset, where I expect gold based on my MMR. http://www.sc2ranks.com/us/2043731/IllegalAlien#alltime you can see on this chart an exponential rise in wins in the past 3 weeks. The most wins coming against an increasingly higher and higher difficulty of opponent. When school ended I had time to do nothing but study starcraft and it shows. conclusion, skipping practice league prevented me from rising up the ladder as fast as the OP says. The only natural talents I have as a human are athletic talents, and SCII requires just the basic human dexterity. Every single thing I have applied this level of obsession too I have seen very positive results. Only basketball required what I consider natural talent. | ||
|
Conquerz
Argentina5 Posts
| ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
Skill difference between leagues probably remained the same but all of them evolved at same pace. I'd bet my cat same average Joe, no previous RTS experience guy that managed to promote 2-3 months ago into diamond would have a hard time getting into gold right now. | ||
|
mr_tolkien
France8631 Posts
So, when picking up Star 2, some people wil be a lot more efficient than others. But in the long run, the best one will be the one who have chosen the best way to think, natural PRE disposition won't do anything, it will be your adaptation. | ||
|
idonthinksobro
3138 Posts
I used to play broodwar but never really competitive i had like 2 iccup seasons D+/C-. I actually consider players that needed like 250 games or more to get promoted to diamond bad players - and if you arent diamond within 500 1v1s there is very little hope that you´ll ever become great at SC2. To answer your question no i dont think they are liars since almost all of my friends that play sc2 became diamond really quick. /E iam a zerg player and never cheese in 1v1s | ||
|
Hamster
United Kingdom156 Posts
| ||
|
Navane
Netherlands2749 Posts
| ||
|
Crushgroove
United States793 Posts
And contrary to what was previously stated, talent exists if you consider the range of genetic predispositions possible in a human organism... Tall people could be considered talented basketball players... blind people would be very un-talented astronomers. Though there is a blind astronomer in Norway, and many short basketball players. | ||
|
Oxb
199 Posts
1. Learn how to learn the game, get all the facts figured out (e.g roach > marine). Watch your replays and figure out what you did wrong, and don't make the same mistake again! Scout. I guess watching the Day9 dailies is a good one? (I can't from China, or at least haven't figured out how to yet) Also watch some replays of decent lvl diamond players (not Korean pro's) The skill difference is the huge, watching a 3k diamond players teaches me more than watching a korean pro. 2. Know how to play, know your race timing (when expand with certain builds etc) and know what your enemy is doing by scouting. If you're at 600games and still in silver I guess ur the kind of player who, sometimes, 15~20min (game time) still hasn't got a second base up and saturated the second base mineral line? Possible still playing with 1~3 barracks, 1fact and 1starport for example? (if ur terran) If I watch some of the 'low' lvl diamond players on streams, all they do is decent macro, get a good size army, with decent variety and attack then win/lose. There's relatively little countering/scouting/micro etc. | ||
|
vileChAnCe
Canada525 Posts
Your easiest matchup eventually is going to be TvZ then ZvZ and finally ZvP. Because ZvP game sense in order to have a 50% win ratio you pretty much have to be Jesus | ||
|
plagiarisedwords
United Kingdom138 Posts
Another factor is whether you are actually trying to climb up the ladder quickly. It took me over 1000 games to get to diamond. I made a deliberate effort to get breadth of experience rather than try to get to diamond as fast as possible. If you vary your strategies, play different races and try to play a responsive game then it takes a lot longer to climb up the ladder. Trying to play a responsive game requires you to have an enclycopedic knowledge of the different builds your opponent can go for, how to scout them and how to respond to each one. Someone can get to diamond on 40 games but they simply won't have the same level of experience as someone with more games under their belt. I've experienced more than 40 types of cheese/all-in rushes so I don't really know how someone on 40 games will know how to spot each and how to respond to them. Having said that, It sounds like you are having a bit of trouble if you are still stuck in Silver. I think the games only become useful platinum and upwards so I would recommend you find a way to boost yourself up the ladder and not to spend time messing around in Silver. Focus on macro mechanics. Watch Day 9's first Newbie Tuesday about macro. That video took me from Silver to Gold almost overnight. Then after some practice onto Platinum too. I would win games in Gold where I went zealot stalker vs MMM and won from just better Macro. ForceStrategy on youtube can help get you off the ground but I don’t approve of his "recipe" approach to strategy. | ||
|
Goolpsy
Denmark301 Posts
(Didn't play Beta as my computer couldn't run it - Did however play alot of Wc3) | ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
On January 04 2011 21:03 Navane wrote: Ladder position != skill. They probably only trained a very narrow set of moves. i asked that 1 or 2 pages back but nobody seems to answer.. | ||
|
BouBou.865
Netherlands814 Posts
| ||
|
Highwinds
Canada955 Posts
I didn't have the beta but I watched tons of Day9 Dailies and HD/Husky Starcraft Videos. I got into Diamond pretty easily within 100 games. I was placed into Silver but I pretty much rolled over everyone. When I hit Platinum I went something like 20-1 for my games and got into Diamond. | ||
|
Alphasquad
Austria505 Posts
| ||
|
samuraibael
Australia294 Posts
| ||
|
Kelekkis
Finland27 Posts
Before I watched bw pro games, and read forums. Might be also that other games from different genres can help with starcraft skill. Everything helps I guess. | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
Reminds me of painting....I remember my first painting class someone said they didn't have natural talent and just gave up at the end of the semester. Yet the people that actually pushed did fine....you can't be lazy. I don't even know if natural talent exists...some people have more aptitude than others but that must be linked to early nurtured development. Maybe it's based on early experiences in life versus something you were naturally born with. For example, I've been playing video games religiously since I was 5 years old. I started at that age with Doom 2, Quake, Duke Nukem 3D, and WarCraft 2. Now I'm probably going into concept design because I have a crazy imagination due to my childhood of playing games all the time and reading, I just lack the fundamentals to communicate it with art...which is why I'm going to school for it soon. | ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
| ||
|
flodeskum
Iceland1267 Posts
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. Sc2 was the first rts I ever played online, I got placed in gold and got into diamond fairly quick (~60 games IIRC). I really think a lot of rts skill, or gaming skill in general, is natural. Before sc2 I had played CS and poker semi-professionally to pay my way through school, so gaming seems to come natural to me. And of my friends, the ones that have played other games at a high level seem to cross over to SC2 very well without having played that many games. That said, just last week I did help a friend who had been stuck in bronze after 250 games move to diamond in just over 100 games just by pointing out a couple of stupid things he was doing. So it's not like it's super hard to move up when you start to realize what you should be doing. | ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
| ||
|
Endorsed
Netherlands1221 Posts
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. It has been proven? I think talent is the ability to learn quicker and having a higher ceiling. Somebody with talent will only need to practice 8 hours a day to be the best in the world, but somebody with less talent will need to practice 10+ hours. | ||
|
Sadistx
Zimbabwe5568 Posts
So it's definitely previous RTS experience maybe 80% and 20% natural talent (just being good at games, having fast reaction time, etc.) | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
| ||
|
TrANCE,
301 Posts
| ||
|
Krfstniper
Italy24 Posts
| ||
|
snazbaz
40 Posts
I got stuck in silver/gold for a while but then found day9 and watched literally 50 day9 episodes and played some team games and customs vs very hard AI to practice mechanics then sky rocketed to plat then diamond very very quickly after that on a massive winning spree. If you think about it that's 60-70 hours invested right there without actually playing 1v1 though. If you are still silver after 600 games then there is probably something you fundamentally don't know about or misunderstand causing you not to improve. Either that or your mouse/keyboard/multitasking dexterity is very very very low (unlikely), OR you are not actively trying to improve. | ||
|
CASLsoju
Canada253 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:28 Jago wrote: I was just curious to know how much of their sc2 skill people think was learned through long and hard hours of practice and how much was basically natural. 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. SC2 is also my first serious RTS and 735 league games later (about 600 1v1) I am still in Silver, so if what these people claim is true, it's kinda depressing I guess. It took me 150 games from bronze to get to 2.3K diamond. I played BW but only to a certain extent, only played fastest possible so that didn't really help. I only started looking up strats around plat, that's where I noticed that people were starting to get good and that I was loosing. I learnt a few opening, practiced them to death and went on a 23 game win streak which placed me at 2.2K diamond. FOR EXAMPLE: I 1gate fast expand vs terran if I see he gets gas and is teching etc. If not, I just 2 gate pressure outside my base and try to break them down with zealots Versus zerg, not gonna lie my strat is so garbage but it wins a majority of my games. I 3gate timing push, NEVER fails against a fast expand. Versus P, I use the adel method or I just K4G. | ||
|
Dezzeh
Netherlands45 Posts
On January 04 2011 18:58 danielsan wrote: im really curious about the ones getting to diamond that fast: do you know different openings or just polished one using it exclusively Diamond in about 50-60 games, no multiplayer RTS experience and very limited single player RTS experience before I picked up SC2. What did I do? Every single game I go 14 gas/14 pool and work from there, no set build orders, just goals. Only in the last 20 games or so I have been mixing things up. By goals I mean like "I need to have a 3rd hatch in the making before the 10 min mark if I'm not under pressure", "I need to have at least 1/1 upgrades by 15 min", "I want to have my creep spread to all my bases as soon as possible", "I want to have a sizeable roach/hydra army at X time", "I need to keep using my muta's, don't let them just flap around, keep harassing" etc. Notice that most of these are macro goals. Then there's mental checklists. "I need to check the larvae count and inject larvae timers on my hatches (and thus select my queens and hatches very often to keep track)", "I need to keep looking at the upper right part of my screen, resources low? Enougy supply?", "Fly an overlord over enemy main at 7 min into the game" and so forth. Then there's the part of just knowing the game, as in knowing what all units can do, and what works best. Not necessarily counter what the enemy has, but just know what is possible at any given point in time. This is done by watching streams, replays, day9 and reading on strategy. I think I have put about the same amount of time in this as in actually playing the game (only done just over 100 games though). I guess I just need more experience now. | ||
|
HwangjaeTerran
Finland5967 Posts
| ||
|
R3m3mb3rM3
Germany954 Posts
i just watched alot of streams strategy guides etc.. i had high apm out of wc3 though | ||
|
Dante08
Singapore4139 Posts
| ||
|
danielsan
Romania399 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:11 Dezzeh wrote: Diamond in about 50-60 games, no multiplayer RTS experience and very limited single player RTS experience before I picked up SC2. What did I do? Every single game I go 14 gas/14 pool and work from there, no set build orders, just goals. Only in the last 20 games or so I have been mixing things up. By goals I mean like "I need to have a 3rd hatch in the making before the 10 min mark if I'm not under pressure", "I need to have at least 1/1 upgrades by 15 min", "I want to have my creep spread to all my bases as soon as possible", "I want to have a sizeable roach/hydra army at X time", "I need to keep using my muta's, don't let them just flap around, keep harassing" etc. Notice that most of these are macro goals. Then there's mental checklists. "I need to check the larvae count and inject larvae timers on my hatches (and thus select my queens and hatches very often to keep track)", "I need to keep looking at the upper right part of my screen, resources low? Enougy supply?", "Fly an overlord over enemy main at 7 min into the game" and so forth. Then there's the part of just knowing the game, as in knowing what all units can do, and what works best. Not necessarily counter what the enemy has, but just know what is possible at any given point in time. This is done by watching streams, replays, day9 and reading on strategy. I think I have put about the same amount of time in this as in actually playing the game (only done just over 100 games though). I guess I just need more experience now. thnks for answer, could you also tell me when did this happen? | ||
|
nanaoei
3358 Posts
i'd suggest streaming your own play and rewatching your videos doesn't hurt so much to see what you're doing well, and what you could be doing better and overall being able to follow your movements, recall game decisions, & making better goals for yourself should help you play better than you do now | ||
|
gillon
Sweden1578 Posts
On January 04 2011 18:23 Kimaker wrote: 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. | ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:12 HwangjaeTerran wrote: There is no natural talent, it's a term that lazy & uninspired people came up with as an excuse to being lazy / not caring enough. Yep. That's what professionals think, at least the ones I've talked to such as Feng Zhu......concerning painting. | ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:12 HwangjaeTerran wrote: There is no natural talent, it's a term that lazy & uninspired people came up with as an excuse to being lazy / not caring enough. right... so how do you explain child prodigies who are mathematical geniuses or who can speak 5 languages fluently at the age of 7? | ||
|
R3m3mb3rM3
Germany954 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:24 Pulimuli wrote: right... so how do you explain child prodigies who are mathematical geniuses or who can speak 5 languages fluently at the age of 7? obviously they worked very hard for 7 years :D | ||
|
TFB
United Kingdom89 Posts
"Natural talent" (for want of a better phrase) sets your upper ability limit, the rate at which you reach it is set by your ability to learn, your ability to stick at something is an innate characteristic of your personality, and there's absolutely nothing you can do change or avoid those factors. The whole notion that effort and practice will always result in success, and that everyone get there (wherever there is) if they try, is just a rather lame myth perpetuated by certain elements of society in order to shy away from what is, essentially, a very painful truth for some. Disclaimer : I'm bronze, I suck, I know why, and it's not going to change. I just enjoy the game when there's no cheese on the table. | ||
|
Huragius
Lithuania1506 Posts
| ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
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. You cant wholeheartedly believe that can you? Some people are just born smarter and mentally "quicker" and thus learn the game at a much faster speed. Its a matter of how well you can understand things and put it into practice. | ||
|
TheKing
Australia186 Posts
| ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
| ||
|
slith
Germany165 Posts
Most experience comes from shooters (Quake, UT, AvP, HL+Mods [Natural Selection: Team Germany 2k6+2k7]). I noticed that I'm really good at getting "into the mind" of the opponent. I'm very good at games in general, always been since I got my SNES. It's the biggest part of my live tbh. I don't care about anything else much. I learn relatively fast (not in social things though :/) and I'm good at analyzing myself. I used different build orders almost every match. I 5RR'd 4 times (until it failed to an Immortal rush) and Baneling Busted once. | ||
|
Huragius
Lithuania1506 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:35 TheKing wrote: It took around 9 times for Jaedong to win courage. Yet he is the best zerg on the planet. I think the ratio of what matters is 90% practise 10% talent. This is simply not true. There are a lot of people who plays way more than 10% like Flash or JD and their ELO is below average. | ||
|
warshop
Canada490 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:33 LittLeD wrote: You cant wholeheartedly believe that can you? Some people are just born smarter and mentally "quicker" and thus learn the game at a much faster speed. Its a matter of how well you can understand things and put it into practice. True, but everyone can achieve greatness if efforts are put in. That's what I think. It might take some way more time than others, but it can still be achieved. | ||
|
apox
Australia19 Posts
| ||
|
Huragius
Lithuania1506 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:36 GreEny K wrote: Everything I learned from BW carried over to SC2, so I can't say it was natural but in a sense it was. The people that got into diamond off 50 games, good for them. I'm happy for those that did it through watching replays, playing custom to develop their timings and builds and taking the time to learn how to play efficiently. The majority of the people that claim that are probably cheesey players who think that they are good based off all-in. Could be. But when I started to play sc2, I tried to find the most cheese-proof build followed by FE. I never relied on my opponents scouting or incapability of countering. But things are changing, this is why I hate TvZ. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
| ||
|
anderkas
United States86 Posts
Personally I do wonder if there's an age where your ability to pick up a completely new gaming experience shoots down. The high diamonds I notice are generally in their 20's and had ample experience with sc1/BW. The low diamonds with 50 games generally sound like 14-16 yo's with their "lol bronzies", but the guys who are stuck at low levels despite seeking advice and watching day9 usually end up being older (20's+) as well. I'm a 23 yo console only gamer for the most part and it shows. I pick up a controller and hold my own in almost any console game I'm introduced to. Gimme Rock Band, not so much. Gimme a mouse and keyboard, tell me to have my left hand off the home row and my right hand always on the mouse and I start to fumble with my mechanics. Yeah I know what to do moreso than many low-mid diamonds that I see...I just struggle to adapt to this new medium and execute. | ||
|
love.less
United Kingdom293 Posts
| ||
|
x89
United Kingdom276 Posts
There's no doubt that talent will give you a major starting boost but I reckon with enough practice anyone could get to a very high level. | ||
|
TFB
United Kingdom89 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:44 anderkas wrote: Personally I do wonder if there's an age where your ability to pick up a completely new gaming experience shoots down. At the age of 37 I can safely say you need wonder no more - it makes a massive difference. Your ability to learn (anything) really does tail off badly. | ||
|
GreEny K
Germany7312 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:43 Huragius wrote: Could be. But when I started to play sc2, I tried to find the most cheese-proof build followed by FE. I never relied on my opponents scouting or incapability of countering. But things are changing, this is why I hate TvZ. Good, that is how I play as well. Something that carried over from BW because even then I hated cheese builds, at the level of play I was at I could cheese most people and get a win but there is no point to that since it doesn't make you better, it just runs up your stats. stats =/= skill, something that a lot of people don't understand. | ||
|
CinDerUK
United Kingdom31 Posts
I still use 3 rax now but i'm not so hasty to charge up my opponents ramp as much after 8mins, sometimes i just camp in his natural and expand so when he does push out i'm too far ahead in resources to lose. I watched alot of the pros too which showed me how to micro my mm ball against banes and zealots which helped alot. | ||
|
gautamvirk86
India55 Posts
I did play a month and a half of beta if that really matters and i never cheese. PS: I m zerg 2000Pts | ||
|
Schwopzi
Netherlands954 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:56 TFB wrote: At the age of 37 I can safely say you need wonder no more - it makes a massive difference. Your ability to learn (anything) really does tail off badly. Ofcourse it has an impact but it's not as bad as most people make it out to be. Mainly the reluctance to dedicate time & energy into learning new stuff is holding older people back. | ||
|
Dezzeh
Netherlands45 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:19 danielsan wrote: thnks for answer, could you also tell me when did this happen? This happened in october I think? I don't play alot, like 10 games a week max most of the time. Sometimes it's more, sometimes it's less. | ||
|
SugarBear
United States842 Posts
| ||
|
Fumble
156 Posts
I watched pro vids while waiting for beta opt in and when i finally got into beta, i played a few custom 1v1s against strangers. After about 5-6 games, I jumped into ladder and got placed into platnium with 5-0 (back when platnium was highest division). Since then I have never placed lower than diamond and quite frankly i think diamond is too easy to get into. A lot of my friends are in diamond and EVERYBODY except 1 person that i know and would consider as more than just a casual gamer got into diamond after playing 30 or so games in 1v1. Diamond is nothing more than having at least a decent grasp of the basics. I have 2 friends that only have 50 APM and they are somehow in diamond. | ||
|
T0fuuu
Australia2275 Posts
| ||
|
siri
Portugal129 Posts
I think is very easy to reach diamon at least with protoss (no 4gate), you just have to focus on not doing obvious mistakes like being supply block and having low number of probes | ||
|
Kisezik
Australia70 Posts
by playing around 800 league games, u shd've already learnt alot about the game. Maybe you're not learning from ur mistakes, or you're just looking at the game at a different angle. | ||
|
shell
Portugal2722 Posts
But before i even bought this game i allready spent many hours watching VODS, streams, forums etc.. that's how i knew that in my first practice game i would go banshee and i won my first game and most of those. I played not even 100 games and won most of them versus guys that had played much more games, some dudes with 500 games and i tought i must be really good because this guys play for months and i just owned them :D (and i never cheese, just because i prefer longer games)! I'm still in silver and still suck tho but i win more then i lose and i don't have good mechanics and don't even know all the keys! But i do understand the concept of the game and know what i can do and what the other guy can and will do! that helps alot in winning some more games hehe I suck but i would suck much more if i didn't spend much time understanding the game! | ||
|
kitakun
Poland22 Posts
![[image loading]](http://memearchive.net/memerial.net/page/1600.jpg) User was warned for this post | ||
|
CASLsoju
Canada253 Posts
On January 04 2011 23:16 SugarBear wrote: You can get into diamond without being good. It actually takes quite a bit of practice to become good at macro. I'm actually terrible and I'm like 2.4K LOL. | ||
|
mmx
41 Posts
i got diamond within my first 50 games way after game was released and i was diamond on the beta as well this goes to all things in life some people are just good | ||
|
B.I.G.
3251 Posts
Mind you i never played any of these games full time, but still i think it would be a bit sad if 10+ years of rts experience wouldnt translate into me being diamond league now  | ||
|
ichimarugin680
United States182 Posts
| ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 04 2011 21:56 Endorsed wrote: Some people are just talented at things. I've never played an rts before but got into diamond within 50 games. I just went 2/3 rax atack, expand. Add more rax, atack. Just plain macro. Now 3k diamond. It has been proven? I think talent is the ability to learn quicker and having a higher ceiling. Somebody with talent will only need to practice 8 hours a day to be the best in the world, but somebody with less talent will need to practice 10+ hours. 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 for years, or I am very comfortable playing 1v1 games because I did *insert 1v1 activity here*, etc. Any kind of video game you have played against another person (halo, cs, ssbm), etc benefits you if you are playing SC2 for the first time and trying to get into diamond. Like I said, scientifically speaking there is no such thing as talent. | ||
|
Tiazi
Netherlands761 Posts
Still dont think im really good but I consider myself a decent player with some understanding of how the game works. | ||
|
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
| ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 05 2011 02:39 SilverPotato wrote: I think just having the reaction time and accuracy learned from other games is enough to get a person into low/mid diamond. The real trick is learning the skills that aren't universal to video games, or more specifically things only needed for SC2. That's where the players in high/top diamond start to separate from the rest of the pack. Yeah, even in diamond there is a huge difference in skill. Reaction time from sports, strategy from chess, keyboard clicks from wow, etc. The hardest part for me was the mouse interface since I only play FPS games on the console, but I played a bunch of LoL and that helped me a ton. | ||
|
sCuMBaG
United Kingdom1144 Posts
... = 4gate, 6pool, 3rax and so on | ||
|
FenneK
France1231 Posts
| ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 05 2011 01:51 Leviwtf wrote: 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. haha i hated that. I played soccer 5 days a week for 3 hours a day, did hundreds of crunches a day and never got a 6 pack. I only weighed like 165 at 5'10" (which is tiny for me considering i have a large body frame). | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 05 2011 02:50 FenneK wrote: After 600 games, I'm 2300 diamond. I have never played an RTS before, and I wouldn't say it came naturally. Alot of the fun throughout the process of playing the game was developing my skills to rise out of Bronze and up the chain, and it was hugely satisfying. I still feel like I know very little, and look forward to what comes ahead. I just finished my 100th game and I don't know anything about this game even though i'm diamond. There's a saying that goes something like "The more you know, the more you realize you don't really know anything". Pro players are probably more aware of their own weakness's than anyone else. | ||
|
Moody
United States750 Posts
| ||
|
Wr3k
Canada2533 Posts
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. Naw, It didn't take me long to get into platinum in beta, and since then I haven't dropped below the top 7-8k players except during inactivity. This is off a couple months of brood war on ICCUP getting my ass kicked 3/4 of the time. If you are an intelligent, analytical person with a strategic mind it doesn't take long to get to high diamond with some practice. | ||
|
Levi
Germany45 Posts
in the beta i played first copper, than in phase 2 silver and now i won 4/5 placement matches, beeing now platin. but i watched more reaplays (castet ones) than playing, because playing with laggs from 50 food suxx xD... so i learned the games wathing replays. | ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
| ||
|
adius
United States249 Posts
There seems to be two sides to this. On the one hand, if you're just trying to get better, you might as well pretend there's no such thing as raw talent, because all it'll do is cause you to doubt yourself when you lose. On the other hand, people who are up in the 2500+ diamond range should probably stop and consider the influence of natural talent before they start talking about how BAFFLING it is that ANYONE could not be in diamond. I'm in gold and I've seen lots of replays where I can clearly see that people are playing stupidly in diamond, even at the highest levels (because literally everyone has stupid losses like that even if they normally play really well). That's just because it's easy to see mistakes in replays, not because I have some kind of awesome starcraft insight. It's not necessarily incorrect to say that it's easy to get to diamond, but it is unconstructive and it can definitely lower people's motivation to play and improve if they aren't there yet. RTS games are like public speaking for a lot of people, or like shy guys trying to talk to girls, they lose some or a lot of their basic human competence due to nervousness. Some people don't have that problem, but that doesn't make it ok for them to be dicks about it. To be a little bit of a dick though, I will say that I've noticed a bit of a correlation between having hundreds of games in bronze and the serious critical thinking problems, like thinking that queuing units is a good idea, or persistently arguing strategy and balance with top diamond players who've placed in tournaments and walking away thinking that fast carriers is totally the go-to strat in PvT and it's only a matter of time before all the pros are doing it. | ||
|
LesPhoques
Canada782 Posts
| ||
|
adius
United States249 Posts
On January 05 2011 04:05 LesPhoques wrote: I learn by watching my replays. By 50-60 games, I was promoted to diamond without even knowing single build (Yes I am not shitting you, didn't 4 gate, just player like it was RTS and responded to whatever people did) Lots of people have no idea what it means to "play like it's an RTS" though. On January 05 2011 03:13 Twistacles wrote: Not ONLY rts experience helps with SC2, imo. My years of playing CSS/Bf2/etc makes it so that from day one I was using the minimap subconsciously, a skill I take for granted today. I forgot about this. Some people have more of a difficult to describe quality called "awareness". It's like, some people are inherently better at awareness than others, but pretty much anyone can learn it if they really want to. A lot of it has to do with looking at the minimap and making use of other information available to you, but it's more complicated than that because it also relates to how good you are at making educated guesses to fill the gaps in the information you have. Maybe in the end, the hardest part of Starcraft is just admitting to yourself that you don't give enough of a shit to play it competitively. | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 05 2011 04:09 adius wrote: Lots of people have no idea what it means to "play like it's an RTS" though. A lot of people don't understand strategy games at all. They just aren't wired for that kind of thinking. A bunch of other people are really bad at controlling a mouse and keyboard which is simply a lack of playing other similar games. I'm kinda motivated to write a strategy guide for games to help people understand basic strategy game ideas. | ||
|
Tenks
United States3104 Posts
What really helped me is I just never gave a shit about what my opponent was doing. SC2 is far more strategy focused than SC1 but it is still all about your mechanics. Even some of the top players (GSL caliber) make very questionable decisions based upon the information they're given. The reason they're good is because their mechanics are tip top. So basically put the entire onus on yourself. Don't worry about what unit your making, just make units. Also stick to one build for each MU and refine, refine, refine. You're not a tournament player, you're a ladder player. Realistically you only need 1 build per MU. So basically: hotkeys, macro, expansion timing, refined build. It's the gateway to Diamond. Maybe even the warpgate. | ||
|
jinorazi
Korea (South)4948 Posts
what escalated my game play in BW was watching pro players play. i mean, i never thought of sending vultures through mineral lines with mine trick, dropship/tank micro, mutastack, etc. once i saw those, i mimicked, figured out other related moves and then i became pretty damn good back in 2002. then came sc2, any micro is standard for any players. i've seen silver players with superb micro. my friend jumped from silver to platinum in just one day after watching me play. he tells me he was able to understand many things after watching me play in person, not a replay or youtube. maybe you can check out some POV of some pros and see what you they do different. i don't have crazy fast APM so i'm sure that isnt part of why my friend was able to improve. | ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
After that, stop thinking of diamond as a 'goal.' Diamond is just the beginning, like hitting max lvl in WoW. You get there because it is inevitable, not because it is a destination. | ||
|
LittLeD
Sweden7973 Posts
On January 05 2011 01:51 Leviwtf wrote: 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. So what you're saying is that a child with genetic tendency of obesity (Both parents are obese as well as grandparents) can become just as good as lets say someone who was born in a famility where both parents are top athletic at say professional gymnastics IF they put the exact same effective practice in to it (Lets say they're being coached by the best gymnastic coacher and are given the same routines)? I must say Im having a hard time believing you | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 05 2011 04:25 jinorazi wrote: BW took about 6 months to get down for me, without any outside sources (no replay, no proleague). what escalated my game play in BW was watching pro players play. i mean, i never thought of sending vultures through mineral lines with mine trick, dropship/tank micro, mutastack, etc. once i saw those, i mimicked, figured out other related moves and then i became pretty damn good back in 2002. then came sc2, any micro is standard for any players. i've seen silver players with superb micro. my friend jumped from silver to platinum in just one day after watching me play. he tells me he was able to understand many things after watching me play in person, not a replay or youtube. maybe you can check out some POV of some pros and see what you they do different. i don't have crazy fast APM so i'm sure that isnt part of why my friend was able to improve. Actually yeah, I started watching Huk streams and watching IdrA's first person view in replays to help me a lot. When you see what they are doing and when you get more of a feel for the game. I recommend that too | ||
|
optical630
United Kingdom768 Posts
damn including beta i think i played around 200 games before i hit diamond dont play to win/mass game, play to learn and improve, and naturally you'll just get better | ||
|
theShogi
Netherlands15 Posts
the difference between silver and low-mid diamond is probably 95%+ macro basics if someone comes to this game and puts his focus on basic mechanical skills he will be a rookie diamond player in no time at all ^^ | ||
|
justle
United States174 Posts
It is possible to hit a developmental wall with SC2, or anything really, but there are exercises that anyone could do to increase creativity and brain function. | ||
|
Comprissent
United States314 Posts
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. | ||
|
Dreadwolf
Canada220 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:28 Jago wrote: I was just curious to know how much of their sc2 skill people think was learned through long and hard hours of practice and how much was basically natural. 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. SC2 is also my first serious RTS and 735 league games later (about 600 1v1) I am still in Silver, so if what these people claim is true, it's kinda depressing I guess. Yeah there are people with more talent at this game. Took me about 300 game to get out of silver, then i stoped playing for a week, after 100 more games i got back in silver again, il get gold again eventualy but right now i cant play. So your not alone, i dont know why you are still in silver after so many games but i am cursed with bad hand /eye coordination and i process visual information slower than the average guy. I read forums, i watch pro play. i watch replay, i watch day9, if i didnt do these thing i would be everybody bitch in bronze. I dont watch my replays much however, because most of the time i know why i lost. I get supply blocked, i stop making probes, i focus too much on a battle instead of macro, i didnt scout enough, i focused on scouting too much dont build stuff, i screw up my forcefields, the list of reasons of why i lose games is quite large! I noticed that if i played allot of game everyday those mistake where happening allot less. If i keep playing my basic stuff is much better, make probes, building pylon, keep your money low! I have no doubt that some people have natural ability for this game and it help them tremendously, They also dont get how people like me can be so bad at this game it just dosent make any sense for them, its easy. I have natural tallent for music, it took me a LONG time to understand why other people could not play at the right speed without tapping their foot to keep the rythm, or following the drummer, it did not make any sense to me that you have to base the speed of your play on some external things, when all you have to do is just play at the right speed! But even with my natural talent i will never be able to read a sheet of music and play at the same time. So, yeah sometime its depressing somme people will be better than me even after they play 10 games, but you know what, i watch alot of high ranked played stream.. and man they face the same things all the time if they get the same maps, often the game will be alsmot identical to the previous ones and man that seem like prety damn boring to me. The only thing i dont like about being silver is the cheese, there is so much cheese, there was more straigth up game in gold so i want to get back there. Sorry for the long post i am so bored i cant play sc2 at, my gaming comp is broken | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 05 2011 04:38 theShogi wrote: i think the difference comes from the the perspective of the player the difference between silver and low-mid diamond is probably 95%+ macro basics if someone comes to this game and puts his focus on basic mechanical skills he will be a rookie diamond player in no time at all ^^ I agree with this mostly. I started making a lot of probes and expanding at that got me from bronze -> platinum. Platinum to diamond requires a little bit of unit control and multitasking as well. I went from 30 apm to 80 apm which helped a lot too. (I think idra is around 120 apm for some perspective) | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
It of course might be that there is something severely broken with my basic game mechanics, but for example the last time I got supply blocked without someone actively hunting down my overlords was months ago. In my opinion my 2 biggest problems are: 1) either completely succumbing to or getting fatally crippled by early 2 rax/2 gate pressure 2) inability to correctly deal with massively turtling 2 base terrans and protoss | ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
actually if u past the 50-80 games mark the game will probably think u belong to your league than it will be very hard to rise ... I've been facing platinums/goldies in my silver acc for ages .... Edit: and winning against them way more than losing ... Edit2: If u play only on some weekends like myself I think ur more likely to stagnate on one league too ... | ||
|
universalwill
United States654 Posts
having 600 games and not being in diamond means there's a huge problem, and that problem is that you are making no effort to think about the game you're playing. how can i know this? because there are people in diamond who have 30 APM and no understanding of the dynamics of starcraft. yet they are in diamond because they think just enough to memorize a build order, and that's all they need. they just go into a game saying "i am going to go 2port banshee," and because they've already decided what they're going to do, they beat the aimless wanderers who just sit there for a while watching their probes mine, then think "hmm i like colossi i guess i will get those now." it's all about learning. mechanics can come to you naturally, but if you don't try to learn, you won't really go anywhere. | ||
|
plagiarisedwords
United Kingdom138 Posts
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusory_superiority One of the interesting points in there is a survey that found 93% of drivers in a sample thought they were in the top 50% :-). People need a reality check about their skill level and also their natural ability. 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!) | ||
|
uSnAmplified
United States1029 Posts
I think the players with large numbers of games but are in lower leagues might now know how to, or be willing to do what you need to improve. TL is A huge pool of knowledge but people just don't utilize all the information to improve, mostly the mechanical ability to play the game, how often are replays posted of people claiming macro is not the problem and they don't understand why they lost, when clearly having made 20 workers 15m into the game is not good macro. When you review your replays, you need to be very VERY honest with yourself and where you went wrong, as at lower levels 99% of the time it was something you did, but people do not like to accept a loss as a personal mistake. Its much easier to blame it on what someone perceives as race imbalance or overpowered strategies. If anything this is where the human factors kicks in primarily when you are learning to do something, you have to accept responsibility for your losses and mistakes to improve. I do not get to play a whole lot, and i play across all 3 races at any given point, having less then 200 games but i reached diamond after about 50-60 games when i started playing in around October. I read the advice of sites like TL and watched videos like day9 who is an amazing source of information for the aspiring player, and applied them to myself. I never blamed my loss on the opponents race or strategy , i blamed it on when i supply blocked myself, when i forget to makes probes, when i don't expand, when im floating resources or when i didn't scout my opponent correctly. | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
Who knows? | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
On January 05 2011 04:49 darmousseh wrote: I agree with this mostly. I started making a lot of probes and expanding at that got me from bronze -> platinum. Platinum to diamond requires a little bit of unit control and multitasking as well. I went from 30 apm to 80 apm which helped a lot too. (I think idra is around 120 apm for some perspective) Pretty sure his APM is 180ish, but certainly higher than 120. Still, it's not 300 or anything where you're like "I could never be that good". | ||
|
Faze.
Canada285 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:32 piskooooo wrote: They probably got Diamond from winning 4-5 of their placement matches. Can't get in diamond just from placement matches, I won all 5 of them and was only put in platinum. I also read somewhere that it's just not possible to get in diamond from placement matches. | ||
|
shtdisturbance
Canada613 Posts
Learning the 4 gate and then practicing the build for 80 games will get you to diamond but i dont think thats the build you should practice. | ||
|
red_b
United States1267 Posts
On January 05 2011 05:50 Neo.NEt wrote: Some people are just naturally bad at this game. One of my friends is insanely smart (just graduated from Harvard) yet he was god awful at WC3. He watched replays, commentaries, etc. but no matter how hard he tried he was just dreadful. If you give him a differential equation he'll crush it but if you asked what he was thinking during this game he'd be like "uhhh I don't have a clue". Who knows? that's not really that uncommon is it? I dont think when I play. If I havent seen something before I generally lose outright and then have to spend time outside of the game thinking about how to handle it, and then I can load it into muscle memory. If you want to know how to get better, you MUST identify the mistakes you are making in retrospect or you WILL NOT get better, period. if you have that clear of a head when you are playing, then you are already at the point where you are mechanically sound (assuming of course you arent playing 15apm in copper) enough that you can get 3 builds of liquipedia and just refine them and win more than half of your games against just the people who dont know where to find the knowledge. I will say that 90% of the time you will NOT notice mistakes in game unless they are big mistakes. Getting supply blocked is obvious, but doing something stupid (like always building an overseer for no reason; something I was personally guilty of for a time) will add up. Look at how many people in the GSL inject larvae when they could easily get a tumor. Ask other people to look at your replays and ask them to identify your mistakes. This game is much like street fighter 4; the developers have made execution much easier and while you still need to spend some time developing those skills they are not nearly as hard to learn as in the past. There are people who 4 gate into diamond. In the beta back when plat was the highest league and we had a couple of resets I straight up proxy gated into plat. I have to say, if you become one of those people, I dont think you will enjoy yourself when you play and that defeats the purpose. Also, thumbing down steppes of war will help unless you want to practice holding off early aggression. Which brings this poorly organized wall of text to a close. Practice one thing at a time. Let me provide a real life example of how to do this: assume that I play guitar. I want to practice my arpeggios. Now, would not it be nice to find some songs with arpeggios in them to practice? So head on over to the practice partner thread and find someone that will help you practice one piece of your game. You have to get those building blocks loaded into your muscle memory so that as soon as you scout that stargate you start building some queens and you dont have to think about it. | ||
|
Raid
United States398 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
practice will only polish and refine your skill and push you towards your personal limit, but with diminishing returns just from my personal experience though, obviously it could be different for different people | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
On January 05 2011 06:21 Raid wrote: diamond is not all that great, played a lot of junk diamond players who only know how to execute some form of harass / timing pushes they copied from a cast or pro... you see their flaws and makes you wonder what is diamond really if there are people who hault worker production for a while and queue things Plenty of pros hault worker production and queue things as well so... not really enough to show someone shouldn't be diamond. | ||
|
Shadrak
United States490 Posts
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. | ||
|
Nearsite00
United States31 Posts
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. | ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On January 05 2011 06:21 Raid wrote: diamond is not all that great, played a lot of junk diamond players who only know how to execute some form of harass / timing pushes they copied from a cast or pro... you see their flaws and makes you wonder what is diamond really if there are people who hault worker production for a while and queue things Diamond! Try top 200! If I ever went more than 2 games in a row without getting supply blocked 3 times before 100 supply and never went above 1000 minerals I'd probably wake up from my dream right afterward. | ||
|
news
892 Posts
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. | ||
|
MotherOfRunes
Germany2862 Posts
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. | ||
|
Kefka.dancingmad
Canada262 Posts
| ||
|
iSTime
1579 Posts
On January 05 2011 06:27 Shadrak wrote: 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. | ||
|
Ryuu314
United States12679 Posts
| ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
| ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
watching replays of pros and top players helped me the most. | ||
|
squintz
Canada217 Posts
Hard work beats talent if talent does not work hard. | ||
|
MichaelJLowell
United States610 Posts
| ||
|
Pylonhead
United States9 Posts
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. | ||
|
news
892 Posts
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. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
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. | ||
|
Litess
Bulgaria40 Posts
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. | ||
|
Kefka.dancingmad
Canada262 Posts
| ||
|
mark05
Canada807 Posts
| ||
|
Nearsite00
United States31 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:05 Leviwtf wrote: 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. 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 | ||
|
news
892 Posts
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. | ||
|
Pro]ChoSen-
United States318 Posts
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. | ||
|
Bair
United States698 Posts
I have played ~400 games since release and because of my MMR am currently playing against (and beating the majority of) 2800+ diamond players. | ||
|
MangoSluSH
Philippines10 Posts
| ||
|
noD
2230 Posts
I guess even hardcore fps players would be more suited (quick mouse) for a game like sc2 and console gamers a lot less ... | ||
|
Makeone
Sweden24 Posts
BUT the best way to advance (how i advanced thro plat to dimond in 20 or so games) is use safe builds and NEVER go into a game not preperd go 1 or 2 costem before. Its kindof like jinro he pratist a lot before he won MLG dalas and before he got well known soon all your games will give fruti | ||
|
Nearsite00
United States31 Posts
| ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:18 Nearsite00 wrote: 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 I don't understand what this proves other than if you start deliberate practice at a very early age you can achieve success at an earlier age. You also realize that linking a wikipedia article proves literally nothing...I'd also argue that many of the "child prodigies" are overrated in terms of their skill. If you have any proof of talent existing I would love to see it and discuss/debate it. Also, pg. 33-36 in the article I linked discuss and disprove the child prodigy theory. On January 05 2011 07:28 Nearsite00 wrote: So if this game does not require exceptional intellect or physical prowess, what is it that makes someone seem naturally better than another person at SC2? The amount of time they spend doing "deliberate practice" which is a very specific method of practice. Google it and learn more about it. | ||
|
PatouPower
Canada1119 Posts
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. You forgot the part: They probably read a LOT about the game, watch a LOT of stream and have a basic sense of strategic gameplay. Myself I probably watch and read more SC2 than I actually play because of free time issues or fatigue, but I often beat people with 700-800 more points than me. SC2 or RTS in general aren't like FPS or fighting games where practice is everything. Yes, you need to practice a lot, but knowing the mechanics/build orders/timing of the game is much more important to begin with, IMO. So yea, they might have gotten do diamond after 50ish games, without cheesing or playing horrible opponents, but only because they previously gathered knowledge about the game. | ||
|
ROOTCatZ
Peru1226 Posts
| ||
|
Pylonhead
United States9 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:05 Leviwtf wrote: 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. Okay, here's one study that contradicts what you claim that "every single study" finds. It took me about 2 minutes to find it on google: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/7/914.abstract | ||
|
Kefka.dancingmad
Canada262 Posts
| ||
|
news
892 Posts
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 Do you know him IRL? On January 05 2011 07:39 Kefka.dancingmad wrote: I don't mean scholarly intellect, I mean IQ. Real intellect. I'm sure top players score high on IQ tests. Okay no, they don't. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:36 Pylonhead wrote: Okay, here's one study that contradicts what you claim that "every single study" finds. It took me about 2 minutes to find it on google: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/21/7/914.abstract And did you read the study? What do you think of it? I did overexaggerate when I state every single study supports it though, if there is a topic science you can be guaranteed it has been debated. I'll rephrase my statement to the generic "accepted by most scientists" You also realize in the title it says it supports the deliberate practice theory but that it is saying that deliberate practice is not the only factor in expert performance but that working memory capacity is another factor which they are testing. Also the skill they are testing is piano sight reading skill so it makes sense on a basic level that working memory capacity would have an effect because lots of piano sight reading is based on memory. | ||
|
thesauceishot
Canada333 Posts
It was a natural progression for me as I learned the concept of a build order quite early in my SC2 career. Immediately from the first game I played, I HATED not knowing which buildings I should produce and in what order (a build order). So then I found a 3gate robo build on Husky's channel and I just kept doing that in all my match-ups. I got good at it quite quickly and that 1 base timing attack was strong enough to get me into diamond relatively easily. So I think in the end it comes down to a person's desire to learn and improve. Some people are still very bad after playing a lot of games because they keep playing but they don't mentally note what works well and what doesn't work well. For me since I'm incredibly competitive, I don't like losing. That motivates me to improve. Play to either win or improve, and when you're not doing either then you probably shouldn't play. | ||
|
Kefka.dancingmad
Canada262 Posts
| ||
|
news
892 Posts
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. | ||
|
Kefka.dancingmad
Canada262 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:49 news wrote: 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. | ||
|
Chylo
United States220 Posts
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. | ||
|
Pylonhead
United States9 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:44 Leviwtf wrote: And did you read the study? What do you think of it? I read the abstract, which sufficed to refute your point quite thoroughly . Honestly, I suspect that the "working memory capacity" that they refer to is only one dimension of an near infinite space of capabilities that human beings possess to one extent or another. IQ is pretty obviously another. Surely you don't believe that someone with a very low IQ, say 70s, can excel in a complicated field (quantum physics) if they simply practice effectively. | ||
|
ktimekiller
United States690 Posts
| ||
|
fishinguy
Russian Federation798 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:53 Chylo wrote: 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. Please dont turn another thread into "terran is imab/ terran is ez mode" we have all heard it before. I am tired of people saying a player is less skilled because he is "terran" | ||
|
SolidusR
United States217 Posts
I think my access to diamond was due more to individual battles than my understanding of the game. I understood how to use zerg units to exploit certain situations and I was constantly on the lookout for those situations throughout the game, my fallback being muta harass which taught me a lot about the value of good micro. Basically I hate dying in any game I play so I did my best to use my army to its maximum value so I didn't lose any units, and it ended up winning me a lot of early games. In the early game I'd get caught up in this flow where I tried to make everything as efficient as possible and perfectly bounce my minerals back to 0 when I made new things, this focus would always dissipate but I think it gave me a really strong foundation seeing as I was bored until the combat units came out anyway. | ||
|
emidanRKO
United States137 Posts
p.s. started early november The thing about 4gate, 3rax(maybe 4rax, or 5rax scv allin), or zerg all-ins now is that people at low diamond are worse than they were before, so they have a harder time stopping it, therefore getting diamond but not a high rating isn't really a decent accomplishment anymore, it seems. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
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. | ||
|
uSnAmplified
United States1029 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:53 Chylo wrote: Actually hes protoss and probably does not play any more then players of his level.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. 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). | ||
|
news
892 Posts
On January 05 2011 07:53 Kefka.dancingmad wrote: 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. | ||
|
brownthing
United States189 Posts
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. | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On January 05 2011 01:51 Leviwtf wrote: 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. | ||
|
Oceaniax
146 Posts
| ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 05 2011 08:45 teamsolid wrote: 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. | ||
|
imyzhang
Canada809 Posts
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. | ||
|
LolnoobInsanity
United States183 Posts
So yeah, figure out what you're doing wrong, THEN practice. | ||
|
JDeathmetal
Netherlands81 Posts
On January 05 2011 09:29 imyzhang wrote: 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 | ||
|
teamsolid
Canada3668 Posts
On January 05 2011 09:18 Leviwtf wrote: 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. | ||
|
Bygone
United States58 Posts
| ||
|
shinosai
United States1577 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
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? | ||
|
Bubbadub
United States156 Posts
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. | ||
|
news
892 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
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. | ||
|
Huragius
Lithuania1506 Posts
On January 05 2011 08:45 teamsolid wrote: 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 . | ||
|
photomuse
United States102 Posts
| ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/Steppes vs diamond terran #1.SC2Replay http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/ZvT DQ closepos.SC2Replay http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/ZvT scrap.SC2Replay http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/ZvT steppes.SC2Replay http://jago.pp.fi/misc/SC2/for review/ZvT temple crosspos.SC2Replay | ||
|
Uniden
United Kingdom26 Posts
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 | ||
|
Zerksys
United States569 Posts
| ||
|
news
892 Posts
On January 05 2011 11:12 Djzapz wrote: 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. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On January 05 2011 11:53 news wrote: 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. | ||
|
Hollywise
France112 Posts
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 | ||
|
BitterStriFe
United States89 Posts
| ||
|
Danners933
Canada76 Posts
| ||
|
dreamsmasher
816 Posts
On January 05 2011 08:45 teamsolid wrote: 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. | ||
|
Smurfz
United States327 Posts
i'm PsychonautQQ.218, now a 3250 protoss. it's all natural baby, QQ | ||
|
elroy
United States51 Posts
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... | ||
|
Zeridian
United States198 Posts
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) | ||
|
Terrifyer
United States338 Posts
So if you feel that you dont have it "naturally" don't feel too bad. | ||
|
TheOnlyOne
Germany155 Posts
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. | ||
|
DougJDempsey
747 Posts
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. | ||
|
Dr_Strange
United States80 Posts
| ||
|
DImported
Australia149 Posts
| ||
|
jarod
Romania766 Posts
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 | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On January 04 2011 22:22 gillon wrote: 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. | ||
|
blade55555
United States17423 Posts
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 ^^ | ||
|
Wolf
Korea (South)3290 Posts
| ||
|
Morphs
Netherlands645 Posts
In beta I started in copper (up to silver) and in retail I started in silver and worked my way up to plat where I've been for a while now. IMO playing Zerg definitely makes this climb harder, and only recently did I get the feeling that my mechanics are getting smooth... Just play for the improvement. Watch your replays and try to focus on one thing at a time for a while so you improve on that. | ||
|
WallieP
Netherlands425 Posts
On January 05 2011 19:32 Morphs wrote: This thread is pretty skewed in itself since teamliquid tends to attract gamers who are a bit more serious about playing sc2 than average. Hence all those "I play casually and got into diamond after 50 games" ... . This really was what i wanted to type but couldnt find the right words... a average gamer wouldnt end up on this website, watch tactics on a daily base or analyse replays after every lose, when you do stuff like that you allready are not a natural but a person who got it by playing and researching a lot, and finding the right tactics. With the right build order and research close to everyone can reach diamond imo | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
| ||
|
DragonDefonce
United States790 Posts
| ||
|
fabioisonfire
United States81 Posts
Sure, APM can be a God-given talent, but I do believe it's mostly work ethic and a willingness to learn from each loss. | ||
|
Hane
France210 Posts
To improve you have to learn from your loses and play more. Started from copper league, and now after 3k games i'm mid+ diam. | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
| ||
|
Carkis
Canada302 Posts
| ||
|
decaf
Austria1797 Posts
I've been reading lately about people who claim to have gotten into Diamond within their first 50-80 games without previous RTS experience I did that in 30 games. I am generally very good if it comes to playing video games, don't know why, because I don't play very much. Maybe because I played the guitar and the piano ? | ||
|
Retgery
Canada1229 Posts
| ||
|
SiN]
United States540 Posts
| ||
|
Meldrath
United States620 Posts
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. They can only get to platinum from placement games. Your wrong. What ever strat they used is valid cheese is valid cheese is cheese becuase it works. When they got the game does not matter. There was a lengthy beta and people had sc1 to compare and learn from. People can and do lie. But saying your in diamond when you are not is kinda silly being in diamond doesnt make you a god among men.. being 3k+ or in meatyowllegs standards being 4k does. In summary your not as clever as you think you are. | ||
|
Mintastic
United States166 Posts
Also don't let the population of this forum fool you, most of the players in the world are in silver or below so it's perfectly normal. Remember to have fun too. | ||
|
DIRESTRAIT
Canada155 Posts
| ||
|
SlyinZ
France199 Posts
profile : Joined TL.net Monday, 26th of May 2008, you failed hard sir In topic, i think that a monkey can play mozart if you give him time. Anyone can be succesfull at anything, the only limited factor is the willpower. | ||
|
Precision
United States67 Posts
On January 06 2011 04:37 DIRESTRAIT wrote: I agree that natural talent does have to do with it. I'll use guitar as an example. Sure if everyone practices day and night they'll become amazing at guitar, but some people just pick it up and have a feel for it that others don't, these are the people that get creative with the instruments and set the bar for everyone else (Drewbie drops, Maynard transfers), natural talent is not everything although it's not to be overlooked Took the words right out of my mouth. Some people just musically talented, some people are just naturally good at sports, and some people can also be naturally talented at playing video games (whether it's an RTS or not). But as to whether if it's either skill or practice, I'd have to say it's more practice than skill. But mostly a combination of both. | ||
|
zJayy962
1363 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:35 TyrantPotato wrote: some people tend to have a natural "knack" for rts games. for example im one of the lucky sons of a bitchs where everything just comes to me naturally. but i rarely get a chance to practice so i cant reap any benefits from it. then there are people who may not have that spark. but will dedicate themselves to hard practice and will reach the top through sheer determination. personally i feel that those who commit them selves deserve more then those who are just "good" at stuff. but the top top top people "jeadong/flash gosu level" they seem to be born from the ashes of thousand year old phoenixes with the burning pashion of a million suns and practice their skills inside volcanoes whilst tieing 1000kgs of wieght to their arms 12 hours a day Im from the US and you just used kgs as a measurement. It made me giggle. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 06 2011 04:37 DIRESTRAIT wrote: I agree that natural talent does have to do with it. I'll use guitar as an example. Sure if everyone practices day and night they'll become amazing at guitar, but some people just pick it up and have a feel for it that others don't, these are the people that get creative with the instruments and set the bar for everyone else (Drewbie drops, Maynard transfers), natural talent is not everything although it's not to be overlooked Personal anecdotes aren't very convincing to me. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
I'll take me, for example, with two different things. Video games. I've played them all my life, especially FPS, and just "get" them. I do well in every single game I've played longer than a month or so. In SC2, I placed in plat with zero RTS experience except for Rome: Total War, and probably would be in diamond if I actually played it more, I find it funner to watch. :-( But I just didn't have any trouble picking it up, and "getting" some of the more advanced concepts. But then we move to music. I blow at music. But i love it, and so I've practiced many, many hours on my music. So now, i can play about 5 different instruments with some degree of proficiency, piano and cello the best. I still am not "talented", and never will be. But I wanted to be good, so i took lessons, and practiced my butt off until I was. It's a lot less fun that just playing video games and being good, but in the end, I'm reaching the goal I set. If I was talented, and had put all the time into music that I have, I would probably be really amazing. I'm not though, I'm just solid. | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
On January 06 2011 04:37 DIRESTRAIT wrote: I agree that natural talent does have to do with it. I'll use guitar as an example. Sure if everyone practices day and night they'll become amazing at guitar, but some people just pick it up and have a feel for it that others don't, these are the people that get creative with the instruments and set the bar for everyone else (Drewbie drops, Maynard transfers), natural talent is not everything although it's not to be overlooked I agree with the natural talent thing, but I'm not sure you can compare it to music. Some people are naturally better at SC than others, but nobody will ever be at a level of Beethoven or Mozart or some child prodigy. I'm sure the Starcraft 1 people are going to be screaming about how flash or whoever was like 13 when he won some big SC1 thing but that's nowhere near the level of an actual child prodigy where someone is writing world class symphonies at like age 3... | ||
|
Neo.NEt
United States785 Posts
On January 06 2011 04:41 SlyinZ wrote: In topic, i think that a monkey can play mozart if you give him time. Anyone can be succesfull at anything, the only limited factor is the willpower. Anyone can play Mozart but not everyone can write like Mozart did no matter how hard they try... I think something a lot of people are missing is that something like 20% of players are in diamond. This means that ANYONE can be in diamond if they try hard enough (in my opinion). However, if you want to get top 100 or a professional, there are people that can NEVER get there no matter how hard they try. That's just the way it is. If you honestly think that ANYONE could be top 100 or even top 1000 if they tried hard enough, you're fooling yourself. | ||
|
DIRESTRAIT
Canada155 Posts
On January 06 2011 05:54 Neo.NEt wrote: I agree with the natural talent thing, but I'm not sure you can compare it to music. Some people are naturally better at SC than others, but nobody will ever be at a level of Beethoven or Mozart or some child prodigy. I'm sure the Starcraft 1 people are going to be screaming about how flash or whoever was like 13 when he won some big SC1 thing but that's nowhere near the level of an actual child prodigy where someone is writing world class symphonies at like age 3... I agree that players can't reach the same level of prowess as Mozart or some other child prodigies, but it's simply an example to show that, some people just seem to be better at doing things quickly, thinking on their feet, making the right decisions. These things take practice, but some people pick up on them naturally. Another way to look at it is maybe the potential skill cap for someone who is naturally skilled at video games is higher than the potential skill cap for someone that has no affinity with them. I'm not trying to compare starcraft with music, i'm just trying to show how yes anyone can play starcraft2 , how WELL you play it may be a factor of how naturally talented you are. | ||
|
plagiarisedwords
United Kingdom138 Posts
On January 05 2011 11:37 Uniden wrote: 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 think point 3 has the most to do with it :-). Diamond is just an indication of quality of play rather than variety of play. All of your builds are aggressive in nature and generally not reactionary. Especially for P reactionary play is one their strengths. However, to play in that style you will need to learn every single build that terran and zerg can throw at you, how to scout it and how to respond to each. Unfortunately, you are likely to run up against a wall once you get high enough on ladder where people know how to hold off your strats. I agree with your point regarding similarity of games though. My experience playing SC2 came in handy vs a friend who plays Tekken a lot. I just messed around for a while and figured out a punch/kick combo that counters most of the fancy moves my friend was trying to pull off. Guess I found the 6 pool of Tekken :-). Oh how my friend raged! | ||
|
TRAP[yoo]
Hungary6026 Posts
i think the most important thing that brought me where iam is that i watched broodwar for a long time and iam watching a ton of replays. | ||
|
statez
Australia101 Posts
| ||
|
Pulimuli
Sweden2766 Posts
On January 06 2011 04:41 SlyinZ wrote: In topic, i think that a monkey can play mozart if you give him time. Anyone can be succesfull at anything, the only limited factor is the willpower. you realize Mozart wasnt a musician right? he was a composer (probably the greatest and most naturally talented of all time) | ||
|
TALegion
United States1187 Posts
When i first started playing the game, I watched hours upon hours of casting by Day[9], Psy, and other good commentators while I waited to be accepted into the beta. As soon as I started (and I got the feel for micro and macro), I was Gold. I kinda just went up from there o.O I have minimal experience in RTS before starcraft games (some, but not much), but I don't remember being any kind of prodigy at BW or WC3 (Quite the opposite. I worked my ass off to good at those games). I'm pretty hesistant to claim any kind of natural skill... | ||
|
doubled
Sweden111 Posts
I don't understand how people can play over 500 games and still be stuck in silver and play like crap. Don't they ever improve? :o | ||
|
KoKoRo
United States186 Posts
On January 04 2011 17:32 piskooooo wrote: They probably got it when the game was new. This was me. Still in Diamond. On January 06 2011 21:06 doubled wrote: I went from Bronze to Diamond in about 40 games during the Beta. Never played an RTS before this online (only against AI.. campaigns). However I watched probably as many Day9 episodes as games I played, which I think was a major contributor. I don't understand how people can play over 500 games and still be stuck in silver and play like crap. Don't they ever improve? :o I blame fear, lack of intuition, and the lack of being able to think, "Can I kill that with this? Lets find out." | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
At silver league that just screams macro problems in my mind. I don't know a Silver league player that can say they have really good macro. _________ Also don't give up you just got to keep on playing the game and try not to make the same mistakes over and over again. A lot of us have been playing Brood War so some of those skill sets transferred over. That's why a lot of people are so good because they already have a lot of background experience from BW. | ||
|
Larrie
United Kingdom46 Posts
This is as Protoss without cheese (Only 4gating against FE zerg) | ||
|
Silentness
United States2821 Posts
On January 05 2011 00:35 mierin wrote: Keep in mind, a lot of these players were ranked in ICCUP...even the meanest D- in brood war is equivalent skillwise to a pretty decent Diamond in sc2. I don't think so... D- in Iccup is pretty damn bad. I'd say mid Ds to D+ is diamond capable. C- and up is when you know wtf you're doing. | ||
|
Slytech
United States16 Posts
I'm new the the Starcraft scene but in my first month or so after release and watching countless replays and day[9] dailies I propelled my self from my rank 1 bronze status to Platinum pretty quick. (Granted I'm demoted to gold now but that is just from lack of playing and a 2 month hiatus I took.) But I also have a pretty extensive competitive gaming background from FPS which IMO, shows the nature of how people approach video games. Other than that no real RTS experience other than when I goofed around in WC3 ladder when I was like 13-14. | ||
|
GrassEater
Sweden417 Posts
| ||
|
pksens
United Kingdom156 Posts
I got into Diamond very quickly (<20 games) with no RTS exp, but that would be lying to say I have no idea what I was doing because i've played so many competitive games in FPS, watched alot of Korean pro SC1 vods which did help out alot. Basically, I knew to concentrate on learning macro and nothing else, as zerg this seemed the most intuitive thing to do after time. Learning macro isn't difficult so I don't consider this an achievement to have done it faster than others. I just made correct decisions in regards to practice, unlike others. As for natural talent, this is much easier to be seen in other gaming scenes. SC is such a mechanically heavy game that the entire notion of natural talent should be ignored completely until you start looking at S-caliber gamers. What parts are measurable? For instance, you could argue Flashes best advantage is his "map hack" game sense. If you could break it down, this is basically his subconscious running a shit ton of calculations at a very fast rate, very much like how you or me would see someones face and instantly recognise that as your friend or relative, but obviously you don't realise you have just completed a sequence of lightning fast calculations (ie eye-eye distance, mouth-nose ratio, patterns). I believe Flash would instantly recognise a pattern in a situation which looks, to the average spectator, completely lacking in information and throws down a reaction, without thinking still, to it and garners an advantage. Be it a critical scan at a completely random moment, the feeling the opponent is going to do X build without having a single obvious tell, to understand the opponent even and know how he would think in the situation and such to know what he would be doing regardless of ANY information, that's the pretty scary part of natural talent. JD, although his mechanics are of the highest level to be witnessed, his decision making on the fly is the reason his level is so unprecedented in ZvZ for example. Such a volatile matchup which, seemingly if both players follow through with builds impeccably, the build order should define the victor yet he can overcome this deficit over and over again. JvZ is natural talent I believe. Me or you may have some small degree of game sense, that may be our only small bit of natural talent, but it's so blindingly insignificant at our level because this game demands such a high level of mechanics and understanding for it to be shown. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
On January 06 2011 05:54 Neo.NEt wrote: I agree with the natural talent thing, but I'm not sure you can compare it to music. Some people are naturally better at SC than others, but nobody will ever be at a level of Beethoven or Mozart or some child prodigy. I'm sure the Starcraft 1 people are going to be screaming about how flash or whoever was like 13 when he won some big SC1 thing but that's nowhere near the level of an actual child prodigy where someone is writing world class symphonies at like age 3... He wasn't writing anything like world class symphonies at the age of 3. He started "composing" at age 5, which is still really good, but it's not like we listen to those right now and stand in awe. His early compositions were complete crap. The reason he was amazing was he had an ear for music, and spend all of his time playing and composing music. So what he did is COMPLETELY applicable to being "talented" at SC2. If you know what you are looking for, aka, have an "ear" for playing RTS games, and are really dedicated, you will get far. That is all "talent" is. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
OR at the least who got to diamond in under 50 games without EVER playing any RTS games (even single player) and didn't play through the SC2 campaign or do any 2v2/3v3/4v4 games. They bought the game and clicked 1v1 ladder, 50 games later they are in diamond. Someone who played through the campaign in SC2 or played SC1 at all has a huge advantage of knowing the basic game mechanics over someone who has no RTS experience, simply buys SC2 and hits 1v1 ladder. Also, playing any other sort of video game is also a huge advantage even if it is not an RTS since you practice decision making, reaction time, nerves, and basic improvement skills. The more video games you've played the easier it is to pick up new games and learn the rules and develop strategies. My last point is: Is there any player in the GSL who SC2 was their first RTS game? Since honestly I think getting to diamond, doesn't really make you "good" at SC2, as others have said its similar to D or D+ in ICCup, and can be easily done by just practicing the first 8-10 minutes of the game using one BO(4gate/3rax) vs the comps then playing online always using that BO after learning how to do it without getting supply blocked/stopping producing units. | ||
|
Sm3agol
United States2055 Posts
| ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
| ||
|
Keitzer
United States2509 Posts
--OR-- who know how to "manage economy" or whatever you feel SC2 requires... kinda like me, but not really --OR-- they are people who learn things fast.. like, me by this i mean, even things in school, if they are told say, only once, they'll know it better and faster than a kid who was told 10 times... you know? | ||
|
darmousseh
United States3437 Posts
On January 06 2011 23:25 Sm3agol wrote: Pretty sure noone has hit diamond in 50 games if it was their first video game, or even first RTS game. Unless they watched a whole crap load of replays/VODs/day9's/etc, and spend more time watching replays and analyzing their play than actually playing. Even then, it would basically be impossible if you''ve never played a single video game ever. I hit it in under 90 games and it's my first RTS. The thing is I was used to chess strategical thinking and so I spent a lot of time reading and thinking about the game before ever playing it. Also I watched every replay at the time and tried to figure out why i lost. | ||
|
Skank
United States329 Posts
Make your macro super fast, like hyperdrive. But on unit micro and army positioning, slow down and take your time. Dont rush yourself into fight because you've been macro'ing like lightning. That was the advice I needed to get from Gold to Diamond, hope it works for you. P.S. This game is sooo fast it's normal for it to seem stressful. Unless your mid to high diamond, I don't think anyone should always feel really relaxed. | ||
|
Gand0lf
Canada4 Posts
I think some people catch on to that stuff easier than others... | ||
|
ilmman
364 Posts
| ||
|
Moja
United States313 Posts
My previous rts experience was C&C (red alert 1-2) and Age of Empires 2. I dabbled with WC3. I never played any RTS competitively, or even against other people. I don't think previous RTS experience had any impact on my progress in starcraft 2, since I never even considered a "build order", "macro", or anything beyond "get the cool units and win". I learned the most basic stuff from Husky and HD (later got introduced to Day9 which is a LOT better for building game fundamentals). I have trouble understanding the difficulty of getting into diamond when it all boils down to a crisp build order, "decent" macro, and vague intuitions/game sense. Even many diamond players are pretty bad at the game. There were no long, hard hours of practice for me. There was a lot of theorycraft and designing my own builds to be safe, strong, and adaptable, which I think contributed to my success (AFTER I was in diamond), but that's a stylistic way to advance. Maybe the biggest difference between me (under 300 ladder games played, but I can compete on the 2300-2500 diamond level), and the average bronze-gold league player is the quality of practice and the time spent trying to understand the game. I think the theoretical approach is a personality thing though (prefer theoretical frameworks as opposed to specific directions). If you're practicing bad build orders and bad macro, you'll ingrain bad habits that stick with you and hold you back. If, from the very start, you focus on having a solid foundation, then it's easy to add the fancier stuff later. I also think the ladder system punishes "low quality mass games". Your MMR variance gets vastly decreased and it's much harder to advance if you go 1000/970 instead of 45/40. | ||
|
Leviwtf
174 Posts
On January 07 2011 07:00 ilmman wrote: Lets just say there are 2 players.. A high level player and a professional progamer. Now for a high level player to become a progamer, what does that player have to do? In other words what is that difference between high level and progamer that make progamers excel more. Is it them extra apm micro/macro they put into it that puts them ahead? The cleverly disguised Build orders (but who can't think of a random build orders these days aint that mfing hard),... or what/?? what is it mf The amount of deliberate practice they have done and taking to the next level/thinking outside the box for practice. Heres an example of thinking outside the box in terms of practice (although I am obviously not a pro). I bought a spare mouse (razer abyssus) and mousepad (goliathus control) for my work so I could use the exact same mouse settings at work as home when I play. I had trouble with my mouse control playing sc2 since I use my computer for work so much and my mouse settings/feel were completely different so I had kept having to re-adjust every day. Does it matter at the high diamond level? no not really to be honest. Would it matter at a high profile tournament when your already nervous and your hands are inherently shaky and games are competitive/close where one misclick (forcefield) can make you lose the game? I think it so. I also have felt much more comfortable with my mouse and practice my mouse control daily at work. Another big difference I've seen is that many high level players put alot of emphasis on their ladder ranking and winning or losing games. Pro players generally could care less about the ladder or their win/loss ratio and always focus about improving, trying out new builds, learning, pushing themselves outside their comfort zone which is when real improvement happens. Pro players also spend more time watching their own replays, asking the advice of others, discussing the game than high level players. | ||
|
Jayrod
1820 Posts
| ||
|
Rawenkeke
Norway350 Posts
| ||
|
sylverfyre
United States8298 Posts
| ||
|
Sou
Canada2 Posts
For example the first thing I did when i got SC2 was play single player and just learn all the buildings, look at all the units, see what they do, and try to figure out where I think they would be useful. And if I lose a game, I try to think about where my mistakes are, and how to fix them. I go back and watch the replay and look to find the error, I think analyzing your losses is really important, top players do it too even if you don't have to watch the replay, you need to think about why you lost and how to prevent it next time. Likewise I spent a lot of time comparing build orders and figuring them out and seeing what got me the most economy/units, the fastest (I played in beta at the start, before build orders were more standardized). In comparison I notice my lower league friends go, oh I lost, next game I guess I'll try again and try harder. Rather than really breaking down, specific things to work on. Oh I need to make workers more often, I should smooth out my build order, I missed my timing, I shouldn't have attacked into this position, etc. | ||
|
Acridice
United States298 Posts
| ||
|
xVigilante
46 Posts
I am far from great but I like to think over things and this is what I think is the difference | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
Even now, if I already have larva stockpiled for making a potential army I find the travel distances between bases too short and if I see my opponent move out from his base and start immideately hatching an army it's often done at a point in time where at least one of my bases has already taken serious damage. Yet, I am consistently being told by people that my larva count is way too high and that I should be keeping it low (as I should be keeping my money apparently). WTF? If even having enough larva stockpiled means my army gets hatched at the absolute possible last second (and actually does happen way too late on maps like steppes), how the hell am I supposed to make an army when I DON'T have the larva saved? When the travel distance base to base is not longer than ~30 seconds pretty much regardless of map and I keep my larva at say, 3 larva x 3 base for a total of 9 larva, how the hell do I magically go from 9 larva to 30-35 larva AND spawn the army in the span of these 30 seconds? | ||
|
Jago
Finland390 Posts
| ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Calm Dota 2 10084Sea  4274Horang2  723Jaedong 591Larva 539Leta 462Light 197EffOrt 122Pusan 86Mong 73[ Show more ] League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games Organizations Other Games StarCraft: Brood War StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
CranKy Ducklings
WardiTV 2025
Spirit vs Cure
Reynor vs MaxPax
SHIN vs TBD
Solar vs herO
Classic vs TBD
SC Evo League
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
Sziky vs Dewalt
eOnzErG vs Cross
Sparkling Tuna Cup
Ladder Legends
BSL 21
StRyKeR vs TBD
Bonyth vs TBD
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
