|
On March 17 2011 05:44 WhiteDog wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:20 VeNoM HaZ Skill wrote:
MVP has never been good against toss... he was shitting his pants when he thought he was going to have to face MC... anyone with a third grade education could tell 2 good tosses would be the end of him.
Apparently you never played BW... everybody thought terran was the worst race for a year or two... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Shit changes, and people overhype some players so much that you are shocked when they lose...
I bet you've never watched Savior vs. Bisu in the MSL finals. That would've made your head explode... You are completly off topic. What made bisu's win so EPIC was especially because Savior was dominating since a longggggggggggg time, not to mention he lost in FINAL. We are actually talking about a game were in 5 season, the number 1 of the previous season ALWAYS miserabily falls in the next season. And now we have "THE BEST PLAYER OF THE WORLD" if you listen to artosis, who falls in first round, loosing everything in the season while he is the fucking previous champion. It's anticlimatic, for epicness to come, you need some kind of rarity. Seeing everyday THE BEST loosing to a goddamn Code A player has no taste at all. PS: if you consider that instability, MKP is actually the best player, being in final twice, always having pretty strong result, and he was not demoted to code A.
GSL seasons are considerably faster than OSL/MSL's. The game is still very young. Please compare the beginning of any RTS to what it is like a few years down the road. It's a vastly different playstyle and experience. Maps also have a large reason for temporary ups and downs for players.
|
There has always been substantial uncertainty in Starcraft, even in BW. Flash and Jaedong don't always win OSLs and there's a fairly large group of good players that get eliminated in the group stages because they have an off day. If anything, this proves that just six months of real competition doesn't allow people to effectively gauge player skill.
On another note, I love the variance in success. How else would we get fantastic series like SanZenith? That a player can improve so hugely speaks volumes to Starcraft 2 as a sport, especially considering what happened when players didn't practice like Fruitdealer or Tester. Individual sports shouldn't be something where you're assured of staying at the top once you get there.
|
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote:
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
|
On March 17 2011 05:54 Valikyr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote:
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW. The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
The "casual audience" should go and play FIFA or COD or whatever other shitty flavour of the month it is. Leave SC to the people with skill.
|
On March 17 2011 05:54 Valikyr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote:
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW. The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
Make mechanics harder merely makes you do a bunch of tedious bullshit when what you really want to do is develop innovative strategies and make better decisions than your opponent. I can guarantee you that every matchup is going to drastically change within a years time, including PvP. We're not even close to optimal play in any matchups right now.
Also, even top macro players like IdrA have terrible macro still, so I don't think we need to worry about reaching a mechanics skillcap anyway.
|
On March 17 2011 05:54 Valikyr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote:
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW. The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
Yeah, I understand. What I would like to see at least is a "casual" SC2 and a "competitive" SC2, like Promod in CoD4. All players should able to join both of the two skill ceilings and play the way they prefer. This way no one should be complaining because it neither limits the player in his freedom or seperates him in becoming better. Maybe this will be done with the next two expansions.
The "casual audience" should go and play FIFA or COD or whatever other shitty flavour of the month it is. Leave SC to the people with skill.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. I doubt this game would have exploded like this in the west if it wasn't that casual friendly, you see so many new faces and basically every player is capable of reaching the Master league. It has to be somewhere between SC1 and SC2, the current state of the game is not supporting a huge E-Sports game.
|
The game is far too new, the players not optimally playing it just yet, and GSL's format does not reward solely on skill.
|
Going back to the OP, it is argued that since MVP is in code A, and NesTea and MKP didn't get far, shows that SC2 as a game is too volatile, or too much luck is involved. But the fact of the matter is, those players lost because they played worse then their opponent. End of story. The losses had very little to do with luck.
I think if anything, the game is becoming less and less volatile. Remember GSL 3? We were seeing marine+SCV all-ins almost every TvZ. But have there been any this season?(I can't recall any at least). And with the new maps in the current GSL, I would say the current season has had the least luck involved out of any of the previous seasons. It was the players who were volatile.
EDIT: One more thing. The mechanics being too easy "problem" will go away as time goes on. No one is close to perfect mechanically at this game yet, and the gap will only become wider between the players who make this game it their careers opposed to those who play it casually.
|
On March 17 2011 05:59 PJA wrote:
Also, even top macro players like IdrA have terrible macro still, so I don't think we need to worry about reaching a mechanics skillcap anyway.
You state this as though it's a well known fact. I feel Idra has become rather well known for how good his macro is. Is there a reason you feel his macro is "terrible"?
|
On March 17 2011 05:54 Valikyr wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote:
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW. The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
While adding complexity is usually a beneficial thing for a game from a depth standpoint, it isn't necessarily a good thing. Complexity from things like non-automine, non-MBS, and non-shift queuing (for example) is purely one dimensional. The best players will always do it. The best macro additions are things like what Blizzard ended up adding that present choices to the player as they increase complexity-crono boost, spawn larva/creep tumor, and mule/scan all present inherent challenges to the player. More mechanics in that vein should be interesting. "Press x key sequence to not lose," though, is far too much like quick-time events.
|
its hard to say, with balance changes, strategies and map changes its so hard to be consistent. i think the most consistent players are Zerg, as they generally have the fewest builds/openers and playstyle. followed by Toss and than lastly Terran
the game in its current state is kind of :-(
|
On March 16 2011 20:04 mr_tolkien wrote:
To really create a regular fan/viewer base, you need stars, you need guys above the whole cast, guys who have a 90% win ratio and meet in finals, and whose losses are really huge upsets has it happens so rarely.
WTF?? No one has ever had that kind of winrate. Flash has a 70 something percent overall winrate, and that's frankly insane. How can you even reasonably expect half of this stuff?
Sc2 is not too volatile, it's just too young.
|
On March 17 2011 06:13 wherebugsgo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 20:04 mr_tolkien wrote:
To really create a regular fan/viewer base, you need stars, you need guys above the whole cast, guys who have a 90% win ratio and meet in finals, and whose losses are really huge upsets has it happens so rarely. WTF?? No one has ever had that kind of winrate. Flash has a 70 something percent overall winrate, and that's frankly insane. How can you even reasonably expect half of this stuff? Sc2 is not too volatile, it's just too young.
multiple players have held that kind of win rate for a while
|
On March 17 2011 03:40 skipdog172 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote:
yes it is too volatile and its not going to change
blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it
sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games. Idra, I think your problem is that you are remembering how hard you could crush all of the other white guys in BW. But... you still got crushed by the Koreans. You talk as if in BW, you were beating players because of your superior mechanics and you can't do it so easily in SC2. You mention mbs, smartcasting and improved unit AI make it more difficult for you to consistantly beat players that you are already better in, in terms of overall skill. You were good enough to make it on a team in Korea and that is about it. So can you admit that you lost to the Koreans and never succeeded 'big' as a BW player strictly because their mechanics were strictly better than yours? You seem to clearly be implying that it is the issue in SC2... that there isn't a big enough skill gap between your mechanics and the mechanics of other white guys. So what was your winrate in BW compared to SC2? The fact is, you've had some pretty decent results in SC2. How can you really say that things are so random? You've made it pretty far in GSL and have shown that you are Code S worthy. You must at least agree that your biggest strength is your mechanics and not your game sense(we know how you tend to lose games...not saying your game sense isn't SUPER strong, but just look back at how you've lost matches in GSL seasons). Yet your mechanics are allowing you to do pretty darn well. Maybe you just need to accept that while you are among the best zergs in the world, but you just aren't the best... just like in BW. I don't see your results having anything to do with SC2 being more 'random' and 'volatile'... I just see your results correctly lining up to your skill level. Just look at BW winrates... they aren't very different than in SC2, and that is a game with years of strategies and so many tiny things being figured out. Of course there will be a bit more randomness in SC2 when the metagame still hasn't settled down and there has been such little time for things like timings and strategies to get developed to the point where nobody is truly surprised by anything.
i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points]
now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts:
4049(us)
2681 (eu this is a brand new acct)
3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile)
So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up.
oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread:
On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote:
I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised.
as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope].
as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
|
On March 17 2011 04:20 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 04:16 Jayrod wrote:On March 17 2011 03:59 IdrA wrote:On March 17 2011 03:49 Jayrod wrote:On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote:
yes it is too volatile and its not going to change
blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it
sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games. Have you ever heard of a strategy game called poker? Professional poker in America at least is bigger than SC2 will ever be here and it does not "fucking suck" as proven by the absurd prize pools and the fact that I can turn on ESPN right now and watch a bunch of fat slobs playing mind games with one another. There are so many online gamers and pro level online gamers that play online poker at reasonably high levels that would probably agree that poker is indeed a game of skill, entertaining to watch, and as much a sport as you could consider starcraft. being forced to play percentages and educated guesses is fine when tournaments, or income through online play, consists of hundreds or thousands of hands. things average out, people who make correct decisions win in the long run. when losing a bo3 eliminates you from a tournament its not so good. So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner? thats a less exciting way to make progaming a viable profession but leaves the fact that you'll never have something close to a dominant player, which is good for competition as long as theyre not too dominant. also dilutes the excitement and entertainment value of any given tournament. a more direct mimic of poker's setup is just having every match be bo7 or bo9 or whatever. but the better solution would be to just fix the game. trying to copy a card game's competitive format with an rts is kinda stupid.
I agree it'd be stupid to copy the format, but taking the good elements from something to enhance something else usually works really well.
Well how about as a standard format, hosts veer away from having an absurd number of rounds (see MLG) and things like losers brackets, and just have fewer rounds, but each round is a Bo5. MLGs are supposedly extremely grueling, which may or may not be a bad thing, but i know the fans dont even get to see half the games in MLG. With fewer total matches and rounds, but a standard Bo5 format we could see the best players advancing, in a tournament that doesn't make the finalists feel like they've just been through the ringer, and have a higher percentage of matches that are able to be cast and viewed.
|
Did MVP play well in the up and down matches? I don't think he did. MMM viking can't win in late game against protoss in a straight up battle. There's just no splash damage in that composition.
I have a feeling MVP probably has never seen the type of pressure build that Alicia used in their series. Then against Genius, the second game was a total build order loss, and the first game, he attacked into something he shouldn't have attacked into.
|
On March 17 2011 05:56 Zystra wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 05:54 Valikyr wrote:On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote:
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW. The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion. The "casual audience" should go and play FIFA or COD or whatever other shitty flavour of the month it is. Leave SC to the people with skill.
aaaaannnddd this is exactly what E-Sports does NOT need in order to grow.
|
On March 17 2011 06:20 majestouch wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 03:40 skipdog172 wrote:On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote:
yes it is too volatile and its not going to change
blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it
sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games. Idra, I think your problem is that you are remembering how hard you could crush all of the other white guys in BW. But... you still got crushed by the Koreans. You talk as if in BW, you were beating players because of your superior mechanics and you can't do it so easily in SC2. You mention mbs, smartcasting and improved unit AI make it more difficult for you to consistantly beat players that you are already better in, in terms of overall skill. You were good enough to make it on a team in Korea and that is about it. So can you admit that you lost to the Koreans and never succeeded 'big' as a BW player strictly because their mechanics were strictly better than yours? You seem to clearly be implying that it is the issue in SC2... that there isn't a big enough skill gap between your mechanics and the mechanics of other white guys. So what was your winrate in BW compared to SC2? The fact is, you've had some pretty decent results in SC2. How can you really say that things are so random? You've made it pretty far in GSL and have shown that you are Code S worthy. You must at least agree that your biggest strength is your mechanics and not your game sense(we know how you tend to lose games...not saying your game sense isn't SUPER strong, but just look back at how you've lost matches in GSL seasons). Yet your mechanics are allowing you to do pretty darn well. Maybe you just need to accept that while you are among the best zergs in the world, but you just aren't the best... just like in BW. I don't see your results having anything to do with SC2 being more 'random' and 'volatile'... I just see your results correctly lining up to your skill level. Just look at BW winrates... they aren't very different than in SC2, and that is a game with years of strategies and so many tiny things being figured out. Of course there will be a bit more randomness in SC2 when the metagame still hasn't settled down and there has been such little time for things like timings and strategies to get developed to the point where nobody is truly surprised by anything. i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points] now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts: 4049(us) 2681 (eu this is a brand new acct) 3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile) So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up. oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread: Show nested quote +On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote:
I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised. as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope]. as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
I don't think sleepingdog ever mentioned or suggested once that he is as good or better than idra at starcraft. Even if his credentials are lacking he may be 100% correct (im not saying he is or isnt) and thats part of being a spectator in a spectator sport. Fans in real sports heckle players or talk about how bad or overrated someone is without having even a fracture of the ability of that player. I don't see how this is any different nor do I see how it is relevant or appropriate to put sleepingdogs information out there.
|
On March 16 2011 22:58 arb wrote:
the games still new, once the expansions are out and the games balanced.
then we'll see people like we did in broodwar
I don't know you well enough to simply say "lol sarcasm", but I certainly hope it was.
I did see other people with using that exact argument in this thread though, so let me just add that such thought is fucking stupid. Are you actually gonna wait like three or four years before you really can play the game? And then you don't even know for sure if it's gonna be worth it.
Let me just list what blizzard has control over: Units, balance tweaks and single player missions. Maps are already out of their hands.
It is by far the players and map makers who will have to make sc2 into something amazing. Of course they require blizzard to great a game for them, but I think it's insane put even one egg in that basket.
|
On March 16 2011 22:38 mr_tolkien wrote:
A lot of people are not understanding the point of this thread.
It's not specifically related to MVP, it's a feeling I got since season 2 and FDs fall. Then Nestea vs Rain. Then MC vs Jinro (a HUGE upset).
Saying it's linked to the youth of the game is also false. One year after the professionalisation of BW, they WERE players standing out clearly. It's not the case here, there are "top players" all clumped up together.
There is no bonjwa and none have the remote shape of one.
MVP never looked like one to me. Neither did Mc or FD. The only one I really saw really standing out at a point was Nestea, but nothing happened.
This guys are PAID for doing this. There HAS to be a player more gifted than the others. But clearly SC2 isn't made to allow him to stand out from the crowd.
Gifted don't shine because everyone can remake an army while still microing battles therefore once you WIN a battle it's 1+1 vs opponents 1 and game usually ends there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
