|
On April 24 2011 15:46 cive wrote:
The general theme seems to be that the "skill cap" is low. Believe it or not, people thought sc1 skill cap was low until Slayers_Boxer came along. The early days of SC1 (early 2000) Protoss dominated due to "low skill cap". The ability to mass zealot and dragoon was all there was in the game. The first major tournament win of Slayers_Boxer, if I recall correctly, had 14 Protoss, 1 Terran (Boxer himself) and 1 Zerg (Yellow). I think the true skill cap of SC2 is yet to be realized.
One can argue that the early days of SC1 had many units and spells that were not being utilized. Thus it had more room to grow. People often comment that "the future is all about spell X" or the "later on Y composition will dominate." The game can grow towards a totally different direction.
We are in no position to call out skill caps, good for eSport and what not. People claim they find the games boring, yet the people watched the games, are fan of players and took the effort to be a part of this community by posting on threads.
The game is young. There are still million mechanics, strategies and map designs to be figured out.
Wanted to say something similar too. If you watched Game4 of MC vs ThorZaIN yesterday, it was SICK sometimes. I mean, the ghost micro (that was awesome omg), the constant feedbacking, the HT spread. And much more. There is MUCH potential in the game if people find out the tricks. Its not that obvious like for example in SupCom (there theres virtually no skill cap, you have to build stuff on the whole map and fight multiple battles _constantly_), but its true.
|
illsick
United States1770 Posts
On April 24 2011 14:48 MechKing wrote:I think this should be brought up again. This post has a lot of spoilers in it, so watch out. + Show Spoiler +First of all, the FXOpen invitational today. Kyhol beat both oGsHero and oGsWanT. Do you think Kyhol is a better player than both of those two? There's more than that but I want to cover other tourney's too. TSL3: ThorZaIN beat MC pretty convincingly. The score was 3-2 but the games ThorZaIN won were a one-sided stomping. Copenhagen games: Grubby got 3rd. Grubby is a good player, but he seriously beat TLO and MorroW, both considered to be top EU players. Grubby has only been playing for a few months, and he's already beating players of that caliber. IMMvp + BoxeR got sent down to Code A, while HuK, Lyn, and TSL_Killer got sent to code S Jinro, San, MC, MarineKing all fall down to the up/down matches in GSL. Leenock gets completely knocked out. . Starswar: Dimaga beats the code S player FOXLyn 2-0. IMNesTea, a GSL Champion, gets beaten 2-1 by an unknown chinese player, LoveCD. Liquid`TLO beats a Code S player, HongUnPrime. As you can see, there's been a TON of upsets recently. You can say that they weren't really upsets, but there are still a lot of weird results. There still hasn't been a player that has been super consistent. Closest to that is MC, and even he has been losing a lot of games. This game does indeed feel too volatile, especially at the highest level.
All sports have their share of upsets. Nothing is ever clear cut and if it was, then that would be boring. A player/team can be a favorite but maybe they just don't play up to their potential when needed or at the time.
+ Show Spoiler +
ogshero and ogswant, they are not even code a? so i don't see the big deal
thorzain beating MC is an upset, i agree, but MC is the most consistent person IMO and maybe other factors like MC having to travel so much making somewhat of an impact (not to take anything away from thorzain, i love the guy). Even so, MC made it pretty far and can't win everything!
Grubby is good and is getting better. He is a WC3 legend and shouldn't be underestimated. He's been practicing with the best in europe already. I thought he was a top player before copenhagen.
Mvp and BoxeR being sent to code a; well gsl code s is a pretty stacked tournament and if you fall into a slump, you can easily fall into code a. People foresaw BoxeR slipping and it was just recently he's been improving so it's not really a blunder. Even if Mvp is a favorite in code a, he's not a sure thing to win it as there are other great contenders like MMA, bomber, and BoxeR. It shows how competitive the field is in gsl.
If someone doesn't play their best they can be knocked from code s to code a. Then it can be luck based of who makes it to code a to code s, depending who's in your group.
Jinro and San were in the group of death. A lot of people wanted jinro to advance but knew he would be underdog coming out with a group consisting of clide, nestea, and san.
MarineKing to me should have won against NaDa in his code s group but played weird when he was in the lead (going heavy mauraders, no tanks). Alicia was also the other person in the group he lost to and he's somewhat of a sleeper as artosis keeps hyping him.
and leenock just played badly, can't really say much to that but he's always been in code a anyways (creator doesn't seem too good maybe because he's a protoss and got lucky).
dimaga has beaten nestea, why can't he beat lyn?
ok, the nestea losing to lovecd was just bad of nestea. I'll give you that.
TLO beating hongunprime is not that much of an upset. Hongun didn't even win any of his code s games this season and will have to play the up/down matches to stay in code s.
|
On April 02 2011 20:25 Jakalo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2011 19:34 chenchen wrote:On April 02 2011 18:47 mr_tolkien wrote:
I allow myself to bump this topic, regarding recents results, more precisely :
TSL 3 results - No question, foreigners did better BOs. But we can't dismiss it was nearly pure BO wins, meaning, great deal of luck related with scouting
GSL WC results - Whita Ra VS San, Dimaga VS San
MLG - Kiwi VS IdrA
The more I'm watching SC2 recently, the more I see this game as «not serious», meaning you can't really say the usual good sportmanship phrase «Let the best win».
As well, Sen vs MKP is interesting dwelving into. Sen beat him one day and lost twice to him 2 days after. None of those games were real cheeses, neither 100% BO wins, it was just really small things that really made the difference. Things you seem to be allowed given the general leniancy of the game.
But definitly, it's hurting my SC2 watching experience. I would never miss a GSL match before, and the longer it goes, the less interesting the game seems.
I would really apppreciate more feedback from the community after those two weeks which have been really packed with offsets !!! The TSL 3 results were heavily affected by lag. The Koreans admitted that they, except July, weren't even trying in the show match, preferring to hide strategies for the real tournament with prize money. First of all if you would have read Jinros thread he explains that it wasnt lagy as in choppy and jumpy, but rather latency, which you can prepare to, also it shouldnt be considered a major factor as Europeans too had latency albeit a slightly less so. They probably were better prepared as they are more likely to play on NA server due to other tournaments, but again - that comes down to preparation not ''lag''
I'm Australian, which means I have a shitty internet connection and have noticable latency whether I'm connecting to SEA or NA, and it does definitely have an impact on your play. Every single online game I've ever played I've had this latency, so it's nothing to do with being unused to it. It just makes you do everything about half a second late, and that's actually kinda huge. It's not just a matter of doing things slightly slowly, it also has a huge effect on a variety of different micro tricks. Stutter step is completely impossible. Thors will often get a second shot on your mutalisks before they get out of range. Protoss players can easily cut off the front of your army with force fields and kill it, because you won't be able to pull back in time. You autolose ling/baneling wars, and I'd imagine 4gate wars would be equally difficult, although not quite as bad, simply because half a second of latency can't cause your entire army to die to a single baneling. Any sort of surprise attack gets a free half a second to kill your dudes, which can easily tip a close engagement in your opponent's favour. Any sort of AoE spell will often only hit half as many enemies as it was supposed to, or nothing at all. Blink/burrow micro requires Automaton 2000 levels of prediction, since you need to blink/burrow away before the roach/stalker actually takes damage. There's other things too, but I think you get the point.
Were any games decided by these factors? I'm not sure, I'd have to rewatch them and I cbf, though I do remember Genius wasting thousands of gas on sentries that always dropped their FFs too late to have any impact, which, since those games were very close, quite possibly cost him the series. But latency does definitely have an impact. It can be predicted and adapted to if you play with it often, but it absolutely will make you play worse, and so the Koreans were absolutely at a disadvantage. Trying to argue that a half-second delay on every command affects nothing is foolish and just makes you seem desperate for any excuse to diss the Koreans' skill.
|
Yea. It definitely seems volatile in that so many "good" players are capable of taking games off of or even knocking "great" players out of tournaments. The only thing I can say is that I agree with those that point towards the tournament format to explain the reason it seems so volatile. If the only time you ever play is in a knockout situation then obviously even "great" players can't win everything and will get upset occasionally. There are just so many tournaments with so many "good" players that even if you're winning 70% of your games in tournaments, you're still going to get knocked out of tournaments and win others. That's just statistics.
I still think that the game is changing and being figured out and even though it seems volatile, you can't just look at all the upsets and say it is volatile. You have to look at the big picture and see how many games and tournaments are being played. Someone can go and list ten or fifteen situations where it seems like a "better player" got knocked out but that's because you can look at the SC2 Tourneys section and see that there are literally LANs and tournaments going on all the time and that is hundreds of games being played. So while the number of upsets you can name seems large, it might really just be a small number relative to the hundreds of games played that might have gone as expected.
EDIT: Tournament spoilers + Show Spoiler +And I think MC serves as a good example of a great player who wins a lot and gets knocked out some times. MC is considered one of the best players on the planet and yet someone will point to TSL where he got knocked out by Thorzain and to the GSL where he dropped to up and down matches and say, "wow that's so volatile. MC, considered the best in the world, just got knocked out of two tournaments." This is true but then look at the other things he's done recently. He won the GSL WC and then he went to sweden and won a Dreamhack invitational, and then this weekend he went and won the Copenhagen LAN. He just won three major tournaments and he got knocked out of two. When you look at it that way you can't say winning 3/5 tournaments with tons of great players isn't consistent.
|
On April 24 2011 16:23 stupidhydro wrote:EDIT: Tournament spoilers + Show Spoiler +And I think MC serves as a good example of a great player who wins a lot and gets knocked out some times. MC is considered one of the best players on the planet and yet someone will point to TSL where he got knocked out by Thorzain and to the GSL where he dropped to up and down matches and say, "wow that's so volatile. MC, considered the best in the world, just got knocked out of two tournaments." This is true but then look at the other things he's done recently. He won the GSL WC and then he went to sweden and won a Dreamhack invitational, and then this weekend he went and won the Copenhagen LAN. He just won three major tournaments and he got knocked out of two. When you look at it that way you can't say winning 3/5 tournaments with tons of great players isn't consistent.
I agree with most of this, but + Show Spoiler + Just for future reference.
|
The gap right now is mostly the same as it was back during the first few years of BW. It was just as volatile back then, and honestly, I don't buy the argument that, since SC2 inherited BW's metagame and basic RTS mechanics, it started off way ahead. Give it a couple of years, and we'll see if the SC2 scene doesn't develop similar dominant superstars we saw from BW and WC3. If it doesn't, then yeah, the game is too volatile.
|
On April 03 2011 01:38 awesomoecalypse wrote:
someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure.
this is such a smart, true explanation.
i was just over in Canada (i'm English), and Canucks vs Blackhawks seems pretty volatile to me - if it was done as a BO5 or BO3, we'd could have had very different results.
the other thing i'd like to mention is that pro SC would be boring if you pretty much knew for sure who would win at the start of every match. (The polar opposite, where every match is totally random, would also be pretty poor though to be honest.)
|
17045 Posts
On April 24 2011 15:46 cive wrote:Show nested quote +On April 02 2011 22:29 BeMannerDuPenner wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On April 02 2011 20:15 epoc wrote:
Actually I think, as stupid it may sound the stupider the ai is the better it is for esports. It creates much higher skillcap like in bw. Battles are usually very simple even I could do most of them exactly the same. Ofc I can't do forcefields and marine split at all but other battles are very simple in sc2. The top players should be so good in my mind that no ordinary player should ever be able to come even near their skill level. If I trained 5-6 hours a day I'd be pretty close to the best players. But don't get stuck on this it's not my main point. (in before "why don't you then go to gsl?") I'm just saying that I'll never be close to Jaedong or Flash skill level in bw no matter how I train. I think sc2 has too hard counters and so you are required to scout well to have the exact unit composition you need. this is a feeling i get often too. with overall way lower cap and need of mechanics so much of the ingame stuff just isnt as exciting for me. in broodwar i know how sick hard like evrything they do is so its great to see how well they control.in sc2 i most of the time think " mmhh hes doing 1a... spamming some spell X.... mmhh battle over. that looked like evry other battle at platinum+ level". and this also relates to the "randomness" of sc2.if mechanics dont matter that much (and in some situations can be almost completly ignored) then practice and "skill" matter less and more just comes down to "my build beats your build. ". if you now consider how many allins and blindcounters exist in sc2, that the game infact will not be balanced for atleast most of the time in the next few years ( even IF suddenly it was balanced expansions will happen) then there just will not be much consistency. inshort:mechanics and evolved balanced gameplay bring consistency. mechanics are not very important in sc2 and we wont have evolved balanced gameplay for years to come. The early days of SC1 (early 2000) Protoss dominated due to "low skill cap". The ability to mass zealot and dragoon was all there was in the game. The first major tournament win of Slayers_Boxer, if I recall correctly, had 14 Protoss, 1 Terran (Boxer himself) and 1 Zerg (Yellow).
This is factually incorrect.
|
On April 24 2011 17:39 akaname wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2011 01:38 awesomoecalypse wrote:
someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure. this is such a smart, true explanation. i was just over in Canada (i'm English), and Canucks vs Blackhawks seems pretty volatile to me - if it was done as a BO5 or BO3, we'd could have had very different results. the other thing i'd like to mention is that pro SC would be boring if you pretty much knew for sure who would win at the start of every match. (The polar opposite, where every match is totally random, would also be pretty poor though to be honest.)
It was actually a rather convoluted explanation. For one thing, the NBA playoffs (funny that he left that one out of his playoffs analogy) are NOT volatile at all - in fact, they are the antithesis of volatile. We all know which teams are the dominant teams (this particular season has been somewhat of an anomaly, but it's partly due to a changing of the guard, which happens once every decade). Hell, NBA purists and fanatics like myself can essentially prognosticate, with a 90-95% accuracy, which 3-4 teams will make the Conference Semis, and which two teams actually have a chance to win the finals. Why? Partly because of non-parity (talent being concentrated on a few teams, and individual talent being more important), and partly because of BO7's in the NBA. Whether or not it's boring is entirely subjective and not worth arguing about. Just for arguments sake, however: the golden era of the NBA was when TWO dynasties (Boston and the Lakers in the 80's) duked it out in every single Final. MJ then brought the NBA to a massive global level - by his own dominance. Many people actually love watching pure dominance and potentially obvious results - as long as the play itself is interesting.
The "well, even the best players can't win everything" argument isn't applicable here, because the premise that we're arguing for isn't that players SHOULD win everything, but the fact that the BEST players are getting knocked out in the first round. Let's go back to the NBA. I can't remember the last time a heavy NBA Finals contender was knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. Sure, Boston or the Lakers might not win every single ring, but they sure as hell aren't losing to some shitty lower seed in the first round. In fact, this comparison isn't even fair - it would be more like if the entire NBA was a playoff (the NBA itself is rather elite already), and you had the Lakers losing to the Minnesota Timberwolves in a BO7. It just does not and will not happen - ever. We can also use individual sports like Tennis as examples. When was the last time Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal lost in the first round of a Grand Slam that wasn't due to injury? I think individual sports, and sports that contain less variance due to extraneous factors that rely on other human beings (basketball is only a 5-man sport, where talent and skill reign supreme) are more pertinent to this argument.
If every single tournament series was BO7 in SC2, we'd see less volatility as well. The counterargument to this is that, empirically, BW and WC3 tournaments had similar formats (mostly BO3's), but they've all had dominant players who've mopped up everything in a given time-span. Perhaps one can argue that mvp and MC are doing just that by winning 4 out of the 6 GSLs, but mvp is currently in Code A after getting knocked out in the first round, and MC might get knocked down next season...from getting knocked out in the first round. The only thing I can say is - give SC2 more time (as I essentially pointed out in my previous post). The "dominant" guys that we're seeing today are not the truly dominant guys that we will see in the future...at least I hope not.
|
this game is very luck based, rock paper etc.
i think the most consistent race would have to be terran though given a large map distance, though terran fare the worst with longer positions.
|
Broodwar was the same in many ways, but yes I agree in:
ZvZ. One baneling in the right spot and win. Never seen it gone beyond 2 base at the most.
PvP. Oooo will we see a fourgate, 3gate robo to defend the 4gate or 1base colossus? Either way the micro is usually such a subpar part that if you haven't gone the right tech it doesn't matter. Also can't really scout usually until it's to late.
PvZ. Zerg does all in or protoss does all in, zerg can't scout what protoss is doing and in the end if protoss defends we get a deathball and no zerg is able to controll his damned infestors good enough to not suicide 80% of them so they almost always lose horrible.
|
On April 24 2011 16:07 shinarit wrote:Show nested quote +On April 24 2011 15:46 cive wrote:
The general theme seems to be that the "skill cap" is low. Believe it or not, people thought sc1 skill cap was low until Slayers_Boxer came along. The early days of SC1 (early 2000) Protoss dominated due to "low skill cap". The ability to mass zealot and dragoon was all there was in the game. The first major tournament win of Slayers_Boxer, if I recall correctly, had 14 Protoss, 1 Terran (Boxer himself) and 1 Zerg (Yellow). I think the true skill cap of SC2 is yet to be realized.
One can argue that the early days of SC1 had many units and spells that were not being utilized. Thus it had more room to grow. People often comment that "the future is all about spell X" or the "later on Y composition will dominate." The game can grow towards a totally different direction.
We are in no position to call out skill caps, good for eSport and what not. People claim they find the games boring, yet the people watched the games, are fan of players and took the effort to be a part of this community by posting on threads.
The game is young. There are still million mechanics, strategies and map designs to be figured out.
Wanted to say something similar too. If you watched Game4 of MC vs ThorZaIN yesterday, it was SICK sometimes. I mean, the ghost micro (that was awesome omg), the constant feedbacking, the HT spread. And much more. There is MUCH potential in the game if people find out the tricks. Its not that obvious like for example in SupCom (there theres virtually no skill cap, you have to build stuff on the whole map and fight multiple battles _constantly_), but its true.
I've been trying to argue this point for a while, but people are (for some reason) convinced that if the skill cap was actually that high we would know by now, as if that makes any sense. I agree that macroing will never be as difficult as it was in BW, but there is virtually no skill ceiling for micro in either game. All this means is that the proportion between skill in macro and micro will lean far more towards micro in SC2 compared to BW where both micro and macro were difficult. The important thing to remember is that there is a hard limit to how much a person can do at a time, and the skill cap is above that limit. If a person's "skill" is allocated 50% to macro and 50% to micro (just making numbers up), I think the trend we will eventually see in SC2 is more like 20-30/70-80 macro/micro, where the easier macro mechanics force people to micro more and more efficiently in order to remain on top.
We didn't proclaim doom and gloom when SC1 was still full of terrible plays, we didn't claim that it wasn't as good as other *established* games with high ceilings because it wasn't at their level yet, we just played and developed. We gave it a chance, and it turned into the state of BW we have now. Let's give SC2 a similar opportunity (years, not bloody months) to develop instead of dismissing as being too volatile or having too low of a potential skill cap.
|
Lol.
even the best players can mess up. No one has a 100% win rate.
|
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.
You can't just create superstars, the game is still young and even BW doesn't have 90% winrate players. Flash is 72.22% currently and he's the result of years of hard work and innate godliness. More games and multiple leagues will helps establish the great players even if they are only winning 60-65%.
|
On April 24 2011 14:48 MechKing wrote:I think this should be brought up again. This post has a lot of spoilers in it, so watch out. + Show Spoiler +First of all, the FXOpen invitational today. Kyhol beat both oGsHero and oGsWanT. Do you think Kyhol is a better player than both of those two? There's more than that but I want to cover other tourney's too. TSL3: ThorZaIN beat MC pretty convincingly. The score was 3-2 but the games ThorZaIN won were a one-sided stomping. Copenhagen games: Grubby got 3rd. Grubby is a good player, but he seriously beat TLO and MorroW, both considered to be top EU players. Grubby has only been playing for a few months, and he's already beating players of that caliber. IMMvp + BoxeR got sent down to Code A, while HuK, Lyn, and TSL_Killer got sent to code S Jinro, San, MC, MarineKing all fall down to the up/down matches in GSL. Leenock gets completely knocked out. . Starswar: Dimaga beats the code S player FOXLyn 2-0. IMNesTea, a GSL Champion, gets beaten 2-1 by an unknown chinese player, LoveCD. Liquid`TLO beats a Code S player, HongUnPrime. As you can see, there's been a TON of upsets recently. You can say that they weren't really upsets, but there are still a lot of weird results. There still hasn't been a player that has been super consistent. Closest to that is MC, and even he has been losing a lot of games. This game does indeed feel too volatile, especially at the highest level.
I agree that some people have shifted up and down, but that's the nature of any game. And yes, you've cited quite a handful of people throughout a few tournaments who didn't play as well as they should have (or better than expected).
However, that's out of a sample that's easily ten times larger than the particular players you've chosen. There are *a few* GSL players who are surprisingly volatile, for example. The rest are consistent. There were *some* upsets in arbitrary tournaments A, B, and C. The rest were consistent.
What you're doing is only citing the upsets and ignoring all the players who have been relatively consistent. You're cherry-picking the examples that defend your hypothesis and ignoring the tons more that reject it. It's a logical fallacy known as confirmation bias, or selective thinking, or "counting the hits and ignoring the misses".
The general and overall trend is consistency. And do keep in mind that even a player who goes from Code S to Code A and back to Code S again (gasp!) is actually playing quite consistently... your scope of consistency is far too small. Same with when you say that a player got fourth instead of first, or one great player got knocked out by another great player. They're all great players, and that's just going to happen. You can't expect a player to win 100% of all his games just because he won the last GSL... you've surely played the game before, so you know how it's impossible to keep a winning streak forever. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On April 03 2011 01:38 awesomoecalypse wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure.
So much truth here.
Having almost every game be a knockout and having such a high caliber of players (such as in Code S) means that good players are certain to get knocked out at some point. BUT, a good player should always win the tournament it self.
|
People comparing win ratios to nfl, mlb, nba' i know where ur coming from, but i think it should be compared more to tennis, where its 1v1. Idk the stats for tennis but Id imagine win ratios would be more consistant. Could be wrong.
Something thats been in my head: I feel like the mining effiency is too high on all workers. This allows players to build things too fast, making maxing out too fast, discouraging smaller battles. This speeds up the game, making scouting harder. Since battles get huge so fast, unit micro doesnt help too much and because you can max out worker efficiency at a base so fast, it encourages 1 base all ins since the player that makes a LOT of workers doesnt really benefit until he\she expands.
Maybe im just trippin but thats what, to me, is the biggest difference between SC2 and BW.
|
On April 24 2011 21:39 Scarecrow 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.
You can't just create superstars, the game is still young and even BW doesn't have 90% winrate players. Flash is 72.22% currently and he's the result of years of hard work and innate godliness. More games and multiple leagues will helps establish the great players even if they are only winning 60-65%.
I really do think it's just the GSL format's group stages. It's just a little too easy to have a bad day. MVP had some issues with TvP for a bit, got three in a row, and now he's in Code A. I think the group stages being Bo1 allows for too much "sniping". Flash can get 3-4 losses in a row against Decent players.He tends not to, but it happens. In the GSL, that causes you to lose seeding.
Plus, the metagame is still changing quite a bit as the game gets figured out, and some people are falling behind. That'll happen in a new game.
But we are seeing the same four players doing well consistently. MC is a two-time GSL champion out of 6. MVP is a GSL Champion, and won the world championships as well. Nestea consistently does well, and Marineking makes it to the finals quite a lot, even though he loses once he gets there.
|
give it time, the game is still young
|
On April 24 2011 22:18 MCDayC wrote:Show nested quote +On April 03 2011 01:38 awesomoecalypse wrote:+ Show Spoiler +
someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure.
So much truth here. Having almost every game be a knockout and having such a high caliber of players (such as in Code S) means that good players are certain to get knocked out at some point. BUT, a good player should always win the tournament it self.
Just quoting this for truth. Plus, upsets are good for a sport becuase it means you can really cheer for less 'skilled' players and they might actually win. Look at the English Premier League, a huge amount of competition - Man United or Chelsea can easily be beaten by a lesser team because they have a bad day or their opponents just play brilliantly - it makes it more interesting. MC is still the best, IMO, but people being able to take him down is a *good* thing because it makes for more competition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
