EPTIs SC skill natural or trained? - Page 29
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Xenocryst
United States521 Posts
| ||
|
Deadlyhazard
United States1177 Posts
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IMblS63L19c/ToiQq1NSb4I/AAAAAAAAJt0/jrh2i0Gu9Hk/s1600/14+year+old+mystery+artist.jpg) Yes, intelligence also factors into art aswell. People born as geniuses will be able to understand rendering and other visual information much faster than an average or below average person. How smart you are in a certain area of the brain depends on how far you can take a skill in that certain area of the brain. What might take someone 10 years to draw a decent figure might take another 2 years. The same goes with StarCraft or any other skill, I presume. The more mathematical minded players will stomp those who are not as mathematically intelligent. Another thing to note is also the amount of effort one puts in to a skill. There are so many variables its not even worth wondering whether one might be talented enough, because some people are slow to learn but once they do learn the material they excel above almost everyone else. There are varying degrees of talent and many of them have different limits and quirks. Sometimes talent doesn't seem to make sense. Some people can skip rocks the first time across water while others can't do it no matter how many times they try. Life is odd. A mix of training and talent is necessary therefor. Different people learn different facets of StarCraft faster and slower than others. Effort makes these things increase. But no matter how hard I practice, I will never be Jaedong. And I'm fine with that. | ||
|
Xenocryst
United States521 Posts
On October 09 2011 09:53 Deadlyhazard wrote: Reminds me of the talent vs training art debate. Sargent painted this when he was 14: in goddamn watercolor (hardest painting medium IMO) Yes, intelligence also factors into art aswell. People born as geniuses will be able to understand rendering and other visual information much faster than an average or below average person. How smart you are in a certain area of the brain depends on how far you can take a skill in that certain area of the brain. What might take someone 10 years to draw a decent figure might take another 2 years. The same goes with StarCraft or any other skill, I presume. The more mathematical minded players will stomp those who are not as mathematically intelligent. Another thing to note is also the amount of effort one puts in to a skill. There are so many variables its not even worth wondering whether one might be talented enough, because some people are slow to learn but once they do learn the material they excel above almost everyone else. There are varying degrees of talent and many of them have different limits and quirks. Sometimes talent doesn't seem to make sense. Some people can skip rocks the first time across water while others can't do it no matter how many times they try. Life is odd. A mix of training and talent is necessary therefor. Different people learn different facets of StarCraft faster and slower than others. Effort makes these things increase. But no matter how hard I practice, I will never be Jaedong. And I'm fine with that. wow that is a beautiful painting | ||
|
algee
Germany12 Posts
skill is the ability to perform certain tasks, the better the skill the less training time needed. in rts games, its the skill to remember when to do things, how to react in any possible situation, and to do multiple things at the same time very fast. skill is natural, and the lack of skill can be compensated with more training up to some extend. some people have skills to sing, others have skills to write stories, other people have skills to invent stuff and be creative. its already built into ones brain. one of my skills is remembering long sequences of numbers and codes, thats why i never have trouble with my passwords and phone numbers D: i think the effective 'quality' of a skill in later deployment depends a lot on the factor of early discovery. the earlier one finds the skills he has, the earlier he can start to develop and make use of them. probably thats why asian people seem to perform better in rts games then the rest of us, because they have the natural skill already "built in" as part of their racial evolution, and with sc being so popular and everyone wanting to become an sc hero, they all rush for it. not that god said 'you shall be good at rts', it rather comes down to several skills, including the key ones mentioned above, that coincidently seem to be very good in their hands. well that evolution thing is just an assumption i made, but it really comes down to, that some people are better at rts games then other, just because they bring better qualifications with them. so basically, a total rts newb with no rts skill can possibly become a rts pro, but it takes a lot of practise and therefore will also take that much longer for him to get into the game. also, the inevitable setbacks he will encounter will likely make him lose interest eventually. | ||
|
BleaK_
Norway593 Posts
Only practice 3-4 hours a day, and be this good. That's alot of natural talent. | ||
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
On October 10 2011 10:57 BleaK_ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jws0EBIGro&feature=player_embedded Only practice 3-4 hours a day, and be this good. That's alot of natural talent. I'm not saying he's not talented, but he also said in the panel they formed to waste some more time that he doesn't do much at all other than sc2. Watching replays, thinking about the game etc.. also counts as practice imo  still the amount of effort he put in seems low compared to his incredible skill. | ||
|
Zariel
Australia1285 Posts
Of course, different people develop this sense at a different pace. Then comes the specific game learning curve. Such as remembering each unit for every race, build orders, build times, hotkeys, maps.. list goes on. Which of course, solely comes through sheer practice. The next thing I'd say would be a mental vision of the game, I dunno whats the technical term or whatever, but I'll try to describe it: - A pro-gamer, may play starcraft from the whole map perspective (a macro player), meaning in his mind, he has a constant layout of the map in his thoughts. Map specifically, attack routes, focal points, bases, attacking grounds. Such players will likely to have strong multi-tasking skills. - Other players (normal people), may not be fully aware of the whole map constantly and their focal point is always where their screen is showing, but when they see what they see, they know what to do (ie: a battle engages, he should use his forcefields, guardian shield, move zealots around etc..). These are more micro based players. However, this mental vision is very talent based, it's a difficult and lengthy process if one has to learn this from scratch. TL:DR: There are hard-workers and geniuses. The geniuses who are hard-working are the real gods of the battlefield. | ||
|
phaleos
Australia105 Posts
Everybody in korean is practicing 10 hours a day, why does Nestea stand above all other zergs else? He certainly doesn't have the best mechanics, but he understands the game, his decision making combined with his 'good-enough' mechanics allows him to be ahead in his games. Not everyone can be in GSL, imo any healthy human being should be able to get out of bronze in under 100 games and get to master in under 1000. If that didn't happen, they shouldn't try playing this game, it's too hard for them. | ||
|
aksfjh
United States4853 Posts
You can spend 120 hours a week playing and refining mechanics, but without thinking about the game, you're going to find a wall eventually. The same thing with thinking critically about the game most of the time, you're eventually going to find yourself lacking the mechanics to keep up with those thoughts. | ||
|
Silidons
United States2813 Posts
| ||
|
nira
United States116 Posts
On October 10 2011 12:19 Silidons wrote: it's definitely trained. i started out in bronze like most people and worked myself up to masters welp there we go folks. we finally have the answer. | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
In an athletic sport, because physicality directly influences how well you can do in certain circumstances, this isn't always true. Michael Phelps pretty much has the "ideal" body type for swimming. No way around that. A taller Basketball player will typically have an advantage over a shorter one of equal skill. However, in regard to a mentally reliant game like SC, I believe that anyone can train themselves adequately given the proper dedication. That being said, that proper dedication is difficult to come by and a rare thing indeed. | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
Many people who can be great at Starcraft, are not, because they don't want to be, or because the training isn't there. | ||
|
SniXSniPe
United States1938 Posts
On October 10 2011 10:57 BleaK_ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jws0EBIGro&feature=player_embedded Only practice 3-4 hours a day, and be this good. That's alot of natural talent. I know some well-known people who practice just as less (and have some good results) =/. | ||
|
MrBitter
United States2940 Posts
On October 10 2011 10:57 BleaK_ wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jws0EBIGro&feature=player_embedded Only practice 3-4 hours a day, and be this good. That's alot of natural talent. 3-4 hours a day of SC2 is okay. Not good. Certainly not great. But okay. But don't discount the thousands of hours Stephano had as a top War 3 player. He was one of Grubby's main training partners for years. (Years!) War 3 is not SC2 But War 3 is RTS, and RTS skills translate, easily. | ||
|
Epoch
Canada257 Posts
| ||
|
polybios
Czech Republic111 Posts
"It's analogous to fitness.A teenager who is athletically fit at 14 could be less fit at 18 if they stopped exercising. Conversely, an unfit teenager can become much fitter with exercise." "The question is, if our brain structure can change throughout our adult lives, can our IQ also change?" adds Professor Price. "My guess is yes. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that our brains can adapt and their structure changes, even in adulthood." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/10/111020024329.htm these are words from cognitive neuroscience professor and are based on hard data and formal research. when you say "stephano has a natural talent because he trains 4 hours a day and still is one of the best!". well, then I say he uses his time more effectively than others. | ||
|
Mouzone
3937 Posts
On October 10 2011 17:09 Epoch wrote: That's true MrBitter but he's still soooooo young. With 3-4 hours of practice a day and his performance compared to those who work much harder for much longer, I think Stephano put's this "theres no such thing as natural talent" bullshit to rest. Atleast he should. Stephano has played WC3 for a long time though. Coming from an RTS background you get A LOT for free. | ||
|
LaduxB
Australia9 Posts
I really hate those sorts of egotistical posts. The fact is that most people make vast improvements in the things they choose to work at. I started at 2 wins, 15 losses in the bottom of bronze league. I don't think it gets much worse than that. This season I got placed platinum - and I know I can improve up to diamond with enough time and effort. I remember living with a guy (who was kind of a moron) that was 'talented' at music. I can't even play a single drum in time. He got guitar hero and was obviously much better than I was. But since I had nothing better to do at the time I would play it continually til I was better than him. Then his ego freaked out, shouted that he'd easily beat me if he 'really' wanted to, then went ahead and deleted the save file in anger. I can't tell you how satisfying that was. Sure talent matters but for most of us it's more important to practice and learn about practicing efficiently. If you do that you will get good. Maybe you won't make the very top of the iceberg but you'll definitely be better than the 95% of people who didn't work as hard. | ||
|
Evangelist
1246 Posts
I don't think it's a stretch to say that today's Silvers could have beaten most Gold-Platinum level players, both in terms of macro AND micro and strategically, at the start of the game. The skill curve for the entire game has shifted upwards over the last year. Plenty of people got high rankings by just using one really overpowered build and then have sat in the MMR system, rarely ever declining and playing as few games as possible. Natural talent accounts for some of it, but some of it is familiarity, and other parts of it are just a willingness to practice. I'm not particularly disciplined, but I'd say at my best I'm probably Platinum/Low Diamond level (having given Diamond Leaguers a right hammering in private tournies), and at my worst I'm probably the worst of the Bronze Leaguers. It makes sense I average out to Silver. I do some really fantastic pressure and my game sense when it's turned on is really pretty good, but I often get so flustered I don't know what the hell is going on and I'll miss really obvious things or react in totally the wrong way. I think it's a hell of a lot more complex than people make it out to be. However I think if there are two natural skills that do contribute hugely, they'd be: - conceptual ability: the ability to see how something might be used - executional ability: the ability to turn something in your mind into something physical Personally I'd say my ability to dream up concepts is vastly better than my ability to execute them, at least in the context of Starcraft 2. About the only thing I'd say is it isn't necessarily intelligence based. A lot of it is just intuition, I think, and how you go about seeing the game. | ||
| ||
