My friend and I were talking about this last night after watching Destiny answer some questions on Reddit (I wanna be a pro, how much do you make, how do I join ROOT, etc. etc.) and it got me to wondering - how much of a given person's success in SC2 can be attributed to a natural affinity for the game or for video games in general?
I say none, my friend says a lot. His argument is that SC2 is just like any other sport. Nearly all of the players in the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc., got to that league through a combination of favorable circumstances, loads of practice, and natural skill. However, SC2 is different in that one's physical qualities have almost no bearing on gameplay - the exception would be hand speed and reflexes, which, in my opinion, can be trained.
My stance (and Destiny's, from what I could tell) is that even the lowliest Bronze player could theoretically make it to the GSL one day, with a metric fuckton of work and a lot of dedication. Look at Koreans, for instance. Koreans are typically better at SC2 for one of two possible reasons. The first is that Koreans are just born with a Gauss rifle in their hands and are veritable SC gods from the moment they exit the womb; the other is that Korean family values tend to stress hard work and dedication much more than the typical American family does, and Koreans therefore just work much harder at the game.
What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
I think the way your mind works and how you think takes place of those 'physical' or athletic attributes that you get in other sports (height for basketball, etc.) seeing SC2 is hardly just about the execution.
There is a reason why some people are just clumpsy and some not. Sure you can train your reflexes but there is definatly a part genetic in that as well. And that's not even taking into account the strategy part of the game. It doesn't matter if you have the best hand speed and reflexes if you are just dumb.
I think it's all trained in my opinion. But it's a very philosophical question, and it's already been discussed to death.
I dont think you can just train by playing the game, you'll need to have the right mindset and practice in the correct way. But if you do all this perfectly, then yes i do think that anyone can become GSL champion. There are a billion factors, but i dont really think that "natural skill" is one of them.
I think natural skill comes into play when you are at the highest level and mechanics and game understanding is near perfect. You don't need to have any kind of natural talent to be like best sc2 players at the moment.
This is kind of like the nature vs nurture debate. I like to think that some people naturally have a knack for gaming and that others just learn through playing a lot more. The pros probably have a combination of having natural talent coupled with many hours of practise.
As a side, I also think that general intelligence has a factor in it too since Starcraft requires learning hotkeys, builds, timings, decision making, rational thinking and multitasking.
I think the skill came from playing games since I was like 3 and getting free lives for my dad in super mario. After not playing the beta and not playing sc:bw or any other RTS competitively + Show Spoiler +
I played fastest map on sc:bw.. not even BGH and the triumph of my sc:bw career was a game where I built enough cannons all throughout my base to last long enough to clean up everyone else with carriers.. lol
as for other RTSes I played red alert and rise of nations offline.. not much to say there
I initially placed into gold and got into diamond after 8 days of playing. The one thing I kept in my mind going into every game is that I have to be doing SOMETHING. That something was 4gating.. mind you I hadn't even found TL yet. Anyhoo I eventually found out 4gating is cheese (even in pvp at the time) but when I switched strategies I didn't get demoted or anything. Then I switched to zerg and went 14 gas/14pool muta every ZvT and ZvP and then 14gas/14pool speedling and still didnt get demoted and here I am today
TL;DR 0 RTS experience >> Bought game>>Placed into gold and went up to diamond 8 days later through 4gate>>Stopped 4gating>> Currently http://sc2ranks.com/us/339206/Alex
I think it's mostly practice, but like deL said, the way you learn or teach yourself strategies can play a huge factor in your training. As we know, some people are better learners than others, as well as better innovators. And in SC, meta game and sneaky timings have to be a part of training as well.
But Overall, its not only practice practice practice, but how you practice... with a touch of "natural" talent in the form of mental abilities.
Talent is essentially the ability to do things right the first time without having someone show you. Talent without hard work to develop is wasted. On the flip-side, with enough practice anyone with basic aptitude can become very good.
People underestimate how much dedicated practice time is required to become an expert though.
I would argue that, like other sports, a natural ability and affinity plays a role but that hard work and practicing a lot and practicing the right way can, to a certain extent mitigate natural ability or a lack thereof.
Basically, while, yes, theoretically if they work hard enough anyone can get into and compete at the top level tournaments and possibly win them. However, for some people, it is going to take significantly more work than others. Some people just have a natural affinity for video games in general or strategy games in particular. To these people, this sort of thing comes much more naturally than to others.
Skill at both regular sports and Starcraft is a combination of hard work and natural ability. Instead of natural athleticism, except for reflexes and hand-eye coordination, mental ability, a certain mode of thinking acts as a replacement. Some peoples brains just work the right way, other people have to train their minds to operate in the correct thought process.
On March 21 2011 22:28 Geiko wrote: Mental abilities related to playing starcraft are just as important as physical abilities in relation to sports. Some have them, others don't.
Take a look at those bronze players with >500 games played. Now look how many games it took you to get to your league.
There you have it.
I see what you mean, but I also want to point out that a lot of those Bronze players with a ton of games played either want to be there or aren't making a significant effort to get out.
I've seen Bronze leaguers QQing about imbalance and how it's impossible to get out of Bronze/Silver; meanwhile, they've never watched a single one of their replays or spent any time trying to refine their build order. Some people just go about the act of improving in the wrong way.
i think that most of us, if put in the oGs house for example, could become code S material. it will just take such epic amounts of playing time it will make you wanna curl up like a baby and cry for mommy
On March 21 2011 22:28 Geiko wrote:Take a look at those bronze players with >500 games played. Now look how many games it took you to get to your league.
the number of games played has nothing to do with it. people can be in bronze after 500 games because they don't care much about the game or because they don't know (and don't want to know) what they made wrong.
I think everybody could get into higher masters rank without any problems (given that he/she invests enough time and effort into it). The best players in the world might need some natural skill
Big difference is that those prosports have generations of knowledge/training to draw upon. There are 100000000s of talented junior athletes worldwide, hard work is necessary but youre sure as hell not going to be a pro athlete by willpower alone (generally - I know there are exceptions)
I feel that because SC (rts games in general) are so new in their development that hard work to nail the basics really can get you far, because collectively even the best players are not at their optimum.
Probably gonna cop alot of flak for this but IdrA is a good example - lets face it his gamesense or w/e you want to call it is average, but he is a macro machine due to hours upon hours of practicing builds, rotations of inject/creep/drone/produce etc. But he survives for now as this is enough to put him streets ahead of players who do not have this mechanical base
While some are gifted, one of the most important things is the "skill" to train and practice, having the abillity to train alot without loosing motivation and getting much out of it.
If you are good but can't motivate yourself your gonna be stomped by a 'normal' player with tons of dedication. And I say again as we have discussed this in alot of threads, asian culture some how spawns dedication in people so that when they take on a task, they are really doing all in thier power to preform very well.
As a high masters player on a pro team, I think literally anyone can atleast get in to masters, it's all about your mind set and how much work you put in to it.
On March 21 2011 22:33 Geolich wrote: Big difference is that those prosports have generations of knowledge/training to draw upon. There are 100000000s of talented junior athletes worldwide, hard work is necessary but youre sure as hell not going to be a pro athlete by willpower alone (generally - I know there are exceptions)
I feel that because SC (rts games in general) are so new in their development that hard work to nail the basics really can get you far, because collectively even the best players are not at their optimum.
Probably gonna cop alot of flak for this but IdrA is a good example - lets face it his gamesense or w/e you want to call it is average, but he is a macro machine due to hours upon hours of practicing builds, rotations of inject/creep/drone/produce etc. But he survives for now as this is enough to put him streets ahead of players who do not have this mechanical base
I absolutely, absolutely, absolutely agree with your point about IdrA, and I've been saying it for ages. It is evident in his play that his success is a result of hours upon hours of practice - that's why his timings, macro, and micro are often nigh-impeccable, while his "Achille's heel" tends to often be his decision making.
It's the same as any game, if two people put in equal amounts of work, the more talented player wins. A talented player who doesn't practice a lot can still compete with an untalented player who puts in moderate amounts of work, while that same talented person can't compete with someone who practices like a progamer.
You need a basic level of intelligence for understanding the game and being able to think yourself into the opponents position. Everything else is a matter of practice. For example, you might become a very good Player by just executing stuff, but without being smart you won't be able to become a top player.
I think natural talent has a role, but only at the highest of levels -- I don't think Flash just practices harder than everyone else. I'd say any person can practice his way to grandmasters if he really devotes himself to it, though.
Most people will never have the mindset to actually devote themselves to it, though.. which sort of seems like a natural talent in itself.
If you want to be good, if you really want it, then it's within reach.
If you believe that people are just "natural" at some things, then you probably believe in a deity.
Why do I say this? Because if you believe in "natural" talent, you don't understand the world around you. These players like Jaedong, or Flash, or anyone else who is really good at SC or SC2, are only good because of the amount of practice, and their method of practicing. They have been doing this for a very long time, and what people perceive as "natural" talent, is just an accumulation of their experiences poured into the game.
For example, if someone grows up working hard at everything they do, then they discover SC2, and decide to devote their time and energy to it, chances are that they will probably pick up the game pretty quickly, and be able to start beating people who are gold leaguers pretty quickly. This isn't because of a natural ability though, it's just because they understand the method they need to practice to make them understand the game better.
Musicians are the same way - I have a friend who has been playing piano since he was 4 or 5 years old. He's a wizard at piano now, and is a master of music in general. When he plays video games, he knows what he needs to do to already, to become good at said video game. He already has 15+ years of experience playing, practicing, and performing in the music arts - Playing, practicing and performing in video games won't really be a stretch.
However, this ability to play, practice and perform isn't all that you need - You also need determination. This is critical, because if you can get good at something, but don't really put forth enough time or effort, all your practice is pretty much wasted. You have to be determined to be good.
Determined play, practice, and performance - That's what makes someone good.
On March 21 2011 22:28 Geiko wrote:Take a look at those bronze players with >500 games played. Now look how many games it took you to get to your league.
the number of games played has nothing to do with it. people can be in bronze after 500 games because they don't care much about the game or because they don't know (and don't want to know) what they made wrong.
I think everybody could get into higher masters rank without any problems (given that he/she invests enough time and effort into it). The best players in the world might need some natural skill
Same goes for everything, skill isn't just about having a higher potential then someone else, it's also how fast you learn, your intuition of things that are going to work etc... I got to diamond in the beta in a couple of days (well plat actualy at the time was the highest league) without watching any VODS or analyzing replays or reading strategy threads or even putting a lot of effort in understanding the game. Then I had to work to understand the matchups, perfect BOs etc... to ladder up and make it to masters. I know some people who just fool around, never watch anything SC2 related and who are in masters with less then 100 games played total.
Natural skill and work both contribute to being good at starcraft. Currently, not that many people are playing starcraft so you can get into GSL by work alone, but that doesn't mean that everyone has equal chances to do good in starcraft.
I do not believe in "natural skill" or "talent" really, anyone who is good at SC2 from the get go is good because they played BW or Warcraft 2 or any other RTS game. With hard work you can hone that skill, and perfect it.
The reason why you have great players different from good is mainly due to their training regiment and how they approach the game. Flash is good at BW because his mindset and hard work have propelled him into being as good as he is.
Playing 10 hours a day wont turn you into Flash, you would need people around you to hone your skills to perfection and top notch competition to challange you so that you have to keep improving.
I think most pros do it max 3-5 times a week. Now compare that to average SC2 player with 1-2 times a day. With preparations and recuperation one moment takes about 15-30 minutes. Thats almost three hours more practice every week. Things like this can make a difference who goes to GSL and who is not.
That being said, quality and quantity of practice = 90%. So called natural talent (your whole life and experiences) is the rest.
Honestly, at the highest level of play, so much practice goes INTO improving, that natural talent has little to no impact. Natural talent basically dictates what skill level you start at and how fast you learn the fundamentals. After that, it's 100% practice that makes you better
I have a good friend who has been to two Winter Olypmics in slalom/downwill, and won several world cup events. So, she was one of the very best at a very competitive sport. She now works as a trainer for kids. I remember asking her about the talent/hard work thing, and she basically said that talent for slalom wasn't important. However, having the "talent" for training, meaning you could train for hours and hours without going bored or losing concentration, was everything. And I believe this applies to pretty much everything, including SC.
i think if you just start early enough (not with like 27 or so years) and work a lot you can become a pro if you really dedicate yourself to it but you of course should be open to the game and not be totally dumb xD
Anyone intelligent enough to succeed at anything is probably intelligent enough to be really good at SC2. Especially a few years from now when strategy has been worked out a lot more and mechanics become relatively more important.
I started with no RTS experience, and at the lowest bronze level, and I'm now a high diamond, So i would say anyone can be pro if they train hard enough.
On March 21 2011 22:49 Tyree wrote: I do not believe in "natural skill" or "talent" really, anyone who is good at SC2 from the get go is good because they played BW or Warcraft 2 or any other RTS game. With hard work you can hone that skill, and perfect it.
The reason why you have great players different from good is mainly due to their training regiment and how they approach the game. Flash is good at BW because his mindset and hard work have propelled him into being as good as he is.
Playing 10 hours a day wont turn you into Flash, you would need people around you to hone your skills to perfection and top notch competition to challange you so that you have to keep improving.
This doesn't make sense to me. You seem to contradict yourself with the first and last statement. If your first statement is true, then all of Flash's teammates should be on his level of play.
I am uncertain what bearing talent plays on skill, but people serious about improvement shouldn't concern themselves with this; because between hard work and talent, there's only one factor that they can control.
I also depends on what you mean by 'natural talent'. I for instance are a little color blind (hard to seperate green/red etc), which definatly limits me in some ways in a game like sc2. Something as simple as seeing what units are yours in a ZvZ, where the dot for a nuke are (rarely see it). That is from birth and could be seen as a natural limitation, and it's not too hard to imagine there being more subtle limitations in people that you can't overcome by simply training hard. Even though that is probably a much bigger factor.
On September 27 2010 12:19 IdrA wrote: you can spontaneously decide to be good at something and be successful if you can make yourself work at it. until the very very top, in almost anything, all that matters is how much work you put in, the only problem is most people cant work hard even at things they do enjoy, much less things they dont have a real passion for.
i'd like to add that hard work does not mean just mindlessly grinding out games. starcraft is an rts, after all. nothing is sadder than seeing people stuck at a certain level over thousands of games - at that point, they're just reinforcing bad habits.
One would have to qualify talent. Naturally high handspeed? Innate ability to see and understand strategy and timings? Able to stick to a practice regimen and train?
I think you would need to at least be naturally good at something to become a top tier professional gamer. On the other hand I bet you could be "bad" and grind your way to masters by just playing a ton and slowly working on things.
I don't believe on such thing as "Natural Thing" I believe that people who plays SC in a Pro level played RTS games when they we're young and keeps on playing. I doubt Jaedong and Flash are just naturally born to play SC but rather they played when they're young.
On March 21 2011 23:14 By.Fantasy wrote: I don't believe on such thing as "Natural Thing" I believe that people who plays SC in a Pro level played RTS games when they we're young and keeps on playing. I doubt Jaedong and Flash are just naturally born to play SC but rather they played when they're young.
lots of people played sc when they were young, lots of people practiced just as hard as jaedong and flash (or tried to). But only jd and flash were jd and flash.
Like everything else in life, 50% work 50% talent. If you have no talent and dont work at it, you will go nowhere. For you to be the top of the SC universe, you need hard work AND talent. If you have one without the other, you will end up in the middle.
There are a lot of studies suggesting that people who are at the top of their field almost always have some sort of natural born advantage. Runners are born with stronger legs, singers have naturally larger lung capacities, the best starcraft pros probably have naturally heightened reflexes and finger dexterity.
Thats not to say that you can't overcome a natural disadvantage, or that you can get to be a top player (or whatever field you're in) without loads and loads of work, but it certainly makes a difference. I'm not going to bother looking up the studies though so feel free to completely disregard what I'm saying.
Its all about experience overall, i started in bronze 3 months ago and i just got upgraded to Platinum 2 days ago. I only played lord of the rings battle for middle earth and almost only played fps and rpg´s my whole life.
But i actually have watched quite a few games and i watch at least 3 games of pro Starcraft each day and im getting matched against diamond players so hopefully ill get to diamond soon.
In a game like Starcraft, having a mentality in where you know how to compete and LEARN play huge roles. Learning takes mental toughness, dedication to learning, and discipline. Most people 'have what it takes' but lack things that make them improve in smaller time gaps such as mentioned above. If you can master your emotions and LEARN when you play, you WILL improve. I really recommend this thread http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=142131 If you want to learn more about competing regarding gaming, reading "Chance's Quake Bible" is a good idea as well. A lot of concepts about competing apply outside of FPS games so give that a look.
On March 21 2011 22:37 hoby2000 wrote: If you believe that people are just "natural" at some things, then you probably believe in a deity.
Why do I say this? Because if you believe in "natural" talent, you don't understand the world around you. These players like Jaedong, or Flash, or anyone else who is really good at SC or SC2, are only good because of the amount of practice, and their method of practicing. They have been doing this for a very long time, and what people perceive as "natural" talent, is just an accumulation of their experiences poured into the game.
For example, if someone grows up working hard at everything they do, then they discover SC2, and decide to devote their time and energy to it, chances are that they will probably pick up the game pretty quickly, and be able to start beating people who are gold leaguers pretty quickly. This isn't because of a natural ability though, it's just because they understand the method they need to practice to make them understand the game better.
Musicians are the same way - I have a friend who has been playing piano since he was 4 or 5 years old. He's a wizard at piano now, and is a master of music in general. When he plays video games, he knows what he needs to do to already, to become good at said video game. He already has 15+ years of experience playing, practicing, and performing in the music arts - Playing, practicing and performing in video games won't really be a stretch.
However, this ability to play, practice and perform isn't all that you need - You also need determination. This is critical, because if you can get good at something, but don't really put forth enough time or effort, all your practice is pretty much wasted. You have to be determined to be good.
Determined play, practice, and performance - That's what makes someone good.
Look at sports for example. Some people are just better. Look at Lebron James, as a freshman in high school he was playing at an all American level and was able to join the NBA as an 18 year old where people who have played the sport full time for the last 10 years and compete with them. He had no where near the training (even if he was practicing the same amount, playing with high school kids isn't the same as going against Kobe everyday) or the time spent on the sport. Certain people are athletically gifted and no doubt that certain people have a skill-set that enable them to preform SC better than others. Just about anybody should be able to pick up the game and with enough practice play at extremely high level, but some people are just naturally going to have a higher beginning abilities and higher skill caps. I don't think it will be as pronounced in video games as in sports, but it isn't a stretch to say that someones reflexes or fingers are faster and more dexterous.
To all of you who are saying that "everyone can get into masters if they just put enough time into it". Actually, everyone cant get into masters. Just because the fact that there is only enough spot for x% of the population. Simply, everyone cant be the best.
Its the same thing at the top. If you take the worlds best players. They all practice about the same. In other words, as much as they possible can.
Then why isn't everyone as good as MC? Since they practice the same amount of time.
In short. EVERYONE cant be the best. When you come to a point where you cant practice more than your opponent. Natural talent will start separating the gifted from the not gifted.
As with most things, there's a level of genetic influence as well as a level of environmental influence.
Some people are naturally more competitive and motivated.
That being said, all of the mechanics of StarCraft must be practiced over and over and over again before a person gets really good at them. No one innately knows build orders or perfect unit compositions or ideal strategies in different scenarios. The reason why the pros practice ten hours a day is because that's what's needed to stay in the best shape.
people have been debating this for centuries. about other sports and skill in general. success is 10% talent and 90% hard work that is why some people try and try, but they lack the 10% others have.
Should someone quit their job and decide to dedicate their life to playing it, practice for 12-14 hours a day(with like minds), talk about SC2 while you eat for 2-3(with like minds) then sleep for 8, 7 days a week, you bet your ass off they'll be good.
It is 99.9% the Effort you put in to it. Eventually you might hit up against a brick wall where you just can't get better than Flash and Jaedong no matter what you do, but until the very highest levels it's all about how hard you work.
On March 21 2011 23:28 VoidEU wrote: To all of you who are saying that "everyone can get into masters if they just put enough time into it". Actually, everyone cant get into masters. Just because the fact that there is only enough spot for x% of the population. Simply, everyone cant be the best.
Its the same thing at the top. If you take the worlds best players. They all practice about the same. In other words, as much as they possible can.
Then why isn't everyone as good as MC? Since they practice the same amount of time.
In short. EVERYONE cant be the best. When you come to a point where you cant practice more than your opponent. Natural talent will start separating the gifted from the not gifted.
Obviously "everyone" can't be in masters, but "anyone" could. The sentiment is that anyone can improve their skill to that of a master's player if they practice; there's no need to be obtuse.
it is all training up until the highest level. People plateau at different levels though.
But i do believe that only "gifted" ones can be Flash and Jaedong. Like not everyone who trains 24/7 and do their best can be as good as Jordan, Woods, Phelps, Bolt, Messi, Federer.
Get into masters, sure everyone can. Win the GSL? Not so much.
On March 21 2011 22:18 JeLLe04 wrote: What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
There's a massive difference between masters and progamer. Given that most progamers that do ladder normally are at the top of their division, with a significant lead above the rest of the division. 4k non-progamer masters are pretty rare.
I wouldn't discount practice though. As someone who started at copper in the beta, I've managed to make it to diamond without playing much or 4 gating every game. I think any bronze player could make masters or diamond with enough effort, but there's got to be a willingness to change how you play (aka get a better build order, and do it right) and a focus on improving mechanics.
On March 21 2011 23:28 VoidEU wrote: To all of you who are saying that "everyone can get into masters if they just put enough time into it". Actually, everyone cant get into masters. Just because the fact that there is only enough spot for x% of the population. Simply, everyone cant be the best.
Its the same thing at the top. If you take the worlds best players. They all practice about the same. In other words, as much as they possible can.
Then why isn't everyone as good as MC? Since they practice the same amount of time.
In short. EVERYONE cant be the best. When you come to a point where you cant practice more than your opponent. Natural talent will start separating the gifted from the not gifted.
Obviously "everyone" can't be in masters, but "anyone" could. The sentiment is that anyone can improve their skill to that of a master's player if they practice; there's no need to be obtuse.
My point was that those at the very top are putting in such much effort and you cant beat them with just pure practice, no matter how much time you put into it (because you simply doesn't have more time than they do).
People can be good at something the first time they do it, but it will be because of something they have learned/done before hand that led into the new activity they are trying.
A mixture of the two, in my opinion, seems likely. I mean, I'm a mediocre player in any game I pick up (not terrible, not good), without any dedication. A week of casual play gets me into the mid-tier in anything. So, I do think that there is such a thing as natural talent at gaming, but I think hard work and dedication are vastly more consequential to your skill level than natural affinity.
SC2 pro gamer is no different than being good at a subject. Some people its takes a little less to be "pro" with the subject some people it takes longer(for example math)
so yes you can practise alot and eventually you will be good at it /thread
that is why most of the non-sc2 population will not care about esports because they will just think these people just spend to much time infront of computers which is true
On March 21 2011 23:28 VoidEU wrote: To all of you who are saying that "everyone can get into masters if they just put enough time into it". Actually, everyone cant get into masters. Just because the fact that there is only enough spot for x% of the population. Simply, everyone cant be the best.
Its the same thing at the top. If you take the worlds best players. They all practice about the same. In other words, as much as they possible can.
Then why isn't everyone as good as MC? Since they practice the same amount of time.
In short. EVERYONE cant be the best. When you come to a point where you cant practice more than your opponent. Natural talent will start separating the gifted from the not gifted.
Obviously "everyone" can't be in masters, but "anyone" could. The sentiment is that anyone can improve their skill to that of a master's player if they practice; there's no need to be obtuse.
My point was that those at the very top are putting in such much effort and you cant beat them with just pure practice, no matter how much time you put into it (because you simply doesn't have more time than they do).
Perhaps my masters example was bad :/
You may not be able to become a bonjwa without some talent, but you can definitely be a very competitive player and still compete at a high level of play. Talent does come into play but it's definitely not something that's going to stop a gold level player from making it into platinum.
some people, a lot of people, are just not that great at video games in general, other people, few people, can pickup a new game and wreck face with it almost the same day, these people are Gamers
I know people who cant get out of bronze league who have played RTS for years, sc2 was my first real RTS and I started out in plat straight to diamond, some people have it, others just wont
if youv been stuck in bronze for more than a week, and all you want is to rank up, just play something easier
if your stuck in bronze and love sc2, then hell yeah buddy bronze it up :D
Natural talent, at something as abstract as an RTS. Absurd lol.
There is no evidence to suggest that any single person cannot train any part of their brain that people are assigning to "talent". whether thats strategical intelligence, it can be trained.. Whther its "natural coordination" it can be drilled...
It's almost like people talking about "souls".. as long as theres a reason other than your own lack of effort its ok.. its ok..
Stop holding people back, and stop holding yourselves back by believing that some people are just better than you at just about everything. Imagine the world if everyone believed that hard work would put them at the top. It would be a better place.
I had to play my 1st 200 games to leave bronze lvl. My friend just got SC2. He's ex-WC3 player. Never played SC2 in his life. After 200 games he's in masters in 1v1,2v2,3v3. After 1k games its still really hard for me to beat him after his 200 games. Really hard.
On March 21 2011 23:28 VoidEU wrote: To all of you who are saying that "everyone can get into masters if they just put enough time into it". Actually, everyone cant get into masters. Just because the fact that there is only enough spot for x% of the population. Simply, everyone cant be the best.
Its the same thing at the top. If you take the worlds best players. They all practice about the same. In other words, as much as they possible can.
Then why isn't everyone as good as MC? Since they practice the same amount of time.
In short. EVERYONE cant be the best. When you come to a point where you cant practice more than your opponent. Natural talent will start separating the gifted from the not gifted.
Obviously "everyone" can't be in masters, but "anyone" could. The sentiment is that anyone can improve their skill to that of a master's player if they practice; there's no need to be obtuse.
My point was that those at the very top are putting in such much effort and you cant beat them with just pure practice, no matter how much time you put into it (because you simply doesn't have more time than they do).
Perhaps my masters example was bad :/
You may not be able to become a bonjwa without some talent, but you can definitely be a very competitive player and still compete at a high level of play. Talent does come into play but it's definitely not something that's going to stop a gold level player from making it into platinum.
Agreed. I'm not saying that you cant ever get out of gold if you aint talented. I'm just pointing out that talent does matter.
To quote one above here.
Hard work beats skill until skill works hard. Think about that.
On March 21 2011 23:28 VoidEU wrote: To all of you who are saying that "everyone can get into masters if they just put enough time into it". Actually, everyone cant get into masters. Just because the fact that there is only enough spot for x% of the population. Simply, everyone cant be the best.
Its the same thing at the top. If you take the worlds best players. They all practice about the same. In other words, as much as they possible can.
Then why isn't everyone as good as MC? Since they practice the same amount of time.
In short. EVERYONE cant be the best. When you come to a point where you cant practice more than your opponent. Natural talent will start separating the gifted from the not gifted.
Obviously "everyone" can't be in masters, but "anyone" could. The sentiment is that anyone can improve their skill to that of a master's player if they practice; there's no need to be obtuse.
My point was that those at the very top are putting in such much effort and you cant beat them with just pure practice, no matter how much time you put into it (because you simply doesn't have more time than they do).
Perhaps my masters example was bad :/
You may not be able to become a bonjwa without some talent, but you can definitely be a very competitive player and still compete at a high level of play. Talent does come into play but it's definitely not something that's going to stop a gold level player from making it into platinum.
Agreed. I'm not saying that you cant ever get out of gold if you aint talented. I'm just pointing out that talent does matter.
Hard work beats skill until skill works hard. Think about that.
TALENT does not matter its how you PRACTISE the game if you continue to make the same mistakes you will continue to stay in the same league you are in if you use EFFECTIVE training there is no reason why you should not be at the top of the league
On March 21 2011 23:41 Let it Raine wrote: I don't believe in natural ability.
People can be good at something the first time they do it, but it will be because of something they have learned/done before hand that led into the new activity they are trying.
Practice makes perfect.
West Africans are naturally better runners than people from Northern Europe. They have more fast twitch muscle fibers(better for sprinting than slow twitch), hence they are generally faster. No matter how hard you train you can't make slow twitch muscles fast twitch. Now speed can be trained and is but some people are going to be able to go just a bit faster. Jamaica a small country regularly produces world class sprinters, while a some larger countries don't have many. Some of this is nurture, but a lot is nature. The top 10 fastest mens 100 meter runners have all been African. Lots of facts that some people are genetically predisposed to be better at certain activities. No one is denying that you can get to a very high level with practice, but some people are going to be able to either get there easier or go past there. Just like running some people are going to have faster fingers naturally, better decision making, or more accurate fingers at the highest of high levels.
In my mind natural is what your born with, and that pretty much boils down to genetics From the link you posted about talent a. Natural endowment or ability of a superior quality
Hand speed and the other physical needs can be trained yes, but the game sense I believe require some amount of natural flare.
Decision making and tactics are way under valued by the average starcraft 2 viewer.
The "great" players are brilliant generals and battlefield manipulators and I honestly believe thats something that happens naturally.
Ex. The current meta game has zerg players taking very quick thirds, in the gcpl tyler vs strelok, tyler's build and decision making with his units is above and beyond what would seem normal.
(Written from memory, sorry if off) His build gave him an army the size of a 4 gate, a little slower but with an expansion up. Designed presumably to punish the early third without being all-in.
Ex: Incontrols game against ret in the same series (gcpl) saw him down in the game on metalopolis, however...
(Written from memory, sorry if off) Incontrol recognizing this, waited and baited ret into what looked to be an open field of attack, until the forcefields completely shifted the make of the battlefield, turning it into Incontrols favor. On point, this kind of understanding of battle and favorable positions is again, something I assume at least part of is natural.
MC crushed July, with tactics/decision making alone. Hell he beat hydras with sentries via tactics, clearly this is kind of thing is special.
In closing, I want to point out that people who excel at strategy games, generally do well at any of them once the physical conditions are met since there are a few natural characteristics that help this out. (Decisiveness, understanding, competitiveness...) The only real way, one would guess, to "train" these abilities is experience. So keep playing :D.
Natural ability certainly does exist, otherwise everybody's bodies would be the same. Someone can indeed be better than somebody else naturally.
However, that is not to say that they cannot be overtaken. Somebody who lacks the natural skill to play can train themselves to play well, and can even surpass a naturally good player if they are skilled at learning (i.e. being a fast learner).
When it comes down to questions like this, it's never black and white. There is overlap, and both exist concurrently. However, to believe that one can be trained to be identical in physical prowess to another is ludicrous, or that one can be trained to understand the game in an identical fashion to another. People's brains are different, and will never be the same; if that's not a natural difference, I don't know what is.
On March 21 2011 23:37 dtz wrote: it is all training up until the highest level. People plateau at different levels though.
But i do believe that only "gifted" ones can be Flash and Jaedong. Like not everyone who trains 24/7 and do their best can be as good as Jordan, Woods, Phelps, Bolt, Messi, Federer.
Get into masters, sure everyone can. Win the GSL? Not so much.
One thing that i dont think that people are taking into consideration, is that practice can be started at a very young age. If you're 20 today, then you might not be able to become Flash or Jaedong, but that's because you started too late. If you were raised from the day you were born to become the best starcraft player, i'm sure you'd be better than Flash.
So a gold leaguer probably wont reach the level of Flash. But if that person had the exact same practice and exact same life as Flash then i think he would be as good.
Sums it up pretty well, Talent + hard work + passion is a winning formula for success. None of them are mutually exclusive. Genetics is the definition of the genetic features and constitution of a single organism, species, or group much of that which feanor1 described west african sprinters have.
If everyone has the same genetically potential for a natural talent then why isn't everyone a genius at the same things? What someone might consider signs of natural "talent" is not always evident in everyone since birth, it's something that can be developed throughout life and it's an innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment it's not defined to a single individual but also to a group of above average ability.
"If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut."
-Albert Einstein
PS: Do your research
@WhiteDog WTF does that have to do with this? You missed Z in Einstein's formula...
Talent is something u may have trained when u were young and u didnt even know... something like mouse control, keyboard speed, fast "mentality" with computers and games in general. There is people unable to hold a mouse or write fast that seems retard when acting with a computer, those people cant be any good at SC, no matter what. But if u are confident with a computer u can just train ur way up till master league, with hard work, training, study etc. At this point i think there is something that makes difference between you and a pro, and i think it's just about the time u can devote to this game. Pros train for hours and hours and basically it's their job. And when you reach the pro level, "natural talent" come in play distinguish yourself from a Champion.
Sums it up pretty well, Talent + hard work + passion is a winning formula for success. None of them are mutually exclusive. Genetics is the definition of the genetic features and constitution of a single organism, species, or group much of that which feanor1 described west african sprinters have.
If everyone has the same genetically potential for a natural talent then why isn't everyone a genius at the same things? What someone might consider signs of natural "talent" is not always evident in everyone since birth, it's something that can be developed throughout life and it's an innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment it's not defined to a single individual but also to a group of above average ability.
"If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut."
-Albert Einstein
PS: Do your research
Einstein, also known as the one who fought to prove the existence of God with physics. Everybody can be wrong.
Sums it up pretty well, Talent + hard work + passion is a winning formula for success. None of them are mutually exclusive. Genetics is the definition of the genetic features and constitution of a single organism, species, or group much of that which feanor1 described west african sprinters have.
If everyone has the same genetically potential for a natural talent then why isn't everyone a genius at the same things? What someone might consider signs of natural "talent" is not always evident in everyone since birth, it's something that can be developed throughout life and it's an innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment it's not defined to a single individual but also to a group of above average ability.
"If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut."
-Albert Einstein
PS: Do your research
Einstein, also known as the one who fought to prove the existence of God with physics. Everybody can be wrong.
A player with more talent will "only" have a higher skill level to start from and a faster skill increase. It's like in a MMORPG. It doesn't matter how fast you've been, once your max level.
Sums it up pretty well, Talent + hard work + passion is a winning formula for success. None of them are mutually exclusive. Genetics is the definition of the genetic features and constitution of a single organism, species, or group much of that which feanor1 described west african sprinters have.
If everyone has the same genetically potential for a natural talent then why isn't everyone a genius at the same things? What someone might consider signs of natural "talent" is not always evident in everyone since birth, it's something that can be developed throughout life and it's an innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment it's not defined to a single individual but also to a group of above average ability.
"If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut."
-Albert Einstein
PS: Do your research
Einstein, also known as the one who fought to prove the existence of God with physics. Everybody can be wrong.
Can you disprove God with physics?
No, but to be fair, he actually first rejected quantic physics because "god does not play dice". He was wrong and admitted it himself later. Nobody is perfect.
You mean the same Einstein who wrote the following passage?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
I also don't see how people seriously are arguing that anyone can be "top-class", because they're now in Masters. Masters is nowhere near "top-class" and thus not really representative. I think their definitely is a big portion of talent involved. HOWEVER it is not comparable with sports, since the amount of people actually doing it is far smaller. This makes it far easier to get high up with just hard work, but in the end the more talented people will end up at the real top.
Sums it up pretty well, Talent + hard work + passion is a winning formula for success. None of them are mutually exclusive. Genetics is the definition of the genetic features and constitution of a single organism, species, or group much of that which feanor1 described west african sprinters have.
If everyone has the same genetically potential for a natural talent then why isn't everyone a genius at the same things? What someone might consider signs of natural "talent" is not always evident in everyone since birth, it's something that can be developed throughout life and it's an innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment it's not defined to a single individual but also to a group of above average ability.
"If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut."
-Albert Einstein
PS: Do your research
Einstein, also known as the one who fought to prove the existence of God with physics. Everybody can be wrong.
So just because you can't prove something it means you are wrong? It just means you can't prove it.
I'm a 2.7k diamond, and certainly for myself, it's more just natural than hardwork. I've only played 300 games in the ladder, however it is my 3rd competitive online game (First being CSS where I was a EAS div 1 borderline EPS player; and the other being HoN). As such, I'm used to playing games that have a lot of stress attached and can think clearly in given situations.
Should I want to go into the higher levels, then I could sit and learn build orders, timings, fuck it, even the damage that each units do (:D), but I'd just rather sit and play the game.
Sums it up pretty well, Talent + hard work + passion is a winning formula for success. None of them are mutually exclusive. Genetics is the definition of the genetic features and constitution of a single organism, species, or group much of that which feanor1 described west african sprinters have.
If everyone has the same genetically potential for a natural talent then why isn't everyone a genius at the same things? What someone might consider signs of natural "talent" is not always evident in everyone since birth, it's something that can be developed throughout life and it's an innate ability, as for artistic accomplishment it's not defined to a single individual but also to a group of above average ability.
"If A equals success, then the formula is: A = X + Y + Z, X is work. Y is play. Z is keep your mouth shut."
-Albert Einstein
PS: Do your research
Einstein, also known as the one who fought to prove the existence of God with physics. Everybody can be wrong.
So just because you can't prove something it means you are wrong? It just means you can't prove it.
I was just not going deep into it, he was wrong about quantic physics, and everybody can be wrong. Name dropping him on a conversation about talent does not mean anything.
On March 22 2011 00:28 VicTimEyes wrote: You mean the same Einstein who wrote the following passage?
"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."
I also don't see how people seriously are arguing that anyone can be "top-class", because they're now in Masters. Masters is nowhere near "top-class" and thus not really representative. I think their definitely is a big portion of talent involved. HOWEVER it is not comparable with sports, since the amount of people actually doing it is far smaller. This makes it far easier to get high up with just hard work, but in the end the more talented people will end up at the real top.
Einstein did not believe in a personal God, but he said himself that he was a "religious". It's complicated, I'm not a pro either, just don't try to find one quote to makes me look like I'm wrong when I'm not.
My turn to quote him :
"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings."
Talent, natural talent, at anything is part of any skill. I can play baseball, for example, but I have no real athletic talent.
However, Starcraft II, and video games in general, I have a natural affinity for. Talent, I will note, will only take you so far. You have to hone your talent into skill, understanding, and precision. This is true for any activity. Talent will only get you so far, and in rare cases, your talent can take you to the top.
its not natural in the "born with it" sense. Your propensity to become good at Starcraft more quickly than others definitely correlates with how well you've learned to train yourself, which is something that is built upon from an early age in life and applies to most things in life. Reaction times and reflexes can be improved upon, but some of it is genetic.
I think the big mistake people fall into is when they think just alot of repetition is a good way to improve... its not. It's useful for developing a couple of skills, but the problem with this approach for non-BW or RTS players for instance, is that they never learn an important aspect of the game that veterans already know... strategy. You need to think about the game twice as often as you actually play it.
I think the position most supported by current evidence from SC2 and Brood War is that there seems to be some natural ability(or at least ability which exists prior to SC training) that can make it harder or easier to become reeaaaaaaaaaally good, some of which is obvious, such as an affinity for hard work, and some of which seems to be more nebulous. But anyone, trained hard enough, and made to understand the game and how to get good at it, can compete at a very, very high level. Nobody can make it without training.
On March 21 2011 23:08 intrigue wrote: i'd like to add that hard work does not mean just mindlessly grinding out games. starcraft is an rts, after all. nothing is sadder than seeing people stuck at a certain level over thousands of games - at that point, they're just reinforcing bad habits.
40% of the players with a few hundred or more games at this point are going to be in Bronze or Silver, since only the active players define the division boundaries, and most of the active players now have played that much.
I'll tell you this much, I'm in Silver with about 1000 games and I can show you in clear objective ways how I've improved at the game since release. It's like night and day. In fact, I can demonstrate how I've improved since last month. Thing is, all the Silver and Bronze people I play have been playing as much as I have, and they've improved as well. There really are not many people who are regularly playing on the ladder who aren't serious about improving at this point.
Learning the game by itself doesn't get your promoted -- it's learning the game FASTER than other active players.
Edit: Put another way, it's really not possible for every active player to be in the top 50% of active players.
I used to run into a lot of players doing placements whom I'd attack and they -- hadn't built anything. Maybe they had some buildings and some workers and that's it. It's been a very, very long time since I've seen a player like that except in 3v3 and 4v4.
I say it's a part of both. Some people might practice forever and still don't get there. Hand speed and reaction, sure you can train it, but the decision-making, game sense, and general strategy skill needs some kind of affinity, in my opinion. That's why even in Korea, some players are decisively more dominating than others.
On March 22 2011 00:47 IdrA wrote: you have to be able to think about the game in a certain way for practice to be productive.
otherwise you'll keep doing sentry zealot pushes no matter how many times your opponent builds roaches.
How do you mean? Do you mean like the outside the box thinking and problem solving? (I.E.: Screw 'Toss and their FF, how do I get around it/nullify that advantage) Or is it more standard "Well, that didn't work, let me try X build I saw Y player do?"
Also, how do you come up with builds? What kind of process do you use?
i think its a mix of both i have friends who have played more games than i have and are worse than i am while i've only played a few hundred games and are a lot more better than they are (:
but it might be that they have less RTS experience while I've played sc1 on and off from grade 3 to 9, but the only thing I did was custom games so i guess that helps a lot with my micro never played melee games in sc1 btw xD
if youre wondering im a 3k diamond zerg which i think is pretty high diamond (:
On March 22 2011 00:47 IdrA wrote: you have to be able to think about the game in a certain way for practice to be productive.
otherwise you'll keep doing sentry zealot pushes no matter how many times your opponent builds roaches.
Well said. I've started keeping a list of my stupid choices that lose me games -- it's already helped a lot with focusing my thinking about my practice.
I think it can only help your improvement if you convince yourself that natural talent and ESPECIALLY balance are not significant factors in the outcome of your matches.
The decision of whether or not to play should be based on whether or not you enjoy the game.
I think these things are more important than the precise extent to which talent actually influences people's ability to play the game.
I think hand dexterity plays a big role, and while you can improve with practice just like you can improve at any sport in the world with practice, you'll always be at a disadvantage. 95% practice 5% talent
People that have both are gonna be the best players. I think it's hard even for pros to gauge how much talent plays a role because its not something u can easily quantify and compare to other people. You can only judge how much practice u've put into the game and how u've improved over time.
IMO it's almost entirely training that differentiates players like oGsMC from random NA/EU/Korean professional Protosses. Only by a regimented practice schedule with a variety of partners with a variety of styles can you prepare smooth builds like that and be able to execute them that well.
Up until that point, I think it's a combination of practice, intelligence, and a natural affinity for the game. Say what you want about being able to "learn" all aspects of the game, but some people definitely do pick it up more quickly than others, and some people (me) have been playing off and on since the beginning of Brood War and are still D+ material.
Mental quickness, toughness, and awareness are things you can hone, but not really be taught. Nerves are another thing that affect some people more than others, but practice and experience help alleviate those problems.
On March 22 2011 01:28 ZasZ. wrote: IMO it's almost entirely training that differentiates players like oGsMC from random NA/EU/Korean professional Protosses. Only by a regimented practice schedule with a variety of partners with a variety of styles can you prepare smooth builds like that and be able to execute them that well.
I'm sure theres plenty of korean professionals that play just as much as oGsMC. Why aren't all the other players from the oGs house dominating as much as he?
i think it also has to do with your computer on a certain level. when i first started playing sc2 i had a SHITTY computer, (10fps at the most) and i was placed in bronze league, just because of the slowness that the game was playing on, and the non existant micro, then as soon as i got a new computer, i was placed in diamond in under 50 games.
On March 22 2011 00:47 IdrA wrote: you have to be able to think about the game in a certain way for practice to be productive.
otherwise you'll keep doing sentry zealot pushes no matter how many times your opponent builds roaches.
How do you mean? Do you mean like the outside the box thinking and problem solving? (I.E.: Screw 'Toss and their FF, how do I get around it/nullify that advantage) Or is it more standard "Well, that didn't work, let me try X build I saw Y player do?"
Also, how do you come up with builds? What kind of process do you use?
Thanks, IdrA. Big fan, rock the N.A.S.L.
I think that's pretty much what he meant. Basically, say you're going with a quick tech to a Brood Lord/Ultralisk combo to combat a four gate. Clearly, this won't work. The bad way to go about practicing is to drill the BL/Ultra combo so many times that you've memorized it well enough to win against 1/20 four gates, which leads you to think you'll eventually be able to beat them all. In reality, you need to completely change your perspective of a build to counter a four gate and start from scratch because a BL/Ultra combo is fundamentally not the right way to combat it.
This game as well as any game that is non physically limiting (such as power lifting) is truly not based entirely on hard work or genetic traits. Think of it this way, No one is born with 450 APM the first time they touch the game, that just doesn't happen, However the way a person thinks (which hugely differs from person to person can have a large impact on the game) If you take a look at the most world renowned pro players all of them have a few things in common.
First = they train for about 6 hours a day. This game and being able to play fast and effectively is largely due to you playing enough to create neurological pathways in your brains to effectively decrease the amount of time between a thought of what you need to be doing and the action of doing it. Through this practice you can make tasks that seemed unlikely to impossible completely plausible if not even simple. An example of this is when first learning to play, preforming actions without looking at the producing structure you were using seemed nearly impossible but, once you form the pathways it is not that difficult to be making drones at the same time as repositioning your army while simultaneously injecting 5 hatcheries across the map.
Secondly (this is where the truly outstanding players differ themselves from the people who just have straight practice on their side) = This is the ability to think quickly and strategically while in game. Ex. You see 12 bunkers at the front of a T base with a PF right behind it. Are you able to compose a way to handle it in a fashion that your opponent has not seen and thus will not be prepared for or are you gonna A click banes at it and hope the tank splash doesn't decimate you.
In my opinion it is a combination of both hard work and gift. Much like Micro and Macro the Proverbial Ying and Yang of your game play. Just one might win your a few games but, you simply cannot beat a player that is sound at both with just one. (unless you vastly out skill him in that one) At the top tier of play , top diamond up into masters, this gap in "I totally decimate my opponent in macro or micro", is virtually non existent because everyone has trained so hard to bring them both up to par.
In conclusion, Without working hard you will never achieve anything in starcraft but, if you are a player who works hard but only tries to use the "Standard Builds" that people are using every other game you will also be bad... You must think outside the box and come up with non-standard effective play. People complain about "cheese" so much in this game it's a little disheartening. This is a strategy game! Why not try to use your head to come up with some fun strategic play that is completely "non-standard" Because if you do come up with something that your Opponent hasn't seen 10 thousand times, such as Tank Stem marine. You will dominate that race for the next 2 weeks until someone can come up with something to stop it. Less QQ about cheese please, because if you cant stop it, It isn't his fault for trying to win, It's your fault for not reacting properly.
On March 21 2011 22:37 hoby2000 wrote: If you believe that people are just "natural" at some things, then you probably believe in a deity.
Why do I say this? Because if you believe in "natural" talent, you don't understand the world around you.
WHAT the...? How on earth did you correlate belief in a diety with belief in a genetic advantage over someone else? What nonsense.
It's impossible for everyone to have the same potential "best" skill level at Starcraft (or anything, for that matter). We're all different! Training and practice (and doing those effectively and with dedication) is going to be the biggest factor in success, yes, but at some point natural talent (or lack thereof) is going to be a deciding factor.
My mum is NEVER going to be good at music. Ever. And she never could have been. She could train for the rest of her life at it and she will still be bad; she could practice all day every day, she could receive the best training and coaching money could buy, she could obsess over it on internet forums, and she could think about it all the time..... but she's still going to wiggle her butt out of time from everyone else if she goes to aerobics class, and sing her favourite songs way out of tune.
Fortunately in this case, Starcraft requires a whole swathe of abilities and skills, so any disadvantage in one particular area is unlikely to be too much of a hindrance overall. Practice and hard work is going to get you a long, long way - but it's not everything.
to be honest i think i could compete with the best if i put in the time. i play like 3 games a week, if that, and am near the top of the ladder. if i put in 8 hours a day there is no reason i couldn't improve massively. so to answer your question if anyone can. yes i believe if someone had the best of the best equipment and put hard work and dedication in to it they could definitely become great. however i would stop short and say that they probably wont become code S any time soon. Those players have been playing for well over 10 years now. SC1 has made them macro monsters. Also I think people can naturally pick up the game more quickly than others so the time and training it would take one person to become a top player would vary widely.
On March 22 2011 00:47 IdrA wrote: you have to be able to think about the game in a certain way for practice to be productive.
otherwise you'll keep doing sentry zealot pushes no matter how many times your opponent builds roaches.
How do you mean? Do you mean like the outside the box thinking and problem solving? (I.E.: Screw 'Toss and their FF, how do I get around it/nullify that advantage) Or is it more standard "Well, that didn't work, let me try X build I saw Y player do?"
I think it's a more general statement on practice quality.
If you look at different disciplines, including sports, music performance, chess, etc. an important concept is that of focused practice - not just going through the repetitions but also staying mentally engaged in practice, making connections between repetitions and constantly tweaking ideas both in the mind and in subsequent actions.
This type of mental state is where learning actually occurs, and people who are successful at their respective disciplines tend to spend the majority of their practice time in this mode. Personality type is a huge factor in this, though I do believe that this type of thing can be learned. The thing is, someone who starts off with the right mindset for learning will display skill/talent earlier, which leads to better access to high quality coaching/competition, at which point it will be quite hard to catch up.
Things can become complicated when a complex discipline is mature: you can have some mental attitudes that are favourable to learning some more fundamental skills, while a different mindset is needed for success at the highest level. This can result in some players peaking out in skill level, while the other type requires more extensive coaching and practice in fundamentals to be successful.
Probably mostly practice. However I do feel that if I started playing rts right now I would never be good. I suck at pretty much every game I try, especially those that are mechanically demanding. But I've been playing starcraft for 11 years so I have that 300 apm mechanic ingrained in me.
Ill agree with the masses and say that training seperates the gods from the greats. But that doesn't mean natural talent doesn't come to play in here. I have been playing video games all my life. FPS, MMO, RPG, RTS, name a popular game and I've played/ beat em all. Every game I've picked up I've been able to beat and be good at with no problem at all. I barely play starcraft, but when I do I win quite often just because I have a natural niche for gaming.
I think people do have natural abilities that make them good at games/ things in general, but that can only bring you so far (diamond/ low masters) After that point it all depends on how much work you put in to it.
Depends on what you see as "natural" talent. I never really played a competitive RTS before SC2, but I progressed quite quickly anyway: this is probably due to me just having played hours and hours and hours of other games at high levels of play.
It's hard to name this specifically, but after having played games (any genre) for so long, a player starts to gain sort of this "awareness" of gaming and just what the hell is actually going on. Not just SC2 but this can be attributed across the board. So I don't quite feel it's natural talent specifically, just skills learned elsewhere, how to react fast, how to pay attention to key things, how to improve, and how to look for advantages over your opponent.
Genius is 1% inspiration and 99% perspiration. Altho Im a noob silver , i practise a shit load but I know that If I do it rite and stop messing with races I would be diamond. Wait am i contradicting myself TT
I don't believe in skill, the only thing I believe in is how quickly someone can learn.
For example, I don't have natural ability in sports, I realized that in high school, but I grew up playing soccer and baseball from age 6. I was terrible at baseball at 9, after a year of playing i was good enough at 10 to be on a good team. I slowly got better in junior high making some all star teams, finally I ended up having the highest batting average in the county and making the county all star team. It wasn't because I had some magical ability, but because I played a lot. It took me 10 years to be one of the best, not easy.
Some people just learn really quickly, either they grew up with sports or have someone to teach them.
You'll find a few people saying that it's natural born skill or talent, and while it's quite possible there are genes that could contribute in some way to the "talent", for lack of a better word, of a gamer, or anyone else for that matter, they are in no way nessecary for people to become that good.
While it's true there have been genes linked to specific traits it's been proven that if you take subjects without these traits and put them in a much more enriched environment for whatever behaviour or skill you want them to learn then given enough time they completely overcome not having that gene and can even surpass those that do, and this isn't just when people are young either, it's throughout the entirety of one's life.
So, my answer to you is it is all trained. That being said, a person with certain genes or certain experiences that have defined their current skills or behaviours may pick it up faster or slower than everyone else, meaning less of said training is actually required to get to that level. You just need to stick in there and eventually, if you train in the right way and in the right environment then you'll get there provided you don't die or lose your ability to play starcraft in any way before you get there.
Yes.. at a top level it would end up with almost all "natural" skill. Like in pretty much any area.
But it also depends on how far you take it. For example being able to practise hard would in part be a natural skill as well.
Decision making would also be more or less natural, in the sense that two people with the same information won't necessarily reach the same conclusion.
I kind of dislike the implication that natural talent > hard work, because you can still become really good at something regardless. But if we just administed an IQ test or something, I would be very suprised if there wasn't a fairly strong correlation between that and SC2 performance. Parts of the test would probably be even more predictive. Things like raven's matrices can predict performance in so many areas, and I don't see why SC2 would be an exception.
On an individual level there would of course be many exceptions, so it doesn't say everything. And what we call natural talent can be trained (more or less) but if your starting level is really high you are more likely to be able to make it extremely high instead of say normal->high.
The vast majority of it is training, but at a certain point, you need some amount of natural talent with regards to decision making. I believe the skill cap is higher for those with natural talent than those without, and it takes training to realize your skill cap.
I think saying "it's all the environment" is kind of naive in terms of any human behavior or performance. In order to say that "it's all training" you pretty much have to claim that "genes have no effect on us", and the amount of research you would have to completely disregard is staggering.
That being said, the environment has a large effect. But even if we claim that training is 99.9% of the importance behind SC2 skill, once you reach the top 0.0001% of players, that 0.1% skill difference suddenly becomes significant.
so as any college student who went through their first year of gen psych would know, this is a matter of nature v nurture. in essence a very controversial subject to this day, but obviously in need of both sides. there is natural skill one can receive from their parents in form of ingenuity or quick wits, but a larger part would have to be trained even then. there are going to be naturals in anything but thats not to say that with enough proper practice and dedication that no one can make it to rank 1 masters or the gsl.
I believe Flash picked up Starcraft 2-3 years before he first debuted. He undoubtedly worked hard but an awful lot of his good play was just natural talent. I don't believe your random bronze player can be in the GSL.
99% trained imo. Some people who play videogames before starcraft may have some small advantage of being able to react quicker to the screen lay out, but anyone can reach the highest level of play with enough practice/dedication.
It's a mixture of both. Ya you can play 10000 games and you will be better, no matter what. But if you're just not fast minded, quick handed, accurate with the mouse and many other things you will just never be as good.
I'd say I'm pretty much just born this way. Sure I play a lot (over 2k in 1v1 games played) but I screw around a LOT, switch races almost every day, and have very very few actual "build orders", I just play it by feel for the most part.
It's trained, but not everyone has the willpower and dedication to make it to the GSL. The skill can be learned by anyone, but you have to have the mental fortitude to go through with it.
I believe there is a sense of natural skill at play here. Some people are just faster in terms of mechanics and finger speed and others are better at being able to adapt to his or her situation more quickly. Those who are poor at both make it up by practicing and playing a lot. I'd have to say that for the mass populace, practice is responsible for >90% of what we see when we observe varying "skill levels" and at higher levels of play, one's innate ability to play the game better is what separates a relatively skilled pro from a tip-top pro. Just my two cents but I don't think that if two people practice the same amount but one is better at decision making that the two will be equally matched.
Any skill can be trained. The person with the natural talent for it will just have an easier time progressing and will most likely surpass the non-talented person in time ie: Flash, Jaedong. Relates to anything from arts, academics and athletics.
I don't see starcraft 2 being different than getting good in a subject at school, chess or whatever really. People have to put in different ammounts of work to reach the same level of skill. Wether this is something you obtain while you're being raised or are born with I don't know. But for example, a couple of years ago, I was exceptionally lazy at doing homework or even showing up for class, even so, I got grades far over the averege. This is just because I was lucky enough to have been born with parrents who were rather intellegent, so I understand stuff quicker than a lot of people. Now obviously you can argue that I was a complete moron for skipping school and such, but that's not the point! :p
I do believe that people will have a very different time to get to a higher level of starcraft, but after all, you have to work for it to reach the top no matter what. I met a guy once that was extremly talented at playing the piano, and someone said "You're so lucky that you are able to play so beautifully" he just responded with "Yes, i'm very lucky that I can stand playing for five hours a day", I think he had a pretty good point.
Natural Skill is just a stepping stone that puts you above others without it at the start of your carreer. It is the same with everything. Some people can paint awesome pictures without much training, others cant. But to get really good both have to study. The lesser skilled person just has to study a bit more to overcome the natural skill of the skilled person. You can train everything. Everyone can paint the Mona Lisa or play in the GSL, it just needs a fuckton of work.
I never like talking about talent since it always implies someone is better because he got luckier in the genetics lotto. I think you should always relate succes and failure to yourself.
On March 22 2011 03:06 Poopi wrote: I think until the very very top good training & dedication is what you need. Then it comes to talent.
while true ,"talent" effects you at all levels. its the difference between someone who plays 80games a week and practices hard and is at top platinum and someone who plays 10 games a week and easily hangs in mid-top masters.
dont wanna sound cocky but i think i can see it at myself. i rarely really play, my bonuspool keeps piling up constantly ,i even had a 2 month full break from sc2 but i still can hang rather easily in the top ~1k of my server(judging from added bonus pool + the level of the people i play against) and beat my clanmates which have 3-4 times as much games played + way way more customs.
but maybe thats just related to my bw backround and that i somewhat "get" starcraft because of that.
The topic is interesting but it makes for a poor debate. The majority of responses are gonna be statements most of which have a bit of a self gratifying motive in them.
For one you cannot refute the training part. If it wouldn't require training, you wouldn't need to play to be good. If you don't play you can't be good at playing because you aren't playing. The talent part brings in a bunch of issues in that its very ambiguous. There has to be a much more defined and specific point to be able to actually take the referred meaning into account.
Which brings me to my final point. What defines good? What defines skill? At which moment can we start to draw conclusions? When you limit this too much you are throwing away the possibility that the realization of the answer lies beyond what you take into consideration.
I'm surprised at how many people say that there is no natural skill, to me it seems to make sense that playing starcraft well requires mental abilities like logic which some will just be better than others at. Kinda like how some people are naturally better at math, and some are naturally better at music, etc. Obviously training is a huge factor in how good someone is in starcraft, as it is in all other subjects.
There seems to be a talent of some kind, that lures about. Sure, you can train hard, but I feel that there is just some form of natural talent. I have a team mate of mine, not on too often, barely any prior rts knowledge/games, same amount of games as me. He rapes it up, and is actually one of the better players of the team. Now, using myself as an example, i'm on daily, a few years of SC:BW and about 6-7 years of WC3, and come no where close to his skill. Not to take away from the work he does put in, but he still flat out rapes me, despite me putting in more effort.
Call it what you want, but I do believe there are both skill and talent in this game.
There are many interrelated factors in playing the game well. Analytical problem solving ability is important, and it's an area where I'm pretty strong, but in Starcraft it's often negated by being impulsive and doing things like just A-moving to see what happens because I'm not 100% sure, though I may have a bad feeling.
I think in my own case I have a specific problem with just not caring that much about the outcome of any particular match. I think this kind of thing can be good for keeping practice going, but over the long run it may result in being undermotivated.
Honestly, it's like art. It's mostly hard work. Talent plays a very small role, and doesn't determine whether you'll become a professional or not. Whether you become the next Rembrandt or not is determined by a mixture of talent and extremely hard work. Extremely hard....
I'd say it's the same with StarCraft. To be the next Jaedong, you're going to have to give up everything in your life (friends, etc) for awhile to train up to his level. Of course if you just want to be professional, you can have time for friends....possibly...............maybe not.
I think its the combination of skill(aka time invested) AND some part of talent. Simply some people are undecisive/they stress alot, some people learn things faster than the other ones. Some people who trained 1 year can beat people who trained for few years.
I would say natural talent does come into play, i'm high diamond with no RTS experience before and about 250wins. But i know some ppl have like 500 wins and still aren't diamond.
Just my 2 cents.
FYI by.flash actually WAS born with a gauss rifle.
If you understand the fundamentals of learning, nothing can stop you. You think Korean's got good cuz their asian? they got good, as idra said multiple times, because they train all day, refining their builds. Get coaching to help speed up the process, but you gotta play daily.
...search. There's has been sooOooOOoo many discussions on the topic that its starting to go abit out of control. Its partly talents, and partly just raw practice, and that's all there is to it. Period.
Yea guys, success directly correlates to how hard you work. Therefore those who are mediocre don't work as hard as those who succeed. Those who make it to the NBA and escaped poverty worked the hardest. The people who are rich are those that sacrificed the most. The best SC2 players are the ones that train the hardest. Right. Everything is a choice and those who choose to be mediocre are simply lazy.
I would say mostly dedication to the game, learning good builds and knowing what counters what etc. some people pick it up quicker but eventually if those that don't continue playing and learning they can get just as good. only at the very top level, the professional level, does natural talent with hand speed/reaction time/mechanics and all that good stuff start to play a part. but i think anyone can reach high diamond/low-mid masters just by playing a lot.
It is without a doubt a combination of the two. Just like other athletes who are born with natural talent and also have to train and practice a ton in order to be successful at what they do, I don't see SC2 being any different. Just because it is a video game does not cause it to change what is required to be good at it.
For example the Korean pro-gamers all train about the same amount, however there are people who are great at it (Flash and Jaedong). This fact alone disproves your theory about a bronze level player once being in the GSL one day even if he practiced his little heart out.
I got the game three days after official release and had no prior RTS experience. I was placed in Bronze league. I didn't play a single practice game. Needless to say by December I was in Diamond league. I think that there is no natural "talent" directly related to this game, but I think that people that are more experienced with computer games (whether it be of the same genre or not) will have an easier time picking it up.
I also believe that people who are naturally more intelligent than others will have a better time with this game, since there's a lot of different situations and scenarios that you're presented with non-stop. I have one friend in particular that mentioned he'd like to play, but doesn't think that he'd ever be able to manage everything happening in the game, so he has yet to actually play it. I keep telling him to, though.
tl;dr the game has no talent required. It's the same as everything else: you put hard work and dedication into it, and you become better at it.
On March 21 2011 22:22 deL wrote: I think the way your mind works and how you think takes place of those 'physical' or athletic attributes that you get in other sports (height for basketball, etc.) seeing SC2 is hardly just about the execution.
Yeah, I agree with deL. I think it's a mix of both training and natural skill. A person needs to have the right tools -- such as good hands and a mind apt for squishing Zergs -- for the potential to be there, and then the training and experience to actually capitalize on that potential.
It's more training than anything, but the skill ceiling varies from person to person.
On March 22 2011 04:43 zakmaa wrote: tl;dr the game has no talent required. It's the same as everything else: you put hard work and dedication into it, and you become better at it.
I dont think anyone in this thread has said otherwise but thts not wat people are arguing about. The question is whether or not talent plays a role at all. If 2 people play the same amount are they definitely going to be about the same skill level?
I believe it is a good combo of both, very similar to things like dancing. some people have a natural affinity which helps them along, but anyone can put in the effort and get good.
I can personally say that you can learn Starcraft from scratch to Master.
I have 2 friends who went from never playing, to being low master league. The way they did it? Practice. They practiced, watched replays, and asked questions. They tried to get better, and wanted to get better.
The thing that determines probably around 75% of your Starcraft skill is your determination. If you are determined and won't take failure or no for an answer, then you will get better. There isn't a skill ceiling yet, so don't get discouraged if you think you aren't getting better. Watch reps, practice more, break the plateau and keep getting better.
On March 22 2011 02:35 nipZ wrote: so as any college student who went through their first year of gen psych would know, this is a matter of nature v nurture. in essence a very controversial subject to this day, but obviously in need of both sides. there is natural skill one can receive from their parents in form of ingenuity or quick wits, but a larger part would have to be trained even then. there are going to be naturals in anything but thats not to say that with enough proper practice and dedication that no one can make it to rank 1 masters or the gsl.
Skills gained from one activity can transfer to another. For example if you're good at fighting games you'll probably be good at other ones too. A better example is playing video games gave me good reaction times and this transferred to sports. It might give the illusion, especially if you're young, that you're "gifted." A lot of "genius" kids are often times trained hard by their parents (asian parents). But yeah I agree with you. There is limits on what you get from genetics.
Sometimes it is also a bit of chance. If you observe something you might observe something right away while others it could take years to see it. For example, I was terrible at math. I didn't "get it." Then during a college course, I just had an epiphany and math since then has been a cake walk. My easiest subject by far. It's not like ground out math problems till I understood it. In fact, I hadn't had a math course in years before then. Had I "got" math as a kid, I might have been called a natural at it.
It's obviously training based. However, prior rts gaming knowledge really helps because you generally have most of the basics of the game. I felt more comfortable moving into starcraft2 after quite a bit of war3 than my friends who've had little to none rts gaming experience.
StarCraft is a 100% trained skilled—there is no fairy or wizard in the sky that deems one person to be better than the other. "But why are there so many different styles of play?" I would answer back: "Why do people think that they're unique, different or somehow special? Given we're all the same species."
Talent is an abstract thought that we associate with any player that we believe to have an innate aptitude for the game. In reality, StarCraft is a game that asks the player to have a certain set of mechanics and lines of thinking—those who are better (as in more trained) at using those boundaries will be tagged as talented. Also, training is forever evolving. Day9 has been playing this game since he emerged from the womb. Don't ever doubt that he doesn't learn anything new on a daily basis. He does.
u need natural talent for sure since one episode of National Geographic about starcraft 1 let scientists conduct research which discovers the brainwave of progamers are similar to pro poker players and different than normal people that's y so many progamers are good at poker (eg. PJ, former best player in china is now pro poker player) here is the link and watch from around 13:00 in which they will test the brainwave of progamers
On September 27 2010 12:19 IdrA wrote: you can spontaneously decide to be good at something and be successful if you can make yourself work at it. until the very very top, in almost anything, all that matters is how much work you put in, the only problem is most people cant work hard even at things they do enjoy, much less things they dont have a real passion for.
I was about to use that quote. I also think that having such great work ethic/passion to work is a natural talent in itself.
Those who are talented tend to be lazy. It's easy to feel like no effort is required because when you're talented, there really isn't that much effort required. Sc2 isn't the physically intense game that BW was and even though you can mess up a mechanic like getting roach warren 50% into lair tech instead of 25%, you're still generally on top of your game regardless of practice unless you're playing against a new build you've never seen before.
On March 22 2011 00:47 IdrA wrote: you have to be able to think about the game in a certain way for practice to be productive.
otherwise you'll keep doing sentry zealot pushes no matter how many times your opponent builds roaches.
What the hell kind of an answer is that?!?! Judging from the title I expected your response to be " Neighter, all you need is a lucky coin and to play protoss"
Ever since the news of patch 1.3 came out it feels like your less depressed about SC2. Prob cause you're so exited about maybe having some sort of balance for a while.
You can get good at it if you're not naturally talented. It will just take more effort from you than for someone who has a natural affinity for strategy games and intelligence.
That said however, the amount of work it would take if you have zero gaming experience is so high that it will likely discourage most people from bothering to become very good in the first place. If you don't really have a competitive drive and/or gaming experience I don't see any realistic way for you to become good at SC. For example, my mother (who I consider to be a very intelligent person) has pretty much no shot at getting good at SC even if she for some reason wanted to become a progamer (lol). The amount of time it would take to develop the control and fundamental skill that are absolutely necessary is kind of ridiculous. For a lot of us we don't notice this since even if we weren't rts players before SC, we have been gamers for a long time - or are at a young age where learning new skills comes much more easily.
So in sum, I'd say that training is more important than talent, but to a certain degree you need both to become very good at the game. (disclaimer: I don't consider masters to be 'very good' at the game - I'm talking about people who can be competitive in a tournament format - probably the top 1000 in the world)
I'm not sure about starcraft, but other video games, CS, Quake, whatever, there is definitely some element of "genetics" at play (in the sense that your current physiological setup limits you, no matter how much training time is spent). In CS anyways, the definition of a twitch shooter, the more instantly and accurately you can twitch your crosshairs to your desired target the better you are at the game, and there is definitely physical limitations, some people just can't react that quickly or accurately.
I used to do KZ jumping, and I worked my ASS off practicing that, I may have been able to get into the top100 in the world if I trained significantly harder than some of the other top players, but I ran into some very real limitations of what I could do with my rhythmic timing ability and hand speed.
It's hard to say, if I had started training as a young kid maybe my brain would have been more malleable to learning those types of skills, but I really don't know.
Starcraft 2 is a little different though... Those types of accuracy and handspeed advantages are useful to an SC2 player, but it's hard to say that you will win every game if you have that skill or lose every game if you do not. Game sense and strategy is equally important and it's hard to say weather that is as limiting or how trainable that is.
Slayer Boxer played the game a little after it came out. He didn't even understand computers even after becoming a progamer and before he was a progamer there were already pros and boxer said he couldn't understand how someone could be so good. He was gaming hardcore at 21 which is pretty late to start programing in today's standards. Late 1998 he became a progamer lol.
Its a combination of both. The reason why hard work might come ahead of regular sports is because you can put more time into SC2. You can only work out and train as far as your body can take you which isn't much more than 4 hours of training a day. For SC2 and other video games the stress is more mental which means you can train a lot harder. Most pros train over 8 hours a day up to 14 hours. thats 2-4x higher than the maximum of a regular athlete. Of course talent comes into place. Look at Jaedong and Flash. They are gods at SC1 and practice as much as other players but are just in a different level of play. This is talent. So SC gives you more time to practice which makes it easier for hard work to take you higher than talent but you definitely need talent to go places.
If you're good at learning (is that a talent?) you'll improve faster and generally be better than everyone else. It doesn't matter what sport or game or competition. There have been players in the NBA who didn't run faster or jump higher than everyone else.
On March 22 2011 05:06 JL_GG wrote: u need natural talent for sure since one episode of National Geographic about starcraft 1 let scientists conduct research which discovers the brainwave of progamers are similar to pro poker players and different than normal people that's y so many progamers are good at poker (eg. PJ, former best player in china is now pro poker player) here is the link and watch from around 13:00 in which they will test the brainwave of progamers
By doing these activities, playing poker, playing SC, you build new neurological pathways in your brain. That is why the brains of progamers/poker players are different from ordinary people. If you measured their brains at age 10 they would be the exact same (or within normal deviation).
Reaction time, handspeed, mouse control are similarly trained.
I have yet to see any actual proof of natural talent for video games. As someone else said many people don't realize how much "practice" they actually do without ever playing starcraft 2. Decision making, decisiveness, and on the spot analysis are life skills you do every single day. Every time you move a mouse you are practicing mouse control...probably not in a very effective manner but nonetheless still practicing it. The mom example described earlier used is a great one to illustrate this.
It's definitely a combination of both and at the very highest level (Flash, Jaedong), you'll need to be born with extraordinary multitasking/reflexes, etc. A lot of the BW progaming houses have similar training regiments for each player (~8-10 hrs a day), yet some of the players go on to win Starleagues while others are stuck as a practice partner/B-teamer for their whole career, never really improving in skill even after years of training.
It's both. Ultimately you can only learn things like motor skills (fine mouse movement) and reaction time (mini-map spotting and responding) so well.
I believe that anyone can become a masters league player with the right amount of work, but I don't believe that everyone can become a pro just by playing the game a lot. We (U.S.) live in a culture that likes to promote the idea of equality, but being legally equal is different than being truly equal. Some people are better at certain things than others and that's just how it is.
On March 22 2011 00:47 IdrA wrote: you have to be able to think about the game in a certain way for practice to be productive.
otherwise you'll keep doing sentry zealot pushes no matter how many times your opponent builds roaches.
What the hell kind of an answer is that?!?! Judging from the title I expected your response to be " Neighter, all you need is a lucky coin and to play protoss"
Ever since the news of patch 1.3 came out it feels like your less depressed about SC2. Prob cause you're so exited about maybe having some sort of balance for a while.
I'm not sure I like it, Lol
He's insulting HuK, whether he's depressed or not someone's still getting pooped on.
On March 22 2011 05:06 JL_GG wrote: u need natural talent for sure since one episode of National Geographic about starcraft 1 let scientists conduct research which discovers the brainwave of progamers are similar to pro poker players and different than normal people that's y so many progamers are good at poker (eg. PJ, former best player in china is now pro poker player) here is the link and watch from around 13:00 in which they will test the brainwave of progamers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc0Pgm8lWRw
I'd prefer it if you didn't quote Natural Geographic as a source. They have a reputation for falsifying information or misleading readers to make their money.
That being said, the brainwave functions you see on pro gamers (or pro poker players) are the result of training. If you train hard enough at something, you get better at it. Getting better at it is reflected in your brain activity patterns. Contrary to popular belief, it is not the other way around, where most people think that you must have those activity patterns first in order to be good. It is the same with natural ability (excluding physical characteristics for professional sports).
There have been studies done that show conclusively that the more a person puts time into something, the better they become at it. The study I'm referring to had several children whose parents wanted them to get into music. Starting at only one hour every two days, they would practice. Those who enjoyed it would continue practicing, those who did not enjoy would practice less. This study was conducted for years into adolescence and adulthood where the researchers found that the amount of time put in was reflected in their musical skill. They also found that there was no "prodigy" factor. There were no people who had to put in significantly less time to reach the same level of proficiency.
Seriously, just work hard. Amount of practice and quality of practice are the reasons the Koreans were miles ahead in SC:BW, not some special genes.
Like anything worth getting good at, SC2 does require trained skill to get to a pro level, but certainly someone could start off with an advantage of speed, observation skills, or basic strategy that other players might not have.
High level hand speed, or enough hand speed to play with pros can come with a lot of practice. The understanding and knowledge/wisdom of the game can come with studying and watching replays and discussing the game with others. The execution and validation of the understanding of the game takes a TON of practice.
Perhaps where 'natural talent' comes into play is how strong of a competitor you are. For example: many people when they get to a far enough level and they are playing a match that is viewed by a lot of people they crumbled.
Some people are natural born competitors - Michael Jordan, Tiger Woods, Phil Ivey, Muhammad Ali.
On the biggest stage, in the toughest moments they are not trying to "lose closely" or "try their best". In their minds they are NOT trying to avoid losing. They are trying to win. There is a subtle nuance here that is real and apparent. They are not trying to put up a good fight versus a worthy opponent. They are trying to crush their opponent and destroy them. Seizing victory. This type of mentality is arguable something that you can't adopt.
I know someone who never played BW, and placed straight into Platinum upon release, after watching streams and tourney vods. It's like those jerks who never show up to class and still get straight A's - sure you can get the same results with work, but it's way easier for them. The tip top of the pro level is, of course, the people who have both the natural talent and the drive to work.
All training/practice. Nobody is "born" good at a video game. Think too often people on TL see no difference whatsoever between sports and a video game. Lets be realistic here.
Isn't this basically the essence of the Neji vs. Rock Lee argument from Naruto?
Unlike other sports that require a certain body type (i.e.: if you're 5'2", you're not going to be a NFL wide receiver), I think SC2 can be done via training. If you're talented, your learning curve and rise will be much faster - whereas if you're not as talented, you can train hard and achieve the same level with harder work. The talented + practice nonstop people eventually become the best (i.e.: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, Wes Welker, contra Chad Ochocinco, JaMarcus Russell).
Some people might be better at 'learning' per se. They might pick things up faster, but as long as you have functional and willing brain, anyone can learn starcraft at the higher levels.
On March 22 2011 05:06 JL_GG wrote: u need natural talent for sure since one episode of National Geographic about starcraft 1 let scientists conduct research which discovers the brainwave of progamers are similar to pro poker players and different than normal people that's y so many progamers are good at poker (eg. PJ, former best player in china is now pro poker player) here is the link and watch from around 13:00 in which they will test the brainwave of progamers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kc0Pgm8lWRw
I'd prefer it if you didn't quote Natural Geographic as a source. They have a reputation for falsifying information or misleading readers to make their money.
A TLer made that documentary iirc The only false information is what my friend pointed out: 6fact allin leading to Xellos's economic advantage which contradicts itself lol
On March 22 2011 05:06 JL_GG wrote: u need natural talent for sure since one episode of National Geographic about starcraft 1 let scientists conduct research which discovers the brainwave of progamers are similar to pro poker players and different than normal people that's y so many progamers are good at poker (eg. PJ, former best player in china is now pro poker player) here is the link and watch from around 13:00 in which they will test the brainwave of progamers
By doing these activities, playing poker, playing SC, you build new neurological pathways in your brain. That is why the brains of progamers/poker players are different from ordinary people. If you measured their brains at age 10 they would be the exact same (or within normal deviation).
Reaction time, handspeed, mouse control are similarly trained.
I have yet to see any actual proof of natural talent for video games. As someone else said many people don't realize how much "practice" they actually do without ever playing starcraft 2. Decision making, decisiveness, and on the spot analysis are life skills you do every single day. Every time you move a mouse you are practicing mouse control...probably not in a very effective manner but nonetheless still practicing it. The mom example described earlier used is a great one to illustrate this.
Yes and this is why plenty of people can pick up the game and become good very fast. It's less likely that it's due to genetics and more likely that it's due to past experience.
At the highest levels of anything however, talent is what distinguishes people. I don't care how much most people study math or physics, the likelyhood that a random person becomes a Feynman or von Neumman is zero. Similarly there are individuals whose genetic makeup makes them incredibly good at swimming (Hello Phelps!). Like it or not, the likelyhood that you or I become Lee Young Ho or Lee Jaedong is likely zero as well. Genius is not achieved through genetics or hardwork alone but a combination of the two.
That said it's doubtful that this explains why there are bronze players with 500+ games played and masters with less than 100. The majority of this variation definitely has to do with past applicable experience.
Common sense says its a mixture of innate ability and practice. How much contribution innate ability makes versus practice is hard to say but its almost certainly a result of both.
I'm sure everyone remembers being in school when there were certain subjects that come easy to you (and hard for others) where you can put much less effort in and excel and others that require much more work and you may not do all that well.
The same in pretty much all aspects of life from my experience. Innate ability is an advantage but hard work pays off too. What you get when you combine the two is a person who's at the top of whatever it is they do.
On March 22 2011 05:06 JL_GG wrote: u need natural talent for sure since one episode of National Geographic about starcraft 1 let scientists conduct research which discovers the brainwave of progamers are similar to pro poker players and different than normal people that's y so many progamers are good at poker (eg. PJ, former best player in china is now pro poker player) here is the link and watch from around 13:00 in which they will test the brainwave of progamers
By doing these activities, playing poker, playing SC, you build new neurological pathways in your brain. That is why the brains of progamers/poker players are different from ordinary people. If you measured their brains at age 10 they would be the exact same (or within normal deviation).
Reaction time, handspeed, mouse control are similarly trained.
I have yet to see any actual proof of natural talent for video games. As someone else said many people don't realize how much "practice" they actually do without ever playing starcraft 2. Decision making, decisiveness, and on the spot analysis are life skills you do every single day. Every time you move a mouse you are practicing mouse control...probably not in a very effective manner but nonetheless still practicing it. The mom example described earlier used is a great one to illustrate this.
Yes and this is why plenty of people can pick up the game and become good very fast. It's less likely that it's due to genetics and more likely that it's due to past experience.
At the highest levels of anything however, talent is what distinguishes people. I don't care how much most people study math or physics, the likelyhood that a random person becomes a Feynman or von Neumman is zero. Similarly there are individuals whose genetic makeup makes them incredibly good at swimming (Hello Phelps!). Like it or not, the likelyhood that you or I become Lee Young Ho or Lee Jaedong is likely zero as well. Genius is not achieved through genetics or hardwork alone but a combination of the two.
That said it's doubtful that this explains why there are bronze players with 500+ games played and masters with less than 100. The majority of this variation definitely has to do with past applicable experience.
Exactly my thoughts at the highest level of anything with enough people involved talent has to be the distinguisher. Yes reactions, hand speed, and control can all be trained but everyones cap on them isn't the exact same, some people are going to be more accurate than others. When everyone is playing 10-12 hours a day nobody should just dominate the scene, but Flash/Jeadong did that. Something separated them from the others, and it wasn't training. They were abe to go beyond the abilities of their peers. As far as the reason some people in bronze have 500+ games and still are not improving I think that has more to do with their general approach of the game. They aren't taking it as seriously and thats totally fine.
Agreed about brainwaves. It doesn't say anything about causal effect.
But..
On March 22 2011 05:23 Leviwtf wrote:
I have yet to see any actual proof of natural talent for video games. As someone else said many people don't realize how much "practice" they actually do without ever playing starcraft 2. Decision making, decisiveness, and on the spot analysis are life skills you do every single day. Every time you move a mouse you are practicing mouse control...probably not in a very effective manner but nonetheless still practicing it. The mom example described earlier used is a great one to illustrate this.
Unless you think people are exactly the same, and have exactly the same potential for being good at things from birth, then why is it not possible for someone to have a natural talent for SC2? I don't see what kind of proof you aren't finding.
Yes, people start playing SC2 with a number of skills already in learned, which gives a different potential for becoming good at it fast. But did those skills develop only from the environment? No.. it all had to start somewhere and in the end our genes will give us different abilities not only in height and physical things, but also in problem solving and information processing. Even things like perseverence would be modified by genes in the end. The environment has a large impact on it but there are just skills that cannot be improved upon past a certain point.
Taking a rather negative example, do you think a person with an IQ of 60 could become a GSL champion? Why not? It's a clinical condition, yes, but with enough practise why would that little setback be an issue?
Being a programer isn't normal at all, it's out there in the extreme of the population. It's hard to say what skills are required, but even things like effective practise, learning from mistakes, decision making and on the spot analysis would be learned based both on experience and genes. Pretty much anyone can become good at something but when you take it to the extreme levels then it's more noticable than ever that people aren't the same.
If I had a kid, I wouldn't say it like this. You can always view it from the positive side and talk about the potential for improvement that everybody has. And I think that potential is quite large. But in a place like this it just seems like denial to state that we are all the same and that anyone can do anything they set their mind to. Even if someone sucked, trained hard, and became pro, I still think there was a natural ability behind it. It's more likely because of the normal story which is training hard, but never becoming the best anyway.
On March 22 2011 06:01 feanor1 wrote: As far as the reason some people in bronze have 500+ games and still are not improving I think that has more to do with their general approach of the game. They aren't taking it as seriously and thats totally fine.
Players in Bronze, from what I've seen in ladder games against them, are improving rapidly, but since they're mostly improving together and not moving ahead of the pack, they remain in Bronze.
Edit: I just picked out a random ZvT replay from last November, when I was high silver, and a random ZvT replay from March 18th, also high silver, just to compare.
Both Terrans were using nearly identical builds, but the one from March 18th had a three times larger army at the 10 minute mark.
I think there is a natural affinity for the game (I immediately placed in plat with this being the first time ever playing an RTS, got to diamond, then quit for 5 months, came back into the game and didn't miss a beat), but I also think it is entirely trainable, but having a knack for it just makes the process easier.
On March 21 2011 22:33 Geolich wrote: Big difference is that those prosports have generations of knowledge/training to draw upon. There are 100000000s of talented junior athletes worldwide, hard work is necessary but youre sure as hell not going to be a pro athlete by willpower alone (generally - I know there are exceptions)
I feel that because SC (rts games in general) are so new in their development that hard work to nail the basics really can get you far, because collectively even the best players are not at their optimum.
Probably gonna cop alot of flak for this but IdrA is a good example - lets face it his gamesense or w/e you want to call it is average, but he is a macro machine due to hours upon hours of practicing builds, rotations of inject/creep/drone/produce etc. But he survives for now as this is enough to put him streets ahead of players who do not have this mechanical base
I absolutely, absolutely, absolutely agree with your point about IdrA, and I've been saying it for ages. It is evident in his play that his success is a result of hours upon hours of practice - that's why his timings, macro, and micro are often nigh-impeccable, while his "Achille's heel" tends to often be his decision making.
that doesn't really make sense, and doesn't even follow from you quoted. his decision making is on par with his mechanics; since mechanics and decision making are very closely related.
Little of both. Everyone improves through work, but it can also depend what kind of work. If people are screwing around / playing for fun not doing good builds etc. they can play 1000's of games and be bronze. Or people can muscle up straight away, and just work and get good fast.
Koreans have more psionic capabilities than us, so they have a slight advantage.
Jk.
There is no such thing as talent (definitions vary). Some people are better suited to do different things, whether it be the way their brain works, their body composition, their body shape, their attitude, their willpower, etc. Everyone can do anything (reasonably, or at least we haven't found a way yet to overcome obstacles like punching someone without arms), but some people will have advantages over others.
In the end, it comes out with passion and dedication. Do what you love in life, stick with it! If you are hesitant to come out of your bubble to overcome the obstacles, you probably don't have a strong enough passion or determination for it, or you are screwing yourself over and you need to find a way to motivate yourself!
Edison said something like 99% perspiration 1% inspiration and I agree. At the very very very tippy top I think there is some natural skill separating wheat from the chaff, not everyone can be Flash, but you can be pro, as in make money from it, with hard work.
It's almost all training I'm sure. There is a bit of natural talent responsible for dexterity of the hands and intelligence but it can all be trained imo. Like Einstein said, success is 90% transpiration and only 10% inspiration. You might have some natural ability to be good but if you don't train or develop it it will mean nothing, it is like this with anything in life really. Training is not only the time directly invested in starcraft 2 though alot of other things, like having good analytical abilities or good mouse and keyboard control and learned alot in other ways. This can cause some people to be very far behind compared to others before they have even started the game and will make it practically impossible for them to reach high levels. If you start playing tennis at the age of 18 it is just impossible to become a pro anymore even though it is 99% training.
High level starcraft 2 is pure about mechanics anyway. Many of the GSL quality players completely prepare their matches beforehand knowing exactly what they want to do with some variations depending on what their opponent does. They don't even need to think of this themselves and can have a coach tell them. Koreans are probably so good because of their dedication to the game. Gaming is a much bigger part of their culture and unlike other countries it is quite mainstream and way more socially acceptable. In the Netherlands you are a nerd if you say you need to train in a game, even if you are Grubby or Ret, whereas in Korea the pro's are heroes.
On March 21 2011 22:37 hoby2000 wrote: If you believe that people are just "natural" at some things, then you probably believe in a deity.
Why do I say this? Because if you believe in "natural" talent, you don't understand the world around you. These players like Jaedong, or Flash, or anyone else who is really good at SC or SC2, are only good because of the amount of practice, and their method of practicing. They have been doing this for a very long time, and what people perceive as "natural" talent, is just an accumulation of their experiences poured into the game.
For example, if someone grows up working hard at everything they do, then they discover SC2, and decide to devote their time and energy to it, chances are that they will probably pick up the game pretty quickly, and be able to start beating people who are gold leaguers pretty quickly. This isn't because of a natural ability though, it's just because they understand the method they need to practice to make them understand the game better.
Musicians are the same way - I have a friend who has been playing piano since he was 4 or 5 years old. He's a wizard at piano now, and is a master of music in general. When he plays video games, he knows what he needs to do to already, to become good at said video game. He already has 15+ years of experience playing, practicing, and performing in the music arts - Playing, practicing and performing in video games won't really be a stretch.
However, this ability to play, practice and perform isn't all that you need - You also need determination. This is critical, because if you can get good at something, but don't really put forth enough time or effort, all your practice is pretty much wasted. You have to be determined to be good.
Determined play, practice, and performance - That's what makes someone good.
I'm a natural at martial arts, and sports in general. I've got an easy way of knowing this: I progress faster than most people and have more feeling for it than most people. I know people with exactly the same amount of determination as I have, and who've worked more than me, but still I'm outgrowing them, despite them training for a longer period already.
I know I'm a natural at learning languages. I absorb them like a spunge without even trying. I know people who would have to work insanely hard to get where I got myself because of natural talent.
I suck insanely hard at math. No matter how hard I try, how interesting I actually find the matter, I will never be as good as someone who's got a knack for it.
There is definitely natural skill. Some people play SC2 for 1 month and roflstomp people who have played years. Hardwork / who trains the most is very important but some people are just flat our more gifted. Whether it be speed of mind, reaction time, hand coordination / speed and ability to learn / adapt.
There are people who play 5000 games and are still in Bronze, there are people who play 50 games and are in Master League. Its definitely not just about how hard you work, a lot of it is natural talent.
In my opinion, what you call the "natural" skill is not the same for every player, just like some persons on earth cannot and don't want to understand extreme mathematics or, on another hand, fine art.
Some of it has to do with your brain, but for the vast majority of persons, the brain factor is relatively the same (not many Einstein's around ) and will be ignored for the rest of my explanation.
However, why can one not understand extreme mathematics or art, and does not want to learn it? Well, it is mostly because given his past experiences, it would be much more difficult to master and appreciate it for that person than for some other persons. Because that person was rarely interacting with that kind of intellectual material, especially during it's "early" development stages (until 10 to 16+ years old for the highest influences, but the younger you are, the harder your experiences might define you). The older you are, the lesser are the *chances* that you change, and the changes are *usually* smaller once you get older.
If you rarely do mathematics, you will probably not be good at it and you will probably not like it either. The same goes for art if you are not usually in contact with it, and especially without the required explanations (just like mathematics or any other similar example). However, you will enjoy it and be good at it in the opposite case. The same goes for the experiences that involve gaming-similar experiences that are not actual gaming (this is a wide range of experiences) and, thus, define what you call the "natural skill" for gaming.
Now.. Many things that happened to you during your youth defined your "natural skill" for sc2 or general gaming. Those things were not explicitely video-gaming or sc2-oriented, but for example playing lots of chess (or stratego ) are great examples that would prepare you for a sc2-skillfull future.
The interactions that you had with the world during your youth, as well as the rest of your life (but I insist on the youth part), forged and keep on forging a great part of your personnality and main skills.
Now, to answer this part :
What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
(I'm an "old" player, about 3000+ Masters, approx 3200. I don't practice alot) I know that the fact that I played alot of chess, stratego, abalone, pente and such strategical mind-games when I was young is what made me especially like rts-games later on (starting with dune, command and conquer etc). Then the experience, combined with alot of "training" (play and similar non-gaming experiences that develop the same general skills), is what made me reach diamond during the beta after a few games : you get it in your blood, since all the rts-games are, from a low to a very high level, similar, and the real world experiences can influence alot as well, since they are similar to some extent as well.
If I never had played any rts-game (but keep everything else : chess, stratego etc), I'm pretty sure that I would easily beat someone who never would have played any rts-game either but had a singing-oriented youth (well this is a rather drastic example but it gets to the point).
However, if I had never played chess, stratego etc, and if that same singing-oriented person had never sung but had played stratego and chess during its youth.. I'm pretty sure that that person would beat me if we both played our first rts-game against each other.
To sum it up, I think that the brain has some to do with it, but for the majority of people, it's the earlier experiences. Note that it is totally certain that experiences can develop brains more than others : if you stare at a blank wall during all the free time that you have from 3 to 10 years old, you will become "dumb", that does not make a stretch : the brain is a muscle and a muscle needs training. But the brain is a particular muscle : it also needs context.
I hope that this clarified your vision on the matter It helped me understand some things while writing this down, as I never though about it a little seriously before. Good night.
How do the people that think there is no natural talent involved whatsoever expain the emergence of players who play in the exact same conditions for a long period of time with a group of teammates? If it was simply based on training, we would see far more similar skill levels between players with similar training regiments than what actually occurs. I think there is obviously an element of natural skill which displays itself on the high end. It is somewhat insulting to suggest otherwise...basically you're accusing those not at the very top of not working hard enough, which I don't believe you are justified in doing per se.
Finally, there's no reason based on the theory of evolution to expect people to have precisely the same capabilities when it comes to hand-speed/accuracy, or even decision-making speed/accuracy. It might be a comforting thing to believe in, but a blank-slate theory when it comes to human talents and abilities is not justified.
This is the second time this has been posted, and it actually shows nothing causal about the relationship between the brain function and ability to play games. Do not misunderstand the findings here. All it tells you is that the brain of a progamer works differently while playing games than does a casual gamer. The progamer has played much, much more than the casual gamer and as a result of that, the parts of his brain that activate are different than the parts of the brain that would activate in a normal person.
Using music as an analogy, I guarantee when you're playing an instrument for the first time, you will not have the instincts of a virtuoso. However, as you play more, you learn your habits and instincts. In a subsequent fMRI, you would see that the parts of the brain associated with instinct would activate, whereas at the beginning of your musical career you would see visual and audio parts activating. The same thing can be said for StarCraft gamers.
There are certain people who naturally have more potential in the game than others do. Afterall, it is a real time strategy game, and requires decision making, logic, mind-games, etc.
However, that does not mean that those who have more potential are necessarily better. While some players might have the potential to do better, those who have practiced more will have better mechanics and be able to win via solid mechanics.
everything in this game can be analyzed and practiced you don't have to be smart just hard working obviously you probably can't do it if your iq is 64 but talent is a meaningless term
I definitely think that it is practice and hard work. This was my first rts game and I started out knowing absolutely nothing about macro/micro. The only thing I knew was that zealots looked cool and I wanted to play protoss. I played all 50 practice leagues games and went 20-30 for my first 50 games in bronze league. I started watching youtube videos and talking strategy with people. Now I have played about 500 1v1's and I am a 3100+ master league toss with about 120 apm. I absolutely feel that one can be taught to play and become pro one day having no prior skill or knowledge of the game.
Training a lot!!! and training in a productive way. (as IdrA said)
Grinding builds and certain actions (eg. larva inject) has it's place, it is good to be able to execute some stuff while being braindead. On the other hand you need to be able to think about what you did wrong and most importantly what you could have done better. And then? Train thatt! and then train it a little (read: lot) more.
Oh and one thing a lot of people forget: professional training includes free time spent with something else. It is important to stay healthy and focused.
I would have to say mental strength plays a lot into how good you are at starcraft 2. At the highest level, most pro-gamers have very similar mechanics(Rain vs TOP is a good example of the difference the very best mechanics have.)
Once starcraft hits 100% balance, it's up to decision making and the ability to know everything that is going on at once, and respond to it. Some players have the mental AND physical ability to do 2-3 drops and keep up with macro at the same time while ensuring they cannot die to a counter. Only some of this comes through practice, eventually most people will hit a wall where they simply cannot handle everything that is going on at once. The ability to build units while microing iin multiple locations is something that cannot be taught.
imo its atleast 90% practice, even if your new to sc2, you can translate many lessons from other games, rts or not. people are too quick to say that just because they havent played starcraft before they cant bring any learned techniques to the table.
I'd say it's mostly practice. Build orders and timing come through practice, you're not born knowing how long it takes to get your third marine, etc.
It's the same with any game or sport, there are ELEMENTS of it that you may be genetically superior at, but most of it is practice.
Example: In Hockey, wrist shot power/stick handling come through practice, as does skating speed.
Or: in FPS games, your twitch shots are based on muscle reflexes knowing how far your hand has to move to hit a certain area, which is learned through practice in the game.
On March 22 2011 09:48 Fiendish wrote: but talent is a meaningless term
Thank you!
While inherent advantages can be present, the end result of success can be achieved in almost any task through perseverance. Inherent talent, for the most part is a void concept. Obviously there are exceptions to this mindset but don't ever think you can't achieve something because you "weren't born with what it takes".
Having the proper training environment, proper people to train with, and the dedication to train will yield results for any player, regardless of who they are.
I think it takes both, you get to a cetain level with natrual skill alone then progress past that with through training. Bascially it's easier to get better for some people.
I had 0 RTS experience before i played sc2 and i started in bronze. worked my way to diamond in 142 games, then up to top diamond in another 200 (because i dont have time to play consistently anymore). I got there because i care alot about sc2 and i want to get better. I have friends that placed into gold or plat because they used to play bw, and now im worlds ahead of them because theyre screwing around and im getting better.
I have been playing video games since i was three, competitive smash bros melee for a long tiem and competitive dota for a few years now, so i have the video game experience and passion.
Its about how much you care about the game and are willing to improve. Some people are naturally better than others, thats how the world works, but everyone can become good if they try
imo it's trained since you play mass games and your eye to hand coordination will get used to things like what to react to this or that, macro and micro etc.
Both. Training is more important toward the middle ranks and into the high ones, while natural talent becomes more important toward the top. There is simply no way that many people will achieve the hand eye coordination and other brain related things to be the best.
Besides, if "anybody" could do it, everybody would be a lot better, the natural talent + work ethic guys will rise to the top, and we'll have this discussion all over again.
It is a combination of natural predisposition and training which creates a good SC2 player. You cannot expect any one to be capable of training to reach a level of competency rivaling that of GSL players, just as you wouldn't expect any one to reach world-quality performance in any given sport.
I do not think intelligence has much to do with it.
I'm sure that there are pro gamers who did terrible in school or dropped out, and I'm also pretty sure that the vast majority of bronze players aren't chimpanzees in research labs.
Just like in everything, training and dedication are most important. Everyone could study physics if dedicated and hardworking. Some would do it through talent. Some would have both and be really good. And very few could become Einstein.
i know a player who is still in bronze league and has almost 1000 games played. i watch them play sometimes (at their house) and i give them ALL the information they need to suceed while they play, building probes, pylons, what composition to get, but still they almost always lose. they have almost no apm, around 40 apm at their VERY highest. use almost NO hotkeys even though i tell them they should, they want to get better apparently as they say all the time, but they never TRY to get better. i think it mostly depends on how badly you want to get better, not so much as born talent. although alot of people ARE born with talent. look at very young kids ~3 playing beethoven songs on the piano by ear.
i started the game around late october, early november. It was my first RTS ever and I really enjoyed playing the game even though I was absolutely clueless as to what was going on. About 1 week after getting the game, i quit because it started getting boring playing alone. A week after, 2 of my friends bought the game so I decided to play again but with them this time. We basically started off with trying to teach each other the most normal fundamentals. Lucky for us, we had a friend who had tons of BW experience and played sc2 at a top 200 level, so he tagged along and helped us learn some important things. He wasn't ALL the help we could want really, he was just there to show us what it was like at a high level of play, and he would watch some of our 1v1 games between each other and tell us what we have to do.
A few days later, our top 200 friend didn't play as much anymore so it was just me and my 2 friends. We basically played a lot of team games where we would try out anything possible. We were pretty much the BOTTOM of the bronze league. We did nuke rushes, photo cannon rushes that were awful, fast expands, 6pools. In the end, failure was our ordinary thing. However, I feel that this failure helped us explore the game and get a sense of what units kill what best and helped us just start knowing if a certain army (from the way it looks) can beat another army(from the way it looks) without even looking at supply. There was more fundamental things like getting better at making workers/supply/units constantly.
Eventually, we got bored of losing a lot in team games so we decided to 1v1 each other or sometimes even have me 1v2 them (i was better because I was about 1 week worth of knowledge ahead of them, which is a LOT at the extremely low levels). Almost all the times I would win the 1v2, and that helped me a lot to get better at dealing with intense situations and multitasking. Ofc its not like my multitasking became god-like, but since this was my first RTS ever, I needed just to get a feel for those things. I think these 1v2s were HUGE in my success so far, personally.
It came to a point where we wanted to learn actual build orders. What's the most typical terran opener back at start of sc2? 3rax....I think I did this like 50 wins with maybe 5 losses to diamond. As soon as I hit diamond, I realized that this would not work anymore. I watched all the day9 dailies that came from when I started, so I learned there was a 1/1/1 build with siege tank push and vikings. I started doing that, and my first game I completely destroyed the other terran. I was so damn happy about that game because it was my first game trying something completely new and it worked so well, and it gave me great confidence.
From there on, I started doing all types of builds. I favored fast expands a LOT, because I hated short games and where people just rush you (which sounds dumb to fast expand then, but I was learning to hold it off). At this point, I still played some 1v1 with my friends who were also improving, but at a much slower rate, and eventually 1 of my friends went back to world of warcraft. My zerg friend still played, and we are still playing together now. I played a lot of ladder games, and I did like 1 build for tvt every game that I saw fenix do and it worked all the way to masters now. Ofc I don't do it anymore because its one of those gas before rax PROXY factory builds...rofl...My tvz was also so bad I wanted to nerdrage everytime I lost because I couldn't find out why.
By the start to end of january, my mechanics were pretty impressive for how long I played. I even did some practice game vs Fenix with him on zerg and he told me I play really amazing for playing this long. I started finding tons of practice partners on TL to just do random games with, and played a lot of customs, but rarely ladder because it intimidated me and I would get nervous sometimes. I also saved a LOT of my replays as time went on, all the good games and sometimes bad games. I still watch some of them now, to see how I've improved, and watch my own today to see what I need to improve on now.
At around February to March, my micro/macro mechanics were pretty solid. My average APM was 210 or so and it wasn't just spam. My TvZ all of a sudden became amazing and I was beating top zerg players. I used the transition from 2rax expo into double factory, and my micro on marine splitting was so good that I could start to actually do siege tank marine pushes all the time.
Today, I can play all the races at master level, with terran being my strongest.
All in all, I believe that a lot of this came from natural skill and game sense as a person who played World of Warcraft at a top level(MLG, blizzcon level), and a few important practices (1v2s, team games with friends, playing 1v1 with random practice partners on TL). I believe, specifically for all the terran players out there, if you want to get really good by playing literally ONLY macro games, it takes a ridiculous amounts of practice because it's by far the most difficult facing z and p because their macro mechanics are obviously much better. You also have to deal with all the all-ins that z and p have (which, probably contrary to popular belief, are ridiculously strong vs terran FE when they are even slightly greedy.)I also feel its easiest to get "good" as protoss, because it's pretty noob friendly and you can just follow a build order, sit on your ass and make an army then a-move to victory at high masters. I can say this a master player for all the races, with toss being my 2nd strongest.
If you wanna become a pro at sc2 relatively fast, and have 0 rts experience, the main thing I recommend is playing with FRIENDS. You should play all types of things with your friends. Custom games, 1v1, free-for-all, team games, 1v2s, anything you can to just explore sc2 and get your mechanics down FIRST. you DO NOT want to go on TL or something and research build orders asap. Without the mechanics, you cannot execute them properly, or even transition out of them. You'll get to a point where you will want to find solid practice partners if your friends aren't good enough just yet. Then join a clan, and participate in any tournaments that you're allowed into because chances are you might get matched up with someone REALLY good (which I did almost every tournament i played) and that helps you learn.
I think the higher you go, low-> high diamond, lowmaster->high masters-> pro level -> successful pro-> highly successful there are stages of increased natural skill and training.
People with the best work ethic are going to be at the highest advantage. The next I believe is natural understanding (which can be related to natural skill). The faster you understand the game the faster you will improve.
Personal example:
My friend: -it took me months of practice to finally beat my friend. -after being able to stay even in practice games, he came up with abusive and a slew of different strategies and began to beat me regularly. -Does not watch any pro games. Is in graduate school so just plays causally as a random player.
Me: - For me to beat him, I had to watch a lot of pro games, and study how they react to different situations.
I personally believe that natural skill exists, but I think work ethic can overcome this. The only problem is that you need the work ethic of a monster, which is why I believe there are only a few dominant players.
My opinion on the intelligence of this forums user base has plummeted. Anyone who thinks natural talent doesn't play any factor is either ignorant or in denial.
Even if, theoretically you could practice for an infinite amount of time and perfectly know your opponent, then the winner would just be whoever has the fastest reaction time.
Anecdotal evidence counts for literally nothing on a topic about claims of trends in an entire population.
There's a wealth of research into this exact area (albeit not about specifically SC2) in the field of Cognitive Psychology. My professor, Dr. Anders K. Ericsson, at FSU studies Chess players, Basketball players, Golf Players, you name it. He found a long time ago that given a certain amount of time anyone can become an expert at something. This amount of time is 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.
People who are in lower leagues with 100s of games played, those who were placed in, say Gold, and are still in Gold are not doing the "deliberate" part of the practice. This is a strategy game, you refine and perfect your mechanics to deploy your strategy. If the mechanics are bad, the execution of your strategy will fail. If the strategy is bad, you'll likely still fail. Practice routines, flexible builds and "game-sense" take hours upon hours to develop, but any playing that does not have a specific practice end to it (say, developing a build that leads to a good macro game, but can hold off a 4gate) will be wasted and might just reinforce habits and playing that is counter to actually "objectively" improving.
While you can become an 'expert' given enough practice, others with similar amounts of practice with better natural gifts will be better than you, while other will be worse. This is the way life works.
It is clear that Dr. Ericsson's studies don't apply across the board to competitive games/sports, where one's aptitude is compared against other individuals. A 5'2 man will never be an 'expert' basketball player, even if he spends every waking hour of every day playing basketball. His skill level will be very high in one sense, but his competitive success won't be world class, and can never be world class due to his height. There are many, many sport players who spend 10,000 hours of deliberate practice and don't achieve professional success.
No one just plays a game like Starcraft and becomes good on their first game, but instead some people just learn very quickly on their first encounter with the game thus allowing them to learn the more complicated stuff earlier.
And I think it's mostly about how badly you want to improve. Anyone can play for 8 hours a day, but then it'll just be another day of laddering if you are just looking to get your win/loss ratio up.
I've experienced one of these "epiphany-type" (not sure how to put it) moments where I suddenly drop all of my emotions about how I am losing more than I want to and instead completely focusing on improving. The results were something I would've never believed to be possible. Too bad I only had one of these
On March 21 2011 22:33 Geolich wrote: But he survives for now as this is enough to put him streets ahead of players who do not have this mechanical base
On March 21 2011 22:33 Geolich wrote: streets ahead of players who do not have this mechanical base
On March 21 2011 22:33 Geolich wrote: streets ahead
Pierce, streets ahead isn't even a real term!
Being one of those bronze league players (silver now!) with more than 800 games played I feel a little, well.. bad at this game. I had taken the time to refine my build orders, watch day[9] as well as other casters' daily casts and view places like this and /r/starcraft for strategy tips. I then applied all this and.. I'm still in silver. I think it is possible to build your skill mentally but I am one of those cases where it will take thousands of ladder matches to do it.
I believe there is a natural capability, but this can be tought thru lots of training. There's a reason why professional gamers are professional gamers -- it's their livelihood, their life. They train constantly.
im bothered by people saying "natural" talent when its a damn video game(unatural)... get a grip, you dont have natural talent for anything in life, no one is born with it, its just that simple, you learn how to do something, and you practice, and you get better. wow "natural talent" for an "unatural item" video games are not natural, natural talent applies to nothing, every is training, peeing in the middle of the toilet, to handling a hockey puck, to taking a bra off with one hand, down to playing starcraft... its just bothersome i will not return to this thread, and just hope people post about it being pure training. Meow~~
the only think i can think of to shut myself down on this one is art, what if some kid picked up a pencil and drew a perfect picture, but then at the same time that only happens with autism, as far as i know.. but yeah i honestly dont believe people are naturals at anything, any more than the fact that they are considered naturals by you, go research that persons past, if there is enough info you will probably just see that he/she was surrounded by people of that same interest thus when they tried it, they were not naturals, they were just aware of what was what at an early state. something enough so that they were just subliminally trained to do it in a ("natural") way that seems natural.
It hints at natural talent overcoming all eventually. Like boxing, you can get very far off hard work & dedication. But the special fighters are naturally talented. Like Floyd Mayweather. A current undefeated fighter. Sure there's a plethora of hard if not harder working fighters than him out there, but if you're genetically superior from the outset, it's hard to match.
or perhaps comparing Flash to some other BW pro's. Now I'm not 100% positive but I'd assume he doesn't practice the most of all Brood War pro's. He's just naturally gifted in a lot of what Starcraft requires. Which is why he stands above the rest.
You need to be smart enough to know what mistakes you and your opponent make in order to learn and further your skill. Training will increase hand speed, also you need to know what Decisions to make and when. Which can only come from practicing the game day n and day out watching replays and finding a pro league team that gives you access to real practice partners(the ladder is not a practice zone)
It's trained. But most people would rather excuse their failings as immutable personality traits, so they don't recognize mindset as a trained characteristic.
There may be a limit imposed by your biology, but if your mentality is such that you'd even ask if you've reached that limit... you're not even close.
On March 22 2011 16:11 FataLe wrote: Read the quote below..
It hints at natural talent overcoming all eventually. Like boxing, you can get very far off hard work & dedication. But the special fighters are naturally talented. Like Floyd Mayweather. A current undefeated fighter. Sure there's a plethora of hard if not harder working fighters than him out there, but if you're genetically superior from the outset, it's hard to match.
or perhaps comparing Flash to some other BW pro's. Now I'm not 100% positive but I'd assume he doesn't practice the most of all Brood War pro's. He's just naturally gifted in a lot of what Starcraft requires. Which is why he stands above the rest.
I have to disagree completely with this quote, Natural skill is considered what you have before training, also this is not boxing/fighting, there are so many factors that are involved in fighting compared to playing a game where there is no physical limitation that cannot be overcome with training...as for the comment to flash, he is a great player and trains 10 hours a day to become what he was and is. he studies the game like you would for your masters degree picking it apart piece by piece, the only thing that would separate you from becoming a Pro, would be your intelligence, and your mental psychology. Those 2 things are the only thing that would separate you from the best if you trained just as hard and studied the game just as much.
On March 22 2011 09:54 Amui wrote: The ability to build units while microing iin multiple locations is something that cannot be taught.
this is going to be worded quite strongly, but you must be clueless. i was a D- iccup zerg player for about two season, do you remember ZvT? simultaneously multitasking, muta micro'ing, getting hydras ready to morph into lurkers to hold third? that shit was hard as FUCK. but after practicing enough, i finally hit C in around season 8. all it takes is someone better than you to say hey, your ZvT is weak because you can't do this, and you focus on that for 100 games until you can do it. sure, some people may pick it up faster, but hard work overcomes natural ability most of the time.
oh account made in "Saturday, 21st of August 2010" nvm
One is not born a genius, one becomes a genius. - Simone de Beauvoir I think that a person can be born with an affinity/talent to video games/rts games, but (as with everything else) the time/dedication one puts into it can allow that "less talented' person to beat the more talented person.
On March 22 2011 13:56 cosmicTrex wrote: Anecdotal evidence counts for literally nothing on a topic about claims of trends in an entire population.
There's a wealth of research into this exact area (albeit not about specifically SC2) in the field of Cognitive Psychology. My professor, Dr. Anders K. Ericsson, at FSU studies Chess players, Basketball players, Golf Players, you name it. He found a long time ago that given a certain amount of time anyone can become an expert at something. This amount of time is 10,000 hours of deliberate practice.
People who are in lower leagues with 100s of games played, those who were placed in, say Gold, and are still in Gold are not doing the "deliberate" part of the practice. This is a strategy game, you refine and perfect your mechanics to deploy your strategy. If the mechanics are bad, the execution of your strategy will fail. If the strategy is bad, you'll likely still fail. Practice routines, flexible builds and "game-sense" take hours upon hours to develop, but any playing that does not have a specific practice end to it (say, developing a build that leads to a good macro game, but can hold off a 4gate) will be wasted and might just reinforce habits and playing that is counter to actually "objectively" improving.
the problem with this argument is that no where does it specify what 'deliberate practice' means. essentially it's just a diluted term which can be used to describe some things but not everything.
let's say a starcraft player was to spend 10,000 hours 4 gating, until it was the most refined 4 gate you'll ever see. obviously this time investment--despite being uttery ldevoted to practice--will not likely make one an expert starcraft player. but how does the 10,000 hours theory go about explaining this? this is only the most accessible example I thought of. there are far more convoluted and hidden issues with practice regimes that could invalidate this kind of theory.
my point is how do you quantify practice, furthermore, how do you distinguish good/bad practice? Suppose the scII metagame reached a point where there was some unstoppable 4 gate build if performed flawlessly. In this case, the above training scenario would be invaluable; perhaps the best training program possible. Practice is easily refined retroactively, when you know what the outcome was.
MY POINT in this long-winded poorly organised post is that to define practice as either useful or harmful, you have to know what you want your outcomes to be. a goal such as "being the best player' is neither her nor there, it says nothing. of course, my whole argument is in reference to strategy training, not of mechanics, which can be quite directly targeted.
I suspect that there's a degree of natural talent involved. Whether that be in the form of reflexes, the ability to multi-task, or a general propensity for decision making that translates well to SC2, I'm sure innate skill is involved somehow.
However...
This game is all about practice. The people who are good at SC2 - and I mean fucking good play this game for a ridiculous amount of time, practicing repetitive movements and strategies to the point where (and I quote a number of pros here) "you don't even think about it."
Practice > Natural Skill but the latter is most certainly involved and heavily enhanced by disciplined practice - pretty much like everything else in life.
On March 22 2011 12:03 Angelbelow wrote: I think the higher you go, low-> high diamond, lowmaster->high masters-> pro level -> successful pro-> highly successful there are stages of increased natural skill and training.
People with the best work ethic are going to be at the highest advantage. The next I believe is natural understanding (which can be related to natural skill). The faster you understand the game the faster you will improve.
Personal example:
My friend: -it took me months of practice to finally beat my friend. -after being able to stay even in practice games, he came up with abusive and a slew of different strategies and began to beat me regularly. -Does not watch any pro games. Is in graduate school so just plays causally as a random player.
Me: - For me to beat him, I had to watch a lot of pro games, and study how they react to different situations.
I personally believe that natural skill exists, but I think work ethic can overcome this. The only problem is that you need the work ethic of a monster, which is why I believe there are only a few dominant players.
How much of a gamer is your friend and how much of a game are you?
Anyone who doesn't accept natural talent has the up most out of whack ego. The easiest way to explain talent imo is drawing. I can sit here and draw infinity pictures and will never draw as good as someone with NATURAL drawing ability. In drawing you have to use a tool to express you're talent which is a pencil paint etc etc. SC2 is also a tool IN WHICH someone with natural TALENT will be better and improve MUCH faster, theres infinite examples of this such as math writing etc etc SOME PEOPLE ARE JUST BETTER AT THINGS WHATS THE BIG DEAL?? People who think other wise need to wake up and stop taking talent for granted because with out it we would never have innovation and still believe the world is flat. Talent is the catalyst to all innovation whether you accept it or not I guess for most people being normal makes them insanely stubborn.
My friend and I were talking about this last night after watching Destiny answer some questions on Reddit (I wanna be a pro, how much do you make, how do I join ROOT, etc. etc.) and it got me to wondering - how much of a given person's success in SC2 can be attributed to a natural affinity for the game or for video games in general?
I say none, my friend says a lot. His argument is that SC2 is just like any other sport. Nearly all of the players in the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc., got to that league through a combination of favorable circumstances, loads of practice, and natural skill. However, SC2 is different in that one's physical qualities have almost no bearing on gameplay - the exception would be hand speed and reflexes, which, in my opinion, can be trained.
My stance (and Destiny's, from what I could tell) is that even the lowliest Bronze player could theoretically make it to the GSL one day, with a metric fuckton of work and a lot of dedication. Look at Koreans, for instance. Koreans are typically better at SC2 for one of two possible reasons. The first is that Koreans are just born with a Gauss rifle in their hands and are veritable SC gods from the moment they exit the womb; the other is that Korean family values tend to stress hard work and dedication much more than the typical American family does, and Koreans therefore just work much harder at the game.
What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
... born into high masters... are you serious. you need 6-10 hours a day. to compete.
ive read a book where it says if u clock 10,000 hours of doing something. u are gonna get good at it. it doesnt matter what it is you are doing. either study, playing games or sport. 10,000 hours and u are gonna become good at it.
On March 22 2011 19:50 sicajung wrote: ive read a book where it says if u clock 10,000 hours of doing something. u are gonna get good at it. it doesnt matter what it is you are doing. either study, playing games or sport. 10,000 hours and u are gonna become good at it.
What was the book? I remember hearing that some where else and have always been interested in reading it.
On March 22 2011 19:50 sicajung wrote: ive read a book where it says if u clock 10,000 hours of doing something. u are gonna get good at it. it doesnt matter what it is you are doing. either study, playing games or sport. 10,000 hours and u are gonna become good at it.
What was the book? I remember hearing that some where else and have always been interested in reading it.
On March 22 2011 19:41 tracoes wrote: The easiest way to explain talent imo is drawing. I can sit here and draw infinity pictures and will never draw as good as someone with NATURAL drawing ability.
I work in an artistic field, and I suspect that you probably are underestimating yourself, though no doubt there are those who bring more natural ability than others to the field.
Truth is, the people who are strong artists are usually also the ones who love to do it to the exclusion of everything else, so it's hard to distinguish between practice and talent.
I once had a supervisor tell me that he could teach most people to do our jobs if they really wanted to learn, but that one out of 10 people just seemed to be artistically tone-deaf. It's possible that's a reasonable model for SC2?
Interesting topic, been many before though >.> However, I do believe that unlike many pro sports, which require a certain physical makeup, Starcraft, and largely video games in general do not require a baseline of physical or mental characteristics. In other words, there is no bar you cannot cross directly out of the womb.
BUT, there are many skills involved with being successful at Starcraft, and nearly all of them can be either directly or indirectly effected from early age. Attention to detail and critical thinking apply heavily into the decision making factors necessary to play this game at a high level, and due to upbringing, it's quite clear that two people, although they are the same age/sex pick up the game at difference paces. This however, does not limit the amount of improvement one can get simply with practice.
Damn near everything in life can be attained through practice, but different people practice in very different ways. There is a huge influence on mindset in general and specifically the creation and expanding of neural pathways at a progressive rate to be able to process information attained from practice sessions more clearly. Joe Schmo and Claudio Arrau can practice the same 4 bars of music over and over again, but 99% of the time, Arrau will make more effective use of the time due to the extensive amount of training he has put into the subject.
This applies to Starcraft as well, some people learn at a faster rate, it's why we see huge differentials in games played from people within bronze-masters. This doesn't mean you cannot obtain the skills necessary to become better or will this limit you from eventually becoming a pro gamer,it simply means going into any activity, there will be some people at a disadvantage. Once enough time has been spent practicing to increase your craft, and a plateau is reached. Innate talent will become an issue, but this is only at a very high level which the large majority of the population will never reach.
TL:DR Everyone accumulates knowledge at different rates, but it merely effects the starting position (or league I guess ;D)
It's generally said that talent and skill are two separate factors in Starcraft. You can practice and train and become more skilled, but some people are more innately talented at the types of thinking and hand control that you need for top level RTS play. There are plenty of people who try to go pro, particularly in Korea, and put in just as much time as the top pros, but never get to that level. They might be very good by your average high ladder player's standards, but they'll never be a real contender against the top pros.
IIRC, IdrA says it works like this: up to the very top level, it's mostly about how much time and effort you put in. At the very top level, *everyone* puts in a huge amount of time and effort, so the difference between say, a player who's top 10 in the world and a player who's "only" top 100, is mostly about innate talent.
the natural skill, is just intelligence and strategy.. Its what seperates someone like IdrA who plays 12 hours a day practicing the same builds everygame and being too robotic, vs someone like Sen who can play 3-4 hours a day, and put up better results because hes a strategic genius and just knows how to play "smart"..
You need both, the very top level mechanics, and the special strategic intelligence, thats what makes a Flash or Jaedong.. take one away, and you have someone like Boxer (great intelligence but so-so mechanic) and the reverse.
It'd be a combination of both I think, but mostly hard work and practice, just like with anything else.
If there was no talent involved then why would Flash be so much better then most of the other pro players? It cant just be because he plays it more then them as they all have the same practice environment.
On March 22 2011 21:44 solistus wrote: It's generally said that talent and skill are two separate factors in Starcraft. You can practice and train and become more skilled, but some people are more innately talented at the types of thinking and hand control that you need for top level RTS play. There are plenty of people who try to go pro, particularly in Korea, and put in just as much time as the top pros, but never get to that level. They might be very good by your average high ladder player's standards, but they'll never be a real contender against the top pros.
IIRC, IdrA says it works like this: up to the very top level, it's mostly about how much time and effort you put in. At the very top level, *everyone* puts in a huge amount of time and effort, so the difference between say, a player who's top 10 in the world and a player who's "only" top 100, is mostly about innate talent.
altho what you say can/is true, aint gonna argue that, but what also matters if what kind of people you got around you? How do you practice and do you are in good mental/phisical shape? Gaming is much more then just pratice 800 hours a minute and grinding out huge amount of games. People lost games cause they where ill, overconfident and that stuff. You need skil ofc, but i think a litlebit of luck also helps
On March 22 2011 22:26 crystyxn wrote: If you have an open mind you can learn anything, even those reflexes that people think are 'natural born'
I think its a general consensus that everything physical is possible by almost anyone.. ie anyone could get in the 300+ APM range if they practiced it daily. (unless they have some sort of physical handicap, of course)
the mental game is what I think cant be totally trained.
Its why anyone can go learn how to play "shred" guitar and play like Steve Vai or etc solos in a matter of years, but to write songs like Steve Vai or top musicians, is a whole other bag of worms.
On March 22 2011 22:26 crystyxn wrote: If you have an open mind you can learn anything, even those reflexes that people think are 'natural born'
Its simply not true. Some people are better at some things than other people. Yes, you can IMPROVE pretty much any skill and become alot better than you probably think you can, but some people are just, for example, better at multitasking than others and they will excel at things that require that skill.
On March 22 2011 22:26 crystyxn wrote: If you have an open mind you can learn anything, even those reflexes that people think are 'natural born'
I think its a general consensus that everything physical is possible by almost anyone.. ie anyone could get in the 300+ APM range if they practiced it daily. (unless they have some sort of physical handicap, of course)
the mental game is what I think cant be totally trained.
Its why anyone can go learn how to play "shred" guitar and play like Steve Vai or etc solos in a matter of years, but to write songs like Steve Vai or top musicians, is a whole other bag of worms.
I don't think it's a general consensus that everything physical can be accomplished by almost anyone. If that were the case and it would be that nonchalantly believed, the Olympics wouldn't be held in such high regard (within each nation, that is). Plus, if we say, "well, if someone practiced it daily..." you're essentially making an impossibly irrelevant situation because you're saying that if we put everyone in the exact same situation, with the exact same mindset, same endurance, same physique, and so forth and we all tested them, everyone would achieve the same thing.
How in the world would you ever test that in reality? You can't and therefore the fact that someone practices something every day and you are currently not doing so, is proof that they have something you don't...be it mentality, commitment, etc. You can't just ignore those factors and say "if I had..." and then state you'd be on the same level in the end without first actually placing yourself in the situation. Overall, you're ignoring all the many environmental, social, emotional, and other reasons that have shaped Michael Jordan to stand out of the crowd.
Unless you have some device that can extract everything that is Michael Jordan and then infuse into your being, you cannot create a hypothetical situation with impossible variables. It renders the entire example inapplicable and useless.
The book Outliers demonstrates neatly that for someone to become really really good at something, they need to spend 10,000 hours doing it. I'm going to agree that someone who spends that amount of time trying to get better can make it to GSL.
Reading this post after I wrote it, I'm sure it looks like I'm bragging or something, but I'm just giving personal experience on the topic. Before you get any negative thoughts: I don't think I'm good at this game. What I gain in ease of learning, I lose in my lack of willpower to practice to actually get more than decent.
--
I never needed to practice much to be decent at SC2. A couple examples: When I first got into SC2 beta, I took my placement matches first, before playing a single game, and placed into platinum (which was then the highest league), and I never played SC:BW seriously or recently. I never really laddered or played much in general, but always maintained a skill level equal to what is now about 3200 master (low master). I was technically inactive in ladder until yesterday, and since then I've played like 12 games to get into Master league.
However, I would say that it's not "natural" at all. It's all learned, but whether or not you learn what you need to learn is based on non-starcraft related things.
For example, I'm a very logical person. When something I do doesn't work, I immediately identify the problem and rectify it. I analyze what's important and what isn't in the game, and when I do play the game, I spend my time intelligently to actually improve. I never get angry at the game, or at anyone I play with or against. I simply identify what I did wrong.
Another important factor is that my multitasking and mental clock skills were honed to very high degrees by playing a Rogue at a professional level in WoW arena. Keeping up rupture, which lasts 16 seconds at max, is very similar to making a new probe every 17 seconds, for example. Maintaining rupture, poisons, positioning, cooldowns, stuns, and keeping situational awareness all at the same time is very easy to equate to necessary skills in SC2.
Skill in multitasking, objective reasoning, hand eye coordination, and speed, is obviously genetic in some ways. However, genetics only gives a passive bonus to a person's skills. I don't think there's any reason to believe that there's any person without physical or mental disabilities who can't achieve the same level of skill in any of those areas as any pro SC2 player today. The amount of work it would take to get there is what will vary.
I think the best example of APM, especially because it's basically capped by the game itself as well. A) Most pros don't use an amount of APM that certainly any one can obtain (500 burst), B) the game basically has a cap on how much APM you'll ever need, which is lower than any healthy human's physical APM cap.
--
TL;DR: I barely have to practice SC2 to improve, but I think the explanation is more a fact that I've learned all of the skills necessary in SC2 already, and I look at the game objectively, rather than natural talent.
It's also likely that no human has reached the skill cap of any of the skills necessary in SC2, meaning that a person of any genetic make up could probably reach a skill level higher than any current pro SC2 player. The only difference will be the difficulty of achieving it.
there is some innate talent involved i'm sure... but the innate talent required to be very good is not as nearly are rare as that required of physical sports (height, agility, strength etc.)... It's easier for an average player to make it to the GSL than him to make it to NBA, NFL etc...
practice and preparation weigh the most... though practicing and preparing efficiently is a talent too...
Mechanics can probably be improved to near the skill ceiling by anyone with the necessary physical dexterity. However, a critical aspect of the game is awareness. Anyone can probably improve their awareness by incorporating useful habits into their game, but in my experience it seems like this will always be a major failure of many players that cannot be improved beyond mediocrity.
My friend and I were talking about this last night after watching Destiny answer some questions on Reddit (I wanna be a pro, how much do you make, how do I join ROOT, etc. etc.) and it got me to wondering - how much of a given person's success in SC2 can be attributed to a natural affinity for the game or for video games in general?
I say none, my friend says a lot. His argument is that SC2 is just like any other sport. Nearly all of the players in the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc., got to that league through a combination of favorable circumstances, loads of practice, and natural skill. However, SC2 is different in that one's physical qualities have almost no bearing on gameplay - the exception would be hand speed and reflexes, which, in my opinion, can be trained.
My stance (and Destiny's, from what I could tell) is that even the lowliest Bronze player could theoretically make it to the GSL one day, with a metric fuckton of work and a lot of dedication. Look at Koreans, for instance. Koreans are typically better at SC2 for one of two possible reasons. The first is that Koreans are just born with a Gauss rifle in their hands and are veritable SC gods from the moment they exit the womb; the other is that Korean family values tend to stress hard work and dedication much more than the typical American family does, and Koreans therefore just work much harder at the game.
What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
personally i hate people who blames them being bad on that they don't have talent for that particulary thing. for example, how many times do you hear people saying "ooomg i wish i could draw but i don't have the talent"? far to much. everyone who's good at drawing are good at drawing because they put a fuckload of time into it. then comes people who doesn't draw even a smudge of the amount good people do, complaining that they can't draw and they never improve even though they won't even look at what they're doing and try to improve.
the same thing adds on to everything. sports and esports alike. in SC2 you do not have talent, only hard fucking work. some might be more successful than others due to generally being better at strategic thinking, this is one thing that you can have already from early years of your life. but there is NOTHING that stops anyone from simply practicing those small issues they have.
talent does not exist, only hard work. Practicing and analyzing what you need to improve on, then practicing that thing over and over is the only way to become good at ANYTHING.
Every once in a while I come into these threads just to say that I am the guy with natural talent and little practice. I play a few melee games a week at most and still can compete with high diamond or moderate master players, but I'll never be on top because every time I login I have to relearn my builds and such. I think I'd be the kind of person that's a great coach because I understand the game so well, but my lack of practice equals weak mechanics.
I think anyone that is an aspiring pro gamer should probably be able to dominate low level tournaments playing casually before they think about dedicating all their time to it.
As it was mentioned in this thread before, for the 10,000 hour to be achieved that is playing about 3 hours per day for 10 years! Obviously, that is very difficult for the average man to achieve. I think there's more at hand than just how much time you play Starcraft. I feel watching replays, reading strategies, watching VOD, all come into account.
For example, I have been having a rough time on ladder recently. I took some time on my breaks at work to watch live streams. I examined how the Pros thought processes work, the movements of their mouse, what they were observing on the screen... then when I booted up the ladder again I went 10 win, 2 loss! Not only that, but I had greater confidence. It felt as if my skill increased by a large margin seemingly overnight. Not only that, I didn't play an hour of starcraft. I won't quote my whole shpiel again (I've said it many times in other threads) but basically, there are psych studies that conclude that observational learning is just as good as practice. And I feel that watching Pros play SC2 (not just for entertainment, but STUDYING and LEARNING from them) can be at times better than actually playing SC2. Don't misinterpret what I tell you -- it still is required you play SC2 to get better!!!! But the biggest part of SC2 is not the physical aspect but the mental, and if you can mentally train your SC2 without actually playing, but studying PROPER techniques by pros, you will benefit!!
Those 10,000 hours have to be "deliberate practice". This means that the way they practice is very thought out. The idea is that if you can thinking deeply about a subject in which you want expertise in, then this should require not only thought about that subject but how you feel you can improve in this subject.
This includes: Setting up specific practice routines, practicing particular styles of particular match-ups, endurance training, and presenting yourself with actual scenarios that occur in a real game (by playing the game itself).
The idea is that this level of meta-analysis of the topic activates even more regions of the brain to the complexity of the topic.
I think that it is mostly trained but there are some important skills that you are born with that are integral to the game like multitasking/handspeed as you said, and decision-making.
If you train a ton at the game there is nothing stopping you from getting into masters, but the people in the GSL have a lot of natural talent that they take advantage of that a lot of us don't have unfortunately.
As you said it's like any sport. Some people just have physical advantages over others, although in this case the advantages are more mental.
just cuz the physical aspect is out of it doesn't mean talent does not exist. there are a ton of factors, talent is a big one. you will never win the gsl even with 24 hours of practice a day for 3 years. intelligence/decision making/skills that are prevalent in all games account for success when it comes to SC2.
whats the difference between making a really good pass in basketball and knowing when someone is going to proxy you? not much imo. those basketball players see things differently and can make that pass. sc players have game sense and know when something is suspicious.
there are people who are naturally more athletic, and it's not faster hands or fingers. athleticism/talent is all brain.some people are better at math then you, some people are better at sports then you. 99.99% of people won't do what einstein did even if they worked harder then him, that's life. if that applies to real life then it has to apply to starcraft.
reason why koreans are better is that SC is a complicated game and you can never hit a ceiling. talent matters less, yes, but talent still matters. it's actually more complicated then that, koreans are better because they're in an environment that is more supportive of gaming. more koreans strive to become better instead of just casually play sc, so they have a larger pool of talent and they can afford to spend much more time on it.
Every bronze player can make it into GSL, true. Any player can win a GSL with enough training, true. Any player can have nice matches and invent innovative build, false, you actually need some talent you are partially born with to be a creative RTS player.
Trained, had no RTS experience and after 3 months of playing im a 3300 master, nothing great but it just proves that when you put time into something youll improve.
Some level of creative intelligence is surely needed. Fast thinking ability is also nice. Reflexes would help. And ability for dedicated practice is also genetically-coded (for some extent). I would say natural talent is at least responsible for 50% or success.
whats the difference between making a really good pass in basketball and knowing when someone is going to proxy you? not much imo. those basketball players see things differently and can make that pass. sc players have game sense and know when something is suspicious.
You are using your brain, an organ that we usually use at 10% of its capacity to determine if the opponent is going to proxy you or not ( based on the info you have ).
You are using your body strength and your HEIGHT to make the pass in basketball.
On March 22 2011 19:50 sicajung wrote: ive read a book where it says if u clock 10,000 hours of doing something. u are gonna get good at it. it doesnt matter what it is you are doing. either study, playing games or sport. 10,000 hours and u are gonna become good at it.
I may be sounding obvious here, but 10k hours is a LOOOONNNGGG time. To put it into context; 2 year playing 12 hours a day would only get you just 8760 hours. 6 years playing 4 hours a day would also only get you 8760 hours. 10 years playing 3 hours a day is 10950 hours. and a lifetime (80 years) playing an hour a day (which is totally unpractical) is only 29700 hours.
To achieve 10,000 hours at something, it must be the thing you love most.
Talent can only take you so far. Sure you can be great at it compared to your friends when you all bought the game 2 weeks ago, but when you get up high enough it really comes down to who practices and who doesn't.
Those that go pro normally happen to be very good at the game very quickly, but they also practice more than anyone. This combination is needed if you plan on becoming professional at anything competitive.
whats the difference between making a really good pass in basketball and knowing when someone is going to proxy you? not much imo. those basketball players see things differently and can make that pass. sc players have game sense and know when something is suspicious.
You are using your brain, an organ that we usually use at 10% of its capacity to determine if the opponent is going to proxy you or not ( based on the info you have ).
You are using your body strength and your HEIGHT to make the pass in basketball.
Please don't continue the myth that we only use 10% of our brains..
On March 22 2011 19:50 sicajung wrote: ive read a book where it says if u clock 10,000 hours of doing something. u are gonna get good at it. it doesnt matter what it is you are doing. either study, playing games or sport. 10,000 hours and u are gonna become good at it.
I may be sounding obvious here, but 10k hours is a LOOOONNNGGG time. To put it into context; 2 year playing 12 hours a day would only get you just 8760 hours. 6 years playing 4 hours a day would also only get you 8760 hours. 10 years playing 3 hours a day is 10950 hours. and a lifetime (80 years) playing an hour a day (which is totally unpractical) is only 29700 hours.
To achieve 10,000 hours at something, it must be the thing you love most.
True, 10k hours is a long time but the initial statement holds true. If you practice about 10k hours on something, anything, you WILL become good at it.
Actually, when you spend about 40k hours on something you will typically end up at the top of the world. This holds for anything that you do not have a natural handicap against (for instance, it is useless to practice high-jumping when you are small (duh)).
This is true for playing a musical instrument (e.g. Vanessa Mae practiced playing the violin from when she was 3 and played for about 4-12 hours of violin EVERY day). Now she is one of the best in the world.
Same for sports, games, etc. (keeping in mind that you receive proper coaching and dont have a natural disability for something).
So if you spend 10k hours on rts games, you WILL be a great SC2 player (considering the competition is a LOT less then for many other sports). This also explains why Koreans are so much better at starcraft. They have been playing this game for many hours a day over a longer period of time.
They are not more 'gifted' at it than other people.
Actually, Scott Adams (Dilbert) had a great blog about this (he played pool a lot) which is highly recommended reading (I should look it up )
I have heard that there were numerous examples of wc3 pros retiring and coming back and dominating just like before even with very limited practice. Probably those were the ones with the talent best fit for wc3.
"Skills that contribute to better play, unrelated to the game" .... examples: -above avg sensory input can lead to faster reaction times (chemically)... some people have abnormal, and absolutely amazing reaction times from birth -skeletal structure of upper extremities can be advantageous or not helpful when moving arm/wrist -natural ability to handle stress/pressure on a molecular level in the body (psychologically)
[EDIT] .. oh and most important. - ability to hold your bladder for AS LONG AS NEEDED.... kekeke.
to ignore "natural talent" is just as good as ignoring the existence of prodigies and whatnot. some people are wired differently to do something better than others. for example, i have a friend who can listen to a song once and memorize the lyrics, for me, i can listen to the song 50 times and still not memorize the lyrics until i read them over and over along with the song.
i think same could be said with sc2 and video games in general. i'm actually a good gamer, i can pick up a new game and get the hang of it pretty quick. i've played games and after a couple of hours i'll beat people who's been playing for months (fight night, smash brother, etc.)
i think the difference between hard work vs talent is this:
if you have talent for something, you'll get the hang of it quick. meaning, if you want to learn 4gate, you can learn it in just couple of games and know how to adjust in different situations. for those who doesn't have talent will take them longer to understand it. however, the cap for both players, i say is the same, but the one with talent will reach the cap faster.
if there was no natural talent and such, there would be no need for scouts in various sports including starcraft. it'll mean they can just pick up a random person off the street and teach them to be good as any other player.
talent vs hard work i dont think it matters in the end, but getting to the peak of their potential, the one with natural talent will get there first as long as they both use the same method and length of training.
When you do something for long enough, the physical structure of your brain changes. It's called neuroplasticity. With enough time, and dedication, your brain can be trained to do just about anything. Some people are capable of learning more complex things more quickly. Thats just about the only thing that can be chalked up to the nature side of the argument. Nurture beats nature any day in my opinion.
Both, but it's definitely more trained. The guy that brought up the 10, 000 hours of practice is definitely correct. But just practice alone doesn't separate the good from the best. There's something called 'deliberate practice' that one must initiate in order to see continual improvement. Deliberate practice involves many hours of analyzing and improving your weaknesses. The most important thing about it is that it's not suppose to be fun. That is why people who can engage in deliberate practice in extended periods are so much better than those who just mindlessly play the game.
Although this type of question has been asked many times, often using Korean progamers and foreigners as opposing viewpoints. I'd rather know how it is that players like mondragon or White-ra have been able to raise their games far and above non-Korean competition. They live in parts of the world that follows a daily schedule most resembling like the rest of us. They can't afford to practice 10 hours a day or be in the presence of a dozen expert gamers. So how is it that they are so good at the game also?
On March 23 2011 09:09 Sensator wrote: All skill is trained, it's just a fact.
Agreed, no one is born better at SC than another. The one who grows up training hand eye coordination, quick thinking, and strategic decision making will obviously have an innate advantage over the one who doesn't though. Practice time does not directly correlate to ladder rank, but the more someone practices the better they will be. Once someone hits the cap of mechanical ability and general knowledge their talent will show through.
Training plays a large part of it. Personally, I rose from Bronze and am now mid diamond (should probably play the game more) and I think the experience of looking back at your noob games compared to where you are at the moment can be such an eye opener to training and improvement.
Yeah I think training and practice is HUGE..... but natrual ability and instinct also come into play. Some people with the exact same amount of practice, by the exact same coach. Some people will grasp the concept a lot faster than others. Some people are just naturally gifted.
For example, when it comes to sports. Say MMA for example. Some guys are born with the natural "Knock out power" without very much training. A guy in the same weight division could have been practicing Muay Thai for dozens of years, has all the technique in the world, but Never in his life could develope that Knock out Punch. Anyone who follows the MMA world, not sure how many gamers do but, Randy Couture has been training boxing for over a decade now, he has never posessed that Huge ONE PUNCH KO power.... it cant be trained, its a gift. Where say a Young Mike Tyson at 18 Years of age with only a year or 2 of Training, Possessed some of the most lethal KO power ever. It was a god given gift. Where both fighters could have recieved the exact same amount of training, the exact same amount of technique. But one fighter was Naturally gifted.
I could train my whole entire life, practice every single GOD damn day of my life. Will I ever beat that dude from Jamaica who won the 100m at the olympics? Bolt is his name. I would never ever come close. Even if we trained the same amount, and I practice 1349294932492394 hours, was the best shape of my life. Some stuff you just cant train. You are born with it.
whats the difference between making a really good pass in basketball and knowing when someone is going to proxy you? not much imo. those basketball players see things differently and can make that pass. sc players have game sense and know when something is suspicious.
You are using your brain, an organ that we usually use at 10% of its capacity to determine if the opponent is going to proxy you or not ( based on the info you have ).
You are using your body strength and your HEIGHT to make the pass in basketball.
you don't use 10% of our brain, it's a myth.
you don't use body strength and height to pass a basketball, have you never played? anyone can pass a ball decently hard (50% of the population) it's all about timing and if you want to make a great pass it requires court vision and smarts.
if you are using your height why are point guards freaking 6 feet... come on
I would have to say that it consists of both as you can have a natural awareness and understanding of the game, but you cant be born with timings, unit knowledge and build orders.
It is absolutely trained for SC2, I remember watching stevens stream back in the beginning of the beta and thinking wow I could smash this guy, and I even stream sniped him a few times and he wan't that good but I took a long break and don't play much and now he is miles ahead of me and I don't think I'd be able to take a game off him so seems to me practice is more important. Alteranately I played lacrosse for a long time and was always very good but one kid who was never on my team cause he always played house, this kid played for almost 13 years and every year was the worst player on his team so sports is more natural talent where starcraft is just rigorous training and obviously some basic knowledge and skill. Basically any intelligent person that plays everyday and learns should get into masters very easily
Yes. Some babies are born with extreme adeptness at Marine v Baneling micro management. Other lucky ones are sometimes born with extreme Mutalisk control, or 5+ base flawless unit production and building placement.
No, in life you generally (read: always) have to learn / train things at any point in time. Some people will learn faster, some slower. So no, SC skill is not natural.
Defintly all about training, practice and play alot of games. Reflexes will come when play more and get a feel for the keyboard. Also Lazyness sometimes people dont want to play fast and just want to play.
In Day9 daily 100 Sean told the story about how he spent a couple months playing like 12+ hours a day and he saw a considerable increase in his win rate vs someone who would regularly beat him.
Grinding games (and obviously TRYING to get better through watching your own replays, etc) will make you better at Starcraft.
It's a combination. This was discussed to death in WoW. That was a game where time input had a direct reflection on what you could do in the game. However, among that population there were wide ranges in ability. Almost everyone had a cap of some sort, and while practice can always make you better, some poeple are simply better at it than others.
For me, I've been top 100 in MMO's and Shooters. However, I'm pretty average at RTS and Fighters. I have great hand eye coordination and a high spacial cognition, but I'm terrible at technical stuff (lists, remembering to do little things). Each person is different, and they are going to peak in different ways. However, practice alone will not make you good at a game. You need to have a skill set that goes beyond practice to be good at a particular game.
In my opinion a lot of the skill needed can be trained, especially mechanics and game knowledge. But I think there is a part of it, which comes from your mindset aproaching the game. Being an analytical person (which is not caused by genes and stuff but more by education) does definitly help. Maybe the last little step spreading the very good from the godlike tier of players is through natural talent for basic skills in rts (good multitasking, fast reaction, etc.), which makes those even better. The difference would be like the "normal" korean BW progamer and Flash for example. But in general I think one can become a very good player just by playing a lot.
It is very much so trained we don't see any top players that just started playing do we? i mean most top players either came from SC:BW or WC3 definitely trained IMO.
And just like Any sport, or anything... and this is a PROVEN Fact...
YOU ARE ONLY AS GOOD AS THE PEOPLE YOU TRAIN WITH.
During my wrestling career, I out grew my first team I trained with, then I eventually had to travel an hour or so everyday, to train with the university team to progress my skills. My skill leval once i switched training camps went through the roof, i had high leval guys to train with.
say you went to train with a team of Diamond players for 12 hours a day 7 days a week vs a team of GSL S Code guys for 12 hours a day 7 days a week.
On March 22 2011 16:11 FataLe wrote: Read the quote below..
It hints at natural talent overcoming all eventually. Like boxing, you can get very far off hard work & dedication. But the special fighters are naturally talented. Like Floyd Mayweather. A current undefeated fighter. Sure there's a plethora of hard if not harder working fighters than him out there, but if you're genetically superior from the outset, it's hard to match.
or perhaps comparing Flash to some other BW pro's. Now I'm not 100% positive but I'd assume he doesn't practice the most of all Brood War pro's. He's just naturally gifted in a lot of what Starcraft requires. Which is why he stands above the rest.
I have to disagree completely with this quote, Natural skill is considered what you have before training, also this is not boxing/fighting, there are so many factors that are involved in fighting compared to playing a game where there is no physical limitation that cannot be overcome with training...as for the comment to flash, he is a great player and trains 10 hours a day to become what he was and is. he studies the game like you would for your masters degree picking it apart piece by piece, the only thing that would separate you from becoming a Pro, would be your intelligence, and your mental psychology. Those 2 things are the only thing that would separate you from the best if you trained just as hard and studied the game just as much.
I guess we don't see eye-to-eye. Bear in mind, natural talent is different than natural skill. Talent carries you throughout your career which why if you get two fighters to do the exact same training regime and you get them to fight afterward, the one that wins 9/10 is the one who is naturally a better fighter. True, there are many more factors in fighting, though the principle still stands. I agree with you about Flash, though given the same amount of time & resources, natural talent & genes play their part once similar amounts of effort are put in.
On March 23 2011 10:52 manicshock wrote: It definitely comes down to trained until you're at the best of the best.
Agreed. Natural Talent doesn't show until the highest level, or in some cases, how fast they pick something up. But before then training & effort must be applied for your advantage to actually mean anything.
I think natural skill has something to do being good early on in your sc career. But past the early part, it's all mindset and hard work. I don't think anyone is naturally good at starcraft all together. i think some people understanding of video games help them more than others early on, but isn't something that someone else can't pick up on. The beauty of pro video games is that anyone, and everyone given the right mental mindset and attitude and hard work can be great. Physical sports are more determined by genetical factos and natural ability in my opinion. As a person who is 4 foot 11 inches tall would have a hard time trying to be in the nba.
But in the end, ALL things are possible through hardwork, even being 4 foot and in the nba
I don't think it is all just hard work. I'm in masters league, however I have friends that have played hundreds of games more than I have and they are still in platinum. You need something more than just work and dedication to become good at this game
On October 08 2011 00:01 scarper65 wrote: I don't think it is all just hard work. I'm in masters league, however I have friends that have played hundreds of games more than I have and they are still in platinum. You need something more than just work and dedication to become good at this game
Well, it also comes down to HOW your train. If you just grind games never fixing your mistakes (or don't even know about them) you will climb to another skill level.
I believe it all comes to training, and training EFFECTIVELY. This is just like studying, if you study for hours on end, you won't learn much, however if you constructively study like taking small breaks then it is great.
oh oh the grave diggers strike again. Its only training, there is no natural skill involved, But the training started with your birth. What a way to revive a thread not asking a question but answering a skeleton, by the looks on those dates.
''talent'' is in my opinion just a myth thats caused by some people learning faster than others, which has to do with intelligence if u work harder and use your time more effectively you'll eventually surpass anyone
hardwork plays the biggest role but other things, (mindset , how fast do you learn, creativity etc) still play a role in it, if it wasnt for that you could put two people into identical practice regimes and you would obtain identically skilled players, wich wont happen
On October 08 2011 00:13 darlhet wrote: hardwork plays the biggest role but other things, (mindset , how fast do you learn, creativity etc) still play a role in it, if it wasnt for that you could put two people into identical practice regimes and you would obtain identically skilled players, wich wont happen
I agree. Like I said above natural skill gets you so far. And 2 players playing the same amount of ggames a day will create 2 different level skilled players. But if the natural talent isn't there, I honestly think it can be, if you want it enough, to put the work that is needed in to get there. So regardless, hardwork is whats important. Some people just naturally pick things up faster.
On October 08 2011 00:12 OutlaW- wrote: ''talent'' is in my opinion just a myth thats caused by some people learning faster than others, which has to do with intelligence if u work harder and use your time more effectively you'll eventually surpass anyone
Pretty much this. The form of talent that exists is in form of intelligence and physical attributes that help (like being tall and playing basket ball).
SC2 is one of the most strategy dependent games out there, at least at the higher levels, and I think because of that the most important factor is training. You might have naturally good hand/eye coordination but that's not going to matter if you didn't spend the time practicing and learning the game and it's mechanics. If you've never read up on strategies, learned the fundamentals of micro and macro, and put a lot of understanding into how the game actual works, I don't think how good you are with a mouse is going to matter.
On March 21 2011 22:18 JeLLe04 wrote: What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
I am high diamond, and I have not played THAT much sc2. granted, my skill is still completely terrible compared to professionals, but i think that there is definitely an innate ability to play video games. if you took me and put me in front of a completely new video game and I had to play my dad...i would win hands down (unless maybe the game was a surgery game or something as he is a doctor).
when it comes to sc2, i believe my brother plays more of it than me, i think that I just have more natural talent than him and can still beat him on a regular basis
Dedication and hard working only up to certain level.
I've been at the Master league since the first day it came out, and I don't feel like I'll be able to get in the GM league at any given rate.
I agree that what is referred as talents are generally in form of either intelligence or physical attributes, but then again I think that those are much more natural than trained.
I guess the question is for sc2, but if we were talking about brood war... no chance. In sc2 IMO if you work hard enough at it and train the right way, you can be a top player through some perseverance and dedication.
If you asked me this about brood war though I will say that absolutely there's a talent portion that is involved in it. If you asked me to replicate jaedong mutalisk micro even after years of training I would still say that you're crazy and that I'll never be able to do that.
On March 21 2011 22:18 JeLLe04 wrote: What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
I am high diamond, and I have not played THAT much sc2. granted, my skill is still completely terrible compared to professionals, but i think that there is definitely an innate ability to play video games. if you took me and put me in front of a completely new video game and I had to play my dad...i would win hands down (unless maybe the game was a surgery game or something as he is a doctor).
when it comes to sc2, i believe my brother plays more of it than me, i think that I just have more natural talent than him and can still beat him on a regular basis
My brother used to have more talent than me in games then I started practicing really hard. I now beat him in all games we play (new and old) except chess.
StarCraft skill is trained. Nobody can naturally have perfect builds without spending time to perfect them.
Nobody can have perfect timing attacks without knowing when to do it.
Some can learn the game fast but that's only after others have already figured it out. You can do this by watching replays and learning different styles. But, this too takes "time" and is not natural.
The only time I could see a skill "being natural" is if your playing a different game and you learned all your fundamentals from a previous game. Such as, SC1 players switching to SC2.
I don't think there is any "natural" skill. But the more games you've played before sc2 (not only RTS imo) the faster you will improve at it, because you're so used to playing. When i started playing sc2 in the beta i got placed in copper league and lost like 10 games in a row. I've played quite a bit since then and now I'm masters.
On the other hand, I don't really think it matters. If you wanna get better at the game the only thing you can do to improve is to play more.
On October 08 2011 00:12 OutlaW- wrote: ''talent'' is in my opinion just a myth thats caused by some people learning faster than others, which has to do with intelligence if u work harder and use your time more effectively you'll eventually surpass anyone
This is pretty much spot on. Talent and intelligence are just words we use to describe how quickly somebody learns. When you have a natural "talent" or a trained "talent" from playing other games, that talent transfers into SC2 in the form of allowing you to learn more in a shorter amount of time, and possibly retain more information in your long-term memory. Keep in mind, even something like high APM or high accuracy is a learned skill, but some people learn much faster than others.
all skills are trained in life, your not born with any. how come so many pages for this T_T
ill edit this and add a bit more info: those epic artists on youtube, had they drew only a few pictures, would not be good anymore. hence they trained. musicians had they play for only 1 year, would not be good anymore. its the way all things work. HUMANS ARE FANTASTIC CREATURES. with hands not paws. and a brain that can communicate multiple languages and omg i cant even fathom it. its too complex.
but were all trained not born with it.
edit2: wait now i know why there are so many pages, scratch everything i said. Some parts of each individuals brains can process certain types of info so much more than the guy sitting next to him. While it works both ways for both sides, I think some skills we are born with, but will never know until we touch that certain thing, but yeah i guess for sc its trained.Then again though, it requires specific sectors of the brain also, so im sure people with stronger brain power on those areas that starcraft lights up have faster and more further progress in an sc career. but NO FACTS NO PROOF! <3
Sure, you can learn all skills, but some skills require a depth of knowledge that can only be acquired through time, no shortcuts.. and that becomes a practical problem as people have different learning curves according to their natural aptitude. I would never try to become a pro chess player for example, as it would probably take me years to process the information 12 y.o kids take only months... life is short
to me, talent is a illusion created by hard work behind the scenes and proper practice
in high school i decided to take up the saxophone my sophmore year (had played guitar, piano, bass, in the past but never a wind instrument) within a month i was able to play pieces on a similar level to the best in the school...why was this? natural talent? no i worked my ass off to get good, i spent all of my free time that month figuring out how everything worked and just repeating fundamentals like a madman til my fingers started going numb (something i'll need to do again when i get my hands on a new sax, dont have one atm T_T)
in sc:bw when i learned about it from my friends, i found the game so compellingly fun that i started practicing and thinking through what i wanted to do and how to do it (i.e. builds) and i managed to quickly become the favored player in any game between us...ofc thats before i found iccup/tl.net and really played competetively (though i never went as far as i could've, only barely peaked at C and that was when i was putting around 3hrs/day in for genuine practice) was this talent? no it was simply me thinking through the game more than my friends (also i played zerg when i started so no P "imba" 1a2a3a at low level for me :3)
in sc2 im mid/high masters (im around 1k atm with somewhere around 2-300 bp) despite putting rather little time into the game ever, is this talent? no its just bw skills carrying over xD
in chess back in middle school (pre-starcraft) i've won numerous local amatuer tournaments (no prize, just trophy/badge) this isn't the result of natural talent, it was just the result of playing a Bo5 of chess against my dad every day since i was 5 (really want to start that up again T_T; i miss playing with a win/loss ratio of 1:1000...for reference to his skill, he doesnt really play a lot anymore so he doesnt have an elo but he like chessmaster and crushes the grandmaster setting in it quite easily)
anyway, almost forgot the point of this lol
talent is only an illusion, caused by hard work, sometimes previous work from years ago, but hard work nonetheless...nothing in life can be achieved without hard work, whether you believe in talent or not, for the talented to be successful even they need to work for it...current sc2 example, Liquid'Tyler he has such an affinity for the game (caused by previous experience w/bw and his thought processes regarding how to improve) yet when he doesn't play for whatever reason he can't win TT
On October 08 2011 01:33 unit wrote: to me, talent is a illusion created by hard work behind the scenes and proper practice
do you know how many hard core alcoholics and substance abusers have the natural ability to hit a 99 mile an hour fastball with no practise at all ?
I'll give you 1 very well documented example: former Yankee, Blue Jay, Astro, Cub, Indian CLIFF JOHNSON.
every hitter has an "upper limit" in the speed of pitch they can hit. once u go beyond that speed the player is guessing... i was one of the best players on my baseball team ( keep in mind i'm in canada where baseball is not taken seriously) and i simply can not hit a ball that goes over 90 MPH... for many of my friends who were extremely competitive and practised hitting a lot their maximum speed was much lower... like 86 MPH .. or 82 MPH... and i watched my friends drop out of baseball 1 by 1 as pitchers threw harder and harder and their ability to make contact diminished regardless of how much they practised.
and of course by the time i was 18 ... any pitcher able to crank it up over 90 MPH was simply unhittable for me.
MLB is filled with lazy guys who happen to be the 1 out of 10,000 that can hit a 99 MPH fast ball.
Anyone who denies that some people are born with better dexterity and hand-eye coordination than others is most likely someone who wants to become a sc2 pro because they love playing video games all day, but doesn't have the incredible dexterity and hand-eye coordination that every single sc2 pro started out with. If you asked them whether everyone is born with the same level of intelligence, they would probably say no. Hmm...
On March 23 2011 06:31 darthdiddy wrote: When you do something for long enough, the physical structure of your brain changes. It's called neuroplasticity. With enough time, and dedication, your brain can be trained to do just about anything. Some people are capable of learning more complex things more quickly. Thats just about the only thing that can be chalked up to the nature side of the argument. Nurture beats nature any day in my opinion.
thanks for being the only person in this thread with some actual knowledge and not mindlessly saying TALENT DERP.
On March 23 2011 06:31 darthdiddy wrote: When you do something for long enough, the physical structure of your brain changes. It's called neuroplasticity. With enough time, and dedication, your brain can be trained to do just about anything. Some people are capable of learning more complex things more quickly. Thats just about the only thing that can be chalked up to the nature side of the argument. Nurture beats nature any day in my opinion.
thanks for being the only person in this thread with some actual knowledge and not mindlessly saying TALENT DERP.
ya... that's why as u get older your ability to hit the 4 seam fastball diminishes.. because its all about practise.
On March 23 2011 06:31 darthdiddy wrote: When you do something for long enough, the physical structure of your brain changes. It's called neuroplasticity. With enough time, and dedication, your brain can be trained to do just about anything. Some people are capable of learning more complex things more quickly. Thats just about the only thing that can be chalked up to the nature side of the argument. Nurture beats nature any day in my opinion.
thanks for being the only person in this thread with some actual knowledge and not mindlessly saying TALENT DERP.
ya... that's why as u get older your ability to hit the 4 seam fastball diminishes.. because its all about practise.
just like how nestea got older and stopped winning tounaments. oh wait. dont reference SC and baseball.
Like everything else it's both nurture and nature. There are players that improve much faster than others. I'd say I'm a little bit above average. When the game first came out I got to diamond in ~2 weeks. Stopped playing for a year, then got masters in 3 weeks. There are others like Flash that were born to play starcraft.
It's a mix of both if you ask me, though i think talent can be outclassed by hardwork
If you look at player's who have innovated and created new metagames and stuff, they were the best originally thx to their talent, but overshadowed after by others practicing hard and being able to replicate it better
MC was ahead of everyone a few month's ago, Fruitdealer at the first's GSL, now he's completly lost everything he had, etc ///
On October 08 2011 00:57 wishbones wrote: all skills are trained in life, your not born with any. how come so many pages for this T_T
ill edit this and add a bit more info: those epic artists on youtube, had they drew only a few pictures, would not be good anymore. hence they trained. musicians had they play for only 1 year, would not be good anymore. its the way all things work. HUMANS ARE FANTASTIC CREATURES. with hands not paws. and a brain that can communicate multiple languages and omg i cant even fathom it. its too complex.
but were all trained not born with it.
edit2: wait now i know why there are so many pages, scratch everything i said. Some parts of each individuals brains can process certain types of info so much more than the guy sitting next to him. While it works both ways for both sides, I think some skills we are born with, but will never know until we touch that certain thing, but yeah i guess for sc its trained.Then again though, it requires specific sectors of the brain also, so im sure people with stronger brain power on those areas that starcraft lights up have faster and more further progress in an sc career. but NO FACTS NO PROOF! <3
Some people are born with perfect pitch in their ears and therefore are naturally better at instruments
at the starting point, its all training. Anyone can get to masters or even NA grandmasters if they put the work into it. But at the highest level, it becomes natural talent. This is because at the highest level, almost everyone is devoting their life to the game and puts in similar training hours. The only way one can be better than another pro player is just more efficient training(korea) and natural talent(how fast you understand the game, how well you interpret it and can apply that, etc.)
1) you need to have a good amount of apm which is a physical trait
2) you need to be intelligent and make well informed decisions. There is a reason why a ton of bronze players are still in bronze and a ton of platinum players still in plat after many games for a reason! Not everybody can become a rocket scientist regardless of how much they study.
3) you need to have a formidable amount of mental strength. To take an example from tennis. Novak djokovic. He had the skills but now he has the mental strength and this has been shown in the way he has manhandled rafael nadal.
On October 08 2011 00:57 wishbones wrote: all skills are trained in life, your not born with any. how come so many pages for this T_T
ill edit this and add a bit more info: those epic artists on youtube, had they drew only a few pictures, would not be good anymore. hence they trained. musicians had they play for only 1 year, would not be good anymore. its the way all things work. HUMANS ARE FANTASTIC CREATURES. with hands not paws. and a brain that can communicate multiple languages and omg i cant even fathom it. its too complex.
but were all trained not born with it.
edit2: wait now i know why there are so many pages, scratch everything i said. Some parts of each individuals brains can process certain types of info so much more than the guy sitting next to him. While it works both ways for both sides, I think some skills we are born with, but will never know until we touch that certain thing, but yeah i guess for sc its trained.Then again though, it requires specific sectors of the brain also, so im sure people with stronger brain power on those areas that starcraft lights up have faster and more further progress in an sc career. but NO FACTS NO PROOF! <3
Some people are born with perfect pitch in their ears and therefore are naturally better at instruments
On that note... there is a tv documentary about musician Vanessa-Mae in which she explores this very topic. It might be the best thing i've seen that delves into this nature versus nurture discussion. I think it applies to other stuff like sports and games just as much. Her conclusion was that it's a combination of both (no surprise). It's called "Vanessa-Mae: the Making of Me" by the BBC. I recommend it if your interested in this topic.
Some people have a natural sense/speed about them that make it easier to start ahead, but that doesn't mean they will stay ahead. Being a natural can only get you so far.
Working hard is the most important part and can get you very far but the very best in the world have a combination of hard work/ talent / luck. By luck I mean the opportunities that you need.
Take Flash for example if he was born in another country where progaming wasnt as big or he would have had parents that dont accept his choice to play for hours every day and eventually quit school for progaming he wouldnt have a chance to get training in the best possible environment.
Also realistically I could probably train like crazy for 10 years and still wouldnt be as good as he was at a very young age. That is assuming I could mentally and physically handle to train that much in the first place which is a talent in its own right I think.
I think it really has to do with your mindset. For example, when I was frustrated with my life and really immature last year, I was mid masters with 50% win ratio. After I stopped playing for 5 months and became more mature, took me 1 month to get from Diamond to high masters.
On October 08 2011 01:33 unit wrote: to me, talent is a illusion created by hard work behind the scenes and proper practice
do you know how many hard core alcoholics and substance abusers have the natural ability to hit a 99 mile an hour fastball with no practise at all ?
I'll give you 1 very well documented example: former Yankee, Blue Jay, Astro, Cub, Indian CLIFF JOHNSON.
every hitter has an "upper limit" in the speed of pitch they can hit. once u go beyond that speed the player is guessing... i was one of the best players on my baseball team ( keep in mind i'm in canada where baseball is not taken seriously) and i simply can not hit a ball that goes over 90 MPH... for many of my friends who were extremely competitive and practised hitting a lot their maximum speed was much lower... like 86 MPH .. or 82 MPH... and i watched my friends drop out of baseball 1 by 1 as pitchers threw harder and harder and their ability to make contact diminished regardless of how much they practised.
and of course by the time i was 18 ... any pitcher able to crank it up over 90 MPH was simply unhittable for me.
MLB is filled with lazy guys who happen to be the 1 out of 10,000 that can hit a 99 MPH fast ball.
Go to a batting cage and try for urself.
thats a physical trait, with talent being defined as mostly mental in my wall of letters, however ill still answer to it
what you are speaking of is an inability to react fast enough, to hit the pitch after identifying its speed, people are not born equal. what im saying is that hard work crushes those inequalities which are mostly found in thought and physical makeup, cliff johnson obviously had a very good reaction time and the body composition to match it, there are however far more examples of athletes who worked constantly at their craft...enigmas do exist, and you never disproved that cliff practiced when he was younger
On October 08 2011 02:41 VPCursed wrote: just like how nestea got older and stopped winning tounaments. oh wait. dont reference SC and baseball.
the reply was made to the generalized comment applying to all sports activities not just SC.
i included music and chess, baseball is free game...direct comparisons however arent the best idea due to the differences
also the vanessa-mae documentary is rather interesting :D from a personal standpoint being "gifted" in music (through hard work/practice) yet also being half deaf its quite interesting to see
some people are just better gamers. people with "talent" will pick up and learn things quickly but its only practice that will push them further and at that point, talent becomes less of a factor.
its rather naive to think everyone is equal and anyone has a chance to become anything. there are limitations, physically and mentally, and everyone is different.
i'm sure there are platinum/diamond players that play muuuuch more than some master/gm players, including the difference in total games played that would differ in the three digits.
Well the phrase (im paraphrasing here) "you can overcome talent with hard work but you cannot overcome hard work with talent" Stands. Not everyone can be the best through hard work due to individiual difference but quite a large number can be at the top of their respective field through hard work. Several psychological studies show that people achieve their success through training rather than an actual natural talent. The talent helps at the start but talent alone can only get people so far, with the right training starting at the right time i believe you could produce stars in sports and e-sports equally. Sports stars usually get into their sport very early pointing towards nurture more than nature.
First off, natural attributes are distributed among the population in more-or-less of a bell curve. That's not open to argument. Some innate, genetic characteristics offer an advantage performing certain tasks. As the tasks get more complex, a more specific mix of characteristics (balancing genetic and learned or practiced) is required to succeed.
Take sprinting, where the job is to run as fast as possible in a straight line. With nobody training, there's a natural distribution of, say, 100m times based on innate characteristics. If some people in the 50th percentile of this "natural" distribution train their asses off, they'll be able to jump to the 99th percentile. But if the guy in the 99th "natural" percentile also trains his ass off, he'll still be the fastest. He had a head start in that endeavor because his genetic makeup made him well suited to the task in question.
Now take something like basketball. If you're tall, coordinated, fast, and strong, you're likely in the top of the distribution of "naturally" good basketball players. But if you never play, you'll get leapfrogged by a short, awkward dude who busts his ass in the gym every day. And to take it even further, say the first guy is physically well-suited to excel at basketball, but isn't very creative or aggressive and has terrible spatial awareness. Now a guy who might not be as quick or tall or can't jump as high, trains enough to leapfrog from the 50th "physical" percentile to the 90th, and has 99th percentile mental makeup for basketball, will likely be the superior basketball player. IOW, there have been plenty of guys as good or better than Michael Jordan physically, but none who also had the ideal brain for basketball.
All of that being said, Starcraft has none of the physical limits that athletic sports do. There's no barrier to jumping from any "natural" percentile to the very top of the game. You can train your reaction time and reflexes enough to be the best (unlike sprinting, where you can't "train" more fast-twitch muscle, or basketball where you can't "train" longer arms), no matter where you started. Or, you can build your game around winning in other ways and exceed your opponent elsewhere and negate his reaction-time advantage. And since SC2 is a complicated, mostly mental competition, there are various mixtures of attributes that can be associated with success.
You might have a good mind for RTS games and a quick mouse hand, so you're in the 90th "natural" distribution. But there's nothing that's going to give you a lasting advantage over a guy who has to figure it out over time and build up is hand speed. In the end, the spread of possible characteristics to be a top player is wide enough that you can't stay ahead just because it came easier in the first place.
SC2 is brain relative, brain is plastic. You should all know of blind people with improved senses. Then the mindset when hardtraining/playing is the difference between the best players.
Like anything in life, natural talent gives certain people greater potential than others. That being said, less talented people can achieve great things in SC2. I believe that even the best players at the moment are performing far under their true skill level, the game is still new and there is a lot to perfect and learn. At this very time, I truly believe anyone with enough practice can become one of the best players in the world at this time. However, this is likely to change in the future. When I refer to talent in SC2 I'm talking about the innate ability to be strategic and analyse situations very quickly and decisively, being able to make good decisions in a very short amount of time while under great pressure. The truth is, anyone can micro and macro well simultaneously if given enough practice, you cannot however teach someone to automatically have good judgement. There are too many possibilities and scenarios in the game to teach somebody the proper thing to do in every theoretically possible situation. I'm not necessarily saying that you have to be a genius in order to be the best player ever, but like a chess player you have to make the right moves under the pressure of time. This is where SC2 becomes a game of wit. Mechanics only allow players to put what they plan to do into action effectively and efficiently.
My friend and I were talking about this last night after watching Destiny answer some questions on Reddit (I wanna be a pro, how much do you make, how do I join ROOT, etc. etc.) and it got me to wondering - how much of a given person's success in SC2 can be attributed to a natural affinity for the game or for video games in general?
I say none, my friend says a lot. His argument is that SC2 is just like any other sport. Nearly all of the players in the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc., got to that league through a combination of favorable circumstances, loads of practice, and natural skill. However, SC2 is different in that one's physical qualities have almost no bearing on gameplay - the exception would be hand speed and reflexes, which, in my opinion, can be trained.
My stance (and Destiny's, from what I could tell) is that even the lowliest Bronze player could theoretically make it to the GSL one day, with a metric fuckton of work and a lot of dedication. Look at Koreans, for instance. Koreans are typically better at SC2 for one of two possible reasons. The first is that Koreans are just born with a Gauss rifle in their hands and are veritable SC gods from the moment they exit the womb; the other is that Korean family values tend to stress hard work and dedication much more than the typical American family does, and Koreans therefore just work much harder at the game.
What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
I'm not diamond or masters but its true about koreans. 1. South korea is a small country thats overpopulated and its much more difficult to survive than in the US. 2. Koreans are very very competitive with a hungry mindset. You need to be hungry in a ultra competitive atmosphere to survive. So therefore koreans pretty much go all in when they are dedicated to do achieve their goals. 3. Koreans are very intelligent people. They rank 3rd in math & other academics behind India and China. 4. Koreans LOVEEEEEE video games. Alot of them become very addicted to it and there has been some death rates because of this. I'm not saying koreans are the shit or anything but this is a fact because I am a korean as well.
I feel a lot of ppl in this thread are mistaking knowledge for talent. Sure talent has to play a role somewhere but let's take an example : When I started playing the beta I got into platinium in 4 days when it was the top league. * Does it mean that I'm more gifted than a guy who has played the game for 1 year and is still in silver ? Not necessarily. What quickly got me to that level was simply the fact that being a former BW player I already had in mind a bunch of basic SC concepts that transferred to SC2. If ppl still in bronze after 500 games really cared about being better and more efficient at the game, analyzing their losses and watching pro replays they would quickly get at least into platinum in a month or two.
Overall I feel the sincere desire to dedicate yourself at something is a much much greater force than what we call "talent" and which is btw pretty vague.
I'd say you can become world class at pretty much anything with enough practise, but in order to reach that extra level you need something special. Most people could become a Really, not everyone could become a Flash (sorry for using BW players as example ). We aren't born the same, and we do not have the same aptitudes. Tabula rasa is a dumb concept.
And you'll obviously need to combine the talent with hard work, or people with a lower skill ceiling will achieve more simply by putting in more hours.
There is no height, strength, or weight requirement to be good at sc2 like other sports. The natural skill everyone is attempting to talk about is really just the knowledge people have gained over time playing competitive titles. The thing about the top pros that give them the edge, and I've learned this through playing many competitive titles, is the communication between top players and this "circle of pros" that greatly increases their advancement and evolution within sc2.
to answer your question: i am masters and i worked, what ibelieve to be, slightly less than i should have to get there, but i think that will iron out as the game gets older. ladder will in general just get more stacked with good players.
so, it is mostly hard work, whereas talent can help you get there quicker.
On October 08 2011 04:15 Holgerius wrote: We aren't born the same, and we do not have the same aptitudes. Tabula rasa is a dumb concept.
Without specifying what qualities are inherent, this is a pointless statement. What abilities does SC2 require that naturally vary between people? Reaction time and manual dexterity are the only two I can think of. Manual dexterity can be trained, no one starts out a grandmaster pianist the same way no one starts out being able to use a keyboard like Nada. Reaction time varies between people and age but the real differences in reaction time amount to less than a tenth of a second on average. This could certainly provide a benefit, especially when defending things like drops and harass. Realistically, a one tenth of a second difference can be corrected through proper scouting. Reaction time doesn't significantly drop off by age until you're 40-50, so even the oldest progamers should have comparable reaction times to the youngest (not many progamers in their 40's).
id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
There are slight advantages you can get by being born with something (biological factors that can improve focus, reflexes, hand-eye-coordination, etc.), but by far the largest factor that defines the great from the God is the amount of work the God puts into the game.
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
I would say that sc2 skill is a combination of knowledge and developement. Knowledge of how rts games work (economy, tactics, unit control, production) and then developing these areas.
its combination of both natural skill and practice. The sheer practice the OP is suggesting is what allows a bronze to reach master if they are very dedicated. That in the sense is true.
HOWEVER, its not just practice too. There are some people who have natural talent in the game based from prior experience of other games. Their mechanics and game sense still carries on to this game today. You could say there are some players who are naturally good at the game... and if they practice just as hard as that "bronze player who will hit master", they still be better than that player despite the same amount of practice time.
Natural born player << 2 years of practice << result: really good nooby no RTS experience player << same amount of practice as natural born player << really good but NOT as good as the natural born player.
The learning rate of natural skilled players will be higher than the nooby bronze player. But yes, its still possible for the bronze nooby player to get better than that natural skilled player.... by practicing more than him.
The similarity shows among koreans. The top korean players you see have prior experience from brood war or warcraft 3. There are some foreign pro players (Who dont go same level as korean players) who have no RTS experience previously, yet they do good (But not to the same level obviously due to koreans practicing more).
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You said it much better than i did, thank you ^^.. in a perfect world everybody would be equally good/talented at everything but this is not the case.
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You mean if you consistently practiced piano every day since the age of 4 until adulthood? Yes, I do think that. There's an understanding that Mozart was a child prodigy, so not everyone would pick it up at the same speed, but the same amount of training and practice could yield someone with similar musical ability. His ability to compose at he was a child is unique, but it should be noted that Mozart's most famous (and still performed) works were composed from about the age of 20 onward.
Mozart's success can be framed entirely as a result of circumstance. He was born into a family of musicians. His father, the musician, dedicated a significant amount of time to teaching him music from the age of four. Mozart spent his entire life performing and composing. I think it's safe to say anyone who lived that life would have similar ability.
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
Yes, just take care of all my financial obligations for the next ~10 years.
I'm not diamond or masters but its true about koreans. 1. South korea is a small country thats overpopulated and its much more difficult to survive than in the US. 2. Koreans are very very competitive with a hungry mindset. You need to be hungry in a ultra competitive atmosphere to survive. So therefore koreans pretty much go all in when they are dedicated to do achieve their goals. 3. Koreans are very intelligent people. They rank 3rd in math & other academics behind India and China. 4. Koreans LOVEEEEEE video games. Alot of them become very addicted to it and there has been some death rates because of this. I'm not saying koreans are the shit or anything but this is a fact.
On October 08 2011 03:55 OhMyGawd wrote: Flash started winning at 15...that seems pretty natural talent made .
Ye. flash is alll natural talent. He never had to work for what he accomplished. Despite all those interviews and what his teammates/coaches say about how he trains. no. its just talent. Sarcasm aside. He is along with jaedong most likely the hardest workers in the SC scene.
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
Yes if people practiced as hard as nestea they would be as good as nestea the problem is that when Nestea practice for say 12 hours he plays (made up number here) 60 games where if a foriegner practices 12 hours they might play 30 games... again the amount of games isnt important its the proportion. White Ra said, about the red buill lan, that foreigners are lazy they play three games then they want to do other things like go smoke or eat or check teamliquid or watch vods but Koreans don't do that its game after game.
10% natural, 90% trained. hard work beats talent when talent doesnt work hard. basically dont expect to be in that top tier unless you have that extra umph in you
even if talent does exist, think about it rationally isn't it better not to believe in talent and take your future into your own hands, believing that if you work harder and better that you will be better no matter what? i can't see anyone taking a belief in talent over that, unless one doesn't want to get better
On October 08 2011 05:25 roymarthyup wrote: im a high masters toss player. ive taken games off destiny and idra where they dont gg and sometimes rage at me
i barely practice. its all natural talent. a few games a week maybe
i know a few silver leagers who practice and play all day and try their absolute hardest to improve and cant get out of silver.
i got placed into masters weeks after i started playing
Honestly the difference between silver and high masters isn't as large as the skill difference between high masters and someone who consistently places in tournaments. There's lots of posters here who have taken a game off Idra or some other pro on ladder. That's doesn't mean they stand a chance in a Bo3 against any given pro player.
I made it to diamond shortly after launch, and have less than 200 1v1's played total. It's completely meaningless to speculate how far "natural talent" will take you when you barely play. especially because once you start to practice anything extensively, you get a feel for what actually matters.
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You mean if you consistently practiced piano every day since the age of 4 until adulthood? Yes, I do think that. There's an understanding that Mozart was a child prodigy, so not everyone would pick it up at the same speed, but the same amount of training and practice could yield someone with similar musical ability. His ability to compose at he was a child is unique, but it should be noted that Mozart's most famous (and still performed) works were composed from about the age of 20 onward.
Mozart's success can be framed entirely as a result of circumstance. He was born into a family of musicians. His father, the musician, dedicated a significant amount of time to teaching him music from the age of four. Mozart spent his entire life performing and composing. I think it's safe to say anyone who lived that life would have similar ability.
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
Yes, just take care of all my financial obligations for the next ~10 years.
Is this a joke? Do you know anything about mozart? He was incredibly talented as a child, there is NO one that can match his talent. Don't pretend as if there aren't a lot of 4 year olds who practice a LOT but there has only been one Mozart. The fact that he was much better than a lot of older people who probably had 20x more practice in their lifetime compared to his should be enough proof.
Starcraft is a game that relies on the mind, just as chess is and if you seriously believe that you could be as good as some child prodigies that have came out and played for 2 years in the span of 10 years you're kidding yourself.
Talent does play a part, but not a massive one. Ret has to practice 3 hours a day to be as good as he is. That is considered fairly minor practice at his skill level. Most of the best (read: Korean) players practice for 8-12 hours a day, sometimes more. Another interesting thing is that many of the most "talented" individuals in history got where they are by working insanely hard. A few more well known examples of that are Michael Jordan and Albert Einstein.
In my opinion, there are some people that have an innate skill at some games that far overbalances any sort of practice. There are naturals, like Ret, that have such a good grasp of the game and its intricacies that don't practice as much as most top-level players. Then there are some naturals that practice a lot, and in doing so rise to the top of the game. Practice will make a player better, but if they cannot effectively play the game, then that practice is wasted.
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You mean if you consistently practiced piano every day since the age of 4 until adulthood? Yes, I do think that. There's an understanding that Mozart was a child prodigy, so not everyone would pick it up at the same speed, but the same amount of training and practice could yield someone with similar musical ability. His ability to compose at he was a child is unique, but it should be noted that Mozart's most famous (and still performed) works were composed from about the age of 20 onward.
Mozart's success can be framed entirely as a result of circumstance. He was born into a family of musicians. His father, the musician, dedicated a significant amount of time to teaching him music from the age of four. Mozart spent his entire life performing and composing. I think it's safe to say anyone who lived that life would have similar ability.
On October 08 2011 04:51 seiplo wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:43 Offhand wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
Yes, just take care of all my financial obligations for the next ~10 years.
Is this a joke? Do you know anything about mozart? He was incredibly talented as a child, there is NO one that can match his talent. Don't pretend as if there aren't a lot of 4 year olds who practice a LOT but there has only been one Mozart. The fact that he was much better than a lot of older people who probably had 20x more practice in their lifetime compared to his should be enough proof.
How many people do you know that have been traveling musicians since they were children? Where can I find your gypsy camp?
If two players practice really hard then the most talented player will play better. If the player with less talent practices more than the other player he will play better.
So at the highest level where basically everyone practices really hard then talent might be more important imo. If you would take some mediocre pro player and make him practice 14h a day he still wouldn´t be anywhere near the level of someone like MVP even if MVP would practice half as much.
So I think that talent is the deciding factor to if you succeed as a player if you practice enough.
On October 08 2011 05:48 shadowboxer wrote: Talent doesn't exist. Certain things come easier to some people.
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You mean if you consistently practiced piano every day since the age of 4 until adulthood? Yes, I do think that. There's an understanding that Mozart was a child prodigy, so not everyone would pick it up at the same speed, but the same amount of training and practice could yield someone with similar musical ability. His ability to compose at he was a child is unique, but it should be noted that Mozart's most famous (and still performed) works were composed from about the age of 20 onward.
Mozart's success can be framed entirely as a result of circumstance. He was born into a family of musicians. His father, the musician, dedicated a significant amount of time to teaching him music from the age of four. Mozart spent his entire life performing and composing. I think it's safe to say anyone who lived that life would have similar ability.
On October 08 2011 04:51 seiplo wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:43 Offhand wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
Yes, just take care of all my financial obligations for the next ~10 years.
Is this a joke? Do you know anything about mozart? He was incredibly talented as a child, there is NO one that can match his talent. Don't pretend as if there aren't a lot of 4 year olds who practice a LOT but there has only been one Mozart. The fact that he was much better than a lot of older people who probably had 20x more practice in their lifetime compared to his should be enough proof.
How many people do you know that have been traveling musicians since they were children? Where can I find your gypsy camp?
How many people were composing and performing by the age of 5? Let alone 15-20? In 1 year he was able to do things that people who have been playing for 10 years couldn't accomplish. You think that it was the quality of practice that lead him to that? Let me tell you that you could not just put a random 4 year old into a position like that and they would not be so successful.
When i started playing right after beta, i got into diamond after about 50 games (highest back then) without any previous RTS experience, but lots of pvp experience from WoW and dota. And i just always stayed pretty high (1200 masters atm) with barely 1 game a day on average. My skills don't decay with breaks and i didnt drop in rating when i switched from terran to zerg in diamond,so i guess i might have some innate talent for the game.
Talent doesn't exist. Certain things come easier to some people. If I had a friend that was very good at SC2 first starting out, he's not "talented" his mind just understands how RTS works better than I do. The minute both of us start working really hard to get better, it will come down to the game itself and not "talent".
Look at Michael Jordan, he wasn't "talented" at all. The guy trained so ridiculously hard that he reached his goal of being one of the best, if not the best, basketball players of all time. It was 110% dedication, training and keeping an open mind.
Never stop trying to learn, because there is never a point where there's nothing else to learn. If you have this attitude and combine it with good work ethic, you will succeed at ANYTHING whether it comes easier to you or not.
By age 12 he was a grandmaster chess player, beating players who have played for longer than he's lived. By age 14 he beat the reigning world champion, I don't think I need to explain how much more practice his opponent had.
On October 08 2011 05:39 PraetorialGamer wrote: In my opinion, there are some people that have an innate skill at some games that far overbalances any sort of practice. There are naturals, like Ret, that have such a good grasp of the game and its intricacies that don't practice as much as most top-level players. Then there are some naturals that practice a lot, and in doing so rise to the top of the game. Practice will make a player better, but if they cannot effectively play the game, then that practice is wasted.
The best players are always the ones that practice the most. People like Ret, Tyler, or QXC can all get away with being decent progamers with minimal practice now because they've been playing BW for a decade before this game came out. But none of these people would be considered the top of the scene, they do not win consistently.
The players with the same RTS background but consistent practice outperform them. I don't understand how this even gets debated when no-name Koreans from various practice houses eat top foreigners for breakfast with regularity. The entirety of the world cannot go up against the Koreans because of their practice houses. They aren't naturally good at video games, they just actually practice and attempt to better understand the game.
Seriously watch Huk play the beta. He was just as good as anyone mass laddering 4 gates in Masters today. Huk goes to the oGs training house and one year later he's a regular code S contender. training houses have actual schedules and programs through which players can practice their weak match ups or areas that need improvement. This is a hell of a lot different than mass laddering, which seems to be many foreigner's idea of "practice".
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You mean if you consistently practiced piano every day since the age of 4 until adulthood? Yes, I do think that. There's an understanding that Mozart was a child prodigy, so not everyone would pick it up at the same speed, but the same amount of training and practice could yield someone with similar musical ability. His ability to compose at he was a child is unique, but it should be noted that Mozart's most famous (and still performed) works were composed from about the age of 20 onward.
Mozart's success can be framed entirely as a result of circumstance. He was born into a family of musicians. His father, the musician, dedicated a significant amount of time to teaching him music from the age of four. Mozart spent his entire life performing and composing. I think it's safe to say anyone who lived that life would have similar ability.
On October 08 2011 04:51 seiplo wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:43 Offhand wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
Yes, just take care of all my financial obligations for the next ~10 years.
Is this a joke? Do you know anything about mozart? He was incredibly talented as a child, there is NO one that can match his talent. Don't pretend as if there aren't a lot of 4 year olds who practice a LOT but there has only been one Mozart. The fact that he was much better than a lot of older people who probably had 20x more practice in their lifetime compared to his should be enough proof.
How many people do you know that have been traveling musicians since they were children? Where can I find your gypsy camp?
How many people were composing and performing by the age of 5? Let alone 15-20? In 1 year he was able to do things that people who have been playing for 10 years couldn't accomplish. You think that it was the quality of practice that lead him to that? Let me tell you that you could not just put a random 4 year old into a position like that and they would not be so successful.
Mozart started composing at 5, he was a child prodigy. However, nothing he wrote before he was 20 is actually remembered as a "great" work of his ("great" being defined as regularly performed, because such things are subjective). I know plenty of families who had their children taking music lessons at that age, and yes, anyone who sticks with it into adulthood is amazing at their given instrument, provided they consistently had lessons and practiced. None of these people are Mozart, however, thanks to child labor laws.
His status as a child prodigy did not make him an adult composer. He had to practice for that. Do you think that if Mozart was taught how to play at four, started composing at five, and then spent the next 15 years as an apprentice baker he would have been a world renowned composer? Even if he dedicated his post-baker life to music?
On October 08 2011 05:48 shadowboxer wrote: Talent doesn't exist. Certain things come easier to some people. If I had a friend that was very good at SC2 first starting out, he's not "talented" his mind just understands how RTS works better than I do. The minute both of us start working really hard to get better, it will come down to the game itself and not "talent".
Look at Michael Jordan, he wasn't "talented" at all. The guy trained so ridiculously hard that he reached his goal of being one of the best, if not the best, basketball players of all time. It was 110% dedication, training and keeping an open mind.
Never stop trying to learn, because there is never a point where there's nothing else to learn. If you have this attitude and combine it with good work ethic, you will succeed at ANYTHING whether it comes easier to you or not.
I disagree to an extent that there is no such thing as talent. The description you used of a friend who just picks up the game and understands it better.. that's the definition of natural talent - it's talent inherent in the way a person thinks or reasons. That doesn't mean natural talent rules all (you're quite right that hard work/practice pays great dividends) but a natural aptitude for cause-effect, deductive reasoning is an indisputably valuable natural talent to have in sc2. I am by no means an expert, a pro, or even skilled player. I'm mid-diamond. That said, I have played less than 300 games on ladder, around 100 custom 1v1 games, etc. My grand total of games played is around 500, so it's not like I "practice" a lot, or at all really. I have friends who have played upwards of 1000 games and are still bronze. They practice 2-3 hours a day and are still only at .500 record in that division. Obviously my own experience with friends and colleagues is far from statistically significant but I wonder at the mindset of "only practice and hard work will get you to the top - there is no such thing as talent." I suppose you could argue that the quality of practice is low so the talent level doesn't rise, but I know that my friend practices a little with me and a few other masters friends so I'd expect some level of improvement at least. Michael Jordan trained extremely hard, no doubt about it, but I think it is silly to proclaim he didn't have any "talent" for the game. If all it came down to was practice then any person in the world who wanted it badly enough could make it as a pro. That's obviously not the case. There is a theory called Multiple Intelligence Theory which basically states that people can be intelligent in a number of different fields based on the way their brain chemistry works.. the way people are "wired", so to speak. It's just a theory but it explains a great deal and also offers some insight as to how people might be good at various different types of games. It could be that a person is just hard-wired with an aptitude for observation and exploitation based on those observations. Just my take on it.
Talent is a bad word to use in such scenarios really, since talent is usually something very specific. You can't be "talented" at SC2 only. The thing that does however influence a performance of a player is predisposition of mind towards certain activities. Analytical minds will have easier time of making decisions based on information they have available, but not everyone really has that quality and it's often, in case of games confused with talent.
Logical ability and understanding of patterns is something some people have excess off while others are better in different fields, but none of that will matter if you simply lack practice, because a lot in video games is about execution and that's something you need to practice to perform without having to think which button does what at any given moment.
Against most Foreigners you can be trained to just win, I think if your macro was perfect and you just made a lot of shit at the right times you could do pretty well.
Against Koreans though you either need to train decision making or be good at on the fly decisions. When MMA drops 2 / 3 of your bases you need to decide how to split the army and where to go first and sort priorities
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You mean if you consistently practiced piano every day since the age of 4 until adulthood? Yes, I do think that. There's an understanding that Mozart was a child prodigy, so not everyone would pick it up at the same speed, but the same amount of training and practice could yield someone with similar musical ability. His ability to compose at he was a child is unique, but it should be noted that Mozart's most famous (and still performed) works were composed from about the age of 20 onward.
Mozart's success can be framed entirely as a result of circumstance. He was born into a family of musicians. His father, the musician, dedicated a significant amount of time to teaching him music from the age of four. Mozart spent his entire life performing and composing. I think it's safe to say anyone who lived that life would have similar ability.
On October 08 2011 04:51 seiplo wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:43 Offhand wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
Yes, just take care of all my financial obligations for the next ~10 years.
Is this a joke? Do you know anything about mozart? He was incredibly talented as a child, there is NO one that can match his talent. Don't pretend as if there aren't a lot of 4 year olds who practice a LOT but there has only been one Mozart. The fact that he was much better than a lot of older people who probably had 20x more practice in their lifetime compared to his should be enough proof.
How many people do you know that have been traveling musicians since they were children? Where can I find your gypsy camp?
How many people were composing and performing by the age of 5? Let alone 15-20? In 1 year he was able to do things that people who have been playing for 10 years couldn't accomplish. You think that it was the quality of practice that lead him to that? Let me tell you that you could not just put a random 4 year old into a position like that and they would not be so successful.
Mozart started composing at 5, he was a child prodigy. However, nothing he wrote before he was 20 is actually remembered as a "great" work of his ("great" being defined as regularly performed, because such things are subjective). I know plenty of families who had their children taking music lessons at that age, and yes, anyone who sticks with it into adulthood is amazing at their given instrument, provided they consistently had lessons and practiced. None of these people are Mozart, however, thanks to child labor laws.
His status as a child prodigy did not make him an adult composer. He had to practice for that. Do you think that if Mozart was taught how to play at four, started composing at five, and then spent the next 15 years as an apprentice baker he would have been a world renowned composer? Even if he dedicated his post-baker life to music?
So anyone who practices is suddenly not talented anymore? No one here is arguing that talent is the only thing that matters. People will practice hard because obviously anyone can get better, no matter how talented you are. Even at the age of 20 he was surpassing people in their 50s, 60s, all people who had played much longer than Mozart had.
While some here say that Bronze players should be watching their replays and analyzing them more, I'd say that the knowledge that is required to do that is not there. The average Bronze player won't be able to see what went wrong positioning wise or why their 200/200 army lost against the opponent's 200/200 army. You need to know things and not only facts, that's easy to learn but also by experience. Knowing quite accurately how many of what you need to defeat the other guy's army in each unique situation is one of those things.
I was myself one of those >500 games Bronzers and I have to say that I actually all the way put a lot of effort into improving, no matter how stupid that might make me seem. Now I'm in Gold league with about 600 games played this season and I still put a lot of effort into improving, I just am not for some reason.
So maybe I'm stupid, I don't know, but I actually do know that there definately i something that could be compared to talent for this game.
On October 08 2011 06:06 LeKiNGG wrote: Like any other ''sport'', a big part, at a very high level of play, is pure talent.
Starcraft 2 is much more trained than almost every other sport. If you try hard enough, you will be good. Whereas in Basketball, you can try all you like but if your 5ft2, you will NEVER play at a decent level.
I work my ass to the bone everyday just to be High Diamond since day 1 of beta. I think alot of it comes down to natural skill, some people are just born to do it, crosby, ovechkin... Boxer and Flash...etc...
I think a lot of people are arguing a side that isn't being contested here. No one is claiming practice isn't important. No one is saying you can just pick up SC2 and suddenly be among the best players in the world. What they are claiming is that natural talent is a factor in a player's development. There is no black and white "talent is everything or nothing" argument. If it was all practice then anyone could do it. If it was just natural talent and no practice then the people currently dominating the scene, IE the people who practice more, (generally Koreans or people living in Korea) wouldn't be winning the majority of tournaments. Stop drawing bright-line distinctions where there are none.
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You mean if you consistently practiced piano every day since the age of 4 until adulthood? Yes, I do think that. There's an understanding that Mozart was a child prodigy, so not everyone would pick it up at the same speed, but the same amount of training and practice could yield someone with similar musical ability. His ability to compose at he was a child is unique, but it should be noted that Mozart's most famous (and still performed) works were composed from about the age of 20 onward.
Mozart's success can be framed entirely as a result of circumstance. He was born into a family of musicians. His father, the musician, dedicated a significant amount of time to teaching him music from the age of four. Mozart spent his entire life performing and composing. I think it's safe to say anyone who lived that life would have similar ability.
On October 08 2011 04:51 seiplo wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:43 Offhand wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
Yes, just take care of all my financial obligations for the next ~10 years.
Is this a joke? Do you know anything about mozart? He was incredibly talented as a child, there is NO one that can match his talent. Don't pretend as if there aren't a lot of 4 year olds who practice a LOT but there has only been one Mozart. The fact that he was much better than a lot of older people who probably had 20x more practice in their lifetime compared to his should be enough proof.
How many people do you know that have been traveling musicians since they were children? Where can I find your gypsy camp?
How many people were composing and performing by the age of 5? Let alone 15-20? In 1 year he was able to do things that people who have been playing for 10 years couldn't accomplish. You think that it was the quality of practice that lead him to that? Let me tell you that you could not just put a random 4 year old into a position like that and they would not be so successful.
Mozart started composing at 5, he was a child prodigy. However, nothing he wrote before he was 20 is actually remembered as a "great" work of his ("great" being defined as regularly performed, because such things are subjective). I know plenty of families who had their children taking music lessons at that age, and yes, anyone who sticks with it into adulthood is amazing at their given instrument, provided they consistently had lessons and practiced. None of these people are Mozart, however, thanks to child labor laws.
His status as a child prodigy did not make him an adult composer. He had to practice for that. Do you think that if Mozart was taught how to play at four, started composing at five, and then spent the next 15 years as an apprentice baker he would have been a world renowned composer? Even if he dedicated his post-baker life to music?
So anyone who practices is suddenly not talented anymore? No one here is arguing that talent is the only thing that matters. People will practice hard because obviously anyone can get better, no matter how talented you are. Even at the age of 20 he was surpassing people in their 50s, 60s, all people who had played much longer than Mozart had.
On October 08 2011 04:45 MockHamill wrote: Every skill is a combination of talent and practice. Do you seriously believe that if 1000 people practiced as much as Mozart they would be just as good?
You mean if you consistently practiced piano every day since the age of 4 until adulthood? Yes, I do think that. There's an understanding that Mozart was a child prodigy, so not everyone would pick it up at the same speed, but the same amount of training and practice could yield someone with similar musical ability. His ability to compose at he was a child is unique, but it should be noted that Mozart's most famous (and still performed) works were composed from about the age of 20 onward.
Mozart's success can be framed entirely as a result of circumstance. He was born into a family of musicians. His father, the musician, dedicated a significant amount of time to teaching him music from the age of four. Mozart spent his entire life performing and composing. I think it's safe to say anyone who lived that life would have similar ability.
On October 08 2011 04:51 seiplo wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:43 Offhand wrote:
On October 08 2011 04:40 seiplo wrote: id say both, theres too many people out there thinking they would be as good as nestea(just an example) if they would put in the same amount of time and i think thats a big load of crap
I think you seriously underestimate the amount of time Nestea has put into RTS if you disagree with that statement though.
So what you are saying is that if you would play as much as he have you would be just as good?
Yes, just take care of all my financial obligations for the next ~10 years.
Is this a joke? Do you know anything about mozart? He was incredibly talented as a child, there is NO one that can match his talent. Don't pretend as if there aren't a lot of 4 year olds who practice a LOT but there has only been one Mozart. The fact that he was much better than a lot of older people who probably had 20x more practice in their lifetime compared to his should be enough proof.
How many people do you know that have been traveling musicians since they were children? Where can I find your gypsy camp?
How many people were composing and performing by the age of 5? Let alone 15-20? In 1 year he was able to do things that people who have been playing for 10 years couldn't accomplish. You think that it was the quality of practice that lead him to that? Let me tell you that you could not just put a random 4 year old into a position like that and they would not be so successful.
Mozart started composing at 5, he was a child prodigy. However, nothing he wrote before he was 20 is actually remembered as a "great" work of his ("great" being defined as regularly performed, because such things are subjective). I know plenty of families who had their children taking music lessons at that age, and yes, anyone who sticks with it into adulthood is amazing at their given instrument, provided they consistently had lessons and practiced. None of these people are Mozart, however, thanks to child labor laws.
His status as a child prodigy did not make him an adult composer. He had to practice for that. Do you think that if Mozart was taught how to play at four, started composing at five, and then spent the next 15 years as an apprentice baker he would have been a world renowned composer? Even if he dedicated his post-baker life to music?
So anyone who practices is suddenly not talented anymore? No one here is arguing that talent is the only thing that matters. People will practice hard because obviously anyone can get better, no matter how talented you are. Even at the age of 20 he was surpassing people in their 50s, 60s, all people who had played much longer than Mozart had.
You, and like 95% of the people making your argument, are ignoring that there are certain moments in the learning process where past training and knowledge congeal into recognition of a principle or fact. For the arts, this can come down to the specific conglomeration of experiences that a person has in their field, and is very different from a field like sc2 gaming. Arts rely not on a person's ability to draw, or play piano, or cut stone... art relies on understanding or intuitively knowing what is perceptually interesting to the group of people who care about that art.
In sc2 gaming, these understandings came from a few places... playing thousands upon thousands of games, playing them against players that test your abilities, and thinking about how the game works and trying to understand it. If no one ever told you that building workers was the key to making it out of bronze, how many games would it have taken you to figure that out on your own? Hundreds? Thousands? How many years was it before sc1 trended away from early rushes and one base attacks with no followup? Of course, someone told you that because you troll this website where every strategy post says to build workers or to go watch day9 who says that in like every newbie cast. But how many weeks of your life were saved by that realization/teaching? There are hundreds of those realizations that go into being a great player, and the right teacher can save you years of training. You can't compare one person's hours of training with another's and say "talent" was the difference. A lot of factors go into how well you do any task, and "talent" is like "free will"... It's just a word we use to describe conglomerations of factors too difficult to measure or predict.
On October 08 2011 06:06 LeKiNGG wrote: Like any other ''sport'', a big part, at a very high level of play, is pure talent.
Starcraft 2 is much more trained than almost every other sport. If you try hard enough, you will be good. Whereas in Basketball, you can try all you like but if your 5ft2, you will NEVER play at a decent level.
No you wont, i know people that have played hundreds of games in BW and been stuck at D, players who played alot and been stuck in Gold league on SC2.
Mass gaming can help make you good, but it wont make you good always
Not only do you have to be prepared to invest time in becoming an expert, but you have to start early—at least in some fields. Your ability to attain expert performance is clearly constrained if you have fewer opportunities to engage in deliberate practice, and this is far from a trivial constraint. Once, after giving a talk, K. Anders Ericsson was asked by a member of the audience whether he or any other person could win an Olympic medal if he began training at a mature age. Nowadays, Ericsson replied, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to win an individual medal without a training history comparable with that of today’s elite performers, nearly all of whom started very early. Many children simply do not get the opportunity, for whatever reason, to work with the best teachers and to engage in the sort of deliberate practice that they need to reach the Olympic level in a sport.
But it does probably require that practice and drilling begin very early, and good coaching is very important too.
One of my "talentless" friends constantly asks for advice. The problem is, any advice I give won't stop him from going voids every game, every match up, without fail. People constantly limit themselves in ways like this. In this case it's obvious, and if he had chosen a different unit to get all excited about like collosus, then he could do better (he would still suffer from the self-imposed limit to some extent). There's an endless number of limitations the average player puts on themselves, but the most common would probably be blaming "game balance" for most things.
As a member of the "diamond in under 50 games since launch" club. I can tell you that I have no natural ability in this game. My hand-eye coordination has always been terrible, my reaction time is even worse (two very embarrassing years on the high school tennis team). I got into a higher league simply because I understand what the most important actions in the game are (macro, macro, and macro) and I do whatever I can to mimic the correct play. Because I watch the game, I know what the timings are and what they look like when they are done correctly, something that no one at diamond-level is doing. A lot of this is better explained in Sirlin's Playing to Win, which is a must read for anyone seriously interested in improving their ability.
I think practice is huge, but on the other hand... My friend has played the game as much, if not more, than I have, and he's really smart about the game, but he's been in silver since the dawn of time and i've gotten to Diamond fairly easily. Its a little bit of both.
hmm, it's a tough argument. Personally, I think practicing will help you get to a higher league and that talent only serves to help that. You can be talented but if you aren't practicing, you'll be beaten by someone who is putting in the time. That's my opinion at least.
On October 08 2011 06:06 LeKiNGG wrote: Like any other ''sport'', a big part, at a very high level of play, is pure talent.
Starcraft 2 is much more trained than almost every other sport. If you try hard enough, you will be good. Whereas in Basketball, you can try all you like but if your 5ft2, you will NEVER play at a decent level.
No you wont, i know people that have played hundreds of games in BW and been stuck at D, players who played alot and been stuck in Gold league on SC2.
Mass gaming can help make you good, but it wont make you good always
I don't think a few hundred BW games is anywhere near enough practice to significantly improve. Not everyone has the same learning curve, which I think is what most people are actually referring to when they talk about "talent" and "skill".
Not only do you have to be prepared to invest time in becoming an expert, but you have to start early—at least in some fields. Your ability to attain expert performance is clearly constrained if you have fewer opportunities to engage in deliberate practice, and this is far from a trivial constraint. Once, after giving a talk, K. Anders Ericsson was asked by a member of the audience whether he or any other person could win an Olympic medal if he began training at a mature age. Nowadays, Ericsson replied, it would be virtually impossible for anyone to win an individual medal without a training history comparable with that of today’s elite performers, nearly all of whom started very early. Many children simply do not get the opportunity, for whatever reason, to work with the best teachers and to engage in the sort of deliberate practice that they need to reach the Olympic level in a sport.
But it does probably require that practice and drilling begin very early, and good coaching is very important too.
I agree that you can become an expert in almost anything if you are really dedicated and hard-working. But if two people would be equally dedicated, hard-working and if they would have the exact same experience and practice then talent would be the deciding factor as to who is better. That´s what talent is: the x factor that makes the difference.
Stuff like intelligence/understanding, if you´re a fast learner, reaction speed, and dexterity for example is, I think, important to when it comes to assessing the talent of a Starcraft player. Sure you can get better at all of those things but only to a certain degree.
On March 21 2011 22:18 JeLLe04 wrote: with a metric fuckton of work
I lol'd
But seriously, I think that you are born with some natural ability, but if you are dedicated enough, play enough, and have the right mentality, then you can go as high as you want.
It is really easy. Skill is trained. Talent is the ability to understand the skill you want to master better, and approaching and learning about said skill in an effective manner from the get go. If you don't realize that there might be better ways to improve at X, you will progress slower or get stuck faster than someone who actively tries to find answers or someone that just found the right path early (also called Talent)
-Think about it, you can play 500 games and just "try to improve", getting stuck at the same level -You can play 500 games and analyze in a bad or inefficient way, slowly improving and hitting a plateau -You can play 500 games and constantly tune your methods of improvement, becoming more efficient and better faster and faster -You can play 50 games and happen to already hit the nail on its head in regards to how to improve best.
It's all about figuring out what works best for you, and then REFINING your methods, way of thinking, analysis, efficient use of time, the list goes on and on.
As for me, I started as an inefficient improver due to excessive or right out wrong analysis. But I started to work on refining every single aspect of myself, my methods, analysis etc and now I improve so fast that I find myself shocked looking back at my previous rate of progress. But I never keep refining and questioning my methods and ways.
It's a skill which you have to learn like anything else. Stories like "my friend got into masters in a week" usually involves people circumventing the skill requirement with mass 4gates or 3raxes. I started out in Bronze with my awesome TvZ strategy of getting cloak banshees every game and they wouldn't have detection and I made it up to masters by practicing and learning better strategies.
On March 21 2011 22:18 JeLLe04 wrote: with a metric fuckton of work
I lol'd
But seriously, I think that you are born with some natural ability, but if you are dedicated enough, play enough, and have the right mentality, then you can go as high as you want.
I disagree. To get as high as you want, and not as in literally high, you do need to have actual born-with-it-talent, it's just too competitive at a high level, and if you don't have a hard-wired understanding of StarCraft, it's going to be rather difficult. Not saying it's impossible, but it's going to be difficult.
You can always get better with practice but it is kinda obvious that it will only take you so far. If it was no talent involved there would be no bonjwa since there are hundreds of players putting in the same amount of practice. In one sport I compete in I hear alot of "talent is just being able to train alot without getting injured" and nonsense like that. The thing is the people without talent quit or stop trying quite early and then there are only the talented left. You can train over 20h/week (depends on sport but in most that is a decent amount) and not hold a candle to some guy that trains "twice a week". But yes when it comes to sc2, if you practice 14h every day for a year and you still cant reach GM level mmr I'd be suprised, regardless of talent.
On March 21 2011 22:18 JeLLe04 wrote:What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
I worked for my mid-masters position...and it's a tough climb, imho.
If you do anything long enough, you will inevitably become proficient at it...
except life...some people will just suck at that forever.
There are people in the world who are just born doing everything right. B.J. Penn got a black belt in jiu-jitsu in 3 years (this takes 10 years on average), then a few weeks later became the first non-Brazilian to win the World Championship in his weight class, which means he made other jiu-jitsu black belts (who had been studying it their whole lives) look stupid. That talent exists in the world, in every possible kind of sport or competition. There will be people who do things right their first time that other people spend years perfecting, and who will get more back from the same time spent practicing.
That said, many people with the most natural talent often get bored easily or don't develop a strong work ethic because of their talent - they just never learn to work hard or practice well. The top levels of play often have people who had some degree of natural ability but weren't the most talented when they started, and because of that they developed a drive and focus that can't be replaced.
Put it this way, if everyone started playing at the exact same time and practiced the same amount every day, the people with natural skill will be better than everyone else. But with time the people without natural skill will catch up and will eventually even out with the naturally skilled players. When you are at the highest level natural skill means nothing, the only thing that matters is practice.
Anyone can get really really good with just practice. It's the little things (Natural talent/ability) that separate the S class players from the rest, though.
On October 08 2011 07:51 Archontas wrote: There are people in the world who are just born doing everything right. B.J. Penn got a black belt in jiu-jitsu in 3 years (this takes 10 years on average), then a few weeks later became the first non-Brazilian to win the World Championship in his weight class, which means he made other jiu-jitsu black belts (who had been studying it their whole lives) look stupid. That talent exists in the world, in every possible kind of sport or competition. There will be people who do things right their first time that other people spend years perfecting, and who will get more back from the same time spent practicing.
That said, many people with the most natural talent often get bored easily or don't develop a strong work ethic because of their talent - they just never learn to work hard or practice well. The top levels of play often have people who had some degree of natural ability but weren't the most talented when they started, and because of that they developed a drive and focus that can't be replaced.
I'm much more inclined to believe that "talent" exists in physical sports because your strength and physical speed are very much determined in part by your genes as opposed to your ability to use a keyboard. Being 6+ft tall is a good "talent" to have in the NBA, the same way weighing over 300 lbs makes you a "talented" linebacker.
On October 08 2011 07:43 wonderwall wrote: It's a skill which you have to learn like anything else. Stories like "my friend got into masters in a week" usually involves people circumventing the skill requirement with mass 4gates or 3raxes. I started out in Bronze with my awesome TvZ strategy of getting cloak banshees every game and they wouldn't have detection and I made it up to masters by practicing and learning better strategies.
How many people still think that being in Master league is nearly pro level? It's not even close*, think like C- to C in BW.
Ehh. Though it's almost definitely been mentioned somewhere in the last 22 pages, I'll give my two cents anyhow.
Pretend the leagues are shapes. For simplicity's sake, we'll consider Bronze to be a square, Diamond to be a diamond and Grandmasters a star.
Now, take a player made of steel. Sounds hardcore, right? Yeah, but he's a fuggin' polygon. He -kind of- fits in bronze, but even then it isn't a neat fit and he isn't exactly clearly defined for that league... it's a gross fit but he is what he is, unmalleable and stoic, because he's friggin' dense, changes slowly and is extremely resistant to change.
Compare, then, to a player made of sponge. A sponge starts out rectangular, and pretty quickly finds out how it can cram itself into the comfortable confines of a square. Excited by this nice, clean fit the sponge-player will likely quickly wonder what other shapes it can form, learning how to cram itself into a variety of different shapes on its way through, possibly even figuring out how to cram itself into the complicated-as-shit star pattern.
That metaphor is damn retarded, but the idea that everyone starts out as "a shape" based on their past experiences and understanding of the patterns of video games in general, RTS specifically, and then Starcraft specifically. This would be why WC3/SC:BW players are/were often expected to do well immeditely in SC2; they already had some understanding of how the game will work and what is required to "Fill the shape".
There's more, but I feel like an idiot for explaining a stupid metaphor. Figure it out yourself, you illustrous block of stone.
On October 08 2011 07:51 Archontas wrote: There are people in the world who are just born doing everything right. B.J. Penn got a black belt in jiu-jitsu in 3 years (this takes 10 years on average), then a few weeks later became the first non-Brazilian to win the World Championship in his weight class, which means he made other jiu-jitsu black belts (who had been studying it their whole lives) look stupid. That talent exists in the world, in every possible kind of sport or competition. There will be people who do things right their first time that other people spend years perfecting, and who will get more back from the same time spent practicing.
That said, many people with the most natural talent often get bored easily or don't develop a strong work ethic because of their talent - they just never learn to work hard or practice well. The top levels of play often have people who had some degree of natural ability but weren't the most talented when they started, and because of that they developed a drive and focus that can't be replaced.
I'm much more inclined to believe that "talent" exists in physical sports because your strength and physical speed are very much determined in part by your genes as opposed to your ability to use a keyboard. Being 6+ft tall is a good "talent" to have in the NBA, the same way weighing over 300 lbs makes you a "talented" linebacker.
Yeah, there are more obvious characteristics in physical sports that can make a certain kind of 'talent' prerequisite. But not every tall person has the coordination to be in the NBA and not every heavy person has the balance to be a linebacker, obviously - there are attributes that someone can be talented at which still also respond to practice and discipline, or pro athletes wouldn't need to practice as hard as we know they do.
To say that 'talent' in physical sports is solely confined to physical ability and genetics is silly.
Its cheese. Who can cheese better wins. If you can hold off cheese you are 3x better then the person who cheesed you. And after that its just who defends better. Who can cheese and defend is based on practice, and some talent.
On October 08 2011 07:51 Archontas wrote: There are people in the world who are just born doing everything right. B.J. Penn got a black belt in jiu-jitsu in 3 years (this takes 10 years on average), then a few weeks later became the first non-Brazilian to win the World Championship in his weight class, which means he made other jiu-jitsu black belts (who had been studying it their whole lives) look stupid. That talent exists in the world, in every possible kind of sport or competition. There will be people who do things right their first time that other people spend years perfecting, and who will get more back from the same time spent practicing.
That said, many people with the most natural talent often get bored easily or don't develop a strong work ethic because of their talent - they just never learn to work hard or practice well. The top levels of play often have people who had some degree of natural ability but weren't the most talented when they started, and because of that they developed a drive and focus that can't be replaced.
I'm much more inclined to believe that "talent" exists in physical sports because your strength and physical speed are very much determined in part by your genes as opposed to your ability to use a keyboard. Being 6+ft tall is a good "talent" to have in the NBA, the same way weighing over 300 lbs makes you a "talented" linebacker.
On October 08 2011 07:43 wonderwall wrote: It's a skill which you have to learn like anything else. Stories like "my friend got into masters in a week" usually involves people circumventing the skill requirement with mass 4gates or 3raxes. I started out in Bronze with my awesome TvZ strategy of getting cloak banshees every game and they wouldn't have detection and I made it up to masters by practicing and learning better strategies.
How many people still think that being in Master league is nearly pro level? It's not even close*, think like C- to C in BW.
*KR server excluded for obvious reasons.
That is a fucking huge ass linebacker.
I think starcraft if mostly practice but you still need the physical and mental ability to be a pro.
I got into masters in less than a week of playing, yet I see people on this board saying after months of trying everything and doing everything that they can't break out of Silver league.
No ammount of training will make a cripple an athletic runner, and no aamount of training will make someone who doesn't have natural talent a GSL champion. Training is a part of everything when you want to be the worlds best, but to think someone that isn't the best can make it into the top .001% of players through training alone is ridiculous.
On October 08 2011 09:35 Figgy wrote: It's all natural talent.
I got into masters in less than a week of playing, yet I see people on this board saying after months of trying everything and doing everything that they can't break out of Silver league.
No ammount of training will make a cripple an athletic runner, and no aamount of training will make someone who doesn't have natural talent a GSL champion. Training is a part of everything when you want to be the worlds best, but to think someone that isn't the best can make it into the top .001% of players through training alone is ridiculous.
doubt this. you're not accounting all your other gaming experience. i'm willing to bet you were competitive by nature in other games, whereas other people were never, but because of sc2's size and growth, became competitive.
i dont think its natural talent, every1 can play video games and u can get better if u play more and more and try to learn it, you just need to want it to get better and learn etc pratice pratice ,
Like in every other sport/activity you need both. I would bet that at least 95% of all people in the forums don't have the talent to be a consistent Code S/A player. And that includes a lot of progamers, too. But to materialize your talent, of couse you have to train very very hard.
Chess requires talent to reach grand master level, and everything you need to do as fast as possible require hard work. Thus I think it's safe to assume StarCraft requires both to reach the absolute top.
The way I see it 95% is practice, the last 5% is raw talent and what seperates pros from the rest with the last few promille being what makes a bonjwa.
It's both. Certainly some people have a natural affinity for RTS, and those people will be able to get better more easily... but anyone can be good with proper training.
It's practice, but there's also a lot of influence based on who your practice partners are and how you practice. Laddering all day on NA, probably isn't as effective as training in Korea.
It seems obvious that success at Starcraft is highly influenced by genetics.
A Starcraft match includes essentially a series of reaction time tests. Intelligence is also required to learn strategies and make good decisions in game.
Intelligence and reaction time are highly heritable. Some are born with the potential to play Starcraft at a professional level, and others are not so fortunate.
g and speed of cognitive processing The consistent relation between shorter reaction times and higher intelligence mainly appeared to reflect genetic effects shared by both measures. Luciano et al studied a wider range of information processing measures such as inspection time, choice reaction time, delayed response speed and accuracy with IQ in a sample of 245 MZ and 298 DZ twin pairs. Their results indicated the presence of a general genetic cognitive factor affecting both IQ and psychophysical phenotypes, as well as additional genetic factors explaining the additional test variance and covariance.
Starcraft ability being highly related to intelligence would also help explain Korean dominance at tournaments. East Asians have a higher average IQ than Whites and therefore have a larger pool of potentially great players to develop.
I think that it takes natural talent to be top 10 in the world, but I believe that anyone with an IQ over 90 can easily make it top like top 500 on ladder in their respective region (mb top 1000 on KR).
Experience and training makes up around 95% of sc2, if not more, the rest comes down to how well you can control your own body, how well you function under stress, etc... etc... These can all be augmented through training though.
On October 08 2011 12:14 CatNzHat wrote: I think that it takes natural talent to be top 10 in the world, but I believe that anyone with an IQ over 90 can easily make it top like top 500 on ladder in their respective region (mb top 1000 on KR).
Experience and training makes up around 95% of sc2, if not more, the rest comes down to how well you can control your own body, how well you function under stress, etc... etc... These can all be augmented through training though.
Genetics will be a key factor at every level of play. Someone new to Starcraft but with a high level of intelligence and fast reaction time will get a lot higher on the ladder in 50 games than someone with the same experience level but low intelligence and slow reactions.
I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of experience. People completely new to starcraft often immediately place higher than bronze just due to natural ability while other people spend thousands of games in bronze and will never reach any higher.
Starcraft ladder ranking is likely as highly correlated to intelligence as the SAT or other similar tests of cognitive ability.
On October 08 2011 12:14 CatNzHat wrote: I think that it takes natural talent to be top 10 in the world, but I believe that anyone with an IQ over 90 can easily make it top like top 500 on ladder in their respective region (mb top 1000 on KR).
Experience and training makes up around 95% of sc2, if not more, the rest comes down to how well you can control your own body, how well you function under stress, etc... etc... These can all be augmented through training though.
Genetics will be a key factor at every level of play. Someone new to Starcraft but with a high level of intelligence and fast reaction time will get a lot higher on the ladder in 50 games than someone with the same experience level but low intelligence and slow reactions.
I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of experience. People completely new to starcraft often immediately place higher than bronze just due to natural ability while other people spend thousands of games in bronze and will never reach any higher.
Starcraft ladder ranking is likely as highly correlated to intelligence as the SAT or other similar tests of cognitive ability.
If my SAT/GRE scores corresponded to ladder ranking I'd be high masters.
Sadly being able to take tests well doesn't make you better at RTS, playing RTS makes you better at RTS.
Intelligence is irrelevant. This game is more about training muscle memory, which takes time. Experience eases this process.
Experience would include other rts games, or just gaming in general. It would also include how much dedication you had towards your past games as well. I.e. if you casually played BW for a month, then it probably didn't contribute anything lasting to your skillset. All past games you dedicated yourself to provide little advantages over players than haven't had any experience at all. It doesn't even have to be exactly like SC2. For example, I played casual dota 4+ years. I was trained using hotkeys, looking at the minimap to spot enemy heroes, microing the **** out of my heroes (and leaver heroes/duplicate heroes a.k.a meepo), etc. I wasn't pro-level, but I wasn't bad either. Yes sc2 can be a macro oriented game but I came into it with a tiny initial skillset. I just made that skillset better by practicing. tl;dr: Trained.
I myself am a very competitive gamer, doesn't matter what game it is or what type of game it is, I want to win when I play. Sure winning isn't everything but when I play games I do it with a very competitive attitude, that competitive attitude is what gives me the motivation to improve, so long as I'm actually playing a game that I find interesting and fun.
So basically, yes I think just about anybody could theoretically get better at this game, there is no reason to think otherwise. But having the competitive attitude that will drive you to actually take those steps to get better? I think that is something different people are born with.
For the record, I'm masters now and would consider myself "trained", I basically never laddered back in BW and in SC2 worked my way up from Gold. Whether I'm playing a fighting game, an rts game, a shooting game, whatever, I just have most fun when I'm giving it my utmost concentration and figuring out how to get an edge on people. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On October 08 2011 12:14 CatNzHat wrote: I think that it takes natural talent to be top 10 in the world, but I believe that anyone with an IQ over 90 can easily make it top like top 500 on ladder in their respective region (mb top 1000 on KR).
Experience and training makes up around 95% of sc2, if not more, the rest comes down to how well you can control your own body, how well you function under stress, etc... etc... These can all be augmented through training though.
Genetics will be a key factor at every level of play. Someone new to Starcraft but with a high level of intelligence and fast reaction time will get a lot higher on the ladder in 50 games than someone with the same experience level but low intelligence and slow reactions.
I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of experience. People completely new to starcraft often immediately place higher than bronze just due to natural ability while other people spend thousands of games in bronze and will never reach any higher.
Starcraft ladder ranking is likely as highly correlated to intelligence as the SAT or other similar tests of cognitive ability.
If my SAT/GRE scores corresponded to ladder ranking I'd be high masters.
Sadly being able to take tests well doesn't make you better at RTS, playing RTS makes you better at RTS.
But being more intelligent makes you better at both.
On October 08 2011 09:35 Figgy wrote: It's all natural talent.
I got into masters in less than a week of playing, yet I see people on this board saying after months of trying everything and doing everything that they can't break out of Silver league.
No ammount of training will make a cripple an athletic runner, and no aamount of training will make someone who doesn't have natural talent a GSL champion. Training is a part of everything when you want to be the worlds best, but to think someone that isn't the best can make it into the top .001% of players through training alone is ridiculous.
take your natural talent to korea then. I mean after all, if its all talent.. Foreigners having a larger player pool should do just fine against the koreans. o wait
On March 21 2011 22:35 Seala wrote: As a high masters player on a pro team, I think literally anyone can atleast get in to masters, it's all about your mind set and how much work you put in to it.
On March 21 2011 22:35 Seala wrote: As a high masters player on a pro team, I think literally anyone can atleast get in to masters, it's all about your mind set and how much work you put in to it.
I believe its a combination of developed skill and natural talent. However, I consider myself to be a fairly intelligent being, and its that attribute that helps the most. If a player has (relatively)low apm, but has impeccable decision making, they have potential to be very good at the game.
im high diamond/ masters and i think some of it is just naturally being good at strategy but most of it is just playing a lot because you cant just naturally have 200 apm.
On October 08 2011 09:35 Figgy wrote: It's all natural talent.
I got into masters in less than a week of playing, yet I see people on this board saying after months of trying everything and doing everything that they can't break out of Silver league.
No ammount of training will make a cripple an athletic runner, and no aamount of training will make someone who doesn't have natural talent a GSL champion. Training is a part of everything when you want to be the worlds best, but to think someone that isn't the best can make it into the top .001% of players through training alone is ridiculous.
take your natural talent to korea then. I mean after all, if its all talent.. Foreigners having a larger player pool should do just fine against the koreans. o wait
Asians actually have a far larger pool of talent relative to Whites due to their higher average IQ. Far more of them are capable of playing at a professional level.
Sports is rarely natural. You must not know how much time every athlete puts in in order to play professionally. Same thing with SC. Skill is all trained. People may have some advantages at the beginning, but their success is never completely due to "natural ability"
On October 08 2011 12:01 Gurblechev wrote: It seems obvious that success at Starcraft is highly influenced by genetics.
A Starcraft match includes essentially a series of reaction time tests. Intelligence is also required to learn strategies and make good decisions in game.
Intelligence and reaction time are highly heritable. Some are born with the potential to play Starcraft at a professional level, and others are not so fortunate.
g and speed of cognitive processing The consistent relation between shorter reaction times and higher intelligence mainly appeared to reflect genetic effects shared by both measures. Luciano et al studied a wider range of information processing measures such as inspection time, choice reaction time, delayed response speed and accuracy with IQ in a sample of 245 MZ and 298 DZ twin pairs. Their results indicated the presence of a general genetic cognitive factor affecting both IQ and psychophysical phenotypes, as well as additional genetic factors explaining the additional test variance and covariance.
Starcraft ability being highly related to intelligence would also help explain Korean dominance at tournaments. East Asians have a higher average IQ than Whites and therefore have a larger pool of potentially great players to develop.
East Asians do not dominate SC2, Koreans do. Koreans have practice houses and a structured training environment. The whole of Asia minus Korea doesn't amount to the NA or EU scenes yet. This does not make sense if what you says is at all true.
On October 08 2011 12:01 Gurblechev wrote:Starcraft ability being highly related to intelligence would also help explain Korean dominance at tournaments. East Asians have a higher average IQ than Whites and therefore have a larger pool of potentially great players to develop.
I fail to see the correlation between pattern recognition and RTS skills, not to mention the correlation between pattern recognition and intelligence.
On October 08 2011 12:01 Gurblechev wrote: It seems obvious that success at Starcraft is highly influenced by genetics.
A Starcraft match includes essentially a series of reaction time tests. Intelligence is also required to learn strategies and make good decisions in game.
Intelligence and reaction time are highly heritable. Some are born with the potential to play Starcraft at a professional level, and others are not so fortunate.
g and speed of cognitive processing The consistent relation between shorter reaction times and higher intelligence mainly appeared to reflect genetic effects shared by both measures. Luciano et al studied a wider range of information processing measures such as inspection time, choice reaction time, delayed response speed and accuracy with IQ in a sample of 245 MZ and 298 DZ twin pairs. Their results indicated the presence of a general genetic cognitive factor affecting both IQ and psychophysical phenotypes, as well as additional genetic factors explaining the additional test variance and covariance.
Starcraft ability being highly related to intelligence would also help explain Korean dominance at tournaments. East Asians have a higher average IQ than Whites and therefore have a larger pool of potentially great players to develop.
East Asians do not dominate SC2, Koreans do. Koreans have practice houses and a structured training environment. The whole of Asia minus Korea doesn't amount to the NA or EU scenes yet. This does not make sense if what you says is at all true.
Does that change the point that east asia has a high poetential player pool to pull from. All you said was that Korea is the best at maximizing the potential.
Both, I keep a high masters play level only playing 5-10 games a week, having never played more than that. Some people have to play 5-10 games a day to get there and stay there.
On October 08 2011 12:01 Gurblechev wrote:Starcraft ability being highly related to intelligence would also help explain Korean dominance at tournaments. East Asians have a higher average IQ than Whites and therefore have a larger pool of potentially great players to develop.
I fail to see the correlation between pattern recognition and RTS skills, not to mention the correlation between pattern recognition and intelligence.
Sorry I don't understand what point you are trying to make.
Starcraft contains what is essentially a series of reaction time tests. You have to react to what is happening in game in real time. People with faster reaction times have a natural advantage. Intelligence is also a highly important trait for good decision making and ability to learn and execute strategies.
Reaction time and intelligence are significantly correlated with each other and are both highly heritable (genetic) traits.
On October 08 2011 14:05 emidanRKO wrote: sc skill will always be "trained". natural skills (intelligence) only help to decrease the training needed to get to a certain skill level.
Training is not a magical elixir that can bestow greater reaction time and intelligence than you are capable of.
Training is and always will be just a way to make use of potential.
If you are not born with advantageous genes for intelligence you will never play starcraft at a professional level even with a million lifetimes to train.
Hrm. Obviously there is a lot of natural talent that comes into play. Someone with an IQ of 88 simply won't succeed at the pro level, but the talent pool for SC2 players is so small that we can't really determine if SC2 is as reliant on natural talent as sports.
Basketball appeals to millions of people. Kids dream of becoming rich and famous and Basketball attracts the best of the best potential basketball players. Michael Jordan is the greatest Basketball player in history and we can safely say he was the best in the world because millions of people strived for his glory.
With SC2 currently it doesn't appeal to many people. Pro players now are pro because they played video games and had enough free time and lack of commitments to dedicate themselves to the (in the grand scheme of things) obscure hobby that is esports. But, SC2 doesn't even come close to attracting all of its potential talent pool. Who's to say that there aren't engineers, doctors, college professors, programmers, and etc that don't have analtyical thnking or intelligence that surpasses Flash or Jaedong?
TL;DR:
Yes, I think SC2 is mainly natural skill. If it was as big as MLB, NFL, NBA, Fifa, etc those more naturally talented would rise to the top.
training just helps macro (which is actually much easier than playing an instrument - i have yet to see a gamer practice with a metronome). training also helps micro (more muscle memory and mouse-speed than anything else). intelligence is what defines a progamer from the rest - being able to piece together an overpowered gameplay or better yet a build that counters the opponent.
I've put so much work into this stupid fucking game and can't get into masters after basically playing nonstop since beta. People with no rts experience, have played half the games and gotten into high masters. Natural talent has a fuckload to do with this game.
Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
On October 08 2011 13:25 Voltaire wrote: 95% trained
5% natural talent
On October 08 2011 18:10 Fort Minor wrote: 10% luck 20% skill 15% concentrated power of will 5% pleasure 50% pain, and 100% reason to remember the name
To everyone that says that it's pure practice, you are of course wrong. If it were simply up to practice then then everyone would just improve at an equal rate and you wouldn't have bronzies and other low levels that have played and do play countless games but can't break into the higher leagues. The reality is some people are smarter then you and have affinities for the skills required to be excel at the game.
On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote: Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
2GD: "Why are you so good MC?" oGsMC: "Uh... maybe good brain."
I think it is generally well understood that Starcraft skill primarily requires intelligence. It is impossible to learn or benefit from training if you are a dullard. When Artosis gushes over Nestea he gushes about how he is a genius with a massive brain, not his practice regimen.
No one is born extremely good at something. Sure there are those who have talents and may be highly gifted in something but they also work very hard in order to succeed. Even prodigies don't start at a professional level, they just learn much much quicker.
On October 08 2011 18:24 Epoch wrote: To everyone that says that it's pure practice, you are of course wrong. If it were simply up to practice then then everyone would just improve at an equal rate and you wouldn't have bronzies and other low levels that have played and do play countless games but can't break into the higher leagues. The reality is some people are smarter then you and have affinities for the skills required to be excel at the game.
well, you can call that whatever you want, but it's a kind of trained intellegence. Ofc if I learn maths I don't train to be a starcraft player, but in the end it might help me and I have put work on it. Just because some people haven't learned anything than is portable to starcraft, it doesn't mean that they can't become as good as others. But it means that they start on a lower level doing so.
On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote: Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
2GD: "Why are you so good MC?" oGsMC: "Uh... maybe good brain."
I think it is generally well understood that Starcraft skill primarily requires intelligence. It is impossible to learn or benefit from training if you are a dullard. When Artosis gushes over Nestea he gushes about how he is a genius with a massive brain, not his practice regimen.
And where does intellegence come from? Learning, getting taught and raised... Nothing that could not have been acquired by anyone else, but some people simply don't choose to do so
I believe there is no "natural talent" everything is learnt along the way. Your environment is the key. In Korea, e-sport is much more developed than others countries, it is logical that the average skill is much better. For an example in Rugby, it was such an event when north hemisphere nation would win against south africa, australia or new zealand. Because at this moment rugby scene wasn't much developed in Europe (no pro scene). It's not the case anymore and even if south hemisphere nation have still a consequent advantage due to the fact that their rugby scene has been evolved more than ours, it's not a exploit to win against them anymore.
You cannot be intelligent as a natural way to be, you can only be more intelligent than..."a precise moment in space and time" and that's it. Meaning, it's not forever.
On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote: Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
2GD: "Why are you so good MC?" oGsMC: "Uh... maybe good brain."
I think it is generally well understood that Starcraft skill primarily requires intelligence. It is impossible to learn or benefit from training if you are a dullard. When Artosis gushes over Nestea he gushes about how he is a genius with a massive brain, not his practice regimen.
And where does intellegence come from? Learning, getting taught and raised... Nothing that could not have been acquired by anyone else, but some people simply don't choose to do so
Which is more interesting and more accurate than most of what you guys are talking about.
While there are interesting points on this page, I personally feel bothered with some stuff and the way it's turned. How do you make a difference between an artist IQ and a musician IQ? And how can you define a person being a philosopher or a scientist?
Why constantly looking for a natural disposition when it's obvious that you have to learn in order to know. :/ As it is said in this article, it's 99% sweat, but what about the 1% part? Genes? IQ? Gravity? Who knows? Nobody...
I hate the word "talent". It's a word people only use because they watch players do something and they think "amazing!".. but they didn't see the thousands of times the player failed in those same situations while practicing. It's why I'm almost never impressed by anything any player does.. ever.
At lower levels the reason some people can play fewer games and seem to just *get* stuff, rocketing right up to Diamond while someone else is stuck in Gold for ages is because they have a better method of breaking down tasks to a base level and understanding them than others. They're using logic to their advantage, and the principals of logic can be applied to many, many situations. They may have been taught how to think in this way, or just worked it out by trial and error through past experiences themselves.
It's like particle physics and the real world. If you understand the fundamental building blocks which make up matter, for example, then you can begin to understand how things made of matter will behave. If you understand logic then you can apply it to not only Broodwar but Starcraft 2, World of Warcraft, chess, poker, a school test, a business deal, and so on.
On October 08 2011 14:49 IzieBoy wrote: honestly it's mostly intelligence
intelligence teaches you how to train
intelligence helps you read your opponent
training just helps macro (which is actually much easier than playing an instrument - i have yet to see a gamer practice with a metronome). training also helps micro (more muscle memory and mouse-speed than anything else). intelligence is what defines a progamer from the rest - being able to piece together an overpowered gameplay or better yet a build that counters the opponent.
True, the mechanical aspect of SC2 is heaps easier than playing a musical instrument - it only matters what button you hit and when you hit it, not how you hit it. Going 300 APM is fine and all, but now do that on a piano while keeping all your strokes at exactly the same touch. Take something like this: Loosely calculated and assuming that each chord counts as one note, that is rougly 650 APM, real minutes. While also worrying about touch.
This is why I don't believe mechanical skills are all that much related to talent for SC2. Sure, some people are naturally clumsy, but I believe anyone with at least some interest in SC2 can attain an average APM of 100+ if they only use hotkeys and shake bad habits, and make up for that clumsiness.
What I think is a much bigger factor is how people learn. It's been shown that for normal school/academic learning, people have different methods, so to speak. Some learn visually, by visualising the concepts they are studying, making connections and/or seeing it in action. Some learn very well from someone talking them through something (something visual thinkers are notoriously bad at, including me: I've just stopped listening to lectures for the most part, only looking at the BB/sheets). Some need to apply the course material being taught for themselves before they remember/understand.
I think these learning/thinking styles can have a very profound effect on your progression as a player in SC2. The visual thinker might watch a replay and attribute his loss to his bad formation, while the analytical thinker might start looking for holes in his/her strategy immediately. The practical learner might just not watch the replay at all and spam games in order to get better. Some approaches are more or less suited for improving yourself as a player, I think.
On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote: Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
2GD: "Why are you so good MC?" oGsMC: "Uh... maybe good brain."
I think it is generally well understood that Starcraft skill primarily requires intelligence. It is impossible to learn or benefit from training if you are a dullard. When Artosis gushes over Nestea he gushes about how he is a genius with a massive brain, not his practice regimen.
And where does intellegence come from? Learning, getting taught and raised... Nothing that could not have been acquired by anyone else, but some people simply don't choose to do so
Intelligence comes from your genes.
DNA markers associated with high versus low IQ: the IQ Quantitative Trait Loci (QTL) Project. General cognitive ability (intelligence, often indexed by IQ scores) is one of the most highly heritable behavioral dimensions. In an attempt to identify some of the many genes (quantitative trait loci; QTL) responsible for the substantial heritability of this quantitative trait, the IQ QTL Project uses an allelic association strategy. Allelic frequencies are compared for the high and low extremes of the IQ dimension using DNA markers in or near genes that are likely to be relevant to neural functioning. Permanent cell lines have been established for low-IQ (mean IQ = 82; N = 18), middle-IQ (mean IQ = 105; N = 21), and high-IQ (mean IQ = 130; N = 24) groups and for a replication sample consisting of even more extreme low-IQ (mean IQ = 59; N = 17) and high-IQ (mean IQ = 142; N = 27) groups.
On October 08 2011 19:41 paulinepain wrote: How do you make a difference between an artist IQ and a musician IQ?
You give them both IQ tests, subtract one from the other, and the result will be the difference between their IQs.
On October 08 2011 19:41 paulinepain wrote: Why constantly looking for a natural disposition when it's obvious that you have to learn in order to know.
Not all brains are equivalent. Some are more capable of learning than others.
Someone with average or below average levels of intelligence can't just learn how to become a great Starcraft player. Their brain is not capable of the fast reaction times and cognitive functioning that is demanded of professional level players.
On October 08 2011 20:26 IIIOmegaIII wrote: considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve.
Some people also stay in Bronze forever.
The people who eventually reach masters were fortunate enough to have advantageous genes for intelligence which made them capable of reaching that level.
Improving faster and getting a better grasp of the game is talent in itself, don't understand how hard this is for some people to get.
I guess too many people here were taught with the "you can do anything" mentality. Truth is you can't because genetics matter in just about everything when you want to become the best in the world. Yeah, okay, you can get places and become good with a lot of practice, but truth is there are people out there with both hard work and also just a natural affinity in what they're doing.
Intelligence of all forms including music, math, etc. (I'm sure starcraft 2 could come next on this list as well) is heavily based on genes and it's been backed by a lot of studies.
oh come on, genes are the excuse for dumb people why they are allowed to be lazy, when in fact their lazyness has made them dumb.
Also I really don't want to argue about those science papers. Ask a psychologist what he thinks about intelligence, then ask a biologist... And then ask a teacher what kind of students are the better ones: The ones that are lazy and don't attend classes, or the ones that are interested in the topics and work hard. May it be that genes make a difference, but after all there has never been a great person in the entire history of mankind who has achieved something outstanding without hard work, while the chance is pretty high that due to family/society/origin pressure, some of the people who did something great, have learned to do so, even without having better genes than anyone else for their task.
On October 08 2011 20:53 Big J wrote: And then ask a teacher what kind of students are the better ones: The ones that are lazy and don't attend classes, or the ones that are interested in the topics and work hard.
I suppose some of your teachers would tell the pupils that attend classes are the better ones, but I know where I am the best students (who are really levels above the others) are those who : don't attend classes, sleep when they attend, and don't give a fuck about the lessons. Just saying. :D
On October 08 2011 20:26 IIIOmegaIII wrote: considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve.
Some people also stay in Bronze forever.
The people who eventually reach masters were fortunate enough to have advantageous genes for intelligence which made them capable of reaching that level.
I see the point you're trying to make, but the way you're wording it right now is kind of offensive.
Keep in mind that very many people do not play to get to masters. Out of the ~15 SC2 players I know, only me and one other guy are actually trying to improve. The rest just play games, try to eek out of a win and that's it. Of course those players are never going to make masters, and it has nothing to do with them not being intelligent enough (3 of them are theoretical physics students and good ones at that).
In short, you're assuming that every single player has made it their personal goal to get to masters, therefore anyone that hasn't must not be smart enough.
On October 08 2011 20:26 IIIOmegaIII wrote: considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve.
Some people also stay in Bronze forever.
The people who eventually reach masters were fortunate enough to have advantageous genes for intelligence which made them capable of reaching that level.
I see the point you're trying to make, but the way you're wording it right now is kind of offensive.
Keep in mind that very many people do not play to get to masters. Out of the ~15 SC2 players I know, only me and one other guy are actually trying to improve. The rest just play games, try to eek out of a win and that's it. Of course those players are never going to make masters, and it has nothing to do with them not being intelligent enough (3 of them are theoretical physics students and good ones at that).
In short, you're assuming that every single player has made it their personal goal to get to masters, therefore anyone that hasn't must not be smart enough.
That's pretty much the thing. For many many players practice to get better just isn't that high on priority list. You can play 100000 of games and still be stuck in low league because you don't care for improving even if you have so called "potential" for it. It has nothing to do with "talent" or "genetic predisposition" but more with actual will to improve at a very specific game that really only minority of player base has. How many of players that play SC2 don't even bother with 1v1/ladder and play custom games or AI stomps for sake of fun rather than trying to be "pros"?
In the end, to be good at any given game, first and foremost you need to want to be good at it, practice hard, learn from your mistakes, see what you did wrong and then work on improving those bits. You won't be good at any game just because you can extract a square root of 8254 in memory.
On October 08 2011 20:26 IIIOmegaIII wrote: considering people actully go from bronze to masters i think that concludes that its all about how much will you have to improve.
Some people also stay in Bronze forever.
The people who eventually reach masters were fortunate enough to have advantageous genes for intelligence which made them capable of reaching that level.
I see the point you're trying to make, but the way you're wording it right now is kind of offensive.
Keep in mind that very many people do not play to get to masters. Out of the ~15 SC2 players I know, only me and one other guy are actually trying to improve. The rest just play games, try to eek out of a win and that's it. Of course those players are never going to make masters, and it has nothing to do with them not being intelligent enough (3 of them are theoretical physics students and good ones at that).
In short, you're assuming that every single player has made it their personal goal to get to masters, therefore anyone that hasn't must not be smart enough.
That's pretty much the thing. For many many players practice to get better just isn't that high on priority list. You can play 100000 of games and still be stuck in low league because you don't care for improving even if you have so called "potential" for it. It has nothing to do with "talent" or "genetic predisposition" but more with actual will to improve at a very specific game that really only minority of player base has. How many of players that play SC2 don't even bother with 1v1/ladder and play custom games or AI stomps for sake of fun rather than trying to be "pros"?
In the end, to be good at any given game, first and foremost you need to want to be good at it, practice hard, learn from your mistakes, see what you did wrong and then work on improving those bits. You won't be good at any game just because you can extract a square root of 8254 in memory.
First and foremost would be the level of intelligence required for success.
Training to put that natural ability to use would necessarily be secondary.
A pretty clever guy wrote alot about this, not sure if it's relevant for the thread or if they have already been posted... but:
“Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work...” ― Albert Einstein
“I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.” —Albert Einstein --- To Carl Seelig – March 11,1952. AEA 39-013
“Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.” —Albert Einstein --- To J. Dispentiere – March 24, 1954. AEA 59-495
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious." - Albert Einstein
From what I gather he greatly believed that anyone can achieve their goal, and the one's that exceed at certain aspects (whether it be sport, academia, or even sc2) are the one's who have an interest in it and thus work their asses off to excel at it.
My friend and I were talking about this last night after watching Destiny answer some questions on Reddit (I wanna be a pro, how much do you make, how do I join ROOT, etc. etc.) and it got me to wondering - how much of a given person's success in SC2 can be attributed to a natural affinity for the game or for video games in general?
I say none, my friend says a lot. His argument is that SC2 is just like any other sport. Nearly all of the players in the NHL, NFL, MLB, etc., got to that league through a combination of favorable circumstances, loads of practice, and natural skill. However, SC2 is different in that one's physical qualities have almost no bearing on gameplay - the exception would be hand speed and reflexes, which, in my opinion, can be trained.
My stance (and Destiny's, from what I could tell) is that even the lowliest Bronze player could theoretically make it to the GSL one day, with a metric fuckton of work and a lot of dedication. Look at Koreans, for instance. Koreans are typically better at SC2 for one of two possible reasons. The first is that Koreans are just born with a Gauss rifle in their hands and are veritable SC gods from the moment they exit the womb; the other is that Korean family values tend to stress hard work and dedication much more than the typical American family does, and Koreans therefore just work much harder at the game.
What do you guys think? If you're high Diamond or Masters, do you think you've worked enough to deserve it, or do you think you were just "born that way"?
Natural skill is something that puts someone over the top same as many sports, but EVERY talent is obtained through practice. You can lift weights all your life, run longer and faster, but if you don't train to play football you would still suck at it.
On October 08 2011 21:47 cunningstunt wrote: A pretty clever guy wrote alot about this, not sure if it's relevant for the thread or if they have already been posted... but:
“Genius is 1% talent and 99% percent hard work...” ― Albert Einstein
“I have no special talents. I am only passionately curious.” —Albert Einstein --- To Carl Seelig – March 11,1952. AEA 39-013
“Wisdom is not a product of schooling but of the lifelong attempt to acquire it.” —Albert Einstein --- To J. Dispentiere – March 24, 1954. AEA 59-495
"I am neither especially clever nor especially gifted. I am only very, very curious." - Albert Einstein
From what I gather he greatly believed that anyone can achieve their goal, and the one's that exceed at certain aspects (whether it be sport, academia, or even sc2) are the one's who have an interest in it and thus work their asses off to excel at it.
Well there's all sorts of hard data demonstrating that intelligence is highly heritable (genetic)... but if a famous person who was not a geneticist said something which could be vaguely be interpreted to disagree with that data we might as well ignore it!
haha I didnt say that I was merely quoting a guy, whether I agree with him is a different, jsut figured i'd add something else to the convo rather than just stating my opinion which seems to just be the same thing reiterated over and over again.
I feel like trying to explain one more time why anyone who thinks talent and intelligence is non existent and that it's all about hard work is wrong.
As for the cute einstein quotes, he was a humble man. There are clearly many people out there working incredibly hard at being genius scientists and there's a reason very that have come after him have reached his level of genius. It's because they aren't able to, it's not a lack of people working incredibly hard. It's not like einstein just worked 100000 times harder then everyone else that's literally impossible given the amount of time we live. He's one of the once in a life time geniuses, only a fool would deny that.
I'm a mid-high level master player that barely plays any games at all and when I do I often face top 10 masters and I'm as good as them even tho they play hundreds and/or LITERALLY over 1500 1v1 games in one season alone which is waaaaay more games then I've played in my entire life with no prior rts experience or competitive gaming experience. In addition at times I have had the ranking to be matched up with and defeat professional players. I've played 60 1v1s all season long.
So for those of you who are saying that it's about someones goals or the amount they practice that's clearly not true or I'd be nowhere close to the level of these players that are expressly trying to reach rank 1 masters or grand masters. If everyone had equal talent I wouldn't be anywhere near these players levels based on the amount of effort we each put in.
There are many lower level players that play many many more games then I ever have (and they are in fact trying to improve and reach masters) and based on the trends of how fast they are improving they will likely never be as good as someone like me.
This isn't any sort of brag or a way to put people down either as I don't even consider myself good at this game. I know I might sound like a dick saying that there are differences between people and some people might not be able to reach my level because they aren't as smart but I'd rather talk about reality then deny it like a fool.
Anyway my point is it's fairly obvious its a mixture of talent and hard work, hard work and practice are just the means of reaching your potential. And maybe you do have the potential to be great or the greatest, but the reality is not everyone does no matter how hard they try.
As for the cute einstein quotes, he was a humble man. There are clearly many people out there working incredibly hard at being genius scientists and there's a reason very that have come after him have reached his level of genius. It's because they aren't able to, it's not a lack of people working incredibly hard. It's not like einstein just worked 100000 times harder then everyone else that's literally impossible given the amount of time we live. He's one of the once in a life time geniuses, only a fool would deny that.
Of course he was a special guy, and of course he he clearly had something different about him. But from what I gather (and what I personally believe) is that his keen interest and hard work enabled himself to make the most of that gift he had as a scientist...
Which I guess is what you mean by:
Anyway my point is it's fairly obvious its a mixture of talent and hard work, hard work and practice are just the means of reaching your potential. And maybe you do have the potential to be great or the greatest, but the reality is not everyone does no matter how hard they try.
It's natural talent. Most gamers in Korean training houses are putting the same time in. Some will become GSL championships while others may never crack Code A. And this will not be because they trained any differently.
On October 08 2011 22:42 Cruncharoo wrote: It's natural talent. Most gamers in Korean training houses are putting the same time in. Some will become GSL championships while others may never crack Code A. And this will not be because they trained any differently.
The difference in skill between someone in code B and someone in code S in menial. People move around between the two in a matter on months.
As a nationally ranked distance runner, its my experience that genetics is more often an excuse for unintelligent or soft training, then it is a valid reason for lack of performance.
I know everyone here likes flow charts so:
can you improve? if yes, stop complaining about nature if no, then your probably so good that genetics doesn't matter
On October 08 2011 22:42 Cruncharoo wrote: It's natural talent. Most gamers in Korean training houses are putting the same time in. Some will become GSL championships while others may never crack Code A. And this will not be because they trained any differently.
The difference in skill between someone in code B and someone in code S in menial. People move around between the two in a matter on months.
As a nationally ranked distance runner, its my experience that genetics is more often an excuse for unintelligent or soft training, then it is a valid reason for lack of performance.
I know everyone here likes flow charts so:
can you improve? if yes, stop complaining about nature if no, then your probably so good that genetics doesn't matter
I'm not sure menial was the word you were looking for. Also, I'm not saying there is a large skill gap I am saying that it exists and the reason is not because of a difference in how they train. The difference is that some people given the same amount of training will be better than someone else at a given task. This is because of natural talent, genetics, however you want to put it. I am a former collegiate and professional hockey player and I have seen many people make it big by never really working that hard in their life and a lot of people who did every single thing right never be very good. Not everyone is created equal.
On October 08 2011 22:42 Cruncharoo wrote: And this will not be because they trained any differently.
Oh but it is. They might log the same amount of hours, but the player who improves the most is the one who applies the most focus and intelligence to their practice. You can call that "talent" if you want. I would call it having a strong will and determination.
On October 08 2011 22:42 Cruncharoo wrote: And this will not be because they trained any differently.
Oh but it is. They might log the same amount of hours, but the player who improves the most is the one who applies the most focus and intelligence to their practice. You can call that "talent" if you want. I would call it having a strong will and determination.
Not everyone has the same intelligence or ability to focus.
Lot of people have romantic views on stuff like this and want to believe that if you work hard enough you can achieve anything you want, which isn't true of course.
If one of two average Joes tries much harder to get good at something the hard working Joe will probably get better than the other. But when the competition gets hard enough most of us will never reach the absolute top at anything, no matter how hard we try.
Like a commentator said during a tour de france couple of years ago when answering the exact same question(don't remember the exact numbers but doesn't matter): There are around 25000 registered professional bicycle racers. 5000 probably train too hard and 10000 probably train about as optimized as the top 5. So no, you can't win tour de france regardless how hard you train unless you belong to the 1 in thousands that happen to be born with good enough genes.
And the opposite should usually be true as well. Without proper training you probably wont be able to win Wimbledon even if you are the most talented tennis player ever.
On October 08 2011 12:14 CatNzHat wrote: I think that it takes natural talent to be top 10 in the world, but I believe that anyone with an IQ over 90 can easily make it top like top 500 on ladder in their respective region (mb top 1000 on KR).
Experience and training makes up around 95% of sc2, if not more, the rest comes down to how well you can control your own body, how well you function under stress, etc... etc... These can all be augmented through training though.
Genetics will be a key factor at every level of play. Someone new to Starcraft but with a high level of intelligence and fast reaction time will get a lot higher on the ladder in 50 games than someone with the same experience level but low intelligence and slow reactions.
I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of experience. People completely new to starcraft often immediately place higher than bronze just due to natural ability while other people spend thousands of games in bronze and will never reach any higher.
Starcraft ladder ranking is likely as highly correlated to intelligence as the SAT or other similar tests of cognitive ability.
If my SAT/GRE scores corresponded to ladder ranking I'd be high masters.
Sadly being able to take tests well doesn't make you better at RTS, playing RTS makes you better at RTS.
That's because there are different types of intelligences. Just because you got a max score at the SAT's doesn't mean that you that you would be good at playing a piano, just like how it doesn't guarantee that you'll be good at SC2.
To be good at RTS's you need to be able to react fast (genetics and practice) and you need to be react intelligently (genetics and practice again).
If everyone played 12 hours a day genetics would come into play and you would see certain people dominate just like you would in every other activity (barring trivial crap like tic-tac-toe).
On October 08 2011 22:42 Cruncharoo wrote: It's natural talent. Most gamers in Korean training houses are putting the same time in. Some will become GSL championships while others may never crack Code A. And this will not be because they trained any differently.
You don't really need to live at a teamhouse to perform at the best, just look at the two best players in the world NesTea and MVP. What you need however is good practice partners, and that's what the foreigner scene is missing, that's why everyone is heading to Korea.
On October 09 2011 00:08 Akta wrote: Lot of people have romantic views on stuff like this and want to believe that if you work hard enough you can achieve anything you want, which isn't true of course.
If one of two average Joes tries much harder to get good at something the hard working Joe will probably get better than the other. But when the competition gets hard enough most of us will never reach the absolute top at anything, no matter how hard we try.
Like a commentator said during a tour de france couple of years ago when answering the exact same question(don't remember the exact numbers but doesn't matter): There are around 25000 registered professional bicycle racers. 5000 probably train too hard and 10000 probably train about as optimized as the top 5. So no, you can't win tour de france regardless how hard you train unless you belong to the 1 in thousands that happen to be born with good enough genes.
And the opposite should usually be true as well. Without proper training you probably wont be able to win Wimbledon even if you are the most talented tennis player ever.
Actually, the model to look at where if you work hard enough you'll succeed is pretty much "mostly" true. It's not a romantic view or anything, but the "hard work" model that people love to explain is a bit wrong.
Here's how you should look at it for why some people become more successful: Think of "skill levels" as a graph search. Each time you put in hard work, there's a probability that you might traverse a node, and our final goal is to traverse to the "success" node.
So in the end, in simple terms, hard work will help you try to hit a new level each time. But sometimes you might be unlucky and be stuck trying to hit the next level over and over again. By no means are you stuck at that level ... it's jsut that you happen to be unluckily unable to get past that level for a lot of tries.
On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote: Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
lol what a joke...
To deny talent is to deny reality. No matter how much training you have you'll never be able to be better than Michael Jordan in basketball if you're 4 foot tall with bad reflexes just like how you'll never be able to do better math than Gauss if you have an average IQ.
We all have limits and we should be realists and accept that.
SC2 is not a very competitive activity though outside of Korea, so people with 80 IQ's can probably be top players if they practice way more than the rest, since the competition pool is very bad.
Well you got to have some sort of talent. For example the faster you learn games the better, but its probably 80% training and 20% talent or I would say decision making.
I think that it is how much you practice and are dedicated. It took me a year to get to plat and in 3 weeks after getting plat im getting matched vs diamonds. In the past 3 weeks ive started to learn builds and timings and generally play more. Its mostly how dedicated you are. You allways hear stories of those 5 foot tall pro sports players.
I would say its a mix of both, i mean i started out as bronze than barely a week later i was moved up to gold. (Not saying that its much but in that short amount of time)
It's always a mixture of both training and talent. If you want to achieve something you have to practice. If you want to achieve something good you have to practice hard. If you want to achieve something amazing, you have to practice hard AND be talented. You can not win Wimbleton when you never held a tennis racket in your hands. it doesnt matter how talented you are.
From my point of view, talent affects two things: 1) the learningspeed: The more talented you are the easier you can understand and use your new abilities (but this might also be just a matter of interest). This is how talents are scouted: they do extremely well for their age, even though they dont seem to practice more than guys of the same age. 2) the learningcap: talented player can accomplish more in their category than the average-joe. That is the reason, why 99,99% of the people do not win any mayor tournament in any big, highly competative sport (e.g. snooker, chess, tennis...), just because they reach their skill cap earlier than a "talented one". It's like they have a bigger harddrive than a normal person that allows them to save more things than a normal person.
Whatsoever, that means that a Bronze-Player cannot say "meh, I am just not talented in this game", because he is noway near the level where talent matters. From Bronze to GML you need three things to improve: practice, practice and practice. I am not even sure that the GSL Champions play on a level where only (and I say only, because in other games, being #1 normally means being the most talented player) talent counts. SC2 is still very young and I mean very, very young. The gaming-enviroment still has to develop imo. At the moment, I would say that it's like 90% practice and 10% talent, that takes you to the Top of GSL. We could talk about BW, where you obviously have to have some specific traits like endurance and dedication to be in the kespa top 5. But well. I'm in Germany, they are in Korea. I can only guess what the day of a progamer is like, so judging more about sc progaming would be guessing.
We could talk about where the talent comes from. Is it "given" a priori to the people? Is it connected to your days/weeks/months before birth? Or the early childhood years? Is it all in the genes? Many questions, but that's more a topic for psychologists, neurobiologists and other crazy people.
I don't think its a natural talent because Select even said Koreans are better because they have more tournaments and practice. Also I started out as a bronze player and now I'm master!
On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote: Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
lol what a joke...
To deny talent is to deny reality. No matter how much training you have you'll never be able to be better than Michael Jordan in basketball if you're 4 foot tall with bad reflexes just like how you'll never be able to do better math than Gauss if you have an average IQ.
We all have limits and we should be realists and accept that.
SC2 is not a very competitive activity though outside of Korea, so people with 80 IQ's can probably be top players if they practice way more than the rest, since the competition pool is very bad.
reflexes can be trained, IQ/math can be trained... Denying that means that you're hiding behind the fact that you are a lazy. If people with an artificial leg can run 100m under 11sec, I don't accept that someone blames "bad luck to be born with low IQ", for being unable to do whatever they want.
On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote: Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
lol what a joke...
To deny talent is to deny reality. No matter how much training you have you'll never be able to be better than Michael Jordan in basketball if you're 4 foot tall with bad reflexes just like how you'll never be able to do better math than Gauss if you have an average IQ.
We all have limits and we should be realists and accept that.
SC2 is not a very competitive activity though outside of Korea, so people with 80 IQ's can probably be top players if they practice way more than the rest, since the competition pool is very bad.
reflexes can be trained, IQ/math can be trained... Denying that means that you're hiding behind the fact that you are a lazy. If people with an artificial leg can run 100m under 11sec, I don't accept that someone blames "bad luck to be born with low IQ", for being unable to do whatever they want.
When you see a retarded guy with 60 IQ in a mental institution struggling to learn basic arithmetic, it's crazy arrogant to say that it's because he's lazy, instead it's because he lost in the genetic lottery.
Yes reflexes and math skills can be trained but to what extent? There are people who are world class mathematicians when they're 16 years old like Gauss and there have been prodigies who were able to do calculus when they're 4 years old (a korean kid). You really think that this isn't because of genetics?
We also have MMA fighters who are the best in their field while training only for 3 years (Jon Jones) and that's against people who have been training for 5 times longer.
Learning speed is different for everyone. We all have a insuperable barrier and that barrier is our genetics.
On October 09 2011 01:25 Cruncharoo wrote: So really the only thing stopping you from being the next Einstein is hard work? Shame on you
I don't see a reason why I would want to become a such, especially when I meet people just as intelligent and dedicated to their work as Einstein was everyday at the university, but they don't get anything back from life, apart from being one of the best in their respective fields.
But I'm really sorry for you, if you think you're already the best you can be or at least close to that.
On October 08 2011 18:03 Big J wrote: Like EVERYTHING IN LIFE IS PURE PRACTICE, SC is pure practice as well. Ofc everyone is born slightly different, but from the day the egg and the sperm meet, everything becomes learning and being taught.
There is no such thing as natural skill. Mozart didn't just start making music. He was raised that way. All he ever saw was his father and sister making music.
Just ask any progamer out there: -) training the game -) thinking about the game -) talking about the game -) experimenting in the game -) experiencing the game -) practicing the game -) focusing on the game -) playing the game ...
that's all they ever talk about, if they tell you what makes them good players.
lol what a joke...
To deny talent is to deny reality. No matter how much training you have you'll never be able to be better than Michael Jordan in basketball if you're 4 foot tall with bad reflexes just like how you'll never be able to do better math than Gauss if you have an average IQ.
We all have limits and we should be realists and accept that.
SC2 is not a very competitive activity though outside of Korea, so people with 80 IQ's can probably be top players if they practice way more than the rest, since the competition pool is very bad.
reflexes can be trained, IQ/math can be trained... Denying that means that you're hiding behind the fact that you are a lazy. If people with an artificial leg can run 100m under 11sec, I don't accept that someone blames "bad luck to be born with low IQ", for being unable to do whatever they want.
When you see a retarded guy with 60 IQ in a mental institution struggling to learn basic arithmetic, it's crazy arrogant to say that it's because he's lazy, instead it's because he lost in the genetic lottery.
It's crazy arrogant to imply I'm so dumb, that I take this for serious. It's called genetic defect and means that you're genes aren't allright. Maybe it was harsh for your intelligence to imply that I'm talking about people with healthy genes.
Its natural. You can play 100 hours a day and not improve if you dont have the natural skills. On the other hand, like me, i just saw SC2 last month and played it and after 3 days playing without any RTS background Im already im GM.
On October 09 2011 02:05 Big J wrote: It's crazy arrogant to imply I'm so dumb, that I take this for serious. It's called genetic defect and means that you're genes aren't allright. Maybe it was harsh for your intelligence to imply that I'm talking about people with healthy genes.
And what would you, in all your infinite wisdom, say is the barrier between healthy genes and bad genes? Where's the cutoff? 60IQ? 80? Wherever you feel is convenient?
The brain isn't something ethereal - it's a physical thing, inside your head. It is capable of developing to differing degrees, just like any other part of your body. You know that kid who was twice as tall as you when you were a kid? You reckon he sat up in his room stretching all day? Or could it be that he was simply naturally taller than you (at that age, or even still)?
Tell me why the brain/nervous system would be any different than other physical aspects of a human being, and then we can talk about your 'argument'.
On October 09 2011 03:00 xxSuP4hFLyxx wrote: Its natural. You can play 100 hours a day and not improve if you dont have the natural skills. On the other hand, like me, i just saw SC2 last month and played it and after 3 days playing without any RTS background Im already im GM.
There is 'natural' skill, thats the reason some people improve faster than others and thats why players with the same base of knowledge can do better or worse than the other. Like all things in life, talent comes from being able to accomplish a lot within a very short period of time - this applies to SC as well.
There is natural skill in hand movement, but it can be trained up to a certain degree (but people with natural skill can put in the same training to get even better, and so someone with natural skill will be better than someone without it; the difference is very subtle and doesn't matter much). It is the way mind thinks, the ability to predict people, and how you react to pressure. Some people will always overreact and freak out, and cannot multitask. This difference, again, is very subtle and you doesn't matter in pro play
On October 08 2011 18:43 HaXXspetten wrote: I think the quite obvious answer is both.
And yet there's a 28 page thread full of people who disagree, silly really Pretending that genetics has absolutely no impact on brain development when it impacts the development of *every other aspect of our physical bodies* is just ignorant. The brain ain't anything special in that regard. But even if genetics had no impact, early education and environment certainly do. I assume most players here are already past those early formative years. So pointing at someone in bronze and saying they could be in GM league if they just practiced long enough is still ridiculous. It could be true for some, but not even close to all of them.
raising iq is possible. however, iq isn't fundamental to be good at sc2; it's for being near the best.
if you have an average iq, you will never reach a really high level of skill.
think of this way - iq and skill cap have a direct relationship. the higher your iq, the higher your skill cap will be. so, say, if someone has an iq of 150, it means they have a skill cap of 10(random number). when that person starts sc2 for the first time, his skill level will be at 0. training will get him slowly(or quickly) to the skill cap of 10. if he raise his iq, his skill cap will increase and he will have to train again to reach the cap, etc etc
I don't deserve a high diamond spot on NA, because I know I'm high platinum on EU. I just take this fact and just continue to work hard at my mechanics and focusing on the core things than worrying about many new strategies. I don't deserve any of what I have, I just keep my head down and working at it until I'm satisfied with where I am.
On October 09 2011 07:32 emidanRKO wrote: raising iq is possible. however, iq isn't fundamental to be good at sc2; it's for being near the best.
if you have an average iq, you will never reach a really high level of skill.
think of this way - iq and skill cap have a direct relationship. the higher your iq, the higher your skill cap will be. so, say, if someone has an iq of 150, it means they have a skill cap of 10(random number). when that person starts sc2 for the first time, his skill level will be at 0. training will get him slowly(or quickly) to the skill cap of 10. if he raise his iq, his skill cap will increase and he will have to train again to reach the cap, etc etc
There is no way to raise IQ unless it was being suppressed by malnutrition or some other fixable problem.
You can lower IQ by causing brain damage, but with current technology there is no way to raise it. Perhaps in the future gene therapy will change this.
Intelligence will have a significant effect on Starcraft ability at any skill level. Even between two players completely new to RTS games the one with higher intelligence would have a natural advantage in reaction time and decision making.
Being raised a certain way or being born with certain traits may affect the speed of which one can get better, but that can change as well.
When it comes to the overall maximum, eventually anyone at a decent age, and without a mental or physical handicap could excel at starcraft 2 to the highest levels.
Of course there is talent, there is talent for everything in life. But to be a top player you have to accompany that talent with practice. With the player pool of SC right now talent is much less of a factor, but if SC gets big then talent will start showing up.
On October 09 2011 07:32 emidanRKO wrote: raising iq is possible. however, iq isn't fundamental to be good at sc2; it's for being near the best.
if you have an average iq, you will never reach a really high level of skill.
think of this way - iq and skill cap have a direct relationship. the higher your iq, the higher your skill cap will be. so, say, if someone has an iq of 150, it means they have a skill cap of 10(random number). when that person starts sc2 for the first time, his skill level will be at 0. training will get him slowly(or quickly) to the skill cap of 10. if he raise his iq, his skill cap will increase and he will have to train again to reach the cap, etc etc
There is no way to raise IQ unless it was being suppressed by malnutrition or some other fixable problem.
You can lower IQ by causing brain damage, but with current technology there is no way to raise it. Perhaps in the future gene therapy will change this.
Intelligence will have a significant effect on Starcraft ability at any skill level. Even between two players completely new to RTS games the one with higher intelligence would have a natural advantage in reaction time and decision making.
only natural ability is intelligence but believe it or not u CAN actually increase ur IQ mostly by critical thinking and vocabulary. its just being smart and practice
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.
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.
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.
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.
Like all games and sports, it's all about developing the game sense. Or in SC we call it star-sense.
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.
Definitely talent is needed too. Your ability to understand situations and make rational decisions, overall game sense, etc. It's like on ladder, there are high master like myself that has only played like 300 games since the game's realize (i have to uni) and some that have played like 2000 but are actually lower master than me.
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.
It's all trained one way or another. "Natural" talent is normally just extra effort put into something that you aren't aware of. I was "naturally" talented in math growing up, but it was really just me not accepting failure and always going over the problems I missed. At the time, I thought I was smarter than everybody else, but I was just practicing good habits without realizing it. Even now, I approach hard problems with effort outside of directly attacking the problem. It's the same for those in all calculated competitions. However, when peered into from the outside, it just looks like these people are able to do so much with so little.
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.
I feel like natural talent is simply the starting point and does not determine the ceiling.
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.
The bottom line, I think, is that you never really know whether you can be a great player, unless you put in the time and actually try to do it. Skill, I reckon, comes differently to different people - and while talent may play a large role in this, training is no less important in developing that talent.
Many people who can be great at Starcraft, are not, because they don't want to be, or because the training isn't there.
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.
"We have a tendency to assess children and determine their course of education relatively early in life, but here we have shown that their intelligence is likely to be still developing," says Professor Price. "We have to be careful not to write off poorer performers at an early stage when in fact their IQ may improve significantly given a few more years. "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.
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.
I made masters in 3 days with no previous RTS experience on a PC running at 15fps and I guess it's because of my amazing IQ level hang on I need to sip my martini and smoke my pipe.
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.
You all have to remember that it's more complicated than "I got plat in the first week, I'm naturally better at the game than you."
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.
Talent is just to achieve things faster than others do (i.e. With less practice). That means if u work very hard ull reach their level except if u REALLY have no skill whatsoever. I started the game in december in low bronze and got to masters last month, withmedium practice (had a lot of uni and studying). So even if ppl have less talent than me if they would just practice a couple of hours every day theyd come into masters easily
Quite a long post. Gratz! to the ones who will read it until the end.
From what I have seen here, you have two ways of evaluating "talent". 1. Performance. Is the painting good ? Does it require a special kind of skill to paint it ? Does it require a specific knowledge (in the mix of colors or others) to transmit a specific feeling, etc. 2. Speed of execution.
If you take the case of math problem solving, you will compare if two people are able to solve a problem or not, and if they do, you will measure the time they took to do so. Every time you do that, you evaluate the capacity of somebody to solve that specific problem, fix it in time, and make a statement about their aptitude to so. (that will probably determine if the individual will pursue in this kind of practice or not)
When you compare theses persons, even if they have the same school background, you can't really ensure that they are at the same point. Maybe one has not clearly understood some key math aspect of the problem (because he was sick during the lessons, and it was not that critical for him at the time to fully grasp it), maybe the other one has already done a ton of exercise that look like this one, and know of to solve it. You can't really measures and compare theses kind of things. But they will clearly make a big difference, even bigger that the fact that "your brain is supposed to help you with that".
Most of the time in school, you don't have to solve a problem from scratch. We show you how to do it, and you have to do it on a similar problem. To understand the method, you just have to have fully understood the notions it is based on (like building workers before worrying about the units composition). The goal is then to identify the kind of problem you have, and apply the right method to solve it. It is kind of the same in starcraft. You don't develop your builds from scratch yourself. A pro shows it, you identify where and when to use it. And you succeed or not depending on your execution or identification of the strategy or actions to do at each steps in the game... Even you are unable to develop one yourself. It is the same here, even if you could also follow some methods to develop your own builds. It exists methods that teach you how to learn. Day9 tries to show you that sometimes... Anyway.
Back in my early early school days, after a test that is mandatory to evaluate scientific skills, a teacher told me that I couldn't do scientific studies, because my mind and way of thinking were not appropriate. I did not have the "right" scientific method built in. A few years after that, another teacher told me that I had "the thing" for science. I was able to understand theses stuffs really quickly. Right now, I am a Ph.D student, solving mathematical problems every day.
So what happened ?
I tend to think that everybody should be able to do everything, if : 1. He know what he must do to succeed 2. He train sufficiently to apply correctly the method
In this way of thinking, a genius if somebody that will learn a new thing quicker. But as you may know, we learn mainly with examples and analogies. For instance, look at the time you spent to learn your first build and the time it took the learn another one. Analogies probably allowed you to learn it quicker, by making assessments like, the first part is like my first build, then I have to only learn the second one. So a genius is just somebody that already have a lot a knowledge to make analogies from. The knowledge he has thus far just happened to be the perfect combination to master a subject quickly. With just a thing more, luck. When you have to do something that you have not clue at how to do it, you will try random stuff. If you happened to find the good solution quickly and if you take time to understand it, by doing this a lot a time, you will be more equipped to be a genius.
Scientists know that the brain is quick flexible, and that there are few physical difference from people to people. They can't even explain Einstein "genius". And the so cold 20 years old barrier is not even true anymore.
For me, we all have to same resources, it is just a matter of what we do with it. Some have been showed (or luckily find quickly) how to make tools and fire sooner, thus learning other stuff sooner that will help them master others skills. Knowledge, practice and focus are everything. You just have to dedicate yourself to it, taking the time to master what you are lacking for this specific task, by not judging yourself and have faith. If you seems to lack something, it is just that you have dedicated your time early to something else that what you might have needed to success in this task quicker. Exemple: people who spend a lot of time in bars, will probably have better social skills, but that the ones who stayed at home studying will solve math problem quicker.
In the end, evaluating and judging somebody at specific moment in time (especially early on) is stupid. It could arm the motivation and the quality of the investment made in the learning of a task. We are always evolving. Maybe the thing that hold you in gold league, will be understood and overcome in a few days, allowing your other skills to be expressed to become a master player.
Some people find this way of thinking terrible, because they are not happy with themselves, and does not believe in them. So they tend to blame mother nature, be fatalist. Don't blame yourself either, don't judge, just do. Just by not seeing the path you have to follow to fulfill your goals, does not means there aren't.
you guys are downright silly if you just take stephanos word for it.... saying he plays 3-4 hours of starcraft and the realistic number of how much time he commits to starcraft inside and outside of the game are two very different things.
Also, I think half the problem with people who are conceptually good but practically crap is that they know how to use units, and how to pull out strategies, but they don't trust themselves to execute them.
That's where the training comes in. When those people (your Thorzains/Nesteas/Stephanos) get their mechanics right and start playing around they blow people away.
Genius is also notoriously hard to define, but if I was pressed to come up with a definition for it, it is the ability to discern true patterns from false patterns and to recognise the relationships behind those patterns. So that might be by ear (music), by word (literature) or by mathematics (physics/chemistry).
Of course there is natural talent required; just look at broodwar. Everyone practices 10-12 hours per day and then someone like Flash comes along and completely rapes everybody else. There has to be something innate to that otherwise it's inexplicable.
Like Simon Cowel would say you need to have the "X-factor".
Talent,skills. The X-factor whatever you want to call it its something unique for each person on the planet.
In sports we see this all the time. Sometimes a person comes along and just dominate not becuase he train more then others but becuase he got this X-factor. Like a Messi,Ronaldo,Maradona etc They just got this extra something that makes them unique.
We see it also in Starcraft 2. Stephano comes to mind. 17 kid with half the practise as other pro´s and still he just won 2 major international tournaments. He got this X-factor and with more training who know what he can become.
So, yea I belive talent and training is very important. 50/50
Talent is overrated. Sure it exists in some form (physical and mental limitations) but overall a good work ethic with a heavy/good training regime can transform players that you might not consider talented to extreemly good players. Imo it only makes a difference at the highest of levels. I don't agree with poster above me saying it's 50/50 in training vs talent. It's more like in the league of 95/5 or something like that.
its all a function of time vs bodies ability to respond -0 so yes in theory you can do anything. Until you hit 30 and realise that actually i don't have time to be good at everything and having 'potential' just went down in value. Its time to cash in on it.
Can you get into the top 10% in anything? Yeah probably with only 3-4 years work - and i mean WORK, not spending 2-3 hours a day fiddling with something i mean 7-8 hours a day of busting your ass. Can you get into top 0.1% well then you are getting into the realms of the differences in all people not being identical - but even these must be framed in the light of the MANY other factors that will effect your rate of improvement. Environmental, physical, psychological. I'd say yeah talent matters - but not everyone with talent is going to find what they re talented at and even those that do are likley to have some traumatic event / crap method of training that wont get them to their potential - so it really wont affect YOU.
I play music, i practise every night for 2 hours. I am not gifted, i just love it and its taken a lot of work to become reasonable.
One of the KEY things is effective practise. The main thing for me is learning how to learn and refining that. The other key thing is persistance, its easy to maintain a level through practise, but when you are at a high level at something then not practising will cause it to drop off frighteningly fast. Relearning is easy (in that it just takes time instead of having to figure out what you need to know) but you will never feel like you are as good as you were in terms of raw skill. You will now be better with a different (probably deeper) understanding instead or raw ball crushing skill.
So the argument is moot in 99.99% of cases imo.
The real reason why i HATE innate ability arguments is that it takes responsibility way from the person who wants to get good. If its not under your control then why try? Its easy to rationalise these things into pointlessness and peopel who are at the top probably arnt having this stupid conversation. If you care then do it.
Its like morality, even if there is probably no freewill it does no good shouting it about because in the event you are wrong you just caused a lot of people to deny their responsibility for their actions. That is evil.
Its an inevitable argument. Also getting better for the sake of it is pointless. Achieving perfection means you can go no further - dont aim for it.
On October 25 2011 20:49 nihlon wrote: Talent is overrated. Sure it exists in some form (physical and mental limitations) but overall a good work ethic with a heavy/good training regime can transform players that you might not consider talented to extreemly good players. Imo it only makes a difference at the highest of levels. I don't agree with poster above me saying it's 50/50 in training vs talent. It's more like in the league of 95/5 or something like that.
Starcraft requires: 1. being able to make quick and optimal decisions, 2. being able to compute information from minimal and sparse sources (scouting) into your opponent's game plan and mindset, 3. being able to physically play quickly, 4. having a knowledge of the game.
I sure might be missing points but here, points 1 through 4 can be acquired through practice, learning the game, watching other's games. I think natural talent (physical ability as well as "intelligence" - but I don't like this word, the skills are different from those required for being good at maths, logics, pure brain computation or IQ tests) determines the learning curve of each of the above aspects. For example, one can improve slowly but continuously, someone else can have a very good start, then stay stationnary for a while and improve again later, one can even find his limits at some point (horizontal curve).
Depends on the person. I have a natural affinity and talent for video games (very few friends find themselves able to beat me in competitive gaming) but at the same time I'm always teaching myself new tricks and learning as much as I can about a game I'm interested in.
I think that natural talent can keep your skillful in video games for an extended period of time but constant training helps fine tune your skill-set to become even more masterful. I'm "teaching" my friend how to play SC2, but his natural talent helps him quickly climb the ladder. He started as a bronze, helped him get to high silver, but his own natural talent is pushing him into high gold as he develops a greater understanding.
During an interview at ESWC, MaNa said he was only practicing when he had free time after school stuff. Someday he don't even have time to practice at all. Yet still one of the best european right now. I don't know for you, but that's quite an example that there is players with natural skill at the game. :/
EPT
never played melee games in sc1 btw xD
) and will be ignored for the rest of my explanation.
I guess for most people being normal makes them insanely stubborn.
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-IMblS63L19c/ToiQq1NSb4I/AAAAAAAAJt0/jrh2i0Gu9Hk/s1600/14+year+old+mystery+artist.jpg)
