EPTBiggest skill gap between leagues? - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
| ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
| ||
|
Zythrst
United States7 Posts
On July 28 2011 11:42 SDream wrote: The biggest jump right now seems to be between Nestea and everyone else. But if you want to stick to leagues, you should keep in mind that someone will be the "best" bronze and someone will be the "worst" silver, and the difference between them is basicly zero. That said, you probably want to compare the lowest of bronze with the highest on silver (lowest of silver with highest of gold etc). Then, keep in mind that the lowest bronze is that guy that doesn't make aditional scv and goes straight to barracks, then at 40 min he makes his first battlecruiser and try to attack with his 50 supply army. That said, I don't have many doubts that the "right" answer is bronze to silver. If you do it this way then this is of course the right answer, since the 'lowest' bronze's don't know how to play the game at all, and would have no shot of beating a silver player under any reasonable circumstances. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
people seem to forget that bronze goes from players who watch dailies and are trying to improve all the way down to people who open with triple supply depot. | ||
|
Kiaro
United States75 Posts
| ||
|
BushidoSnipr
United States910 Posts
| ||
|
KDot2
United States1213 Posts
On July 28 2011 11:36 ThaZenith wrote: Should be obvious, masters to GM's. From experience, there is little to no improvement from Bronze straight through till diamond. Masters actually get decent, and GMs are the guys you wish you could be as good as. ^^ lol come on now diamonds are tremendously better in all aspects than all leagues below it let alone bronze | ||
|
phyren
United States1067 Posts
On July 28 2011 11:40 ETisME wrote: You misundestood, I meant the skill gap, not how hard it is to get into a league. I know that in quite a number of sport, most often the top players are all almost equal in terms of skill but it is some very very tiny skill gap that makes a player be the best or just one of the top players. I was wondering if same applies to SC2. I heard that to get to GM only really needs you to be a high master and play more games while diamond has to work his ass off to get to master this is sorta true, but the thing is, those tiny differences are huge determinations of skill. Having your builds refined down to the number of stalkers to get before a certain tech or unit placement are certain times to guard against drop/scouting is an example of a small difference in play but a huge difference in skill. Basically, the differences may be smaller higher up, but they are exponentially more difficult to develop and even to notice. | ||
|
stormchaser
Canada1009 Posts
| ||
|
unit
United States2621 Posts
On July 28 2011 12:23 stormchaser wrote: diamond to master, no doubt. Master to GM doesn't make sense to me. I mean, from low masters to high masters seems like a bigger jump. Many people in High masters are just as good as GM dudes from watching streams. LiquidTyler is Masters, Destiny is Masters, Cruncher, as well, and many others. These guys I'm sure deserve to be GM but Bnet doesn't let that happen. well at the moment GM doesnt exist for the next ~2 weeks i think, however yes there are many people who should be GM that are not due to not laddering as much as the people who are...this is why i do not believe in GM, i believe in GM Skill level instead...it means more to be able to play at that level than have the solid gold icon imo | ||
|
MiyaviTeddy
Canada697 Posts
I never knew there was a skill-level so atrocious as bronze players. I played one person who claimed to be a bronze (custom game match) and I thought he was throwing me off. Turns out he really is and the amount of rape that insured was overwhelming to the guy (in which I felt bad). Getting out of that into something decent does take a lot of skill in a sense. Silver and Gold are similar in skill to me, plat seems to have a skill difference between the silver/gold players. Though Platinum and diamond, they're more "I can do this plus some other things" from "I can do this and that's it". Master/Diamond, they vary. I see some great diamonds players and shitty master players so I'm not quite sure what to think of this as. GM is obvious enough. | ||
|
vnlegend
United States1389 Posts
Tournaments love to lump Masters/GM together though, so the GMs can easily beat up the masters players who are 10-100x worse. I'd probably play more tournaments if I was in Diamond. | ||
|
Mcrat
Australia30 Posts
I'm Diamond myself, and I'm pretty bad. Like last night played a TvT and 5-6 mins into it I had 1k minerals AFTER building an 'oh shit look at my mins CC'. Granted that's pretty bad even for me, and doesn't happen often, but I was still able to come back and win even after being contained. It was more that he failed to take the win, rather than my skill at clawing my way back, but the fact that after my horrific start I was able to come back and not be punished severely for it, makes me think that Diamond just isn't that great. Masters on the other hand... well like others have said, that's where the best of the best live (there are more than 200 players playing at top level). I'm of the belief that top spot on a league is somewhere between low-mid of the league above (Diamond > Masters I'm thinking high D = low M) so I'm still hoping I can actually play more in S3, make top diamond and somehow fluke a promotion into a new Masters league but with openings like I listed above, I'm not too sure of that happening  | ||
|
Icekommander
Canada483 Posts
Edit: That said, Masters (including GM) is one giant curve. My friend in Diamond can take occasional games off me. I have no chance of taking games off a GM player like rmdx. | ||
|
Tehkilla
Sweden75 Posts
| ||
|
Nexic
United States729 Posts
On July 28 2011 12:42 Tehkilla wrote: high diamond really isn't that different from low masters, from my own experience.Diamond to master, the difference between Diamond and Master players are just huge. While the difference between Master and Grandmaster is big, a lot of people in Master can compete with the guys in Grandmaster. not even comparable to masters -> GM | ||
|
ronpaul012
United States769 Posts
| ||
|
Arcanne
United States1519 Posts
| ||
|
KimJongChill
United States6429 Posts
On July 28 2011 12:45 Nexic wrote: high diamond really isn't that different from low masters, from my own experience. not even comparable to masters -> GM I agree. Also, people need to use a consistent standard for measuring these gaps. Just saying that diamond->master is the hardest says nothing about the sheer range of skill in diamond. The lowest diamonds are worse than top gold, while the best diamond can even be better than mid master. | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
A good way to look at the gap is such: Take random player X from league A and player Y from league A+1 and have them play a theoretical best of 101. Which league would result in the biggest gap? In anything except Masters vs Diamond I feel the macro is just not at a high enough level to be consistent enough to create a large gap in the win rates. Since being bad usually means being inconsistent as well, I would not think it a big feat for a gold player to take a game off of a plat player. | ||
| ||
