|
I am wondering what you guys think.
I got this idea because when I just got out from bronze, I didn't play a lot of silvers and most of them were gold. Now that I am plat, I find plat players to be quite a fair bit better than gold (mostly much better executed 2 rax bunker and scv+marines all-in)
Poll: As thread titleMaster to GM (112) 59% Diamond to Master (41) 22% Bronze to Silver (19) 10% Gold to Plat (8) 4% Plat to Diamond (6) 3% Silver to Gold (3) 2% 189 total votes Your vote: As thread title (Vote): Bronze to Silver
(Vote): Silver to Gold
(Vote): Gold to Plat
(Vote): Plat to Diamond
(Vote): Diamond to Master
(Vote): Master to GM
|
16992 Posts
If this turns into a poll thread without discussion, I'm closing it. Fair warning now.
|
I feel like the higher up you go, the greater the skill gaps between leagues, assuming that the gaps are calculated from the lower boundary (e.g. low bronze to low silver, low diamond to low master).
|
On July 28 2011 11:30 Empyrean wrote:
If this turns into a poll thread without discussion, I'm closing it. Fair warning now.
A PM to the OP might have been better than tainting the post.
Well done.
|
I would have thought that Bronze Leaguers would have a fairly hard time beginning to learn the game and trying to get to Silver. Otherwise, Masters to GM is hardest simply because you can only have so many GrandMasters.
|
Its clearly Masters to GM, most top masters aren't even as good as the mid of GMs!
|
From my experience it's Gold to Plat, but I can't speak for the higher leagues so that is probably a poor example.
|
Hmmm, I would say that maybe the biggest difference in one league itself would be masters. It seems like there's a lot of difference between low and high masters, and that's where I see the biggest division in skill. As for between leagues, I voted for Masters to GM.
|
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
|
can't really be answered by mos people or? You can only answer this question if you started in bronze and made you way to gm.
|
Everyone is probably going to just say as for my example "Diamond to Masters. I am currently a Diamond player"....
|
On July 28 2011 11:32 axellerate wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 11:30 Empyrean wrote:
If this turns into a poll thread without discussion, I'm closing it. Fair warning now. A PM to the OP might have been better than tainting the post. Well done.
No it wouldn't have. It's a warning to the people who post here as well to have a discussion rather than just voting and then posting what he voted without reading anyone else's posts.
|
i feel diamond to masters was a HUGE jump
now that im in masters and when i watch diamond players i just lol how bad they are.
but idk about masters to GM since im not in GM ofcourse lololol
|
I made it to low masters last season and I'm not that good with apm wise but I know how to scout timings and know how to counter builds well. But, because of my low APM, I cannot keep up with the higher masters players. So, I would say Masters-Grand Masters
|
On July 28 2011 11:32 AnxiousHippo wrote:
I would have thought that Bronze Leaguers would have a fairly hard time beginning to learn the game and trying to get to Silver. Otherwise, Masters to GM is hardest simply because you can only have so many GrandMasters.
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
|
I would say none of the above.
- Low masters to High masters.
|
I'm going to have to say that diamond to masters is the biggest skill difference due to the fact that many people in masters are GM level and just cant get it due to the fact that GM is number limited. Diamond to masters however.... It just feels like diamond players are just kind of good at doing a build to near perfection but dont really have a fantastic game sense or decision making and many are in diamond due to only doing really agressive all in builds such as 4 gate all ins or roach ling all ins or 3 rax all ins and things like that. This is all my personal opinion.
|
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.
|
On July 28 2011 11:32 AnxiousHippo wrote:
I would have thought that Bronze Leaguers would have a fairly hard time beginning to learn the game and trying to get to Silver. Otherwise, Masters to GM is hardest simply because you can only have so many GrandMasters.
I disagree. With resources like the Day9 daily and builds online I think it's not too to get into silver. Once a bronze league player is informed of the importance of building probes, knocking their minerals back down to zero and putting down building crisply at the beginning of the game and following a build, dominating bronze really isn't hard at all even for a new player.
|
On July 28 2011 11:42 SDream wrote:
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.
I'd say the "best" bronze would be somewhere around gold-plat level. The promotion system can be fairly bad at times.
|
Well statistically isn't that from bronze to silver? But in terms of improvement it's most certainly masters to GM. The amount of practice it takes to go from bronze to silver is not very much while masters to GM will take months assuming you're starting out like low masters and not on the brink already.
|
your Country52797 Posts
Somewhere between Platinum and Diamond is the ability to micro.
|
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.
|
it seems pretty obvious that the skill differences would be more extreme between the 'edge' leagues. maybe im misreading the normal curve that shows player distributions but at least in my head that implies that bottom bronze -> silver has the biggest skill difference. diamond the masters would be second. masters to gm could be the highest but the sample size is tiny.
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.
|
I can't really definitively say, because I'm not a GM, but I'd have to say the biggest difference I can perceive is from low masters to high masters. The skill difference between a masters player who has like 1400 points and a masters player who has 1700 points is really huge, and I think it is even bigger than the skill difference between low masters and diamonds in my experience.
|
Been in Bronze-plat, not much of a skill gap than there is in Masters-GM
|
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
|
On July 28 2011 11:40 ETisME wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 11:32 AnxiousHippo wrote:
I would have thought that Bronze Leaguers would have a fairly hard time beginning to learn the game and trying to get to Silver. Otherwise, Masters to GM is hardest simply because you can only have so many GrandMasters. 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.
|
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.
|
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
|
Bronze to Silver. Silver & Gold to Plat, Plat to Diamond/Masters.
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.
|
Masters-GM is the hugest gap. Low to mid masters, mid to high, high masters to low GM, mid GM, high GM, progamer players are all a level of their own.
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.
|
Unfortunately, I'm thinking Diamond > Masters as well.
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 
|
Masters - GM is gap isn't all that big simply due to the fact that there are only 200 players. There are many top Masters players who are very good and can take games off many GM players (And those like Sheth and IdrA who get dropped out due to inactivity), but can't get into GM because of the 200 player limit.
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.
|
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.
|
On July 28 2011 12:42 Tehkilla wrote:
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. high diamond really isn't that different from low masters, from my own experience.
not even comparable to masters -> GM
|
Honestly, I cant really say. I don't know which necessarily has the largest skill gap. I think the real question is which one is hardest to close the gap, which of course would be master to gm.
|
Its definitely not masters to Gm...
|
On July 28 2011 12:45 Nexic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 12:42 Tehkilla wrote:
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. 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.
|
The biggest gap is either Bronze -> Silver or Diamond -> Master. I've never been in bronze so I can't speak for it but if it is just a whole bunch of new people who know nothing of the game and then silver are people who actually know how to play then that is easily the biggest gap. If that isn't the case then my vote goes to Diamond -> Master because the difference between the two is mainly the consistency of the masters player and the ability to deal with a wider variety of opponents who execute their build well.
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.
|
On July 28 2011 12:48 KimJongChill wrote:Show nested quote +On July 28 2011 12:45 Nexic wrote:On July 28 2011 12:42 Tehkilla wrote:
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. 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. I thought about this as I wrote my post. You could probably say there's a gray area between the highest/lowest of any two consecutive leagues so it's a difficult question.
For my answer, I just know I couldn't come close to beating a GM/very high masters player as a relatively new masters player; I don't know if there's really that huge of a skill gap within diamond or any other particular league.
|
Diamond to Masters the range from low diamond to high masters is worlds apart. GM is hard to get into due to the arbitrary way it's handled, a large number of master players are better than a majority of GMs but were excluded because they didn't ladder enough the first weeks or have to wait for people in GM now to go inactive to drop out.
|
On July 28 2011 12:59 NotSorry wrote:
Diamond to Masters the range from low diamond to high masters is worlds apart. GM is hard to get into due to the arbitrary way it's handled, a large number of master players are better than a majority of GMs but were excluded because they didn't ladder enough the first weeks or have to wait for people in GM now to go inactive to drop out.
This. GM should be considered the highest subset of Masters, rather than its own league.
|
I don't think there's too much of a skill difference between Masters and GM. The largest skill cap is between casual masters/gm and progamers.
|
Certainly Diamond to Masters, considering Blizzard's ideal league split is 20/20/20/20/18/2 (2% being masters duh)
|
On July 28 2011 13:06 sjschmidt93 wrote:
Certainly Diamond to Masters, considering Blizzard's ideal league split is 20/20/20/20/18/2 (2% being masters duh) I think the 0.2% of grandmasters is insanely more difficult, by the very nature of what it is, the 200 absolute best in a region. Basically everyone there could make money off legitimate tournaments [not a lot for all of them, but still.]
|
Even though the leagues are split by the % of active players in a region, I feel the greatest gap in SKILL is the jump from GM to Masters.
With the same view, I honestly don't see too much of a difference between Bronze and Silver, or Silver and Gold. I think the difference in skill increases exponentially as you move up the leagues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
