EPTCan platinum players coach effectively? - Page 7
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Valikyr
Sweden2653 Posts
| ||
|
Boraz
United States361 Posts
Also I do know most of the stuff the professional gamers do. I am not as good as them because I don't spend as much time playing and have no wish to do so. I have a real life, a job, and I coach mainly to help lower players out and make a few bucks on the side. I am not delusional in the fact that I think I could win MLG or NASL or anything of the like. | ||
|
Trusty
New Zealand520 Posts
I think it's incorrect to say that Platinum players can't coach. Of course they can coach, it's just the range of players that they can/should be coaching is smaller than that of what a Masters player could coach. If someone is totally new to the game, a Platinum coach would be great!. If someone has been playing for 3 months, and is still not Platinum or higher, a Masters coach would be better. | ||
|
Twistacles
Canada1327 Posts
The experience you need to be able to improve can only be gotten through many hours of playing, and if you do that you are bound to be at the very least top diamond. | ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On August 07 2011 07:51 D_K_night wrote: Disagree. You cannot sit someone down, who has zero PC game experience of any kind, is a non-gamer, teach them the game(and let them stop playing whenever they feel like it)and suddenly make them be in Masters in a month. Not happening. You're conveniently ignoring this crucial fact, which all of you elitists tend to ignore or pretend it doesn't exist: Divisions by percentage: 20/20/20/20/18/1.8/0.2 Bronze/Silver/Gold/Plat/Diamond/Masters/GM So you're saying that anyone...anyone...can get to the top 2% of the entire region with poor execution and only "good" game knowledge? You do understand that, there isn't room for "everyone" to be in top 2% in NA, right? For you to be in top 2%...many, MANY others are denied that. Why so offended that Platinum(which are better players than 30% of the entire population) aren't fit to teach the lower divisions? It's already been stated that it's a waste of time for a GM to be teaching the bare bone basics to a Bronzie...so what's the issue with a Plat player doing so? The GM would be spending far better time, teaching Plats and above. Why are we so up in arms against this idea? Are we truly suggesting that we shouldn't settle for anything less than a University Prof to teach preschool? First of all, most of the coaches on korean starcraft 2 teams are former broodwar pros/coaches, a much more demanding RTS game. None of us know what their leagues are and it doesn't matter, because I doubt very few, if any 'platinum coaches' spend 6-12 hours of their time every day analyzing replays and studying games in a house full of the worlds greatest players; like they do. Also, not being in the top 2% NA means you can't consistently beat top 2% NA. Not only is the league open to any who can compete within it; even if it was locked, to say you can't get in means you're equal or worse compared to the lowest rated master league player. It only takes 20-40 wins to go from plat to master league. Bronze to diamond is 90% effort and practice, 10% knowledge. | ||
|
hunts
United States2113 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:11 Boraz wrote: I made money by advertising on sites other than TL because TL is full of people saying anybody that isnt GM can't coach. Also I do know most of the stuff the professional gamers do. I am not as good as them because I don't spend as much time playing and have no wish to do so. I have a real life, a job, and I coach mainly to help lower players out and make a few bucks on the side. I am not delusional in the fact that I think I could win MLG or NASL or anything of the like. Not nice, being in diamond and charging people for coaching by advertising on places otehr than TL (on TL they would find out that they could get free/cheap coaching from much better players) and I'm sorry but if you're in diamond you do not know even 1/10 of what the pros do. You may believe you do because you haven't found out yet just how much there is to know and just how intricate a lot of the pros builds and timings are. | ||
|
Hermasaurus
54 Posts
Why are you so eager to teach something that you have yet to understand? Either you've given up on your own ability, and you wish to help someone else. Or you get off on people turning to you for help. The question shouldn't be "Can platinum players coach?", but "Did I spend 50 dollars on a game to give up on myself, and turn to others for my enjoyment?". Because if you did you should be angry with yourself for being a quitter. And please don't tell me it is altruism, because if you were truly altruistic you would work your ass off until you TRULY understood this game and then give back. It's laziness. I have no need to go on with analogies of uneducated people not teaching because it is frivolous. If you don't understand, you LEARN. If that is too much of a task, then you don't teach. | ||
|
Dhalphir
Australia1305 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
On August 07 2011 10:29 Tyrant0 wrote: First of all, most of the coaches on korean starcraft 2 teams are former broodwar pros/coaches, a much more demanding RTS game. None of us know what their leagues are and it doesn't matter, because I doubt very few, if any 'platinum coaches' spend 6-12 hours of their time every day analyzing replays and studying games in a house full of the worlds greatest players; like they do. Also, not being in the top 2% NA means you can't consistently beat top 2% NA. Not only is the league open to any who can compete within it; even if it was locked, to say you can't get in means you're equal or worse compared to the lowest rated master league player. It only takes 20-40 wins to go from plat to master league. Bronze to diamond is 90% effort and practice, 10% knowledge. This is the sort of mentality that makes zero sense to me. How is it that there is some finite, determined formula for success when the variety of play styles and game sensibilities throughout the Sc2 ranks are wildly diverse. Some players progress based solely on their mechanics, the game seems to simply mesh with their hand-eye coordination well, while their game sense and overall knowledge of unit strengths, tactical opportunities, and the like are nowhere to be seen. On the other hand, I've also witnessed players who can barely scrape 50 apm, with poor macro and micro, and yet they win based on excellent timings and knowledge of the game. For example, I can't tell you how many times I've witnessed mid diamond ZvP matchups where the Protoss has an amazing 2 base Colossus/gateway timing planned, a strategy that revolves around airtight macro to a point and proficient army micro during the attack. The Zerg, rather oppositely, is a little off when it comes to getting workers on gas, expansions are a tad slow, tech is a bit sluggish, and unit control is lacking enough to make the idea of attacking off creep a frightening one. However, the Zerg player knows exactly how to defend against any build, in any matchup, and his scouting and ability to understand whats going on during the game is excellent, allowing him/her to persevere through almost anything. In these situations, totally different perspectives on success/skills in the game can all lead to league progression, even through early masters. Your equation seems silly honestly, the world is a big place, even the Sc2 one. Hell, you can even look at the pros, the players all play quite differently when it comes down to it. | ||
|
ins(out)side
220 Posts
TO THE OP, OR LIKE MINDED. Why are you so eager to teach something that you have yet to understand? Either you've given up on your own ability, and you wish to help someone else. Or you get off on people turning to you for help. The question shouldn't be "Can platinum players coach?", but "Did I spend 50 dollars on a game to give up on myself, and turn to others for my enjoyment?". Because if you did you should be angry with yourself for being a quitter. And please don't tell me it is altruism, because if you were truly altruistic you would work your ass off until you TRULY understood this game and then give back. It's laziness. I have no need to go on with analogies of uneducated people not teaching because it is frivolous. If you don't understand, you LEARN. If that is too much of a task, then you don't teach. Not even sure where to begin with this one. I'm not interested in helping the metal leagues with their progress because I find interacting with them as their "coach" to be amusing. The decision to teach doesn't stem from the fact that I have given up on the game but rather the EXACT OPPOSITE. I'm interested in helping them because it forces me to continue to refine and expand my own game. According to you there is some specific league where you officially understand the game now and only then should you be allowed to teach. Which league exactly is that? The fact of the matter is someone's league can be misleading. For example, the other day Mr Bitter was streaming while playing as T and after his placement matches he ended up in Platinum. So, at that point in time, an ignorant student could have been looking into Mr Bitter as a coach, saw that he was only platinum and decided on that info alone that Mr Bitter wasn't a good teacher. The point is that one's league doesn't mean everything in terms of one's ability to teach. Playing the game and teaching it are not the same thing. Again, because so few people understand this I'm going to type it again. Playing the game and teaching it are not the same thing. Basing your decision on who to receive coaching from by reputation/league alone is foolish. As someone already stated, they went to gosucoaching.com and spent $70 dollars on a lesson with a Pro gamer where they were basically told to make drones and copy replays. This corroborates what I've said. Just because someone is a Pro doesn't mean they can teach because...teaching and playing are NOT the same thing. | ||
|
Zirith
Canada403 Posts
| ||
|
rd
United States2586 Posts
On August 07 2011 11:28 farvacola wrote: This is the sort of mentality that makes zero sense to me. How is it that there is some finite, determined formula for success when the variety of play styles and game sensibilities throughout the Sc2 ranks are wildly diverse. Some players progress based solely on their mechanics, the game seems to simply mesh with their hand-eye coordination well, while their game sense and overall knowledge of unit strengths, tactical opportunities, and the like are nowhere to be seen. On the other hand, I've also witnessed players who can barely scrape 50 apm, with poor macro and micro, and yet they win based on excellent timings and knowledge of the game. For example, I can't tell you how many times I've witnessed mid diamond ZvP matchups where the Protoss has an amazing 2 base Colossus/gateway timing planned, a strategy that revolves around airtight macro to a point and proficient army micro during the attack. The Zerg, rather oppositely, is a little off when it comes to getting workers on gas, expansions are a tad slow, tech is a bit sluggish, and unit control is lacking enough to make the idea of attacking off creep a frightening one. However, the Zerg player knows exactly how to defend against any build, in any matchup, and his scouting and ability to understand whats going on during the game is excellent, allowing him/her to persevere through almost anything. In these situations, totally different perspectives on success/skills in the game can all lead to league progression, even through early masters. Your equation seems silly honestly, the world is a big place, even the Sc2 one. Hell, you can even look at the pros, the players all play quite differently when it comes down to it. Your point is moot. You embrace incompetence, and give credit to imaginary platinum players with supposed high level mechanics but can't figure out to make units that shoot up against mutalisks. The examples you gave are non-existent, and regardless of whether or not they actually are, the best micro/strategy in the world won't save you against a player who simply maxes twice as fast as you do. Even at diamond, the only knowledge you really need to know is a build order, and basic unit compositions/micro/strategy. Maybe at that point someone would benefit more from direction than extensive practice. Also, I can only think of a few pros out of hundreds that have sub-par mechanics. I don't know how you can pull out that comparison. I don't think you even know of any. | ||
|
Hermasaurus
54 Posts
On August 07 2011 11:55 ins(out)side wrote: Not even sure where to begin with this one. I'm not interested in helping the metal leagues with their progress because I find interacting with them as their "coach" to be amusing. The decision to teach doesn't stem from the fact that I have given up on the game but rather the EXACT OPPOSITE. I'm interested in helping them because it forces me to continue to refine and expand my own game. According to you there is some specific league where you officially understand the game now and only then should you be allowed to teach. Which league exactly is that? The fact of the matter is someone's league can be misleading. For example, the other day Mr Bitter was streaming while playing as T and after his placement matches he ended up in Platinum. So, at that point in time, an ignorant student could have been looking into Mr Bitter as a coach, saw that he was only platinum and decided on that info alone that Mr Bitter wasn't a good teacher. The point is that one's league doesn't mean everything in terms of one's ability to teach. Playing the game and teaching it are not the same thing. Again, because so few people understand this I'm going to type it again. Playing the game and teaching it are not the same thing. Basing your decision on who to receive coaching from by reputation/league alone is foolish. As someone already stated, they went to gosucoaching.com and spent $70 dollars on a lesson with a Pro gamer where they were basically told to make drones and copy replays. This corroborates what I've said. Just because someone is a Pro doesn't mean they can teach because...teaching and playing are NOT the same thing. I am actually frustrated that I am responding to you because you are so clearly biased to the point where you paraphrase and cherry pick. The fact of the matter is someone's league can be misleading. For example, the other day Mr Bitter was streaming while playing as T and after his placement matches he ended up in Platinum. So, at that point in time, an ignorant student could have been looking into Mr Bitter as a coach, saw that he was only platinum and decided on that info alone that Mr Bitter wasn't a good teacher. <--ARE YOU REALLY GOING TO USE THIS AS A REFERENCE FOR LEAGUES AND COACHING???? Furthermore, no where in my thread did I say you gave up on the game. I said you gave up on your own ability as a player. If you actually believe coaching a silver player "pushes you to expand and refine your own game", you have rocks in your head. Very simply, coaching someone isn't going to hone your mechanics, micro, macro, strategy, or ANYTHING OTHER THAN MAYBE COACHING. One thing I did say is If you don't understand the game, don't teach it. Again, because so few people understand this I'm going to type it again. IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE GAME, DON'T TEACH IT. Which clearly, if you are in platinum after actually attempting to progress and you haven't, you don't understand the game. (BELOW IS directly copied from your post, although I think you actually meant I'm interested rather I'm not UNLESS YOUR OWN GOAL TO COACH IS FOR YOU TO GET BETTER WHICH I COVERED ALREADY???) I don't see your argument other than "I'm not interested in helping the metal leagues with their progress because I find interacting with them as their "coach" to be amusing." So we agree it is for your own amusement??? WHICH IS WHAT I STATED IN MY FIRST POST, WHAT POINT HAVE YOU ADDRESSED OTHER THAN TO AGREE WITH ME BY SOMEHOW ARGUING WITH ME???? And if you think here say from some guy from some website about a pro that didn't help him at all for 70 dollars somehow corroborates your story you need to look into the definition of corroborate. edit: misspelling | ||
|
farvacola
United States18820 Posts
On August 07 2011 12:03 Tyrant0 wrote: Your point is moot. You embrace incompetence, and give credit to imaginary platinum players with supposed high level mechanics but can't figure out to make units that shoot up against mutalisks. The examples you gave are non-existent, and regardless of whether or not they actually are, the best micro/strategy in the world won't save you against a player who simply maxes twice as fast as you do. Even at diamond, the only knowledge you really need to know is a build order, and basic unit compositions/micro/strategy. Maybe at that point someone would benefit more from direction than extensive practice. Also, I can only think of a few pros out of hundreds that have sub-par mechanics. I don't know how you can pull out that comparison. I don't think you even know of any. I'm almost entirely certain that you have no idea what I'm even talking about. I mentioned margins of difference between players that are far smaller than your terrible exaggerations (if a player maxes twice as fast as you, then something drastic is wrong), and my point was that progression in this game can happen in a variety of ways, with diversity increasing on an exponential level once one gets through high masters. Nevertheless, to suggest that league placement is THE definitive indicator of a players aptitude profile seems the utmost of narrow sightedness, and if to think otherwise means that I am doomed to "embrace ignorance" I'll sure to give you a hug first thing. | ||
|
skirmisheR
Sweden451 Posts
Good luck though, may work! | ||
|
KangaRuthless
United States304 Posts
In fact, the best thing to do with newbie players or struggling low-level players is to direct them to Day9 who does all this stuff for free, urge them to keep practicing and keep playing, and above all, HAVE FUN! Any rate, best of luck on the experiment! | ||
|
Count9
China10928 Posts
If by effective you mean "play the game the correct way", the no, it's impossible for someone to teach something they know nothing about, there's a reason they're in plat, they don't know how to play the game correctly. | ||
|
Underoath
Peru113 Posts
We can only advise, but not teach. | ||
|
LegendaryZ
United States1583 Posts
I think people are taking the whole idea of coaching way too far here. Maybe it's just because of what they believe the word to mean, but "coaching" on one level or another occurs all the time between players of all skill levels. Have you never sat down to help a friend out with their play? Do you have to be a GM player to be qualified to teach basic build orders and in-game concepts? Of course you will always be limited at some point or another, but I think this notion that some people have that you should only be trying to teach others if you're a to player is just dumb, especially if these people aren't misrepresenting themselves or trying to scam people out of money. tl:dr You don't have to be Steve Vai to teach a beginner the fundamentals of guitar playing or music theory... | ||
|
TortoiseCa
Canada104 Posts
On August 06 2011 12:58 thepeonwhocould wrote: Firstly, the determination of who is in master leagues is mathematically defined. With the exception of cheating players, everyone who is in master's league deserves to be in masters league, even if they are cheesing every game. Now I want to deal with your criticism of the "one build per matchup" method. You say that a person who uses one build per matchup will not learn about the game because they just a-move at 7 minutes. I never said that your one build has to be a 7 minute timing attack. Your ZvP build could be focused around getting to 4 bases and teching to broodlords - that is to say, your build is intended to win the game at the 20 minute mark! In fact, your 1 build should be focused on getting you into the late game - that way, you get more experience in the late game and will crush players whenever you get to the late game. Of course, for some matchups timing attacks are almost a necessity (TvZ and TvP on some maps) - even GSL players understand this. Now your second criticism of the one build method is that you won't learn about unit counters. Well, your build/plan should account for the opponents composition and be contingent on what units they are getting. For example my TvP build has a different response for a fast HT player compared to a fast colossus player. The point is, you should be practicing the same builds, the same reactions, the same responses over and over again, it is by far the quickest way to improve. When you get to master's league, that's the point where you can worry about branching out, adjusting to the metagame, having a range of builds so that you are unpredictable, being creative. Until that point you should be focusing on one build and macro macro macro. You're saying that to be a master player you need macro and 1 good build vs each race. The way that sounds is as if you're basically just saying "ok, do this - play fast and don't worry about what you are actually doing and you will become a master league player" If you're talking about diamond league - then sure. But if you're the top 2%/5%/Whatever , I feel like you really should not even need a build order. You should just be able to log on - and play. React to your economy, your opponent's economy, units, etc and do well. I think there's a gap here that you're overlooking and it's called "skill" that you're trying to substitute for some mechanical playstyle. I really feel like macro is something that you pick up with competitive spirit. It's not something you practice. Your mind will eventually power you through this with enough knowledge. I feel like there's a lot of really high APM players in diamond/master league that don't know wtf they are really doing. They just know that stimmed marines and medicavs own everything. | ||
| ||
