|
On August 07 2011 21:04 Ilintar wrote:
There are multiple reasons for a good theoretical player not getting into master league, including, but not limited to:
* trying out suboptimal build orders to get a better feel of the game
* playing risky strategies "for fun" while not having the manual skills to carry them out
* playing too few games, thus not having a good feel of the proper timings
* having insufficient manual skills (very low APM / very bad multitasking)
* having gaps in the fundamental skills due to lack of playing time (forgetting to build supplies/pylons/overlords, forgetting to train probes/SCVs/call mules/spawn larvas)
All of the above have little to no influence on whether said player can successfully coach, especially if he/she is aware of the abovementioned flaws in his/her game.
I think a lot of people are overplaying the difference between platinum/diamond players and master players when it comes to metalevel skills such as understanding the game. From looking at good players in SC:BW, it's much more often the case of a single build / single strategy being trained to perfection, often employing the fact that few opposing players have the skill and understanding needed to exploit any flaws in a given dominant strategy.
Those are all typical excuses for people who think they are better than they are. If you have good theoretical knowledge, you WILL be in masters. Players with poor knowledge only THINK they have good knowledge and make up those excuses for why they are stuck in gold/plat.
|
I coach bronze, silver, gold, plat, diamond and masters, from my personal experience, bronze players lack very basic game knowledge, where as plat players have -some- of the basics right, its easy to make a bronze/silver player jump to plat/diamond once they understand fundamentals. but (from my experience) I think plat players could pass some basic knowledge to bronze (altough it'd probably be somewhat inaccurate) to help them improve a bit but I can't see a lesson going longer than 1 hour, as plat players for the most part still lack a lot of game knowledge and understanding
|
On August 08 2011 04:33 oxxo wrote:
Those are all typical excuses for people who think they are better than they are. If you have good theoretical knowledge, you WILL be in masters. Players with poor knowledge only THINK they have good knowledge and make up those excuses for why they are stuck in gold/plat.
That is why I based this on a real example of how my ladder level dropped while my theory level remained the same. I do agree that it's typical that many players delude themselves as to their real skill level, however, it's not always the case.
Also, although it's certainly rare that a platinum player will have good theory, it's a bigger problem that it's often the case that a player in master has bad theory. Really, obtaining fundamental knowledge of the game and just becoming good (esp. at one race) are really two slightly different skills.
|
Having anybody that can hold you accountable for progress is good. As long as they can help you stay focused and help you spot progress, then even a bronze can be an effective "coach."
|
On August 08 2011 04:33 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2011 21:04 Ilintar wrote:
There are multiple reasons for a good theoretical player not getting into master league, including, but not limited to:
* trying out suboptimal build orders to get a better feel of the game
* playing risky strategies "for fun" while not having the manual skills to carry them out
* playing too few games, thus not having a good feel of the proper timings
* having insufficient manual skills (very low APM / very bad multitasking)
* having gaps in the fundamental skills due to lack of playing time (forgetting to build supplies/pylons/overlords, forgetting to train probes/SCVs/call mules/spawn larvas)
All of the above have little to no influence on whether said player can successfully coach, especially if he/she is aware of the abovementioned flaws in his/her game.
I think a lot of people are overplaying the difference between platinum/diamond players and master players when it comes to metalevel skills such as understanding the game. From looking at good players in SC:BW, it's much more often the case of a single build / single strategy being trained to perfection, often employing the fact that few opposing players have the skill and understanding needed to exploit any flaws in a given dominant strategy. Those are all typical excuses for people who think they are better than they are. If you have good theoretical knowledge, you WILL be in masters. Players with poor knowledge only THINK they have good knowledge and make up those excuses for why they are stuck in gold/plat.
Pretty dumb point, by your logic the only person qualified to coach Zerg is Nestea. Knowledge and strategy and mechanics are not the same thing, it's the same in Sc2 as it in in real sports.
There is an absolute shit ton of information a Platinum player could pass on to a Bronze player.
|
On August 08 2011 04:48 coL.CatZ wrote:
I coach bronze, silver, gold, plat, diamond and masters, from my personal experience, bronze players lack very basic game knowledge, where as plat players have -some- of the basics right, its easy to make a bronze/silver player jump to plat/diamond once they understand fundamentals. but (from my experience) I think plat players could pass some basic knowledge to bronze (altough it'd probably be somewhat inaccurate) to help them improve a bit but I can't see a lesson going longer than 1 hour, as plat players for the most part still lack a lot of game knowledge and understanding
It's pretty hard to argue with someone as experienced as catz in this department. I think hes spot on here.
|
I think plat players can give the sense of direction, but not including the "deep, inner sanctum of the Chamber of Secrets".
Direction ->
- "Going depot depot refinery refinery isn't a good idea"
Chamber of Secrets ->
- "You scouted that he has marines and reapers are good against marines so I think you should make a reaper just because they can kill marines" (an example on what one might tell a bronze player, maybe this was too obvious)
Direction ->
- "Having 3 stargates in one base isn't a good plan, you won't have enough gas."
Chamber of Secrets ->
- "You should do a Forge FE into 3 stargates into mass void rays because void rays kill everything"
Basically, a plat player can tell players what a "typical matchup would be", and a sense of basic openers and just making sure he understands the basics (scvs = good)
|
On August 08 2011 06:09 Cyclone999 wrote:
I think plat players can give the sense of direction, but not including the "deep, inner sanctum of the Chamber of Secrets".
Direction ->
- "Going depot depot refinery refinery isn't a good idea"
Chamber of Secrets ->
- "You scouted that he has marines and reapers are good against marines so I think you should make a reaper just because they can kill marines" (an example on what one might tell a bronze player, maybe this was too obvious)
Direction ->
- "Having 3 stargates in one base isn't a good plan, you won't have enough gas."
Chamber of Secrets ->
- "You should do a Forge FE into 3 stargates into mass void rays because void rays kill everything"
Basically, a plat player can tell players what a "typical matchup would be", and a sense of basic openers and just making sure he understands the basics (scvs = good)
Your chamber of secret stuff is very wacky!
|
On August 08 2011 08:34 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 06:09 Cyclone999 wrote:
I think plat players can give the sense of direction, but not including the "deep, inner sanctum of the Chamber of Secrets".
Direction ->
- "Going depot depot refinery refinery isn't a good idea"
Chamber of Secrets ->
- "You scouted that he has marines and reapers are good against marines so I think you should make a reaper just because they can kill marines" (an example on what one might tell a bronze player, maybe this was too obvious)
Direction ->
- "Having 3 stargates in one base isn't a good plan, you won't have enough gas."
Chamber of Secrets ->
- "You should do a Forge FE into 3 stargates into mass void rays because void rays kill everything"
Basically, a plat player can tell players what a "typical matchup would be", and a sense of basic openers and just making sure he understands the basics (scvs = good) Your chamber of secret stuff is very wacky!
Yeah I can't tell which one is the one that is supposed to be specific and helpful.
|
no, they can't.
they're in platinum.
end of story.
|
Well sc2 was my first rts and I played my first bunch of games thinking 6 probes was ideal saturation and that I could stack chronoboost. A plat coach could have helped me out, for sure. Past the advice of "build probes and pylons" though, idk how helpful the average plat could be. There's a reason plat players are plat... They do things like 3gate expo vs Zerg on taldarim.
|
On August 07 2011 20:26 TortoiseCa wrote:
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.
The best way to practice macro, just as most other skills relevant here, is through specific practice.
There's nothing magical about good macro, there's no "competitive spirit" you need for it that you can only aquire by "powering through it with enough knowledge". Sure, mass gaming or whatever can teach you macro too, but the most effective way to improve it, as with so many skills, is through directed, conscious practice.
Your complaint about high-APM players who are "don't know wtf they are really doing" has, as far as I can tell, no relevance to the rest of your post.
|
Russian Federation63 Posts
A coach needs to set the benchmarks and make sure they are hit. If they are not hit, a good coach needs to either introduce some easier benchmarks or push the player to try harder.
Setting correct benchmarks requires good understanding of the game, and some argument can be made here towards coach being required to have extensive personal game experience. However, if a coach is simply good at analysing pro replays (specifically, figuring out why pros play the way they do), he will be able to pinpoint the right benchmarks without needing to be in any league.
The catch with the platinum coaches is that for everything below platinum, "work on yer macro" is the single most correct benchmark to go for.
|
Platinum players are simply not good enough to have faced the variety of build orders and situations that higher level players find themselves in daily. Anybody can tell you that you missed a few larva injects, didn't scout at [x] random time or forgot a supply depot but who can really show you WHAT to look for when you're scouting or how to force your opponent into YOUR playstyle (instead of the other way around)?
For me, I'd have my rather my opponent be the guy that goes "oh shit" instead of myself so why not force him into those situations? But if you don't know what you're looking for when you're scouting, how can you be the one to force him into those situations? Platinum players don't know how to do this because they don't have the knowledge required to set up these situations. Instead they'll blindly all-in or something ridiculous like that.
For anybody below grandmasters, not platinum, "work on your macro" is the single most correct benchmark to go for. But there are other things out there to worry about as well. Strong macro can get you to high masters/GM but game knowledge will push you above the rest.
|
On August 08 2011 20:10 SovSov wrote:
no, they can't.
they're in platinum.
end of story.
greg jackson can't even win an amateur mma bout, he can't coach GSP.
end of story.
Erik Spoelstra couldn't even get into the NBA, he can't coach Lebron James.
end of story.
Having the mechanical or physical skill to be a good player in any sport/game have nothing to do with your ability to be a coach in said sport. Does having first hand knowledge of top level play help? Aboslutely, is it the end all be all in coaching requirements? Hell no. How nobody can grasp this when it pertains to sc2 is fucking insane.
|
On August 11 2011 08:17 crms wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2011 20:10 SovSov wrote:
no, they can't.
they're in platinum.
end of story. greg jackson can't even win an amateur mma bout, he can't coach GSP. end of story. Erik Spoelstra couldn't even get into the NBA, he can't coach Lebron James. end of story. Having the mechanical or physical skill to be a good player in any sport/game have nothing to do with your ability to be a coach in said sport. Does having first hand knowledge of top level play help? Aboslutely, is it the end all be all in coaching requirements? Hell no. How nobody can grasp this when it pertains to sc2 is fucking insane.
Because the physical requirements for SC2 are nowhere as important than in the sports you try to compare with?
|
Some platinum players could definatly coach even master and grandmaster players but probably not manny, i have no doubt that there are some platinum players around with better insight in the game then 99% of master players but who just lack the mechanics
there wont be manny though probably
Its just like with football...
You dont need to be a good football player to know and understand alot about footbal and be a good coach, even if you self never played at such a high lvl because you lacked the mechanics
Because the physical requirements for SC2 are nowhere as important than in the sports you try to compare with?
with this you are wrong i think
the physical and mental requirements for sc2 at a high lvl are pretty high and specific
|
On August 11 2011 08:45 oxxo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2011 08:17 crms wrote:On August 08 2011 20:10 SovSov wrote:
no, they can't.
they're in platinum.
end of story. greg jackson can't even win an amateur mma bout, he can't coach GSP. end of story. Erik Spoelstra couldn't even get into the NBA, he can't coach Lebron James. end of story. Having the mechanical or physical skill to be a good player in any sport/game have nothing to do with your ability to be a coach in said sport. Does having first hand knowledge of top level play help? Aboslutely, is it the end all be all in coaching requirements? Hell no. How nobody can grasp this when it pertains to sc2 is fucking insane. Because the physical requirements for SC2 are nowhere as important than in the sports you try to compare with?
that's pretty irrelevant to the point.
|
Back in platinum I had no idea how to react to a 2-racks or pretty much any specific pressure build by any race. I was in platinum because I hotkeyed my hatcheries and knew roughly what units were good against which, and had no micro and no timings.
So I guess a platinum player can give useful tips, but not seriously coach. Even now, at high-ish diamond, I don't feel like I really know anything. I just try stuff out clumsily and sometimes my opponents play even worse than me, so I win, otherwise I lose.
So yeah, minimum level would be master before coaching, and even then I'm sure low masters must be pretty bad still.
|
ehh IMO i dont think plat players got the skill level to teach. especially if its someone that JUST came up into plat.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
