Have been seeing this a bit lately and thought I could shed some light on it. I don't have proof that they can or can't yet. In short, the argument for each side seems to be.....
Pro- Platinum players have established basic fundamental understandings of the game and can spot basic mistakes while watching replays. (and often more complex mistakes that are specific to their race) The pros they have added, will by far overcompensate for the few flaws they have incepted. (fun tacky ass word I know, but I know you can hear that silly inception bass hum in your head now)
Con- Platinum players are in platinum because they don't have a near flawless game sense and build orders that come from hundreds and hundreds of hours of play. Their play has flaws and they will pass these flaws down. The flaws they pass down will hurt more than the pros that they have instilled.
So these both seem like pretty darn reasonable arguments, there are more for each side I'm sure, and perhaps even better ones. However, proof will ring true at the end, and who better to judge than you TL (love you guys, all a u).
This is what we need.
I am at the very beginning of platinum, I lost my placement match to a slightly delayed 4 gate, but was still promoted to Platinum. My win rate before was 50/50 with top 8 gold players.
I will teach three Protoss players who are in SIlver looking to place into gold. I will meet with them 4 times per week for 2 hours each. In three weeks all three of my "students" who I will refer to as my friends, will either be placed into Gold, or have a 1v1 win ration of 80% or higher. I will only accept silver player with a near 50/50 win ration. I will check personally (because my secretary is busy) .
Experiments like this work better with multiple test groups. 1 is nice but proves little. I may just be really good at coaching. I may have a slow internet connection that ruins perfect ff placement and hurts my split. So I also want to add 1 Platinum Zerg coach (who will teach 3 50/50 winning silver Zerg players) and 1 Terran Platinum coach who will do the same. All three of our goals will be the same and we will post videos of the players before and after. Not only of our students but of our own games. This way better players will be able to identify flaws that we have passed down.
The goal of a Platinum coach is to teach his gold or below student the basic understandings so that when they are coached from a Dia/master player, they have the basic understandings to not make them pull their hair out and cut off their... connection from that student.
Each of these "coaches" (we'll be real coaches ofter we prove ourselves through the knowledge of our students) will need to be able to commit 2 hours, 4 times per week, to each of their students. ( Math time mutha Waaaah!!!) 2 hours x 3 students = 6 hours four times per week. Thats 24 hours a week. ( hope you were not planning a 24 marathon this week) So don't commit unless you can, if you fail you ruin it for all Platinum coaches reputation. (on TL at least and TL isn't that big on SC2 right? DOn't fail us bitch, lol)
We also need 9 players!!!!!!!
But you need to have a near 50/50 win ration in silver, or well, I guess Bronze to Silver is important too. Each Coach is now required to take 1 bronze ( to make silver) and 2 silvers ( to make gold, in three weeks).
Happy hunting. May this end the debate over what level it takes to coach well.
If you read this far I can do some shout outs for fun,
Geiko, you have pretty posts, thanks good sir.
Day(9), you know why I'm thanking you because you've already scouted me...bastard.
Plexa- Just a nice guy.
Sheth- Too nice of a guy. (when I play starcraft $2,000 is never given to the needy)
Toliveanddie- a silver player who hosts a fun tournament every fri-sun. He spends so much time to please the less fortunate (of the SC2 skill community)
Chill- For beating Combat X, may he smash him again with Day(9) nerd giggling and swearing in the back round.
I mean maybe but honestly anyone who is looking for coaching should go for masters minimum. There are lots of masters players who coach for free and others who don't charge very much like 10-15$ an hour. I mean I guess if that gold/silver/bronze player can't afford 10-15$ and the platinum is coaching at 5$ sure but otherwise I just don't see why someone would pick a platinum/diamond or below as a coach
But goodluck!
although why do you only want a terran/zerg coach? why not a toss? :o
On August 06 2011 11:32 blade55555 wrote: I mean maybe but honestly anyone who is looking for coaching should go for masters minimum. There are lots of masters players who coach for free and others who don't charge very much like 10-15$ an hour. I mean I guess if that gold/silver/bronze player can't afford 10-15$ and the platinum is coaching at 5$ sure but otherwise I just don't see why someone would pick a platinum/diamond or below as a coach
But goodluck!
although why do you only want a terran/zerg coach? why not a toss? :o
Yea but its basicly the same as u being bronze and asking ur friend thats slightly above you for help and teaching you things
Good luck in your experiment. Although I am highly doubtful teh players will improve significantly. Also most of the hating on people wishing to coach is due to the fact that there are frankly so many better players willing to coach for free too.
The reason why these gold/silver players might get better from platinum coaching has more to do with them just playing and increasing their mechanics than you actually coaching them/telling them strategy. You can win 99% of games from bronze-platinum if you can macro and defend cheese. The remaining 1% is just incase you play someone who tanked their mmr to be in lower leagues.
I think I am one of the more active and definitely longest term coaches- and have had a lot of success. In theory The problem with platinums coaching is they might know a lot about the game in general. They do not know the standards of masters mechanics and can't offer much in terms of gamesense. Also experience comes into play. Also there are so many maps and different strategies aren't available on every map. So knowledge is half the battle in that aspect.
When I coach a player, bronze-even high masters. I am teaching them mechanics and strategies to not only bust out of their current rank, but standards that will be flat across every rank.
Platinum players cannot coach, but they can certainly teach newer people how to play. Being anywhere below masters means that you don't have a full understanding of the game yet.
As for coaching for $, you don't pay for the coaching, you pay to get to meet a pro player and spend time with them. There's too many masters players that will coach for free, so you don't have to pay for coaching if you are just looking to improve.
My big problem with people in lower leagues coaching isn't that they're going to teach wrong. Its that the people getting coached have much better options. there are many MANY people in higher leagues that coach for free so I don't see the point in a platinum player trying to coach until hes good enough to point out and fix his own flaws.
1 thing to keep in mind, a lot of lower leaguers think their knowledge of thhe game greatly exceeds their skill but in my experience i notice them makng so many mistakes that they think are correct or they think its good to do. Beware..
I really do not recommend coaching at the platinum level. Definitely not for money, and even for free it might be a waste of time both for you and the person getting coaches. The only people you really should and are able to coach is probably low bronze.
Having been in platinum myself, I realize my overall game sense was really not that great. I was playing macro games in platinum and winning most of them and I thought I had a pretty good sense of the game, but I really did not. Now in masters, I probably am capable of giving some legitimate coaching advice, but I probably still would not do it, as my grasp of the game is still not at the tip top pro level yet. Also, this takes a lot of time and it might not be worth it. Masters players can do free coaching, and GM players can do paid coaching, everyone below that really should not be coaching.
I don't see why you wouldn't be able to coach someone who's less skilled than you. Obviously if you're not even in diamond, you probably aren't going to be giving the greatest advice, but at the same time it is probably more in line with what a lower league player would need to hear.
And as far as paying people to coach you. I just wanted to mention that throughout my time on bnet, I've never encountered a situation where somebody wasn't willing to offer advice after games. Some people make it sound like paying somebody to teach you something in a video game is becoming the norm. The truth is that if you're paying someone to teach you, it's because you are some rich kid and don't have enough time to actually learn the game on your own (like 99% of people) or you are just lonely and enjoy having 1on1 attention.
Your sample size is too small, and your method is flawed. Say someone gets promoted from silver to gold, what possible reason's could there be for their promotion?
-Coach trained them well -The player was dedicated and practiced hard -The player was already close to promotion and luckily blizzards system decided to promote him
Theres no real guarantee that the promotion would be due to the coaching.
Will a platinum player coaching a silver player help their play? Probably a little bit - but they could just as easily pass on bad habbits (hey, just use this 4 gate build every game! then it stops working at high diamond and the player has to relearn everything about the game).
At the end of the day, the requirment for a good coach is knowledge about the game, and understanding what you need to be a master player (which is simply, 1 good, safe build for each matchup practiced over and over, and excellent macro). Unfortunately most platinum players don't understand this, which is why they are in platinum - and most masters players DO understand this, which is why they are in masters.
They really don't. I look at myself, being in masters, and even I'm not at all good enough to coach. I know nothing about the metagame, ideal build orders, unit compositions etc. A platinum player is still a bad player (as am I) and shouldn't offer advice.
On August 06 2011 11:49 thepeonwhocould wrote: Your sample size is too small, and your method is flawed. Say someone gets promoted from silver to gold, what possible reason's could there be for their promotion?
-Coach trained them well -The player was dedicated and practiced hard -The player was already close to promotion and luckily blizzards system decided to promote him
Theres no real guarantee that the promotion would be due to the coaching.
Will a platinum player coaching a silver player help their play? Probably a little bit - but they could just as easily pass on bad habbits (hey, just use this 4 gate build every game! then it stops working at high diamond and the player has to relearn everything about the game).
At the end of the day, the requirment for a good coach is knowledge about the game, and understanding what you need to be a master player (which is simply, 1 good, safe build for each matchup practiced over and over, and excellent macro). Unfortunately most platinum players don't understand this, which is why they are in platinum - and most masters players DO understand this, which is why they are in masters.
I think that your mindset is kind of silly and a reason that a lot of players are in master league that probably don't deserve to be there. I've got two accounts - one master league and the other diamond - and on my diamond (main account) I've got tons of games played - and my MMR is probably very well tuned to my abilities. Yet my master account - I'm constantly outplaying other master league players. Like there's a tier of master league players that are worse than diamond players. I don't know where I belong, but my main account gives me competitive games vs low master/high diamond players.
Anyway, I guess my point is that learning a solid build in every matchup is a farce and what a lot of coaches do to superficially promote their 'students'. If you learn a solid build order then yes you will probably win a fair amount of games vs better opponents simply because of your build order/timing when you attack. But you don't understand the fundamentals of the game like a master league player should. A master league player should understand different unit compositions, counters, etc. And just have a general game sense instead of just a-moving at 7 minutes because that's when his teacher taught him to .
On August 06 2011 11:49 thepeonwhocould wrote: Your sample size is too small, and your method is flawed. Say someone gets promoted from silver to gold, what possible reason's could there be for their promotion?
-Coach trained them well -The player was dedicated and practiced hard -The player was already close to promotion and luckily blizzards system decided to promote him
Theres no real guarantee that the promotion would be due to the coaching.
Will a platinum player coaching a silver player help their play? Probably a little bit - but they could just as easily pass on bad habbits (hey, just use this 4 gate build every game! then it stops working at high diamond and the player has to relearn everything about the game).
At the end of the day, the requirment for a good coach is knowledge about the game, and understanding what you need to be a master player (which is simply, 1 good, safe build for each matchup practiced over and over, and excellent macro). Unfortunately most platinum players don't understand this, which is why they are in platinum - and most masters players DO understand this, which is why they are in masters.
I think that your mindset is kind of silly and a reason that a lot of players are in master league that probably don't deserve to be there. I've got two accounts - one master league and the other diamond - and on my diamond (main account) I've got tons of games played - and my MMR is probably very well tuned to my abilities. Yet my master account - I'm constantly outplaying other master league players. Like there's a tier of master league players that are worse than diamond players. I don't know where I belong, but my main account gives me competitive games vs low master/high diamond players.
Anyway, I guess my point is that learning a solid build in every matchup is a farce and what a lot of coaches do to superficially promote their 'students'. If you learn a solid build order then yes you will probably win a fair amount of games vs better opponents simply because of your build order/timing when you attack. But you don't understand the fundamentals of the game like a master league player should. A master league player should understand different unit compositions, counters, etc. And just have a general game sense instead of just a-moving at 7 minutes because that's when his teacher taught him to .
This guy is spot on, what thepeonwhocould said is right in a certain sense; getting a specific build down pat and knowing the respective timings and counters associated with said build may enable one to get promoted through Diamond and into low Masters, but this sort of progression is hardly the stuff of a truly proficient and thorough learning of the game. To be entirely honest, I myself fell victim to the sort of thinking thepeonwhocould espouses, and over time, my constant losing to the truly creative players in mid-low masters eventually locked me into a hard plateau, and that account simply hasn't budged since.
This was a solid 5 months ago, and in the meantime, I've worked hard on analyzing hundreds of casted games and replays, I've played all three races and played all match ups exhaustively in an attempt to better understand the possible choices my opponents are going to make in addition to my own, and the results are undeniable. I've won 7 games straight on my second account against a wide variety of Masters players, and although this still may be fluke, my reactions and game sense have improved tremendously thanks to game analysis from the likes of Artosis, Tasteless, Day 9, and Wolf, in addition to the simple value of approaching the game from a wide, holistic perspective, rather than a narrow one. For the first time ever, the possibility of putting the time in and trying for GM next season seems remotely feasible, and I think every student of the game can appreciate that.
Anyways, this experiment sounds like a great idea, I wish you the best of luck, and if theres anything I can do to help let me know. Cheers :D
Think it depends more on the coaching/person than their level. Plenty of diamond players wouldn't be able to coach for shit. I think even at Gold you might be able to start giving advice to bronze players.
Keep in mind that at diamond level you're constantly thinking about mechanics and timings when really mostly all you need to get to gold is building probes, expanding at good times, and building units.
A plat player might know EXACTLY what to do but lacks the mechanics or micro refinement to get to the next level. I think a fair amount of poeple that spectate a lot of pro-games, stream-watch, day9 fall into this category, because they're constantly getting good advice on a variety of situations
actually yes, it isn't very difficult as to see what you need to do etc, especially the lower league. I am only in plat because I can't do what I know I need to do correctly. For example, under 2 rax bunker pressure, I always pump way too much lings after the pressure is over
They can coach players in bronze, silver, and maybe gold. People in bronze and silver don't need super complicated strategies, they just need a few solid build orders and work on macro.
I don't understand why everybody thinks lower level players cant be higher level coaches. How many sports coaches do you know that can compete in the sport theyre coaching? I'll admit that the comparison isn't completely fair because sports are typically much more physical than SC2, but even so, while some people may not be able to keep their composure and analyze strategy real time while playing the game, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to give sound advice from the coaches seat.
Obviously a coach needs good game sense and that TYPICALLY comes from hundreds of actual game hours, but not always.
On August 06 2011 11:50 tossuaway wrote: Sorry guys, guess it was a dumb idea, when a mod see's this feel free to close it. Thanks guys.
It's not a dumb idea at all, you don't have to be a master at something to coach it. Just stick to what you know and admit when you don't have the right answer or only a partial answer. Coaching is about helping people improve, not being some demigod who can impart divine knowledge.
When I was a low bronze player: - I felt safe having 2k minerals banked - My only pressure was with warp prism dts - My only attacks were with 3/3/3 200 food armies - I never got off 2 bases until maybe 30 minutes in - I thought you could stack chrono boost - I didn't know warp gates had lower cooldowns than gateway build times - I never built sentries or colossi, favored air armies or blink stalker armies
If the plat me met the bronze me, I think he would have helped a ton. No, a plat player won't teach you enough to make you a grandmaster, but can certainly teach you basics of the game.
Platinum Coaching represents the theory of comparative advantages and their contributions to specialization. A analogy which is famously simple is: In a town there is a lawyer. He is the best lawyer and the best secretary in the town. However, if he hires a secretary he will get more work done than if he does both. He holds the absolute advantage in both lawyering and secretarying. However, when you apply comparative advantage, it is obvious he would get more done with a less competent secretary than if he would do 4 hours of law, 4 hours of secretarial work.
Applying it to the Platinum/Masters example, the Masters has the absolute advantage in coaching over the platinum players, be the coach-ee be bronze or diamond. However, the platinum player would have the relative advantage. The Masters player has all this game knowledge about timings, builds, counters, while the bronze student only wants to learn how to macro properly and use hotkeys. Would it really be the most efficient use of time if the masters player taught the bronze student? The masters players time is best spent catering to higher level players and the platinum would be competent in teaching bronze players how to tell stim from combat shield.
On August 06 2011 11:49 thepeonwhocould wrote: Your sample size is too small, and your method is flawed. Say someone gets promoted from silver to gold, what possible reason's could there be for their promotion?
-Coach trained them well -The player was dedicated and practiced hard -The player was already close to promotion and luckily blizzards system decided to promote him
Theres no real guarantee that the promotion would be due to the coaching.
Will a platinum player coaching a silver player help their play? Probably a little bit - but they could just as easily pass on bad habbits (hey, just use this 4 gate build every game! then it stops working at high diamond and the player has to relearn everything about the game).
At the end of the day, the requirment for a good coach is knowledge about the game, and understanding what you need to be a master player (which is simply, 1 good, safe build for each matchup practiced over and over, and excellent macro). Unfortunately most platinum players don't understand this, which is why they are in platinum - and most masters players DO understand this, which is why they are in masters.
I think that your mindset is kind of silly and a reason that a lot of players are in master league that probably don't deserve to be there. I've got two accounts - one master league and the other diamond - and on my diamond (main account) I've got tons of games played - and my MMR is probably very well tuned to my abilities. Yet my master account - I'm constantly outplaying other master league players. Like there's a tier of master league players that are worse than diamond players. I don't know where I belong, but my main account gives me competitive games vs low master/high diamond players.
Anyway, I guess my point is that learning a solid build in every matchup is a farce and what a lot of coaches do to superficially promote their 'students'. If you learn a solid build order then yes you will probably win a fair amount of games vs better opponents simply because of your build order/timing when you attack. But you don't understand the fundamentals of the game like a master league player should. A master league player should understand different unit compositions, counters, etc. And just have a general game sense instead of just a-moving at 7 minutes because that's when his teacher taught him to .
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.
any players from bronze to even low masters should not coach, they don't understand the game, or have really bad mechanics and that's why they are in low leagues. its only at high master or grandmaster do players actually have an understanding of the game. even now i see a lot of high master/GM play the game improperly, but they still win
i've seen many players make ling/roach when the protoss comes with a bunch of air units as a response, when the proper thing to do is to get hydra tech, and drone harder since a protoss wont be able to amount a strong push if he's invested so much into air tech, that you can lighten up on ground to ground units-although this is a more simpler and well known answer, there are more detailed intricacies that players don't realize or learn until they are at higher levels
coaching from players will help some aspects, but at the same time cause hinderance, just because something works well, doesn't mean it's correct, because honestly you can more or less do anything and still win in the lower leagues
On August 06 2011 13:03 Geniuszerg wrote: in short no
any players from bronze to even low masters should not coach, they don't understand the game, or have really bad mechanics and that's why they are in low leagues. its only at high master or grandmaster do players actually have an understanding of the game. even now i see a lot of high master/GM play the game improperly, but they still win
i've seen many players make ling/roach when the protoss comes with a bunch of air units as a response, when the proper thing to do is to get hydra tech, and drone harder since a protoss wont be able to amount a strong push if he's invested so much into air tech, that you can lighten up on ground to ground units-although this is a more simpler and well known answer, there are more detailed intricacies that players don't realize or learn until they are at higher levels
coaching from players will help some aspects, but at the same time cause hinderance, just because something works well, doesn't mean it's correct, because honestly you can more or less do anything and still win in the lower leagues
Mechanics has nothing to do with coaching, though. I'm a part-time debate coach and if I had to debate right now my "mechanics" wouldn't be where they need to be to debate at a high level. It just doesn't matter.
I believe that they CAN help through personal experience. Back a while ago I was in gold league and I was helping my bronze league friend out a lot, showed him how to macro effectively, taught him some game sense, while I improved myself. We put a bunch of time in it together, and after 1 month or 2 of it he got into gold league, which in all likelihood would not have happened if it wasn't for that. I also played a lot (and watched wayyy too many streams) and got into diamond, and i'm sure my coaching of him helped me see some small things that I could fix in my play. Coaching lower level players may give them one or two bad habits, but the important thing IMHO is that it will jumpstart their game knowledge and just in general get them a little higher tier where they then can learn new things on their own or with a higher, more experienced level coach. That's just my take on things. I really hope this pans out because I think it'd be interesting to see the results. Gl
On August 06 2011 11:50 Newbistic wrote: Can a high school biology student treat patients effectively?
Considering the average knowledge of the general american population, the student probably know more about the human body than the patients themselves lol
But yeah, i think plat ppl can coach i guess, However, i don't see the point of coaching for lower league players. Do you need someone to remind you to make probes and pylons every 20 seconds? Come on bro, play enough games and basic mechanics will take over. Of course you may improve better with someone reminding you everything to do, but unless you are rich, i dont see the point.
Hell, if the coach is in plat, maybe the coach wont even remind the player to constantly make probes past early game.
Platinum people are platinum for a reason, they could be giving wrong information to their pupils, which will be worse for him in the long run. They may be able to give general information, but there is always a chance that what they were teaching isn't the best way or even the right way. Coaches should be high level enough to teach RIGHT information.
On August 06 2011 11:50 Newbistic wrote: Can a high school biology student treat patients effectively?
Cuts and scrapes yes. Surgery no.
On August 06 2011 13:41 Yergidy wrote: Platinum people are platinum for a reason, they could be giving wrong information to their pupils, which will be worse for him in the long run. They may be able to give general information, but there is always a chance that what they were teaching isn't the best way or even the right way. Coaches should be high level enough to teach RIGHT information.
Assuming they teach the basics that took themselves to Platinum, it is a progression. Yes, they *could* teach them bad habits that may or may not limit them later, but they would still progress. Then the Master coach can help break those habits.
Everyone is being really negative. Skill and coaching ability aren't directly correlated at all. Skill is usually used as a reference for a coach to seem like a better coach. It highly depends on the individual coaching and that's it.
If a platinum player studies the game, thinks about it all the time, analyzes, etc etc. There's no reason he can't be a great coach, even for people above his skill level. Example: said platinum player studies game and watches gsl/reads teamliquid (instead of playing) so he knows of the 3 stalker rush to stop 4gates and there's a masters protoss who doesn't watch gsl or read some kind of forum like tl and has problems stopping 4gates, the platinum player can help him and tell him about the build. If it's just some random lazy platinum player who doesn't try to get better and just sits in platinum doing cheesy strategies for wins then of course they wouldn't be a good coach for anyone. With that said, the former would probably spend his time playing after studying then get promoted, but it's just an example of potential.
On August 06 2011 11:23 tossuaway wrote: Have been seeing this a bit lately and thought I could shed some light on it. I don't have proof that they can or can't yet. In short, the argument for each side seems to be.....
Pro- Platinum players have established basic fundamental understandings of the game and can spot basic mistakes while watching replays. (and often more complex mistakes that are specific to their race) The pros they have added, will by far overcompensate for the few flaws they have incepted. (fun tacky ass word I know, but I know you can hear that silly inception bass hum in your head now)
Con- Platinum players are in platinum because they don't have a near flawless game sense and build orders that come from hundreds and hundreds of hours of play. Their play has flaws and they will pass these flaws down. The flaws they pass down will hurt more than the pros that they have instilled.
So these both seem like pretty darn reasonable arguments, there are more for each side I'm sure, and perhaps even better ones. However, proof will ring true at the end, and who better to judge than you TL (love you guys, all a u).
This is what we need.
I am at the very beginning of platinum, I lost my placement match to a slightly delayed 4 gate, but was still promoted to Platinum. My win rate before was 50/50 with top 8 gold players.
I will teach three Protoss players who are in SIlver looking to place into gold. I will meet with them 4 times per week for 2 hours each. In three weeks all three of my "students" who I will refer to as my friends, will either be placed into Gold, or have a 1v1 win ration of 80% or higher. I will only accept silver player with a near 50/50 win ration. I will check personally (because my secretary is busy) .
Experiments like this work better with multiple test groups. 1 is nice but proves little. I may just be really good at coaching. I may have a slow internet connection that ruins perfect ff placement and hurts my split. So I also want to add 1 Platinum Zerg coach (who will teach 3 50/50 winning silver Zerg players) and 1 Terran Platinum coach who will do the same. All three of our goals will be the same and we will post videos of the players before and after. Not only of our students but of our own games. This way better players will be able to identify flaws that we have passed down.
The goal of a Platinum coach is to teach his gold or below student the basic understandings so that when they are coached from a Dia/master player, they have the basic understandings to not make them pull their hair out and cut off their... connection from that student.
Each of these "coaches" (we'll be real coaches ofter we prove ourselves through the knowledge of our students) will need to be able to commit 2 hours, 4 times per week, to each of their students. ( Math time mutha Waaaah!!!) 2 hours x 3 students = 6 hours four times per week. Thats 24 hours a week. ( hope you were not planning a 24 marathon this week) So don't commit unless you can, if you fail you ruin it for all Platinum coaches reputation. (on TL at least and TL isn't that big on SC2 right? DOn't fail us bitch, lol)
We also need 9 players!!!!!!!
But you need to have a near 50/50 win ration in silver, or well, I guess Bronze to Silver is important too. Each Coach is now required to take 1 bronze ( to make silver) and 2 silvers ( to make gold, in three weeks).
Happy hunting. May this end the debate over what level it takes to coach well.
If you read this far I can do some shout outs for fun,
Geiko, you have pretty posts, thanks good sir.
Day(9), you know why I'm thanking you because you've already scouted me...bastard.
Plexa- Just a nice guy.
Sheth- Too nice of a guy. (when I play starcraft $2,000 is never given to the needy)
Toliveanddie- a silver player who hosts a fun tournament every fri-sun. He spends so much time to please the less fortunate (of the SC2 skill community)
Chill- For beating Combat X, may he smash him again with Day(9) nerd giggling and swearing in the back round.
Thanks guys lets do this.
Of course a plat could be a teacher, it is more likely that if you are able to teach and completely understand the concepts eventually you will be masters level, but perhaps some just study the game and would rather not practice. I could believe that a person who plays at gold level knows the pro level play enough to teach a pro how to play better.
Of course a platinum player can definately coach! Wonder why SlayersCella is an extremely good coach but never really see him up in competitive tournaments compared to his teammates? Yes, I know that Cella is not a platinum player...
It's good to have a second set of eyes to see what you are doing. That person can probably catch mistakes, question what you're doing in the game, and give advice. Maybe you have less tactical skills but more mechanical skills, or vise versa.
Lets say I am a coach, and I have interesting strategies and tactics, but my multitasking is so poor that it is bringing me down. If I coach someone with good mechanical skills like multitasking, I can offer him my strengths as a strategist with his skills and he'll probably become better. IMO combining sets of skills is what makes Koreans better on average than other players around the world.
I would really really really really not recommend any Platinum players to coach the lower leagues. I was in Plat before and I was horrible, and in a bad way. I had no idea wtf I was doing. I was winning game solely on my opponent mistakes. It was until I got into high diamond that I understand stuff as good macro and timings.
When I read this OP I first thought of a tennis coach. Often they were never good enough to compete at the highest level but that doesn't mean they can't coach a player who is. If their knowledge is there they theoretically could pick up on what a player needs to do to improve without having the skill sets themselves to reach higher leagues. Good coaching is in the eye of the trainee IMO. If they learn something then its good coaching when they aren't learning anymore its time to seek a coach with more knowledge/experience.
No, platinum isn't pretty much average. Sure, statistically they're something like top 40%, but somehow I think if you were to take all inactive players out of the pool plat would be very solidly average.
Why would anyone think it's ok for an average player to be a coach?
Honestly, I don't even think most masters are qualified to coach.
I really wish everytime a thread like this was created it wasn't derailed by people debating the same old thing.
Good luck with the experiment I will be curious to see how it goes. Please edit the OP with updates/progress though! I dont think I have the mental fortitude to sift through the comments that are already 90% debate to find out what happened.
Platinum players generally have a decent understanding of the game and are reasonably competent so there is no reason they couldnt give some useful advice to someone worst than them. The whole "they cant coach because they arn't perfect" is a broken concept" imo, just think about it.
The difference between platinum and silver is still pretty large and when i was new in sc2 i would of gladly taken advice from a player better than me even if some of the concepts where somewhat bad. The flawed advice thing isnt exactly a reasonable reason for why platinum league players shouldn't coach because its inevitable that the player in question will develop their own personal flaws and bad habits anyway and i would rather have a coaching session and some of that players flaws, if it meant that i wouldnt develop as many of my own flaws while improving in a different way one reason id give for this is that removing someone elses bad concepts from your play is probably easier than removing one you developed yourself. If they player in question is also willing to get said coaching it is likely that they also have a interest in eSports/watch streams/day9 so if anything coaching from someone better than them is only a added bonus to their current learning without any real negatives.
Taking it to real life then you would be saying that essentially anyone without full qualifications is unable to hand down real useful information im sure most people were taught things by their parents/friends etc and im sure most of these things were came with their own flaws but that doesn't take away that they have their uses and they weren't useful learning experiences
I think it depends on the coach really Im 28 have been teaching in the military since I was 19 years old. Im a Diamond toss First Season (When no masters) Im now Terran and Im High Diamond. I personally know I could help any players up to Plat both with Toss and Terran.
On August 06 2011 13:41 Yergidy wrote: Platinum people are platinum for a reason, they could be giving wrong information to their pupils, which will be worse for him in the long run. They may be able to give general information, but there is always a chance that what they were teaching isn't the best way or even the right way. Coaches should be high level enough to teach RIGHT information.
Assuming they teach the basics that took themselves to Platinum, it is a progression. Yes, they *could* teach them bad habits that may or may not limit them later, but they would still progress. Then the Master coach can help break those habits.
Holy crap. I feel like everyone in this thread is assuming that if you're receiving coaching, you should be able to hit masters in a week.
If you're getting coaching from a plat player, you're obviously not going to suddenly shoot from low bronze to masters.
You'll be reminded of some of the basics, constant probe production (yes, some people need to be reminded of it), no supply block (Yes, some people need to be reminded of it), until it DOES start to become second nature.
No one's expecting to get a plat coach, then suddenly hit dia from bronze or silver.
They're hoping that they'll hit silver. or maybe gold.
Or learn how to take their natural.
I apologize for singling out your post, but it just seemed like the one that most clearly articulated "Cuts and scrapes? Yes. Surgery? No."
No one is claiming that they'll learn surgery, that's not to say that they won't be able to pass the bio midterm they have in a week, where the most complicated thing they had to learn was the fact that there's a kingdom called "animalia."
I feel like the undergrad vs. high schooler analogy is the best one that exists out there.
Or think of it this way: a guy who enjoys baseball decides to coach a local little league. He's not particularly good at the sport, doesn't have the deepest understanding, but enjoys it, and enjoys working with young people. Are you going to yell at him for not being a retired MLB player? No. You're going to say, 'it's little league. when the kids get to high school, or college, and IF they're still playing, they'll get a better coach. one with more experience (either coaching or playing, at any rate, one with a substantially deeper understanding of the game, who can help them further develop their skills)."
It's like going into little league and asking the kid at the plate to hit a sac fly, because you've got a runner on 3rd and only 1 out. Sure, the kid can TRY, but the more important thing to do, would be to just tell him, "just make contact." And that's what they emphasize at those leagues.
I didn't mean this post to come off as aggressive, so please don't take it that way, I'm just confused as to why all of a sudden there are a lot of these topics coming up, where everyone shits on plat players (Yes, i am one, but i'm not trying to be a coach. I'm bad. I feel like i don't put in enough time to be good, and goof off in team games) for wanting to help.
Nobody's claiming they can be plat, and take a bronze kid to masters. If they did, then they're either smurfing their account down, or they're just ridiculous in understanding, but have a physical disability that prevents them from playing to their potential, or they're lying.
If you can get someone who consistently floats minerals early in the game to be spending all their resources easily for mid-late game, that's good for a start
On August 06 2011 13:58 Pleiades wrote: Of course a platinum player can definately coach! Wonder why SlayersCella is an extremely good coach but never really see him up in competitive tournaments compared to his teammates? Yes, I know that Cella is not a platinum player...
It's good to have a second set of eyes to see what you are doing. That person can probably catch mistakes, question what you're doing in the game, and give advice. Maybe you have less tactical skills but more mechanical skills, or vise versa.
Lets say I am a coach, and I have interesting strategies and tactics, but my multitasking is so poor that it is bringing me down. If I coach someone with good mechanical skills like multitasking, I can offer him my strengths as a strategist with his skills and he'll probably become better. IMO combining sets of skills is what makes Koreans better on average than other players around the world.
ok dood..... cella made it to the finals of his code a qualifier bracket lets be real for a second
ON topic:
someone who understand the game enough to coach effectively will be able to play at the low masters level at the very least .... you want to make the sports analogy, it really only becomes valid at this level because now knowledge (maybe mid masters bit whatever work with me here guys!) is complete for everyone so physical skill becomes the deciding factor.
You can absolutely help people below, but you really shouldnt give any non mechanical advice (like don't try to explain when to get armor vs weapons from the forge )
Why do people have the elitist stick up their asses about this? .___.
I don't think this is the best constructed experiment, because of so many variables, but basically-- use your brain.
When a bronze or silver player comes into these forums and says: I suck at this game, idk how to get better because my timing push is failing since my micro is not spot on... WTH do we all say? l2macro
Does anyone even bother to discuss the finer points of the timing push or a marine split or some bullshit? Absolutely not. No one even bothers to consider their replays (if they bothered sharing one). Instead we know that a player in bronze in silver who is struggling to improve needs to build more workers, stop getting supply blocked, and keeping making units. If they can remember to scout from time to time, that could help too.
Why do we know this will help a bronze or silver player improve? Because at that level, making more shit will win your games, 90% of the time. Sure there will be games that someone shows up with banshees and all they made was a few roaches, and there are games they lose to poor unit control-- but no one bothers to tell a bronze league player how to scout for the finer signs of banshees or improve their marine split, because it really doesn't matter.
Now if someone has managed to get to Platinum, MOST LIKELY they have some understanding that you need to make workers and units (which requires not getting supply blocked) to win. This is the most basic idea of SC2. >.>
I could take my little sister who has not played a game in her entire life, sit her in the chair next to me, and say: "See this little number in the top left? Watch it and tell me when I am about to hit the limit. Also say 'build drones or units' every time this other number goes over 100."
Because my little sister is not fucking retarded, she could sit through an entire game and remind me not to get supply blocked and to not let my money get too high, with ZERO knowledge of the game.
Since bronze and silver league players need to focus all their attention on better macro before worrying about anything else, and because someone who doesn't know anything about the game is capable of helping improve a player's macro, a Platinum player should probably be able to do the same thing.
For a bronze player completely newb to the game, a Platinum player is probably also capable of telling them things like-- mauraders are good against roaches, but they can't shoot up, so make marines if you see something flying...
So my question: WTF do you think a bronze or silver player needs to learn that a Platinum player can't teach them? .____.
You can coach if you're smart about it. Since you'd have a basic understanding of concepts you should only share basic concepts with the players. If you don't know or are uncertain then don't share it.
Well, from my perspective I am a masters player that is in no way qualified to be a coach. And this isn't because of a lack of teaching ability - I've succeeded before in other teaching roles - but instead because even as a master level player I don't have a very good understanding of the game.
Sure, I know the basics of what makes my builds work and mostly how to manage my economy, but when it comes down to it if I were to be asked "why do you do X at this time in the build?" there is a good chance my answer will be "because that's the build." Anybody can teach somebody a build, but it takes a coach to teach somebody how to play, and in order to do that you need to truly understand the game.
On August 06 2011 11:43 Chairman Ray wrote: Platinum players cannot coach, but they can certainly teach newer people how to play. Being anywhere below masters means that you don't have a full understanding of the game yet.
As for coaching for $, you don't pay for the coaching, you pay to get to meet a pro player and spend time with them. There's too many masters players that will coach for free, so you don't have to pay for coaching if you are just looking to improve.
Sums up my thoughts as well, and personally I do think that having someone in say Plat coaching someone from Silver is good but once that person is in Plat as well then get someone from Masters to show you the more intricate parts of game play/mechanics.
I began playing SC2 about a month after release... My previous RTS experience was YEARS ago... read starcraft (not broodwar) and dune... Of course I placed in Bronze.
I am now Plat, and I can guarantee you I could have taught myself some things back then, with what I know now.
I do not understand the hate toward Platinum or Diamond level coaching. Sure, not everything is perfect, but it's probably alot better than the silver or bronze level player that could stand to learn some from a higher level coaching.
Will everyone benefit from it, no, but those that want to learn a bit more of the basics, will benefit in spades from any type of coaching, or more like mentoring.
Even though I am only platinum, I can pick apart my games mechanically... I also know that I lack alot in the area of micro, macro, scouting and timings. However, I can usually do a pretty good job at seeing where I screw up on replays, or when watching someone else play.
Someone at the Platinum level watching over me would have helped a TON when I first started playing, and probably well into Gold. Hell, I bet I could learn things now from Gold or Silver level players that dissected my game play.
I do not understand the hate toward Platinum or Diamond level coaching. Sure, not everything is perfect, but it's probably alot better than the silver or bronze level player that could stand to learn some from a higher level coaching.
Yea, I remember when I first started playing and my Plat level buddy told me that I need to be building queens and injecting larva haha. If you read this thread, you'd think I should have told him to fuck off until a GM Z was available to corroborate it.
you have to be at least high diamond to say you understand the game enough to teach someone else on a high level. i mean, anyone can be anyone's coach on the more basic level, like a silver teaching their friend that's new to sc2 about unit counters and to build workers and stuff like that. but teaching strategy and how to react require someone who has proven that they can strategize and have solid fundamentals. i just don't see how a platinum player can bring that to the table.
If you can't even make it into diamond or masters with how easy it is these days, don't waste your time and don't waste the student's time trying to coach them.
To be perfectly honest, i dont think that you can really start coaching until about mid-high diamond and above, just becuase in plat and lower you dont really have the understanding of the game (There are a few exceptions, dont bite my head off plz =P)
But if your just an Average Joe Plat, you can give coaching/advice to people in like Bronze-Gold the same way a Gold leaguer could give advice to someone who is Bronze/Silver ***advice may not be perfect in either instance though =O
I do not understand the hate toward Platinum or Diamond level coaching. Sure, not everything is perfect, but it's probably alot better than the silver or bronze level player that could stand to learn some from a higher level coaching.
Yea, I remember when I first started playing and my Plat level buddy told me that I need to be building queens and injecting larva haha. If you read this thread, you'd think I should have told him to fuck off until a GM Z was available to corroborate it.
There's a difference between getting tips from better players and coaching
i think there is also some volatility in the lower leagues, what i mean by that is a plat player has a chance to lose to even a silver player just because their knowledge has gaps, which can be exploited, whereas in higher leagues, you won't have master level players (not the low masters) ever losing to lower league players, they do have gaps in their play, however those flaws are harder to exploit imo when you are in a lower league, i may even say not possible
I think the important thing is to define what is "coaching". The community views the term as someone who is able to mentor any player (whether GM or bronze) and help them improve. This is opposed to "helping a player out", which is a higher-level player giving tips or advice to a peer or lower-level player.
With this in mind, no, I think a Platinum level player cannot coach effectively. However, that doesn't mean that they can't help out other players. In my mind, a players needs to at least be high masters or GM to be able to coach.
On August 06 2011 15:10 RedJustice wrote: Why do people have the elitist stick up their asses about this? .___.
I don't think this is the best constructed experiment, because of so many variables, but basically-- use your brain.
When a bronze or silver player comes into these forums and says: I suck at this game, idk how to get better because my timing push is failing since my micro is not spot on... WTH do we all say? l2macro
Does anyone even bother to discuss the finer points of the timing push or a marine split or some bullshit? Absolutely not. No one even bothers to consider their replays (if they bothered sharing one). Instead we know that a player in bronze in silver who is struggling to improve needs to build more workers, stop getting supply blocked, and keeping making units. If they can remember to scout from time to time, that could help too.
Why do we know this will help a bronze or silver player improve? Because at that level, making more shit will win your games, 90% of the time. Sure there will be games that someone shows up with banshees and all they made was a few roaches, and there are games they lose to poor unit control-- but no one bothers to tell a bronze league player how to scout for the finer signs of banshees or improve their marine split, because it really doesn't matter.
Now if someone has managed to get to Platinum, MOST LIKELY they have some understanding that you need to make workers and units (which requires not getting supply blocked) to win. This is the most basic idea of SC2. >.>
I could take my little sister who has not played a game in her entire life, sit her in the chair next to me, and say: "See this little number in the top left? Watch it and tell me when I am about to hit the limit. Also say 'build drones or units' every time this other number goes over 100."
Because my little sister is not fucking retarded, she could sit through an entire game and remind me not to get supply blocked and to not let my money get too high, with ZERO knowledge of the game.
Since bronze and silver league players need to focus all their attention on better macro before worrying about anything else, and because someone who doesn't know anything about the game is capable of helping improve a player's macro, a Platinum player should probably be able to do the same thing.
For a bronze player completely newb to the game, a Platinum player is probably also capable of telling them things like-- mauraders are good against roaches, but they can't shoot up, so make marines if you see something flying...
So my question: WTF do you think a bronze or silver player needs to learn that a Platinum player can't teach them? .____.
A plat player can certainly help a bronze/silver player. However, a plat player cannot "coach" (the community defined term for coach). See my post above this one.
The absolute worst thing a coach can do is provide his students with misinformation.
In plat, players are devoid of so much base, fundamental game knowledge, that they're really at risk of teaching their student something that is blatantly incorrect, and would thusly lead that player to practice the game incorrectly...
In other words, eventually the student would have to relearn the game.
Im a really high platinum level zerg (rank 1) if needed pm me or my handel is Duskyy.323. I will warn i am only 14 incase you would like a more "older" set of coaches. Just trying to help the community
To all you platinum players.. Stop taking it so personally. You are in platinum for a reason. I am masters and I am absolutely awful. I consider it a joke that I can get to the highest league so easily. You have your faults and while you may be able to offer a few good tips, you should stick to that. Coaching opens up the possibility of you spreading your bad habits that keep you in platinum.
OP, best of luck in what you're doing and hope you have fun doing it! You will help your students grow, and also, see yourself grow in the process too, becoming a better coach and learning amazing things together with your students. Ignore the haters.
--
Quite unlike the majority of you elitist pricks who turn your nose up at someone who's just trying to help. You have no vested invested in whoever they're teaching - so why do you care? At this point - it's none of your damn business, what happens between coach and student.
By your definitions of "who should teach"...your high school gym teachers instantly do not qualify to do, what they're doing. What about your social studies teacher? Did you know that many teachers are forced to teach a subject that's not particularly one of their strengths? That it's one of their "off-courses" shall we say? Why are we not seeing you confront said teachers, telling them off? And here we have you here, acting all tough on the Internet?
I challenge those of you, to name the GSL coaches who are actually in Masters. Go, do it. I'll wait. No surprise, you're back here, and didn't find very many(only Cella, right?) What about the IM coach? Startale Coach? Wow surprise suprise. The coaches are inferior to their students in terms of execution ability. Does that disqualify them from being coaches, then?
The list can go on into literally infinity. Any older person who's a coach or teacher teaching any physical form of activity...are far past being able to do said activity themselves. And here they are teaching it. You saying that they're all hypocrites, for doing what they're doing? And imparting false knowledge to their students?
Over and over we see this very forum being advertised to the masses, and when casual joe blow sees the elitism, the general offensive attitude towards new players...we're digging this game an early grave.
Again - the OP set out a goal. You're hating. He's doing more...than you are.
I don't see what a platinum-diamond league player can offer to a bronze player other than a build order and the exact same advice they themselves see every day- practice your mechanics. From bronze to diamond nothing matters more than mechanics and it's delusional to think that a player 1-2 leagues higher telling you what to do will fix them any faster.
I don't think any non-high master league player is actually able to offer anything to a less experienced player when it's more than likely that the <master level coach has the majority of their focus on mechanics where high level strategy doesn't enter game play yet. At least, nothing to offer other than what that player can readily read on every page in the TL sc2 strategy forum.
The only exception I would grant are players who are actually good at teaching, and aren't justified to teach simply because their league is higher, or even because they play starcraft 2 professionally.
On August 07 2011 03:08 D_K_night wrote: You know what, I'm gonna go against the grain.
OP, best of luck in what you're doing and hope you have fun doing it! You will help your students grow, and also, see yourself grow in the process too, becoming a better coach and learning amazing things together with your students. Ignore the haters.
--
Quite unlike the majority of you elitist pricks who turn your nose up at someone who's just trying to help. You have no vested invested in whoever they're teaching - so why do you care? At this point - it's none of your damn business, what happens between coach and student.
By your definitions of "who should teach"...your high school gym teachers instantly do not qualify to do, what they're doing. What about your social studies teacher? Did you know that many teachers are forced to teach a subject that's not particularly one of their strengths? That it's one of their "off-courses" shall we say? Why are we not seeing you confront said teachers, telling them off? And here we have you here, acting all tough on the Internet?
I challenge those of you, to name the GSL coaches who are actually in Masters. Go, do it. I'll wait. No surprise, you're back here, and didn't find very many(only Cella, right?) What about the IM coach? Startale Coach? Wow surprise suprise. The coaches are inferior to their students in terms of execution ability. Does that disqualify them from being coaches, then?
The list can go on into literally infinity. Any older person who's a coach or teacher teaching any physical form of activity...are far past being able to do said activity themselves. And here they are teaching it. You saying that they're all hypocrites, for doing what they're doing? And imparting false knowledge to their students?
Over and over we see this very forum being advertised to the masses, and when casual joe blow sees the elitism, the general offensive attitude towards new players...we're digging this game an early grave.
Again - the OP set out a goal. You're hating. He's doing more...than you are.
If it was only execution that kept the plat player in plat then you would have a point. But you can EASILY get to masters with very poor execution and only having good game knowledge. It's not being an elitist, it's the truth. Don't be so sensitive.
Toliveanddie- a silver player who hosts a fun tournament every fri-sun. He spends so much time to please the less fortunate (of the SC2 skill community)
thanx millions
I'd just like to make a shout out to SacredLambo, juliette, matiK, Resonant, Workhorse, Influx, Regulus, and all the other players in the Night Owl tournament who were promoted to Platinum this season. good luck to all.
sometimes the best coaching you can give a player is providing them an opportunity to prove themselves against their peers on a regular basis.
I just hit diamond on EU and have taught 6 bronze leaguers over the past 2 months of which one is platinum 2 about to follow hopefully soon, with the others sitting in gold league with much more confidence to ladder and learn.
All they need are the basic pointers, replay walkthroughs and sufficent build orders and reasoning behind certtain choices and if they're commited, they'll get better. There is no need for Pro's to teach this level of play at least until they're hitting high diamond/masters in my personal opinion.
The thing is it's a lot easier to spectate then to actually play so if you are platinum you can even help Diamond players as you can put all your focus on the theoretical aspect of the play so therefor I think it can work!
i honestly think the difference to everything is execution. diamonds simply have better micro/late game macro. once u hit masters/gm its all about timings and perfect execution. plats are as good as diam/some masters in theory, not execution
My view on this is: It's actually WORSE to practice things incorectly, than to not practice at all, sometimes. If plat players knew how to do things correctly they wouldn't be in plat, so really I think it might even be detrimental for a new player to be coached by a plat.
I would honestly go as far as to say low-mid masters have no business coaching either, I feel only at high masters do players start getting some sort of semblence of game sence and good game knowledge, and even then it's light years behind that of the actual pros.
On August 07 2011 03:08 D_K_night wrote: You know what, I'm gonna go against the grain.
OP, best of luck in what you're doing and hope you have fun doing it! You will help your students grow, and also, see yourself grow in the process too, becoming a better coach and learning amazing things together with your students. Ignore the haters.
--
Quite unlike the majority of you elitist pricks who turn your nose up at someone who's just trying to help. You have no vested invested in whoever they're teaching - so why do you care? At this point - it's none of your damn business, what happens between coach and student.
By your definitions of "who should teach"...your high school gym teachers instantly do not qualify to do, what they're doing. What about your social studies teacher? Did you know that many teachers are forced to teach a subject that's not particularly one of their strengths? That it's one of their "off-courses" shall we say? Why are we not seeing you confront said teachers, telling them off? And here we have you here, acting all tough on the Internet?
I challenge those of you, to name the GSL coaches who are actually in Masters. Go, do it. I'll wait. No surprise, you're back here, and didn't find very many(only Cella, right?) What about the IM coach? Startale Coach? Wow surprise suprise. The coaches are inferior to their students in terms of execution ability. Does that disqualify them from being coaches, then?
The list can go on into literally infinity. Any older person who's a coach or teacher teaching any physical form of activity...are far past being able to do said activity themselves. And here they are teaching it. You saying that they're all hypocrites, for doing what they're doing? And imparting false knowledge to their students?
Over and over we see this very forum being advertised to the masses, and when casual joe blow sees the elitism, the general offensive attitude towards new players...we're digging this game an early grave.
Again - the OP set out a goal. You're hating. He's doing more...than you are.
If it was only execution that kept the plat player in plat then you would have a point. But you can EASILY get to masters with very poor execution and only having good game knowledge. It's not being an elitist, it's the truth. Don't be so sensitive.
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?
On August 07 2011 07:08 Cosmos wrote: No, they cannot, and same for diamond and below.
And when it happens(or is already happening)...shrug...what are you going to do about it? Nothing. It can be said a million times "it shouldn't happen" but it's happening.
The people who make a difference in the world, are exactly the same people who are told "you can't do this", "this can't be done", "it's never been done before".
pretty sure you can be an excellent coach regardless of your ability to mechanically play the game. How is this even being debated? This has been shown a million times over in professional sports. GEe whiz I wonder how good Phil Jackson is at basketball, how dare he try and coach michael jordan. Now go ahead and insert any coach from the NCAA->Professional sports and there ya go.
On August 07 2011 08:00 crms wrote: pretty sure you can be an excellent coach regardless of your ability to mechanically play the game. How is this even being debated? This has been shown a million times over in professional sports. GEe whiz I wonder how good Phil Jackson is at basketball, how dare he try and coach michael jordan. Now go ahead and insert any coach from the NCAA->Professional sports and there ya go.
Thank you, explained superbly.
And allow me to make another real-world example.
I know a guy who does PC-repair work on the side...he just does simple things like install Windows, install programs, the lamest easiest stuff that's eye-rolling to 99% of you here. And people pay for it. He charges $30/hour.
BUT(and you saw this coming) he:
- doesn't like Windows updates and won't install them, ever, because it causes his pirated copy of windows to stop working - doesn't know how to configure a router...just plugs it in and expect it to work - feels that he has to physically sit and watch the computer when he burns a CD/DVD/whatever - still uses a VCR to record shows(ok, sure) but feels that he must physically watch the VCR or it'll stop working - hard codes IP addresses into the computers at work because "it looks better on the report" - plugs in TWO mice to his computer...cordless one for "web surfing", and corded one for "gaming".
And yes I heard your collective jaws drop. IMO...this guy more than likely, is giving his users horrible information and I shudder to think what advice he's giving as well.
But you know what? He's the one who's got work on the side, not me. So who's the winner here?
Platinum players can effectively coach anybody under their level. I don't give a crap what other people say. They always say "Diamond and under cannot coach, they don't know how to play" when I myself am a top Diamond player...and am a VERY successful coach...AND have beat Grandmasters. Anybody can coach. A silver can coach a bronze. A gold can coach a silver or under. Etc etc. Anybody who says "master/gm can only coach" are idiots and usually are not even masters themselves. They just think they are cool for stating the same thing the otheridiots state.
I have coached plat's and lowers very successfully (made a few hundred bucks so far from it) and have even coached a few low diamonds.
Some people in this thread are saying really bad metaphors like "can a high school biology student effectively treat patients" and the answer is yes if they know enough.
I am diamond and know the current metagame, good opening build orders...and everything the professionals know. Theres a difference between me and them though...I play a few hours a day...they play 10.
Go do your experiement and ignore the bad kids that say you can't coach unless your master or GM. They. Are. Idiots. This sounds like a great idea.
They can tell Bronze and Silver level players to keep their money close to 0 and keep producing workers and what each unit does and whatnot, but as for game sense and mechanics.. definitely would not want a platinum level player to do that.
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:
Master league is actually not that hard to get into. My friends who had 0 RTS experience both made diamond pretty easily when the game came out in less than a month.
In BW, I practically started playing multiplayer in ICCUP and got to D+ in like 3-4 weeks and in my opinion, getting and staying in D+ is harder than getting to masters (at least low and mid masters).
On August 07 2011 08:20 K3Nyy wrote: They can tell Bronze and Silver level players to keep their money close to 0 and keep producing workers and what each unit does and whatnot, but as for game sense and mechanics.. definitely would not want a platinum level player to do that.
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:
Master league is actually not that hard to get into. My friends who had 0 RTS experience both made diamond pretty easily when the game came out in less than a month.
In BW, I practically started playing multiplayer in ICCUP and got to D+ in like 3-4 weeks and in my opinion, getting and staying in D+ is harder than getting to masters (at least low and mid masters).
When the game came out is the key phrase there. Advancing in the ladder is significantly more difficult than it was a year ago.
I feel that it's probably safe for a player to coach players say 2 leagues or below the "coaches" league for most common players. I mean, yes, platinum players have many flaws and are not that good when compared to masters players and higher, but you have to realize how bad some of these players are in bronze and silver.
If anything, I mean, I don't think some of the players in bronze or silver even know of the concept of basic macro, and probably just cheese every game.
Obviously, the plat player shouldn't try to give very grand encompassing advice or to go into too much theory, but I think a plat player could help a bronze/silver player significantly without risking passing down misinformation as long as said coach is careful about the extent of his advice.
I mean, just by telling the bronze/silver player to constantly build scvs, not to queue, to try to keep resources low, and to keep expanding/scaling production, these bronze/silver players would probably improve significantly.
I mean, some bronze players don't even know what a-moving is. Yes, you won't be able to get away with amoving once you get to higher levels of play, but it's definitely better than simply moving (as opposed to amoving) and just have units die while under fire.
Just think of it as tutoring. Yes, you might not be anywhere as knowledgeable as the professor or TA, but you probably could still help the player improve. Just don't get overzealous, which could then result in passing down bad habits or misinformation.
On August 07 2011 08:20 K3Nyy wrote: They can tell Bronze and Silver level players to keep their money close to 0 and keep producing workers and what each unit does and whatnot, but as for game sense and mechanics.. definitely would not want a platinum level player to do that.
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:
Master league is actually not that hard to get into. My friends who had 0 RTS experience both made diamond pretty easily when the game came out in less than a month.
In BW, I practically started playing multiplayer in ICCUP and got to D+ in like 3-4 weeks and in my opinion, getting and staying in D+ is harder than getting to masters (at least low and mid masters).
There's your problem right there, getting into diamond right after release was not nearly as difficult as it is now. If anything, your evidence suggests that using an individuals league placement as an indicator of game knowledge or sense is faulty reasoning.
On August 07 2011 08:16 Boraz wrote: Platinum players can effectively coach anybody under their level. I don't give a crap what other people say. They always say "Diamond and under cannot coach, they don't know how to play" when I myself am a top Diamond player...and am a VERY successful coach...AND have beat Grandmasters. Anybody can coach. A silver can coach a bronze. A gold can coach a silver or under. Etc etc. Anybody who says "master/gm can only coach" are idiots and usually are not even masters themselves. They just think they are cool for stating the same thing the otheridiots state.
I have coached plat's and lowers very successfully (made a few hundred bucks so far from it) and have even coached a few low diamonds.
Some people in this thread are saying really bad metaphors like "can a high school biology student effectively treat patients" and the answer is yes if they know enough.
I am diamond and know the current metagame, good opening build orders...and everything the professionals know. Theres a difference between me and them though...I play a few hours a day...they play 10.
Go do your experiement and ignore the bad kids that say you can't coach unless your master or GM. They. Are. Idiots. This sounds like a great idea.
A question of pure curiousity? How did you maange to earn money when lots of master player coach for free. Did you use some special advertising channeL?
On August 07 2011 08:20 K3Nyy wrote: They can tell Bronze and Silver level players to keep their money close to 0 and keep producing workers and what each unit does and whatnot, but as for game sense and mechanics.. definitely would not want a platinum level player to do that.
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:
Master league is actually not that hard to get into. My friends who had 0 RTS experience both made diamond pretty easily when the game came out in less than a month.
In BW, I practically started playing multiplayer in ICCUP and got to D+ in like 3-4 weeks and in my opinion, getting and staying in D+ is harder than getting to masters (at least low and mid masters).
When the game came out is the key phrase there. Advancing in the ladder is significantly more difficult than it was a year ago.
I disagree. It may be slightly more difficult in the sense that getting to diamond back then was like getting into platinum now or something, but definitely not significantly more difficult.
On August 07 2011 08:20 K3Nyy wrote: They can tell Bronze and Silver level players to keep their money close to 0 and keep producing workers and what each unit does and whatnot, but as for game sense and mechanics.. definitely would not want a platinum level player to do that.
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:
Master league is actually not that hard to get into. My friends who had 0 RTS experience both made diamond pretty easily when the game came out in less than a month.
In BW, I practically started playing multiplayer in ICCUP and got to D+ in like 3-4 weeks and in my opinion, getting and staying in D+ is harder than getting to masters (at least low and mid masters).
There's your problem right there, getting into diamond right after release was not nearly as difficult as it is now. If anything, your evidence suggests that using an individuals league placement as an indicator of game knowledge or sense is faulty reasoning.
Back in my SC:BW days, I used to coach some people who were better players than I was - even going as high as to coach a guy who would later win the unofficial SC:BW Polish Championships.
Generally, a good coach needs to be skilled at metagame much more than an average player does. You can get into master just by having good manual skills and playing tons of games, but that doesn't mean you can coach - that requires an understanding of game mechanics which is beyond the grasp of a typical player in master. One easy test is this: if it happens often that you lose a game and are unable to point out why you lost, you won't be a good coach.
All that said, platinum is probably too low to coach effectively. I consider myself a good example of a "good theory guy who was never a great player, used to be a decent player back in my playing days but now just plays a few games from time to time" and yet I barely have any problems obtaining diamond league placement (and I play random). It's really hard to have a good fundamental understanding of game mechanics and still be stuck in platinum. However, I wouldn't put it past some diamond coaches to be reasonably competent. What's more important, however, is that I wouldn't trust a master or even a grandmaster player to be a good coach just because they're a good player. Those two things don't necessarily go together.
If you want a test of how good a coach someone is, just pick a big problem of yours (such as for example playing ZvZ when opponent goes main-only fast roaches) and get them to give you advice, then see if it works. If you have a really big problem with a certain matchup / strategy, a good coach can usually resolve that pretty quickly (unless it's a case of a general imbalance). If they can't - well, you probably shouldn't bother anyways.
Well... up until mid-diamond game sense doesn't particularly matter... so if it's coaching players of Gold and lower, why the hell not?
(TBH I feel like a bronze player that has strong RTS sense could be a good coach... I mean even if Day[9] didn't play SC2 he'd still be able to ask you pivotal questions about your play with a rudimentary understanding of the game...)
On August 06 2011 12:42 mrgoochio wrote: I don't understand why everybody thinks lower level players cant be higher level coaches. How many sports coaches do you know that can compete in the sport theyre coaching? I'll admit that the comparison isn't completely fair because sports are typically much more physical than SC2, but even so, while some people may not be able to keep their composure and analyze strategy real time while playing the game, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be able to give sound advice from the coaches seat.
Obviously a coach needs good game sense and that TYPICALLY comes from hundreds of actual game hours, but not always.
Many coaches are former professionals or at the very least have exceptional experience in their sport. Basically, it's like saying many coaches are pro SC2 players or at the very least high level masters who compete with pros.
To be perfectly honest, platinum players can at best "coach" bronze levels, since they are still losing to golds probably 25% of the time? Even diamond players can have very very simple problems in macro...I really just have an issue with using the word "coach", I think it's fantastic if you're willing to practice and play some customs with some strangers and help them out, to call it "coaching" is just a pet peeve of mine even if it's close to the same idea.
Whatever happens, you don't need experiments or some crazy system to "prove" platinum coaching works, you'll never prove that. Just teach and give suggestions if you feel like it, you will and SHOULD never be given any kind of money for that because MASTER players do coach for free or for extremely minimal costs and if they are choosing to teach with any actual ability, they won't be "pulling their hair out" from their students.
Some interesting notions on this thread I must say. As a Platinum player myself who has written a few SC2 strategy articles for Force Strategy Gaming I believe without a question that a Platinum player can coach. However, the title of the thread is a bit vague, like so much digital content tends to be. Can a Platinum player coach the lower metal leagues? Most definitely. In fact, I think most would agree that a Plat level coach is probably ideal for those who are struggling in Bronze - Gold.
Not only is it ideal for the lower level students but its ideal for the coach as well. The act of coaching in itself benefits the coach because anyone who truly wants to help others with the game will be spending all the time they can expanding their knowledge of the game. This is part of my point. Time spent expanding knowledge of the game doesn't necessarily mean playing but in fact in many cases results from not playing but watching.
For example, I have to point to Artosis. I would say his understanding of the game is nigh unfathomable. His execution however tends to fall short of his understanding. I'm not hating on the guy, I'm a fan. I'm just saying, he clearly understands all he needs to be one of the best in the world. He understands the game possibly better than many of the players he watches. However, because he has spent so much time WATCHING the game and he has a life, it absolutely must detract from his time to spend PLAYING. Thus, his ability falls short of his understanding.
Asking if a Plat can coach those below him is NOT the same as asking if this same person could teach those at his skill and above.
Being a good teacher/coach requires a certain kind of personality and communication ability as much as it is having the knowledge of the game. In addition, KNOWING what to do and actually being able to do it are very different things. Again, think about Artosis. (Note: I'm not saying Artosis = Plat level coach trying to teach pros. Artosis = high understanding stemming from watching not playing)
There are plenty of people at the highest levels of the game that would make horrible coaches/teachers for a variety of reasons. Like I said, it takes a certain someone to do it truly effectively. As has been stated, I would suggest there are Platinum players out there who are Platinum more or less because they simply do not have the time to practice 10 hours a day. Yes this is a bit of a blanket statement but you catch my drift.
I say do it and try to get as many people as possible involved to increase your sample size. This shouldn't be perceived as some high level empirical study but rather just an interesting and "cute" little look into the benefits of teaching the game to others. Like I said, I really think teaching the game to others is a way that you can benefit your own play and understanding as well.
On August 07 2011 08:16 Boraz wrote: I am diamond and know the current metagame, good opening build orders...and everything the professionals know.
I think this is delusional to the point of folly. I mean...re-read that sentence bud. I swear, many TL members could use a healthy dose of reality now and again. The egos, my god, the egos.
On August 07 2011 09:38 Exstasy wrote: Please do not assume anything about the players knowledge by their League. Your ladder rank doesn't reflect anything of the sort.
I would disagree strenuously with this but I'm tired of having this argument. Seems that everyone who is in platinum or diamond should really be masters level and they have the same amount of game knowledge, refined timings and depth of strategic options. Or at least that's what many people want to believe here.
I am mainly responding to the subject of this thread - I would think if you are coaching someone below you it would be more like practice sessions since clearly you both have something to learn. While scrolling down the the reply box I noticed a $ sign, in no way should you charge. Best way to learn is with practice partners, not some dude telling you to build more drones or copy his replay (Sorry, I gave gosucoaching a shot, worst 70 bucks I have spent). And that was from an EG member. So really, just offer to be a practice partner so you both can gain something, there are a lot of free Masters level coaches here on TL now that charging for lackluster knowledge is kind of a joke. This is only my opinion.
Seems that everyone who is in platinum or diamond should really be masters level and they have the same amount of game knowledge, refined timings and depth of strategic options. Or at least that's what many people want to believe here
People in Bronze - Gold who are struggling with getting their asses kicked aren't going to benefit from a high level teacher any more than they would from a competent Platinum teacher. This is because lower level players don't need depth of strategic options.
I think people struggling in the metal leagues are struggling in part because they feel compelled to have a wide variety of strategic possibilities when they should be spending their time perfecting AT THE MOST one build per MU. I would even suggest that people really struggling should narrow their focus down to a single build and work it to death on every MU. Although it would be better to have a friend to do this with as opposed to laddering.
As many Protoss are aware...a truly refined 4 gate alone is enough to carry you through at least Gold before it stops working as much. Of course if you want to truly understand the game you aren't going to 4 gate every time. However, if you're having a hard time you need to establish a foundation to work from. Establishing your foundation with one build is good because SC2 is a real time strategy and things are going to happen in real time that require you to respond and adjust.
When you can pull of your "go to" build in spite of all the various things that can happen in an RTS you have officially established your foundation. Work to reinforce it with partner practice, coaching, lurking in TL forums, and so forth.
Not to mention the other points I made in my first post about teaching being good for the teacher as well as the student, the difference between understanding vs. ability, the compromise between understanding and ability where understanding stems not from playing but from watching, etc.
I guess platinum could coach someone silver or under effectively but sorry a platinum player is quite awful at this game and will tell the students a lot of wrong things too even if most will be right.
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.
I think it's a poor excuse to tell yourself, that being masters requires hundreds of hours of practice.
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.
Platinum cannot 'coach' effectively beyond giving a few tips and telling people to macro better.
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.
On August 07 2011 03:08 D_K_night wrote: You know what, I'm gonna go against the grain.
OP, best of luck in what you're doing and hope you have fun doing it! You will help your students grow, and also, see yourself grow in the process too, becoming a better coach and learning amazing things together with your students. Ignore the haters.
--
Quite unlike the majority of you elitist pricks who turn your nose up at someone who's just trying to help. You have no vested invested in whoever they're teaching - so why do you care? At this point - it's none of your damn business, what happens between coach and student.
By your definitions of "who should teach"...your high school gym teachers instantly do not qualify to do, what they're doing. What about your social studies teacher? Did you know that many teachers are forced to teach a subject that's not particularly one of their strengths? That it's one of their "off-courses" shall we say? Why are we not seeing you confront said teachers, telling them off? And here we have you here, acting all tough on the Internet?
I challenge those of you, to name the GSL coaches who are actually in Masters. Go, do it. I'll wait. No surprise, you're back here, and didn't find very many(only Cella, right?) What about the IM coach? Startale Coach? Wow surprise suprise. The coaches are inferior to their students in terms of execution ability. Does that disqualify them from being coaches, then?
The list can go on into literally infinity. Any older person who's a coach or teacher teaching any physical form of activity...are far past being able to do said activity themselves. And here they are teaching it. You saying that they're all hypocrites, for doing what they're doing? And imparting false knowledge to their students?
Over and over we see this very forum being advertised to the masses, and when casual joe blow sees the elitism, the general offensive attitude towards new players...we're digging this game an early grave.
Again - the OP set out a goal. You're hating. He's doing more...than you are.
If it was only execution that kept the plat player in plat then you would have a point. But you can EASILY get to masters with very poor execution and only having good game knowledge. It's not being an elitist, it's the truth. Don't be so sensitive.
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.
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.
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.
There is zero point in getting coaching from a platinum player when a) there are Masters players who offer free coaching and b) there are Masters players offering very affordable (5-10 USD an hour) coaching should you be unable to find a free coach.
On August 07 2011 03:08 D_K_night wrote: You know what, I'm gonna go against the grain.
OP, best of luck in what you're doing and hope you have fun doing it! You will help your students grow, and also, see yourself grow in the process too, becoming a better coach and learning amazing things together with your students. Ignore the haters.
--
Quite unlike the majority of you elitist pricks who turn your nose up at someone who's just trying to help. You have no vested invested in whoever they're teaching - so why do you care? At this point - it's none of your damn business, what happens between coach and student.
By your definitions of "who should teach"...your high school gym teachers instantly do not qualify to do, what they're doing. What about your social studies teacher? Did you know that many teachers are forced to teach a subject that's not particularly one of their strengths? That it's one of their "off-courses" shall we say? Why are we not seeing you confront said teachers, telling them off? And here we have you here, acting all tough on the Internet?
I challenge those of you, to name the GSL coaches who are actually in Masters. Go, do it. I'll wait. No surprise, you're back here, and didn't find very many(only Cella, right?) What about the IM coach? Startale Coach? Wow surprise suprise. The coaches are inferior to their students in terms of execution ability. Does that disqualify them from being coaches, then?
The list can go on into literally infinity. Any older person who's a coach or teacher teaching any physical form of activity...are far past being able to do said activity themselves. And here they are teaching it. You saying that they're all hypocrites, for doing what they're doing? And imparting false knowledge to their students?
Over and over we see this very forum being advertised to the masses, and when casual joe blow sees the elitism, the general offensive attitude towards new players...we're digging this game an early grave.
Again - the OP set out a goal. You're hating. He's doing more...than you are.
If it was only execution that kept the plat player in plat then you would have a point. But you can EASILY get to masters with very poor execution and only having good game knowledge. It's not being an elitist, it's the truth. Don't be so sensitive.
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.
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.
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.
I'd like to think that I am in plat because, I play a few times a month, now I watch every match of gsl, yes I could coach, but I only read your topic question.
On August 07 2011 03:08 D_K_night wrote: You know what, I'm gonna go against the grain.
OP, best of luck in what you're doing and hope you have fun doing it! You will help your students grow, and also, see yourself grow in the process too, becoming a better coach and learning amazing things together with your students. Ignore the haters.
--
Quite unlike the majority of you elitist pricks who turn your nose up at someone who's just trying to help. You have no vested invested in whoever they're teaching - so why do you care? At this point - it's none of your damn business, what happens between coach and student.
By your definitions of "who should teach"...your high school gym teachers instantly do not qualify to do, what they're doing. What about your social studies teacher? Did you know that many teachers are forced to teach a subject that's not particularly one of their strengths? That it's one of their "off-courses" shall we say? Why are we not seeing you confront said teachers, telling them off? And here we have you here, acting all tough on the Internet?
I challenge those of you, to name the GSL coaches who are actually in Masters. Go, do it. I'll wait. No surprise, you're back here, and didn't find very many(only Cella, right?) What about the IM coach? Startale Coach? Wow surprise suprise. The coaches are inferior to their students in terms of execution ability. Does that disqualify them from being coaches, then?
The list can go on into literally infinity. Any older person who's a coach or teacher teaching any physical form of activity...are far past being able to do said activity themselves. And here they are teaching it. You saying that they're all hypocrites, for doing what they're doing? And imparting false knowledge to their students?
Over and over we see this very forum being advertised to the masses, and when casual joe blow sees the elitism, the general offensive attitude towards new players...we're digging this game an early grave.
Again - the OP set out a goal. You're hating. He's doing more...than you are.
If it was only execution that kept the plat player in plat then you would have a point. But you can EASILY get to masters with very poor execution and only having good game knowledge. It's not being an elitist, it's the truth. Don't be so sensitive.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On August 07 2011 03:08 D_K_night wrote: You know what, I'm gonna go against the grain.
OP, best of luck in what you're doing and hope you have fun doing it! You will help your students grow, and also, see yourself grow in the process too, becoming a better coach and learning amazing things together with your students. Ignore the haters.
--
Quite unlike the majority of you elitist pricks who turn your nose up at someone who's just trying to help. You have no vested invested in whoever they're teaching - so why do you care? At this point - it's none of your damn business, what happens between coach and student.
By your definitions of "who should teach"...your high school gym teachers instantly do not qualify to do, what they're doing. What about your social studies teacher? Did you know that many teachers are forced to teach a subject that's not particularly one of their strengths? That it's one of their "off-courses" shall we say? Why are we not seeing you confront said teachers, telling them off? And here we have you here, acting all tough on the Internet?
I challenge those of you, to name the GSL coaches who are actually in Masters. Go, do it. I'll wait. No surprise, you're back here, and didn't find very many(only Cella, right?) What about the IM coach? Startale Coach? Wow surprise suprise. The coaches are inferior to their students in terms of execution ability. Does that disqualify them from being coaches, then?
The list can go on into literally infinity. Any older person who's a coach or teacher teaching any physical form of activity...are far past being able to do said activity themselves. And here they are teaching it. You saying that they're all hypocrites, for doing what they're doing? And imparting false knowledge to their students?
Over and over we see this very forum being advertised to the masses, and when casual joe blow sees the elitism, the general offensive attitude towards new players...we're digging this game an early grave.
Again - the OP set out a goal. You're hating. He's doing more...than you are.
If it was only execution that kept the plat player in plat then you would have a point. But you can EASILY get to masters with very poor execution and only having good game knowledge. It's not being an elitist, it's the truth. Don't be so sensitive.
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.
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.
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.
I think plat players can coach bronze/silver players pretty well, but platinum players really doesn't have a lot of game sense at all, so I don't think they could coach gold+ very good. They could give some small help but I don't think it will help THAT much :S
I'm a Plat Zerg, and I coach players for free. I basically point out glaring problems in their strategy (like making units when they could have been droning) and let them know about nice little builds that can catch lower-level players off-guard, like Muta rush or Ling/Bling all-in. I do try to emphasize that they shouldn't rely on any one build or all-in, but instead learn the fundamentals of macro according to their race and practice those on end. I can point out numerous flaws in how you could have better-executed your Nydus rush, but it's more important to remind them to hit their Injects, not get supply-blocked, spread their creep, and have a set goal for the game.
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!
If by effective you mean "get better", then sure, plat players can coach effectively.
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.
As a high platinum player (to those who get hurt by the high- low- terms, just think of me as someone who stays in the top8 of my division), I'd have to agree that while us plats have the correct mindset of the objectives of the game and how to achieve them, we still lack proper execution on plenty of things.
Coaching and playing are two completely different skill sets. I don't think it's right to assume that just because someone is a lower league, he lacks an understanding of the game. There are many barriers that one must overcome to become a better player and it just means that he has yet to overcome some of those. There are people who understand the game on an intellectual level that simply lack the nerves, reaction, or physical dexterity to move up the leagues. It's definitely possible, however, that they would understand the game well enough to provide advice for newer players.
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...
On August 06 2011 11:49 thepeonwhocould wrote: Your sample size is too small, and your method is flawed. Say someone gets promoted from silver to gold, what possible reason's could there be for their promotion?
-Coach trained them well -The player was dedicated and practiced hard -The player was already close to promotion and luckily blizzards system decided to promote him
Theres no real guarantee that the promotion would be due to the coaching.
Will a platinum player coaching a silver player help their play? Probably a little bit - but they could just as easily pass on bad habbits (hey, just use this 4 gate build every game! then it stops working at high diamond and the player has to relearn everything about the game).
At the end of the day, the requirment for a good coach is knowledge about the game, and understanding what you need to be a master player (which is simply, 1 good, safe build for each matchup practiced over and over, and excellent macro). Unfortunately most platinum players don't understand this, which is why they are in platinum - and most masters players DO understand this, which is why they are in masters.
I think that your mindset is kind of silly and a reason that a lot of players are in master league that probably don't deserve to be there. I've got two accounts - one master league and the other diamond - and on my diamond (main account) I've got tons of games played - and my MMR is probably very well tuned to my abilities. Yet my master account - I'm constantly outplaying other master league players. Like there's a tier of master league players that are worse than diamond players. I don't know where I belong, but my main account gives me competitive games vs low master/high diamond players.
Anyway, I guess my point is that learning a solid build in every matchup is a farce and what a lot of coaches do to superficially promote their 'students'. If you learn a solid build order then yes you will probably win a fair amount of games vs better opponents simply because of your build order/timing when you attack. But you don't understand the fundamentals of the game like a master league player should. A master league player should understand different unit compositions, counters, etc. And just have a general game sense instead of just a-moving at 7 minutes because that's when his teacher taught him to .
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.
I don't do coaching because I feel I don't really know anything and I would probably just teach people inaccurate and misleading stuff if I tried (I'm in mid master league. I think it would be a very bad idea for anyone in platinum to try to teach anything else than very basic concepts.
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.
I am platinum myself and I am pretty sure nobody at this level should be coaching, in my opinion in the long run it will do more harm than good for the player who is being coached as they will just catch bad habits from their coaches.
And besides the point, I think anybody bronze-gold doesnt really need coaching and all they need is to get a lot of games under their belt as if your macro is decent you will crush everybody in the lower leagues.
Platinum is extremely low and the players there don't know much about the game so I don't know if it would be very good. Heck, I'm Diamond/Masters and don't know much about the game, definately not enough to teach someone else how they should play since I don't even know that myself.
I think that u can help people below you maybe give them tips, but u shouldn't coach a lot because the fact is , if ur in plat you may not know a lot of things. Now if u share some tips to someone who is gold or bronze or something then that is fine. But the fact is if ur in plat something isn't right :D so teaching someone else bad habits isn't gonna help, kinda like the blind leading the blind type of thing.
I'm high platinum and i have decent micro/APM but no real idea on buildorders and stuff. You need someone who's a good teacher AND plays the game on a high enough level to really grasp all the finer details.
On August 07 2011 23:44 Inori wrote: That's all just excuse for people to feel like they're better than they are. I do all that, especially the lack of playing time (due to work I have month+ gaps in-between login times), I still manage to play even with mid masters people (and can take out a game or two from high masters/GM if I'm serious about it).
Bottom line: if you're good "in theory" you should be easly able to hit masters. If you can't hit masters, then you shouldn't be coaching, sorry.
How's that an excuse? I do remember the difference in my playing skill back in the SC:BW days, when I spent some time playing / honing my skills and focused on a single race I was able to hit B on PGT, when I fooled around, played sporadically and played random I barely got out of D+/C-. Nothing in my understanding of game theory had changed in between. I'm simply pointing out that motor skills and habit might play more of a role in your rank than you're willing to admit.
I do agree there's a cutoff point below which you probably shouldn't coach, but I don't think that cutoff point is as high as some people here suggest (eg. grandmaster / high master).
There are good teachers and bad teachers. The best SCII players may not be able to teach a lower level how to improve, while a lower level player could also be very good at starcraft theory or finding flaws in gameplay, etc. That being said, of course you would generally prefer a Masters teacher over a Platinum teacher. But the bottom line is that Platinum only gives a tiny bit of info on how well someone can teach another.
They def can. You dont need to pay a pro $60/h to tell you to make drones =/ I find buying coaching outrageously ineffective. I got from bronze-masters by myself
I think that platinum "coaches" should be like platinum casters. They don't have enough knowledge of to pass on much of it to people, especially not pro players.
Basically, a platinum coach is a cheerleader and a secretary.
I play in masters as protoss and get a good record, but there's no way in hell I could coach a Zerg or a Terran effectively even though I have watched countless hours of tournaments and first person streaming of every race. I couldn't coach a Protoss player either. I would be useless to pros, anyway.
On August 08 2011 00:45 Inori wrote: Did you actually read my post? That's an excuse because if you're good enough, you're good enough. In fact, main difference between plat and masters is the theory - build order knowledge, meta game trends, overall game sense, timings knowledge. Motor skills difference fully kicks in at like very high masters/GM level. Below that you can get even score against active players. If you're good "in theory", that is.
I read your post, I just disagree on the assumptions, which I believe I even illustrated using an example, so let me explain. Let's assume for a moment that D+/C- on PGT corresponded to platinum level and B was mid-master (I think that's a pretty reasonable estimate). Then, what I'm trying to tell you that my level changed from mid-master to platinum without any noticeable change in my grasp of theory.
I think your claim that the main difference between platinum and master is theory is incorrect - I would agree that the main difference between master and grandmaster is theory, but not lower. Also, a lot of the things which you list as "theory" (build order knowledge, timings) are not what I consider to be theory in general. By "theory" I mean general tactical/strategic skill, knowledge of hard/soft counters, specifics of matchup dynamics, strenghts and weaknesses of each race with respect to specific game styles and so on. Timings and build orders are more a question of skill than of theoretical knowledge.
Honestly when I was a bronze/silver scrub(instead of a plat scrub) I got some help from a diamond player. There was a lot of little stuff that helped me out a ton that seems like common sense. I wasn't doing stuff like hotkeying my queens or individual hatcheries, my armies or anything of the sort. When you are that low level, I think anyone can give you some advice, or send you in the right direction for some advice. Obviously higher level coaching is better, but whatever you can get is nice too. I learned a ton just from having friends obs games and give me advice and things to focus on either during or after. And if its free its free. So long as you don't go around contradicting things that higher level people would say or encouraging bad ideas, you should be fine.
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 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)
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.
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.
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 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 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?
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.
The reason people who coach are masters/gm is because those players will have a better understanding of the game. Sure I guess platinum players can spot mistakes and such, but there is no reason at all for someone to get coaching from a platinum player rather than a masters/gm player.
I think things are different now, copper-platinum people are still winging it on a lot of builds. I think the biggest part of my improvement is just having really really tight timings. My game sense isn't there, but my money is always low, and even if i make mistakes, i have more units to make up for it.
Ive seen too many high diamonds not be able to spend their money effectively. As i get better and better, mechanics are what i keep coming back too.
But really, platinum players really don't have the mechanics or game sense to really be of any help except the very basics.
I mean, that's fine to get them on track, and teach them like say a hotkey layout. Or point them to better knowledge than yourself(like day9).
Ridiculous to think that an hour with someone in platinum wouldn't be a huge help to most of the folks who are in bronze league. Seriously cannot believe how many people are against this.
How many people fall helplessly to terrible cheese in bronze that wouldn't if they had someone who was platinum-level in their ear?
What about not expanding until 15+ mins with Zerg?
Or how to handle the inevitable player who makes 4 bunkers 6 tanks and 30 turrets and then goes hard air? How are they to handle that?
Not saturating their bases.
Every time someone from gold/platinum/low-diamond comes to high level players with questions or looking for advice they almost always hear the same thing: Work on your mechanics. Your macro isn't good enough. Fair, of course, usually they're dead-on.
What about the bronze kid who has atrocious macro? I can't help him? The first 4 leagues are almost entirely about mechanics.
Absurd that I (plat random player) couldn't remind a zerg player to be strict with things like injects, so eventually its almost a instinct to do it. Or show them how to wall off with Terran effectively, or show them that basic toss wall with the zealot (v zerg). Or explain how walling in TvT can suck a lot because tanks will blow your wall away from afar. Or show them how d clicking the dropping unit allows it to move while dropping. Or show a terran that you cannot wait until 25+ supply to get that OC. Or keep them making worker units pretty consistently, instead of being complete finished with 16 workers all game. Or show that guy who likes to 15 hatch how to position his spine crawler to hit the bunker w/o taking hits. Or show them map specific stuff like how a pylon on delta quadrant (rip) can reach into that tucked away expansion and you can warp in there. Or on taldarim, the blink path into the main.
I could go on forever. Bronze/Silver has plenty to learn from Plat, just like I could learn plenty from any pro.
Of course, having White-ra or someone teach you is FAR better than having anyone in plat/diamond, but that doesn't mean that you have nothing to gain as a bronze/silver player from higher plat/lower diamond player.
A plat coach won't do anything other than man terrible players marginally less shitty. And even then, they're gifting that player advice a lot of advice that's still more than likely crappy if not outright bad.
All that stuff about how there's coaches in traditional sports who were not elite in their craft as players but turned out to be coaches is bunk. Almost every single coach in any of the major sports played in the highest professional league at some point (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB) or at least made to the highest minor league or college level (AHL, AAA for baseball, NCAA for football and basketball are comparables to minor leagues with professional atmosphere)
They were all at one point better than like 90% of people playing their respective sport. A dude in plat is better than maybe half of people playing SC2 absolute tops? You won't get much use out of someone like that unless you are terrible to begin with.
On August 19 2011 00:44 Hawk wrote: They were all at one point better than like 90% of people playing their respective sport. A dude in plat is better than maybe half of people playing SC2 absolute tops? You won't get much use out of someone like that unless you are terrible to begin with.
And people who are starting out (Bronze/Silver level) ARE terrible to begin with.
People need to drop the whole sports analogy. Or at least correct the error you are making when you conflate bronze/silver players with professional/collegiate athletes.
These are the little leagues. Random dads who played in highschool 15 years ago can coach with plenty of success.
dude i am a high platinum player myself. I know exactly how to be the best in the world. I just cant do that. for a number of reasons. Apm is to low, i get flustered while playing, i forget things, i dont know the perfect reactions to things etc. Platinum players should not coach and if they do it should be for like 5 buck and hour.
People are playing to have fun at anything but the highest of GM's. Platinum players have plenty of advice that would make players win more games. Winning games is what keeps people playing, therefore I am all for platinum players coaching people for free. It will help keep this game popular which is beneficial to everyone.
mmmmmmmm. this is just a gross general feeling i have but. to be quite honest. i feel anybody can competently coach someone two leagues below them, to an extent obviously. like a platinum coaching a silver, diamond coaching a gold, and so on.
to be honest, when the skill gap is too large between the teacher and the student it kind of feels like a lot of information the coach would be trying to relate to the student would just go straight over their head. for example. a lot of things masters players do in their gameplay they do almost instinctively. because they've been playing so long and learned why they need to do those things. you could try to teach or coach that to a bronze player. but he's not going to have a clue whatsoever why you'd even need to do those things. and if you try to explain why, the "why" is probably a metagame response to another variable. and the chain just gets longer and longer between to two the larger the skill gap.
so just imo but, you probably don't want the skill gap to be too large as well as too similar. feels like there's probably a healthy medium. relation of the material you're trying to teach can be tough sometimes.
fact is. not everyone can teach....well at least.....some of it is going to have to do with who in particular is trying to teach. and if they're good at relating material or not. whether or not they're capable of understanding what their "student" is capable of and understands in the game.
sethr0 that is not true. Platinum players can still coach however compared to GM/M of course it would be less effective because GM/M have more experience and knowledge over the game. But Platinum players do have basic knowledge too of the game like macro, micro, scouting, saturation, etc. Teaching that to bronze and gold will be really helpful to them. Also why does it matter about credibility just because they aren't pro? Higher rank players giving free lessons to lower rank players is a thing that should be welcomed and to help them improve in as a starcraft player.
On August 19 2011 01:23 Tokyla wrote: sethr0 that is not true. Platinum players can still coach however compared to GM/M of course it would be less effective because GM/M have more experience and knowledge over the game. But Platinum players do have basic knowledge too of the game like macro, micro, scouting, saturation, etc. Teaching that to bronze and gold will be really helpful to them. Also why does it matter about credibility just because they aren't pro? Higher rank players giving free lessons to lower rank players is a thing that should be welcomed and to help them improve in as a starcraft player.
I agree with you to a point. I think they could probably help with mechanics and basic information like that. But when it comes to decision making and game play analysis, this should be left to M/GM
On August 19 2011 01:08 sethr0 wrote: imo, plat players can't coach because they will have no credibility. Anything anyone says mid diamond and lower can't be assumed to be true.
game theory and execution are two completely different things. you could understand the game from to back but only have 4 total fingers on both of your hands. you ain't going to be able to execute for shit.
depends on what you're teaching i suppose.
kind of feels like mechanics/execution and game theory should be separate teaching "topics" when it comes to "can this person coach?"
People against this are literally saying that if you aren't in the top 15% of sc2 players you have nothing to communicate that could be constructive to someone who is mediocre in BRONZE.
This is nothing more than dads casually coaching little leagues.
Sure, none of them ever played past high school, but they know how to play football. They can tell you what a 3 and 4 point stance is (platinum).
They know that The Option owns in lower levels (strong lower-league rushes) but once you get to the really high levels (diamond/master/gm), defensive ends are too good and they'll destroy the option.
And they might be able to take that kid with talent to a different level, where someone who is/used to be quite a legitimate football player (White-Ra, or insert your favorite pro) can take them and really develop them into something more elite (HS/college).
It's possible if they have game understanding - you don't necessarily need to be good at the game to coach, although it helps. If they know where to look for mistakes and have analysed their play and maybe someone elses multiple times before then maybe...
But needless to say they are no where near as effective as for example masters or GM. In my opinion there is little point in platinum players coaching, as it would probably take very little time for their student to get to their level by simply playing the game.
Also, when there is so many masters players coaching for free, why would people want to be coached by platinum players?
On August 19 2011 00:51 MeLlamoSatan wrote: Random dads who played in highschool 15 years ago can coach with plenty of success.
They also don't try to charge you, which is what most people offering coaching in SC2 are trying to do
No. Read the OP. This is a free program.
If someone in Masters/GM is charging, word.
I'm talking about coaching as a whole. Most people offering it are doing it for money, or doing it for free with the intention of eventually getting money from it eventually in some way.
this individual thread promoting his services is nothing new, just one of several hundred people trying to do the same thing with the same end goal. And just because it's free doesn't change the fact that a plat player really is not someone who should be used as a source for how to play well in starcraft
On August 19 2011 01:08 sethr0 wrote: imo, plat players can't coach because they will have no credibility. Anything anyone says mid diamond and lower can't be assumed to be true.
game theory and execution are two completely different things. you could understand the game from to back but only have 4 total fingers on both of your hands. you ain't going to be able to execute for shit.
depends on what you're teaching i suppose.
kind of feels like mechanics/execution and game theory should be separate teaching "topics" when it comes to "can this person coach?"
But the thing with SC2 is that you can only really learn the strategy/theory part of the game by playing a ton of games yourself. Of course you can pick some stuff up from watching vods and streams but you won't really understand it unless you've played those situations yourself. As much as some people like to think so, you can't be 'Masters level with gold execution/mechanics'. Day9 has said this before in one of his dailies; If you're in Platinum league you're a Platinum league player and nothing else. Play more and improve and you'll be a Diamond/Masters league player.
That's not to say that someone in Platinum league can't help out people in bronze-silver, but I wouldn't call that coaching.
On August 19 2011 01:08 sethr0 wrote: imo, plat players can't coach because they will have no credibility. Anything anyone says mid diamond and lower can't be assumed to be true.
game theory and execution are two completely different things. you could understand the game from to back but only have 4 total fingers on both of your hands. you ain't going to be able to execute for shit.
depends on what you're teaching i suppose.
kind of feels like mechanics/execution and game theory should be separate teaching "topics" when it comes to "can this person coach?"
But the thing with SC2 is that you can only really learn the strategy/theory part of the game by playing a ton of games yourself. Of course you can pick some stuff up from watching vods and streams but you won't really understand it unless you've played those situations yourself. As much as some people like to think so, you can't be 'Masters level with gold execution/mechanics'. Day9 has said this before in one of his dailies; If you're in Platinum league you're a Platinum league player and nothing else. Play more and improve and you'll be a Diamond/Masters league player.
That's not to say that someone in Platinum league can't help out people in bronze-silver, but I wouldn't call that coaching.
hah, well that's another issue entirely. what the best/most efficient way to learn the game is.
personally i think experience and repetition are by far the best and most efficient ways to learn this game.
hmmm, Id be curious to see what the skill gap is and how helpful I could be. Ill be online at 6pm PDT and ill try to help out any bronze-diamond player for a few hours. Add me, sethro.164 @ NA (I am a master league player)
On August 19 2011 02:16 tryclops wrote: I don't see why this is an issue. Jason Garret was a silver level quarterback in the NFL; now, he's the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys
On August 19 2011 02:16 tryclops wrote: I don't see why this is an issue. Jason Garret was a silver level quarterback in the NFL; now, he's the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys
Again. 'Real' sports analogies don't apply. There is no huge athletic ability requirement in SC2.
This whole thing sounds like a really big waste of time. Generally a platinum guy knows more than silver. So he's able to help with tiny things like basic mechanics and build orders. Any lowbie needs to learn that anyway before going into the specifics of the game. So I think a platinum guy teaching silvers seems pretty fair.
The getting paid part I read somewhere posted earlier on is bullshit :D ofcourse you shouldn't pay a platinum.
On August 19 2011 00:44 Hawk wrote: All that stuff about how there's coaches in traditional sports who were not elite in their craft as players but turned out to be coaches is bunk. Almost every single coach in any of the major sports played in the highest professional league at some point (NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB) or at least made to the highest minor league or college level (AHL, AAA for baseball, NCAA for football and basketball are comparables to minor leagues with professional atmosphere)
This is not entirely true, at least for the NFL.
- Bill Belichick (HoF coach, probably one of the top Coaches in the NFL, of all time) played at a Division III school in college and never touched a ball in the NFL
- Mike Tomlin, current coach of the Steelers played for William and Mary (College) never touched a ball in the NFL
- Mike Shanahan another great coach and probably a HOFer in that aspect attended and played at Eastern Illinois University, not a top tier college for football
- Vince Lombardi, arguably the most decorated and greated NFL coach of all time, played at Fordham University, another non-top tier school for football, he could not even get on a semi-pro football team after he graduated.
- Whats funny is, most High Level Players never make great coaches, i.e Mike Singletary, Jake Del Rio, Gary Kubiak. Only 5 current NFL coaches have played in the NFL
While yes there are many coaches that were former players, its not a rule of thumb. As I pointed out some of the best coaches in the game never touched a ball in the pros and didn't play for a high level school.
On August 19 2011 01:01 TheLOLas wrote: dude i am a high platinum player myself. I know exactly how to be the best in the world. I just cant do that. for a number of reasons. Apm is to low, i get flustered while playing, i forget things, i dont know the perfect reactions to things etc. Platinum players should not coach and if they do it should be for like 5 buck and hour.
Hahaha. You know "exactly" eh? Yet you "dont know the perfect reactions to things"? Sounds like you know and don't know a lot!
Seriously, though, this thread is just filled with ridiculous assumptions/fallacies like blanket-stereotyping players based on their league, equating playing-ability with teaching-ability and judging improvement based on win/loss ratio and ladder rank.
On August 19 2011 02:16 tryclops wrote: I don't see why this is an issue. Jason Garret was a silver level quarterback in the NFL; now, he's the head coach of the Dallas Cowboys
Again. 'Real' sports analogies don't apply. There is no huge athletic ability requirement in SC2.
this.
also the analogy itself is off.
NFL is the highest league in all of football. So this is more comparable to Grandmaster league. So really, a more accurate analogy would be "Jason Garret was one of the bottom 50 GM quarterbacks." Of course someone who played in the highest possible league would make a great coach, regardless of sport.
A silver level quarterback is someone who played 2nd string on their high school football team LOL.
As a platinum player myself, I know the basic fundamentals but I cannot coach for my life.
I think it's all about the type of person and how good they can coach, for example I have a friend who is in platinum like me, he never ladders, but his knowledge of the game from watching streams/tournaments and following the pro gaming scene proves that he understands the game at a level good enough to coach players that are in gold/silver.
I definitely think that a platinum can coach, because watching Destiny get paid $50 by some kid who can't even macro at a silver level is stupid in my opinion. Everyone starts at some level, having a Grandmaster teach a Silver can be accomplished by a platinum anyway so why not? You won't be teaching the student on how to do multi-drops like Puma at their level, you will be teaching them on how to refine their build order and manage their economy.
On August 19 2011 01:08 sethr0 wrote: imo, plat players can't coach because they will have no credibility. Anything anyone says mid diamond and lower can't be assumed to be true.
game theory and execution are two completely different things. you could understand the game from to back but only have 4 total fingers on both of your hands. you ain't going to be able to execute for shit.
depends on what you're teaching i suppose.
kind of feels like mechanics/execution and game theory should be separate teaching "topics" when it comes to "can this person coach?"
That's not to say that someone in Platinum league can't help out people in bronze-silver, but I wouldn't call that coaching.
well now you're getting into a personalized definition of what you see coaching as.
On August 19 2011 00:51 MeLlamoSatan wrote: Random dads who played in highschool 15 years ago can coach with plenty of success.
They also don't try to charge you, which is what most people offering coaching in SC2 are trying to do
No. Read the OP. This is a free program.
If someone in Masters/GM is charging, word.
I'm talking about coaching as a whole. Most people offering it are doing it for money, or doing it for free with the intention of eventually getting money from it eventually in some way.
this individual thread promoting his services is nothing new, just one of several hundred people trying to do the same thing with the same end goal. And just because it's free doesn't change the fact that a plat player really is not someone who should be used as a source for how to play well in starcraft
I offer to coach because it helps me improve my game. I see things from a different perspective and help myself by helping others. True definition of win-win.
A common misconception is that lower tier players do not understand the game very well whichi s why they are in their non-masters league, this simply is not true. I have met countless of individuals who are helping bronze and silver players improve significantly while only being high plat or low diamond themselves. The reason for this is because they understand the game well, they watch high level games and know what to do. It's just they don't spend enough time to learn the timings themselves, so their build orders aren't as refined. I don't really think there is a difference between masters or platinum teaching bronze - silver who need to work on improving and developing their game sense. Hopefully this experiment turns out to be great! I'd love to see the results.
Guess it depends why the person is in plat, if its because of there physical ability to not keep up due to hand speeds than I can see no reason a plat player can not be a good coach, if its because game sense and build orders are a bit rough then not so much.
Seems like what you're going for will take A LOT of time.
As far as the validity of a Plat coaching a Silver goes, more power to ya. If there is demand, you will have students. End of story. Does that mean you're the best those students could possibly get?
... Obviously not.
That is not how marketing, advertising, and business works, at all. If you have something people want, and they know they can get it from you, a percentage of them will. End of story.
So, if you're willing to spend the tremendous amount of time it will take to do this experiment, do it.
As many of the '[H] How do I get out of bronze/silver league' threads out there say, the best way to improve is learning to constantly macro. 'probes and pylons'. A platinum player can show a silver player how to do that, so they should improve. The platinum player may not even have perfect macro themselves (i.e. get distracted and miss probes or pylons during their own games), but they will have the capacity as a coach to keep the silver player focused on that. Once they get their fundamental macro down, it would be beneficial for the player to move on to a higher ranked "coach". Whether you call giving someone macro tips "coaching" or not is just a trivial dispute of deffinition. Either way, I think this experiment will prove successful as long as the trainees are willing to apply the advice.
On August 19 2011 06:15 WigginOut wrote: As many of the '[H] How do I get out of bronze/silver league' threads out there say, the best way to improve is learning to constantly macro. 'probes and pylons'. A platinum player can show a silver player how to do that, so they should improve. The platinum player may not even have perfect macro themselves (i.e. get distracted and miss probes or pylons during their own games), but they will have the capacity as a coach to keep the silver player focused on that. Once they get their fundamental macro down, it would be beneficial for the player to move on to a higher ranked "coach". Whether you call giving someone macro tips "coaching" or not is just a trivial dispute of deffinition. Either way, I think this experiment will prove successful as long as the trainees are willing to apply the advice.
Which is everyone's point. You only need to spend a few minutes watching a bronze-silver league player's game to tell them they need to work on their macro. Give a few specifics, and then everything else is up to the player to apply himself via practice.
Lower league players don't need coaching unless they've played/practiced hundreds; thousands of games, and are stuck at a wall. At which point, they'll probably need outside help to traverse it. I think it's pretty rare for someone to hit a wall at such a low level if they play consistently. Being platinum doesn't enable you to know how to help them with their problem. If he knows whats holding the silver league player back, he should also know whats holding him back, and a lack play time is a terrible excuse.
sports coaches, i'm sure they can't hang with the top pros even if they're physically in prime.
coaches are there not for their playing ability but coaching ability.
the difference in sc2 is that, it really isn't that hard to apply that knowledge one has into the game. so to say pt can coach well, is kind of hard to believe. unless its someone like a professional casters that just analyze and watch games all day instead of playing. in this case, its just the rustiness or lack of mechanics, which can be improved upon practice, its not limited by physical primness like real sports.
If you're actually interested in proving anything here, you need a control group, i.e., players of the same ability who are not being coached for the exact same period of time. Ideally they also need to be yoked controls, i.e., playing exactly the same number of hours as the coached group during the study.
I would probably lose to Platinum players, and I'm a pretty efficient coach. Now, I'll divulge a bit why I feel I am a capable coach, compared to players whose highest achievements are reaching Platinum.
First of all, when I talk about coaching, I haven't the time to fully dedicate to be a strategy coach, not that I couldn't be, but if I was I certainly wouldn't lose to "some" Platinum players, I'm still not bad, I'm just don't try due to time restrictions. Second, I would like to say that I'm not coaching bronze or silver players, gold is the minimum that I would approach, and have, he is currently in diamond after a couple months coaching, something he could've achieved, My team and I simply hastened the progress. But I digress, I coach masters, and competitive level players.
Most of these players are my friends, but often cannot see the forest through the trees, so it is my position to point it out to them, hopefully this leads to unlocking new paths if they have stagnated in game play. I also motivate players to grind, and demand that my players understand core ideals. I am also a manager, so I find tournaments and spread them to people, as well as LAN tournaments, but I also try to get myself, or another person to the LAN as well, so the player can be comfortable. Talk him through his mistakes, and congratulate him on his feats, as a coach does. Its not managerial work that I do, as much as a close knit of personal coaching. Of course there are other people that help me in the organization, but as I mentioned, we are friends, the cohesion makes my coaching efficient.
On the other hand, I have a friend who is diamond level, and made a post on reddit, offering coaching, but he is unable to fully grasps the concepts, or the timings that he is trying to execute. I wish him the best of course, and he may be able to instill some inspiration into the players to play more, but coaching is a hard experience, and its not efficient for him to split his time, as I have done, he still has much to learn.
Can a platinum level player coach? Sure, I coach, other people coach I'm sure that are near or just slightly above my level. Of course they most likely have a vast experience in eSports, probably in either BW or WC3, but I wont rule out other coaches from 1.6, quake, or the fighting scene. Should a player whose highest accomplishment in video games is making platinum league coach? No.
EPT
Seems that everyone who is in platinum or diamond should really be masters level and they have the same amount of game knowledge, refined timings and depth of strategic options. Or at least that's what many people want to believe here.
