Normal Sc2 progression rate? - Page 6

On January 13 2012 22:06 PapaJed wrote:


I disagree. If I watch a 1000 football games at the highest level my understanding of the game will be really good. That doesn´t mean I can play like Messi. I´ve watched almost every game in GSL and the other major tournaments since sc2 came out, seen lots of replays, most of Day9 and many streamers. I´ve played RTS games since dune II. I still suck at starcraft, but it´s not because I don´t understand the game, it´s because I can´t play at the same level as those that are better than I am. Your understanding of the game won´t help you play better if the execution is bad.

On January 14 2012 00:52 mbr2321 wrote:


The first part of your post didn't make sense in conjunction with the second part of your post. You didn't address PapaJed's argument that you don't have to be master to understand the game with any actual evidence, you just negated it without actual evidence.

Sure you can be master without understanding StarCraft-- that doesn't mean you have to be master to understand the game in depth. Understanding and execution are very different.

On January 14 2012 01:55 Sated wrote:

Some people are just flat-out bad at multi-tasking and so are always going to find SC2 hard, no matter how much they understand it. Some people don't work well under pressure and will crumble to drops etc. because they just don't have the right mentality. Some people are bad mechanically (not in the SC2 sense, in the sense that their mouse-accuracy or hand-eye co-ordination are really bad). All these things matter and, in combination, will halt your progression more than knowing what units to build next. Not everyone is the same, which is why people have different play-styles and such. How hard is this to understand?

Hell, just look at commentators in a lot of sports. Some of them have never played the sport at a high level, but they have a deep understanding of the game being played (John Motson comes to mind in football). Same goes for football managers - nobody would argue that Jose Mourinho doesn't have a deep understand of how football works, but he was never a good player.

EDIT:

Obviously, it's kind of hard to prove that you have a good understanding of the game, whereas it is easier to prove that you're mechanically good (average unspent minerals, APM, micro-ability etc. all show this off). This makes "understanding the game" an easy crutch for people to fall back on if they're not doing well and I certainly don't want to endorse that in any way. I think that if a person thinks their understanding of the game is good whilst still in a low league, they need to work at their mechanics much harder - I just don't like people reiterating the idea that you don't understand the game if you're not good at it. Understanding is only part of the battle, and a pretty small part at that.

On January 14 2012 01:55 Sated wrote:

Some people are just flat-out bad at multi-tasking and so are always going to find SC2 hard, no matter how much they understand it. Some people don't work well under pressure and will crumble to drops etc. because they just don't have the right mentality. Some people are bad mechanically (not in the SC2 sense, in the sense that their mouse-accuracy or hand-eye co-ordination are really bad). All these things matter and, in combination, will halt your progression more than knowing what units to build next. Not everyone is the same, which is why people have different play-styles and such. How hard is this to understand?

Hell, just look at commentators in a lot of sports. Some of them have never played the sport at a high level, but they have a deep understanding of the game being played (John Motson comes to mind in football). Same goes for football managers - nobody would argue that Jose Mourinho doesn't have a deep understand of how football works, but he was never a good player.

EDIT:

Obviously, it's kind of hard to prove that you have a good understanding of the game, whereas it is easier to prove that you're mechanically good (average unspent minerals, APM, micro-ability etc. all show this off). This makes "understanding the game" an easy crutch for people to fall back on if they're not doing well and I certainly don't want to endorse that in any way. I think that if a person thinks their understanding of the game is good whilst still in a low league, they need to work at their mechanics much harder - I just don't like people reiterating the idea that you don't understand the game if you're not good at it. Understanding is only part of the battle, and a pretty small part at that.

On January 14 2012 03:20 BLacKOuTz wrote:
Its hard to read every post but to me it seems like people underestimate gold players. I mean I have many friends and practice partners in diamond, and I can beat them with a fairly good ratio. It almost seems like I play better against better players. I wish I had some specific replays to give examples but I just can't find any that truly explain what im trying to say.

There have been games where a gold player has beaten me using some of the most perfect Forcefields i've ever seen. Gold terran players dropping at all 3 bases and microing. Just seems to me like some of these people execute things so well and I dont expect it. I have a mindset where I say things like, "Oh they are in gold so theres no way they will know to do this" and i think thats bad. I dont try to its just subconscious. Another thing i will do that i shouldnt is i will do a 2 base timing push and say, "I did this really well, since this is gold league i should be able to win with this" and then i focus on micro for that big push and my macro slips.

After reading this replies to my post i think I have figured out how i need to change up my play and things i need to work on. Thanks everyone.

On January 14 2012 01:23 ishyishy wrote:
You should be a LOT higher than gold. In my first 3 weeks of playing (maybe 1-2 hours per day) I got to diamond top 8. The last RTS I played was Red Alert 2 when that first came out! lol

Unless you are just starting or dont play a lot, I dont see any reason why anyone would be below diamond by now. This is the kind of game that is easy to play, but hard to master. Being diamond is not mastering the game

Since then, I've only played 1-2 games a day (if that) and im mid-masters.

On January 14 2012 03:56 Cosmology wrote:

Calling bullshit here, yep, major bullshit.

Also, this is the exact opposite type of game than what you described, well almost.

Starcraft is the HARDEST game to learn hands down, hardest game to get good at, hands down and hardest game to master, hands down.

What game is harder to learn than Starcraft 2 besides Starcraft BW? Also, I know for a fact you did not make it to diamond or masters in that time frame, playing that much.

On January 14 2012 04:05 Frozne wrote:



I'd have to agree with him too. Basically as soon as I play someone vastly better than me, I get to there level in almost no time. Then it's just smoothing the sharp edges. Whenever I play my friend Bubba, within 10 games I'm back to his level. I get the concepts of the game, I don't have to grind games to understand the meta game switch. I either build X unit, or Y unit, and go from there. I barely play more than 5 games a week and I stay mid to high masters with no effort. It's been like that since beta 1.