I think that after 1 year in a game, there should be already some top top players who just stay on top. Strategies are still being found of course, but the main strategies aren't yet to be found. I think the reason why it's so unpredictable is because mechanics of the game are pretty easy, and the game doesn't look balanced to me. So with both these things combined, it makes it unpredictable, and this is really frustrating for a ProGamer. Right now at high level, each game's different, and players often change their BO (only because there's no real solid BO, so playing mindgames, and switching strategy is more efficient).
No wonder Poker's a sponsor of most SC2 tournaments

alepoff

140 Posts

February 02 2012 14:54 GMT

#22

Still young, a lot of unstable/undiscovered things. Players make a lot of mistakes every game.

Short sets, in most tournaments it's usually bo3 until semi's or even finals and on top of that it's often single elimination. Imo this is terrible, but yeah otherwise it would take too long.

Protoss allins, many relatively easy to execute yet very powerful hit and miss builds. Weaker players often take games off stronger players with this. This is also amplified by aforementioned short sets. TvT and TvZ's have MUCH more predictable outcomes than PvT and PvP's. (I usually don't watch PvZ's so no comment on that.)

phyren

United States1067 Posts

February 02 2012 14:55 GMT

#23

People argued this same issue in BW. Why are the most dominant players averaging 70ish% and not 90%? This issue is basically that a game of starcraft is cumulative. Small edges grow as the game progresses. This is something we see far too little of in sc2, but it is still clearly there.

Some successful early aggression gets you a scout of their tech, and suddenly you get to expand a minute earlier than otherwise which leads to a bigger army 3 minutes from now which leads to another expansions 4 minutes from now which leads to every tech etc., etc., etc.

As a result, individual games of sc2 are more similar to individual points in other sports rather than entire games. Perhaps a rank 20 player would fair poorly against nadal, but he would still have a decent shot at not being shut out. Similarly, a bo5 or bo7 format would likely result in a lot more consistency, but it would also means that every group of gsl would take like 8 hours. (god help us if there are 4 terrans)

Of course, the other usual things people bring up are hidden information and cheese and people watching each others replays to figure out their styles.

DarkPlasmaBall

United States45165 Posts

February 02 2012 14:58 GMT

#24

I think as the game gets older (like LotV +5 years older), we'll see a relatively established Top 20 for a pretty long time. Just like Brood War. Until then, it's totally fine for there to be waves of change with a good amount of top players still winning a lot. We still *know* that MVP, MMA, Nestea, and MC are forces to be reckoned with at any tournament they show up to.

anApple

Singapore275 Posts

February 02 2012 15:06 GMT

#25

The game isn't at that stage of development yet where luck/balance/votality doesn't play too much of a role in deciding the outcome of the game.

JPP

Finland104 Posts

February 02 2012 15:07 GMT

#26

I think it all comes down to the format. In a single elimination tournament anything can happen. The op states that in soccer there are consistent winners but actually if you look at the champions league winners in the last two decades:
+ Show Spoiler +

1991-92 Barcelona
1992-93 Marseille
1993-94 Milan
1994-95 Ajax
1995-96 Juventus
1996-97 B. Dortmund
1997-98 Real Madrid
1998-99 Manchester U
1999-00 Real Madrid
2000-01 Bayern Munich
2001-02 Real Madrid
2002-03 Milan
2003-04 Porto
2004-05 Liverpool
2005-06 Barcelona
2006-07 Milan
2007-08 Manchester U
2008-09 Barcelona
2009-10 Internazionale

you'll notice that there aren't any repeat winners. If you want that, then you have to have a league format, instead of a tournament.

Logros

Netherlands9913 Posts

February 02 2012 15:10 GMT

#27

I think a lot of it has to do with motivation of the players as well. Just look at Genius' latest interview for example, he mentioned that he got lazy once he was in Code S. Now that he's got back his motivation to become champion he's beasting again. Also things like HuK not really playing a game of SC2 for 6 weeks comes to mind.

CajunMan

United States823 Posts

February 02 2012 15:15 GMT

#28

BTW the New York Giants are playing for the superbowl after being shit all season and the on fire New Orleans Saints are at home on the couch already...... Or how bout this if the season ended last week the Lakers wouldn't be in the playoffs. LSu after winning like 13-14 straight games lose to a team they beat already in a rematch in championship and lose......Nothing is set no one can be 100% predictable its like any other sport.

seoul_kiM

United States545 Posts

February 02 2012 15:16 GMT

#29

The same group of players are still always left in Code-S from the season before. Some drop down, some move up but there's always a core group of players who stick in Code-S. Although this new format makes that much more difficult, if you just look at the players left you can see that core group of players who moved up in the past months and just stay here. They might not win or lose but you can predict a good percentage of them to stay in Code S although a number of them will fall to Code A.

MLG is always predictable: A Korean will win.
I'm not trying to troll the op or disrespect anyone but since they were invited to the MLG, it has always been a question of which Korean will take the gold. Some MLG's end up having all medals go to the Koreans. There isn't much variance to that.

Massing

Germany354 Posts

February 02 2012 15:16 GMT

#30

On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote:
cuz its a shit game

why u play it then?

LeFroMaGe

United States628 Posts

February 02 2012 15:17 GMT

#31

On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote:
cuz its a shit game

Greg, as a fan of yours, your attitude is atrocious.

Afterstar

67 Posts

February 02 2012 15:17 GMT

#32

Starcraft 2 has the following format:
Standard(Safe) Play > Aggression(Early Attacks) Play > Greedy(FE) Play > Standard(Safe) Play
I find that sc2 as it is now,is more of a coin-flip.If they go for a greedy build they cross their fingers that a rush of type X won't hit them before Y time when their build will pay off.
It's very hard to prepare for everything,If you do and the opponent does not attack then you are behind, so it's best to prepare only for some and not fall behind.Pros in korean are all of similar skill with very few exceptions and unexpected strategies takes them off balance.Also some maps favor more one race over another,which also adds to the "luck" factor.

All combined make the results unpredictable.

GeorgeForeman

United States1746 Posts

February 02 2012 15:17 GMT

#33

There's currently a lot of variation in SC2 from game to game. There are a lot of facts contributing to this, primarily (IMO) the relative age of the game. Plus the fact that it's hardly a finished product. Talk to me 2 expansions and five years from now. I think you'll see a much more refined product.

DarkPlasmaBall

United States45165 Posts

February 02 2012 15:35 GMT

#34

On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote:
cuz its a shit game

As a fan of yours, it makes me incredibly sad to see you saying things like this over and over again.

MichaelJLowell

United States610 Posts

February 02 2012 15:41 GMT

#35

On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote:
cuz its a shit game

In This Post: Overrated players construct an imaginary set of rules for how the game should be played, perform accordingly, and lash out at the game because of it. Or maybe he's trying to sell that high-quality, 10.2-ounce, one-hundred-percent cotton T-shirt linked in his signature, a T-Shirt detailing the wacky adventures of one IdrA "IdrA" Grackenhauer, which can be yours for the low price of $24.95 and ships in one to three business days. I can't tell.