I just wanted to raise for discussion the issue of why the results of Starcraft 2 tournaments are so unpredictable. Let's try to focus the discussion on the GSL as it's the most prestegious tournament to win and (I assume) it's where people train the hardest for and where the best strategies are seen (and please don't debate on which tournament is best, that's not the point).
In a tournament like the GSL, someone who does well in one season can do horribly in the next. For example, Leenock took a 2nd place finish at the previous GSL only to be knocked out in the RO32 this season. A better example would probably be NesTea who won GSL July 2011 not even losing a single game (a feat very few have achieved even from BW) only to be eliminated in the RO16 the following season. (These are just examples, please DO NOT discuss why they lost games but focus on why it's so hard to predict a winnner, or top 4 for that matter.)
Contrast this with a sport like tennis (since I think this is something people on both sides of the Atlantic would be familiar with). In the past 4 major tournaments (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open), there have only been 5 different players who took the top 4 spots on all tournaments.
In contrast, for the past 4 GSLs, there are 14 different players who have returned with either a 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th.
Please also focus your discussion on major tournaments, not small/online ones like Playhem but on stuff like GSL/MLG
Why do you think this is so. Share your opinions below:
Edit: I'll start the discussion with this. Personally I believe that top SC2 players (MC, NesTea, MVP) are real good but not to a point where there is a clear difference in skill level from the 2nd tier (Leenock, Oz, July). This causes frequent upsets and unpredictable results. It's not like say tennis where there is a clear skill difference between Nadal and someone 20 ranks lower in world rankings.
Mods: Please do not close this thread prematurely. I put it under SC2 and not SC2 tournaments as I want to discuss the state of the game (no pun intended) and not specific tournaments. If you feel it's really necessary, feel free to move it there.
tl;dr In GSL/Starcraft Tournaments it's very hard to predict the winner, while in a sport like tennis or even soccer it's expected which players/teams will make the top few. Why do you think this is so?
Because there is no person who has figured it all out. And everyone has bad days, if you have a bad day during a tournament is kinda sucks. If you look at the current Brood War scene it is kind of the same people at the top. There is also some luck involved with scouting a cheese or w/e
How can you compare starcraft to other sports? There are so many other factors in the other sports where people can differentiate themselves (fitness, skills, etc). In SC2, you can be good at macroing, but if the game never reaches there, then you won't have an advantage.
As DrPanda said, the game hasn't been figured out completely. Players will always come up with new and unseen strategies.
Because tennis and soccer are very established sports, while SC2 has been out for one year. The game itself is more volatile and thus it's very easy to get knocked out. Also the system that touranments are based on isn't necessarily the best player, just the best player at that moment.
Its simply because SC2 is still new and is still being figured out, the game is still stabilising and this leads to a high level of inconsistency compared to what we see in more established and stable sports/games.
SC2 is a new strategy game where new strategies are still being found.
Comparing to professional sports was also not a good comparison. Skill ceiling and difference between players in sports is much bigger than SC2. Even the a top 100 player in tennis is going to struggle a lot to beat a top 5 player.
The average tennis match has like 200-300 points needed to win. Starcraft 2 has often Bo3 or even Bo1. If we switched to Bo7-Bo9 for all matches we would see the better players winning a lot more. (of course, this is implausible because of scheduling and such)
Its better being like this, I used to play another game professionally before I came over to sc2, and it was always the same 3/4 teams winning everything, and they were uncontested for like 2 years. Its much better being unpredictable than the same group of teams winning.
Because the game is extremely volatile even without the fact the game is new and tactically changes every week or so. The updated AI from BW has made fights far more unpredictable and as such players can lose or win based on a mammoth variety of factors, its currently an issue with the game more than anything else imho.
They are not that unpredictable. There just happens to be far too many of them over short periods of time.
This means that (statistical) upsets will naturally happen more often, and that players have very little time to keep up and prepare for everything which causes even more upsets when the less prepared players meet the more prepared ones.
By the way, not too long ago male tennis was extremely volatile and just about anyone could win a grand slam. Then Federer started dominating, until we get to the current point where there are like two really good players, 3 just below that and then a vast skill gap. But it could just be slightly random and when Djokovic, Nadal, Murray and Federer retire it will be chaos once again.
tbh sc2 has more of a "gamble/luck/volatile" aspect compared to sc1. It just wont be as consistent as sc1. Players will easily have their up and downs and player skill gap from one another isnt as vast as one would think.
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
o wait, broodwar must be a shit game as well mr b teamer. You were b-teamer there and u are b-teamer here as well. Looks about right to me. If idra was owning face in starcraft 2 then i'd call it a shit game.
It's like this because players are not consistent yet. MVP shows great play and really crappy play from time to time. As there's alot of B-team level players i guess many of them lack the drive/dedication that the top BW pros have. There's a reason some of the SC2 guys never made it in BW.
I don't really see it as a problem, i see it as a game developing and new players along with it. Some slack of and drop of the radar while others try harder and get back into code S.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
o wait, broodwar must be a shit game as well mr b teamer. You were b-teamer there and u are b-teamer here as well. Looks about right to me. If idra was owning face in starcraft 2 then i'd call it a shit game.
...? He's still one of the top players, and he was the best foreign BW player at times as well. He's accomplished 100x more in sc2 than he did in BW and he STILL thinks BW is better. It's his opinion and trashing on his skill when he's 50x as good as you at both doesn't make much sense.
The honest answer is that there isn't a very big skill gap for the most part, which is the same in most E-sports. MVP has a really high win-rate and does well in almost everything he enters, but he's the only person that is really a good deal better than the rest of the competition (maybe MMA as well) right now. There is no inherent physical advantage so it comes down to mostly practice, and when everyone is practicing around the same amount you're not going to see anyone with a 90% win-rate. Flash is a GOD in BW but has "only" a 72% win-rate, which is actually absolutely fucking absurdly high compared to anyone else. Not only that, but most E-sports have a cumulative advantage that isn't only mental; in sc when you get ahead you can be more greedy, get more ahead, etc. and if played correctly you can make that small advantage into a large advantage. In CS winning rounds gives you a better economy which means less save rounds for you and more for the enemy team. Etc, etc.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
o wait, broodwar must be a shit game as well mr b teamer. You were b-teamer there and u are b-teamer here as well. Looks about right to me. If idra was owning face in starcraft 2 then i'd call it a shit game.
...? He's still one of the top players, and he was the best foreign BW player at times as well. He's accomplished 100x more in sc2 than he did in BW and he STILL thinks BW is better. It's his opinion and trashing on his skill when he's 50x as good as you at both doesn't make much sense.
he might say that, but lets pretend his whiney attitude started with sc2 . If it was still broodwar he was playing he would still be raging how terran is so weak.
More luck than BW. If you make the wrong build, you can die regardless of your skill. It only takes two losses to be kicked out of the tournament and it can happen in the round of 64 as easily as in the semifinals (or is that a Bo5). Some great players have lost in the qualifiers for Code A. Get a strong opponent, make a few mistakes, you're out.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
o wait, broodwar must be a shit game as well mr b teamer. You were b-teamer there and u are b-teamer here as well. Looks about right to me. If idra was owning face in starcraft 2 then i'd call it a shit game.
...? He's still one of the top players, and he was the best foreign BW player at times as well. He's accomplished 100x more in sc2 than he did in BW and he STILL thinks BW is better. It's his opinion and trashing on his skill when he's 50x as good as you at both doesn't make much sense.
he might say that, but lets pretend his whiney attitude started with sc2 . If it was still broodwar he was playing he would still be raging how terran is so weak.
But he wouldn't be saying the game is shitty. There's a difference in saying the game is bad and saying the game is imbalanced.
This is a really interesting topic and I thought a lot about it in the past.
I believe its mainly because of the way SC2 is designed. In Tennis the winner is almost solely determined by what we call mechanics in RTS. In contrast to that in SC2 build orders and strategies etc. play a huge role, its a mixture between poker and Tennis in this regard. The more of an impact build orders and strategies have, the more luck is involved in the game, because even if you are the best player in terms of scouting and choosing strategies there will always be a chance that your opponent counters your play. If you want to fix this, then make an RTS of unlimited information.
The fact that SC2 is such a new game also has a big impact of course.
Can mods change the title to "IdrA makes a comment; others respond"?
On topic: We see plenty of repeat winners, top finishers, and players who we know will be in the running for the top three in any tournament. It's also nice to see some new faces as well. Some sports have more consistency; others have less. I don't see this as a problem.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
o wait, broodwar must be a shit game as well mr b teamer. You were b-teamer there and u are b-teamer here as well. Looks about right to me. If idra was owning face in starcraft 2 then i'd call it a shit game.
...? He's still one of the top players, and he was the best foreign BW player at times as well. He's accomplished 100x more in sc2 than he did in BW and he STILL thinks BW is better. It's his opinion and trashing on his skill when he's 50x as good as you at both doesn't make much sense.
he might say that, but lets pretend his whiney attitude started with sc2 . If it was still broodwar he was playing he would still be raging how terran is so weak.
But he wouldn't be saying the game is shitty. There's a difference in saying the game is bad and saying the game is imbalanced.
if a race is weak, that implies the game is imbalanced, if the game is imbalanced it means its a bad game. I'm 100% sure idra thinks sc2 is imbalanced, thus why hes calling it a shit game.
Idras bad manners started since broodwar, dont fool your head about this, if he was still playing broodwar he would be still raging, except none of us would know about it cause we are only here because of starcraft 2. As always i respect idra for being 1 of the best foreigners, but that dont mean i should support him when he says starcraft 2 is bad, Until he can beat leenock or nestea or DRG or stephano on a regular basis in mirror its like hearing a gold leaguer say the game is bad. Not one if these guys i would say idra is favored to win against in zvz yet its COIN FLIP ?
If zvt is terrible, zvz is coinflip and zvp is impossible, Why not switch races?.
And my opinion of best broodwar foriegners holds very little, Foriegners in general did not give a shit about broodwar, If u notice basically everybody good on the europe ladder is from warcraft 3. If these same players played broodwar, the competition would have been alot tougher, so best foreigner in broodwar holds little meaning to me.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
o wait, broodwar must be a shit game as well mr b teamer. You were b-teamer there and u are b-teamer here as well. Looks about right to me. If idra was owning face in starcraft 2 then i'd call it a shit game.
...? He's still one of the top players, and he was the best foreign BW player at times as well. He's accomplished 100x more in sc2 than he did in BW and he STILL thinks BW is better. It's his opinion and trashing on his skill when he's 50x as good as you at both doesn't make much sense.
he might say that, but lets pretend his whiney attitude started with sc2 . If it was still broodwar he was playing he would still be raging how terran is so weak.
But he wouldn't be saying the game is shitty. There's a difference in saying the game is bad and saying the game is imbalanced.
if a race is weak, that implies the game is imbalanced, if the game is imbalanced it means its a bad game. I'm 100% sure idra thinks sc2 is imbalanced, thus why hes calling it a shit game.
So all fighting and racing (and other genres) of games are necessarily bad? You're creating a non sequitur.
Granted, this game is specifically working towards balance, but the fact that SC2 has already achieved success in many aspects (selling products, increasing the community, running tournaments, creating an obviously long shelf-life with two expansions, being fucking fun, still being competitive) all without having a 50-50 win ratio across the board between all three races means that it's very hard to objectively say this game is bad.
I don't think it's unpredictable, i think it is as predictable as it should be. Maybe PvP and ZvZ is too fragile, but everything else is really ok.
You can never predict the outcome of a match 100%, but you can nearly always predict a good chance of the outcome because of the following factors: - their skill-levels - recent results overall - matchup results in particular - recent results against of the same player - results on map against the same race - recent activity (training amount) - daily mood
The higher the 'best of - n' value goes, the more definitive the prediction value gehts. But you can never be 100% sure, and that is GOOD, and it is Entertaining, otherwise it would be JUST boring.
It is on the same predictable-level like many other sports.
There is just too much luck in the game at the moment. Scouting in this game is incredibly hard and easy to counteract while there are many different potent timing attacks that often require a lot of different counters. In BW scouting was easier and the timing attacks were easier to stop without knowing exactly what they did. Combine the luck part with tournament formats where there is not much player protection and you'll see many different players winning. Ofcourse there is also a lack of dominant players at the moment.
Women's tennis by the way has more different winners then almost any other sport at the moment, probably because it doesn't feature bo5 and hasn't had any real dominant players since the williams sisters. Men's tennis also used to vary much more before the federer era but the differences between the types of grounds have since become smaller.
Because you cannot retreat at all once you commit. Concussive shells, speed bonus on creep, force fields, fungals etc.
Realistically you won't engage at the best possible time/location every single time, so it's easy to lose games due to failed attacks. If it was easier to retreat, one could try to pull back and try to play from a slightly behind spot. Not that this doesn't happen at all in SC2, but it's much less likely. One single mistake can literally end the game right there, SC2 is a much faster paced game. FXOZ got caught out of position today vs. MMA on Belshir Beach Winter, and he lost like 20-30 supply for nothing, and that was basically it.
I think its mostly because players just have their ups and downs. Just think of this example: WhiteRa could beat every single CodeS player out there if he was in his best form. And I am not kidding - you have to see him play. This applies not only to WhiteRa but also to many other pros out there. And while the pros do learn with time to keep a consistent level of skill there are still these days where somone just has a really good day and is able to beat everyone else. And because you cannot predict how somone is gonna play - for some players the possibilities reach from god awfull to godmode - it is impossible to predict who exactly is gonna win. Of cause some players are mutch more likely to win but predicting is nearly impossible.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
I never thought I would agree with you, but I do, 100%. Now I understand why you have such a huge fanbase. Telling the truth is usually pretty offensive at times, but you manage to do it.
I agree with the immaturity of the game theory, I mean we are still on SC2 vanilla. And it is already getting better... in my opinion TvZ is already starting to get that mature, BW type feel to it. Hopefully some of the other matchups will progress in HotS.
There is also the fact that Starcraft 2 has alot of poker type game theory that goes into it. This is a deliberate design choice. It is not a game of mechanics, like BW, it is a game of strategy and decision making. And in games of strategy you don't just win 100% of the time, because there are inexact sciences involved like reading your opponent and making educated guesses and calculated risks.
I feel that some people who believe the game sucks think that because it isn't what they want the game to be, an exercise in mechanical superiority like Broodwar, it is bad. I think this is a different game, and beautiful in it's own way. Unlike BW, a higher % of players can reach the point of mechanical diminishing returns, and then more volatile concepts like strategy, game theory and creativity are more important.
(note: I am not saying Broodwar was only mechanics, or not completely awesome because it was and is. Broodwar is an amazing game of tactics and strategy. I am just saying that the mechanical ceiling was much higher, and the relative value of mechanics was higher there then in SC2, and that is not necessarily a bad thing)
Currently, in tennis, there is such a high skill divide that we have the same players winning again and again. But don't forget, it wasn't like this in the past - 10+ years ago, it was a lot more volatile.
so many people without a sense of humor oh you guys...
Imbalance and unpredictability seem to be a result of imperfect knowledge about the game, which is only to be expected seeing as we're still in vanilla sc2 and have a 2 more expansions left to go. Be patient.
If it helps you sleep at night, just think of all the untapped potential/strategies that are waiting to be discovered and be part of the metagame. Gets me excited all the time.
On February 02 2012 21:18 ianyapxw wrote: (These are just examples, please DO NOT discuss why they lost games but focus on why it's so hard to predict a winnner, or top 4 for that matter.)
Well then what's the point? I would contest that SC2 is that volatile at all. In at least 90% of all upsets, the loosing (but expected to win player) player played demonstratably worse than the winner.
There's luck involved, so many times build order loses that either lose you the game or put you behind and "flaw" of GSL is that if a player like MVP who has "standard" style that everyone knows (mech TvT), they have loads of time to prepare perfect counter builds for him or any player. They dont need to counter his exact build order since you never know what player can do, but player cannot change his playstyle completely in 1 week and some players dont want to because they dont feel comfortable doing it..and there's always allins.
BW is the expansion, the expansion for SC2 should help to balance it a lot more, throw in new strategies and improve the game, its a constant learning process, hence we get patches all the time. Also the maps favor different races insane amounts..
Obviously SC2 is an awful game which we should all stop playing and because of this all accomplishments in the game mean nothing in the face of the glorious and true RTS of gods, played by gods, for a god-like fanbase, BW.
On February 03 2012 02:36 Jebasaurus wrote: BW is the expansion, the expansion for SC2 should help to balance it a lot more, throw in new strategies and improve the game, its a constant learning process, hence we get patches all the time. Also the maps favor different races insane amounts..
but look at it this way its just the first expansion, it will be unbalance or what ever you call it for a long time after hots, BW was out and became patched overtime but at some point they stopped, did they get it right finally? i dont know but sc2 is just way too new to say one expansion is going to fix anything.
Maybe as Artosis said in SotG, the map pools are too large and too diverse, thus players cannot refine their strategies on all these maps. Another reason would be that the players are content with their current winrates and do not have higher goals, therefore there is not incentive for them to train harder and refine their play. Another reason would be that the game is still in a volatile state, players are still experimenting with strategies and build orders.
Also gotta love those so-called "progamers" who don't hesitate to shit where they eat.
The game is young. The players are unpolished, the game is unpolished. There are things we have to learn, and things we have to make Blizzard fix, and even things we haven't found yet. The volatility of the game is good, but it's not unpredictable volatility really, a lot of players feel uncomfortable in things like battles with forcefields, or siege tanks, or banelings, where the potential damage dealt to armies is widely variable based on unit control. As new things come to the metagame people some people die and some people abuse it to get to the top. After a few more years we'll really see who can adapt and evolve.
On February 03 2012 02:41 Klonere wrote: Obviously SC2 is an awful game which we should all stop playing and because of this all accomplishments in the game mean nothing in the face of the glorious and true RTS of gods, played by gods, for a god-like fanbase, BW.
I am angry, yes.
SC2 is a great game no one is trying to take anything away from it, personally i think once BW players/Teams move to sc2 you will see why people are so passionate about BW and the skills BW players have, and yes i do think they will translate to SC2 .... can you imagine what Flash or Jaedong can do if they don't have to rally workers or can have bigger control groups? its amazing to think they can get even better.
There's just so many external factors outside of starcraft that you have to think about as well. If there in a bad physical/emotional/mental state then thats so huge. Also team kills can be such a mind-fuck for the players. Can you imagine playing your practice partner who you play with 5 hours a day?
Theres also some matchups that are extremely unforgiving over a single mistake, such as in zvz with banelings or in pvp 4gate vs 4gate.
Another factor is who is in your specific group. If you only have to prepare for one matchup, thats such an advantage.
Your practice partners is also extremely important. If your playing with bad players, its going to be really hard to improve.
I'm going to say the maps. In starcraft we have about 15+ maps used in various tournaments and its hard to balance the game perfectly around them as it has only been out for 18 months.
Tennis on the otherhand after many patches and map work has come up with 1 perfectly balanced map with 2 variations. One version is the 1v1 map that people spawn cross position at the north and south locations. The other version is for 2v2 with shared bases and the same 12/6 oclock spawns.
Additionally, hidden information. If tennis had a variant where your opponent would go invisible for lengths of time, I'm sure we would see the same thing happen. In tennis all the information is on the table, starcraft you have to scout and even then you have imperfect information about your opponent.
Edit: despite all the patches I still think that lefties are OP
I feel that it’s down to the Bo3 format mostly, an unscouted cheese in the first or 2nd game can put a player 1 game up and cause his or her opponent to tilt, when it only takes 2 games to win a series then these two facts can result in a lesser player winning a series over a better player and the types of inconsistencies you describe will exist on a much greater scale than some would like. Bo5 would remedy this to some extent for obvious reasons.
Another thing is that simply put, there aren’t many players right now who are significantly ahead of the rest of the pack in terms of skill, there is a large group of the top players who could take games off of each other at any time, including B tier players to some extent, no one is really ‘untouchable’ by anyone other than the best of the best right now.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
Thank you.
God i hope you get banned. Your fucking quote should get you banned to start with.
lol funny how people think progamers think sc2 is actually good. idra is the only one that will come out and say what many progamers actually think about sc2
I hate when people say that "the game hasnt been figured out yet" Yes people will get better but I don't think this game will ever lose a large amount of the randomness it has.
In the game that new strategies are still being found every season so we should expect more BO win. SC2 is just too young. MVP could dominate in short period of time though. This shows that if you are truly good then you can dominate. Another important thing is the players that we call them top player in SC2 are not actually that good. Almost 90% of the games I watched that top players lose is the game that they played worse than their opponent. MVP lost to Gumiho being one of them.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
Thank you.
God i hope you get banned. Your fucking quote should get you banned to start with.
lol funny how people think progamers think sc2 is actually good. idra is the only one that will come out and say what many progamers actually think about sc2
Then why compete as a progamer? Most of them would earn more money putting all that effort into a real job instead, a real job with vacation time, benefits, and a dependable solid income. Why spend 5-10 hours a day on something you don't just find boring, but you actually consider it to be shit?
let's face it, english football has 100 years worth of tradition, it's more figured out than a 1 years old game, hence stronger teams will be more consistent than stronger starcraft 2 player.
On February 03 2012 03:33 brachester wrote: let's face it, english football has 100 years worth of tradition, it's more figured out than a 1 years old game, hence stronger teams will be more consistent than stronger starcraft 2 player.
Yeah compare it to UFC. Beside Silva and GSP the belt for each weight class moves around almost every other fight. Some sports work like that and to me it's not really a problem.
On February 03 2012 03:33 brachester wrote: let's face it, english football has 100 years worth of tradition, it's more figured out than a 1 years old game, hence stronger teams will be more consistent than stronger starcraft 2 player.
Yeah compare it to UFC. Beside Silva and GSP the belt for each weight class moves around almost every other fight. Some sports work like that and to me it's not really a problem.
I think the harder the sports, the more likely chance we'll get a team that'' dominate everyone because they'll need extra practice or talents to overcome the skills curve, and only a few will be able to
People can call the game shit and still enjoy it. They truly retire from the game when it does become unfun. Idra actually wrote his letter of resignation out at the beginning of 2011, when he thought the game simply wasn't fun anymore. Playing steppes, delta quadrant, jungle basin, does that to you.
The vibe I get from most pros is that they don't enjoy sc2 all that much and treat it more like a job. I just haven't seen any sc2 pros except perhaps Nani, Idra and Huk that have showed the raw passion of what people like day 9 and Artosis had for BW. Players like Ret and Tyler just seem unmotivated most of the time, and probably practise half as much sc2 than they used to for bw.
On February 02 2012 23:51 OpTiKDream wrote: tbh sc2 has more of a "gamble/luck/volatile" aspect compared to sc1. It just wont be as consistent as sc1. Players will easily have their up and downs and player skill gap from one another isnt as vast as one would think.
Yeah lets keep comparing a 1 year old game that no one has figured out yet to a game that had 10+ years to develop....
SC2 is still young, as entire tournaments are played over one weekend a bad day means you are out as lesser players can easily take a game/a bo3 of way better players atm mainly because the game is far from being figured out. And even with all of that GSL still has like 6 people winning like 14 tournaments and that number will be a lot more consistent once all the expansions are out and people become actually good at this game.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
I never thought I would agree with you, but I do, 100%. Now I understand why you have such a huge fanbase. Telling the truth is usually pretty offensive at times, but you manage to do it.
I'm pretty sure most people who play sc2 competitively agree that it is a terrible game. They just like the competition and this is the best we got.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
why u play it then?
money. Couldn't realistically make any in BW so of course he switched to SC2.
wow this must be frustrating
For Idra? What? He's stated he thinks BW is a superior game so obviously he would prefer it if it had been a viable option, no?
playing a game u hate all day for the money
We all play the game: the game of life. It's a hell of a game, inherently imbalanced, but we play it anyway. It's a coinflip, and the situation we are born in could easily put us in a auto loss situation. Billions of people have jobs that they hate, but what can they do?
Sad to see idra post that, though he has had a rough week.
Well my short take on this is that while Starcraft 2 is a great game, it's unbalanced upon itself. It really does feel within protoss and zerg that theyre not as flexible or being able to set the pace of a match like terran. Right now it feels like you've got one fat dude and a bunch slim dudes on a see-saw, the game is balanced, but it's easy to throw of balance.
The main thing I'd say is that the game as been balanced without all of it's units. Blizzard is basically prolonging Legacy of The Void which will be to SC2 that Brood war was to Starcraft. And due to that, they will have to make it as stable as possible until the new content is out.
Hate to say it, but I kinda agree with Idra, maybe I wouldn't be THAT harsh with it, but sadly the game has way too much randomness, guessing and luck in it.
I still like it a lot, play it and try to become the best I can. I even very seriously was thinking about dedicating myself to it and trying to become a pro, but it looks just way too unstable to risk for it. At least I won't have to resist the urge to play Diablo 3, so I can train SC2 more, I guess :3
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
why do you even play this game?
there is a lot of people that have jobs they don't like.. same thing.. people needs money they don't necessarily like what they are doing for get it....
and damn people should stop quoting pros everytime they post threads get out of control..
On February 03 2012 03:55 Micket wrote: The vibe I get from most pros is that they don't enjoy sc2 all that much and treat it more like a job. I just haven't seen any sc2 pros except perhaps Nani, Idra and Huk that have showed the raw passion of what people like day 9 and Artosis had for BW. Players like Ret and Tyler just seem unmotivated most of the time, and probably practise half as much sc2 than they used to for bw.
Do me a favour and watch TLO play. I agree to some extend, but you generalize way to much.
There are players which enjoy the game actually. Idra btw was never ever fond of SC2, he started whining in beta (maybe even before that).
Maybe thats the way it is, or has to be. Broodwar-players complaining about SC2, eventually (in case of some, even hopefully) they will stop playing SC2 because they could not figure it out/had the time to let the game evolve. If i recall my first impressions of Broodwar, it was shit as hell in the beginning, and even more "coinflippy" than SC2 is today.
Give it some time. If you cant or wont, grow a pair and stop freaking playing it. And no, if you cant stop because you would end homeless and with a bottle in the hand, you should even stop playing harder and get back into the real life. Btw, players jumped from game to game, maybe start playing MOBAs.
ye this have always been a problem, i think even more in BW then in starcraft 2. I dont even remember how many times ive cried myself to sleep after watching flash and JD loose to stupid shit(forgg....). JD still have a lower win% then Nestea!!! and nestea win% will most like go up the more games you play, like mvp win% did. I guess it was that it was harder in bw to show why you were the better player than in starcraft 2. It is just sad... but ill guess the reason is that BW and starcraft 2 is just so young compared to sports like tennis.
On February 03 2012 02:55 blabber wrote: because sc2 is a guessing game. the winner guessed right. the loser guessed wrong.
yeah that pretty much describes every SC2 game ever!
including brood war. the brood war agenda dictates you have to think of it as "gamesense" instead of what is really luck.
Except in a more mechanically challenging game, build order disadvantages can be compensated for more easily by out-executing the opponent. Also, in Brood War scouting is much better relative to the pace of the game, making build order losses even less prominent.
@OP: Speaking broadly, skilled players differentiate themselves in 2 ways: mechanics (executing, building workers / production structures, units, and using macro mechanics consistently) and strategy (knowing what to do, when / where to expand, when to attack, how / where to position your army, etc).
I don't think any1 will argue that Sc2 mechanics are far easier, and thus its harder for players to differentiate themselves by being more mechanically proficient (and those that are usually only gain minute advantages). Broodwar provides players 2 broad categories with which to set themselves apart; Sc2 provides both as well, but mechanics to a far more limited extent, and thus the gap between players will be smaller.
Another thing is that unless you're playing with a maphack (or against zerg...har har har), you'll always be playing with limited information and thus strategy will always be a less consistent way of differentiating players.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
why do you even play this game?
there is a lot of people that have jobs they don't like.. same thing.. people needs money they don't necessarily like what they are doing for get it....
and damn people should stop quoting pros everytime they post threads get out of control..
lol true. but idra used to be in college didnt he? or he was going to go into physics of some kind. that would've made a lot more money than gaming, and he doesnt seem to have much fun playing games so he might have more fun in that field
On February 03 2012 03:55 Micket wrote: People can call the game shit and still enjoy it. They truly retire from the game when it does become unfun. Idra actually wrote his letter of resignation out at the beginning of 2011, when he thought the game simply wasn't fun anymore. Playing steppes, delta quadrant, jungle basin, does that to you.
The vibe I get from most pros is that they don't enjoy sc2 all that much and treat it more like a job. I just haven't seen any sc2 pros except perhaps Nani, Idra and Huk that have showed the raw passion of what people like day 9 and Artosis had for BW. Players like Ret and Tyler just seem unmotivated most of the time, and probably practise half as much sc2 than they used to for bw.
you just don't know many pros... all you know are ex/retired pros. Of course they don't have passion
look at the streamer list, alot of people are enthuistaistcs of becoming the best
Due to the strategic emphasis in sc2, lesser players can easily outhink their opponents. Also, strategy has not been completely ironed out yet, so abusive play can also be used by lesser players. Furthermore, there are no units like reavers in sc2, meaning that, aside from their impressive ability to accumulate numerous small advantages to gain a win, there is almost nothing separating the very best from the great. That means that players can very easily lose their bleeding edge on an off day and lose. There are also the factors of different matchups, current metagame and balance issues that sometimes screw around with the relative skill of players. In short, the gap between the very best and the great is small enough for any one of many numerous potential factors to completely throw a monkey wrench in any person's play, anytime, anywhere.
On February 02 2012 23:51 OpTiKDream wrote: tbh sc2 has more of a "gamble/luck/volatile" aspect compared to sc1. It just wont be as consistent as sc1. Players will easily have their up and downs and player skill gap from one another isnt as vast as one would think.
Pretty much this. A better version of what Idra said. I don't think we will ever see true a bonjwa / dominating players in SC2 simply because it is so much more difficult to beat everyone by being more skilled - due to things like the strength and large variety of all ins and unit design in sc2. Also, think about how many times, and how easy it is to straight up lose a game of Starcraft 2 because you didn't scout a proxy, or your opponent went for a blind greedy build and you didn't punish it, etc. In BW everyone played macro because it was the way to go, and there was very little cheese. These kinds of build order losses rarely occured and builds didn't have a huge impact because everyone was macroing hard.
This left room for mechanics and strategy as the deciding factors, and players at the top of the top could successfully retain very high win ratios that corresponded to how much better they were than everyone else.
So even if there's players like MVP that theoretically outclass 99% of the competition, they will still lose games due to sc2's poor design (compared to Brood War, where you could be far more consistent).
Unless Blizzard drastically changes the game, I believe this volatility is going to stay for SC2's entire lifespan as an e-sport.
.... dude this question has been brought up a bagillion times. Its really not that hard to understand. The talent pool in Sc2 is far more globalized and more saturated then SC was towards the end. The game is still really NEW. That is really all you need to know of y
Wait, so why can Idra say that the game is volatile because it sucks when he can't hack it in the GSL? We should be asking IMmvp why the game is volatile, not washed-up foreigners.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
I never thought I would agree with you, but I do, 100%. Now I understand why you have such a huge fanbase. Telling the truth is usually pretty offensive at times, but you manage to do it.
I'm pretty sure most people who play sc2 competitively agree that it is a terrible game. They just like the competition and this is the best we got.
I agree there just isn't an RTS that has a community on par with this one, if the community stayed around in BW I would most certainly be playing that.
But on topic people have just not refined their build enough so that they are tight as fuck.
Look at baseball. The playoffs go from a best of 5 the first round up to a best of 7 by the end. I think Starcraft is more volatile than baseball even, so the fact that tournaments consist of so many best of three rounds should cause more variability in winners.
Oh wow, the level of posting in this thread is some of the worst i've read on TL. There's not even arguments presented, just pure opinion. Idra knows how to rile up a crowd, i'll drink to that.
I think the whole volatility argument is overstated. In order to discuss volatility at all, you need a group of players that play at a consistent level, like in tennis. MVP/MC/Nestea win so much because they manage to play consistently at a high level, yet even they have periods where they simply play poorly and deserve to drop out. MC, MVP and Nestea all deserved to go down to code A when they went there.
Take the GSL, I can't remember a series (excluding bo1's) where the players that lost played better then the guy that won. BO losses occur, but are in large part due to players using unsafe builds in the first place. The fact that a player should be the better player doesn't mean that he's actually playing better then his opponent on a given day.
On February 03 2012 06:26 karpo wrote: Oh wow, the level of posting in this thread is some of the worst i've read on TL. There's not even arguments presented, just pure opinion. Idra knows how to rile up a crowd, i'll drink to that.
Definatly, he found an oil spill and threw a match at it
Compared to BW, it's just not as figured out yet. There is still way too many ways to defeat the odds, and to overcome and defeat a technically more skilled player than yourself. Because of this, the tournament favourites in SC2 will always have a higher chance to get surprising losses versus lesser players than their counterparts in BW would.
On February 03 2012 06:26 karpo wrote: Oh wow, the level of posting in this thread is some of the worst i've read on TL. There's not even arguments presented, just pure opinion. Idra knows how to rile up a crowd, i'll drink to that.
it's amazing how blunt honesty like his can go from being endearing to last grasps at relevance based on performance
Just because it's 18 months old doesn't mean that it's young. Really, we don't see a bunch of new stuff every month of GSL. I personally think the volatility is due to the international scene and how often the best have to travel. The dominance of MVP and Nestea were in times where they sat in Korea for a long period of time. The success of Leenock and MMA came at times where EVERYBODY was traveling. In the end, it has to do with how close skill levels really are and the small variance playing a larger role.
Despite the game being young, the early game is pretty well developed I'd say yet remains extremely volatile. I really don't see this changing any time soon.
from what im gathering from this thread, apparently people are saying the game should be about mechanics , and that strategy should play no part in how good a player is. "lesser players out thinking there stronger mechanically opponents" for e.g ive read in this thread.
The word Strategy should be removed from the abbreviation RTS Real time strategy. Instead if it was up to idra it should be called RTM "real time mechanics" with gameplay to suit the name.
And even then he would still rage because he thinks he has the best mechanics in the game when that is not true at all.
Anyway i think that if some pro players really hate this game, they should stop playing. From what i can say about all of this, is that no matter what game you play, you will always find faults or things you disagree with. Some people deal with them better than others. For e.g there are so many war3 pros out there that have insulted warcraft 3 saying its a terrible game for instance and could not wait for starcraft 2 to be released to switch over, people that come to mind who said that was Tod/Kiwikaki/naniwa to name a few . They said its unbalanced, or that something is orc favored , or certain players were only good because they played a certain race,the usual crap. Then you have guys like Grubby who cant stop praising how good warcraft 3 is. Mind you kiwikaki was an orc player and he said the game is imbalanced, Yet grubby who is also an orc player says the game was very balanced. 2 different ends of the spectrum playing the same race that have 2 totally different opinions. Does it just so happens that the guy who was better (grubby) likes the game more than a guy who was inferior to him? (kiwi who could not win a tournament to save his life). Its obvious bad players want to bash instead of blaming themselfs.
Then you go to broodwar that very same idra whined about terran being crap against protoss,About how they could just mass carrier and a-move a terran mech, and that terran a piece of shit race , anyone that knows idra knows very well he mass whined in broodwar as well, its no different. Its sad that i have to almost insult him and call him bteamer but in reality i know hes just frustrated with the game because hes not living up to expectations (from code S to out of gsl in 1 month), so he needs an outlet to blame.
The funny thing is, Broodwar is still there, Go play it.............
The tone of this thread makes it seem as if we should all shit in the pot that we eat from. And that we should all hope this game dies a miserable death and that we all switch over to league of legends and take up new things to complain about, such as blaming allys for the loss because the game isnt 100% based on one player but a team. Or that X hero is a low tier hero and that he should never be used in a competitive game. Or maybe we should switch over to fighting games and be forced to play only high tier characters and die of boredom playing the same character 9000000000000000 games in a row, or maybe we should play a shooter and abuse the best guns.
As a matter of fact, All esports is fucking bullshit, there is an excuse for everything .Lets just scrap it all and be done with the gimmicks. Time for real jobs. I guess daddy was right, games are a waste of time.
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.
On February 03 2012 06:28 Jayjay54 wrote: really surprising that this turned into another one of the classic bw vs sc2 threads. not.
why do people always have to bitch around. If you don't like it, go watch BW. what's the big deal.
idra's recent comments about PvZ showed once more that he has quite a unique view on SC2, maybe that's why he hates it. He's the anti day 9.
there are quite a lot of pros that think sc2 is a terrible game. and it is. there are so many things wrong with the game as a whole. just shitload of design errors and the biggest one is protoss. people play it because of the competition and money (yes, the money).
On February 03 2012 06:28 Jayjay54 wrote: really surprising that this turned into another one of the classic bw vs sc2 threads. not.
why do people always have to bitch around. If you don't like it, go watch BW. what's the big deal.
idra's recent comments about PvZ showed once more that he has quite a unique view on SC2, maybe that's why he hates it. He's the anti day 9.
there are quite a lot of pros that think sc2 is a terrible game. and it is. there are so many things wrong with the game as a whole. just shitload of design errors and the biggest one is protoss. people play it because of the competition and money (yes, the money).
where does the money come from? a lot of viewers who apparently have a lot of interest in watching a terrible game.
so as long as enough viewers have fun watching it, it's fine. I'd agree that it has room left to grow, but it's been around not even two years, we got 2 expansions left and things are more and more figured out.
I don't see any problem right now. If you can't stand watching it, don't watch it. It's that simple.
On February 03 2012 06:28 Jayjay54 wrote: really surprising that this turned into another one of the classic bw vs sc2 threads. not.
why do people always have to bitch around. If you don't like it, go watch BW. what's the big deal.
idra's recent comments about PvZ showed once more that he has quite a unique view on SC2, maybe that's why he hates it. He's the anti day 9.
there are quite a lot of pros that think sc2 is a terrible game. and it is. there are so many things wrong with the game as a whole. just shitload of design errors and the biggest one is protoss. people play it because of the competition and money (yes, the money).
where does the money come from? a lot of viewers who apparently have a lot of interest in watching a terrible game.
so as long as enough viewers have fun watching it, it's fine. I'd agree that it has room left to grow, but it's been around not even two years, we got 2 expansions left and things are more and more figured out.
I don't see any problem right now. If you can't stand watching it, don't watch it. It's that simple.
yet i never said its terrible to watch. its terrible to play. and i dont really think any pro will answer in this thread because its quite a sensible topic. except idra ofc because he doesnt give a f#ck
Anyway one reason why they are not as predictable as you might want is, that players train new strategies with their team members. They hit people by surprise and people that are generally better fall to it. Then you meet your team member knowing you really well and abuse the weaknesses in the build. You see alot of extra mind games early when people from the same team play, just to throw them off. And just from seeing it, sure you know the basics of the build, but only one version there are probably more depending on maps.
I guess if there were hidden strategies in tennis the results would vary more as well. You can overcome those by a good decision making and superior mechanics. But sc2 is also a game about micro and if your opponent has trained the needed micro moves to perfection, while you just have your basics, then your behind (especially while you have to think about a solution to your opponent)
Atleast i have a huge success on ladder because i play with my own non common builds and know how to handle the standard builds. Putting me at levels where my mechanics wouldn't stand a chance against my opponents. I mean if you see a master player reacting to immortal+phoenix with bio + medivacs or bunkers (okay its just eu but still) by scouting it even, then you realize how unexplored the game is still (and probably ever will be since HotS will be a different game) and that just a simple unknown build can mess up players that are basically stronger then you.
And if you take the secrecy factor into account sc2 becomes way more predictable. Goody is a good example against zerg. A zerg that doesn't know him has high chances to just lose first game against him, even if the player is considered way stronger. (especially korean zergs as they expect a totally different opening after scouting). If you don't know goody it will be a suprise for you. If you know him and know that the opponent doesn't know him it turns out just as expected.
So if you would know what those slayers terrans are coming up next with, you could predict the outcome of games way easier.
Even in bw there sometimes comes stuff up that just hits people by surprise. Crazy zerg for example, where you deny scouting while rushing for ultras and guardians. While the opponent prepares as usual and is suddenly so far behind in tech that he just gets rolled, despite the eco and unit mass. And there were also upsets where know koreans lost to nonames simply because the nonames played not predictable. (didn't followed this really but was fun to watch)
On February 03 2012 08:53 Kamais Ookin wrote: It is more volatile then it's counter-part BW because the game is easier now and more luck involved, something along those lines.
reaver is the most luck based unit i have ever seen, i saw some scarabs that never flunked or got stuck, and exploded within the normal range, but did no damage. My fav is the single siege tank beating 6 dragons just from the high ground advantage, dragons where damaged though. I think the luck factor made it fun to watch, but horrible to play, just like random drops in warcraft3 or the you cannot attack me in this position hills. So the almost total missing luck factor in sc2, should make it less frustrating when playing, but less interesting to watch. And also more predictable, since there is no risk involved in attacking a cliff with 3 stalkers against 2 stalkers if you have vision, so its more easy to spot if you are ahead and take the win. Which makes it important to analyze a situation swiftly and to have an ace under your sleeve.
On February 03 2012 02:41 Klonere wrote: Obviously SC2 is an awful game which we should all stop playing and because of this all accomplishments in the game mean nothing in the face of the glorious and true RTS of gods, played by gods, for a god-like fanbase, BW.
LOL at people saying pros play a shitty game for the money. Do you guys realize how little money progamers actually make, especially considering how much they play? If they put half as much of that time and energy into learning how to play poker they could be millionaires, not making sub 100k a year like the vast majority of pro gamers. Why do you guys think players like Elky and Raz and countless other SC players switch to poker?
Hell, you don't even need to play poker. Go to school for 4 years, it takes a lot less effort and you can make a lot more money with less dedication.
If a pro-gamer is in it for the money he is doing it wrong.
edit: Most korean sc1 and sc2 pros probably make sub-50k a year. Many don't have salary and when they do it's not outstanding. They play because they are passionate about the game and anyone who thinks gaming is a fun get rich quick scheme is retarded. That same dedication and intelligence applied to traditional careers would usually result in more money, not less.
Contrast this with a sport like tennis (since I think this is something people on both sides of the Atlantic would be familiar with). In the past 4 major tournaments (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open), there have only been 5 different players who took the top 4 spots on all tournaments.
That's men's singles. The women's game is very unpredictable atm.
On February 03 2012 14:19 WhoIsMyTeamate wrote: Tennis doesn't have fog of war.
Agreed. The more information the player lacks, the higher the degree of volatility. Fog of war definitely hides a lot of information. You would definitely see a much smaller set of players at the top over time if this element was removed. That said, as the game develops, the ability of fog of war to hide information slowly diminishes because players will understand the game at an increasingly deeper level. They will infer things they haven't seen, simulating the lack of fog of war to a certain degree.
I'm not convinced that SC2 is all that volatile, honestly.
When was the last surprise result? Stephano? He's proven himself to be more than just a lucky player since then, anyway.
Also, you still have big names out there winning stuff and proving their consistency every day. MVP, MMA, NesTea, MC, DRG, Kas, Dimaga, etc. It's honestly not very often where some truly unknown player takes a championship or even makes a deep run.
Keep in mind as well that there is a huge amount of SC2 tournament activity when compared to something like BW. Now I unfortunately did not follow BW, but from what I've heard/read about it there were far fewer championships each year. Fewer tournaments means fewer chances to shake things up.
Really, with the amount of tournaments going on in SC2 every day/week/month, it's actually quite astonishing how consistent many of our favorite players are!
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
Thank you.
User was temp banned for this post.
how come this guy gets a temp ban and idra doesn't get anything? i'm not saying idra deserves a warning/ban, i'm just wondering how come this guy got one if idra didn't.... seems odd to me... a bit of favoritism going on perhaps?
If you're too overconfident you lose sights of your goal and will lose. If you think you're going to lose then you've already been defeated.
Thats what happens to most players when they start too win many games or when they have too large of an ego or think one matchup is bad. Lack of practice or no desire to practice. I think the maturity of the game actually doesn't play that big of a role.
Players constantly say that they stop practicing or they think it'll be too easy or that it's impossible to win set matchup and the opposing players will play better due to better preperation and motivation.
You should remember this Idra because you'll never actually reach your full potential as a player until then.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
This is to people who share this opinion. I can understand being frustrated with the game and blaming its volatility on poor design, which may or may not be the case. I'm not actually arguing whether the game is balanced or a good test of "skill" in a player versus player environment. But I don't understand players who continue playing SC2 if they hold the opinion that the game is shit.
I can understand pursuing a professional career if the pro believes that the game will become more stable as the knowledge of the game develops in time, and therefore spending time now will benefit long-term. I could also understand if the potential financial gain is enough that playing a "shit" game would be worth it. And the hidden expected value of playing SC2 professionally besides money (living in Korea, connecting with very smart people, traveling the world, the pride and knowledge that they're the best in their respective field, etc.) might make playing the game worth it for Idra or other pros in his situation, even if the game is shit, and I obv can't speak for them.
But if the above isn't true, wouldn't it make more sense for these professionals to pursue a more balanced lifestyle instead of playing a game that is not only "shit" and frustrating to play but also probably -EV long-term in the sense of economic and emotional balance. They could use their intelligence (and I believe that the majority of these players are probably all highly intelligent people) to find careers that are much more financially lucrative. There are plenty of jobs with earning potential way way higher than SC2 can provide.
Besides providing the previously stated hidden EV of playing SC2, isn't the actual value relatively low playing professionally? There are plenty of jobs that have much higher earning potential, and in fields that may be just as worthwhile from a value stance.
So these intelligent pros could pursue high value careers, and then have time and the financial flexibility to pursue other things that make them happy.
http://www.philgalfond.com/it-always-comes-back-to-balance-doesnt-it/ This isn't SC2, but I find it paralleling some of the issues that a lot of these pros face. It is written by Phil Galfond, a highly successful professional poker player, who has learned that for him to deal with the volatility and unpredictable nature of his game (which DEFINITELY has a ton more variance that SC2), he has had to find balance in his own lifestyle outside of poker.
Of course there is a non-0 probability that his post is complete troll and I wrote a ton of shit for no reason, but I hope this might spark some discussion at least.
TL;DR Find balance if you think that SC2 is not +Life EV.
I believe it to be like this because it is pretty badly designed. It is based around a hard counter system that downplay the RT in RTS and stress the importance of S. This together with the simplification of the overall gameplay will make the game moving towards a 50 50 winrate scenario (if balanced). My hope goes to that Blizzard realize this and do a major overhaul for HotS.
We have 3 players with a total of 8 titles out of 12 tournaments.
About all this crapstorm. Its ok to not like the game, just move on and find another thing to do rather than reminding everybody of how much you hate it.
I just hate the comparison to tennis. Take baseball. During the regular season, having a 70% win rate is really high. The matchups are very difficult to predict. Outside of the yankees, in history, there have been very few teams with highly sustained success. You can say the same with basketball. Last year the mavs won. Did anyone predict the mavs? Take football this year. Who picked the Giants over the Packers? There are very few sports where one or two people win everything. Tennis is the one counterexample.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
This is to people who share this opinion. I can understand being frustrated with the game and blaming its volatility on poor design, which may or may not be the case. I'm not actually arguing whether the game is balanced or a good test of "skill" in a player versus player environment. But I don't understand players who continue playing SC2 if they hold the opinion that the game is shit.
I can understand pursuing a professional career if the pro believes that the game will become more stable as the knowledge of the game develops in time, and therefore spending time now will benefit long-term. I could also understand if the potential financial gain is enough that playing a "shit" game would be worth it. And the hidden expected value of playing SC2 professionally besides money (living in Korea, connecting with very smart people, traveling the world, the pride and knowledge that they're the best in their respective field, etc.) might make playing the game worth it for Idra or other pros in his situation, even if the game is shit, and I obv can't speak for them.
But if the above isn't true, wouldn't it make more sense for these professionals to pursue a more balanced lifestyle instead of playing a game that is not only "shit" and frustrating to play but also probably -EV long-term in the sense of economic and emotional balance. They could use their intelligence (and I believe that the majority of these players are probably all highly intelligent people) to find careers that are much more financially lucrative. There are plenty of jobs with earning potential way way higher than SC2 can provide.
Besides providing the previously stated hidden EV of playing SC2, isn't the actual value relatively low playing professionally? There are plenty of jobs that have much higher earning potential, and in fields that may be just as worthwhile from a value stance.
So these intelligent pros could pursue high value careers, and then have time and the financial flexibility to pursue other things that make them happy.
http://www.philgalfond.com/it-always-comes-back-to-balance-doesnt-it/ This isn't SC2, but I find it paralleling some of the issues that a lot of these pros face. It is written by Phil Galfond, a highly successful professional poker player, who has learned that for him to deal with the volatility and unpredictable nature of his game (which DEFINITELY has a ton more variance that SC2), he has had to find balance in his own lifestyle outside of poker.
Of course there is a non-0 probability that his post is complete troll and I wrote a ton of shit for no reason, but I hope this might spark some discussion at least.
TL;DR Find balance if you think that SC2 is not +Life EV.
Agreed. As a poker player myself, the idea that pros play SC2 for the money alone seems ridiculous, considering the amount of time and effort that goes into playing at a competitive level.
This discussion interests me because most people seem to act as if SC2 has no volatility at all when someone like MVP gets dropped to code A. People are quick to judge the level of a players skill based on a single bo3 or a single day of matches, or even a single tournament. SC2 isn't volatile to the extent that poker is but there definitely needs to be a large sample size of results before people can make justified generalizations about peoples relative skill level.
Then in this thread we have everyone saying that SC2 is too volatile, that skill edges are so small etc. I bet the very same people go about making outrageous claims based on a single days results.
ill go over some things but not all ofcourse. there are many reasons for this
1: THE BEST PLAYERS GET FIGURED OUT one factor of that is when you do really really well and go super far. the progamers analyse the shit out of your play and imitate it and quickly learn possible weaknesses in your builds or in your play. plus they learn you inside out so they have the "mindgames" advantage, the "underdog" will more likely know and sit more comfortably how the more accomplished player will play. knowing your opponents style and weaknesses is a very nice advantage to have around. i think thats 1 reason why were seeing upsets like this
2: UNDERDOGS ARE ACTUALLY NOT UNDERDOGS another thing, people need to realize how actually good everyone is in code S. their games are usually sick close is because the players are actually that close in terms of skill. the players that make it far or win tournaments these days tend to get hugely overrated compared to the ones who lost in around top8. the skill difference might be very small but everyone talks about how amazing the winner plays constantly so it amplifies even more "what a huge upset that was"
3: FORMAT the format gsl uses where they play pretty few games and give them alot of time to prepare for the maps and their opponent give a huge edge to the player that embraces map abuse, mindgames and blind counters etc. where as you have a huge bracket where you play all games in short time (like most foreigner lans) you rely on standard play and basic mechanics to take you through alot more because you dont have the time to practice specific maps vs specific players as much
4: MAPS this has been around for sc2 for ages by now. yes sc2 is pretty fragile, you practice your ass off for macro games and so on and on this 1 particilar map you and your practice teamates didnt find out about a bunker abuse spot in zvt so you just straight die to a 2rax bunker rush. you actually need to play all maps pretty damn much before these "map features" start to getting figured out and the abusing players get alot less straight wins from it. so with new maps in gsl, expect more upsets because its just like a patch that comes out, it needs to get figured out more
5: COINFLIPS, HIGH RISK HIGH REWARD this is a general concern i have about sc2. the matchups i play (zvp, zvt, tvz well thats 2 mathcups only out of 6) are the matchups i concider least luck based. i have the possibility as a "stronger player mentality" to scout pretty much everything in time and respond accordingly without falling too much behind. there are very small possibilities that i actually just straight out die because the matchup didnt let me play more safe. the rest of the 4 matchups feel more luck based to me, tvt les than pvp and zvz obviously, and tvp seems kind of luckbased too right now. in general there are so many strong timing attacks or ways to abuse your way to get ahead in economy that your opponent cant figure out in time so he has to guess. so with this being said the number 1 and 2 that i mentioned are even stronger than before, behind a huge underdog that nobody knows how he will play facing a player thats pretty figured out might actually get a big lead right here because of that. not only the fact that you might mathematically have higher chanses of falling behind, mentally it can be frustrating and hard for the "stronger player" to deal with this fact, which then can lead to paranoia or extreme risks where hes generally more predictable than the underdog would be. (hence thats why its also super impressive to see players like mvp actually mindfuck the crap out of anyone while still being the best)
well these are not all reasons but its some of them anyway. dont just spew out that sc2 is imbalanced or a stupidly designed game because theres alot more to it why we have so unpredictable results
Soccer is an established sport, as is Tennis... The data which is being "correlated" and spread is so little that using it as a base to judge the next winner is like being an investment banker and only looking at 2 or 3 investments and saying "we'll see what happens". It's all a shot in the dark, no one is good yet, they are all fighting for the top. Some (like MVP) are so far the most dominant but you can see that he has yet to be of the calibre you'd associate BW pros such as SaviOr/jaedong/flash/bisu (and stork if you realllllly feel like adding him :D)
But anywho, to answer your question (TLDR) the game is much MUCH to new, and anyone who thinks differently... Well I'd like to hear the rebut because I have trouble seeing a counter argument to that.
I find it baffling that a third of the TL community has a bitter hatred for the game this community is gathered to celebrate. If SC2 is that terrible of a game, either stop playing or go petition Blizzard instead of posting "lol this game sucks" everywhere.
That said, I don't really have much to add that hasn't already been said. Every competitive sport has a degree of randomness (in-game and out-of-game) and volatility. I could accept that SC2 has more than some others, or even the MOST of popular esports, but I don't really think it makes it any less entertaining. And it wouldn't have taken off as an esport in the first place if it wasn't consistantly competitive to some degree.
Nice post MorroW. It is nice to see a well thought out post by a pro instead of well... you know.
I have a hard time watching ZvZ right now as banelings bring so much of the coin flip scenario into the match up. It almost seems like a completely different game with the fragility of the units as compared to all other match ups. I know it is still mostly skill based but losing 8 units to one unit instantly seems too powerful and it takes away from the game.
It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
On February 02 2012 23:51 OpTiKDream wrote: tbh sc2 has more of a "gamble/luck/volatile" aspect compared to sc1. It just wont be as consistent as sc1. Players will easily have their up and downs and player skill gap from one another isnt as vast as one would think.
dont see it this way myself. when you see the players was strong in early sc1 days, and later, nearly no one expect nada stays top. foreigns who even won osl in the beginning had no chance anymore etc etc sc2 is STILL to young and to be compared with tennis, this guys play since they are 8 ? 10 ? and they play for more then half their lifes. when all sc2 players play 10+ years we will have more consitence but already some have 3 some 2 championchips is not THAT unpredictable
Game is still new, no bonjwas! They're not all unpredictable: Example: when a players on a hot streak you can predict their going to win such as Hero, Mvp, Leenock, Naniwa, Nestea, Huk exct.
the OP list tennis currently when it seems like it's the exception; the girls in tennis are the opposite, there seems to be a new Grand Slam winner each time but yet they are playing the same game.
In other sports, it's way too hard to pick the outright best or winners too. Just like in other sports, you can pick teams or players that are doing well and are considered favorites but upsets do happen a lot. Green Bay packers (NFL) seem to be the best team this year (they won last year's Super Bowl) but they got eliminated. Or in NBA, Dallas Mavericks won the championship as an underdog.
And what morrow said makes a lot of sense too. But I also want to add that this is a game with 3 races, some people have bad matchups or good ones and the winner might have a favorable tournament bracket that would fit their strengths. Also, the way the brackets are put together can be random and perhaps the two best player may not be in the finals but would meet before that; like mvp and nestea. Especially in tournaments that don't have lower brackets. But even so, I think there weren't that many surprises on who won.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
This is what always bugs me about these threads. TONS of people come in talking about how unpredictable/unstable SC2 is and I just don't see it. Almost every single finals involves one of the known top player and/or someone who is on a super hard upswing in their play. How much more predictable does it have to be to be a "good" or "stable" game? It seems like their already are a class of players that win a damn lot already with mostly straight up play. These aren't the days of bit by bit anymore guys.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Yeah Fionn you yourself are really good at predicting who will win SC2 matches .
Baring everything else that has been said i think it's also important to point out that most of the teams don't have fixed practise shedules like in BW . I think only TSL and Slayers have , but i could be wrong . So when you see MVP play even thought he is probably the smartest player in SC2 and Nestea also , they will still lose to players who have practised more then them occasionally and that doesn't suprise me . Most players don't commit fully to SC2 or their practise regime isn't as refine as in the BW proscene . Unlike in BW , pros still want to have a life outside of starcraft like the article elephant in the room was trying to point out .
BW isn't completely predictle either recent years it was a bunch of guys playing and in the end it's either Flash vs Jaedong or Flash vs someone else either way Flash still wins . There is the occasional upset ala JangBi , but after that it's back to normal .
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
This is what always bugs me about these threads. TONS of people come in talking about how unpredictable/unstable SC2 is and I just don't see it. Almost every single finals involves one of the known top player and/or someone who is on a super hard upswing in their play. How much more predictable does it have to be to be a "good" or "stable" game? It seems like their already are a class of players that win a damn lot already with mostly straight up play. These aren't the days of bit by bit anymore guys.
I'd like to add to that point. When players slump, like MC/Nestea/MVP they usually show worse play. It's not just that people figure them out or that they lose a coinflip, they probably just didn't practise enough or they had other issues (RL stuff, injuries etc).
Many other athletes in real sports have this. Some soccer players are god tier then drop in skill for months due to a huge number of reasons. Some come back better than ever and some just fade away for top level play.
Sc2 feels unpredictable for a few reasons, but I don't think they have a lot to do with how dumb and coin-flippy most match-ups can be. Even though Sc2 is basically designed to never allow any player to come back from a deficit, some players are simply better at getting that early lead than others, and so they do better. When you compare the volatility just by looking at the names, it doesn't really look more than BW.
To me, the crucial difference is that we don't have proleague running in the background. With proleague, we saw good players before they did well in the starleagues, because teams gained confidence in them, sent them out to lose a few times, and gradually they matured, got more comfortable, and then they did well in individual stuff. It almost never was the other way around. In Sc2 in Korea, we don't have that kind of system. GOM treats team competition like another GSL, and while the teams take it seriously, it just doesn't happen often enough to give us a glimpse and regular skill check on a bunch of players. And because individual Sc2 games can be so stupid all the time, often you don't even feel as though you got a good read on a player, because the game consisted of some dumb immortal all-in, or a 1/1/1.
In Europe however, the Sc2 scene is much more predictable, because most top pros still play weekly cups, and so we're constantly getting a reference of their skill level compared to that of other players. We can see up and coming players as they emerge, because they start beating better and better people every week. We can see who will never be any good because they just stay the same. We can see who is falling off. Weekly cups are basically the equivalent of proleague. It doesn't need to be a team competiton, just a regular way of assessing a player's skill. In Korea, with all these new tournaments coming out, we have a better sense of who is good in Korea than we did before. Players like TSL_Symbol, for example, have been able to prove they have redeeming qualities, despite being terrible in Code B.
So while Sc2 is a pretty silly game in pretty much every respect compared to it's predecessor, and way less balanced and rewarding than tennis, the difficulty of predicting Korean sc2 is mostly because we just don't see these players very often.
On February 03 2012 06:28 Jayjay54 wrote: really surprising that this turned into another one of the classic bw vs sc2 threads. not.
why do people always have to bitch around. If you don't like it, go watch BW. what's the big deal.
idra's recent comments about PvZ showed once more that he has quite a unique view on SC2, maybe that's why he hates it. He's the anti day 9.
there are quite a lot of pros that think sc2 is a terrible game. and it is. there are so many things wrong with the game as a whole. just shitload of design errors and the biggest one is protoss. people play it because of the competition and money (yes, the money).
Thing is, there arent many games to pick from that would have such support, scene and fair share of balance. It's people's expectations and impatience what is wrong. You cant have perfectly balanced game in such short period of time, if at all. Even if some things get annoying, Blizz are trying, patching game. I think patching process should be slow, cause if we would get more patches, people would start bitching about testing phase being too short. People are never happy.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Great post MorroW, thanks. And interesting take on the situation tree.hugger; I think maybe this is why I found myself gravitation to catching the Korean Weekly's when I can. It's can be a great way to see some up and coming talent. I remember watching the first half of the recent GSTL with a friend of mine when SlayerS sent out Crank. I was saying to him how Crank is definitely gonna knock some games off, and my friend who doesn't watch the Korean Weekly was just simply saying "who?"
Also IdrA is just a SC2 hipster, he just plays the game ironically.
Edit: and agreed with the poster above me, fascinating.
sc2 is too new excuse is getting too old. it'll probably still be used though since patch changes / new expansions will exist for a long long time. I'm not saying the game is figured out, I'm saying it'll never be figured out because there will always be changes to how to game works at a regular basis so theres no point in saying the game is new, but rather it keeps getting changed o_O
IMO the game itself is just too easy when it comes to macroing and microing and scouting is too hard. it makes things way too volatile and it'll always be like that o_O
to put it bluntly and simply, because people are still garbage at sc2 as a whole, and realistically i dont think the top tier of players is even HERE playing sc2 yet.
Edit:
and no, a year and a half old is not "too old to not be young anymore"
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
Totally agree with this.
Last night I was updating my LoL client to latest patch. And decided to play some sc2 (didnt play for 2 months). 1st game. TvP on xel naga. Protoss proxies two gates, i build bunker, cheese fails and he tries dt rush which fails again. 2nd game. TvP. 1-1-1, he ragequits. 3rd game. I'm bored and go 3v3. We start on some shitty small map. TTZvsTTP. Enemy builds mass MM and stalkers, we know that and respond with mass marine, tank, roach (told zerg to build banelings). They attack we die, game is over. Concluding above-said games, I didn't know if my opponent was better or worse than me. It was like some random decisions in the beginning lead to the outcome. Thats why I think Morrow's 5th point is the real reason for inconsisent tournaments and "cuz its a shit game".
On February 03 2012 16:57 askTeivospy wrote: sc2 is too new excuse is getting too old. it'll probably still be used though since patch changes / new expansions will exist for a long long time. I'm not saying the game is figured out, I'm saying it'll never be figured out because there will always be changes to how to game works at a regular basis so theres no point in saying the game is new, but rather it keeps getting changed o_O
IMO the game itself is just too easy when it comes to macroing and microing and scouting is too hard. it makes things way too volatile and it'll always be like that o_O
The haters calling the game volatile is getting old. There been several constructive posts on SC2 solid win rates and why some players are dropping out of code S that have nothing to do with volatility.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
Totally agree with this.
Last night I was updating my LoL client to latest patch. And decided to play some sc2 (didnt play for 2 months). 1st game. TvP on xel naga. Protoss proxies two gates, i build bunker, cheese fails and he tries dt rush which fails again. 2nd game. TvP. 1-1-1, he ragequits. 3rd game. I'm bored and go 3v3. We start on some shitty small map. TTZvsTTP. Enemy builds mass MM and stalkers, we know that and respond with mass marine, tank, roach (told zerg to build banelings). They attack we die, game is over. Concluding above-said games, I didn't know if my opponent was better or worse than me. It was like some random decisions in the beginning lead to the outcome. Thats why I think Morrow's 5th point is the real reason for inconsisent tournaments and "cuz its a shit game".
sorry for rant.
So you got cheesed first, then you all inned 2nd game, then you played a crappy 3vs3 in a game you admittedly don't really play anymore. Big suprise you feel like you didn't know if your opponent was better than you. Your ladder experience doesn't have anything to do with what Morrow is saying about high level play and the fact that underdogs styles aren't known.
The answer is simple. The game is still too new and the best have probably not started playing it yet. Just look at BW, it's not a very big variation of winners there, is it?
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
o wait, broodwar must be a shit game as well mr b teamer. You were b-teamer there and u are b-teamer here as well. Looks about right to me. If idra was owning face in starcraft 2 then i'd call it a shit game.
I always found Idra play so 1 dimensional, BUT Idra was much more interesting and much more impressive in BW even if i hate his mannerisms. His play vs Stork and other good players were much more of a testiment to player skill than his whole sc2 career which revolved around how many "D"s i need to press at right time.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
Totally agree with this.
Last night I was updating my LoL client to latest patch. And decided to play some sc2 (didnt play for 2 months). 1st game. TvP on xel naga. Protoss proxies two gates, i build bunker, cheese fails and he tries dt rush which fails again. 2nd game. TvP. 1-1-1, he ragequits. 3rd game. I'm bored and go 3v3. We start on some shitty small map. TTZvsTTP. Enemy builds mass MM and stalkers, we know that and respond with mass marine, tank, roach (told zerg to build banelings). They attack we die, game is over. Concluding above-said games, I didn't know if my opponent was better or worse than me. It was like some random decisions in the beginning lead to the outcome. Thats why I think Morrow's 5th point is the real reason for inconsisent tournaments and "cuz its a shit game".
sorry for rant.
Is this a joke post? Not sure how your random casual ladder experience is relevant to a discussion on high level sc2 variance..
On February 03 2012 17:16 Zole999 wrote: The answer is simple. The game is still too new and the best have probably not started playing it yet. Just look at BW, it's not a very big variation of winners there, is it?
Look at SC2, not a very big variation in winners there, is it?
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
I think this is actually more insightful than a lot of other information thrown around in the thread so far. Someone might have one hiccup in the later stages of a tournament and crash out while some newer player shows up to take the throne for a season. At this point we should expect excellent new players to emerge fairly often. This is the reason that SC2 being in its infant stage is actually relevant. In a year if the "top" pros aren't anywhere near the top and completely crumble then I will believe the notion that it is inconsistent.
Another reason that this inconsistency is sometimes skewed comes down to the fact that SC2 is heavily global unlike many other games. When we have tournaments with various skill levels, you end up with a top NA pro winning a tournament in impressive fashion. MLG has a lot of the top foreigners for instance. However, there might be only 6-8 Koreans also playing there. Naturally we should expect that some foreigners will avoid the higher-tiered Koreans for the most part and be able to outclass inferior opponents quite handily. The fact is more often than not, when a foreigner wins a tournament, it tends to be somewhere that the best players aren't playing. Then, when said foreigner gets into the GSL and plays in Code A and Code S, many people expect them to repeat results from the past. It's not an even scale. So when a player like Huk of IdrA crash out of Code S and Code A, you have a fan base that scratches their collective head wondering how someone so dominant before is so weak now. However, this is totally logical when you look at how good the Korean standard is.
The GSL itself seems volatile sometimes with players crushing the competition one season and then falling early on the next (Nestea anyone?). With GSL season 1-3 up now to watch, I think everyone should go and see how incredibly bad the play was in general. This uncertainty only increased the likelihood of something new showing up to completely take someone by surprise. Heavy gateway timing used to destroy Zerg players when they first started being used. Now, it's standard to see that and people don't flat out die as often as they used to. The metagame MUST stabilize before this feeling of coinflip syndrome is gone. ZvT is much different than it was a year ago and balance patches have changed the game in the middle of GSL seasons even. This is something that cannot be overlooked. When infestors were nerfed, the ZvP metagame had to shift. Losses for a Zerg who was comfortable with infestors at this point would be more common because the strategy had to change. There has been too much volatility in the metagame if anything. The fact that we have players who actually have incredibly impressive records despite these rapid changes in balance and the metagame actually enhances the idea that SC2 can and will be a game with players who continually maintain unnaturally good win rates. For a while in fact, 3 names represented the races, MVP, Nestea and MC. We are just now adding to that list of great players.
All of the naysayers can continue to do just that but it's naive to say that the game is too unpredictable and no one can possibly dominate it because it's random and imbalanced. Will there be balancing acts still to come? You bet your ass there will. Will there be players who come from nowhere and take games off of the current champions? Yep, and we see it happening. The game will only improve in quality. If you don't believe me, find 4 or 5 sample games from players in the beta and find an additional 4 or 5 from each of the following months up until now. Watch how the games get exponentially better and the strategies become safer. The great players continue to optimize the game and their win rates differentiate them from the rest of the pack.
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.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
This post just made OP invalid. Using randomness as an excuse that someone lose a match is quite silly.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
This post just made OP invalid. Using randomness as an excuse that someone lose a match is quite silly.
Hell no.
Those are just numbers and actual recent and overall records. Facts.
No way those facts can overcome gut feeling. My opinions are much more solid than actual numbers.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Why are you using the numbers from the international database? Is it because it makes the records for the SC2 players look much better?
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Combine this awesome post with Morrows who brilliantly describes how poor is GSL's format that lets ppl prepare for their opponent and you may conclude that OP is just wrong and misleading. I do admit that the pros have a valid point when stating the obvious BO losses problem, let's hope this can get fixed at some point.
Game is new, and I wouldn't expect any of this to change any time soon. Just as players start to get a feel for SC2...boom Heart of the Swarm. Then in a couple more years, same thing with the next expansion. I doubt SC2 will be very stable any time in the next 3-4 years.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
irrelevant post, op was talking about how volatile SC2 is as a game and these numbers show that at the top level it isn't. What will happen when (if) better players come it's another matter.
Guys my post proves NOTHING okay? I just thought it was cool. Jeez.
You think MVP and Flash are even in the same space time continuums of skill? Hell no. MVP's skills are scrub level next to Flash's. The numbers are just fun to look at.
I took the numbers from the international database because I don't usually use SC2 TLPD, I didn't think to use Korea only. If someone wants they can grab the Korea only data and post it, or they can just look for themselves.
EDIT: Also I believe BW TLPD includes some international stuff like WCG...but whatever...
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
On February 03 2012 16:39 tree.hugger wrote: Sc2 feels unpredictable for a few reasons, but I don't think they have a lot to do with how dumb and coin-flippy most match-ups can be. Even though Sc2 is basically designed to never allow any player to come back from a deficit, some players are simply better at getting that early lead than others, and so they do better. When you compare the volatility just by looking at the names, it doesn't really look more than BW.
To me, the crucial difference is that we don't have proleague running in the background. With proleague, we saw good players before they did well in the starleagues, because teams gained confidence in them, sent them out to lose a few times, and gradually they matured, got more comfortable, and then they did well in individual stuff. It almost never was the other way around. In Sc2 in Korea, we don't have that kind of system. GOM treats team competition like another GSL, and while the teams take it seriously, it just doesn't happen often enough to give us a glimpse and regular skill check on a bunch of players. And because individual Sc2 games can be so stupid all the time, often you don't even feel as though you got a good read on a player, because the game consisted of some dumb immortal all-in, or a 1/1/1.
In Europe however, the Sc2 scene is much more predictable, because most top pros still play weekly cups, and so we're constantly getting a reference of their skill level compared to that of other players. We can see up and coming players as they emerge, because they start beating better and better people every week. We can see who will never be any good because they just stay the same. We can see who is falling off. Weekly cups are basically the equivalent of proleague. It doesn't need to be a team competiton, just a regular way of assessing a player's skill. In Korea, with all these new tournaments coming out, we have a better sense of who is good in Korea than we did before. Players like TSL_Symbol, for example, have been able to prove they have redeeming qualities, despite being terrible in Code B.
So while Sc2 is a pretty silly game in pretty much every respect compared to it's predecessor, and way less balanced and rewarding than tennis, the difficulty of predicting Korean sc2 is mostly because we just don't see these players very often.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.
Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.
Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.
You are making two seperate arguments and one of them is false.
Your argument regarding the average skill level of a BW professional being higher than SC2 and MVP's results being less impressive because of it is probably true. That's not really the subject of the thread and has nothing to do with the use of statistics and analyzing winrate.
Your argument that the quality of skill in SC2 somehow influences the volatility of the data is obviously wrong to anyone with any understanding of statistics. A 75% winrate is a 75% winrate and it doesn't matter how good the player pool is. If MVP has a 74% winrate it doesn't matter if he is playing against professionals or a bunch of droolers, he wins 74% of his games and the variance is therefore less than that of Flash at 72%, even if Flash's 72% is more impressive.
The reason Flash is more impressive than MVP is not because he wins a larger ratio of his games than MVP, but because his opponents are that much stronger. The stats don't lie, its just that winrate isn't all that matters (average skill in the population matters)
Again, this topic is about variance and not who is more impressive, and if those figures are accurate then there doesn't seem to be much. People are prone to exaggerate results from small sample sizes, this is why poker players can make a living.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.
Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.
He didn't say he trusted the statistics fully. There's a difference between acknowledging a similarity in winrates and being all "STATISTICS LIE, totally irrelevant!".
Sure i think most will agree that Flash winrate are more impressive, considering the competition, but it still shows that SC2 doesn't have as volatile a setting as many claim. If that volatility will be worse if better players comes along is nothing more than speculation at this point.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.
Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.
He didn't say he trusted the statistics fully. There's a difference between acknowledging a similarity in winrates and being all "STATISTICS LIE, totally irrelevant!".
Sure i think most will agree that Flash winrate are more impressive, considering the competition, but it still shows that SC2 doesn't have as volatile a setting as many claim. If that volatility will be worse if better players comes along is nothing more than speculation at this point.
Statistically speaking, the top players in SC2 are more stable than their broodwar counterparts. It's only by a few percentage points, and its from a smaller sample size. But if you want to get to brass tacks and count out all games played in their respective fields, the top tier in SC2 is dominating their fields much more than top BW players are dominating theirs.
Whether their dominance "counts" or is seen as qualitatively valid is subjective. The numbers don't lie as numbers.
1. Game is only out for two years, people don't know how to play it optimally so there are many builds that lose immediately to something unforeseen.. such is the luck. 2. Top dogs haven't switched yet and young lions are not really there yet.. basically, the mice are having a party right now and trying to get as much money and fame as they can before the really talented players start switching over or the youngsters with talent start dominating. 3. Also in a sport like tennis, natural talent is absolutely more determinant than in a game like SC2.
On February 03 2012 03:55 Micket wrote: People can call the game shit and still enjoy it. They truly retire from the game when it does become unfun. Idra actually wrote his letter of resignation out at the beginning of 2011, when he thought the game simply wasn't fun anymore. Playing steppes, delta quadrant, jungle basin, does that to you.
The vibe I get from most pros is that they don't enjoy sc2 all that much and treat it more like a job. I just haven't seen any sc2 pros except perhaps Nani, Idra and Huk that have showed the raw passion of what people like day 9 and Artosis had for BW. Players like Ret and Tyler just seem unmotivated most of the time, and probably practise half as much sc2 than they used to for bw.
Sase have expressed on several occasions in interviews and tweets that he love playing the game. He's not alone if you follow the pros carefully. You just need to pay attention to the ones that do and not the attention seeking or controversial players that likes to express their distain for the game while playing it full time.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
why u play it then?
money. Couldn't realistically make any in BW so of course he switched to SC2.
wow this must be frustrating
For Idra? What? He's stated he thinks BW is a superior game so obviously he would prefer it if it had been a viable option, no?
playing a game u hate all day for the money
We all play the game: the game of life. It's a hell of a game, inherently imbalanced, but we play it anyway. It's a coinflip, and the situation we are born in could easily put us in a auto loss situation. Billions of people have jobs that they hate, but what can they do?
Sad to see idra post that, though he has had a rough week.
Quoting this because I found it so profound. We all bitch about how bad of a game SC2 is, but we all play a game that's 100x less balanced and more coinflippy: life.
Also this post reminded me of MoltkeWarding:
On February 03 2012 01:16 naut1c wrote: I don't think it's unpredictable, i think it is as predictable as it should be. Maybe PvP and ZvZ is too fragile, but everything else is really ok.
You can never predict the outcome of a match 100%, but you can nearly always predict a good chance of the outcome because of the following factors: - their skill-levels - recent results overall - matchup results in particular - recent results against of the same player - results on map against the same race - recent activity (training amount) - daily mood
The higher the 'best of - n' value goes, the more definitive the prediction value gehts. But you can never be 100% sure, and that is GOOD, and it is Entertaining, otherwise it would be JUST boring.
It is on the same predictable-level like many other sports.
The point is none of these women are marriable.
Pictures don't tell much about how attractive someone really is.
How can you know whether you're attracted to a person or not until you know
-Their religion, and respective piety -Their family and family history -Their socio-economic class -Their artistic and literary talents -Their sensitivity, romanticism and sentimentalism -Their patriotism, provincialism, and rootedness in their native culture -Their cooking, cleaning and other domestic abilities -Their mental and emotional stability -Their historical attitude and preferences regarding bourgeois family life -Their racial origins (if not already clear) -Their feminine virtues (virginity, modesty, etc)
The above listed constitute 95% of the qualifications for any marriable and therefore attractive girl.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
IdrA is right this game is no way near broodwar. In SC2 lower tier player can win vs higher tier player. Some recent results are for example Gumiho vs MVP...
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.
Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.
He didn't say he trusted the statistics fully. There's a difference between acknowledging a similarity in winrates and being all "STATISTICS LIE, totally irrelevant!".
Sure i think most will agree that Flash winrate are more impressive, considering the competition, but it still shows that SC2 doesn't have as volatile a setting as many claim. If that volatility will be worse if better players comes along is nothing more than speculation at this point.
If I am playing against scrubs all the time and somehow I get a 90% w.r. it doesn't mean the game isn't volatile, it just means that my win rate is inflated. The proof of the game's volatility is that there is a minimal chance of Flash losing in a round of 32 in a OSL, but MPV, MC and Nestea losing in a round of 16 or 32 happened multiple times.
Tennis is mega linear and basically every game comes down to the same thing. In SC2, tons of skills are needed and there is not distinct advantage that top players have over the slightly worse ones, therefore the slightly worse ones can come out on top. Also this game is a lot different from BW. In BW we saw if the game reached 40 mins for example, the better player would almost always win and cheese was very hard to execute. In SC2 cheese can pay off easily and people's play is not yet the most refined. This results in wins which are not due to the players skill but luck.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.
Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.
He didn't say he trusted the statistics fully. There's a difference between acknowledging a similarity in winrates and being all "STATISTICS LIE, totally irrelevant!".
Sure i think most will agree that Flash winrate are more impressive, considering the competition, but it still shows that SC2 doesn't have as volatile a setting as many claim. If that volatility will be worse if better players comes along is nothing more than speculation at this point.
If I am playing against scrubs all the time and somehow I get a 90% w.r. it doesn't mean the game isn't volatile, it just means that my win rate is inflated. The proof of the game's volatility is that there is a minimal chance of Flash losing in a round of 32 in a OSL, but MPV, MC and Nestea losing in a round of 16 or 32 happened multiple times.
How can you 'inflate' your winrate in a volatile game? Do you know what the word means? Can you teach me so I can 'inflate' my winrate in poker beyond my true winrate and make more money?
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.
Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.
He didn't say he trusted the statistics fully. There's a difference between acknowledging a similarity in winrates and being all "STATISTICS LIE, totally irrelevant!".
Sure i think most will agree that Flash winrate are more impressive, considering the competition, but it still shows that SC2 doesn't have as volatile a setting as many claim. If that volatility will be worse if better players comes along is nothing more than speculation at this point.
Statistically speaking, the top players in SC2 are more stable than their broodwar counterparts. It's only by a few percentage points, and its from a smaller sample size. But if you want to get to brass tacks and count out all games played in their respective fields, the top tier in SC2 is dominating their fields much more than top BW players are dominating theirs.
Whether their dominance "counts" or is seen as qualitatively valid is subjective. The numbers don't lie as numbers.
But the numbers doesnt prove anything, the % of winrate of few players in bw and in sc2 doesnt prove anything. It only shows that some players are just better statistically(consistent) than others, and this cannot be seen as truth to game balance. IF Flash had 50% winrate in BW would that mean that the game is more volatile or maybe it would mean that the competition is stronger? We assume that player A has to win all the time as he is determined as volatility factor (Flash/MVP). ???
Yes i know what the base factor is, it is "Person A is better than others" so whenever he wins the game respects his skill. Even if there is a portion of truth in it, its still a bullshit to make a judgement based on that. To be more accurate you would have to pick every game situations and compare them seperately and sum up, simple winrate is not telling you much a specially when you count Flash pre his OSL era, when he was randomly cheesing or falling in macro in late game. But hey thats what the starcraft is all about and statistics will never take that into consideration.
The only possible argument for people that think the game is more volatile than the statistics show is that the sample size is too small. Relative skill levels, BO wins/losses etc are irrelevant if the sample size is large and the winrate is high. That is literally all that matters. If MVP plays as many games as Flash and his winrate is still higher, and both are still considered the best player of their respective game in the world, then SC2 would actually have less variance than BW.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
IdrA is right this game is no way near broodwar. In SC2 lower tier player can win vs higher tier player. Some recent results are for example Gumiho vs MVP...
Hon sin beat Bisu. Therefore broodwar is a shit game. ----> your logic.
I think people are looking at this from a wrong angle. Just like Artosis & Tasteless have said, even at the highest level of play when opponents are close to equally matched, they still have on average win of around 60%. Some have wins of about 70%+ in certain match ups, those are considered specialists. Some really exceptional players in their prime, like Nada, iloveoov, Bisu, Savior, etc have had way higher win rates, but they never got to 100%.
Even Flash who now, is considered the best BW player of all time has 75% win rate.
Even in BW some upsets happened, it is understandable. What you need to remember though is that, the players that are really good will consistently do well. It doesn't matter if a good player loses once in a blue moon, what matters if he consistently wins competitions or makes it to the final.
So, I'd say IMMvp is really good because he won numerous tournaments, 3 GSLs, Blizzcon, MLG Aneheim etc. Just the same as Nada in his BW prime was a really good winning 3 MSLs, 3 OSLs etc.
Also remember, the game is still evolving, and no one has reached the skill ceiling yet. We have not really yet had a Bonjwa like in BW, a guy that can, for example, win 3 GSLs in a row as well as 3 MLGs or something like that, and have a win rate of like 70% in all MU.
I'd say the way it is now is ok, there is nothing out of the ordinary, you really don't see a no name go to a tournament and beat the best players. But the level of competition at the highest level is so high that you can still have upsets, players slumping, other players rising etc.
Edit: Also yes if a total unknown scrub, who only plays like twice a weak can beat a top caliber player than yes, the game would be bad, it would mean the game is so simple, so lacking in depth, that someone who hardly plays it can master it to the level of someone that plays for 12+ hours per day every day.
But I don't see this being the case. The people that take games of each other are about the same level. And you can clearly tell when someone is over/bellow someone else's level.
Its like the Koreans going to the MLGs, we clearly saw how the Koreans dominated for most of the year. After a while some foreigners improved enough to be able to fight them toe to toe, but not all. Most Koreans still blazed right trough being mostly eliminated by either other Koreans, or the few foreigners at their level.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
I feel like this is a bit of a dangerous and ignorant stance. Statistics can be very rigorous and scientific. In fact, all of our lives depend on inferential statistics in some ways, regulation, food safety, etc... If it was all just bollocks, then why do we bother with it?
On February 03 2012 20:40 Destructicon wrote: I think people are looking at this from a wrong angle. Just like Artosis & Tasteless have said, even at the highest level of play when opponents are close to equally matched, they still have on average win of around 60%. Some have wins of about 70%+ in certain match ups, those are considered specialists. Some really exceptional players in their prime, like Nada, iloveoov, Bisu, Savior, etc have had way higher win rates, but they never got to 100%.
Even Flash who now, is considered the best BW player of all time has 75% win rate.
Even in BW some upsets happened, it is understandable. What you need to remember though is that, the players that are really good will consistently do well. It doesn't matter if a good player loses once in a blue moon, what matters if he consistently wins competitions or makes it to the final.
So, I'd say IMMvp is really good because he won numerous tournaments, 3 GSLs, Blizzcon, MLG Aneheim etc. Just the same as Nada in his BW prime was a really good winning 3 MSLs, 3 OSLs etc.
Also remember, the game is still evolving, and no one has reached the skill ceiling yet. We have not really yet had a Bonjwa like in BW, a guy that can, for example, win 3 GSLs in a row as well as 3 MLGs or something like that, and have a win rate of like 70% in all MU.
I'd say the way it is now is ok, there is nothing out of the ordinary, you really don't see a no name go to a tournament and beat the best players. But the level of competition at the highest level is so high that you can still have upsets, players slumping, other players rising etc.
Edit: Also yes if a total unknown scrub, who only plays like twice a weak can beat a top caliber player than yes, the game would be bad, it would mean the game is so simple, so lacking in depth, that someone who hardly plays it can master it to the level of someone that plays for 12+ hours per day every day.
But I don't see this being the case. The people that take games of each other are about the same level. And you can clearly tell when someone is over/bellow someone else's level.
Its like the Koreans going to the MLGs, we clearly saw how the Koreans dominated for most of the year. After a while some foreigners improved enough to be able to fight them toe to toe, but not all. Most Koreans still blazed right trough being mostly eliminated by either other Koreans, or the few foreigners at their level.
Excellent post, and there really isn't much more to say. The problem is that most people don't have an intuitive understanding of probability and variance. For example lets say someone has an 80% WR against zerg. They would be a huge favorite, and people would justifiably predict that player to advance in a bo3. Theoretically, people might realize that there is still a greater than 5% chance that the player will lose, but emotionally they don't. When the inevitable occurs people freak out because it violates their expectations. To most people, 75% might as well be 100%.
Let's look at unpredictability by analyzing how well viewers actually predict the results, shall we? Fortunately we have a lot of data in the form of past Liquibets. The hypothesis would be that if SC2 really is more unpredictable in ways that BW or RTS games in general are not, the rate that one predicts the result correctly would be smaller. If the game was totally random and not skill-based the rate would be 50%. So I took the average of the Liquibet points percentage of the top 10 players in some liquibet seasons and charted them against the maximum number of points that were available that season. The logic here being that a smaller amount of maximum points means less games to predict and more chances that someone gets a high number of predictions correct with luck. I included the last 4 seasons of Liquibet for BW and SC2 and also seasons 14 and 16 for BW to get a season with a very low and a season with a very high number of games. Here are the results.
You could say that this points towards BW being more unpredictable that SC2 but the sample size isn't huge. A lot of assumptions are made that aren't necessarily true: that people are as proficient in predicting both games, only looking at the top 10 for a season, and looking at points predicted instead of matches. It doesn't really prove anything but does give some clue that we aren't playing rock-paper-scissors here.
EDIT: Another factor to take into consideration would be that there are more people predicting SC2 matches, resulting in a higher chance of someone getting lucky with their predictions. This could be examined by checking whether the same people are placing high every Liquibet or if it's always changing. Anyway, 2^8th post bitches!
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
I feel like this is a bit of a dangerous and ignorant stance. Statistics can be very rigorous and scientific. In fact, all of our lives depend on inferential statistics in some ways, regulation, food safety, etc... If it was all just bollocks, then why do we bother with it?
A dutch nurse was imprisoned because of a statistical anomaly in her hospital department and not only was she proven innocent after years of trial, her swift actions actually helped save lives. A very extreme example, but statistics can be misinterpreted and should always be taken with a grain of salt.
It's much better to look at the games objectively and think of reasons why pro's feel they are losing more games than they should. Which can probably be answered by how powerful all-ins are.
I think it is because the game is still being figured out. I also think that a lot of the time after someone wins a tournament (GSL in particular) and gets put in a group in the next tournament. The players in said group will go out of their way to 'snipe' the highest seed since they think that they will be able to get past the other players relying on their standard play. It also doesn't help that players are relatively week in different match-ups. Going with the tennis analogy it would be like playing 3 matches in a day, one being on a clay court, the other two being grass.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
I feel like this is a bit of a dangerous and ignorant stance. Statistics can be very rigorous and scientific. In fact, all of our lives depend on inferential statistics in some ways, regulation, food safety, etc... If it was all just bollocks, then why do we bother with it?
A dutch nurse was imprisoned because of a statistical anomaly in her hospital department and not only was she proven innocent after years of trial, her swift actions actually helped save lives. A very extreme example, but statistics do lie and should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Statistics don't like, they are merely misinterpreted.
It's funny that although no evidence has been shown that SC2 is less predictable than BW or most other sports, that people continue to enter the thread and post their answers as if it were a given.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
I feel like this is a bit of a dangerous and ignorant stance. Statistics can be very rigorous and scientific. In fact, all of our lives depend on inferential statistics in some ways, regulation, food safety, etc... If it was all just bollocks, then why do we bother with it?
A dutch nurse was imprisoned because of a statistical anomaly in her hospital department and not only was she proven innocent after years of trial, her swift actions actually helped save lives. A very extreme example, but statistics do lie and should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Statistics don't like, they are merely misinterpreted
If you are going to be technical about it than you are definitely right. Statistics never lie, but it's still a crap science.
MVP: 122-61 (66.67%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L L L W W W L L Nestea: 98-47 (67.59%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W L L L W W W L W W MC: 88-57 (60.69%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W L L W W W L W MMA: 82-48 (63.08%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W L W W W L L L W W
It's true that the game is new and you can be much better than everybody else hence winning a lot (like mma or mvp), but it's also true scouting is very limited in many early game situations and every race has too many options in the beginning. But I have to say the way the game is evolving is making me optimist about it.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
I feel like this is a bit of a dangerous and ignorant stance. Statistics can be very rigorous and scientific. In fact, all of our lives depend on inferential statistics in some ways, regulation, food safety, etc... If it was all just bollocks, then why do we bother with it?
A dutch nurse was imprisoned because of a statistical anomaly in her hospital department and not only was she proven innocent after years of trial, her swift actions actually helped save lives. A very extreme example, but statistics do lie and should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Statistics don't like, they are merely misinterpreted
If you are going to be technical about it than you are definitely right. Statistics never lie, but it's still a crap science.
That must be one of the most stupid statements i've heard. Statistics is a completely nessesary science, it's just that there's misuse. We rely on statistics for alot of things and just because you can find cases where people have misunderstood statistical data doesn't mean it's crap.
Because you got a shitton of tournaments with different competitors in different parts of the world. If the Tournament coverage would be smaller and more regional based you would have severeal best players. -> GSL compared to Tournaments around the World.
No statistic in the World can virtually "merge" the diverse Tournament scene and its fine as it is.
As others have said, the game is still young. Give the progamers time to mature with the game; make few mistakes; and most importantly create more opportunities, and you will see the great ones emerge.
I know this has been discussed before, but I can't wait to see some of the BW gods switch over. With their practice regime and dedication, they will flesh out and create some really amazing strats that will blow the lid off SC2.
Like cooking, it takes time to create a really great dish, but we are limited by our ingredients and knowledge. Wait until the other 2 expansions are out and the progamers will create strategy so delicious you will drool all over your keyboard.
For the same reason when you play on ladder you can get some players you can straight up outplay... And just next game you can get roflstomped extremely onesided. When you don't have more than 1/3/5 games to find the better player - the worse player can often times win due to build order / luck.
players wont be able to experience every possible thing, and when in a tournament say like the gsl where you have time to prepare people can spring new builds or styles against you. Due to this it can make the game much more unpredictable but the players who are at the top have been fairly consistent in their own way.
As mentioned probably before winning 3 gsls would be consider quite consistent.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
I feel like this is a bit of a dangerous and ignorant stance. Statistics can be very rigorous and scientific. In fact, all of our lives depend on inferential statistics in some ways, regulation, food safety, etc... If it was all just bollocks, then why do we bother with it?
A dutch nurse was imprisoned because of a statistical anomaly in her hospital department and not only was she proven innocent after years of trial, her swift actions actually helped save lives. A very extreme example, but statistics do lie and should always be taken with a grain of salt.
Statistics don't like, they are merely misinterpreted
If you are going to be technical about it than you are definitely right. Statistics never lie, but it's still a crap science.
That must be one of the most stupid statements i've heard. Statistics is a completely nessesary science, it's just that there's misuse. We rely on statistics for alot of things and just because you can find cases where people have misunderstood statistical data doesn't mean it's crap.
Meh you are right. I just hate statistics so goddamn much There is just so much misuse.
it has nothing to do with sports in general. it comes down to the talent distribution, which is completely random from sport to sport. in sports like judo where most of the best competitors are japanese, and japanese know all of the trade secrets, japan wins olympics almost every time. in american football, where very few things are understood by one team that aren't by another, you see an extreme amount of randomness in winning. every team has a few great players that give them victories, and being clean that day is all that matters. same with basketball.
starcraft 2 is actually not completely random. see nokz88's post. the people who have the upper hand in knowledge and skill win more still. but the amount of skill they have is not tremendously higher like in judo, or for example, starcraft 1, because they aren't as refined as those sports. they aren't refined because there is simply a lack of experience.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
IdrA is right this game is no way near broodwar. In SC2 lower tier player can win vs higher tier player. Some recent results are for example Gumiho vs MVP...
Are you serious? Did you even watch MVP vs Gumiho match? as much as I like MVP but Gumiho outplayed MVP so hard with impressive viking play.
A tennis game is basically a bunch of best of 7s inside a bunch of best of 13s inside a best of 3 or best of 5.
Dont you think the "better" player would win more often in SC2 if it was a best of 31 or whatever that would add up to?
Also in the case of chess, well... I guess that's such a game that if you're better you will almost always win .-. The players have memorized most variations precisely and the gameplay in general is far more advanced there than in SC2. That one I wouldn't compare to SC2 unless you precisely talk about the early 1400-1500s chess that was more feel-based
In a tennis match u have to play atleast 48 "balls" (i dont know tennis nor tennis terms, so forgive me if im wrong). Now imagine Starcraft 2 tournament with only Bo48's...
SC2 has much lower skill celling than its predecessor or any other pro sport, thus making overall skill level on pro level quite similar. By adding way to much luck SC2 involves we have this much unpredictability in (tourney) results.
Tl:dr: What Idra said basically "the game is shitty".
I'm really getting sick of the "the game is shitty and luck based post". It's because of the low Bo format and because players have bad days. Plus since sc2 is so young, new strategies can easily be used to trick opponents. But all it is is a trick and will only work till figured out
I have made a small calculation. If a player wins a BO3 to like 70%, his chances to win 4 subsequent rounds of BO3 Elimination are ~24%, doesnt seem that much. When he has a win chance of 80%(!) in a BO3 to EVERY(!) other of the 15 players, he has a chance of winnig a 4 Round Tournament of like 35%. When said player has a bad day everything can happen...
Just to throw some numbers in this discussion based on "statistics..".
That said, the unpredictability of tournaments lies within the math, not the player , nor the game. Embrace the game or dont, but PLEASE dont make up wacky arguments to a not proven point of the OP.
It only appears more volatile compared to tennis because sets are often Bo3. In tennis there are a hundred serves a match, it's almost the same as having a Bo100, although in tennis individual volleys are MUCH shorter. In SC2, we don't have 20 second volleys. We have 10-15 minute games on average, and due to scheduling there will be quite a bit of change due to random variation alone.
The better players will still advance more often than not, however in a BO3 it's very possible for the worse player to win.
What is happening in this thread is pretty sad. Its as if someone created a thread saying 'why are tall people so stupid?' And people respond with 'maybe gravity has some effect!', 'tall people have less schooling?', 'i think it has to do with social standards..'
My point being is that there is no evidence that sc2 is more random and thus harder to predict than other games including brood war, and yet people come into the thread, read only the op and not the following discussion, and post their theories based on the unproven assumption that the op is true! Humans are funny animals.
Cause all-ins are less punished/punishable than in BW. Which is why the stats don't really state what you see because everyone cheeses here and there, but the fact remains that a good player who primarily cheeses is likely 50/50 vs a good player who primarily plays safe despite being less prepared for a multitask-oriented game.
On February 03 2012 15:51 Fionn wrote: It's not unpredictable. BW is the same as SC2 currently in predictably. Just replace Flash's name with MVP. Replace Jaedong's name with Nestea. Replace MC's name with Bisu. Replace MMA's name with Fantasy.
Fun fact: There have been 13 GSL finals, counting the Blizzzard Cup. Can you guess how many didn't involve one of The Big 4 of MVP, MMA, Nestea and MC? Only two and that was the first GSL between FruitDealer and Rainbow, and Jjakji playing Leenock in the last finals where MMA/MVP were in the semifinals and quarterfinals, both losing in five game series.
Flash 432-166 (72.24%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W MVP 128-44 (74.42%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W W W W W W W W W
Nestea 32-22 (59.26%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L W L L Nestea ZvZ 16-5(76.19%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W W W L L Jaedong 451-215 (67.72%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W L W L L L W Jaedong ZvZ 159-59 (72.94%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L L W W W L L W W L (astonishing)
Bisu 360-185 (66.06%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): L W L W W W L W W W MC 206-82 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W L W L W W W W W
MMA 98-39 (71.53%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W W W W L W W W Fantasy 241-152 (61.32%) | Last 10 (old -> recent): W W W L W W W W W W
Kind of fascinating actually...
Irrelevant data, it's like comparing your old high school's chess club winrates with international grandmasters' winrates.
If/when more than a couple actual good players start coming to SC2, expect those players' winrates to narrow down closer to 50%.
Remember kids, the best way to lie is with statistics.
See Wildmoon! What did I say? Numbers are obviously irrelevant--especially when it shows that I'm wrong about my opinions. The only acceptable numbers are whatever shows I'm right.
You're obviously right!
When we compare winrates amongst top players in their respective fields to show similarities in the consistency of the winrates in those respective fields--they are obviously random and arbitrary comparisons like mountain ranges to hand guns
You should really lay off the sarcasm, it just makes you sound like a douche. The point was that statistics can lie, as they obviously are here. The reason the comparison is invalid is because the current 'best players' were players that were good in BW and took advantage of the immaturity of the game and stomping bad foreigners (and bad Koreans) to inflate their win ratio. Flash's 72% is about a thousand times more impressive than MVP's 74% or whatever, because of the quality of his opponents, and therefore lends more legitimacy to the argument of volatility (or lack thereof) in the game.
Every pro in this thread is agreeing on some level that SC2 is more volatile and less skill-based than BW, but you've got 'statistics' and sarcasm on your side, and you're not going to look any further into it than that.
He didn't say he trusted the statistics fully. There's a difference between acknowledging a similarity in winrates and being all "STATISTICS LIE, totally irrelevant!".
Sure i think most will agree that Flash winrate are more impressive, considering the competition, but it still shows that SC2 doesn't have as volatile a setting as many claim. If that volatility will be worse if better players comes along is nothing more than speculation at this point.
If I am playing against scrubs all the time and somehow I get a 90% w.r. it doesn't mean the game isn't volatile, it just means that my win rate is inflated. The proof of the game's volatility is that there is a minimal chance of Flash losing in a round of 32 in a OSL, but MPV, MC and Nestea losing in a round of 16 or 32 happened multiple times.
How can you 'inflate' your winrate in a volatile game? Do you know what the word means? Can you teach me so I can 'inflate' my winrate in poker beyond my true winrate and make more money?
On February 04 2012 01:28 zefreak wrote: What is happening in this thread is pretty sad. Its as if someone created a thread saying 'why are tall people so stupid?' And people respond with 'maybe gravity has some effect!', 'tall people have less schooling?', 'i think it has to do with social standards..'
My point being is that there is no evidence that sc2 is more random and thus harder to predict than other games including brood war, and yet people come into the thread, read only the op and not the following discussion, and post their theories based on the unproven assumption that the op is true! Humans are funny animals.
There is statistics evidence.. top players losing left and right in early stages of VERY important tournaments is damning evidence.
LOL, I see a lot of people talking about sports and BW but from what they say I can barely believe that they actually watch them.
Upsets exist in all sports, all of them, even with his godliness Flash doesn´t win everything. good players lose against unknowns(Savior lost against FBH, and yeah I am still butthurt about that ), same in sports. The thing about consistency in any sport or game is that it doesn´t mean a consistent player will win everything, it means that he will do well consistently.
Sports are volatile by nature and that is part of what makes them exciting.
But please guys, do explain me why so few players have gotten so consistently lucky for so many tournaments, I want the secret of consistent luck.
On February 04 2012 00:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Major League Baseball's BO7s are far more unpredictable than SC2's BO3's and Baseball has an extremely high skill ceiling.
When Kyle Drabek can come out of nowhere and out pitch Roy Halladay does this mean there is a low skill ceiling for MLB Pitching.. nah.
and you'll never hear Roy Halladay whine about baseball being a "shitty game" and having a low skill ceiling.
I guess that is why Roy Halladay makes $20+ million and year and....
well you know the rest.
Man, I've played baseball with Kyle Drabek since I was 5 years old. We are both from the Woodlands, TX, and when i was 12-14 years old he was on my tournmaent teams roster (teams have to have a national roster if they want to go to national tournies, he came to the championships with us, lol ringer much?) It is SO disapointing to see him completely fucking suck balls up there in toronto man. More walks than strikeouts, beer gut, the guy really let himself go. Hell, we were in on the save football teams growing up in jr high and high school the kid was a freak, it is funny to see how HIGH the skill ceiling is in their respected areas becasue this kid COULD NOT BE TOUCHED in our town, then hit 18, got drafted, and got a taste of how men play the game its supposed to be played and started not doing so hot.
when you go to play with the big boys, you better bring your big guns
On February 04 2012 02:51 redeyeskirby wrote: Lol if sports are so predictable then we won't have so many people losing money gambling on the wrong team in every single sport.
Because what they mean by predictable is the 90% wind ate flash had for a period of time. Now he's just at 70%
What they mean by consistent is when Bisu beat Savior 3-0 and not when Bisu fails to make it to a final but stork and jangbi do.
What they mean by "shit game" is that it's not broodwar.
What they mean by unpredictable is that they feel that since the game is easier, foreigners should be more relevant because obviously that's the only reason foreigners failed in BW. When reality sets in and they realize the skill gap between Korea vs the world is HUGE they blame it on imba instead of blaming it on skill. Like when good players whine about race imbalance and not their crappy macro. What I'm saying is that there is a reason Sjow and Goody are "good" foreigners despite their atrocious hand speed. Because the foreign scene sucks and has to blame the game to feel better.
On February 02 2012 23:36 IdrA wrote: cuz its a shit game
Thank you.
God i hope you get banned. Your fucking quote should get you banned to start with.
lol funny how people think progamers think sc2 is actually good. idra is the only one that will come out and say what many progamers actually think about sc2
Then why compete as a progamer? Most of them would earn more money putting all that effort into a real job instead, a real job with vacation time, benefits, and a dependable solid income. Why spend 5-10 hours a day on something you don't just find boring, but you actually consider it to be shit?
spending 5-10 hours a day doing something they consider to be shit is what normal people call work. SC2 is ajob to a lot of progammers. If you could get paid to play a video game why not. Yes you may be able to make more money in a real occupation but how many jobs allow you to work in the comfort of your home, fly out to cities around the world to compete and make you a minor celebrity?
Being unpredictable is not all bad.For instance it reminds players constantly that they can't rest on their victories because other players will catch up. So they need to work all the times and improve their play to gain an edge. Also the viewers don't get the feeling that "X player is competing in Y tournament so X player will win.". That gives more interesting tournaments and, rise and fall stories.
On February 04 2012 00:32 JimmyJRaynor wrote: Major League Baseball's BO7s are far more unpredictable than SC2's BO3's and Baseball has an extremely high skill ceiling. When Kyle Drabek can come out of nowhere and out pitch Roy Halladay does this mean there is a low skill ceiling for MLB Pitching.. nah. and you'll never hear Roy Halladay whine about baseball being a "shitty game" and having a low skill ceiling. I guess that is why Roy Halladay makes $20+ million and year and.... well you know the rest.
Man, I've played baseball with Kyle Drabek since I was 5 years old. We are both from the Woodlands, TX, and when i was 12-14 years old he was on my tournmaent teams roster (teams have to have a national roster if they want to go to national tournies, he came to the championships with us, lol ringer much?) It is SO disapointing to see him completely fucking suck balls up there in toronto man. More walks than strikeouts, beer gut, the guy really let himself go. Hell, we were in on the save football teams growing up in jr high and high school the kid was a freak, it is funny to see how HIGH the skill ceiling is in their respected areas becasue this kid COULD NOT BE TOUCHED in our town, then hit 18, got drafted, and got a taste of how men play the game its supposed to be played and started not doing so hot.
when you go to play with the big boys, you better bring your big guns
i wish i lived near a real ball park. going to the SkyDOme/Rogers Centre .. no one really knows the game (i'd say 70% don't know what a 4-seam fastball is) .. and its like sitting in an elevator with 15,000 people. i go to Detroit to watch "real games" as much as i can.
the thing to note about Drabek is that he dominated with his slider. Pitchers with the "biggest upside" dominate with their fastball alone. and they might even not have a set of signals with the catcher... until they hit say 20 years old they just throw nothing but fastballs at guys and are untouchable until the hit class A+ (high level A).
i'm always weary of these 18 and 19 year olds that dominate with breaking stuff and rely on 4 pitches to get the guys in the small town they live in to strike out.
i've had the good fortune of seeing up close Roy Halladay do his thing. He is the most laser focused consistent practise player i've ever seen. i was never his "friend" though. but, i saw him work up close... he has a death stare that would make the world's best lie detector test.
all that said.. on 1 day.. Drabek completely out-pitched Halladay. and Roy made ZERO excuses. this does not imply MLB pitching has a low skill ceiling.
Because the skill level is very dumbed down, compared to BW at least, and as a result, there are more people at the 'top' of the sill curve, as such there is a lot of variability in this game.
The same exists in other games. If you are to compare competitive Super Smash Brothers: Melee to it's successor, Brawl, you see the same phenomena. The developers took out a lot of technical skill-intensive abilities, and even pseudo-glitches, or taking advantage of physics and mechanics that Brawl simply does not have. Compare these glitches to muta stacking, obs blocking, etc, etc. Then you see some things that only the very best can add to their skill repertoire, thus placing in an elite tier of all the players.
On February 04 2012 03:58 Gentso wrote: It's not unpredictable. A top tier player wins tournaments 99% of the time.
I disagree. In Starcraft 2, there is a lot of variance. Imagine someone of Trimaster's skill level playing IdrA. I'm not speaking as an IdrA fanboy, nor am I dissing Col.Trimaster this is just an example. The Trimaster player actually has a chance of beating IdrA in Starcraft 2, even though he is much of a seasoned competitor, and furthermore his skill is probably lower by a great deal as well. If these two players were to play in SC:BW, and had the same gap in skill, the lower skill player would be extremely lucky to take even 1, or possibly 2 games in a series of 100 games. This is not an exaggeration by any means.
On February 04 2012 03:58 Gentso wrote: It's not unpredictable. A top tier player wins tournaments 99% of the time.
I disagree. In Starcraft 2, there is a lot of variance. Imagine someone of Trimaster's skill level playing IdrA. I'm not speaking as an IdrA fanboy, nor am I dissing Col.Trimaster this is just an example. The Trimaster player actually has a chance of beating IdrA in Starcraft 2, even though he is much of a seasoned competitor, and furthermore his skill is probably lower by a great deal as well. If these two players were to play in SC:BW, and had the same gap in skill, the lower skill player would be extremely lucky to take even 1, or possibly 2 games in a series of 100 games. This is not an exaggeration by any means.
You honestly think so? Maybe before, but not anymore. People have learned how to play now, most games run into macro games because cheese and timings are figured out. The community overrates a great deal of pros out there. Most foreigners are around the same skill level, only Koreans have taken it to the next level. That's why they go to tournaments and win them pretty much all of the time. People love to reference BW because they think those previous BW *pros* should be dominating simply because they played BW, but the truth is the playerbase was much smaller and less developed. The funny thing is, very few of those previous BW pros are still relevant in terms of tournament winning abilities in SC2, and it's not because of SC2 design.
Have you guys been watching tournaments lately? I can't even recall the last time something as ridiculous as Trimaster winning vs Idra. I see Stephano dominating, Koreans dominating, and lesser players CONTINUE to blame SC2 and say that it's too easy.
On February 04 2012 03:58 Gentso wrote: It's not unpredictable. A top tier player wins tournaments 99% of the time.
I disagree. In Starcraft 2, there is a lot of variance. Imagine someone of Trimaster's skill level playing IdrA. I'm not speaking as an IdrA fanboy, nor am I dissing Col.Trimaster this is just an example. The Trimaster player actually has a chance of beating IdrA in Starcraft 2, even though he is much of a seasoned competitor, and furthermore his skill is probably lower by a great deal as well. If these two players were to play in SC:BW, and had the same gap in skill, the lower skill player would be extremely lucky to take even 1, or possibly 2 games in a series of 100 games. This is not an exaggeration by any means.
Hmm. Moon was able to get around a 25% win off the WMF B-teamers when he participated in the in-house rankings while playing War3 professionally, so I do think you're exaggerating quite a bit. I don't know how good Moon was at BW, of course, but he definitely wouldn't have been practicing anywhere near the same amount of time as the WMF B-teamers due to obligations towards War3.
On February 04 2012 03:58 Gentso wrote: It's not unpredictable. A top tier player wins tournaments 99% of the time.
I disagree. In Starcraft 2, there is a lot of variance. Imagine someone of Trimaster's skill level playing IdrA. I'm not speaking as an IdrA fanboy, nor am I dissing Col.Trimaster this is just an example. The Trimaster player actually has a chance of beating IdrA in Starcraft 2, even though he is much of a seasoned competitor, and furthermore his skill is probably lower by a great deal as well. If these two players were to play in SC:BW, and had the same gap in skill, the lower skill player would be extremely lucky to take even 1, or possibly 2 games in a series of 100 games. This is not an exaggeration by any means.
false assumption to think Idra is the superior player off of popularity and face time.
Idra is sub-code A right now. He's not exactly a "top tier" player.
On February 04 2012 03:58 Gentso wrote: It's not unpredictable. A top tier player wins tournaments 99% of the time.
I disagree. In Starcraft 2, there is a lot of variance. Imagine someone of Trimaster's skill level playing IdrA. I'm not speaking as an IdrA fanboy, nor am I dissing Col.Trimaster this is just an example. The Trimaster player actually has a chance of beating IdrA in Starcraft 2, even though he is much of a seasoned competitor, and furthermore his skill is probably lower by a great deal as well. If these two players were to play in SC:BW, and had the same gap in skill, the lower skill player would be extremely lucky to take even 1, or possibly 2 games in a series of 100 games. This is not an exaggeration by any means.
false assumption to think Idra is the superior player off of popularity and face time.
Idra is sub-code A right now. He's not exactly a "top tier" player.
Did you see who I compared him with? I don't think he is a top tier either. But calling Trimaster close to the top is completely false as well. I don't see your dispute.
Eight years and 27 (combined) seasons later, Liquibet remains a cherished tradition amongst the best oddmakers of TeamLiquid. Each Liquibet season, a champion is crowned by picking the most winners out of upwards of 500 matches played that season. Despite format changes, metagame shifts, and racial imbalance claims, winning percentage has remained surprisingly consistent:
It's a reminder that there's no sure things in StarCraft (BW or the sequel), an attribute of the game that made it a serious spectator sport.
On February 04 2012 03:58 Gentso wrote: It's not unpredictable. A top tier player wins tournaments 99% of the time.
I disagree. In Starcraft 2, there is a lot of variance. Imagine someone of Trimaster's skill level playing IdrA. I'm not speaking as an IdrA fanboy, nor am I dissing Col.Trimaster this is just an example. The Trimaster player actually has a chance of beating IdrA in Starcraft 2, even though he is much of a seasoned competitor, and furthermore his skill is probably lower by a great deal as well. If these two players were to play in SC:BW, and had the same gap in skill, the lower skill player would be extremely lucky to take even 1, or possibly 2 games in a series of 100 games. This is not an exaggeration by any means.
false assumption to think Idra is the superior player off of popularity and face time.
Idra is sub-code A right now. He's not exactly a "top tier" player.
Did you see who I compared him with? I don't think he is a top tier either. But calling Trimaster close to the top is completely false as well. I don't see your dispute.
Neither players are top players. Hence they have a fair shot at beating each other.
Edit::
just to point out. LiquidTyler lost a lot in pool play in MLG. His win rate is much lower than Idra's win rate. But when Tyler dropped down to the Open brackets, he tore up the whole tournament reaching day 3. MLG players that get to day 2-3 are really really good and are almost equivalent to "low tier" players in Pool play. Trimaster getting a win vs Idra is not something outside of the ordinary. Trimaster is simply less famous.
On February 04 2012 04:20 Primadog wrote: Eight years and 27 (combined) seasons later, Liquibet remains a cherished tradition amongst the best oddmakers of TeamLiquid. Each Liquibet season, a champion is crowned by picking the most winners out of the two to five-hundred professional StarCraft matches played. Despite format changes, metagame shifts, and racial imbalance claims, winning percentage has remained surprisingly consistent:
On February 04 2012 04:20 Primadog wrote: Eight years and 27 (combined) seasons later, Liquibet remains a cherished tradition amongst the best oddmakers of TeamLiquid. Each Liquibet season, a champion is crowned by picking the most winners out of the two to five-hundred professional StarCraft matches played. Despite format changes, metagame shifts, and racial imbalance claims, winning percentage has remained surprisingly consistent:
On February 04 2012 04:20 Primadog wrote: Eight years and 27 (combined) seasons later, Liquibet remains a cherished tradition amongst the best oddmakers of TeamLiquid. Each Liquibet season, a champion is crowned by picking the most winners out of the two to five-hundred professional StarCraft matches played. Despite format changes, metagame shifts, and racial imbalance claims, winning percentage has remained surprisingly consistent:
It's a reminder that there's no sure things in StarCraft (BW or the sequel), an attribute of the game that made it a serious spectator sport.
Interesting. Either the SC2 crowd is more educated than the BW one or the game isn't as random as people seem to think. I lean towards the latter.
Using liquibet as a proxy, SC2 has approached BW in predictability, so there's no case in "SC2 is worse than BW because it's too predictable/not predictable enough."
One curious parallel is this 70~75% prediction ceiling matches closely with hitrate of traditional sports oddmakers.
Stern, H.S. 1997. How accurately can sports outcomes be predicted? Chance 10(No. 4):19.
Look how Nestea played some GSLs. He was the best without a doubt and almost didn't drop a map for months and all that at a time when SC2 wasn't so figured out (balanced). How is this unpredictable? We are just missing players who can keep this up for a long time.
Besides that I noticed that people who disilke BW do the following: Not play BW, not watch BW, not give a fuck about BW.
But people who dislike SC2 do this: Watch SC2, shit on SC2, become a progamer in SC2 just for money.
On February 04 2012 04:20 Primadog wrote: Eight years and 27 (combined) seasons later, Liquibet remains a cherished tradition amongst the best oddmakers of TeamLiquid. Each Liquibet season, a champion is crowned by picking the most winners out of upwards of 500 matches played that season. Despite format changes, metagame shifts, and racial imbalance claims, winning percentage has remained surprisingly consistent:
It's a reminder that there's no sure things in StarCraft (BW or the sequel), an attribute of the game that made it a serious spectator sport.
I'm not gonna argue one way or another, but SC2 liquibet is far safer in my experience due to the level of competition in foreign tournaments. When you have A team koreans going against B team foreigners in NASL and other foreign tournys it's pretty easy to predict. GSL is far more difficult to predict when it comes to discerning between great players, and BW typically only has matches between the real top players in the world.
On February 04 2012 04:20 Primadog wrote: Eight years and 27 (combined) seasons later, Liquibet remains a cherished tradition amongst the best oddmakers of TeamLiquid. Each Liquibet season, a champion is crowned by picking the most winners out of upwards of 500 matches played that season. Despite format changes, metagame shifts, and racial imbalance claims, winning percentage has remained surprisingly consistent:
It's a reminder that there's no sure things in StarCraft (BW or the sequel), an attribute of the game that made it a serious spectator sport.
I'm not gonna argue one way or another, but SC2 liquibet is far safer in my experience due to the level of competition in foreign tournaments. When you have A team koreans going against B team foreigners in NASL and other foreign tournys it's pretty easy to predict. GSL is far more difficult to predict when it comes to discerning between great players, and BW typically only has matches between the real top players in the world.
I know right!
It's like the skill ceiling is really really high, or something.
On February 03 2012 21:01 Teddyman wrote: Let's look at unpredictability by analyzing how well viewers actually predict the results, shall we? Fortunately we have a lot of data in the form of past Liquibets. The hypothesis would be that if SC2 really is more unpredictable in ways that BW or RTS games in general are not, the rate that one predicts the result correctly would be smaller. If the game was totally random and not skill-based the rate would be 50%. So I took the average of the Liquibet points percentage of the top 10 players in some liquibet seasons and charted them against the maximum number of points that were available that season. The logic here being that a smaller amount of maximum points means less games to predict and more chances that someone gets a high number of predictions correct with luck. I included the last 4 seasons of Liquibet for BW and SC2 and also seasons 14 and 16 for BW to get a season with a very low and a season with a very high number of games. Here are the results.
You could say that this points towards BW being more unpredictable that SC2 but the sample size isn't huge. A lot of assumptions are made that aren't necessarily true: that people are as proficient in predicting both games, only looking at the top 10 for a season, and looking at points predicted instead of matches. It doesn't really prove anything but does give some clue that we aren't playing rock-paper-scissors here.
EDIT: Another factor to take into consideration would be that there are more people predicting SC2 matches, resulting in a higher chance of someone getting lucky with their predictions. This could be examined by checking whether the same people are placing high every Liquibet or if it's always changing. Anyway, 2^8th post bitches!
Did you take the top 10 in the Liquibet ranking? If so, your results are going to be skewed because of the different number of liquibet participants. As you mentioned in your edit, there are more people predicting SC2 matches, so more will get lucky. If you have enough people tossing coins, you will find ten who get heads a hundred times. So you need to either analyze the whole Liquibet dataset or choose a fixed percentage.
On February 03 2012 21:01 Teddyman wrote: Let's look at unpredictability by analyzing how well viewers actually predict the results, shall we? Fortunately we have a lot of data in the form of past Liquibets. The hypothesis would be that if SC2 really is more unpredictable in ways that BW or RTS games in general are not, the rate that one predicts the result correctly would be smaller. If the game was totally random and not skill-based the rate would be 50%. So I took the average of the Liquibet points percentage of the top 10 players in some liquibet seasons and charted them against the maximum number of points that were available that season. The logic here being that a smaller amount of maximum points means less games to predict and more chances that someone gets a high number of predictions correct with luck. I included the last 4 seasons of Liquibet for BW and SC2 and also seasons 14 and 16 for BW to get a season with a very low and a season with a very high number of games. Here are the results.
You could say that this points towards BW being more unpredictable that SC2 but the sample size isn't huge. A lot of assumptions are made that aren't necessarily true: that people are as proficient in predicting both games, only looking at the top 10 for a season, and looking at points predicted instead of matches. It doesn't really prove anything but does give some clue that we aren't playing rock-paper-scissors here.
EDIT: Another factor to take into consideration would be that there are more people predicting SC2 matches, resulting in a higher chance of someone getting lucky with their predictions. This could be examined by checking whether the same people are placing high every Liquibet or if it's always changing. Anyway, 2^8th post bitches!
Did you take the top 10 in the Liquibet ranking? If so, your results are going to be skewed because of the different number of liquibet participants. As you mentioned in your edit, there are more people predicting SC2 matches, so more will get lucky. If you have enough people tossing coins, you will find ten who get heads a hundred times. So you need to either analyze the whole Liquibet dataset or choose a fixed percentage.
I agree. If numbers don't add up properly we fix it until it adds up properly.
On February 04 2012 04:20 Primadog wrote: Eight years and 27 (combined) seasons later, Liquibet remains a cherished tradition amongst the best oddmakers of TeamLiquid. Each Liquibet season, a champion is crowned by picking the most winners out of upwards of 500 matches played that season. Despite format changes, metagame shifts, and racial imbalance claims, winning percentage has remained surprisingly consistent:
It's a reminder that there's no sure things in StarCraft (BW or the sequel), an attribute of the game that made it a serious spectator sport.
I'm not gonna argue one way or another, but SC2 liquibet is far safer in my experience due to the level of competition in foreign tournaments. When you have A team koreans going against B team foreigners in NASL and other foreign tournys it's pretty easy to predict. GSL is far more difficult to predict when it comes to discerning between great players, and BW typically only has matches between the real top players in the world.
I was waiting for someone to try and compare liquibets. o;
With that said, yes there is a division between groups of players. In BW we even use a classification system too to differentiate them.
it may seem unpredictable as you only know 50 players of the top. But take into account how many people with skill there are in sc2 it actually is pretty easy to predict. Example: saying idra has no chance in gsl is easy. Also being first of 10000 or rank 9-16 of 10000 only tells you that player x had more luck than player y The top 0.5% is pretty stable
There is zero statistical evidence for SC2 being more volatile. I know that statistical evidence is not everything, but when almost every conceivable measure of volatility (Liquibet for peoples ability to predict, Winrates for players consistency, MVP getting top 4 in every tournament since MLG Anaheim bar AOL 1 and the latest GSL) is put up against... feelings? It's seems like this is a ridiculous arguemtn
On February 04 2012 06:09 Primadog wrote: Can you link to threads discussing this classifications system for us? Very curious on how things were done in BW.
I thought you were familar with these categories? o-O
One of the staff writers might have done a write-up on it a long time ago. Cannot remember, but it comes up quite a bit on the brood war boards.
Anyway I did a simple search. Pretty sure there is a lot more on such things though especially in 05-08 when Savior blew shit up:
On February 04 2012 06:13 MCDayC wrote: There is zero statistical evidence for SC2 being more volatile. I know that statistical evidence is not everything, but when almost every conceivable measure of volatility (Liquibet for peoples ability to predict, Winrates for players consistency, MVP getting top 4 in every tournament since MLG Anaheim bar AOL 1 and the latest GSL) is put up against... feelings? It's seems like this is a ridiculous arguemtn
Looking at the Liquibet isn't a good measure as a few people pointed out already and like I said earlier. We're already seeing plenty of division between the pro's in SC2 as well. There's a wide range of them.
On February 04 2012 06:13 MCDayC wrote: There is zero statistical evidence for SC2 being more volatile. I know that statistical evidence is not everything, but when almost every conceivable measure of volatility (Liquibet for peoples ability to predict, Winrates for players consistency, MVP getting top 4 in every tournament since MLG Anaheim bar AOL 1 and the latest GSL) is put up against... feelings? It's seems like this is a ridiculous arguemtn
Looking at the Liquibet isn't a good measure as a few people pointed out already and like I said earlier. We're already seeing plenty of division between the pro's in SC2 as well. There's a wide range of them.
It's isn't perfect, I'll grant you that. In the end there is no definite way to judge volatility, but when an OP says that SC2 is so hard to predict, and the premier public prediction (alliteration ftw!) system of of both SC2 and BW on the planets says that there is very little difference between the 2 games in terms of peoples ability to predict the results, you have to call bullshit on the OP.
The game needs to improve a lot of things (ATM I agree with Idra.) and Blizzard doesn't listen the community. Blizzard still wants a game for casuals with poor unit desing in general. (BW units!) The game is so so so easy compared to other RTS then the skill gap between players narrows. The game is so luck based and transitions are so difficult, and Bo3 is the general rule. The units die so fast and clump. Flash is playing BW.
Rofl at all the people calling sc2 terrible. If we accept bw as the greatest rts, then it's likelyyoull agree that sc2 is the second best. If the second beat rts evr is shit then the rts genre as a whole is shit. Youcouldsay "it's disappointing that it didn't quite live up to it's predecessor" but it's audacious and downright stupid to call it shit.
Because the game is still very young. People make new builds, try new things, and nothing is set in stone. We see pros floating into the 4 digit numbers in games and meta-late game builds are not really the best or concrete in stone. We just need more time is all.
On February 04 2012 07:03 EienShinwa wrote: Because the game is still very young. People make new builds, try new things, and nothing is set in stone. We see pros floating into the 4 digit numbers in games and meta-late game builds are not really the best or concrete in stone. We just need more time is all.
That.
And they still have the same overall win rates amongst the top players. The players who aren't on the top are in a state of flux. So not only is the game play not refined--but statistics show that the competition is just as similar.
On February 04 2012 07:00 MattBarry wrote: Rofl at all the people calling sc2 terrible. If we accept bw as the greatest rts, then it's likelyyoull agree that sc2 is the second best. If the second beat rts evr is shit then the rts genre as a whole is shit. Youcouldsay "it's disappointing that it didn't quite live up to it's predecessor" but it's audacious and downright stupid to call it shit.
I have to agree with this statement. From a game point-of-view SC2 is a big improvement over Brood War. People just want everything all at once though
Contrast this with a sport like tennis (since I think this is something people on both sides of the Atlantic would be familiar with). In the past 4 major tournaments (Australian Open, French Open, Wimbledon and US Open), there have only been 5 different players who took the top 4 spots on all tournaments.
Such an easy question. I would compare 1 game of starcraft to 1 game of tennis, just more drawn out. If we had best of 5 sets with each set being a best of 5 with 2+ surplus win requirement in each the overall better player would win a lot more overall since there is always some % chance involved in any competition requiring skill.
Apart from GSL and maybe MLG 2012, you will have weird results because it's like 50 tournament games in one day. If you lose one important one, you're out.
so many pages already in this thread... i bet no one will read my post... anyway:
if someone is a "huge" favourite, it means that his chance to win will be like 66% to 33% ... but in this case it won't be very unlikely for the underdog to win several games. 33% isn't so little, you know.
it's very similar to poker. if you're a good player you will be the top dog in most scenarios, but long term there will be many situations where you lose, due to simple statistics.
i bet this hasn't been different in broodwar at all.
On February 04 2012 10:57 beg wrote: so many pages already in this thread... i bet no one will read my post... anyway:
if someone is a "huge" favourite, it means that his chance to win will be like 66% to 33% ... but in this case it won't be very unlikely for the underdog to win several games. 33% isn't so little, you know.
it's very similar to poker. if you're a good player you will be the top dog in most scenarios, but long term there will be many situations where you lose, due to simple statistics.
i bet this hasn't been different in broodwar at all.
Flash is undefeated in this year Sk proleague, I don't see him losing in a long term at all since there is not many games to play this year and only one starleague to practice . Flash has all the time in the world to prepare his games .
This thread is like one of the most depressing thread I've ever read on TL. And I don't even talk about Idra, as Idra needs to brainwash his fanbase to keep it by making his fanbase think it's the game that sucks and not him, so I kind of understand him, it's a business move. But in this thread we managed to say that the winrates are invalid, that the fact that 8 of 12 GSL were won by 3 same players is invalid, that the liquidbets proves that a lot of people can predict things is invalid (yes, the thread title is "Why are Starcraft 2 tournaments so unpredictable?", which is totally false and only a reaction of MVP losing in the ro16, so the fact that people can predict results is fucking relevant).
I only somewhat agree with premise. If everyone had to play everyone else (pool play scenarios) the wheat becomes separted from the chaf fairly quickly. Even so, there are fairly common names rising to the top a lot. But a lot of the problem is who you get matched up against. Some luck is invloved making a run. For example if Inca had to face all zergs he never would have made a final.
Lower skill ceiling, poorly designed units, and balance issues. No player can consistently win even MVP loses games to lots of players he should not, but a well done cheese wins because of imbalances in the game. If you look at brood war say flash that does not happen anywhere near as often and flash dominates consistently because the game is balanced and not decided on missed force fields or getting good emps in 1 big battle. My opinion is its a combination of things done badly in starcraft 2 with a major part of that being crap like fungal growth immobilizing units and things like force fields which remove micro from the battle where in brood war every battle is decided by micro.
So MVP lost once to a player he should have won to and suddenly he loses "lots of games". The fact that you then compare to flash who has the same winrate as MVP is pretty funny, they both lose as often as the other.
On February 04 2012 14:52 MrCon wrote: So MVP lost once to a player he should have won to and suddenly he loses "lots of games". The fact that you then compare to flash who has the same winrate as MVP is pretty funny, they both lose as often as the other.
Go easy on him, hes just regurgitating what he read from all the balance whine threads on TL. Seriously, lol, look at his complaints, they are practically taken word for word.
On February 02 2012 23:33 Grumbels wrote: The average tennis match has like 200-300 points needed to win. Starcraft 2 has often Bo3 or even Bo1. If we switched to Bo7-Bo9 for all matches we would see the better players winning a lot more. (of course, this is implausible because of scheduling and such)
I think tournament need to be tweaked a little bit. Obviously, a BO1 situation BEGS for upsets and random/strange results, possibly due to the pressure, and even in a bo7, it's possible to have a "bo1" scenario obviously. It's called game 7. I think to win a match in a prestigious tournament, it would make more sense to players to need to be ahead by 2 maps to win. One reason behind this is that loser picks map, and if a series is close enough to come down to the 7th map, the players are obviously very evenly matched, so much so that picking your favorite map in game 7 is all that really caused you to advance, whereas if the other guy picked a diff map, he might have won. I think it's like this in volleyball and table tennis and tennis, you have to be ahead by a certain amount or something for similar reasons. So if two very close players split 3 to 3 in game 7 and player A wins, player B is not out. Player A still has to get ahead by more than one game, prove he can play on player B's map and win.
The main logic behind this is that sometimes players are just SO close, literally taking turns winning, and in these series, it seems fair to say that if another game were to be played, it would be tied again. I would like to know for sure the better player on that day won. If there were playing very close, win loss win loss win loss to each other, requiring one to be ahead by 2 maps to advance makes sense. The larger the amount of games played, and if players are truly that evenly matched, than the player who has prepared more builds will probably be the winner.
Honestly, there should NEVER be a bo1 in any tournament, no matter what. There are so many things wrong with it. Anyone with mechanics and basic knowledge of the game can take at least 1 game off of even the best players. The shortest a series should ever be is Bo3, and that would be for like Open Bracket for the first couple of rounds, until the unknowns are weeded out. Then Bo5 for the rest of the tournament, be it pool play, championship bracket, etc. Possibly even Bo7. But I believe that the finals should the single longest series in the tournament, and Bo9 seems a bit much. Would make for good watching though. I mean, in sports, like the world series, the super bowl, etc, people want to content. I honestly wouldn't mind if the final series for a very serious, prestigious tournament took as long as, for example, the super bowl. Have it a few days later, giving the final two players time to practice and prepare strategies for one another, hype it up, it would be great. Even the biggest of tournaments can be managed quickly, having longer series' does nothing to detract from the quality of the tournament. I just want to know what, no matter what, the best player won on that particular day.
On February 04 2012 10:57 beg wrote: so many pages already in this thread... i bet no one will read my post... anyway:
if someone is a "huge" favourite, it means that his chance to win will be like 66% to 33% ... but in this case it won't be very unlikely for the underdog to win several games. 33% isn't so little, you know.
it's very similar to poker. if you're a good player you will be the top dog in most scenarios, but long term there will be many situations where you lose, due to simple statistics.
i bet this hasn't been different in broodwar at all.
Flash is undefeated in this year Sk proleague, I don't see him losing in a long term at all since there is not many games to play this year and only one starleague to practice . Flash has all the time in the world to prepare his games .
Flash is also an obvious exception to the rule of BW/SC2.
Why we need this discussion over and over again? If I want a sport with one build order that depends only on mechanics (you would call it skill) than I would try cup stacking.
On February 04 2012 14:18 MrCon wrote: This thread is like one of the most depressing thread I've ever read on TL. And I don't even talk about Idra, as Idra needs to brainwash his fanbase to keep it by making his fanbase think it's the game that sucks and not him, so I kind of understand him, it's a business move. But in this thread we managed to say that the winrates are invalid, that the fact that 8 of 12 GSL were won by 3 same players is invalid, that the liquidbets proves that a lot of people can predict things is invalid (yes, the thread title is "Why are Starcraft 2 tournaments so unpredictable?", which is totally false and only a reaction of MVP losing in the ro16, so the fact that people can predict results is fucking relevant).
This is like discussing religion (again).
SSSSHHHH, stop using logic, you'll only hurt your brain.
The fact that people score 75% on liquibet on average says nothing as there are manny matches where one of the sides is a clear favorit. Compare it when predicting football matches for the fa cup Its not hard to predict manchester will win the first 4 rounds against teams from 1st and 2nd divission, and it will be easy to score 75% just by betting manchester will always win all thoose rounds. i think if you would look at only the liquibets made for the final and semi finals that they will be alot closer to 50% (if not then i am completly wrong with this idea)
Quote:it's very similar to poker. if you're a good player you will be the top dog in most scenarios, but long term there will be many situations where you lose, due to simple statistics.
yes this is a good comparison i think, variance in starcraft seems to be rather high wich indicates "luck" plays quiet a big role in the outcome of the game (luck with scouting, build order wins etc) This does not say annything about the skill seiling btw, the skill ceiling can be incredible high while still allowing for a huge random factor in the outcome of the game. I also think that the difference between the best a player plays and the worst a player plays is quiet high. If you look at chess, the worldchampion will seldomly play at masters lvl. With starcraft there seems to be alot more variance in how well a player plays and regulary you see good pros play realy terrible games
@below: oh thx for that , that is quiet interesting indeed. looking up a bit more on the subject now with google
edit2:hmm maybe starcraft is more predictable and less volatile then i did think. The fact that there are manny different tournament winners and that there are verry few players who consistently perform alot better then the "average" pro can indeed be explained by the fact that all tournaments are based on a knock out system as someone else posted already. If it was a full competition, with everyone playing everyone else once or twice then it would be alot easier for the best players to always make top 2 or 4 Guess its like the difference between cup play and league play in soccer. A comparison with poker is indeed not so good when you think about it a bit more Poster on next page is probably right and buildorder wins/scouting luck only accounts for few upsets. Maybe its more that the level one player plays at varies alot from verry strong to considerably weaker on bad days.
On February 04 2012 04:20 Primadog wrote: Eight years and 27 (combined) seasons later, Liquibet remains a cherished tradition amongst the best oddmakers of TeamLiquid. Each Liquibet season, a champion is crowned by picking the most winners out of the two to five-hundred professional StarCraft matches played. Despite format changes, metagame shifts, and racial imbalance claims, winning percentage has remained surprisingly consistent:
It's a reminder that there's no sure things in StarCraft (BW or the sequel), an attribute of the game that made it a serious spectator sport.
Interesting. Either the SC2 crowd is more educated than the BW one or the game isn't as random as people seem to think. I lean towards the latter.
Using liquibet as a proxy, SC2 has approached BW in predictability, so there's no case in "SC2 is worse than BW because it's too predictable/not predictable enough."
One curious parallel is this 70~75% prediction ceiling matches closely with hitrate of traditional sports oddmakers.
Stern, H.S. 1997. How accurately can sports outcomes be predicted? Chance 10(No. 4):19.
In the current issue of Chance, statistician Hal S. Stern of Iowa State University in Ames takes a look at what sort of simple information may be helpful for identifying winning teams, though not necessarily for making bets that beat the spread (or odds). "The question of primary interest is what proportion of game outcomes could be correctly predicted by an intelligent observer," Stern says.
Stern focuses mainly on U.S. professional sports, though his analysis can be easily applied to other sports, as long as the right sorts of data are available.
One simple prediction rule is to pick the team that is playing at home. "This rule ought not to predict very well, because it completely ignores the relative ability of the teams that are competing," Stern remarks.
Nonetheless, the evidence supports the existence of a home-field advantage (see table), especially in basketball. Moreover, the home-field advantage for college sports appears to be slightly larger than for professional sports, Stern says.
Additional analysis indicates that playing on one's home field rather than at a neutral site is worth about 3 points in football, 4.5 points in basketball, and 0.25 run in baseball.
Oddsmakers employed by sports betting establishments make a living by forecasting the outcomes of games, though their goal is not so much to make accurate predictions as to set the odds (point spread). When they succeed, the proceeds from losing bets pay off the winning bets, with a small percentage going to the betting establishment.
Oddsmakers' predictions generally prove to be a superior guide for identifying winning teams. Inbaseball, however, the oddsmakers do only slightly better than the rule of always picking the home team. Oddsmakers do somewhat better at predicting basketball and football outcomes. College games tend to be more predictable than professional contests in the same sport.
It's also possible to apply simple statistical techniques (such as the method of least squares) to the win-loss records or margins of victory of the participating teams in previous games. In effect, the methods provide an estimate of the ability of each team.
In football, Stern's rudimentary statistical approach does nearly as well as the experts and considerably better than the strategy of always picking the home team, particularly when scores are used. A similar pattern occurs in the other sports.
"Baseball appears to be the most random sport," Stern concludes. "The best prediction approaches are just a bit better than using coin flips to predict."
In basketball and football, prediction accuracy can reach 75 percent, but that still leaves plenty of uncertainty. "One might argue that if things were any more predictable than that, it would be difficult to convince people to pay for the privilege of watching the games!" Stern notes.
On February 04 2012 10:57 beg wrote: so many pages already in this thread... i bet no one will read my post... anyway:
if someone is a "huge" favourite, it means that his chance to win will be like 66% to 33% ... but in this case it won't be very unlikely for the underdog to win several games. 33% isn't so little, you know.
it's very similar to poker. if you're a good player you will be the top dog in most scenarios, but long term there will be many situations where you lose, due to simple statistics.
i bet this hasn't been different in broodwar at all.
Flash is undefeated in this year Sk proleague, I don't see him losing in a long term at all since there is not many games to play this year and only one starleague to practice . Flash has all the time in the world to prepare his games .
On February 04 2012 23:51 Rassy wrote: The fact that people score 75% on liquibet on average says nothing as there are manny matches where one of the sides is a clear favorit. Compare it when predicting football matches for the fa cup Its not hard to predict manchester will win the first 4 rounds against teams from 1st and 2nd divission, and it will be easy to score 75% just by betting manchester will always win all thoose rounds. i think if you would look at only the liquibets made for the final and semi finals that they will be alot closer to 50% (if not then i am completly wrong with this idea)
Quote:it's very similar to poker. if you're a good player you will be the top dog in most scenarios, but long term there will be many situations where you lose, due to simple statistics.
yes this is a good comparison i think, variance in starcraft seems to be rather high wich indicates "luck" plays quiet a big role in the outcome of the game (luck with scouting, build order wins etc) This does not say annything about the skill seiling btw, the skill ceiling can be incredible high while still allowing for a huge random factor in the outcome of the game. I also think that the difference between the best a player plays and the worst a player plays is quiet high. If you look at chess, the worldchampion will seldomly play at masters lvl. With starcraft there seems to be alot more variance in how well a player plays and regulary you see good pros play realy terrible games
Its not just liquibets. But even their relative winrates, consistency of top 4/finalist, stability of Code S players, difficulty of code B players getting into code A, difficulty of code A players getting into code S, steadily widening gap between foreigners and Koreans, etc....
All the numbers and results show that SC2 is very very stable.
The only way to see this game as being volatile is if youre a fanboy to a mediocre player (like idra for example) who does really well vs weak competition--but cant even stay in Code A. Or maybe you're a fan of Nony and can't stand that he's only good enough to beat open bracket players in MLG but consistently goes 1-5 in pool play. When you become fanboys of mediocre players you have to blame tournament stability and game shittiness otherwise you'd have to accept that maybe your fave players aren't actually that good against top tier players.
These poker comparisons need to stop.. in poker you can play perfectly with a 4BB per hundred winrate and still go on a 50 thousand hand losing streak. The vast majority of upsets in sc2 are not blind counters or BO losses, although some areinevitable, but they are caused by decision mistakes and mechanical errors.
Seems like the data supports the fact that the game is pretty predictable/stable after all. Coin-toss games do happen however, like in the MLG Orlando final when + Show Spoiler +
MC decided to cannon rush on Xel Naga in the final game
.
Watching the MLG Winter qualifiers I had the sense that most of the time the best player won + Show Spoiler +
Like Merz getting detroyed by Socke. No luck there.
many variable cause unpredictable results. it was noted in the IdrA qoute on page 1. soooo many variable more so than any other sport, including tennis like the example in the OP.
On February 05 2012 02:55 killamane wrote: many variable cause unpredictable results. it was noted in the IdrA qoute on page 1. soooo many variable more so than any other sport, including tennis like the example in the OP.
So how do you account that the win/loss records and the liquibet records show that SC2 is stable? Should evidence be ignored if it doesn't fit your preconcieved notions of reality?
EPT
.
.
![[image loading]](http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/703/statisticsf.jpg/)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7kFRf.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/N6GnR.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eWxwC.jpg)
