EPTBut no matter how good I ever get at this game, the memories of carrier rushing my friends in their basement back in high school during the BW days will never fade. I don't care if people call it cheese, there will always be a twitch in me that wants to do something for the lulz, it's part of the game and it makes the game less dull imo. I would hate for every match on the ladder to be standard builds/openings everytime.
Bronze level players - Page 19
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Bascal
United States30 Posts
But no matter how good I ever get at this game, the memories of carrier rushing my friends in their basement back in high school during the BW days will never fade. I don't care if people call it cheese, there will always be a twitch in me that wants to do something for the lulz, it's part of the game and it makes the game less dull imo. I would hate for every match on the ladder to be standard builds/openings everytime. | ||
|
TORTOISE
United States515 Posts
| ||
|
interpolarity
United States38 Posts
Glad to help. @ Rest of thread For the most part I am seeing a definite lack of whining bronze level players posting replays and asking for help in this thread. Insofar the most common posts have been "i am bronze and i've tried so hard cant get out" with no replays or any actual followup on people's help or tips, or posts dictating "wow bronze people suck, etc etc." For those talking about day9, I would have to agree that the helpfulness of day9 does range quite a bit, and it really is quite difficult to pinpoint exactly which videos certain people should watch. If stuck at bronze level , I would simply recommend choosing your worst matchup, and watching any videos/ streams you can get your hands on on that particular matchup, and always watching newbie tuesdays. After I got out of platinum for the first time I ignorantly thought of myself as a "non-newbie", but newbie tuesday often surprises me with small bits of insight that I had not previously thought of, and should really be invaluable to all but the very best of players. One thing I realized during the ladder climb is that until higher leagues, the "x-factor" that makes a person better than the rest of the group and eventually pass to a higher league varies immensely. I can only assume that the variation in bronze league is similar to what I have gone through, since I have no credibility on recent bronze league events. From what I remember, copper-bronze-silver was filled with what I'd like to call "skill specialization extremes." What i mean by this is person 1 may excel at rushing and aggression, at a level higher than the average bronze. Player 2 may excel at macro, at an understanding higher than average. In a showdown between person 1 and person 2, person 1 wins most of the time not because he is a better player, but because his skill specialization works better against person 2 in a similar way rock paper scissors works. If player 1 somehow screws up his aggression, player 2 will overcome player 1 due to superior macro. I believe posters will agree with me when I say that the above statement is the basis for the "do one build and perfect it" theory. If you are an RPG player this would be similar to making a mage with only int or a theif/rogue with only dex. If your immediate goal is to leave bronze, I would recommend this tactic as well, as it is what I personally implemented. I admit I did not understand about 80% of the intricacies of all match-ups when I had reached platinum for the first time with this strategy, so use at your own risk, but then again this was season 1, and the game was much less evolved as it is now. I hope I didn't bore too many people with this excessively long post, and hope that this thread becomes more productive in the future. TL has always been a place I go to share my love of starcraft with others, and I realized as part of the community I should do my best to help maintain the quality of content and community TL is known for. If you are a lower div zerg, please feel free to provide 1-3 replays and I will review them as I have time and provide feedback. I am not a pro by any means so don't expect too much. Thank you for taking your time and reading this. | ||
|
TacticalBadger
18 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:14 HyperionDreamer wrote: If people in bronze league were getting better, they would be out of bronze. Statistics dictate as such. The percentage of players in every league is constant. Bronze is the bottom 20%. Since the ladder population is steadily dropping and very few new players come to the game, the average skill in bronze increases, therefore making promotion require more skill. Theoretically, if all players suddenly started playing at a grandmaster level, then 20% of them would get permanently stuck in bronze, with no hope of getting out. | ||
|
turdburgler
England6749 Posts
| ||
|
TacticalBadger
18 Posts
| ||
|
lazyitachi
1043 Posts
tend to overestimate their own level of skill; fail to recognize genuine skill in others; fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy; recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve." If only they can improve instead of using arguments like "BUT THE LEAGUE IS MUCH HARDER NOW". | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:14 HyperionDreamer wrote: The answer is simple: No, it doesn't exist, and no, the bronze league is not better now than it ever was. I'm a masters zerg who often plays on a bronze account to go mass queen/void ray/scv/planetary and stuff like that, and it works just as much now as it did a year ago. The improvement's there -- it's just not improvement at skills that have anything to do with surviving vs. a master league player who tanks their account. One example might be that compared to early season 1, a majority of bronze league players know on sight that banshees can't hit other air units. Big, community-wide improvement? Yes! A game-winner vs. anyone who's made it out of bronze league? No! (Seriously, in the early days I saw with my own eyes bronze league players lose games because they built banshees and didn't realize they weren't anti-air. This just doesn't happen today.) If people in bronze league were getting better, they would be out of bronze. Statistics dictate as such. Leagues are the equivalent of grading on a curve. Everyone who plays will get better as they play, but that doesn't mean a promotion unless they get better faster than the population. Statistics on this are hard to come by because there aren't any good population-wide metrics to evaluate individual performance at playing the game, only performance relative to other players. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On March 14 2012 13:55 lazyitachi wrote: If only they can improve instead of using arguments like "BUT THE LEAGUE IS MUCH HARDER NOW". I said this before, but the people who are saying that (including me, and I'm not even in bronze league) aren't doing it as an excuse for not improving faster than the population -- they're doing it to answer the people who equate being in bronze league to total stagnation as opposed to improvement that's just not fast enough for a promotion. Check my immediately previous post for an example of the kind of improvement that's happening in bronze league over time. It's a real thing -- it's just that getting promoted takes more than that. | ||
|
Qntc.YuMe
United States792 Posts
| ||
|
JimInTheROK
Korea (South)2 Posts
...BUT...I love playing the the PC-Rooms here in Korea...Roll in with a group of friends, and game hard. Love the game. playing with whatever level you're at is where you should be. | ||
|
Lysenko
Iceland2128 Posts
On March 14 2012 09:54 interpolarity wrote: From what I remember, copper-bronze-silver was filled with what I'd like to call "skill specialization extremes." What i mean by this is person 1 may excel at rushing and aggression, at a level higher than the average bronze. Player 2 may excel at macro, at an understanding higher than average. In a showdown between person 1 and person 2, person 1 wins most of the time not because he is a better player, but because his skill specialization works better against person 2 in a similar way rock paper scissors works. If player 1 somehow screws up his aggression, player 2 will overcome player 1 due to superior macro. I think this is an extremely important point. I (bouncing between gold and plat for a few seasons) regularly play customs with a friend from work who's at about my level, and our long-term record is very even, something like 25-25. However, the individual games are usually a rout one way or the other exactly because of this phenomenon. Maybe the message is that you're only as good as your most glaring weakness, so the best way to actually be promoted is to find your absolute worst skill (in terms of contribution to actual ladder game losses, otherwise we'd all be practicing marine splitting) and practice the crap out of it. i honestly think bronze league players need a proper mentor/guide to show them how to really improve at a much faster rate. Maybe coaching will do Honestly, I think this would help a LOT of people. If someone's not improving rapidly enough to climb out of bronze with frequent play (more than a few times a week) it's probably that they're missing something key that another, more experienced pair of eyes might instantly recognize. | ||
|
BadgKat
United States156 Posts
Tl;DR: glhf, you will improve with work and time if that's what you want | ||
|
lazyitachi
1043 Posts
| ||
|
lazyitachi
1043 Posts
On March 14 2012 14:02 Lysenko wrote: I said this before, but the people who are saying that (including me, and I'm not even in bronze league) aren't doing it as an excuse for not improving faster than the population -- they're doing it to answer the people who equate being in bronze league to total stagnation as opposed to improvement that's just not fast enough for a promotion. Check my immediately previous post for an example of the kind of improvement that's happening in bronze league over time. It's a real thing -- it's just that getting promoted takes more than that. There may be slight improvements but the point is it is not done where it matters the most - Macro! As many have also said before me, they want to feel like they are playing a Strategy game. If one is comfortable in bronze then it's cool. But anyone who wants to leave bronze cannot accept the fact that they literally don't have to attack and just make a decent unit compo and stomp others in bronze, then that's mind-boggling. I have a IRL friend who is the same. He has horrible game sense and macro. I keep advising him to focus on making workers and units the whole game. When he loses, he asks "What strategy or units should I make to win?" THAT IS INFURIATING. With the amount of "Macro efficiently" and "macro out of bronze" advise, how can one fail UNLESS one is fixed on not learning and refusing to shift his own paradigm to build a correct foundation. | ||
|
LightSpectra
United States1544 Posts
On March 14 2012 13:55 lazyitachi wrote: "Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will: tend to overestimate their own level of skill; fail to recognize genuine skill in others; fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy; recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve." If only they can improve instead of using arguments like "BUT THE LEAGUE IS MUCH HARDER NOW". Quoted for truth. | ||
|
freakhill
Japan463 Posts
| ||
|
HyperionDreamer
Canada1528 Posts
On March 14 2012 13:57 Lysenko wrote: The improvement's there -- it's just not improvement at skills that have anything to do with surviving vs. a master league player who tanks their account. One example might be that compared to early season 1, a majority of bronze league players know on sight that banshees can't hit other air units. Big, community-wide improvement? Yes! A game-winner vs. anyone who's made it out of bronze league? No! (Seriously, in the early days I saw with my own eyes bronze league players lose games because they built banshees and didn't realize they weren't anti-air. This just doesn't happen today.) Leagues are the equivalent of grading on a curve. Everyone who plays will get better as they play, but that doesn't mean a promotion unless they get better faster than the population. Statistics on this are hard to come by because there aren't any good population-wide metrics to evaluate individual performance at playing the game, only performance relative to other players. OK, so they've figured out that banshee's aren't anti-air units. I don't think that's even relevant improvement, that's like saying they finally figured out that upgrades exist. Just because a high school student finds out about the existence of calculus, that doesn't mean he got any better at math. See Gheed's blog on Bronze League to see what I would consider really strong evidence that a small small portion of bronze players actually care about improvement, most of them are there semi-permanently. Everyone in here is completely ignoring the fact that just as players are leaving the ladder system, there are also new players coming into the system. Just because the overall trend is outwards, the law of large numbers dictates that the league a new player is placed in, assuming we can model it as a random variable, will be distributed in a similar bell curve to the existing players on the ladder. So people might get placed in diamond, gold, bronze, etc etc... I would be willing to bet that the overall skill (if you can even find some metrics to quantify bronze skill) in bronze has remained relatively constant over time, where the overall skill in diamond/masters has slightly increased over the past few years of release. | ||
|
lazyitachi
1043 Posts
On March 14 2012 14:57 freakhill wrote: let's refresh everybody's memory about what diamond used to be http://youtu.be/XS85CmQgQBE Which says nothing about improvement in bronze level... Your point? | ||
|
freakhill
Japan463 Posts
| ||
| ||
