|
On February 01 2013 22:07 DavoS wrote:
Eh, give players time to figure out how Scarlett is able to tech up so quickly and they'll come up with plenty of 2 or 3 base all ins to kill her. Same for JaeDong, as long as players mentally prepare themselves for treating his creep like lava then they can deny his biggest asset. But since we're using Code S level as a skill level instead of just how they would do in Code S, I'm in agreement
Kinda like what we saw from Stephano today; at least in the 2nd set, Innovation had to do relatively all-ins (proxy 2rax then next game 6rax timing) because if Stephano gets into the lategame, hes almost unstoppable utilizing his talent in strategic positioning and micro. Theres no better zerg in the world IMO in the lategame, but Stephano plays extra greedy early and Innovation took advantage of that. The beauty of this game, you need to adapt to your opponents weaknesses and exploit them, cant just play standard and win every single time with the most solid buildorder like Flash did for so many years. Flash isnt so dominant in SC2 and thats a big reason why IMO, you can say its "less-mechanically demanding" and obviously thats true but it results in the overall package deciding whos the best in the world.
On the Code S argument, I think theres a good 50-ish people who can be considered "Code S Quality" and its not only subject to the players currently in this season. Gotta look at who they consistantly win against.
|
YOu can't calculate if a player is code S lvl or not, if sc2 was about math code S wouldn't exist ...
|
On February 02 2013 00:06 Maismz wrote:
YOu can't calculate if a player is code S lvl or not, if sc2 was about math code S wouldn't exist ...
There is statistical model for all real sports and they still exist.
|
Being consitent in CodeS means alot more than winning random tournaments like MLG becasue it's alot more demanding on you're actual play rather than enducance.
Prepairing for matches, players and being able to adapt and play on the fly is what makes truly great players (MVP for example) and it's that kind of play that's most rewarded in CodeS
|
Fiiiiiiiirst. The guy should probably be in Code S, but he is a bit of a choker sometimes.
|
On February 02 2013 00:04 Kaden wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 22:07 DavoS wrote:
Eh, give players time to figure out how Scarlett is able to tech up so quickly and they'll come up with plenty of 2 or 3 base all ins to kill her. Same for JaeDong, as long as players mentally prepare themselves for treating his creep like lava then they can deny his biggest asset. But since we're using Code S level as a skill level instead of just how they would do in Code S, I'm in agreement Kinda like what we saw from Stephano today; at least in the 2nd set, Innovation had to do relatively all-ins (proxy 2rax then next game 6rax timing) because if Stephano gets into the lategame, hes almost unstoppable utilizing his talent in strategic positioning and micro. Theres no better zerg in the world IMO in the lategame, but Stephano plays extra greedy early and Innovation took advantage of that. The beauty of this game, you need to adapt to your opponents weaknesses and exploit them, cant just play standard and win every single time with the most solid buildorder like Flash did for so many years. Flash isnt so dominant in SC2 and thats a big reason why IMO, you can say its "less-mechanically demanding" and obviously thats true but it results in the overall package deciding whos the best in the world. On the Code S argument, I think theres a good 50-ish people who can be considered "Code S Quality" and its not only subject to the players currently in this season. Gotta look at who they consistantly win against.
Well, I think the weakness of being extra greedy is related to the late game dominance. Pro players don't scout for a reason. They want to eek out that Eco advantage. Of course, it backfires if your opponent is aggressive and you get punished. Not scouting with a drone means more minerals earlier which means your can drone and tech early. Of course, we are talking about seconds here. But at the pro levels, 'stealing' a few seconds here and there means so much. Having an upgrade timing can be the different between an even trade to one where you gain 10 supply. Same with getting just a couple units more out for an engagement.
Having 5-6 more army supply at an engagement could mean you get another 6 supply advantage. And with your 10 supply advantage, it means your next engagement will get another 10 supply and it just snowballs.
So while players like MKP and Stephano SHOULD play safer. We have to keep in mind that it will make a difference in their late game. 1 drone at the 90 second mark is very different from 1 drone at the 10 minute mark.
|
The problem with this "ranking" is that some players play against really really high level players all the time, while some don't and others don't really ever play against the top, but are still higher.
|
This does a lot to highlight some of the issues sc2 is facing right now. The way the races are designed is a huge issue and it really shows in these statistics. Zerg really only players the game one way. The way most Zerg games play out is so predictable that it is very easy for Zergs to focus their practice. Protoss players are similar in that they rely the most on the current metagame to win, so they tend to play very close to each other. Protoss players do have more potential strats to choose from though. Terran players really dont have a catch all style and instead rely heavily on extremely well practiced build orders and timings to exploit their opponents, something Zerg can't do and Protoss can only do if the current meta conditions are right for it.
This leads to a lot of the extremely skilled Terran to be able to compete in tourneys like Code S/Code A where you have time to prepare for each opponent. Terran benefits the most from being able to carefully devise a plan to exploit something their opponent might be doing either intentionally or unintentionally. The reason the list is so top heavy with Zergs is because in tourneys without long gaps between games Zergs are at an advantage as everything will be played "as is" with the games being a lot more generic in terms of potential strats.
This table does little to show imbalance or even skill, but it does expose some of the core design flaws sc2 is currently showing (and HoTS doesn't seem to offer much in the way of improving that)
|
Sorry, maybe it's just me, or you put Scarlet over Leenock. Huh? I'm not seeing things?
Oh, wait, there's Taeja, Polt and Curious standing over Vortix.
Players win over people that are 300 positions behind them and lose to ones that are 10-20 positions behind them, yet still their rating grows. To put it simply, you're a GM winning against mid-masters and losing to fellow GM, yet your rating grows.
|
On February 01 2013 23:51 HumpingHydra wrote:
My question is has anyone used this to determine their voting pattern in Liquibets? What would the result be?
TheBB should write a bot that uses aligulac for liquibets and fantasy proleague. :D
|
On February 02 2013 00:18 Hiea wrote:
The problem with this "ranking" is that some players play against really really high level players all the time, while some don't and others don't really ever play against the top, but are still higher.
Yes i agree. Taking the current 32 Code S Paricipants as a benchmark is pretty random imo and leads to some strange rankings like Scarlett far above Taeja for example. The benchmark should be something like what is a average win/loss rate in combination with the amount of appearences in Code S. Because being Code S-Level means to be able to repeat success in this league over a certain period of time.
|
On February 02 2013 00:43 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 23:51 HumpingHydra wrote:
My question is has anyone used this to determine their voting pattern in Liquibets? What would the result be? TheBB should write a bot that uses aligulac for liquibets and fantasy proleague. :D
I've considered it. Well, not a bot, but just doing it manually.
My gut instinct is that a good liquibetter would probably do better, but that the ratings are for sure more accurate than the people who write the TL predictions. 
|
skillwise byun never left top 30 and he is around 100 or so, together with many other good players, if something measures skill, this is not it.
|
On February 02 2013 00:47 kNeddo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 00:18 Hiea wrote:
The problem with this "ranking" is that some players play against really really high level players all the time, while some don't and others don't really ever play against the top, but are still higher. Yes i agree. Taking the current 32 Code S Paricipants as a benchmark is pretty random imo and leads to some strange rankings like Scarlett far above Taeja for example. The benchmark should be something like what is a average win/loss rate in combination with the amount of appearences in Code S. Because being Code S-Level means to be able to repeat success in this league over a certain period of time.
Not what I meant, it's more that someone like Giant, has he ever competed against a korean? I think he took a game off Nerchio, but besides that...
Why does he rank higher than someone like Mvp? It shows that there is gigantic flaws in this list, and if I ever see it used as fact somewhere I will die a little inside.
And when you think about how a lot of the KeSPA players don't play the top, top tier, they play eachother and that means a lot of B teams, boosting their ranks, and koreans who travel to foreign tournaments a lot will also rise higher than the koreans who compete almost only in GSL.
|
In my opinion, you have code s level when you're able to stay in the league over a longer period of time AND/OR peaking in a single season. (like jiakji and seed, who aren't on code s level atm)
So basically almost every player in code S actually belongs there in some way, people like Huk and Hack being examples for exceptions.
But the whole talk about "levels" is nonsensical. The best players are staying on top. Just take DRG as an example, even though he might have had his off-seasons, he has remained a top player since 2011.
You also just can't neglect the fact that the level of competition in Korea is insane. And the current format is pretty brutal when you're in a mini slump. (just look at Rain)
|
On February 02 2013 00:30 DidYuhim wrote:
Sorry, maybe it's just me, or you put Scarlet over Leenock. Huh? I'm not seeing things?
Oh, wait, there's Taeja, Polt and Curious standing over Vortix.
Players win over people that are 300 positions behind them and lose to ones that are 10-20 positions behind them, yet still their rating grows. To put it simply, you're a GM winning against mid-masters and losing to fellow GM, yet your rating grows.
It's a model, it's not who chose to put who above who, it's what this particular model think the number shows. SC2 model seriously suffer from SSS problem as there needs to have dozens if not hundreds matches for each player for model be considerably accurate.
|
I think Code S level rewards players who are intelligent and not only have great mechanics but understand how to take advantage of players.
|
On February 02 2013 00:47 kNeddo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 00:18 Hiea wrote:
The problem with this "ranking" is that some players play against really really high level players all the time, while some don't and others don't really ever play against the top, but are still higher. Yes i agree. Taking the current 32 Code S Paricipants as a benchmark is pretty random imo and leads to some strange rankings like Scarlett far above Taeja for example. The benchmark should be something like what is a average win/loss rate in combination with the amount of appearences in Code S. Because being Code S-Level means to be able to repeat success in this league over a certain period of time.
Taeja didnt do very well in the past few month (injury). In the OP, it is said the statistics are more influenced by recent results than by old ones. I guess the Taeja dominance of this summer does not matter anymore in those stats.
|
United Kingdom50293 Posts
On February 01 2013 23:27 Hall0wed wrote:Show nested quote +8. Jaedong 18.779
9. viOLet 18.705
10. Monster 18.362
11. Scarlett 18.284
These four are not in code S, of course, but I don't think many people would disagree that they show the level, gender be damned. I'm pretty confident in saying that viOLet is the only Code S worthy player out of these 4.
Monster once was, in a time long ago which has now gone to myth rumours say thorzain belonged to a once legendary team known as "mousesports" back when monster was a legit zerg.
|
On February 02 2013 00:50 Hiea wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 00:47 kNeddo wrote:On February 02 2013 00:18 Hiea wrote:
The problem with this "ranking" is that some players play against really really high level players all the time, while some don't and others don't really ever play against the top, but are still higher. Yes i agree. Taking the current 32 Code S Paricipants as a benchmark is pretty random imo and leads to some strange rankings like Scarlett far above Taeja for example. The benchmark should be something like what is a average win/loss rate in combination with the amount of appearences in Code S. Because being Code S-Level means to be able to repeat success in this league over a certain period of time. Not what I meant, it's more that someone like Giant, has he ever competed against a korean? I think he took a game off Nerchio, but besides that... Why does he rank higher than someone like Mvp? It shows that there is gigantic flaws in this list, and if I ever see it used as fact somewhere I will die a little inside.
It is what it is. It's a fact that this is what you get when you run the numbers the way I did. Anything outside of that is extrapolation, which may or may not be of much use. Anyone should be careful when they use statistics, and this is no exception.
But please, has Giantt ever competed against a Korean? The list is on the fucking website. It's not rocket science to actually go there and check. http://aligulac.com/players/294/results/
He has an even score against Hyun and 2-0 against TheStC for example.
And can I just say, why would that be the defining characteristic? A passport doesn't make you good at StarCraft. You should be asking about his results against highly rated players, not against Koreans.
Here's his most recent adjustment: http://aligulac.com/players/294/period/76/ you can browse back in history to see how he got the rating he has.
He does NOT rank higher than Mvp. See here. They have almost the same rating (Mvp slightly higher). Like I have explanied, Giantt ranks higher than Mvp on the list given in the OP because it uses a different ranking system (performance against a pool of mostly Zergs and Terrans, matchups in which Giantt plays well).
But still, Mvp is almost always pointed out as a flaw in the system and I'm getting kinda tired of it. He hardly plays any more and his recent results are middling at best. http://aligulac.com/players/13/results/
He's just not very good and that's why he's not rated highly. Get over it.
Of course, as "code S level" goes, that can mean anything. The OP takes it to mean "would probably do ok in this season of code S", but that shows only one side of the story.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
