|
On February 02 2013 08:31 JJH777 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 08:07 achan1058 wrote:
Fundamentally, I think one issue that most people neglect is what is the cut-off for "Code S level", if you are talking about the current code S, you are talking about 32 people. If you are taking about people who can do well in several code S's, that's probably about 16 people, or less. Without even going into deeper meaning of things, the number of people in the cut-off itself is very different. I mean, let's face it, if Stephano drew 3 players on Hack's level (given how he plays today), he will probably make it out on the top of the group. It would be impossible for him to draw 3 players on Hack's level because of how the Code S group system works. You always have 1 person who got top 8 last season and then it is done by tiers with points. No offense to Hack he is very good but he is not ro8 level. Every player that got ro8 last season is better than him. Stephano really didn't get a very hard group. Bogus looked great last GSL but has done very poorly in SPL. DRG is really good. Hack is pretty meh. At best it was a middle of the road group for this season. I'd say without a doubt groups A, B, C and E were harder.
My point still stands though. The difference in the number of players (hence the standard) between anyone who is currently in code S, compared to players consistently in code S, is huge, and not being careful with how you define it (not only in this thread, but in general discussions) will make a big difference.
|
Code S level mean exactly that, code S level. No need to analyze obvious things like what this community tends to do....great research but the energy and time could've been well spent elsewhere where it actually matters...
|
Yeah.. kind of became pointless when you had random foreigners in the list among with the best.
|
If you were to say a basketball team was a playoff caliber team, you would say they were good enough to make the playoffs, but either match-ups or consistency/streakiness would stand in their way. So doesn't this apply to Code S as well? Meaning that "Code S Level" is simply someone who is good enough to consistently compete with other Code S, or top level players, but may not currently be in Code S because of their Code A/B brackets giving match-up problems or a bad stretch of games causing them to drop out of Code S. To me there is no hard "S" line, but more of a moving target of skill levels/ranges
|
Generally subjective term that means they have the potential to compete in Code S. Over-thinking it man.
|
Seems pretty neat, but there are "code S" players who get knocked out of code S just because they had a bad day or unlucky group or something, so I don't think it's right for someone to take the highest ranked 32 players say they say the ones that aren't in code S belong there. It's certainly puts things in to perspective though.
|
In my mind, Code S players are very skilled at starcraft, but also are very skilled at preparing for matches.
Maybe people underestimate the impact that preparation has in an RTS game.
Many factors like team mates and practice partners play into this.
So its not just the raw skill that makes a player a code S player
|
On February 02 2013 07:52 Conti wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 07:36 Figgy wrote:On February 02 2013 07:34 bittman wrote:On February 02 2013 05:14 FuzzyJAM wrote:
Without wishing to be a dick, this list is the best illustration that your stats are not close to being a good indicator of overall skill. There isn't really a skill list achievable through statistics out there that people would agree with anyway. I mean on TLPD Puzzle, who hasn't played for months, is still higher than Soulkey. And tear, who just made Code A, is higher than many Code S players. How would such a list be possible anyway? ELO Completely remove any results by any player who hasn't played more than 3 sets in the last 2 months, and any games played prior to 4 months. Exclude any results from a non-major tournament. Only include players with at least 6 sets played. Pretty simple, really. Wait wait wait.. You bash this system, and as a suggestion on what to use instead you say.. ELO? That's just.. wow. That is seriously amusing.  You do know that TLPD's rating is based on ELO, right?
You do know that TLPD counts every game and has no system for decay..... right? It's nothing like Chess ELO.
|
France12792 Posts
On February 02 2013 14:13 Burns wrote:
In my mind, Code S players are very skilled at starcraft, but also are very skilled at preparing for matches.
Maybe people underestimate the impact that preparation has in an RTS game.
Many factors like team mates and practice partners play into this.
So its not just the raw skill that makes a player a code S player
Yeah, if you put a lot of the current code S players in a bad environment for a long enough time and ask them to stay in code S, they'll have a lot of difficulties doing so.
MC was doing relatively poorly before he started training in a team house again for example!
|
If you can win a game in Code S then you are Code S Level. That's it. Obviously people have ups and downs in form but being able to win in Code S is the strict definition. Some people get confused between current form and actual ability though.
|
I think what's cool and great about this work is that it does what statistics are good for. They give you the ability to create data and then to look at it critically. But maybe people in this thread confuse statistics with the Truth with a capital p. That's not the way you should read statistics, whether in the morning paper or on TL. Rather statistics can make us think about deeper connections that we haven't seen before, twist and turn around concepts and play with them through statistical models. They're not meant to say "Scarlett should be in Code S." Obviously there are flaws or issues with these stats, but it's common for statistics everywhere. What you can do with that is to add or change some modifier, let it meet other forms of reasoning or to extrapolate on what we take for granted.
So yeah, tl;dr, lies, damn lies and statistics are the case with all stats but it's not the point of stats.
|
On February 03 2013 02:50 Heartland wrote:
I think what's cool and great about this work is that it does what statistics are good for. They give you the ability to create data and then to look at it critically. But maybe people in this thread confuse statistics with the Truth with a capital p. That's not the way you should read statistics, whether in the morning paper or on TL. Rather statistics can make us think about deeper connections that we haven't seen before, twist and turn around concepts and play with them through statistical models. They're not meant to say "Scarlett should be in Code S." Obviously there are flaws or issues with these stats, but it's common for statistics everywhere. What you can do with that is to add or change some modifier, let it meet other forms of reasoning or to extrapolate on what we take for granted.
So yeah, tl;dr, lies, damn lies and statistics are the case with all stats but it's not the point of stats.
You.
I like you.
|
Preparing for a televised booth match, enduring a tournament marathon, and playing an online cup can't be equated in the same calculation.
I'd really like to see this calculated using only data from preparation matches, though; perhaps all GomTV and OnGameNet leagues.
|
TheBB, a great man who graced a small forum I frequent .
Good OP. Very creative mathematical model. It obviously relies a lot on past data rather than future expected outcomes, but it's really informative regardless. It's sad to see the BW greats ranked so low. They still are getting accustomed to the new game, but also SC2 is too different a game and depends more on chance than straight up mechanics and strategy, which is unfortunate.
|
On February 03 2013 04:53 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:TheBB, a great man who graced a small forum I frequent .
Huuummm... .org network?
|
On February 02 2013 22:28 revel8 wrote:
If you can win a game in Code S then you are Code S Level. That's it. Obviously people have ups and downs in form but being able to win in Code S is the strict definition. Some people get confused between current form and actual ability though.
That means almost every known pro is Code S level... There would be like 400-500 players that can do that
|
On February 03 2013 05:12 TheBB wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2013 04:53 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:TheBB, a great man who graced a small forum I frequent . Huuummm... .org network?
Yes indeed. You know who sd bolts is. When I registered on TL, I got frustrated when the first 10 usernames I tried were already taken, and went with this one haha.
|
|
|
On February 03 2013 05:55 JJH777 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 02 2013 22:28 revel8 wrote:
If you can win a game in Code S then you are Code S Level. That's it. Obviously people have ups and downs in form but being able to win in Code S is the strict definition. Some people get confused between current form and actual ability though.
That means almost every known pro is Code S level... There would be like 400-500 players that can do that
Well it is not about players who CAN win a game, but rather players who HAVE won a game in Code S. That is the strict definition of Code S Level. Of course there is a problem where people try and claim that Code S Level is a measure of a Player's SC2 ability. A player can lose a game in Code S and be eliminated. A player can win a game and be promoted into Code S. Although their status changes from being in Code S to not being in Code S or the opposite, their SC2 ability clearly does not change over the course of one series.
That is my opinion anyway, the term Code S Level does seem to be very subjective though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
