| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
On October 11 2013 22:22 hipo wrote: OSL between 2000 and 2003: 9 OSL winner for 11 OSL. BW Tournaments between 1999 (1 tournament) and 2002 (both osl and msl): 7/13 winners ~ 54% 13/26 possible finalists. ~ 50% edit: sc2: we have 16/22 possible winners (with the 2 osls) ~ 72% and 30/44 possible finalists ~ 68% BW alltime: 30/60 winners ~ 50% and 46/120 possible finalists. ~ 38% | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
Until the sample sizes are close enough to equal percentages will always be skewed to a favorable bias. MVP, Nestea, and MC had ridiculously high winrates for a few years while each year after that 1-2 players would dominate the SC2 scene for about 6-9 months at a time. DRG, MMA, Parting, Life, Innovation, etc... So when you bring up win percentages of course you'll find sc2 players who matched up closely with bonjwas and championship wins. The winrates was non what made BW legends into legends. It was the way they played the game. Their control, their strategies, etc... It was being able to link what actions they did to give them wins. 2010 SC2 had a lot of that as well, but would be immediately patched out. Reapers, Ghosts, Amulet, etc... Things that could would create a gap between the really good players and the cream of the crop. | ||
|
CreationSoul
Romania231 Posts
1. koreans winning everything. WCS needs to be region locked and just allow players that have residency in a certain region play in that region. SC2 is personality driven, and sadly koreans kinda lack that. LCS is much better because if I want to see europeans winning I go to WCS EU, if I want to see koreans, then i have OGN. IN WCS, everything is WCS Korea (or so it seems). 2. By nature of the game, there is more actian in a MOBA: ganks, counterganks, teamfights. There is action at all stages of the game. In SC2, there are 3-4 instances of some action (in some cases even ONE), and the game is over. I would even be as drastic as to implement a system that every 30 seconds any non-worker unit will lose 1-2 HP, just to force the players to use units, not just wait for a big deathball. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 11 2013 23:06 CreationSoul wrote: I have no idea if this has been said because I can't/won't read 70 pages, but here is what i think that LoL and LCS does better than SC2 and WCS: 1. koreans winning everything. WCS needs to be region locked and just allow players that have residency in a certain region play in that region. SC2 is personality driven, and sadly koreans kinda lack that. LCS is much better because if I want to see europeans winning I go to WCS EU, if I want to see koreans, then i have OGN. IN WCS, everything is WCS Korea (or so it seems). 2. By nature of the game, there is more actian in a MOBA: ganks, counterganks, teamfights. There is action at all stages of the game. In SC2, there are 3-4 instances of some action (in some cases even ONE), and the game is over. I would even be as drastic as to implement a system that every 30 seconds any non-worker unit will lose 1-2 HP, just to force the players to use units, not just wait for a big deathball. SC2 is 1v1 and really fast paced, so while going for action all over the map can be good (and entertaining too, ST_Hack vs TL_Snute anyone?) one small error will kill the one going for it. LoL, however, if i recall correctly is slower paced and is 5v5. Won't comment on WCS region lock, since this is the part i do not like (granted i am fine with it if Koreans get at least 3 leagues going on in the same time, i won't even have a reason to watch foreign SC2 then :D). | ||
|
CreationSoul
Romania231 Posts
On October 11 2013 23:09 lolfail9001 wrote: SC2 is 1v1 and really fast paced, so while going for action all over the map can be good (and entertaining too, ST_Hack vs TL_Snute anyone?) one small error will kill the one going for it. LoL, however, if i recall correctly is slower paced and is 5v5. Won't comment on WCS region lock, since this is the part i do not like (granted i am fine with it if Koreans get at least 3 leagues going on in the same time, i won't even have a reason to watch foreign SC2 then :D). I get your point and as i said Ithat the nature of the 2 games is different. I just said what I think the 2 reasons for me becoming increasingly more interested in LoL and losing interest in SC2. | ||
|
Kheve
323 Posts
On October 11 2013 23:05 Thieving Magpie wrote: And this is why I hate it when people unzip their pants and lay their statistics on the table... Until the sample sizes are close enough to equal percentages will always be skewed to a favorable bias. MVP, Nestea, and MC had ridiculously high winrates for a few years while each year after that 1-2 players would dominate the SC2 scene for about 6-9 months at a time. DRG, MMA, Parting, Life, Innovation, etc... So when you bring up win percentages of course you'll find sc2 players who matched up closely with bonjwas and championship wins. The winrates was non what made BW legends into legends. It was the way they played the game. Their control, their strategies, etc... It was being able to link what actions they did to give them wins. 2010 SC2 had a lot of that as well, but would be immediately patched out. Reapers, Ghosts, Amulet, etc... Things that could would create a gap between the really good players and the cream of the crop. By Red_Viper (mucha thanks for the data) BW Tournaments between 1999 (1 tournament) and 2002 (both osl and msl): 7/13 winners ~ 54% 13/26 possible finalists. ~ 50% edit: sc2: we have 16/22 possible winners (with the 2 osls) ~ 72% and 30/44 possible finalists ~ 68% BW alltime: 30/60 winners ~ 50% and 46/120 possible finalists. ~ 38% I think the above just proved that the bigger the sample size, the more accurate, indisputable that sc1 skill ceiling is way higher than sc2. Lets face it, sc2 is basically the lol of rts. If you increase the sample size even further, you will find the comparison even more glaring. Say take about 22 tournaments up to maybe 2005 of sc1. I think the winners percentage would drop to 50% or even less than all time (due to new generation factor) and the finalist percentage would go down to 40% or so. While i enjoy sc2 when it came out coz ive always been a macro player and pathetic micro player (I hit diamond in a month when diamond was the highest ^^) but i stop playing sc2 within 2 months but i still play sc1 once in a while jes for fun. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On October 11 2013 23:24 Kheve wrote: By Red_Viper (mucha thanks for the data) BW Tournaments between 1999 (1 tournament) and 2002 (both osl and msl): 7/13 winners ~ 54% 13/26 possible finalists. ~ 50% edit: sc2: we have 16/22 possible winners (with the 2 osls) ~ 72% and 30/44 possible finalists ~ 68% BW alltime: 30/60 winners ~ 50% and 46/120 possible finalists. ~ 38% I think the above just proved that the bigger the sample size, the more accurate, indisputable that sc1 skill ceiling is way higher than sc2. Lets face it, sc2 is basically the lol of rts. If you increase the sample size even further, you will find the comparison even more glaring. Say take about 22 tournaments up to maybe 2005 of sc1. I think the winners percentage would drop to 50% or even less than all time (due to new generation factor) and the finalist percentage would go down to 40% or so. While i enjoy sc2 when it came out coz ive always been a macro player and pathetic micro player (I hit diamond in a month when diamond was the highest ^^) but i stop playing sc2 within 2 months but i still play sc1 once in a while jes for fun. WTF are you talking about? Why does that data proof that? Are the timeframes comparable? Is the density in tournaments comparable? Is the amount of progamers comparable? Is the amount of money in the competition compareable? Is the enviroment comparable? Unless you can answer all of those with yes, the situations are not comparable. And stop using the word skill ceiling when you talk about skill floor or something like that. But not skill ceiling. | ||
|
Kheve
323 Posts
Also in a 32 competitor enviroment over 22 tournaments (assuming same generation of players), On average assuming pure chance (cointoss), there would be 44/32 finals appearance for ea player meaning 1/1.375 = 72.73% The actual finals appearance is 68% compared to 72.73% of cointoss. which means the skill level of sc2 is less than 5% difference from a cointoss. In sc1 case cointoss woulda come to 82.85% compared to 50%. Thats very very glaring skill ceiling differences. PS By the way, the differential between the skill and chance % diff is exponential and not linear ie if a result comes to be 10% difference from a cointoss it means its more than double 5% diff. and 20% is also more than double of 10%. The further the % is from cointoss, the more extreme the skill ceiling (ie the top are very very top). If SC2 top is top 1% then BW top comparatively would be <0.01% (someone has to calculated the exact figure) | ||
|
Kheve
323 Posts
On October 11 2013 23:40 Big J wrote: WTF are you talking about? Why does that data proof that? Are the timeframes comparable? Is the density in tournaments comparable? Is the amount of progamers comparable? Is the amount of money in the competition compareable? Is the enviroment comparable? Are the timeframes comparable? YES red_viper was kind enough to mine the correct data. Is the density in tournaments comparable? YES both are open (ie anyone who wants to join and can win others who wanna join) Is the amount of progamers comparable? Irrelevant (1000 noobs progamers can play doesnt mean they can win 10 pro progamers) Is the amount of money in the competition compareable? NO SC2 has WAY MORE MONEY first 3 years. Is the environment comparable? YES open to all who are qualified (who can win others who want to join) Also please look at my above post on how much sc2 skill differs from cointoss aka (skill ceiling) | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 11 2013 23:46 Kheve wrote: Furthermore I should mention 38% ie (on average eveyone who made it to a finals made it ~3times) over a 10 years period is HUGE. Consider the fact that probably 3 new generations must have come and gone for BW progamers compared to 1 generation of SC2 players who are all still competing except for 1. Also in a 32 competitor enviroment over 22 tournaments (assuming same generation of players), On average assuming pure chance (cointoss), there would be 44/32 finals appearance for ea player meaning 1/1.375 = 72.73% The actual finals appearance is 68% compared to 72.73% of cointoss. which means the skill level of sc2 is less than 5% difference from a cointoss. In sc1 case cointoss woulda come to 82.85% compared to 50%. Thats very very glaring skill ceiling differences. Man, your usage of skill celing is so bad, it is worse than your argument. | ||
|
The_Red_Viper
19533 Posts
But i think these data shoes that bw was less volatile than sc2, that isnt shocking (harder mechanics) but you can see it in this data (i guess). I dont think this has anything to do with skill ceiling though, its just way harder to get better in sc2 compared to other progamers, cause there are many things that wont matter that much (as long as you have one strong army you can win, its not important what happened before). Well i dont know if sc2 can stabalize after the last expension (and no patches!), but its pretty damn hard right now to dominate the korean scene. | ||
|
Kheve
323 Posts
On October 12 2013 00:13 The_Red_Viper wrote: btw i didnt use these statictics for any argument cause its pretty hard to do. I did this more or less cause i was curious. But i think these data shoes that bw was less volatile than sc2, that isnt shocking (harder mechanics) but you can see it in this data (i guess). I dont think this has anything to do with skill ceiling though, its just way harder to get better in sc2 compared to other progamers, cause there are many things that wont matter that much (as long as you have one strong army you can win, its not important what happened before). Well i dont know if sc2 can stabalize after the last expension (and no patches!), but its pretty damn hard right now to dominate the korean scene. When looking at skill ceiling, the most general and common denominator is the binomial. Which means ur data tells A LOT more other than just the consistency of results. Assuming top 0.1% > top 1% > top 10% >top 50% is true, then the less champions/finalist percentage would mean a more extreme group of the binomial ie top 0.1%. And a higher champions/finalist percentage would mean a less extreme group of the binomial ie top 1%. Thats why skill ceiling comes into play. SC2 can be won by a more populous binomial group than sc1 can be. By a HUGE margin according to ur data. Which means the skill ceiling is way lower because more ppl can reach it to win. Imagine only 2 person have ever won/finalist. That would reduce the percentage to 7.6 %. that exponentially would mean only the top 0.0000001% etc could win it ( i dunno u gotta calculate 2/whole population to get an exact figure). | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 12 2013 00:13 The_Red_Viper wrote: btw i didnt use these statictics for any argument cause its pretty hard to do. I did this more or less cause i was curious. But i think these data shoes that bw was less volatile than sc2, that isnt shocking (harder mechanics) but you can see it in this data (i guess). I dont think this has anything to do with skill ceiling though, its just way harder to get better in sc2 compared to other progamers, cause there are many things that wont matter that much (as long as you have one strong army you can win, its not important what happened before). Well i dont know if sc2 can stabalize after the last expension (and no patches!), but its pretty damn hard right now to dominate the korean scene. Sort of. SC2 was a lot more consistent early on when people had Reapers, Ghosts, Amulet, etc... to abuse. As each successive "OP" unit got patched the game became less and less consistent. In the time of 4gate MC was unbeatable, almost literally unbeatable winning almost 90% of his PvP matches. As the 4gate got nerfed and nerfed it got more and more coinflippy until it became just a lazerfest. The MSC has improved the possible openers and unit compositions, but there was a magic when PvP was truly who had the best Stalker micro and nothing else. | ||
|
SonKiE
United States167 Posts
IF IT AINT BROKE, DONT FIX IT Also, the game is incredibly inconsistent. No point in being a pro when the winner is decided by dice roles. | ||
|
Grumbels
Netherlands7032 Posts
On October 12 2013 00:40 Thieving Magpie wrote: Sort of. SC2 was a lot more consistent early on when people had Reapers, Ghosts, Amulet, etc... to abuse. As each successive "OP" unit got patched the game became less and less consistent. In the time of 4gate MC was unbeatable, almost literally unbeatable winning almost 90% of his PvP matches. As the 4gate got nerfed and nerfed it got more and more coinflippy until it became just a lazerfest. The MSC has improved the possible openers and unit compositions, but there was a magic when PvP was truly who had the best Stalker micro and nothing else. MC in 2011 lost key series in PvP to HuK, Alicia and HongUn for instance. He really wasn't unbeatable in PvP, it's just that for a while the protoss competition was really bad and he could mop up San, Anypro, Inca and HongUn to pad his winrates. Saying that 4gate was the non-volatile era in PvP is really really questionable/dumb, you always had the option to do defensive vs offensive 4gate and so on. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 12 2013 00:54 SonKiE wrote: Theres so many thing SC2 is doing wrong. The game itself is not bad. Could it be better? Yes, everything could be better. Everything I have seen from Blizzard has been a step backwards, in a way such that your going from an automobile to a stone wheel. No lan? Xbox live Bnet? Also, I have a bone to pick with the WCS system. WCS is basically the SC2 version of the ladder seasons that wc3 had. In wc3, they took the top 8 of each ladder region at the end of each season and sent them off to a lan, the top 3 or so all went to blizzcon or some other lan. Why don't they just do this? Instead, they interlock each tournament with a silly points system and over complicate things. IF IT AINT BROKE, DONT FIX IT Also, the game is incredibly inconsistent. No point in being a pro when the winner is decided by dice roles. No LAN because piracy, and Bobby Kotick likes money. Bnet is fine, granted it does lack in social department. Dunno about your ladder seasons in wc3, never heard about those, and considering amounts of ladder activity top 8 of each ladder region changes every day. Not to mention the existence of shared accounts (top 8 of KR GM consists almost entirely out of those).. Point system is fine, granted WCS may want some work on it. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 12 2013 00:56 Grumbels wrote: MC in 2011 lost key series in PvP to HuK, Alicia and HongUn for instance. He really wasn't unbeatable in PvP, it's just that for a while the protoss competition was really bad and he could mop up San, Anypro, Inca and HongUn to pad his winrates. Saying that 4gate was the non-volatile era in PvP is really really questionable/dumb, you always had the option to do defensive vs offensive 4gate and so on. The people who beat him were few and far between, and for the most part he would beat them more often than they'd beat him. Although it wasn't strategically diverse, the top PvP players were very much distinct at that time period as opposed to now. Heck, you wouldn't call iloveoov a scrub just because he didn't compete in the time of the Flash/Jaedong/Bisu era do you? Of course not, oov was the best in his time, boxer in his time, flash in his time. Qualitative measurements are always relative to the time period. MVP kept winning and most of his strats are what eventually got patched out of terran. After a few years of Blizzard literally patching his innovations to the game MVP finally stopped winning against Koreans as dominantly as he did early on in SC2. Its the same with Nestea. He kept winning everything despite Zerg losing a lot of the time. And as the zerg got more and more of its defensive capabilities buffed Nestea's safe play stopped being good enough to differentiate him since all zergs could now easily survive the early game. There's a reason those three players dominated the scene for the first 2 years even just swapping titles back and forth for about 5 or six GSLs in a row. But after enough patches everyone could be as good as them. For example, I believe that Flash has all of MVP's skills and then some, and if Flash had been playing SC2 in 2010/2011 he would dominate the scene in much the same way that MVP dominated the scene. However, after the game got as many patches as it did, Flash is now just a less struggling MVP as his weaker BW mechanics can't be overcome by pure tactics anymore and why innovation, who had better mechanics than flash but less tactical know how, eventually charged forward as the leader of the terran pack. There was a lot of consistency in early SC2, and had the game not been patched as much as it was it would have stabilized on its own. Reapers seemed too strong, so everyone nerfed it. Now that maps are huge and map makers no longer have to match the ladder 2010 reapers would not be a problem anymore. Do you remember the San vs SC match that got Amulet nerfed? SC wasn't even splitting his army just letting them die to 2-3 storms. Do you think that would be a problem now? Hell no. A lot of the old patches fixed solvable problems. A lot of the things they fixed were aspects the game that allowed players to truly differentiate themselves. The more those "OP" aspects got nerfed the less people are able to differentiate themselves. | ||
|
Hydro033
United States136 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 12 2013 01:22 Hydro033 wrote: My blunt opinion is that foreigners aren't winning anymore. This is hurting global exposure a lot, especially since the decline/retirement of Stephano. Even the retirement of IdrA, whose personality was enough to carry hype. I really think that since Koreans started popping up at events everywhere around the globe and taking foreign victories that foreigners started caring less. Starcraft 2 is not interesting when a single nation dominates everything. People root for the home team. Plain and simple. But this goes against the low skill ceiling argument as well as suggests that BW was a failure for only thriving in one country. | ||
|
lolfail9001
Russian Federation40190 Posts
On October 12 2013 01:22 Hydro033 wrote: My blunt opinion is that foreigners aren't winning anymore. This is hurting global exposure a lot, especially since the decline/retirement of Stephano. Even the retirement of IdrA, whose personality was enough to carry hype. I really think that since Koreans started popping up at events everywhere around the globe and taking foreign victories that foreigners started caring less. Starcraft 2 is not interesting when a single nation dominates everything. People root for the home team. Plain and simple. Rooting for home team in a non-team game is pretty hard. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Other Games |
|
WardiTV Weekly
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
The PondCast
Douyu Cup 2020
Oliveira vs Trap
Jieshi vs XY
soO vs FanTaSy
TY vs Coffee
Douyu Cup 2020
Neeb vs Impact
MacSed vs Cyan
Scarlett vs Kelazhur
INnoVation vs Dear
Douyu Cup 2020
Maestros of the Game
herO vs Classic
Maru vs Serral
BSL22 NKC (BSL vs China)
Douyu Cup 2020
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
