|
On December 09 2013 18:46 Sejanus wrote:Skill is measured by wins, but some people have a different idea. They measure a small subset of skill known as "mechanics" and insist player who clicks on things faster should win. As if StarCraft2 was some sort of clicking competition. Those narrow minded, delusional people keep playing/watching a game existing only in their imagination. I believe they need some sort of professional help, to help them realize that the game they imagine does not exist and never did. The goal in StarCraft 2 is to win, not to click on things as fast as you can.
I agree somewhat, but i've to say that hitmans style really IS coin-flipping. Some of his builds are really luck based.. and i feel that is something very playable for protoss in particular and the reason why they are hated so much.
When watching Hitman play his risk's didn't seem smart to me, they where just based on pure luck and payed off (sometimes). he could've also rolled dice before each match, to see which build he uses (and maybe he did, to not be calculatable  ) and it would've worked out equaly well.
*shrug* I don't think his style is very interesting to watch and sometimes he gets stupidly crushed because of this. (HuK vs Hitman games).
|
|
|
On December 09 2013 22:49 Rasias wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 18:46 Sejanus wrote:
The good old "but he's inferior in skill!
Skill is measured by wins, but some people have a different idea. They measure a small subset of skill known as "mechanics" and insist player who clicks on things faster should win. As if StarCraft2 was some sort of clicking competition. Those narrow minded, delusional people keep playing/watching a game existing only in their imagination. I believe they need some sort of professional help, to help them realize that the game they imagine does not exist and never did. The goal in StarCraft 2 is to win, not to click on things as fast as you can. I agree somewhat, but i've to say that hitmans style really IS coin-flipping. Some of his builds are really luck based.. and i feel that is something very playable for protoss in particular and the reason why they are hated so much. When watching Hitman play his risk's didn't seem smart to me, they where just based on pure luck and payed off (sometimes). he could've also rolled dice before each match, to see which build he uses (and maybe he did, to not be calculatable ) and it would've worked out equaly well. *shrug* I don't think his style is very interesting to watch and sometimes he gets stupidly crushed because of this. (HuK vs Hitman games).
I think both of you are right. Hitman is a smart guy who abuses the strength of protoss perfectly.
But to beat scarlett he needs a bit of luck though.
Please consider, that scarlett played A LOT these days. She might have been just tired...
Grats HuK and <3 Scarlett
Great casting from IdrA!!!!!
|
On December 09 2013 18:46 Sejanus wrote:Skill is measured by wins, but some people have a different idea. They measure a small subset of skill known as "mechanics" and insist player who clicks on things faster should win. As if StarCraft2 was some sort of clicking competition. Those narrow minded, delusional people keep playing/watching a game existing only in their imagination. I believe they need some sort of professional help, to help them realize that the game they imagine does not exist and never did. The goal in StarCraft 2 is to win, not to click on things as fast as you can.
According to this, Soulkey is a bad player because he really lost lots and lots and lots of games to Innovation. You're oversimplifying it.
Let me try (I can fail too, ofc):
Skill = Mechanics + Level of Game Understanding + Knowledge of BOs + Tactical Understanding + Strategic Decisionmaking + Micromanagement + Map Awareness + Physical Ability of Finger Coordination + Preparation Ability
Maybe this. Maybe something else. But skill is NOT solely measured by wins.
|
On December 09 2013 23:28 Bjarne wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 22:49 Rasias wrote:On December 09 2013 18:46 Sejanus wrote:
The good old "but he's inferior in skill!
Skill is measured by wins, but some people have a different idea. They measure a small subset of skill known as "mechanics" and insist player who clicks on things faster should win. As if StarCraft2 was some sort of clicking competition. Those narrow minded, delusional people keep playing/watching a game existing only in their imagination. I believe they need some sort of professional help, to help them realize that the game they imagine does not exist and never did. The goal in StarCraft 2 is to win, not to click on things as fast as you can. I agree somewhat, but i've to say that hitmans style really IS coin-flipping. Some of his builds are really luck based.. and i feel that is something very playable for protoss in particular and the reason why they are hated so much. When watching Hitman play his risk's didn't seem smart to me, they where just based on pure luck and payed off (sometimes). he could've also rolled dice before each match, to see which build he uses (and maybe he did, to not be calculatable ) and it would've worked out equaly well. *shrug* I don't think his style is very interesting to watch and sometimes he gets stupidly crushed because of this. (HuK vs Hitman games). Hitman is a smart guy who abuses the strength of protoss perfectly.
Hitman = new Naniwa
|
On December 09 2013 23:41 boxerfred wrote:
Maybe this. Maybe something else. But skill is NOT solely measured by wins.
It is, but not all wins are created equal.
If player A constantly loses to player B, it doesn't mean player A is bad, especially if player B is an incredibly strong player.
If, on the other hand, player A loses more than he wins against the general pro player "pool", then he is below average.
To measure a player's skill, you need to aggregate their wins and losses across their recent career, and measure each win or loss according to the players they were facing.
Basically, the most faithful measurement tool for player skill is something like Aligulac.
|
On December 09 2013 23:41 boxerfred wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 18:46 Sejanus wrote:
The good old "but he's inferior in skill!
Skill is measured by wins, but some people have a different idea. They measure a small subset of skill known as "mechanics" and insist player who clicks on things faster should win. As if StarCraft2 was some sort of clicking competition. Those narrow minded, delusional people keep playing/watching a game existing only in their imagination. I believe they need some sort of professional help, to help them realize that the game they imagine does not exist and never did. The goal in StarCraft 2 is to win, not to click on things as fast as you can. According to this, Soulkey is a bad player because he really lost lots and lots and lots of games to Innovation. You're oversimplifying it. Let me try (I can fail too, ofc): Skill = Mechanics + Level of Game Understanding + Knowledge of BOs + Tactical Understanding + Strategic Decisionmaking + Micromanagement + Map Awareness + Physical Ability of Finger Coordination + Preparation Ability Maybe this. Maybe something else. But skill is NOT solely measured by wins. WTF is this? If Soulkey loses more games than Innovation to the same level of skill of people, of course Soulkey is a worse player than Innovation. If Soulkey loses to Innovation more than Innovation to Soulkey, then in a Soulkey v Innovation matchup, Innovation is more skilled in that specific player matchup. Skill is solely measured by your wins, who you win against. All the other stuff are just stuff that helps you win games.
|
On December 10 2013 00:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 23:41 boxerfred wrote:On December 09 2013 18:46 Sejanus wrote:
The good old "but he's inferior in skill!
Skill is measured by wins, but some people have a different idea. They measure a small subset of skill known as "mechanics" and insist player who clicks on things faster should win. As if StarCraft2 was some sort of clicking competition. Those narrow minded, delusional people keep playing/watching a game existing only in their imagination. I believe they need some sort of professional help, to help them realize that the game they imagine does not exist and never did. The goal in StarCraft 2 is to win, not to click on things as fast as you can. According to this, Soulkey is a bad player because he really lost lots and lots and lots of games to Innovation. You're oversimplifying it. Let me try (I can fail too, ofc): Skill = Mechanics + Level of Game Understanding + Knowledge of BOs + Tactical Understanding + Strategic Decisionmaking + Micromanagement + Map Awareness + Physical Ability of Finger Coordination + Preparation Ability Maybe this. Maybe something else. But skill is NOT solely measured by wins. WTF is this? If Soulkey loses more games than Innovation to the same level of skill of people, of course Soulkey is a worse player than Innovation. If Soulkey loses to Innovation more than Innovation to Soulkey, then in a Soulkey v Innovation matchup, Innovation is more skilled in that specific player matchup. Skill is solely measured by your wins, who you win against. All the other stuff are just stuff that helps you win games.
"More skilled" yep. But there is absolutely NO information given on the total "amount" of skill, if you only count wins. Skill is NOT measured by wins, skill might be COMPARED or MADE COMPARABLE by wins.
|
On December 10 2013 00:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 23:41 boxerfred wrote:On December 09 2013 18:46 Sejanus wrote:
The good old "but he's inferior in skill!
Skill is measured by wins, but some people have a different idea. They measure a small subset of skill known as "mechanics" and insist player who clicks on things faster should win. As if StarCraft2 was some sort of clicking competition. Those narrow minded, delusional people keep playing/watching a game existing only in their imagination. I believe they need some sort of professional help, to help them realize that the game they imagine does not exist and never did. The goal in StarCraft 2 is to win, not to click on things as fast as you can. According to this, Soulkey is a bad player because he really lost lots and lots and lots of games to Innovation. You're oversimplifying it. Let me try (I can fail too, ofc): Skill = Mechanics + Level of Game Understanding + Knowledge of BOs + Tactical Understanding + Strategic Decisionmaking + Micromanagement + Map Awareness + Physical Ability of Finger Coordination + Preparation Ability Maybe this. Maybe something else. But skill is NOT solely measured by wins. WTF is this? If Soulkey loses more games than Innovation to the same level of skill of people, of course Soulkey is a worse player than Innovation. If Soulkey loses to Innovation more than Innovation to Soulkey, then in a Soulkey v Innovation matchup, Innovation is more skilled in that specific player matchup. Skill is solely measured by your wins, who you win against. All the other stuff are just stuff that helps you win games.
Exactly!
Skill definetly IS measured by wins. Wins and the strenght of the opponent. What else??
|
On December 09 2013 13:28 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 13:25 GGzerG wrote:On December 09 2013 13:20 ElMeanYo wrote:
I have to say Huk really owes Hitman for this series in taking out Scarlett. Everyone expected Scarlett to win this tournament and if she hadn't died to Hitman's cheeze she would have handled Huk easily.
Huk you owe Hitman a big one and I hope you at least buy him a beer or something. You know, this is one of those replys like the " Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda, BUT YOU DIDN'T. " , get over it. Hitman obviously outsmarted scarlett so he deserved the win. But he is FAR inferior in skill and everyone knows it. I don't know if Scarlett was tired or fed up or what, but Hitman should not have had a chance. Do you think we will hear anything about Hitman in 3-4 months? no. Will scarlett continue to place top 8 and consistently beat top Koreans? yes
Some people said the same about Thorzain during his TSL3 run. Until yesterday he was the 5th highest earning foreigner (he's now 6th after been overtaken by Huk). You have no idea how someone is going to turn out.
|
Grats, can't wait for the postmortem 
|
On December 10 2013 01:30 Greendotz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 13:28 ElMeanYo wrote:On December 09 2013 13:25 GGzerG wrote:On December 09 2013 13:20 ElMeanYo wrote:
I have to say Huk really owes Hitman for this series in taking out Scarlett. Everyone expected Scarlett to win this tournament and if she hadn't died to Hitman's cheeze she would have handled Huk easily.
Huk you owe Hitman a big one and I hope you at least buy him a beer or something. You know, this is one of those replys like the " Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda, BUT YOU DIDN'T. " , get over it. Hitman obviously outsmarted scarlett so he deserved the win. But he is FAR inferior in skill and everyone knows it. I don't know if Scarlett was tired or fed up or what, but Hitman should not have had a chance. Do you think we will hear anything about Hitman in 3-4 months? no. Will scarlett continue to place top 8 and consistently beat top Koreans? yes Some people said the same about Thorzain during his TSL3 run. Until yesterday he was the 5th highest earning foreigner (he's now 6th after been overtaken by Huk). You have no idea how someone is going to turn out.
I'm more baffled by people thinking a good player can't sometimes lose a series against a cheesy player. It happens, it's not impossible and many top players have lost series against clearly inferior players. We don't have to bend over backwards to explain this (it's happened to the foreign God stephano on several occasions).
|
On December 09 2013 19:12 yatescutler wrote:
well i watched some matches (masa vs kane and huk vs hitman) and the level of performance shocked me.
can't believe these guys play starcraft for a living.
masa never splited his marines vs kanes banelings, wasnt able to build missle turrets vs a dozen mutas and hitman tried to stalker all in vs 3 immortals despite his blink-micro is piss-poor.
Wow you must be Code S man grats
|
On December 10 2013 00:21 Bjarne wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 00:17 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On December 09 2013 23:41 boxerfred wrote:On December 09 2013 18:46 Sejanus wrote:
The good old "but he's inferior in skill!
Skill is measured by wins, but some people have a different idea. They measure a small subset of skill known as "mechanics" and insist player who clicks on things faster should win. As if StarCraft2 was some sort of clicking competition. Those narrow minded, delusional people keep playing/watching a game existing only in their imagination. I believe they need some sort of professional help, to help them realize that the game they imagine does not exist and never did. The goal in StarCraft 2 is to win, not to click on things as fast as you can. According to this, Soulkey is a bad player because he really lost lots and lots and lots of games to Innovation. You're oversimplifying it. Let me try (I can fail too, ofc): Skill = Mechanics + Level of Game Understanding + Knowledge of BOs + Tactical Understanding + Strategic Decisionmaking + Micromanagement + Map Awareness + Physical Ability of Finger Coordination + Preparation Ability Maybe this. Maybe something else. But skill is NOT solely measured by wins. WTF is this? If Soulkey loses more games than Innovation to the same level of skill of people, of course Soulkey is a worse player than Innovation. If Soulkey loses to Innovation more than Innovation to Soulkey, then in a Soulkey v Innovation matchup, Innovation is more skilled in that specific player matchup. Skill is solely measured by your wins, who you win against. All the other stuff are just stuff that helps you win games. Exactly! Skill definetly IS measured by wins. Wins and the strenght of the opponent. What else?? I'd say skill isn't measured by wins, but that skill is estimated by a combination of gameplay and wins. Because wins alone dont cut it and the relation between gameplay and skill isn't as clear cut, we get these strange discussions without definitive answer.
|
On December 10 2013 05:48 nam nam wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 01:30 Greendotz wrote:On December 09 2013 13:28 ElMeanYo wrote:On December 09 2013 13:25 GGzerG wrote:On December 09 2013 13:20 ElMeanYo wrote:
I have to say Huk really owes Hitman for this series in taking out Scarlett. Everyone expected Scarlett to win this tournament and if she hadn't died to Hitman's cheeze she would have handled Huk easily.
Huk you owe Hitman a big one and I hope you at least buy him a beer or something. You know, this is one of those replys like the " Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda, BUT YOU DIDN'T. " , get over it. Hitman obviously outsmarted scarlett so he deserved the win. But he is FAR inferior in skill and everyone knows it. I don't know if Scarlett was tired or fed up or what, but Hitman should not have had a chance. Do you think we will hear anything about Hitman in 3-4 months? no. Will scarlett continue to place top 8 and consistently beat top Koreans? yes Some people said the same about Thorzain during his TSL3 run. Until yesterday he was the 5th highest earning foreigner (he's now 6th after been overtaken by Huk). You have no idea how someone is going to turn out. I'm more baffled by people thinking a good player can't sometimes lose a series against a cheesy player. It happens, it's not impossible and many top players have lost series against clearly inferior players. We don't have to bend over backwards to explain this (it's happened to the foreign God stephano on several occasions).
Frozean beat Jaedong in BW, he must be a Bonjwa. Odd losses in a game as volatile and deterministic as SC2 really don't mean much. Consistency is what matters, if you want to know anything about a player, look at performance vs top tier opponents over a longer period of time.
Hitman did exactly what he was supposed to vs a stronger opponent and played high risk/high reward, Scarlett played well below par, probably from being exhausted by the clusterfuck that was ASUS ROG. That's it, it literally means zero beyond that. There is not a single high level pro gamer who doesn't have a couple of stupid losses to players they would normally beat.
|
On December 09 2013 13:28 ElMeanYo wrote:
But he is FAR inferior in skill and everyone knows it. I don't know if Scarlett was tired or fed up or what, but Hitman should not have had a chance.
What?
The better player at the moment of the match, always wins, by definition of the word better.
Hitman was better than Scarlett when it counted, which is when they played. There is nothing else to it. Whether or not you think Hitman should have lost, didn't have a chance or how you feel about Scarlett ect... doesn't matter at all. There was saying I heard at the drag strip I used to frequent... we don't race dyno sheets, we race cars. It doesn't matter what a car puts down on paper or how it should do. What matters is how it does do.
Hitman showed up and beat Scarlett. He was the better player.
|
So TB graciously hosted an event to build the NA scene and there were 2 forfeits in the top 8 and more in the earlier rounds? Am I misinformed? That's terrible respect to the only tournament that gives a damn about the NA scene.
|
On December 09 2013 13:28 ElMeanYo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 09 2013 13:25 GGzerG wrote:On December 09 2013 13:20 ElMeanYo wrote:
I have to say Huk really owes Hitman for this series in taking out Scarlett. Everyone expected Scarlett to win this tournament and if she hadn't died to Hitman's cheeze she would have handled Huk easily.
Huk you owe Hitman a big one and I hope you at least buy him a beer or something. You know, this is one of those replys like the " Shoulda, Coulda, Woulda, BUT YOU DIDN'T. " , get over it. Hitman obviously outsmarted scarlett so he deserved the win. But he is FAR inferior in skill and everyone knows it. I don't know if Scarlett was tired or fed up or what, but Hitman should not have had a chance. Do you think we will hear anything about Hitman in 3-4 months? no. Will scarlett continue to place top 8 and consistently beat top Koreans? yes
If Scarlett were skilled enough, she would have deflected his hyperaggressive cheese style.
|
On December 10 2013 06:52 crms wrote:
So TB graciously hosted an event to build the NA scene and there were 2 forfeits in the top 8 and more in the earlier rounds? Am I misinformed? That's terrible respect to the only tournament that gives a damn about the NA scene.
I agree in respect to Demuslim. I mean he should consider himself lucky that the rules let him compete because he's not exactly a North American himself.
MajOr? Maybe it's disrespectful. Lag is a massive bitch though but you didn't see Koreans forfeiting from TSL3 when they weren't used to the latency difference between KR and NA/EU. I would assume for Juan's case it was legitimately bad enough that the series was not worth playing at all.
|
On December 10 2013 07:29 Clbull wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2013 06:52 crms wrote:
So TB graciously hosted an event to build the NA scene and there were 2 forfeits in the top 8 and more in the earlier rounds? Am I misinformed? That's terrible respect to the only tournament that gives a damn about the NA scene. I agree in respect to Demuslim. I mean he should consider himself lucky that the rules let him compete because he's not exactly a North American himself. MajOr? Maybe it's disrespectful. Lag is a massive bitch though but you didn't see Koreans forfeiting from TSL3 when they weren't used to the latency difference between KR and NA/EU. I would assume for Juan's case it was legitimately bad enough that the series was not worth playing at all.
Did you catch the twitter drama with Babyknight? Major forfeited because his comp was getting < 50 fps -.-. Not saying that that's ideal, but Koreans play with way worse conditions (latency/bad hours) in most of these foreign qualifiers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
