|
On December 13 2013 21:26 Wombat_NI wrote:
Half health would equal everything melting faster and the game being more volatile.
By 'unpredictable' people seem to be desiring a truly dominant player, a bonjwa as being the only acceptable metric by which volatility is judged.
We have a clear hierarchy of consistent top tier players, who play across different tournaments and regions as it is. I don't see the inconsistency in level. 'Random' results are often due to a player clearly playing below their level, often attributed to jetlag and whatnot.
Terrans:
Taeja, Maru, Innovation, Bomber. The latter has always been inconsistent, it's his charm!
Protoss:
SoS, Dear, Rain
Zergs:
Soulkey, Jaedong, a resurgent Life too.
IF these guys all played in the same region, focusing on ONE tournament I think they'd consistently be at the top end of said tournament. All of them showed good results in Proleague relative to the shape they were in, Jaedong now is a different beast to Jaedong back then.
You are just picking the players that have won some tournaments in the last couple of months.
That itself doesn't make the players consistent.
4 months ago, Bomber, sOs, Dear, Maru, Jaedong and Life wouldn't have been on your list at all.
If the players change every couple of months, then they are not consistent.
I agree that there doesn't need to be one dominant player, it can also be a group of dominant players.
But then these players should at least consistently show good results for every tournament they enter.
Consistently over the range of seasons or even years, that is.
Check out the current London Classic Super Sixteen Chess tournament:
http://www.chessvibes.com/favourites-qualify-for-quarter-finals-in-london
This is a rapid tournament, so you would expect some upsets.
However, the top 8 ranked players also made it to the round of 8.
This is something that is unthinkable in SC2.
Quoting from the site:
"The tournament has had a number of surprise individual results but in the end the double-cycle all-play-all format has ensured that the consistent performers have come through."
So to reiterate, there are two issues in SC2:
- There is no world wide accepted Elo ranking system.
- The knockout format in addition to the lack of seeding almost guarantees random results
Blizzard mentioned in the interview that they prefer the knockout system because it allows the underdogs to win.
However, if the underdogs win every time, it kind of defeats the purpose.
Many people here are claiming that the game itself is the reason for the inconsistency.
It is true that there are many situations in the game where one mistake or oversight can lose it all.
However, this can also be said for chess:
The best player is the one who makes the least mistakes.
Likewise in SC2, the top players are the ones that know best how to avoid those game ending mistakes.
|
Russian Federation40190 Posts
They are perfectly predictable, if we know everything about every single player. Since we do not, they do not seem to be predictable.
|
On December 13 2013 17:55 DaftFunk wrote:
- sc2 is still "new" compared to bw. it took at least 3 years for bw's first bonjwa to develop, then far and few in between then and 2012. we wont see a bw flash or jaedong in sc2 until like 10 years from now.
We already saw MvP.
|
I think the game hasn't been fully figured out yet. Code S at least has a small amount of de facto seeding in that the previous season's semi finalists are each placed in their own group and get to pick one person in their group. Game strategies are still evolving, the things people did in season 1 or WoL almost never work now.
I don't think chess is a good parallel to SC2. IMO tennis and car/motorcycle racing are probably the best analogies. Men's tennis is only consistent for guys named Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, and Murray. Everyone else varies widely. But women's tennis has much more variation. Li Na can win the championship or get eliminated in the 2nd round and neither is a surprising result, depending on how she looks. Formula 1 racing is also consistent for guys named Sebastian Vettel, not so much for everyone else.
Brood War took a few years to get properly consistent champions. It will happen sooner or later, when the amount of time put I to the game allows people to differentiate themselves a lot, even in Korea.
|
"Matches are too short; BO3 and BO5 are too volatile"¨
Dumbest statement imo, how the hell can they play bo5/7 all the time, lol. Learn from BW instead, only bo5 in semi and final.
|
There are at least 20 Koreans smash every foregner.
Ofc. there are upsets and exceptions, but where do the consistant Korean dominance fit in this discusssion?
|
I don't really think they have been that volatile or unpredictable the last 8 months, and that's 8 months of a completely new expansion.
|
i had to laugh pretty hard when i read "artosis curse" as one of the reasons.
|
WoL era: MC/hero, MVP/MMA, Nestea/stephano
Hots era: sOs/dear, inno/teaja, Scarlett/Soulkey
Of course this is only my opinion, but for me there is always some players above for each race. 
|
On December 13 2013 21:03 asdfOu wrote:
MAKE EVERYTHING HALF HEALTH OR SOEMTHING LIKE THAT TO REWARD MICRO
i would suggest make it 2x health . lower health = units die faster= you cant micro at all sometimes .
|
dude, urBoss AND everyone else MC also made into the finals twice s2 and s3
|
On December 15 2013 18:55 Figgy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 17:55 DaftFunk wrote:
- sc2 is still "new" compared to bw. it took at least 3 years for bw's first bonjwa to develop, then far and few in between then and 2012. we wont see a bw flash or jaedong in sc2 until like 10 years from now. We already saw MvP.
Yeah, that tournament sure was great, but I guess you are talking about Mvp.
Mvp = Player
MVP = Team
MvP = Weird MLG tournament.
|
On December 15 2013 22:20 MiniFotToss wrote:
dude, urBoss AND everyone else MC also made into the finals twice s2 and s3
That's true, but he made it only once to the Ro8 which was under comparison.
|
Even when people scout, pros can swap builds so fast that it doesn't really matter. It's really just luck nowadays. If you throw down something that counters your opponents build you win. You get lucky by doing that if you weren't scouting the whole game.
|
On December 15 2013 18:29 urboss wrote:
Many people here are claiming that the game itself is the reason for the inconsistency.
It is true that there are many situations in the game where one mistake or oversight can lose it all.
However, this can also be said for chess:
The best player is the one who makes the least mistakes.
Likewise in SC2, the top players are the ones that know best how to avoid those game ending mistakes.
Yes except you're leaving out the crucial factor that in SC2 there is a massive fog of war that cloaks your enemy's movements and decisions the vast majority of the time, which means its very easy to make that mistake and lose due to build order choice or cheese. This is impossible in chess, which is why its so much more consistent. How many times have we seen in tournaments the crucial importance of a player scouting some tech structure as the casters freak out over whether he/she will see it or not?
Even if you scout your opponent, it still isn't a guarantee. We saw this clearly from SoS in the championships as all the casters noted that his unpredictability made him very dangerous. To some extent the matchups are well-understood and stale in that the unit compositions tend to be identical game after game, but its the timings that can really throw pro-gamers off.
When you watch tournaments you clearly see people losing because they aren't aware that their opponent is gearing up for a massive assault. How can this be interpreted as not having figured out the game yet? It comes down purely to scouting information which is unreliable for more than a minute. The game can never be 'figured out' so long as this fog of war persists and scouting is erratic or denied, people will constantly be blind-sided by things they did not expect as there is no universal build order.
|
It's because the game's so volatile. You cannot really micro / manage your way out of a bad engagement because the initial concave and the first shots determine so, so much. In addition, macro is comparably easy so it's much more difficult to make a difference in that way. Furthermore, all in builds are still very effective in SC2 in comparison to SCBW and allow the worse player to defeat the better ones. In addition, most of the games aren't Bo5 but Bo3 which furthermore gives more of a chance for upsets .
Apart from that, the differences in skill really aren't huge in the first place.
|
|
|
On December 16 2013 09:06 radscorpion9 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2013 18:29 urboss wrote:
Many people here are claiming that the game itself is the reason for the inconsistency.
It is true that there are many situations in the game where one mistake or oversight can lose it all.
However, this can also be said for chess:
The best player is the one who makes the least mistakes.
Likewise in SC2, the top players are the ones that know best how to avoid those game ending mistakes.
Yes except you're leaving out the crucial factor that in SC2 there is a massive fog of war that cloaks your enemy's movements and decisions the vast majority of the time, which means its very easy to make that mistake and lose due to build order choice or cheese. This is impossible in chess, which is why its so much more consistent. How many times have we seen in tournaments the crucial importance of a player scouting some tech structure as the casters freak out over whether he/she will see it or not? Even if you scout your opponent, it still isn't a guarantee. We saw this clearly from SoS in the championships as all the casters noted that his unpredictability made him very dangerous. To some extent the matchups are well-understood and stale in that the unit compositions tend to be identical game after game, but its the timings that can really throw pro-gamers off. When you watch tournaments you clearly see people losing because they aren't aware that their opponent is gearing up for a massive assault. How can this be interpreted as not having figured out the game yet? It comes down purely to scouting information which is unreliable for more than a minute. The game can never be 'figured out' so long as this fog of war persists and scouting is erratic or denied, people will constantly be blind-sided by things they did not expect as there is no universal build order.
Agreed, but here's the thing:
Both players have to deal with the ramifications the fog of war brings about.
And the one player who deals better with the circumstances is the better player.
This may not become apparent in one game or one match or even one tournament.
But in the long run, this should be reflected in the results.
Single SC2 games are susceptible to random results, due to the various reasons already mentioned.
It follows that the win of one game might not necessarily reflect the win of the better player.
This is not a big deal, because in the long run, we should see the better players win.
However, now we are introducing even more randomness into the system by having knock-out tournaments without seeding:
Some Random + Some Random = Very Random
As a result, it is now even harder to see top players win consistently.
The tournament structure would be an easy thing to fix, while it would be pointless to all of a sudden change core aspects of the game.
|
[QUOTE]On December 15 2013 18:55 Figgy wrote:
[QUOTE]On December 13 2013 17:55 DaftFunk wrote:
- sc2 is still "new" compared to bw. it took at least 3 years for bw's first bonjwa to develop, then far and few in between then and 2012. we wont see a bw flash or jaedong in sc2 until like 10 years from now.[/QUOTE]
We already saw MvP.[/QUOTE
you really consider Mvp a bonjwa??
lmao
|
On December 12 2013 15:39 BronzeKnee wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 15:31 bduddy wrote:
More tournaments than BW -> more winners -> more perceived unpredictability. This would indeed be true if the top BW players had roughly the same winrate as the top SC2 players today. With all other things equal, more games played leads to winrates closer to 50% for outliers, i.e. the top (and bottom) players. Basic statistics, man...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
