In other sports there seems to be much more dominance and consistence of single individuals. e.g.: Vitali Klitschko, Novak Djokovic, Magnus Carlsen, Usain Bolt, etc...
Can we get some actual win rates for top players in other 1v1 games for comparison? I'd like to see Go, Chess, Tennis, MMA, and/or fencing. I wasn't able to find good enough stats, but some exact numbers would be helpful. Saying that "there seems to be much more dominance..." doesn't mean much without some numbers to back it up. Otherwise we can just say that "MKP seemed to dominate for a while," or "MC dominated for a while," and not need to prove it.
To give you an idea about tennis, here is the comparison of all Grand Slam tournaments since 2003:
Roger Federer was just ridiculously consistent for more than a decade. He made it into the Ro4 of the Grand Slams almost every single time over a period of 9 years. The same goes for Rafael Nadal on sand, he won the French Open every time except for 2009.
Novak Djokovic is the new dominator. As previously mentioned, he had a win rate of 90.2% in 2013 (80% counting sets).
Each Tennis set consists of a BO11 (or 13) games. Each game consists of a BO7+ points.
If SC2 players played matches consisting of that many points, games, and sets, you would find just as much consistency.
On December 22 2013 09:34 Esoterikk wrote: Sc2 isn't a strategy game anymore, it's muscle memory and build orders. strategy died with blobs.
Odd, from what I hear, BW had an even higher requirement of muscle memory, and it was the "greatest game ever". So you're saying BW was less strategic than SC2?
On December 22 2013 09:34 Esoterikk wrote: Sc2 isn't a strategy game anymore, it's muscle memory and build orders. strategy died with blobs.
Odd, from what I hear, BW had an even higher requirement of muscle memory, and it was the "greatest game ever". So you're saying BW was less strategic than SC2?
Incorrect, BW had more strategical option than SC2 AND w/ a higher requirement of muscle memory.
Having higher requirement of muscle memory and more strategical options aren't mutually exclusive.
On December 22 2013 09:34 Esoterikk wrote: Sc2 isn't a strategy game anymore, it's muscle memory and build orders. strategy died with blobs.
Odd, from what I hear, BW had an even higher requirement of muscle memory, and it was the "greatest game ever". So you're saying BW was less strategic than SC2?
Mechanical difficulty and strategic depth aren't mutually exclusive.
the top 8 in the season finals is kinda a bad sample size... u should look at tpo 8 in all wcs in the regions to be honest which just off the top of my head i know alot of names will be repeated
On December 22 2013 13:21 Mvrio wrote: can someone explain the "Artosis curse"? I'm pretty sure its a funny story but just don't recall
There was no singular incident to jumpstart it, if that's what you mean. Artosis just has a way of making very bold - and very incorrect - pronouncements about who will win in a given series. He's probably no more wrong than any other caster on average, but confirmation bias has seen fit to strike fear into the hearts of SC fans any time Artosis predicts a fan favorite to win.
During WCS finals for example, there was about a page of 'gg jaedong' comments the moment Artosis said he expected Jaedong to beat sOs going into the match.
Matches are too short; BO3 and BO5 are too volatile
BW had Bo1 group stages both in KeSPA-sanctioned leagues and in WCG back when it was considered a totally serious tournament. Short series are not too volatile. WCG was also entirely Bo3 series beyond the group stage; even the semis and grand-finals were Bo3. AFAIK, MSL and OSL only had Bo5 series past the playoff stage anyway.
So no, short series are not the problem.
Knockout vs. round-robin format: The knockout format greatly increases elements of luck
Valid point but there were dominant players at the top level in individual MSL/OSL tournaments, even five bonjwas; BoxeR, iloveoov, NaDa, He Who Must Not Be Named and Flash. In fact, Proleague was the only real test of skill within a round robin setting.
There is no world wide accepted Elo ranking system
It's just a way of measuring skill. That should not affect tournament results at all.
On December 22 2013 13:21 Mvrio wrote: can someone explain the "Artosis curse"? I'm pretty sure its a funny story but just don't recall
There was no singular incident to jumpstart it, if that's what you mean. Artosis just has a way of making very bold - and very incorrect - pronouncements about who will win in a given series. He's probably no more wrong than any other caster on average, but confirmation bias has seen fit to strike fear into the hearts of SC fans any time Artosis predicts a fan favorite to win.
During WCS finals for example, there was about a page of 'gg jaedong' comments the moment Artosis said he expected Jaedong to beat sOs going into the match.
In 2012 and 2013, he's actually been spot-on when cursing players. The most notable incident was when he tweeted "GOGOGOGOGOGOGO @SKMC" in Game 7 of the WCS Europe S2 finals when he faced Duckdeok.
On December 22 2013 13:11 psychotics wrote: the top 8 in the season finals is kinda a bad sample size... u should look at tpo 8 in all wcs in the regions to be honest which just off the top of my head i know alot of names will be repeated
Making stats of WCS EU or WCS America doesn't make much sense since there are a handful of Koreans and the majority is foreigners. We already know that Koreans are consistently better than most foreigners. This thread is about comparing the cream of the crop.
That said, I already did compare the WCS Korea region, which is probably the only thing worth comparing because of the steady player pool:
The score represents the number of times they made it to the Ro4 compared to the total number of tournaments they played in and should give an indication of how consistent the player is.
The number of tournaments is the sum of all premier tournaments they played in, starting from the first time they made it the Ro4. The info was taken from the player pages: e.g.: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Maru/Results
A few things to note: - This includes any premier tournaments, so that the player pools are not everywhere the same - If we did the same thing with GSLs only, scores would look much worse. - It is much harder to be consistent over a longer period of time
That said, Maru, Soulkey and Dear do look quite impressive over a short period of time. Let's see if they can prove themselves in the next year as well.
These are the tennis scores for comparison. Mind that this is only counting Grand Slams!
I feel like there are three factors in play to explain the unpredictability of results:
1. Constant balance changes:
Brood War had no balance changes for over a decade. The game is so complex and deep that even years after its release, people have found new strategies and some of said strategies (i.e. sAviOr's TvZ) have revolutionized the metagame and reversed Terran vs Zerg winrates at a time when people QQ'd for balance adjustments.
If David Kim buffed Oracles to the point where every Terran now has to build an Engineering Bay just in case their opponent gets bored of opening 2 base double forge Colossus and makes a proxy Stargate, since not having turrets will result in you outright losing the game to an air unit that can obliterate Marines and SCVs with absolute ease; is it not surprising that we are seeing lots of Terran balance whine and an imbalance in terms of Protoss winrates on ladder?
2. Racial Imbalance/Lowered Skill Ceiling:
This sounds like a contradiction of point #1 but let me explain my point thoroughly and highlight why SC2 is the way it is.
This is not wholly due to the simplification of mechanics between BW and SC2. Improving game mechanics to make playing a game less frustrating is a good thing provided you have a variety of playstyles that are viable and high amounts of micromanagement are rewarded rather than mandated. League of Legends is a great example of how Riot Games have managed to both do this wrong and right compared to DOTA 2. The swing delay in LoL is far less prevalent meaning that last hitting is far easier which makes the game far less frustrating but at the same time mechanics and game design have been too simplified causing a stagnant metagame, one specific team formation (AP mid, bruiser top, ganker as jungler, support and ADC, all in very specific parts of the map) and composition required to win and a lack of ability to really reverse a game after it's been snowballed in one team's favor. I won't go into too much detail but the lack of denying and the wide homogenization of item stats and runes contributes a lot to this.
The only units currently used in the SC2 metagame that really reward high levels of micromanagement are Terran bio units, hellions, zerglings, banelings, mutalisks and to a lesser extent, Phoenixes and Stalkers which are considered quite weak for Protoss in the later game.
Protoss units have the greatest imbalance in terms of skill ceiling. With just 3 - 5 actions, Sentries can entrap or divide entire armies. Colossi are highly powerful, require only half-decent positioning and an attack-move command to really utilize to their fullest extent and unlike Reavers, their movement speed and ability to walk up cliffs is so good that drop micro is actually discouraged rather than necessary because that Warp Prism you made and speed upgrade you researched could have been an extra Colossus in an actual engagement and the difference between narrowly losing said engagement and curb stomping your opponent.
Now compare this to the Terran composition which mainly consists of Marines, Marauders, Medivacs (and either Hellbats in TvP or Widow Mines in TvZ) in the non-mirror matchups. MMMM and MMMH require very high levels of micromanagement to even trade with midgame armies, and the requirements to trade with 3-3 deathballs in terms of flanks, micromanagement and pure reaction time are impossibly high to the point where even Terran pros like Bomber, TaeJa, Kas and Qxc have expressed pure hatred for Protoss.
Why is this the case? Because Terran low-micro units especially are heavily punished.
Siege Tanks are extremely immobile yet Protoss and Zerg late game armies are so tanky against the Siege Tank that they can attack-move into a huge cluster of Siege Tanks and still trade really well. If they perform so well versus a huge cluster of tanks, imagine how badly they sodomize small amounts of tanks and a planetary fortress holding a key position. Tanks also take a long time to siege up, are expensive relative to their actual power, supply intensive and this is the reason the Widow Mine has completely phased out the tank in TvZ even post-nerf.
Hellbats have been heavily nerfed and don't even remotely fulfill the role they were originally meant to (a meatshield designed to thwart light units) They perform badly versus Zealots and Zerglings, REALLY badly versus Psistorms and Banelings and don't even get me started on them vs Armored units...
And finally... the Thor. It's too expensive and despite being listed as a counter to the Mutalisk, a simple micro trick executed through one or two actions reverses the odds and makes mass Mutalisks the hard counter to the Thor.
Spellcasters are also where this imbalance remains prevalent although their flaws lie in the inconsistency of their design rather than the level of micromanagement required to utilize them. What I mean is that:
High Templar can deal 80 damage over 4 seconds, instant cast. They also cost 50 Minerals and 150 Gas
Infestors can deal 30 (40 vs Armored) damage over 4 seconds to a clump of units through a fast moving projectile. They cost 100 Minerals and 150 Gas. Despite their higher resource cost to High Templar, their value is still worthwhile. The unit was even considered overpowered in Wings back when Fungal Growth had an instant effect.
Sentries can impede movement through a single forcefield. Just one forcefield is enough to entirely block a ramp, making certain cheese strategies highly effective
The Mothership Core and Photon Overcharge can hold virtually any 1 or 2 base push in PvT. It's the sole reason why 3-Rax and 2-Rax Concussive expand are dead builds.
The Oracle is a walking contradiction of itself. Whereas Hellbats were nerfed heavily because they could quickly kill mineral lines if your opponent did nothing to prepare for them, Oracles have such high DPS vs Light that they can slaughter entire mineral lines in split seconds unless you already have static defences up. This isn't a problem for the Zerg because Spore Crawlers only cost 75 Minerals, no longer require an Evolution Pit, are made from an easily amassed Drone, and detection is always good. For Terrans? They can only produce 1 SCV at a time and going Engineering Bay early is often a huge but mandatory build order deviation to prevent an outright build order counter vs Proxy Stargate.
Ghosts can deplete 100 Shields instantly in a small area or 100 Energy, making them only useful against spellcasters and Protoss units. They cost 200 Minerals and 100 Gas, already making them far more mineral intensive than other spellcasters.
Ravens used to be and are still trash. They cost 100 Minerals and 200 Gas, making them the most gas-intensive spellcaster in the game. Unlike Fungal Growth and Psionic Storm, Seeker Missile is also highly inconsistent. Whereas you have to instantly split or pre-split your army in anticipation of a game-ending storm or money fungal, Seeker Missile gives the opponent way too much breathing room to either retreat and make the missile fizzle out or move red units away from the deathball, either way nullifying the Raven's actual damage potential.
If this is too much and actually balance whine, I'm sorry. I will actually try and find hard evidence to back this shit up. In the meantime, just understand that the weaknesses of Mech are the reason why we see bio-mine or pure-bio in every game and a total stagnation of the metagame.
This is the best explanation I can muster to explain why every Korean Terran goes biomine in TvZ or bio in TvP.
3. Too many tournaments:
In 2011 and 2012 we had ludicrous amounts of international tournaments and at least five GSLs in a year while we'd have at best 3 Korean Starleagues a year and even in 2013 we had far more international tournaments than were ever hosted in BW.
If you have loads of tournaments and if you fly out entire rosters from Korea to America/Europe all the time, you are going to get a lot of problems in terms of competition, new playstyles and just pure underperformance due to jet-lag.
I would love that they implement what's shown in Depth of Micro.
Has David Kim even watched the video? These are very simple to implement (heh, if they're in the StarEdit, or w/e the SC2 version is called ), and achieve much without adding a huge complexity to the game (which seems to be the pest according to Blizzard, as shown by the over simplification of everything they released for quite some time now).
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/T0JjJ2Z.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ZWb8Ye4.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/5BJ7V3i.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cv0SIB3.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/dAOwk7C.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/WHVyvRA.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/sSBGWfZ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Rsa45Od.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/817hSdi.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2r21z4x.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/0ly99h5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fltyLIN.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/eG9sS8g.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/HPFzCrJ.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/cAkc6Kf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/oEIScaq.png)
), and achieve much without adding a huge complexity to the game (which seems to be the pest according to Blizzard, as shown by the over simplification of everything they released for quite some time now).
