|
On October 04 2014 20:46 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 20:42 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 20:39 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:36 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. So what? You're still just explaining that you don't understand what a Power Rank is. Sports websites of all varieties do Power Rankings WEEKLY. Off of as few as ONE GAME per week in the case of the NFL. They are not meant to be taken as serious measurements of exact skill, they are simply there to provide readers with a general gist of who is performing well at the time of the Power Rank with short term trends playing a far larger impact than long term. Go read some sports websites, read their Power Rankings. Get a better understanding of what these are supposed to be like. I edited my post to clarify my point. "A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max." SC2 doesn't have enough games per player for power rankings to be meaningful the same way they are in other sports. You're talking 50 hours of playtime over the course of an entire season. There's definitely comparable number of hours of pro Starcraft players over the course of a year to an NFL team. I should know I spend way more time watching Starcraft than I do even my favorite sport NBA Basketball which has teams playing an 82 game regular season. It's not about the season, it's about the player. If there are a thousand players and each one plays a single hour-long game, there's going to be a lot of SC2 to watch, but the power ranking won't be worth shit because a thousand things could have gone wrong in that game. I understand that power rankings don't intend to measure raw skill, but they do intend to measure something -- I'm guessing they're meant to have some sort of predictive power? (If I'm wrong, please set me straight!) The fewer games you play, the less accurate it'll be. My criticism was simply that some very good players are not playing enough SC2 for us to know where to place them this particular season so as to predict, to any degree, their success in the next season. You watch more sports than I do and it shows. I'm caught wrong-footed here. But I feel intuitively that I've got a point... maybe. Show nested quote +The NFL does weekly power rankings off 3 hours of gametime per team per week. TeamLiquid can afford to do monthly power rankings for Starcraft and be just as legitimate. Very interesting. That's... very... frequent.
Emphasis in bold. Once again you are misunderstanding what a Power Rank is intended to do, predicting future success is not what it's for.
It's just to rank up the best players based on how they played during the period in which they were being ranked, with some weight given to long term or past successes (like Flash's August streak) in this case.
That's it, that's all they're for. Trying to use them for anything else is completely missing the point.
|
On October 04 2014 20:54 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 20:46 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:42 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 20:39 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:36 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. So what? You're still just explaining that you don't understand what a Power Rank is. Sports websites of all varieties do Power Rankings WEEKLY. Off of as few as ONE GAME per week in the case of the NFL. They are not meant to be taken as serious measurements of exact skill, they are simply there to provide readers with a general gist of who is performing well at the time of the Power Rank with short term trends playing a far larger impact than long term. Go read some sports websites, read their Power Rankings. Get a better understanding of what these are supposed to be like. I edited my post to clarify my point. "A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max." SC2 doesn't have enough games per player for power rankings to be meaningful the same way they are in other sports. You're talking 50 hours of playtime over the course of an entire season. There's definitely comparable number of hours of pro Starcraft players over the course of a year to an NFL team. I should know I spend way more time watching Starcraft than I do even my favorite sport NBA Basketball which has teams playing an 82 game regular season. It's not about the season, it's about the player. If there are a thousand players and each one plays a single hour-long game, there's going to be a lot of SC2 to watch, but the power ranking won't be worth shit because a thousand things could have gone wrong in that game. I understand that power rankings don't intend to measure raw skill, but they do intend to measure something -- I'm guessing they're meant to have some sort of predictive power? (If I'm wrong, please set me straight!) The fewer games you play, the less accurate it'll be. My criticism was simply that some very good players are not playing enough SC2 for us to know where to place them this particular season so as to predict, to any degree, their success in the next season. You watch more sports than I do and it shows. I'm caught wrong-footed here. But I feel intuitively that I've got a point... maybe. The NFL does weekly power rankings off 3 hours of gametime per team per week. TeamLiquid can afford to do monthly power rankings for Starcraft and be just as legitimate. Very interesting. That's... very... frequent. Emphasis in bold. Once again you are misunderstanding what a Power Rank is intended to do, predicting future success is not what it's for. It's just to rank up the best players based on how they played during the period in which they were being ranked, with some weight given to long term or past successes (like Flash's August streak) in this case. That's it, that's all they're for. Trying to use them for anything else is completely missing the point.
Well that's that, then. I shouldn't talk about stuff I don't know about. 
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well.
I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot?
|
On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot?
Potential is actually the one thing that is not that much tied with winning/losing. People were perfectly correct in saying that there was more potential in Innovation than anything else when he was losing. Because, you know, "anything else" means essentially: winning. I pretty much agree with Viper, in the end potential doesn't mean shit if you don't win games.
Anyway, a Power Rank shouldn't be about potential at all. It's about who's the strongest, not the strongest prospect.
Edit: Oh and btw, your Power Rank is good, I agree with a lot of it :D
|
On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot?
One thing that can be pretty easy to look at is playstyle. Roro was the king of BL/Infestor. As early as the beta, I remembered people saying "just wait until Roro gets his hands on SH." And what do you know, he had some great SH games (and by great I mean he won them). I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing it, but he has a talent for that style. While that style is weak, that talent is mere potential. But it remains untapped strength. If the style becomes powerful again - meta game shift or balance change or new expansion - then he can become a strong player again.
Innovation's strength is macro and micro, not flexibility. When Protoss was at its trickiest, Innovation fell the hardest because he stubbornly refused to adapt to the dozens of different openings Protoss had. He still had the potential to be an amazing player so long as scouting was once again taken out of the equation. If Tank/Raven becomes the go-to build in every Terran MU, there's only so much he'll be able to get out of that unit comp with his micro, so I seriously doubt he would look dominant.
Can it be measured? No, but I think it can often be observed.
|
On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot?
Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more.
Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo 
And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game"
Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? (but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D)
|
On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game"
Here's something to consider, though: unlike most sports, SC2 is an evolving competition. The skills it rewards change with every expansion, if not with every meta-game shift. Back in WOL beta, creativity was all the rage, and TLO and countless other foreigners had a lot of success trying off the wall builds. SC2 rewarded creativity. Now it just doesn't -- not until you hit the 99th percentile, anyway. It rewards other skills -- like the mechanics of splitting vs Banelings, which MKP invented and are now a requirement for playing TvZ.
Because SC2 keeps changing, it's not unreasonable to ask "what sort of game do we want it to change into? What sort of skills do we want it to reward more frequently or less frequently than it does now?" If someone perceives standard macro play to be a fundamental part of SC2, whereas trickery to come and go with the patches, then it's not unreasonable for that person to think that a strong macro player is "a better SC2 player" even if he loses to shenanigans.
If next week Blizzard decides they agree and makes a new expansion that makes that sort of trickery impossible, that person will have been vindicated. In this case, players aren't getting better or worse, it's the game that's changing around them.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? (but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D)
My point is, how can you determine that a player has potential if winning and losing is all there is?
|
On October 04 2014 21:28 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Here's something to consider, though: unlike most sports, SC2 is an evolving competition. The skills it rewards change with every expansion, if not with every meta-game shift. Back in WOL beta, creativity was all the rage, and TLO and countless other foreigners had a lot of success trying off the wall builds. SC2 rewarded creativity. Now it just doesn't -- not until you hit the 99th percentile, anyway. It rewards other skills -- like the mechanics of splitting vs Banelings, which MKP invented and are now a requirement for playing TvZ. Because SC2 keeps changing, it's not unreasonable to ask "what sort of game do we want it to change into? What sort of skills do we want it to reward more frequently or less frequently than it does now?" If someone perceives standard macro play to be a fundamental part of SC2, whereas trickery to come and go with the patches, then it's not unreasonable for that person to think that a strong macro player is "a better SC2 player" even if he loses to shenanigans. If next week Blizzard decides they agree and makes a new expansion that makes that sort of trickery impossible, that person will have been vindicated. In this case, players aren't getting better or worse, it's the game that's changing around them.
I guess, but this doesn't really matter that much imo. You only can value what already happened, there is no point in adding a factor "what if" into the consideration i think.
An example i like to use: Let's say player X only canon rushes and wins 80% of his games with that strat, does that mean he is good at sc2? I think it does, even if it is arguably not the most exciting strategy out there.
Some people would argue, no he isn't cause "random reason" , but that doesn't really make sense imo (even though i probably would rage too if that player wins vs my favorites :D)
On October 04 2014 21:40 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? (but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D) My point is, how can you determine that a player has potential if winning and losing is all there is?
Sure, you can look at the games one for one and decide how close they were and why player X lost it in the end.
I just don't see why that even matters? Potential is a word made for "loser", as hard as it sounds.
That doesn't mean that a player with "potential" won't ever reach it, but before he does so there is no point in ranking him higher "cause he is soo good, he just can't do it in broadcasted matches"
No he isn't so good, otherwise he would win games.
|
On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? ( but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D)
I think that's the actual point of a power rank. You can't get it right for everybody and it's going to be heavily biased anyways unless you leave it to a public vote. Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... :D
|
On October 04 2014 21:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 21:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Here's something to consider, though: unlike most sports, SC2 is an evolving competition. The skills it rewards change with every expansion, if not with every meta-game shift. Back in WOL beta, creativity was all the rage, and TLO and countless other foreigners had a lot of success trying off the wall builds. SC2 rewarded creativity. Now it just doesn't -- not until you hit the 99th percentile, anyway. It rewards other skills -- like the mechanics of splitting vs Banelings, which MKP invented and are now a requirement for playing TvZ. Because SC2 keeps changing, it's not unreasonable to ask "what sort of game do we want it to change into? What sort of skills do we want it to reward more frequently or less frequently than it does now?" If someone perceives standard macro play to be a fundamental part of SC2, whereas trickery to come and go with the patches, then it's not unreasonable for that person to think that a strong macro player is "a better SC2 player" even if he loses to shenanigans. If next week Blizzard decides they agree and makes a new expansion that makes that sort of trickery impossible, that person will have been vindicated. In this case, players aren't getting better or worse, it's the game that's changing around them. I guess, but this doesn't really matter that much imo. You only can value what already happened, there is no point in adding a factor "what if" into the consideration i think. An example i like to use: Let's say player X only canon rushes and wins 80% of his games with that strat, does that mean he is good at sc2? I think it does, even if it is arguably not the most exciting strategy out there. Some people would argue, no he isn't cause "random reason" , but that doesn't really make sense imo (even though i probably would rage too if that player wins vs my favorites :D)
But again, SC2 is not a static sport. You say that that's "what if," but the only mystery is how exactly the game will change. The fact that it changed fundamentally with HOTS, and will change fundamentally with LOTV, (never mind all other shifts) is undeniable.
If we want to predict who will be good at SC2 six months from now, or after LOTV comes out, or two years after LOTV release, we can't just look at who's winning now, we have to understand why they're winning. Are they a "full package" player who will remain consistent and go with the flow, or are they a one-dimensional one-trick pony?
I don't feel comfortable thinking that SC2 skill is an entirely nebulous thing and I should be happy with anyone winning at any time - "if they won then they deserved it." I want to be able to say that winning a professional match of SC2 means something concrete. Put another way: I don't love SC2 just because it exists, I have high expectations for what I want the game to be at a competitive level, and I want the pros to have to work very hard to earn their victories.
But I've been up for 30 hours now and I'm pretty sure I'm derailing the conversation far from where Zealously wanted to take it. Adios!
|
On October 04 2014 21:52 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? ( but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D) I think that's the actual point of a power rank. You can't get it right for everybody and it's going to be heavily biased anyways unless you leave it to a public vote. Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... :D
Yeah sure, that is the reason i don't get it when people say something like "again people who cause ""drama"" in the power rank thread", it is fun to argue about it (but tbf i guess people use it as a joke most of the time ^^)
Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though...
Well it would be a popularity contest if we made it votable for everyone, i agree.
But why do you think it is one already? I think Zealously does a pretty good job staying as objective as you can be pretty much, obviously bias is always there one way or another, but hey that is totally human.
On October 04 2014 21:59 pure.Wasted wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 21:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:28 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Here's something to consider, though: unlike most sports, SC2 is an evolving competition. The skills it rewards change with every expansion, if not with every meta-game shift. Back in WOL beta, creativity was all the rage, and TLO and countless other foreigners had a lot of success trying off the wall builds. SC2 rewarded creativity. Now it just doesn't -- not until you hit the 99th percentile, anyway. It rewards other skills -- like the mechanics of splitting vs Banelings, which MKP invented and are now a requirement for playing TvZ. Because SC2 keeps changing, it's not unreasonable to ask "what sort of game do we want it to change into? What sort of skills do we want it to reward more frequently or less frequently than it does now?" If someone perceives standard macro play to be a fundamental part of SC2, whereas trickery to come and go with the patches, then it's not unreasonable for that person to think that a strong macro player is "a better SC2 player" even if he loses to shenanigans. If next week Blizzard decides they agree and makes a new expansion that makes that sort of trickery impossible, that person will have been vindicated. In this case, players aren't getting better or worse, it's the game that's changing around them. I guess, but this doesn't really matter that much imo. You only can value what already happened, there is no point in adding a factor "what if" into the consideration i think. An example i like to use: Let's say player X only canon rushes and wins 80% of his games with that strat, does that mean he is good at sc2? I think it does, even if it is arguably not the most exciting strategy out there. Some people would argue, no he isn't cause "random reason" , but that doesn't really make sense imo (even though i probably would rage too if that player wins vs my favorites :D) But again, SC2 is not a static sport. You say that that's "what if," but the only mystery is how exactly the game will change. The fact that it changed fundamentally with HOTS, and will change fundamentally with LOTV, (never mind all other shifts) is undeniable. If we want to predict who will be good at SC2 six months from now, or after LOTV comes out, or two years after LOTV release, we can't just look at who's winning now, we have to understand why they're winning. Are they a "full package" player who will remain consistent and go with the flow, or are they a one-dimensional one-trick pony? I don't feel comfortable thinking that SC2 skill is an entirely nebulous thing and I should be happy with anyone winning at any time - "if they won then they deserved it." I want to be able to say that winning a professional match of SC2 means something concrete. Put another way: I don't love SC2 just because it exists, I have high expectations for what I want the game to be at a competitive level, and I want the pros to have to work very hard to earn their victories. But I've been up for 30 hours now and I'm pretty sure I'm derailing the conversation far from where Zealously wanted to take it. Adios!
If we want to predict who will be good at SC2 six months from now, or after LOTV comes out, or two years after LOTV release, we can't just look at who's winning now
If someone wants to predict who will win a tournament in six months from now i would think that person is insane tbh 
I mean i get what you are saying, i just don't agree with it tbh.
You value certain aspects way over others imo, which might be understandable cause the majority does so (let's be real, most people want to see macro games, that is the reason they value macro players so highly) , but if you try to be objective there simply are no rules how a "legit win" has to look like other than the game itself (aka "all buildings destroyed or to be the last one in the game)
If you can achieve one or the other conistently, it simply doesn't matter how you do it.
You might be right that strategy X could be gone with the next patch, but i don't see the point to value a player differently cause he could be gone with the next patch / metagame shift, i don't think we can look in the future yet
|
On October 04 2014 22:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 21:52 Big J wrote:On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 03:49 KalWarkov wrote:
no maru.
sen in top 5 foreigners, happy not.
everything else is acceptable. It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL. I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? ( but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D) I think that's the actual point of a power rank. You can't get it right for everybody and it's going to be heavily biased anyways unless you leave it to a public vote. Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... :D Yeah sure, that is the reason i don't get it when people say something like "again people who cause ""drama"" in the power rank thread", it is fun to argue about it (but tbf i guess people use it as a joke most of the time ^^) Show nested quote +Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... Well it would be a popularity contest if we made it votable for everyone, i agree. But why do you think it is one already? I think Zealously does a pretty good job staying as objective as you can be pretty much, obviously bias is always there one way or another, but hey that is totally human.
Well, soO not getting the #1 spot "because he cannot make #1 in GSL", and look, who profits from it? His babyboy Zest.
On the flipside we have flash in spot #7, regardless of the fact that he isn't capable of making top8 in GSL. Why? Well, you'd have to put up with a lot of shit if you didn't put flash in a powerrank, so better give the people what they want.
Just two examples of course. You could probably argue Taeja too (but it's TL, Taeja is very popular), Rain and herO (very popular; don't need to achieve a lot to make #1 in powerranks ) etc.
|
On October 04 2014 22:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 22:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:52 Big J wrote:On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:
[quote]
It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL.
I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? ( but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D) I think that's the actual point of a power rank. You can't get it right for everybody and it's going to be heavily biased anyways unless you leave it to a public vote. Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... :D Yeah sure, that is the reason i don't get it when people say something like "again people who cause ""drama"" in the power rank thread", it is fun to argue about it (but tbf i guess people use it as a joke most of the time ^^) Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... Well it would be a popularity contest if we made it votable for everyone, i agree. But why do you think it is one already? I think Zealously does a pretty good job staying as objective as you can be pretty much, obviously bias is always there one way or another, but hey that is totally human. Well, soO not getting the #1 spot "because he cannot make #1 in GSL", and look, who profits from it? His babyboy Zest. On the flipside we have flash in spot #7, regardless of the fact that he isn't capable of making top8 in GSL. Why? Well, you'd have to put up with a lot of shit if you didn't put flash in a powerrank, so better give the people what they want. Just two examples of course. You could probably argue Taeja too (but it's TL, Taeja is very popular), Rain and herO (very popular; don't need to achieve a lot to make #1 in powerranks ) etc.
yeah I remember the shitstorms that were caused when Flash didn't get a high placement in BW PR
|
I don't think that putting Zest over soO is weird tbh (but hey i may be biased as well ), soO over Zest would have been fine too though.
Flash might be arguable, i agree, but cmon, the list isn't bad at all (and as i said, no matter how hard you try, there always will be some bias, AND people who aren't content with the list ^^)
|
Hey, I'm not saying the players on the list are bad or don't deserve the spots. Nor that the spots in particular are really badly chosen. But I think those PRs show a trend that besides players that have obviously performed very well recently (like Cure or Solar in this case), the debatable spots just "happen" to go to the players that are are more popular or have the bigger names. For some it is enough to have good results last month to stay relevant, others can't even get in if they have good results this month.
|
East Gorteau22261 Posts
On October 04 2014 22:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 22:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:52 Big J wrote:On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 03:56 Vindicare605 wrote:
[quote]
It's a September Power Ranking, Maru hasn't done anything worthwhile in September other than be eliminated in the Ro16 from GSL.
I'm a huge Maru fan, but his being omitted from this Power Rank is completely understandable. If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place. But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? ( but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D) I think that's the actual point of a power rank. You can't get it right for everybody and it's going to be heavily biased anyways unless you leave it to a public vote. Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... :D Yeah sure, that is the reason i don't get it when people say something like "again people who cause ""drama"" in the power rank thread", it is fun to argue about it (but tbf i guess people use it as a joke most of the time ^^) Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... Well it would be a popularity contest if we made it votable for everyone, i agree. But why do you think it is one already? I think Zealously does a pretty good job staying as objective as you can be pretty much, obviously bias is always there one way or another, but hey that is totally human. Well, soO not getting the #1 spot "because he cannot make #1 in GSL", and look, who profits from it? His babyboy Zest. On the flipside we have flash in spot #7, regardless of the fact that he isn't capable of making top8 in GSL. Why? Well, you'd have to put up with a lot of shit if you didn't put flash in a powerrank, so better give the people what they want. Just two examples of course. You could probably argue Taeja too (but it's TL, Taeja is very popular), Rain and herO (very popular; don't need to achieve a lot to make #1 in powerranks ) etc.
I actually think that as long as Life, Sora ( -.- ) and Bbyong aren't in the discussion for top 10, I have little trouble remaining mostly objective. I resent the notion that I'd keep Flash (for example) on the Power Rank because people would be upset otherwise, I don't care very much about people disagreeing with me!
|
On October 04 2014 23:10 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 22:33 Big J wrote:On October 04 2014 22:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:52 Big J wrote:On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:
[quote]
If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place.
But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? ( but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D) I think that's the actual point of a power rank. You can't get it right for everybody and it's going to be heavily biased anyways unless you leave it to a public vote. Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... :D Yeah sure, that is the reason i don't get it when people say something like "again people who cause ""drama"" in the power rank thread", it is fun to argue about it (but tbf i guess people use it as a joke most of the time ^^) Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... Well it would be a popularity contest if we made it votable for everyone, i agree. But why do you think it is one already? I think Zealously does a pretty good job staying as objective as you can be pretty much, obviously bias is always there one way or another, but hey that is totally human. Well, soO not getting the #1 spot "because he cannot make #1 in GSL", and look, who profits from it? His babyboy Zest. On the flipside we have flash in spot #7, regardless of the fact that he isn't capable of making top8 in GSL. Why? Well, you'd have to put up with a lot of shit if you didn't put flash in a powerrank, so better give the people what they want. Just two examples of course. You could probably argue Taeja too (but it's TL, Taeja is very popular), Rain and herO (very popular; don't need to achieve a lot to make #1 in powerranks ) etc. I actually think that as long as Life, Sora ( -.- ) and Bbyong aren't in the discussion for top 10, I have little trouble remaining mostly objective. I resent the notion that I'd keep Flash (for example) on the Power Rank because people would be upset otherwise, I don't care very much about people disagreeing with me!
I think if anything else was the case, you absolutly couldn't make such a PR. I think I couldn't do it. I usually don't like making these calls, way too many perspectives for a single person to make the right ones. I'm just a jerk to others for not agreeing with my perspectives.
|
On October 04 2014 23:10 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2014 22:33 Big J wrote:On October 04 2014 22:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:52 Big J wrote:On October 04 2014 21:19 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 21:03 Zealously wrote:On October 04 2014 20:43 The_Red_Viper wrote:On October 04 2014 20:33 pure.Wasted wrote:On October 04 2014 20:21 Vindicare605 wrote:On October 04 2014 08:23 pure.Wasted wrote:
[quote]
If I were personally doing a PR, long-term trends would hold much more sway. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge the exact skill level of all, say, top twenty Korean pros at any given time... so we end up with the silly situation of Maru having one shitty day and vanishing from the top 10. Maru's done with competitive SC2 until 2015 S1, for all intents and purposes, so arguably the best SC2 player in the world will be absent from PR for a stretch of 5-6 months. Probably longer, unless he gets Zest and soO in his RO32 group and gets out in first place.
But I'm not personally doing a PR. :x You don't understand what a Power Rank is do you? It isn't a ranking of exact skill level. There just isn't enough SC2 on a month-to-month basis to properly gauge [exactly how well players are performing]. Winning =! performing. A lot of stuff goes into a win that has little/nothing to do with your own performance, including your opponent's performance, and luck. A shitty NFL team will play 16 games x 3 hours = 50 hours worth of playtime to draw conclusions from. How many hours do we get of the most prolific players, like soO? Ten? Max. Winning is all that matters. It is ridiculous to watch someone play and say "oh his play is really good but somehow he loses all the time". Either you win or you lose, HOW you do it is completely irrelevant imo. Edit: But i agree that a power rank every month might be too much, i think it would be better if you had more games to look at as well. I don't remember if you were the guy I talked to about this last month, but I think there's definitely more to SC than just winning or losing. I remember saying that Fionn predicted Innovation being great when he had an abysmal record in Proleague, to which the response was "Well, that's more potential than anything.", But how do you measure a player's potential if there's nothing more to being good than winning a lot? Sure, but "potential" is just that, nothing more. Either you play to your full potential or you don't. This has very little to do with valuating the current performance imo And yeah it probably was me, cause i still think it doesn't matter HOW you win a game, i almost cringe when i see people say "well it doesn't count cause it wasn't a 5 hour macro game" Edit: I also think your power rank here is pretty good, i just think every month might be a little bit too much maybe? ( but on the other hand i enjoy reading them and arguing about it, so whatever :D) I think that's the actual point of a power rank. You can't get it right for everybody and it's going to be heavily biased anyways unless you leave it to a public vote. Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... :D Yeah sure, that is the reason i don't get it when people say something like "again people who cause ""drama"" in the power rank thread", it is fun to argue about it (but tbf i guess people use it as a joke most of the time ^^) Which then turns it into a popularity contest. Which it already is though... Well it would be a popularity contest if we made it votable for everyone, i agree. But why do you think it is one already? I think Zealously does a pretty good job staying as objective as you can be pretty much, obviously bias is always there one way or another, but hey that is totally human. Well, soO not getting the #1 spot "because he cannot make #1 in GSL", and look, who profits from it? His babyboy Zest. On the flipside we have flash in spot #7, regardless of the fact that he isn't capable of making top8 in GSL. Why? Well, you'd have to put up with a lot of !@#$%^&* if you didn't put flash in a powerrank, so better give the people what they want. Just two examples of course. You could probably argue Taeja too (but it's TL, Taeja is very popular), Rain and herO (very popular; don't need to achieve a lot to make #1 in powerranks ) etc. I actually think that as long as Life, Sora ( -.- ) and Bbyong aren't in the discussion for top 10, I have little trouble remaining mostly objective. I resent the notion that I'd keep Flash (for example) on the Power Rank because people would be upset otherwise, I don't care very much about people disagreeing with me!
It was only a month ago that he basically outplayed the "best player in the world" in a bo7 series. No way has he gotten that much worse since then. He obviously still deserves to be on the list.
|
People are arguing whether we should count wins only or general performance. As far as I see, Maru was kicked out because he didn't won his matches but there is that statement about TeaJa, written on the power rank:
Three series in all of September isn't enough for me to kick Taeja out of the Power Rank
And I think that Teaja is there only because he is in TL. Well, if Teaja was that good, then he will be playing in Code S and not barely making it to Ro32 of WCS AM. If you want to make a PR based only on results then don't be (positively) biased with any TL gamer.
All in all I would like to see a more general PR based on performance and not only on wins in a Bo3 or Bo5.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
