On June 06 2017 01:03 DieuCure wrote: You really think he only plays ladder ? ...
Just look at TY, when he plays ladder it's for his stream.
Think whatever you like.
That's not a strong argument Like i totally see that the general competitive lvl isn't as high. Makes sense, players can train whenever they like, most of it probably just before some improtant match (during proleague days that was 24/7 basically) At the same time, if you heard a story about taeja doing that it would mean he is a prodegy and nothign else, biased somewhat?
Even with proleague, look at Zest Innovation etc
Sure general lvl was higher, but i dont think ro16/8 lvl is lower. Player like Creator still struggles ( sadly ) even if he practices a lot on stream.
On June 06 2017 01:03 DieuCure wrote: You really think he only plays ladder ? ...
Just look at TY, when he plays ladder it's for his stream.
Think whatever you like.
That's not a strong argument Like i totally see that the general competitive lvl isn't as high. Makes sense, players can train whenever they like, most of it probably just before some improtant match (during proleague days that was 24/7 basically) At the same time, if you heard a story about taeja doing that it would mean he is a prodigy and nothign else, biased somewhat?
Taeja did it at a time when everyone else was practicing 10-14 hours a day in KeSPA training facilities and he himself essentially didn't practice for months while beating up the best in the world anyway. You'd have to be biased yourself to not see the difference.
I mean i could start the whole weekend tournament vs starleague stuff again, but that wouldn't do anything anyway. This isn't even about Taeja, i just think it's funny that in one instant the assumed (more or less) lack of constant training (of one player in particular) is used to elevate that player, in the other case it is used to devalue the scene.
With that being said, i also think that the competitive lvl of the scene has gone down in comparison to a few years ago, funnily enough Taeja never played in that highly competitive environment to begin with which makes comparisons really hard and for the most part annoying to deal with.
Using one game to determine which year(s) of Starcraft were played at a higher level is pretty suspect and should be avoided.
PS: I think the highest level has to be 2014-15 with 2016 being the lowest since 2011 and 2017 being somewhere in the ballpark of 2012 and 2013. But again there's not science there just the opinion of someone who has watched a lot of games.
On June 06 2017 02:25 DieuCure wrote: HoTS : Micro lvl and multitask lvl was lower than now
It was not. And there is no statistic or science that supports it. If anything, the facts points to the opposite.
There really is no real analysis done one way or another. The only thing which is clear (and what i mean with "competitive lvl") is that the scene itself is weaker due to no kespa teams, no proleague, less players, etc. Does that mean that Innovation vs Solar now will be worse than Innovation vs some s class zerg back then? No not necessarily. I think the gameplay is about the same from a mechanical standpoint, builds obviously change.
Nowadays it's easy as terran to play lategame with ghosts and liberators added. Back in the day terrans had to just micro marines and marauders to victory but because the skill-level was so high they could still take games there. + Show Spoiler +
That even with libs and ghosts TY is the only one that can take games in lategame is definitive 100% proof that the skill-level has decreased since the glory days of pure skill.
Rofl, it's just because late game zerg is way stronger, even in "kespa era" last year they had to allin on 2 bases with 3rd at 7/8 min, ultra had 2 more armor than now, and 3 more than hots ultra + nowadays ultra have 17+ dps than hots ultra, so Taeja would have lost the game at 20min12. And TY was able to deal with Dark's ultra late game in 2016. ( nobody else would have done it even Taeja at his max )
It's another proof that HoTS was easier to play as terran. Easier to do pure bio than bio+ ghost + raven + libe, that's why foreigners terran are struggling against zerg
Bio lib ghost is easy to play. Siege liberators, click snipe a few times and watch the zerg army explode. If some of the strong HotS terrans like Bomber or Flash would still play they'd never drop a game in lategame. Another 100% proof that the skill-level was much much higher back then.
I have absolutely no idea why people keep insisting that the current professional skill level has dropped enormously and that previous skill level was far higher, or the exact opposite. There's a complete absence of any quantitative, objective scale or score to justify this.
Anyone can claim anything based on "i think so therefore it must be right." Both sides don't have any evidence to stand on.
On June 06 2017 11:21 pvsnp wrote: I have absolutely no idea why people keep insisting that the current professional skill level has dropped enormously and that previous skill level was far higher, or the exact opposite. There's a complete absence of any quantitative, objective scale or score to justify this.
Anyone can claim anything based on "i think so therefore it must be right." Both sides don't have any evidence to stand on.
Isn't it fair to think that when the money/sponsors recede a bit, then the overall determination of all players drop a little bit, making the ladder a bit less crowded? Players will of course try their best anyway, but if less people try their best, and if their practice partners play worse players, and so on, then the level might drop a bit mechanically.
On the other hand, strategically (which is the important part for SC2 anyway), the cleverest players will probably benefit from not having too many ruthless coaches or whatnot, to give them more "artistic freedom".
On June 06 2017 11:21 pvsnp wrote: I have absolutely no idea why people keep insisting that the current professional skill level has dropped enormously and that previous skill level was far higher, or the exact opposite. There's a complete absence of any quantitative, objective scale or score to justify this.
Anyone can claim anything based on "i think so therefore it must be right." Both sides don't have any evidence to stand on.
Isn't it fair to think that when the money/sponsors recede a bit, then the overall determination of all players drop a little bit, making the ladder a bit less crowded? Players will of course try their best anyway, but if less people try their best, and if their practice partners play worse players, and so on, then the level might drop a bit mechanically.
On the other hand, strategically (which is the important part for SC2 anyway), the cleverest players will probably benefit from not having too many ruthless coaches or whatnot, to give them more "artistic freedom".
Innovation of the metagame and new builds came from within team houses and preparation, though. There's a ton of examples for it (Startale's charge/templar PvT probably the most famous one). A lot of the time it wasn't headline players who figured out the game, but B-teamers and practice partners. Those are all gone now.
It's very telling that nowadays it's not Koreans who figure out the game, it's foreigners. Artistic freedom can only be more limited now because you HAVE to perform if you have no salary. There's no room to experiment around.
EPT
