|
Some background to the time period...
I was a top 8 master player before GM existed. (Early - Mid WOL) (170-200 APM)
I couldn't split marines vs. banelings in the heat of battle (still can't very well). I relied on the zerg not realizing I was taking a advantageous position and pre splitting...
I couldn't target fire banelings while microing marines. (I did with seige tanks occasionally)
I didn't use army hotkeys (Though I could have 3 drops (Similar to QXC) going and manage the main army if I planned it out well. This was way way way before medivac boost was a thing) I did all of this with the minimap and boxing units.
I had no idea how to fight a protoss death ball. (mostly because I wasn't fast enough with unit hotkeys when I did use them) Most of the games I won at my peak vs. protoss were getting an economic advantage and hoping I could pull them apart or win a base race when the protoss took a 3rd or 4th base. I may have successfully won a battle using ghosts with EMP 5 times.
I never learned how to harass with a banshee. (Even when the 1-1-1 was the thing to do)
I had a horrible time dealing with any kind of baneling or roach all-in from zerg. Usually I just died. (I was using a 2 medivac 16 marine opening very similar to the current 2-1-1 most games.
What I could do.
I could macro on 4-5+ Bases.
I scouted and I knew what to do with that information.
I knew the branches of one build per match-up as well as anyone at the time.
I always knew when my opponent was expanding. (Either with drops, a hidden scv, buildings etc)
I could manage 2-3 drops and get something done with the main army while macroing and upgrading.
I knew my opponents didn't really scout that much. I did everything in my power to try to see drops, hidden buildings, etc. It's not hard to make a marine ring around another terran's base. Or build depots on the map. Opponents just didn't do much. If you saw the one thing they were doing. It wasn't hard to stop it.
|
I definitely feel like the average skill across the board was much lower in WoL. You had players like TLO and Gumiho that could actually compete in tournaments as random. Heck, even I ranked in masters and today I feel like I'd be lucky to get diamond if I played ladder again with the same amount of effort. It's all about time spent practicing and getting a feel for all the wacky situations that can happen during any game. Remember when nobody knew wtf they were doing in a base trade scenario? Now it's a pretty commonplace event and everyone at least understands how to play it out.
|
As far as Pro's being worse... I think a lot of that has comes down to game design and time. The mechanics of many players were pretty good. They just spent half their games learning from losing to dumb stuff...
I think increasing the rush distances.
Increasing the number of workers.
The implementation of better early defenses. (better queen, mothership core, better spine/spore)
Protected natural expansions
etc.
Allowed those mechanics to come out. The early days were all about trying to not die to dumb stuff. That's why it looks so much worse.
The reactor hellion opening and then Stephano (Queen buff) did so much to change TvZ.
Learning how to simcity and using forcefields changed the protoss match-ups... And then the mothership core did it again.
|
They had less games played, less experience, less practice, and no players to learn from and copy..
Why is someone with only 400 life time games played still in gold or platinum or whatever league theyre in? Because they didnt play enough games yet.
Same goes for early sc2 pros.
|
I really like the idea of people thinking i could compete in gsl if i had a time machine, but like if my only real edge is knowing and breaking the meta game, then i think we can basically agree sos would just never lose ever if thats all it took to win. And given that while hes reached the finals but hasnt won yet, i think its a bit of a stretch to say 2018 diamond players could win in 2010 gsl. of course knowledge isnt the only argument, but like its the only one that really makes sense, plenty of capable micro and macro given the nature of the maps. maybe a few make it in the round of 64 but like keep in mind artosis could be your opponent, so sure 2010 zerg artosis or cella or bit by bit, but round of 32 round 16, 2018 diamond players dead for sure.
|
They just didn't know better.
Remember in Brood War when Nada microed for the first time? Amazing right? No, but it was at the time.
Like how the wheel was once a huge discovery or fire.
|
|
|
People weren't that bad, I'd actually say that super crisp timings were much harder to pull off and important at 6 workers. Scouting something 15-30 seconds too late was often game ending.
Maps were incredibly broken in a lot of matchups - e.g. TvP on Metalopolis, Shakuras, and Antiga come to mind (still have a chuckle when they actually admitted that.)
Mechanics didn't heavily start coming into play until the maps were starting to get standardized, like daybreak. Then eventually the game evolved into infestor broodlord, 190+ army supply terrans (with more income than opponents), etc.
'Strategy' if you can call it that and the execution/response was paramount to the game. Scouting was difficult to impossible in a lot of situations, which left a lot of coin-flippy scenarios that drove a lot of the early players away.
|
Also a very important skill of pros is to be able to figure out what your opponent is doing and adapt to it. This is why a 2018 diamond player could probably take some maps in 2010 GSL but he still would be demolished by the better players because they would find a way to react to his strategies. Also a 2018 diamond player would have to pull stuff off with a limited amount of units and unit-abilities and less workers to begin with... he probably wouldn't stand a chance in early game.
|
Time
It takes time to develop skill. A person that has practiced for 4000 hours is typically not as good as someone that has practiced for 12000 hours. People back in 2011 had not practiced enough yet to become good.
Competition
Since your opponents were worse back then it was harder to learn from them. Now your opponents are better which mean you have better examples to learn from.
|
I remember having this conversation at the beginning of HoTS.
If protoss players were at least half good as they are are right now, 7G robo would have never allow any zerg to survive more than 10 min against protoss in WoL.
Just look at the prism micro...
I believe almost any GM in 2018 could win all tournaments in 2010-2012
Nowadays people know how to macro on 5 bases, handle 3 attacks in the same time, micro much better and more importantly, people know way better how to deviate from a build order to another.
People know how to adapt after some weirds attacks were both players lose workers buildings and tech and it is difficult to know who is ahead or not.
|
On June 29 2018 19:29 FireCake wrote:
I remember having this conversation at the beginning of HoTS.
If protoss players were at least half good as they are are right now, 7G robo would have never allow any zerg to survive more than 10 min against protoss in WoL.
Just look at the prism micro...
I believe almost any GM in 2018 could win all tournaments in 2010-2012
Nowadays people know how to macro on 5 bases, handle 3 attacks in the same time, micro much better and more importantly, people know way better how to deviate from a build order to another.
People know how to adapt after some weirds attacks were both players lose workers buildings and tech and it is difficult to know who is ahead or not.
Beliefs are nice, but you are dead-wrong.
You re comparing a build from LOTV to a build in WOL.That s like saying "Zergs now are so good, they can go 18h/17g/17p and not die to rushes, while those IDIOTS in WOL died to all kinds of rushes with 12/13 hatch openers all the time. God, zergs learnt so much!"
If you would throw Serral back into 2011 (and give some time for acclimatization), he would be the most skilled player, for sure, yet he would not win more than 1 out 4 events, cuz he would die to the bullshit maps and broken all-ins that ruined this game.
|
On June 29 2018 20:43 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 19:29 FireCake wrote:
I remember having this conversation at the beginning of HoTS.
If protoss players were at least half good as they are are right now, 7G robo would have never allow any zerg to survive more than 10 min against protoss in WoL.
Just look at the prism micro...
I believe almost any GM in 2018 could win all tournaments in 2010-2012
Nowadays people know how to macro on 5 bases, handle 3 attacks in the same time, micro much better and more importantly, people know way better how to deviate from a build order to another.
People know how to adapt after some weirds attacks were both players lose workers buildings and tech and it is difficult to know who is ahead or not.
You re comparing a build from LOTV to a build in WOL.That s like saying "Zergs now are so good, they can go 18h/17g/17p and not die to rushes, while those IDIOTS in WOL died to all kinds of rushes with 12/13 hatch openers all the time. God, zergs learnt so much!"
I am not comparing builds.
I am talking about only one build, the 7Gate robo during WoL era.
This build could have been a lot deadlier if protoss players were microing as well as in 2018.
I gave one example but I am sure we can find many strategies that would have been irrelevant or completly broken in todays standards of micro/macro/multitasking/decision-making...
You can't really compare builds because there have been many changes in the game that make some builds or units irrelevant. But you can compare micro/macro/multitasking/decision-making...
I guess most people refuse to see how bad players were years ago compared to now because it could diminish the accomplishement of their hero.
(Seriously look at Nestea games, his games look terrible despite the fact that he was the best years ago)
|
just comes down to a game thats not understood yet. Even the video in the thread has broodwar strats.
|
On June 29 2018 21:56 FireCake wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 20:43 Geo.Rion wrote:On June 29 2018 19:29 FireCake wrote:
I remember having this conversation at the beginning of HoTS.
If protoss players were at least half good as they are are right now, 7G robo would have never allow any zerg to survive more than 10 min against protoss in WoL.
Just look at the prism micro...
I believe almost any GM in 2018 could win all tournaments in 2010-2012
Nowadays people know how to macro on 5 bases, handle 3 attacks in the same time, micro much better and more importantly, people know way better how to deviate from a build order to another.
People know how to adapt after some weirds attacks were both players lose workers buildings and tech and it is difficult to know who is ahead or not.
You re comparing a build from LOTV to a build in WOL.That s like saying "Zergs now are so good, they can go 18h/17g/17p and not die to rushes, while those IDIOTS in WOL died to all kinds of rushes with 12/13 hatch openers all the time. God, zergs learnt so much!" I am not comparing builds. I am talking about only one build, the 7Gate robo during WoL era. This build could have been a lot deadlier if protoss players were microing as well as in 2018. I gave one example but I am sure we can find many strategies that would have been irrelevant or completly broken in todays standards of micro/macro/multitasking/decision-making... You can't really compare builds because there have been many changes in the game that make some builds or units irrelevant. But you can compare micro/macro/multitasking/decision-making... I guess most people refuse to see how bad players were years ago compared to now because it could diminish the accomplishement of their hero. (Seriously look at Nestea games, his games look terrible despite the fact that he was the best years ago)
Looking at top GSL games from the first couple of seasons is bad, for sure. At the highest tier of competition, the current pros are way better than the early WOL pros, nobody is arguing that. Plus lots of trash players winded up in the final rounds due to the balance issues and the randomness of it.
However ladder was about three times more competitive in WOL than it is now. Saying that any GM now could beat anyone going back is stupid.
Going further and saying current diamond is comparable to early day pros is flat out insane. The ladder now is so easy it s ridiculous.
I know from my own personal experience how the competition/ladder was back in WOL and what it is now. How much you needed to train and focus back and now.
Right now (quit in WOL, came back with F2P), after 2 surgeries on my wrist, and having a full time job, playing a couple hours a week at most, usually after a beer or two, im in Master2 with my main, +made it to masters 3 with my offrace (i dont have a single BO, i dont know many hotkeys).
In WOL, i played a tone, I focused very hard, played only 1 race, I had several buildorders written down and practiced them sometimes just vs AI to learn it better, I had practice partners etc. And i wasnt GM, just high masters.
So please, cut the shit, the current ladder is easy mode, yes the highest level of competitors have come a long way, but that does not mean current Diamond players could win LANs if they went back in time. They would lose 100% of their games to refined and much-practiced allins on shitty maps, and would lose all "macro" games as well to the early WOL pros.
|
I remember when they had that "special" group of maps released and my ranking went down so far. I was used to macro builds and kept dying to all ins.
Also, I remember when you needed to research siege before you could siege the tanks....so pushes would hit just before the research completed.
I also remember the first time I saw hallucination researched in GSL and Artosis lost his shit.
|
On June 29 2018 00:00 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2018 23:47 gTank wrote:
This whole threat makes no sense?
The game just came out back then, the people that played GSL and won stuff were the best at that time.
Ofc the meta evolves and people get better, its the same with almost every sport! If you think about it for a minute you can answer the question yourself... Yeah but a lot of the players back then had already a lot of RTS experience and with the knowledge we have today it seems they SHOULD have been playing at a higher level back then.
which is why all the players with previous rts experience were standing at the top, doesn't mean they should figure out everything in a new rts within the first few weeks
|
On June 29 2018 23:21 Geo.Rion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 21:56 FireCake wrote:On June 29 2018 20:43 Geo.Rion wrote:On June 29 2018 19:29 FireCake wrote:
I remember having this conversation at the beginning of HoTS.
If protoss players were at least half good as they are are right now, 7G robo would have never allow any zerg to survive more than 10 min against protoss in WoL.
Just look at the prism micro...
I believe almost any GM in 2018 could win all tournaments in 2010-2012
Nowadays people know how to macro on 5 bases, handle 3 attacks in the same time, micro much better and more importantly, people know way better how to deviate from a build order to another.
People know how to adapt after some weirds attacks were both players lose workers buildings and tech and it is difficult to know who is ahead or not.
You re comparing a build from LOTV to a build in WOL.That s like saying "Zergs now are so good, they can go 18h/17g/17p and not die to rushes, while those IDIOTS in WOL died to all kinds of rushes with 12/13 hatch openers all the time. God, zergs learnt so much!" I am not comparing builds. I am talking about only one build, the 7Gate robo during WoL era. This build could have been a lot deadlier if protoss players were microing as well as in 2018. I gave one example but I am sure we can find many strategies that would have been irrelevant or completly broken in todays standards of micro/macro/multitasking/decision-making... You can't really compare builds because there have been many changes in the game that make some builds or units irrelevant. But you can compare micro/macro/multitasking/decision-making... I guess most people refuse to see how bad players were years ago compared to now because it could diminish the accomplishement of their hero. (Seriously look at Nestea games, his games look terrible despite the fact that he was the best years ago) Looking at top GSL games from the first couple of seasons is bad, for sure. At the highest tier of competition, the current pros are way better than the early WOL pros, nobody is arguing that. Plus lots of trash players winded up in the final rounds due to the balance issues and the randomness of it. However ladder was about three times more competitive in WOL than it is now. Saying that any GM now could beat anyone going back is stupid. Going further and saying current diamond is comparable to early day pros is flat out insane. The ladder now is so easy it s ridiculous. I know from my own personal experience how the competition/ladder was back in WOL and what it is now. How much you needed to train and focus back and now. Right now (quit in WOL, came back with F2P), after 2 surgeries on my wrist, and having a full time job, playing a couple hours a week at most, usually after a beer or two, im in Master2 with my main, +made it to masters 3 with my offrace (i dont have a single BO, i dont know many hotkeys). In WOL, i played a tone, I focused very hard, played only 1 race, I had several buildorders written down and practiced them sometimes just vs AI to learn it better, I had practice partners etc. And i wasnt GM, just high masters. So please, cut the shit, the current ladder is easy mode, yes the highest level of competitors have come a long way, but that does not mean current Diamond players could win LANs if they went back in time. They would lose 100% of their games to refined and much-practiced allins on shitty maps, and would lose all "macro" games as well to the early WOL pros.
So... you're lower on ladder than you were in WoL and because at your lower rank it's easier to win than when you were higher ranked the ladder is less competitive?
Logic?
Maybe you should get to your old rank first before you can make comparisons.
|
On June 29 2018 02:00 Geo.Rion wrote:
Right now everyone below very-high masters is utter shit, myself included there on M2 (and M3 with my offrace with which i havent learnt a BO or most of the hotkeys yet). In a way, when the first season of SC2 GM was introduced, that set of GM players is better than the current set of GM players. You didnt have any chance of making the cut unless you were spamming games non stop. Right now there are lots of casual players, streamers etc in GM.
But u missed something, right now, since f2p the low master ( master3/2 ) is really a lot easier than it was before f2p, with the large amount of new players the top 5% required is much easier to get. Like charoisaur said, try to get to high master again ( and high master is not master1 btw, master 1 is really far below the true high master level, it's like 600/700 mmr difference between low master1 and top master1/lowgm for EU ).
|
On June 29 2018 09:07 HungrySC2 wrote:
Some background to the time period...
I was a top 8 master player before GM existed. (Early - Mid WOL) (170-200 APM)
i assume you don't mean top 8 as in serverwide, one of the 8 players on na or eu with the highest mmr? because being top 8 in your division is completely worthless, all the divisions were filled based on when you played and good players played
right away and got placed into a division with all the other good players. rank 90 in a division like that is better than rank 1 in a division filled at the end of the season. it doesn't mean anything at all, you need to look at your overall server ranking based on mmr
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
