|
On June 30 2018 04:08 rauk wrote:Show nested quote +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
True, but the mmr wasnt showed back then.
|
On June 30 2018 03:58 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On June 29 2018 23:21 Geo.Rion wrote: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.
I skipped several year, im barely playing, casually when i do, im through 2 surgeries and im a bit lower where i was in WOL when going super tryhard. Have another run at it, "logic".
|
I skipped several year, im barely playing, casually when i do, im through 2 surgeries and im a bit lowere where i was in WOL when going super tryhard. Have another run at it, "logic".
But the league repartition has changed, u dont know that it seems. read my post before too. it's meaningless to compare old rank ( master diamond gold etc ) with the rank now since they changed everything about the repartition with lotv.
|
On June 30 2018 04:28 Crozo64 wrote:Show nested quote +
I skipped several year, im barely playing, casually when i do, im through 2 surgeries and im a bit lowere where i was in WOL when going super tryhard. Have another run at it, "logic".
But the league repartition has changed, u dont know that it seems. read my post before too.
That hardly changes my point, that people claiming today's diamonds are at the level of WOL's pros are full of shit
|
|
|
|
|
That hardly changes my point, that people claiming today's diamonds are at the level of WOL's pros are full of shit.
Yes i agree with that tho. But like firecake said, gm now ( not low gm NA ) i think could win these old WOL tournaments ( with the right build order/meta of course ).
|
On June 30 2018 04:09 Crozo64 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2018 04:08 rauk wrote: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 True, but the mmr wasnt showed back then.
your points were your mmr with a weird offset. comparing by points was good enough. masters league didnt have division offsets like diamond and below did
|
You had different meta. First the amount of workers you have at the beginning really change all the builds.
Then, the maps were so close that all you could watch back then was all ins, macro game was not developed and Blizzard had to nerf A LOT of stuff to make macro viable.
In that time was allin vs allin, that is why they don't blind exp, because back then with 4 gates, barracks before supply, etc, you coudn't just expand and macro. Also, the pool was full of small maps. Rush distances + diferent timings for building made fast exp a suicide.
1 base meta is not because they were bad, it was because that was what worked back then, in that patch, so you are doing a bad comparison.... Mkp had a top notch micro.
I sugest to go reading the patches, then go reading the map pool and learn how much stuff had to be changed to make macro viable.
|
On June 29 2018 09:29 Kitai wrote:
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.
Gumiho qualified as random in the 1st open season, which started 1 month after the release of sc2... TLO practiced and played only terran when he qualified for GSL. TLO was random during the beta and something like the first 2 weeks of WoL.
HotS was launched 2.5 years after the release of WoL, so saying that WoL players were "bad" because somebody did something 1 month after the release of the game omits over 95% of the competetive existence of the game.
If the entirety of the sc2 ladder was harder or easier during WoL is besides the point since op specifically talks about pros being bad.
How about we look at the fact that by early 2011 (half a year after WoL was launched) there were a bunch of sponsored teams with players living, practicing, and being coached in team houses? In the last year of WoL's existence with KESPA's teams completely switching over to sc2 there was the largest amount of Korean teams and team houses out of the entirety of sc2. The end of WoL into the beginning of HotS was the time with the largest professional training environment in sc2...
On June 29 2018 10:01 Snakestyle1 wrote:
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.
Sure that's an argument for the very beginning of WoL, but after a year pros had already accumulated thousands upon thousands of practice games. Quantity is certainly not the most crucial part of practice anyway. Quality and intesity yield greater results.
Some bike enthusiast who has been riding to school/work for 20 years will certainly not be able to perform even remotely as well as some teen aspiring to participate in the tour de france. Some guy that has been playing tennis for fun for decades will be completely outclassed by some teen dedicating its life to turn pro soon. BW fans who have tens of thousands of online games by now are hardly comparable to 16yo Flash winning the biggest bw tournament 10 years ago...
For the better part of WoL pro team and practice infrastructure was absolutely top-notch.
On June 29 2018 11:49 PuddleZerg wrote:
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.
Nada had excellent micro, but he was most renowned for his brutal macro, which was setting him apart from the competition. Boxer and even iloveoov relied to a much greater degree on superior micro than Nada.
On June 29 2018 12:41 Agh wrote:
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.
I completely forgot how absurd WoL was in terms of scouting. People had to basically play blindly for several minutes... Good luck scouting with protoss without adepts and oracle, and with halucination needing 100/100 80sec research... The other races weren't much better off either.
On June 29 2018 17:04 MockHamill wrote:
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.
Time: see 3 answers above
Competition: see the first answer
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...
Bold claim. And more importantly completely unfounded and 100% subjective.
Also, not sure why you are talking about the warp prism. How much was the pickup range of the prism increased in LotV? 300%? Which would be 900% increase of the pickup are around the prism... Or was the range increase actually even higher? Let's not forget that the warp prism had slower accelaration and slower max speed for the entirety of WoL. And on top of that for the first half of WoL it had significantly less overall health than now.
I believe almost any GM in 2018 could win all tournaments in 2010-2012
2010 - maybe. 2012 - absolutely not.
Thinking that some casual middle level GM would have any advantage - be it mechanically or strategically - over the plethora of pros benefiting from 1-2 years of Korean team house practice is absurd.
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.
WoL was a completely different game from LotV. The slow economy, the inability to scout reliably, the weird maps, the effectiveness of alls, etc. etc. did rarely allow for a player to reach 5 bases or more than 3 for that matter.
The rest of your statements are purely speculative
But you can compare micro/macro/multitasking/decision-making...
Snute just delivered a prime example of the impeccable micro and decision-making of current players by losing a bo3 against a cannon-rushing uthermal...
Mutlitasking was a skill that saw much less exposure in WoL due to the game's slow economy, lack of harassment options and the prevalence of all-ins among other things.
|
Your eyes,memmory and brain are all adjusting to the game which is different for everyone. It takes time till certain pattern are see and then can be understood. New games creates a completely new experience which can take people time to understand and then playout due to how difficult the game is to play.
Rts is only as simple as you make it on one hand you can easly learn point and click with your mouse and really on hand,mussle memmory to execute moves. But once that done you need to keep practiceing to create and built up your skill sets. Your either going to be strong micro,macro or have good stratergies ect or all the above means your gosu.
Sc2 or rts in general is not as simple as you make it a player can play one extrodinary game and tample a pro gamer .The chances or that are slim but is always a possibility. The reasoning behind sc2 players being so bad when or at early realease. Basicly they were all new to the game. For example saviour was testing the early sc2 game before release he was adjusting his game from sc1 and then adjusting to the new screen and complete different gameplay. Which can explain why some players performed good at that time period compare to others some people learn the game better then others and performed better.
|
|
|
4713 Posts
To be honest I think everyone is just bandwagon on people where "bad" back then without much critical thought or analysis. If I was to read the comments it almost sounds like people today are just orders of magnitude better then back in the early days of WoL. Its like comparing Batman to Superman.
The thing is, if you actually took the time and analyzed the APM, EPM and potentially the Screens Per Minute of players today I'm pretty sure you wouldn't find that they are all that different from the peak of people in WoL.
Yes of course people in 2010 and throughout 2011 were terrible, but it stemmed like 50% from strategies, 40% from the map pool and maybe like 10% from mechanics alone.
Early WoL had a terrible map pool, where people had like 20 seconds time to react because of the ridiculous rush distances. The open nats made getting a 2 base eco a real challenge and a 3 base eco was like a pipe dream.
This all bread a certain type of skill sets where perfectly executing your rush was make or break because the game could be decided 80% right then and there. Macro was irrelevant as you wouldn't even get there.
The players adapted with the time and, once the map pool actually got good we saw players shine in all their true macro and multi-tasking glory.
Unlike something fictional, like, say Dragonball Z, players actually have a real physical limit to how much they can tangibly improve. Your APM and EPM cap out at around like 400 and 200 with maybe only the best players ever able to sustain 450 and peak at 500 for short bursts. The average human reaction speed to visual stimuli is at 0.25 seconds, maybe a pro gamer could reduce it to 0.2. There is only so much room to cut corners and optimize a build. Once you get to that peak of mechanics pros need to improve in other areas such as decision making, both in game and in series.
Decision making itself also has its limits as the human mind can also suffer from this thing also known as information overload. If you bombard someone with so much information like say, the need to micro, macro and multi-task in several places at once for a prolonged period of time that certain someone will inevitably make mistakes. They will enter a state there they are consciously responding to so many stimuli that they can barely think critically any more, much less devise and execute a game plan. And hell if even paid Aircraft Pilots can fall prey to something like this I doubt pro gamers can build up any kind of tolerance to it. Hence why decision, even though it can be trained, still has real human limits.
It might very well be the case that today's players are overall better than they were in 2011/2012, but when I hear someone saying that players today are overwhelmingly better than those back then, well then I need to stop and take that information with a fist sized pinch of salt.
|
Batman is Mvp. Superman is INnoVation.
Dropping blue flame hellbats is plot armor.
|
Czech Republic12129 Posts
@ Destructicon
Don't forget on broken tactics. 4-gate on higher ground?  No ramp 4gate? (yes, we had such maps)
But anyway, it's 8 years of difference. Sure, you can say that nowadays if you move players back, they would probably win. Boohoo. If you match a pro with 8 year of research behind him with a "pro" who has 5 months of beta behind him(not a stable beta), it's not a fair play. But thinking those pros would just suck nowadays, because you would "move" them and skip those fking 8 years the others have is as stupid as the original idea. Look at Life, he had to shoot himself in the knee. Mvp would be probably still dominating if he had the health to back it up. Parting is getting goot again - god damn PARTING! He's one of the old players ;-)
If you would give the old players the time the current players have and the research the old guard did for the new players, they would be similarly good. Comparing a time difference where most of the top players had the time to train more, to research more and to use the old "bad" players as a knowledge resource is ... not nice...
|
United States97276 Posts
On June 26 2018 12:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 10:37 K3Nyy wrote:
Strategies were undiscovered so players looked worse, but I guarantee you that their mechanics and game sense were still way above the average Master level player today. 2010/2011 SjoW could bury any 2018 NA and EU Masters player. He is my favourite non-Korean of all time. Innovative out-of-the-box thinker... super nice guy... great class act... and a scarey killer instinct.
I like when he beat Life
|
why were basketball players so bad at the game in 1905? 
There was a time not too long ago where the basic "jump shot" was considered "fundamentally unsound" by many basketball experts. Also , the ABA's 3 point line was laughed at by the NBA. Its funny tracking the history of new things as they begin as "heresy" and end up as "obvious".
On July 03 2018 09:04 Shellshock wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2018 12:11 JimmyJRaynor wrote:On June 26 2018 10:37 K3Nyy wrote:
Strategies were undiscovered so players looked worse, but I guarantee you that their mechanics and game sense were still way above the average Master level player today. 2010/2011 SjoW could bury any 2018 NA and EU Masters player. He is my favourite non-Korean of all time. Innovative out-of-the-box thinker... super nice guy... great class act... and a scarey killer instinct. I like when he beat Life
its nice to see him on TL's Hearthstone team. I think he strengthens the TL brand.
|
pretty presentist assertion op. season 1 of gsl was hilarious. it wasn't even in sync with what people thought was ideal; it was mainly execution of stupid builds on even worse maps. i don't think anyone was proud of their performances in those days looking back. maybe bitbybitprime.
|
New game, no meta yet, no clear BO yet, no micro and macro hacks learned yet...
|
TLADT24920 Posts
I'm sure that if I went back to 2010 with my current form, I can easily grab the first couple of GSLs easy considering I know how things will develop and can abuse this. Level of play was low at the time, despite some of the players having previous RTS experience. It'll be like a diamond in WoL playing a silver player haha.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
