|
It is very difficult to absolutely define skill with respect to StarCraft II. The MMR system employed on ladder is only good at comparing players to each other on average, and as such is useful for probabilistically determining who might win N games out of some larger total. There are always upsets, wherein the player likely to win loses, and this is the reason matches in tournaments are usually settled with multiple games, not just one.
If you wish to determine how good somebody is at StarCraft II, your criteria for "goodness" need to be well-defined. It is insufficient to establish an MMR threshold above which a player is considered "good", both for the reason that MMR can only compare players to each other, and also because of its probabilistic nature.
If I were to define what makes a player good with respect to the game of StarCraft II, I would first start by analyzing how a game of StarCraft II can be won, and then create a list of grading scales based on how well (on average) players do things which win games. This method should have no relation to the MMR system used on ladder, and ideally should not require a comparison between two players, in order that it may be used in an absolute manner.
|
This is such a pointless topic. I bet half the people here think that being good starts at 50 points below their current MMR. Then you have people that consider someone in masters a garbage player.
Think about this in real world terms. You could graduate with a masters in psychology and practice for 10 years then some random scrub off the street comes and tells you that "youre bad at psychology" simply because you're not the best psychologist out there.
Mental illness runs deep in this community, thats all I can gather from this thread.
|
On October 04 2020 06:16 ytherik wrote:
The minimal requirements to be considered "good" is to be a Korean and win at least one GSL Code S during the highest skilled era when Kespa teams were still around. These days everybody sucks and it is not possible for anyone to become even remotely good at the game.
This but without sarcasm.
Meanwhile in every other Esport on earth: Teamhouses and a rigid practice enviroment really make the best players, no one else can compete with that.
In SC2 post mortem region lock utopia: teamhouses aren't really that important, players now are better than ever despite mechanics slipping everywhere and Innovation splitting like a code A RO48 player.
I mean, i don't expect casters to say they're watching the lowest skill era, jeopardizing their paycheck and all that. What i don't expect is the fact that most of the community buys it. This is the ''Downsizing is healthy'' part II.
|
On October 04 2020 06:21 [Phantom] wrote:
I think outside of the two lowest leagues players kinda know what they are doing. some may don't know, some may just do 1 buildorder well, but many of them could have another thing holding them back. Maybe someone he plays one match a day because he doesn't have much time. He watches the GSL, reads TL etc but he simply can't practice enough to increase his mechanical skill fast. Now, is this player good? Probably not, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have idea of what he is doing.
Hey thats me 
Played probably less than 50 games in the last 12month, I just Don t know when  it s just not as time consuming to check on matches here or in twitch App every now and then...
Back to the topic: I think beeing good can t be solely measured in MMR. For me you re good, if you scout something and not only know what is coming but also how you have to counter it.
So that you actually understand the game. If you have the mechanics to actually do that is secondary to me.
So yeah, there could be some low Masters Playerswho Don t practise enough/are slow that are actually good and some mid GM Players, that only play 1 built, that arrent.
E.: when you look at Serrals reaktions after his games, he probably thinks, je played bad and did way to many mistakes. So if you want to look at Mmr, it probably Starts around 7.5k
|
your Country52797 Posts
I don't actually think the threshold for "good" is very high. It might be better (although admittedly more loosely) defined as having some understanding of the better/worse strategies and being able to actually execute whatever game plan you might have in mind, given a reasonably large margin of error and ignoring success rate. After that point, it's just about being better, smarter, exceptional, top X%, whatever qualifiers you want to use, but IMO most people going for that are already good.
Admittedly, I haven't played at all recently, so I don't know what proportion of players would be well described by the above, and I wouldn't consider myself good.
As an aside, I misinterpreted the thread title before reading through the posts, and was initially going to respond "when I get into a base race situation".
On October 04 2020 08:56 samsim wrote:
It is very difficult to absolutely define skill with respect to StarCraft II. The MMR system employed on ladder is only good at comparing players to each other on average, and as such is useful for probabilistically determining who might win N games out of some larger total. There are always upsets, wherein the player likely to win loses, and this is the reason matches in tournaments are usually settled with multiple games, not just one.
If you wish to determine how good somebody is at StarCraft II, your criteria for "goodness" need to be well-defined. It is insufficient to establish an MMR threshold above which a player is considered "good", both for the reason that MMR can only compare players to each other, and also because of its probabilistic nature.
If I were to define what makes a player good with respect to the game of StarCraft II, I would first start by analyzing how a game of StarCraft II can be won, and then create a list of grading scales based on how well (on average) players do things which win games. This method should have no relation to the MMR system used on ladder, and ideally should not require a comparison between two players, in order that it may be used in an absolute manner.
While I do agree that it's more important to look at whether the player is able to actively take actions that steer themselves towards victory to determine goodness, I don't think it's reasonable to try to numerically define that. You also kind of skate over the fact that even in your ideal system — which would be very hard to define, since "how a game can be won" can vary based on one's opponent — you're still taking an average, since you presumably realize that individual skill varies from game to game regardless of opposition. As a result, I'm having trouble understanding your argument for why MMR is a flawed system and your system isn't.
|
Northern Ireland25347 Posts
On October 04 2020 06:28 Calliope wrote:This kind of reductionistic crap ruined MOBAs for me. As a community that is already very toxic there is no need for the humour to be based around shitting on everyone. This is why regular sports will always be better than esports (that and the balance issues in esports). I thought I was above average, but that thread showing the distribution of MMR showed that I was apparently right on the mean of my race (Z, so I was already carried by the meta to boot!). If you are +1SD or even +2SD there is no point in not celebrating that as being good. Let's be at least a little bit better than the MOBAs. Some people have jobs and priorities that are far more important than this game so we can at least admit that someone is good even if he is not a pro.
I think what separates SC from MOBAs in my limited experience is in SC it’s more self-deprecating ‘we all suck’ kind of humour, MOBAs it’s players shitting on everyone but themselves and their own play to deflect from their own failings that particular game (if they’re even aware of them)
|
|
|
I think something like this is accurate:
Top 10 on Aligulac = Very good
Top 30 on Aligulac = Good
Top 50 on Aligulac = Mediocre
Top 100 on Aligulac = Bad
GM = Really bad
Master = Retarded
Below Master = Severely Retarded
User was warned for this post.
|
On October 04 2020 20:08 MockHamill wrote:
I think something like this is accurate:
Top 10 on Aligulac = Very good
Top 30 on Aligulac = Good
Top 50 on Aligulac = Mediocre
Top 100 on Aligulac = Bad
GM = Really bad
Master = Retarded
Below Master = Severely Retarded
shoutout to the non pros in the top 10 of aligulac
|
for me good is when most people think you are good so above mid master
|
I consider everyone better than myself good at this game, as I can't stand the thought of losing to "bad" players, at least not in standard games.
It is also nice and flexible, if I get better, my standard for "good" players goes up as well.
Seriously, though, anyone thinking someone above 4k being bad at SC2 needs to chill. It takes a disproportionate amount of time and dedication to get there.
|
Maybe the reason why the bar for being good is so high is because the perfect game of Starcraft is where nothing goes wrong. Combine this with the fact that the sheer number of things that can go wrong in a Starcraft game is far more than almost any other game then it becomes far easier to see the flaws in someone's game than it is to see the good parts. Therefore, we as starcraft players find ourselves in the mind-set that if someone isn't playing perfectly or close to perfectly then then they are clearly not a good player even if that player is in the top 25% of people playing that game.
|
On October 04 2020 21:46 Slydie wrote:
I consider everyone better than myself good at this game, as I can't stand the thought of losing to "bad" players, at least not in standard games.
It is also nice and flexible, if I get better, my standard for "good" players goes up as well.
Seriously, though, anyone thinking someone above 4k being bad at SC2 needs to chill. It takes a disproportionate amount of time and dedication to get there.
Have you see the level of play that exists between 4-5k? I've tried really hard to see the point of view that they are "above average" in skill but I can't call the level of play "good" without cringing. It does not take a disproportionate amount of time to get into that threshold unless you have very low expectations regarding the time and dedication it should take to be "good" at something. It wouldn't take someone that hard to reach mid 4k MMR at all and if I was to compare that to the amount of time it would take to get good at a musical instrument for example, a musical instrument would take 50x longer and I'd still consider myself shit.
In general, I think we can tone down the elitism in this community but I also don't think we need to unreasonably lower our standards of what good play is. This game is damn hard and it takes a good deal of practice to become very very good and it's also quite hard to become absolutely not garbage if you're playing for the first time. But after that initial hump, the time/dedication/skill to hit diamond or even mid-masters is HUGELY overstated, the level of play in these leagues is still damn low and completely achievable for anyone with a moderate amount of time.
I think it's generous but reasonable to consider the 5k+ to be good at the time. It's generous but not unreasonable IMO. But above 4k? Games don't even look like sc2 games until mid 4k at best, so I don't think we should be so forgiving for people who can click a few buttons and know the names of some units, but have such flawed mechanical ability and strategic knowledge. That level would not be considered "good" if compared to other skills that people try to master.
|
On October 04 2020 22:12 blooblooblahblah wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2020 21:46 Slydie wrote:
I consider everyone better than myself good at this game, as I can't stand the thought of losing to "bad" players, at least not in standard games.
It is also nice and flexible, if I get better, my standard for "good" players goes up as well.
Seriously, though, anyone thinking someone above 4k being bad at SC2 needs to chill. It takes a disproportionate amount of time and dedication to get there. Have you see the level of play that exists between 4-5k? I've tried really hard to see the point of view that they are "above average" in skill but I can't call the level of play "good" without cringing. It does not take a disproportionate amount of time to get into that threshold unless you have very low expectations regarding the time and dedication it should take to be "good" at something. It wouldn't take someone that hard to reach mid 4k MMR at all and if I was to compare that to the amount of time it would take to get good at a musical instrument for example, a musical instrument would take 50x longer and I'd still consider myself shit. In general, I think we can tone down the elitism in this community but I also don't think we need to unreasonably lower our standards of what good play is. This game is damn hard and it takes a good deal of practice to become very very good and it's also quite hard to become absolutely not garbage if you're playing for the first time. But after that initial hump, the time/dedication/skill to hit diamond or even mid-masters is HUGELY overstated, the level of play in these leagues is still damn low and completely achievable for anyone with a moderate amount of time. I think it's generous but reasonable to consider the 5k+ to be good at the time. It's generous but not unreasonable IMO. But above 4k? Games don't even look like sc2 games until mid 4k at best, so I don't think we should be so forgiving for people who can click a few buttons and know the names of some units, but have such flawed mechanical ability and strategic knowledge. That level would not be considered "good" if compared to other skills that people try to master.
It is funny how you mention musical instruments, as I am actually a professional full time musician, and I know extremely well what it takes to become a good player.
First of all, it is very hard to compare the 2, as it is much easier to spend a large amount of hours playing a video game. If you are able to practice intelligently with determation and good guidance on any instrument 3+ hours a day for around 10 years, you should be able to reach a professional level with an above average musical talent. There are millions of gamers spending much more time than that on a single game.
How you spend your time is also very important, slopping through tunes you already know, doing the same mistakes as you did last year, is about as us as playing desert strike is for 1vs1.
In the world of music, when a player is considered "good" is of course equally pointless as in this thread. The difference between world class, professional, good amateurs, decent amateurs and beginners is simply too big.
|
Such a pointless question. There's nothing inheent about SC2 that doesn't make the question just as absurd if asked for any other sport. When are you a good football player, a good tennis player, a good chess player? Good is relative, just as bad is relative.
There is only one rule. Everyone above you is a no-lifer who should go outside once in a while and everyone below you is a scrub.
|
Since this thread seems to be very subjective with the definition of good, I thought I'd share my thoughts.
The game is structured around player vs player. There is no objective "Good" in such a game. There is only the comparison between players. Relative good exists. I think that above median or average isn't enough to be good. I would argue that there exists middling players that are close to the median or average in skill level. Good is better than ordinary. Ordinary is at least half of the player base. That leaves the top 25% to be relatively good. Top 25% is diamond and up.
I see that other comments implies that good=great or good=best. I do not support that opinion. If only the top 10 players can be deemed good, what does the word "good" even mean? Good, better, best is the variants. How can better exist if good=best?
Should there be an objective measure of good players, I'd say that you should at least beat all campaigns on brutal without abusing saves.
|
Serral is good. Reynor is good. TY is good. Maru is good. Etc. If you can beat one of these guys straight up, then you are good too.
|
France12886 Posts
Grandmaster is good overall since it’s the highest league, so for an amateur good player would be grandmaster.
Among pros good would be top 16 or top 32 EU I guess, and Code S for KR.
|
As the thread proved, completely subjective answer to a completely subjective question
|
On October 04 2020 08:22 ZigguratOfUr wrote:
You're not going to get a clear answer, because the term "good" is just so poorly defined. It doesn't really matter if you're talking about SC2, or chess, or tennis, or speed knitting, people will always have different thresholds.
Well, you went half way there, so let me take it all the way.
From the Tao Te Ching:
When people see some things as beautiful,
other things become ugly.
When people see some things as good,
other things become bad.
Being and non-being create each other.
Difficult and easy support each other.
Long and short define each other.
High and low depend on each other.
Before and after follow each other.
So how are we defining bad? Because when you define good, other things become bad (this itself is a damning conclusion of modern religions). In the end this is purely subjective, but there is one we can all agree on, because it is objective:
The better player at the moment of the game, always wins, by definition of the word better and win. And because people's skill level can vary so greatly from day to day or even game to game, we can only accurately measure skill at a given moment in time.
That being said, labels are a trap as Lao Tzu shows. Good, better, best are evolving, always, moving targets. You reach a goal, and set a new one higher.
And thus this is how the above poem ends, though to fully understand it you may have to study Taoism more:
Therefore the Master
acts without doing anything
and teaches without saying anything.
Things arise and she lets them come;
things disappear and she lets them go.
She has but doesn't possess,
acts but doesn't expect.
When her work is done, she forgets it.
That is why it lasts forever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
