EPTYou're a good Starcraft player if you're a good Starcraft student.
When are you a good player? - Page 3
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Chemist391
United States366 Posts
You're a good Starcraft player if you're a good Starcraft student. | ||
|
Riner1212
United States337 Posts
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 User was warned for this post. so you are below masters yes? | ||
|
RPR_Tempest
Australia7798 Posts
| ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
Forget about getting "good." Enjoy the game, and enjoy watching the pros go at it. :D | ||
|
Luolis
Finland7142 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
On October 04 2020 22:56 Slydie wrote: 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. Yeah that’s an interesting perspective. Musically I suppose I’d be a good/very good amateur. To those who haven’t really played I’m amazing and talented, to me I suck because I know what the people on the above tiers can do that I can’t, knowledge I’m only privy to due to the level I’m at and knowing where I’m decent/deficient | ||
|
yxme
15 Posts
| ||
|
scrotesque
3 Posts
First, place highly in a legit competition, only GSL counts. No super tournaments, though. Second, IdrA then has to decide if you're legit. | ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
I work as a programmer. No hobby programmer is ever good. Most programmers with several years of professional experience are just average - which is the case in every field. So thinking that people that are in GM but are not professionals are good is a bit strange in my opinion. It does not work like that in any other field, why should Stracraft be any different? Maybe you could argue that being GM is good for being an amateur, but that is just saying that you are good for for being bad. | ||
|
Sholip
Hungary422 Posts
On October 06 2020 00:34 MockHamill wrote: Maybe you could argue that being GM is good for being an amateur, but that is just saying that you are good for for being bad. This should forever be a pinned comment here. Or on r/starcraft. | ||
|
Tyrhanius
France947 Posts
However if your question is "Am I good enough to be professionnal", actually it's all about which rank do you need to make enough money to live. And you have to be act least top 200, maybe top 100 or even top50 to live from SC2. That means > 99.8-99.9% of every SC2 players. | ||
|
Crozo64
64 Posts
On October 06 2020 00:34 MockHamill wrote: The criteria for being good should be that you are among the top of the professionals in your field. I work as a programmer. No hobby programmer is ever good. Most programmers with several years of professional experience are just average - which is the case in every field. So thinking that people that are in GM but are not professionals are good is a bit strange in my opinion. It does not work like that in any other field, why should Stracraft be any different? Maybe you could argue that being GM is good for being an amateur, but that is just saying that you are good for for being bad. U know that good doesnt mean "the best" right ? I dont understand how people cant grasp this concept, good is relative, some people who are amateur can find someone really good at something despite being far behind the top. It seems this concept is hard to understand for some people and i dont know why. | ||
|
InfCereal
Canada1759 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:55 Jan1997 wrote: 5k+ is good in my book. Anything lower and you are just a random goon. <My MMR+> is good in my book. Anything lower than <My MMR> and you are just a random goon. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
| ||
|
eChoWns
Germany168 Posts
On October 04 2020 20:47 sparklyresidue wrote: shoutout to the non pros in the top 10 of aligulac I laughed hard...sorry... | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
On October 06 2020 04:47 [Phantom] wrote: Honestly the one conclusion I have arrived is that your definition of good and bad will be highly dependent on your ego and if you are self-depreciating or arrogant lol. Are you telling me that my arbitrary assessment isn't objectively superior to the arbitrary assessment of others, and isn't the ultimate definitive answer to the title of this thread?!! | ||
|
virpi
Germany3599 Posts
The funny part is that a lot of people think of themselves as better players as they really are. I think this is where the "everyone sucks" sentiment comes from, because it's the opposite way of rationalising. We've all run into platinum league balance experts, but I wouldn't put all the blame on them. It's only bad if you're not able to redefine your view on the game. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26223 Posts
On October 06 2020 05:20 virpi wrote: It's really about the definition of "good". Pros are excellent at the game, they have mastered the most important parts. But that doesn't mean that an above average player - let's say diamond and above - is completely bad. Compared to the top pros, everyone really sucks, but that's like comparing the average Joe runner to Eliud Kipchoge. Not everyone can and wants to become a pro. If you're putting time into the game and are willing to improve, you're on the path to achieve the maximum that is possible for you. With SC being an 1v1 game, there's no place to hide your shortcomings. If you lose, it's 99% your own fault. Especially below 6k. The funny part is that a lot of people think of themselves as better players as they really are. I think this is where the "everyone sucks" sentiment comes from, because it's the opposite way of rationalising. We've all run into platinum league balance experts, but I wouldn't put all the blame on them. It's only bad if you're not able to redefine your view on the game. Of course utter mastery is impossible to actually achieve I suppose, but pros are closer to mastery than they are to basic competency. At least to my consideration ‘good’ would lie somewhere between those two. In other fields it would be pretty silly to say, the only good people to have picked up playing piano are concert pianists. Sure they are the pinnacle of playing that instrument, but setting that as the bar of what constitutes good is a tad high. | ||
|
Kertorak
125 Posts
When you can do what you want to do, like macro properly, and when you can pull of a strategy you have in mind, properly, anytime, your units do what you want them to do. Then for yourself I would say you are good. (I am not good from my own definition.) The rest is meta. I would also like to point out this is a subjective title, kind of philosophical, not sure if there could be any intend ;-) Other than the Result: you will get a bunch of opinions. | ||
|
esReveR
United States567 Posts
As the poster above mentioned, this topic is very subjective and your results will vary based on the frame of reference of the respondent. I think this would make for an interesting poll though. | ||
| ||
