| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25347 Posts
Not professional tier obviously but when do you think someone crosses the MMR threshold to be legitimately good at the game? Of course there’ll be outliers doing optimised cannon rushes vs a blind opponent but assuming relatively standard play, when can one say they’re at least semi-decent at this game? We have quite a masochistic community I feel in assessing competency, especially giving how mechanically demanding it is, curious what you all think | ||
|
Durnuu
13320 Posts
| ||
|
Jan1997
Norway671 Posts
| ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
 ) | ||
|
Russano
United States425 Posts
| ||
|
SpaceBoar
52 Posts
I think currently most of SC2 population is either Plat or low-mid Dia, so probably "good" would objectively be starting around high Dia, and everyone below Plat could be called bad or worse. Not sure how the actual numbers look though, just guessing. | ||
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Frankly, iif you are above 50% of the population, you are good. Above average. Now something more stric would be diamond. Being in the top 25% of the players is good. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
My definition of good is pretty chill, and I'd say it starts around plat / diamond level (earlier for some, later for others, too). For the most part, the player becomes incapable of losing to another player who is lacking too much in any single category of definable skill. They will likely never be demoted, even after long breaks, because whatever holes in their play have been compounded by the break, they are capable of being aware of and working on them. Pro-gamers are so far beyond good... They are, in many cases, beyond exceptional. Phenomenal? | ||
|
ilax30
720 Posts
On October 04 2020 05:51 [Phantom] wrote: Forums, reddit, and TL have this tendency to say everyone sucks. Frankly, iif you are above 50% of the population, you are good. Above average. Now something more stric would be diamond. Being in the top 25% of the players is good. Guess it depends on what OP compares it with, always tough to say. although I wont lie ive got troublem with calling people in diamond good considering you just dont really know what you are doing when you are in that league. | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15961 Posts
| ||
|
ytherik
199 Posts
| ||
|
[Phantom]
Mexico2170 Posts
Some people also simply have a lower mechanicall skill cap. For you it might be masters, or diamond, or gold, who knows. I think there are two levels of good, and of course it's relative. The first level is of the casual player, the general population, aka, all of us. in this case, good I would say is GM, Masters, Diamond are good. (and maybe like I said above, anyone that's on the top of 50% of the playerbase could technically be considered good). And then there's Pros, which you need to put them aside in a completely different category. There's no point in comparing them to the average player. They play all day, they get paid to play, the have no other major responsabilities, they can focus, they have practice partners etc. There's no comparison. Even then, there are different skill levels amongst pros too. In that sense, some pros could be bad relatively to another. Obviously, they would all be objectively good when compared to the playerbase, but they are so far removed from the average joe, that it's futile to compare them. So yeah, Pros are good players. GSL winners are good players. That doesn't mean someone in master isn't a good player too. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 Posts
On October 04 2020 06:06 Charoisaur wrote: only GSL winners can claim to be good players imo Sniper confirmed. YISS! On October 04 2020 06:21 [Phantom] wrote: I think diamond players definitely know what they are doing and people underestimate all leagues in general. 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. Some people also simply have a lower mechanicall skill cap. For you it might be masters, or diamond, or gold, who knows. I think there are two levels of good, and of course it's relative. The first level is of the casual player, the general population, aka, all of us. in this case, good I would say is GM, Masters, Diamond are good. (and maybe like I said above, anyone that's on the top of 50% of the playerbase could technically be considered good). And then there's Pros, which you need to put them aside in a completely different category. There's no point in comparing them to the average player. They play all day, they get paid to play, the have no other major responsabilities, they can focus, they have practice partners etc. There's no comparison. Even then, there are different skill levels amongst pros too. In that sense, some pros could be bad relatively to another. Obviously, they would all be objectively good when compared to the playerbase, but they are so far removed from the average joe, that it's futile to compare them. So yeah, Pros are good players. GSL winners are good players. That doesn't mean someone in master isn't a good player too. I really think people need to start watching the angry coach of Winter(or similar shows) where you know the league and you watch in terror how people cannot follow a build order for 4 minutes. Like when - oh god, I saw a Terran with an expansion, ABORT, BO FAILED, ABORT!!!! | ||
|
Calliope
297 Posts
On October 04 2020 03:34 Durnuu wrote: Never, everyone sucks 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. | ||
|
deacon.frost
Czech Republic12129 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. Dude. This is 1v1. And it's YOU, who decides. There's no standard for being good. Just enjoy the game and meet your goals. If it's not being supply blocked at 36 or win over 50 % of games, or cheese everyone on the ladder. Set up goals, accomplish them, have fun. Remember, it's you who decides if you're happy. If you're happy after a session of SC2, you're good in this game no matter how much you suck  | ||
|
Calliope
297 Posts
On October 04 2020 06:33 deacon.frost wrote: Dude. This is 1v1. And it's YOU, who decides. There's no standard for being good. Just enjoy the game and meet your goals. If it's not being supply blocked at 36 or win over 50 % of games, or cheese everyone on the ladder. Set up goals, accomplish them, have fun. Remember, it's you who decides if you're happy. If you're happy after a session of SC2, you're good in this game no matter how much you suck I agree, my point was just that a toxic community throwing around "everyone sucks" crap isn't doing anyone any favours. Being good is a relative concept, "everyone sucks" is as meaningless as it is stupid. | ||
|
dUTtrOACh
Canada2339 Posts
| ||
|
ytherik
199 Posts
On October 04 2020 06:36 Calliope wrote: I agree, my point was just that a toxic community throwing around "everyone sucks" crap isn't doing anyone any favours. Being good is a relative concept, "everyone sucks" is as meaningless as it is stupid. SC2 community is a real gem. On the one hand we can reach absurd levels of toxicity, whining and disrespect, on the other we have hard data showing most people agree that one should glhf every game and gg even mid-level barcodes. | ||
|
Thaniri
1264 Posts
On October 04 2020 04:55 Jan1997 wrote: 5k+ is good in my book. Anything lower and you are just a random goon. I got to 5012 mmr at one point today. Highest I ever got. Everyone is really bad here. I almost lost to a guy yesterday in a TvZ who went 2 base Roach Infestor Hydra Mutalisk Corruptor Infestor Broodlord as his unit composition. I didn't allow him to get a 3 base economy all game but I was too bad to actually kill his army. Eventually the way I won was by having mass 3-3 BCs teleport on top of his army (he had too much supply in swarm hosts), allowed him to neural all of my BCs but they had too much HP and the neurals expired letting my kill his army. That game was probably indistinguishable from diamond league. I don't know at what point people get good but it's definitely not at 5k. Edit: lot's of people complaining that this view is "toxic". These clown fiestas of games that I described above happen regularly. Quite literally decision making goes out the window and mechanics are questionable at best. | ||
|
ZigguratOfUr
Iraq16955 Posts
| ||
|
samsim
United States26 Posts
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. | ||
|
RandomPlayer416
84 Posts
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. | ||
|
Morbidius
Brazil3449 Posts
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. | ||
|
dbRic1203
Germany2655 Posts
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 | ||
The_Templar
your Country52797 Posts
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. | ||
|
WombaT
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) | ||
|
PresenceSc2
Australia4032 Posts
| ||
|
MockHamill
Sweden1798 Posts
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. | ||
|
sparklyresidue
United States5523 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 shoutout to the non pros in the top 10 of aligulac | ||
|
Anc13nt
1557 Posts
| ||
|
Slydie
1920 Posts
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. | ||
|
Z3nith
485 Posts
| ||
|
blooblooblahblah
Australia4163 Posts
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. | ||
|
Slydie
1920 Posts
On October 04 2020 22:12 blooblooblahblah wrote: 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. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
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. | ||
|
Drfilip
Sweden590 Posts
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. | ||
|
Amumoman
153 Posts
| ||
|
Poopi
France12886 Posts
Among pros good would be top 16 or top 32 EU I guess, and Code S for KR. | ||
|
ArtyK
France3143 Posts
| ||
|
BronzeKnee
United States5217 Posts
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. | ||
|
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
Finland7104 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25347 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
Germany3598 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 Ireland25347 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. | ||
|
Kertorak
125 Posts
On October 06 2020 07:43 esReveR wrote: I personally think 5K+ mmr is "good". I would like to point to the other side: (or rather tried to...) Being in any league or "rating" is your value in current Meta... My opinion is it doesn't define being good: + Show Spoiler + Page3: When you can do what you want to do, like macro properly what you want to macro, And when you can pull of a strategy you have in mind, properly, anytime, And your units do what you want them to do. Then, absolutely then for yourself I would say you are good. (I am not good from my own definition.) Because: ...Someone could be there because of cannon rushes. Or someone with excellent macro and builds (can play the build he wants) and doesn't care about the meta builds and doesn't play the meta builds or doesn't care to grind online, I think is still good. Conclusion: There is "good" and there is "meta", two different animals The 3rd thing is: "You can never be perfect" 10sec - Quote by TLO (thanks to the news here on teamliquid) On October 06 2020 07:43 esReveR wrote: As the poster above mentioned, this topic is very subjective and your results will vary based on the frame of reference of the respondent. Thank you. Indeed it basically reflects more about the person posting and their ideals rather than getting an answer  | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
If the question was, what level of skill could be regarded as exhibiting a certain level of competence, or of entertaining games to be produced, that would be a far more interesting question. | ||
|
Kertorak
125 Posts
On October 06 2020 08:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote: You will get the same response if the question was "when do you stop being a bad player?" I kinda agree. and my answer reflects that. (page before) Having said that, there is a difference between being not-bad and being "good" from philosophical view. | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
| ||
|
followZeRoX
Serbia1449 Posts
Top players are just on another level. Everyone makes mistakes but it depends of your mmr how many. | ||
|
Wrathsc2
United States2025 Posts
| ||
|
aringadingding
476 Posts
| ||
|
aringadingding
476 Posts
On October 06 2020 12:19 Wrathsc2 wrote: To me, it is not until reaching top masters that a player starts to understand the game and most of its aspects. At that level, you finally realize you have so much more to learn and master and that is when you go "wow I actually really suck". When you reach the level where you finally realize just how deep this game is and how much you have to learn, that is finally when you become good imo. Everyone else sucks. They either think they know about the game or blame it on something that has noting to do with their improvement. But then you think people will have the exact same mentality. Different people who play the same will have different opinions on how well they think they understand a game. A player at any of they higher league (or any league when i think about it) can think the way you describe it. I think you view is a romantic picture that people at the some level suddenly will see the light and find the truth about the game. | ||
|
tigon_ridge
482 Posts
On October 06 2020 19:42 aringadingding wrote: I think you view is a romantic picture that people at the some level suddenly will see the light and find the truth about the game. At around 7.7k mmr is when a player attains SC enlightenment, at which point they begin to become one with the game, and the final evaluation of whether they truly suck is suddenly revealed to them in a mind-emptying flash of total awareness and comprehension of SC buddha-nature, wherein the noble truths ultimately are revealed to be: "Yea I still kinda suck. Dis game hard af." :-) | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland25347 Posts
On October 06 2020 08:08 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Funny how some people don't understand the"everyone sucks" attitude. It is a recognition of the pointlessness and arbitrary nature of the question. You will get the same response if the question was "when do you stop being a bad player?" If the question was, what level of skill could be regarded as exhibiting a certain level of competence, or of entertaining games to be produced, that would be a far more interesting question. It makes sense as a mentality to foster improvement, rather than resting one one’s laurels. Rather a vague OP admittedly, deliberately so. While it wouldn’t entirely correlate with ladder MMR I suppose a decent level of competency would be mechanical execution in terms of micro/macro, following builds and a strategic plan and understanding that, and crucially in making adjustments to plans on the fly informed by scouting or unexpected events. So for me anyway a player solidly executing a few builds they’ve taken from VoDs but who can’t adapt is competent at the core mechanics of the game, but isn’t yet in a strategic sense so wouldn’t quite yet be a good player. As for entertaining games, good question. The high water mark is two very skilled players playing close to their best playing styles that don’t blind counter an opening, and trading blows. Which is quite rare, if player A is on top form and player B is just below theirs, it can lead to a rather one-sided affair as the margins are so slim. I personally quite love weird clown fiesta games because the comfort of familiarity is thrown out and it’s not a situation often practiced, so players have to make decisions on the fly in a more improvisational manner. | ||
|
aringadingding
476 Posts
On October 06 2020 20:11 tigon_ridge wrote: At around 7.7k mmr is when a player attains SC enlightenment, at which point they begin to become one with the game, and the final evaluation of whether they truly suck is suddenly revealed to them in a mind-emptying flash of total awareness and comprehension of SC buddha-nature, wherein the noble truths ultimately are revealed to be: "Yea I still kinda suck. Dis game hard af." :-) hahaha ^^ Very poetic. | ||
|
ytherik
199 Posts
On October 06 2020 20:11 tigon_ridge wrote: At around 7.7k mmr is when a player attains SC enlightenment, at which point they begin to become one with the game, and the final evaluation of whether they truly suck is suddenly revealed to them in a mind-emptying flash of total awareness and comprehension of SC buddha-nature, wherein the noble truths ultimately are revealed to be: "Yea I still kinda suck. Dis game hard af." :-) Some people believe that one player already attained this elusive state. When asked how he feels he replied: "Mmm, it's nice". | ||
|
TelecoM
United States10673 Posts
| ||
|
Wrathsc2
United States2025 Posts
On October 06 2020 19:42 aringadingding wrote: But then you think people will have the exact same mentality. Different people who play the same will have different opinions on how well they think they understand a game. A player at any of they higher league (or any league when i think about it) can think the way you describe it. I think you view is a romantic picture that people at the some level suddenly will see the light and find the truth about the game. Right, and anyone below top masters/gm just doesn't understand imo. They think they do, but they just don't because they haven't experienced playing at such a high level. If a GM and a diamond league player watch a match between maru and serral (best of 5), I would bet money that they would describe how the games and overall match went very differently. This is why most people can tell that while Artosis is not perfect, he can describe games analytically way better than Tastosis because he simply keeps up with the meta and plays at a higher level. I believe good players would all watch the same match and describe it very similarly to each other because there is a level of understanding not attained until a GM. It's also why we enjoy pro players casting, they simply point things out that no other caster without experience can. | ||
|
Edpayasugo
United Kingdom2215 Posts
On October 04 2020 06:21 [Phantom] wrote: I think diamond players definitely know what they are doing and people underestimate all leagues in general. 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. Some people also simply have a lower mechanicall skill cap. For you it might be masters, or diamond, or gold, who knows. I think there are two levels of good, and of course it's relative. The first level is of the casual player, the general population, aka, all of us. in this case, good I would say is GM, Masters, Diamond are good. (and maybe like I said above, anyone that's on the top of 50% of the playerbase could technically be considered good). And then there's Pros, which you need to put them aside in a completely different category. There's no point in comparing them to the average player. They play all day, they get paid to play, the have no other major responsabilities, they can focus, they have practice partners etc. There's no comparison. Even then, there are different skill levels amongst pros too. In that sense, some pros could be bad relatively to another. Obviously, they would all be objectively good when compared to the playerbase, but they are so far removed from the average joe, that it's futile to compare them. So yeah, Pros are good players. GSL winners are good players. That doesn't mean someone in master isn't a good player too. Generally agree with this, I think most players are underrated and the competition from Gold+ is pretty decent | ||
|
Charoisaur
Germany15961 Posts
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. On October 06 2020 00:02 scrotesque wrote: You have to meet two conditions: First, place highly in a legit competition, only GSL counts. No super tournaments, though. Second, IdrA then has to decide if you're legit. This is the truth | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Stormgate Dota 2 League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
DaveTesta Events
The PondCast
WardiTV Summer Champion…
Replay Cast
LiuLi Cup
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
RSL Revival
RSL Revival
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
CSO Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
