On February 12 2024 09:53 WombaT wrote: He’s been the most prolific winner of regular international tournaments, he’s right up the top for big World titles. His win rates are insane, he’s basically got a winning head-to-head versus the entire field over half a decade.
As an entire package I don’t see how you beat that.
I think you'd have to argue a counterfactual that had he been participating in GSL and the like over the years that he'd have been so much worse than he is outside of South Korea that averaging everything out would push him below some of the other potential candidates. And at least to me, it does seem like there are some people who accept that idea as a basic premise in evaluating his place. It's obviously impossible to know for sure but I know which way I lean.
Though maybe more interesting would be what the scene in Europe would look like if a Serral-shaped vacuum were there circa idk 2019-present.
You could also argue if he had participated in all GSLs and the likes, he'd have won most of them cementing his status as GOAT yeaers ago. Not to bait here, but "what if" doesn't really cut it. We have facts and stats for all players and that is what counts
On February 12 2024 09:53 WombaT wrote: He’s been the most prolific winner of regular international tournaments, he’s right up the top for big World titles. His win rates are insane, he’s basically got a winning head-to-head versus the entire field over half a decade.
As an entire package I don’t see how you beat that.
I think you'd have to argue a counterfactual that had he been participating in GSL and the like over the years that he'd have been so much worse than he is outside of South Korea that averaging everything out would push him below some of the other potential candidates. And at least to me, it does seem like there are some people who accept that idea as a basic premise in evaluating his place. It's obviously impossible to know for sure but I know which way I lean.
Though maybe more interesting would be what the scene in Europe would look like if a Serral-shaped vacuum were there circa idk 2019-present.
You could also argue if he had participated in all GSLs and the likes, he'd have won most of them cementing his status as GOAT yeaers ago. Not to bait here, but "what if" doesn't really cut it. We have facts and stats for all players and that is what counts
Yea his premise doesn't make any sense, why would he be weaker in South Korea? Let's assume the default assumption he'd beat them at the same rate he's beating them now, if he participated in every tournament his peers participated he'd have won even more stuff than they did, he beats them more often than he is beat by them, you don't need to engage in any mental gymnastics.
Serral has been the favorite to win every tournament he enters for the past 6 years, koreans or not present, when people vote with their wallet they tend to be more reasonable.
On February 12 2024 09:53 WombaT wrote: He’s been the most prolific winner of regular international tournaments, he’s right up the top for big World titles. His win rates are insane, he’s basically got a winning head-to-head versus the entire field over half a decade.
As an entire package I don’t see how you beat that.
I think you'd have to argue a counterfactual that had he been participating in GSL and the like over the years that he'd have been so much worse than he is outside of South Korea that averaging everything out would push him below some of the other potential candidates. And at least to me, it does seem like there are some people who accept that idea as a basic premise in evaluating his place. It's obviously impossible to know for sure but I know which way I lean.
Though maybe more interesting would be what the scene in Europe would look like if a Serral-shaped vacuum were there circa idk 2019-present.
You could also argue if he had participated in all GSLs and the likes, he'd have won most of them cementing his status as GOAT yeaers ago. Not to bait here, but "what if" doesn't really cut it. We have facts and stats for all players and that is what counts
Yea his premise doesn't make any sense, why would he be weaker in South Korea? Let's assume the default assumption he'd beat them at the same rate he's beating them now, if he participated in every tournament his peers participated he'd have won even more stuff than they did, he beats them more often than he is beat by them, you don't need to engage in any mental gymnastics.
Serral has been the favorite to win every tournament he enters for the past 6 years, koreans or not present, when people vote with their wallet they tend to be more reasonable.
That's a gross (and pretty inaccurate) oversimplification of how gambling odds are determined.
But, yeah, avoiding prognostication is a good policy to go by when trying to be reasonable with stuff like this.
On February 12 2024 09:53 WombaT wrote: He’s been the most prolific winner of regular international tournaments, he’s right up the top for big World titles. His win rates are insane, he’s basically got a winning head-to-head versus the entire field over half a decade.
As an entire package I don’t see how you beat that.
I think you'd have to argue a counterfactual that had he been participating in GSL and the like over the years that he'd have been so much worse than he is outside of South Korea that averaging everything out would push him below some of the other potential candidates. And at least to me, it does seem like there are some people who accept that idea as a basic premise in evaluating his place. It's obviously impossible to know for sure but I know which way I lean.
Though maybe more interesting would be what the scene in Europe would look like if a Serral-shaped vacuum were there circa idk 2019-present.
You could also argue if he had participated in all GSLs and the likes, he'd have won most of them cementing his status as GOAT yeaers ago. Not to bait here, but "what if" doesn't really cut it. We have facts and stats for all players and that is what counts
Yea his premise doesn't make any sense, why would he be weaker in South Korea? Let's assume the default assumption he'd beat them at the same rate he's beating them now, if he participated in every tournament his peers participated he'd have won even more stuff than they did, he beats them more often than he is beat by them, you don't need to engage in any mental gymnastics.
Serral has been the favorite to win every tournament he enters for the past 6 years, koreans or not present, when people vote with their wallet they tend to be more reasonable.
Er, so just to be clearer: I did not argue that there would be any reason to suppose he would be weaker in Korea, I did not say that the opposite counterfactual was impossible (it was just irrelevant to what I was responding to), and it was not my premise. I even said " it does seem like there are some people who accept that idea as a basic premise in evaluating his place."
On February 12 2024 09:53 WombaT wrote: He’s been the most prolific winner of regular international tournaments, he’s right up the top for big World titles. His win rates are insane, he’s basically got a winning head-to-head versus the entire field over half a decade.
As an entire package I don’t see how you beat that.
I think you'd have to argue a counterfactual that had he been participating in GSL and the like over the years that he'd have been so much worse than he is outside of South Korea that averaging everything out would push him below some of the other potential candidates. And at least to me, it does seem like there are some people who accept that idea as a basic premise in evaluating his place. It's obviously impossible to know for sure but I know which way I lean.
Though maybe more interesting would be what the scene in Europe would look like if a Serral-shaped vacuum were there circa idk 2019-present.
You could also argue if he had participated in all GSLs and the likes, he'd have won most of them cementing his status as GOAT yeaers ago. Not to bait here, but "what if" doesn't really cut it. We have facts and stats for all players and that is what counts
Yea his premise doesn't make any sense, why would he be weaker in South Korea? Let's assume the default assumption he'd beat them at the same rate he's beating them now, if he participated in every tournament his peers participated he'd have won even more stuff than they did, he beats them more often than he is beat by them, you don't need to engage in any mental gymnastics.
Serral has been the favorite to win every tournament he enters for the past 6 years, koreans or not present, when people vote with their wallet they tend to be more reasonable.
That's a gross (and pretty inaccurate) oversimplification of how gambling odds are determined.
But, yeah, avoiding prognostication is a good policy to go by when trying to be reasonable with stuff like this.
Can you clarify your statement about gambling odds? Why is it "pretty inaccurate"?
On February 12 2024 09:53 WombaT wrote: He’s been the most prolific winner of regular international tournaments, he’s right up the top for big World titles. His win rates are insane, he’s basically got a winning head-to-head versus the entire field over half a decade.
As an entire package I don’t see how you beat that.
I think you'd have to argue a counterfactual that had he been participating in GSL and the like over the years that he'd have been so much worse than he is outside of South Korea that averaging everything out would push him below some of the other potential candidates. And at least to me, it does seem like there are some people who accept that idea as a basic premise in evaluating his place. It's obviously impossible to know for sure but I know which way I lean.
Though maybe more interesting would be what the scene in Europe would look like if a Serral-shaped vacuum were there circa idk 2019-present.
You could also argue if he had participated in all GSLs and the likes, he'd have won most of them cementing his status as GOAT yeaers ago. Not to bait here, but "what if" doesn't really cut it. We have facts and stats for all players and that is what counts
Yea his premise doesn't make any sense, why would he be weaker in South Korea? Let's assume the default assumption he'd beat them at the same rate he's beating them now, if he participated in every tournament his peers participated he'd have won even more stuff than they did, he beats them more often than he is beat by them, you don't need to engage in any mental gymnastics.
Serral has been the favorite to win every tournament he enters for the past 6 years, koreans or not present, when people vote with their wallet they tend to be more reasonable.
That's a gross (and pretty inaccurate) oversimplification of how gambling odds are determined.
But, yeah, avoiding prognostication is a good policy to go by when trying to be reasonable with stuff like this.
Can you clarify your statement about gambling odds? Why is it "pretty inaccurate"?
I think he just meant there is more to it than that. Like Home and Away games are rated very different despite the same teams playing etc. Prizepool and modus (lenghty, 1 match a week) all have to be considered. Stuff like that
On February 12 2024 09:53 WombaT wrote: He’s been the most prolific winner of regular international tournaments, he’s right up the top for big World titles. His win rates are insane, he’s basically got a winning head-to-head versus the entire field over half a decade.
As an entire package I don’t see how you beat that.
I think you'd have to argue a counterfactual that had he been participating in GSL and the like over the years that he'd have been so much worse than he is outside of South Korea that averaging everything out would push him below some of the other potential candidates. And at least to me, it does seem like there are some people who accept that idea as a basic premise in evaluating his place. It's obviously impossible to know for sure but I know which way I lean.
Though maybe more interesting would be what the scene in Europe would look like if a Serral-shaped vacuum were there circa idk 2019-present.
You could also argue if he had participated in all GSLs and the likes, he'd have won most of them cementing his status as GOAT yeaers ago. Not to bait here, but "what if" doesn't really cut it. We have facts and stats for all players and that is what counts
Yea his premise doesn't make any sense, why would he be weaker in South Korea? Let's assume the default assumption he'd beat them at the same rate he's beating them now, if he participated in every tournament his peers participated he'd have won even more stuff than they did, he beats them more often than he is beat by them, you don't need to engage in any mental gymnastics.
Serral has been the favorite to win every tournament he enters for the past 6 years, koreans or not present, when people vote with their wallet they tend to be more reasonable.
That's a gross (and pretty inaccurate) oversimplification of how gambling odds are determined.
But, yeah, avoiding prognostication is a good policy to go by when trying to be reasonable with stuff like this.
Can you clarify your statement about gambling odds? Why is it "pretty inaccurate"?
I think he just meant there is more to it than that. Like Home and Away games are rated very different despite the same teams playing etc. Prizepool and modus (lenghty, 1 match a week) all have to be considered. Stuff like that
Uhh sure, those are details that change who is the favourite to win.
On February 12 2024 20:01 Poopi wrote: Edit: lol about the comment above, you can ask current pros from today to play on BL/infestor patch and see if your raven / Viking strat (or any for that matter) can work. Heck I would even bet 300$ that current top zergs vs current top terrans on WoL BL/infestor patch would lean in the favor of Zerg’s given enough preparation time to be back in « WoL » mode (lot less QoL in WoL, gotta take some time to adjust)
I would love to bet on that! BL Infestor was OP cus it was "the strongest composition" in the game, which wasn't true (at least not in a vacuum, strictly speaking).
Pros really just didn't experiment enough with Ravens/PDD until late HotS. Even in HotS, it took them that long to realize that it was busted, so it's not a surprise that it can take a while for pros to discover something really strong, especially if it's a less common composition like mech. (Similarly, they didn't realize BFH Mech was super strong until MLG Anaheim in WoL, and then it was nerfed right after).
All Mech players would have to do is mix in a few more Ravens than they did in the past. At that stage of the game, gas wasn't really a problem, and it'd be easy to build up to 10+ Ravens by that point that Zerg masses up BL/Infestor. You didn't even need to engage the BL/Infestor head on with mass Raven, you could just run around and drop auto turrets around their bases.
Pros don't always do everything optimally. Another example is MVP didn't think to stack his BCs and EMP them vs Squirtle, and he let his BCs get mass feedback'd.
You might lol at the idea, but everyone also laughed at mass Raven in HotS until GSL pros started doing it.
On February 12 2024 20:01 Poopi wrote: Edit: lol about the comment above, you can ask current pros from today to play on BL/infestor patch and see if your raven / Viking strat (or any for that matter) can work. Heck I would even bet 300$ that current top zergs vs current top terrans on WoL BL/infestor patch would lean in the favor of Zerg’s given enough preparation time to be back in « WoL » mode (lot less QoL in WoL, gotta take some time to adjust)
I would love to bet on that! BL Infestor was OP cus it was "the strongest composition" in the game, which wasn't true. Pros really just didn't experiment enough with Ravens/PDD until late HotS. Even in HotS, it took them that long to realize that it was busted, so it's not a surprise that it can take a while for pros to discover something really strong, especially if it's a less common composition like mech. (Similarly, they didn't realize BFH Mech was super strong until MLG Anaheim in WoL, and then it was nerfed right after).
All Mech players would have to do is mix in a few more Ravens than they did in the past. At that stage of the game, gas wasn't really a problem, and it'd be easy to build up to 10+ Ravens by that point that Zerg masses up BL/Infestor.
Pros don't always do everything optimally. Another example is MVP didn't think to stack his BCs and EMP them vs Squirtle, and he let his BCs get mass feedback'd.
You might lol at the idea, but everyone also laughed at it in HotS until GSL pros started doing it.
Even taking ravens aside, infestor instant fungal was busted and was thankfully nerfed in HotS.
On February 12 2024 20:01 Poopi wrote: Edit: lol about the comment above, you can ask current pros from today to play on BL/infestor patch and see if your raven / Viking strat (or any for that matter) can work. Heck I would even bet 300$ that current top zergs vs current top terrans on WoL BL/infestor patch would lean in the favor of Zerg’s given enough preparation time to be back in « WoL » mode (lot less QoL in WoL, gotta take some time to adjust)
I would love to bet on that! BL Infestor was OP cus it was "the strongest composition" in the game, which wasn't true (at least not in a vacuum, strictly speaking).
Pros really just didn't experiment enough with Ravens/PDD until late HotS. Even in HotS, it took them that long to realize that it was busted, so it's not a surprise that it can take a while for pros to discover something really strong, especially if it's a less common composition like mech. (Similarly, they didn't realize BFH Mech was super strong until MLG Anaheim in WoL, and then it was nerfed right after).
All Mech players would have to do is mix in a few more Ravens than they did in the past. At that stage of the game, gas wasn't really a problem, and it'd be easy to build up to 10+ Ravens by that point that Zerg masses up BL/Infestor. You didn't even need to engage the BL/Infestor head on with mass Raven, you could just run around and drop auto turrets around their bases.
Pros don't always do everything optimally. Another example is MVP didn't think to stack his BCs and EMP them vs Squirtle, and he let his BCs get mass feedback'd.
You might lol at the idea, but everyone also laughed at mass Raven in HotS until GSL pros started doing it.
Pros didn't "discover" Ravens were strong. They got a huge buff with the seeker missile energy cost decrease from 125 to 75. Before that they were useless
On February 12 2024 20:01 Poopi wrote: Edit: lol about the comment above, you can ask current pros from today to play on BL/infestor patch and see if your raven / Viking strat (or any for that matter) can work. Heck I would even bet 300$ that current top zergs vs current top terrans on WoL BL/infestor patch would lean in the favor of Zerg’s given enough preparation time to be back in « WoL » mode (lot less QoL in WoL, gotta take some time to adjust)
I would love to bet on that! BL Infestor was OP cus it was "the strongest composition" in the game, which wasn't true (at least not in a vacuum, strictly speaking).
Pros really just didn't experiment enough with Ravens/PDD until late HotS. Even in HotS, it took them that long to realize that it was busted, so it's not a surprise that it can take a while for pros to discover something really strong, especially if it's a less common composition like mech. (Similarly, they didn't realize BFH Mech was super strong until MLG Anaheim in WoL, and then it was nerfed right after).
All Mech players would have to do is mix in a few more Ravens than they did in the past. At that stage of the game, gas wasn't really a problem, and it'd be easy to build up to 10+ Ravens by that point that Zerg masses up BL/Infestor. You didn't even need to engage the BL/Infestor head on with mass Raven, you could just run around and drop auto turrets around their bases.
Pros don't always do everything optimally. Another example is MVP didn't think to stack his BCs and EMP them vs Squirtle, and he let his BCs get mass feedback'd.
You might lol at the idea, but everyone also laughed at mass Raven in HotS until GSL pros started doing it.
Pros didn't "discover" Ravens were strong. They got a huge buff with the seeker missile energy cost decrease from 125 to 75. Before that they were useless
Mass seeker missile was indeed really strong, not exactly for the energy change though cus the range increased (but also delay increased). But PDD is really the thing that made mass ravens so OP. You don't need seeker missile with PDD, when it does a very similar thing (forces the opponent to pull units back, thus allowing you to get free shots and receiving less shots). Seeker missile just made Ravens even more busted and you'd use your extra energy on when you already have enough PDD to block all shots.
PDD is the ability that got completely removed first, while Seeker Missile remained in a much less potent (but also more guaranteed damage) form in AA-missile in LotV.
For example, this match Flash vs Curious played before the Seeker missile rework, PDD alone is enough:
And mass Raven (and Mech in general) was becoming really popular already in TvZ before the Seeker Missile rework
On February 12 2024 05:35 argonautdice wrote: Literally has anyone had a better record 2018 to now than Serral? If a player is the best player in the world for half of the game's age, then that player is GOAT.
In 2018 Serral and Maru I would say were equal for the top spot. In 2019 Dark was the best. In 2020 Rogue was the best. In 2021 Reynor was the best. In 2022 Serral was the best, that's true. In 2023 Reynor or Oliveira were the top I would say.
So Serral was #1 for one year of the 14 years of sc2 history. While playing in the Zerg OP era. While playing in the weakest era, where 15 pros practice.
Actually the past couple years has been the highest skilled era
When you watched the games played during “pro league keeps 2015-2016 ” the supposed highest skilled era, the games are actually quite low skilled by todays standard. Current mid-high Master ladder player could win everything from 2010-2016
First off, a master player now wouldn't even be competing with pros 10 years ago. Not even close in fact. It's completely and utterly insane to think that. They'd maybe get in the first GSL open seasons
Secondly, the 'highest skilled era' is just misleading. There are several times fewer active pros than in the past. Every tournament is a showdown between the top 3-5 players. In the past it was between 30. That makes it substantially easier for those guys to win a greater percentage of them.
The idea of someone winning every GSL tournament in 2014 where over 60 pros, all sponsored with teams and coaches, would qualify each season, is unthinkable.
The best players (Maru and Serral) are better now than anyone previously, but they would win less if another 50 full time pros were around.
Actually my statement is pretty close to reality
Remember everyone praising MKP marine splits? That’s literally basic mechanic that I see on ladder when I play against terrans in masters. (Dare to say some have even better splits and multiple pong)
Additional lower tier full time pro will not make much of a difference against the top dogs (aka Serral Maru dark reynor etc)
Looking back at thr list of pros playing back then and their games. Their skills are quite…. Unimpressive by todays standard
only people that think this is true are people who have never gotten masters before lmao or are high on master3 ego.
The pro level is an entirely different game when compared to the master level players. All master rank means and will continue to be is really a bare-minimum macro competency check. And this "Requirement" for master league never changed throughout the years. It's one thing to talk about brand new game release, but by later WoL/early HoTs, you won't have masters, let alone GM level players winning GSLs lmfao.
You can just look around and see this. You literally have brand new players and other RTS players trying LoTV out and getting masters within a week. How do you think these "master" players will do against Pros who were in c/b BW team or even top talents in BW?
Do you really think master players can win vs MVP? He got 6k+ MMR when he tried out LOTV after taking break since early HOTS. Sure he might have kept up here and there but he took significant time off and guess what? He slotted back in even when he played casually. How about MC that made it to GSL code S when he worked largely as "Whyman" or other off-jobs instead of focusing on SC2?
People are confusing top line pro players getting better with average playerbase. IMO, the average "higher" playerbase (mid-high masterish) have stayed same in skill level since mid HOTS. MMR Deflation doesn't mean players have gotten better. Look at the population % equivalent of your ranks if you want that comparison.
Master league in overall picture of SC2 as RTS, is at extremely basic level of understanding the game. Very surface level at most. You are barely getting started with playing the game when you are entering master league.
Most master players do not have much game knowledge, scouting knowledge, unit interaction knowledge, map knowledge ect. Most of them have barely gotten started with optimizing macro at all. Pros do that on daily basis and have done it in BW and if you are going by GSL 2014ish, it's by far beyond what your regular ladder lotv master league players will know.
Us master players suck. And you should be high enough on MMR to realize that by now if you really are there or you are just blind to it.
On February 12 2024 19:42 Yoshi Kirishima wrote:
I find this interesting, because my experience is the opposite. As a former masters player in HotS, I feel opponents have became more skilled comparatively and I struggle to get from Diamond 1 to Masters 3.
At my peak at the end of HotS, I was high masters and facing off vs low GMs about half of my ladder games (and would win vs some of them). Early LotV, I was mid masters at 4500 MR, and now I vary from 3900 to 4200 MMR despite still playing now and then and trying to improve.
Ofc, this is probably because of the difference in focus between HotS and LotV, and the difference in our skillsets.
You may be confusing MMR deflation to it increasing skill level really. I haven't really noticed much difference in skill level from HOTS-LOTV era (altho I quit around 2017 LOTV), despite me being high master in hots and lotv myself at around 5-5.2k mmr back when I did play. I don't really notice anything drastically different if I hop on and play vs master or d1 players from time to time at all.
The entry requirement to master league never really changed and haven't really changed since HOTS even if MMR may have changed (4.2k is master requirement now, used to be 4.4-4.5k earlier LOTV)
On February 13 2024 08:29 jinjin5000 wrote: You may be confusing MMR deflation to it increasing skill level really. I haven't really noticed much difference in skill level from HOTS-LOTV era (altho I quit around 2017 LOTV), despite me being high master in hots and lotv myself at around 5-5.2k mmr back when I did play. I don't really notice anything drastically different if I hop on and play vs master or d1 players from time to time at all.
The entry requirement to master league never really changed and haven't really changed since HOTS even if MMR may have changed (4.2k is master requirement now, used to be 4.4-4.5k earlier LOTV)
I'm not sure if i understand the MMR deflation vs skill thing, do you mean that the skill is the same and it's just an arbitrary MMR number varying up and down?
I feel though that MMR deflation hasn't been in a constant steady decline. I remember that in early LotV, in the months I was playing it, the threshold to enter Masters used to be around 4k, but then it slowly rose season to season to 4400 and it did feel harder and harder skill wise. After a while, it seems to have dropped back down to 4200 From what I understand, in HotS there were too many players in masters (it was supposed to be top 2% but it was more like 5%), and in LotV they made it much closer to 2%, so early LotV the threshold was around 4k.
I do agree that masters is where you really start to understand the basics of the game enough to start "playing" the game (like making real strategies and decisions and reads), but I feel like low masters players have a bit more understanding of the game than in HotS and WoL, but it just might be harder for you to notice those small differences since you were a 5k mmr player. For example, I remember I used to be able to play random at a low masters level and would be able to pull off all sorts of stupid things, for example half-assing an all-in with 4 proxy barracks, and faking them out by not fully committing and triple expanding behind it and then being ahead. Or doing flimsy canon rushes and then double expanding behind it with secret bases and then just winning however I feel like. Or for example i would do silly strategies like open with mass raven/viking/banshee and expand all over the map.
Now though, I feel low masters players are significantly tighter when it comes to the important timings and mechanics. For example as a Terran now, when I'm playing seriously and not trying to goof around, if I slip up my macro for 10-15 seconds and I didn't swap my Barracks and Factor in order to make 1 Tank and make marines before the first blink stalkers come, I just die. I don't remember that level of unforgiveness when I was playing at mid/high masters in HotS. Since early LotV, like 6 years ago, I haven't once been able to make it back into masters.
In my exp, Diamond 1 players is where mid-masters used to be in HotS or early LotV. I think another example why I believe this is because, back then when I would offrace (despite never learning or practicing Protoss or Zerg), i could still just wing it and focus on macro and still be ranked low masters. But in LotV if i try to macro and wing it, I only got Diamond 3 with them.
I feel like if it's purely MMR deflation and the skill hasn't increased, then I should still be mid or high masters like in HotS
On February 13 2024 08:29 jinjin5000 wrote: Do you really think master players can win vs MVP? He got 6k+ MMR when he tried out LOTV after taking break since early HOTS. Sure he might have kept up here and there but he took significant time off and guess what? He slotted back in even when he played casually. How about MC that made it to GSL code S when he worked largely as "Whyman" or other off-jobs instead of focusing on SC2?
That's actually super cool, I didn't know that. Definitely makes me appreciate and trust that early SC2 games were still relatively high level. I suppose another piece of evidence is, the Gamers8 legends match where MC beat Stephano pretty handily. Stephano isn't competing seriously anymore, but he still enters and qualifies for group stages of tournaments sometimes, meaning he's at least a semi-pro level. So MC being able to beat Stephano despite being much less practiced really proves that the capability of the person is a huge factor, their relative skill doesn't just "freeze" in time when they stopped playing while other players get comparatively better.
I wonder if this applies backwards as much though. If Serral is dominating the scene so hard now, including usually beating Maru, then does that heavily imply that despite the lack of the Kespa-era infrastructure like proper teams, coaches, more fame and viewership etc., that Serral would likely be at the top back then too?
That also reminds me, in 2019-2021 there had been old players like Bomber Taeja MMA trying to qualify for GSL. Perhaps it's because the scene seemed decently promising, since 2016-2018 were still pretty decent years, with WCs like Blizzcon actually increasing the prize pool, rather than the scene purely declining, and maybe SC2 in 2019 seemed like it might be a decent prospect and attracted those old players to try again.
And heck, players like Ryung DID eventually breakthrough and qualify, and still manage to qualify a decent amount of times (like 1/3 to 1/2 of GSL seasons). And to a lesser extent players like Keen even find success qualifying once each year or almost each year. I wonder if MMA and Taeja stuck with it a bit longer and managed to qualify once, if it'd help motivate and give them the momentum they need to be where Ryung is now, and perhaps even higher.
5 years or so ago you needed 5500-5600 MMR to reach GM. Nowadays you need like 500 MMR less. But the skill required to reach GM remains roughly the same (evidenced by me being 200-300 MMR below that threshold back then and now)
On February 13 2024 19:52 Charoisaur wrote: 5 years or so ago you needed 5500-5600 MMR to reach GM. Nowadays you need like 500 MMR less. But the skill required to reach GM remains roughly the same (evidenced by me being 200-300 MMR below that threshold back then and now)
I see, thanks for clarifying that does make sense regarding the MMR varying and it isn't directly tied to the skill.
I'm curious though in regards to the other thing im wondering about about players getting better, do you still play regularly each year? If you do then i feel you maintaining being close to GM might indicate you're also slightly improving comparatively, but skill is relatively the same since everyone else playing regularly is also improving slightly.
I do play now and then but not really regularly, and i've been falling farther and farther from making low masters. I don't think I've been getting worse at macro, mechanics, or apm, but that the difficulty is that other players are improving slowly comparatively in macro/mechanics/apm and also understanding of the game.
On February 13 2024 19:52 Charoisaur wrote: 5 years or so ago you needed 5500-5600 MMR to reach GM. Nowadays you need like 500 MMR less. But the skill required to reach GM remains roughly the same (evidenced by me being 200-300 MMR below that threshold back then and now)
I see, thanks for clarifying that does make sense regarding the MMR varying and it isn't directly tied to the skill.
I'm curious though in regards to the other thing im wondering about about players getting better, do you still play regularly each year? If you do then i feel you maintaining being close to GM might indicate you're also slightly improving comparatively, but skill is relatively the same since everyone else playing regularly is also improving slightly.
I do play now and then but not really regularly, and i've been falling farther and farther from making low masters. I don't think I've been getting worse at macro, mechanics, or apm, but that the difficulty is that other players are improving slowly comparatively in macro/mechanics/apm and also understanding of the game.
Still play pretty regularly, probably less than I used to back when I was 5.3k but still enough to maintain my skill level
EPT
