|
On July 26 2025 00:27 Mizenhauer wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2025 15:36 johnnyh123 wrote:
Actually, my original sentence on the players today are "the best to have ever played SC2" wasn't referring to Serral specifically. In fact, I don't think he's the best player to have played. I think Clem has a higher peak, just look at the 2024 EWC final.
Also, you're missing the fundamental point about competitive depth vs individual achievement.
Infrastructure: Yes, Serral didn't inherit Korean infrastructure - that's exactly why his dominance is less impressive from a GOAT perspective. He succeeded when the competitive ecosystem had already contracted dramatically.
Evidence of stagnation: Your list of "established players" in 2019 actually proves my point. You're naming players who were already established 5-7 years earlier! This isn't strength - it's stagnation. Where are the fresh challengers pushing these veterans? Where are the power hungry kids that is willing to grind it out when they are winning close to $0 per tournament? That's the definition of a declining competitive scene.
Skill vs Competition: You're also conflating individual skill progression with competitive environment - they're completely different concepts.
Yes, today's players are technically stronger because they've absorbed 15 years of accumulated knowledge, refined builds, and perfected mechanics. They absolutely "stand on the shoulders of giants" in terms of game understanding.
But that's exactly why the competitive environment is weaker, not stronger.
Peak Era Comparison: In 2013-2015, you had dozens of players also learning from those giants while the giants were still competing at their peak:
- MVP/Nestea/MC/MMA/etc. still hungry
- KeSPA legends in their prime
- new talent emerging from strong regional scenes
- all pushing each other simultaneously
Today's scene has the knowledge but lacks competitive pressure. From 2016~, Korean team houses were closing, Proleague was gone, and players faced fewer practice partners with less infrastructure.
Chess analogy: It's like claiming today's chess players are in the most competitive era because they have access to computer analysis that Kasparov didn't have. The tools are better, but if there are only 10 serious competitors left instead of 100, the competitive environment is objectively weaker.
Standing on giants' shoulders makes you taller, but it doesn't make the mountain you're climbing any higher if all the other climbers went home.
Regarding military: Your "different styles of competitiveness" argument is backwards. When 30+ year old military returnees can crack top-16/18 immediately after 2+ years away (Challenge B still stands), that screams weak depth. In 2013-2015, military service was a career death sentence - the scene was too competitive.
Innovation, Maru, soO, etc. had to fight through hundreds of Korean prospects just to qualify. Today's qualifiers are thin by comparison.
My closing thoughts: Serral didn't "beat the meta" - he inherited a solved meta and executed it against a depleted field. The fact that we're still discussing 2013-2015 players as his main competition in 2019+ proves the scene stopped producing elite talent.
It's not about discrediting people's skill - it's about context. Dominating 30 teams in the NBA is more impressive than dominating 8 teams, regardless of individual talent level. It's not Serral's fault that the last KeSPA Draft was held three years before the end of Proleague in 2013.
Miz the undisputed TL-SC2-GOAT replied!
I agree 100%, but my argument is that most players today are not playing in the most competitive era of SC2, and it's just hard for me to call them GOATs for winning in the weakest era.
Like, if Serral and Clem teleported back a few years, and were born in like 1994 instead of 2002, competed in the early days of SC2 (2012-15), and won/dominated like today, 100% GOAT.
|
ByuN is a good example of showcasing that kespa wasn't working anymore. It's kind of cool that he sprung up and dominated at this time, especially since he wasn't allowed to play on kespa, because of kespa prison or what was happening. But after this there was also neeb winning the first kr tournament, then scarlett winning the Pyongyang, the 2018 blizzcon win was exceptional at the time, but also inevitable. Serral did became the best of everyone, but the difference between this era and the one before is that in the before-time, instead of just reynor and clem giving serral trouble ut would've been 7x clems\reynors and there would be another 7 each year. How would serral ever be able to keep up his dominance with this? He benefits from being the best of a dead scene and they could continue to play till they're 40 years old and the tournament trophies would still pile up.
|
On July 26 2025 00:49 johnnyh123 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 00:27 Mizenhauer wrote:On July 25 2025 15:36 johnnyh123 wrote:
Actually, my original sentence on the players today are "the best to have ever played SC2" wasn't referring to Serral specifically. In fact, I don't think he's the best player to have played. I think Clem has a higher peak, just look at the 2024 EWC final.
Also, you're missing the fundamental point about competitive depth vs individual achievement.
Infrastructure: Yes, Serral didn't inherit Korean infrastructure - that's exactly why his dominance is less impressive from a GOAT perspective. He succeeded when the competitive ecosystem had already contracted dramatically.
Evidence of stagnation: Your list of "established players" in 2019 actually proves my point. You're naming players who were already established 5-7 years earlier! This isn't strength - it's stagnation. Where are the fresh challengers pushing these veterans? Where are the power hungry kids that is willing to grind it out when they are winning close to $0 per tournament? That's the definition of a declining competitive scene.
Skill vs Competition: You're also conflating individual skill progression with competitive environment - they're completely different concepts.
Yes, today's players are technically stronger because they've absorbed 15 years of accumulated knowledge, refined builds, and perfected mechanics. They absolutely "stand on the shoulders of giants" in terms of game understanding.
But that's exactly why the competitive environment is weaker, not stronger.
Peak Era Comparison: In 2013-2015, you had dozens of players also learning from those giants while the giants were still competing at their peak:
- MVP/Nestea/MC/MMA/etc. still hungry
- KeSPA legends in their prime
- new talent emerging from strong regional scenes
- all pushing each other simultaneously
Today's scene has the knowledge but lacks competitive pressure. From 2016~, Korean team houses were closing, Proleague was gone, and players faced fewer practice partners with less infrastructure.
Chess analogy: It's like claiming today's chess players are in the most competitive era because they have access to computer analysis that Kasparov didn't have. The tools are better, but if there are only 10 serious competitors left instead of 100, the competitive environment is objectively weaker.
Standing on giants' shoulders makes you taller, but it doesn't make the mountain you're climbing any higher if all the other climbers went home.
Regarding military: Your "different styles of competitiveness" argument is backwards. When 30+ year old military returnees can crack top-16/18 immediately after 2+ years away (Challenge B still stands), that screams weak depth. In 2013-2015, military service was a career death sentence - the scene was too competitive.
Innovation, Maru, soO, etc. had to fight through hundreds of Korean prospects just to qualify. Today's qualifiers are thin by comparison.
My closing thoughts: Serral didn't "beat the meta" - he inherited a solved meta and executed it against a depleted field. The fact that we're still discussing 2013-2015 players as his main competition in 2019+ proves the scene stopped producing elite talent.
It's not about discrediting people's skill - it's about context. Dominating 30 teams in the NBA is more impressive than dominating 8 teams, regardless of individual talent level. It's not Serral's fault that the last KeSPA Draft was held three years before the end of Proleague in 2013. Miz the undisputed TL-SC2-GOAT replied! I agree 100%, but my argument is that most players today are not playing in the most competitive era of SC2, and it's just hard for me to call them GOATs for winning in the weakest era. Like, if Serral and Clem teleported back a few years, and were born in like 1994 instead of 2002, competed in the early days of SC2 (2012-15), and won/dominated like today, 100% GOAT.
You don't even need to apply hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy, serral literally played during that time.
|
Serral == Jake Paul of SC2, truly this forum has the best analysts, keep at it guys.
|
On July 26 2025 05:02 LostUsername100 wrote:
Serral == Jake Paul of SC2, truly this forum has the best analysts, keep at it guys.
Is he though? He is not beating players twice his age. He is 27. Classic is oldest with 33.
|
On July 26 2025 05:10 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 05:02 LostUsername100 wrote:
Serral == Jake Paul of SC2, truly this forum has the best analysts, keep at it guys. Is he though? He is not beating players twice his age. He is 27. Classic is oldest with 33.
Im being sarcastic it's a beyond stupid comparison, it's just funny the point we've gotten to.
|
On July 26 2025 03:36 THERIDDLER wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 00:49 johnnyh123 wrote:On July 26 2025 00:27 Mizenhauer wrote:On July 25 2025 15:36 johnnyh123 wrote:
Actually, my original sentence on the players today are "the best to have ever played SC2" wasn't referring to Serral specifically. In fact, I don't think he's the best player to have played. I think Clem has a higher peak, just look at the 2024 EWC final.
Also, you're missing the fundamental point about competitive depth vs individual achievement.
Infrastructure: Yes, Serral didn't inherit Korean infrastructure - that's exactly why his dominance is less impressive from a GOAT perspective. He succeeded when the competitive ecosystem had already contracted dramatically.
Evidence of stagnation: Your list of "established players" in 2019 actually proves my point. You're naming players who were already established 5-7 years earlier! This isn't strength - it's stagnation. Where are the fresh challengers pushing these veterans? Where are the power hungry kids that is willing to grind it out when they are winning close to $0 per tournament? That's the definition of a declining competitive scene.
Skill vs Competition: You're also conflating individual skill progression with competitive environment - they're completely different concepts.
Yes, today's players are technically stronger because they've absorbed 15 years of accumulated knowledge, refined builds, and perfected mechanics. They absolutely "stand on the shoulders of giants" in terms of game understanding.
But that's exactly why the competitive environment is weaker, not stronger.
Peak Era Comparison: In 2013-2015, you had dozens of players also learning from those giants while the giants were still competing at their peak:
- MVP/Nestea/MC/MMA/etc. still hungry
- KeSPA legends in their prime
- new talent emerging from strong regional scenes
- all pushing each other simultaneously
Today's scene has the knowledge but lacks competitive pressure. From 2016~, Korean team houses were closing, Proleague was gone, and players faced fewer practice partners with less infrastructure.
Chess analogy: It's like claiming today's chess players are in the most competitive era because they have access to computer analysis that Kasparov didn't have. The tools are better, but if there are only 10 serious competitors left instead of 100, the competitive environment is objectively weaker.
Standing on giants' shoulders makes you taller, but it doesn't make the mountain you're climbing any higher if all the other climbers went home.
Regarding military: Your "different styles of competitiveness" argument is backwards. When 30+ year old military returnees can crack top-16/18 immediately after 2+ years away (Challenge B still stands), that screams weak depth. In 2013-2015, military service was a career death sentence - the scene was too competitive.
Innovation, Maru, soO, etc. had to fight through hundreds of Korean prospects just to qualify. Today's qualifiers are thin by comparison.
My closing thoughts: Serral didn't "beat the meta" - he inherited a solved meta and executed it against a depleted field. The fact that we're still discussing 2013-2015 players as his main competition in 2019+ proves the scene stopped producing elite talent.
It's not about discrediting people's skill - it's about context. Dominating 30 teams in the NBA is more impressive than dominating 8 teams, regardless of individual talent level. It's not Serral's fault that the last KeSPA Draft was held three years before the end of Proleague in 2013. Miz the undisputed TL-SC2-GOAT replied! I agree 100%, but my argument is that most players today are not playing in the most competitive era of SC2, and it's just hard for me to call them GOATs for winning in the weakest era. Like, if Serral and Clem teleported back a few years, and were born in like 1994 instead of 2002, competed in the early days of SC2 (2012-15), and won/dominated like today, 100% GOAT. You don't even need to apply hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy, serral literally played during that time.
Serral did play in those years but it wasn't under the same circumstances. He was only playing SC2 full-time circa summer 2017, and he made a modest leap in his performance against Korean opponents that year, going from 35–60 (36.84%) in games and 16–30 (34.78%) in matches in 2014–2016 to 46–54 (46.00%) in games and 15–15 (50.00%) in matches in 2017, and then had an astronomical leap in 2018 to 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. I don't think that change happened because the Koreans were incredible in 2014–17 and then trash in 2018; I think it's because with the ability to focus on it full time he became much better
If you imagine Serral were three years older, such that his move to full time happened in 2014, maybe he has an incredible breakout year in 2015 in that scenario. We can't know, but is there a good reason to think it's impossible?
|
On July 26 2025 05:02 LostUsername100 wrote:
Serral == Jake Paul of SC2, truly this forum has the best analysts, keep at it guys.
I didn't intend to draw such a direct comparison, and I don't think my post reads that way unless you're being intentionally flippant. In any case, I'm sorry if that's how it came across.
|
On July 26 2025 05:28 Mumei wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 03:36 THERIDDLER wrote:On July 26 2025 00:49 johnnyh123 wrote:On July 26 2025 00:27 Mizenhauer wrote:On July 25 2025 15:36 johnnyh123 wrote:
Actually, my original sentence on the players today are "the best to have ever played SC2" wasn't referring to Serral specifically. In fact, I don't think he's the best player to have played. I think Clem has a higher peak, just look at the 2024 EWC final.
Also, you're missing the fundamental point about competitive depth vs individual achievement.
Infrastructure: Yes, Serral didn't inherit Korean infrastructure - that's exactly why his dominance is less impressive from a GOAT perspective. He succeeded when the competitive ecosystem had already contracted dramatically.
Evidence of stagnation: Your list of "established players" in 2019 actually proves my point. You're naming players who were already established 5-7 years earlier! This isn't strength - it's stagnation. Where are the fresh challengers pushing these veterans? Where are the power hungry kids that is willing to grind it out when they are winning close to $0 per tournament? That's the definition of a declining competitive scene.
Skill vs Competition: You're also conflating individual skill progression with competitive environment - they're completely different concepts.
Yes, today's players are technically stronger because they've absorbed 15 years of accumulated knowledge, refined builds, and perfected mechanics. They absolutely "stand on the shoulders of giants" in terms of game understanding.
But that's exactly why the competitive environment is weaker, not stronger.
Peak Era Comparison: In 2013-2015, you had dozens of players also learning from those giants while the giants were still competing at their peak:
- MVP/Nestea/MC/MMA/etc. still hungry
- KeSPA legends in their prime
- new talent emerging from strong regional scenes
- all pushing each other simultaneously
Today's scene has the knowledge but lacks competitive pressure. From 2016~, Korean team houses were closing, Proleague was gone, and players faced fewer practice partners with less infrastructure.
Chess analogy: It's like claiming today's chess players are in the most competitive era because they have access to computer analysis that Kasparov didn't have. The tools are better, but if there are only 10 serious competitors left instead of 100, the competitive environment is objectively weaker.
Standing on giants' shoulders makes you taller, but it doesn't make the mountain you're climbing any higher if all the other climbers went home.
Regarding military: Your "different styles of competitiveness" argument is backwards. When 30+ year old military returnees can crack top-16/18 immediately after 2+ years away (Challenge B still stands), that screams weak depth. In 2013-2015, military service was a career death sentence - the scene was too competitive.
Innovation, Maru, soO, etc. had to fight through hundreds of Korean prospects just to qualify. Today's qualifiers are thin by comparison.
My closing thoughts: Serral didn't "beat the meta" - he inherited a solved meta and executed it against a depleted field. The fact that we're still discussing 2013-2015 players as his main competition in 2019+ proves the scene stopped producing elite talent.
It's not about discrediting people's skill - it's about context. Dominating 30 teams in the NBA is more impressive than dominating 8 teams, regardless of individual talent level. It's not Serral's fault that the last KeSPA Draft was held three years before the end of Proleague in 2013. Miz the undisputed TL-SC2-GOAT replied! I agree 100%, but my argument is that most players today are not playing in the most competitive era of SC2, and it's just hard for me to call them GOATs for winning in the weakest era. Like, if Serral and Clem teleported back a few years, and were born in like 1994 instead of 2002, competed in the early days of SC2 (2012-15), and won/dominated like today, 100% GOAT. You don't even need to apply hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy, serral literally played during that time. Serral did play in those years but it wasn't under the same circumstances. He was only playing SC2 full-time circa summer 2017, and he made a modest leap in his performance against Korean opponents that year, going from 35–60 (36.84%) in games and 16–30 (34.78%) in matches in 2014–2016 to 46–54 (46.00%) in games and 15–15 (50.00%) in matches in 2017, and then had an astronomical leap in 2018 to 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. I don't think that change happened because the Koreans were incredible in 2014–17 and then trash in 2018; I think it's because with the ability to focus on it full time he became much better If you imagine Serral were three years older, such that his move to full time happened in 2014, maybe he has an incredible breakout year in 2015 in that scenario. We can't know, but is there a good reason to think it's impossible?
HOTS is the most competitive and also less zerg favored compared to LOTV. Since he only got results in LOTV despite being in pro team since 2013, no one can say it’s impossible neither possible. But Korean scene was going down starting 2016 and that’s why Neeb got that Kespa cup win and Scarlett got the IEM win both after 2016.
|
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
On July 26 2025 05:10 kajtarp wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 05:02 LostUsername100 wrote:
Serral == Jake Paul of SC2, truly this forum has the best analysts, keep at it guys. Is he though? He is not beating players twice his age. He is 27. Classic is oldest with 33.
As an aside, I find it interesting that at least in games I follow, and against what is conventional wisdom in some corners, older players can really hang around and keep up their level.
I'm talking both SCs and WC3 here, about the scope of me worldI don’t know much about other eSports.
It seems to me that the churn due to age may be just a combination of competition and a system like Kespa, and other life considerations than performance necessarily.
eSports is going to favour a prodigy type, even more so than regular sports versus a steady developer who gradually improves. It’s not the most lucrative career unless you’re really good. That’s time you can take if you’re a teenager, but if you haven’t properly ‘made it’ by your 20s, you might have to pursue alternatives even if you’re a really good player.
At least in BW, or early SC2 I think the game actively developing and mutating also saw some extra churn, not just age. If I get really good at like, snooker say (fat chance!), there’s highly unlikely to be some revolution in the snooker meta, and me having to relearn and adapt.
It’s an odd swing to observe with Korean BW, with the Kespa system, the old hands were pretty rare and cycled out frequently enough. But without that kind of system, new youngsters basically can’t break the stranglehold of these increasingly old veterans.
I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of others on my ramblings anyway, and especially how it looks in other eSports.
It may be that RTS games of this style are one of the few eSports that older players can keep up in. If, as they do slightly, your reactions drop a bit in a twitch shooter or whatever, maybe that’s enough to end you at the top level. But in RTS, all that additional experience and knowledge of so many different situations may compensate for that.
|
On July 26 2025 07:31 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 05:10 kajtarp wrote:On July 26 2025 05:02 LostUsername100 wrote:
Serral == Jake Paul of SC2, truly this forum has the best analysts, keep at it guys. Is he though? He is not beating players twice his age. He is 27. Classic is oldest with 33. As an aside, I find it interesting that at least in games I follow, and against what is conventional wisdom in some corners, older players can really hang around and keep up their level. I'm talking both SCs and WC3 here, about the scope of me worldI don’t know much about other eSports. It seems to me that the churn due to age may be just a combination of competition and a system like Kespa, and other life considerations than performance necessarily. eSports is going to favour a prodigy type, even more so than regular sports versus a steady developer who gradually improves. It’s not the most lucrative career unless you’re really good. That’s time you can take if you’re a teenager, but if you haven’t properly ‘made it’ by your 20s, you might have to pursue alternatives even if you’re a really good player. At least in BW, or early SC2 I think the game actively developing and mutating also saw some extra churn, not just age. If I get really good at like, snooker say (fat chance!), there’s highly unlikely to be some revolution in the snooker meta, and me having to relearn and adapt. It’s an odd swing to observe with Korean BW, with the Kespa system, the old hands were pretty rare and cycled out frequently enough. But without that kind of system, new youngsters basically can’t break the stranglehold of these increasingly old veterans. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of others on my ramblings anyway, and especially how it looks in other eSports. It may be that RTS games of this style are one of the few eSports that older players can keep up in. If, as they do slightly, your reactions drop a bit in a twitch shooter or whatever, maybe that’s enough to end you at the top level. But in RTS, all that additional experience and knowledge of so many different situations may compensate for that.
I've wondered if part of the reason for a relative lack of longevity in terms of tippy top level performance in earlier generations (of both BW and SC2) was just the the games were developing so quickly in terms of both mechanics and understanding that a lot of people who "got" the games at a particular stage in their competitive era fell by the wayside when they couldn't keep up with mechanical or conceptual developments.
But once we've reached this stage in the games's life cycles, where the mechanical edge isn't being pushed as relentlessly as it was, maybe it means that players don't have to essentially relearn the games? And maybe once you've reached that plateau of, near-peak of human performance and you're at the cutting edge of the current meta in your understanding of the game, aging-related declines aren't dispositive in terms of your ability to continue competing in the way they were in an earlier generation?
|
Northern Ireland25270 Posts
On July 26 2025 08:35 Mumei wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 07:31 WombaT wrote:On July 26 2025 05:10 kajtarp wrote:On July 26 2025 05:02 LostUsername100 wrote:
Serral == Jake Paul of SC2, truly this forum has the best analysts, keep at it guys. Is he though? He is not beating players twice his age. He is 27. Classic is oldest with 33. As an aside, I find it interesting that at least in games I follow, and against what is conventional wisdom in some corners, older players can really hang around and keep up their level. I'm talking both SCs and WC3 here, about the scope of me worldI don’t know much about other eSports. It seems to me that the churn due to age may be just a combination of competition and a system like Kespa, and other life considerations than performance necessarily. eSports is going to favour a prodigy type, even more so than regular sports versus a steady developer who gradually improves. It’s not the most lucrative career unless you’re really good. That’s time you can take if you’re a teenager, but if you haven’t properly ‘made it’ by your 20s, you might have to pursue alternatives even if you’re a really good player. At least in BW, or early SC2 I think the game actively developing and mutating also saw some extra churn, not just age. If I get really good at like, snooker say (fat chance!), there’s highly unlikely to be some revolution in the snooker meta, and me having to relearn and adapt. It’s an odd swing to observe with Korean BW, with the Kespa system, the old hands were pretty rare and cycled out frequently enough. But without that kind of system, new youngsters basically can’t break the stranglehold of these increasingly old veterans. I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of others on my ramblings anyway, and especially how it looks in other eSports. It may be that RTS games of this style are one of the few eSports that older players can keep up in. If, as they do slightly, your reactions drop a bit in a twitch shooter or whatever, maybe that’s enough to end you at the top level. But in RTS, all that additional experience and knowledge of so many different situations may compensate for that. I've wondered if part of the reason for a relative lack of longevity in terms of tippy top level performance in earlier generations (of both BW and SC2) was just the the games were developing so quickly in terms of both mechanics and understanding that a lot of people who "got" the games at a particular stage in their competitive era fell by the wayside when they couldn't keep up with mechanical or conceptual developments. But once we've reached this stage in the games's life cycles, where the mechanical edge isn't being pushed as relentlessly as it was, maybe it means that players don't have to essentially relearn the games? And maybe once you've reached that plateau of, near-peak of human performance and you're at the cutting edge of the current meta in your understanding of the game, aging-related declines aren't dispositive in terms of your ability to continue competing in the way they were in an earlier generation?
Yeah 100% I think that’s a huge part of it.
I mean look at someone like Boxer in SC1, strategic and tactical brilliance to spare.
But when the way to win shifted from doing Boxer stuff, to now needing to be a macro god like oov, he fell off.
Whereas maybe in an alternative universe where the barrier to entry was being a macro god, a young Boxer becomes that. But it’s much harder if you’re at the top of a mountain and the ground shifts beneath you to pivot.
|
On July 26 2025 06:40 dedede wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 05:28 Mumei wrote:On July 26 2025 03:36 THERIDDLER wrote:On July 26 2025 00:49 johnnyh123 wrote:On July 26 2025 00:27 Mizenhauer wrote:On July 25 2025 15:36 johnnyh123 wrote:
Actually, my original sentence on the players today are "the best to have ever played SC2" wasn't referring to Serral specifically. In fact, I don't think he's the best player to have played. I think Clem has a higher peak, just look at the 2024 EWC final.
Also, you're missing the fundamental point about competitive depth vs individual achievement.
Infrastructure: Yes, Serral didn't inherit Korean infrastructure - that's exactly why his dominance is less impressive from a GOAT perspective. He succeeded when the competitive ecosystem had already contracted dramatically.
Evidence of stagnation: Your list of "established players" in 2019 actually proves my point. You're naming players who were already established 5-7 years earlier! This isn't strength - it's stagnation. Where are the fresh challengers pushing these veterans? Where are the power hungry kids that is willing to grind it out when they are winning close to $0 per tournament? That's the definition of a declining competitive scene.
Skill vs Competition: You're also conflating individual skill progression with competitive environment - they're completely different concepts.
Yes, today's players are technically stronger because they've absorbed 15 years of accumulated knowledge, refined builds, and perfected mechanics. They absolutely "stand on the shoulders of giants" in terms of game understanding.
But that's exactly why the competitive environment is weaker, not stronger.
Peak Era Comparison: In 2013-2015, you had dozens of players also learning from those giants while the giants were still competing at their peak:
- MVP/Nestea/MC/MMA/etc. still hungry
- KeSPA legends in their prime
- new talent emerging from strong regional scenes
- all pushing each other simultaneously
Today's scene has the knowledge but lacks competitive pressure. From 2016~, Korean team houses were closing, Proleague was gone, and players faced fewer practice partners with less infrastructure.
Chess analogy: It's like claiming today's chess players are in the most competitive era because they have access to computer analysis that Kasparov didn't have. The tools are better, but if there are only 10 serious competitors left instead of 100, the competitive environment is objectively weaker.
Standing on giants' shoulders makes you taller, but it doesn't make the mountain you're climbing any higher if all the other climbers went home.
Regarding military: Your "different styles of competitiveness" argument is backwards. When 30+ year old military returnees can crack top-16/18 immediately after 2+ years away (Challenge B still stands), that screams weak depth. In 2013-2015, military service was a career death sentence - the scene was too competitive.
Innovation, Maru, soO, etc. had to fight through hundreds of Korean prospects just to qualify. Today's qualifiers are thin by comparison.
My closing thoughts: Serral didn't "beat the meta" - he inherited a solved meta and executed it against a depleted field. The fact that we're still discussing 2013-2015 players as his main competition in 2019+ proves the scene stopped producing elite talent.
It's not about discrediting people's skill - it's about context. Dominating 30 teams in the NBA is more impressive than dominating 8 teams, regardless of individual talent level. It's not Serral's fault that the last KeSPA Draft was held three years before the end of Proleague in 2013. Miz the undisputed TL-SC2-GOAT replied! I agree 100%, but my argument is that most players today are not playing in the most competitive era of SC2, and it's just hard for me to call them GOATs for winning in the weakest era. Like, if Serral and Clem teleported back a few years, and were born in like 1994 instead of 2002, competed in the early days of SC2 (2012-15), and won/dominated like today, 100% GOAT. You don't even need to apply hypothesis contrary to fact fallacy, serral literally played during that time. Serral did play in those years but it wasn't under the same circumstances. He was only playing SC2 full-time circa summer 2017, and he made a modest leap in his performance against Korean opponents that year, going from 35–60 (36.84%) in games and 16–30 (34.78%) in matches in 2014–2016 to 46–54 (46.00%) in games and 15–15 (50.00%) in matches in 2017, and then had an astronomical leap in 2018 to 61–27 (69.32%) in games and 24–4 (85.71%) in matches. I don't think that change happened because the Koreans were incredible in 2014–17 and then trash in 2018; I think it's because with the ability to focus on it full time he became much better If you imagine Serral were three years older, such that his move to full time happened in 2014, maybe he has an incredible breakout year in 2015 in that scenario. We can't know, but is there a good reason to think it's impossible? HOTS is the most competitive and also less zerg favored compared to LOTV. Since he only got results in LOTV despite being in pro team since 2013, no one can say it’s impossible neither possible. But Korean scene was going down starting 2016 and that’s why Neeb got that Kespa cup win and Scarlett got the IEM win both after 2016.
I think his being on a "pro team" in 2013 is essentially meaningless. I think the most parsimonious explanation for why Serral wasn't as good then is that he was playing part-time in 2013–Summer 2017. By 2018 he was beating every top Korean he played, and I don't think that change from winning less than half to nearly all his matches against Korean opponents games happens because the skill of Korean players collapses between 2017 and 2018. I think that once he had the opportunity (or made the decision) to spend all his effort on SC2, we saw how good he could be.
I don't think his history before then means anything at all because his circumstances are different from the Korean players he's being compared to. Serral being on a "pro team" and a Korean player being on a "pro team" during the KeSPA era aren't describing similar circumstances or similar levels of commitment and practice.
|
On July 25 2025 18:42 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2025 18:24 PremoBeats wrote:On July 25 2025 18:07 dedede wrote:On July 25 2025 17:52 PremoBeats wrote:On July 25 2025 15:36 johnnyh123 wrote:
Actually, my original sentence on the players today are "the best to have ever played SC2" wasn't referring to Serral specifically. In fact, I don't think he's the best player to have played. I think Clem has a higher peak, just look at the 2024 EWC final.
Also, you're missing the fundamental point about competitive depth vs individual achievement.
Infrastructure: Yes, Serral didn't inherit Korean infrastructure - that's exactly why his dominance is less impressive from a GOAT perspective. He succeeded when the competitive ecosystem had already contracted dramatically.
Evidence of stagnation: Your list of "established players" in 2019 actually proves my point. You're naming players who were already established 5-7 years earlier! This isn't strength - it's stagnation. Where are the fresh challengers pushing these veterans? Where are the power hungry kids that is willing to grind it out when they are winning close to $0 per tournament? That's the definition of a declining competitive scene.
Skill vs Competition: You're also conflating individual skill progression with competitive environment - they're completely different concepts.
Yes, today's players are technically stronger because they've absorbed 15 years of accumulated knowledge, refined builds, and perfected mechanics. They absolutely "stand on the shoulders of giants" in terms of game understanding.
But that's exactly why the competitive environment is weaker, not stronger.
Peak Era Comparison: In 2013-2015, you had dozens of players also learning from those giants while the giants were still competing at their peak:
- MVP/Nestea/MC/MMA/etc. still hungry
- KeSPA legends in their prime
- new talent emerging from strong regional scenes
- all pushing each other simultaneously
Today's scene has the knowledge but lacks competitive pressure. From 2016~, Korean team houses were closing, Proleague was gone, and players faced fewer practice partners with less infrastructure.
Chess analogy: It's like claiming today's chess players are in the most competitive era because they have access to computer analysis that Kasparov didn't have. The tools are better, but if there are only 10 serious competitors left instead of 100, the competitive environment is objectively weaker.
Standing on giants' shoulders makes you taller, but it doesn't make the mountain you're climbing any higher if all the other climbers went home.
Regarding military: Your "different styles of competitiveness" argument is backwards. When 30+ year old military returnees can crack top-16/18 immediately after 2+ years away (Challenge B still stands), that screams weak depth. In 2013-2015, military service was a career death sentence - the scene was too competitive.
Innovation, Maru, soO, etc. had to fight through hundreds of Korean prospects just to qualify. Today's qualifiers are thin by comparison.
My closing thoughts: Serral didn't "beat the meta" - he inherited a solved meta and executed it against a depleted field. The fact that we're still discussing 2013-2015 players as his main competition in 2019+ proves the scene stopped producing elite talent.
It's not about discrediting people's skill - it's about context. Dominating 30 teams in the NBA is more impressive than dominating 8 teams, regardless of individual talent level. Serral butchered Clem before.. now their last matches have been decided in the last game. I say best in "best statistics". Clem is far from reaching Serral's level in all relevant data sets. I see it exactly the opposite: He beat players that came out of the best infrastructure the game ever had. That is way more impressive than being forged by that infrastructure and being good. Again: A lack of new players does not necessarily mean stagnation. The entrance barriers simply have evolved in a more stable environment. Different, not necessarily harder or easier. It is context dependent. No, I don't. Individual skill is what contributes to competitiveness. For example: 100 C tier pros duking it out is not nearly as competitive as 15 A tier pros. Yet, the skill is higher than ever. If you only had 100, instead of 10 because the overall level was lower, that is nothing to write home about (see C/A tier comparison above). I don’t think that is an adequate or appropriate comparison for KeSPA v modern, but neither is your NBA example. Military was a death sentence because a 2 year break in a 4 year game that is dishing out add ons every 3 years is simply tough to get back into. The release cycle changed, making the environment more stable. On top, new blood became more scare… it was a positive feed back loop until it became ever more unattractive for new players. Serral pushed the meta and adapted so many times that I have a hard time taking this notion seriously. The main competition of Serral atm is Clem, as he sweeps all others. It was Reynor before. MaxPax in the regionals. AND players from the prime era. Imo, individual level matters and it is higher than ever. And if the level of play today is the highest we have seen - and it is - then beating the best now is by definition the hardest challenge the game has ever offered, especially when you have a 85%+ win rate monster to beat (going for once away from the fallacious Serral perspective where the SC2 world is only seen from the POV of how easy it is for him to win). I’d agree though, that winning a GSL post 2020 is much easier than before, also because the best of the world simply did not participate. Another thing that distorts the skill comparison is how GSL (besides Worlds) was the most viewed tournament and there you simply had a system that deployed cruel and unforgiving setups. This amplified the perception of a deeper player field as favorites dropped down more often in these more volatile Bo3s. But had there been more 10-player round robins or 6 player group stages that were fully played out, the favorites would have been much clearer. This means that a GSL (not all tournaments) were much harder to win in the prime era than today. But it doesn’t necessarily translate to a more competitive environment per se, as GSL is just one tournament among many and there have been absolutely easy money grabs back then too, where favorites prevailed regularly. Talking about 2018, you basically make the argument that the lack of new players from this less than 1.5 year time period since the KeSPA disbandment and the simultaneous decline of the existing pros made it easy for Serral to ascend, which is simply not supported by data. On July 25 2025 15:46 MJG wrote:On July 25 2025 15:08 PremoBeats wrote:
How is Serral the best to have ever played because he "stands on the shoulders of giants"? How exactly did the KeSPA period influence this bloke sitting in his sauna in Finland, starting SC2 full time after finishing school? He didn't inherit a Korean team house, a KeSPA coach or a Proleague slot - he just dismantled the players who did :D
Sometimes, to me it looks like people simply cannot accept that their heros from back then have been outperformed.
He dismantled players who came through the KeSPA structure half a decade after it collapsed. Half a decade is significantly longer than careers lasted when the scene was peaking. So I guess I accept it in the same way that I accept Jake Paul beating Mike Tyson in a boxing match. It doesn't make Jake Paul the GOAT of heavyweight boxing, it's simply a demonstration that time waits for no man. EDIT: Your post also makes it sound like you believe Serral never learned anything from the Korean scene on his way to the top, because "standing on the shoulders of giants" means nothing more than to learn from what came before. If you genuinely believe that Serral isn't standing on the shoulders of giants then you're being delusional, so I'll assume it's just bad phrasing on your part, and you might want to clarify what you actually meant. Half a decade? KeSPA disbanded late 2016, Serral started beating them early 2018. 1.5 years max, not a decade. Of course Serral learned from them, that is not the point. But standing on the shoulders of giants sounds like these players were any match for him after he turned full time pro, which statistically they just were not. The only one who could match Serral when confronting him regularly was Rogue. All others have crippling win rates against him. And as I statistically showed, it was not because of a mass decline, as the win rates of other foreigners did not go up at the same time or same rate against these very players. @dedede: The quote by Rogue is the opinion of one pro. The statistics don't support that opinion. Just posting something what Rogue himself says if you think your "statistics" is more reliable than the words from a WCS/IEM champion then it's totally fine  Half a decade? KeSPA disbanded late 2016, Serral started beating them early 2018. 1.5 years max, not a decade. The strongest argument for Serral's GOAT statement is his performance in 2024-2025, which is a decade later after kespa disbanded, playing the 30+ years old ex-Proleague players who have done 2 years military services. It’s been a steady decline since 2016, and now the scene is at its least competitive, where everything hinges on a single EWC SC2 confirmation tweet. If Serral had only won WCS 2018 and didn’t have these last two years of performances, the GOAT discussion would still be Maru vs Rogue. Maru had the greatest performance and achievement in 2018 despite not getting the WCS champion, same as Serral had the greatest performance in 2024 despite being overshadowed in the EWC losing 0-5 to Clem. Also the "early" 2018 is wrong, the only tournament in early 2018 is WESG where Maru beat him 3-0. Let's be concise Yup, I think statistics are worth more than any individual's expert opinion. Expert opinions are actually the lowest scientific evidence. Serral started beating Koreans regularly at the start of 2018. That notion is correct. I didn't say he started winning tournaments against Koreans in early 2018. We won't change each other's opinions either way. Sadly I gotta work now and as I don't want to spoil the results, I'll be off until tomorrow. I hope we get killer matches... Statistics on its own are useless because you need experts who evaluate how to interpret statistics, who determine which statistics are worth considering or how they contribute to answering a certain hypothesis. You aren't that expert, you're terrible at using statistics in a meaningful way. If your 'statistics' determine that Zerg wasn't overpowered in 2019 or that Serral is 5x the Goat as Rogue, then that should be a clear sign that you need to go back to the drawing board.
You guys tell me that I am terrible at using statistics, yet you found no way to correct my methodology, except making bleak unsubstantiated claims.
You don't seem to know too much about statistics, hence you repeat notions like “Serral 5x GOAT of Rogue” although statistical modelling doesn’t work like that, which I already explained several times.
Now you try to attack me for pointing out that the map win rate of 2018 and 2019 between Terran and Zerg don’t seem to indicate that Zerg was overpowered in the match up with nothing but memories of yourself, despite me exactly laying out how I arrived at the result. If you and dedede have knowledge that I don't, please tell me where exactly my methodology is wrong.
Did I use too little of a sample size? The wrong sample size? And if did so, why is it wrong? Because I made my case why I chose what I chose and I hear nothing but personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic.
On July 25 2025 18:49 MJG wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2025 17:52 PremoBeats wrote:
Half a decade? KeSPA disbanded late 2016, Serral started beating them early 2018. 1.5 years max, not a decade. You're right about the "half a decade" comment. I shouldn't have relied on my faulty memory. That's entirely my fault. I don't think I'd go so far as to say that Serral was "dismantling" Koreans in 2018, but I accept your point nonetheless. Show nested quote +On July 25 2025 17:52 PremoBeats wrote:
Of course Serral learned from them, that is not the point. Serral learning from them is entirely the point because that's literally what "standing on the shoulders of giants" means. I don't understand why you're arguing against the literal meaning of an incredibly well-established phrase. Newton described himself as standing on the shoulders of giants; thus the idea that Serral doesn't stand on the shoulders of giants is so incredibly obtuse that it borders on trolling. --- Semantics aside, I find johnnyh123's arguments more compelling than your own. You're completely misunderstanding the importance of a competitive environment when attempting to value dominance. Competitiveness is not equivalent to the absolute skill of the contenders involved; it's equivalent to the volume of viable contenders. If competitiveness collapses and dominance follows, said dominance ceases to be impressive, and whether or not people are impressed ultimately dictates greatness.
Well, overall in 2018 Serral’s win rate versus Koreans was 85,71%, even more if you correct this number against the fact that he only played the top of the top, while other Koreans regularly played qualifiers where they could in relation boost their win rates.
If “standing on the shoulder’s of giants” simply means learning from a previous gen, then fine by me. Then I have nothing to say against it.
Agree to disagree. The volume alone says nothing about the competitive peak. Absolute skill sets the ceiling for what high-level competition means. Depth (volume) determines how contested that ceiling is.
For example:
High absolute skill + shallow field: Not very competitive
High absolute skill + deep field: Extremely competitive
Low absolute skill + deep field: Feels competitive, but the quality of play actually is not (comparing women’s leagues to men’s)
Low absolute skill + shallow field: Neither competitive and low quality.
Now these are spectrums and the depth of the field was of course higher in the prime era.
I also value the prime era higher in terms of competitiveness, hence I used probabilistic simulation models to see how much it was back then to score points in different metrics.
On July 26 2025 00:44 johnnyh123 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2025 18:24 PremoBeats wrote:On July 25 2025 18:07 dedede wrote:On July 25 2025 17:52 PremoBeats wrote:On July 25 2025 15:36 johnnyh123 wrote:
Actually, my original sentence on the players today are "the best to have ever played SC2" wasn't referring to Serral specifically. In fact, I don't think he's the best player to have played. I think Clem has a higher peak, just look at the 2024 EWC final.
Also, you're missing the fundamental point about competitive depth vs individual achievement.
Infrastructure: Yes, Serral didn't inherit Korean infrastructure - that's exactly why his dominance is less impressive from a GOAT perspective. He succeeded when the competitive ecosystem had already contracted dramatically.
Evidence of stagnation: Your list of "established players" in 2019 actually proves my point. You're naming players who were already established 5-7 years earlier! This isn't strength - it's stagnation. Where are the fresh challengers pushing these veterans? Where are the power hungry kids that is willing to grind it out when they are winning close to $0 per tournament? That's the definition of a declining competitive scene.
Skill vs Competition: You're also conflating individual skill progression with competitive environment - they're completely different concepts.
Yes, today's players are technically stronger because they've absorbed 15 years of accumulated knowledge, refined builds, and perfected mechanics. They absolutely "stand on the shoulders of giants" in terms of game understanding.
But that's exactly why the competitive environment is weaker, not stronger.
Peak Era Comparison: In 2013-2015, you had dozens of players also learning from those giants while the giants were still competing at their peak:
- MVP/Nestea/MC/MMA/etc. still hungry
- KeSPA legends in their prime
- new talent emerging from strong regional scenes
- all pushing each other simultaneously
Today's scene has the knowledge but lacks competitive pressure. From 2016~, Korean team houses were closing, Proleague was gone, and players faced fewer practice partners with less infrastructure.
Chess analogy: It's like claiming today's chess players are in the most competitive era because they have access to computer analysis that Kasparov didn't have. The tools are better, but if there are only 10 serious competitors left instead of 100, the competitive environment is objectively weaker.
Standing on giants' shoulders makes you taller, but it doesn't make the mountain you're climbing any higher if all the other climbers went home.
Regarding military: Your "different styles of competitiveness" argument is backwards. When 30+ year old military returnees can crack top-16/18 immediately after 2+ years away (Challenge B still stands), that screams weak depth. In 2013-2015, military service was a career death sentence - the scene was too competitive.
Innovation, Maru, soO, etc. had to fight through hundreds of Korean prospects just to qualify. Today's qualifiers are thin by comparison.
My closing thoughts: Serral didn't "beat the meta" - he inherited a solved meta and executed it against a depleted field. The fact that we're still discussing 2013-2015 players as his main competition in 2019+ proves the scene stopped producing elite talent.
It's not about discrediting people's skill - it's about context. Dominating 30 teams in the NBA is more impressive than dominating 8 teams, regardless of individual talent level. Serral butchered Clem before.. now their last matches have been decided in the last game. I say best in "best statistics". Clem is far from reaching Serral's level in all relevant data sets. I see it exactly the opposite: He beat players that came out of the best infrastructure the game ever had. That is way more impressive than being forged by that infrastructure and being good. Again: A lack of new players does not necessarily mean stagnation. The entrance barriers simply have evolved in a more stable environment. Different, not necessarily harder or easier. It is context dependent. No, I don't. Individual skill is what contributes to competitiveness. For example: 100 C tier pros duking it out is not nearly as competitive as 15 A tier pros. Yet, the skill is higher than ever. If you only had 100, instead of 10 because the overall level was lower, that is nothing to write home about (see C/A tier comparison above). I don’t think that is an adequate or appropriate comparison for KeSPA v modern, but neither is your NBA example. Military was a death sentence because a 2 year break in a 4 year game that is dishing out add ons every 3 years is simply tough to get back into. The release cycle changed, making the environment more stable. On top, new blood became more scare… it was a positive feed back loop until it became ever more unattractive for new players. Serral pushed the meta and adapted so many times that I have a hard time taking this notion seriously. The main competition of Serral atm is Clem, as he sweeps all others. It was Reynor before. MaxPax in the regionals. AND players from the prime era. Imo, individual level matters and it is higher than ever. And if the level of play today is the highest we have seen - and it is - then beating the best now is by definition the hardest challenge the game has ever offered, especially when you have a 85%+ win rate monster to beat (going for once away from the fallacious Serral perspective where the SC2 world is only seen from the POV of how easy it is for him to win). I’d agree though, that winning a GSL post 2020 is much easier than before, also because the best of the world simply did not participate. Another thing that distorts the skill comparison is how GSL (besides Worlds) was the most viewed tournament and there you simply had a system that deployed cruel and unforgiving setups. This amplified the perception of a deeper player field as favorites dropped down more often in these more volatile Bo3s. But had there been more 10-player round robins or 6 player group stages that were fully played out, the favorites would have been much clearer. This means that a GSL (not all tournaments) were much harder to win in the prime era than today. But it doesn’t necessarily translate to a more competitive environment per se, as GSL is just one tournament among many and there have been absolutely easy money grabs back then too, where favorites prevailed regularly. Talking about 2018, you basically make the argument that the lack of new players from this less than 1.5 year time period since the KeSPA disbandment and the simultaneous decline of the existing pros made it easy for Serral to ascend, which is simply not supported by data. On July 25 2025 15:46 MJG wrote:On July 25 2025 15:08 PremoBeats wrote:
How is Serral the best to have ever played because he "stands on the shoulders of giants"? How exactly did the KeSPA period influence this bloke sitting in his sauna in Finland, starting SC2 full time after finishing school? He didn't inherit a Korean team house, a KeSPA coach or a Proleague slot - he just dismantled the players who did :D
Sometimes, to me it looks like people simply cannot accept that their heros from back then have been outperformed.
He dismantled players who came through the KeSPA structure half a decade after it collapsed. Half a decade is significantly longer than careers lasted when the scene was peaking. So I guess I accept it in the same way that I accept Jake Paul beating Mike Tyson in a boxing match. It doesn't make Jake Paul the GOAT of heavyweight boxing, it's simply a demonstration that time waits for no man. EDIT: Your post also makes it sound like you believe Serral never learned anything from the Korean scene on his way to the top, because "standing on the shoulders of giants" means nothing more than to learn from what came before. If you genuinely believe that Serral isn't standing on the shoulders of giants then you're being delusional, so I'll assume it's just bad phrasing on your part, and you might want to clarify what you actually meant. Half a decade? KeSPA disbanded late 2016, Serral started beating them early 2018. 1.5 years max, not a decade. Of course Serral learned from them, that is not the point. But standing on the shoulders of giants sounds like these players were any match for him after he turned full time pro, which statistically they just were not. The only one who could match Serral when confronting him regularly was Rogue. All others have crippling win rates against him. And as I statistically showed, it was not because of a mass decline, as the win rates of other foreigners did not go up at the same time or same rate against these very players. @dedede: The quote by Rogue is the opinion of one pro. The statistics don't support that opinion. Just posting something what Rogue himself says if you think your "statistics" is more reliable than the words from a WCS/IEM champion then it's totally fine Half a decade? KeSPA disbanded late 2016, Serral started beating them early 2018. 1.5 years max, not a decade. The strongest argument for Serral's GOAT statement is his performance in 2024-2025, which is a decade later after kespa disbanded, playing the 30+ years old ex-Proleague players who have done 2 years military services. It’s been a steady decline since 2016, and now the scene is at its least competitive, where everything hinges on a single EWC SC2 confirmation tweet. If Serral had only won WCS 2018 and didn’t have these last two years of performances, the GOAT discussion would still be Maru vs Rogue. Maru had the greatest performance and achievement in 2018 despite not getting the WCS champion, same as Serral had the greatest performance in 2024 despite being overshadowed in the EWC losing 0-5 to Clem. Also the "early" 2018 is wrong, the only tournament in early 2018 is WESG where Maru beat him 3-0. Let's be concise Yup, I think statistics are worth more than any individual's expert opinion. Expert opinions are actually the lowest scientific evidence. Serral started beating Koreans regularly at the start of 2018. That notion is correct. I didn't say he started winning tournaments against Koreans in early 2018. We won't change each other's opinions either way. Sadly I gotta work now and as I don't want to spoil the results, I'll be off until tomorrow. I hope we get killer matches... Hate to say it, but Expert opinions are NOT the lowest scientific evidence, it's what YOU and I say. Expert opinions are way way way better evidence than any online anonymous normies like you and I. So here it is, statistics/facts >>>>>> Expert (top SC2 players that are speaking honestly) opinions >>>>>> PremoBeats/Johnnyh123/etc. But of course, if we have strong facts/evidence to prove, it's better than opinions. And that's what we are here to debate about, and please DO NOT spoil the results, go work, and come back and let's debate more. Quick honest question to you though PremoBeats, did you start watching SC2 after 2020? My guess is yes (80%+ probability in my mind)
What you and I say is not even a category in evidence based medicine (which I had to use for my PhD) or evidence grading in science. From the top of my head it is…
Systematic reviews of randomized, controlled, double-blind, prospective studies (RCTs)
RCTs themselves
Cohort studies
Challenge trials
Descriptive studies, case reports
reports of expert committees, opinions of respected authorities (sometimes these aren’t even on the list, depending on where you look)
I wasn’t spoilered the results, thanks 😀
I am old as fuck and even remember how I bought StarCraft, lol. It was my very first PC game and I rode my bike to a nearby village to buy it (as my own didn’t have a store) and drove to a friend to play it there and for him to show me how to install it, as I’ve never done it before. I shifted towards WC3 when it was released and - in the year I finished school - I played WoW on Nathrezim. WoW was the last time that I played a game competitively in a long time, as I moved to another city and started studying which utterly changed my way of life. Upon release I started to watch SC2 but I only ever played it non-competitively in single player. Years after that I started to play LoL for a couple of years, but fandom-wise stuck with SC2.
@WombaT: Well… it seems that my efforts to move the discussion away from intuition, memories and personal bias don’t seem to be well received among some.
Thanks, mate!
EDIT:
@Charoisaur and dedede: It would probably help the discussion to actually address or quote what "they say" instead of straw-maning between you two what "they" supposedly "say" 
@Charoi: Weren't we in agreement in that other thread that if we mashed up all players in their prime, that - of course - Serral would have lower win rates and tournament wins but the others as well and that - in the end - he'd most likely would be the best among them? Or was that someone else?
|
On July 26 2025 15:10 PremoBeats wrote:
[You guys tell me that I am terrible at using statistics, yet you found no way to correct my methodology, except making bleak unsubstantiated claims.
You don't seem to know too much about statistics, hence you repeat notions like “Serral 5x GOAT of Rogue” although statistical modelling doesn’t work like that, which I already explained several times.
Now you try to attack me for pointing out that the map win rate of 2018 and 2019 between Terran and Zerg don’t seem to indicate that Zerg was overpowered in the match up with nothing but memories of yourself, despite me exactly laying out how I arrived at the result. If you and dedede have knowledge that I don't, please tell me where exactly my methodology is wrong.
Did I use too little of a sample size? The wrong sample size? And if did so, why is it wrong? Because I made my case why I chose what I chose and I hear nothing but personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic.
Well, it's really a waste of time to argue with someone who thinks Zerg wasn't overpowered in 2019 or not, you chose the wrong hill to die on here. I don't engage in debates whether the sky is blue or not either.
All I give you as explanation why the single data point you chose isn't representative of balance is this:
 2014 Global StarCraft II League Season 2/Code S
Participation: 14 P, 14 Z, 4 T
TvP winrate: 50%
TvZ winrate: 58%
Sorry for the rude tone but it's rather annoying that you always pick some data point you like because it aligns with your opinion and then speak with authority that your opinion is somehow facts because you "have backed it up with statistics".
|
On July 26 2025 17:26 Charoisaur wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2025 15:10 PremoBeats wrote:
[You guys tell me that I am terrible at using statistics, yet you found no way to correct my methodology, except making bleak unsubstantiated claims.
You don't seem to know too much about statistics, hence you repeat notions like “Serral 5x GOAT of Rogue” although statistical modelling doesn’t work like that, which I already explained several times.
Now you try to attack me for pointing out that the map win rate of 2018 and 2019 between Terran and Zerg don’t seem to indicate that Zerg was overpowered in the match up with nothing but memories of yourself, despite me exactly laying out how I arrived at the result. If you and dedede have knowledge that I don't, please tell me where exactly my methodology is wrong.
Did I use too little of a sample size? The wrong sample size? And if did so, why is it wrong? Because I made my case why I chose what I chose and I hear nothing but personal attacks that have nothing to do with the topic.
Well, it's really a waste of time to argue with someone who thinks Zerg wasn't overpowered in 2019 or not, you chose the wrong hill to die on here. I don't engage in debates whether the sky is blue or not either. All I give you as explanation why the single data point you chose isn't representative of balance is this: 2014 Global StarCraft II League Season 2/Code SParticipation: 14 P, 14 Z, 4 T TvP winrate: 50% TvZ winrate: 58% Sorry for the rude tone but it's rather annoying that you always pick some data point you like because it aligns with your opinion and then speak with authority that your opinion is somehow facts because you "have backed it up with statistics".
What point are you trying to make by giving a single tournament which is a small sample size and on top from a completely different year? I gave you my methodology.
If you think something is wrong with it, address it.
So far the only thing that you are doing is give a false comparison based on perception (your own and a somewhat consensus in the community, which I would have agreed to as well, before looking into the data).
I used only tier 1 tournaments that are not region locked
I used minimum player thresholds
I used minimum map thresholds
The sample size is over 500
So where is my methodology wrong? How do I need to change it so that your perceived feeling of Zerg overpowerment fpr 2019 will be met?
To me it is annoying that you and the others don't even try to think about the statistic I pulled up (which I actually developed to make my next GOAT list even stronger, namely by including a balance-multiplier). This stuff takes time to get done and I don't see why you shouldn't be able to change your opinion like I did as well. It devolves into personal attacks, instead of addressing the very issue in front of us.
I don't pick data points I like, I present them as they are (hence I mentioned 2021 as heavily Zerg favored). It is not my fault that you guys aren't able to face contrary view points that are validated by data, when you don't have any meaningful ones to back up your notions. The issue is not that I pick data points that align with my opinion. The issue is that the reasonable data I present does not align with yours.
I made a list of over a thousand maps that have been played in Premier Tournaments in 2019. I excluded region locks to not let Serral completely destroy the data set. I excluded tournaments like the GPC 2019 where INnoVation was by far the best player to not let him destroy the data set. I used minimum map and player thresholds so to not let small sample sizes destroy the data set. Over 350 of these maps are TvZ and the ratio for that match up is 47,77%. ZvP is 50,41% and PvT 57,83%. My multipliers thus are 0,5503 for Terran, 0,4868 for Zerg and 0,4629 for Protoss after summing the up. Please tell me, where this methodology is unreasonable or wrong.
Now if you want me to check for certain tournaments to look for specific patch phases, let me know. Perhaps there we are able to make an observation where Zerg's win rate is higher, as years overlap with patches and this might be a reason for the discrepancy between the data and your perception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
