|
Wait for LotV..then wait three more years (at least..lets say five+++)...then start complaining. Thx.
|
On December 11 2013 21:57 qotsager wrote:
you mean the skill ceiling, right? because the skill required to play chess is pretty low, it takes a bit to be good at it though.
and i don't think so. i don't think any player is close to playing perfectly. so give it some time.
i have no idea what player does what after winning, some probably take it a bit easier after winning something, but your drive to win is still there after one big victory.
how is the fog of war random? it's doing the exact same thing every time. i'm not sure i get your point on that one. if you mean the "coinflippieness" of, say, PvP, top level protoss still get insane winrates, for example parting, currently at a 71.93% winratio in pvp on TLPD.
last point i don't think we can really say anything about that, since we dont really now much about the exact training schedule the teams have. we only know they all play a crapload of starcraft.
so i personally have no idea, but i don't consider it a problem, either. (btw i think that discussion came up before)
there is nothing worse for the excitement of a sport than one team/athlete dominating it all. what you want is probably 4 or 5 players at the absolute top, developing rivalries, but i don't think that having a few more competing players will hurt.
maybe starcraft 2 needs some time to find that true bonjwa (tho Jaedong will totally dominate everyone next year), maybe it's not meant to be?
noob question here: how long did it take brood warto have those legends distinguish themselves from the rest?
skill required to play chess is pretty low?
|
On December 12 2013 23:08 DinosaurPoop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 21:57 qotsager wrote:
you mean the skill ceiling, right? because the skill required to play chess is pretty low, it takes a bit to be good at it though.
and i don't think so. i don't think any player is close to playing perfectly. so give it some time.
i have no idea what player does what after winning, some probably take it a bit easier after winning something, but your drive to win is still there after one big victory.
how is the fog of war random? it's doing the exact same thing every time. i'm not sure i get your point on that one. if you mean the "coinflippieness" of, say, PvP, top level protoss still get insane winrates, for example parting, currently at a 71.93% winratio in pvp on TLPD.
last point i don't think we can really say anything about that, since we dont really now much about the exact training schedule the teams have. we only know they all play a crapload of starcraft.
so i personally have no idea, but i don't consider it a problem, either. (btw i think that discussion came up before)
there is nothing worse for the excitement of a sport than one team/athlete dominating it all. what you want is probably 4 or 5 players at the absolute top, developing rivalries, but i don't think that having a few more competing players will hurt.
maybe starcraft 2 needs some time to find that true bonjwa (tho Jaedong will totally dominate everyone next year), maybe it's not meant to be?
noob question here: how long did it take brood warto have those legends distinguish themselves from the rest? skill required to play chess is pretty low?
Physical skill is low. Anyone can move the pieces.
Strategy is very difficult.
|
On December 13 2013 01:56 DinoMight wrote:
Physical skill is low. Anyone can move the pieces.
Strategy is very difficult.
The physical skill required for playing sc2 is the same.. even if you just play with 1 APM, you're still playing, right?
|
On December 13 2013 03:07 Rasias wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2013 01:56 DinoMight wrote:
Physical skill is low. Anyone can move the pieces.
Strategy is very difficult. The physical skill required for playing sc2 is the same.. even if you just play with 1 APM, you're still playing, right?
???
In chess, if you want to attack one piece with another, you need only to lift the piece and move it. Everyone can do this (unless they have a disability of some kind, but this is not really the point).
In StarCraft, you can have a strategy, to attack a certain base with a unit composition at a given time, but it still has to be executed correctly. If you accidentally move command you will lose your whole army, for example. If your forcefields are bad Immortal/Sentry won't work. If your EMPs are bad you will lose against Protoss. Etc.
So in Chess, one only worries about strategy and execution is not a concern.
In StarCraft, players have to have strategies AND be able to properly execute those strategies.
That's what he was referring to.
|
On December 12 2013 17:17 ArcadeR wrote:
Wait for LotV..then wait three more years (at least..lets say five+++)...then start complaining. Thx.
Sc2 will be so dead if they wait 5 years to fix the issues people have been complaining since early-WoL
|
On December 13 2013 06:34 zezamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 17:17 ArcadeR wrote:
Wait for LotV..then wait three more years (at least..lets say five+++)...then start complaining. Thx. Sc2 will be so dead if they wait 5 years to fix the issues people have been complaining since early-WoL
*Woosh*
Name your "consistent" player from BW. Then figure out how many years after BW's release that player started winning tournaments.
|
Northern Ireland23037 Posts
You're not starting from scratch, you have BW's legacy it's not the same.
Fundamental ideas of macro management and micro are largely figured out. You don't have people like Maynard coming along and figuring out the more efficient worker transfer that bears his name,because it's already been done.
In terms of base mechanical innovation, the only thing I can think of that's distinct in developing from BW is splitting to mitigate AoE damage, a necessity with the combo of unlimited selection and clumping.
|
On December 12 2013 15:30 Zealously wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 15:14 Veroleg wrote:On December 12 2013 14:24 TheRabidDeer wrote:On December 12 2013 10:49 The_Darkness wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this. #1 for SC2 liquibet: 170/237 71.7% #1 for BW liquibet: 356/452 78.7% That is relatively close, especially when you consider that (AFAIK) there havent been any meta shifts in BW in recent times. Sorry, what are these stats of? Your personal best? or are they of the current #1? I have a 79% win rate on matches voted on this season and am pretty sure I was well over 70% last season as well. I've missed about 16 votes (about 15% of the total votes) so I'm in 57th place at present. I've found it pretty easy to predict winners for SC2. Sure, there are upsets but it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. The players at the top are fairly evenly matched so it's very difficult for any one person to win everything unless he enjoys a massive advantage over just about everyone else. If your odds of winning a best of 3 are 80% and you need to win 5 best of 3s to win a tournament (e.g.) even in that circumstance, which nearly never arises (unless a top tier Korean is in an all foreign tournament, without Scarlett or Naniwa) you would only have a 33% chance of winning the tournament, so I don't know how any one could look at 10 or so tournaments and say whether SC2 results are inconsistent. You need to look at the data over a period of years IMO. The fact that I and others can reliably and correctly select who will win a match far better than 50% implies that there is a fair amount of consistency in SC2. They are the #1 ranks of each game. You couldve easily checked instead of asking. I didn't seek out the person with the best rates, just the #1 person. On December 12 2013 11:50 Veroleg wrote:On December 12 2013 07:04 MrCon wrote:
I don't think sc2 results are that unpredictable and I don't think it's a fair assessment to say they are.
Actually in dota, top teams have the same winrate as top sc2 players (around 70%).
When flash was dominating, he had 70% winrate I think, perhaps 75% at best. When MVP dominated he has the same winrate. Except Flash had 3 tourneys a year to play in and never traveled, it's a lot easier to be stable in those conditions (that + being a genius). different conditions. for example flashs competition was the most competetive esport of all time by far, mvp had a bunch of bteamers and new proffesionals. On December 12 2013 05:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this. #1 for SC2 liquibet: 170/237 71.7% #1 for BW liquibet: 356/452 78.7% That is relatively close, especially when you consider that (AFAIK) there havent been any meta shifts in BW in recent times. its not close at all and different conditions too so cant straight up compare it anyway On December 12 2013 09:47 _SpiRaL_ wrote:
The difference in win rates in SC2 compared to BW are a couple of percent for the top players at most and they are not particularly unpredictable compared to other games. The skill ceiling is so far away from what anyone has achieved or will ever achieve it essentially doesn't matter. Depth of micro however is a slightly different thing and might make the difference to bring win rates in line with BW all by themselves. how far away you are from a skill ceiling always matters. and obviously for something gfluid and not turnbased its impossible to reach the absolute ceiling as it would require making actions completely simultaniously A 7% difference is pretty damned close in gambling. Also, in regards to flash's competition vs mvp's competition: No. The level of competition was the same. People played SC2 worse, but that is because everybody was figuring it out along with patches, map changes, and new meta discoveries. 72-79 is a 10% increase. and the cap is 100, so the difference is better represented as 25%. and how is the difference between 72 and 79% small anywhere, ESPECIALLY in gambling i would have thought? and yes, like you said, the competetion wasnt the same, which is part of the reason the difference isnt even bigger because of the much larger variance in sc2 What do you think of the BW variance that saw most OSL champions, bonjwa or not, eliminated in the ro16 of the following season?
i doubt you even have the complete numbers for that. it wouldnt be a big enough sample size either and it sounds very much like youre handpicking a sample that had an unproportionally big amount of upsets.
On December 12 2013 16:02 TheRabidDeer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 15:14 Veroleg wrote:On December 12 2013 14:24 TheRabidDeer wrote:On December 12 2013 10:49 The_Darkness wrote:On December 12 2013 05:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this. #1 for SC2 liquibet: 170/237 71.7% #1 for BW liquibet: 356/452 78.7% That is relatively close, especially when you consider that (AFAIK) there havent been any meta shifts in BW in recent times. Sorry, what are these stats of? Your personal best? or are they of the current #1? I have a 79% win rate on matches voted on this season and am pretty sure I was well over 70% last season as well. I've missed about 16 votes (about 15% of the total votes) so I'm in 57th place at present. I've found it pretty easy to predict winners for SC2. Sure, there are upsets but it's not nearly as bad as people make it out to be. The players at the top are fairly evenly matched so it's very difficult for any one person to win everything unless he enjoys a massive advantage over just about everyone else. If your odds of winning a best of 3 are 80% and you need to win 5 best of 3s to win a tournament (e.g.) even in that circumstance, which nearly never arises (unless a top tier Korean is in an all foreign tournament, without Scarlett or Naniwa) you would only have a 33% chance of winning the tournament, so I don't know how any one could look at 10 or so tournaments and say whether SC2 results are inconsistent. You need to look at the data over a period of years IMO. The fact that I and others can reliably and correctly select who will win a match far better than 50% implies that there is a fair amount of consistency in SC2. They are the #1 ranks of each game. You couldve easily checked instead of asking. I didn't seek out the person with the best rates, just the #1 person. On December 12 2013 11:50 Veroleg wrote:On December 12 2013 07:04 MrCon wrote:
I don't think sc2 results are that unpredictable and I don't think it's a fair assessment to say they are.
Actually in dota, top teams have the same winrate as top sc2 players (around 70%).
When flash was dominating, he had 70% winrate I think, perhaps 75% at best. When MVP dominated he has the same winrate. Except Flash had 3 tourneys a year to play in and never traveled, it's a lot easier to be stable in those conditions (that + being a genius). different conditions. for example flashs competition was the most competetive esport of all time by far, mvp had a bunch of bteamers and new proffesionals. On December 12 2013 05:55 TheRabidDeer wrote:On December 12 2013 05:40 Arco wrote:
Nearly won a Liquibet Season in BW but couldn't get close in SC2 despite having some good predictions once in a while. Game design is responsible for the inconsistency. The more skilled player doesn't win nearly enough. Faulty game design and probably some balance issues are the reasons for this. #1 for SC2 liquibet: 170/237 71.7% #1 for BW liquibet: 356/452 78.7% That is relatively close, especially when you consider that (AFAIK) there havent been any meta shifts in BW in recent times. its not close at all and different conditions too so cant straight up compare it anyway On December 12 2013 09:47 _SpiRaL_ wrote:
The difference in win rates in SC2 compared to BW are a couple of percent for the top players at most and they are not particularly unpredictable compared to other games. The skill ceiling is so far away from what anyone has achieved or will ever achieve it essentially doesn't matter. Depth of micro however is a slightly different thing and might make the difference to bring win rates in line with BW all by themselves. how far away you are from a skill ceiling always matters. and obviously for something gfluid and not turnbased its impossible to reach the absolute ceiling as it would require making actions completely simultaniously A 7% difference is pretty damned close in gambling. Also, in regards to flash's competition vs mvp's competition: No. The level of competition was the same. People played SC2 worse, but that is because everybody was figuring it out along with patches, map changes, and new meta discoveries. 72-79 is a 10% increase. and the cap is 100, so the difference is better represented as 25%. and how is the difference between 72 and 79% small anywhere, ESPECIALLY in gambling i would have thought? and yes, like you said, the competetion wasnt the same, which is part of the reason the difference isnt even bigger because of the much larger variance in sc2 I said difference, which means subtraction. Had I said 7% lower or 7% higher or 7% increase you would be right as that is 9.7%. I dont quite follow how 25% is a better representation. That is like ignoring the other 71% that is possible. It is like saying the difference between a 99% and a 100% is 100%. And I don't know true gambling values, but given the concept that a single bad week of picks (and that they are picks, each of which relying on a bit of luck) can completely tarnish your record it is pretty even. Also, as others have said there exist better rates out there, I just picked the top one for each in points.
you saying difference means subtraction? because the difference between 72 and 79 is huge.
we arent comparing a sample size of 1 person in each game, were comparing the top two "predictors" that has gotten there in a huge pool of people. its a solid number in that sense.
7% is silly huge. a bettor with 0 breaks even and someone with 7% roi is like the best bettor in the world
On December 13 2013 06:34 zezamer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 12 2013 17:17 ArcadeR wrote:
Wait for LotV..then wait three more years (at least..lets say five+++)...then start complaining. Thx. Sc2 will be so dead if they wait 5 years to fix the issues people have been complaining since early-WoL
i have thought so for a long long time but here we still are
|
- sc2 is still "new" compared to bw. it took at least 3 years for bw's first bonjwa to develop, then far and few in between then and 2012. we wont see a bw flash or jaedong in sc2 until like 10 years from now.
|
well, on top of most of what was already said as well.
|
On December 12 2013 23:08 DinosaurPoop wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2013 21:57 qotsager wrote:
you mean the skill ceiling, right? because the skill required to play chess is pretty low, it takes a bit to be good at it though.
and i don't think so. i don't think any player is close to playing perfectly. so give it some time.
i have no idea what player does what after winning, some probably take it a bit easier after winning something, but your drive to win is still there after one big victory.
how is the fog of war random? it's doing the exact same thing every time. i'm not sure i get your point on that one. if you mean the "coinflippieness" of, say, PvP, top level protoss still get insane winrates, for example parting, currently at a 71.93% winratio in pvp on TLPD.
last point i don't think we can really say anything about that, since we dont really now much about the exact training schedule the teams have. we only know they all play a crapload of starcraft.
so i personally have no idea, but i don't consider it a problem, either. (btw i think that discussion came up before)
there is nothing worse for the excitement of a sport than one team/athlete dominating it all. what you want is probably 4 or 5 players at the absolute top, developing rivalries, but i don't think that having a few more competing players will hurt.
maybe starcraft 2 needs some time to find that true bonjwa (tho Jaedong will totally dominate everyone next year), maybe it's not meant to be?
noob question here: how long did it take brood warto have those legends distinguish themselves from the rest? skill required to play chess is pretty low?
skill floor is low as hell - just have to understand that when the big piece in the other color is ded, you win
skill ceiling is higher than snoop lion
|
- Burst mechanics (also known as macro mechanics)
1. Larvae injects giving the ability to either build insane numbers of drones or units at once
2. Mules giving burst income
3. Warp gate being able to accelerate quick bursts of units or focus on econ. Specifically when used on warpgates for timings
All of these make things happen incredibly quickly, meaning if you didn't scout it, there are more significant repercussions. Even early game vs a Zerg on 2 hatches, when the first two larvae injects pop, that's around 8 larvae that usually will be built for drones, but can be used to go from zero lings to 16 lings at a moment's notice.
|
On December 11 2013 23:57 GumBa wrote:
We have had periods of consitency though take Life Mvp or Innovation as examplle of periods of dominance.
Hell JD Soulkey and Innovation have all been consistent all year long.
That is true, Life, Mvp and Innovation were showing dominance over some time.
But as you say, these were periods of consistency.
Their dominance ended comparatively fast.
Compare this to the dominance of e.g. Roger Federer, Garry Kasparov or Michael Schumacher that went on for years.
How do we explain the fact that someone is the highest skilled in the world and then loses that skill within months?
It's hard to believe that the actual skill, i.e. the cognitive function of the players is deteriorating so fast.
Take a look at the last couple of power ranks:
August: Innovation
September: Bomber
October: ?
November: Dear?
December: Taeja
The best player in the world changes every month.
|
Northern Ireland23037 Posts
Patching doesnt help, it can mitigate the strengths of a dominant player.
I don't think I've seen a player quite as dominant as Innovation pre hellbat-nerf, maybe not since the original summer of Taeja. I think they both showed a high level for ages, and would have done better in the last few WoL GSLs if not for the state of TvZ at the time (plus Taeja's wrists)
That's quite a long span IMO.
|
If you're comparing to BW it's not hard to see why SC2 results seem inconsistent (apart from a combination of all the reasons already stated). Kespa managed BW by controlling who got progamer licences, who was accepted to a team, what their role on the team was based on skill and marketability in addition to controlling the form and frequency of the tournaments they ran (which was basically all of them). Plus a stagnant metagame.
|
it's really not unpredictable, all you need to do is to go against artosis' predication
|
MAKE EVERYTHING HALF HEALTH OR SOEMTHING LIKE THAT TO REWARD MICRO
|
The difference in micro and macro between the strongest players in bw was huge. In sc2 I don't see any big differences between the top players. We probably have 5-6 guys who are "locked in" in kespa teams who are more or less as good as Taeja or Jaedong.
|
Northern Ireland23037 Posts
Half health would equal everything melting faster and the game being more volatile.
By 'unpredictable' people seem to be desiring a truly dominant player, a bonjwa as being the only acceptable metric by which volatility is judged.
We have a clear hierarchy of consistent top tier players, who play across different tournaments and regions as it is. I don't see the inconsistency in level. 'Random' results are often due to a player clearly playing below their level, often attributed to jetlag and whatnot.
Terrans:
Taeja, Maru, Innovation, Bomber. The latter has always been inconsistent, it's his charm!
Protoss:
SoS, Dear, Rain
Zergs:
Soulkey, Jaedong, a resurgent Life too.
IF these guys all played in the same region, focusing on ONE tournament I think they'd consistently be at the top end of said tournament. All of them showed good results in Proleague relative to the shape they were in, Jaedong now is a different beast to Jaedong back then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
