|
On August 07 2018 23:05 Hannibaal wrote: Serral is a very talented player, the reality is that Serral has been one of the best foreigners for three years, since the last year of HOTS (steadily finishing top 3 in GM league), Serral is indisputably one of the best foreigners. But it also has to be said that the lack of playable depth and the ability ceiling of SC2 compared to Brood War, result in the best players of SC2 being very close to each other. Even if the professional teams returned to Korea and put the best Koreans in a house to play 12 hours a day, Serral, Neeb, Showtime and Special would still be very close or at the same level as the Koreans, they would still be very dangerous rivals. It's the SC2 problem, it lacks playable depth and a higher ceiling of ability. On the other hand the game has design problems and as a consequence of these problems it also has a balance problem.
What'swrong with you, you are so insecure, all of your post are about Brood War being greater than SC2 rofl
|
What's talent? If it's the right skill set and enough practice, then yes. If it's some magical power, then I don't agree there's such a thing.
|
there is players who played sc2 just as much as serral and are gold league.
talent IS the biggest factor in highly competetive games. Anyone saying something else.
This (highly american) "you can become whatever you want if you work hard enough" is just wrong on so many levels and produced a generation of mostly liberal, confident, dumb people
|
On August 12 2018 03:13 KalWarkov wrote: there is players who played sc2 just as much as serral and are gold league.
talent IS the biggest factor in highly competetive games. Anyone saying something else. And you sample size for this is what, 2 players?
|
On August 11 2018 23:30 sc-darkness wrote: What's talent? If it's the right skill set and enough practice, then yes. If it's some magical power, then I don't agree there's such a thing.
it's the ability to learn quickly. it's the physical ability to think fast as light on the spot and move your mouse accordingly (different humans will peak at different levels of it, no matter the pracitse).
Mozart listened to 2 hour long concerts ONCE as a 5 year old and could immediatly replay the whole thing almost perfectly and write it down.
Try to teach that to a million kids and one or two will succeed.
On August 12 2018 03:16 sabas123 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2018 03:13 KalWarkov wrote: there is players who played sc2 just as much as serral and are gold league.
talent IS the biggest factor in highly competetive games. Anyone saying something else. And you sample size for this is what, 2 players?
even if it would just be 2 players (which it is not, the gold-diamond caliber player with 20k games are plenty, there is other pros like serral, say maru, jaedong, reynor...), that would be enough to prove my point in this case.
There is distinct differences in learning ability, peak of performance of an individual
|
|
On the contrary, I remember some Korean pro (iloveoov I think?), who said that amongst progamers, the one who practice more will always outperform those that are more talented.
|
Canada8942 Posts
On August 12 2018 03:18 KalWarkov wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2018 23:30 sc-darkness wrote: What's talent? If it's the right skill set and enough practice, then yes. If it's some magical power, then I don't agree there's such a thing. it's the ability to learn quickly. it's the physical ability to think fast as light on the spot and move your mouse accordingly (different humans will peak at different levels of it, no matter the pracitse). Mozart listened to 2 hour long concerts ONCE as a 5 year old and could immediatly replay the whole thing almost perfectly and write it down. Try to teach that to a million kids and one or two will succeed. Show nested quote +On August 12 2018 03:16 sabas123 wrote:On August 12 2018 03:13 KalWarkov wrote: there is players who played sc2 just as much as serral and are gold league.
talent IS the biggest factor in highly competetive games. Anyone saying something else. And you sample size for this is what, 2 players? even if it would just be 2 players (which it is not, the gold-diamond caliber player with 20k games are plenty, there is other pros like serral, say maru, jaedong, reynor...), that would be enough to prove my point in this case. There is distinct differences in learning ability, peak of performance of an individual
The number of game isn't equal to practice, I would be way better if I spend time I put in SC2 to actually try to get better instead of just having fun. Same way pro-gaming house era Kespa player were way better not because they practice more, or had more talent then the rest but because they had an environnement which help them practiced better then everyone else.
|
Of course talent is important. Hard work beats talent when talent doesn't work, but all things being equal the person with talent will be lightyears ahead of the person without it. You see the same result in other areas, with IQ being the best indicator of how (financially) successful someone will be in life.
|
On August 11 2018 23:00 HsDLTitich wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical. That isn't the whole picture tho. Life experiences were still different, like maybe some started early because their parents were supportive and/or from a more wealthy family (meaning easier access to good computers and internet), maybe others didn't have this luck. They still trained in the same facility, but some started with an advantage and had the right mindset because the environment they grew up in helped them. I'm not saying that pure talent doesn't exist, but other factors should be considered as well.
Sure you start with many different advantages! Your ability to cope with hardship, IQ, your health physically and mentally, your motivation, I would call these things part of talent.
|
On August 12 2018 05:23 voltz_sc2 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2018 23:00 HsDLTitich wrote:On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical. That isn't the whole picture tho. Life experiences were still different, like maybe some started early because their parents were supportive and/or from a more wealthy family (meaning easier access to good computers and internet), maybe others didn't have this luck. They still trained in the same facility, but some started with an advantage and had the right mindset because the environment they grew up in helped them. I'm not saying that pure talent doesn't exist, but other factors should be considered as well. Sure you start with many different advantages! Your ability to cope with hardship, IQ, your health physically and mentally, your motivation, I would call these things part of talent.
You would call a person's health and motivation part of talent?
Are we just completely redefining words however we please then, to the point where they're nowhere near similar to any accepted dictionary definition?
|
Talent matters.
Ask Michael Jordan, Wayne Gretzky, or Tiger Woods.
As the German poster said, everyone at the top level plays a lot. Practice and experience become a factor when two equally talented people meet each other.
|
I think the reason people are reluctant to consider talent a factor is because the idea of innate talent is quite uncomfortable.
First of all, it puts a ceiling on human achievement. Try as I might, at 5.8', playing in the NBA is literally out of reach for me. Yet that kind of disrupts this notion of a blank sleight. Overcoming all odds by hard work is a much more appealing narrative than just having the athletic equivalent of a ten inch dick.
It's completely non-controversial to say that different people have different physical characteristics, yet somehow we're supposed to assume that our most demanding organ is exempt from that.
Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A.
|
On August 12 2018 05:43 207aicila wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2018 05:23 voltz_sc2 wrote:On August 11 2018 23:00 HsDLTitich wrote:On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical. That isn't the whole picture tho. Life experiences were still different, like maybe some started early because their parents were supportive and/or from a more wealthy family (meaning easier access to good computers and internet), maybe others didn't have this luck. They still trained in the same facility, but some started with an advantage and had the right mindset because the environment they grew up in helped them. I'm not saying that pure talent doesn't exist, but other factors should be considered as well. Sure you start with many different advantages! Your ability to cope with hardship, IQ, your health physically and mentally, your motivation, I would call these things part of talent. You would call a person's health and motivation part of talent? Are we just completely redefining words however we please then, to the point where they're nowhere near similar to any accepted dictionary definition?
anything that comes naturally I would consider talent. Wanting to take care of yourself, eat healthy, exercise. Not everyone wants or cares about that. And for motivation, intrinsic motivation is what im talking about.
|
8748 Posts
On August 11 2018 15:52 CicadaSC wrote: Look, in Korea, people practiced in the same team house, with the same coaches, on the same practice schedule. They practiced EQUAL AMOUNTS, yet some people had better results than others. Some were super stars, some were relegated to dish washers. Talent is most evident here. Work ethic was identical. The people who had the best results were the ones who could best tolerate those insane practice schedules! If you changed the practice schedule and kept everyone identical, you'd have a different set of superior players. Now how do you know who has the most talent?
I think there are maybe four things needed for success: understanding the game, being able to execute gameplans, psychology, and work ethic.
There are some people who show great understanding of the game and great execution when you consider how few hours they play. This might be some very infrequent player who can get GM whenever he wants. There are other people who compete at the highest level and are still able to demonstrate a better understanding of the game than them or they can execute gameplans better than them. For example you might say Taeja had some insane execution or Fruitdealer had some insane understanding of the game, even when up against people spending lots of time and effort on improving execution and understanding. So, they distinguished themselves even when compared to the best.
For work ethic, you can say some people have a "talent" for work ethic in the sense that it's never much of a struggle for them to do as much work as they think is necessary. Other people struggle to put in the work but they force themselves to do it and ultimately put the work in. And still other people do less than they feel they ought to and so they don't reach their potential.
For psychology, this is about playing better or worse when you're in the grand finals of a major tournament. It's about playing well in your worst matchup or playing well against a player who is very good recently or has historically been very good against you in particular. It's about going to Korea and beating all the best Koreans. It's also about breaking through mental barriers in practice. Should you reach top 16 GM EU like most other EU pros and hover around there and then just prep for tournaments, or is it possible to reach 400 MMR higher than all other EU pros? There's always a danger of settling. If you understand how a matchup is currently being played at the highest level, can you figure out how to take it another step and have confidence your tweak will work against the best players in the world?
I don't know about Serral but I think that psychology has held a lot of players back, especially outside of Korea since it seems only Koreans really ever seem to have the confidence that they're the best in the world. I don't know if Serral has any arrogance or excessive confidence, but I think at the very least he must have something that enables him to think more openly and not be inhibited by certain expectations, barriers, mental blocks etc. He works on his game and constantly improves it and then goes and plays well in major tournaments.
People can work on improving their ability to improve these four areas in case they are naturally bad at any of them. Talented people are good in these areas without having to work at it.
|
On August 12 2018 03:29 Ej_ wrote: On the contrary, I remember some Korean pro (iloveoov I think?), who said that amongst progamers, the one who practice more will always outperform those that are more talented. Meanwhile Taeja knocked Zest out of the GSL (the season after he won) while playing overwatch all day.
There's an obvious correlation between work and performance, but it's not perfect when comparing one person to another. Even in other esports you see examples. In counterstrike guys like Shox and f0rest have been well known to not take the game seriously at all. Yet they've outperformed the vast majority of players, a large portion of which will have almost certainly been more committed.
|
On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A. I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society.
|
I think talent plays a big role. I got into masters (2%) with about 400 wins. I started in bronze. I wasnt coached, i didnt watch my own replays, i didnt watch Day9 etc. Before StarCraft 2 I didnt know about hotkeys. Then at the same time some people are trying really hard to progress and played 3-4 times more games and still were in plat.
|
On August 12 2018 13:21 fronkschnonk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A. I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society. In China, for instance, the competition is crazy high to learn English and get into a Western school because they believe it's the path to success. The reason they have such a high work ethic is because there's hundreds of thousands of other people just like them who are trying to get those coveted spots. That's why when they come to North America, they often distinguish themselves because they have that mentality of having to be the very best to succeed. I don't think that it really means that East Asians are slightly smarter; it's just a result of their culture.
I think the whole talent versus hard debate is best summed up with the analogy of the rubber band. The person with more innate talent has the bigger rubber band, but hard work is how far the rubber band is stretched. All other things equal, the person with the greater talent will stretch farther, but a person who works harder than the person with talent can reach or surpass the person with talent.
Same applies here with Starcraft. I remember hearing someone talk about Neeb being so good (last year) compared to other foreigners because he worked so much harder than them. He would just practice and practice and practice, and that was how he became so good. And, like other people said, it's about practicing effectively. It's why Taeja and Rain could do so well outside of the team house influence because they were able to adapt to being without the team house support. And in Taeja's case, it's because he didn't work well in that rigid structure.
|
On August 12 2018 16:51 FrkFrJss wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2018 13:21 fronkschnonk wrote:On August 12 2018 07:42 hobbyistGamedev wrote: Secondly, nobody likes to admit that East Asians are, on average, slightly smarter than most other ethnic groups. In a game that's cerebral to a large extent, where differences snowball both in-game and without, the ripple of even a slight average IQ advantage can make the difference between domination and being solid Code A. I would be cautious with such data. While I approve of your point about talent in general, I don't think that it can be called a solved issue why East Asian have a better IQ on average. The IQ in itself is a highly problematic concept and it just tests stuff which is considered as intelligent by our modern society while performing well in it is proven to be a matter of being familiar with thought patterns of this modern society. I think the whole talent versus hard debate is best summed up with the analogy of the rubber band. The person with more innate talent has the bigger rubber band, but hard work is how far the rubber band is stretched. All other things equal, the person with the greater talent will stretch farther, but a person who works harder than the person with talent can reach or surpass the person with talent. Only if the gap in talent is relatively small. If the gap is too big it can never be overcome no matter what. Take your average master player who grinds the game non-stop and then take Serral. The master player will never reach Serral's level regardless of how much he practices and how little Serral practices.
|
|
|
|