|
On December 18 2010 23:19 TheLonelyCarrier wrote:Show nested quote +Albeit in BW, Flash isn't completely untouchable, but he sure damn well comes close to be. Show nested quote +SC2's mechanics works in a way that even someone who's head and shoulders above you can still lose games at a decent chance.
Pretty sure people like flash would rarely if ever lose to someone who isn't close to his ability. Both of these are good examples of where my question lies. I never saw Flash or Jaedong play, and I am sure the intracacies of their performances would be lost on me now since I never really looked at BW in a true competitive sense, the way I have come to learn and understand SC2. But when I hear people talk of them they sound untouchable, as if one would have to channel the very hand of god to defeat them. In all competitive fields, I gravitate towards that. Being in awe of a true master is something I really enjoy about any professional scene. Were/are they in fact, that dominant, or would they also fall in line with that 70-75% rule? Is that normal for this game? Is that what it was in BW? Does it seem low to people who have followed the scene?
Even when Jaedong was the absolute God of ZvZ, posting what may be the highest win percentage in a matchup... it was still only ~80%. Same goes for Flash in TvT. Flash and Jaedong are without question the best players in the game right now, and for the last year, they have been dominant.
But they still lose games to random pros. Note that these are not Bo3's; we're talking about just a single game. They still lose.
StarCraft is simply not a game that is conducive to a player being able to beat anyone of reasonable skill (ie: actual pros) in a single game. The best of the best will drop games. As strategies and knowledge develop, the skill floor you need to have to be able to take a game off of the best will rise. But it will never rise to the point where there are only a handful of players in that category.
That's why tournaments uses Bo3's and Bo5's. Even if you're able to steal a game away from a better player, you're far less likely to be able to do so in a Bo3. And even less able to do so in a Bo5.
|
its the nature of the game and was the same in bw. The best players EVER won 70% of their games vs people in their relative skill bracket (fellow progamers). Its just how it works.
|
On December 19 2010 04:26 SheerStress wrote: Why does everyone hate on marineking prime? He doesn't all in mostly, he just uses marines alot throughout the whole game. Does zerg stop using slings/roaches?
In fact 2 base - 3 base play is soemthing he often does, when the zergs survive that long. Hes showcasing a different style of build. I get ppl like Bitbybit who all-ins every game but why marineking? He plays pretty macro style
he found a niche that not exactly everyone can mimmick. most timing attacks/BO's can be copied, and everyones happy and jolly because they can play just like the big guys do. then MarineKing comes along with his so-called imba marine micro, no one can copy it, and everyones butthurt about it.
|
i dont get it dont people realize this game is still young, we have years and years to go before anyone can become untouchable considering the balance of the game can change from month to month at this point
|
Who are you people to proclaim what constitutes skill? MarineKing has been consistently performing well; if that's not skill, what is? Players like Idra are just whining when they proclaim that MarineKing didn't 'deserve' what he has achieved. This is an esport; the goal is to beat your opponent. This is exactly what MarineKing does. If winning does not denote skill, what does? Should the player with highest APM be granted victory? This is a real time STRATEGY game, not a button fest. If you're one of those player who worships speed as a benchmark of skill, go do something useful with your time. Learn to play an instrument well, and the "remarkable feat" of 300 APM will suddenly seem pretty dull. What, do pianists simply have "more skill" than Starcraft player? Gee, it must be.
Granted, MarineKing's victories might be short lived as player begin to adapt to the level of aggression he has displayed. However, until players have learned the skill of holding off this type of rush (which MC has shown), MarineKing will continue to do well. Fighting games are a good analogy here: Pros don't complain about the "cheap" locks and other strategies that can win games for low players, they simply learn to deal with them.
Incidentally, does Poker also require "little" skill? Indeed, top players will inevitably lose some games.
Edit: People really need to start reading the good ol' Play To Win article: http://www.sirlin.net/articles/playing-to-win-part-1.html
|
People are still trying to figure this game out. There's not supposed to be any consistency. There is absolutely no metagame to speak of right now. We're still in "players gravitating towards one best strategy" mode. And the skill set required to play Starcraft II emphasizes much different skills than that of Brood War. So all of the Koreans and long-time foreign standouts who made their meal ticket with mechanically-strong play are now seeing whether they can adjust to a game that does negate their strengths on some level.
I just don't get why people seem surprised by this. This is something that everybody should have expected from the start. And other than Blizzard's necessity to legitimize Starcraft II in the face of the established Korean Brood War scene, there was no reason to begin playing major tournaments this early. Optimally, it would have been best to let the game simmer for about six to twelve months, let hype build for the players who are winning various regional tournaments, and then have them all go to war against each other. The game would still not be perfect, but it would be better than "Zerg is unstoppable we can't beat Zergs we can't harass them in the early-game fuck this I'm building a second Barracks and winning the game right here."
|
The skill difference between all the pros isnt alot. Theres so many random factors in Starcraft II that if your somewhat good you can still win.
|
I think you are missing something here. I believe that SF is a much simpler game - simpler as in not that complicated, not easier - than SC2.
The best players' understanding of the game is probably as close to 100% as mine is to 0. And in SC2? I don't think that all the players combined know half of what this game has to offer. The best have said how they don't feel comfortable with what they know, how the game still surprises them. Just think about MarineKing. Nobody thought it was possible to win games like he had. And I believe we will see much more breaking strategies like these in the future.
I would say that if any player was to understand the game as fully as SV IV top players, he would dominate just as much - it is just that being that good is much harder. To proof - MC says he has 95% ratio against Terrans. So it is possible for players to be dominating, only not in every matchup at this point of the game.
|
Oh and TheLonelyCarrier who are you in the SF sceen?
Long time enthusiast. No notable tourney results. I competed in East Coast Throwdown 2 and Battlefield Arcadia under the name "Magnus", which is also my Bnet id.
|
In a game like chess or go, you will almost never see the lesser player win, and games between two top players will never end as a result of early aggressive moves. If sc2 hopes to one day rank among the great games of skill, it will have to match those games in performance. It currently does not. One huge thing that needs to change, is that the game needs to be balanced to almost entirely preclude game that end as a result of early aggression at high levels of play. Early aggression should be a factor in how the late or mid-game develops, not the totality of the game.
|
On December 18 2010 23:06 composition wrote: hidden information: Starcraft Poker
complete information: Street Fighter Chess
This
Really thats all there is to it. Street Fighter has been out for sometime now. Think of it as if Streetfighter had a Fog of War that only lifted as joystick commands where entered and only for a split second. (terrible analogy I know) If it was like that you would only know your opponents distance, Position(crouching, standing, Dashing) at that moment. Thats how Sc is you only know what is going on through scouting or what your opponent shows you(incomplete information).
It would be the other way around if Starcraft was played with no fog of war. Then you know exactly whats happening and then react accordingly. Then you have complete information. Then Top players would probably hardly lose also.
|
I may be biased, being a 2k terran player. I feel like, in comparison to other RTS games where you generally have the same basic units, SC2 is more about knowledge of the matchup than actual player skill. At the highest levels, knowing how to exploit the weaknesses of your opponents race is more important than your ability to micro or macro.
I feel like Zerg is hard to play at first, but once you understand the game and develop the mechanics, it becomes too easy for less skilled Z players to beat more skilled T and P opponents, and by skilled I am inferring to their micro and macro ability.
I feel like protoss is generally too easy play once you discover how to 4 gate and 2gate robo and abuse force fields. The shields recharging so quickly, and ability to instantly warp in units makes it a really forgiving race to play. If you are knowledgeable about protoss you can easily do things to your opponents that will require not only knowledge, but ridiculous micro to overcome.
That's why you see quotes like this from the champ:
"When I watch other Protoss games, I feel that their understanding of Terran match up is low. I cannot reveal my own know-how, but once they understand it, victory will come a lot easier."
and blizzard is thinking of ways of buffing protoss because they didnt do well is past tourneys :[
|
On December 19 2010 05:05 frumpylumps wrote: I may be biased, being a 2k terran player. I feel like, in comparison to other RTS games where you generally have the same basic units, SC2 is more about knowledge of the matchup than actual player skill. At the highest levels, knowing how to exploit the weaknesses of your opponents race is more important than your ability to micro or macro.
I feel like Zerg is hard to play at first, but once you understand the game and develop the mechanics, it becomes too easy for less skilled Z players to beat more skilled T and P opponents, and by skilled I am inferring to their micro and macro ability.
I feel like protoss is generally too easy play once you discover how to 4 gate and 2gate robo and abuse force fields. The shields recharging so quickly, and ability to instantly warp in units makes it a really forgiving race to play. If you are knowledgeable about protoss you can easily do things to your opponents that will require not only knowledge, but ridiculous micro to overcome.
I dunno about this, granted TvZ is my best MU but I feel like below a certain skill level a zerg wont be able to beat me due to zerg not really having viable all ins and my 2 rax marine essentially forcing them to build zerglings and the lesser skilled player probably cant manage the economy as well.
|
i agree that in this game and any other rts, you have people lose to other people who they "should not lose to". it's kinda disappointing, i wished the best player of the world (arguably) should only lose to a handful of people near his skill level and never ever against somebody way lower skilled
but in sc2 you can have some random guy or severely lesser play win against a hardcore tourney player, being way out of his league on the same point look at nada and boxer, the old bw pros. look how terrible they are compared to their prime in bw in sc2 now. i would really want to know how good flash could get in a month together with jaedong and a toss player from bw, for example lock those three in a basement and let them fight each other 10h+ a day and see if in a month they can beat everybody in sc2 thus far
|
I have to agree with the OP. It IS possible for a player of lesser skill to beat someone who is better. It wont happen often, but it is possible. There are things that factor in when we play SC2. The timing and luck factor are pretty intense. I lost a match to a play that is 600pts less than me on ladder just because his banshee got to my base just as my units passed the middle of the map. hurting my eco and forcing my vikings back to my main so I had no choice but to leave otherwise take the chance of him overwhelming my push because I had no income.
On the topic of bitbybit, I believe he shouldnt have made it that far. Any above average diamond player can practice marine/scv all in and get a lot of wins from it. Especially when your opponent doesnt or cant wall off.
MarineKing I think he has earned what he has gotten. We all know IdrA is a big baby, and is probably mad that MarineKing has been successful. His marines work because he knows how to micro, not because marines are "broken." That is just another example of someone bitching about something because they havent figured out a way to beat it yet.
|
If the higher skilled player always wins, than what's the damn point of watching the pros compete? There would be no underdogs, no upsets, we would just watch the better player win every time. Yeah, real exciting...
SC and SC2 are excellent games for competitors, and spectators. The amount of viewer-ship and prize money is proof to this fact.
|
On December 19 2010 05:11 ckcornflake wrote: If the higher skilled player always wins, than what's the damn point of watching the pros compete? There would be no underdogs, no upsets, we would just watch the better player win every time. Yeah, real exciting... You've got it mixed up. The better player shouldn't always win. But the player who played better should. The skill of every single player doesn't exist on a straight line. We all have off-days and days where we can't miss a shot.
|
The only real truth is winning. I'm sure it would take more "skill" for Roger Federer to win Wimbledon with his off-hand only. That would be small comfort when Nadal takes it from him.
I don't understand the hubris of some players. They assume their way is the best way to play a 6 month old game. And, they somehow think the guy who beat them can't play the way they play. Maybe, just maybe, they tried it and had a difference of opinion on what's optimal. Or better yet, they decide to incorporate everything because they think there's a use for every starting hand depending on table position instead of waiting for pocket pairs or AK/AQ every damn time.
|
On December 19 2010 05:11 ckcornflake wrote: If the higher skilled player always wins, than what's the damn point of watching the pros compete? There would be no underdogs, no upsets, we would just watch the better player win every time. Yeah, real exciting...
SC and SC2 are excellent games for competitors, and spectators. The amount of viewer-ship and prize money is proof to this fact. This, along with the earlier comment about hidden information vs perfect information.
It is pretty much indisputable that poker, despite the high luck factor (much much higher dependence on luck than SC2 even), requires a lot of skill to perform well. And yet, you see pros getting taken out by "newbies" all the time. The fact that there are so many people who are very very impressed by oGsMC, Nestea, and Fruitdealer indicates that people of high skill are being rewarded. Just because your favorite pro didnt make it through qualifiers doesnt mean that the game is broken.
And like ckcornflake said, if the "highest skilled" player was unbeatable, what would be the point of holding tournaments and watching pro games?
|
"If FruitDealer hopped on the ladder, on any given night random diamond player #5 has a decent shot at beating him, maybe with a unique build, or a strange timing. Maybe in a tourney setting where it was Bo3 Fruit would figure the guy out and come back and win, but in a given match one of the best players in the world can lose to someone who isn't one of the best players in the world."
the problem with this is that the game is still being figured out. as we saw in idra vs kiwikaki at mlg, kiwikaki used a unique build relying on a warp prism to reinforce all this units. idra did his own personal analysis on the game and said if he brings over his second queen, he kills the warp prism and the entire rush is shut down and the game is won. once we examine all these silly builds and understand them the best players will not lose silly games
|
|
|
|