|
Overall win percentages might be a bit misleading. If all you're play against are top level people, your win percentage won't be as high as if you were playing low level people. Also, most people might not be as good during the start of their careers.
Flash and Jaedong might be on a whole new level, but players like Fantasy, Kal, Stork, Bisu are still very good and can still take games off them.
Seven people, besides Flash, in BW currently have an ELO above 2200. If he plays against someone who is 2200, he has about a 72% chance of winning [1/(1+10^((2200-2360)/400))].
+ Show Spoiler +Ssak beat him in an upset, and using ELO predictions [1/(1+10^((2022-2247)/400))], Flash still had a 21% chance of losing despite how good he is.
|
Starcraft 2 doesnt Reward the most skilled players - there are tons of factors why that often isnt the case. *The game is imbalanced - its impossible for a game with 3 different races to be balanced. Chess is balanced because every player starts with the same pieces at the same position but Starcraft will never be 100% balanced. *Players with bad mechanics can beat players with superior mechanics (APM,constant building etc.) *There is luck involved in Starcraft 2 - it begins with spawning positions(less gas/m - worse creep spread/ addon is attackable in the wall) and ends with build order wins (hatch first dies to 6 pool). *Incomplete Information - you dont know at all time what you opponent is doing. *Some Units are very strong and require specific counters - some crazy tactic can catch you totally off guard and you need to adapt with specific build orders - (thor rush in PvT) *Little samplesize in tourneys -> cheese is way more effective *Scouting can be denied very long. ... and the list would go on forever -
|
I think the biggest problem with the game right now is the lack of defensive advantage. The expected return on blind aggression is often higher than careful defense since it is difficult to know and prepare for exactly what is coming. This relates to both the strength of certain units in general and current map design, and possibly the new macro mechanics and the removal of high ground advantage. You can either try to scout and prepare for your opponents rush, or make him worry about figuring out what you are doing and defending while you execute your well practiced plan.
Furthermore, the penalties for either poking and deciding to fall back after preparing an all-in or simply failing to do extensive damage are not great enough for people to worry about practicing other styles of play. A 2-rax push with half your scvs, as long as you kill several of his workers, often leaves you at an economic advantage even if he was able to fend it off because he had to pump straight units to stay alive. My hope is that this style will fade out as strategy progresses, but I fear it may take patching (I have no idea what kind), and definitely map pool changes, to make macro play as viable a style. Time will tell.
|
If the best team won every year, then the yankees would win every world series. Obviously theres more to the game than just skill.
|
I also follow the SF professional scene. BW didn't have untouchable gods as far as the top players are considered. Not quite like Daigo is.
-------------------------
Flash: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/players/424_Flash
Jaedong: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/players/211_Jaedong
-------------------------
Look at their win percentages at the bottom of the page. That's their win% vs other progamers. Surprised? 70% is pretty damn good, too. I remember when JD had 80% vs Z. Scary fucker, for sure. He still is, too. Easily my favorite player of all time.
Now, while this kind of refutes the BW untouchable gods concept... it doesn't exactly. Those % are vs other very practiced progamers. Some of them are also vs each other, since those two meet up pretty often. Those %'s are the result of the top 50 players in the world clashing. Among those players, Flash and Jaedong stand out.
Can a random player beat them, though? Fuck no. Cheese included. Not that cheese isn't your best chance to win (only chance), but the likelihood of a random non-progamer beating them even with cheese is pretty low.
EDIT: Ssak is in the top 50. Look how much of a surprise his match vs Flash was.
|
On December 19 2010 07:41 idonthinksobro wrote:
*Players with bad mechanics can beat players with superior mechanics (APM,constant building etc.)
I've yet to hear why this is a bad thing. Because "players with bad mechanics" who can play the game at a competent level are probably making up for it by seeing several moves ahead of their opponent.
|
chess isn't balanced white is always ahead by one tempi since white starts. But some people prefer to play with black just because of that.
In chess my opening is because of my lack of training complete non existant. But because I had a lot of lategame training and everyone is only training early game at the leagues i still play, i only have to survive the early game and win easily late game. So is the one training early game now bad or is it me being only good late game.
If you see pro games you often notice that they have one really strong match up, and if you see it more closely they are often really strong in the matchup early or late game. They train one thing alot and i guess it will take a few more month till they have trained every matchup that well, that they play constant in every way and won't lose that easy because you get em wrong footed.
Just my opinion maybe i am totally wrong. (know it from me that i am damn bad against zergs while being really good against toss and terra)
|
I think the biggest issue is that the map pool and early availability of insanely strong terran units are making cheesy all-in plays more viable than they should be. There simply isn't much of a defenders advantage anymore. In BW you had alot more time to prepare before an opponent could get to your base and all-in you. In SC2 things like concussive shells, salvage, warpgates, and even stim result in situations where extremely agressive play is rewarded in the early game. I think the overwhelming majority of players who "don't deserve their wins" happen to be terran, and while I don't think I am qualified to use the word "imba" (only ~2500). I think the design of the race encourages abusive all-in plays. Terran is the hardest race to scout, has marines (proving to be the strongest tier 1 unit by far when microed well), concussive shells, AND the easiest time macroing. A terran player can often muster a powerful early push, WHILE expanding and matching P/Z econ. P and Z players who choose to use economy builds hardly pose a threat to a half decent terran before the midgame. Terran really just has too much strength in the early game without any cost to their economy imo.
I completely agree with what Idra said about MarineKing, and while I haven't watched the finals I have a terrible feeling that Rain may have eliminated the much more skilled MC. I cringed watching MarineKing and Rain win their games. It is obvious they are the inferior players, yet they make it to the finals with abusive MM play. I really hate to say it, but maybe there are balance issues? Whens the last time we saw a Zerg or Protoss who "didn't deserve their wins"? Maybe I'm missing something and the problem is across the board, but I've only noticed it with T players.
|
On December 19 2010 08:12 Niji87 wrote:I also follow the SF professional scene. BW didn't have untouchable gods as far as the top players are considered. Not quite like Daigo is. ------------------------- Flash: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/players/424_FlashJaedong: http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/korean/players/211_Jaedong------------------------- Look at their win percentages at the bottom of the page. That's their win% vs other progamers. Surprised? 70% is pretty damn good, too. I remember when JD had 80% vs Z. Scary fucker, for sure. He still is, too. Easily my favorite player of all time. Now, while this kind of refutes the BW untouchable gods concept... it doesn't exactly. Those % are vs other very practiced progamers. Some of them are also vs each other, since those two meet up pretty often. Those %'s are the result of the top 50 players in the world clashing. Among those players, Flash and Jaedong stand out. Can a random player beat them, though? Fuck no. Cheese included. Not that cheese isn't your best chance to win (only chance), but the likelihood of a random non-progamer beating them even with cheese is pretty low. EDIT: Ssak is in the top 50. Look how much of a surprise his match vs Flash was.
For a comparison to a game of complete information, top Go professions (Lee Sedol, for example), only have ~70% win percentage against other professionals.
I would compare to chess win percentages, but I'm not sure that they are directly comparable, since chess has draws. If you count draws as counting as .5, Bobby Fischer only had a 73% win percentage, despite probably dominating his contemporaries harder than anyone in the modern era.
|
Right now it isnt. But time will tell, SC 2 is young.
|
Well, generally the more skilled players win, but not always. This is shown in how MC beat Rain (like everyone predicted) yet Rain beat a ton of other good players with "unskilled" tactics. The main problem I think is balancing t1 units and the map pool. Both of these things need some attention, but hopefully Blizz will do something about it. Especially the map pool, which will ultimately effect unit balance in the end.
|
Is SC2 Rewarding The Most Skilled Players? The question answers itself.
Its exactly like what one of the first posters said: Reffering to the whole game sc2 skill is defined by winnnig games so the question answers itself. the one winning more games is more skilled and the one who is more skilled is by definition winning more games. However u cant predict the outcome of a single game by this but this is an overall(philosophical) problem of abstract concepts like "skill" and has 0 to do with the game itself
Surely u can distinguish between diffrent sub-skills u need to be good overall like micro, macro, game sense etc. but then making a corellation between the skill in the subskills and the overall skill is very hard
|
On December 19 2010 08:27 Wr3k wrote: I think the biggest issue is that the map pool and early availability of insanely strong terran units are making cheesy all-in plays more viable than they should be. There simply isn't much of a defenders advantage anymore. In BW you had alot more time to prepare before an opponent could get to your base and all-in you. In SC2 things like concussive shells, salvage, warpgates, and even stim result in situations where extremely agressive play is rewarded in the early game. I think the overwhelming majority of players who "don't deserve their wins" happen to be terran, and while I don't think I am qualified to use the word "imba" (only ~2500). I think the design of the race encourages abusive all-in plays. Terran is the hardest race to scout, has marines (proving to be the strongest tier 1 unit by far when microed well), concussive shells, AND the easiest time macroing. A terran player can often muster a powerful early push, WHILE expanding and matching P/Z econ. P and Z players who choose to use economy builds hardly pose a threat to a half decent terran before the midgame. Terran really just has too much strength in the early game without any cost to their economy imo.
I completely agree with what Idra said about MarineKing, and while I haven't watched the finals I have a terrible feeling that Rain may have eliminated the much more skilled MC. I cringed watching MarineKing and Rain win their games. It is obvious they are the inferior players, yet they make it to the finals with abusive MM play. I really hate to say it, but maybe there are balance issues? Whens the last time we saw a Zerg or Protoss who "didn't deserve their wins"? Maybe I'm missing something and the problem is across the board, but I've only noticed it with T players.
Not deserving their wins is a load of bullshit.
And MarineKing is one of, if not THE, best and most consistant terrans in the world. Hes one of the best the race has to offer.
Its probably just an inherent design flaw in the game.
I mean do you want terran players to play macro games and lose? Terran doesnt even really have a safe opening to proceed with a macro game. Sure you can 1-2 rax expo vs Toss, but you still need 4 bunkers incase they 4 gate rush you and you really dont know what they are doing. If T didnt 2 rax zergs could just drone forever and run them over -__-
P has a million openings vs terran where as terran is relatively limited and preparing for the toss openings is pretty much entirely different where as preparing for the terarn openings essentially just includes getting a robo, and if you have a good build you can even do it while expanding.
Im not complaining about imbalance or anything but saying the terran players are bad when they are clearly the best the race has to offer atm is kinda a slap in the face to them and not looking at a possible indictment on blizzard for fucking the game up some so far.
|
Also, this idea that SC=Poker and SF=Chess is incredibly backward. That's like the most backward thing I've heard yet in this thread. I can't imagine how anyone drew that out of the games.
SF is very hard to predict and revolves IMMENSELY around bluffs and forced ambigous game states. You may be able to see what they are doing right now, but you have almost no idea what they're going to do next. SC is far more like chess in that any situation takes time to set up. It's like chess with fog of war added in. You may not be able to see what they're doing right now, but if you get a glimpse it's much easier to predict what they'll do next.
EDIT: Daigo is known for ocassionally just walking right at his opponents and grabbing them randomly. He's a ballsy beast who knows how to condition an opponent and knows how to call his opponents bluffs.
|
I think it is tough to derive the better player from just a few games. I don't think it is necessarily a problem with the game when someone less skilled beats a superior player; as many have said, there are many variables which can create this outcome if you are only judging skill based on a single game.
GSL would be a better tournament if it allowed players to really test each other. A Bo3 where unique cheeses can knock out a phenomenal player before this player could adapt to the new strategy doesn't demonstrate skill at all, a Bo5 might but a Bo3 is too fast without even a loser bracket to redeem oneself. From what I've seen, the best way to discern skill in SC2 is to pit players against each other in a prolonged series of games. Until we see more of this, I think we can expect more upsets like this. For what it's worth, I agree Rain did not belong in GSL final. It was the first grand final I've seen so far where I felt like there was no main event; if there was, it took place somewhere in the Ro16 or the Ro32, which IMO is pretty darn lame and reeks of bad tournament setup. I've heard they are improving the structure though, so I"m looking forward to season 4.
|
On December 19 2010 08:39 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2010 08:27 Wr3k wrote: I think the biggest issue is that the map pool and early availability of insanely strong terran units are making cheesy all-in plays more viable than they should be. There simply isn't much of a defenders advantage anymore. In BW you had alot more time to prepare before an opponent could get to your base and all-in you. In SC2 things like concussive shells, salvage, warpgates, and even stim result in situations where extremely agressive play is rewarded in the early game. I think the overwhelming majority of players who "don't deserve their wins" happen to be terran, and while I don't think I am qualified to use the word "imba" (only ~2500). I think the design of the race encourages abusive all-in plays. Terran is the hardest race to scout, has marines (proving to be the strongest tier 1 unit by far when microed well), concussive shells, AND the easiest time macroing. A terran player can often muster a powerful early push, WHILE expanding and matching P/Z econ. P and Z players who choose to use economy builds hardly pose a threat to a half decent terran before the midgame. Terran really just has too much strength in the early game without any cost to their economy imo.
I completely agree with what Idra said about MarineKing, and while I haven't watched the finals I have a terrible feeling that Rain may have eliminated the much more skilled MC. I cringed watching MarineKing and Rain win their games. It is obvious they are the inferior players, yet they make it to the finals with abusive MM play. I really hate to say it, but maybe there are balance issues? Whens the last time we saw a Zerg or Protoss who "didn't deserve their wins"? Maybe I'm missing something and the problem is across the board, but I've only noticed it with T players. Not deserving their wins is a load of bullshit. And MarineKing is one of, if not THE, best and most consistant terrans in the world. Hes one of the best the race has to offer. Its probably just an inherent design flaw in the game. I mean do you want terran players to play macro games and lose? Terran doesnt even really have a safe opening to proceed with a macro game. Sure you can 1-2 rax expo vs Toss, but you still need 4 bunkers incase they 4 gate rush you and you really dont know what they are doing. If T didnt 2 rax zergs could just drone forever and run them over -__- P has a million openings vs terran where as terran is relatively limited and preparing for the toss openings is pretty much entirely different where as preparing for the terarn openings essentially just includes getting a robo, and if you have a good build you can even do it while expanding. Im not complaining about imbalance or anything but saying the terran players are bad when they are clearly the best the race has to offer atm is kinda a slap in the face to them and not looking at a possible indictment on blizzard for fucking the game up some so far.
I never said they were bad, just quoted someone elses statement, obviously anyone who makes it to GSL finals is amazingly good. I just feel that they eliminated alot of players who were in fact better than them. I don't blame the players for doing what they do either, it obviously works, and I elaborated as to why I think it does. We have no evidence that terran players will always lose macro games, because we rarely see macro games out of terran players. A pre-requisite to seeing if T can handle a macro game is an end to the trend of everyone using all-in plays which are disproportionately rewarding.
|
Cheesing, rushing, all-ins (any quick plays) can be considered part of strategy. It keeps the opponent guessing when used here and there in a best-of series. And if one or a few player in the world can win regularly with quick plays I'd say that is special talent since he has already given his strategy before the game even started. They don't need to answer to anyone. I actually find MarineKingPrime matches exciting and different than the norm. People should quit complaining and thank MKP for contributing to variety in playstyles.
|
the small maps make BO losses way too common
|
On December 19 2010 09:07 zyzski wrote: the small maps make BO losses way too common
big maps make warp gates too powerful
|
On December 19 2010 08:13 MichaelJLowell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 19 2010 07:41 idonthinksobro wrote:
*Players with bad mechanics can beat players with superior mechanics (APM,constant building etc.)
I've yet to hear why this is a bad thing. Because "players with bad mechanics" who can play the game at a competent level are probably making up for it by seeing several moves ahead of their opponent.
Sounds like someone has an insecurity issue about his mechanics!
Basically just to reiterate what I believe to be true and what I have seen posted in this thread several times as well, Starcraft is a game of incomplete information. Any game of incomplete information is going to have some amount of chance involved. Therefore, any game of incomplete information is going to have more potential for variance than any game of complete information.
|
|
|
|