|
An exerpt from this interview on Team ALTERNATEs webpage with their WC3 player Daniel "XlorD" Spenst (translated from german into english)
For those who are not familiar with XlorD: He's one of germanys finest WC3 players (possibly the best for one or two years now) who never could really compete on one level with asian players, but still is one of the top WC3 players. The skill difference of Asian and other players isn't nearly as huge as in Broodwar, but still immense.
Original Link: http://www.team-alternate.de/?s=news&typ=article&id=6033
Q: Do you feel happy when you can stop playing Warcraft 3 after the current EPS Season and focus on Starcraft 2 then?
Daniel: "SC2 slowly becomes boring to be honest, it seems very different after 400 games compared to the early beta phase. Actually, I don't know anything yet."
Q: Diverse people say that a co-existence of WC3 and SC2 is not possible.How much importance to you attribute to SC2 in national [german] and international eSports? What do you think is the biggest advantage of SC2 over WC3?
Daniel: SC2 will displace WC3 in any case, because the biggest advantage of SC2 is that it is new and will bring some fresh air. If SC2 and WC4 would be relased, I'ld choose Warcraft 4, because Warcraft has more aspects than SC2. Warcraft has something special that no other title has in form of heroes. Also, from my point of view Warcraft needs more skill than Starcraft [2] because one needs much more micro. SC2 needs more macro, but that's not really difficult. The seperation between professional and hobby gamer will be small, because SC2 is very easy to play in my view.
Apart from the heroes, he specificially mentions Micro what really doesn't surprise me. At least it surprises me less, than the fact that not even 10% of those who voted in the "What is the biggest issue of Starcraft 2?" thread in this forums said that it is the lack of micro.
This might also be related with the fact that SC2 becomes boring to him now because it limits game variation alot.
Some additional informations on Warcraft 3 (as it's his gaming background):
Much less macro but Micro is extremely important in any phase of the game. Army supply is around 40-70 in most fights with comparable supply amounts per unit like in Starcraft. This, and the fact that heroes get experience for kills and get much stronger, makes every single unit valuable so the games are really micro heavy. Also most units have important abilities and heros have 3-4 skills plus an inventory of up to 6 items, many of those usuable.
 
|
None of this new. Most players on TL would agree that micro is almost non-existance. Imo heroes are lame. I've played a bunch of sc and wc3, and I just really don't like heros. All I can say is that this is beta. Hopefully much will change.
|
TLO said there was no lack of micro.
case closed.
+ Show Spoiler +tbh, i have argued since the beginning of beta that there was way less micro in sc2 because of e.g. perverse unit clumping and ai that just moves too smoothly around anything edge-like (incl. other units), but well, that's my personal opinion and i also respect the judgement of TLO who was A- before he switched to sc2 and now rules the scene. his words were: (he was in an interview on stream shortly before that) You: one question he didn't ask you unfortunately: do you think micro in sc2 is inferior compared to sc:bw?
LiquidTLO: absolutely not
i believe micro will be on a similar level sooner or later
or even more complex
after all, in sc:bw it wasn't much more than macro whoring in the end
^^ edit: just to make this clear: this is the only thing that makes me agnostic rather than atheist 
|
On May 04 2010 02:33 sLiniss wrote:
None of this new. Most players on TL would agree that micro is almost non-existance. Imo heroes are lame. I've played a bunch of sc and wc3, and I just really don't like heros. All I can say is that this is beta. Hopefully much will change.
I don't think that Heroes would fit in Starcraft either. I just found his interview and think it's nice to see another pro level player agreeing that there is too few game deciding micro in SC2.
|
Micro is harder than macro? This guy never played SCBW obviously. Also he sucks too much at SC2 to be taken seriously.
|
On May 04 2010 02:55 Slunk wrote:
Micro is harder than macro? This guy never played SCBW obviously. Also he sucks too much at SC2 to be taken seriously.
He only refers to Starcraft 2 where Macro obviosly isn't nearly as difficult as in Broodwar. Also, he had some good results although he didn't play SC2 much since he focusses much on Warcraft 3 than most good SC2 players right now.
|
Meh micro, macro. I find I can't do both at the same time to 100% efficiency, my goal is to improve at one or the other first and then try to incorporate the other one at a higher level. Of course it won't be 100% of one and 0% of the other maybe 60:40 or 70:30 split at the start.
|
Micro/macro...
There really is micro in SC2, it's just not as grand or specific as it used to be. Although, I guess that's what made micro pretty awesome before. But for a guy who is probably used to, and loves, the micro-fest that is WC3, I can see why he would get a bit bored with the macro-fest of SC2.
|
Calgary25991 Posts
Having seen SEXLORD running around wasted in a hotel in europe, I can't take his opinion on balance seriously at all.
|
Haha, is he even old enough to drink?
Oh right, Europe. =P
|
On May 04 2010 02:55 Slunk wrote:
Micro is harder than macro? This guy never played SCBW obviously. Also he sucks too much at SC2 to be taken seriously.
Umm I'd say that micro was always way harder than macro in bw >.<
Anyone can build marines out of 8 raxes if he doesn't need to do anything but a-move troops.
Very few can mimmic the large scale army control of a pro even if he doesn't need to macro at all while doing it.
|
8751 Posts
I love how everyone who says SC2 doesn't take much skill is fucking horrible at SC2. Instantly recognizable as a load of bullshit. Once someone comes along with a 90% win rate against all the top SC2 players, maybe they can say how SC2 doesn't take much skill.
|
On May 04 2010 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I love how everyone who says SC2 doesn't take much skill is fucking horrible at SC2. Instantly recognizable as a load of bullshit. Once someone comes along with a 90% win rate against all the top SC2 players, maybe they can say how SC2 doesn't take much skill.
I agree with your general theme here, but that's not really a fair thing to say if build orders end up mattering more than gameplay(not saying that they do or will... just that if luck is a big factor then even a way better player prolly won't win 90%)
Which makes me ask, since u play near the top level for sc2 right now, do you think luck is a bigger factor than in sc1?
|
8751 Posts
On May 04 2010 05:25 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I love how everyone who says SC2 doesn't take much skill is fucking horrible at SC2. Instantly recognizable as a load of bullshit. Once someone comes along with a 90% win rate against all the top SC2 players, maybe they can say how SC2 doesn't take much skill. I agree with your general theme here, but that's not really a fair thing to say if build orders end up mattering more than gameplay(not saying that they do or will... just that if luck is a big factor then even a way better player prolly won't win 90%)
Yeah but theorizing on how it will end up being isn't saying anything. The fact is that right now, you can take any 10+ minute replay of any top player and list dozens of things that they did less than perfectly. And while I'd have to go onto hypothetical ground to keep this next point, I think we can all agree that knowledge of strategy, tactics and tricks has a ton more development to do, so there are probably many more imperfections that we can't even point out yet. But I don't need to rely on that hypothetical development of the game.
|
8751 Posts
On May 04 2010 05:25 travis wrote:
Which makes me ask, since u play near the top level for sc2 right now, do you think luck is a bigger factor than in sc1?
I think it is a bigger factor but only because people are worse at sc2. It took very precise builds in SC:BW to hammer out the luck factor and even then a huge lack factor remained, especially in some matchups and some maps. People in sc2 don't have the luxury of copying the collective knowledge of hundreds of full-time progamers for nearly a decade.
|
|
|
On May 04 2010 05:39 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 05:25 travis wrote:
Which makes me ask, since u play near the top level for sc2 right now, do you think luck is a bigger factor than in sc1? I think it is a bigger factor but only because people are worse at sc2. It took very precise builds in SC:BW to hammer out the luck factor and even then a huge lack factor remained, especially in some matchups and some maps. People in sc2 don't have the luxury of copying the collective knowledge of hundreds of full-time progamers for nearly a decade.
Ok, let's say this luck factor gets removed because people learn to read the opponent's tactics better. Won't the games be HORRIBLY boring then? Honestly, battles right now are often very predictable and boring, not only because they end within 1*10^-8 seconds each but also because you really cannot see great micro by each player.
How is good micro visualized right now? By dropping good forcefields or using graviton beam on the right units? By positioning marauders in a big arch instead of a giant ball? Is that exiting? No its not.
On May 04 2010 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I love how everyone who says SC2 doesn't take much skill is fucking horrible at SC2. Instantly recognizable as a load of bullshit. Once someone comes along with a 90% win rate against all the top SC2 players, maybe they can say how SC2 doesn't take much skill.
Thats an assumption that cannot be proofed, because the sentence " SC2 needs few skill" implies that other people do not need alot of skill either to compete.
Also, the term skill often gets mixed up with Micro and a guy who invests double the amount apm than his enemy in good micro in SC2 plus has a good macro or tactic still can get defeated easily because this micro doesn't give him an advantage as huge as in many other RTS games, such as Warcraft 3 and propably broodwar and the tactic is pretty much the only thing counting.
On May 04 2010 05:32 Liquid`NonY wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2010 05:25 travis wrote:On May 04 2010 05:21 Liquid`NonY wrote:
I love how everyone who says SC2 doesn't take much skill is fucking horrible at SC2. Instantly recognizable as a load of bullshit. Once someone comes along with a 90% win rate against all the top SC2 players, maybe they can say how SC2 doesn't take much skill. I agree with your general theme here, but that's not really a fair thing to say if build orders end up mattering more than gameplay(not saying that they do or will... just that if luck is a big factor then even a way better player prolly won't win 90%) Yeah but theorizing on how it will end up being isn't saying anything. The fact is that right now, you can take any 10+ minute replay of any top player and list dozens of things that they did less than perfectly. And while I'd have to go onto hypothetical ground to keep this next point, I think we can all agree that knowledge of strategy, tactics and tricks has a ton more development to do, so there are probably many more imperfections that we can't even point out yet. But I don't need to rely on that hypothetical development of the game.
Ok, thats right. However, it can be frustrating because many of these mistakes are very small or just no real mistakes like choosing a specific build order when the player did not have the option to know whether it's a good choice.
Also there is no real dramatic impact by micro like in WC3 or BW where a few well used skill, perfectly positioned units or a good focus fire could win you a game, right now it feels so limited to a bit of positioning that however will not win you the game when you have a disadvantage overall.
Let's say progamers do perfect their gamestyle and do remove all those mistakes. Will it be an interesting game then? I doubt it, it will be boring as hell as soon as you watched five or six of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
