|
I've been thinking for quite a while about this issue, ever since SC2 beta was released.
BW was easy to figure out. The player with superior macro and micro will come out on top. Innovative strategies are discovered every so often, and they eventually become something of a standard once it's realized to be highly effective. The first 10 minutes, more or less, of playing becomes muscle memory to most people.
BW has faced numerous innovations since its dawn 12 years ago. 12 years is a long time, especially for a video game. As the game continued to age, particularly over the past couple years, we have seen less emphasis on innovation and more emphasis on the mastery of game mechanics. A player can do just as well to go completely standard if his macro and micro is superior to that of his opponent's. If you can legitimately and completely master mechanics, you've won most of the battle.
So that brings us to SC2. The common complaints people have had about this game since its conception is that macro and micro have been watered down; that the mechanics have been "noobified." Players with 100 less APM than their opponents can come out victorious, and beta gamers everywhere are crying in outrage!
If we don't have the basic mechanics of macro and micro to rely on for victory, then what's left? Timed attacks, superior strategy, unorthodox build orders, and a clear understanding of the true potential the new SC2 mechanics bring to battle.
I'm going to say right now that I can't clearly sympathize with the legitimate players of BW, myself not reaching higher than a C- on iCCup. I mean, I can understand the frustration that better players may feel, going into SC2 and relying on BW strengths to win the battle, only to fall to a "noob with 40 APM." It just seems so ridiculous.
But I think what a lot of people aren't understanding is that you can't win with BW tactics in a game that isn't BW. As obvious as that might sound, it's not really understood just yet. SC2 is indeed a different game, and should honestly be treated as such.
I suppose what I'm wondering now is whether or not it's so bad for the game to rely less on the basic mechanics that BW emphasized so much. Here is the question I've most often asked myself:
If two great players face off in a game where the mechanics have been "dumbed down," what do they do to get the edge over their opponent?
I don't really see the "dumbing down" of the macro and micro mechanics as detrimental to the experience of the game as many make it seem like it does. Would it not just mean that the other aspects of this game can be emphasized more? Is it so horrible that someone with inferior macro and micro can win with superior strategy and timing?
I suppose the main reason why most people are unsettled is because the mastery of macro and micro game mechanics is what made SC:BW such a unique gaming experience. There's a certain fear seeing SC2 missing these components we've emphasized and glorified. Because SC2 is missing what made BW so successful, we may feel that SC2 is a worse, incomplete game.
But SC2 is indeed a whole new game. Whether or not it will be as successful as BW is yet to be seen. One thing we can probably know for sure, though, is that if it does become as successful, it probably won't be for the same reason BW did.
I hope my thinking is sound, and I apologize in advance if I have misunderstood. If so, please correct me. I would very much like to hear your opinions.
 
|
Great post 
I agree that mechanics and APM seem to be a lot less important in SC2 than was the case in BW. Ultimately this promotes innovative strategies and builds in order to gain that seemingly small edge over your opponent.
But at the same time, mechanics and APM brought greater depth to BW. If I can now execute like Jaedong or Flash, what's stopping me from pulling off the same strategies that they pursue?
The way I see it is a double edged sword. Former BW players who had sound mechanics but were possibly lacking in the creativity department, perhaps relying on 2 or 3 tried and tested builds will absolutely detest losing to players who win due to the sheer surprise value or unpredictability of their strategies or builds. The veterans will argue that SC2 just makes everything so easy. Maybe so easy that the game loses part of its depth and range of skills.
Many newcomers to the SC world will like it, however. They might ask, well is APM and spamming essentially a skill? They will be able to play exactly the way they wish to play ... and I can't stress this enough. In BW I will admit (being a D+ noob myself) that I often didn't have the multitasking abilities required for harassing, macroing, microing, and basically doing everything I'd like to do in-game, at the correct timings.
SC2 might not be so great for someone like Jaedong, who excels in multitasking and exceedingly quick actions per minute, but it might be ideal for someone like Boxer, who still has the imaginative builds and strategies in his head but just finds it difficult to execute because of APM or multitasking restraints.
|
Aotearoa39261 Posts
Boxer was only ever able to pull off such amazing strategies because of his extremely high apm  especially in comparison to his contemporaries.
Nevertheless, I can't say I agree with what you're saying. In SC it's not like strategy was completely void. I mean, 4gate goon can win against other Protosses really easily and other things like 3hat hydra can do the same. Losing to people who do weird one base stuff is pretty much the same as losing to any of those.
My BW mechanics have allowed me 'excel' in this game, and every game I do lose to some scrub (by some stupid proxy or something) I'll win the next 5-10 because they can't macro properly. Putting this into a more global context, mTwNaNi is an example of a player who is winning but has inferior mechanics to others. Whatever, in the end once we figure out the game more his style of play won't be viable anymore - or at least we'll be able to deal with it better - and those with better mechanics will rise to the top.
|
My problem with lower mechanical skill is that it's very hard to get back in the game if you're at a disadvantaged position. In SC1, you could out micro or out macro your opponent, and come back from some awful positions, but in SC2 it's really hard to do that unless your opponent REALLY screws things up.
|
On May 10 2010 04:48 Garrl wrote:
My problem with lower mechanical skill is that it's very hard to get back in the game if you're at a disadvantaged position. In SC1, you could out micro or out macro your opponent, and come back from some awful positions, but in SC2 it's really hard to do that unless your opponent REALLY screws things up.
I don't think this necessarily a bad thing. I tend to scout more often and be more active with harassment because I know if I let my opponent get a certain unit composition at a certain time, I'm gonna get screwed. I think it makes the macro strategies a lot more dynamic.
|
On May 10 2010 04:40 Plexa wrote:Boxer was only ever able to pull off such amazing strategies because of his extremely high apm especially in comparison to his contemporaries. Nevertheless, I can't say I agree with what you're saying. In SC it's not like strategy was completely void. I mean, 4gate goon can win against other Protosses really easily and other things like 3hat hydra can do the same. Losing to people who do weird one base stuff is pretty much the same as losing to any of those. My BW mechanics have allowed me 'excel' in this game, and every game I do lose to some scrub (by some stupid proxy or something) I'll win the next 5-10 because they can't macro properly. Putting this into a more global context, mTwNaNi is an example of a player who is winning but has inferior mechanics to others. Whatever, in the end once we figure out the game more his style of play won't be viable anymore - or at least we'll be able to deal with it better - and those with better mechanics will rise to the top.
Oh yes, absolutely. I never meant that strategy was void, I simply meant that strategies are kind of just learned, memorized. Players hardly take it upon themselves to play differently from the norm, especially if they are unconfident in their mechanical capabilities. You're right about your superior mechanical abilities allowing you to excel, because in BW, the game greatly rewarded a player's mechanical skill. I suppose I'm just unsure about how much the mechanics should overshadow the strategy component of a real-time strategy game.
|
Fail double post using phone.
|
On May 10 2010 03:49 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
I've been thinking for quite a while about this issue, ever since SC2 beta was released.
BW was easy to figure out. The player with superior macro and micro will come out on top. Innovative strategies are discovered every so often, and they eventually become something of a standard once it's realized to be highly effective. The first 10 minutes, more or less, of playing becomes muscle memory to most people.
"The player with superior macro and micro" pretty much directly translates as "the better player".
Breaking Starcraft down into macro is the building of units and infrastructure and economy management and micro is the movement, positioning and use of units. This is pretty much what the game is all about.
On May 10 2010 03:49 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
BW has faced numerous innovations since its dawn 12 years ago. 12 years is a long time, especially for a video game. As the game continued to age, particularly over the past couple years, we have seen less emphasis on innovation and more emphasis on the mastery of game mechanics. A player can do just as well to go completely standard if his macro and micro is superior to that of his opponent's. If you can legitimately and completely master mechanics, you've won most of the battle.
Perhaps, but this is only in the recent years, and is also pretty much inevitable.
The game designers had no idea it was going to become this big or this in-depth and you have to be able to appreciate the fact that every game can only go so far and can only have so much depth before you have figured everything out. I actually think what you are saying is slightly surprising because we are constantly being shown new builds and variations even after years of having an competitive pro scene.. this is just amazing, especially considering how old this game is.
It is a lot, lot, lot more likely that after fewer years in any other game every single trick in the book has long since discovered and the game will then also naturally just become about mechanics, who can execute these widely known and well defined strategies better than the other one... This will happen in any game... Starcraft is actually fairly unique as far as I am aware given how many people have played this game for so many hours yet still everything is not known.
On May 10 2010 03:49 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
So that brings us to SC2. The common complaints people have had about this game since its conception is that macro and micro have been watered down; that the mechanics have been "noobified." Players with 100 less APM than their opponents can come out victorious, and beta gamers everywhere are crying in outrage!
If we don't have the basic mechanics of macro and micro to rely on for victory, then what's left? Timed attacks, superior strategy, unorthodox build orders, and a clear understanding of the true potential the new SC2 mechanics bring to battle.
You are not fully appreciating the "Timed attacks, superior strategy, unorthodox build orders" already present in BW today.
Just because people have absurd game mechanics and will crush a newb with 40apm even if they go scouts, this doesn't mean that in real games between equally matched players there is equally even if not more emphasis on these aspects of the game than mechanics.
The absolute importance of scouting in BW displays the true importance of knowing exactly your opponents strategy, the appropriate counter strategies and the possible outcomes for these plays.
This idea that you can just mechanically grind your opponent down without playing an incredibly tight game strategically and having a good sense of timing is a complete fallacy, and only really applies between players with a massive skill difference.
On May 10 2010 03:49 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
I'm going to say right now that I can't clearly sympathize with the legitimate players of BW, myself not reaching higher than a C- on iCCup. I mean, I can understand the frustration that better players may feel, going into SC2 and relying on BW strengths to win the battle, only to fall to a "noob with 40 APM." It just seems so ridiculous.
But I think what a lot of people aren't understanding is that you can't win with BW tactics in a game that isn't BW. As obvious as that might sound, it's not really understood just yet. SC2 is indeed a different game, and should honestly be treated as such.
SC2 has a lot of similarites, economy management, army composition, map control, scouting, harassment, concealed strategies, the list of similarities is in fact endless..
Again this notion that "BW strengths" are purely micro/macro mechanics as opposed to strategy, timing and game sense is completely flawed.
Mechanics are merely an addition to arsenal of skills required to be a good player, an addition which has lost emphasis in SC2 which is the very thing people are complaining about!
On May 10 2010 03:49 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
I suppose what I'm wondering now is whether or not it's so bad for the game to rely less on the basic mechanics that BW emphasized so much. Here is the question I've most often asked myself:
If two great players face off in a game where the mechanics have been "dumbed down," what do they do to get the edge over their opponent?
They would have to rely solely on the non mechanical aspects of gameplay, strategy, timing etc instead of a combination of mechanical skill and strategy, timing, etc. (simple vs complex)
I fail to see any inherent advantage in this...
On May 10 2010 03:49 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
I don't really see the "dumbing down" of the macro and micro mechanics as detrimental to the experience of the game as many make it seem like it does. Would it not just mean that the other aspects of this game can be emphasized more? Is it so horrible that someone with inferior macro and micro can win with superior strategy and timing?
What makes a good Starcraft player is that not only are their strategies strong and their sense of timing finely tuned, they have the mechanical capabilities to execute these strategies efficiently and effectively.
Many progamers have shown it is possible to be a mechanical machine and a micro king and a strategy genius and a timing gosu all at the same time, in fact this is what I have come to expect and love from Starcraft.
On May 10 2010 03:49 IndecisivePenguin wrote:
I suppose the main reason why most people are unsettled is because the mastery of macro and micro game mechanics is what made SC:BW such a unique gaming experience. There's a certain fear seeing SC2 missing these components we've emphasized and glorified. Because SC2 is missing what made BW so successful, we may feel that SC2 is a worse, incomplete game.
You maintain that it's "because the mastery of macro and micro game mechanics is what made SC:BW such a unique gaming experience." yet you have no real justification in saying this.
Learning new build orders, new maps, new strategies, scouting technique/patterns and a fantastic online community among other things are what make BW a unique gaming experience... mechanics is merely one aspect of a brilliant and demanding game, the loss of which seems unnecessary if not detrimental in my opinion.
|
The thing is the strategy and macro/micro came together perfectly and beautifully a lot of the time during BW where you would have one of those "WHAT THE FUCK?" moments where the seemingly impossbile happened. The sad part about removing MICRO not so much macro from the game is that those aww moments are gone. Although, I do suppose that ILoveOov macro would qualify as an "WTF" moment.
Thats the only thing I don't really like, I feel more responsibility should fall into the hands of the player and less marked off to smartcasting and unit AI.
Also I think warpgates are the gayest part of the game. Imagine what WW2 would of been like if hitler could of warpgated his troops right to Russia's boarder? It ruins the homefield advantage which is completely gay. Fast expo builds are less viable because the rush distance can be taken away with a simple 1 pylon near your opponents nat.
ahh well, I will rant more about that in my own blog someday :O
|
Mechanics are merely an addition to arsenal of skills required to be a good player
Addition? Not foundation?
On May 10 2010 05:42 RebirthOfLeGenD wrote:
The thing is the strategy and macro/micro came together perfectly and beautifully a lot of the time during BW where you would have one of those "WHAT THE FUCK?" moments where the seemingly impossbile happened. The sad part about removing MICRO not so much macro from the game is that those aww moments are gone. Although, I do suppose that ILoveOov macro would qualify as an "WTF" moment.
Thats the only thing I don't really like, I feel more responsibility should fall into the hands of the player and less marked off to smartcasting and unit AI.
Also I think warpgates are the gayest part of the game. Imagine what WW2 would of been like if hitler could of warpgated his troops right to Russia's boarder? It ruins the homefield advantage which is completely gay. Fast expo builds are less viable because the rush distance can be taken away with a simple 1 pylon near your opponents nat.
ahh well, I will rant more about that in my own blog someday :O
You just gave examples where micro can be decisive imo.
Muta micro better not be gone though.
|
Many thanks to Reason for breaking down and responding to each section of my OP, and for everyone else who has provided their insight into this matter.
I think a lot of my perspective was from that of a casual, lower level BW player. There is a considerable difference in what the experience is for high-level gamers vs the experience for the lower or average gamers.
I know down in the D+/C- area, everyone was just trying to emulate pro gamers. This led to a lot of seeing the same exact gameplay frommy opponents in the matches I played. Whether or not I won was usually dependant on whether or not my macro and micro were better.
With SC2 evening the playing field a bit more in terms of mechanics, I'm not too sure yet where I stand on the question of what basis should be used in separating the noobs from the casuals from the greats. What do you guys think?
|
I agree, I was a C- player at best on Iccup back in BW, and I've been able to take people of higher ranking then me blow for blow, with close games each way. Even now, I went from Platinum-->Silver and I can still take on quite a few platinum players. BW was all about moving fast, and doing as much as possible, SC2 slows it all down, so you can slow you're APM down, to reduce mistakes. I went from 180~ APM to about 120~ and still retain whatever I did in BW. Micro/Macro seems to be dumbed down, but I guess its so Blizzard has a wider audience, but they should not do as much damage to the competitive community as they have done, with APM/Micro/Macro.
|
|
|
On May 10 2010 06:01 IndecisivePenguin wrote:Many thanks to Reason for breaking down and responding to each section of my OP, and for everyone else who has provided their insight into this matter. I think a lot of my perspective was from that of a casual, lower level BW player. There is a considerable difference in what the experience is for high-level gamers vs the experience for the lower or average gamers. I know down in the D+/C- area, everyone was just trying to emulate pro gamers. This led to a lot of seeing the same exact gameplay frommy opponents in the matches I played. Whether or not I won was usually dependant on whether or not my macro and micro were better. With SC2 evening the playing field a bit more in terms of mechanics, I'm not too sure yet where I stand on the question of what basis should be used in separating the noobs from the casuals from the greats. What do you guys think?
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=123919¤tpage=22#422
I think I disagree with most of this post.
+ Show Spoiler +It's good there is more pressure on scouting and more unit types and better composition of them and I think there there is more pressure on this in SC2... at cost of epic spells unfortunately.
Even though, it doesn't matter if it's more mechanics or more strategy because players at the top still need to spend a lot of time to stay there and because of that they are always going to be considered as nerds.
I disagree the most with part about smahing buttons, at least when talking about micro and moving-shot. It's huge part of balance in BW but so far it doesn't seem it's going to be as crucial in SC2 - I mean think how harder it is to pull of something with stacked muta 1st of all thanks the new way to make them really stacked (spamming move near them) and things like Thor splash and smartcasting Storms for starters.
Removing Muta micro isn't removing crucial part of balance but more possibilities and just pure fun.
If there is no need for someone to have similar micro to counter it then why remove it?
With easier macro my feeling is it's going to be scouting and microing (including positioning).
Things I'm looking forward to is Hellion and Void Ray micro - those are examples of micro part of mechanics not being as much dumbed down as many think.
Hellion micro isn't dumbed down only because they stop to attack. It's just not as smooth as Vulture micro.
|
On May 10 2010 05:49 beetlelisk wrote:
Addition? Not foundation?
No. Addition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
