Except that that's how any activity works. If you're good at chess, you appreciate good plays much more than a bad player (who may not understand them at all). If you've played a musical instrument to a decent level, you appreciate the music more when you hear a professional playing. (As a specific example, non-pianists think that Fur Elise is amazing, but any decent pianist will tell you that that piece is actually trivial to play and not particularly impressive.) I've never played baseball so when I watch a game of professional baseball, I can't really appreciate all the skill involved. Sure I can imagine it's difficult to pitch a ball in the perfect spot or hit a ball going X miles an hour, but it's not really impressive to watch. Have you done any activity at a really high level? I don't think you'd be saying that if you had :/

I actually play piano at a quite high level. And I understand that while playing Prokofiev is technically on a much higher level than, say, Bach, that doesn't mean people will like Prokofiev better. Or that Prokofiev is actually better than Bach. Nor does it mean that Prokofiev is more interesting to listen to. Mere technical excellence is not necessarily interesting or compelling, even for a professional.

On February 10 2011 23:15 Sm3agol wrote:
SC2 has the full potential of being just as micro intensive, its just that, atm, noone is good enough to where the extra APM microing can make up forthe fact that their macro is slipping slightly. Right now, at this stage of SC2 development, superior macro trumps micro.

But even Day9 said something like 60-80 APM would be enough to perform all the necessary actions required in a game of SC2, and Ret said on the recent State of the Game that he feels that mechanically, he has nothing left to improve in SC2 which is why it doesn't really matter if he leaves Korea.

That's because that is where the game's current highest level is at, sadly. For crying aloud, something as simple a splitting your marines vs banelings only started getting used a few months ago, a full year or so into the game's development. And Day 9 was certainly not talking professionally. No decent pro has less than 100 APM. He meant for your average ladder user, you don't need high APM because you can still win games purely on macro right now. But that's hardly breaking news, 1 year into SC:BW's development, amazing micro wasn't happening, one base rushes were the norm.

That part where I said to read the whole thing before posting counterarguments, did you skip it? like you skipped the part where i said "this is not the beef that i am addressing? or did you read the title and figure out exactly what i was getting at, and concocted the same answer that you've said many a time before to some post that you've imagined? I spent time on this to write it, and i would appreciate it if you read it before unleashing your hive mind. If my writing was not clear enough, then I apologize.

The point isnt that 40000 apm is more fun to watch, the point is that there are constantly skills being compared, at every moment. a good macro player will have a good 50 supply higher than a bad macro player in sc1. this difference is not the same, so all the wins and losses are based around moments that changed the game. In an sc1 game, because there are so many elements that result in the win, it takes more than one attack, or one expansion, or one harass to take a lead that will win you the game. Also, the game gets harder with time, so even the smallest difference of skill will start to manifest in a long game, which is not true of sc2 games.

because of this, there is not that "oh shit i just won" moment like there is in BW, because the game can always be taken from you. in sc2, i get an expansion first, i fend off the timing attack, and i've gained a lead that i can just sit on, that my opponent needs to make an event to get back in the game.

corumjhaelen

France6884 Posts

February 10 2011 17:08 GMT

#22

I know this argument is not often listened to, but I'll try to elaborate on it anyway.
FIrst of all, in bw, you never watch people sending workers to patches past the 3 firsts minutes, nobody is interested in that.
But the fact that macro is hard adds to the strategic depths of the game.
I'll take 3 examples.

First, Sotrk vs Hiya on Pathfinder. This might not be the best example, but hey. If you watch the VOD, you'll see that Stork owns Hiya pretty bad, while doing a very eco oriented build. How does this happen ? Well, Stork snipped the first tank, and when his revaer arrived, he saw an opportunity, and decided to go in. It worked, and won him the game. Had he failed the attack, he would not have been behind.
But you can see that during his attack, his money goes over 1000 : that's because he cannot macro and micro this attack correctly at the same moment. So, had been wrong in his judgement that Hiya was weak, he would have focused on the wrong part of the game for a while, and that would have helped Hiya recover.

Second one : Flash vs Jaedong @WCG game 2.
I have watched the replay, and around defiler timing, Jaedong is under pressure, and his money goes up. Well, that's bad macro. But he is instead rightfully focusing on defending himself, and using his army properly, rather than adding a hatch for more lings, because he is in great danger of just dying there. His choice that macro was not the main focus allowed him to survive that period, and once he was in better position, his money went down again (he was not just saving for ultra), and he finally won.

Finally, Flash vs Fanta game 1 of their epic Bo5.
There are many reasons why Flash managed to pull maybe the sickest TvT comeback ever. One of them is that Fanta after many battles and very multiask heavy moments, ended up with ver very few SCV. I'm pretty sure at some points in the game, he would have been better off delaying sqome amry management task to replenish his vcs count. But he had lots of maney from many more base than Flash, so why should he ? That's a mistake of not focusing on the right thing.

All in all, the fact that bw is so demanding even at the highest level means that no action should be mindless, and that choosing on what to concentrate is key. Should I micro that MnM group so that it does a bit more damage, or should I send my vcs to mine ? This is not a trivial question and it asks a lot of experience to decide right.

It is in sc2 that macro is a mindless task, for it is so easy that you probably won't ever have to consider wether you want to focus on it or not : you'll just always do it.
In bw it forces player to make some choices, allowing more back and force action and more way to outplay your opponent by playing to your strength not his. And that's why the fastest does not always win.

PS : of course, I'm talking about progaming level, and nothing else.
Finally, I remember idra saying in an interview in December that he'd like MBS to be removed. That can be interpretated in many ways. But I know which I chose.

gods_basement

United States305 Posts

February 10 2011 17:12 GMT

#23

exactly! in brood war, concentration is a limited resource. in sc2, theres never any reason to lapse in micro or macro or map awareness (simply because it is not demanding of your concentration)

Zyferous

United States270 Posts

February 11 2011 01:01 GMT

#24

On February 10 2011 04:30 gods_basement wrote:

Show nested quote +

On February 10 2011 04:01 Infested_Noodle wrote:
As much as I would love to support your arguments against SC2, there is a lack of hard evidence.

Quite a few of your arguments are objective, and are openly debatable
- "Running 3 base economy is about 1.5-2 times harder than running a two base economy"
One could argue that running a three base economy is only marginally harder than a two base economy. And neither side could say thing about it other than personal experience, which varies from player to player.
- "The more units you have the more control groups you require"
Again, this is debatable. Looking at some high level replays from players like Jaedong, as the game progresses into late game macro-mode there is less control group selection and more click-box microing.
- "However, when it comes time to add that third base, discrepancies of skill are more readily apparent, and the players up the ante until one of the players begins to crack under the pressure."
This is extremely objective, I personally believe that managing a fourth or fifth base to be hardest.
- "The outcome of the game was dependent on not only macro, but both player's ability to micro efficiently. Huge deficits in macro on either side could be made up with micro. "
This is very untrue. You can never make up for huge deficits in macro, albeit in a very luck situation where you catch your opponent completely off guard. Simply put, there is a stage where microing requires too much attention for too little result, and if you're more than slightly outnumbered, it's not worth it. As wonderful as it sounds for two vultures to take out an infinite number of zerglings, there are better uses for your time and concentration.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like SC2, and I agree with many of your points, but your argument does have some holes in it.

I would also like to offer my opinion that micro is not the entirety of the game. I would go as far as to say micro is the least important aspect of playing BW well (the other two aspects being macro, and decision-making capacity) Large areas of the game are shared by both BW and SC2 such as decision making, strategizing, and awareness.

Well written post though, I enjoyed it.

Well, you managed to decompose my premises while missing the main point. the game gets harder with time, so the longer the game goes, the more "space" there is for differences in skill to compare to eachother. in sc2, the space stays the same size. because of this, there are rarely huge comebacks without huge blunders.

As for your last point, i may have over exaggerated the severity of the macro deficit, but being 20-40 supply behind doesn't mean autoloss like it does in sc2, because your micro can make your units effective enough to beat a larger army. of course i did not mean to address infinite zerglings losing to 2 vultures.

I think you misunderstood my point. I did not intend to disprove your entire argument; as a whole I agree with it. I was simply pointing out details here and there that I disagreed with.

Being 20-40 supply behind doesn't mean autoloss, but it typically does within a game between similarly skilled players. But of course you have players like Flash and Jaedong who will punish you for the slightest mistake such as Snow v Jaedong (5th set, I believe) or Flash v. Fantasy in KT vs. SKT where both made incredible comebacks.

But while watching progames, one can assume that both sides are microing their units well.

I wholly agree with the last statement though, that concentration is as much of a limited resource as anything else. But not being a starcraft 2 player, I am not sure if I can make the argument saying that SC2 requires little concentration.

I'm not trying to argue in favor of SC2, I'm simply playing the devil's advocate and trying to keep a moderate unbiased comparison of the two.