EPT-.-
How Hard is SC2? - Page 2
| Blogs > teamamerica |
|
iSometric
2221 Posts
-.- | ||
|
LlamaNamedOsama
United States1900 Posts
The primary difference is that the faster battles and deathballs produce a game where advantage shifts one way a lot more quickly - in BW, the interface handicaps (12 unit select, lack of mbs, no auto-rally-automine) were simply hindrances in the pace of the game advantage, not a hindrance to the essence of skill itself. In short, it gives the appearance that it's a game that takes more skill because the pace of the game meant that even though a "better" player might be caught off guard or become disadvantaged from a single engagement, the greater instances of engagements throughout the game would theoretically allow that "better" player to come back. While this is true in SC2 too, it's truer to a lesser extent because games can end more quickly, hence there are less instances of player-control in-between X key engagement and Y follow-up at base. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's a game of less skill, but that a lower count of instances of clashing player skill therefore results in a less consistent reflection of overall skill since the law of large number implies that there is more space for outliers of a significant battle to go the way of the "less" skilled player. Think of it this way. Mathematically, let's say we had player A vs. B, A being better. A has a 70% to succeed in his efforts versus B having a 30% to succeed in his efforts (when they are directly at odds or in engagements, obviously player B would not have a 30% chance of rallying a unit to his mineral line or doing a BO). Theoretically, player A by percentage would succeed in more engagements and therefore incrementally win the game. However, percentages are not guarantees. Let's say a game has only one deciding moment. Though A is favored to win, that is no guarantee - there's an almost 1 in 3 chance that B would win the game. In BW, because of control limitations, you could imagine that there are a lot more steps inbetween step X and step Y when it comes to playing the game and achieving victory, because a person has to accomplish tasks 1, 2, 3, and 4 (select each building, rally each building, grouping/binding each individual group of 12). Every step can be an instance of player skill, which in the example, would be a roll of 70% vs. 30%. In SC2, you'd still have the steps, but there'd be less (perhaps 2 steps, produce/rally and control/bind). So there's still skill, and it still pits that skill in a comparative venue without limit (you could theoretically have an infinite long game or tons of action that would produce dozens of "instances" or "rolls" in SC2), but BW relative to SC2 would have more rolls of the die and therefore greater consistency with the law of large numbers. | ||
|
paddyz
Ireland628 Posts
| ||
| ||
