|
Maybe it's just me, but it seems like a lot of people have universally agreed on Starcraft II being a much easier game the Starcraft BW. You hear talk about a lack of skill ceilings, no way for a pro to really differentiate himself from a ladder hero, etc. etc. There was always talk of the day BW pro's switched over and began to stomp everyone easy mode.
But now that the BW pro's are finally switching over, has anything changed? Most BW pro's have said they can't compete with current GSL players, Flash going as far to say it would take him 3 years of SC2 to get to his current level of domination, despite all the mechanics he's built up for BW. If SC2 is really such a joke, shouldn't it just be a matter of learning unit counters and some strategies and countering? Or are BW players used to a game that's a little slower and a little bit more forgiving, as it's slower.
Because no matter how much you think what I say is shit, every blog needs picture with stupid captions
Or, is it that Starcraft II is harder in different ways? BW is definitely more mechanically demanding but also, the same limitations that made it mechanically demanding (12 unit control groups, no mbs, no smartcast), made it a slower game. Starcraft II games are much faster so you have to constantly keep on top of everything. You could look away for a second and literally just lose the game (which also makes scouting super super important because if your army is out of position your opponent can just come in, maybe kill a base, and leave unscathed if you weren't ready). Some people call that being too volatile but I'd argue it makes for very challenging game, and most people right now are just bad so it seems coinflippy/random. PvP exemplifies the same idea - people, even now, said it's coinflippy shit but Squirtle can't lose in it now. He makes good decisions and wins, even when his openings aren't optimal or makes a few mistakes. MVP and Nestea are also people who come to mind as being known for their good decisions, and they have a combined 6 GSL titles. Honestly as Protoss no one comes to mind as always making good decisions, so maybe that's why they have the fewest GSL? Or am I just forgetting the Protoss, cause MC for sure does stupid aggression sometime, the way MKP does. Genius played pretty smart last season and he made it to the final.
Basically this boils down to - people were so quick to write-off sc2 but even now, no one is close to really understanding the game. How can people make a judgement on something they haven't mastered? It seems to me people argued sc2 had a low skill ceiling because 1) they thought they were really good and 2) they lost to people they thought weren't as good. But maybe they just weren't that good (at sc2 mind you, which means a lot more then mechanics) to start with? Mind you, I am not trying to say SC2 is as hard as BW/harder, but that they're different games so you can't judge them the same way.
PvP, ZvZ, (I would argue TvT but no one says it's coinflippy, only looking at mirrors to ignore balance of XvY) are also labelled as pretty coinflippy, which can be used to justify losing one. But given that Nestea used to pull a 70% WR ZvZ and people like Squirtle (and MC as someone else who comes to mind) also pull great winrates in PvP, is it possible most people just don't understand these matchups, and they can also be stable (in that the better player will consistently win)? Just some thoughts I've had lately. Feel free to tell me how stupid I am.
 
|
Mechanically, BW players surpass current SC2 players. The reason BW players won't dominate straight away is because their game sense is miles behind the current pros who have been playing for much, much longer.
Once BW pros have been playing for a good while, we'll see how far they can take SC2 in terms of hard to pull off micro tricks, etc.
|
United States24730 Posts
SC2 and BW certainly are different games, but I don't think an important distinction is which one is 'easier' (I'm guessing you agree judging from the OP.
An easier multiplayer game doesn't really make sense to me... they just are more shallow. Tic tac toe is pretty easy to master, and then the outcome of multiplayer games are assured. Checkers is harder to master, but has been solved, so there is a limit to its depth.
To me, comparing sc2 and bw is like comparing chess and go (not necessarily in that order). They require some similar skills/knowledge, neither has been solved, but they are very different in their overall nature. They each lend themselves better to certain things. Just as chess and go players shouldn't criticize people who prefer the other game, the same can be said for bw and sc2 players.
|
i wouldn't say one game is easier than the other on the tiptop pro levels. for me personally, getting into masters is way easier than getting d+ but that doesn't say anything about the ease of gameplay in actual competition.
i think the people saying sc2 is "easier" just have a problem with the actual design of the gameplay in the context of competitive play. im talking unit and map design, the "feel" of each race, the mechanical needs, the breadth of tactical and strategical play,etc.
but just because there are undoubtebly harder mechanics and deeper strategy in bw doesn't mean sc2 is easier. it's just...different.
and also...going on a tangent... a game being harder doesn't make it more entertaining. i would even go far as to say a game being BETTER (competitively) doesn't make it more entertaining. you can see this in how bw and sc2 scenes have been developing/dying. that's why i have high hopes for the success of sc2.
|
On May 13 2012 01:37 RPR_Tempest wrote:
Mechanically, BW players surpass current SC2 players. The reason BW players won't dominate straight away is because their game sense is miles behind the current pros who have been playing for much, much longer.
Once BW pros have been playing for a good while, we'll see how far they can take SC2 in terms of hard to pull off micro tricks, etc.
adding on to this theres also the fact that while every year they will get better so will the current sc2 pros. will they catch up and how long will it take is the question. that being said as a flash fan i cant wait!
|
Just to be brief, for the most part, being "safe" in SC2 is sooooo difficult. If you don't have a very comparable mass of army to your opponent, you just die. In BW the pathing and the nature of the tech units made you safe to take X bases at certain times, SC2 is "hard" because you have to constantly be ready for your opponent to cut Worker production and kick you in the nuts in 2 minutes. It's VERY hard to control and play because it's almost impossible to know- therefor you guess.
|
From my point of view, having played a lot of both broodwar and sc2 at amateur level it seems to me it was much easier to beat players lower ranked than me in broodwar(and much harder to beat better opponents), like the winrates separated by skill much more. But we still see some sc2 pro's reaching very high winrates so maybe my perception is wrong or the difference is very marginal.
|
A lot of people say the fact that you can lose a game in an instant is one of the worse things about sc2. i think it makes the game that much more intense. Always a positive!
|
SC2 feels too much like poker, that's the only issue I have with it.
|
I think in two seasons of proleague the BW players who stay with the game and renew their contracts will go on to be very skilled, and the ones who were unmotivated / just completing their contracts will simply leave.
From the perspective of players like Flash, who have a lot of money coming in from contracts still in play, it makes a lot of sense to do your best to try and enjoy the game and make the best of a crappy situation. This is just the strength of a personality like his who looks at obstacles and seeks to overcome them. To them there is no such thing as balance, there is only finding the way.
Flash says 3 years to his current level of domination, but we are talking about something like 90% winrate which is insane. Just going toe to toe with good players will not be a problem. I think they are more worried about competing with each other in a brand new game, than competing with others. They have good reasons to be nervous because they started their gaming careers focused on one game expecting it to continue.
To call BW forgiving is ridiculous and underscores your lack of understanding. BW players will be doing double duty with BW and SC2 practice at the same time, but make no mistake, when they go full time, the players that want to continue on with SC2 are going to be very strong if SC2 is still around then.
|
It's a whole different game, that's for sure.
I disagree with "coin flip".. you can almost ALWAYS look at your replays and find slight errors in your build, or see where your opponent pulled ahead in a certain game. The only thing that's coin-flippy is lack of scouting at times, rather, the lack of apm available for scouting. You can technically constantly scan an opponent, constantly move observer around or send more, constantly send overseer through an opponents base-- but we don't see this as often. Therefore, sometimes playing greedy can come out ahead over someone playing more defensively due to the sheer fact of how a higher economy can 'outplay' a lower one
Decision making is huge. You will definitely notice this the higher your climb the ladder. Mechanics get you so far- but at a point, everyone's mechanics pretty much level out or become closer to equality. Therefore, the decisions you make, offensive OR defensive, will win you many games over an opponent with semi-equal mechanics
Brood War required both, but there seemed much more room for error--
On a side note.. the higher I climb the ladder as a zerg player, the more I feel the game comes closer to playing BroodWar, as far as ZvT, ZvZ, and sometimes ZvP goes.
However, my honest opinion is that PvP is the worst matchup in the game. Coinflipping seems a good way to describe it (It's not that simple-- as OP stated, some players are very smart and stronger than others) but the way the matchup plays out tends to be very stagnant at times.
|
BW is forgiving is weird sense. Because there's always so much you can do it's often possible to recover from one serious error by playing well above your usual level the rest of the game. Contrast that with a game like snooker (at the highest level). Miss a pot and the frame is completely out of your hand.
Chess can be similar too. One serious error and winning becomes a matter of "technique". Which doesn't mean it's easy, just that the main issue is the skill and execution of the player with the advantage.
Or take football vs. basketball. In football giving up one goal (or certainly two) can decide the match. In basketball the game can't be decided in first quarter, no matter what.
I think in general "basketball-like" games are more enjoyable to watch than "football-like" games. But that's not always true, I prefer football over basketball for example.
|
It has nothing to do with the difficulty of the game. SC2 is a lot easier than BW but at the same time it's still a very hard game. Would you expect bw pros (or anyone transitioning games for that matter) to suddenly dominate Halo? or 1.6? or LoL? or any game with an already established competitive/pro scene?
I suspect that the bw pros will catch up within half a year or so but after that I don't believe they will dominate because there isn't enough in the game to differentiate themselves. Flash won't dominate either. The gsl players and the new bw players will be at roughly the same skill. That's just my prediction though.
|
On May 13 2012 03:36 L3gendary wrote:
It has nothing to do with the difficulty of the game. SC2 is a lot easier than BW but at the same time it's still a very hard game. Would you expect bw pros (or anyone transitioning games for that matter) to suddenly dominate Halo? or 1.6? or LoL? or any game with an already established competitive/pro scene?
I suspect that the bw pros will catch up within half a year or so but after that I don't believe they will dominate because there isn't enough in the game to differentiate themselves. Flash won't dominate either. The gsl players and the new bw players will be at roughly the same skill. That's just my prediction though.
We can only hope that expansion sets will add diversity and more exciting games. I think Blizzard is aware of a lot of the problems we are bringing up. The idea of having "siege units" and, well, more units in general (They previously weren't going to add anything multiplayer for HoTS at one point if I recall) is all we have to work with-- and if we pray, it will help quite a bit. Just adding abilities to the already existing units will add for more diverse and strategic play. The community is also semi-in charge of the map pool for tournaments, so if it's truly the maps that are the problem, maybe we will have to switch to less mineral patches, or change the size-standard once again.. We shall see.
They are making an honest effort to improve their game, and I really thank them for that. There isn't always as much support for other games as Blizzard provides-- despite them being semi quiet in the beginning. I do agree that Bnet 2.0 is a slight downgrade from it's previous form, but it has it's advantages in other ways as well. You couldn't see graphs, the fact Blizzard is attempting to keep the ladder clean from all types of abuse and has plans for the future is great as well. In 2012, customer service for gamers is light years beyond what it was in 2000.
|
I think the only reason why SCBW progamers are having a little bit of difficulty is simply due to the much faster pace of the game. The game's speed is much faster than BW, and as soon as they get used to it, they'll have no problems I bet.
|
Talking about the difficulty of the game is pretty pointless, imo. Far more important is simply the level of competition.
The players aren't playing the UI, after all, they are playing their opponents, if that makes sense.
|
The way I see it, BW will always be a "harder" game. That doesn't neccesarily make it more complex or interesting, just harder to mechanically master. I think if anyone disagreses with that they probably have a huge bias\lack of knowledge. Having said that, I don't know why people keep beating this dead horse with a stick. I think the BW pro's will do just fine. Mechanically they will catch up(maybe even surpass?) in a matter of weeks. However they will still need time to gain experience, learn the meta game, and just understand the strategy aspect of the game. Luckily for them they live in team houses and obviously have very intelligent and gosu koreans to talk to and learn from. So I don't doubt it will be long before they are competitive.
|
There both different games so comparing them wont be of much help. Besides SC2 is a young game and with 2 expansions on the way it will change a lot so nobody knows how the end product will be.
|
Being an airplane pilot is easier than being a doctor, so doctors should be able to dominate if they change careers, right?
Mechanics are big, but familiarity and knowing how to play still take time to develop. They aren't the same game, they don't have the same strategies or things to consider.
|
one of these god damn threads again
|
As hard as destructable rocks are!
-.-
|
In a game where multi-tasking is key, there's theoretically an infinite skill ceiling.
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.
|
I would agree that it is just different and people don't fully understand it yet, only 2 years of evolution so far so even the better player only has to make 1 mistake to lose a game and get frustrated then think the game is volatile/ez/stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://cdn.attackofthecute.com/September-21-2011-22-10-28-donut.jpeg)
