|
There is no reason to play Starcraft II: Heart. With more than 30,000 hours of RTS play and design experience spanning under 20 years, I will not constrain my games to one race. I have reached the mentor level and have nothing to share as a competitive gamer.
The reality is that Starcraft: Brood War is a study and exercise in choice. Starcraft II on the other hand is a game characterized by simple decision procedures. A smart opponent will surprise you. That means to be a good player requires specific knowledge of certain builds. But suppose you are Protoss and I opt to cannon rush you. You can't drop a few probes to make up for a gap between your general knowledge of cannon rush openings but imperfect responses to variation on the build.
This emphasis on Puritanical counters takes the fundamentally artistic Starcraft genre called Protoss and transforms the experience into a long series of present-value calculations.
Suppose I identify three different win-certain rushes. Win-certain refers to rushes that win with 100% certainty against all defenses except those that mirror an optimal response within a 5% margin (One can think of defenses as trees. Earlier branches receive more weight.) Now suppose the three win-certain rushes in question are: x = Cannon Rush, y = Proxy 2-Gate, z = 4-Gate. Suppose the number of degrees in a circle represents all the reasonably fine responses to some set of attacks. Protoss's position is like a chiliagon. It looks like it should be possible for the interior and exterior vertices of a chiliagon to each fit inside the same circle. In reality this isn't possible.
Veteran players show their strength in the mid and late game with positional play and the ability to make sharp decisions on a general level. When veteran styles are incompatible with an RTS game's capacity for robust, defensive, early game openings, the result is inelegant equilibria.
 
|
tl;dr OP can't hold off cheese
|
I'm curious, what league is your account if I may ask?
|
|
|
For all your fancy words (which add nothing to your argument), you're just not good at holding cheese despite your immoderate opinion of your own skills.
|
United States4883 Posts
No, I think he just actually scientifically disproved Protoss's existence.
I mean, other than the fact that it exists.
|
I wonder if the time it took to write this was dedicated to asking someone who is decent at cannon rushing to practice with you what might have come of it.
you're just not good at holding cheese despite your immoderate opinion of your own skills.
This. Your argument makes me think of a teenager in speech and debate telling the adult world that it shouldn't exist because high school is hard and the girl you like said no to you for prom.
|
On March 31 2015 05:47 Kommatiazo wrote:I wonder if the time it took to write this was dedicated to asking someone who is decent at cannon rushing to practice with you what might have come of it. Show nested quote +you're just not good at holding cheese despite your immoderate opinion of your own skills. This. Your argument makes me think of a teenager in speech and debate telling the adult world that it shouldn't exist because high school is hard and the girl you like said no to you for prom.
Even though I find the original post to be comically obtuse, this is a really poor analogy. I mean REALLY poor.
|
lol at all the people who come in here to bitch about the style and have no response for the message. congrats on being dull.
@op if you're trying to play sc2 through a BW lens it'll never satisfy you. there is a lot of depth to be had out of protoss, even including early game. but it's different. and the parts that are similar, it does in a different way. mostly it's about dictating the game or feinting thereof, with recall / forcefield / storm determining how you can leverage your presentation of threats.
|
To disprove your scientific study, I would like to provide my own counter statement.
Protoss.
|
United States10105 Posts
On March 31 2015 07:29 GGzerG wrote:
To disprove your scientific study, I would like to provide my own counter statement.
Protoss.
/thread.
maybe sending a scout out will help you. c:
|
|
|
THEN WE GET A FUCKING BUILDING. WHICH, HALF THE TIME ISNT ENOUGH: WE HAVE TO PAY MOREE FUCKING MONEY TO GET IT TO DO SOME SHIT LIKE DICK THE GROUND OR SPRAY PISS IN THE AIR
Lol that incontrol quote
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
I don't understand any of this shit
|
Calgary25977 Posts
So many questions.
1. How did you track these 30,000 hours? For reference, that is 3.5 years of non-stop play. I played a ridiculous amount of Brood War, like 3-8 hours a day for several years, and still barely scratched 10,000 hours.
2. What the hell does "under 20 years"? Is that 2 years? 18 years?
3. Which RTS games have you designed?
|
|
|
oh, and i find it interesting that even protoss players aren't good at vs p as evidenced by vP elo peaks
|
Most entertaining OP in like 4 years. I feel twice as smart and handsome after reading it. Thank you. 5 stars. 5 stars forever.
|
Just saying there are Protosses (wtf what kind of plural is that?) that compete in top level tourneys so... I think they are quite playable.
|
I think OP's analysis failed to account for the everything
|
|
|
Then again we haven't reached the mentor level so who are we to speak
|
Japan11286 Posts
Blizzard should definitely nerf cannons because Toss is too imba in PvP. xD
|
"mentor level", cant stop cannon rushes. lol seems legit
|
This Is A Completely Normal Way of Typing
|
On March 31 2015 06:51 EatThePath wrote:
lol at all the people who come in here to bitch about the style and have no response for the message. congrats on being dull.
@op if you're trying to play sc2 through a BW lens it'll never satisfy you. there is a lot of depth to be had out of protoss, even including early game. but it's different. and the parts that are similar, it does in a different way. mostly it's about dictating the game or feinting thereof, with recall / forcefield / storm determining how you can leverage your presentation of threats.
I take it you can't play Protoss either.
Did you expect Intellectual McIntellectualPants to come in here and write a 5,000-word essay debating the original point-by-point? You didn't exactly present a magical post that would spread pixie-dust of goodness on this thread. You basically just mocked everyone else without leaving them any constructive criticism, and you followed it by giving some generic-ass vague SC2 advice to the OP. I'm sure he's not going "Forcefield? Storm? I've been thinking about Protoss wrong all these years!!!" and is now 'leveraging his presentation of threats'.
So why would someone view any other game through the amazing kaleidoscope of Brood War? That's simple - Brood War set the standard for RTS, and it's a really high bar. Even if SC2 is a different game, it is an RTS game, and more important, carries on the moniker of StarCraft, so of course expectations were going to be high. I don't think it's much of stretch to compare the games. I'm not going to give my opinion on that here, because it's irrelevant to this discussion. Here's where I think the OP went wrong:
Suppose I identify three different win-certain rushes. Win-certain refers to rushes that win with 100% certainty against all defenses except those that mirror an optimal response within a 5% margin (One can think of defenses as trees. Earlier branches receive more weight.) Now suppose the three win-certain rushes in question are: x = Cannon Rush, y = Proxy 2-Gate, z = 4-Gate
- There is no "100 certainty" in any aspect of almost any game, ever. Any certainty is theoretical, and individuals who play Protoss will pick an all-in strategy based on a percentage of games they believe they can win if they play appropriately.
- Where does the 5% margin figure come from? If he's just speaking rhetorically, but generally believes there are nearly-indefensible strategies, why does he not utilize those strategies for himself?
- He gives three variables, but does not expound on what he's using them for. I feel like this is just some pseudo-mathematical hypothesizing.
- I will definitely acknowledge that opening builds generally fall into three categories: Greedy (the early economic build), Aggressive (The rush/all-in/timing push), Safe (The defensive build). Greedy play will usually defeat Safe play, because Safe play will not be able to compensate for the later-game economic advantage the Greedy player developed early. Safe play will generally neutralize Aggressive play because the Safe player is taking the appropriate precautions, scouting a lot, and will be able to build up tech and economy while the Aggressive player spends all their money on units rather than expanding their tech tree or economy. The Aggressive player will generally defeat the Greedy player, because the Greedy player will not have units in the early game, and the Aggressive player will have many units in the early game.
From what I understand, this way of conceptualizing the early game is much more pronounced in practice in SC2 than in SC:BW. What I mean is, losing even footing early in the game may almost inevitably snowball into a defeat for one player. Although this also exists in Brood War, where there are ways to claw your way back into a game after a long grueling affair, the pace of SC2 seems to be such that you will be overwhelmed by your opponent before you have an opportunity to take a stand and come back from the chasm of defeat.
A bunch of proposals are on the table for LotV for how to fix this. I don't know what is actually going to be implemented, but I do hear a lot of jaded fans asking for a more Brood War-like game. I guess that could be a good thing, but even in Brood War, there is just some ridiculous stuff you can do in the early game and mid game that just require a lot of intuitive thinking and pattern recognition to deal with. For example:
Let's say you're playing some good ol' Brood War on your fancy-pants modern computer, and are playing ZvT. The 'standard' build for Zerg is to go 3-Hatch Muta. The thing you'd normally look for is for Terran to do a 1 barracks expand, then start adding on more barracks + academy. But what if the Terran is doing an Ayumi Build? (Don't worry too much about what this actually is) Ayumi looks a lot like a standard Terran opening, but if you don't notice the Terran cutting SCVs at their natural or something like that, you won't notice until the Terran moves out and breaks your sunken line.
Five years might not be enough time to really have a grasp of SC2, even at a professional level. Professional players are more inclined to do what has been shown to be effective rather than to be creative during proleague matches. This means that the 'meta game' is going to advance very slowly, and essentially has to reset any time there is a significant change to the game, like a patch or expansion. To claim to have the pattern-recognition and intuitive abilities to adequately understand the game is disingenuous, and does not even take into account dexterity, creativity, management skills, and other factors that would play into an individuals' overall skill set.
HOW'S THAT ANSWER?
|
THis is YokoKano, show some respect ffs.
|
Trying to compare Broodwar to Sc2 is like trying to compare a Toyota corolla diesel to a Lamborgini Murcielago LP640.
Both are cars, but they are sorta different.
There is only one metric I need to prove my point: Player Dominance.
In broodwar there was a clear bonjwa since almost the Inception of Broodwar proleague, and only those who were really close to the bonjwa were able to give him a run for his money.
In SC2 there are a lot of "top tier koreans", and they will all exchange blows. Looks at the top ten in the power rankings in SC2. I think its safe to say that anyone of them can beat any other and it would not be a huge upset. The win ratio is around the 60-66% win ratio for the top ten guys? Thats not too good (fine, not terrible, but not bonjwa levels).
The skill of those players is quite close to each other, yes, so it makes sense that they would be close to each other in win ratios, but as an experiment i suggest you count in a tournament how many games are won due to build order/unit composition and how many due to micro/macro.
It dosent matter in sc2 that much how good you are, but what you do. (yeah you need a minimum skill level, but that is very very low).
Remmber when Marineking started to become famous due to going marine only vs banelings?
He was splitting, and everyone went nuts. All it took was 1 infestor to make marineking look a fool and stop being relevant for months. A skill that noone had ever seen before (by definition, a bonjwa) got rekt and sent back to the drawing board by a slight change in the zerg gameplay.
How many names of winnes of GSLs, IEMs, ESLs, etc can you name of the top of your head who were major contenders for any title, and the next year you couldnt see them wining a single match?
Sure, some of them may have gotten lazy, but all of them?
Now, compare that to broodwar. How many bonjwas do we know? 8? 10? How long did each bonjwa stay on top?
Most importantly who dethroned them, and how good did those guys do after?
Oh and please do note that in broodwar times, everyone studied bonjwas constantly, and stil could not do what they were doing. There was a name for each house and the skill they had that others did not know how to replicate: SKT1 Terrans (Marine medic vessel), CJ Zergs (Sorry guys dont remmber), The 8 Dragons...
I dont think that proves that broodwar is better, but it does prove that it is different.
SC2 has a lot of loopholes that can be exploited to ridiculous levels, and it is mostly due to units being hard counters to each other.
This wasnt the case in Broodwar.
A firebat was a hard counter to zerglings, yet zerglings could still get the right surround. It required both players to control their army correctly.
In sc2, you still have this, but to a much lower degree. Its not that there is no micro, its just that the micro is of rock, paper, scissors type.
In broodwar micro was chess.
@Ninazerg,
The reason in sc2 things snowball so easy is because the game is much simpler. It is easier to play without making macro mistakes, so any early advantage translates into exponentially bigger leads.
In broodwar, if a zerg lost his third vs a T, but had mutas, the game would still be rather even, as it was assumed that the mutas will be able to at least disrupt the gameplay of the terran.This giving the chance to get back into the game (Hell, in some cases even winning it if you are julyzeg).
Anyone here know that game where NADA won vs a Z on luna the final where the zerg had all bases except for the main and natural of NADA and Nada still won?
And both players were very high skill.
You will NEVER see that in sc2 at pro level.
Some say that this is due to the fact that SC2 is young, has the wrong maps, etc and that eventually it will become like broodwar.
That wount happen because the problem is with the units and game mechanics combined. You can change any of those without making a new game.
Oh and btw, this is just my opinion ( I think im right here, but Ive been wrong before, so :D.)
|
On March 31 2015 16:47 iloveav wrote:
Now, compare that to broodwar. How many bonjwas do we know? 8? 10?
Stopped reading here. It's a controversial term but those numbers are ridiculous. Don't talk BW unless you know what you're on about.
edit: ok so I read a bit more but shouldn't have, 8 dragons?? micro like chess?? fyi sk terran is named after a player and pretty much all terrans could use it
|
1001 YEARS KESPAJAIL22272 Posts
this thread is even worse than that starcraft enquirer one, congrats everyone
|
On March 31 2015 17:14 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 16:47 iloveav wrote:
Now, compare that to broodwar. How many bonjwas do we know? 8? 10? Stopped reading here. It's a controversial term but those numbers are ridiculous. Don't talk BW unless you know what you're on about. edit: ok so I read a bit more but shouldn't have, 8 dragons?? micro like chess?? fyi sk terran is named after a player and pretty much all terrans could use it
The ones that were considered bonjwas or, ar least clsoe to bonjwas taht I can remmber:
Boxer, Nal_Ra, Nada, Iloveoov, Julyzerg, Savior, Flash, Jaedong.
Thats 8, right?
When i said 10, I was thinking about players that for a short while came close to it: Bisu and Stork.
So?
8 Dragons wast that the term for the mostly feared protoss players? Maybe I got the number wrong?
Im not sure I rememeber them, but I think it was Much, Free, Bisu, Stork, Reach ... ok, I dont remember more now :D.
Micro like chess came from : Terran army positioning, storm vs hydra dances, reaver vs splits, muta stacking and fast unstacking vs irradiate/corsair. The micro is dependent on the situation and changes dynamically. In Sc2, you want your units to be doing the same thing in almost every engagement. If you hit with colosus, you want them to hit marines/ling/hydras. You DONT want them to hit immortals, thors, etc. I might be overstreaching a bit here, but not that muhc i think.
SK terran is a style that every terran can us now, that is true. But when it started to be popular, nope.
|
On March 31 2015 14:05 iG.Aura wrote:
"mentor level", cant stop cannon rushes. lol seems legit
Hey, even Protoss mentors have their aquilles heel, right? :D.
|
On March 31 2015 19:11 iloveav wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 17:14 Scarecrow wrote:On March 31 2015 16:47 iloveav wrote:
Now, compare that to broodwar. How many bonjwas do we know? 8? 10? Stopped reading here. It's a controversial term but those numbers are ridiculous. Don't talk BW unless you know what you're on about. edit: ok so I read a bit more but shouldn't have, 8 dragons?? micro like chess?? fyi sk terran is named after a player and pretty much all terrans could use it The ones that were considered bonjwas or, ar least clsoe to bonjwas taht I can remmber: Boxer, Nal_Ra, Nada, Iloveoov, Julyzerg, Savior, Flash, Jaedong. Thats 8, right? When i said 10, I was thinking about players that for a short while came close to it: Bisu and Stork. So? 8 Dragons wast that the term for the mostly feared protoss players? Maybe I got the number wrong? Im not sure I rememeber them, but I think it was Much, Free, Bisu, Stork, Reach ... ok, I dont remember more now :D. Micro like chess came from : Terran army positioning, storm vs hydra dances, reaver vs splits, muta stacking and fast unstacking vs irradiate/corsair. The micro is dependent on the situation and changes dynamically. In Sc2, you want your units to be doing the same thing in almost every engagement. If you hit with colosus, you want them to hit marines/ling/hydras. You DONT want them to hit immortals, thors, etc. I might be overstreaching a bit here, but not that muhc i think. SK terran is a style that every terran can us now, that is true. But when it started to be popular, nope.
The term was sort of invented retrospectively for Boxer. Then people called Nada bonjwa, then iloveoov, then Savior, then Flash.
Four Kings was also a popular idea, which was Stork Bisu Jaedong and Flash in the last era, and Yellow Reach Boxer and Nada being the 4 kings before them.
Bonjwa was a pretty special term though. Can't even give that to dreamer toss sorry 
The Dragons thing was just for a year maybe when maps really favoured protoss lol.
I believe the comparison of micro to chess is more interesting in the sense that battles begin with a limited number of units, have a lot of positioning, and have some daring striking moments and then complete. I think SC2 often feels like watching a tug of war where both armies are being resupplied constantly until the game ends. In any case, SC:BW has a chess comparison for the micro battles, and a Go comparison for the overall strategy and game plan (in which forces and territory accumulate until the game's end, and fights are at both grand and small scale in many different places). I don't know what to compare overall strategy to in SC2.
|
Anyone here know that game where NADA won vs a Z on luna the final where the zerg had all bases except for the main and natural of NADA and Nada still won?
And both players were very high skill.
You will NEVER see that in sc2 at pro level.
Some say that this is due to the fact that SC2 is young, has the wrong maps, etc and that eventually it will become like broodwar.
That wount happen because the problem is with the units and game mechanics combined. You can change any of those without making a new game.
Oh and btw, this is just my opinion ( I think im right here, but Ive been wrong before, so :D.)
This game wasn't against a Protoss? Bajilion Gates.
|
hahahahahahahahahahahaha mentor level
surely youre trolling
|
On March 31 2015 15:45 ninazerg wrote:
HOW'S THAT ANSWER?
s'pretty good.
you could screenshot this thread and post it as a miniblog?
On March 31 2015 21:31 Chef wrote:I believe the comparison of micro to chess is more interesting in the sense that battles begin with a limited number of units, have a lot of positioning, and have some daring striking moments and then complete. I think SC2 often feels like watching a tug of war where both armies are being resupplied constantly until the game ends. In any case, SC:BW has a chess comparison for the micro battles, and a Go comparison for the overall strategy and game plan (in which forces and territory accumulate until the game's end, and fights are at both grand and small scale in many different places). I don't know what to compare overall strategy to in SC2.
gin rummy?
okay, actually only two posters above me made snide derisive comments, so I should have said lol at both the people
[edit] ah, but they keep coming. there's something irresistible it seems about calling out overwrought blowhards, but no one gives a damn about your typical inarticulate illiterate dolt with no aspirations. imo this points to a double standard to protect a comfortable mediocrity, perfectly natural but sad.
|
On March 31 2015 04:50 Ej_ wrote:
tl;dr OP can't hold off cheese
The only tl;dr that has ever been relevant lol.
|
wrong forum move to battle.net
|
On March 31 2015 21:35 Starecat wrote:Show nested quote +
Anyone here know that game where NADA won vs a Z on luna the final where the zerg had all bases except for the main and natural of NADA and Nada still won?
And both players were very high skill.
You will NEVER see that in sc2 at pro level.
Some say that this is due to the fact that SC2 is young, has the wrong maps, etc and that eventually it will become like broodwar.
That wount happen because the problem is with the units and game mechanics combined. You can change any of those without making a new game.
Oh and btw, this is just my opinion ( I think im right here, but Ive been wrong before, so :D.)
This game wasn't against a Protoss? Bajilion Gates.
Hmm, no.
PvTs in broodwar rearly saw comebacks from one side or the other. I cant really recall any specific game at this point (Im sure there were, just cant remember them now).
I do remmber one game where I was off the charts surprised when a P from the clan 7 color I thing won a game vs HBP on Luna the final with like .. 62 gates?
That was funny.
|
On March 31 2015 21:31 Chef wrote:Show nested quote +On March 31 2015 19:11 iloveav wrote:On March 31 2015 17:14 Scarecrow wrote:On March 31 2015 16:47 iloveav wrote:
Now, compare that to broodwar. How many bonjwas do we know? 8? 10? Stopped reading here. It's a controversial term but those numbers are ridiculous. Don't talk BW unless you know what you're on about. edit: ok so I read a bit more but shouldn't have, 8 dragons?? micro like chess?? fyi sk terran is named after a player and pretty much all terrans could use it The ones that were considered bonjwas or, ar least clsoe to bonjwas taht I can remmber: Boxer, Nal_Ra, Nada, Iloveoov, Julyzerg, Savior, Flash, Jaedong. Thats 8, right? When i said 10, I was thinking about players that for a short while came close to it: Bisu and Stork. So? 8 Dragons wast that the term for the mostly feared protoss players? Maybe I got the number wrong? Im not sure I rememeber them, but I think it was Much, Free, Bisu, Stork, Reach ... ok, I dont remember more now :D. Micro like chess came from : Terran army positioning, storm vs hydra dances, reaver vs splits, muta stacking and fast unstacking vs irradiate/corsair. The micro is dependent on the situation and changes dynamically. In Sc2, you want your units to be doing the same thing in almost every engagement. If you hit with colosus, you want them to hit marines/ling/hydras. You DONT want them to hit immortals, thors, etc. I might be overstreaching a bit here, but not that muhc i think. SK terran is a style that every terran can us now, that is true. But when it started to be popular, nope. The term was sort of invented retrospectively for Boxer. Then people called Nada bonjwa, then iloveoov, then Savior, then Flash. Four Kings was also a popular idea, which was Stork Bisu Jaedong and Flash in the last era, and Yellow Reach Boxer and Nada being the 4 kings before them. Bonjwa was a pretty special term though. Can't even give that to dreamer toss sorry The Dragons thing was just for a year maybe when maps really favoured protoss lol. I believe the comparison of micro to chess is more interesting in the sense that battles begin with a limited number of units, have a lot of positioning, and have some daring striking moments and then complete. I think SC2 often feels like watching a tug of war where both armies are being resupplied constantly until the game ends. In any case, SC:BW has a chess comparison for the micro battles, and a Go comparison for the overall strategy and game plan (in which forces and territory accumulate until the game's end, and fights are at both grand and small scale in many different places). I don't know what to compare overall strategy to in SC2.
Oh... well I guess then I exaggerated :D.
|
Am I the only one thinking that the OP is trolling and thus that the whole thread is a farce?
|
You remind me of those kids in high school I met who fit in a lot of fancy words to hide the lack of substance in their essay. Essentially, what you are trying to say is, "I got cheesed, I played greedy build order loss boo hoo BW never had these."
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
