EPTOn June 24 2009 15:14 RoieTRS wrote:
I made this flowchart for wow back in the tbc days.
![[image loading]](http://roiesword.googlepages.com/MOONKINFLOWCHARt.JPG)
MOONFARE SPAM
I made this flowchart for wow back in the tbc days.
MOONFARE SPAM
+ Show Spoiler +
WoW vs SC part 2 - Page 2
| Blogs > Phyre |
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 24 2009 14:56 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: I've been top 3'ish on my battlegroup during 2 seasons on 2 different classes. I assure you, it's harder to get D+ on ICCup than to figure out wow.huh? every A level starcraft player would be just fine in world of warcraft what are you talking about you do realize its harder to reach C on iccup than it is to figure out what spells do what in wow right | ||
|
FirstBorn
Romania3955 Posts
On June 24 2009 15:39 VIB wrote: I've been top 3'ish on my battlegroup during 2 seasons on 2 different classes. I assure you, it's harder to get D+ on ICCup than to figure out wow. I second this. Once you get the hang of the spells/combos and get a little experience it's quite easy. | ||
GTR
51565 Posts
I find it really frustrating how I had to farm gold for like a week just to get my Normal Flying mount training. Now for the same price you can get Epic Flying. FML. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
On June 24 2009 15:50 GTR wrote: It fucking irks me how Blizzard are trying to get people into the game by doing shit such as reducing mount level requirements/prices etc. I find it really frustrating how I had to farm gold for like a week just to get my Normal Flying mount training. Now for the same price you can get Epic Flying. FML. thats a dumb thing to be mad about 'how dare people have it easier than i had it to get a flying mount in a video game' | ||
|
VIB
Brazil3567 Posts
On June 24 2009 16:33 stroggos wrote: Let me guess, you didn't play a rogue or a paly lol, when i played wow there was no grinding part to the game for me, apart from 1-70(arena was the only part of the game i played). When i needed money i would sell arena points, it was fun because it was arena and it would make about 1000gold/hour. And the best pvp gear was easily available because i made many arena points myself every week. It was easy for anyone to get the best gear this way which is GOOD, because a game shouldn't be about having the best gear. That's certainly not why i played WoW.  I had to hear my rogue partner whining about the exact opposite of what you're saying (needing to farm PvE gear for arena) every freaking match during a whole season lol As a priest/druid myself I could do fine with my arena gear, but my warrior friend was pissed how unlucky he was that the mats for his StormHerald would never drop. And my lock friend would always whine how it was so much harder to beat pve rogues than pvp rogues.So.. you shouldn't be so confident saying that gear is irrelevant. Some people definetly disagree Well maybe it got better now. I hear they're making resilience reduce all damage and all. Just like people have been telling them to for over 1 year lol But I don't play anymore I don't know how stuff are doing now. I just hear from my friends that skill is more irrelevant than ever. The people we used to sell arena points to, are now the gladiators lol | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
| ||
|
Husky
United States3362 Posts
On June 24 2009 16:35 FakeSteve[TPR] wrote: thats a dumb thing to be mad about 'how dare people have it easier than i had it to get a flying mount in a video game' Uh... no... its not. There is absolutely nothing to work towards in that game anymore. Arenas are a cake walk to all the highest ratings. PVE is a joke, gimicky and boring. Leveling up takes like 2 days. Essentially they've dumbed down wow so much that its boring for anyone who likes any sort of challenge. As others have said, its more of a social event at this point. Everyone I know who likes challenging/competitive games has quit wow by now (around 8 people), everyone who i know who likes just hanging out and socializing still plays (around 5-6) I wish warcraft-realms would update their activity numbers though so I can see just how much wow has dropped | ||
|
FakeSteve[TPR]
Valhalla18444 Posts
dont pretend you wouldn't have preferred it to be that way when you got your mount come on | ||
|
Snet
United States3573 Posts
| ||
|
Adeny
Norway1233 Posts
| ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On June 24 2009 14:42 FyRe_DragOn wrote: ya im sure all the builds and timings are incredibly easy to figure out and put to good use..i cant believe u just used botton mashing to describe startcraft -_- Yeah, it's hard to digest, but in the end it's completely true. I've only slowly realized this during my last years of playing the game. It took me a long time to realize this. I was blinded by how apparently "awesome" the Korean pros are, blinded by the hype, thinking that this is the ultimate e-sport game. Like many here do. What do players of all skill levels consider to be "skill" in SC? Not just winning. That would be too easy, lol. No, it's winning by playing straight up. What does "straight up" mean? Using a standard build order and winning by outmacroing your opponent. What does "outmacroing" mean? Being better at multitasking. Which is closely related to being faster. Playing non-standard, cheesy or "all-in" is considered newbie style in non-pro circles, and in pro circles it's considered a viable surprise strategy which can and should be used from time to time so that you're "not completely predictable". Still... skill is not defined by it. Is YellOw better than Bisu because his last game was a surprising win through some rather cheesy non-standard strategy? Hell no, of course he isn't. Because would he play straight up, Bisu would stomp him into the ground so hard it's not even funny. Yellow winning this game was Bisu's fault instead of Yellow's skill. Yellow's skill in this game was not even relevant. We all know he's much worse than Bisu (I'll add: because his multitasking/macro is much worse). A good (and maybe the only) way for a much worse player to win is trying to surprise the better player by using all-in/non-standard/cheese etc... this is commonly accepted. If you rephrase it without changing the meaning, it means that being better means winning by playing standard. You should start to realize what SC skill is mainly based on, right? The remaining aspects of Skill(TM) which you use to defend SC ("BUT IT'S NOT JUST BUTTON MASHING, IT'S ALSO TIMING AND MICRO YOU NOOB!"), are present in other RTSes as well, which probably put an even greater emphasis on them. In SC, most of your actions are about macro. Macro is ~80% of SC skill, and having better macro means having better multitasking/being faster. It's incredibly simple in theory, and people like that about it. In practice, because good players are so fast you need to spend a lot of time becoming fast as well, only then can you start winning from time to time (not counting cheese - everyone cheeses and wins from time to time against a much better player. The much better player in this case often yells "play straight-up you noob! you know you have no chance straight-up!" -- also showing what SC players count as the real skill. Playing to win is not considered skillful in SC; playing basic and having the better multitasking/speed is). So as a result, SC is incredibly competitive of course, no one denies that, but the "nature" of this competitiveness is mainly based on more or less uninteresting things (speed/multitasking). The ingredients which make up the thing called "SC skill" are mostly bad. If SC had a decent UI and people wouldn't need 300 APM to play it *decently* (not even good), competition would be just as fierce, only with fewer APM needed (I can already hear some shouting "OH NOEZ LESS SKILL REQUIRED" - which would prove my point). It would be like most other RTS (let's just say WC3 because most other RTS have severe weaknesses in other areas). But instead, SC players like that SC is so "hardcore" that you need so many APM to play it, like that normal players play unbelievably crappy because the gameplay is way too fast for them. And then pretend that SC skill is all about the things which other RTSes offer as well, most notably micro and timing. Like SC required "more skill" in that area, although it doesn't (in fact WC3 is probably much more micro-skill-intensive because much more emphasis/APM/time is put on microing). SC skill is pretty much equivalent with (E)APM. If someone with 80 APM wins against a 300 APM guy he can't be generally better, right? Not even if he plays smarter with better micro and timing, right? He was just lucky, or the other guy had a bad day or let him win, right? You even see it in this thread - one guy saying that a 45 APM Z must be totally noob. Now I know that he indeed IS totally noob in SC - but that's exactly the problem. Being good should be independent of APM. You should be able to be good by either playing really fast (the only option in SC1), OR be good by having better micro or timing meaning you could win in the early game already where you don't even NEED high APM! But the latter thing is almost universally frowned upon in the SC community. It's considered all-in, non-standard, or cheese. It's not considered to be the real game. It means that there's no way in hell that having low APM and winning means that you're skilled. You're only skilled if you have high APM and win later on in the game. And what's worse is that almsot all competitive maps being played generally force you to play the long macro way, the maps make other things less efficient. So you pretty much have no other option - either you play standard, or you play a bad strategy and try to win by surprise. There is no other way, no middle ground. The one, good way to play is clearly defined, and going along that way means you need high APM for a strong MACRO. Most of the SC2 discussion is about SC1 players wanting to preserve the old and bad UI, just because they fear that their skill (= button mashing speed) will become worthless and that they have to invest more into thoroughly refined micro, timing and build orders instead of playing basic and winning by simply pumping more shit faster than their opponent. Well, you'll probably realize this at some point. Enjoy SC until then.  It's far from being a bad game after all, but I hate people who act as if every single thing about it is godlike and mustn't ever be changed. That's delaying progress so much.What we need for the future is a much better balance between macro and micro (potentially even more focus on micro because that's the most interesting aspect anyway), and a comfortable interface with a lot more customization options. The interface needs to adapt to the player, not the other way round (but SC players view this as being part of the skill required, and therefore as a gerat thing to have, of course...) Anyway. Hope my post was at least somewhat coherent. I don't put much effort into this (despite the looks of it) and so it's not very well structured or explained at times. In fact it's quite random. :D | ||
|
EchOne
United States2906 Posts
Please also try to justify assertions when you make them, instead of making more, similar assertions and then discussing their hypothetical consequences. People who disagree with those assertions are not going to sway at all unless you provide some reasoning behind them. Without reasoning to discuss, there is no way meaningful debate will occur. | ||
|
stroggos
New Zealand1543 Posts
Besides that, i think Yellow totally outplayed Bisu last game, skillwise. There were so many things Bisu easily could have done to not lose that game. He lost though because Yellow practiced that build against Protoss more than bisu practiced against 2 hatch slow drop. Im all for a new better UI, mbs and all that jazz in sc2, as long as the skill curve is steady. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On June 24 2009 23:25 EchOne wrote: Please don't post over a thousand unstructured words if you'd like to be in any way persuasive or informative. Any work is more powerful, and thus more likely to achieve a purpose, if it is well organized. Please also try to justify assertions when you make them, instead of making more, similar assertions and then discussing their hypothetical consequences. People who disagree with those assertions are not going to sway at all unless you provide some reasoning behind them. Without reasoning to discuss, there is no way meaningful debate will occur. Well I don't really care about creating good debate, proving my point or anything. It's just an opinion, a rant, a comment on the general situation, and it includes quite a bit of subjectivity. I wasn't trying to prove something (honestly, (e)sports and theory never goes well together anyway), but explain my viewpoint instead. If someone reads through it, cool. If someone agrees with it, even better. But if not, it's no biggie... | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
Furthermore, consider the time these players spend on that game... they probably play like 24/7, and no one else is that good, so that should mean something... right? That doesn't mean it's fit for competitive play though! It's not fit at all for that, because it's completely imbalanced. Too many races, classes and abilities. And too many patches with balance changes which change everything all the time. It's just that its popularity is leveraging it into that role. A million flies can't be wrong - eat shit! ... something along those lines. | ||
|
Epicfailguy
Norway893 Posts
On June 24 2009 14:19 stroggos wrote: nice, that WoW player is a giant newbie to the world of competitive gaming. both games require an infinite amount of skill. It's impossible to control 200 supply worth of units in starcraft perfectly, and it's impossible to have .01s reaction times in wow to play perfectly. No, this is wrong. Playing a perfect game of wow is very possible, playing a perfect game of starcraft is impossible. Wow has a skill roof, sc does not. | ||
|
0xDEADBEEF
Germany1235 Posts
On June 25 2009 01:26 Epicfailguy wrote: Playing a perfect game of wow is very possible, playing a perfect game of starcraft is impossible. Wow has a skill roof, sc does not. I think we have reached that already, too. Not the real absolute limit, but still a limit where no one can really set himself further apart from the others. The fact that there hasn't been a new bonjwa since 2007 is an indicator for that. Before that, we always had one player who was significantly better than the rest for a significant amount of time. One player who showed everyone else that he's one level above all others, and in doing so that there even *exists* at least one higher level. Now, everyone's basically extremely good and who wins is not a matter of who's really better but rather who is the most up to form on this very day, and who has the most luck. Bonjwa? Level above all others? Not really. I think one can safely assume that the skill limit might have been reached already (besides, humans can't realistically become faster than ~500 APM and play like that all the time...) and several players at once are scratching at the skill roof. I stand corrected when a new bonjwa arises. Which probably won't (can't!) happen.  | ||
|
minus_human
4784 Posts
And Starcraft professionals actually DO everything they can to win, they DO play to win and not to entertain or anything else. There is a little concept known as meta-game, it's basically the reason why the most common choice of playstyle is a fast relatively expansion in most match-ups, and it's usually the absolute best choice they can make to maximize chances of winning. The strategy in StarCraft is a multitude of subtle nuances, and realistically only understandable by good players, while everyone can grasp the concepts of expansion, macro and basic timing, you have to be really good to get the real, full deal. | ||
| ||
