EPT
On January 27 2012 18:19 EatThePath wrote:
lol, same reaction. really?
I would love to hear what you think is flat wrong, or arbitrarily positively valued. (seriously)
OP resonates a lot with me, but I am showing support for a good, well-written post from a worthy source, not some words I am happy to hear cause I find them agreeable.
lol, same reaction. really?
I would love to hear what you think is flat wrong, or arbitrarily positively valued. (seriously)
OP resonates a lot with me, but I am showing support for a good, well-written post from a worthy source, not some words I am happy to hear cause I find them agreeable.
Mkay.
Before I begin, I'd like to state that I don't mean to bash on Trap's efforts - I very much agree with the hypothesis, I just don't think the OP is very good :/
+ Show Spoiler [Long] +
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
Everybody should play a little SC2
An ex-BW and ex-SC2 players perspective.
Everybody should play a little SC2
An ex-BW and ex-SC2 players perspective.
This always boggles me. What does it mean to be an "ex" player? Will you never play again? Is there something preventing you from just installing either game again? Or do you simply mean that you're currently not in-game. If you want to assume some authority you should describe yourself as a player of both games no?
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
Disclaimer
Inspired by Tasteless's panda-bear-guy commentary on GOM, I picked up BW a year prior to SC2 beta and became a middling C- Terran. I played the first stage of SC2 beta quite heavily on the EU server, amassing almost 3000 games (almost all of it 1v1 ladder as Protoss). I rarely got very far in tournaments, though thanks to somewhat high ladder rank I got to play against many top foreigners before the constant ladder resets made laddering unpleasant(damnit @ http://www.esportsfrance.com/actualites/21550/ , was for several months in the top 200 EU).
Disclaimer
Inspired by Tasteless's panda-bear-guy commentary on GOM, I picked up BW a year prior to SC2 beta and became a middling C- Terran. I played the first stage of SC2 beta quite heavily on the EU server, amassing almost 3000 games (almost all of it 1v1 ladder as Protoss). I rarely got very far in tournaments, though thanks to somewhat high ladder rank I got to play against many top foreigners before the constant ladder resets made laddering unpleasant(damnit @ http://www.esportsfrance.com/actualites/21550/ , was for several months in the top 200 EU).
This is not a disclaimer, it is an introduction.
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
Obviously I was never a contender, but on the other hand I did get the occasional win against people like White-Ra and Strelok (which never could have happened in BW ;-). After the beta ended, I decided that I didn't want to continue playing SC2, and went back to casually playing BW. Nowadays I'm busy with other pursuits and don't play either game, although I catch the occasional game of Proleague.
Obviously I was never a contender, but on the other hand I did get the occasional win against people like White-Ra and Strelok (which never could have happened in BW ;-). After the beta ended, I decided that I didn't want to continue playing SC2, and went back to casually playing BW. Nowadays I'm busy with other pursuits and don't play either game, although I catch the occasional game of Proleague.
Really unsure about this sentence. If it's part of the argument it shouldn't be in the introduction plus you should explain it properly. If you put it in like this it puts a very big questionmark on what your stance is. Are you bashing SC2 cause it's easy or are you recommending it because you were able to get these wins?
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
This is a BW response to the complementary thread in the SC2 forum. From my brief SC2 venture, I think there's some value in BW players trying out SC2 if you haven't already. With BW mechanics, you can get right into the best parts of SC2: mindgames and army control. I don't mean to say that playing SC2 is like playing a micro map or some other subset of BW.
This is a BW response to the complementary thread in the SC2 forum. From my brief SC2 venture, I think there's some value in BW players trying out SC2 if you haven't already. With BW mechanics, you can get right into the best parts of SC2: mindgames and army control. I don't mean to say that playing SC2 is like playing a micro map or some other subset of BW.
This is a non-sequitur for the question you posed - or am I misreading it? You're saying that knowledge of Broodwar will enable you to play SC2 well. Well if people would have that as a goal - being able to play SC2 well - they'd already be playing that game. I'll shortly refer to the structure of this, but you need to focus on what the audience you're talking to's goals or wishes are first. Right now you're making the assumption BW players want to be good at SC2 and are assuring them that playing SC2 will be good for them. This makes no sense in terms of trying to convince people.
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
Rather the comparatively smaller scale of SC2 allows you to focus more immediately on these aspects, which in turn can lead you to have a better appreciation of BW's pace and depth.
Rather the comparatively smaller scale of SC2 allows you to focus more immediately on these aspects, which in turn can lead you to have a better appreciation of BW's pace and depth.
Don't agree with this. Macro and Micro go hand in hand in both games. This term "macro game" that's been coined doesn't resonate with me at all. People say certain rushes or all-ins don't require macro which is nonsense, especially at the lower levels. Let's look at your argument though, why not extend it and recommend WC3 instead, which focusses on army control even more. Surely people will appreciate the depth of Broodwar even more. And is that really your argument? You think BW players have as a goal to appreciate their own game more and so you recommend SC2 that performs more poorly in the terms of depth so that by comparison they'll like BW more?
Below is quoted the first paragraph of your actual argument - but I strongly feel you should analyze and describe what you're going to do. What are the goals of BW players? What do they enjoy about the game? Why do they play it? Once you've established this, you can argue how SC2, also, will facilitate these goals and wishes. Once you determine what BW players gain from playing BW, you can argue how they will benefit from SC2. Example: they enjoy competitive play, strategic thinking, rts games in general, an active community, being creative with builds, fine tuning their play, etc etc.
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
Limited Information and Safety
Both SC2 and BW are games of limited information, but there are more times in BW where you don't have to worry about what your opponent is doing because your build is already safe from it. For instance, in BW TvP, if the Terran siege expoes and the Protoss does a 1gate FE with the intention of taking a 3rd, there's a few minutes of equilibrium where the Terran can harass, expand, or make more facs but can't push out on the map because he doesn't have the siege tank count. Similarly, the Protoss will have a very hard time breaking the natural off only 2 bases and can chose to shuttle harass, take a 3rd, or tech up. This leads to complacence where both players know they can't lose in the next few minutes and angle for marginal advantages.
Limited Information and Safety
Both SC2 and BW are games of limited information, but there are more times in BW where you don't have to worry about what your opponent is doing because your build is already safe from it. For instance, in BW TvP, if the Terran siege expoes and the Protoss does a 1gate FE with the intention of taking a 3rd, there's a few minutes of equilibrium where the Terran can harass, expand, or make more facs but can't push out on the map because he doesn't have the siege tank count. Similarly, the Protoss will have a very hard time breaking the natural off only 2 bases and can chose to shuttle harass, take a 3rd, or tech up. This leads to complacence where both players know they can't lose in the next few minutes and angle for marginal advantages.
First you say limited information and then you give an example in which both players know what the other is doing? The second bolded sentence is bullshit. People don't know they're safe beforehand, they can scout and (take that limited information to) take certain precautions to become safe.
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
In SC2, you don't have this build safety until relatively later in the game. This forces you to be much more on your feet about what exactly your opponent is doing in case he was really just waiting to get a crucial tech unit to break your natural. But it also means you can fake aggression much easier and force your opponent to consider if your aggression is real or feinted. BW players are already accustomed to showing certain threats and not following through with them to try and trick your opponent into overreacting. This kind of thinking is rewarded perhaps even more in SC2, because there are fewer 'generally safe' strategies and your opponent will be forced to adapt immediately or risk dying.
In SC2, you don't have this build safety until relatively later in the game. This forces you to be much more on your feet about what exactly your opponent is doing in case he was really just waiting to get a crucial tech unit to break your natural. But it also means you can fake aggression much easier and force your opponent to consider if your aggression is real or feinted. BW players are already accustomed to showing certain threats and not following through with them to try and trick your opponent into overreacting. This kind of thinking is rewarded perhaps even more in SC2, because there are fewer 'generally safe' strategies and your opponent will be forced to adapt immediately or risk dying.
About the first bolded part: I fail to see how one follows from the other. I also don't agree with "fake aggression much easier". I'd like to hear some examples. You're again making the argument that BW players would be good at SC2, which doesn't help your argument. Who do you think your audience is? BW players that are scared to play SC2 cause they're afraid they'll be bad?
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
So, even though BW is unquestionably more mechanically demanding, I found BW to be a bit too relaxing at times. After years of progamer replays and VODS to draw upon I could turn off my brain since I knew mutas weren't going to be at my base until 6:45. In SC2 the longer period of time where your opponent can flat out kill you forces you to constantly seek more information and be on your toes well into the midgame.
So, even though BW is unquestionably more mechanically demanding, I found BW to be a bit too relaxing at times. After years of progamer replays and VODS to draw upon I could turn off my brain since I knew mutas weren't going to be at my base until 6:45. In SC2 the longer period of time where your opponent can flat out kill you forces you to constantly seek more information and be on your toes well into the midgame.
My head is full of fuck on this one. Read it aloud to yourself. It contradicts itself or is at the very least paradoxical. Again you need to establish the goal of your audience: if one of the goals is to play a mechanically demanding game than right now you're de-recommending SC2 which is the exact opposite of what you set out to do! I also strongly disagree with the rest. It's bullshit that you know mutas are gonna be at your base at time X. What if he cancels the spire to fake you out and does a 3 hatch ling all-in. You know know, you scout. True for both games. Also both games have instances where your forces can be taken out in a split second if you don't pay attention for too long.
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
Scale
Recently, someone posted a cool full HD sized BW screenshot of the entire map with engagements all over. But when you're playing BW, you can only concentrate on a very small area of the game at a time. Even in a midgame push you're likely to have your army spread across two screens, you need to keep rallying units from another screen, and usually you need to switch to each screen of your base. This means it's very difficult for BW players to visualize the whole picture of what's going on, and this game sense is what ultimately separates good players from great players. Because many individual tasks are difficult to perform, it's hard to prioritize which tasks are the most important.
Scale
Recently, someone posted a cool full HD sized BW screenshot of the entire map with engagements all over. But when you're playing BW, you can only concentrate on a very small area of the game at a time. Even in a midgame push you're likely to have your army spread across two screens, you need to keep rallying units from another screen, and usually you need to switch to each screen of your base. This means it's very difficult for BW players to visualize the whole picture of what's going on, and this game sense is what ultimately separates good players from great players. Because many individual tasks are difficult to perform, it's hard to prioritize which tasks are the most important.
Weird kind of argument. The SC2 game field screen is just as big as the BW one. What I think you -mean- is that in SC2 you can do a lot of stuff in your base blindly because of MBS. (Not sure if this is true - I used to go back to my base a lot but that's because I was used to BW - not sure how other people do it). What you're, then again, propagating is a mechanically less demanding game. Why would this be in favour of your hypothesis?
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
SC2 allows you to basically fit the entire game on a single screen. The design of the maps, unit collision, and economy lead to a game that is focused on winning a decisive engagement. Managing your macro can be done without switching screens at all; the primary concern is gathering scouting information to get the correct army composition, and then controlling your army effectively. But if you start visualing BW like you do in SC2 (one big screen), your play will greatly improve.
SC2 allows you to basically fit the entire game on a single screen. The design of the maps, unit collision, and economy lead to a game that is focused on winning a decisive engagement. Managing your macro can be done without switching screens at all; the primary concern is gathering scouting information to get the correct army composition, and then controlling your army effectively. But if you start visualing BW like you do in SC2 (one big screen), your play will greatly improve.
Couldn't disagree more with the first bold part, especially with the vast increase in game quality we've seen over the last year and a half.
Second line of thought: SC2 has MBU > This puts everything on one screen > If you do this in BW you'll improve.
While I doubt that "improving your BW play" is a major reason for BW players to try out SC2, the reasoning makes no sense cause BW has no MBU. *confused*
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
It's easy to get caught up in winning all the little battles that you lose the war in BW, and SC2 might help you think more about spreading out your army correctly rather than perfecting your three base macro, because the former is more important in both games.
It's easy to get caught up in winning all the little battles that you lose the war in BW, and SC2 might help you think more about spreading out your army correctly rather than perfecting your three base macro, because the former is more important in both games.
The latter is most definitely more important in both games and if there's anything that SC2 doesn't facilitate it's the spreading out of armies.
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
Positioning
The positioning in SC2, again due to scale, is more based on your unit control rather than map control.
Positioning
The positioning in SC2, again due to scale, is more based on your unit control rather than map control.
Disagreed. My personal inclination would be to say that players often base their positioning on unit control rather than map control but that doesn't means it's supposed to be that way - or rather, that that is the optimal way to play. I'd like to hear you explain this statement though. Also don't understand the "due to scale" phrase.
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
SC2 detractors often point to the 'ball' syndrome and lack of BW-esque map control units as evidence that positioning is not as important in SC2. SC2 is more focused on players having all their units grouped, positioned and ready at any time for an attack. In BW TvP, if you're macroing up a 200/200 push, but you wait until right before moving out to start hotkeying and grouping your units, you're vulnerable to having a bunch of rallied units stasis'd and being run over. In SC2 this is even more important; you need to constantly reposition your army because you have much less time than in BW to react to an opponent splitting your army with forcefield or running in with a big ball of stimmed maurauders. If you arn't already positioned correctly before the battle starts, you'll be dead.
SC2 detractors often point to the 'ball' syndrome and lack of BW-esque map control units as evidence that positioning is not as important in SC2. SC2 is more focused on players having all their units grouped, positioned and ready at any time for an attack. In BW TvP, if you're macroing up a 200/200 push, but you wait until right before moving out to start hotkeying and grouping your units, you're vulnerable to having a bunch of rallied units stasis'd and being run over. In SC2 this is even more important; you need to constantly reposition your army because you have much less time than in BW to react to an opponent splitting your army with forcefield or running in with a big ball of stimmed maurauders. If you arn't already positioned correctly before the battle starts, you'll be dead.
Don't agree with the "much less" and the second bolded part is true for both games. Again about structure, you need to tie this in with what you think would make SC2 a good game for BW players to play. If you think they would benefit or enjoy having to take good care of their forces cause you can get caught off-guard in an instant then point that out.
On January 27 2012 17:40 Trap wrote:
Adaptation
This last point mostly applies to BW players who picked up the game in the last couple of years. I think one of the trickiest things about starting BW for the first time in 2009 was that there was a very clear 'right' and 'wrong' way to do things. Even for players who had been playing longer than I have, it's easy in BW to get stuck in a mindset of "Given this position, I've seen the pros do this, now I'm going to replicate it." You're given the conclusion without all the experimentation that leads to it. When starting SC2 (at least this was the case in beta, and I suspect still now as the game is somewhat young) you don't have that advantage and you have to improvise. In BW, often you think that 'if only I was a little faster, or microed this a little better, I could have won', but in my experience the greatest leaps in my BW and SC2 experiences were when I figured out how to exploit a certain strategy, and not because I was able to rally SCVs faster. SC2 is useful because while the base gameplay is quite similar to BW, the rules are not so defined yet. Even though personally I enjoy the infinite challenges (to humans at least) poised by the BW UI, I think a BW player could become more experimental and adventurous after trying SC2.
Adaptation
This last point mostly applies to BW players who picked up the game in the last couple of years. I think one of the trickiest things about starting BW for the first time in 2009 was that there was a very clear 'right' and 'wrong' way to do things. Even for players who had been playing longer than I have, it's easy in BW to get stuck in a mindset of "Given this position, I've seen the pros do this, now I'm going to replicate it." You're given the conclusion without all the experimentation that leads to it. When starting SC2 (at least this was the case in beta, and I suspect still now as the game is somewhat young) you don't have that advantage and you have to improvise. In BW, often you think that 'if only I was a little faster, or microed this a little better, I could have won', but in my experience the greatest leaps in my BW and SC2 experiences were when I figured out how to exploit a certain strategy, and not because I was able to rally SCVs faster. SC2 is useful because while the base gameplay is quite similar to BW, the rules are not so defined yet. Even though personally I enjoy the infinite challenges (to humans at least) poised by the BW UI, I think a BW player could become more experimental and adventurous after trying SC2.
I actually only skimmed over this last paragraph when I made my post earlier and I have to say I agree with this and would think it a strong argument in favour of your thesis.
And this is where you end. It's cut off not quite mid-sentence but there should be something like a final paragraph in which you sum up OR try to start some kind of discussion. Mostly about structure though: it's unclear what your goals are and you don't set out the reasons of why BW players in particular should be drawn to a game like SC2.
Anyway, hope this is useful in some way.
edit: I just found the mirror thread in the SC2 forum (hadn't seen it yet) and DAMN it does exactly what I said! Look at the first two paragraphs: it introduces what the writer is assuming of his readers and introduces what he thinks is important to them. Completely lacking from the OP of this thread.
edit2: okay read the other thread in full and have some issues there as well but w/e >_>
If this was 10 years ago i might have choosed to play BW over SC2 
