|
On November 16 2009 03:11 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2009 03:06 QibingZero wrote:
The mechanics between the games are not even close, honestly. Even in your average WC3 battle, the mechanics are nowhere near as demanding as SC is once it gets past the 5 minute mark. Having played both extensively, I can tell you that you don't need to be any faster than your average C player mechanically to be a top WC3 player. Now, you do need to be extremely precise, but the vast majority of the skill in WC3 is not mechanics - it's all in micro-based decisions, overall game sense, and creeping patterns.
Starcraft players who switch to WC3 might be confused by many aspects of the game and unsure of what to do, but please do not mix that up with demanding mechanics. You just need to realize that the important things to do in SC are nearly the complete opposite of the important things to do in WC3. Once you know what you need to do (this is key in any game), you'll find that there is a lot less to WC3 than you might originally think. Hell, the biggest problem I remember having was trying to keep my APM steady throughout the game, because there were so few points in which you actually could benefit from being at your max. The macro takes no time at all, you have more than enough control groups to cover everything you need, and hotkeys can even be changed to an easier layout. Do you think its better this way? I mean about player hand speed being less important. I guess it means that more people physically can compete at a high level, instead of a blessed few with tons of fast-twitch muscles in their hands.
Eh I wouldn't say you have to be blessed with a lot of fast-twitch muscles or anything, the usual 330 apm or whatever it is the average progamer has I believe is achievable by anyone. It's just a matter of knowing what actions to do, how to do them, and when. I'm not very good but I play 240-280 apm standard without mass spamming and sometimes, ~320 apm or so when the I know exactly what the opponent is doing and how to react without really thinking (these games end in early game). There was a documentary on this concerning  XellOs, about how brain scans showed he was playing from memory, whereas his amateur competitor was almost constantly thinking of how he should respond. It's like playing from RAM vs from your hard drive. So no, I don't believe you need to be hand-gifted to play at a high level. In fact, this is what I like about SC: as long as your head is not messed up, it is possible to play at a high level regardless of your physical situation (as long as you are not handicapped in an important area), whereas in sports such as basketball, you are 99% fucked if you're not around 6 foot an above (yes there are a couple exceptions, but they are extremely few and they weren't "good").
|
On November 16 2009 03:06 QibingZero wrote:
The mechanics between the games are not even close, honestly. Even in your average WC3 battle, the mechanics are nowhere near as demanding as SC is once it gets past the 5 minute mark. Having played both extensively, I can tell you that you don't need to be any faster than your average C player mechanically to be a top WC3 player. Now, you do need to be extremely precise, but the vast majority of the skill in WC3 is not mechanics - it's all in micro-based decisions, overall game sense, and creeping patterns.
Starcraft players who switch to WC3 might be confused by many aspects of the game and unsure of what to do, but please do not mix that up with demanding mechanics. You just need to realize that the important things to do in SC are nearly the complete opposite of the important things to do in WC3. Once you know what you need to do (this is key in any game), you'll find that there is a lot less to WC3 than you might originally think. Hell, the biggest problem I remember having was trying to keep my APM steady throughout the game, because there were so few points in which you actually could benefit from being at your max. The macro takes no time at all, you have more than enough control groups to cover everything you need, and hotkeys can even be changed to an easier layout.
I was into wc3 before getting into starcrat and trust me, wc3 is much easier to play once you get the basics down. In wc3, at lategame, your units are already set and all you're trying to do is catch your opponent in a bad position. That is really not demanding at all. In sc lategame, I have to worry about a fucking huge army, my economy, my production, and harasses. Its just so much more demanding than wc3.
|
On November 16 2009 03:11 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2009 03:06 QibingZero wrote:
The mechanics between the games are not even close, honestly. Even in your average WC3 battle, the mechanics are nowhere near as demanding as SC is once it gets past the 5 minute mark. Having played both extensively, I can tell you that you don't need to be any faster than your average C player mechanically to be a top WC3 player. Now, you do need to be extremely precise, but the vast majority of the skill in WC3 is not mechanics - it's all in micro-based decisions, overall game sense, and creeping patterns.
Starcraft players who switch to WC3 might be confused by many aspects of the game and unsure of what to do, but please do not mix that up with demanding mechanics. You just need to realize that the important things to do in SC are nearly the complete opposite of the important things to do in WC3. Once you know what you need to do (this is key in any game), you'll find that there is a lot less to WC3 than you might originally think. Hell, the biggest problem I remember having was trying to keep my APM steady throughout the game, because there were so few points in which you actually could benefit from being at your max. The macro takes no time at all, you have more than enough control groups to cover everything you need, and hotkeys can even be changed to an easier layout. Do you think its better this way? I mean about player hand speed being less important. I guess it means that more people physically can compete at a high level, instead of a blessed few with tons of fast-twitch muscles in their hands.
They're not blessed, they have practiced.
Handspeed, presicion, multitask, intelligence and devotion combined equals starcraft.
|
hope i go to ucla for wcg lol
|
Just saw the vods on Jaedong v.s. Stork. Game 2 was absolutely epic. And of course...Stork choked in a final again and earned himself yet another silver.
I am 100% sure that his silver record will never be broken, ever. He has long surpassed Yellow and he will continue to mine silver for another couple of years to come.
|
Has there been any interviews with Jaedong/Stork after the finals?
|
|
|
On November 16 2009 04:09 Emon_ wrote:
Has there been any interviews with Jaedong/Stork after the finals?
Jaedong said some words, its in the Broodwar section. I wouldn't call it an interview though.
|
the crowd was unreal
un fucking real.. T_T
|
On November 16 2009 03:11 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2009 03:06 QibingZero wrote:
The mechanics between the games are not even close, honestly. Even in your average WC3 battle, the mechanics are nowhere near as demanding as SC is once it gets past the 5 minute mark. Having played both extensively, I can tell you that you don't need to be any faster than your average C player mechanically to be a top WC3 player. Now, you do need to be extremely precise, but the vast majority of the skill in WC3 is not mechanics - it's all in micro-based decisions, overall game sense, and creeping patterns.
Starcraft players who switch to WC3 might be confused by many aspects of the game and unsure of what to do, but please do not mix that up with demanding mechanics. You just need to realize that the important things to do in SC are nearly the complete opposite of the important things to do in WC3. Once you know what you need to do (this is key in any game), you'll find that there is a lot less to WC3 than you might originally think. Hell, the biggest problem I remember having was trying to keep my APM steady throughout the game, because there were so few points in which you actually could benefit from being at your max. The macro takes no time at all, you have more than enough control groups to cover everything you need, and hotkeys can even be changed to an easier layout. Do you think its better this way? I mean about player hand speed being less important. I guess it means that more people physically can compete at a high level, instead of a blessed few with tons of fast-twitch muscles in their hands.
It's better for the playerbase getting into the game, for sure. There isn't the hurdle that we Starcraft players have to face: coming to the realization that we'll never be as good as Jaedong, Flash, or Bisu. It also theoretically opens up the strategic aspect of the game as well (I say theoretically because it's very hard to argue WC3 has more strategy involved than SC).
For the fans, though, it's a detriment. The action is slower paced, and the progamers don't have that invincible skill that the fans can admire in awe. This is especially true for the player-fans who are very much aware of what it takes to be good at the game, and the skill-gap between their more casual play and the very best players out there.
|
How big is the skill gap between top players and more casual players in WC3? In SC a B/B- level player wouldn't win 1 game out of 100 against Flash. 
|
On November 16 2009 07:28 Holgerius wrote:How big is the skill gap between top players and more casual players in WC3? In SC a B/B- level player wouldn't win 1 game out of 100 against Flash.
I wouldn't consider b-/b casual players at all.
|
On November 16 2009 09:24 AttackZerg wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2009 07:28 Holgerius wrote:How big is the skill gap between top players and more casual players in WC3? In SC a B/B- level player wouldn't win 1 game out of 100 against Flash. I wouldn't consider b-/b casual players at all.
Me neither. That's pretty much the point; in SC not even players who are actually really good would stand a chance against the elite. A casual player would get raped so hardcore it's not even funny. I probably couldn't beat Flash if he went 14 CC and I went 4-pool. So I'm wondering, is it the same thing in WC3 or could a casual player have a hypothetical chance against top players?
|
I'd hate to be the one writing the power rank this month, how can you weight what just happened
|
On November 16 2009 10:36 n.DieJokes wrote:
I'd hate to be the one writing the power rank this month, how can you weight what just happened
Don´t forget to put zim in there
|
seeing Stork's PvZ and Bisu's PvZ (both against JD) i think Stork is stronger right now, so im happy xd... Stork is doing better on individuals too  ...
In the other hand JD ZvP is doing good if he is able to beat the 2 better tosses out there (arguably) kinda easily... seing him play so much ZvZ (and seing him lose so much -for JD-) was kinda making me gorget how imba he is...
|
On November 16 2009 07:28 Holgerius wrote:How big is the skill gap between top players and more casual players in WC3? In SC a B/B- level player wouldn't win 1 game out of 100 against Flash.
Actually I don't think that's true. In Starcraft it's a lot easier to get lucky with some cheesy build, so I think that a B/B- players would definitely have a more than 1% win chance against a top pro gamer. In War3 however, cheese is practically non-existant since it's almost impossible to deny scouting and since natural base defense is stronger in relation to army size, so you pretty much have to play a straight up game. There are of course many random things in wc3, but they are usually little things that give either player a slight edge, such as finding a tome of xp versus a different tome, but almost never any really big random factors such as build order choice in a ZvZ.
So despite the skill ceiling being a lot lower in war3 (thus making the difference in skill much more pronounced in sc), I'd estimate that a good war3 player would have a slightly lower chance of beating a top pro gamer than your B player has versus Flash.
|
On November 16 2009 10:56 Inzek wrote:seeing Stork's PvZ and Bisu's PvZ (both against JD) i think Stork is stronger right now, so im happy xd... Stork is doing better on individuals too ... In the other hand JD ZvP is doing good if he is able to beat the 2 better tosses out there (arguably) kinda easily... seing him play so much ZvZ (and seing him lose so much -for JD-) was kinda making me gorget how imba he is...
I wouldn't say Storks is better in general, I would probably say that Stork played better than night. Historically Bisu has been great at PvZ, so I wouldn't make too big of assumptions just yet.
|
United States2822 Posts
On November 16 2009 03:11 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2009 03:06 QibingZero wrote:
The mechanics between the games are not even close, honestly. Even in your average WC3 battle, the mechanics are nowhere near as demanding as SC is once it gets past the 5 minute mark. Having played both extensively, I can tell you that you don't need to be any faster than your average C player mechanically to be a top WC3 player. Now, you do need to be extremely precise, but the vast majority of the skill in WC3 is not mechanics - it's all in micro-based decisions, overall game sense, and creeping patterns.
Starcraft players who switch to WC3 might be confused by many aspects of the game and unsure of what to do, but please do not mix that up with demanding mechanics. You just need to realize that the important things to do in SC are nearly the complete opposite of the important things to do in WC3. Once you know what you need to do (this is key in any game), you'll find that there is a lot less to WC3 than you might originally think. Hell, the biggest problem I remember having was trying to keep my APM steady throughout the game, because there were so few points in which you actually could benefit from being at your max. The macro takes no time at all, you have more than enough control groups to cover everything you need, and hotkeys can even be changed to an easier layout. Do you think its better this way? I mean about player hand speed being less important. I guess it means that more people physically can compete at a high level, instead of a blessed few with tons of fast-twitch muscles in their hands.
I think that it's better this way. War3 is complex enough that you do need high hand speed to play at the top levels, but the presence of strategy and overall game knowledge/perceptive ability is more important than that. Macro mechanics such as multiple building selection and larger unit grouping help this. That's one reason why I've always been supportive of macro mechanics in SC2.
|
On November 16 2009 11:34 meeple wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2009 10:56 Inzek wrote:seeing Stork's PvZ and Bisu's PvZ (both against JD) i think Stork is stronger right now, so im happy xd... Stork is doing better on individuals too ... In the other hand JD ZvP is doing good if he is able to beat the 2 better tosses out there (arguably) kinda easily... seing him play so much ZvZ (and seing him lose so much -for JD-) was kinda making me gorget how imba he is... I wouldn't say Storks is better in general, I would probably say that Stork played better than night. Historically Bisu has been great at PvZ, so I wouldn't make too big of assumptions just yet.
I don't know... of all the protoss out there, Bisu has been doing the same thing over and over with zerg. Sometimes it works out, but most of the time it does not cut it anymore...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
