On November 25 2011 11:52 darklight54321 wrote: As soon as these posts arrive by the second page it loses all point.
Let me say this bluntly first, before going into actual detail.
Harder =/= equal better, nor should the focus be on making things smaller.
and another point
harder = less popularity. (more about casuals then point 1)
Now to go into details
point 1.
Making it harder doesn't make it more interesting. What makes games interesting is how players use the mechanics given to them. Players in BW make use of the constricted control groups as their form of army control and with a larger army possible it was fairly simple that you'd not get maxed as often. The max isn't a "goal" it's just part of the game. Now take this to SC2. With higher worker count and armies that die faster, you get quicker battles, but you actually get more bang for your buck. Throwaway drops are fairly common even as you get to the highest level. The end game goal is getting the strongest army you can and getting an advantage with that army. It's more passive yes, it's easier yes, but THAT DOESNT MAKE IT WORSE. SC2 allows for a higher focus then who micros that one control group of dragoons better, it allows for an even higher level of overall strategy then we see right now and that we couldn't see in BW. In BW the micro/macro mechanics restrict how good you are, and the legends are those that go beyond that level. In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
point 2
BW could never get to the level of SC2 in viewership and as an international esport. A large majority of viewers are players (or would be players if they didn't watch), THIS is the difference that will make sc2 a true success internationally. No longer do you have to be a good RTS player or really understand the game to even begin to see what's going on in the game. Fact, people like to watch what they can understand. People can watch sc2 who couldn't even begin to watch BW (i'm completely disregarding graphics btw, since they could always make BW 2.0 as many of you seem to want). This is more relating to esports as a success vs as a game, but it is still a very important point.
BW is a simpler game than SC2. Just saying. The viewer base for BW is actually much more casual (in Korea), hardly anyone watches SC2 without having played it, there are tonnes of BW fangirls/guys/mums/dads who haven't played a single game of BW.
Also you should really follow BW or play it before you make such crazy claims. You still see crazy strategies being developed in BW and rookies beating top pros from time to time.
On May 08 2011 11:15 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Add this to the list of annoying TvZ builds:
Kitchen sink build: cheese into harass into m&m-wraith-valk-tank-vulture
The one-of-everything build (aka fast irradiate): That ridiculous 1 rax cc (or 14 cc) build that goes rax->fac->port->facility for fast irradiate to push back muta harass that typically moves towards standard SK or bio-mech. It's not very successful vs competent zergs, yet Flash and fantasy still occasionally experiment with it.
Sparks Terran: 3-rax all-in sunken break
The Asshole build: The inspiration for the Kitchen Sink's harassment element, I feel. You may have seen this build in the Ro8 of the Avalon MSL, Canata vs Jaedong, game one. It was basically something absurd like 8 rax (overlord sniping or bunker rush attempt), 8 fact with vulture run-by attempt, and 8/9 port for wraith to hunt overlord. When it works, it pretty much ends the game. I think there was a similar game Hwasin vs Hyvaa back in the day.
The Combo Breaker: You see it more often today, the 2 fact to 4 rax into goliath+m&m 2 base timing attack. As seen used by Flash and Iris recently.
iloveoov fake mech: Self explanatory. Watch Jaedong vs Ganzi to see its effectiveness.
THE fantasy build: I mean THE build. Killed GGplay but failed vs Jaedong. 1 rax 1 fac 1 vulture then cc into vulture drop w/ speed. Works great vs 3 hatch muta. Not so much vs 2 hatch muta. Hardly seen these days.
2 port wraith into bio: This build always makes a comeback.
2 factory: ForGG played around with this a couple of games last year.
There are others, but those are the ones on the top of my head.
BW is a simpler game you say but yet often BW fans talk about smart casting, tank targeting, how to micro Muts, that vid with Dragoons shooting at spider mines and other UI/pathing-related micro. All those things just look like stuff attacking stuff to me, as i didn't know all the intricacies until someone pointed them out. I don't know how that can be considered simple and fun to the casual viewer? BW became huge because it came out at a perfect time in the perfect setting. (pc bangs, korea etc)
On November 25 2011 12:36 darklight54321 wrote: i'm done with this topic because now everone is confused by ninja edits. I'll come back in like 30 mins when it's not an issue :p
I'm sorry, I was being unclear. I intended 'both games' to encompass BW and SC2, not SC2 and chess. It's true when you say that SC2 leans more towards the strategy side than the mechanics side. That still doesn't mean that the strategy in SC2 is deeper and more complex that the strategy in BW, which has had a decade longer to develop. I can't say if in 10 years SC2 will be more strategically complex than BW ever was, but right now that is not the case.
I see a lot of higher strategy currently in sc2 then i see in most but the VERY highest level of BW, i dont know where you see the opposite.
Its actually quite the opposite when it comes to viewership which is what you are pointing out.
Just think about what is involved in macro in BW and SC2. Which one is easier to understand?
they are relatively similar actually. most casual viewers wouldn't even need to understand most of sc2 macro to understand what they would see from watching it. There is of course a slight difference in say, zerg macro, where it might be more complicated in sc2 then in BW. Things like chrono boost and mules/scans can always be summed up in simple sentences that mean no extra difficulty to understand. Like "missing chronos are bad, because they speed up production) and "mules and scans come from same energy source and as such must be used efficiently, because every scan means a lost mule", which later translates to in their minds "mules/scans good, but can't do both".
Problem is players have almost identical army sizes at most stages of the game. Look at Flash or Best create a massive armies in half the time of other players. That's macro people can really notice. Of course this is not the only way to be good, its just an attribute of Flash. Anyway that's macro that is simple and easy to understand, one where one player has a substantially bigger army than another person. In SC2 you are maxing out so quickly, so its more about remaxing the army, which is not as easy to see and only noticeable when you see a bunch of brief engagements and one player is still reinforcing...
Problem seem to be that you don't watch enough SC2 then. I don't know how many times Tastosis has been suprised by how much ahead players like Bomber get just by superior macro compared to other good terrans, there's often not just 200 vs 200 armies, you exaggerate. Also TvZ's and TvT's are back and forth and who's better at reinforcing is quite easy to see and appreciate imo.
Saying things like this don't help your cause as it's subjective bs veiled as BW > SC2. I just hope the protoss matchups improve from the ball syndrome they have now.
On November 25 2011 11:52 darklight54321 wrote: As soon as these posts arrive by the second page it loses all point.
Let me say this bluntly first, before going into actual detail.
Harder =/= equal better, nor should the focus be on making things smaller.
and another point
harder = less popularity. (more about casuals then point 1)
Now to go into details
point 1.
Making it harder doesn't make it more interesting. What makes games interesting is how players use the mechanics given to them. Players in BW make use of the constricted control groups as their form of army control and with a larger army possible it was fairly simple that you'd not get maxed as often. The max isn't a "goal" it's just part of the game. Now take this to SC2. With higher worker count and armies that die faster, you get quicker battles, but you actually get more bang for your buck. Throwaway drops are fairly common even as you get to the highest level. The end game goal is getting the strongest army you can and getting an advantage with that army. It's more passive yes, it's easier yes, but THAT DOESNT MAKE IT WORSE. SC2 allows for a higher focus then who micros that one control group of dragoons better, it allows for an even higher level of overall strategy then we see right now and that we couldn't see in BW. In BW the micro/macro mechanics restrict how good you are, and the legends are those that go beyond that level. In SC2 the average pro must understand more strategy then the average BW pro, simply because the sc2 pros can't depend on micro/macro as much. Thats where the similarity of chess comes in, it's seems you dont like the fact that higher level strategy is used. I'm all for more action packed games, but not at the expense of what i see as the crowning achievement of SC2, the easier mechanics but higher focus on strategy.
point 2
BW could never get to the level of SC2 in viewership and as an international esport. A large majority of viewers are players (or would be players if they didn't watch), THIS is the difference that will make sc2 a true success internationally. No longer do you have to be a good RTS player or really understand the game to even begin to see what's going on in the game. Fact, people like to watch what they can understand. People can watch sc2 who couldn't even begin to watch BW (i'm completely disregarding graphics btw, since they could always make BW 2.0 as many of you seem to want). This is more relating to esports as a success vs as a game, but it is still a very important point.
BW is a simpler game than SC2. Just saying. The viewer base for BW is actually much more casual (in Korea), hardly anyone watches SC2 without having played it, there are tonnes of BW fangirls/guys/mums/dads who haven't played a single game of BW.
Also you should really follow BW or play it before you make such crazy claims. You still see crazy strategies being developed in BW and rookies beating top pros from time to time.
On May 08 2011 11:15 MountainDewJunkie wrote: Add this to the list of annoying TvZ builds:
Kitchen sink build: cheese into harass into m&m-wraith-valk-tank-vulture
The one-of-everything build (aka fast irradiate): That ridiculous 1 rax cc (or 14 cc) build that goes rax->fac->port->facility for fast irradiate to push back muta harass that typically moves towards standard SK or bio-mech. It's not very successful vs competent zergs, yet Flash and fantasy still occasionally experiment with it.
Sparks Terran: 3-rax all-in sunken break
The Asshole build: The inspiration for the Kitchen Sink's harassment element, I feel. You may have seen this build in the Ro8 of the Avalon MSL, Canata vs Jaedong, game one. It was basically something absurd like 8 rax (overlord sniping or bunker rush attempt), 8 fact with vulture run-by attempt, and 8/9 port for wraith to hunt overlord. When it works, it pretty much ends the game. I think there was a similar game Hwasin vs Hyvaa back in the day.
The Combo Breaker: You see it more often today, the 2 fact to 4 rax into goliath+m&m 2 base timing attack. As seen used by Flash and Iris recently.
iloveoov fake mech: Self explanatory. Watch Jaedong vs Ganzi to see its effectiveness.
THE fantasy build: I mean THE build. Killed GGplay but failed vs Jaedong. 1 rax 1 fac 1 vulture then cc into vulture drop w/ speed. Works great vs 3 hatch muta. Not so much vs 2 hatch muta. Hardly seen these days.
2 port wraith into bio: This build always makes a comeback.
2 factory: ForGG played around with this a couple of games last year.
There are others, but those are the ones on the top of my head.
BW is a simpler game you say but yet often BW fans talk about smart casting, tank targeting, how to micro Muts, that vid with Dragoons shooting at spider mines and other UI/pathing-related micro. All those things just look like stuff attacking stuff to me, as i didn't know all the intricacies until someone pointed them out. I don't know how that can be considered simple and fun to the casual viewer? BW became huge because it came out at a perfect time in the perfect setting. (pc bangs, korea etc)
On November 25 2011 12:36 darklight54321 wrote: i'm done with this topic because now everone is confused by ninja edits. I'll come back in like 30 mins when it's not an issue :p
I'm sorry, I was being unclear. I intended 'both games' to encompass BW and SC2, not SC2 and chess. It's true when you say that SC2 leans more towards the strategy side than the mechanics side. That still doesn't mean that the strategy in SC2 is deeper and more complex that the strategy in BW, which has had a decade longer to develop. I can't say if in 10 years SC2 will be more strategically complex than BW ever was, but right now that is not the case.
I see a lot of higher strategy currently in sc2 then i see in most but the VERY highest level of BW, i dont know where you see the opposite.
Its actually quite the opposite when it comes to viewership which is what you are pointing out.
Just think about what is involved in macro in BW and SC2. Which one is easier to understand?
they are relatively similar actually. most casual viewers wouldn't even need to understand most of sc2 macro to understand what they would see from watching it. There is of course a slight difference in say, zerg macro, where it might be more complicated in sc2 then in BW. Things like chrono boost and mules/scans can always be summed up in simple sentences that mean no extra difficulty to understand. Like "missing chronos are bad, because they speed up production) and "mules and scans come from same energy source and as such must be used efficiently, because every scan means a lost mule", which later translates to in their minds "mules/scans good, but can't do both".
Problem is players have almost identical army sizes at most stages of the game. Look at Flash or Best create a massive armies in half the time of other players. That's macro people can really notice. Of course this is not the only way to be good, its just an attribute of Flash. Anyway that's macro that is simple and easy to understand, one where one player has a substantially bigger army than another person. In SC2 you are maxing out so quickly, so its more about remaxing the army, which is not as easy to see and only noticeable when you see a bunch of brief engagements and one player is still reinforcing...
Problem seem to be that you don't watch enough SC2 then. I don't know how many times Tastosis has been suprised by how much ahead players like Bomber get just by superior macro compared to other good terrans, there's often not just 200 vs 200 armies, you exaggerate. Also TvZ's and TvT's are back and forth and who's better at reinforcing is quite easy to see and appreciate imo.
Saying things like this don't help your cause as it's subjective bs veiled as BW > SC2. I just hope the protoss matchups improve from the ball syndrome they have now.
Broodwar viewers don't need to know all the intricacies to find it fun. When I started watching pro BW I knew nothing about pathing tricks, micro of any sort, or even basic builds. The fact is that BW is popular with casual viewers in Korea more than a decade after its release. There are more factors to this than just the gameplay and SC2 needs more time to prove itself.
His other point is that the ease of macro in SC2 makes being a 'macro specialist' less obvious and less of an advantage than it was in BW. I'm sure that he agrees that there can be differences in the time to max, albeit smaller ones than we saw in BW.
I feel that huge armies are too easy to move (unlimited units per control groups). BW games were more dynamic because moving a 200 supply army was nearly impossible.
On November 25 2011 17:30 Patate wrote: I feel that huge armies are too easy to move (unlimited units per control groups). BW games were more dynamic because moving a 200 supply army was nearly impossible.
I'm glad you think BW is dynamic, though armies in BW are definitely possible to move around the map. At the pro level, keeping your army moving is essential to victory. You should watch games on Destination for examples of this, since Desti is such a great map when it comes to positioning. You'll notice both players have to cover all the bridges in a split map situation, which entails a lot of army movement. This will occur even if neither player is intending to engage.
Just for the record, I think you should all know that control groups go up to 255.
Not that anyone would even get an army of 255 units, but just saying.
Oh and if you're watching Dreamhack right now on Day9's stream, you can see just what I mean when the game has become deathball vs deathball and nothing is interesting.
Active play and constant harassment is something that comes about through necessity. The Starcraft 2 metagame is just barely reaching the point where players are learning how to survive against every sort of 200/200 deathball-like attack. Once games get to the point where two players with max armies engage each other and the outcome is so close that it's basically like flipping a coin in the first place, that's when it will start to get more important to gain edges by other means.
I think the thing that will drive more active play style development is when players are more certain of how to build a max army that is optimally cost-efficient against what their enemies are doing. If you notice in Brood War, unit compositions are very well mapped out all the way into the late game in every matchup, and for almost every set of openings. Because of that, players won't be able to gain an edge without being very aggressive about finding holes in their opponents play to exploit constantly throughout the game.
I also feel like people need to gain more "starsense" in SC2 about where to look for holes in defense. One thing that I'm starting to notice lately in big SC2 macro games is that both players usually have a ton of holes in their defense, but are so pre-occupied with managing their main armies that they don't notice or attempt to take advantage of these. When it's a little bit less scary to engage in important battles, people are gonna be striking at these weak points a lot more often.
On November 26 2011 07:56 eSuBuildings wrote: Just for the record, I think you should all know that control groups go up to 255.
Not that anyone would even get an army of 255 units, but just saying.
Oh and if you're watching Dreamhack right now on Day9's stream, you can see just what I mean when the game has become deathball vs deathball and nothing is interesting.
I think everyone here agrees that the Tod v Happy game 1 was a complete random almost never seen in pro play game that should never have lasted that long and it was indecision on both players parts that lead to the situation.
On November 26 2011 09:19 alexanderzero wrote: Active play and constant harassment is something that comes about through necessity. The Starcraft 2 metagame is just barely reaching the point where players are learning how to survive against every sort of 200/200 deathball-like attack. Once games get to the point where two players with max armies engage each other and the outcome is so close that it's basically like flipping a coin in the first place, that's when it will start to get more important to gain edges by other means.
I think the thing that will drive more active play style development is when players are more certain of how to build a max army that is optimally cost-efficient against what their enemies are doing. If you notice in Brood War, unit compositions are very well mapped out all the way into the late game in every matchup, and for almost every set of openings. Because of that, players won't be able to gain an edge without being very aggressive about finding holes in their opponents play to exploit constantly throughout the game.
I also feel like people need to gain more "starsense" in SC2 about where to look for holes in defense. One thing that I'm starting to notice lately in big SC2 macro games is that both players usually have a ton of holes in their defense, but are so pre-occupied with managing their main armies that they don't notice or attempt to take advantage of these. When it's a little bit less scary to engage in important battles, people are gonna be striking at these weak points a lot more often.
This sounds like a very good explanation based on my (admittedly limited) experience watching BW. Just comparing SC2 now to SC2 a year ago we see a big difference with regards to drops, counters and exploitation of certain openings and certain army movements. By no means is it very advanced or very detailed knowledge but it is improving. I think seeing some improvement is what gives me hope whereas if there had been no change and no improvement then I would be worried.
Lets take the protoss example. A year ago, heck even 6 months ago it was posited that protoss as a race has very inefficient small engagement units and having any of your army supply away from the main army would mean a loss guaranteed. We see now that at the very least DT harass with Zealots dropped while the main army is defending or moving for a different attack path is at least possible vs Zerg and even in some cases against Terran.
We see a small move towards shifting supply out of the death ball as it were and this can only improve with time. (I hope anyway)
If OP is right the passivity may be caused by the fact that armies die "so fast" in sc2. Because, as opposed to bw, armies are easier to control (mass selection) and lack of units with with set-up time (Z &P) and board control units. When battles end so fast positioning and unit control is every thing so that causes caution among players of when to engage. I think that blizzard will manage to fix this in Hots with better mech units in TvP
this game is so new compared to BW it's not even funny. And this game isn't even like BW except for the basic mechanics, so to think that people will be as innovative in BW with only a year of sc2 experience is rediculous! let's wait a couple years before we go on and make these kinds of threads.
2 months ago we didn't even see protoss harassment and everyone was convinced that blizzard needed to add a harassment unit for protoss, now we see warp prism harass being extremely effective and it's used by a lot of players now. We used to never see hellions or mech in TvT but that obviously all changed as well, and now TvT is changing out of mech and is becoming an incredibly diverse match up, so is PvP.
As I said, I can't see how we can compare BW, a game where people have had 10 years to perfect themselves to SC2 where everyone is still figuring shit out and we still have expansions to go through like SC1 -> BW.
also building placements and static defence may be too strong in sc2. especially things like cannon behind gateway and forge in FFE, PF + 3 turrets, siege tank behind buildings, spine crawlers being able to move quite quickly.
On November 26 2011 10:24 ThePlayer33 wrote: also building placements and static defence may be too strong in sc2. especially things like cannon behind gateway and forge in FFE, PF + 3 turrets, siege tank behind buildings, spine crawlers being able to move quite quickly.
Was easier to hold key positions with few units in BW.
On November 26 2011 10:24 ThePlayer33 wrote: also building placements and static defence may be too strong in sc2. especially things like cannon behind gateway and forge in FFE, PF + 3 turrets, siege tank behind buildings, spine crawlers being able to move quite quickly.
Actually I feel the other way around. Apart from Terran defense (which also requires a huge investment and possibly a couple of tanks to be effective), the other two races defensive capabilities are fairly limited in SC2 when compared to SC1. Zerg base defense was much better with Sunken colonies and Lurkers in BW. Toss relied on having strong T1 units plus cannons and reavers to hold in BW. In SC2, both races lost their major defensive advantages and gained very little in return. Forcefields are good, but by themselves are useless and gateway units were nerfed in order to compensate for warp ins. You need a whole lot of other stuff along with the sentries to get a solid defensive line. Same with spine crawlers. You need to have quiet a few of them along with other units in order to get a good defensive position.
Disclaimer: This is not a balance whine, just in case someone interprets this as a Terran OP post. Its not. I feel the game is fairly balanced, and any buffs to the other two races in this stage would tilt the game in their favor.
On November 26 2011 10:22 emc wrote: this game is so new compared to BW it's not even funny. And this game isn't even like BW except for the basic mechanics, so to think that people will be as innovative in BW with only a year of sc2 experience is rediculous! let's wait a couple years before we go on and make these kinds of threads.
2 months ago we didn't even see protoss harassment and everyone was convinced that blizzard needed to add a harassment unit for protoss, now we see warp prism harass being extremely effective and it's used by a lot of players now. We used to never see hellions or mech in TvT but that obviously all changed as well, and now TvT is changing out of mech and is becoming an incredibly diverse match up, so is PvP.
As I said, I can't see how we can compare BW, a game where people have had 10 years to perfect themselves to SC2 where everyone is still figuring shit out and we still have expansions to go through like SC1 -> BW.
Everytime I see the "SC2 is so new, BW had 10 years to develop not fair to compare!!" argument, I can't help palm my forehead. SC2 and BW are extremely similar games, with very few (key) differences, but the basic strategic frame from BW is there in SC2, along with many of the strategies/tactics employed in BW.
On November 23 2011 13:05 SkimGuy wrote: EsuBuildings xd I posted this like 3 months ago on Gamefaqs. Its basically because everyone is lazy and rather max out before doing any type of harassment. The game I used to demonstrate the amount of action that is possible in BW is game 1 of n.Die_soO vs JangBi in the OSL semis:
I bet you're unable to find that much action in any SC2 game xd
Oh gawd, this video reminds me how terrifying archons were in BW. I want those archons back...
On November 23 2011 14:11 bennyaus wrote: I watched the last proleague finals, and I saw like 3 zergs do a 3 hatch hydra all-in against Protoss. Then I remembered how people complained about how there was too many all-ins in SC2, or that the macro games suck.
Get a grip. Just because you can post one youtube example of a sick BW game (which is a game that was pro for 8-9 years by that stage) does not exclude the fact that many of them were quite similar to SC2 games. There are plenty of passive games, plenty of all-ins. Both games are interesting in their own ways. I can also find vods of sick late-game SC2 games, like an earlier poster mentioned. Thorzain vs MC in TSL was quite memorable, and HuK vs Moon at Dreamhack group stage as well. This is excluding the fact that TvZ/ZvT in SC2 is almost awesome in every match provided it gets past the 10min mark.
the problem is: sc2: 1 sick late game engagement = gg bw: can produce prolonged sick engagements throughout the game
that's undeniable
Actually, I'll deny that whole heartedly.
Please refer to the recent Dreamhack Winter 2011 games, specifically Sheth vs ToD.
On November 26 2011 10:24 ThePlayer33 wrote: also building placements and static defence may be too strong in sc2. especially things like cannon behind gateway and forge in FFE, PF + 3 turrets, siege tank behind buildings, spine crawlers being able to move quite quickly.
Defense is too weak. Players are too scared to move out because they can lose their base in seconds.
EPT
