|
Umm am I missing something or is your whole calculation completely wrong due to an error early on.
Okay so let's add the 0.06667 to the 0.1 of the Larvae Injects which makes it 1.06667 Larvae/1 Hatchery + 1 Queen.
This should be 0.16667 not 1.0667. Divide 0.16667 by 0.4 and you get 0.416675, that's a pretty big difference compared to 2.6667.
Edit: Also you have to remember that 0.4 is the larvae output for 5 hatcheries in BW, so what you really need to do (I think) is then multiply this number by 5. So 0.416675 * 5 = 2.083375. Meaning you need about two Hatcheries in BW to compete with 1 Hatch + Queen in SC2.
|
I think the level of macro difficulty is about on par at the pro level because the players will have the APM and skill to keep up with their macro, but for lower level players it can be much more difficult to perform BW macro than SCII macro.
In SCII all you have to do is inject every 40 seconds, which can be optimized to take very little time and APM and then you must make sure you spend the larvae, which isn't that hard since you can have all hatcheries on the same hotkey and you can rally from eggs. In BW you must have all your hatcheries on separate hotkeys (which results in rallying each hatchery individually, which is fine with location hotkeys), and you WILL run out of hotkeys for hatches in some matchups and on some maps (mineral only bases = make more hatcheries for more lings usually) which means you need to do location hotkeys (which you can't change, you must use the Blizzard given hotkeys) or double tap and click around on hatches.
When explained in this manner (poorly), BW sounds more demanding, but if you have high APM or are pro it's mostly just routine. However, if you combine BW macro with it's micro and other mechanics it becomes way more demanding and challenging than SCII, even though creep spread itself is a very tough mechanic to master. When me and my brother used 1v1 and he was Diamond he would move out and instantly have 1k minerals and then he would mess up his micro in the fights because he was trying to macro. In BW it would be 1000x worse haha.
|
a thread out of a quote from a player?
Anyway reading it and the comments, I think he merely means the production aspect. Progamers at his level should at least be comfortable with it, or they are not even worth the title being progamers at all.
|
So wait, because the OP watched a lot of BW he now knows more than jaedong in terms of game difficulty? I mean I know most of xiphos' posts are SC2 bashing, but really? Saying that jaedong is wrong and you know better? Comeon man.
|
On September 21 2012 12:34 Williammm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:33 PiPoGevy wrote:On September 21 2012 12:28 ONEofUS wrote:
well if you think sc2 is harder try it,
go to iccup and play a game of scbw (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/)
and come back here ... Hahaha, they have no idea  It's so true. You can be masters in sc2, but won't break D- in iccup 
This almost used to be true, masters used to be roughly equal to D to D+, nowadays people are much better so its more like Cish is low masters level. High masters is probably Bish (although I've been B on ICCup but never high masters, so its hard to say).
Both games require similar but different skills. I was better at Broodwar than I am at sc2, because I am good at hitting really crisp timings, which is less important than in SC2 than BW (also I played a lot more BW).
Broodwar is definitely the harder game but both games are impossible to play perfectly.
|
Maybe jaedong is just... better at sc1 than he is at sc2? Although they are sequels, the games arent exactly similar. In sc1 jaedong can win with pure mechanics, in sc2 he needs a bit more game knowledge which he lacks since he hasnt played that long or it hasnt *click* with him yet.
|
On September 21 2012 13:07 BisuDagger wrote:
I'm pretty sure JD said SC2 was harder because it lacked zerg micro mechanics. Debating which game is harder is pointless and subjective to the person. SC2 is harder for him because his best strength can't be used in SC2. Nothing else can prove one game over the other outside of your opinions.
If JD's strength is microing the shit out of small groups of units then he should probably play bio terran, agreed?
I mean we all know how he could win games with only muta/ling. Imagine him winning games using only marauder/medivac or something lolololol
|
On September 21 2012 13:29 Myrddraal wrote:Umm am I missing something or is your whole calculation completely wrong due to an error early on. Show nested quote +
Okay so let's add the 0.06667 to the 0.1 of the Larvae Injects which makes it 1.06667 Larvae/1 Hatchery + 1 Queen.
This should be 0.16667 not 1.0667. Divide 0.16667 by 0.4 and you get 0.416675, that's a pretty big difference compared to 2.6667. Edit: Also you have to remember that 0.4 is the larvae output for 5 hatcheries in BW, so what you really need to do (I think) is then multiply this number by 5. So 0.416675 * 5 = 2.083375. Meaning you need about two Hatcheries in BW to compete with 1 Hatch + Queen in SC2.
Cheers, brother, cheers.
Nice to know that my newly calculated numbers are matched by another posters.
On September 21 2012 13:31 hunts wrote:
So wait, because the OP watched a lot of BW he now knows more than jaedong in terms of game difficulty? I mean I know most of xiphos' posts are SC2 bashing, but really? Saying that jaedong is wrong and you know better? Comeon man.
The only person that needs to 'come on', which actually sounds pretty wrong is you to learn how to read the thread properly. Numerous occasions, I have made it clear that I wasn't going up against what Jaedong says but the OP is purely based on my own curb for curiosity that lead to my ultimate decision in researching this topic in the first place.
|
It's amazing people think they can take something so mind-numbingly complicated with 100 variables and boil it down to some numbers and then come out the other side saying "SC2 requires x more/less APM than broodwar."
The funny thing is, I remember getting flamed on this forum for trying to compare something as simple as a pool opening vs. a hatch opening.
Here's the truth: There is no amount of apm that either game "requires." They both have an unlimited APM cap. Which means the amount of APM that is "required" is however much your mortal body and mind can muster. SC2 and BW cannot be compared in difficulty, because the difficulty of a game does not depend on the mechanics, it depends on your opposition. GG thread.
|
On September 21 2012 13:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It's amazing people think they can take something so mind-numbingly complicated with 100 variables and boil it down to some numbers and then come out the other side saying "SC2 requires x more/less APM than broodwar."
The funny thing is, I remember getting flamed on this forum for trying to compare something as simple as a pool opening vs. a hatch opening.
Here's the truth: There is no amount of apm that either game "requires." They both have an unlimited APM cap. Which means the amount of APM that is "required" is however much your mortal body and mind can muster. SC2 and BW cannot be compared in difficulty, because the difficulty of a game does not depend on the mechanics, it depends on your opposition. GG thread.
Way to put words into someone else' mouth man. I specifically stressed multiple time that this isn't based upon the general mechanics and please for the love of god, read the introduction.
|
On September 21 2012 13:52 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It's amazing people think they can take something so mind-numbingly complicated with 100 variables and boil it down to some numbers and then come out the other side saying "SC2 requires x more/less APM than broodwar."
The funny thing is, I remember getting flamed on this forum for trying to compare something as simple as a pool opening vs. a hatch opening.
Here's the truth: There is no amount of apm that either game "requires." They both have an unlimited APM cap. Which means the amount of APM that is "required" is however much your mortal body and mind can muster. SC2 and BW cannot be compared in difficulty, because the difficulty of a game does not depend on the mechanics, it depends on your opposition. GG thread. Way to put words into someone else' mouth man. I specifically stressed multiple time that this isn't based upon the general mechanics and please for the love of god, read the introduction.
I did read the introduction. And I recognized immediately that the fatal flaw in this entire process is the assumption that larvae in broodwar and larvae in SC2 are somehow equal and comparable. Not to mention the other 20 assumptions and flaws I'd rather not delve into right now.
|
On September 21 2012 13:54 jdseemoreglass wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:52 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 13:49 jdseemoreglass wrote:
It's amazing people think they can take something so mind-numbingly complicated with 100 variables and boil it down to some numbers and then come out the other side saying "SC2 requires x more/less APM than broodwar."
The funny thing is, I remember getting flamed on this forum for trying to compare something as simple as a pool opening vs. a hatch opening.
Here's the truth: There is no amount of apm that either game "requires." They both have an unlimited APM cap. Which means the amount of APM that is "required" is however much your mortal body and mind can muster. SC2 and BW cannot be compared in difficulty, because the difficulty of a game does not depend on the mechanics, it depends on your opposition. GG thread. Way to put words into someone else' mouth man. I specifically stressed multiple time that this isn't based upon the general mechanics and please for the love of god, read the introduction. I did read the introduction. And I recognized immediately that the fatal flaw in this entire process is the assumption that larvae in broodwar and larvae in SC2 are somehow equal and comparable. Not to mention the other 20 assumptions and flaws I'd rather not delve into right now.
And why is that? If you can't find reasons for it, then don't post nonsense about the parallel assumptions in both game where the ground is equal on both sides. Now that's being unbiased.
|
Someone needs to teach jaedong the backspace method.
|
Okay no worries, thanks for fixing that  .
Personally I don't think this is the biggest thing determining the difficulty at the pro level. I would say it's the fact that injects are so important that missing an inject early on or a bunch of injects later on can mean the difference between winning and losing. And while pro's all have the apm to consistently inject larvae, in hectic situations where the players multitasking is being taxed or they need to use their queens to defend, injects can definitely be missed and this is something that players do not have to worry about in BW.
I think pretty much everyone would agree that overall BW macro is harder, it's pretty hard to argue otherwise, but at the top level depending on the player it is possible that it could be otherwise. Perhaps it's just a matter practice, though for some players it could be related to stress. I'm sure we have all seen a Zerg player fall apart when they still have a bunch of minerals and gas but they have practically no larvae and are forced to tap out.
Edit: After rereading the Introduction, I guess I have a similar opinion to smOOthMayDie, however I don't really want to say that one is straight up harder (at the top level) but more that it is situational. Also I understand that your purpose is to provide concrete numbers but I just wanted to put up my opinion.
|
I'm pretty sure it was taken both out of context and lost in translation.
Basically J thinks that SC2 is harder because he can't micro to win, he has to macro harder than his opponent. Which is less of a test of skill which in turn diminishes his advantage. He has trouble being better than his opponent because there is more luck involved in SC2.
|
On September 21 2012 13:34 althaz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:34 Williammm wrote:On September 21 2012 12:33 PiPoGevy wrote:On September 21 2012 12:28 ONEofUS wrote:
well if you think sc2 is harder try it,
go to iccup and play a game of scbw (http://www.iccup.com/starcraft/)
and come back here ... Hahaha, they have no idea It's so true. You can be masters in sc2, but won't break D- in iccup This almost used to be true, masters used to be roughly equal to D to D+, nowadays people are much better so its more like Cish is low masters level. High masters is probably Bish (although I've been B on ICCup but never high masters, so its hard to say). Both games require similar but different skills. I was better at Broodwar than I am at sc2, because I am good at hitting really crisp timings, which is less important than in SC2 than BW (also I played a lot more BW). Broodwar is definitely the harder game but both games are impossible to play perfectly.
masters is like C- at mid masters, C/C+ at the top end. have beaten GM on ladder when i was still playing lots but never managed to maintain C- on iccup
|
On September 21 2012 12:57 ThePianoDentist wrote:
brood war zerg is so much more demanding its ridiculous.
but i guess from jaedongs point of view when you're used to playing at 300+ apm bw zerg mechanics arent too troubling.
@templar rage. i disagree; if you played more than 'a few games' even when you know the metagame and what you should be doing the mechanics required to macro well if brood war and the mechanics required to macro well in sc2 just are miles apart. I somehow doubt after just a few games you were able to perfectly handle the brood war mechanics and simply lost because you didnt have a solid build order. When you first start out on iccup macro trumps strategy and build orders 9 times out of ten. Even without the perfect strategic openings or choices simply being mechanically better than your opponent will give you the win
I guess there is confusion and ambiguity in the term macro and mechanics at times . It could be right to say sc2 zerg macro is harder but bw mechanics are way harder
I never said I had perfect BW mechanics after a few games. You don't need perfect mechanics to beat someone. You just need better mechanics than them. I'm a low masters Zerg right now, and I could utterly stomp anyone who's not at least mid-diamond just on the strength of my mechanics relative to theirs. I don't need world-class mechanics to do that.
All I said was that I didn't find it as difficult as people were making it out to be. The guy I quoted said that playing a game of iccup would be enough to say that BW is harder, and I said that was false because playing a new game is always going to be harder than a familiar one, no matter what the arbitrary difficulties of the two games are. I was just using my own experience to illustrate that by saying that I felt my problems were based on lack of knowledge about the game and not an inability to compete with my opponent mechanically. I'm talking about D-/D on iccup here, not B- or something. I'm sure people that are B- (and probably C-, maybe D+ as well since I'm not too familiar with the skill jumps between iccup ranks) could do to me what I described earlier, but I didn't feel like that was happening vs the people I was playing.
|
Bisutopia19391 Posts
On September 21 2012 13:41 Thienan567 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 13:07 BisuDagger wrote:
I'm pretty sure JD said SC2 was harder because it lacked zerg micro mechanics. Debating which game is harder is pointless and subjective to the person. SC2 is harder for him because his best strength can't be used in SC2. Nothing else can prove one game over the other outside of your opinions. If JD's strength is microing the shit out of small groups of units then he should probably play bio terran, agreed? I mean we all know how he could win games with only muta/ling. Imagine him winning games using only marauder/medivac or something lolololol
True. That's why I wish Bisu played Terran. Its the micro race for sure.
|
I think your assumption is false. By that logic Tinker from DOTA is harder to play than BW Zerg cos you need more APM.
|
Canada11607 Posts
Jaedong's description seems pretty fair.
The addition of Queen inject is actually quiet mechanically demanding. When you combine that with creep spread (however you want to categorize it), there's a lot of work to be done. For some reason the people that don't like to 'fight against the game' have never targetted this because tbh even with mbs and auto mining, it seems to me bw zerg macro didn't require quite as much clicking. Hotkeying separate hatcheries to macro allows for some pretty rapid unit production 5sz6sz7sz8sz9sh0sh get's pretty fast. But maybe I just like the rhythm of it better. I never played SC2 Zerg long enough to get a feel for a Queen/ unit production rhythm.
But on the otherhand, there definitely a lot less cool micro tricks and tactics that can be executed. "There's nothing tricky about Roaches" day9. To zergling control, muta control you could add lurker leap-frogging combined with darkswarm-consume. Army control is amazing with Zerg and very mechanically demanding (also very spectator friendly.)
Dunno, Jaedong's statement seems good for neither 'side.' He seems to be inverting the BW is more mechanically demanding on macro argument (for Zerg at least)... but mechanically demanding macro is what is frequently seen as what is wrong about BW on SC2 forums (it should all be about strategy).
There is definitely a heavy requirement to be constantly injecting or you will just get rolled by a larger army.
In the end, it seems there's something for everyone packed into that one quote. Not sure about all those numbers though. My eyes just kinda glazed over, sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
