|
Introduction
Well alright, the primary reason why I have decided to post up a thread of this topic is because of what have been happening so far in this link:
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=370350 where Jaedong have apparently said that
You're playing Zerg in both BW and SC2. What are the similarities and differences?
Similarities first?
Zerg only have one production building, the Hatchery. Protoss and Terran have limited units that can be produced in a building, but Zerg can make all the units with
this larvae, Overlords, Ultralisks, and so on. So this is the main similarity of BW and SC2's Zerg.
The main difference of Zerg in both games, if the Queen. I personally think that SC2's Zerg is harder to play than BW's Zerg, because in SC2, player should spawn
larvae with Queens to produce units 'Zergishly'. This should be done during whole play time, so it requires more physical ability than before.
And also SC2 has less variables in micro-control such as Zergling micro or Mutalisk micro. I can overwhelm my opponent only with micro-conrol in BW games but I can't
do that in SC2. But I think there are many unrevealed elements in SC2 and I expect we can show you more in the future.
in the interview for HotS.
This has lead to many backlash from both community as read by the comment of the ambivalence of such quotation. Is Jaedong saying that BW Zerg is easier to play just
like what this dude have speculated?
On September 21 2012 06:23 iky43210 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 06:11 Elroi wrote:Thank you so much for this interview seron! It is very apreciated. I always enjoy reading Jaedong's interviews, but this was more interesting than usual.
To all eSports fans, I want to be remembered as a progamer who can make something out of nothing, and someone who always does his best. I think that is the right way
of living, and I'm always doing my best to follow that.
Jaedong is my role model. I just love this guy. And also SC2 has less variables in micro-control such as Zergling micro or Mutalisk micro. I can overwhelm my opponent only with micro-conrol in BW games but I
can't do that in SC2. And this is, in two sentences, the explanation to why sc2 is a bad game. your role model also said sc2 is harder to play for zerg. where is your god now?
OR does he mean that for reasons explained by this guy:
On September 21 2012 06:33 andrewlt wrote:
Many of you guys obviously did not follow or even watch a single game of BW and are completely misunderstanding the context. In BW, zerglings and mutas were much more
microable than they are in SC2. Jaedong was able to win plenty of games on zergling/muta micro alone. He can't do that anymore in SC2 so it's harder for him. Without
the strength of his zergling/mutalisk micro, he's nowhere near the dominant player he was at his peak.
However what this quote have inspired to do is to delve deeper into the mechanical aspect of both games and compare them side by side:
On September 21 2012 10:38 smOOthMayDie wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 10:23 samuraibael wrote:
The translation must be wrong on that zerg in bw vs sc2 part. No one in their right mind thinks the mechanics of sc2 are harder than broodwars. The queen is an
additional one, so in a sense that particular mechanic is harder than in bw where it didnt exist...
(no bias, love both games) Most people think zerg in SC2 is harder than in BW, this isn't something new. I for one think so too, having played both races in both games. You dont have to constantly remind yourself/look at larvae injects in BW.
And I have decided to bring in some concrete math into this whole debates so that we can finally settle on this topic to determine which side of the race in the
franchise truly have the more onerous mechanics in mass production.
DISCLAIMER: NOTE THAT EVERY CALCULATATIONS ARE ASSUMED THAT THE BASES ARE FULLY SATURATED WITH OPTIMAL INCOME AT HAND.
Equivalence Exchange
BW Zerg have a spawn rate of 1 Larvae/12.5 Seconds or simply put 0.08 larvae/second
And the StarCraft 2's equivalence of 15 Larvae is about 4 Larvaes in the span of 40 seconds per Queen. That makes it 0.1 Larvae Spawn with one Larva spawned every 15 seconds.
So far so good with the math? Good, let's continue.
1/15 makes it spawn 0.06667 (approximate) Larvae spawned with the Hatchery.
Okay so let's add the 0.06667 to the 0.1 of the Larvae Injects which makes it 0.16667 Larvae/1 Hatchery + 1 Queen.
Wait hold, on this is data for one hatchery + one queen as a typical StarCraft 2's lategame macro.
The comparison is 0.16667 Larvae/second produced in a Set of SC2's Zerg macro composition, and 0.08 Larvae/Second in BW's Hatchery.
In Essence BW needs to have 0.1666667 divided by 0.08 times of hatcheries to sort of make up for the StarCraft 2's Zerg macro mechanics.
That constant number happens to be 2.08333333333333
Let's round this number to 2 Hatcheries.
So to supplement the lack of larvae spawned in SC2, BW have to have 2 Hatcheries in contrast to Zerg's in StarCraft 2's 1 Queen/Hatchery combo.
Alright, now lets get into the focal purpose of those numbers.
Mechanically explained
BW have to have three Hatcheries to be selected or hotkeyed. That makes it 3 actions. Now to Select larvae, another 3 actions. Finally we get to select to unit needed
to be produced, another 3 piece of action. But I want to add another 3 here for the sake of Re-rallying the unit's destination.
Total amount of actions: 3*4 = 12 (this is being done in a span of 12.5 seconds as that is the time it takes for one larvae to be spawned).
Action necessary: 12 Actions/12.5 Seconds = 0.96 APM needed
Moving on to StarCraft 2, you either select or hotkeyed the Queen, one action. Use Spawn Larvae's ability, one action. Target the Hatchery, the third action. You
follow the exact premise as the last sentence with Hatchery, 4 actions so far. You then have yourself to select the larvae. This part is tricky to calculate. Okay so a
larvae is spawned at a rate of 1 per 15 seconds in an one Hatchery condition. However a Queen is only able to cast at an interval of 40 Seconds. So for this testing, we need a time interval of an entirety of 40 seconds in contrast to BW's 12.5.
Let's scrap the above breakdown and formulate a brand new analysis.
So in 40 Seconds, we get the spawn larvae at rate of 1 per 15 seconds. So in that case, the player must use the hatchery 2.66667 times in the span of 40 seconds since 40 total seconds/15 seconds of spawn.
To examinate the actions now. Click/Press hotkeyed Hatchery, one action. Select the larvae, 2 actions. Pick which unit you want to produce, 3 actions. Re-rallying, 4 actions. Times that by 2.66667, the result is 10.66664 total actions taken with only the Hatchery. Now onto the Queen. Alright you either have hotkeyed the queen or need to press it, one action. Use the ability, 2 actions. Target the hatchery, 3 action. Select on the laravae produced, 4 action. Pick unit selection, 5 action.
In combined, you have 10.66666664+5 Actions needed in an equivalence situation in StarCraft which equals to 15.666664. We got 15.666664 actions in a time period of 40 seconds.
Action necessary: 15.66666664 Actions/40 Seconds = 0.3916666 APS (Actions Per Second)
But oh no, we gotta go back to BW because noticed that I rounded it 2.666 to 3 but in the StarCraft 2 scenerio, I didn't bother to do so.
So instead of having a Total Amount of actions' calculation to be 3*4, I am going to use 2.0833333333 in the place of the 3 and 2.08333333333* 4 = 8.33333333333 total actions.
Therefore action necessary: 8.33333333333 actions/12.5 seconds = 0.666666666664 APS needed in BW w/o rounding.
Conclusion
On StarCraft 2's calculation for its actions needed to produce optimally as a Zerg, you need 0.39166666 APS
In BW, you need 0.6666666666664 APS to play as a Zerg.
You can drawn the inference from here.
EDIT: Added Re-rallying for StarCraft 2, changed the result.
EDIT2: Thanks to this post:
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.
I've made changes to my numbers.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
So how does this prove that BW Zerg is harder than SC2 Zerg? Because you need more APM?
|
There's also the ability in sc2 to stockpile larvae whereas BW how many hatcheries is how many larvae you can have max.
I think its like 20 or 25 larvae per hatchery in sc2 to stock pile? thats hell of a lot of burst production sc2 is capable of over BW
I think that kind of replaces the lack of micro in sc2 zerg units by having the ability to burst armies until resource bank or larvae bank runs dry
However, given that game where Roro micro'd roaches against Squirtle's 2 base immortal sentry all in, during WCS
I agree with Jaedong that Zerg's potential is far from tapped in WoL
|
^If that's your interpretation.
@ Williammm, this analysis is based on the fact that both Games are played whereas the players don't stockpile excessive larvae and macroing at the most efficient way possible.
|
tons of hypothesis and simplification littering op that don't account for reality. I'll take JD's word over op's flawed analysis.
|
SC2 Zerg macro is harder but BW Zerg micro and mechanics are harder. Overall i'd say that BW Zerg is harder just because the mechanics are so demanding. Things that would take 15 actions in BW can be accomplished in a mere 2-3 actions in SC2.
|
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 ...
|
On September 21 2012 12:26 freakhill wrote:
tons of hypothesis and simplification littering op that don't account for reality. I'll take JD's word over op's flawed analysis.
Too bad that Jaedong didn't provide a coherent analysis to his claim and nor did I ever draw a conclusion from it. Plus you don't have a clue how to play both games optimally, so your words don't matter.
|
On September 21 2012 12:22 GenesisX wrote:
So how does this prove that BW Zerg is harder than SC2 Zerg? Because you need more APM?
It doesn't but BW zerg is more about surgically dismantling the enemy rather than swarming
Lurker placements, scourge wars, defiler dark swarms, muta harass, dare I say Queen micro (in some occasions)
These are all key aspects of BW zerg play that doesn't offer a lot of firepower but it controls the enemy from attacking or moving out effectively, whereas sc2 zerg is more about economy and how much army you can produce to bust down the enemy's army/bases. You could argue the infestor offers control, but it has largely taken on more of a heavy offensive unit these days.
So in a way, BW zerg is harder to play, not to mention theres a lack of roaches to tank hits effectively. BUT having nearly every unit micro capable (EVEN THE DRONE) makes zerg astounding to play but requires a LOT of skill
|
Lol wow, what a flawed approach in terms of comparing the games.
Really? I thought people had moved on beyond such shallow comparisons between the two games, after people had made it clear enough that a straight up comparison, especially of apm, is quite meaningless, and is only going to stir up the BW v SC2 debate, which I feel should pretty much settle down, now that pretty much everyone is playing SC2.
Sure, keep some Kespa v Gom competition going, as long as you don't always make it about the elephant, competition and rivalries are good, unhealthy and baseless comparisons, however, are not.
|
On September 21 2012 12:25 Xiphos wrote:
^If that's your interpretation.
@ Williammm, this analysis is based on the fact that both Games are played whereas the players don't stockpile excessive larvae and macroing at the most efficient way possible.
True, but zergs in sc2 these days tend to max out really quickly compared to other races, and thats where the stockpile begins. It's not bad macro or inefficient macro, its just that zergs in sc2 are heavily invested into eco compared to BW zergs
|
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 
|
On September 21 2012 12:33 PiPoGevy wrote:Show nested quote +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 
|
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 ...
So Jaedong should go play a game on iccup and redo the interview? And besides, doing that would prove nothing because quite obviously someone who's never played BW would find playing a game of it harder than SC2 solely based on that fact. I have played a few games on iccup and it was definitely harder than SC2 for me. However, it had nothing to do with the mechanics and everything to do with the fact I had no idea what I was doing. Tbh, I did not actually find some of the mechanics that difficult, but I had no concept of a BO or strategy other than "people mech in TvP in this game". But that's just my opinion, just like the statement in the interview that sparked this is just Jaedong's opinion. I'll still take his opinion over a random TL poster's anyday, though.
|
Edited the OP with StarCraft 2 Hatchery's re-rallying. Numbers changed.
|
On September 21 2012 12:34 templar rage wrote:Show nested quote +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 ...
So Jaedong should go play a game on iccup and redo the interview? And besides, doing that would prove nothing because quite obviously someone who's never played BW would find playing a game of it harder than SC2 solely based on that fact. I have played a few games on iccup and it was definitely harder than SC2 for me. However, it had nothing to do with the mechanics and everything to do with the fact I had no idea what I was doing. Tbh, I did not actually find some of the mechanics that difficult, but I had no concept of a BO or strategy other than "people mech in TvP in this game". But that's just my opinion, just like the statement in the interview that sparked this is just Jaedong's opinion. I'll still take his opinion over a random TL poster's anyday, though.
But the poster is from BW! Obviously his opinion is superior to yours!!!!
|
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem.
|
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
Lol, this is not true at all, as someone who played mainly just customs games in bw before I started with sc2, and then got masters in sc2 then went back to bw, i found it very easy to get to c-/c level on iccup. took around 70 1v1s.
|
On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem.
Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related.
Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur.
|
On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem.
yes, but with a hard cap of three larvae, there is less room for error in managing optimal macro.
|
On September 21 2012 12:42 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem. Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related. Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur.
So because creep spread isn't really a factor in BW, we should just completely ignore it when trying to compare the difficulty of each game?
Interesting.
|
Well this is a really weird topic.
BW is a harder game and requires more apm and SC2.
I played very little broodwar, but for the time I played it I was zerg and I am also zerg in SC2, and I find BW zerg to be 10x harder just because I have to separately hotkey my hatcheries or use the camera hotkey, but that's also making it harder than sc2.
|
On September 21 2012 12:46 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:42 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem. Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related. Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur. So because creep spread isn't really a factor in BW, we should just completely ignore it when trying to compare the difficulty of each game? Interesting.
Where did you lose your ability to read, this is is only a macro analysis of the two games. So why don't you take that notion of yours and create your own thread for comparison.
|
On September 21 2012 12:46 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:42 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem. Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related. Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur. So because creep spread isn't really a factor in BW, we should just completely ignore it when trying to compare the difficulty of each game? Interesting.
if you are going to discuss all mechanical aspects of zerg then it is even more clear that scbw zerg is harder. But I think the discussion is around macro which Jaedong commented on.
Personally I wouldn`t read much into that interview. I`d rather hear his thoughts on comparisons when he plays sc2 for atleast a year.
|
Ill trust JD any day of the week. If he say so he is properly right
|
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
|
On September 21 2012 12:48 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:46 Dosey wrote:On September 21 2012 12:42 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem. Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related. Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur. So because creep spread isn't really a factor in BW, we should just completely ignore it when trying to compare the difficulty of each game? Interesting. Where did you lose your ability to read, this is is only a macro analysis of the two games. So why don't you take that notion of yours and create your own thread for comparison.
Then you are interpreting JDs quote incorrectly and just started this topic to feed the SC2 hate. JD said the main difference and (apparent) cause for difficulty is the queen. What does the queen do? Please tell me, I forgot. What is the queens main two functions?
|
Wow what a stupid fucking argument this will be.
Some aspects of BW were harder and made things easier for Zerg to win by executing.
Some aspects of SC2 are harder and make Zerg busy with new things.
Both games have hard aspects. End of discussion.
|
creep spread = macro.. if you dont creep spread you dead.
|
On September 21 2012 12:58 Powster wrote:
creep spread = macro.. if you dont creep spread you dead.
if anything i feel creep spread isnt anything to do with macro but does come into mechanics. creep spread does equal some mechanics, but nowhere near the level of mechanics of bw
|
On September 21 2012 12:58 Powster wrote:
creep spread = macro.. if you dont creep spread you dead.
Wrong creep spread is purely tactical.
You don't understand the definition of macro.
That's like saying attacking with your unit as macro because if you don't, then you are dead.
|
Of course Jaedong will say sc2 is harder, hes not the best at it. It would be cocky of him to say sc2 is easier when hes not the best.
|
On September 21 2012 12:48 Xiphos wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:46 Dosey wrote:On September 21 2012 12:42 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem. Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related. Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur. So because creep spread isn't really a factor in BW, we should just completely ignore it when trying to compare the difficulty of each game? Interesting. Where did you lose your ability to read, this is is only a macro analysis of the two games. So why don't you take that notion of yours and create your own thread for comparison.
Creep is spread by Queens. If building a new hatch is considered as macro, than building Queens. microing them and balancing their energy between creep/ larva is macro too. Your argument is invalid.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On September 21 2012 13:03 GreyMasta wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:48 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 12:46 Dosey wrote:On September 21 2012 12:42 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem. Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related. Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur. So because creep spread isn't really a factor in BW, we should just completely ignore it when trying to compare the difficulty of each game? Interesting. Where did you lose your ability to read, this is is only a macro analysis of the two games. So why don't you take that notion of yours and create your own thread for comparison. Creep is spread by Queens. If building a new hatch is considered as macro, than building Queens. microing them and balancing their energy between creep/ larva is macro too. Your argument is invalid. On September 21 2012 12:57 Dosey wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 12:48 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 12:46 Dosey wrote:On September 21 2012 12:42 Xiphos wrote:On September 21 2012 12:38 Bobgrimly wrote:
Op forgot to factor in creep spreading... Perfect creep spread is very useful at all points of the game.
And BW zerg doesn't have to worry about a missed inject. From a stress point of view SC2 zerg is much more intensive. Getting distracted takes a lot out of macro. Missed injects/less creep spread = weaker zerg.
And SC2 has less micro options as mentioned to be able to make up for the lost macro. So Jaedong is probably pointing out that SC2 zerg is less forgiving than BW zerg, that there is more APM needed on a consistent basis than BW than total APM. That consistent apm is taken off all the other potential uses for your APM like microing an individual zergling or pack of mutas or infestors etc. BW zerg didn't have that problem. Okay you need to check out the definition of Macro. Macro = Unit Production. Creep Spread is a strategical aspect of the game. Thus I didn't included it because why the fuck would anyone go off the tangent from the topic we are trying to related. Last paragraph you wrote is a total blur. So because creep spread isn't really a factor in BW, we should just completely ignore it when trying to compare the difficulty of each game? Interesting. Where did you lose your ability to read, this is is only a macro analysis of the two games. So why don't you take that notion of yours and create your own thread for comparison. Then you are interpreting JDs quote incorrectly and just started this topic to feed the SC2 hate. JD said the main difference and (apparent) cause for difficulty is the queen. What does the queen do? Please tell me, I forgot. What is the queens main two functions?
Still haven't learned to read properly. The grand scheme of my post isn't really inspired by what Jaedong have said, it is inspired by the poster with his insight on macro and macro alone. JD's interview is just a bystander to my points.
Macro = unit production.
While in StarCraft 2, the Queen's ability have a undirect co-relation with macro by using her ability. If you want to exclude queens completely, then I don't know what to say about MBS being the sole factor.
Some of you REALLY needs to learn the basic of StarCraft and its definitions before getting agitated.
|
Those who think sc2 zerg is harder haven tried controlling 3+ groups of lings, you guys have it easy
|
Bisutopia19262 Posts
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.
|
Then you are interpreting JDs quote incorrectly and just started this topic to feed the SC2 hate. JD said the main difference and (apparent) cause for difficulty is the queen. What does the queen do? Please tell me, I forgot. What is the queens main two functions?
Spawn broodling and ensnare!
|
Everything in BW is harder. There's quite a bit to do as Zerg in SC2 but it's made quite easy with more camera hotkeys, MBS, unlimited unit selection, etc...
|
On September 21 2012 13:09 Tomba wrote:Show nested quote +
Then you are interpreting JDs quote incorrectly and just started this topic to feed the SC2 hate. JD said the main difference and (apparent) cause for difficulty is the queen. What does the queen do? Please tell me, I forgot. What is the queens main two functions?
Spawn broodling and ensnare!
Ah. Of course! His comparison was that spawn broodling and ensnare were so much easier than Spawn Larvae/Creep Tumor/Transfuse! We're all arguing for no reason.
|
There is a mistake in your math, I think it is just a typo but better be sure it is right
+ Show Spoiler +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.
according to the first half, shouldn't it be .16667? Or am I just missing something completely
|
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.
|
Bisutopia19262 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.
|
Canada11363 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.
|
|
|
Anyone who thinks that playing SC2 zerg at a high level is harder than playing BW zerg at a high level is dreaming, including jaedong. Maybe he forgets how hard BW is because he played it for so many years. Ask any of the current foreign zergs who are at the top of Europe and USA which they think is harder. There are SC2 zergs who can compete at an extremely high level while going to university full time like nerchio and Suppy. That would NOT happen in BW.
|
Uhh, the fact that The Tyrant has won multiple Starleagues and was the God of Zerg in BW, Imma go ahead and trust his word over a couple of forum users armchair quarterbacking.
|
What the hell stop comparing these two games, when will people stop? wtf
|
On September 21 2012 15:28 dynwar7 wrote:
What the hell stop comparing these two games, when will people stop? wtf
I completely agree, BW is much harder.
EDIT: Just kidding. I think it's correct to continue comparing the games. They are similar in a lot of ways and a lot of good ideas can be (and obviously have) been taken from BW and applied to SCII. 99.9% of the time nothing happens as a result of a thread like this, but I think it's good to spark ideas and stuff. It's also interesting.
|
On September 21 2012 15:01 zefreak wrote:
Anyone who thinks that playing SC2 zerg at a high level is harder than playing BW zerg at a high level is dreaming, including jaedong. Maybe he forgets how hard BW is because he played it for so many years. Ask any of the current foreign zergs who are at the top of Europe and USA which they think is harder. There are SC2 zergs who can compete at an extremely high level while going to university full time like nerchio and Suppy. That would NOT happen in BW.
I think if you read a bit deeper into what Jaedong said you would find that his opinion is actually quite valid, and for you to dismiss his opinion of what he finds harder is just blatantly arrogant.
|
harder because it's easier and it's not possible to beat people purely on micro or skill alone. they made everyone be able to always have a chance, which is why it's harder for him.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
