|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 11 2007 16:44 Brutalisk wrote:
Making the UI harder is not the "right" solution because although it does raise the skill ceiling and leads to newbies having even less chances, it is just wrong from a RTS design viewpoint.
What Tasteless (and other anti MBSers) are saying is in essence: "if the UI is too easy, then the game will be too easy, and pros will have nothing left to do after a certain time/experience/skill level."
But this whole train of thought is just so sad. SC2 should make sure that the game itself (NOT counting the UI) is so hard and deep that this alone provides a high skill ceiling and endless opportunities to improve. You know, like chess or Go or whatever. The best games are the ones with an extremely easy UI yet insanely deep gameplay. SC2 must try to become like this.
If it doesn't work, then Blizzard didn't do a good enough job and they maybe should introduce SBS and other "UI obstacles" again. But remember that this is just a workaround, not a proper solution: the game is too shallow, too easy to master, so we have to make the UI hard.
But that's just a "bad" thing (although it certainly works, as SC1 has shown us) and I hope that SC2 improves on that... tries a better, different approach.
There are two parts to any game, the controls and the in game concepts. We must have both actualized to have a true electronic sport. An argument like yours would just as easily push micro out as another silly UI feature that can be abused to win. Chess and Go already exist, but we have taken mind games to another step and created Starcraft. Let us build upon brilliance and not dumb it down to an older form of what a mind game should be.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 11 2007 16:38 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 12:16 MyLostTemple wrote:
So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive. But starcraft macro was also newbie friendly. If we removed all micro in starcraft the game would be perfected in less than a day. However, as i said in my earlier post, the micro gets a lot harder when macro takes quite some time throughout the whole game. So really in the end its all about the micro. All aspects of macro removed are the aspects were people need to train just to do them as fast as possible so that they get more time to micro. Wouldn't it be better instead to make micor harder so that we have to train micro speed endlessly rather than training the simple macro moves like they do now? So the question is, do any progamer micro their armies perfectly even when they aren't building units with army sizes as big as they are at the stage when mbs begins to make a difference? And i can easily answer that question, and its a no. They micro very far from perfectly, sure they might micro the best in the world but that doesn't mean that we cant code a script that micros as good with a 150 pop army that a progamer can do with a 10 pop army. But then you might say "I don't want it any less skill full than original starcraft, thats just dumb" However since i showed that its micro that takes the biggest hit on how hard it is, its easy to show that micro will not necessarily be easier than before. Imagine if every matchup in starcaft required twice the unit diversity at any given time, then micro would get a lot harder just because microing more unit types is always harder than microing a lot of the same unit, and if we look at what we currently have of starcraft 2 thats what they are aiming for. We don't know how this stand in proportions vs the macro burden, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of it and maybe even take it further. And lastly, you worried that you would have nothing to do at times? Well, when you are not under pressure macro in starcraft is still easy, so the skill difference at those times aren't that big anyway. The pressure always comes when you have to micro, macro is just an extra burden on the micro. So since those micro voids exists in starcraft they are times when there is very little to differentiate the pro's in starcraft too right? So this wont make a difference there either.
No
I won't respond to an argument as stupid as this. This is almost as bad as your argument in the "[D] Smartcasting" fourm where you dumbly argued that ghosts wern't used competitvely in SC because the UI was too hard to utilize lockdown. learn how this game works before you start debating about how it should function in the future.
|
This thread is going a bit in circles.
Now, Grubby was mentionned, and the fact his practice time go much lower was, too. Well, he got kicked to the losers bracket by a nobody Undead in the last tournament, and won in the end a very weak DreamHack. I mean, losing a BO3 (he won the next series, though) against DowaQ isn't really looking good. He's getting owned left and right lately, by people that are playing 8 hours a day, some of them unknown, most of them known, and many chinese.
He got overconfident after beating Moon 3-1 on nice NE maps and has slowed down ever since. He'll pick up, IMO, but low parctice time really made Grubby and ToD go down on the top WC3 players list.
I don't think anyone is saying SC2 should be like WC3. Low amount of units, and other stuff, have no place in SC2. Basically, SC2 (as I see it) will still have immense fast battles, but simply more often, and they'll be better microed and played out. In short, as far as spectator esports go, it'll be magnificent.
And as far as skill ceiling goes, it's IMPOSSIBLE that it's too low. Because if it is, Korea will Pearl Harbor Blizz headquarters. They won't do that, and will test it very very hard.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
Moon and Lucifier made similar comments to Grubby's, the point i'm trying to make is that those micro battles which will be awesome are held up on the pillars of macro, pillars invisible to the average player, and without those pillars we may have a very shallow RTS game.
|
On December 11 2007 08:04 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2007 15:03 Motiva wrote:MyLostTemple Hmmm you bring up a good point, that may need clarifying. While, I've made 3 long winded posts each i think contains some reference to warcraft 3 thus I am not sure exactly which comments you are speaking of. I do however feel that with WC3 containing MBS that a lot of players use an analogy to WC3 a lot where it shouldn't be used. I also feel that you make a good point which I should address. If you feel that what continues within this post contradicts something I said earlier it is possible that I made a mistake, or that I need to articulate more clearly. Either way It makes it easier if /quote is used. Now if i directly said "Warcraft 3 is in fact just as difficult and competitive as starcraft" I would have been mistaken, and was most likely just trying to say WC3 is a difficult and competitive game. I was not aware of that Grubby doesn't practice a lot. In all honesty though, this does not surprise me. Why does this not surprise me? Because within Warcraft 3 there is very little that can suprise you. You practice and train in Starcraft not so you can be the fastest 4sd5sd6sd7sd player but rather so you will be prepared for anything. This has to do with hard counters, pace, economy, and macro. Warcraft 3 has less of each of these things, and focuses entirely on micro. Micro is not something that is easily practiced and is primarily instinctual. If you talk to a player that has just picked WC3, and they just went 2-40 in WC3... The odds are they have no idea why they lost. Warcraft 3 is prolly just as difficult to the ignorant player as SC is(That same player would prolly go 2-40 in SC too). In Starcraft they can be like wow I just got out produced that's why I lost. In WC3 they're like WTF I have 2x the army he had and he lost 3 units i lost my entire army. That's with some micro too (poor albeit). I have much more appreciation for Starcraft programer than I do for WC3 progamers, and I also feel that SC is a much better esport and spectator sport. But those aren't the real points of your post. The real point of your post was:
I think your making a contradictory argument by saying we need an easy interface in order to have a successful esport game. The game must be hard or the players wont require endless practice and the game itself will be come less impressive. Well first. The primary facet of my argument has nothing to do with the direct simplification of the user interface. This same primary facet of my argument has nothing to do directly with the success or lack of success of the game as a sport. Obviously the game should be hard so the it requires practice or it will become less impressive. However, since those aren't my arguments and i have made an attempt to clarify my views of Warcraft 3 you will find that there is no contradiction (and if there is it doesn't negate my point) I would ask you though. Has Grubby always practiced only 1-2 hours a day or when the game first came out was practicing more? My point is Warcraft 3 is much more predictable than SC and predictability leads to the ability to master. This doesn't have anything to do with the dulling of the user interface, but rather a dulling of the actual mechanics of gameplay. Which I discuss fairly thoroughly in my previous posts. Sure the metagame in WC3 might evolve. That doesn't mean it's unpredictable. The unpredictability comes from the ability to successfully stray from the metagame. Metagame = The expected set of strategies from a certain set of players and matchups... In WC3 due to the nature of soft counters it's typically more important(than being unpredictable) to get a wider range of units and use each unit to it's maximum potential. Edit: I wasn't saying that we need an easier interface, but rather I was arguing that an easier interface does not directly yield an easier game with a lower skill ceiling, but rather an easier interface allows more time to focus on the actual game that is present. -- This is the main point in almost every post of mine on this thread - Thank you for your time. i don't mean to be rude but your posts are so long winded and rambley i can't tell what points your trying to make. How much Grubby practiced when the game 1st came out is irrelevant, it has already become so simple to him (and other pros) that they argue there is very little need for endless practice since the game is in essence easy to them. If SC2 ends up like this it will drastically hurt it's potential as an esport. War3 is a legit example too because SC2 seems to be leaning towards a more micro than macro style of play. it seems that players don't need to train all day to have incredible micro, yet when you mix micro with macro you are faced with an incredible challenge. With macro made so easy in SC2 i don't see what players will need to be practicing. That doesn't mean it wont have sponsors and other things, but the game itself will just viewed as Starcraft with training wheels. Esports develop metagames regardless of what features are put in the game, all esports have metagames within them. In CS everyone knows to buy the AK, colt or awp. In War3 there are some heros you always pick over others early game. In SC we know to mech vs protoss rather than go mnm. A metagame will occur in SC2 no mater what. What's important is that the skill ceiling required to achieve that metagame is as challenging as possible. Your argument that an easier interface does not necessarily make for an easier game is simply wrong... while you may not be able to focus on the 'actual game' without MBS, many others can. This seems to be the common logical error with most pro MBS people, they end up imposing their own game experience onto the esport level. Make no mistake, there are far too many who can preform the macro task, micro excellently, and focus on the 'actual game' that your talking about. With the macro taken out you've gone one more step to making this game more one dimensional. The result will be a bunch of SC progamers picking up this game and frowning, because it in fact, HAS been made easier. With nothing to replace the macro factor they will have less to train for, less to master and less to show off. That's bad, unless of course you don't want an esport.
Maybe this will help clear up my argument for you. It is still ridiculously long. I'm sorry for that but I think you're oversimplifying the matter greatly.
Do you really think Savior can't have perfect timing, excellent strategy, awesome micro and still macro like a god?
You continue...
Even top foreigners will tell you it's not hard to macro while making difficult strategic decisions in game.
We should be able to agree, that since macroing (SBS/MBS aspect only) of the well trained player(any player that is heavily competitive within the game) is not such a deciding factor of skill, but rather simply a routine any experianced play executes. Simple routine does not affect the skill ceiling.
Noone here thinks that iloveoov is considered the better macro player over boxer by many people because he is faster at clicking the buildings or using his hotkeys. Instead if most of these people thought about it they would agree that iloveoov is considered the better macro player over boxer because boxer's player style isn't as macro oriented. Boxer prefers to control a smaller army and handle it perfectly using uber tactics (he's kinda known for that eh?) While iloveoov takes the macro, mass army approach more often and is thus what he gets recognition for.
What I am saying, which your argument supports, is that it isn't the difference between 5m6m7m8m and 5m that differeniates these playstyles and aspects of the game.
Our debate then rattles on about all sorts of irrelevant stuff which I could argue, such as whether it matters or not whether Grubby practiced more than 1-2 hours a day when the game came out, to which I would state that it does matter because learning curves affect metagames, which affect quite a bit. A metagame that never changes because the learning curve has hit a ceiling matters greatly. We both agree this is something we need to be aware of and take into consideration with the development of Starcraft2.
This leads me to argue why Warcraft 3 is not a valid example for comparision on the use of ONLY MBS (not smartcasting, automine, or anything else. Those are all off topic mechanics. If you were to ask me how I felt about some of these things you might be suprised considering the way you've responded to my previous posts)
1) Warcraft 3 took the focus off of the economy of the game all together which opens up a huge amount of time, and attention (supposedly countered by heros and creeps)
2) Warcraft 3 is a game consisting of soft counters. There is no Firebat to Zergling counters in WC3 (maybe a few, but even then pretty nerfed in comparision)
3) The pace of wc3 is intentionally slower, focusing on efficient management of units rather than macro... There is no macro whatsoever in WC3 because there is no focus on economy as well as less focus on unit counters (which affect macro indirectly)
4) The addition of heros provides an additional paradigm shift within the focus of the game that cannot be ignored.
The only thing I would add to this quote from my post on page 25 (if you want the full context) would be that a large reason why the counters are so soft is because of their hitpoints and all of the othernonsense. Then there are also all of those other automation features.
A metagame develops into any game where there are multiple possibilities and a large number of players playing together in competition with eachother.
Many games have very simplistic metagames because the mechanics of the game dwindle down the number of viable possibilities. This leads the matches to become predictable in unbalanced games. In balanced games it leads to long boring games, luck, or unexciting games that have been played identically over and over again. This leads me back up the list in reference to WC3.
A metagame will occur in SC2 no mater what. What's important is that the skill ceiling required to achieve that metagame is as challenging as possible.
What's important is that the metagame allows for endless possibilities and countless "archetypes" of metagames (the korean metagame is different ect ect) so that the game can continue to evolve for until Starcraft 3 (lmao) just like Starcraft 1 has to 2.
I am arguing that MBS is not going to have a big enough effect on the metagame to break Starcraft into a game which progresses and evolves so slowly. The beauty of starcraft isn't that there are so many possibilities that "the metagame" is "as challenging as possible" but rather there are so many possibilities that it's impossible.
To say a player did everything perfect is only relative to his metagame. In a different metagame identicle play could have gotten stomped simply because of unpredictable factors (like when bisu blows savior a sweet tender kiss with his cute build and takes savior 3-0) You could argue that scouting has a lot to do with this, but you could argue that the better play does a better job at denying scouting.
This has to do with a lot more than MBS. It has to do with how each seperate race is put together, which units become more viable in different matchups. Balance is a huge factor. If a unit is overpowered so much that the player only has to mass that unit and do minor microing to win then the metagame is broken.
MBS simply consolidates 6 actions a good player does every 5-15 seconds into 2 actions the good player has to remember to do every 5-15 seconds. This doesn't break the metagame, it has very little to do with balance.
Your argument that an easier interface does not necessarily make for an easier game is simply wrong... while you may not be able to focus on the 'actual game' without MBS, many others can. This seems to be the common logical error with most pro MBS people, they end up imposing their own game experience onto the esport level. Make no mistake, there are far too many who can preform the macro task, micro excellently, and focus on the 'actual game' that your talking about. With the macro taken out you've gone one more step to making this game more one dimensional. The result will be a bunch of SC progamers picking up this game and frowning, because it in fact, HAS been made easier. With nothing to replace the macro factor they will have less to train for, less to master and less to show off. That's bad, unless of course you don't want an esport.
I don't see how any of this makes my argument wrong. We've both agreed that "Make no mistake, there are far too many who can preform the macro task, micro excellently, and focus on the 'actual game' that your talking about. "
Furthermore:
Do you really think Savior can't have perfect timing, excellent strategy, awesome micro and still macro like a god?
You continue...
Even top foreigners will tell you it's not hard to macro while making difficult strategic decisions in game.
In my argument that an easier interface does not necessarily make for an easier game I am arguing that it is not the difference between 5m6m7m8m and 5m that makes the difference between skill levels at the highest level (the level we are concerned with related to esports)
My argument is instead stating that instead of this difference (making the UI easier) the real difficulty in the game is from the complexity and possibility of metagames and then further more a meta-metagame. There is a lot more to my argument than this however.
Another aspect of my argument is that there is no skill ceiling with or without MBS because of the complexity of the game (unlike wc3). I also argue that the hard part about macro isn't SBS but rather remembering to build units at the most intense moments, and then even further, not just remembering but also knowing which instances to do so in the midst of micro intensive moments. This prioritising of multitasking is a huge part of the game, and a huge deciding factor in many games is just sheer superior ability in general multitasking.
As for your latest comment above this one.
those micro battles which will be awesome ARE held up on the pillars of macro.
I'm saying the difference between 5m and 5m6m7m8mect don't break macro, and Economy is left out of this discussion far too much considering how much the term macro gets thrown around....
The realization of the influence of the economy in the late game (and the realization that SBS isn't hard for any truely talented player) coupled with everything I've said above should be concise enough.
PS: If for instance the metagame forces players to have a ridiculous distribution of units, then better players will still use multiple hotkeys for the same building types....
|
On December 11 2007 17:13 MyLostTemple wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 16:38 Klockan3 wrote:On December 11 2007 12:16 MyLostTemple wrote:
So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive. But starcraft macro was also newbie friendly. If we removed all micro in starcraft the game would be perfected in less than a day. However, as i said in my earlier post, the micro gets a lot harder when macro takes quite some time throughout the whole game. So really in the end its all about the micro. All aspects of macro removed are the aspects were people need to train just to do them as fast as possible so that they get more time to micro. Wouldn't it be better instead to make micor harder so that we have to train micro speed endlessly rather than training the simple macro moves like they do now? So the question is, do any progamer micro their armies perfectly even when they aren't building units with army sizes as big as they are at the stage when mbs begins to make a difference? And i can easily answer that question, and its a no. They micro very far from perfectly, sure they might micro the best in the world but that doesn't mean that we cant code a script that micros as good with a 150 pop army that a progamer can do with a 10 pop army. But then you might say "I don't want it any less skill full than original starcraft, thats just dumb" However since i showed that its micro that takes the biggest hit on how hard it is, its easy to show that micro will not necessarily be easier than before. Imagine if every matchup in starcaft required twice the unit diversity at any given time, then micro would get a lot harder just because microing more unit types is always harder than microing a lot of the same unit, and if we look at what we currently have of starcraft 2 thats what they are aiming for. We don't know how this stand in proportions vs the macro burden, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of it and maybe even take it further. And lastly, you worried that you would have nothing to do at times? Well, when you are not under pressure macro in starcraft is still easy, so the skill difference at those times aren't that big anyway. The pressure always comes when you have to micro, macro is just an extra burden on the micro. So since those micro voids exists in starcraft they are times when there is very little to differentiate the pro's in starcraft too right? So this wont make a difference there either. No I won't respond to an argument as stupid as this. This is almost as bad as your argument in the "[D] Smartcasting" fourm where you dumbly argued that ghosts wern't used competitvely in SC because the UI was too hard to utilize lockdown. learn how this game works before you start debating about how it should function in the future.
Just a question, were do my logic fail this time? I know perfectly why a lot think my logic failed in the smartcast debate, but this time i cant see it.
Can you agree that:
1. Boxer don't click on buildings slower than iloveoov?
2. Really, all progamers click the buildings roughly as fast.
3. Every average player can macro like a pro as long as he don't have to micro anything at all and got the right BO.
4. No average gamer can micro like a pro even if he doesn't have to macro.
Now if we combine this we can see that its not the act of clicking buildings wich makes a difference between different progamers, its the act of micro or other types of macro that don't have anything to do with mbs. Clicking buildings also have an effect on micro ofcourse, since it creates blackspots in your play that you have to account for and the less you train to streamline your building clicking speed you get less and less time over to micro. But all pros do that roughly as fast, so the point that it creates less differentiation at the top is kinda moot...
However are those blackspots so extremely crucial to competetive play, when they can even hurt the competetiveness of the game by creating luck moments? Am I wrong and starcraft players don't hate luck involmenet in the outcomes of games other than scouting?
|
On December 12 2007 12:49 MyLostTemple wrote:
Hand speed and basic forms of dexterity isn't something you lose with age or we would see old people getting shitty at playing guitar after playing it their whole lives.
I want to raise an objection concerning this quote, taken from Tasteless's post in the question submission thread, since I think it brings up a good, and different, point of discussion regarding the interface changes as a whole.
To quote from Grrrr, taken from
this interview:
Guillaume explains that the career of a professional gamer is "very short" and you won't find professionals younger than 17 or older than 23. The reason? According to Guillaume, most people younger than 17 don't have the ability to think strategically on the level required for a professional career. After age 23, the reflexes and reaction times become too slow to respond to a fast-paced, developing game with the required speed.
"The game [StarCraft] is played instinctively at the highest level [of competition]", Guillaume said.
If you don't believe him or think that his opinion is outdated, look at the December KeSPA rankings. Out of the top 30, only two are above the age of 23*:  iloveoov (24) and  Nal_rA (25). Also, there are only two in the top 30 that are younger than 17: Flash (15) and Mind (16). The rest fall between the above age range of 17-23, skewed towards the bottom of that range.
For further proof, take a look at the team rosters: out of those older than 23, only BoxeR, iloveoov, and Nal_rA are still regularly in Proleague lineups. For ACE in particular, whose entire lineup is 22+, only the younger ones get major Proleague exposure, aside from Him of course.
It may be physical dexterity required by the UI mechanics, or the mental dexterity required by the high level of multitasking that results from the UI mechanics, but age clearly has a significant correlation with a SC pro's competitiveness. If we take 17-23 as a standard competitive range for SC players, that makes for a competitive professional career of only 6 years; even stretching it to 15-25, that is only 10 years, compared to at least 15-20 years for any other highly-physical professional sport.
I think for Starcraft progaming to be a respectable career choice in the long-term, there are two viable choices that don't involve altering SC itself: 1) progamers need to be paid exorbitant salaries to compensate for their short careers; or 2) another game needs to be created that has the same style of gameplay, yet primarily focuses on different, less age-dependent skills so that the two games can coexist in the e-sports scene, allowing older SC progamers to switch over and thus sustain their careers to 15-20 years like in other sports. SC2 could easily fit this role if properly designed; its flames may burn a little less brightly than SC's as a result, but they will last considerably longer.
Those who assert that it is not possible for SC and SC2 to coexist seem (to me) to be assuming that two games in the same franchise cannot coexist as e-sports. CS 1.6 and Source are a counterexample to this assumption, being two games of the same franchise that are different  Enough gameplay-wise to exist independently, especially now that Source competitions are picking up on the 18-round format; Much of the tension between the two results in the graphical difference (which is being resolved by CSpromod) and Valve's position of trying to force Source upon the 1.6 players.
*All ages given are non-Korean.
|
Reflexes are different from hand speed and hand dexterity. Relexes are responding to stimulus fast, hand speed and dexterity is how well the brain can control the muscles. So Tastesless's argument is not debunked.
As for making a game easier so that progamers can last for longer? I cannot begin to point out the stupidity of that argument. There are many professions in this world where people will last for only a short time before having to move on. Look at the music industry, people become famous, and in 2 years time they are no popular than the average person on the street. Ex-progamers also have the option of getting advertising deals, just like Ex-Pro-Atheletes do. An entire game cannot be made easier so that a few progamers can play it competatively when they get older.
As for SC and SC2 to co-exist, its possible. But if you have a look at Source and 1.6, youll note most tournies only contain 1, not both. WCG for example will only play SC1 or SC2, they will not play both so the success of SC2 really does impact the SC1 scene. Whats worse, is that if SC2 does not live up to SC1, then we can expect SC1 to retake control of the competative scene. Korea will run their progleagues, WCG will use SC1 again and most tournies that had Starcraft in it will revert back to SC1. This would be extremely bad for the competative scene of SC2.
|
On December 12 2007 15:16 Fen wrote:
Reflexes are different from hand speed and hand dexterity. Relexes are responding to stimulus fast, hand speed and dexterity is how well the brain can control the muscles. So Tastesless's argument is not debunked.
Still, it's not much of a stretch to hypothesize that at the extremely high level of combined speed and dexterity that SC progamers exhibit, small deteriorations in fine motor skills due to aging could lead to significant differences. I doubt that reflexes alone can account for the performance drop due to aging in the SC proscene.
As for making a game easier so that progamers can last for longer? I cannot begin to point out the stupidity of that argument. There are many professions in this world where people will last for only a short time before having to move on. Look at the music industry, people become famous, and in 2 years time they are no popular than the average person on the street. Ex-progamers also have the option of getting advertising deals, just like Ex-Pro-Atheletes do. An entire game cannot be made easier so that a few progamers can play it competatively when they get older.
I never meant the game would necessarily be easier, just that the physical demands would be lighter (which goes hand-in-hand with a simpler interface). There are plenty of popular, extremely competitive e-sports out there with less physically demanding and easier-to-use interfaces: DoA4, PGR3, Kart Rider, the CSs, Fifa, SSMB, Halo, etc. In many of these games, you have players in their mid-20s, and even 30+ competing successfully at the professional levels. Why can't RTSs have simpler interfaces and remain highly competitive?
Regarding the music industry, the musicians that fade within two years are the talentless hacks who succeed at the whim of popularity, which is more indicative of the pop music industry than the field of music. Many talented professional musicians have careers easily extending past 20 years.
Finally, getting advertising deals means you have to get enough exposure to carry brand power, which I expect only the most successful progamers to achieve in such a short timespan.
As for SC and SC2 to co-exist, its possible. But if you have a look at Source and 1.6, youll note most tournies only contain 1, not both. WCG for example will only play SC1 or SC2, they will not play both so the success of SC2 really does impact the SC1 scene. Whats worse, is that if SC2 does not live up to SC1, then we can expect SC1 to retake control of the competative scene. Korea will run their progleagues, WCG will use SC1 again and most tournies that had Starcraft in it will revert back to SC1. This would be extremely bad for the competative scene of SC2.
Tournament-based progaming allows only one game from a franchise, that's true, but there's no reason that a more entrenched progaming organization like OGN couldn't host competitions for both. Also, if WCG has seen it fit to run 4 RTSs like they did this year, I don't see why they wouldn't host both SC and SC2. In fact, even if the two can't coexist I expect both the Korean progaming scene and WCG to hold on to SC as long as possible, since they don't want to give all they've worked for so far up until they are absolutely sure that SC2 is a proper replacement.
EDIT: Anyways, it's not like I'm arguing that Blizzard should design SC2 for this purpose, just pointing out that a positive side-effect of a simpler interface is longer competitive progamer careers and the increased likelihood of SC and SC2 coexisting. I think it's an interesting perspective to consider.
|
It's not a bad point. I've always wondered why past greats are always losing against newer and younger ones. Now we have 13 and 14 year olds getting famous in the progaming scene. It's quite ridiculous and I can't cheer for babies like that. 
It seems like the physical aspect of the game really needs to step back a little.
Progaming would maybe also have a better reputation in general when it's not just teenagers who can become so good.
|
I believe that the focus on macro will be more for intelligence than handspeed on sc2 if mbs is implemented.
Naturaly to open space for more micro, it would take long long years for a player to start showing OMGWTF micro on 4 different places of the map in bw, in sc2 i belive they want to see the micro of bw but taken to the next level, since your oponent has so much time in his hand, you need to press him from all sides, whoever sucks the most time of his enemy and manages do create pressure will reign, whoever has the least skill will fall to the massive number of attacks unable to properly defend himself against such massive sequencial coordinated attacks, plays that everyone comments and remembers for years in bw will be taken to a new level of micro, and I all for watching that on pro sc2 games, i dont know if it will destroy the magic behind bw, but i see it as if they were trying to create a new feeling of play, more brain, more multi fighting, inside the starcraft mechanic.
Some people might think its just a bunch of bs, just my 2 cents
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
1esu, how could you possibly argue that the manual dexterity required for starcraft some how becomes lost with age. There is simply no evidence to support this since most forms of dexterity (like mastering a musical instrument) do not diminish with age. Your simply taking too completely unrelated facts and tieing them together to support a claim. Many progamers stop playing professionally as they age because they become tired of training for 10+ hours a day. The proteams are strict with their players, many can only leave one night a week to go have fun. Some grow tired of being beaten by their coaches, yes you get beaten too much if you lose too often or don't train efficiently enough, and want to try working within the esports rather than competing in it. Further more there are many older progamers on the scene, i know Much is around 30 years old and he was one of the highest ranked protoss players not long ago. I know i've spoken to others who are older than me (i'm 23) but i can't match the age with the name at this moment.
Ask anyone who's older that plays this game competitively, they would tell you they get worse if they stop practicing or lose passion, not because their brains dry up or their hands slow down. As far as i know Grrr was good when this game was SO new that macro had not fully developed into the concept it is today, many of the games back then were short and more simple because build orders had not developed into the precision we see them executed at today. In other words he didn't develop his macro game early on and got swallowed up in the new innovations discovered in Starcraft as the sport progressed.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 11 2007 21:48 Klockan3 wrote:Show nested quote +On December 11 2007 17:13 MyLostTemple wrote:On December 11 2007 16:38 Klockan3 wrote:On December 11 2007 12:16 MyLostTemple wrote:
So, in other words, while the SC2 micro will be harder to learn, it will also take up less of the overall game time and we need MORE than micro and newbie friendly macro to keep this game competitive. But starcraft macro was also newbie friendly. If we removed all micro in starcraft the game would be perfected in less than a day. However, as i said in my earlier post, the micro gets a lot harder when macro takes quite some time throughout the whole game. So really in the end its all about the micro. All aspects of macro removed are the aspects were people need to train just to do them as fast as possible so that they get more time to micro. Wouldn't it be better instead to make micor harder so that we have to train micro speed endlessly rather than training the simple macro moves like they do now? So the question is, do any progamer micro their armies perfectly even when they aren't building units with army sizes as big as they are at the stage when mbs begins to make a difference? And i can easily answer that question, and its a no. They micro very far from perfectly, sure they might micro the best in the world but that doesn't mean that we cant code a script that micros as good with a 150 pop army that a progamer can do with a 10 pop army. But then you might say "I don't want it any less skill full than original starcraft, thats just dumb" However since i showed that its micro that takes the biggest hit on how hard it is, its easy to show that micro will not necessarily be easier than before. Imagine if every matchup in starcaft required twice the unit diversity at any given time, then micro would get a lot harder just because microing more unit types is always harder than microing a lot of the same unit, and if we look at what we currently have of starcraft 2 thats what they are aiming for. We don't know how this stand in proportions vs the macro burden, but it will certainly mitigate a lot of it and maybe even take it further. And lastly, you worried that you would have nothing to do at times? Well, when you are not under pressure macro in starcraft is still easy, so the skill difference at those times aren't that big anyway. The pressure always comes when you have to micro, macro is just an extra burden on the micro. So since those micro voids exists in starcraft they are times when there is very little to differentiate the pro's in starcraft too right? So this wont make a difference there either. No I won't respond to an argument as stupid as this. This is almost as bad as your argument in the "[D] Smartcasting" fourm where you dumbly argued that ghosts wern't used competitvely in SC because the UI was too hard to utilize lockdown. learn how this game works before you start debating about how it should function in the future. Just a question, were do my logic fail this time? I know perfectly why a lot think my logic failed in the smartcast debate, but this time i cant see it. Can you agree that: 1. Boxer don't click on buildings slower than iloveoov? 2. Really, all progamers click the buildings roughly as fast. 3. Every average player can macro like a pro as long as he don't have to micro anything at all and got the right BO. 4. No average gamer can micro like a pro even if he doesn't have to macro. Now if we combine this we can see that its not the act of clicking buildings wich makes a difference between different progamers, its the act of micro or other types of macro that don't have anything to do with mbs. Clicking buildings also have an effect on micro ofcourse, since it creates blackspots in your play that you have to account for and the less you train to streamline your building clicking speed you get less and less time over to micro. But all pros do that roughly as fast, so the point that it creates less differentiation at the top is kinda moot... However are those blackspots so extremely crucial to competetive play, when they can even hurt the competetiveness of the game by creating luck moments? Am I wrong and starcraft players don't hate luck involmenet in the outcomes of games other than scouting?
Macro is not simply 'clicking on buildings fast.' it's juggling tasks; participating in every aspect of your economy. Lets say all korean professional gamers are in the top 98+ percentile of the macro skill area, there are still huge spaces between one professional gamers macro skill when compared to another. Iloveoov macros a hell of a lot better than casy TvZ, yet they both have INCREDIBLE macro. Every average player can NOT macro like a pro, even if they aren't microing. If this was the case every protoss would easily outmacro a turtling terran on python, yet this doesn't necessarily happen, even if there is no harassment on the terrans part. Micro has the same rule as macro, julyzerg and savior micro mutas better than yellow for instance, even though they both have micro that would easily fit within the top 98 percentile of starcraft players. You need both micro and macro to to create this delicate balance. And no, this does not create luck moments in the game because these are people playing, not robots. they have the option to chose when to focus on macro versus micro. sounds hard? good, it is. It's so hard it should take years to master that balance so it can legitimize the game as the most competitive RTS esport alive.
|
On December 13 2007 04:23 MyLostTemple wrote:
i know Much is around 30 years old
Much is actually 23, like you, even though he really does look much older.
The Emperor (at 27~28?) is the oldest progamer right now.
edit: Oh and I do agree 100% with you.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 13 2007 04:39 Puosu wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2007 04:23 MyLostTemple wrote:
i know Much is around 30 years old Much is actually 23, like you, even though he really does look much older. The Emperor (at 27~28?) is the oldest progamer right now.
really? oops =[ sorry. i must be thinking of someone else. Regardless i don't think it can be proven that hand dexterity has ANYTHING to do with progamers not playing when they're older.
|
MyLostTemple
United States2921 Posts
On December 12 2007 19:56 Brutalisk wrote:It's not a bad point. I've always wondered why past greats are always losing against newer and younger ones. Now we have 13 and 14 year olds getting famous in the progaming scene. It's quite ridiculous and I can't cheer for babies like that. It seems like the physical aspect of the game really needs to step back a little. Progaming would maybe also have a better reputation in general when it's not just teenagers who can become so good.
your saying the physical aspect of the game needs to step back because 13 and 14 year olds can beat pro gamers using it? maybe we should put it back so 8 year olds can master it too.
no, but seriously--do you think this argument even supports your point? Granted geniuses exist, like a 14 year old who can beat a progamer, it's not because of some interface, it's much much more than that. i don't know a lot of children who have faster hand control than those older than them, and i don't know many old people losing this reflex skill unless they have arthritis or carpel tunnel. after reading an argument like this i really wonder if you'll believe anything to make your point.
|
There are older gamers at other games. The fact SC pro gamers are so young on average is that the training regimen is ridiculous, and when you hit the 20s, you want to do something else. Like, for example, have sex. Maybe a family. Things like that.
Games like CS where pros don't play as much, and in a much healthier environment, do play up to their 30s.
|
I can't believe how far the thread went into the stupid assumptions to manage to justify that shitty UI 'evolution'.
If you dont realize it will reduce the skill gap along 1 MAJOR component of the game, then you're blind, stupid or too young. Now if you think that the 'benefits' of such fucking change can compensate, or better balance, thats your personal (and ignorant) point of view.
We'll have to wait the result to see the failure, i mean not for you, but for the true Starcraft players, not guys coming back from Warcraft 3 or switching addicts. Hopefully, as some of you mentioned, the progaming scene won't be able to be as stupid and base their durability on such futile arguments. We may thus keep a good game for a little more time.
Next time it will be the same fight, except you'll be allowed to fuck up another franchise, so i won't mind so much.
|
Again, I didn't mean it to be an argument or justification for MBS, just an interesting possible side-effect on an issue that I feel will affect SC progaming in the long term. I think I've shown that there's a significant negative correlation between age and performance (not retirement) in progaming. Perhaps that correlation can be explained by a unilateral psychological burnout, but given Grrrr's statement it makes more sense that in a game as demanding as Starcraft, subtle physiological changes can affect one's game at the highest levels. I mean, it's obvious that Nal_ra and Iloveoov aren't burned out, but they're clearly losing more games to younger players nowadays than their skill would imply. Grrrr gave reflexes as a reason, and as both handspeed (not dexterity) and reflexes are both governed by the speed of electrical impulses from the brain to the hand, I figured handspeed might be affected also. Guitar and piano players, after all, don't have to compete on who can play the fastest. However, I can't find any evidence supporting this claim, so I could easily be wrong. Also, the younger players have the advantage of playing Starcraft from a younger age, so their brains are better conditioned to the multitasking demands of the game; but whether this is the dominant factor will have to wait about 6 years, since if this is true the younger players should play just as well despite their age.
I've got to go right now, so I have to leave the rest for later.
|
Ok, so we're back at square one again.
The only solid argument that the Pro-MBS players have brought up is that MBS will attract more noobs to the game, meaning there will be higher initial sales.
Its a fair argument that has merit. Blizzard however should realise that if they can make a competative game, it might branch out beyond korea, spawning proleagues around the world. If it did that, im sure game sales would skyrocket far higher than they could possibly go without the competative scenes.
So the question for blizzard is, do they play is safe, and cater to the noobs, resulting in strong sales. Or do they cater for the competative scenes in hope that starcraft 2 becomes an even greater phenomenon that Starcraft 1 did and therefore selling record copies?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
