|
On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2.
Bold statement. Does not seem like you know alot about brood war or sc2 and you're just throwing around some generalized stereotypes of what you percieve bw and sc2 to be. We will see I guess.
And the reason sc2 training is more lax imo is that there are not enough resources in sc2 to assign players to focus on play and coaches to focus on strategy and other stuff. Sc2 will get there in time when it is figured out and the teams can afford specialisation.
|
On November 30 2011 01:16 bubl100500 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2. You are so wrong...
I agree w/ him.
|
On November 30 2011 00:37 The KY wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 00:21 pigscanfly wrote:On November 29 2011 23:47 Neurosis wrote:
So uh, you don't actually understand why ForGG's play vs Polt was so insane do you? That had nothing to do with Polt playing bad or using the wrong units, that was just a complete and utter different level of play from ForGG. Watching those games I felt like that was exactly how Terran was meant to be played in sc2. That was a display of relentless multitasking and crisp micro that no one else has shown yet. I guess what I'm saying is he will easily smash through code s if his other match ups are as strong as his t v t. This. Players like MVP or MMA or Huk have occasionally shown control + macro as solid as his but his play has gotten me very very excited. He should be in Code S soon. Watching Fin play and watching MVP play over the last two days, I'd say maybe people are hyping him up a little too much. MVP's play still impresses me much more, I didn't see Fin do anything particularly special today. Polt defended badly against banshees first game and just got overpowered by a two base attack, second game Polt just kept going marine medivac against banshees and tanks, and just played it badly. Fin played solid but not incredible. He didn't make any big mistakes and very few small mistakes; he outplayed Polt on every level but Polt was playing badly. I don't think it was a 'different level of play' at ALL, I certainly don't think he displayed multitasking and micro thus far unseen in SC2. Watch MVP v Leenock game 1 and 2 again and tell me that Fin is more impressive than MVP. EDIT: I mean, like....his unit comp was cool? But his execution was just solid, not mind blowing. I'm not saying he isn't super super good, he might be, I just don't think that was displayed in that game.
That's what I think as well. Fin's play didn't inspire me like MVP's or MMA's, or even Bomber's(when he's on top). His banshee usage in TvT was groundbreaking though.
|
On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2.
I like it. Though I think that a lot of high level BW players will make it to the top of SC2 (just like a lot of other people who learned in their life how to focus on training/learning would), I think that your core argument is quite true. StarCraft 2 is very different from StarCraft 1 and at least right now it seems like the games balance lies more in the capabilities of ones brain, than ones hands.
|
On November 30 2011 01:14 Eishi_Ki wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2. BW Unbeatable Giants? Forgg? Aye? In any case, I hear he and a lot of other ex BW players (middle tier (Sangho) and lower tier (Nestea)) are doing quite well in SC2 You know nothing Jon Snow (and your opinion's unpopular because it's nonsense, not because the skill cap is lower. 'Mindless' indeed)
When you try to invalidate an argument its traditional to include reasons why.
|
[QUOTE]On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
"My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder."
Tho your argument may be have point. I wish you can elaborate more why there's a better strategical design more so in sc2 than bw.
|
On November 30 2011 01:18 Grend wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2. Bold statement. Does not seem like you know alot about brood war or sc2 and you're just throwing around some generalized stereotypes of what you percieve bw and sc2 to be. We will see I guess. And the reason sc2 training is more lax imo is that there are not enough resources in sc2 to assign players to focus on play and coaches to focus on strategy and other stuff. Sc2 will get there in time when it is figured out and the teams can afford specialisation.
No my argument is really specific, the lower mechanics ceiling creates more interesting possibilities in the long run than BW's design afforded.
|
On November 30 2011 01:22 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2. I like it. Though I think that a lot of high level BW players will make it to the top of SC2 (just like a lot of other people who learned in their life how to focus on training/learning would), I think that your core argument is quite true. StarCraft 2 is very different from StarCraft 1 and at least right now it seems like the games balance lies more in the capabilities of ones brain, than ones hands.
Thanks. And mechanics will improve dramatically over time, don't get me wrong, we are far from perfection in that realm. It just seems like an obvious, conscious design decision to decrease the mechanics ceiling in favor of more meta decision making.
|
On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2.
Which do you think is more likely: that players in sc2 have realized that being some kind of tactical mastermind is more important than being mechanically sound and so they're mentally training themselves at the top of mountains to be tactical geniuses without even looking at a screen, or that the level of play in sc2 doesn't yet require the same amount of time and dedication to be dominant as brood war, and the players are adjusting their practice time accordingly?
|
On November 30 2011 00:37 The KY wrote:
Watching Fin play and watching MVP play over the last two days, I'd say maybe people are hyping him up a little too much. MVP's play still impresses me much more
Mvp is also a former BW pro! That just further proves the point if he's the only one you can think of ... OMG ELEPHANTS!!!
A huge portion of the practice that BW pros have put in over time applies directly to SC2. They have been working much harder at the game for much longer and are therefore ahead of the curve compared to those who aren't Korean BW pros. Mechanics come with practice, even speed is improved with dedicated effort.
The notion of being "better" at RTS games is largely an irrational claim born of fanboyism. It is, I believe, an expression of understanding (often called "game sense") that is not transferrable from game to game. Timings, useful cheeses, hiding locations, drop paths, and all the other game elements that a player must master to improve quality of competitive play are game-, matchup-, and map-dependent and change monthly (if not quicker).
It does not take some sort of magical ability to get this understanding, it's useful and dedicated practice that enables understanding. That practice-generated understanding, plus personal creativity, separate players of equal mechanics, not a history of BW competition.
It is appropriate to be amazed by Flash and Jaedong, and to predict their success at whatever game they choose to play. However, it is vital to understand that the success is and will be born of work ethic, not talent.
|
On November 30 2011 01:30 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:22 Big J wrote:On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2. I like it. Though I think that a lot of high level BW players will make it to the top of SC2 (just like a lot of other people who learned in their life how to focus on training/learning would), I think that your core argument is quite true. StarCraft 2 is very different from StarCraft 1 and at least right now it seems like the games balance lies more in the capabilities of ones brain, than ones hands. Thanks. And mechanics will improve dramatically over time, don't get me wrong, we are far from perfection in that realm. It just seems like an obvious, conscious design decision to decrease the mechanics ceiling in favor of more meta decision making.
So basically creating a build order game 8(
|
Zurich15366 Posts
On November 30 2011 01:28 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:18 Grend wrote:On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2. Bold statement. Does not seem like you know alot about brood war or sc2 and you're just throwing around some generalized stereotypes of what you percieve bw and sc2 to be. We will see I guess. And the reason sc2 training is more lax imo is that there are not enough resources in sc2 to assign players to focus on play and coaches to focus on strategy and other stuff. Sc2 will get there in time when it is figured out and the teams can afford specialisation. No my argument is really specific, the lower mechanics ceiling creates more interesting possibilities in the long run than BW's design afforded.
Can you explain why you think that is? The only possible argument for this reasoning I see is that there are "interesting possibilities" in Broodwar that we don't get to see because of the higher mechanical skill requirements. Can you please expand on these "interesting possibilities"? Can you give us an example?
|
[QUOTE]On November 30 2011 01:27 Danzo wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
"My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder."
Tho your argument may be have point. I wish you can elaborate more why there's a better strategical design more so in sc2 than bw.[/QUOTE]
Sure thing, in BW the mechanics ceiling is very high, which limits the amount of mental energy that can be devoted to "high level strategy," mind games or finding weaknesses in your opponent, the chess-like element of Starcraft. Sc2 has a lower bar for mechanics, although that has not yet been reached by really anyone. In about a year, when pros start truly mastering SC2 mechanics I think there will be a tactical renaissance as people discover that doing something unexpected, or having a unique playstyle will benefit you more than, as in BW, repetitively practicing mechanics to get a slight edge on your opponent. Only the top tier of BW players had mechanics mastered to the point that they could engage in the kind of activity I'm describing, which is what allowed them to dominate the competition so decisively. Going along with that, they tended to have some of the strongest work ethics amongst pro players.
|
On November 30 2011 01:16 bubl100500 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2. You are so wrong... Mind to comment why he is wrong?
I agree with large parts of his posting, for the reasons he gave in his posting.
|
On November 30 2011 01:39 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:28 Almonjin wrote:On November 30 2011 01:18 Grend wrote:On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2. Bold statement. Does not seem like you know alot about brood war or sc2 and you're just throwing around some generalized stereotypes of what you percieve bw and sc2 to be. We will see I guess. And the reason sc2 training is more lax imo is that there are not enough resources in sc2 to assign players to focus on play and coaches to focus on strategy and other stuff. Sc2 will get there in time when it is figured out and the teams can afford specialisation. No my argument is really specific, the lower mechanics ceiling creates more interesting possibilities in the long run than BW's design afforded. Can you explain why you think that is? The only possible argument for this reasoning I see is that there are "interesting possibilities" in Broodwar that we don't get to see because of the higher mechanical skill requirements. Can you please expand on these "interesting possibilities"? Can you give us an example?
I've always felt the actions are just going to get transferred from macro to micro. This entire macro into deathball style is going to fade away as people start forcing multitasking on larger maps, which will come as people keep refining.
|
Kind of like saying Ronnie O'Sullivan would dominate pool tournaments. He would do well but theres no evidence to sugest it as fact.
Opinion is just opinion until proved otherwise. Instead of focusing on talking about it the focus should be on providing incentive to these BW pros to come over and try prove it. See it for real rather than sit about and talk about it.
|
[QUOTE]On November 30 2011 01:39 Almonjin wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 30 2011 01:27 Danzo wrote:
[QUOTE]On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
"My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder."
Tho your argument may be have point. I wish you can elaborate more why there's a better strategical design more so in sc2 than bw.[/QUOTE]
"Sure thing, in BW the mechanics ceiling is very high, which limits the amount of mental energy that can be devoted to "high level strategy," mind games or finding weaknesses in your opponent, the chess-like element of Starcraft. Sc2 has a lower bar for mechanics, although that has not yet been reached by really anyone. In about a year, when pros start truly mastering SC2 mechanics I think there will be a tactical renaissance as people discover that doing something unexpected, or having a unique playstyle will benefit you more than, as in BW, repetitively practicing mechanics to get a slight edge on your opponent. Only the top tier of BW players had mechanics mastered to the point that they could engage in the kind of activity I'm describing, which is what allowed them to dominate the competition so decisively. Going along with that, they tended to have some of the strongest work ethics amongst pro players. [/QUOTE]"
Tho it's quite obvious that Broodwar mechanics are more challenging, there can be an argument that Broodwar game design and strategy can still be quite superior. If you would get rid of the "Mechanics" argument that would be left for another discussion. Tho you're correct that easy sc2 mechanics offer slightly different strategy, could it be more superior? This is more of a metaphysical argument than anything else and it's going to turn into a sc2vsbw debate.I can even say that Broodwar still has more strategical potential as well.
|
What bw "fetishists" said top bw pros only win because of superior mechanics?
top guys like jaedong / bisu don't win because of some huge mechanical advantage, they win due to their superior mind games and decision making.
Having superb mechanics is a given for top bw pros, that's not what separates the top bw pros from merely the good ones.
|
On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
The truth that the BW fetishists won't admit is that mechanics isn't, and isn't going to be enough to win in Sc2.
Just because you can write eloquently doesn't make your argument any more valid. Its still a pile of drivel that can be summed up to the age old "OMG SC2 HAZ MOAR STRATEGY THAN BW COZ LESS MECHANICS" argument that was prevalent during the Beta days, but now a lot of people realise that this is not true. You cite no examples of proof of your reasoning about SC2 design being better than BW's, or how strategy has developed deeper than BW.
Here's a good topic for starters, you don't even need to watch a vod. Its about a 200-ish apm player who came out of no-where and used superior tactics and strategies to completely dominate a scene with an under-powered race on completely imbalanced maps at the time. He retired due to being caught match-fixing (paid to lose!) but that's a whole other story.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236
|
On November 30 2011 01:39 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:27 Danzo wrote:On November 30 2011 00:59 Almonjin wrote:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand. "My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW is because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder." Tho your argument may be have point. I wish you can elaborate more why there's a better strategical design more so in sc2 than bw. Sure thing, in BW the mechanics ceiling is very high, which limits the amount of mental energy that can be devoted to "high level strategy," mind games or finding weaknesses in your opponent, the chess-like element of Starcraft. Sc2 has a lower bar for mechanics, although that has not yet been reached by really anyone. In about a year, when pros start truly mastering SC2 mechanics I think there will be a tactical renaissance as people discover that doing something unexpected, or having a unique playstyle will benefit you more than, as in BW, repetitively practicing mechanics to get a slight edge on your opponent. Only the top tier of BW players had mechanics mastered to the point that they could engage in the kind of activity I'm describing, which is what allowed them to dominate the competition so decisively. Going along with that, they tended to have some of the strongest work ethics amongst pro players.
how much brood war have you watched
how much do you know about brood war
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
