|
On November 30 2011 01:51 sluggaslamoo 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 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 but that's a whole other story. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236
Yea, that's why I said in my post above yours who said bw pros only win because of superior mechanics.
These people seem to think bw pros like jaedong/flash etc don't have any decision making hhahaha.
Bw is harder not just mechanically but it's also designed better. Hopefully sc2 one day can improve, it is very young afterall.
|
On November 30 2011 01:35 Wren wrote:Show nested quote +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. Your last sentence is confusing. Are you saying that work ethic is not a talent? Or if you mean some form of work ethic they weren't talented at, why is it vital to understand?
|
On November 30 2011 01:55 jj33 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:51 sluggaslamoo 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 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 but that's a whole other story. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236 Yea, that's why I said in my post above yours who said bw pros only win because of superior mechanics. These people seem to think bw pros like jaedong/flash etc don't have any decision making hhahaha. Bw is harder not just mechanically but it's also designed better. Hopefully sc2 one day can improve, it is very young afterall.
Savior T_T , I can't get over all the crimes you did to us bw fans , you were supposed to be the one , why did you join the dark side , Still Every time some one mentions savior , I get all excited and flash backs of his amazing games come to my mind , I tried to play you down , but you are the only guy who has such an impact for the scene be it positive or detrimental..
|
I tought of another bw pro moving over! White-ra! :D
|
On November 30 2011 02:12 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:55 jj33 wrote:On November 30 2011 01:51 sluggaslamoo 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 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 but that's a whole other story. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236 Yea, that's why I said in my post above yours who said bw pros only win because of superior mechanics. These people seem to think bw pros like jaedong/flash etc don't have any decision making hhahaha. Bw is harder not just mechanically but it's also designed better. Hopefully sc2 one day can improve, it is very young afterall. Savior T_T , I can't get over all the crimes you did to us bw fans , you were supposed to be the one , why did you join the dark side , Still Every time some one mentions savior , I get all excited and flash backs of his amazing games come to my mind , I tried to play you down , but you are the only guy who has such an impact for the scene be it positive or detrimental..
SAvior is a prime example of what I'm talking about.
That guys on spot decision making was incredible, you can't train that or teach that. You either have it or you don't.
|
On November 30 2011 01:51 jj33 wrote:
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.
That's kinda true. Look at Stork who has occasionally been #1 in several rankings, won an OSL Gold, and in total been in more finals than any other Protoss. He has one of the lowest APMs of any pro-Protoss in BW, perhaps among notables only higher than Movie.
The big three (Flash, Jaedong, Bisu) have pioneered so many creative builds that it's quite silly to say they only win with mechanics.
|
On November 30 2011 01:35 Wren wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Wrong.
Jaedong's and flash's success is two fold. work ethic and talent.
|
On November 30 2011 02:23 jj33 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 02:12 Sawamura wrote:On November 30 2011 01:55 jj33 wrote:On November 30 2011 01:51 sluggaslamoo 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 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 but that's a whole other story. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236 Yea, that's why I said in my post above yours who said bw pros only win because of superior mechanics. These people seem to think bw pros like jaedong/flash etc don't have any decision making hhahaha. Bw is harder not just mechanically but it's also designed better. Hopefully sc2 one day can improve, it is very young afterall. Savior T_T , I can't get over all the crimes you did to us bw fans , you were supposed to be the one , why did you join the dark side , Still Every time some one mentions savior , I get all excited and flash backs of his amazing games come to my mind , I tried to play you down , but you are the only guy who has such an impact for the scene be it positive or detrimental.. SAvior is a prime example of what I'm talking about. That guys on spot decision making was incredible, you can't train that or teach that. You either have it or you don't.
What part of decision making makes it necessarily an inborn skill, in your estimation?
|
wow this got heated up again?:D
|
On November 30 2011 01:34 Zinjil 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 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?
I would take the second option. The reason SC2 doesn't yet require the same amount of dedication to be dominant is that the game, even at the top level, is currently played by volatile, inconsistent players. If the players aren't as good, you don't need to practice as much to keep up. The reason SC2 seems so volatile is that the players themselves are volatile.
The players with the highest potential to be truly dominant at SC2 are either still playing BW, or they're 12-16 years old and haven't yet gained the mental maturity to take their play to the next level.
|
On November 30 2011 02:06 Akta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 01:35 Wren wrote: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. Your last sentence is confusing. Are you saying that work ethic is not a talent? Or if you mean some form of work ethic they weren't talented at, why is it vital to understand?
Talent implies that you were born with something, but work ethic is a decision and a commitment that anyone is capable of making. HuK and NaNiwa have work ethic in spades and we are already seeing that translate to incredible quality. That they are non-BW-playing foreigners serves to further undercut the opinion of this editorial that BW pros will dominate sc2 because they played BW.
|
On November 30 2011 02:26 Zinjil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 02:23 jj33 wrote:On November 30 2011 02:12 Sawamura wrote:On November 30 2011 01:55 jj33 wrote:On November 30 2011 01:51 sluggaslamoo 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 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 but that's a whole other story. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236 Yea, that's why I said in my post above yours who said bw pros only win because of superior mechanics. These people seem to think bw pros like jaedong/flash etc don't have any decision making hhahaha. Bw is harder not just mechanically but it's also designed better. Hopefully sc2 one day can improve, it is very young afterall. Savior T_T , I can't get over all the crimes you did to us bw fans , you were supposed to be the one , why did you join the dark side , Still Every time some one mentions savior , I get all excited and flash backs of his amazing games come to my mind , I tried to play you down , but you are the only guy who has such an impact for the scene be it positive or detrimental.. SAvior is a prime example of what I'm talking about. That guys on spot decision making was incredible, you can't train that or teach that. You either have it or you don't. What part of decision making makes it necessarily an inborn skill, in your estimation?
You ever read about real life battles? There were generals in history, for example like the British empire where many of the generals were just highborn given command due to who they were born to. Doesn't matter how much training you give them, they were not strategical geniuses much less adept at strategy.
Now you read about real generals, guys like genghis khan and his war dogs and hannibal or alexander the great.
These men were not a dime a dozen, you could not train someone to be them, they were who they were simple as that.
Genghis khan for example installed a system of meritocracy. Basically he stopped the old system of promoting guys based on their bloodline. He would see which guys in battle made great adjustments or showed great strategical acumen and promote them based on their skills.
You can play a game of sc2 and make a mistake and note to yourself "ok don't do that"
however in strategy, which sc2 is a strategy game or bw, there will always be situations that arise where you can not experience every single damn possible situation and mind games also go on. this is where on spot decision making is important.
MVP is a good example of this in sc2. His decision making if you pay attention to how he plays and not just watch for the big battles, he has incredible decision making.
Not everybody has that.
|
Article talks about seeing an elephant. It looks more like a mouse to me. Making mountains out of molehills.
|
The skillsets necessary to be good at BW, WC3 and SC2 all overlap, but are all different. There is no guarantee a god at any one of these games would be a god at the other, but it is a guarantee they would at least be pretty good.
Personally, I believe that if you've spent the formative portion of your life getting good at a specific game, you will be hard pressed to be top level at any other, even if there is significant overlap in the skillset. Too much of your brain is stuck in the immense knowledge of your previous game. IMO the upcoming top SC2 players will be young prodigies who just 'get' starcraft 2. The older players from other games will do well at first, but slowly fall off as the skill level of newer players rises and passes theirs. I think we've begun to see this already, and the trend will continue.
|
On November 30 2011 02:39 jj33 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 02:26 Zinjil wrote:On November 30 2011 02:23 jj33 wrote:On November 30 2011 02:12 Sawamura wrote:On November 30 2011 01:55 jj33 wrote:On November 30 2011 01:51 sluggaslamoo 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 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 but that's a whole other story. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236 Yea, that's why I said in my post above yours who said bw pros only win because of superior mechanics. These people seem to think bw pros like jaedong/flash etc don't have any decision making hhahaha. Bw is harder not just mechanically but it's also designed better. Hopefully sc2 one day can improve, it is very young afterall. Savior T_T , I can't get over all the crimes you did to us bw fans , you were supposed to be the one , why did you join the dark side , Still Every time some one mentions savior , I get all excited and flash backs of his amazing games come to my mind , I tried to play you down , but you are the only guy who has such an impact for the scene be it positive or detrimental.. SAvior is a prime example of what I'm talking about. That guys on spot decision making was incredible, you can't train that or teach that. You either have it or you don't. What part of decision making makes it necessarily an inborn skill, in your estimation? You ever read about real life battles? There were generals in history, for example like the British empire where many of the generals were just highborn given command due to who they were born to. Doesn't matter how much training you give them, they were not strategical geniuses much less adept at strategy. Now you read about real generals, guys like genghis khan and his war dogs and hannibal or alexander the great. These men were not a dime a dozen, you could not train someone to be them, they were who they were simple as that. Genghis khan for example installed a system of meritocracy. Basically he stopped the old system of promoting guys based on their bloodline. He would see which guys in battle made great adjustments or showed great strategical acumen and promote them based on their skills. You can play a game of sc2 and make a mistake and note to yourself "ok don't do that" however in strategy, which sc2 is a strategy game or bw, there will always be situations that arise where you can not experience every single damn possible situation and mind games also go on. this is where on spot decision making is important. MVP is a good example of this in sc2. His decision making if you pay attention to how he plays and not just watch for the big battles, he has incredible decision making. Not everybody has that.
I absolutely agree that not everybody can make snap decisions at the same level as MVP, I'm questioning whether it is a skill that can be trained in some way. For example, experiencing tough strategical decisions multiple times per day (say in a game of starcraft) might train a person in some small way to better deal with other, unforseen decisions in the future. If this is the case, decision making becomes a thing that anyone can be taught.
|
Wow, amazing read and some great points!
I would be curious to see how certain players would fare in the SC2 scene
|
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.
It's more of a theory than an argument and you're just backing it up with speculation but we.
|
I'm surprised this thread was revisited. It looks so silly now. Just think of all the great stuff that happened between then and now.
|
If people read the lastest flash interview, he even said he wasnt born with natural talent and it was just tons of hard work. his other sense of picking off drops etc, are just luck and gut feeling from tons of playing and he said even the most "talented" people and the considered genius's like bisu work their asses off. So i dont think natural talent is going even a topic of discussion in this as hard work > talent.
|
Hey guys, how could Naniwa (mediocre wc3 player) beat MVP? :o
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
