|
On November 30 2011 05:55 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 05:48 Zinjil wrote:On November 30 2011 05:42 grs wrote:
Question is: Will this article be bumped again if Fin loses and does not make it to Code S? Only time will tell. The thing I found most interesting when ForGG moved over, and this has happened for every player that has switched games as of yet, is that BW followers will kind of hedge their bets, say "oh yeah he was good for a time, but not TOP top tier, he might not dominate" but when the new guys start winning it's the same rhetoric that got this thread published and bumped again months later. Makes me feel like it's far less than 300 potential players to dominate the scene, and instead more like 1-2 dozen, with their 250 mid-tier brethren in tow. I think Artosis said this in a SotG episode too... Something like "the far top players like Bisu, Jaedong and Flash will make their impact, but most other BroodWar players are only copycats."
I don't think Mvp was more than a copycat in BW, well where is he in sc2?
|
On November 30 2011 05:48 Zinjil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 05:42 grs wrote:
Question is: Will this article be bumped again if Fin loses and does not make it to Code S? Only time will tell. The thing I found most interesting when ForGG moved over, and this has happened for every player that has switched games as of yet, is that BW followers will kind of hedge their bets, say "oh yeah he was good for a time, but not TOP top tier, he might not dominate" but when the new guys start winning it's the same rhetoric that got this thread published and bumped again months later. Makes me feel like it's far less than 300 potential players to dominate the scene, and instead more like 1-2 dozen, with their 250 mid-tier brethren in tow.
I dont see how a few random people downplaying expectations invalidates the point of the article. You will allways find people of different opinions.
I would agree with you that there arent 300 potentials players to dominate the current scene, maybe there are 1-2 dozen, maybe 3, maybe 6 dozen, noone knows. The thing is even if its only 2 dozen players ready to dominate the scene Sc2 is missing a lot of potential excitement, (if the article is right, of course, which I would believe to be so) Imagine NBA without Kobe, Vade, James Howard etc.
|
On November 30 2011 06:07 bubl100500 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 05:55 Big J wrote:On November 30 2011 05:48 Zinjil wrote:On November 30 2011 05:42 grs wrote:
Question is: Will this article be bumped again if Fin loses and does not make it to Code S? Only time will tell. The thing I found most interesting when ForGG moved over, and this has happened for every player that has switched games as of yet, is that BW followers will kind of hedge their bets, say "oh yeah he was good for a time, but not TOP top tier, he might not dominate" but when the new guys start winning it's the same rhetoric that got this thread published and bumped again months later. Makes me feel like it's far less than 300 potential players to dominate the scene, and instead more like 1-2 dozen, with their 250 mid-tier brethren in tow. I think Artosis said this in a SotG episode too... Something like "the far top players like Bisu, Jaedong and Flash will make their impact, but most other BroodWar players are only copycats." I don't think Mvp was more than a copycat in BW, well where is he in sc2?
Ask Artosis, it's his argument...
|
The advantage the best Korean Broodwar pros bring is their work ethic (12+ hours a day training), their mechanics and multitasking, their stage experience, and their understanding of how to properly practice and prepare builds with teammates for tournaments.
Those skills are highly transferable, they just need to learn the basics and the metagame first.
I remember when Idra first went to Korea, the eSTRO coach forced him to do nothing but try to boost his APM over 300 and getting used to a more efficient hotkey setup for his first month of playing. So many foreigners right now are just sitting comfortable, unwilling to commit to the soul crushing work of just improving their mechanics so that they can be viable top level players, and they don't have a Korean coach to force them to do it. The reason is because it's hard, and since you end up playing far worse during the transition period most people get demoralized and go back to their old and bad habits.
|
Awesome article even though I already knew all of this before hand, but just a well thought out article with a good premise. I appreciate the extra research done, to give it a good backbone.
When I watch Nestea, MC, and MvP play, I get nerd chills. When I watch Flash and Jaedong play SC1, my heart stops beating, but when I think of them playing SC2 among us... I get nightmares.
Most people think the current GSL winners don't fully understand the magnitude of the soon to come talent, but if I were a GSL winner, and I knew a SC1-chuck-norris was coming to play my game, I would just sit back and enjoy what I have while I still can, its game over dude. LOL naw a serious pro would try to catchup.
|
On November 30 2011 06:09 Jakalo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 05:48 Zinjil wrote:On November 30 2011 05:42 grs wrote:
Question is: Will this article be bumped again if Fin loses and does not make it to Code S? Only time will tell. The thing I found most interesting when ForGG moved over, and this has happened for every player that has switched games as of yet, is that BW followers will kind of hedge their bets, say "oh yeah he was good for a time, but not TOP top tier, he might not dominate" but when the new guys start winning it's the same rhetoric that got this thread published and bumped again months later. Makes me feel like it's far less than 300 potential players to dominate the scene, and instead more like 1-2 dozen, with their 250 mid-tier brethren in tow. I dont see how a few random people downplaying expectations invalidates the point of the article. You will allways find people of different opinions. I would agree with you that there arent 300 potentials players to dominate the current scene, maybe there are 1-2 dozen, maybe 3, maybe 6 dozen, noone knows. The thing is even if its only 2 dozen players ready to dominate the scene Sc2 is missing a lot of potential excitement, (if the article is right, of course, which I would believe to be so) Imagine NBA without Kobe, Vade, James Howard etc.
That's a perfectly fine argument to make, and a defensible position to hold. Problem is, the article that is the reason for this whole thread's existence says that there are 300 players that are capable of switching games and being dominant within a quarter of a year. This varies from what has occurred in reality to me, hence my statement.
|
On November 30 2011 05:03 Kimaker 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. It is the mixture of mechanics with strategic capabilities that I find impressive and fun to watch about BW. Day[9] said it best, you have to have the dexterity of a classically trained pianist and the mind of a chess grand master. I've reread your post a few times and I'm not sure what the purpose of it was. Okay, I get it, you don't like BW. However, you seem to be insinuating that in BW strategic capability pale's in such a way next to mechanical ability that it can't compensate against someone with superior mechanics. You are wrong. As of now those "devious" players you speak of exist in BW, and can be found in a large cluster on ACE right now. As a whole that entire team is likely mechanically inferior to many of the other players on other teams. But they win. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=289679Perhaps a bit early in the season (definitely early) but it makes a good point about teams without mechanical monsters on it, but very savvy players. I guess my rebuttal is, what? How and where are you getting your intimate knowledge of BW from? I don't understand what your point is, so I've made my attempt to respond to what I perceive to be your point.
Hi! So as far as a "purpose" well, not sure what you mean. I don't intent to prove anything, really, just give some observations. The point is pretty straightforward, and it isn't an original argument by any means.
Actually I love BW, but I think in Sc2 the design decisions that were made will result in possibly a better game.
Strategic ability in BW doesn't pale to Sc2 atm, but I propose that it will in the future when the lower mechanics ceiling is reached by most top level pro's and Sc2 players begin exploring new avenues to win.
Sure devious players exist in BW, but for the most part only top pro's can consistently engage in this type of play while maintaining perfect or close mechanics. Sure devious players exist that have sub-perfect mechanics and win games, but this is a niche role and these people will lose to players like Flash that can do both.
So really nothing you said contradicts my argument at all.
|
When this was posted it made me think of the next step. Sc1's existing talent pool should likely produce some good sc2 players(it already did obviously) but how long will it take before new talent without professional RTS backgrounds begin to take over or whatever?
|
ForGG or oGs.Fin, beats convincingly Sage and then 2-0's TSL Polt(Super tournament champion, 4-0 MMA) like it was nobody's business, and the he suddenly becomes:
+ Show Spoiler +![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/EKxzW.jpg) Had to do one of these at least once in a lifetime  PD.It's so bad it's funny, ms paint ftw
|
On November 30 2011 05:53 Kiarip 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. This is an incredibly uneducated argument. In a RTS high mechanical ceilings result in more decision making rather than less. That's a huge part of why Broodwar is such a hard game to play. Yes, the mechanics are hard, but it's not a game that's won by mechanics, and the human limitation of mechanical skill is responsible for a lot of strategic depth.
Actually the contrary, you don't appear to understand what you're saying. Improving mechanics up to the skill ceiling is probably the most consistent way to improve your win ratio in every matchup. It is possible to get perfect or close at BW mechanics, it is extraordinarily difficult and requires an immense amount of practice. Players that can do not only this but can muster the mental energy to engage in devious strategy and mind games are amongst the top players in BW. The issue with this is you get a few like Flash that can pull this off, and a body of pro gamers for whom the most rational strategy is to grind mechanics harder and harder in the hopes that they will eventually internalize them to the point that some mental energy will remain to be used. It's simple really, and if you think about it not even that controversial.
|
On November 30 2011 06:24 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 05:03 Kimaker 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. It is the mixture of mechanics with strategic capabilities that I find impressive and fun to watch about BW. Day[9] said it best, you have to have the dexterity of a classically trained pianist and the mind of a chess grand master. I've reread your post a few times and I'm not sure what the purpose of it was. Okay, I get it, you don't like BW. However, you seem to be insinuating that in BW strategic capability pale's in such a way next to mechanical ability that it can't compensate against someone with superior mechanics. You are wrong. As of now those "devious" players you speak of exist in BW, and can be found in a large cluster on ACE right now. As a whole that entire team is likely mechanically inferior to many of the other players on other teams. But they win. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=289679Perhaps a bit early in the season (definitely early) but it makes a good point about teams without mechanical monsters on it, but very savvy players. I guess my rebuttal is, what? How and where are you getting your intimate knowledge of BW from? I don't understand what your point is, so I've made my attempt to respond to what I perceive to be your point. Hi! So as far as a "purpose" well, not sure what you mean. I don't intent to prove anything, really, just give some observations. The point is pretty straightforward, and it isn't an original argument by any means. Actually I love BW, but I think in Sc2 the design decisions that were made will result in possibly a better game. Strategic ability in BW doesn't pale to Sc2 atm, but I propose that it will in the future when the lower mechanics ceiling is reached by most top level pro's and Sc2 players begin exploring new avenues to win. Sure devious players exist in BW, but for the most part only top pro's can consistently engage in this type of play while maintaining perfect or close mechanics. Sure devious players exist that have sub-perfect mechanics and win games, but this is a niche role and these people will lose to players like Flash that can do both. So really nothing you said contradicts my argument at all.
"The point is pretty straightforward, and it isn't an original argument by any means. " No it's not . In fact the only argument you gave was about mechanics, which was a flawed one. You still haven't answered most questions and gave a true metaphysical response about Brood war's game design. Just a bunch of mechanics babble.
|
On November 30 2011 06:15 Zinjil wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 06:09 Jakalo wrote:On November 30 2011 05:48 Zinjil wrote:On November 30 2011 05:42 grs wrote:
Question is: Will this article be bumped again if Fin loses and does not make it to Code S? Only time will tell. The thing I found most interesting when ForGG moved over, and this has happened for every player that has switched games as of yet, is that BW followers will kind of hedge their bets, say "oh yeah he was good for a time, but not TOP top tier, he might not dominate" but when the new guys start winning it's the same rhetoric that got this thread published and bumped again months later. Makes me feel like it's far less than 300 potential players to dominate the scene, and instead more like 1-2 dozen, with their 250 mid-tier brethren in tow. I dont see how a few random people downplaying expectations invalidates the point of the article. You will allways find people of different opinions. I would agree with you that there arent 300 potentials players to dominate the current scene, maybe there are 1-2 dozen, maybe 3, maybe 6 dozen, noone knows. The thing is even if its only 2 dozen players ready to dominate the scene Sc2 is missing a lot of potential excitement, (if the article is right, of course, which I would believe to be so) Imagine NBA without Kobe, Vade, James Howard etc. That's a perfectly fine argument to make, and a defensible position to hold. Problem is, the article that is the reason for this whole thread's existence says that there are 300 players that are capable of switching games and being dominant within a quarter of a year. This varies from what has occurred in reality to me, hence my statement.
Yes, but ''potentional to dominate'' is a very broad statement. Article itself is kind of inconsistent in that regard and 300 quote should be looked at as an exaggaration.
Without that paragraph and maybe with less ''farce'' and ''joke'' it would have done much better to present its valid points.
|
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 (paid to lose!) but that's a whole other story. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=226236
Hey there. To begin with, thanks! I've always enjoyed writing.
It's true that my argument is unoriginal, although I obviously don't consider it a "pile of drivel."
I don't intend to prove anything, because doing a research project to convince the large sector of the Starcraft community infected with nostalgia is a losing proposition and a waste of my time.
Strategy in Sc2 isn't deeper than BW, yet. The lower mechanics ceiling will, in a year or so as mechanics gradually improve overall, push players to explore other avenues to get an edge. This could mean a variety of things, but I think you could organize it overall under a rubric of "high level strategy."
I'm not interested in the rest of what you wrote and fail to see its relevance to the discussion, since I didn't argue that there are no players in BW who employ strategy AT THE EXPENSE of mechanics. There is a role for this, but they will lose to those few who can do both. So, yeah.
|
United Kingdom1123 Posts
On November 30 2011 06:13 Zzoram wrote:
The advantage the best Korean Broodwar pros bring is their work ethic (12+ hours a day training), their mechanics and multitasking, their stage experience, and their understanding of how to properly practice and prepare builds with teammates for tournaments.
Those skills are highly transferable, they just need to learn the basics and the metagame first.
I remember when Idra first went to Korea, the eSTRO coach forced him to do nothing but try to boost his APM over 300 and getting used to a more efficient hotkey setup for his first month of playing. So many foreigners right now are just sitting comfortable, unwilling to commit to the soul crushing work of just improving their mechanics so that they can be viable top level players, and they don't have a Korean coach to force them to do it. The reason is because it's hard, and since you end up playing far worse during the transition period most people get demoralized and go back to their old and bad habits.
I cannot emphasise this enough, I think it is the work ethic which makes bw players so scary. They have been in the business long enough to know how to get 110% out of their practice, and by the sounds of it SC2 players are not even 1/10th as committed as they should be to try and get/stay on top.
|
On November 30 2011 06:33 Danzo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 06:24 Almonjin wrote:On November 30 2011 05:03 Kimaker 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. It is the mixture of mechanics with strategic capabilities that I find impressive and fun to watch about BW. Day[9] said it best, you have to have the dexterity of a classically trained pianist and the mind of a chess grand master. I've reread your post a few times and I'm not sure what the purpose of it was. Okay, I get it, you don't like BW. However, you seem to be insinuating that in BW strategic capability pale's in such a way next to mechanical ability that it can't compensate against someone with superior mechanics. You are wrong. As of now those "devious" players you speak of exist in BW, and can be found in a large cluster on ACE right now. As a whole that entire team is likely mechanically inferior to many of the other players on other teams. But they win. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=289679Perhaps a bit early in the season (definitely early) but it makes a good point about teams without mechanical monsters on it, but very savvy players. I guess my rebuttal is, what? How and where are you getting your intimate knowledge of BW from? I don't understand what your point is, so I've made my attempt to respond to what I perceive to be your point. Hi! So as far as a "purpose" well, not sure what you mean. I don't intent to prove anything, really, just give some observations. The point is pretty straightforward, and it isn't an original argument by any means. Actually I love BW, but I think in Sc2 the design decisions that were made will result in possibly a better game. Strategic ability in BW doesn't pale to Sc2 atm, but I propose that it will in the future when the lower mechanics ceiling is reached by most top level pro's and Sc2 players begin exploring new avenues to win. Sure devious players exist in BW, but for the most part only top pro's can consistently engage in this type of play while maintaining perfect or close mechanics. Sure devious players exist that have sub-perfect mechanics and win games, but this is a niche role and these people will lose to players like Flash that can do both. So really nothing you said contradicts my argument at all. "The point is pretty straightforward, and it isn't an original argument by any means. " No it's not . In fact the only argument you gave was about mechanics, which was a flawed one. You still haven't answered most questions and gave a true metaphysical response about Brood war's game design. Just a bunch of mechanics babble.
I thought I was perfectly clear, but my point obviously clashes with your feelings on the subject or we've arrived at some kind of mental impasse that I don't think can be resolved via arguing on an internet messageboard.
Also, as a Philosophy major I feel obligated to point out that "metaphysical" doesn't mean what you appear to think it means. I can't see any reasonable way in which you can connect that term to this debate.
For further reference, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/
|
I think the "it's a different game" argument is totally valid. The only way to know for sure is to see their results when they switch over; if anything, the ceiling has been lowered so the players that are idolized for achieving such high levels of skill are unable to achieve that level in SC2. I really don't think those players then will dominate for any extended amount of time.
|
On November 30 2011 06:36 Jakalo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 06:15 Zinjil wrote:On November 30 2011 06:09 Jakalo wrote:On November 30 2011 05:48 Zinjil wrote:On November 30 2011 05:42 grs wrote:
Question is: Will this article be bumped again if Fin loses and does not make it to Code S? Only time will tell. The thing I found most interesting when ForGG moved over, and this has happened for every player that has switched games as of yet, is that BW followers will kind of hedge their bets, say "oh yeah he was good for a time, but not TOP top tier, he might not dominate" but when the new guys start winning it's the same rhetoric that got this thread published and bumped again months later. Makes me feel like it's far less than 300 potential players to dominate the scene, and instead more like 1-2 dozen, with their 250 mid-tier brethren in tow. I dont see how a few random people downplaying expectations invalidates the point of the article. You will allways find people of different opinions. I would agree with you that there arent 300 potentials players to dominate the current scene, maybe there are 1-2 dozen, maybe 3, maybe 6 dozen, noone knows. The thing is even if its only 2 dozen players ready to dominate the scene Sc2 is missing a lot of potential excitement, (if the article is right, of course, which I would believe to be so) Imagine NBA without Kobe, Vade, James Howard etc. That's a perfectly fine argument to make, and a defensible position to hold. Problem is, the article that is the reason for this whole thread's existence says that there are 300 players that are capable of switching games and being dominant within a quarter of a year. This varies from what has occurred in reality to me, hence my statement. Yes, but ''potentional to dominate'' is a very broad statement. Article itself is kind of inconsistent in that regard and 300 quote should be looked at as an exaggaration. Without that paragraph and maybe with less ''farce'' and ''joke'' it would have done much better to present its valid points.
Yeah, "The competition in SC2 thus far has been at a relatively low level" and "there are 15 or 20 people standing off to one side that in a few months could dominate the current scene" don't really have the same kind of ring to them. Understandable to take the tone that the article did, but I'm willing to bet that the majority of the people taking issue were affected by that instead of the statistical analysis of the piece, and a less hostile choice of words might have gotten the point across better.
|
Australia509 Posts
I don't think there is an elephant in the room at all.
Did Flash play pro warcraft 3 before he started playing starcraft?
How about any of the bonjwas for that matter?
Do you really think the awaited bonjwa of sc2 will come from the ranks of an older rts?
I don't think so. I see no reason why history will not repeat itself. Starcraft 2 will get it's own bonjwa. Someone who is being brought up with starcraft as we speak. A young 15 or 16 year old who is obsessed about sc2 and plays nothing else and thinks only of winning and has the brains and apm to pull it off.
Sc2 is only young, but there will come a time where we will have our own youthful bonjwa winning every tournament and decimating the competition, even the ex bw pros and even the ex bw bonjwas if they decide to play sc2.
|
On November 30 2011 06:59 Selendis wrote:
I don't think so. I see no reason why history will not repeat itself. Starcraft 2 will get it's own bonjwa. Someone who is being brought up with starcraft as we speak. A young 15 or 16 year old who is obsessed about sc2 and plays nothing else and thinks only of winning and has the brains and apm to pull it off.
Leenock.
|
On November 30 2011 06:31 Almonjin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 05:53 Kiarip 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. This is an incredibly uneducated argument. In a RTS high mechanical ceilings result in more decision making rather than less. That's a huge part of why Broodwar is such a hard game to play. Yes, the mechanics are hard, but it's not a game that's won by mechanics, and the human limitation of mechanical skill is responsible for a lot of strategic depth. Actually the contrary, you don't appear to understand what you're saying. Improving mechanics up to the skill ceiling is probably the most consistent way to improve your win ratio in every matchup. It is possible to get perfect or close at BW mechanics, it is extraordinarily difficult and requires an immense amount of practice. Players that can do not only this but can muster the mental energy to engage in devious strategy and mind games are amongst the top players in BW. The issue with this is you get a few like Flash that can pull this off, and a body of pro gamers for whom the most rational strategy is to grind mechanics harder and harder in the hopes that they will eventually internalize them to the point that some mental energy will remain to be used. It's simple really, and if you think about it not even that controversial. Depends on how you define things. How hard is it to for example execute a 15 minutes build order with an accuracy of 10 seconds? I wouldn't say it would be easy but not extremely hard either. When someone is good enough for something like that the attention shifts to other things which in return take attention from executing the perfected builds, and so on.
A way to demonstrate is by slower game speed. A common misconception seems to be that something like slower game speed would just make people more equal. There should be some truth to that but the main mistake in that reasoning is probably that it ignores the fact that things like unit control and multitasking increases/decrease linearly as well.
As a thought experiment I can mention that I suspect slower sc2 game speed would make it more sc1 like instead of the opposite for example.
|
|
|
|
|
|
24180
1611
1513
EPT
