EPTJust wait for the real deal.
The Elephant in the Room - Page 179
| Forum Index > Final Edits |
|
kakaman
United States1576 Posts
Just wait for the real deal. | ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
| ||
|
Diizzy
United States828 Posts
| ||
|
hasuterrans
United States614 Posts
On November 30 2011 06:40 Almonjin wrote: 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. I disagree with the idea that there is a mechanical threshold for high level strategic thinking. Even the low level players on iccup engage in high level strategy, they just suck at macro/micro. Additionally, every competitive activity with money involved and an industry surrounding it has a "cult of practice." The people who practice more are just better and people practice more b/c they want to win. The strategical potential of a game has only to do with the rules of the game not how hard it is mechanically. Speed chess isn't "less deep" simply b/c you're playing on a timer. The strategical potential of the chess is completely the same b/c the game is the same. In other words, the optimal move doesn't depend on the timer. [...] 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. You're actually arguing it's better to have less tasks in your brain. Generally people who are able to mentally process more are conventionally called "smarter." If you're not able to think deeply about the game b/c your mental queue is capped at 7 tasks that's due to your own limitations. Don't blame the game for player inadequacies. | ||
|
Grend
1600 Posts
On November 30 2011 06:44 Almonjin wrote: 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 do not like your theory or your debate style. The only thing I appreciate is that you have a prediction and that can be tested. I`ll bring this back up in a year`s time and then we can continue this discussion with a lot less debate technique stuff and more facts and actual data. | ||
|
Alpino
Brazil4390 Posts
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. So you're saying some Sc2 players are better strategists than savior was? T_T . And no, mechanically bad players winning stuff makes people angry and sad, just look at Adelscott vs Merz in DHW(Adel started upgrades at 16 minutes! :D ). | ||
|
Peanutbutter717
United States240 Posts
Edit: As for an extreme example, Michael Jordan didn't make his high school basketball team. Maybe these "bad" BW players changed. These things can happen and the only way we will know for sure if they will dominate is when they come around | ||
|
slappy
United States1271 Posts
| ||
|
Crisium
United States1618 Posts
But yes, HotS could change things. | ||
|
SigmaoctanusIV
United States3313 Posts
| ||
|
akari
United States65 Posts
If Flash switches to sc2, the question is not "if", or even "when", he will dominate the GSL. The question everyone should instead ask themselves is "how many" GSL's Flash will dominate, or better yet "when the f*ck is this guy going to stop dominating these sc2 players I had thought would stand up to them." Feel free to quote me on that if my predictions don't come true (but they will). | ||
|
Kimaker
United States2131 Posts
On November 30 2011 06:24 Almonjin wrote: 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. Fair. I just wasn't sure what you were saying originally. Thanks for the clarification. | ||
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
I find that people who think SC2 is more strategical than BW, often times citing reasons such as being less mechanically intensive, are people who either 1) do not understand either game enough to really know what strategy is at the highest levels, or 2) think they are some strategical mastermind that is being held back by their poor mechanics. The awesome part about BW was that mechanical limitations factored into your strategy. Knowing what you or your opponent is physically capable is itself knowledge that you take into account for when you choose your strategy, and also helps to distinguish the pros at the highest levels. That said, I think a harder SC2 that required more mechanics to master would be a far superior game than it is now. We don't need to make it as hard as BW, but I do think Blizzard missed the perfect compromise by drifting too far to the easy side. | ||
pPingu
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:09 Klogon wrote: That said, I think a harder SC2 that required more mechanics to master would be a far superior game than it is now. We don't need to make it as hard as BW, but I do think Blizzard missed the perfect compromise by drifting too far to the easy side. I would have liked a harder game too, but nowadays people are just lazy and don't like to play complicated games. And producing a much more user friendly game will make more profit to blizzard, I don't think they have any intention to try to integrate hard mechanics that would make the difference between a bad and a good player. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:09 Klogon wrote: Disclaimer: I do not play nor follow BW anymore, and play/follow SC2 pretty actively now. I find that people who think SC2 is more strategical than BW, often times citing reasons such as being less mechanically intensive, are people who either 1) do not understand either game enough to really know what strategy is at the highest levels, or 2) think they are some strategical mastermind that is being held back by their poor mechanics. The awesome part about BW was that mechanical limitations factored into your strategy. Knowing what you or your opponent is physically capable is itself knowledge that you take into account for when you choose your strategy, and also helps to distinguish the pros at the highest levels. That said, I think a harder SC2 that required more mechanics to master would be a far superior game than it is now. We don't need to make it as hard as BW, but I do think Blizzard missed the perfect compromise by drifting too far to the easy side. At the highest level (in)ability to multitask still features as a factor in determining who wins. Plus I think the design team's focus on 'pulling units out of the death ball' will lead to even more focus on multitasking. There is an argument that individually sending workers to mine/not being able to select groups of buildings etc adds an additional dimension to multitasking requirement, but that doesn't necessarily imply that there is a cap beyond which better mechanics do not absolutely improve your skill/competitiveness in sc2. Hell, just watch people not deal with HerO's warp prism harass. Also, its a new game-- just watching over the past year how games have evolved from 1 base to 2 base to multi bases as standard helps me stay pretty confident that a lot of the worry about mechanics not featuring into things as much as we might like is a phase of the development of the game. Sc2 is still like a year old-- theres no way this conversation would even make sense if we were talking about bw a year in. EDIT: Don't want to sound like I totally disagree-- in general I think you're completely correct and that sc2 would be improved with more difficult (maybe not BW difficult) mechanical requirements. I'm kinda hopeful though that people will take advantage of the mechanical opportunities there are as the game evolves. --> in any competition, any means a player has of interacting with the game itself can be exploited for advantages, and as the game ages and matures all the ways of doing that proliferate and become part of an ever-increasing total potential skill set. | ||
|
slappy
United States1271 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:09 Klogon wrote: I find that people who think SC2 is more strategical than BW, often times citing reasons such as being less mechanically intensive, are people who either 1) do not understand either game enough to really know what strategy is at the highest levels, or 2) think they are some strategical mastermind that is being held back by their poor mechanics. well thank goodness, I was beginning to think all these newcomers who are majoring in philosophy might actually know something about starcraft that I didnt... rofl | ||
|
Telcontar
United Kingdom16710 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:09 Klogon wrote: Disclaimer: I do not play nor follow BW anymore, and play/follow SC2 pretty actively now. I find that people who think SC2 is more strategical than BW, often times citing reasons such as being less mechanically intensive, are people who either 1) do not understand either game enough to really know what strategy is at the highest levels, or 2) think they are some strategical mastermind that is being held back by their poor mechanics. The awesome part about BW was that mechanical limitations factored into your strategy. Knowing what you or your opponent is physically capable is itself knowledge that you take into account for when you choose your strategy, and also helps to distinguish the pros at the highest levels. That said, I think a harder SC2 that required more mechanics to master would be a far superior game than it is now. We don't need to make it as hard as BW, but I do think Blizzard missed the perfect compromise by drifting too far to the easy side. Pretty much said everything that's on my mind. I sincerely hope Blizzard tweaks some things in the future, but I really don't see that happening. They've already shown that they care more about attracting newcomers and casual gamers. | ||
|
Klogon
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:17 caradoc wrote: At the highest level (in)ability to multitask still features as a factor in determining who wins. Plus I think the design team's focus on 'pulling units out of the death ball' will lead to even more focus on multitasking. There is an argument that individually sending workers to mine/not being able to select groups of buildings etc adds an additional dimension to multitasking requirement, but that doesn't necessarily imply that there is a cap beyond which better mechanics do not absolutely improve your skill/competitiveness in sc2. Hell, just watch people not deal with HerO's warp prism harass. Also, its a new game-- just watching over the past year how games have evolved from 1 base to 2 base to multi bases as standard helps me stay pretty confident that a lot of the worry about mechanics not featuring into things as much as we might like is a phase of the development of the game. Sc2 is still like a year old-- theres no way this conversation would even make sense if we were talking about bw a year in. I agree. I just think if it was a harder game, we would have had and would be having many more Hero moments where we the fans are utterly impressed by the skill of the pros we watch. But actually, if Blizzard do make the game harder to master with its expansions, their business plan might just be completely ideal. Blizzard's goal for making the game easier for Wings of Liberty was to make the game more accessible to the casual gamer, and thus ensure that SC2 is popular and successful. Now they have already achieved this. People love the game and it's immensely popular. Now, if they made the game harder, they would actually increase the lifespan of the game by raising the skill ceiling to heights no human can hope to achieve in years. And because the casual fans / market are either already hooked or are more appreciative of a hard to master game like Starcraft, Blizzard might actually end up with an ideal situation that satisfies the demands of both markets. | ||
|
caradoc
Canada3022 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:29 Klogon wrote: I agree. I just think if it was a harder game, we would have had and would be having many more Hero moments where we the fans are utterly impressed by the skill of the pros we watch. Yup. Agree | ||
|
Probulous
Australia3894 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:29 Klogon wrote: I agree. I just think if it was a harder game, we would have had and would be having many more Hero moments where we the fans are utterly impressed by the skill of the pros we watch. But actually, if Blizzard do make the game harder to master with its expansions, their business plan might just be completely ideal. Blizzard's goal for making the game easier for Wings of Liberty was to make the game more accessible to the casual gamer, and thus ensure that SC2 is popular and successful. Now they have already achieved this. People love the game and it's immensely popular. Now, if they made the game harder, they would actually increase the lifespan of the game by raising the skill ceiling to heights no human can hope to achieve in years. And because the casual fans / market are either already hooked or are more appreciative of a hard to master game like Starcraft, Blizzard might actually end up with an ideal situation that satisfies the demands of both markets. That's some higher level business planning  I highly doubt Blizzard would plan to make their games more difficult with the expansions. Their stated position is to "fill gaps", whilst I love the idea I just don't believe Blizzard would plan something so machiavelin. It is a massive troll to the community. | ||
| ||
