|
On November 29 2011 21:58 Itsmedudeman wrote:
BW players have dominated SC2 since the beginning and continue to do so. You think all the code S players played sc1 for a year or two and just practiced really hard when sc2 came along?
Definitely Leenock looks like one of them...
The superior race is immortal and irremplacable.
Blood that has never been blessed SCBW, the ultimate ancient relic, will be tainted as inferior for the next centuries to come. :-|
yeah right...
|
On November 30 2011 09:29 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:17 caradoc wrote: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. 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.
This theory is wonderful, but I think it gives Blizzard too much credit 
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 30 2011 09:29 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:17 caradoc wrote: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. 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.
Would be nice if you were working for blizzard.
I think they try to rise the difficulty of the game by creating more spellcasters, but it isn't the right way imo, it will just look like a big lol fest if there are too many of them.
But I don't see any other way to make the game harder, the units they presented don't look like they are really hard to micro and I don't think they want to make the game mechanics harder.
|
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.
While I agree with the main theme of this argument there are some important points where I disagree. Most importantly, I don't think only Flash, Jaedong and Bisu reached the level of mechanics where strategy and mind games became an important element. There are many A-teamers who can convert build order advantages fairly consistently even against stronger opponents. And even if that wasn't true, they happen to be good at non-mechanical skill too anyway. Players like Hiya, Kal, Baby, Sea, Calm, Mind, Zero or Movie aren't mindless drones or copycats. They are creative thinkers with a great understanding, who happen to have great mechanics (some of them better than others).
So yeah, mechanics might not be enough to win at SC2 but most mid-tier BW pros also have the other skills needed to succeed.
On the point of game design I kinda agree on the point that it's better to have a nice balance between the payoff of mechanical and strategic skill. But if it's a choice I'd rather have a game that emphasizes mechanics than strategy. I have a couple of problems with games mostly based on strategy. One is that if the space is too small they can be figured out. If there's hidden information it turns into a guessing game and as the players' skill increases luck starts to dominate. See rock-paper-scissors or even tournament poker.
The other problem is that even without hidden information and the luck element strategy games just aren't as much fun to watch. Often because they require a huge amount of effort to follow. For example I'm much better at chess than BW but I can't follow professional chess games. Because in a game of pure strategy following the game is almost the same as playing it. The main action isn't happening on the screen or the board but in an abstract space of possibilities that the viewer has to imagine for himself. Or they have to rely on expert commentary meant for a wide audience that might have a very different skill level.
|
I have a somewhat layman's opinion on this, but the question, in my opinion, seems to be one of time:
It seems to me that SC2 is the game of the future. And by that I mean: in the future, be it near or far (and everything I hear says further than near but nearer than far) some of the big-time pros and names of BW will switch over to SC2. Which will bring a decently large portion of the fanbase, and will smooth the transition from one to the other. Either that or some new, intense, and wildly unseen RTS game will come out and sweep all competition under the rug. I highly doubt that will happen so I'll focus on the first possibility, as I see it.
That is where time comes in. It would seem to me that BW pros have a window that will be the optimal time for them to enter into the scene. Too early and they risk losing out on the larger BW rewards and salaries; too late and they risk being behind the current SC2 competition. Both are possible, and to me, both seem likely to happen to some degree. Human's can't foresee the evolution of skill, popularity, or sport; and the sad fact is that some BW pros will not do as well as they could have in SC2 had they had perfect foresight.
Everyone seems to be of the opinion that some BW pros practice harder, longer and more effectively than any SC2 pro. I have no way of knowing whether this is true or untrue, and do question how anyone could know it, but for the sake of the argument we can assume that it is true. Let's say the 4 BW players practice harder, longer, and more effectively than any SC2 pro.
Then they will dominate the scene. Plain and simple. When everyone is practicing like a pro, skill and talent becomes paramount. If only one person is practicing like a pro, than only that person will look like a pro and play like a pro. But like anything else; some people will practice like pros. Soon there will be a new crop of individuals who are simply too young to have played BW. They will naturally care less about BW, in general, than those who did play BW. Their game will be SC2. They will care, primarily, about SC2. It is an inevitability of time. Some of those younger kids will not only practice like pros, but they will have been raised on SC2. It will be the difference between a master linguist who learned a new language; and a child who was born and raised to be fluent in that language. The master has talent and understanding, but the child's brain is designed around it. At the risk of stretching the metaphor too far; it would take most master linguists about fifteen years of study and immersion to become are fluent as a child of six who was raised speaking any given language.
Some BW pros will wreak havoc. Some won't. The best of the best will most likely end up being someone who is still gurgling and toddling, probably wearing diapers.
|
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.
I agree completely! While I accept that making units respond better while moving down a ramp is a good change, seeing people put 100 zerglings or 30 mutas on 1 control group or macroing without ever looking at their base is just facepalm-inducing.
Another thing nobody seems to be pointing out, I think the lowered skill ceiling is also a huge contributor to the negativity of the fans as well. In BW, watching someone doing a well-executed Gundam rush was incredibly exciting. Rekrul, upon going to Korea to train, said that Gundam was insanely good at TvP. ForGG was a player famous for his timing attacks. Sync was known as the "Fireworks Terran" for his 3 barracks stim rush vs Zerg... which was considered an exciting, skillful play! If someone were to play like any of those guys in SC2, he would get universal hate from fans for being a "cheesy" or "all-in" player. The easy mechanics of SC2 have made it so that the quality of play from pro-gamers is not impressive to the fans until the player takes 3 bases, whereas BW fans were much more appreciative of well-executed strategies regardless of how many bases the player built. Even now, there are quite a few pro players and their fans who want the game to be patched so that you can never win on 1 or 2 bases. Has the de-emphasis of mechanics in SC2 really given the game more strategic depth or made it a better game? Judging from the excitement of LR threads in BW when an aggressive strategy is done against anyone other than Bisu, and the number of reports submitted when the same thing happens in SC2, I'd say no.
|
On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote:Show nested quote +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.
About the 'lazy' comment...
Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is:
1- prehistorical game mechanics
2- plain NOT fun to do
3- doesn't bring anything to strategies
4- doesn't bring anything to spectating
it's just AUTOMATED WORK.
yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this kind) IS what separates players skill levels in BW.
And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player.
This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp.
At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision.
|
On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision.
I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones.
|
On November 30 2011 10:07 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision. I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones.
Not using chrono boost or queen energy is the same indicator, and it still happens despite the game supposedly being too easy. If it's so easy, why do 400apm players still not use all their chronoboost? Obviously there is still room for mechanical improvement from top players, even with the easier macro.
|
On November 30 2011 10:12 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 10:07 hypercube wrote:On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision. I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones. Not using chrono boost or queen energy is the same indicator, and it still happens despite the game supposedly being too easy. If it's so easy, why do 400apm players still not use all their chronoboost? Obviously there is still room for mechanical improvement from top players, even with the easier macro.
Maybe, I'm just saying it does add to the viewer experience for me. It comes down to the point I made earlier: I can have shitty mechanics and still see when a top player makes a mistake in mechanics. I could have a decent strategic understanding and have no clue what the idea behind a tiny build order adjustment is.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 30 2011 10:00 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +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. I agree completely! While I accept that making units respond better while moving down a ramp is a good change, seeing people put 100 zerglings or 30 mutas on 1 control group or macroing without ever looking at their base is just facepalm-inducing. Another thing nobody seems to be pointing out, I think the lowered skill ceiling is also a huge contributor to the negativity of the fans as well. In BW, watching someone doing a well-executed Gundam rush was incredibly exciting. Rekrul, upon going to Korea to train, said that Gundam was insanely good at TvP. ForGG was a player famous for his timing attacks. Sync was known as the "Fireworks Terran" for his 3 barracks stim rush vs Zerg... which was considered an exciting, skillful play! If someone were to play like any of those guys in SC2, he would get universal hate from fans for being a "cheesy" or "all-in" player. The easy mechanics of SC2 have made it so that the quality of play from pro-gamers is not impressive to the fans until the player takes 3 bases, whereas BW fans were much more appreciative of well-executed strategies regardless of how many bases the player built. Even now, there are quite a few pro players and their fans who want the game to be patched so that you can never win on 1 or 2 bases. Has the de-emphasis of mechanics in SC2 really given the game more strategic depth or made it a better game? Judging from the excitement of LR threads in BW when an aggressive strategy is done against anyone other than Bisu, and the number of reports submitted when the same thing happens in SC2, I'd say no.
This is actually a great point and one that is not explored enough. The first 6-10 minutes of BW is immensely harder and more demanding mechanically than the first 6-10 minutes of SC2. Thus an early game strategy is much harder to execute to perfection in BW, and thus more impressive than an early game aggressive strategy in SC2 that most Grand Masters can execute nearly flawlessly. Thus some strats are considered "cheesy" and not exciting to watch.
For example, I think I perform a 1-1-1 cheese TvP much much better at SC2 than I do a Gundam Rush TvP in BW, despite having played BW for about 9 more years. Both are early game 1 base strats to pummel back a toss with a timing, but the 1-1-1 is just easier to do very well and still maintain / macro, etc. The ease of execution for anything before the 10 minute mark in SC2 may hurting the spectating excitement in the early game?
Slightly off topic, but I can't help but think how much more impressive sick forcefields would be if you had to select sentries individually to cast FF (otherwise they would all cast them in the same spot). Some balance tweaking would have to be done, but that would actually make early game pushes that much more exciting. The same would apply for mass EMP and snipes.
|
On November 30 2011 10:12 Zzoram wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 10:07 hypercube wrote:On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision. I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones. Not using chrono boost or queen energy is the same indicator, and it still happens despite the game supposedly being too easy. If it's so easy, why do 400apm players still not use all their chronoboost? Obviously there is still room for mechanical improvement from top players, even with the easier macro.
The real reason they don't is that there is too little incentive to do it, their apm is better spent somewhere else.
In term of spectating, it's also less visible.
Plus having a hard game to play brings on strategic depth in that you have to choose what you need to focus on. You need a good balance between that and being stupidly hard.
Plus larva inject is a terrible mechanic that has made zerg macro 10 times more boring. It's nothing more than a gimmick that has brought zerg closer to the other races by making larva a much less important ressource.
|
MURICA15980 Posts
On November 30 2011 10:21 corumjhaelen wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 10:12 Zzoram wrote:On November 30 2011 10:07 hypercube wrote:On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision. I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones. Not using chrono boost or queen energy is the same indicator, and it still happens despite the game supposedly being too easy. If it's so easy, why do 400apm players still not use all their chronoboost? Obviously there is still room for mechanical improvement from top players, even with the easier macro. The real reason they don't is that there is too little incentive to do it, their apm is better spent somewhere else. In term of spectating, it's also less visible. Plus having a hard game to play brings on strategic depth in that you have to choose what you need to focus on. You need a good balance between that and being stupidly hard. Plus larva inject is a terrible mechanic that has made zerg macro 10 times more boring. It's nothing more than a gimmick that has brought zerg closer to the other races by making larva a much less important ressource.
For SC2 players to really understand how BW players feel about some of the new features like auto-mine, imagine if Starcraft 3 came out and there was an "auto-inject" option for Queens. Wouldn't that just be... "too easy" to do? Sure, it removes needless clicking, but just right-clicking "inject" to make it an auto-cast skill midway through the game just seems wrong. SC3 fanboys would be saying SC2 had too much mindless clicking for stupid things like Queen injects, when you could be using that time to "strategize" instead.
Okay, so I'm not say that the all the SC2 UI features that made the game easier are bad or whatever, but hopefully this example helps you understand how BW fans feel.
To be honest, the Queen Inject ability is actually a pretty boring and repetitive "automated work" that one must do as a zerg simply to make macro more difficult. You could actually compare it to telling drones to go mine. The choice between injecting larvae, spreading creep, or saving for transfuse is not something zerg players lose sleep over. Larvae inject could be tweaked, but that would severely mess with the balance of the game.
|
Switzerland2892 Posts
On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectating it's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision.
I don't really understand why you dislike it so much.
I see it the same way as if injecting (and this mechanic really looks like sending your workers to mine btw), chronoboosting and muling were automaticly done. (edit: klogon posted it before me :/) Nobody in low leagues complains when they have 150 energy on their queen, it is normal. So it is if you have 3 idle drones, you will not die because of it if you are not a pro
|
On November 30 2011 10:29 Klogon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 10:21 corumjhaelen wrote:On November 30 2011 10:12 Zzoram wrote:On November 30 2011 10:07 hypercube wrote:On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision. I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones. Not using chrono boost or queen energy is the same indicator, and it still happens despite the game supposedly being too easy. If it's so easy, why do 400apm players still not use all their chronoboost? Obviously there is still room for mechanical improvement from top players, even with the easier macro. The real reason they don't is that there is too little incentive to do it, their apm is better spent somewhere else. In term of spectating, it's also less visible. Plus having a hard game to play brings on strategic depth in that you have to choose what you need to focus on. You need a good balance between that and being stupidly hard. Plus larva inject is a terrible mechanic that has made zerg macro 10 times more boring. It's nothing more than a gimmick that has brought zerg closer to the other races by making larva a much less important ressource. For SC2 players to really understand how BW players feel about some of the new features like auto-mine, imagine if Starcraft 3 came out and there was an "auto-inject" option for Queens. Wouldn't that just be... "too easy" to do? Sure, it removes needless clicking, but just right-clicking "inject" to make it an auto-cast skill midway through the game just seems wrong. SC3 fanboys would be saying SC2 had too much mindless clicking for stupid things like Queen injects, when you could be using that time to "strategize" instead. Okay, so I'm not say that the all the SC2 UI features that made the game easier are bad or whatever, but hopefully this example helps you understand how BW fans feel. To be honest, the Queen Inject ability is actually a pretty boring and repetitive "automated work" that one must do as a zerg simply to make macro more difficult. You could actually compare it to telling drones to go mine. The choice between injecting larvae, spreading creep, or saving for transfuse is not something zerg players lose sleep over. Larvae inject could be tweaked, but that would severely mess with the balance of the game.
Well to some extent sc2 adds new mechanics such as creep spread, larvae injects, etc to add more skill to the game. There is NO WAY that blizzard could make a game in this day and age without worker rallies, multiple building control groups, etc.
|
On November 30 2011 10:18 hypercube wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 10:12 Zzoram wrote:On November 30 2011 10:07 hypercube wrote:On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision. I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones. Not using chrono boost or queen energy is the same indicator, and it still happens despite the game supposedly being too easy. If it's so easy, why do 400apm players still not use all their chronoboost? Obviously there is still room for mechanical improvement from top players, even with the easier macro. Maybe, I'm just saying it does add to the viewer experience for me. It comes down to the point I made earlier: I can have shitty mechanics and still see when a top player makes a mistake in mechanics. I could have a decent strategic understanding and have no clue what the idea behind a tiny build order adjustment is.
in that case make it so that each worker automatically stops after a single mineral dump? then you get to see nice mechanics, right? maybe reduce the unit selection to 1 as well... imba mechanics!!! or not.
there are good ways to increase the mechanics ceiling... for example making the game less rush friendly, therefore allowing players to be more adventurous with harrassment without the harrassment being an 'all-in' 90% of the time.
pretty much anything to prevent the boring 200 supply vs 200 supply stalemate, or the cold war situation which happens before that will be a change for the better.
|
In my opinion, SC2 is a much more exciting game to watch. And not only because of the pretty lights and flashes, though those do help a whole lot. It's more fast-paced, the action is usually big and one-sided and it seems like the players aren't even CLOSE to mastering the game. Which makes it really exciting to see new strategies coming out that destroy old strategies; and resurgences of old strategies that start dominating again.
It would seem to me that a 1/1/1 being easy is a problem with the quality of opponent, not the quality of the game itself. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that a harder, and therefore less accessible, game is not necessarily a better game. And I do believe that most of the shortcuts added in by Blizzard are vast improvements; freeing up more time to be spent on, frankly, more interesting parts of the game.
In my experience, battles in SC2 are more spectacular, visually pleasing, and much faster paced and confusing, than BW battles. It simulates real war in a more accurate manner, in my opinion. Which, admittedly, is worth about as much as much as the space it takes up...
|
I miss the fact that bw consisted of a ton of skirmishes all over the place. This was way more exciting than watching Protoss mass up a 2 base death all and 1a. Maybe it's just that we're able to select ok many units in a control group.
|
On November 30 2011 10:37 shizna wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 10:18 hypercube wrote:On November 30 2011 10:12 Zzoram wrote:On November 30 2011 10:07 hypercube wrote:On November 30 2011 10:03 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 09:13 pPingu wrote: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. About the 'lazy' comment... Seriously, ordering SCV where to mine each time one pops up is: 1- prehistorical game mechanics 2- plain NOT fun to do 3- doesn't bring anything to strategies 4- doesn't bring anything to spectatingit's just AUTOMATED WORK. yet this shit (and tons of other ones of this king) IS what separates players skill levels in BW. And I am happy that this type of 'non-lazy' shit is no more in SC2 a "variable" into becoming a good player. This is a game, not some kind of penitenciary camp. At least every single Larva inject/ MULE drop or Chronoboost holds a long-term strategic decision. I disagree on this. Seeing idle workers is a good indication that the player's mechanics is slipping. Same with misrallied drones. Not using chrono boost or queen energy is the same indicator, and it still happens despite the game supposedly being too easy. If it's so easy, why do 400apm players still not use all their chronoboost? Obviously there is still room for mechanical improvement from top players, even with the easier macro. Maybe, I'm just saying it does add to the viewer experience for me. It comes down to the point I made earlier: I can have shitty mechanics and still see when a top player makes a mistake in mechanics. I could have a decent strategic understanding and have no clue what the idea behind a tiny build order adjustment is. in that case make it so that each worker automatically stops after a single mineral dump? then you get to see nice mechanics, right? maybe reduce the unit selection to 1 as well... imba mechanics!!! or not.
Now you're just being silly
|
On November 30 2011 10:00 iamke55 wrote:Show nested quote +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. I agree completely! While I accept that making units respond better while moving down a ramp is a good change, seeing people put 100 zerglings or 30 mutas on 1 control group or macroing without ever looking at their base is just facepalm-inducing. Another thing nobody seems to be pointing out, I think the lowered skill ceiling is also a huge contributor to the negativity of the fans as well. In BW, watching someone doing a well-executed Gundam rush was incredibly exciting. Rekrul, upon going to Korea to train, said that Gundam was insanely good at TvP. ForGG was a player famous for his timing attacks. Sync was known as the "Fireworks Terran" for his 3 barracks stim rush vs Zerg... which was considered an exciting, skillful play! If someone were to play like any of those guys in SC2, he would get universal hate from fans for being a "cheesy" or "all-in" player. The easy mechanics of SC2 have made it so that the quality of play from pro-gamers is not impressive to the fans until the player takes 3 bases, whereas BW fans were much more appreciative of well-executed strategies regardless of how many bases the player built. Even now, there are quite a few pro players and their fans who want the game to be patched so that you can never win on 1 or 2 bases. Has the de-emphasis of mechanics in SC2 really given the game more strategic depth or made it a better game? Judging from the excitement of LR threads in BW when an aggressive strategy is done against anyone other than Bisu, and the number of reports submitted when the same thing happens in SC2, I'd say no.
That's an interesting point. However, I would attribute that more to the increase of casual fans. There are people in LR threads who pronounce a player to be cheesy or an alliner with any sign of aggression before the 13 minute mark because they have no idea of what's going on. For example, Naniwa in the last MLG was called 2baseiwa by some people. Anybody who knows anything could see that his attack timings were not only intelligent, but necessary.
The whole thing with early allins is because 1) scouting isn't as good in SC2 and 2) it was possible to hold off aggression with fewer number of units relative to your opponent in BW. It's not about skill ceiling, imo.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
