EPTThe Elephant in the Room - Page 184
| Forum Index > Final Edits |
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote: The idea that because broodwar was harder then hence it was a better and more competitive game is ridiculous. Starcraft is at the highest level a competition between two people. The "difficulty" of a game in no way comes down to how unintelligent the user interface is, it comes down to how good is your opponent. Chess, in essence is a game purely of strategy. Almost everyone knows the movements of the pieces and how they interact yet you will NEVER beat a professional chess player because they're strategically miles and miles ahead of you. My personal opinion is that the difficulty of Broodwar hindered the strategical progression of the game. There was always going to be someone who beat you simply because their mechanics were miles ahead of yours, regardless of how well you think strategically. Don't confuse what I'm saying though, I am not at all saying Broodwar is strategically insignificant just that as a whole strategy in SC2 will develop faster in 1 year than strategy in Broodwar will in that same period of time. Starcraft 2 has a much lower entry point in terms of mechanics, meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better". Yes, there will always be players who straight up macro better than you. IdrA will always have better macro than you and this will give him a bit of an advantage, but if you have enough macro to keep in the same ballpark with him then the game comes down to strategy and tactics instead. I personally enjoy the mind games behind the game, rather than watching who is more practiced in selecting buildings and pressing a button to build units. All in all SC2 is still a relatively new game so the strategies have not had time to really show their true potential, people are still improving their game at a faster rate by working on the mechanics side of things. However, I believe in the future SC2 will show leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of thing as players will not be held back by the difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected. Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive.  You see, the reason BW enthusiasts get mad at posts like this is because you are completely wrong. If you guys think BW is all about macro or micro you have never watched a BW game before, or are honestly clueless. For the first years of BW everything was about strategy, because NO ONE was good enough to pull off the macro. Look at Boxer. His macro is terrible, even in SC2, but he used his strategy and micro to win 3 starleagues. It's only after 10+ years that BW mechanics have finally been perfected. (No not even perfected, even Flash is not perfect at times.) Players developed their mechanics as they developed strategies. Some players focused solely on strategy, some solo on mechanics, and both had success. But it was eventually the people that could do both that were sucessful. You guys honestly either need to watch some BW games or stop commenting on the subject. And if you have watched BW games, you actually need to WATCH them. | ||
|
SirKibbleX
United States479 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote: The idea that because broodwar was harder then hence it was a better and more competitive game is ridiculous. Starcraft is at the highest level a competition between two people. The "difficulty" of a game in no way comes down to how unintelligent the user interface is, it comes down to how good is your opponent. Chess, in essence is a game purely of strategy. Almost everyone knows the movements of the pieces and how they interact yet you will NEVER beat a professional chess player because they're strategically miles and miles ahead of you. My personal opinion is that the difficulty of Broodwar hindered the strategical progression of the game. There was always going to be someone who beat you simply because their mechanics were miles ahead of yours, regardless of how well you think strategically. Don't confuse what I'm saying though, I am not at all saying Broodwar is strategically insignificant just that as a whole strategy in SC2 will develop faster in 1 year than strategy in Broodwar will in that same period of time. Starcraft 2 has a much lower entry point in terms of mechanics, meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better". Yes, there will always be players who straight up macro better than you. IdrA will always have better macro than you and this will give him a bit of an advantage, but if you have enough macro to keep in the same ballpark with him then the game comes down to strategy and tactics instead. I personally enjoy the mind games behind the game, rather than watching who is more practiced in selecting buildings and pressing a button to build units. All in all SC2 is still a relatively new game so the strategies have not had time to really show their true potential, people are still improving their game at a faster rate by working on the mechanics side of things. However, I believe in the future SC2 will show leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of thing as players will not be held back by the difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected. Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive. People seem to think that just because the game was harder mechanically, it couldn't also be harder strategically. This is simply not true. Read my post a few before this, hopefully that will explain why I think you're wrong about BW being less strategically challenging. | ||
|
Phyrigian
New Zealand1332 Posts
| ||
|
Sawamura
Malaysia7602 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote: The idea that because broodwar was harder then hence it was a better and more competitive game is ridiculous. Starcraft is at the highest level a competition between two people. The "difficulty" of a game in no way comes down to how unintelligent the user interface is, it comes down to how good is your opponent. Chess, in essence is a game purely of strategy. Almost everyone knows the movements of the pieces and how they interact yet you will NEVER beat a professional chess player because they're strategically miles and miles ahead of you. My personal opinion is that the difficulty of Broodwar hindered the strategical progression of the game. There was always going to be someone who beat you simply because their mechanics were miles ahead of yours, regardless of how well you think strategically. Don't confuse what I'm saying though, I am not at all saying Broodwar is strategically insignificant just that as a whole strategy in SC2 will develop faster in 1 year than strategy in Broodwar will in that same period of time. Starcraft 2 has a much lower entry point in terms of mechanics, meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better". Yes, there will always be players who straight up macro better than you. IdrA will always have better macro than you and this will give him a bit of an advantage, but if you have enough macro to keep in the same ballpark with him then the game comes down to strategy and tactics instead. I personally enjoy the mind games behind the game, rather than watching who is more practiced in selecting buildings and pressing a button to build units. All in all SC2 is still a relatively new game so the strategies have not had time to really show their true potential, people are still improving their game at a faster rate by working on the mechanics side of things. However, I believe in the future SC2 will show leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of thing as players will not be held back by the difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected. Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive. I grinned when I read your post , clearly you haven't been watching broodwar , not at all , if you did you wouldn't come up with a bold statement claiming it's merely a matter of selecting buildings and macroing only , Names like  sAviOr , EffOrt do they ring a bell ???Players in broodwar can be divided in to two , One being superior in mechanics and the other superior in strategy and having just enough mechanics to support their game strategy players like Movie comes to my mind for he has a apm of 200 which is quite low for a pro gamer, Savior is of course not a player who has superior mechanics like flash and jaedong , however he has gamesense and a master of strategy to win games , Have a look at savior games . http://www.teamliquid.net/tlpd/details.php?section=korean&type=players&id=135&part=games&league=standard#tblt-3604-2-1-DESC If what you said is true ? Effort would not have beaten flash , because after all his mechanics are not superior compared to flash . Here's three of effort game to prove my point . Strategy > pure brute force of armies . | ||
|
Phyrigian
New Zealand1332 Posts
| ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote: The idea that because broodwar was harder then hence it was a better and more competitive game is ridiculous. Starcraft is at the highest level a competition between two people. The "difficulty" of a game in no way comes down to how unintelligent the user interface is, it comes down to how good is your opponent. Chess, in essence is a game purely of strategy. Almost everyone knows the movements of the pieces and how they interact yet you will NEVER beat a professional chess player because they're strategically miles and miles ahead of you. My personal opinion is that the difficulty of Broodwar hindered the strategical progression of the game. There was always going to be someone who beat you simply because their mechanics were miles ahead of yours, regardless of how well you think strategically. Don't confuse what I'm saying though, I am not at all saying Broodwar is strategically insignificant just that as a whole strategy in SC2 will develop faster in 1 year than strategy in Broodwar will in that same period of time. Starcraft 2 has a much lower entry point in terms of mechanics, meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better". Yes, there will always be players who straight up macro better than you. IdrA will always have better macro than you and this will give him a bit of an advantage, but if you have enough macro to keep in the same ballpark with him then the game comes down to strategy and tactics instead. I personally enjoy the mind games behind the game, rather than watching who is more practiced in selecting buildings and pressing a button to build units. All in all SC2 is still a relatively new game so the strategies have not had time to really show their true potential, people are still improving their game at a faster rate by working on the mechanics side of things. However, I believe in the future SC2 will show leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of thing as players will not be held back by the difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected. Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive. chess is a game of perfect information, bw is a game of inperfect information. if everything came down to only strategy broodwar would be like poker except a single hand takes 20 minutes instead of 30 seconds and you can't play thousands of games so that your marginally better strategy makes you a winning player in the long run. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote: The idea that because broodwar was harder then hence it was a better and more competitive game is ridiculous. Starcraft is at the highest level a competition between two people. The "difficulty" of a game in no way comes down to how unintelligent the user interface is, it comes down to how good is your opponent. Chess, in essence is a game purely of strategy. Almost everyone knows the movements of the pieces and how they interact yet you will NEVER beat a professional chess player because they're strategically miles and miles ahead of you. My personal opinion is that the difficulty of Broodwar hindered the strategical progression of the game. There was always going to be someone who beat you simply because their mechanics were miles ahead of yours, regardless of how well you think strategically. Don't confuse what I'm saying though, I am not at all saying Broodwar is strategically insignificant just that as a whole strategy in SC2 will develop faster in 1 year than strategy in Broodwar will in that same period of time. Starcraft 2 has a much lower entry point in terms of mechanics, meaning that in a competition between two players the game comes down more to the tactics and strategy than "who can crank out the mechanics better". Yes, there will always be players who straight up macro better than you. IdrA will always have better macro than you and this will give him a bit of an advantage, but if you have enough macro to keep in the same ballpark with him then the game comes down to strategy and tactics instead. I personally enjoy the mind games behind the game, rather than watching who is more practiced in selecting buildings and pressing a button to build units. All in all SC2 is still a relatively new game so the strategies have not had time to really show their true potential, people are still improving their game at a faster rate by working on the mechanics side of things. However, I believe in the future SC2 will show leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of thing as players will not be held back by the difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected. Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive. That's the problem, it's hard to comment on something when you know very little. It goes way beyond the game. I don't think you read some of the latest responses (regurgitated, but it gets right to the point). For example, the work ethic a guy like Flash shows to stay on top is ridiculous. He just had surgery because he was working so hard. Did you see the guys hands prior? Blood. Blisters. Oh my. Nothing would stop him from staying on top his perch. These guys have no quit. There is a reason why they are so dominant in what they do. The U.I. is another story and it shouldn't be taken for granted either as the U.I. forces the player to be a better player. I call them rules. It provides the structure for the two opponents to square off. I would not compare these video games to chess. There are many more variables in play. The rules and structure is totally different. As a result, these professional players practice their asses off to stay on top. The same can be said about SC2, but the rules and structure are different. The culture KeSPA has established in their operation is also different. They have their own structure and rules too. | ||
|
Bippzy
United States1466 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:28 Phyrigian wrote: perhaps because it was written in may?blahblah i have a bigger e-peen than you you made a statement and i stated the reason why and felt superior... and no - i completely disagree, you may hear "oh, they're better", but unless you've watched tbls play and played bw yourself - you dont quite seem to understand how good they are. But tell me what they are going to do that SC2 players aren't doing, that's my real question. I feel it's hard for them to just straight surpass current Code S players. Of course they can tear through Code A and eat foreigners as a midnight snack. I've played BW, it is SO hard. I've seen pro games, they're awesome as hell(I haven't seen enough really, but I've taken to watching sayle's stream and the amount of skill these people have and all the mistakes they're still making tell me brood war pros are INSANE.) I stand by my idea that Code S players could keep up with BW pros for a loong time. Long enough for HOTS to come out. | ||
|
Doraemon
Australia14949 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:35 Bippzy wrote: But tell me what they are going to do that SC2 players aren't doing, that's my real question. I feel it's hard for them to just straight surpass current Code S players. Of course they can tear through Code A and eat foreigners as a midnight snack. I've played BW, it is SO hard. I've seen pro games, they're awesome as hell(I haven't seen enough really, but I've taken to watching sayle's stream and the amount of skill these people have and all the mistakes they're still making tell me brood war pros are INSANE.) I stand by my idea that Code S players could keep up with BW pros for a loong time. Long enough for HOTS to come out. i doubt current active bw pros will be switching before HOTS and the possibility that they might be limited by sc2 skill ceiling is a definite possibility. seriously though, i think much larger maps will do sc2 a lot of good | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
Also, I don't doubt that some BW pros could move over and excel at SC2, but I do doubt that anyone who is currently making little money at BW would miss the chance to "dominate the field", potentially winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in SC2. If it was so easy to do, I believe you would have seen it by now. | ||
|
Itsmedudeman
United States19229 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Honestly though, I haven't seen much indication that many BW fans have really given SC2 "a chance". Most of them seem to be repeating the 200/200 A-attack argument as if there was nothing more to it than that. Don't see why I should be so concerned about giving a game a chance when no one is willing to give anything they're not interested in a chance. Also, I don't doubt that some BW pros could move over and excel at SC2, but I do doubt that anyone who is currently making little money at BW would miss the chance to "dominate the field", potentially winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in SC2. If it was so easy to do, I believe you would have seen it by now. Most BW players have given sc2 a chance, and a lot of them are sc2 fans as it is, but they know the truth. MVP, on his move to SC2: This is the first time I've mentioned it, but I come from a very poor family. The 100,000,000 won prize GSL came out with had a big influence on my switch. I wanted to win, and I wanted to make money. I wanted to help my family out with my winnings. The top players have salaries of hundreds of thousands of dollars right now, there is no point switching as it is if you're a legit A teamer. | ||
|
Phyrigian
New Zealand1332 Posts
| ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
| ||
|
1Eris1
United States5797 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Honestly though, I haven't seen much indication that many BW fans have really given SC2 "a chance". Most of them seem to be repeating the 200/200 A-attack argument as if there was nothing more to it than that. Don't see why I should be so concerned about giving a game a chance when no one is willing to give anything they're not interested in a chance. Also, I don't doubt that some BW pros could move over and excel at SC2, but I do doubt that anyone who is currently making little money at BW would miss the chance to "dominate the field", potentially winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in SC2. If it was so easy to do, I believe you would have seen it by now. Half of Code A/Code S is lower tiered BW pros. I agree, not every A Teamer is going to be able to switch and dominate, and most of them know that. But there are some that could, but they are all being paid hella good right now. SC2 prize money is pretty sparse, top 4 of the GSL is a sixth of what the top place is. Most of them are probably content making a set salary+tournament winnings. Alternatively, maybe they just love playing BW. | ||
|
StarStruck
25339 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Honestly though, I haven't seen much indication that many BW fans have really given SC2 "a chance". Most of them seem to be repeating the 200/200 A-attack argument as if there was nothing more to it than that. Don't see why I should be so concerned about giving a game a chance when no one is willing to give anything they're not interested in a chance. Also, I don't doubt that some BW pros could move over and excel at SC2, but I do doubt that anyone who is currently making little money at BW would miss the chance to "dominate the field", potentially winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in SC2. If it was so easy to do, I believe you would have seen it by now. What? I hope you realize some of the guys you are arguing with actively play both man including myself. lmao The reason why the BW pro's haven't switched over is because they are happy with what they have and some of them are making a ridiculous amount of money. If they are happy with their situation what reason do they have? There can be many reasons why they don't want to. Hell, over two dozen BW pros were forced to retire and didn't switch for all sorts of reasons too. Whether it be rest, military, continuing their studies or the fact they just didn't really enjoy SC2. It's their choice. Some guys are just tired. When you committed so much time to one game for the vast majority of your youth sometimes a change of scenery is just what the doctor ordered. I would not be surprised when some of the big names still out there choose not to switch when they retire for they have had enough. | ||
|
slappy
United States1271 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:40 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: Honestly though, I haven't seen much indication that many BW fans have really given SC2 "a chance". Most of them seem to be repeating the 200/200 A-attack argument as if there was nothing more to it than that. Don't see why I should be so concerned about giving a game a chance when no one is willing to give anything they're not interested in a chance. Also, I don't doubt that some BW pros could move over and excel at SC2, but I do doubt that anyone who is currently making little money at BW would miss the chance to "dominate the field", potentially winning hundreds of thousands of dollars in SC2. If it was so easy to do, I believe you would have seen it by now. I watched every game when the GSL season one started. I fell asleep more times than not. I was as hyped for sc2 as the next man. It simply doesn't appeal to me from a spectator point of view, although I'll admit it's fun to play, but on that note I prefer wc3 in both aspects. Blizzard admittedly is making sc2 for the mass market, I guess I'm just too much of a hipster as to your second paragraph, BW stars get paid hefty SALARY, I don't think any sc2 player gets salary? Plz correct me if I'm wrong- Only tournament winnings, which BW gets as well. | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:25 1Eris1 wrote: You see, the reason BW enthusiasts get mad at posts like this is because you are completely wrong. If you guys think BW is all about macro or micro you have never watched a BW game before, or are honestly clueless. For the first years of BW everything was about strategy, because NO ONE was good enough to pull off the macro. Look at Boxer. His macro is terrible, even in SC2, but he used his strategy and micro to win 3 starleagues. It's only after 10+ years that BW mechanics have finally been perfected. (No not even perfected, even Flash is not perfect at times.) Players developed their mechanics as they developed strategies. Some players focused solely on strategy, some solo on mechanics, and both had success. But it was eventually the people that could do both that were sucessful. You guys honestly either need to watch some BW games or stop commenting on the subject. And if you have watched BW games, you actually need to WATCH them. And the reason SC2 enthusiasts get mad at posts like this is that you didn't actually read the post you're responding to correctly. He didn't say BW was all about macro or micro. He said it was about strategy too. He just said that you could always have better strategy and still lose because the other guy had better mechanics. Yes, you could have a good enough strategy to make up for your bad mechanics, but you could also have good enough mechanics to make up for your bad strategy. And as the general mechanics of players improved, strategies that used to make sense became bad and needed to be reworked. Of course that's true in SC2 also. But because the interface is better, the marginal gains you get from good mechanics diminish faster, so the mechanical advantage someone needs to make up for a certain amount of strategy disadvantage is larger. So yeah, that means that as a percentage of the skill that distinguished between players, strategy was lower and mechanics were higher in BW. That doesn't mean there aren't amazingly deep strategies in BW. It means exactly what he said - that there's a higher entry bar before strategy starts to matter. If you aren't at least decent mechanically, the top players will always beat you, regardless of how good your strategy is. None of this probably matters much when you're talking about the spectator side of things - the pros will have good enough (or equal enough to each other) mechanics that the strategies come out. But it *is* a difference between the games, and it matters a lot for a casual player. | ||
|
aristarchus
United States652 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:50 slappy wrote: I watched every game when the GSL season one started. I fell asleep more times than not. I was as hyped for sc2 as the next man. It simply doesn't appeal to me from a spectator point of view, although I'll admit it's fun to play, but on that note I prefer wc3 in both aspects. Blizzard admittedly is making sc2 for the mass market, I guess I'm just too much of a hipster as to your second paragraph, BW stars get paid hefty SALARY, I don't think any sc2 player gets salary? Plz correct me if I'm wrong- Only tournament winnings, which BW gets as well. Details aren't public, but there are definitely some salaries in SC2, and people have made references to them being "big" and things like that. I think it's mostly in the foreign scene, though, and still a small number, but I don't think anyone really knows. Only a few Koreans have gotten them, I believe. | ||
|
fabiano
Brazil4644 Posts
On November 30 2011 12:45 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: MVP made the switch because he wanted money. And he won money. From everything I hear, only the top of the top actually command salaries like that. Supposedly, most of the team members aren't getting paid anything, but are working with this constant grind to become better. The OP makes it seem like that, anyway. If all these guys who are getting paid next to nothing and who have next to no chance of breaking into the BW field could move over and wipe the floor with all the SC2 guys, they would. Of course they would, and aren't they doing that rightnow with MVP, MC? Seems like ForGG also just won Code A or something. Its not like every single BW pro will move over and smash down everyone, but the chances of many of them doing that should be noted. | ||
| ||
