|
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.
The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round.
Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games).
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.
And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters?
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. SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at.
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.
A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc.
It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense.
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.
This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta.
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.
And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is.
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"
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.
Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW.
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.
Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years.
Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive. 
Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue.
|
And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters?
First-person shooters are more or less about shooting. Real time strategy games aren't really about mining. You could make a case for limited control groups, but I don't think a game without automine is excusable any more.
Do you think that you should have to send a worker back to the patches manually each time it mines a load? Of course not. It would be ridiculous. It would increase the skill cap, but it would be ridiculous.
The difficulty of the mechanics of a game is in no way directly related to its quality. The reason smart-casting is bad is not simply that it reduces the skill involved in casting, but that a game with harder casting is the more desirable one (more fun to play and watch). This is not universal at all. The game in which each mining trip requires its own command is not a good game, because a game with harder mining is not better.
|
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:
The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round.
Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games).
Oh no, a game that has been out for a year doesn't have as high "display of skills" as a game that has been out for ten times longer? What an atrocity, it must mean the game is horrible and has no future.
MarineKing's marine micro against Kyrix's banelings isn't exciting? As if.
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters?
Higher skill ceiling in terms of macro, yes. In terms of micro though, nobody will ever meet the micro skill ceiling, and then there is NO CEILING on strategy. That is my entire friggin point. Chess has a mechanical skill ceiling that a 5 year old can reach. It is the strategy used in the game that is limitless. Hence why SC2 isn't an inferior game, because instead of trying to reach a higher macro skill ceiling the players can spend more time developing their strategies and micro rather than their macro.
And no, I don't think auto-aim should be included in competitive FPS. Auto-aim would be like SC2 including auto-micro. If SC2 had that I would drop it in a second. FPS is all about aiming and shooting your opponent. RTS games about all about overcoming your opponent with tactics and strategy. If either of those was ever automated I would quit the game and never watch it again.
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at.
Well that wasn't what I was trying to get at but thanks for trying. Even though that wasn't what I was trying to get at, have some of this:
It isn't analogous? Lets see... analogous means comparable in certain aspects.
SC2: 2 players competing against each other; Chess: 2 players competing against each other.
SC2: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent; Chess: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent.
Oh, damn.
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc.
It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense.
One of your previously posting broodwar buddies stated Savior vs. Flash as Strategy overcoming macro. I'll use their example, too. The reason these players who are good mechanically are also good strategically is because they've reached a point in Broodwar where players are so mechanically advanced that improving further mechanically is less beneficial than improving strategically. Think 5 years ago when macro wasn't near perfected - was every game won by the player with superior macro? No, there were players with inferior macro who won due to advanced strategies.
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta.
Why do I need evidence? It is a matter of opinion. My opinion differs to yours, get over it.
And I was talking about current day Broodwar versus current day SC2.
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is.
Yes, it is the same in Broodwar, but due to the simplicity of macro in SC2 the effects are amplified. That is my point.
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW.
It was a overly generalized statement based on the fact that I've seen a lot of uninteresting BW games that simply came down to one player macroing much better than the other. Obviously there are BW games that take strategy.
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years.
Funny, that's not even what I was saying. Yes, BW improved strategically at an extreme speed, my point was that I am of the opinion that SC2 will improve FASTER.
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue.
Thanks for your opinion.
|
On November 30 2011 13:45 Redmark wrote:Show nested quote +And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? First-person shooters are more or less about shooting. Real time strategy games aren't really about mining. You could make a case for limited control groups, but I don't think a game without automine is excusable any more. Do you think that you should have to send a worker back to the patches manually each time it mines a load? Of course not. It would be ridiculous. It would increase the skill cap, but it would be ridiculous. The difficulty of the mechanics of a game is in no way directly related to its quality. The reason smart-casting is bad is not simply that it reduces the skill involved in casting, but that a game with harder casting is the more desirable one (more fun to play and watch). This is not universal at all. The game in which each mining trip requires its own command is not a good game, because a game with harder mining is not better.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion towards auto-mine which is why I wasn't really defending it in that post. However, it's really not as tedious as people are making it seem. When playing BW, I never felt like having to send workers to mine was really hindering my ability to employ great strategies and execute excellent tactical moves. It feels particularly natural to me, and it gives me something to do in the early portion of the game so I've never had a problem with it.
|
On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Show nested quote +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. The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round. Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Show nested quote +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. And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Show nested quote +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. SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. Show nested quote +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 yo
"urs, regardless of how well you think strategically. A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc. It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. Show nested quote +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. This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Show nested quote +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. And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. Show nested quote +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"
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. Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. Show nested quote +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. Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Show nested quote +Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive. Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue.
You should probably try to avoid flinging around exaggerations and oversimplifications in your internet arguments. When you do that, and when the guy you're arguing with does the same, it just becomes another stupid internet forum argument that polarizes.
"...is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW"
" I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games"
^ you really think those are the only two types of SC2 fans?
"do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters?"
" It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves..."
|
Honestly, I looked at both of your profiles, and both of you didn't join TL until sc2 came out. You cant argue for sc2 if you havn't played or followed both pro-scenes because your argument lacks knowledge towards one side, which as a result, is inherently biased.
|
Tektos, I am curious exactly how much of the BW scene you have followed or how much BW you've actually played.
It seems you are theorycrafting based on what you have heard from others, especially with your Savior vs Flash example.
I find it slightly offensive that you think the people on this site who prefer BW is blinding hating or dismissive of your opinions because they are elitists.
You should remember that when SC2 got announced there was no group of people on the planet more enthusiastic than the BW community. We of all people wanted SC2 to be successful, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical of the game.
|
On November 30 2011 14:14 Condor Hero wrote:
Tektos, I am curious exactly how much of the BW scene you have followed or how much BW you've actually played.
It seems you are theorycrafting based on what you have heard from others, especially with your Savior vs Flash example.
I find it slightly offensive that you think the people on this site who prefer BW is blinding hating or dismissive of your opinions because they are elitists.
You should remember that when SC2 got announced there was no group of people on the planet more enthusiastic than the BW community. We of all people wanted SC2 to be successful, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical of the game.
... What? I never said everyone from BW is blindly hating or dismissive of my opinions, but there is the FACT that there are a small minority of BW players who are VERY elitist. Those are usually the ones who respond with anger to people praising SC2.
I'm critical of both Broodwar and SC2 and yet I think both are utterly fantastic games, I was simply expressing my opinion of how both are equal but different in a way. Hence why I get frustrated at all the Broodwar players in this thread passing SC2 off as a farce.
Yes, I'll admit along with any other Broodwar player that SC2 is simpler in terms of mechanics. However, unlike the BW elitist minority, I refuse to believe the game is a farce because of that fact alone.
So I don't know why you're taking offense that I respect SC2 as an e-sport.
|
On November 30 2011 13:57 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:
The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round.
Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Oh no, a game that has been out for a year doesn't have as high "display of skills" as a game that has been out for ten times longer? What an atrocity, it must mean the game is horrible and has no future. MarineKing's marine micro against Kyrix's banelings isn't exciting? As if. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Higher skill ceiling in terms of macro, yes. In terms of micro though, nobody will ever meet the micro skill ceiling, and then there is NO CEILING on strategy. That is my entire friggin point. Chess has a mechanical skill ceiling that a 5 year old can reach. It is the strategy used in the game that is limitless. Hence why SC2 isn't an inferior game, because instead of trying to reach a higher macro skill ceiling the players can spend more time developing their strategies and micro rather than their macro. And no, I don't think auto-aim should be included in competitive FPS. Auto-aim would be like SC2 including auto-micro. If SC2 had that I would drop it in a second. FPS is all about aiming and shooting your opponent. RTS games about all about overcoming your opponent with tactics and strategy. If either of those was ever automated I would quit the game and never watch it again. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. Well that wasn't what I was trying to get at but thanks for trying. Even though that wasn't what I was trying to get at, have some of this: It isn't analogous? Lets see... analogous means comparable in certain aspects. SC2: 2 players competing against each other; Chess: 2 players competing against each other. SC2: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent; Chess: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent. Oh, damn. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc.
It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. One of your previously posting broodwar buddies stated Savior vs. Flash as Strategy overcoming macro. I'll use their example, too. The reason these players who are good mechanically are also good strategically is because they've reached a point in Broodwar where players are so mechanically advanced that improving further mechanically is less beneficial than improving strategically. Think 5 years ago when macro wasn't near perfected - was every game won by the player with superior macro? No, there were players with inferior macro who won due to advanced strategies. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Why do I need evidence? It is a matter of opinion. My opinion differs to yours, get over it. And I was talking about current day Broodwar versus current day SC2. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. Yes, it is the same in Broodwar, but due to the simplicity of macro in SC2 the effects are amplified. That is my point. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. It was a overly generalized statement based on the fact that I've seen a lot of uninteresting BW games that simply came down to one player macroing much better than the other. Obviously there are BW games that take strategy. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Funny, that's not even what I was saying. Yes, BW improved strategically at an extreme speed, my point was that I am of the opinion that SC2 will improve FASTER. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue. Thanks for your opinion.
Well actually it was Effort vs Flash that I was talking about , playing mind games with flash was the reason why effort won the korean air starleague .
|
On November 30 2011 14:21 Sawamura wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:57 Tektos wrote:On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:
The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round.
Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Oh no, a game that has been out for a year doesn't have as high "display of skills" as a game that has been out for ten times longer? What an atrocity, it must mean the game is horrible and has no future. MarineKing's marine micro against Kyrix's banelings isn't exciting? As if. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Higher skill ceiling in terms of macro, yes. In terms of micro though, nobody will ever meet the micro skill ceiling, and then there is NO CEILING on strategy. That is my entire friggin point. Chess has a mechanical skill ceiling that a 5 year old can reach. It is the strategy used in the game that is limitless. Hence why SC2 isn't an inferior game, because instead of trying to reach a higher macro skill ceiling the players can spend more time developing their strategies and micro rather than their macro. And no, I don't think auto-aim should be included in competitive FPS. Auto-aim would be like SC2 including auto-micro. If SC2 had that I would drop it in a second. FPS is all about aiming and shooting your opponent. RTS games about all about overcoming your opponent with tactics and strategy. If either of those was ever automated I would quit the game and never watch it again. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. Well that wasn't what I was trying to get at but thanks for trying. Even though that wasn't what I was trying to get at, have some of this: It isn't analogous? Lets see... analogous means comparable in certain aspects. SC2: 2 players competing against each other; Chess: 2 players competing against each other. SC2: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent; Chess: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent. Oh, damn. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc.
It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. One of your previously posting broodwar buddies stated Savior vs. Flash as Strategy overcoming macro. I'll use their example, too. The reason these players who are good mechanically are also good strategically is because they've reached a point in Broodwar where players are so mechanically advanced that improving further mechanically is less beneficial than improving strategically. Think 5 years ago when macro wasn't near perfected - was every game won by the player with superior macro? No, there were players with inferior macro who won due to advanced strategies. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Why do I need evidence? It is a matter of opinion. My opinion differs to yours, get over it. And I was talking about current day Broodwar versus current day SC2. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. Yes, it is the same in Broodwar, but due to the simplicity of macro in SC2 the effects are amplified. That is my point. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. It was a overly generalized statement based on the fact that I've seen a lot of uninteresting BW games that simply came down to one player macroing much better than the other. Obviously there are BW games that take strategy. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Funny, that's not even what I was saying. Yes, BW improved strategically at an extreme speed, my point was that I am of the opinion that SC2 will improve FASTER. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue. Thanks for your opinion. Well actually it was Effort vs Flash that I was talking about , playing mind games with flash was the reason why effort won the korean air starleague .
And I wasn't denying that BW games can be won with strategy. Sure, there are examples of BW games being won by strategy and there are examples of SC2 being won purely on macro. It doesn't change my stance that SC2 as a game will focus itself more towards strategy rather than mechanics.
|
On November 30 2011 13:57 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:
The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round.
Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Oh no, a game that has been out for a year doesn't have as high "display of skills" as a game that has been out for ten times longer? What an atrocity, it must mean the game is horrible and has no future. MarineKing's marine micro against Kyrix's banelings isn't exciting? As if. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Higher skill ceiling in terms of macro, yes. In terms of micro though, nobody will ever meet the micro skill ceiling, and then there is NO CEILING on strategy. That is my entire friggin point. Chess has a mechanical skill ceiling that a 5 year old can reach. It is the strategy used in the game that is limitless. Hence why SC2 isn't an inferior game, because instead of trying to reach a higher macro skill ceiling the players can spend more time developing their strategies and micro rather than their macro. And no, I don't think auto-aim should be included in competitive FPS. Auto-aim would be like SC2 including auto-micro. If SC2 had that I would drop it in a second. FPS is all about aiming and shooting your opponent. RTS games about all about overcoming your opponent with tactics and strategy. If either of those was ever automated I would quit the game and never watch it again. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. Well that wasn't what I was trying to get at but thanks for trying. Even though that wasn't what I was trying to get at, have some of this: It isn't analogous? Lets see... analogous means comparable in certain aspects. SC2: 2 players competing against each other; Chess: 2 players competing against each other. SC2: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent; Chess: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent. Oh, damn. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc.
It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. One of your previously posting broodwar buddies stated Savior vs. Flash as Strategy overcoming macro. I'll use their example, too. The reason these players who are good mechanically are also good strategically is because they've reached a point in Broodwar where players are so mechanically advanced that improving further mechanically is less beneficial than improving strategically. Think 5 years ago when macro wasn't near perfected - was every game won by the player with superior macro? No, there were players with inferior macro who won due to advanced strategies. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Why do I need evidence? It is a matter of opinion. My opinion differs to yours, get over it. And I was talking about current day Broodwar versus current day SC2. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. Yes, it is the same in Broodwar, but due to the simplicity of macro in SC2 the effects are amplified. That is my point. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. It was a overly generalized statement based on the fact that I've seen a lot of uninteresting BW games that simply came down to one player macroing much better than the other. Obviously there are BW games that take strategy. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Funny, that's not even what I was saying. Yes, BW improved strategically at an extreme speed, my point was that I am of the opinion that SC2 will improve FASTER. Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue. Thanks for your opinion.
First I would like to commend you for you're impressive use of quoting. It's quite remarkable. Secondly you haven't even begun to understand SC2 yet you see it fit to argue about the idiosyncrasy's of its predecessor. Yes that's right my friend without Brood War there wouldn't be Starcraft 2.
Your value of micro and strategy seem to be miles ahead your value of macro. You dismiss Brood War because without the ability to macro "in the same ball bark" you would automatically lose. That strategy in BW means nothing.
Why don't you watch the 01 SKY finals between Boxer and Garimto, and dismiss strategy. I picked 01 because
10 years later that strategy is shrouded by macro because the game changed. But if you had been following the game since the gate you would understand how the game changed, and that strategy is still highly involved.
I imagine that if you tried to do so your brain would implode. Because it would take you ten years to identify yourself with Brood War. Because you never played, nor took the time to understand it, but you would do anything to defend Starcraft 2 as the better game.
It scares you that Brood War is mechanically and strategically harder than Starcraft 2, and that if you don't defend it that other people might start to believe.
You're argument is ignorant in the fact that you haven't even take the time to understand something completely foreign to you. Therefore you're argument is moot.
|
On November 30 2011 14:25 inamorato wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 13:57 Tektos wrote:On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:
The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round.
Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Oh no, a game that has been out for a year doesn't have as high "display of skills" as a game that has been out for ten times longer? What an atrocity, it must mean the game is horrible and has no future. MarineKing's marine micro against Kyrix's banelings isn't exciting? As if. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Higher skill ceiling in terms of macro, yes. In terms of micro though, nobody will ever meet the micro skill ceiling, and then there is NO CEILING on strategy. That is my entire friggin point. Chess has a mechanical skill ceiling that a 5 year old can reach. It is the strategy used in the game that is limitless. Hence why SC2 isn't an inferior game, because instead of trying to reach a higher macro skill ceiling the players can spend more time developing their strategies and micro rather than their macro. And no, I don't think auto-aim should be included in competitive FPS. Auto-aim would be like SC2 including auto-micro. If SC2 had that I would drop it in a second. FPS is all about aiming and shooting your opponent. RTS games about all about overcoming your opponent with tactics and strategy. If either of those was ever automated I would quit the game and never watch it again. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. Well that wasn't what I was trying to get at but thanks for trying. Even though that wasn't what I was trying to get at, have some of this: It isn't analogous? Lets see... analogous means comparable in certain aspects. SC2: 2 players competing against each other; Chess: 2 players competing against each other. SC2: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent; Chess: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent. Oh, damn. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc.
It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. One of your previously posting broodwar buddies stated Savior vs. Flash as Strategy overcoming macro. I'll use their example, too. The reason these players who are good mechanically are also good strategically is because they've reached a point in Broodwar where players are so mechanically advanced that improving further mechanically is less beneficial than improving strategically. Think 5 years ago when macro wasn't near perfected - was every game won by the player with superior macro? No, there were players with inferior macro who won due to advanced strategies. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Why do I need evidence? It is a matter of opinion. My opinion differs to yours, get over it. And I was talking about current day Broodwar versus current day SC2. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. Yes, it is the same in Broodwar, but due to the simplicity of macro in SC2 the effects are amplified. That is my point. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. It was a overly generalized statement based on the fact that I've seen a lot of uninteresting BW games that simply came down to one player macroing much better than the other. Obviously there are BW games that take strategy. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Funny, that's not even what I was saying. Yes, BW improved strategically at an extreme speed, my point was that I am of the opinion that SC2 will improve FASTER. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue. Thanks for your opinion. First I would like to commend you for you're impressive use of quoting. It's quite remarkable. Secondly you haven't even begun to understand SC2 yet you see it fit to argue about the idiosyncrasy's of its predecessor. Yes that's right my friend without Brood War there wouldn't be Starcraft 2. Your value of micro and strategy seem to be miles ahead your value of macro. You dismiss Brood War because without the ability to macro "in the same ball bark" you would automatically lose. That strategy in BW means nothing. Why don't you watch the 01 SKY finals between Boxer and Garimto, and dismiss strategy. It is only 10 years later that strategy is shrouded by macro because the game changed. But if you had been following the game since the gate you would understand how the game changed, and that strategy is still highly involved. I imagine that if you tried to do so your brain would implode. Because it would take you ten years to identify yourself with Brood War. Because you never played, nor took the time to understand it, but you would do anything to defend Starcraft 2 as the better game. It scares you that Brood War is mechanically and strategically harder than Starcraft 2, and that if you don't defend it that other people might start to believe. You're argument is ignorant in the fact that you haven't even take the time to understand something completely foreign to you. Therefore you're argument is moot.
I wasn't dismissing strategy in Broodwar in the slightest though!!! ;_;
I never said strategy means nothing in BW, I never said without macro in BW you would automatically lose. I simply contrasted the two games in that SC2 will have a much less macro focus, and hence players will have to focus themselves more into micro and strategy. THIS DOESN'T MEAN SC2 IS STRATEGICALLY SUPERIOR TO BROODWAR. It means that pro players will improve their play in slightly different ways, and hence while there will be a correlation that better BW player = better SC2 player, there is no reason to dismiss SC2 as a farce because players who weren't great at BW are successful at SC2.
I was saying that as a whole, SC2 will focus more on strategy to make up for it's lack of mechanics.
I don't devalue macro, I simply state that in SC2 it is much simpler and hence has less value in SC2 than it does in BW.
I never once said SC2 was a better game, either. Please stop putting words in my mouth.
It doesn't scare me, I fully and completely am at terms that Brood War is by far more mechanically tolling than SC2. Strategy, however, has no limit and hence the two games are equal (hence my Chess analogy). Because of this, take two individual players committing themselves 100% to each game. One to Brood War and one to SC2.
Given a large enough amount of time, due to the simplicity of SC2 macro, the SC2 player's improvements at SC2 will be incredibly strategy focused because macro is relatively simple to master in SC2.
You're hating on me for my opinion yet you don't even understand my opinion.
Let me give a tl;dr for all my posts in the thread:
Neither BW or SC2 is a superior game, they are simply different.
Also, "your" / "you're".
|
On November 30 2011 14:21 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 14:14 Condor Hero wrote:
Tektos, I am curious exactly how much of the BW scene you have followed or how much BW you've actually played.
It seems you are theorycrafting based on what you have heard from others, especially with your Savior vs Flash example.
I find it slightly offensive that you think the people on this site who prefer BW is blinding hating or dismissive of your opinions because they are elitists.
You should remember that when SC2 got announced there was no group of people on the planet more enthusiastic than the BW community. We of all people wanted SC2 to be successful, but that doesn't mean we can't be critical of the game. ... What? I never said everyone from BW is blindly hating or dismissive of my opinions, but there is the FACT that there are a small minority of BW players who are VERY elitist. Those are usually the ones who respond with anger to people praising SC2. I'm critical of both Broodwar and SC2 and yet I think both are utterly fantastic games, I was simply expressing my opinion of how both are equal but different in a way. Hence why I get frustrated at all the Broodwar players in this thread passing SC2 off as a farce. Yes, I'll admit along with any other Broodwar player that SC2 is simpler in terms of mechanics. However, unlike the BW elitist minority, I refuse to believe the game is a farce because of that fact alone. So I don't know why you're taking offense that I respect SC2 as an e-sport.
First of all, I'm not taking offense that anyone respects SC2 as an e-sport.
I'm a Starcraft fan, be that BW or Sc2, or Sc3 when it comes out.
I have many opinions about how Sc2 is an inferior esport to BW but that doesn't stop me from enjoying a match by two Sc2 players.
2nd, SC2 being simpler in terms of mechanics isn't really up for debate, and you are right in that that alone does not dismiss SC2 as a competitive game.
You are entitled to your opinions and no one can definitively prove you wrong.
To me personally, in any debate over BW vs Sc2, the people whose opinions' should be looked at most carefully are those who have deeply experienced both games.
Not saying that someone couldn't be right if they haven't played Sc2 or BW, but the informed opinions are what count the most.
It's irritating to see people who don't actually know shit about BW just point out how the graphics are shitty hence Sc2 > BW.
(still don't know how much of competitive BW you know about).
|
On November 30 2011 12:57 GreyMasta wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 12:01 Sawamura wrote:On November 30 2011 11:54 GreyMasta wrote:On November 30 2011 11:18 jinorazi wrote:On November 30 2011 10:55 Kharnage wrote:
I would much rather watch a game of strategy and tactical control over the intense micromangement of the macro mechanics in BW.
I would rather see players lose or win based off sieging or unsieging tanks at the right time or doing a drops or having the drops denied over he didn't tell his probes to mine. bw has all of that you mentioned: strategy, tactical control along with intense micro and macro. they removed worker rally and put in other mechanics to balance it (mule, chrono, larva, creep) unit production in bw pretty much the same as warp-ins. (look somewhere else, click click click click click click) dont make it seem like bw is some automobile from early 1900's because it isnt. there is no issue with micro/macro in bw, sc2 is just easier when it comes to interface, not that bw is worse. It is not worse! It is even superior in the way it still paves the way to everything E-Sport is aspiring to be. The point is that BW IS an old automobile. It has this incredible charm, all those fancy glitches that brings back all this nostalgia of the good old times but ultimatelly it is obsolete. It has so many game design, ergonomical and technical issues (come on, Dragoon micro...) it is not QA-compliant to today's standards anymore. To go on with the car analogy: As of today any F1 car has Assisted direction, electronic gearboxes, the things are just ridiculous freaking combat jets on wheels. Pitstops are like "automated micro fiesta" with 8-10 minions rushing to freakin deconstruct and reconstruct the whole car anew in like litterally seconds. Does this make the pilot a lazy slouchy bastard? And why has F1 grown into that shape? --> To allow the pilots to focus on fucking RACING FASTER than the other guy. And on that only. The pilot of do not have to micro manage his own car glitches in the fear that it just goes out of control and smashes him dead against the wall at the next turn. Does it make todays F1 pilots lesser pilots than the older guys that risked their necks at every second? I dont think so. Tbh, nowadays I think that F1 guys grown to become better pilots because they are able to drive safer, way faster while pulling way more finer racing manouvers then before = WIN for the sport aspect. (Unless you like enjoy watching guys burning alive or smashing their skulls all over the place) SC2 hasn't grown up to this yet. But I want to believe that the direction it is going it the right one. Let's use some real life sport analogy for comparison sake , Take professional sports as an example compared to a accomplish PGA tour professional to an amateur , What are they playing ? Golf of course , however in comparison between the two players , The amateur in tournament pressured situation will falter , because mechanically speaking he isn't trained to deal with this kind of situation , Having a sound swing requires tons of dedication and hours allocated to getting the swing to work they way you want it to be , these can be used as an example for broodwar micro and macro mechanics plus game sense . An amateur golfer may have talent but can he do like what a pro golfer could do ? definitely not than every tom,dick and hary could just come to the golf scene and earn millions of bucks easily , Same goes to Professional broodwar , not matter how many hours ,I put in to the game , I could not even come close to any semi pro broodwar players these days , because the amount of hardwork they put in the game is just amazing , 14 hours of practice a day ? , 3 hours of sleep ? . Can I beat tiger wood now that I have better a golf swing ? nope I can't he's just miles ahead of me mentally ,physically and strategy wise through his superior game plan and scrambling. Show me a sc2 in house practice regime that encompasses such dedication to a game like broodwar pro gamers do . If BW's supremacy relies only on things like manual mining and smart casting, wow, I never played and watched the same game. I see human skill and prodigy in other fields than what a machine'AI can naturally do way better by itself. Hey wouldn't it be nice for golf engage the stamina of golfers by having them to walking across the place trudging in the bunkers with their clubs ont heir backs? Wouldn't it separate the true warriors of the green from all those lazy fat cart-huggers? Nope. We don't want to see pro golfers fail because they broke their ankle trying to climb a hill on their glorious walk to the green. We just freakin want to watch them FOCUS ON SWINGING, not to play a cross country, this is another sport! Let's try another funny comparisons: If non-assistance == Better gameplay Than Why not add those awesome feature to BW to make it an even better game, the better game ever created by man? - Remove Units pathfind. Having the AI stirring units for you to reach a position is for SC2 sissies. - Remove Patrol moves: What? You can't micro this simple stuff all by yourself? - Remove Voice feedbacks: Why do you need to be warned that something is happening? Aren't you supposed to watch the minimap or your supply count at everyfreaking second?!! - Remove rally points: Wtf is that noob stuff. Seriously. - When you click-attack an enemy unit your units now attacks it ONCE: Dragoon micro for every micro! - Remove control groups: Infinite groups <<<<< Groups of 12 <<<<<<<<< Groups of 1. Logic! - Remove player colors: Enters the new the meta game of figuring out by yourself which zerglings are yours! FUN! - Sounds are replaced with beeps and units by geometric shapes: The game was way TOO FANCY, Imma right? - etc. PS: I am not trying to turn BW bad!! I am just saying: Sometimes we easily critisize SC2 on removing some of the very same clunky gameplay aspects than the "ridiculous" ones I am making up above. It really happens.
Now, you're being ridiculous.
Every game has a different set of rules and structure that the players have to follow.
All those features you described... have utility in BW which add to the complexity to the game. They are rules. You have to play within the rules of any game you play. Rules are meant to challenge the player and provide equal footing for everyone.
Hyperbole? Two can play that game. If I gave you 94118 mulligans you probably still wouldn't make that hole-in-one from the par 3. There comes a time when enough is enough.
Those features are common ground for a reason. Some of them have their own applications to the untrained eye.
For instance, patrol command: in many scenarios you should use patrol instead of attack move. Case in point, vultures fire faster when you use the patrol command (different skill sets; different rules). The patrol command adds more complexity to the game in this instance. Just one example. Plenty of applications in RTS games in general.
Everything else you describe is fairly universal in the RTS genre. Rally points. voice/map ping alerts, etc.
Oh, and as for unit grouping:
You know WCII was even more limited than BW when it came to unit selection right? I would love to see a RTS title challenge the notion of unlimited selection. Groups of 24 sound right to me. Hell, newbies have a hard enough time making units as is, right?
His golf example wasn't so bad. Let me explain why.
Golf is a mentally challenging game; likewise, BW will challenge any RTS new-breed mentally too. Many of you view BW's U.I. as an obstacle because the rules and structure have changed. The rules get to you. Thus it leads to a frustrating experience and you don't want to understand it, "Screw this shit. I quit!"
If that didn't work for you. Try this one:
The other fellow spoke about an amateur going up against a pro golfer. His example works. Let me show you why:
The BW community has been around for years and there are a lot of experienced players still playing (doesn't necessarily mean they're good). Newcomers might view this as an obstacle too (is it too late to start BW?); however it is a bit misleading. Like I said, there are a lot of D to D+ players who still play and many cannot do any better. They have reached their skill ceiling for whatever reason.
Not good enough for you? Okay, I will get to the root of the problem for you. Recall, amateur golfer competing against the pro golfer:
It's WCG time for BW. A top foreigner is about to compete against a professional from Korea. Korea has always dominated the podium for BW. Mental hurdle. Then again, if the Korean loses the media will come down heavy on him.
*
With that said, games like SC2 and BW are very different from a game of golf because in a game of golf the rule sets and structure always change based on the occasion, whereas they do not in a 1v1 in BW and SC2.
Let's look at the layers of rules followed by two different structures where the playing field changes for golf:
The golf course you go to has their own set of rules: dress code, ask slow players to let other parties play through, each course has it's own design, etc. Then you have the rules of the actual game: put the golf ball in the hole, blah, blah, blah.
Then you have the structure. Two separate occasions:
You go golfing with your friends for fun. Fun competition. You hit the ball in the water. No problem they give you a mulligan because its for shits and giggles. Nothing is on the line. One of your friends drive from the blues because they are a 6 handicap while you shoot from the reds because you only played the game 4 times in your life. High level of variance within the rule sets.
Next scenario,
It's PGA Golf Championship. No mulligans everyone shoots from the same marker. If you hit your golf ball in the water it's a stroke, yadda yadda yadda and so on.
---
In each RTS game the rules and structure are mutually inclusive; whereas in golf they aren't. I guess that was your problem with the example the other guy gave, but the mentality factor is there.
|
On November 30 2011 14:24 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 30 2011 14:21 Sawamura wrote:On November 30 2011 13:57 Tektos wrote:On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:
The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round.
Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Oh no, a game that has been out for a year doesn't have as high "display of skills" as a game that has been out for ten times longer? What an atrocity, it must mean the game is horrible and has no future. MarineKing's marine micro against Kyrix's banelings isn't exciting? As if. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Higher skill ceiling in terms of macro, yes. In terms of micro though, nobody will ever meet the micro skill ceiling, and then there is NO CEILING on strategy. That is my entire friggin point. Chess has a mechanical skill ceiling that a 5 year old can reach. It is the strategy used in the game that is limitless. Hence why SC2 isn't an inferior game, because instead of trying to reach a higher macro skill ceiling the players can spend more time developing their strategies and micro rather than their macro. And no, I don't think auto-aim should be included in competitive FPS. Auto-aim would be like SC2 including auto-micro. If SC2 had that I would drop it in a second. FPS is all about aiming and shooting your opponent. RTS games about all about overcoming your opponent with tactics and strategy. If either of those was ever automated I would quit the game and never watch it again. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. Well that wasn't what I was trying to get at but thanks for trying. Even though that wasn't what I was trying to get at, have some of this: It isn't analogous? Lets see... analogous means comparable in certain aspects. SC2: 2 players competing against each other; Chess: 2 players competing against each other. SC2: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent; Chess: Strategy is used in order to overcome your opponent. Oh, damn. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc.
It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. One of your previously posting broodwar buddies stated Savior vs. Flash as Strategy overcoming macro. I'll use their example, too. The reason these players who are good mechanically are also good strategically is because they've reached a point in Broodwar where players are so mechanically advanced that improving further mechanically is less beneficial than improving strategically. Think 5 years ago when macro wasn't near perfected - was every game won by the player with superior macro? No, there were players with inferior macro who won due to advanced strategies. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Why do I need evidence? It is a matter of opinion. My opinion differs to yours, get over it. And I was talking about current day Broodwar versus current day SC2. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. Yes, it is the same in Broodwar, but due to the simplicity of macro in SC2 the effects are amplified. That is my point. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. It was a overly generalized statement based on the fact that I've seen a lot of uninteresting BW games that simply came down to one player macroing much better than the other. Obviously there are BW games that take strategy. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Funny, that's not even what I was saying. Yes, BW improved strategically at an extreme speed, my point was that I am of the opinion that SC2 will improve FASTER. On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue. Thanks for your opinion. Well actually it was Effort vs Flash that I was talking about , playing mind games with flash was the reason why effort won the korean air starleague . And I wasn't denying that BW games can be won with strategy. Sure, there are examples of BW games being won by strategy and there are examples of SC2 being won purely on macro. It doesn't change my stance that SC2 as a game will focus itself more towards strategy rather than mechanics.
u still make it soudn like just because SC2 has no real focus on mechanics the focus on strategy is bigger then in broodwar.
u should need good mechanics in order 2 execute the strategy right.
shit starts like "Bw is a macro game and wc3 is a micro game" just because wc3 had no macro people think BW had no micro~~ Same with SC2 now. Macro freaking easy in SC2 so the strategy part must be so much bigger in SC2 then in broodwar.
oh and BW is superior %)
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 30 2011 13:29 DarkMatter_ wrote:Show nested quote +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. The lack of smartcasting and MBS certainly gave BW more of a wow-factor when you saw someone like Jangbi dropping a dozen storms to decimate a tank line or when you saw BeSt macroing off of 25 gateways without missing a single round. Listening to the casters freak out when a protoss player drops a dozen force fields is an example of SC2 being a farce compared to BW. Both SC2 and BW are advertised as esports and watching incredible displays of skill is a big part of any sport. SC2 fans care about exciting and awe-inspiring displays of skill just as much as BW fans do, the only difference is that their standards are much lower because they've never really taken the time and effort to appreciate the level at which professional BW is played (obviously I'm only talking about the people who think SC2 is the greatest thing ever since sliced bread and that BW is just that ugly old game where people compete to see who can click faster, not talking about the people who enjoy both games). Show nested quote +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. And the competition in professional BW also revolves around how good one player is compared to his opponents. The lack of simplified mechanics simply gave the game a higher skill ceiling. Tell me, do you think auto-aim should be included in competitive first person shooters? Show nested quote +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. SC2 is in no way analogous to chess, if that's what you're trying to get at. Show nested quote +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. A completely irrelevant point because you'll never find someone who is mechanically miles ahead of you but somehow worse than you strategically. One of the biggest fallacies in these mechanics vs. strategy arguments is this idea that one can somehow develop without the other. It's self-delusional nonsense that people use to feel better about themselves after some gosu Korean trounces them. In any circumstance where one player is mechanically miles ahead of another player, that same player is also inevitably going to have a better understanding of the game's strategic/tactical possibilities. Moreover, mechanics and strategy are not as clearly divided as most people seem to think. For example, Jaedong is known for his godly muta micro and people often make the mistake of seeing this as just merely evidence of his excellent mechanics (because micro is seen as something that is a part of mechanics), but the real reason why JD is so fucking good with mutas is because he has a tremendous amount of understanding and experience that allows him to know exactly when and where to attack, how to attack, when to pull back etc. It's not a coincidence that Flash and JD not only have some of the best mechanics but also the best game sense. Even in SC2, MVP has some of the best mechanics and is also strategically one of the strongest players. All this tripe about the difficult mechanics in BW stifling people's ability to showcase their great strategic understanding is just self-delusional nonsense. Show nested quote +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. This is in no way is evidence that harder mechanics somehow impeded the strategic growth of BW. Sure, it's probably true that SC2 has developed more in one year since its release compared to BW when it was released, but this is due to factors that have absolutely nothing to do with the challenging mechanics of BW, like the fact that SC2, unlike BW, had a huge competitive scene right from the beta. Show nested quote +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. And it's the same in BW, not sure what your point is. Show nested quote +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"
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. Statements like these prove that you're completely ignorant about BW. Show nested quote +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. Funny, the "difficulty of getting the mechanics perfected" didn't stop BW from showing leaps and bounds in improvement on the strategy and tactics side of things over the years. Show nested quote +Queue hate from BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive. Sorry, but you are ignorant and misguided in this issue.
Thanks for saving me the need to answer, and for doing it way better than I'd have.
|
I watched flash vs jahoon(sp?) live the other evening. It's the first time I've ever watched live BW and it felt really simlar to SC2. Flash turtled up as terrans do, the other guy applied some pressure that failed to break him and flash rolled him over with tons of tanks. I think all of this arguing is silly, since they both provide good entertainment for RTS fans.
|
It seems as though you are all arguing under the implicit assumption that players strategic and mechanical ability is somehow configured like an rpg character. You don't get to invest more points in one by ignoring the other.
|
On November 30 2011 13:29 Tektos wrote:
Oh no, a game that has been out for a year doesn't have as high "display of skills" as a game that has been out for ten times longer? What an atrocity, it must mean the game is horrible and has no future.
MarineKing's marine micro against Kyrix's banelings isn't exciting? As if.
Nowhere did I say that the game is horrible and has no future, and nowhere did I say that SC2 doesn't contain any impressive displays of skill.
On November 30 2011 13:29 Tektos wrote:
Higher skill ceiling in terms of macro, yes. In terms of micro though, nobody will ever meet the micro skill ceiling, and then there is NO CEILING on strategy. That is my entire friggin point. Chess has a mechanical skill ceiling that a 5 year old can reach. It is the strategy used in the game that is limitless. Hence why SC2 isn't an inferior game, because instead of trying to reach a higher macro skill ceiling the players can spend more time developing their strategies and micro rather than their macro.
And no, I don't think auto-aim should be included in competitive FPS. Auto-aim would be like SC2 including auto-micro. If SC2 had that I would drop it in a second. FPS is all about aiming and shooting your opponent. RTS games about all about overcoming your opponent with tactics and strategy. If either of those was ever automated I would quit the game and never watch it again. Except SC2 simplified micro as well. Smartcasting, unlimited unit selection, lack of micro-intensive units like lurkers and the shuttle-reaver combo, and even reduced micro potential in units carried over from BW (mutas for example).
Why do I need evidence? It is a matter of opinion. My opinion differs to yours, get over it.
And I was talking about current day Broodwar versus current day SC2.
You're trying to make an argument based on false assumptions.
And comparing the slower development of current day BW with the fast development of current SC2 and trying to argue that this faster growth in SC2 is the result of the simplified mechanics is absurd. Do I really need to point out why?
It was a overly generalized statement based on the fact that I've seen a lot of uninteresting BW games that simply came down to one player macroing much better than the other. Obviously there are BW games that take strategy.
Please post some examples of professional BW games where one player won simply because they were able to macro better.
|
On November 30 2011 14:52 jarf1337 wrote:
I watched flash vs jahoon(sp?) live the other evening. It's the first time I've ever watched live BW and it felt really simlar to SC2. Flash turtled up as terrans do, the other guy applied some pressure that failed to break him and flash rolled him over with tons of tanks. I think all of this arguing is silly, since they both provide good entertainment for RTS fans.
Really not a good example my friend. Did you participate in the LR thread? I gave plenty of reasons why that game wasn't very good as did many others.
I do agree with you on the fact that both entertain me as well, but that game you wrote about wasn't very fun to watch. In fact, it was flat out painful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
