On November 30 2011 04:28 Archvil3 wrote: I remember how provocing this article was when it first came out. Instead of just presenting facts mr Intrique and co. did everything they could to insult the proplayers and the SC2 fans.
That being said it was absolutely spot on. Many of the names we followed in 2010 and early 2011 are not to be seen anymore and I think it is quite clear by now that they were pretty bad. I don't think that a BW invasion would absolutely demolish every single top player in SC2 though. The current top is pretty good and seems for the most part pretty solid so the current top is going to be able to compete. Anyone who is not a top top name already will get demolished and will forever be forgotten though and I think there is no doubt that in a year from now the top20 players of the world will consist of at least 10-15 players that is currently playing broodwar.
I'd rather say, "no doubt that 1year from now most BW pros will still play BW", because they make more money of it and there is no reason to switch right now.
Also judging from how many titles the former superstars Nada, Boxer and JulyZerg won, I'd say it will be pretty tough to become top10, even for a player like Bisu.
boxer, nada, and julyzerg when they came to sc2 were way past their prime and would get absolutely slaughtered by the current top guys in bw. not even close. they would get folded like a lawnchair
well, the question is, why aren't they not in their prime anymore?
-) Because the game has developed? So how would this be a less radical change then switching a game? -) Because they are too old? NaDa is 27, July 24. I wouldn't call that too old! (even Boxer is only 31, which is still a good age in a lot of sports) -) Because they are burned out? Probably not. They could do something else than gaming then...
So why should Flash keep his prime when/if he switched over? (not saying he doesn't... but repeat that question for every SC:BW top player and you'll see a decent amount of people "being out of their prime")
Oh that's a simple enough question to anser... Because if he switches right now, Flash would carry with him to SC2, the same mechanics, hard work and mental strength that took him to new heights in the most difficult-to-master RTS game of all times.
you mean like when bisu redefined ZvP and savior kept on crushing every Protoss? wait a minute... Could happen to Flash as well... or not...
Well, given that MVP is dominating the tournaments pretty consistently, it's pretty apparent there are no Bisus playing SC2 right now... or are you suggesting that a player of Bisu's caliber is found anywhere among B-teamers, has-beens and BW-rejects?? -- which is the main demographic of current SC2 players.
My point was that if the game changes (through the bisu build in my example), former superstars (like Savior in my example) may start to slump. And a SC:BW metagame change is by far not as big as the change from one RTS game to a different RTS game.
And yes, if you want to put it this way... MVP is some kind of Bisu right now in SC2. He is better than most other players that play SC2 and everything else about "player X would be better" are just dumb theories... I'd go that far that in this case we would have to write an article about "The whale in the room: Why Michael Jordan would beat everyone if he played Broodwar" (BUT HE DOESN'T!)
Well that's another strawman, but I'm sure he'd be really good at Starcraft although the skills don't transfer nearly as much. And MVP can't perfectly control units in 5 different places at once, which is why the only person who can do the Bisu build is Bisu, that's what makes him special. There was nothing particularly special about MVP in BW and neither is he in SC2, he's just very good but that is all he will ever be (just the best player in SC2), he won't bring magic into the game with far reaching concepts like the top players in BW. Nestea, Leenock and Stephano seem like notable exceptions, but they are still nothing in comparison, and none have won 3 GSLs. Jaedong won an OSL on his first try and has won 5 starleagues, noting that there are much much less BW starleague finals in a year than GSL. In 2010 Flash won every starleague except 1 (where he got silver), if you compare the same time-frame Nestea would have to win every GSL over a year with 2 silvers.
I can use the same thing you said for Flash... He simply makes less mechanical errors than his opponents, and is incredibly consistent in his decision making, he also knows this about himself and plays to his strenght (defensive macro, game, his 2 armory TvP being a good example of this.)
Just because he's so consistently strong, and doesn't rely on surprise tactics as much as some great Terrans that came prior to him doesn't mean he brings some kind of magic to the game. He CAN be outplayed, as shown by Effort, even in TvZ at a time when he seemed almost unbeatable at it.
And it's widely known that Bisu's strength is his multi-task, which he used to execute his build, but tons of people have used it since.
If anything the players that I find most fascinating are players that tend to be just horrible except for one particular match up (at least in comparison,) and this happens in SC2 as well although to a lesser extent, I like to use that as a sign for the game having potential to bring that same feeling that BW did. stuff like Skyhigh's TvT, Best's PvT, and etc. are really exciting things to witness
On December 01 2011 10:25 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: My argument is simple: taking isolated examples from one game that is over ten years old, and furthermore was the first game of it's type to become the basis of a professional scene; and comparing those with general examples of another game that is a completely new and different take on that original game... it's all elementary. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. Maybe in another three years, after the scene of SC2 is well-established, there can be some kind of comparison, but as it stands now... there is nothing alike about the two things. It's apples and oranges.
You can't even take the first year of pro BW as an example, because, as I said earlier, BW was the first of it's type. SC2 is based upon BW, and other games, and is like a tenth generation RTS.
I'm simply giving you various reasons for the various examples you've come up with. You give me one specific example:
A select few players dominated the scene in BW and continue to do so. There is no single dominators in SC2 like there is in BW.
There could be a million reasons for this: SC2 is younger, it's less established, it requires different skill sets, it is still in development, etc. And YES one of those possible reasons is that the BW pros may just be better than the SC2 pros. That could be it. I don't necessarily think that it is the reason. You do. We cannot really go any further than that.
The only answer I can and will give you is this:
Comparing the two games doesn't work all that well because they are such different games.
But the best imports from BW are the best at SC2. MVP is the strongest player to be imported from BW, and is one of, if not the strongest in SC2. ForGG is probably going to unsettle this, but he has achieved more in BW than MVP as well. You can make assumptions if you look at the trends, now Flash is 1000000x better than both of these guys, we can assume that he will be magnitudes better than these guys at SC2 as well. It makes perfect logical sense.
And it would probably ruin the competitive scene, rather than make it better.
you know what ruins MLG? having koreans there, who wants to watch the better player win
Tektos, I want to address your post and why BW enthusiasts are "not understanding" or "lacking reading comprehension" in understanding your point. You say that there is a strategic component in BW, but your post implies that it's insignificant because 'mechanics' are overly emphasized and can win games regardless of strategic depth. You insist that what you wrote is being misunderstood by BW enthusiasts, but what you wrote leaves no ambiguity in what you imply, and what you imply is what is getting you this 'hate'. Here, I will show you why:
On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote: ... 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. ...
Someone will always beat you on superior mechanics regardless of using strategy. That is the statement you said. The only implication anyone can take from that is that BW is a game of competing mechanics primarily and that strategy is secondary if the level of mechanics are at the same level. I don't see how anyone can misconstrue that statement or implication. Simply stating BW is not strategically insignificant does not mean you understand the dynamics of BW between what you refer to as 'mechanics' and 'strategy'. You are selling short the depth of what those terms mean in BW. BW enthusiasts have and will disagree with your statement and implication because they can see what the depth of those terms contain. And no one is stating that BW strategy will develop faster than SC2 strategy within 1 year from now, because that comparison is flawed. What does the speed of how strategies develop in a given time have to do with the article's point when you're comparing two games in completely different stages of the metagame, especially when one is having balance changes and the other is not.
... 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. ...
The only thing I want to point out is that, if you have the mechanics "in the same ballpark" then it comes down to strategy, how is that different from how you portray BW. If two BW pros have mechanics in the same ballpark, then in your previous paragraph, doesn't it come down to strategy too. What is the difference between SC2 and BW that you are trying to insinuate.
... 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. ...
That's the definition of BW 'mechanics' that you are rallying so hard against? Really? That's all there is to BW 'macro' and 'mechanics'? That's an outrageous and inaccurate simplification of those two terms. I will explain why I believe that after another quote:
Almonjin:
... My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
What I see in common between both Almonjin and Tektos posts is that there is a belief that dichotomy exists between 'mechanics' and 'strategy'. That these two skills are mutually exclusive, a player has finite resources to divide between the two. That 'mechanics' consist of actions to overcome artificial constraints of the game and induce no strategic depth. 'Mechanics' can be simply done by robot-like actions, and that if we lessen that aspect, we will increase the 'strategy' diversification spectrum of the game.
Do you two posters and those supporting them truly believe in that? That the BW community are some "fetishists" and blind fanatics ("BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive") for what you two believe are BW 'mechanics'?
I don't believe, and I think the majority of BW enthusiasts arguing against you, that 'mechanics' and 'strategy' are mutually exclusive. Mechanics in the way you (will collectively refer to both posters as "you") refer to them is not just looking at your nexus to tell your probe to mine everytime one pops out, or individually selecting each gateway to make a unit. Mechanics includes every action a player does, how fast they can do them and how a player uniquely decides to multitask those actions. A player does have finite resources (apm, time) to complete the tasks he wants to, and how he decides to do that is strategy in itself. How is it not? How can you subjectively state that strategy only includes unit compositions and counters but not what order of actions a player decides to commit to produce those compositions or how a player decides to micro his units? You cannot separate mechanics from strategy, without those mechanics any player could not execute any kind of strategy be it "noob", "standard" or "devious" (what an interesting, subjective genre to make up). No one is arguing that making those mechanics easier to execute is a bad thing to do, I appreciate that they make the game more enjoyable for the casual player (me) and acknowledge that they lower the purely physical skill ceiling for professional players. But mechanics are not separate from strategy, every strategy incorporates mechanics (being able to bust a BW siege tank/vulture line with great flanking and timed storm drops is hugely mechanic intensive, but because of that, it is less of a strategy or the game design is poor to require such a level of mechanics to execute that particular strategy?). The better mechanics a player has the better they can execute a strategy and more strategies become available to them. Do not belittle the subtleties and nuances of BW, and do not belittle BW enthusiasts that all they care about and value are sending miners to mine every 8 seconds and that there are no idle production buildings with only one unit queued in each. Those two actions fall into macro mechanics, and the econ-management and macro aspect of BW is so much deeper than you are giving it credit for. Being able to execute a player's econ strategy along with their game plan requires that they can complete those tasks, not the other way around. It is not that I can tell my miners to mine and make units that constitute an econ/macro strategy. There is strategic significance in being able to have superior macro than your opponent, and if you believe that BW macro consists of mindless and optimal clicks then your BW game knowledge is severely lacking. It's such nonsense to say that superior mechanics will compensate for bad strategy as aristarchus states. If what you built "counters" the opponent's strategy but you die out to superior macro but an inferior composition then that's just a sheer advantage in skills and fundamentals being used to beat you. If I know that I can macro and micro better than you, and make only marines while you make lurkers and lings, and then I beat you. How can you argue that it is because the game overemphasizes micro and macro (which require your 'mechanics' to pull off) over strategy when I thought that my 'mechanic' advantage was enough of a strategic advantage to beat you how I wanted to and that I was correct in thinking so.
Having solid mechanics in both games is so important. Those are the fundamentals of being able to play the game competitively. The mechanics of BW aren't mindless, they all have a purpose in executing a particular gameplan (ex. if you don't manually control your miners to mine, you won't have more minerals to execute your strategy). If you believe that they are extraneous, archaic actions, then that's your belief, but that doesn't change that those are the rules that strategy in BW is subject to. Like in any other hobby or sport, a player needs to have those fundamentals to even be able to come up with new, dominating strategies. Players that have shown that in what is believed to be a more physically rigorous scene should be able to translate that into a similar game. And that is what the article was attempting to illustrate, and incorporated statistics of SC2 players with former BW pro-gaming experience to support that. Of course, it is a hypothesis, a conjecture, but he provides some strong evidence and correlation to support it. I found your initial paragraph Almonjin:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
to be far more interesting in dispute of the article's claims. Those external factors to the game are significant and provide a better topic to discuss. Going on about how each game weights on what you perceive to be mechanics and strategy is so thoughtless. Those two terms are tied so closely to each other they cannot be easily separated and measured.
On December 01 2011 10:25 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: My argument is simple: taking isolated examples from one game that is over ten years old, and furthermore was the first game of it's type to become the basis of a professional scene; and comparing those with general examples of another game that is a completely new and different take on that original game... it's all elementary. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. Maybe in another three years, after the scene of SC2 is well-established, there can be some kind of comparison, but as it stands now... there is nothing alike about the two things. It's apples and oranges.
You can't even take the first year of pro BW as an example, because, as I said earlier, BW was the first of it's type. SC2 is based upon BW, and other games, and is like a tenth generation RTS.
I'm simply giving you various reasons for the various examples you've come up with. You give me one specific example:
A select few players dominated the scene in BW and continue to do so. There is no single dominators in SC2 like there is in BW.
There could be a million reasons for this: SC2 is younger, it's less established, it requires different skill sets, it is still in development, etc. And YES one of those possible reasons is that the BW pros may just be better than the SC2 pros. That could be it. I don't necessarily think that it is the reason. You do. We cannot really go any further than that.
The only answer I can and will give you is this:
Comparing the two games doesn't work all that well because they are such different games.
But the best imports from BW are the best at SC2. MVP is the strongest player to be imported from BW, and is one of, if not the strongest in SC2. ForGG is probably going to unsettle this, but he has achieved more in BW than MVP as well. You can make assumptions if you look at the trends, now Flash is 1000000x better than both of these guys, we can assume that he will be magnitudes better than these guys at SC2 as well. It makes perfect logical sense.
And it would probably ruin the competitive scene, rather than make it better.
Yeah watching Jaedong, Flash and Bisu at their primes destroying the scene was boring as hell.
On December 01 2011 10:25 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: My argument is simple: taking isolated examples from one game that is over ten years old, and furthermore was the first game of it's type to become the basis of a professional scene; and comparing those with general examples of another game that is a completely new and different take on that original game... it's all elementary. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. Maybe in another three years, after the scene of SC2 is well-established, there can be some kind of comparison, but as it stands now... there is nothing alike about the two things. It's apples and oranges.
You can't even take the first year of pro BW as an example, because, as I said earlier, BW was the first of it's type. SC2 is based upon BW, and other games, and is like a tenth generation RTS.
I'm simply giving you various reasons for the various examples you've come up with. You give me one specific example:
A select few players dominated the scene in BW and continue to do so. There is no single dominators in SC2 like there is in BW.
There could be a million reasons for this: SC2 is younger, it's less established, it requires different skill sets, it is still in development, etc. And YES one of those possible reasons is that the BW pros may just be better than the SC2 pros. That could be it. I don't necessarily think that it is the reason. You do. We cannot really go any further than that.
The only answer I can and will give you is this:
Comparing the two games doesn't work all that well because they are such different games.
But the best imports from BW are the best at SC2. MVP is the strongest player to be imported from BW, and is one of, if not the strongest in SC2. ForGG is probably going to unsettle this, but he has achieved more in BW than MVP as well. You can make assumptions if you look at the trends, now Flash is 1000000x better than both of these guys, we can assume that he will be magnitudes better than these guys at SC2 as well. It makes perfect logical sense.
And it would probably ruin the competitive scene, rather than make it better.
you know what ruins MLG? having koreans there, who wants to watch the better player win
Did you even read my posts? Or just that one line?
So long as there is a pool of players of equatable skill level, then you can have exciting, competitive matches from a field of players. The better that pool of players are, the better the games are, though the curve begins to even out as skill increases, such that higher levels of skill don't produce a linear increase in excitement of games in comparison to the difference from, say, bronze to silver, or gold to platinum. So, while seeing the better players is definitely important, it becomes less important as you go along.
And then we have the "Football" example I mentioned, where, no one really gets very excited to see the best team play the worst team. Similarly, if the best team is THAT much better than the next best team, such a game, which is, in theory, between the "best of the best" is also undesirable, simply because of the magnitude of the skill difference between the two. This suggests that raw skill level is certainly not the sole determiner of game excitement, something else is as well: the relative skill level between the two opponents. The more similar their skill level, the more exciting the games. We've already seen this in SC2.
What this means is that the current crop of players, though potentially far worse than Flash's SC2 "equivalent" are still producing a desirable amount of real competition, and that competition is probably better for some (I would argue most) than watching a Flash-like player dominate the scene and win everything. If the next best was nowhere close to the best then competition would slide, and, as a result, it would be a much less interesting scene to watch and the eSport would fade into ruin.
On December 01 2011 10:25 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: My argument is simple: taking isolated examples from one game that is over ten years old, and furthermore was the first game of it's type to become the basis of a professional scene; and comparing those with general examples of another game that is a completely new and different take on that original game... it's all elementary. There is no way of knowing one way or the other. Maybe in another three years, after the scene of SC2 is well-established, there can be some kind of comparison, but as it stands now... there is nothing alike about the two things. It's apples and oranges.
You can't even take the first year of pro BW as an example, because, as I said earlier, BW was the first of it's type. SC2 is based upon BW, and other games, and is like a tenth generation RTS.
I'm simply giving you various reasons for the various examples you've come up with. You give me one specific example:
A select few players dominated the scene in BW and continue to do so. There is no single dominators in SC2 like there is in BW.
There could be a million reasons for this: SC2 is younger, it's less established, it requires different skill sets, it is still in development, etc. And YES one of those possible reasons is that the BW pros may just be better than the SC2 pros. That could be it. I don't necessarily think that it is the reason. You do. We cannot really go any further than that.
The only answer I can and will give you is this:
Comparing the two games doesn't work all that well because they are such different games.
But the best imports from BW are the best at SC2. MVP is the strongest player to be imported from BW, and is one of, if not the strongest in SC2. ForGG is probably going to unsettle this, but he has achieved more in BW than MVP as well. You can make assumptions if you look at the trends, now Flash is 1000000x better than both of these guys, we can assume that he will be magnitudes better than these guys at SC2 as well. It makes perfect logical sense.
And it would probably ruin the competitive scene, rather than make it better.
you know what ruins MLG? having koreans there, who wants to watch the better player win
Did you even read my posts? Or just that one line?
So long as there is a pool of players of equatable skill level, then you can have exciting, competitive matches from a field of players. The better that pool of players are, the better the games are, though the curve begins to even out as skill increases, such that higher levels of skill don't produce a linear increase in excitement of games in comparison to the difference from, say, bronze to silver, or gold to platinum. So, while seeing the better players is definitely important, it becomes less important as you go along.
And then we have the "Football" example I mentioned, where, no one really gets very excited to see the best team play the worst team. Similarly, if the best team is THAT much better than the next best team, such a game, which is, in theory, between the "best of the best" is also undesirable, simply because of the magnitude of the skill difference between the two. This suggests that raw skill level is certainly not the sole determiner of game excitement, something else is as well: the relative skill level between the two opponents. The more similar their skill level, the more exciting the games. We've already seen this in SC2.
What this means is that the current crop of players, though potentially far worse than Flash's SC2 "equivalent" are still producing a desirable amount of real competition, and that competition is probably better for some (I would argue most) than watching a Flash-like player dominate the scene and win everything. If the next best was nowhere close to the best then competition would slide, and, as a result, it would be a much less interesting scene to watch and the eSport would fade into ruin.
Sure, but thats assuming only Flash would switch over. But if Flash+all the other Code S players ended up switching over, then it would mostly not likely be a 1 way domination.
On December 01 2011 11:55 kaisr wrote: Yeah watching Jaedong, Flash and Bisu at their primes destroying the scene was boring as hell.
Uh, precisely? Your attempts at being ironic are unfounded and ironic in that they are actually true. I'm glad you agree with me
Precisely? It wasn't boring as hell... it's not like they had no competition at all, they were just incredibly consistent at showing extremely high level games, which is great.
Every description I've read of the Flash situation is that no one else is anywhere near his level.
Yes, if a bunch of high-level BW players switched over, it could be exciting. But if any one person achieves the seemingly mystical Flashesque dominance, the scene will become very much less interesting than it is now.
There are, of course, other arguments for why BW Pros might not spice up the scene that much, but I don't want to get into them, I'd love to see that. What I don't want to see is one or two players absolutely dominating and no one else coming even close. At least, if they ARE dominating, it should be for short periods, and it should not be the way that every tournament or game ends up, there should still be a majority of equal skill players playing one another.
On December 01 2011 12:19 Chamenas wrote: Every description I've read of the Flash situation is that no one else is anywhere near his level.
Yes, if a bunch of high-level BW players switched over, it could be exciting. But if any one person achieves the seemingly mystical Flashesque dominance, the scene will become very much less interesting than it is now.
There are, of course, other arguments for why BW Pros might not spice up the scene that much, but I don't want to get into them, I'd love to see that. What I don't want to see is one or two players absolutely dominating and no one else coming even close. At least, if they ARE dominating, it should be for short periods, and it should not be the way that every tournament or game ends up, there should still be a majority of equal skill players playing one another.
Well this isnt true. Flash was beatable even when he was playing very well.
On December 01 2011 11:55 kaisr wrote: Yeah watching Jaedong, Flash and Bisu at their primes destroying the scene was boring as hell.
Uh, precisely? Your attempts at being ironic are unfounded and ironic in that they are actually true. I'm glad you agree with me
Precisely? It wasn't boring as hell... it's not like they had no competition at all, they were just incredibly consistent at showing extremely high level games, which is great.
I turned your irony in on itself, seems like I confused you. I'm pretty sure that makes my point as well as anything else I've said.
On December 01 2011 11:55 kaisr wrote: Yeah watching Jaedong, Flash and Bisu at their primes destroying the scene was boring as hell.
Uh, precisely? Your attempts at being ironic are unfounded and ironic in that they are actually true. I'm glad you agree with me
Precisely? It wasn't boring as hell... it's not like they had no competition at all, they were just incredibly consistent at showing extremely high level games, which is great.
I turned your irony in on itself, seems like I confused you. I'm pretty sure that makes my point as well as anything else I've said.
It wasn't my irony... He was being sarcastic... The time during which Flash, Bisu, and Jaedong dominated have been extremely exciting from a fan standpoint.
On December 01 2011 11:54 kyunghwan wrote: Tektos, I want to address your post and why BW enthusiasts are "not understanding" or "lacking reading comprehension" in understanding your point. You say that there is a strategic component in BW, but your post implies that it's insignificant because 'mechanics' are overly emphasized and can win games regardless of strategic depth. You insist that what you wrote is being misunderstood by BW enthusiasts, but what you wrote leaves no ambiguity in what you imply, and what you imply is what is getting you this 'hate'. Here, I will show you why:
On November 30 2011 12:19 Tektos wrote: ... 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. ...
Someone will always beat you on superior mechanics regardless of using strategy. That is the statement you said. The only implication anyone can take from that is that BW is a game of competing mechanics primarily and that strategy is secondary if the level of mechanics are at the same level. I don't see how anyone can misconstrue that statement or implication. Simply stating BW is not strategically insignificant does not mean you understand the dynamics of BW between what you refer to as 'mechanics' and 'strategy'. You are selling short the depth of what those terms mean in BW. BW enthusiasts have and will disagree with your statement and implication because they can see what the depth of those terms contain. And no one is stating that BW strategy will develop faster than SC2 strategy within 1 year from now, because that comparison is flawed. What does the speed of how strategies develop in a given time have to do with the article's point when you're comparing two games in completely different stages of the metagame, especially when one is having balance changes and the other is not.
... 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. ...
The only thing I want to point out is that, if you have the mechanics "in the same ballpark" then it comes down to strategy, how is that different from how you portray BW. If two BW pros have mechanics in the same ballpark, then in your previous paragraph, doesn't it come down to strategy too. What is the difference between SC2 and BW that you are trying to insinuate.
... 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. ...
That's the definition of BW 'mechanics' that you are rallying so hard against? Really? That's all there is to BW 'macro' and 'mechanics'? That's an outrageous and inaccurate simplification of those two terms. I will explain why I believe that after another quote:
... My opinion is obviously unpopular on this subject but SC2 has more strategic potential than BW because the bar for perfection in mechanics is so much lower. I've never been terribly impressed by the ability to compensate for ridiculously antiquated pathfinding and design. The high level strategy/or "mind games," the chess element of Starcraft 2 will become increasingly pronounced as overall mechanics improve and players develop more mental breathing room with which to be devious. The reason Brood War was NOT superior to SC2 in terms of design (although more cultivated than the currently adolescent SC2) was precisely the intensity of the mechanics involved - to the point where high level strategy really only emerged from a handful of prodigies practicing seventy hours a week. This isn't admirable, from the standpoint of psychology its mindless. Training your brain to hold 9-10 tasks instead of the average seven is interesting but not when it is a requirement to even enter the higher echelons of play. We acknowledge that some Sc2 players are more "devious" or possessed of skill at mind games and high level strategy, but have poorer mechanics. This is great. It means that strength in another mental skillset can be brought to bear to win games and create more diversity. A more conventional player with superior mechanics can still win, easily, but could also lose. This is what gave rise to the cult of practice in BW and I think Sc2 teams have, rightly, mainly eschewed this defunct model in favor of a more circumspect practice structure in which players do more than grind game processes into their subconscious - exploring tactical approaches in an individual or small group setting along with the general milieu of the ladder.
What I see in common between both Almonjin and Tektos posts is that there is a belief that dichotomy exists between 'mechanics' and 'strategy'. That these two skills are mutually exclusive, a player has finite resources to divide between the two. That 'mechanics' consist of actions to overcome artificial constraints of the game and induce no strategic depth. 'Mechanics' can be simply done by robot-like actions, and that if we lessen that aspect, we will increase the 'strategy' diversification spectrum of the game.
Do you two posters and those supporting them truly believe in that? That the BW community are some "fetishists" and blind fanatics ("BW enthusiasts dismissing everything I've said as dumb, ignorant and naive") for what you two believe are BW 'mechanics'?
I don't believe, and I think the majority of BW enthusiasts arguing against you, that 'mechanics' and 'strategy' are mutually exclusive. Mechanics in the way you (will collectively refer to both posters as "you") refer to them is not just looking at your nexus to tell your probe to mine everytime one pops out, or individually selecting each gateway to make a unit. Mechanics includes every action a player does, how fast they can do them and how a player uniquely decides to multitask those actions. A player does have finite resources (apm, time) to complete the tasks he wants to, and how he decides to do that is strategy in itself. How is it not? How can you subjectively state that strategy only includes unit compositions and counters but not what order of actions a player decides to commit to produce those compositions or how a player decides to micro his units? You cannot separate mechanics from strategy, without those mechanics any player could not execute any kind of strategy be it "noob", "standard" or "devious" (what an interesting, subjective genre to make up). No one is arguing that making those mechanics easier to execute is a bad thing to do, I appreciate that they make the game more enjoyable for the casual player (me) and acknowledge that they lower the purely physical skill ceiling for professional players. But mechanics are not separate from strategy, every strategy incorporates mechanics (being able to bust a BW siege tank/vulture line with great flanking and timed storm drops is hugely mechanic intensive, but because of that, it is less of a strategy or the game design is poor to require such a level of mechanics to execute that particular strategy?). The better mechanics a player has the better they can execute a strategy and more strategies become available to them. Do not belittle the subtleties and nuances of BW, and do not belittle BW enthusiasts that all they care about and value are sending miners to mine every 8 seconds and that there are no idle production buildings with only one unit queued in each. Those two actions fall into macro mechanics, and the econ-management and macro aspect of BW is so much deeper than you are giving it credit for. Being able to execute a player's econ strategy along with their game plan requires that they can complete those tasks, not the other way around. It is not that I can tell my miners to mine and make units that constitute an econ/macro strategy. There is strategic significance in being able to have superior macro than your opponent, and if you believe that BW macro consists of mindless and optimal clicks then your BW game knowledge is severely lacking. It's such nonsense to say that superior mechanics will compensate for bad strategy as aristarchus states. If what you built "counters" the opponent's strategy but you die out to superior macro but an inferior composition then that's just a sheer advantage in skills and fundamentals being used to beat you. If I know that I can macro and micro better than you, and make only marines while you make lurkers and lings, and then I beat you. How can you argue that it is because the game overemphasizes micro and macro (which require your 'mechanics' to pull off) over strategy when I thought that my 'mechanic' advantage was enough of a strategic advantage to beat you how I wanted to and that I was correct in thinking so.
Having solid mechanics in both games is so important. Those are the fundamentals of being able to play the game competitively. The mechanics of BW aren't mindless, they all have a purpose in executing a particular gameplan (ex. if you don't manually control your miners to mine, you won't have more minerals to execute your strategy). If you believe that they are extraneous, archaic actions, then that's your belief, but that doesn't change that those are the rules that strategy in BW is subject to. Like in any other hobby or sport, a player needs to have those fundamentals to even be able to come up with new, dominating strategies. Players that have shown that in what is believed to be a more physically rigorous scene should be able to translate that into a similar game. And that is what the article was attempting to illustrate, and incorporated statistics of SC2 players with former BW pro-gaming experience to support that. Of course, it is a hypothesis, a conjecture, but he provides some strong evidence and correlation to support it. I found your initial paragraph Almonjin:
A year from now, there will be some lively editorials dedicated to analyzing why these unbeatable giants have failed to achieve success in SC2. They will arrive at a list of factors overlooked by the OP - including the age and financial status of the BW pros, shifts in the availability of high-level salaries for SC2 players, overall changes in the political economy of the scene itself, and of course - the differences between BW and SC2 that we don't yet fully understand.
to be far more interesting in dispute of the article's claims. Those external factors to the game are significant and provide a better topic to discuss. Going on about how each game weights on what you perceive to be mechanics and strategy is so thoughtless. Those two terms are tied so closely to each other they cannot be easily separated and measured.
everyone has to keep in mind... A GSL is almost every month. However, an OSL spans about 6-7 months in the ones recently. There is a huge disparity of a skill level between bw players and sc2 players because if you play sc2 and then play bw, you will find out that bw is ALOT harder in terms of mechanics. 12 units / selections with 1 building/hotkey + worker rally doesnt work. If you take all these into account, then the bw players have far better mechanics then the sc2 players and when they transition they might dominate because of their vastly superior mechanics. Whether it is a good thing for tje sc2 scene, it probably is a good thing. People love to idolize people (BoxeR, Nada, flash) and when an extremely good sc2 player comes and dominates the scene, that is a good thing. There will be another era where people can idolize good players. I hope it comes soon i would like to see flash and jd play sc2 :D
On December 01 2011 12:19 Chamenas wrote: Every description I've read of the Flash situation is that no one else is anywhere near his level.
Yes, if a bunch of high-level BW players switched over, it could be exciting. But if any one person achieves the seemingly mystical Flashesque dominance, the scene will become very much less interesting than it is now.
There are, of course, other arguments for why BW Pros might not spice up the scene that much, but I don't want to get into them, I'd love to see that. What I don't want to see is one or two players absolutely dominating and no one else coming even close. At least, if they ARE dominating, it should be for short periods, and it should not be the way that every tournament or game ends up, there should still be a majority of equal skill players playing one another.
Well this isnt true. Flash was beatable even when he was playing very well.
Well then people probably need to hype a little less then, huh? Saying he's orders of magnitudes better than the next best thing (or that he and his two buddies are) is effectively suggesting we would have a very small pool of talented players, and everyone else would be fighting for fourth place, which isn't particularly exciting. Now, if there's actually competition there, then, sure, the competition would be marginally improved by their introduction. However, as I've mentioned, there seems to be an inverse relationship between skill and quality of game. As skill gets greater and greater, the quality of the games seems to begin to even out (this is a difficult one to support with data, so I won't argue it too much).
I welcome the inclusion of better play into the scene, I just want it to be reasonable, and not create a disparity in skill level that makes it so that most matches aren't worth watching. I also really don't want to see players kill themselves practicing far more than they have to right now. Even professional athletes don't put in as much work as what the original post (or some poster) has described of Flashes effort. As admirable as it is, it's just not fair to force other players to put in that much effort to compete, they'll kill themselves, literally.
On December 01 2011 12:19 Chamenas wrote: Every description I've read of the Flash situation is that no one else is anywhere near his level.
Yes, if a bunch of high-level BW players switched over, it could be exciting. But if any one person achieves the seemingly mystical Flashesque dominance, the scene will become very much less interesting than it is now.
There are, of course, other arguments for why BW Pros might not spice up the scene that much, but I don't want to get into them, I'd love to see that. What I don't want to see is one or two players absolutely dominating and no one else coming even close. At least, if they ARE dominating, it should be for short periods, and it should not be the way that every tournament or game ends up, there should still be a majority of equal skill players playing one another.
Flash is a monster, but he's not completely infallible. But I'd say that his reputation for utter dominance actually brings a whole new level of excitement for whenever he's defeated by the underdog. Effort reverse sweeping Flash in the finals of Korean Air S1 '10? Or Jangbi rising up to beat Flash twice in a row after being down a game in the semis of Jin Air '11? Those were incredibly significant and memorable series. Having a player of this caliber, one who sets that standard of "God," just makes the ones who beat him even more amazing and celebrated.
On December 01 2011 11:55 kaisr wrote: Yeah watching Jaedong, Flash and Bisu at their primes destroying the scene was boring as hell.
Uh, precisely? Your attempts at being ironic are unfounded and ironic in that they are actually true. I'm glad you agree with me
Precisely? It wasn't boring as hell... it's not like they had no competition at all, they were just incredibly consistent at showing extremely high level games, which is great.
I turned your irony in on itself, seems like I confused you. I'm pretty sure that makes my point as well as anything else I've said.
It wasn't my irony... He was being sarcastic... The time during which Flash, Bisu, and Jaedong dominated have been extremely exciting from a fan standpoint.
Sarcasm is a form of irony. You, him, it's difficult for me to make distinctions on who's who in the TL community because it's so huge, I apologize. The point is, he was trying to be ironic (sarcastic if you don't like the word ironic, it has the same meaning in this context) and I was, conversely being ironic. I didn't fail to understand his sarcasm, I turned it against him because I disagreed and because there was little he could do to suggest that I was wrong.
In case you haven't noticed, I'm not a particular fan of sarcasm when it's not earned.
On December 01 2011 12:19 Chamenas wrote: Every description I've read of the Flash situation is that no one else is anywhere near his level.
Yes, if a bunch of high-level BW players switched over, it could be exciting. But if any one person achieves the seemingly mystical Flashesque dominance, the scene will become very much less interesting than it is now.
There are, of course, other arguments for why BW Pros might not spice up the scene that much, but I don't want to get into them, I'd love to see that. What I don't want to see is one or two players absolutely dominating and no one else coming even close. At least, if they ARE dominating, it should be for short periods, and it should not be the way that every tournament or game ends up, there should still be a majority of equal skill players playing one another.
Well this isnt true. Flash was beatable even when he was playing very well.
Well then people probably need to hype a little less then, huh? Saying he's orders of magnitudes better than the next best thing (or that he and his two buddies are) is effectively suggesting we would have a very small pool of talented players, and everyone else would be fighting for fourth place, which isn't particularly exciting. Now, if there's actually competition there, then, sure, the competition would be marginally improved by their introduction. However, as I've mentioned, there seems to be an inverse relationship between skill and quality of game. As skill gets greater and greater, the quality of the games seems to begin to even out (this is a difficult one to support with data, so I won't argue it too much).
I welcome the inclusion of better play into the scene, I just want it to be reasonable, and not create a disparity in skill level that makes it so that most matches aren't worth watching. I also really don't want to see players kill themselves practicing far more than they have to right now. Even professional athletes don't put in as much work as what the original post (or some poster) has described of Flashes effort. As admirable as it is, it's just not fair to force other players to put in that much effort to compete, they'll kill themselves, literally.
He's worth the hype. Just because he's leagues over most of his counterparts doesn't mean that he's infallible, of course. The only BW vods I ever youtubed were his, Jaedong's and Bisu's. Maybe it's me being naive, but I have this perception that there are under 10 BW players who have a chance of winning a series against him.
it's pretty hilarious when one side of the debate has zero comprehension on where the other side of the debate is coming from, because they didn't actually watch BW or understand how the scene worked
EPT
i would like to see flash and jd play sc2 :D
