On April 07 2015 00:16 letian wrote: While reading the TheDwf post I kept thinking about how every year we have a different SC2 champion and how it is difficult for all professional players to maintain same performance. Which perfectly matches TheDwf's arguments about strategy & luck, the faster the game is the more irrelevant the skill becomes.
agreed. yesterday we had another nobody terran coming out of nowhere and winning WCS. because sc2 is fundamentally broken players just can't be consistently succesful. The amount of luck is just too high in this game.
This is not entirely true. Remember that this WCS was almost excluded of Koreans. Yes, Polt is better than most foreigners, but he wouldn't win GSL if that's what you think.
Let's also remind you that Parting just won two tournaments within a week, Life has been performing great in Korea and elsewhere. SC2 is not as random as you seem to think. Polt winning a foreign tournament with mostly foreigners in it is not a very big surprise.
There are also other players who has been on the top and stayed there for quite a while, e.g MVP, Life, Parting, Innovation etc. It's not too different from BW times actually. Remember that in the end of BW, FlaSh wasn't that dominant anymore either. Players are figured out by other players on a daily basis and things will always change. That doesn't mean the game is random or luck based.
Mind that nowhere did I say that SC2 is random or luck based, all I meant is it attributes less to skill than BW due to time contraction as was explained by TheDwf.
On April 07 2015 00:16 letian wrote: While reading the TheDwf post I kept thinking about how every year we have a different SC2 champion and how it is difficult for all professional players to maintain same performance. Which perfectly matches TheDwf's arguments about strategy & luck, the faster the game is the more irrelevant the skill becomes.
agreed. yesterday we had another nobody terran coming out of nowhere and winning WCS. because sc2 is fundamentally broken players just can't be consistently succesful. The amount of luck is just too high in this game.
This is not entirely true. Remember that this WCS was almost excluded of Koreans. Yes, Polt is better than most foreigners, but he wouldn't win GSL if that's what you think.
Let's also remind you that Parting just won two tournaments within a week, Life has been performing great in Korea and elsewhere. SC2 is not as random as you seem to think. Polt winning a foreign tournament with mostly foreigners in it is not a very big surprise.
There are also other players who has been on the top and stayed there for quite a while, e.g MVP, Life, Parting, Innovation etc. It's not too different from BW times actually. Remember that in the end of BW, FlaSh wasn't that dominant anymore either. Players are figured out by other players on a daily basis and things will always change. That doesn't mean the game is random or luck based.
Mind that nowhere did I say that SC2 is random or luck based, all I meant is it attributes less to skill than BW due to time contraction as was explained by TheDwf.
I didn't quote you... my response was to Charoisaur.
I haven't gotten in the beta yet, nor have I watched much of various streamers (it all seems mostly like an experimental phase anyway) but I love reading these threads and seeing all the stuff people are concerned with. Seems eco. is the big topic of the week, and I think so long as people are reasonable in their criticisms, hopefully changes will be made that are best for the game. I'm starting to think it might be good to ignore the beta as long as possible so the current seasons of SSL/GSL/Proleague don't start to lose their lustre just yet (this definitely happened with the HoTS beta).
edit: and by ignore, I just mean me personally. I want all you hard workers to play it and find out what works and what doesn't.
On April 07 2015 00:16 letian wrote: While reading the TheDwf post I kept thinking about how every year we have a different SC2 champion and how it is difficult for all professional players to maintain same performance. Which perfectly matches TheDwf's arguments about strategy & luck, the faster the game is the more irrelevant the skill becomes.
agreed. yesterday we had another nobody terran coming out of nowhere and winning WCS. because sc2 is fundamentally broken players just can't be consistently succesful. The amount of luck is just too high in this game.
When was the last time Polt won something more serious than a tournament with three koreans including him? Maybe you can name at least one BW-esque dominant player in SC2 history?
MVP, Nestea, Parting, Life.
Its a younger game so the history isn't going to be the same. But we don't have just new random champions in SC2. We have had dominant players since the start of SC2. Hell if it weren't for MVP's injury, he'd probably still be dominating. And why was he so damn good? His strategy. Obviously he had great mechanics, any top player does. But he was great when it came to strategy. He was the guy every Terran in the world looked to.
We've had so many of the same players since the start of SC2 stay at the top of their game. The influx of the Kespa pros shook things up and made some fall, but thats because some of the most talented RTS players ever came into the scene, not because of the game.
On April 07 2015 00:16 letian wrote: While reading the TheDwf post I kept thinking about how every year we have a different SC2 champion and how it is difficult for all professional players to maintain same performance. Which perfectly matches TheDwf's arguments about strategy & luck, the faster the game is the more irrelevant the skill becomes.
agreed. yesterday we had another nobody terran coming out of nowhere and winning WCS. because sc2 is fundamentally broken players just can't be consistently succesful. The amount of luck is just too high in this game.
This is not entirely true. Remember that this WCS was almost excluded of Koreans. Yes, Polt is better than most foreigners, but he wouldn't win GSL if that's what you think.
Let's also remind you that Parting just won two tournaments within a week, Life has been performing great in Korea and elsewhere. SC2 is not as random as you seem to think. Polt winning a foreign tournament with mostly foreigners in it is not a very big surprise.
There are also other players who has been on the top and stayed there for quite a while, e.g MVP, Life, Parting, Innovation etc. It's not too different from BW times actually. Remember that in the end of BW, FlaSh wasn't that dominant anymore either. Players are figured out by other players on a daily basis and things will always change. That doesn't mean the game is random or luck based.
I would argue that there are simply more "top tier" champion caliber SC2 pros than there ever were in BW. The overall scene is still larger, I think, no?
On April 07 2015 01:29 sparklyresidue wrote: I haven't gotten in the beta yet, nor have I watched much of various streamers (it all seems mostly like an experimental phase anyway) but I love reading these threads and seeing all the stuff people are concerned with. Seems eco. is the big topic of the week, and I think so long as people are reasonable in their criticisms, hopefully changes will be made that are best for the game. I'm starting to think it might be good to ignore the beta as long as possible so the current seasons of SSL/GSL/Proleague don't start to lose their lustre just yet (this definitely happened with the HoTS beta).
edit: and by ignore, I just mean me personally. I want all you hard workers to play it and find out what works and what doesn't.
I definitely understand this sentiment. I got in fairly early on the HotS beta and it made WoL completely boring to watch after playing with the new stuff for only a couple weeks. I'm a little worried the same is going to happen for me now that I'm in LotV, but I think Proleague will *always* be entertaining for me.
I really dislike TheDwf's post from the first page and feel the need to say so because of the number of people who have expressed their liking of said post. I am sorry, if it was the first such thing, then I could have ignored that, but I am getting pretty tired of this kind of shit which happens with surprisingly regularity and even apparent coordination. There is a group of people who love to use big words and profoundly sounding sentences to discuss vague ideas about the supposed "RTS games" and "key koncepts" and whatnot, typically underlined by the looming realisation that BW had all those things right and there is "something terribly wrong". At the end, these points are typically devoid of any actual content and serve mainly to make the author look wise and to remind everyone how bad SC2 supposedly is. Compared to the fantastic, thoughtful and rational OP of this thread, it is even more laughable.
Yes, I want LoTV to be a great game, but that really doesn't mean "one that complies with TheDwf's wisecrak notions".
On April 07 2015 02:17 opisska wrote: I really dislike TheDwf's post from the first page and feel the need to say so because of the number of people who have expressed their liking of said post. I am sorry, if it was the first such thing, then I could have ignored that, but I am getting pretty tired of this kind of shit which happens with surprisingly regularity and even apparent coordination. There is a group of people who love to use big words and profoundly sounding sentences to discuss vague ideas about the supposed "RTS games" and "key koncepts" and whatnot, typically underlined by the looming realisation that BW had all those things right and there is "something terribly wrong". At the end, these points are typically devoid of any actual content and serve mainly to make the author look wise and to remind everyone how bad SC2 supposedly is. Compared to the fantastic, thoughtful and rational OP of this thread, it is even more laughable.
Yes, I want LoTV to be a great game, but that really doesn't mean "one that complies with TheDwf's wisecrak notions".
I think dwf's notions are rather ambiguous in any practical sense which is why they appeal to so many people; they read their own viewpoints in them. And while the pull of nostalgic dissatisfaction is strong, letting any vague sense of "off" manifest as whatever shortcoming the critic might articulate, I think there is a truth that people have recognized in the specific kind of "off" we have sensed in lotv.
On April 07 2015 02:17 opisska wrote: I really dislike TheDwf's post from the first page and feel the need to say so because of the number of people who have expressed their liking of said post. I am sorry, if it was the first such thing, then I could have ignored that, but I am getting pretty tired of this kind of !@#$%^&* which happens with surprisingly regularity and even apparent coordination. There is a group of people who love to use big words and profoundly sounding sentences to discuss vague ideas about the supposed "RTS games" and "key koncepts" and whatnot, typically underlined by the looming realisation that BW had all those things right and there is "something terribly wrong". At the end, these points are typically devoid of any actual content and serve mainly to make the author look wise and to remind everyone how bad SC2 supposedly is. Compared to the fantastic, thoughtful and rational OP of this thread, it is even more laughable.
Yes, I want LoTV to be a great game, but that really doesn't mean "one that complies with TheDwf's wisecrak notions".
I think dwf's notions are rather ambiguous in any practical sense which is why they appeal to so many people; they read their own viewpoints in them. And while the pull of nostalgic dissatisfaction is strong, letting any vague sense of "off" manifest as whatever shortcoming the critic might articulate, I think there is a truth that people have recognized in the specific kind of "off" we have sensed in lotv.
Yeh very good point. DWFs arguments were so vague, and could be interpreted in all different ways. So everyone who had issues with Starcraft could interpret it in their own way and then would go on to agree with it.
On April 07 2015 02:17 opisska wrote: I really dislike TheDwf's post from the first page and feel the need to say so because of the number of people who have expressed their liking of said post. I am sorry, if it was the first such thing, then I could have ignored that, but I am getting pretty tired of this kind of !@#$%^&* which happens with surprisingly regularity and even apparent coordination. There is a group of people who love to use big words and profoundly sounding sentences to discuss vague ideas about the supposed "RTS games" and "key koncepts" and whatnot, typically underlined by the looming realisation that BW had all those things right and there is "something terribly wrong". At the end, these points are typically devoid of any actual content and serve mainly to make the author look wise and to remind everyone how bad SC2 supposedly is. Compared to the fantastic, thoughtful and rational OP of this thread, it is even more laughable.
Yes, I want LoTV to be a great game, but that really doesn't mean "one that complies with TheDwf's wisecrak notions".
I think dwf's notions are rather ambiguous in any practical sense which is why they appeal to so many people; they read their own viewpoints in them. And while the pull of nostalgic dissatisfaction is strong, letting any vague sense of "off" manifest as whatever shortcoming the critic might articulate, I think there is a truth that people have recognized in the specific kind of "off" we have sensed in lotv.
Yeh very good point. DWFs arguments were so vague, and could be interpreted in all different ways. So everyone who had issues with Starcraft could interpret it in their own way and then would go on to agree with it.
I agree, very good articulation of what somehow bothered me on the whole thing.
On April 07 2015 02:17 opisska wrote: I really dislike TheDwf's post from the first page and feel the need to say so because of the number of people who have expressed their liking of said post. I am sorry, if it was the first such thing, then I could have ignored that, but I am getting pretty tired of this kind of !@#$%^&* which happens with surprisingly regularity and even apparent coordination. There is a group of people who love to use big words and profoundly sounding sentences to discuss vague ideas about the supposed "RTS games" and "key koncepts" and whatnot, typically underlined by the looming realisation that BW had all those things right and there is "something terribly wrong". At the end, these points are typically devoid of any actual content and serve mainly to make the author look wise and to remind everyone how bad SC2 supposedly is. Compared to the fantastic, thoughtful and rational OP of this thread, it is even more laughable.
Yes, I want LoTV to be a great game, but that really doesn't mean "one that complies with TheDwf's wisecrak notions".
I think dwf's notions are rather ambiguous in any practical sense which is why they appeal to so many people; they read their own viewpoints in them. And while the pull of nostalgic dissatisfaction is strong, letting any vague sense of "off" manifest as whatever shortcoming the critic might articulate, I think there is a truth that people have recognized in the specific kind of "off" we have sensed in lotv.
Yeh very good point. DWFs arguments were so vague, and could be interpreted in all different ways. So everyone who had issues with Starcraft could interpret it in their own way and then would go on to agree with it.
I agree, very good articulation of what somehow bothered me on the whole thing.
Well said guys. We should definitely try to stick to talking about actual, tangible problems and potential alternative solutions and changes, as otherwise isn't very constructive.
On April 07 2015 02:17 opisska wrote: I really dislike TheDwf's post from the first page and feel the need to say so because of the number of people who have expressed their liking of said post. I am sorry, if it was the first such thing, then I could have ignored that, but I am getting pretty tired of this kind of shit which happens with surprisingly regularity and even apparent coordination. There is a group of people who love to use big words and profoundly sounding sentences to discuss vague ideas about the supposed "RTS games" and "key koncepts" and whatnot, typically underlined by the looming realisation that BW had all those things right and there is "something terribly wrong". At the end, these points are typically devoid of any actual content and serve mainly to make the author look wise and to remind everyone how bad SC2 supposedly is. Compared to the fantastic, thoughtful and rational OP of this thread, it is even more laughable.
Yes, I want LoTV to be a great game, but that really doesn't mean "one that complies with TheDwf's wisecrak notions".
I agree absolutely. I'm a BW vet, but for the love of pie, people, it isn't the perfect game. There were boring, lame games in BW all the time, and entire seasons with huge balance problems. SC2 is a completely different game, and one of the main things that's driving it down is its excessively, continually negative community with its perpetual inferiority complex and its perpetual itch to find "the big reason why SC2 is terrible and BW was perfect which if only terrible Blizzard would change it then SC2 would be more popular than LoL."
Yes, sometimes increasing speed decreases skill. Sometimes it increases skill. Who knew? It's almost like these games are complex or something.
That being said, the OP is really well thought out, and the kind of constructive analysis and criticism we need to see much, much more of. Albeit it is necessarily very speculative at this early point of the beta, this is the kind of thing that will hopefully make LotV a truly great game.
On April 07 2015 02:17 opisska wrote: I really dislike TheDwf's post from the first page and feel the need to say so because of the number of people who have expressed their liking of said post. I am sorry, if it was the first such thing, then I could have ignored that, but I am getting pretty tired of this kind of shit which happens with surprisingly regularity and even apparent coordination. There is a group of people who love to use big words and profoundly sounding sentences to discuss vague ideas about the supposed "RTS games" and "key koncepts" and whatnot, typically underlined by the looming realisation that BW had all those things right and there is "something terribly wrong". At the end, these points are typically devoid of any actual content and serve mainly to make the author look wise and to remind everyone how bad SC2 supposedly is. Compared to the fantastic, thoughtful and rational OP of this thread, it is even more laughable.
Yes, I want LoTV to be a great game, but that really doesn't mean "one that complies with TheDwf's wisecrak notions".
I agree absolutely. I'm a BW vet, but for the love of pie, people, it isn't the perfect game. There were boring, lame games in BW all the time, and entire seasons with huge balance problems. SC2 is a completely different game, and one of the main things that's driving it down is its excessively, continually negative community with its perpetual inferiority complex and its perpetual itch to find "the big reason why SC2 is terrible and BW was perfect which if only terrible Blizzard would change it then SC2 would be more popular than LoL."
Yes, sometimes increasing speed decreases skill. Sometimes it increases skill. Who knew? It's almost like these games are complex or something.
You deserve praise for this post, thank you. I agree with everything you wrote.
On April 06 2015 10:40 JCoto wrote: On April 06 2015 07:17 ZeromuS wrote:
Is there an extension for your BW model on LotV or did you recreate it in hots?
Also do you use triggers or the data editor?
Finally: do you have numbers on minerals/minute (hots or LotV) and overall income on 8 through 16 workers?
Nah mate, is pure data. As simple as increasing amount mined and time to mine, and some tweaks to wait-to-return time. By default, workers are optimized to not trip each other, being perfectly synchronized in SC2: that's why you saturate at 2 workers and the third is less efficient. BW model is the same principle, but with 1 worker. You can search for extension mods in custom games.
Btw, I didn't did them, I used KTVMaps' mod (the one on the worker pairing thread). However SC:BW econ mod is a bit bugged since workers don't bounce properly, thank you for pointing it ^^. I'll look for Starbow data since they use BW econ model. You can see a bit its performance in this vid done by one man of the Starbow crew (jump to min 5).
I'll have to fix the BW mod. I think that there might be some mod done by the Starbow team (forget it, ther is), which is the same but obviously for only 1 gas geyser, meaning that gas measurements are not reliable as we have 2 gases.
I don't have accurate data, since I haven't spoken with the creator , so I don't know id it's optmized for 7,8 or 9 mineral patches, but I think that initial worker mines a bit more than actual SC2workers (around 50-55mins per min I'd say), but it's optimized to make 2worker saturation mine only at 75%-80% efficiency since workers lose time bouncing looking for free mineral patches. Look for Starbow Economy mod to experiment with the concept. There has been some talk today about this topic on reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/starcraft/comments/31gwwx/even_after_all_the_hype_for_lotv_i_still_think/
I'll fix both BW econ mods tomorrow. XD.
Ah I see I've been working with a lot of those mods doing research lately for a new article.
The reason I asked for in game numbers is because I've found all the theoretical numbers differed vastly from my in game tests.
So I decided to just use the in game stuff.
No need to fix the BW ones on my account BTW since I've found a model I really like and I'm going to stick with it for the rest of my analysis.
Please send me that one! Anyways, since I want to test BW model because I have a mod that uses it, I want to fix them xD. What happens is 2 things: that is optimized to create bounce in close mineral patches, meaning that far minerals are almost viable to be saturated with 2 workers most of the time (not that bad), and that the pathing footprint of minerals for the bounce effect was not set up. Now it works correctly. Now it should be working properly. In fact, they bounce like crazy.
However I agree with you that the BW model might be too strong economically, and may need to be tuned down. The Double Harvest mod simply does the same, but with more clear effect (mining rounds take lots of time, but deliver hughe amount of minerals). I think that once we get a good core concept, it's just about nubmers.
You said earlier it's pure data and not trigger driven.
I haven't seen any pure data implementation of BW econ in SC2. They have all been trigger based. I hope you're not just changing Harvest Time and Harvest Amount, and thinking that's all it takes to create BW econ.
You have to eliminate this hardcoded queuing condition to have a comparable system. Afaik you can't do it without using triggers.
Double Harvesting/Double Mining also uses triggers to manipulate that queuing condition.
In SC2 a worker arriving to an occupied patch will always bounce if the currently mining worker has more than ~2s remaining before finishing. If the currently mining worker has less than ~2s remaining, the arriving worker will queue.
Thanks you for pointing it, i didn't see the triggers when I downloaded the mod. It's pretty weird that they didn't include a data option for that in the editor. Sometimes it seems that they don't want people to experiment with core aspects of the game, when it would be natural to allow modification for that.
On April 07 2015 00:16 letian wrote: While reading the TheDwf post I kept thinking about how every year we have a different SC2 champion and how it is difficult for all professional players to maintain same performance. Which perfectly matches TheDwf's arguments about strategy & luck, the faster the game is the more irrelevant the skill becomes.
agreed. yesterday we had another nobody terran coming out of nowhere and winning WCS. because sc2 is fundamentally broken players just can't be consistently succesful. The amount of luck is just too high in this game.
This is not entirely true. Remember that this WCS was almost excluded of Koreans. Yes, Polt is better than most foreigners, but he wouldn't win GSL if that's what you think.
Let's also remind you that Parting just won two tournaments within a week, Life has been performing great in Korea and elsewhere. SC2 is not as random as you seem to think. Polt winning a foreign tournament with mostly foreigners in it is not a very big surprise.
There are also other players who has been on the top and stayed there for quite a while, e.g MVP, Life, Parting, Innovation etc. It's not too different from BW times actually. Remember that in the end of BW, FlaSh wasn't that dominant anymore either. Players are figured out by other players on a daily basis and things will always change. That doesn't mean the game is random or luck based.
Mind that nowhere did I say that SC2 is random or luck based, all I meant is it attributes less to skill than BW due to time contraction as was explained by TheDwf.
Time contraction is the wrong way to look at it though.
Instead, one needs to understand that the more mechanics matter, the higher is the probability that the best player will win. On the contrary, if you have a good build order, you can win in the short-term, but other people can copy it or figure it out, and then that advantage is gone. But mechanics cannot easily be copied.
So if the economy contributes to more luck/chance/build-order wins, then it is indeed something that make good players less able to win consistently. But that's not neccesarily true and is confusing correlation with causation. You can easily create this new economy and give players the proper tools to scout and react. Worrying about scout-and reaction not being viable should be the least of your worries with the new econ as they are vey easily fixable (if Blizzard wants to). The real worry should instead be centered on two other elements;
(1) Will we get an interesting late game with a mobile army vs an immobile army or are we just seeing midgame styles battle it out? (2) Can Blizzard reduce the snowball effect of the new econ?
The latter especially is really hard to fix with the new econ. I have some ideas for band-aid solutions, but I am not sure Blizzard will properly adress the issues.
I've lost interest in SC2 past the first two years it was out. I feel like with the "modern" UI and stuff reducing skill a ton compared to BW it was never going to be as fun to play or watch.
This new game, with the changes to the economy and everything feels even shittier. I mean every game I watch past the 7-8 minute mark seems to be everyone having 2000-3000 minerals and always being maxed out. How is that fucking fun to play or watch?
Its never going to be as fun to watch as SC1 if they don't change the UI, but they'll never will. I mean I can't get excited about a play like casting 5-6 storms or 5-6 fungal growths all over the screen when I know even I can do that. I'm not even that good at the game, but when I can do, what's the excitement about a "pro" player casting it? If everyone can do it, its not that exciting, if at all.
I just can't get excited about most of the SC2 plays, because I know I can do the same. Sure I can't beat a high level player, I don't keep up with strategies, with timings, with what's trending and what the best unit composition is, but on a general note I can cast 5-6-7 storms at once, I can "macro" extremely well, I can keep my resources really low all the time, its not a big deal.
Where I suck is the tactical battles and stuff, since I play so little. I just think that as long as we have the "modern UI" that keeps the skill ceiling a lot lower compared to BW we can never have a fun watching experience.
As long as playing, I know reverting to a more difficult UI will make the game harder to play and we'll see people don't play multiplayer as much, especially the lower level players, and this is the reason Blizzard won't ever make the UI harder.
On April 07 2015 00:16 letian wrote: While reading the TheDwf post I kept thinking about how every year we have a different SC2 champion and how it is difficult for all professional players to maintain same performance. Which perfectly matches TheDwf's arguments about strategy & luck, the faster the game is the more irrelevant the skill becomes.
agreed. yesterday we had another nobody terran coming out of nowhere and winning WCS. because sc2 is fundamentally broken players just can't be consistently succesful. The amount of luck is just too high in this game.
This is not entirely true. Remember that this WCS was almost excluded of Koreans. Yes, Polt is better than most foreigners, but he wouldn't win GSL if that's what you think.
Let's also remind you that Parting just won two tournaments within a week, Life has been performing great in Korea and elsewhere. SC2 is not as random as you seem to think. Polt winning a foreign tournament with mostly foreigners in it is not a very big surprise.
There are also other players who has been on the top and stayed there for quite a while, e.g MVP, Life, Parting, Innovation etc. It's not too different from BW times actually. Remember that in the end of BW, FlaSh wasn't that dominant anymore either. Players are figured out by other players on a daily basis and things will always change. That doesn't mean the game is random or luck based.
Mind that nowhere did I say that SC2 is random or luck based, all I meant is it attributes less to skill than BW due to time contraction as was explained by TheDwf.
Time contraction is the wrong way to look at it though.
Instead, one needs to understand that the more mechanics matter, the higher is the probability that the best player will win. On the contrary, if you have a good build order, you can win in the short-term, but other people can copy it or figure it out, and then that advantage is gone. But mechanics cannot easily be copied.
So if the economy contributes to more luck/chance/build-order wins, then it is indeed something that make good players less able to win consistently. But that's not neccesarily true and is confusing correlation with causation. You can easily create this new economy and give players the proper tools to scout and react. Worrying about scout-and reaction not being viable should be the least of your worries with the new econ as they are vey easily fixable (if Blizzard wants to). The real worry should instead be centered on two other elements;
(1) Will we get an interesting late game with a mobile army vs an immobile army or are we just seeing midgame styles battle it out? (2) Can Blizzard reduce the snowball effect of the new econ?
The latter especially is really hard to fix with the new econ. I have some ideas for band-aid solutions, but I am not sure Blizzard will properly adress the issues.
Yes but short of forcing players to use the same build order there is no real way to know how much of a win is build order based and how much is mechanics.
Also, a "better" player is not necessarily one that is only superior in mechanics. Strategy is equally if not more important.
In the end, a "better" player is just a player that is able to win more.
Look at a guy like Parting - sure he's dominated with a certain build order for a period of time and then that build order was figured out... but he's been relevant and at the top of the scene for a very long time by continuing to innovate with new build orders as his opponents adapt. That's the hallmark of a great player.
On April 07 2015 05:59 BillGates wrote: I just can't get excited about most of the SC2 plays, because I know I can do the same.
You're either legit good (then grats, and it's sad to see you don't enjoy watching the game) or your post doesn't make any sense. Everyone can do the motions Federer does, he does not have superhuman flexibility or impossible speed etc. You could mimic his movements for some time. What you wouldn't be able to do in your wildest dreams is time those actions precisely, choose the right type of strike/deplacement, make the right choice at every turn, have the same mental fortitude and a clever tactical plan behind the type of balls you give to your opponent... Same with the great SC2 players. Sure you could do most of the things seen on screen (even splits ?), but could you do them while keeping your minerals low, while thinking ahead of the next step to do and keeping up on scouting, while not missing a beat on injects/mules/chronos and not crumbling under stress/pressure ? I bet you can't and you should be in awe when watching players like Life/soO/PartinG/herO/Maru/INno...
Yes but short of forcing players to use the same build order there is no real way to know how much of a win is build order based and how much is mechanics.
Also, a "better" player is not necessarily one that is only superior in mechanics. Strategy is equally if not more important.
Your missing the point here. If mechanics were the only factor in the game, the better player would almost always win since there isn't that much variability in terms of how you play from a mechanically perspective. There is much more variability in the outcome when it comes to strategy and build-order wins. You can have a bad strategy in one game, but a good one in the next game. But someone with GM mechanics isn't suddenly gonna have diamond-level mechancis in the next game (at least its much less likely).
BW had a much higher mechanical skillcap and its therefore no surprise that you had players who were more dominant (in before someone tells me that Flash had "low" apm).
So when Blizzard speeds up the game and give you less time to scout, you could argue that there is more luck-element to the game, but people ignore that this is very easily fixed (e.g. faster slow overlords, hallucation down to 75 energy and turret change already helps terran).
EPT
my response was to Charoisaur.
