|
On March 29 2011 04:00 Zlasher wrote:
Man, if a foreigner top 4's the actual single elimination group stage, thats more prize money than any foreigner has seen in one go yet (about 9000) I believe. Since RO4 in GSL was like 8k or so, and jinro's mlg dallas win was like 6250.
there have been 2 10k prizes i believe.
I think Fenix won one of them, (was a tournament in mexico) and there was something else just can't think of it.
|
On March 29 2011 03:52 xaneda wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 03:46 ggrrg wrote:On March 29 2011 03:25 Miefer wrote:
I played some bw before but not that much like sc2 now. so i am not a expert in bw.
i am really curious what make people think that sc2 need less mechanics than bw?
i mean in bw you didnt have larva inject, creep spread , mules, crono and so on. also the resource managment is quite the same. army control too. - Try constantly producing units from 25-30 gateways when being able to select only one at a time (same applies to hatcheries and barracks/factories) 25-30 gateways and barracks? This isn't fastest map possible. Try not to talk out of your ass.
NaDa had a game where he had 50 gates 
Memorable Game: 50 gate against Jaehoon Lee match
http://fox.wemade.net/foxes/foxes_player.asp
|
|
|
On March 29 2011 04:00 Zlasher wrote:
Man, if a foreigner top 4's the actual single elimination group stage, thats more prize money than any foreigner has seen in one go yet (about 9000) I believe. Since RO4 in GSL was like 8k or so, and jinro's mlg dallas win was like 6250.
Naama won 15.000 Dollar at Dreamhack.
Fenix won 10.000 Dollar at GameGune
Loner won 10.000 Dollar at Blizzcon
|
On March 29 2011 03:51 mustache wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 03:44 Scribble wrote:On March 29 2011 03:25 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 03:19 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 03:01 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 02:52 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Thats a silly statement dood. It takes alot of skill to compete. TT1 obviously has skill. Whoever said that TT1 was way better or Nada was way worse? if a BW pro can scout rush a supposed foreigner pro and win. THAT shows you how much better the koreans pros were in BW. 3 OSL and 3 MSL wins are telling me that nada is the better player. In BW that is. In SC2 its all about who does what strat instead of about needing insane mechanics to pull those strats off. Which is sad because it makes things very "flavour of the week" TT1 is a great player, but if you honestly think SC2 compares to BW in terms of skill difference between top players then you are just lying to yourself or have no clue about BW. On March 29 2011 02:54 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Oh man, this is a new game, its sad you cant get over it already. I play SC2. I have tons of fun playing and watching SC2. What dissapoints me and what im scared of is that SC2's skill limit will be reached way too fast. I'm not mooning over BW, just sad that SC2 is missing things which made BW great. a 3x OSl and 3x MSL winning losing to some foreigner is proof to me that the skill levels at the top are too close, and it's not really possible to set yourself apart. Its useless to stress about things that may or may not yet come true, even worse so when you have no control over it. You say SC2 is dumbed down, well mechanics are way easier, thats for sure, but game itself is not ''dumber'' in any way. Yes BW is terrific and I too follow it, but Sc2 has awesome international scene, nothing bw will ever have mostly due to the mechanics. Also basing it on at the moment low level pro (lets be real) bw switchover player losing in a single game to I dont know how much practiced player (probably more than Nada)... The game is dumbed down. the strategies aren't. The mechanics are the only real significant change from BW to SC2, and the'yre what sepereted the pros from the semi pros. now that it's so much easier i dont see whats going to seperate them. I think SC2 could have had the scene it has with more difficult mechanics as well. Blizzard having WoW in its back just gave the company so much more publicity that i think the players would come regardless o fgame difficulty On March 29 2011 03:22 Scribble wrote:
Wow, the BW trolls are out in force today. My favorite part about all the "SC2 takes less skill" nonsense is that nobody can ever seem to point out how, and nobody can seem to explain that somehow people have gotten better since release...even though the same bs argument was being made during beta.
BW will continue to thrive for a while still. There's no need to feel so threatened that you have to leveraging pathetic insults against its main competition. I am not a troll, and BW is harder than SC2. that's a simple fact. so BW takes more skill. If you honestly think im a troll reread what i wrote. if you really need it spelled out for you heres why broodwar need more skill -macro, no MBS -spells, no smartcast -overkill, you needed better unit control -controle group sizes fun or not it was harder. And im not actually sure players got that much better, Blizzard jsut kept patching the game and modling it into the more macro heavy game it is now. Congratulations, you pointed out differences. A human being is only capable of so many tasks at a time. In BW, you correctly pointed out a number of important mechanics that players have to focus on, skill-sets which aren't necessary in SC2. So here's a thought, doesn't that just leave room for other skill-sets to develop? What I'm getting at, is let's just say the "skill ceiling," the maximum amount of tasks anyone is capable of handling is 400 actions per minute. In BW, you hit your skill ceiling managing these mechanics. In SC2, people will hit it managing other mechanics UNLESS there is no way, mechanically, to play better. Is that honestly what you're arguing? I'd certainly accept that the skill ceiling for mechanical play is lower in SC2...if you're only talking about base management, but micro? There is absolutely no limit to how much room there is for unit control to improve IN EITHER GAME, but there is a limit to how much a person can physically do. If players are using their hands less for the mechanics you listed, they're just going to find other ways to improve. There's simply no reason why this cannot be the case, and THAT is a fact. BW does inherently take more skill to be a top level player; it requires DIFFERENT skills. wrong. im sorry, but this arguement keeps getting made while it holds not truth. if the opportunity to micro in BW and SC2 is the same then on a micro level the skill is the same(actually not true bcause of smartcase but ill neglect that) id say they're pretty close though if the strategical aspect in Bw and SC2 is the same then the skill level is the same. id say this si true as well if the opportunity for mechanics in BW and SC2 is the same then the skill level is the same. this is not true however so lets sum up: skill opportunitys in sc2: micro, strategy skill opportunitys in BW: micro strategy, mechanics so if a BW player can reach the micro and strategy of a SC2 player(trust me, they can  ) while maintaining insane mechanics wouldn't you argue that takes more skill than without those mechanics? more possibility to improve is always better
You didn't actually respond to his thought, which was that if you remove or minimize the mechanics aspect it gives room for micro and strategy to grow. Comparing the values right now isn't going to provide much useful information since BW been practiced for over 10 years and SC2 has been practiced for under a year.
So, given time, might the lack of mechanical demand provide opportunities for micro and strategy to become more impressive than what's possible in BW given human limitations?
Anyways, I'm not saying it's going to be true, I just felt you weren't giving his statement a fair evaluation.
|
hope TT1 can do well tomorrow :D
|
On March 29 2011 03:51 mustache wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 03:44 Scribble wrote:On March 29 2011 03:25 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 03:19 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 03:01 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 02:52 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Thats a silly statement dood. It takes alot of skill to compete. TT1 obviously has skill. Whoever said that TT1 was way better or Nada was way worse? if a BW pro can scout rush a supposed foreigner pro and win. THAT shows you how much better the koreans pros were in BW. 3 OSL and 3 MSL wins are telling me that nada is the better player. In BW that is. In SC2 its all about who does what strat instead of about needing insane mechanics to pull those strats off. Which is sad because it makes things very "flavour of the week" TT1 is a great player, but if you honestly think SC2 compares to BW in terms of skill difference between top players then you are just lying to yourself or have no clue about BW. On March 29 2011 02:54 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Oh man, this is a new game, its sad you cant get over it already. I play SC2. I have tons of fun playing and watching SC2. What dissapoints me and what im scared of is that SC2's skill limit will be reached way too fast. I'm not mooning over BW, just sad that SC2 is missing things which made BW great. a 3x OSl and 3x MSL winning losing to some foreigner is proof to me that the skill levels at the top are too close, and it's not really possible to set yourself apart. Its useless to stress about things that may or may not yet come true, even worse so when you have no control over it. You say SC2 is dumbed down, well mechanics are way easier, thats for sure, but game itself is not ''dumber'' in any way. Yes BW is terrific and I too follow it, but Sc2 has awesome international scene, nothing bw will ever have mostly due to the mechanics. Also basing it on at the moment low level pro (lets be real) bw switchover player losing in a single game to I dont know how much practiced player (probably more than Nada)... The game is dumbed down. the strategies aren't. The mechanics are the only real significant change from BW to SC2, and the'yre what sepereted the pros from the semi pros. now that it's so much easier i dont see whats going to seperate them. I think SC2 could have had the scene it has with more difficult mechanics as well. Blizzard having WoW in its back just gave the company so much more publicity that i think the players would come regardless o fgame difficulty On March 29 2011 03:22 Scribble wrote:
Wow, the BW trolls are out in force today. My favorite part about all the "SC2 takes less skill" nonsense is that nobody can ever seem to point out how, and nobody can seem to explain that somehow people have gotten better since release...even though the same bs argument was being made during beta.
BW will continue to thrive for a while still. There's no need to feel so threatened that you have to leveraging pathetic insults against its main competition. I am not a troll, and BW is harder than SC2. that's a simple fact. so BW takes more skill. If you honestly think im a troll reread what i wrote. if you really need it spelled out for you heres why broodwar need more skill -macro, no MBS -spells, no smartcast -overkill, you needed better unit control -controle group sizes fun or not it was harder. And im not actually sure players got that much better, Blizzard jsut kept patching the game and modling it into the more macro heavy game it is now. Congratulations, you pointed out differences. A human being is only capable of so many tasks at a time. In BW, you correctly pointed out a number of important mechanics that players have to focus on, skill-sets which aren't necessary in SC2. So here's a thought, doesn't that just leave room for other skill-sets to develop? What I'm getting at, is let's just say the "skill ceiling," the maximum amount of tasks anyone is capable of handling is 400 actions per minute. In BW, you hit your skill ceiling managing these mechanics. In SC2, people will hit it managing other mechanics UNLESS there is no way, mechanically, to play better. Is that honestly what you're arguing? I'd certainly accept that the skill ceiling for mechanical play is lower in SC2...if you're only talking about base management, but micro? There is absolutely no limit to how much room there is for unit control to improve IN EITHER GAME, but there is a limit to how much a person can physically do. If players are using their hands less for the mechanics you listed, they're just going to find other ways to improve. There's simply no reason why this cannot be the case, and THAT is a fact. BW does inherently take more skill to be a top level player; it requires DIFFERENT skills. wrong. im sorry, but this arguement keeps getting made while it holds not truth. if the opportunity to micro in BW and SC2 is the same then on a micro level the skill is the same(actually not true bcause of smartcase but ill neglect that) id say they're pretty close though if the strategical aspect in Bw and SC2 is the same then the skill level is the same. id say this si true as well if the opportunity for mechanics in BW and SC2 is the same then the skill level is the same. this is not true however so lets sum up: skill opportunitys in sc2: micro, strategy skill opportunitys in BW: micro strategy, mechanics so if a BW player can reach the micro and strategy of a SC2 player(trust me, they can ) while maintaining insane mechanics wouldn't you argue that takes more skill than without those mechanics? more possibility to improve is always better
Wooooosh. If a player could do an infinite amount at a time, then yes, BW would in fact take more skill. However, that is physically impossible. Again, think of it like an 'APM Budget.' That budget is finite, but the amount you can spend it on is not. BW players 'spend' their APM on the mechanics we have already established. SC2 players will eventually be spending it less on BW mechanics, and more on micro, even more than BW.
BW players have great micro in addition to their base management mechanics, no argument here, but they still sacrifice micro for base management because that is what is most important. If they didn't have to devote so much of their multi-tasking to it, however, they would simply be able to micro even better and that is the skillset they would develop.
That is how SC2 will play out. BW emphasizes base management mechanics and micro to a lesser extent, SC2 will be the opposite; base management is and will continue to be less demanding, and players will turn the micro up to 11. Both games will have similar ATTAINABLE skill ceilings, but they'll require different skill sets. That's my whole fucking point.
|
On March 29 2011 04:07 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 04:00 Zlasher wrote:
Man, if a foreigner top 4's the actual single elimination group stage, thats more prize money than any foreigner has seen in one go yet (about 9000) I believe. Since RO4 in GSL was like 8k or so, and jinro's mlg dallas win was like 6250. there have been 2 10k prizes i believe. I think Fenix won one of them, (was a tournament in mexico) and there was something else just can't think of it.
dreamhack
|
I'm sure it will come down to Jinro vs MC, if it does I think the world team have a great chance.
My biggest concern is July, I'm not sure anyone on the world team can handle his aggression.
|
On March 29 2011 04:07 PrinceXizor wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 04:00 Zlasher wrote:
Man, if a foreigner top 4's the actual single elimination group stage, thats more prize money than any foreigner has seen in one go yet (about 9000) I believe. Since RO4 in GSL was like 8k or so, and jinro's mlg dallas win was like 6250. there have been 2 10k prizes i believe. I think Fenix won one of them, (was a tournament in mexico) and there was something else just can't think of it.
BratOK won a Beeline Russian Championship Tournament with 10500$ for 1st place.
Source
Source 2
|
Really great GSL WC matches! I'm so psyched to see the international team doing so well! I personally enjoyed Sen's matches, I'm definately a fan of him now, together with Mondragon after seeing him in TSL. This and TSL shows that the foreign scene can compete with the Korean scene, great stuff!
And wow, I'm disappointed that people are spending so much energy arguing about BW and skill ceiling in this. Who cares? If the mechanical side is streamlined to not be hard for the sake of just being hard, and allows the players to focus more on the strategical side, what's the problem? BW still exists for the gamers that likes the harder mechanical stuff.
|
FUCKING AWESOME EVENT. Halfway through day 1, and i am so fucking into it.
|
On March 29 2011 03:19 Jakalo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 03:01 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 02:52 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Thats a silly statement dood. It takes alot of skill to compete. TT1 obviously has skill. Whoever said that TT1 was way better or Nada was way worse? if a BW pro can scout rush a supposed foreigner pro and win. THAT shows you how much better the koreans pros were in BW. 3 OSL and 3 MSL wins are telling me that nada is the better player. In BW that is. In SC2 its all about who does what strat instead of about needing insane mechanics to pull those strats off. Which is sad because it makes things very "flavour of the week" TT1 is a great player, but if you honestly think SC2 compares to BW in terms of skill difference between top players then you are just lying to yourself or have no clue about BW. On March 29 2011 02:54 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Oh man, this is a new game, its sad you cant get over it already. I play SC2. I have tons of fun playing and watching SC2. What dissapoints me and what im scared of is that SC2's skill limit will be reached way too fast. I'm not mooning over BW, just sad that SC2 is missing things which made BW great. a 3x OSl and 3x MSL winning losing to some foreigner is proof to me that the skill levels at the top are too close, and it's not really possible to set yourself apart. Its useless to stress about things that may or may not yet come true, even worse so when you have no control over it. You say SC2 is dumbed down, well mechanics are way easier, thats for sure, but game itself is not ''dumber'' in any way. Yes BW is terrific and I too follow it, but Sc2 has awesome international scene, nothing bw will ever have mostly due to the mechanics. Also basing it on at the moment low level pro (lets be real) bw switchover player losing in a single game to I dont know how much practiced player (probably more than Nada)...
Try watching the games closely, there's many times where the players would've loved to do a little drop while microing their army, or splitting their army more and attack from multiple angles and keep up the micro, but are hindered by their mechanics.
Even a lowly player like me can find many mistakes or wasted oppourtunities in the top players games, which tells me that we are very, very far from a "skill ceiling"
|
Hats off to the observer, he's so good at what he does!
|
On March 29 2011 04:13 Scribble wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 03:51 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 03:44 Scribble wrote:On March 29 2011 03:25 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 03:19 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 03:01 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 02:52 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Thats a silly statement dood. It takes alot of skill to compete. TT1 obviously has skill. Whoever said that TT1 was way better or Nada was way worse? if a BW pro can scout rush a supposed foreigner pro and win. THAT shows you how much better the koreans pros were in BW. 3 OSL and 3 MSL wins are telling me that nada is the better player. In BW that is. In SC2 its all about who does what strat instead of about needing insane mechanics to pull those strats off. Which is sad because it makes things very "flavour of the week" TT1 is a great player, but if you honestly think SC2 compares to BW in terms of skill difference between top players then you are just lying to yourself or have no clue about BW. On March 29 2011 02:54 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Oh man, this is a new game, its sad you cant get over it already. I play SC2. I have tons of fun playing and watching SC2. What dissapoints me and what im scared of is that SC2's skill limit will be reached way too fast. I'm not mooning over BW, just sad that SC2 is missing things which made BW great. a 3x OSl and 3x MSL winning losing to some foreigner is proof to me that the skill levels at the top are too close, and it's not really possible to set yourself apart. Its useless to stress about things that may or may not yet come true, even worse so when you have no control over it. You say SC2 is dumbed down, well mechanics are way easier, thats for sure, but game itself is not ''dumber'' in any way. Yes BW is terrific and I too follow it, but Sc2 has awesome international scene, nothing bw will ever have mostly due to the mechanics. Also basing it on at the moment low level pro (lets be real) bw switchover player losing in a single game to I dont know how much practiced player (probably more than Nada)... The game is dumbed down. the strategies aren't. The mechanics are the only real significant change from BW to SC2, and the'yre what sepereted the pros from the semi pros. now that it's so much easier i dont see whats going to seperate them. I think SC2 could have had the scene it has with more difficult mechanics as well. Blizzard having WoW in its back just gave the company so much more publicity that i think the players would come regardless o fgame difficulty On March 29 2011 03:22 Scribble wrote:
Wow, the BW trolls are out in force today. My favorite part about all the "SC2 takes less skill" nonsense is that nobody can ever seem to point out how, and nobody can seem to explain that somehow people have gotten better since release...even though the same bs argument was being made during beta.
BW will continue to thrive for a while still. There's no need to feel so threatened that you have to leveraging pathetic insults against its main competition. I am not a troll, and BW is harder than SC2. that's a simple fact. so BW takes more skill. If you honestly think im a troll reread what i wrote. if you really need it spelled out for you heres why broodwar need more skill -macro, no MBS -spells, no smartcast -overkill, you needed better unit control -controle group sizes fun or not it was harder. And im not actually sure players got that much better, Blizzard jsut kept patching the game and modling it into the more macro heavy game it is now. Congratulations, you pointed out differences. A human being is only capable of so many tasks at a time. In BW, you correctly pointed out a number of important mechanics that players have to focus on, skill-sets which aren't necessary in SC2. So here's a thought, doesn't that just leave room for other skill-sets to develop? What I'm getting at, is let's just say the "skill ceiling," the maximum amount of tasks anyone is capable of handling is 400 actions per minute. In BW, you hit your skill ceiling managing these mechanics. In SC2, people will hit it managing other mechanics UNLESS there is no way, mechanically, to play better. Is that honestly what you're arguing? I'd certainly accept that the skill ceiling for mechanical play is lower in SC2...if you're only talking about base management, but micro? There is absolutely no limit to how much room there is for unit control to improve IN EITHER GAME, but there is a limit to how much a person can physically do. If players are using their hands less for the mechanics you listed, they're just going to find other ways to improve. There's simply no reason why this cannot be the case, and THAT is a fact. BW does inherently take more skill to be a top level player; it requires DIFFERENT skills. wrong. im sorry, but this arguement keeps getting made while it holds not truth. if the opportunity to micro in BW and SC2 is the same then on a micro level the skill is the same(actually not true bcause of smartcase but ill neglect that) id say they're pretty close though if the strategical aspect in Bw and SC2 is the same then the skill level is the same. id say this si true as well if the opportunity for mechanics in BW and SC2 is the same then the skill level is the same. this is not true however so lets sum up: skill opportunitys in sc2: micro, strategy skill opportunitys in BW: micro strategy, mechanics so if a BW player can reach the micro and strategy of a SC2 player(trust me, they can ) while maintaining insane mechanics wouldn't you argue that takes more skill than without those mechanics? more possibility to improve is always better Wooooosh. If a player could do an infinite amount at a time, then yes, BW would in fact take more skill. However, that is physically impossible. Again, think of it like an 'APM Budget.' That budget is finite, but the amount you can spend it on is not. BW players 'spend' their APM on the mechanics we have already established. SC2 players will eventually be spending it less on BW mechanics, and more on micro, even more than BW. BW players have great micro in addition to their base management mechanics, no argument here, but they still sacrifice micro for base management because that is what is most important. If they didn't have to devote so much of their multi-tasking to it, however, they would simply be able to micro even better and that is the skillset they would develop. That is how SC2 will play out. BW emphasizes base management mechanics and micro to a lesser extent, SC2 will be the opposite; base management is and will continue to be less demanding, and players will turn the micro up to 11. Both games will have similar ATTAINABLE skill ceilings, but they'll require different skill sets. That's my whole fucking point.
but then why do BW pros have equal or better micro, equal strategical depth while maintaining higher macro?
you scenario is a hypothetical, mine is something which actually happens.
bisu is living proof of what you are saying isnt humanly possible in fact is humanly possible
|
Great games so far! Really exciting first day and it's amazing that the foreigners are already up 4-2. Granted, the best Korean players haven't been used yet, but that was to be expected from a good coach like Cella. The foreigners have the position they need to do well in Day 2 and I'm sure Artosis will spend all day coming up with a specific response to each player remaining (MVP, Nestea, July, MC). They can afford to do that since they have 6 players remaining (TT1, Jinro, Moonglade, Dimaga, WhiteRa, HuK).
Will be a great second day! Also looking forward to the tournament, it's now clear that foreigners can at least hold their own in live events with Koreans. I still expect someone like MC to take the tournament, but 1-2 foreigners in the top 4 isn't completely out of the realm of possibility.
Also to all the off-topic BW/SC2 whiners: seriously? Why would you choose this thread to agonize over the differences in the games? They're two different games in two different eras, who cares which is harder? NaDa lost to TT1 because he made a calculated risk (1 base Cloakshee) and it backfired because TT1 played smart and had a cannon ready. You can argue all day that NaDa would have won if he had played a standard game, but he didn't play a standard game.
Looking forward to tomorrow!
|
really fun event. sen is so damn good :D
|
Wooooosh. If a player could do an infinite amount at a time, then yes, BW would in fact take more skill. However, that is physically impossible. Again, think of it like an 'APM Budget.' That budget is finite, but the amount you can spend it on is not. BW players 'spend' their APM on the mechanics we have already established. SC2 players will eventually be spending it less on BW mechanics, and more on micro, even more than BW.
BW players have great micro in addition to their base management mechanics, no argument here, but they still sacrifice micro for base management because that is what is most important. If they didn't have to devote so much of their multi-tasking to it, however, they would simply be able to micro even better and that is the skillset they would develop.
That is how SC2 will play out. BW emphasizes base management mechanics and micro to a lesser extent, SC2 will be the opposite; base management is and will continue to be less demanding, and players will turn the micro up to 11. Both games will have similar ATTAINABLE skill ceilings, but they'll require different skill sets. That's my whole fucking point.
You hit the nail on the head, sure macro is a lot easier in sc2 and its absolutely true to say the APM required is much lower compared to BW but that just means you'll use more APM on micro.
APM budget is a great way to describe it.
The best thing Blizzard could do is keep making patches that nerf the most popular build orders so the game strategy doesn't stagnate, given how strong timed attacks are at the moment I feel they could be doing a better job.
|
On March 29 2011 04:25 mustache wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2011 04:13 Scribble wrote:On March 29 2011 03:51 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 03:44 Scribble wrote:On March 29 2011 03:25 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 03:19 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 03:01 mustache wrote:On March 29 2011 02:52 ReachTheSky wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Thats a silly statement dood. It takes alot of skill to compete. TT1 obviously has skill. Whoever said that TT1 was way better or Nada was way worse? if a BW pro can scout rush a supposed foreigner pro and win. THAT shows you how much better the koreans pros were in BW. 3 OSL and 3 MSL wins are telling me that nada is the better player. In BW that is. In SC2 its all about who does what strat instead of about needing insane mechanics to pull those strats off. Which is sad because it makes things very "flavour of the week" TT1 is a great player, but if you honestly think SC2 compares to BW in terms of skill difference between top players then you are just lying to yourself or have no clue about BW. On March 29 2011 02:54 Jakalo wrote:On March 29 2011 02:49 mustache wrote:
sad how dumbed down SC2 is compared to BW. it's not like TT1 is all of a sudden way better or nada way worse. Oh man, this is a new game, its sad you cant get over it already. I play SC2. I have tons of fun playing and watching SC2. What dissapoints me and what im scared of is that SC2's skill limit will be reached way too fast. I'm not mooning over BW, just sad that SC2 is missing things which made BW great. a 3x OSl and 3x MSL winning losing to some foreigner is proof to me that the skill levels at the top are too close, and it's not really possible to set yourself apart. Its useless to stress about things that may or may not yet come true, even worse so when you have no control over it. You say SC2 is dumbed down, well mechanics are way easier, thats for sure, but game itself is not ''dumber'' in any way. Yes BW is terrific and I too follow it, but Sc2 has awesome international scene, nothing bw will ever have mostly due to the mechanics. Also basing it on at the moment low level pro (lets be real) bw switchover player losing in a single game to I dont know how much practiced player (probably more than Nada)... The game is dumbed down. the strategies aren't. The mechanics are the only real significant change from BW to SC2, and the'yre what sepereted the pros from the semi pros. now that it's so much easier i dont see whats going to seperate them. I think SC2 could have had the scene it has with more difficult mechanics as well. Blizzard having WoW in its back just gave the company so much more publicity that i think the players would come regardless o fgame difficulty On March 29 2011 03:22 Scribble wrote:
Wow, the BW trolls are out in force today. My favorite part about all the "SC2 takes less skill" nonsense is that nobody can ever seem to point out how, and nobody can seem to explain that somehow people have gotten better since release...even though the same bs argument was being made during beta.
BW will continue to thrive for a while still. There's no need to feel so threatened that you have to leveraging pathetic insults against its main competition. I am not a troll, and BW is harder than SC2. that's a simple fact. so BW takes more skill. If you honestly think im a troll reread what i wrote. if you really need it spelled out for you heres why broodwar need more skill -macro, no MBS -spells, no smartcast -overkill, you needed better unit control -controle group sizes fun or not it was harder. And im not actually sure players got that much better, Blizzard jsut kept patching the game and modling it into the more macro heavy game it is now. Congratulations, you pointed out differences. A human being is only capable of so many tasks at a time. In BW, you correctly pointed out a number of important mechanics that players have to focus on, skill-sets which aren't necessary in SC2. So here's a thought, doesn't that just leave room for other skill-sets to develop? What I'm getting at, is let's just say the "skill ceiling," the maximum amount of tasks anyone is capable of handling is 400 actions per minute. In BW, you hit your skill ceiling managing these mechanics. In SC2, people will hit it managing other mechanics UNLESS there is no way, mechanically, to play better. Is that honestly what you're arguing? I'd certainly accept that the skill ceiling for mechanical play is lower in SC2...if you're only talking about base management, but micro? There is absolutely no limit to how much room there is for unit control to improve IN EITHER GAME, but there is a limit to how much a person can physically do. If players are using their hands less for the mechanics you listed, they're just going to find other ways to improve. There's simply no reason why this cannot be the case, and THAT is a fact. BW does inherently take more skill to be a top level player; it requires DIFFERENT skills. wrong. im sorry, but this arguement keeps getting made while it holds not truth. if the opportunity to micro in BW and SC2 is the same then on a micro level the skill is the same(actually not true bcause of smartcase but ill neglect that) id say they're pretty close though if the strategical aspect in Bw and SC2 is the same then the skill level is the same. id say this si true as well if the opportunity for mechanics in BW and SC2 is the same then the skill level is the same. this is not true however so lets sum up: skill opportunitys in sc2: micro, strategy skill opportunitys in BW: micro strategy, mechanics so if a BW player can reach the micro and strategy of a SC2 player(trust me, they can ) while maintaining insane mechanics wouldn't you argue that takes more skill than without those mechanics? more possibility to improve is always better Wooooosh. If a player could do an infinite amount at a time, then yes, BW would in fact take more skill. However, that is physically impossible. Again, think of it like an 'APM Budget.' That budget is finite, but the amount you can spend it on is not. BW players 'spend' their APM on the mechanics we have already established. SC2 players will eventually be spending it less on BW mechanics, and more on micro, even more than BW. BW players have great micro in addition to their base management mechanics, no argument here, but they still sacrifice micro for base management because that is what is most important. If they didn't have to devote so much of their multi-tasking to it, however, they would simply be able to micro even better and that is the skillset they would develop. That is how SC2 will play out. BW emphasizes base management mechanics and micro to a lesser extent, SC2 will be the opposite; base management is and will continue to be less demanding, and players will turn the micro up to 11. Both games will have similar ATTAINABLE skill ceilings, but they'll require different skill sets. That's my whole fucking point. but then why do BW pros have equal or better micro, equal strategical depth while maintaining higher macro? you scenario is a hypothetical, mine is something which actually happens. bisu is living proof of what you are saying isnt humanly possible in fact is humanly possible
So what you're saying is that even though TT1 used a build that's basically designed to play against banshee openings, he should lose because Nada presses his buttons faster, and hardly even practice since he attends Uni.
It all makes sense to me.
|
Sigh, if things are so easy, why aren't you (anyone QQing) at GSL? Poor mods have to sift through all of this dung to keep things civil. Seriously stop derailing SC2 tourney threads so hard. The fact that SC2 does not in fact = SC:BW has been beaten to death, no point in bringing it up. We get it.
Back to my awesome picture.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/odtFD.jpg)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
