|
On April 30 2010 08:08 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 08:00 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 30 2010 07:44 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 07:38 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote:
I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. Similarily, detection will nullify the Arbiter's effect, while only killing will stop Sentries. Furthermore, Sentries are much easier to obtain, so shutting down Guardian shields is even more difficult, giving you more incentive to place them correctly (You get maximum effect while at the same time annoying the opponent while they try to target your well-placed sentries). Also, Stasis =/= Force Field. Stasis removes a unit from play for a given amount of time, while Force Field will make unit control much more difficult. They CAN be used similarily, but Force Field has a much wider range of ability.
2. Immortals and Stalkers are both more expensive than the Dragoon, and the Zealot is melee. This one doesn't even make sense.
4. In this case, the Dragoons have nothing better to do than kill Tanks. Stalkers, however, should be firing at Marines as well as Marauders. Every wasted Stalker shot is a potential 1/5th Marine's HP. Dragoons won't even care about wasted shots due to Vultures just tickling them, rather than being a real threat.
5. Tank splash applies in SC2 as well.
6. Stasis, once fired, will not have any other effect. Force Field, on the other hand, lasts for quite a while. They can't be used in the same way in this case.
As for the rest, dodging EMPs with your HT and firing Feedbacks is very important, due to how the Ghost will cripple any/all Immortals. Observer overlap is EXACTLY the same in both games. You have to make sure your Immortals aren't fighting Marines, or your Stalkers aren't fighting Marauders, or your Zealots are fighting Marauders, etc. You have to be careful with Guardian Shield, as well, because wasting all of them will mean they can focus fire your Sentries quickly and leave you much less defended.
Try thinking before replacing unit names just because abilities "might" be used in a similar way. I can only assume at this point that you are another person who hasn't played broodwar Try to think in terms of the roles of the units. Stalker immortal sentry is the backbone of protoss in sc2 just like zealot/goon/arbiter is in BW Also, consider I had to replace an early game sc2 example with a mid/late game Broodwar example because an early PvT push in Broodwar is so much more micro intensive that it's not even comparable. Not shown in video: Mine defuse micro If the effect of an ability is not the same, you cannot apply them in the same way, regardless of what role the units play. Zealots inherently cannot be microed as well as Stalkers. Immortals are for the sole purpose of destroying armored units in general, rather than being general go-to units. Sentries and Arbiters are both spellcasters, but are both incredibly different. Can you compare the Infestor to the Defiler? They share the same role, don't they? Or can you compare Vikings to Goliaths? Colossi to Reavers? Hellions to Vultures? Answer, plzplz. Yes Stalkers = dragoons as the standard ranged backbone unit Immortals = Zealots used to absorb shots, and deal large amounts damage (zealots through tanksplash, their own attack, and mine dragging Arbiters = support spellcaster, used to disrupt terran defensive advantage through cloaking, recall, and stasis (in sc2, the arbiter was basically nerfed and split up into sentry/mothership/phoenix gravbeam) Infestor = way nerfed defiler due to the fact that such imba units at low levels are difficult to deal with and people like you would complain about it. Actually, i'm pretty sure everyone complains about them but thats a moot point Thor = Goliath. Terran mech used to have difficulty balancing pop between air defense and ground power. Blizzard makes it easier by buffing the goli so they rape both air and ground Colossi = reaver with less micro, less potential, and half as cool Hellion = vulture with no micro potential (besides "kiting" which didn't even count as micro in BW) I'm just trying to help because you are trying to argue on a Starcraft forum without any knowledge of Starcraft. I accept that with the new influx of users, there are bound to be a giant population of people who don't know what they are talking about. I'm just trying to get you up to speed no hard feelings If you can prove that all mechanics from SC1 apply to SC2 in the same way, I will concede. Until then, much of what you said is pretty pointless. Example: Air units are not as prevalent in SC2 as they were in SC1. Thor's AA capabilities are good, but are no where close to the usefulness of the Goliath's AA. To compensate, the Thor has a much better ground attack. It is also much more expensive. Same niche? Not at all.
i think we're getting confused
I'm the guy saying sc2 is different than Broodwar
I'm also saying sc2 has less micro and strategy involved
thats all
Don't get me wrong, I LOVE sc2 and i've been playing the beta to death ever since i got my key a few days ago. It's a fantastic game but I want a competitive game. And for a game to be competitive, it has to be difficult. I am merely pointing out that sc2 might be too easy to be a competative e-sport
|
On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote:
I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely.
And this changes the micro requirements of keeping the units covered by the caster... how, exactly?
|
On April 30 2010 08:29 Prototype wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote:
I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. And this changes the micro requirements of keeping the units covered by the caster... how, exactly?
Sentries aren't needed if there are no ranged units, while Arbiters are used regardless. Also, Guardian Shield has a much less area of effect, which changes the need for micro by itself. Guardian Shield also cannot be treated as a "click and win this battle" button (at least, to the extent that Arbiters can) because units under cover still needed to be effectively microed, while you could essentially ignore micro beyond unit placement under an Arbiter's cloak (that is, until detection comes out). Also, weapons such as Colossi attacks, as well as all melee, ignore Guardian Shield, meaning you have to micro even further against those attacks; in fact, as if you didn't have a buff at all.
On April 30 2010 08:24 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 08:08 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 08:00 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 30 2010 07:44 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 07:38 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote:
I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. Similarily, detection will nullify the Arbiter's effect, while only killing will stop Sentries. Furthermore, Sentries are much easier to obtain, so shutting down Guardian shields is even more difficult, giving you more incentive to place them correctly (You get maximum effect while at the same time annoying the opponent while they try to target your well-placed sentries). Also, Stasis =/= Force Field. Stasis removes a unit from play for a given amount of time, while Force Field will make unit control much more difficult. They CAN be used similarily, but Force Field has a much wider range of ability.
2. Immortals and Stalkers are both more expensive than the Dragoon, and the Zealot is melee. This one doesn't even make sense.
4. In this case, the Dragoons have nothing better to do than kill Tanks. Stalkers, however, should be firing at Marines as well as Marauders. Every wasted Stalker shot is a potential 1/5th Marine's HP. Dragoons won't even care about wasted shots due to Vultures just tickling them, rather than being a real threat.
5. Tank splash applies in SC2 as well.
6. Stasis, once fired, will not have any other effect. Force Field, on the other hand, lasts for quite a while. They can't be used in the same way in this case.
As for the rest, dodging EMPs with your HT and firing Feedbacks is very important, due to how the Ghost will cripple any/all Immortals. Observer overlap is EXACTLY the same in both games. You have to make sure your Immortals aren't fighting Marines, or your Stalkers aren't fighting Marauders, or your Zealots are fighting Marauders, etc. You have to be careful with Guardian Shield, as well, because wasting all of them will mean they can focus fire your Sentries quickly and leave you much less defended.
Try thinking before replacing unit names just because abilities "might" be used in a similar way. I can only assume at this point that you are another person who hasn't played broodwar Try to think in terms of the roles of the units. Stalker immortal sentry is the backbone of protoss in sc2 just like zealot/goon/arbiter is in BW Also, consider I had to replace an early game sc2 example with a mid/late game Broodwar example because an early PvT push in Broodwar is so much more micro intensive that it's not even comparable. Not shown in video: Mine defuse micro If the effect of an ability is not the same, you cannot apply them in the same way, regardless of what role the units play. Zealots inherently cannot be microed as well as Stalkers. Immortals are for the sole purpose of destroying armored units in general, rather than being general go-to units. Sentries and Arbiters are both spellcasters, but are both incredibly different. Can you compare the Infestor to the Defiler? They share the same role, don't they? Or can you compare Vikings to Goliaths? Colossi to Reavers? Hellions to Vultures? Answer, plzplz. Yes Stalkers = dragoons as the standard ranged backbone unit Immortals = Zealots used to absorb shots, and deal large amounts damage (zealots through tanksplash, their own attack, and mine dragging Arbiters = support spellcaster, used to disrupt terran defensive advantage through cloaking, recall, and stasis (in sc2, the arbiter was basically nerfed and split up into sentry/mothership/phoenix gravbeam) Infestor = way nerfed defiler due to the fact that such imba units at low levels are difficult to deal with and people like you would complain about it. Actually, i'm pretty sure everyone complains about them but thats a moot point Thor = Goliath. Terran mech used to have difficulty balancing pop between air defense and ground power. Blizzard makes it easier by buffing the goli so they rape both air and ground Colossi = reaver with less micro, less potential, and half as cool Hellion = vulture with no micro potential (besides "kiting" which didn't even count as micro in BW) I'm just trying to help because you are trying to argue on a Starcraft forum without any knowledge of Starcraft. I accept that with the new influx of users, there are bound to be a giant population of people who don't know what they are talking about. I'm just trying to get you up to speed no hard feelings If you can prove that all mechanics from SC1 apply to SC2 in the same way, I will concede. Until then, much of what you said is pretty pointless. Example: Air units are not as prevalent in SC2 as they were in SC1. Thor's AA capabilities are good, but are no where close to the usefulness of the Goliath's AA. To compensate, the Thor has a much better ground attack. It is also much more expensive. Same niche? Not at all. i think we're getting confused I'm the guy saying sc2 is different than Broodwar I'm also saying sc2 has less micro and strategy involved thats all Don't get me wrong, I LOVE sc2 and i've been playing the beta to death ever since i got my key a few days ago. It's a fantastic game but I want a competitive game. And for a game to be competitive, it has to be difficult. I am merely pointing out that sc2 might be too easy to be a competative e-sport
What I am saying is that, while the exact amount of micro involved is debatable, SC2 has DIFFERENT micro. Just because it doesn't have the same micro doesn't mean it's not micro. You seem to ignore the fact that the Sentry requires more micro than the Arbiter did, or that Immortals require more micro than Zealots, Hellions requiring you to attack just at the right moment (that is micro in itself), etc.
Also, the amount of strategy needed is very debatable as well. With hard-counters running rampant, you need to more effectively choose your unit composition, perhaps moreso than in BW.
As for the competitiveness, I don't know. I think it is too early to be calling out how successful it will be as an e-sport, or how difficult it actually is (this is a valid argument, guys. There is not yet an established meta-game).
|
On April 30 2010 08:42 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 08:29 Prototype wrote:On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote:
I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. And this changes the micro requirements of keeping the units covered by the caster... how, exactly? Sentries aren't needed if there are no ranged units, while Arbiters are used regardless. Also, Guardian Shield has a much less area of effect, which changes the need for micro by itself. Guardian Shield also cannot be treated as a "click and win this battle" button (at least, to the extent that Arbiters can) because units under cover still needed to be effectively microed, while you could essentially ignore micro beyond unit placement under an Arbiter's cloak (that is, until detection comes out). Also, weapons such as Colossi attacks, as well as all melee, ignore Guardian Shield, meaning you have to micro even further against those attacks; in fact, as if you didn't have a buff at all.
sc2 requires less micro and strategy tho, we agree on that yes? I don't really care what you think are unit equivalents, I don't think that's relevant to this thread.
|
"For a game to be competitive, it has to be difficult."
You can make a game as difficult as you like. If it isn't interesting (having layers of depth), balanced, and fair, it isn't going to be competitive. Technical difficulty should be a necessary evil, not an perk.
Things that add to depth:
Strategic planning - what to open with, knowing how to counter matchups and units, building your economy
Tactical proficiency - the right mix of units when attacking, capitalizing on available abilities, unit x goes here while y falls back
Necessary evils to achieve depth
Going back and forth to different areas constantly in order to keep things running optimally, having to click many times over in order to get units operate just how you need them to
And I saw the argument "well, you seem to want a game where it builds openings for you." This argument fails since there's no way to do that without sacrificing depth--that is, there's so many variations upon variations of openings that to settle on a set amount would restrict depth.
In short, heavy micro and APM intensive maneuvers shouldn't be looked upon as revered skills, but as necessary evils. A game should simplify these things when it doesn't affect depth. Say we could communicate with the computer without ever clicking or pressing a button--you know what needs to happen and it happens: would expert players be any less skillful? No. Games would be exactly the same and just as interesting--only with less RSI problems. =]
|
On April 30 2010 08:42 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 08:29 Prototype wrote:On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote:
I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. And this changes the micro requirements of keeping the units covered by the caster... how, exactly? Sentries aren't needed if there are no ranged units, while Arbiters are used regardless. Also, Guardian Shield has a much less area of effect, which changes the need for micro by itself. Guardian Shield also cannot be treated as a "click and win this battle" button (at least, to the extent that Arbiters can) because units under cover still needed to be effectively microed, while you could essentially ignore micro beyond unit placement under an Arbiter's cloak (that is, until detection comes out). Also, weapons such as Colossi attacks, as well as all melee, ignore Guardian Shield, meaning you have to micro even further against those attacks; in fact, as if you didn't have a buff at all.
Those are key elements that separate the two abilities, yes, but none of that changes the fact that your task in making sure that your units stay under the veil is, for all intents and purposes, identical. What tactical circumstances are present does not suddenly change this, and I'm not interested in partaking in polemics surrounding the differing advantages and the resulting micro-requirements that these abilities present the player with (such things are much more complicated than one would think). I could, for example, point out the fact that units clump up better in SC2, largely negating the deficit of the smaller AoE of the Guardian Shield, but again, that is all circumstantial and irrelevant to the core issue at hand (to which I originally replied).
|
The only reason SC1 requires so much APM is because of it's own engine's technical troubles. A game should NEVER have forced difficulties if the engine allows for this.
Now, when I say this, I don't refer to anything related to you building structures, units, rallying them, etc. I'm referring to the fact that people think the 12 unit limit should be imposed again, or that auto-mining and MBS be removed.
The engine allows for these things. What people seem to want are FORCED limitations so they have another thing to brag about (click a few more times a minute). Sure, it adds skill, but it doesn't add to the game itself.
...So, does that mean I agree with you, carwashguy? I'm thinking I do, although I'm having trouble interpreting exactly what you mean (I don't want to force words in your mouth  )
Although I doubt it relates to the thread very much. It seems this thread has devolved into a "Why SC1 is much better than SC2" thread. It may have been the possible tone in the OP implying that SC2 sucks without moving shot (and, by extension, anything SC1 has that SC2 doesn't), since I know people sometimes interpret things like this in that way.
On April 30 2010 08:59 Prototype wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 08:42 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 08:29 Prototype wrote:On April 30 2010 07:27 Zeke50100 wrote:
I love all of those unit name replacements, because a number of them are inherently WRONG.
1. Arbiters and Sentries play entirely different roles. Guardian Shields reduce damage, while Arbiters negate it entirely. And this changes the micro requirements of keeping the units covered by the caster... how, exactly? Sentries aren't needed if there are no ranged units, while Arbiters are used regardless. Also, Guardian Shield has a much less area of effect, which changes the need for micro by itself. Guardian Shield also cannot be treated as a "click and win this battle" button (at least, to the extent that Arbiters can) because units under cover still needed to be effectively microed, while you could essentially ignore micro beyond unit placement under an Arbiter's cloak (that is, until detection comes out). Also, weapons such as Colossi attacks, as well as all melee, ignore Guardian Shield, meaning you have to micro even further against those attacks; in fact, as if you didn't have a buff at all. Those are key elements that separate the two abilities, yes, but none of that changes the fact that your task in making sure that your units stay under the veil is, for all intents and purposes, identical. What tactical circumstances are present does not suddenly change this, and I'm not interested in partaking in polemics surrounding the differing advantages and the resulting micro-requirements that these abilities present the player with (such things are much more complicated than one would think). I could, for example, point out the fact that units clump up better in SC2, largely negating the deficit of the smaller AoE of the Guardian Shield, but again, that is all circumstantial and irrelevant to the core issue at hand (to which I originally replied).
The general IDEA is the same, but you have to consider ALL effects. Your viewpoint seems to be very narrow, disregarding the fact that a single effect, while having the same general idea, can have very different implications.
Implications like these are what MAKE micro. If two abilities are essentially the same, yet one requires more micro due to the way it works, which situation has a larger net requirement of micro?
You can’t look at a SINGLE thing and say it requires less micro than in SC1.
|
On April 30 2010 08:55 carwashguy wrote:
"For a game to be competitive, it has to be difficult."
You can make a game as difficult as you like. If it isn't interesting (having layers of depth), balanced, and fair, it isn't going to be competitive. Technical difficulty should be a necessary evil, not an perk.
Things that add to depth:
Strategic planning - what to open with, knowing how to counter matchups and units, building your economy
Tactical proficiency - the right mix of units when attacking, capitalizing on available abilities, unit x goes here while y falls back
Necessary evils to achieve depth
Going back and forth to different areas constantly in order to keep things running optimally, having to click many times over in order to get units operate just how you need them to
And I saw the argument "well, you seem to want a game where it builds openings for you." This argument fails since there's no way to do that without sacrificing depth--that is, there's so many variations upon variations of openings that to settle on a set amount would restrict depth.
In short, heavy micro and APM intensive maneuvers shouldn't be looked upon as revered skills, but as necessary evils. A game should simplify these things when it doesn't affect depth. Say we could communicate with the computer without ever clicking or pressing a button--you know what needs to happen and it happens: would expert players be any less skillful? No. Games would be exactly the same and just as interesting--only with less RSI problems. =]
100m dash
Oh wow it so interesting! So much depth! Layers and layers of strategy and tactics
No, it's just really really hard to execute physically. Thats why people watch. because it's something they just can't do.
Take out the physical aspect of it and it's possibly the dumbest sport ever.
Same with starcraft. Strategy and tactics isn't something you do in an RTS because you're clever. That's the person who discovers it but the person who has the physical ability to actually execute it is the one who wins.
Look at the Bisu build or the Fantasy Mech in Broodwar. Try doing it and I guarantee you will get rolled. Why? Because it requires a HUGE about of apm to make in viable. With the physical factor taken out, the competition is also taken out. Because anyone can do it.
|
On April 30 2010 09:02 Zeke50100 wrote:
The general IDEA is the same, but you have to consider ALL effects. Your viewpoint seems to be very narrow, disregarding the fact that a single effect, while having the same general idea, can have very different implications.
Implications like these are what MAKE micro. If two abilities are essentially the same, yet one requires more micro due to the way it works, which situation has a larger net requirement of micro?
You can’t look at a SINGLE thing and say it requires less micro than in SC1.
everything
I know you recently joined this party but i've been posting every few hours since like page 17.
Name one micro that is in sc2, and I'll show you it was in Broodwar plus micro that was exclusive to broodwar.
I'll begin
micro I think is exclusive to Broodwar in terms of difficulty level
Attack dodging (rines vs lurkers, or shuttle/reaver micro in PvP)
Moving shot micro (muta micro had an INSANE skill ceiling. Basically, this alone nullifies your argument. Just try ZvZ)
Cloning (scourge, storms, whatever)
Macro (just try doing 5sh6sh7sh8sh9sz0so. Yea, hard as hell isn't it. Now micro while doing that. And not this retarded "kiting" shit that any casual gamer could do)
Oh and on the topic of kiting, It's more difficult in broodwar. Don't believe me? Hydras vs zeals in broodwar. Go try it. Then try goon vs zeal.)
|
The 100m dash is a competition, not a game. Competitions require little to no competitor interaction. Starcraft is a game, and that's the difference.
However, there is something to be said about speed. If Starcraft was turn-based, there'd be no need, but since it works in real time, processing speed is an important aspect of the game. The faster player should and will have an advantage. What you have to keep in mind is that processing speed, the ability to make decisions and execute them rapidly, is not the same thing as APM or "micro," in which this thread is the topic of. Clicking a unit a hundred times to do a maneuver may've only been one or two actual decisions that the player had to actually process, the rest is just superfluous necessary evils.
|
Xenocide_Knight is right.
The thing that seperated great players from good players in SC1 was the ability to pull off amazing moves with the units. NOT some cheap gimmick like blinking away, or burrowing your unit making it hidden. Moves that required you to have over 400 APM in certain situations to make your strategy viable.
As it stands now, there's not a single strategy I can think of in SC2 where you NEED lots of APM and advanced techniques to win a game. It's all about your build and which units you build..
|
On April 30 2010 07:52 Zeke50100 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 07:44 buhhy wrote:On April 30 2010 07:30 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 07:18 buhhy wrote:On April 30 2010 06:49 Zeke50100 wrote:
Only living beings can have talent, m'kay? A computer is a simulation of talent and skill, but is not talented nor skillful itself.
Also, you're basically saying talent doesn't mean anything. If you don't understand the word "talent," stop trying to argue.
It's not that playing a game itself is a talent, but rather the abilities required. Get it? The natural ability to process information during situations, the ability to move your fingers in a certain way, the ability to move your arm in a certain way, they are ALL talent. Therefore, by extension, because playing StarCraft requires talent, it is essentially a compiled talent in itself.
The words "Talent" and "Not Innate" are mutually exclusive when the latter is refering to the former. This. Mechanics require hand speed and accuracy as talents, as well as muscle memory. Hand speed and accuracy is what you're born with, muscle memory is trained, hence having good mechanics is a skill. Having good mechanics is neither skill nor talent, but rather a combination of the two. You can't say it's one or the other. Skill doesn't "override" talent, and vice-versa. No, but skill includes talent. Skill is how well you do something. Talent may contribute a small or large amount. Saying I am skilled at drawing does not mean I am a talented artist, while saying I am a talented artist generally indicates that I am skilled. Skill is not how well you do something; at least, not entirely. Skill comprises of your ability to do things you have LEARNED. Talent and skill are different entities. They complement each other, but do not apply to the same things. Generally, talents and skills should not be be grouped together. For example, a choir member is naturally able to sing well. Singing is a talent. Reading music, however, is a skill. When "grouped" together, people generally refer to them as talented musicians, which is actually incorrect. You can't group them together at all ("good musician" would be much better)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skill
1.
the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills.
2.
competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill.
I think your definition of skill is off.
|
On April 30 2010 09:56 carwashguy wrote:
The 100m dash is a competition, not a game. Competitions require little to no competitor interaction. Starcraft is a game, and that's the difference.
However, there is something to be said about speed. If Starcraft was turn-based, there'd be no need, but since it works in real time, processing speed is an important aspect of the game. The faster player should and will have an advantage. What you have to keep in mind is that processing speed, the ability to make decisions and execute them rapidly, is not the same thing as APM or "micro," in which this thread is the topic of. Clicking a unit a hundred times to do a maneuver may've only been one or two actual decisions that the player had to actually process, the rest is just superfluous necessary evils.
ok...
starcraft broodwar is both a competition and a game.
so.. er.. there?
sc2 is a game and not a competition.. I agree
Again, I don't think you've played Broodwar. Not at anyway level beyond b.net anyway. Because while decision making is a large part of Broodwar, the "mind processing" decisions you are talking about are non-existent.
In Broodwar, you play with a preset game plan. example:
Terran goes 1rax FE, zerg goes 3 hatch muta
Terran sees 3 hatch lair and makes turrets
Zerg makes mutas anyway and harasses
Terran eventually gets +1 attack and masses rines to hold off defense
Zerg takes 3rd gas and starts building lurkers. Starts teching to hive
Terran pushes out with vessel/tank/M&M. Tries to hit hard before defilers are out
Defilers come out, terran is pushed back
Zerg uses defilers to secure 4th gas
Terran uses tanks/defenders advantage to try to grab a 3rd.
Zerg transitions to Ultras
Macro/micro gets successively crazier.
Eventually, one person can't keep up and crumbles.
That's the standard. Now within that outline, there are different timings and harass possibilities.
The hard part is actually pulling it off because the standard alone requires like 250 APM.
Even if one person deviates from the plan, the opponent knows exactly how to respond. Competitive RTS is not some crazy brain-game slugfest. It's evolved to the point where everyone knows what to do, and when to do it.
The ability to pull off the standard is what makes a professional player.
It's the micro and small-scale decision making within that standard that defines a phenomenal player
Taking out APM doesn't make strategy more important, it just lowers the overall skill ceiling to the point where anyone can play at a pro-level.
|
great article. sc2 just doesn't have the micro element that made sc bw great. i would predict that if pros eventually played sc2, there would be no pimpest plays because there aren't that many micro moves you can perform.
sc2 is like a game of rock paper skissors. immortals counter thors, thors counter stalkers, stalkers counter something else etc etc. in sc bw, a vulture could take on an infinite number of lings. now, a hellion has 2 choices, tank the lings or run like a pansy.
|
On April 30 2010 10:31 buhhy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 07:52 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 07:44 buhhy wrote:On April 30 2010 07:30 Zeke50100 wrote:On April 30 2010 07:18 buhhy wrote:On April 30 2010 06:49 Zeke50100 wrote:
Only living beings can have talent, m'kay? A computer is a simulation of talent and skill, but is not talented nor skillful itself.
Also, you're basically saying talent doesn't mean anything. If you don't understand the word "talent," stop trying to argue.
It's not that playing a game itself is a talent, but rather the abilities required. Get it? The natural ability to process information during situations, the ability to move your fingers in a certain way, the ability to move your arm in a certain way, they are ALL talent. Therefore, by extension, because playing StarCraft requires talent, it is essentially a compiled talent in itself.
The words "Talent" and "Not Innate" are mutually exclusive when the latter is refering to the former. This. Mechanics require hand speed and accuracy as talents, as well as muscle memory. Hand speed and accuracy is what you're born with, muscle memory is trained, hence having good mechanics is a skill. Having good mechanics is neither skill nor talent, but rather a combination of the two. You can't say it's one or the other. Skill doesn't "override" talent, and vice-versa. No, but skill includes talent. Skill is how well you do something. Talent may contribute a small or large amount. Saying I am skilled at drawing does not mean I am a talented artist, while saying I am a talented artist generally indicates that I am skilled. Skill is not how well you do something; at least, not entirely. Skill comprises of your ability to do things you have LEARNED. Talent and skill are different entities. They complement each other, but do not apply to the same things. Generally, talents and skills should not be be grouped together. For example, a choir member is naturally able to sing well. Singing is a talent. Reading music, however, is a skill. When "grouped" together, people generally refer to them as talented musicians, which is actually incorrect. You can't group them together at all ("good musician" would be much better) http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skill1. the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills. 2. competent excellence in performance; expertness; dexterity: The dancers performed with skill. I think your definition of skill is off.
coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc
I think you mis-bolded.
|
On April 30 2010 10:50 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 09:56 carwashguy wrote:
The 100m dash is a competition, not a game. Competitions require little to no competitor interaction. Starcraft is a game, and that's the difference.
However, there is something to be said about speed. If Starcraft was turn-based, there'd be no need, but since it works in real time, processing speed is an important aspect of the game. The faster player should and will have an advantage. What you have to keep in mind is that processing speed, the ability to make decisions and execute them rapidly, is not the same thing as APM or "micro," in which this thread is the topic of. Clicking a unit a hundred times to do a maneuver may've only been one or two actual decisions that the player had to actually process, the rest is just superfluous necessary evils. ok... starcraft broodwar is both a competition and a game. so.. er.. there? sc2 is a game and not a competition.. I agree Again, I don't think you've played Broodwar. Not at anyway level beyond b.net anyway. Because while decision making is a large part of Broodwar, the "mind processing" decisions you are talking about are non-existent. In Broodwar, you play with a preset game plan. example: Terran goes 1rax FE, zerg goes 3 hatch muta Terran sees 3 hatch lair and makes turrets Zerg makes mutas anyway and harasses Terran eventually gets +1 attack and masses rines to hold off defense Zerg takes 3rd gas and starts building lurkers. Starts teching to hive Terran pushes out with vessel/tank/M&M. Tries to hit hard before defilers are out Defilers come out, terran is pushed back Zerg uses defilers to secure 4th gas Terran uses tanks/defenders advantage to try to grab a 3rd. Zerg transitions to Ultras Macro/micro gets successively crazier. Eventually, one person can't keep up and crumbles. That's the standard. Now within that outline, there are different timings and harass possibilities. The hard part is actually pulling it off because the standard alone requires like 250 APM. Even if one person deviates from the plan, the opponent knows exactly how to respond. Competitive RTS is not some crazy brain-game slugfest. It's evolved to the point where everyone knows what to do, and when to do it. The ability to pull off the standard is what makes a professional player. It's the micro and small-scale decision making within that standard that defines a phenomenal player Taking out APM doesn't make strategy more important, it just lowers the overall skill ceiling to the point where anyone can play at a pro-level.
This. There are not that many options. Eventually the game gets "solved", and if that's all there is to it then the game will cease to be exciting and competitive. The fact that people are able to differentiate themselves within a solved game is the reason sc1 remains a competitive game after 12 years.
|
On April 30 2010 10:57 Rokk wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 10:50 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 30 2010 09:56 carwashguy wrote:
The 100m dash is a competition, not a game. Competitions require little to no competitor interaction. Starcraft is a game, and that's the difference.
However, there is something to be said about speed. If Starcraft was turn-based, there'd be no need, but since it works in real time, processing speed is an important aspect of the game. The faster player should and will have an advantage. What you have to keep in mind is that processing speed, the ability to make decisions and execute them rapidly, is not the same thing as APM or "micro," in which this thread is the topic of. Clicking a unit a hundred times to do a maneuver may've only been one or two actual decisions that the player had to actually process, the rest is just superfluous necessary evils. ok... starcraft broodwar is both a competition and a game. so.. er.. there? sc2 is a game and not a competition.. I agree Again, I don't think you've played Broodwar. Not at anyway level beyond b.net anyway. Because while decision making is a large part of Broodwar, the "mind processing" decisions you are talking about are non-existent. In Broodwar, you play with a preset game plan. example: Terran goes 1rax FE, zerg goes 3 hatch muta Terran sees 3 hatch lair and makes turrets Zerg makes mutas anyway and harasses Terran eventually gets +1 attack and masses rines to hold off defense Zerg takes 3rd gas and starts building lurkers. Starts teching to hive Terran pushes out with vessel/tank/M&M. Tries to hit hard before defilers are out Defilers come out, terran is pushed back Zerg uses defilers to secure 4th gas Terran uses tanks/defenders advantage to try to grab a 3rd. Zerg transitions to Ultras Macro/micro gets successively crazier. Eventually, one person can't keep up and crumbles. That's the standard. Now within that outline, there are different timings and harass possibilities. The hard part is actually pulling it off because the standard alone requires like 250 APM. Even if one person deviates from the plan, the opponent knows exactly how to respond. Competitive RTS is not some crazy brain-game slugfest. It's evolved to the point where everyone knows what to do, and when to do it. The ability to pull off the standard is what makes a professional player. It's the micro and small-scale decision making within that standard that defines a phenomenal player Taking out APM doesn't make strategy more important, it just lowers the overall skill ceiling to the point where anyone can play at a pro-level. This. There are not that many options. Eventually the game gets "solved", and if that's all there is to it then the game will cease to be exciting and competitive. The fact that people are able to differentiate themselves within a solved game is the reason sc1 remains a competitive game after 12 years.
Ah, okay then. So there is no decision making process whatsoever. If X does Y, then do Z, a well-rehearsed outcome for every possible course of action. Since the game is so old, all of this is set in stone and never deviates, so there's no decisions to be made, only well-memorized responses. The only hope, you say, to keep the game interesting is to require the player to practice clicking and pressing buttons really, really fast. This way, he can "out click" his opponent, and that's what good Starcraft is all about. Got it.
|
My personal attitude is, if SC2 turns out to be simple, shallow, and not suitable for e-sports then so be it. On the other hand, if it turns into a fully fledged e-sport then that'd be good too.
Now stop arguing people, this has almost become a religion thread.
|
Your analysis is great;however, your argument is ignorant.
|
On April 30 2010 11:20 carwashguy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 30 2010 10:57 Rokk wrote:On April 30 2010 10:50 Xenocide_Knight wrote:On April 30 2010 09:56 carwashguy wrote:
The 100m dash is a competition, not a game. Competitions require little to no competitor interaction. Starcraft is a game, and that's the difference.
However, there is something to be said about speed. If Starcraft was turn-based, there'd be no need, but since it works in real time, processing speed is an important aspect of the game. The faster player should and will have an advantage. What you have to keep in mind is that processing speed, the ability to make decisions and execute them rapidly, is not the same thing as APM or "micro," in which this thread is the topic of. Clicking a unit a hundred times to do a maneuver may've only been one or two actual decisions that the player had to actually process, the rest is just superfluous necessary evils. ok... starcraft broodwar is both a competition and a game. so.. er.. there? sc2 is a game and not a competition.. I agree Again, I don't think you've played Broodwar. Not at anyway level beyond b.net anyway. Because while decision making is a large part of Broodwar, the "mind processing" decisions you are talking about are non-existent. In Broodwar, you play with a preset game plan. example: Terran goes 1rax FE, zerg goes 3 hatch muta Terran sees 3 hatch lair and makes turrets Zerg makes mutas anyway and harasses Terran eventually gets +1 attack and masses rines to hold off defense Zerg takes 3rd gas and starts building lurkers. Starts teching to hive Terran pushes out with vessel/tank/M&M. Tries to hit hard before defilers are out Defilers come out, terran is pushed back Zerg uses defilers to secure 4th gas Terran uses tanks/defenders advantage to try to grab a 3rd. Zerg transitions to Ultras Macro/micro gets successively crazier. Eventually, one person can't keep up and crumbles. That's the standard. Now within that outline, there are different timings and harass possibilities. The hard part is actually pulling it off because the standard alone requires like 250 APM. Even if one person deviates from the plan, the opponent knows exactly how to respond. Competitive RTS is not some crazy brain-game slugfest. It's evolved to the point where everyone knows what to do, and when to do it. The ability to pull off the standard is what makes a professional player. It's the micro and small-scale decision making within that standard that defines a phenomenal player Taking out APM doesn't make strategy more important, it just lowers the overall skill ceiling to the point where anyone can play at a pro-level. This. There are not that many options. Eventually the game gets "solved", and if that's all there is to it then the game will cease to be exciting and competitive. The fact that people are able to differentiate themselves within a solved game is the reason sc1 remains a competitive game after 12 years. Ah, okay then. So there is no decision making process whatsoever. If X does Y, then do Z, a well-rehearsed outcome for every possible course of action. Since the game is so old, all of this is set in stone and never deviates, so there's no decisions to be made, only well-memorized responses. The only hope, you say, to keep the game interesting is to require the player to practice clicking and pressing buttons really, really fast. This way, he can "out click" his opponent, and that's what good Starcraft is all about. Got it.
I think his point was that SC2 will be solved eventually as well (probably much faster than broodwar at that), and if there isn't difficult execution, competitive play will be 1 dimensional and dull. Also, what's with the broodwar bashing, do you know what site you're posting on? Geez
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
