|
On July 15 2010 11:51 Darpinion wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 11:48 stroggos wrote:
the mechanical skill cap is still impossible to reach in sc2(obviously it always will be impossible to reach unless we evolve into a superhuman race). it's just that the differences in mechanics are not as far apart from a bad and good player.
an average player can macro quite well, while a good player can only macro a little bit better in sc2. I like it that way as i don't have nimble Asian fingers. I don't disagree that they're not as far apart as BW, but I would say they're further apart than a lot of people are making it sound like. I'm not the greatest player - a lower level diamond at best and a C- SC/BW ICCup player, and people that are two leagues below me on the ladder I dominate at macro because I understand timing much better than they do (i.e. when to expand and how frequently).
hmm, yeah i guess your right. I actually think what a lot of people forget about, is that your macro skill depends on your opponents ability to micro their units, and their ability to force you to focus on micro and disrupt your macro. for example if you play someone with insanely good probe harass, it can sometimes make you forget to build a pylon for a few extra seconds, while you are protecting your base.(well at least it's like that for me when i play a much stronger opponent)
So if your opponents micro and multitasking correlates with your macro ability. Then your macro actually depends on both micro and macro.
|
On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote:
Games can certainly be too easy if you're looking for a rich experience. Take checkers for example.... fun at first, but then you'd just rather play chess.
Or Go (which is simpler than Chess and much deeper). Checkers is not a rich experience because there aren't enough permutations to create enough variability game-to-game. Where SC2 lies in the grand scheme of RTS (or compared to BW) will mostly depend on these permutations and variability in play. It won't be because of silly things like automine or MBS. It will come out in the meta game, and we'll know after enough time has passed how deep it really is.
|
sc2 is gonna be impossible to master as long as they r releasing new maps and concepts and little minor patches
sc2 isnt sc1, as soon as the new stuff stops coming its gonna be mastered just bam like that because imagine having perfect mechanics in sc1, copy progamers and now ur all set, seriously whats left to do? figure out a way how to cut an expense here and there? its details ppl figure out in days of practice. in sc2 u can copy them even easier getting 500 reps per week from tournaments so its arguable just as much easier from a "smart guy" point of view as a "robot mechanics" point of view. this is what i think anyway but the patches r making the game better, but i think the idea itself of removing a huge element such as mechanics from a rts is gonna make a negative impact on esport. in sc1 mechanics were just as big of a deal to master and now u have that cut off almost entirely, wow thats a load off :/
|
The people talking about it being too easy are comparing it to Brood war, which has an insanely high skill ceiling. It's all relative.
SC2 is easy relative to SC:BW.
SC2 is very hard relative to a lot of other games.
Also, when people make these comparisons, they're generally talking about mechanics; quality of life improvements like automine and infinite selection. Having easier mechanics doesn't mean it's a worse game though. We have yet to see how top tier strategies and the metagame will develop like it did in Broodwar. Here again, difficulty is relative. Here it's relative to your opponent. As long as there is someone better than you, either mechanically or strategically, you really can't say the game is easy.
In the end, as long as the more skilled player wins (almost) every time, the game can be perfectly competitive. This holds true in SC2, and there is TONS of room, albeit understandably less than in BW(where there is HOLYSHITONS of room), for players to improve.
SC2 is easier than SC:BW, but then again, pretty much every game is. Competitive SC2 will do just fine.
|
In the end, opinions are like asses and everyone has got one.
|
On July 15 2010 11:58 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote:SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler +Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding  Unlike Terran(weakest in sc1/what i palyed) Protoss is the weakest race now The roles have been changed my friend
There are no weak races my friend only weak players. Don't start the rock paper scissors argument it failed in the past it will fail here.
|
Also, it is the 1000th time a thread about this has been created
|
As someone mentioned, the strategies for each MU will be figured out faster, or won't evolve as much as in they have BW (though two expansions should help in reshaping gameplay as competition progresses). But the first game is far different as it had no predecessor: everyone was a newbie in 1998, and it's taken 12 years to come this far in terms of skill. Now everyone is bringing that knowledge into the sequel, so of course the so-called metagame will be mapped out more quickly. But a lower skill ceiling because a lack of exploits? We shall see. I just hope we will have more "wow" moments that get the Korean fangirls wet, because a lot of the spectator fanbase there doesn't even play--and it will still be the mecca of SC. E-sports can't progress if no one is interested in watching.
|
Good lord, this topic has been beaten into the ground a million times. It doesn't matter how high or how low a skill ceiling is until someone actually reaches it. Points like "MBS" and other things like that don't mean anything as long as there are still a wide variety of skill levels. As long as someone is able to practice and become better, there is no "problem" with "easy" or "hard". Good players will always find a way to get better and better at a game.
I can guarantee you this much: The average Diamond player will never be an even match for a professional level player.
The fact is, no point anyone could make about why SC2 is easier than BW matters. Its all completely and totally irrelevant until it makes everyone play just as well and have all the same results. That isn't the case. And it never will be.
Most of the times people bring up this topic when they feel like they should be better than more people but they aren't. Or some friend of theirs who was worse than them at game x is suddenly better than them at game y. So then they say that game y is easier. When in reality, the friend just put a bunch more time into game y.
We're already seeing people from all sorts of backgrounds doing well and poorly in SC2. I know people who were B in ICCUP who I would have a substantial advantage over in SC2. By the same token, I have a friend who never took an RTS game seriously, and started playing SC2 a TON. He's a Diamond level player now. Not to say that's anything fancy, but its him doing something that a lot of BW players failed to do. Why? Because he played more and tried harder.
People get too caught up in how good or bad they were at some point in the past. Mindsets change, circumstances change, everything changes. And a lot of people who were good at one thing tend to feel some sense of entitlement to be good at everything else.
|
I don't, and I don't think Blizzard finds it to be a particularly good thing for the game to be unnecessarily difficult when trying pull off the simplest of maneuvers. It's like the elitists don't want this game to have a larger audience. It's a strategy game. If your units are easier to control then the strategies have to be better.
|
Sc2 is easier, I doubt anyone would argue that. This doesn't mean that anyone can buy the game and play for a weak and reach the level the top players are at; however, the lower skill ceiling will evolve a game different from its predecessor. Even now its possible to play at the level of the top players, and to win vs them, with only 100-125 apm if you play with good strategy and tactics. This will mean that in non-invitational tournaments, in the future, many more unknown or less well-known people will be taking games off of the top players. Also, as people acquire better game sense, knowledge of unit compositions, and timings, games will all become long if you are playing at the top level. It won't be possible to win with a 2 fact opening or 2 port wraiths against a good player, regardless of individual micro and skill. To get an edge, people will have to begin hiding buildings and doing whatever they can to get an edge in unit-composition over their opponent, because the diminished importance of micro allows a player with a slightly better unit composition to win the game.
|
On July 15 2010 12:14 Mohdoo wrote:
As long as someone is able to practice and become better, there is no "problem" with "easy" or "hard". Good players will always find a way to get better and better at a game.
Quoted for emphasis.
People keep throwing around this "skill-cap" term as if it can be reached. It can't. It is not humanly possible to play a perfect game of SC. That goes for SC1 AND SC2. As long as there is room for improvement (ALWAYS), this game will be competitive.
|
SC 2 is a really hard game. Unless your diamond rank 1 winning 80% of your games i don't think you can say that SC 2 is too easy.
|
People are still splitting workers (just not as much) to gain a slight advantage, even with automine. Just because the game does something for you doesn't mean it's necessarily the best course of action.
Hell, most people still mass all their units in one control group. I'm sure that will be about as popular in a year as queueing units is now. Notice how nobody complains about queueing units? Oh that's right, that was in BW, for lower skilled players to make units without having to check their base constantly. And it proved to be a detriment at top level play. I'm guessing as time goes on more things like this will become apparent in SC2. Just give it time.
|
in the words of morrow:
sc1 had tons of back and forth micro battles that took long time and were so exciting because of units like lurker. the baneling is just attack move and either u stand and fight or u stim and run away. theres no dancing in sc2 which imo is a core part of micromanagement
~Morrow
so ya sc2 sucks. scbw > sc2 no question. anyone with half a brain knows this. sc2 will be dead in 3 years, becuase by then everything will be figured out, and the mechanics will be capped- becuase korean pros are 13241324134 times better than foreigners.
also- when i hear tales of D icup players getting in diamond league i lol
|
On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote:
Games can certainly be too easy if you're looking for a rich experience. Take checkers for example.... fun at first, but then you'd just rather play chess.
Yes but I think it would be silly to compare SC2 to checkers. Checkers is easy to play perfectly even for someone of average IQ after several dozen matches. SC2 is not.
On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote:
Have you seen the IdrA interview by d.Apollo? IdrA predicts that there will be much more equity in skill at the highest levels of play this time around.
ok but does that prove that SC2 is *too easy*?
On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote:
You're right in saying this game hasn't come close to the "skill cap" you keep describing... like it's some sort of wow stat like hit rating or something...
I thought that it is common knowledge that as a game is played competitively over a long period of time that the game evolves as strategies are refined. I think its inevitable that the level of play will improve the longer people have been playing the game...
On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote:
... but you're off base by complaining about "elitists." This is a competitive game. People are out to beat you. People are out to be better than you. That's what this multiplayer experience is about.
There's nothing elitist in wanting to win in a competitive atmosphere. Declaring that a game is "too easy" makes the implication that you have played and mastered it in an inordinately short amount of time. I think this sort of statement reflects an over-inflated ego of some mid-to high level players as we can all agree that nobody has mastered the game at this stage.
On July 15 2010 11:55 Rybka wrote:
No, if you magically froze IdrA and WhiteRa you would NOT see random diamond players rise up to their skill in 2-3 months. You have no idea how much better they are than you.
Well if you are right about this then that goes to reinforce my point that SC2 is not too easy. As we have established the only way in which a competitive game can be too easy if it is so simple that 'perfect play' is relatively easily attainable, thus being a top player did not require any exceptional amount of skill, talent, or work/practice. Since you claim that a 95th percentile player is sooo much worse than the top players, (a sentiment with which i partially agree - i just think that people will improve rather quickly), that would mean the skill ceiling of this game is quite high wouldn't it?
|
On July 15 2010 11:58 arb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2010 11:52 Wr3k wrote:SC2 is definitely easier to play. However it still has an obscenely high skill ceiling like its predecessor (unless you play protoss). + Show Spoiler +Just kidding don't get all buthurt if you play protoss. Actually on second thought I'm not completely kidding Unlike Terran(weakest in sc1/what i palyed) Protoss is the weakest race now The roles have been changed my friend
Tell that to Flash.
|
I think that the strategical depth will increase greatly after 2 more expansions are released. Not only will each expansion include one or two new units for each race, I imagine there will be a few extra upgrades added as well.
I remember how miserable it was fighting carriers without charon boosters in vanilla SC. I can't imagine original Starcraft without lurkers, corsairs, DTs and medics. How about ultralisk upgrades? Just sit back and reflect upon how much the game changed when the Broodwar expansion was released. Now we get the benefit of 2 expansions adding to content and I think the new developers at Blizzard will have a better idea what the community expects of starcraft through the trial and error involved in the creating of SC2.
Just picture what chess would be like without knights and bishops. As long as Blizzard knows how to balance the new units so the older ones don't become obsolete, we'll have plenty to look forward to. That's where upgrades come into play, to give some of the weaker, older units a boost in order to keep up with the newer more powerful ones. In the end, it will add enormous amounts of depth to a game that already has a lot of potential to see metagame changes for years to come. The "big picture" that we will see when this game has finally evolved years down the road will be staggering in it's full scale.
|
its not like people are capping out and having nothing to do once they reach say 100 apm
|
On July 15 2010 11:36 cr4ckshot wrote:Easy to play, hard to master. Whereas BW was hard to play and hard to master 
True
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
