|
On August 05 2010 11:44 KumquatExpress wrote:
Thus, more APM = more multitasking = more decisions = more strategy
which I think refutes your original strategy/mechanics continuum idea.
Precisely. But consider what something like MBS actually does - it reduces the amount of APM required to execute a given decision. In other words, it increases your effective APM - thus more multitasking, more decisions, and more strategy.
|
yeah...like MBS leads to ==> more multitasking.
|
No, it wasn't. Your original response to me only established that mechanical requirements eliminate certain strategies from the total pool of possible strategies. This does not mean that all strategies will be depleted quicker, and it certainly doesn't mean it will happen quicker in SC2 than SCBW - if anything, it means the opposite.
Their is no "pool of total possible strategies". This just goes to show your lack of understanding in strategy games. Pure strategy is either a perfect strategy (checkers), or one based on luck. (rps).
Assuming it is a well constructed game, this means that humans will not have reached either in a reasonable amount of time, or here, simply balanced out. However, just as time can be measured universally through entropy, the development of a game can be measured through its point away from this "singularity" so to speak. Within the context of these games, their only is a metagame, which consists of a rapidly changing pool of strategies.
This is the "pool" you are talking about.
Two identical games, on two different "timeframes" away from being "beaten" (comes a matter of execution or chance), will have different metagames. The metagame of a game very close to being broken is not necessarily bigger then the metagame of a game that has just started being played.
In fact, most often, the opposite is true. Strategic diversity, and thus, decision, are most prominent in games that are not developed.
In the metagame of SC:BW, and SC2, the amount of strategies contained within its pool have absolutely no direct correlation to do with its development, inextricably tied to its mechanical deptht.
tl;dr
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Wow TL elitists can get really intense when they are debating about Starcraft....
Most of these posts are saying the exact same thing over and over
Kzns a WoW elitist. TL elitists are generally much more awesome :D.
|
On August 05 2010 11:50 Half wrote:
Their is no "pool of total possible strategies". This just goes to show your lack of understanding in strategy games. Pure strategy is either a perfect strategy (checkers), or one based on luck. (rps).
Go is a pure strategy game in which mechanical skills are worthless, and it is based on neither of those.
It is not clear that there is in fact perfect strategy in Go at all. The addition of mechanical skills rapidly increases the number of variables that bear on "perfect" strategy.
There is a pool of all possible strategies. There might be one that is optimal, but that doesn't impact my point much.
Assuming it is a well constructed game, this means that humans will not have reached either in a reasonable amount of time, or here, simply balanced out. However, just as time can be measured universally through entropy, the development of a game can be measured through its point away from this "singularity" so to speak. Within the context of these games, their only is a metagame, which consists of a rapidly changing pool of strategies.
This is the "pool" you are talking about.
Two identical games, on two different "timeframes" away from being "beaten" (comes a matter of execution or chance), will have different metagames. The metagame of a game very close to being broken is not necessarily bigger then the metagame of a game that has just started being played.
In fact, most often, the opposite is true. Strategic diversity, and thus, decision, are most prominent in games that are not developed.
In the metagame of SC:BW, and SC2, the amount of strategies contained within its pool have absolutely no direct correlation to do with its development, inextricably tied to its mechanical deptht.
tl;dr
You have no idea what you're talking about.
This doesn't even make sense.
|
Go is a pure strategy game in which mechanical skills are worthless, and it is based on neither of those.
You do not understand me. It will ultimately end in one of those, but humans simply cannot calculate it. I am using pure strategies games to illustrate how exactly strategy works, which you seem to be missing the fucking point.
It is a LINEAR PROGRESSION. A "Pool of strategies" only exists at any given point on that linear progression, which begins at an infinite possible strategies, and eventually becomes narrowed down to one (such as checkers), or based on luck/external factors (RPS/Tic-Tac Toe). This pool of strategies that exist at any given point consists of a metagame.
Your saying if mechanical requirements were loosened, and we progressed up this faster, we would have a bigger pool of strategies. Which is just complete wrong lols.
|
On August 05 2010 11:54 Half wrote:
You do not understand me. It will ultimately end in one of those
I do not agree.
|
On August 04 2010 13:44 Wolf wrote:
In my opinion, it'll take a bit longer. We need to be patient. Once OSLs etc start swapping, things will change.
I agree with this.
I'd also add that most PC bangs in Korea don't have the system specs to run SC2 the way it should be run.
I'd also add that $60 is pretty expensive in Korean won terms, so in Korea, Blizzard should really go with a more longterm sales strategy, targetting long term popularity rather than short term profit (give away near-free versions to PC bangs for 1 year while SC2 catches on in the pro scene. Then require PC bangs to pay).
I'd also add that SC2 does kind of suck compared to SC1. I hate how they took mobile static defense out (mines, lurkers, etc). Only mobile static defense that's still in the game is siege mode tanks, and that's the only thing that's adding any really fun positional play into the game.
You just don't see sc1 style PvT anymore. lame
|
in the end who cares? as long as the game still has a lot of players then i am happy...
|
On August 05 2010 11:55 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 11:54 Half wrote:
You do not understand me. It will ultimately end in one of those I do not agree.
That is literally mathematically impossible, unless you're being really contrived and hyperliteral here and talking about quantum movements in a true "real time" strategic game, which is just retarded.
You have a set of player inputted variables working under preset rules. Eventually, this has to develop, mathematically, into an end result, or a random variation.
Obviously this may require computers beyond our capabilities to solve. But it exists.
|
On August 05 2010 08:50 G3nXsiS wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2010 15:43 vek wrote:On August 04 2010 15:37 G3nXsiS wrote:
I honestly don't understand why Koreans are not excited about Starcraft 2. This is when I start to blame Broodwar. It needs to die in order for starcraft 2 to be released. Until then starcraft 2 will never be successful in Korea. Why should Brood War die to make way for Starcraft 2 when Starcraft 2 is currently the inferior game? I want Starcraft 2 to be better, I really do. As it stands right at this point in time Brood War is better. I hope that Blizzard knows what they are doing and addresses the issues with battle.net, regions, lan and fix some of the bland units/gameplay. Then we will have a worthy replacement. As others have said, give it time. For now the OP is an accurate reflection of what is happening right now in Korea and lines up with how I feel about the game. Are you kidding me? Broodwar a better game? Its a better game because the gamers have perfected it. It took years of development to get to that level. Starcraft 2, however is capable of exceeding that level and should therefore be given more attention. While the level of play might not be the same as Broodwar right now, people need to play it in order to make it better.
It's nothing about the level of play or how many years it has been out. It's about how interesting the units are, the graphics, the sounds.
In my opinion Brood War blows Starcraft 2 out of the water in all those areas.
I find most of the units in Starcraft 2 extremely boring to control and watch. Most of them just attack, some have a random gimmick, some have interesting uses but are hard to see. Colossus vs Reaver/Shuttle. Not only is Reaver/Shuttle more interesting to use as a player, it is more interesting to fight against and more interesting to watch. Colossus just walks up a cliff and attacks. There is nothing dynamic, exciting or risky about it so no one cheers when a Colossus kills 10 drones.
An example of an interesting ability that is hard to see is Point Defence Drone vs Dark Swarm. They have the same effect but PDD is almost impossible to see in the middle of a fight whereas Dark Swarm is immediately obvious. Is this more of graphical problem for some units/abilities? I think so.
Sure the graphics in Starcraft 2 are impressive, even I was impressed by them. The problem is that once you get over them they turn out to be detrimental to the gameplay and gameplay is what matters. In battles everything becomes muddled, even as a player it is hard to see what is happening. For a spectator it is impossible sometimes. Brood War has "old" graphics but the designers did such a fantastic job with the shapes, colours and contrast of the units and attack animations that everything is unique and easily identifiable. This is an area Starcraft 2 really needs to improve on.
The sounds. Starcraft 2 is more realistic, it sounds like a movie. The problem is that it is not a movie - it's a game. In a game you have to be able to tell what is going on. Sound plays an important role in informing the player and spectators as to what is happening on screen. Again, Brood War gets an A+ in this area. Unique sounds, good range of frequencies used and even in the middle of a huge fight nothing gets mixed up. Starcraft 2 suffers (zerg is the worst) from muddled sounds that all blend in to the point where it is a bunch of noise. More realistic? Yep. Easy to understand? Hell no.
I think Starcraft 2 has fallen into the trap of a lot of modern games, the designers forget that they are games meant to be played. Gameplay is king and it is made up of more than just mechanics.
I haven't even touched on how awful battle.net 2.0 is yet. I think what Blizzard should have gone for with battle.net 2.0 is to "make you feel like a progamer". When you join a 1v1 the loading screen should burst into music just like a real Starleague. It should display stats on the 2 players.
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/WhL71.png)
It should make you feel like you are jaedong coming into the finals and get you pumped about the match. Battle.net right now just feels stale, empty and featureless.
So yeah, it's not a huge mystery to me why I don't get as excited when I play SC2, why it isn't doing well in Korea and why some people aren't sold that Starcraft 2 is the second coming like others make it out to be.
Do other people not see the flaws? There is so much unwarranted hype around Starcraft 2 at the moment... We should be focusing on helping Blizzard improve the game so it is a worthy successor to the best RTS of all time. Hopefully in the next few years we can crown a new king. As it stands right now though, Brood War is a no contest winner.
|
but more fundamentally, the game itself is not as good as the first one.
An obvious bias.
|
On August 05 2010 12:10 larjarse wrote:An obvious bias.
I just posted this, but I challenge anyone to find examples of how SC2 is a better Esport, or even close to equal. The guy who took it failed pretty hard.
But because you seem so convinced in Sc2s superiority as an Esport, please, tell me why its better
This is an partially objective mind you, not an opinion. People can look for different values in a game, and the argument "which is a better game" is highly subjective. But the qualities of an Esport are not subjective, they are an agreed upon consensus.
For the purpose of this discussion, lets quantify them as the following: Value as a Spectator Sport, Skill Cap, and Skill Development. In which of these areas is Sc2 not inferior to BW, with an example.
GL ^_^.
I dare ya to try.
|
I don't think this thread is about the legitimacy of Starcraft 2 as an eSport. Rather, it is the discussion of the various articles in Korean media speaking to what appears to be the lack of success for Starcraft 2.
|
On August 05 2010 10:49 Half wrote:
The BW scene outside of Korea at its height is far bigger then the current SC2 scene. In fact, the scene, as of two years ago, was bigger, due to TSL2. Which had a bigger prize pool then all the SC2 tournies combined.
So wrong, just adding up the prizes in the current Tournaments thread/feature, the foreigner tournaments running over the next month alone worldwide have over $50000 worth of prizes, absolutely amazing for a game that has been out for just over a week.
|
On August 05 2010 12:36 RifleCow wrote:
I don't think this thread is about the legitimacy of Starcraft 2 as an eSport. Rather, it is the discussion of the various articles in Korean media speaking to what appears to be the lack of success for Starcraft 2.
Nah. The OP was, but like 99% of the posters just laughed at that and started talking about something else.
If conversations couldn't evolve, it would be pretty lame.
Besides, the arguments still pertain to the subject, albeit somewhat vaguely. The overarching concept is still the potential for success that Starcraft 2 has.
Of course, it's mostly people just telling other people that what they said doesn't make sense.
Personally, I would love it if SC2 became a really big esport. If not, then I will just play it because it's fun.
|
A Korean friend of mine who is ranked 3rd in 1V1 diamond league said storm was too nerfed and found it really lame. SC2 to be a great game must have more and more powerful spells and abilities that can change the outcome of a match in a matter of seconds.
|
If you even argue that SC BW is 10x the game SC2 will ever be then you are dumb. End of discussion, there is no factor that makes SC2 more fun then BW other than "LOL ITS EASIER"
How to sell a modern day video game: Make it as easy and accesible as possible no matter how bad it makes the game. I mean look at CoD, Halo 2,3 , any mmorpg, its about time that Blizzard is catching on and it seems like it has worked
|
I even think wc3 was a better Esport game. There were a lot of abilities and a lot more possibilities.
|
Isn't there an age restriction to be 18 or over to play StarCraft 2 in PC bangs or whatnot (or even purchase?...)
I'm assuming there are a lot of youngsters playing in PC bangs or just playing games generally, but if the age restriction is enforced a lot of them won't be able to play and only the adults time are counted.
Also, you have to have a battle.net account, set it up, yada yada ya, the computer setups might not even be enough for SC2, alot of unaccounted data that could lead some bias statistics.
And guys, we're still 2 expansions away til we see the final version of StarCraft 2 anyway. Is StarCraft 2 Wings of Liberty our broodwar game? no. Is StarCraft 2: Heart of the Swarm be our broodwar game? we don't know. Is StarCraft 2: Legacy of the Void be our broodwar game?
Again, we don't know. We have to work with what we got.
|
On August 05 2010 11:13 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2010 11:08 Kezzer wrote:
I'll assume those apm numbers are arbitrary. Of course. Show nested quote +You must have not read my post, I clearly said that in SC2 there is very little strategy. I don't see how we could know this at this stage in the game's lifetime. Show nested quote +Doing 2 things at once =/= strategy. You need maybe 30 APM to execute ANY build order, and most timings are based on what you have and are unrelated to APM. Executing a build order is worthless if you don't have the units to make use of it. Multitasking is not, itself, part of strategy, but it enables strategies that would otherwise be impossible. A hypothetical: Let us imagine a player who has infinite apm. Lets say he's playing Protoss vs a Zerg player, and he scouts fast Roach pressure. In theory, this player could defend against an infinite number of Roaches with 1 stalker purely by abusing range, with his infinite apm. Because he only has to make one stalker, he has a bunch of money with which to do other stuff, which wildly expands the available strategic options for him in that situation. My basic argument is patently true if you actually understand what I'm claiming. Show nested quote +I'll say it again, if you're expecting SC2 to have a significant amount of strategy, you're in the wrong place. You're entitled to your opinion, but you haven't made a very convincing case for it so far.
Two things:
First, a stalker could not infinitely kite roaches due to map restrictions/possible flanks with roaches etc.
Secondly I'll state the obvious, but for my argument's sake bear with me. No one has infinite APM. Believe it or not but there is somewhat of a soft cap. A limit to any humans abilities to control. So, the people seeking to get better must make the best use of their APM, it becomes another limited resource. If your argument was for a computer playing, it would make sense, but not for a human. A pro of even the highest caliber cannot possible change counter someone's build order with one unit, they could not have the micro unless they could stop doing everything else.
Now back to my original point. Your fact of someone with infinite APM executing BO's that other people can't do is true, but no one has infinite APM or any where close to it, and never will have. APM is just another precious resource that is better spent not on build orders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
