On March 17 2011 22:40 infinity2k9 wrote: You can't have a reasonable discussion on this without a bunch of people coming into the thread and making zero analysis at all, simply saying 'It will get better' and other dumb shit thats been said 1000 times. If you can't handle a game you like being criticized don't go into a thread with discussion about it. There's clearly room for more mechanics in the game, no doubt about it. That's why they even added the macro mechanics in the first place simply to add something else to do.
No doubt, what people are saying is that dumbing down the interface isn't the way to go about it.
I'm all for having an interface that works well and units that are 3 times more effective if you can micro them well, rather than being forced to build buildings one by one for some arbitrary reason.
Nobody said to dumb down the interface.
There's been several people saying that MBS/Smartcasting are bad and should be removed.... Does that not count as dumbing down the interface?
I didn't see anyone directly say that, i just saw people explaining that those things are what helped make the game interesting to watch not that SC2 should have them. If they did say it, it is unreasonable to suggest MBS shouldn't be in the game; Smartcasting is only one which is prehaps arguable. It is a shame the spells have all been nerfed and are no longer impressive when you see them cast perfectly, but individual unit selection of casters is probably unreasonable. I don't see any way to make them harder in any other way though, unless they deliberately made spells which required manual targeting in a direction or gimmicks like that.
On March 17 2011 22:07 etheovermind wrote: Here why don't we make basketball 2 where everyone can dunk? That sounds like a good idea. Dunking is awesome so now everyone can do it! Wait heres more. The Basket is now the size of a table! This way everyone can make three point shots because three pointers are the bomb! Awesome!
The huge hole in that analogy is that most of the things that were difficult in BW that are now easier in SC2 were only hard due to technological constraints. Keeping them would be pretty arbitrary. It's like if for years basketball players had played with huge weights on their arms, and suddenly it was decided they would be removed.
'But now anyone can dribble the ball, it's no longer impressive. Bring back the huge weights!'
Yes i agree there were things that were basically weights in BW but things like awesome spells and amazing unit control (mutas/vultures/reavers)were awesome to watch. They basically made it so anyone could do those things.
Nobody is denying this. Colossi are retarded, so are marauders, banshees, I don't know, maybe hellions. They are all a-click units as it seems with nothing special. I would never say "no" if I had to micro hellions like vultures and Colossi like reaver - hell that would be great! But there is no point in removing stuff like auto-mining or smartcasting - like some indeed said.
Considering all the dumb ways people let their banshees die of I wouldn't really call them an a-move unit.
My personal opinion is that the game is still evolving and its yet only on its early stages. So hopefully we'll be able to see more upsets coming on the following years, showing us that theres newblood streaming into the SC2 scene and that theres plenty of talent around still waiting to reveal themselves into the tournament scene.
Obviously, i expect a small elite group to retain their deserved placements in Code S, but they will have to prove themselves every season to achieve that status and its still much to soon for that group to be "solidified".
For now the results of this month Code S had several upsets and that probably brought more attention to the GSL and hopefully more viewers at least for those crucial upset matches. Also i would dare to say that this month Up & Down matches are getting a lot more attention than the previous ones due to the ammount of SC2 superstars playing there.
So, having unknown players grabbing their bit of fame and fortune and growing a reputation for themselves (legend killers?) can only be good, specially this early in SC2's life.
Im hoping for more "underdogs" to come to this game and show us that one of the main attractions in any sport (e-sports included) is the capability of providing us with exciting and unexpected moments that make us come back for more and fuel our passion.
Volatile environment? upsets? players hiding their faces on the keyboard crying or smashing some mice after a defeat? yes pls!
LostDevil i disagree the game can't be harder without changing the interface. It definitely could but it would need to be creative with the unit design for a start. Having friendly fire for AOE things is one way to ensure people have to not ball up, on say the Collossus. Then make spells which are more involved than simply click on a unit. Like what if a Ghost doing the snipe ability was very powerful but you had to aim it in a direction rather than point or click? People would probably complain that shouldn't be part of the game but its just an example, I'm not a game designer but theres definitely ways to make the player more involved in the battles with skill.
On March 17 2011 23:06 Escapist wrote: My personal opinion is that the game is still evolving and its yet only on its early stages.
On March 17 2011 19:04 Rashid wrote: People who say the harder mechanics of Brood War is better than SC2 doesn't realize the irony that Starcraft itself was a huge step up in terms of friendly user interface back in it's day. If you thought Brood War mechanics were hard, you've never played the early CnC games like Red Alert 1&2 and Tiberium Dawn/Sun, or the Myth series who have pretty horrible UI compared to Broodwar. I mean seriously, you cant even ATTACK MOVE in the early CnC games, wtf. You think your 2D movement on an isometric map in Broodwar is hardcore? Then go and play Homeworld and shit yourselves actually trying to navigate your units through 3D space.
That's actually not true. Total Annihilation was released in 1997, and it had MBS, unlimited unit selection, building construction queues, and 3 unit behaviour modes which went beyond "move" and "attack-move". It didn't have resource-gathering units at all though, so no automining.
Dark Reign (also released in 1997) also had these, if I remember correctly.
Really, SC2's UI is pretty backwards in its own right, if you compared it to, say, Supreme Commander's interface. You can say what you want about SupCom's gameplay, but that interface was fucking amazing.
So... on the topic of volatility of the game, and not MBS/Automine. I'm still not convinced the game is entirely that volatile right now.
In BW the highest rated player, Flash, has a 385-147 (72.37%) Record. In SC2 the highest rated player, MC, has a 44-17 (72.13%) Record.
I'd say a 72% win% against the other best players in the world is pretty good. Plus when players get hot like MVP did last season we've seen them make incredible runs, 16-1 in the last GSL.
One argument I could see is that currently zerg results are too volatile, which could be true. As far as SC2 goes though I'm far from convinced.
Also keep in mind these are a game by game basis, if you consider their matches as BoX I think their win% may be even higher. It's like if tennis instead of having matches count for their win % they counted each individual point.
On March 17 2011 22:07 etheovermind wrote: Here why don't we make basketball 2 where everyone can dunk? That sounds like a good idea. Dunking is awesome so now everyone can do it! Wait heres more. The Basket is now the size of a table! This way everyone can make three point shots because three pointers are the bomb! Awesome!
The huge hole in that analogy is that most of the things that were difficult in BW that are now easier in SC2 were only hard due to technological constraints. Keeping them would be pretty arbitrary. It's like if for years basketball players had played with huge weights on their arms, and suddenly it was decided they would be removed.
'But now anyone can dribble the ball, it's no longer impressive. Bring back the huge weights!'
Yes i agree there were things that were basically weights in BW but things like awesome spells and amazing unit control (mutas/vultures/reavers)were awesome to watch. They basically made it so anyone could do those things.
Nobody is denying this. Colossi are retarded, so are marauders, banshees, I don't know, maybe hellions. They are all a-click units as it seems with nothing special. I would never say "no" if I had to micro hellions like vultures and Colossi like reaver - hell that would be great! But there is no point in removing stuff like auto-mining or smartcasting - like some indeed said.
Ok I am all for removing stuff like 12 unit select and adding in MBS, but smart cast and automine are just stupid. Smart cast is basically the computer making decisions rather than you. In BW, the computer does literrally what you want it to do. Same with auto-mine. I want a game where players have to actually make decisions and do stuff, rather than the computer doing it for you.
On March 17 2011 18:22 Kipsate wrote: You have to understand that these ''meaningless clicks'' as you call them make the game harder, therefore it is more appericiated by people when players pump out a massive army on 3/4 bases. The harder it is to macro, the more appericiation the players reach. You will really think, wow I am watching the best of the best duke it out, they have incredible macro, decision making etc. Because macro is so easy in SC2 there is no such thing as a wow effect when you see a massive amount of units being reinforced over a couple bases.
The point he's trying to make is that if macro becomes easier, the good players will find other ways to do impressive play. If not, they were really just good at playing an outdated system, which is still important in the game that has the outdated system, but they have to switch their focus elsewhere when the game changes.
I'd rather Wow at someone keeping their economy down at 190/200 supply and 5base, rather than them being able to spam units out of factories one by one, which is hard, but not intelligent or cool looking in any way.
The APM spent on individually building from 5 factories can be spent on manually or preemptively splitting your groups to get a better concave or be fast enough and drag injured units to the back of the line so they stop getting focus fired etc.
Also, you BW newfags should be playing Dune, now THAT GAME REQUIRED SKILLS EL OH EL etc...
Sorry, you simply can't make an argument for harder mechanics for the sake of it. If you want to make the game require more skill, make it require more skill in a way that doesn't hinder players control of the game.
? I dont get this. Do you mean its impressive if ppl find ways to keep their money low when theyre already near maxed?
Also the idea that easier macro lets players focus on other things and is therefore good is completely ridiculous. If u watch any bw game you'd see the pros keep their money extremely low while still maintaining the ridiculous army control the game demanded (and yes, bw demanded way more army control than sc2 too). That's what makes it so impressive, when they're able to balance the two. I don't get the same feeling when I watch an sc2 protoss macro constantly with warpgates while dragging his entire army, its just not the same feeling =/
Sorry, you simply can't make an argument for harder mechanics for the sake of it.
No1 is saying add harder mechanics for the sake of adding harder mechanics if thats wat u think then u completely missed the argument. To reiterate a point thats been made a thousand times in this thread alone, people want harder mechanics because it leads to more differentiation between top players, doesn't boil a game that already favors rush strategies down to build orders as much, and more importantly allows better plays to overcome disadvantages just by outplaying the opponent.
On March 17 2011 23:14 YokaY wrote: So... on the topic of volatility of the game, and not MBS/Automine. I'm still not convinced the game is entirely that volatile right now.
In BW the highest rated player, Flash, has a 385-147 (72.37%) Record. In SC2 the highest rated player, MC, has a 44-17 (72.13%) Record.
I'd say a 72% win% against the other best players in the world is pretty good. Plus when players get hot like MVP did last season we've seen them make incredible runs, 16-1 in the last GSL.
One argument I could see is that currently zerg results are too volatile, which could be true. As far as SC2 goes though I'm far from convinced.
Also keep in mind these are a game by game basis, if you consider their matches as BoX I think their win% may be even higher. It's like if tennis instead of having matches count for their win % they counted each individual point.
That's called not having a big enough sample size. I think whats more interesting about Flash statistics is if you only include the past year and a half lets say, hes probably like 85%, which no one thought possible. And this is 11 years after the game was released. I'll tell you right now theres zero chance MC will hold that winrate over the same amount of games as Flash, literally no chance. MC and all the other ex-BW players are just at an advantage right now which is slowly decreasing.
Don't you find it somewhat of a coincidence both your examples were ex BW pro's?
If this isn't having a big enough sample size, then you can't make the argument that it is too volatile yet.
Like you just said, no one thought that such a high win % was possible until he came around. And it may take a long time to have a player that can create ways to be better than other players.
I'm in the boat that SC2 does have a much lower skill cap than BW. But at the same time I don't think things are as all over the place as people make them out to be.
And no I don't think it's a coincidence that it's BW pros. It's obvious their mechanics are stronger than any other players out there. That's why they're good, and it's why they were good at BW.
On March 17 2011 22:22 xsevR wrote: So tired of the less mechanics=less skill argument. I've yet to see anyone play a near perfect game of SC2 (like anywhere close), who cares if the skill floor is lower? Why does this affect the highest levels of play? All these arguments amount to is elitism.
And why does it matter where the skill floor is now? It's going to rise exponentially. NO ONE has figured this game out yet.
??? think you misunderstood, the skill floor is just the base actions it takes to play the game. I was referring to all the UI/Macro mechanic changes introduced by SC2 (bigger hot groups, worker rallys, etc.) The skill floor will not get any higher as time goes on, but I agree with you that the ceiling will rise (if thats what you meant).
On March 17 2011 23:23 YokaY wrote: If this isn't having a big enough sample size, then you can't make the argument that it is too volatile yet.
Like you just said, no one thought that such a high win % was possible until he came around. And it may take a long time to have a player that can create ways to be better than other players. I'm in the boat that SC2 does have a much lower skill cap than BW. But at the same time I don't think things are as all over the place as people make them out to be.
And no I don't think it's a coincidence that it's BW pros. It's obvious their mechanics are stronger than any other players out there. That's why they're good, and it's why they were good at BW.
The argument is made by the fact that top players can lose games fairly easily, you even got IdrA in here agreeing and i've heard other players make similar comments. Who needs to tell you this for you to believe it?
You are just repeating the same thing many have said with zero evidence for your reasoning. You agree that the skill cap is much lower, but you think the player will somehow create ways to be better. It's just the same pointless 'It's going to get better!' statement repeated x1000 in this forum. I don't get how you can look at the elements of SC2 and think someone will create ways to be better, it seems more like everyone will just eventually play close to the same and games will be decided by any small advantage that can't be stopped.
On March 17 2011 22:07 etheovermind wrote: Here why don't we make basketball 2 where everyone can dunk? That sounds like a good idea. Dunking is awesome so now everyone can do it! Wait heres more. The Basket is now the size of a table! This way everyone can make three point shots because three pointers are the bomb! Awesome!
The huge hole in that analogy is that most of the things that were difficult in BW that are now easier in SC2 were only hard due to technological constraints. Keeping them would be pretty arbitrary. It's like if for years basketball players had played with huge weights on their arms, and suddenly it was decided they would be removed.
'But now anyone can dribble the ball, it's no longer impressive. Bring back the huge weights!'
Yes i agree there were things that were basically weights in BW but things like awesome spells and amazing unit control (mutas/vultures/reavers)were awesome to watch. They basically made it so anyone could do those things.
Nobody is denying this. Colossi are retarded, so are marauders, banshees, I don't know, maybe hellions. They are all a-click units as it seems with nothing special. I would never say "no" if I had to micro hellions like vultures and Colossi like reaver - hell that would be great! But there is no point in removing stuff like auto-mining or smartcasting - like some indeed said.
How on earth are hellions a-click units? If you just a-click hellions they will never do their best splash damage nor will they attack the best targets if you're attacking someone's base. At the very least you have to hold position micro them and in many ways the splash makes them more microable than vultures were (note that this is not including mines, admittedly, but mines like reavers were about as dependent on shitty AI than skill).
On March 17 2011 21:28 karpo wrote: Man i've sent a hour trying to find a awesome video about the mechanics argument. It's two cgi character discussing Warcraft II vs Starcraft. Voices are MS Sam-ish and they talk about SC being nooby cause it has control groups, unit queuing and no water units.
Here it is:
Haha that's it. I love it, kinda sums up the MBS thing.
On March 17 2011 23:23 YokaY wrote: If this isn't having a big enough sample size, then you can't make the argument that it is too volatile yet.
Like you just said, no one thought that such a high win % was possible until he came around.
That is just so wrong, iloveoov had similiar records.
During his prime? Assuming that's true (honestly I didn't follow BW that long ago), I still don't think it changes my argument.
If the sample size is too small, then you can't make the argument that the game is too volatile or not volatile. If the sample size is large enough, then the game doesn't appear to be too volatile.
On March 17 2011 23:23 YokaY wrote: If this isn't having a big enough sample size, then you can't make the argument that it is too volatile yet.
Like you just said, no one thought that such a high win % was possible until he came around. And it may take a long time to have a player that can create ways to be better than other players. I'm in the boat that SC2 does have a much lower skill cap than BW. But at the same time I don't think things are as all over the place as people make them out to be.
And no I don't think it's a coincidence that it's BW pros. It's obvious their mechanics are stronger than any other players out there. That's why they're good, and it's why they were good at BW.
The argument is made by the fact that top players can lose games fairly easily, you even got IdrA in here agreeing and i've heard other players make similar comments. Who needs to tell you this for you to believe it?
You are just repeating the same thing many have said with zero evidence for your reasoning. You agree that the skill cap is much lower, but you think the player will somehow create ways to be better. It's just the same pointless 'It's going to get better!' statement repeated x1000 in this forum. I don't get how you can look at the elements of SC2 and think someone will create ways to be better, it seems more like everyone will just eventually play close to the same and games will be decided by any small advantage that can't be stopped.
I don't see how I have zero evidence. MC, MVP, and Bomber have a 70+ win %. MVP had a 16-1 Run in the GSL.
I also said were if the sample size is big enough, which is subjective depending on what confidence you want, then the stats show it's not too volatile, at least up till now relative to BW. I don't know if it will get better or worse.
Of course top players can lose games easily, they're playing other top players. I think for zerg that argument can certainly be made that the game could be too volatile, which I also said before.
"This is something I almost never experienced when I was interested in other competitive circuit, be it soccer (in France)"
I think this is the main thing here. In football we have a consistent league system which has proven time and time again that it is the best way to judge which team is best. GSL is a great league, the best in esports right now, but their format is going to lead to inconsistency. I don't think it has anything to do with the game (although, i would point out how new SC2 still is).
MVP was randomly placed into the toughest group and didn't make it because he got outplayed. If he had played everyone in Code S twice over the course of 9 months, maybe he would still be in the top division, it's impossible to say. But at least we would have a clear view of whether he truly belonged their or not.
On March 17 2011 23:14 YokaY wrote: So... on the topic of volatility of the game, and not MBS/Automine. I'm still not convinced the game is entirely that volatile right now.
In BW the highest rated player, Flash, has a 385-147 (72.37%) Record. In SC2 the highest rated player, MC, has a 44-17 (72.13%) Record.
I'd say a 72% win% against the other best players in the world is pretty good. Plus when players get hot like MVP did last season we've seen them make incredible runs, 16-1 in the last GSL.
One argument I could see is that currently zerg results are too volatile, which could be true. As far as SC2 goes though I'm far from convinced.
Also keep in mind these are a game by game basis, if you consider their matches as BoX I think their win% may be even higher. It's like if tennis instead of having matches count for their win % they counted each individual point.
Remember that MVP hasn't played 100 games yet.
Flash has played over 500.
You can't really make a comparison between the two.
Also, MVP could easily go on a long term slump. He seems to be starting one right now :/
Imo its absolutely pointless to argue the removal of MBS and smartcasting, as it is never ever going to happen. Its a change Blizzard could never justify putting in place: making the game harder by making players click more buttons to do the exact same thing. I know many here have rose-tinted goggles when it comes to discussing BW, but I think any sensible game designer would say that its just horrible game design, and completely devoid of what should actually be deemed "skill" in the game.
I actually love the fact that you can get by with less APM in SC2, especially the kind of APM that is just repetitive chores with little thought process behind them.
What we actually need is more units that reward good planning and control, in other words player skill becomes a bigger factor. Not outdated mechanics that require no planning, just more clicking. What HOTS needs to do is add at least one unit per race that is highly specialized and tactical - such as the lurker in BW. The biggest problem I see with SC2 is the existence of units such as colossi: extremely potent yet require little micro and do not create exciting situations. But I think that has been said a thousand times already.
What made BW the greatest RTS ever was the "overpowered" units and the strategic depth that existed between the units. Not the fact that it didnt have automining and MBS.
1. The game is a lot easier to play compared to Starcraft Brood War (Which eliminates a lot of the advantages the Korean pro gamers had and basically makes every top level player equal)
2. The best players haven't transitioned to Starcraft 2.
Brood War Pro Records
MVP's Pro Brood war Record - 30-46 (39.47%) Nestea's Pro Brood war Record - 11-21 (34.38%) FruitDealers Pro Brood war Record - 13-20 (39.39%) oGsMcs Pro Brood War Record - 1-9 (10.00%) (Koreans even gave him the nickname "Suicide Toss" because he would perform a ceremony before the game and always end up losing) Idra Pro Brood War Record - 2-4 (33.33%) Didn't get any team televised matches and didn't perform well in Korea but was one of the few foreigner to make it on a Korean team. Boxer, Nada & July we're fantastic players in the early stages of the game but were near the end of their careers a year or two before StarCraft 2.
And none of these players or foreigners we're dominate before their transition.
3. The new maps could have played a factor because the release of them was so sudden and many of the GSL participants didn't have experience on "big" Starcraft 2 maps like the ones released because they weren't included on the ladder.
4. Their could be some imbalances, however if a player is truely a good player he can over come this. Ex: Zero vs Flashs Mech (Supurb mech in TvZ brood war is said to be imbalanced, which is why I'm using this example)
5. Maybe the game just hasn't been explored to it's fullest potential. If the game is still in the current state that it's in now two years later, then it's the game not the players.
I don't think you can say that it's too volatile as of yet. It hasn't even been released for a year lol Give it time...
EPT
