|
On March 16 2011 23:50 Kipsate wrote:
Having as much as 70% is quite a respectable winrate, is more of an upset or a ''slump''(if you will). So perhaps it is not as volatile as people might think.
70% win rate is absolutely pathetic for a top player in any sport. It means he is losing nearly a THIRD of the time. A third.
Daigo has a 84% win rate on Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition, and makes it to the semi final in almost any tournament he enters. When he falls in a Ro16 as an example, all the other players are in shock.
RF is even a better example. He is surely one of the best all around VS fighting player in the planet (already won a SBO in Street Fighter, King of Fighters, and Guilty Gear, the 3 main VS licences), and I promess you he is FAR beyond 70% win rates in tourneys.
In tennis, Federer was at 95% in 2005.
In any sport, a really good competitor is supposed to be, and IS, generally, highly consistent. SC2 is the only game where I get this feeling of repeated inconsistency. Players happen to be good, players happen to be bad. End of story.
Hell, the «safest» way to play SC2 is theoretically to 1 base all in with massive pressure every game. You can't lose to macro aggressive builds, you kill tech builds before they even happen, you can't lose to cheese... If you really want to have a super high win rate, it IS the only viable solution, because of the luck factor heavily involved if you do anything else.
|
On March 17 2011 02:47 mr_tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 23:50 Kipsate wrote:
Having as much as 70% is quite a respectable winrate, is more of an upset or a ''slump''(if you will). So perhaps it is not as volatile as people might think. 70% win rate is absolutely pathetic for a top player in any sport. Daigo has a 84% win rate on Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition, and makes it to the semi final in almost any tournament he enters. When he falls in a Ro16 as an example, all the other players are in shock. RF is even a better example. He is surely one of the best all around VS fighting player in the planet (already won a SBO in Street Fighter, King of Fighters, and Guilty Gear, the 3 main VS licences), and I promess you he is FAR beyond 70% win rates in tourneys. In tennis, Federer was at 95% in 2005. In any sport, a really good competitor is supposed to be, and IS, generally, highly consistent. SC2 is the only game where I get this feeling of repeated inconsistency. Players happen to be good, players happen to be bad. End of story. Hell, the «safest» way to play SC2 is theoretically to 1 base all in with massive pressure every game. You can't lose to macro aggressive builds, you kill tech builds before they even happen, you can't lose to cheese... If you really want to have a super high win rate, it IS the only viable solution, because of the luck factor heavily involved if you do anything else.
lol, the problem is it gets scouted and defended.. and most of the time its very easy to scout.
The best win ratio in scbw is 71%? by flash.... maybe rts is just too volatile in general but then i remember oovs 26-1? tvz
idk...maybe we just haven't seen any players who just massively outperform everyone else yet. Time will tell i suppose
|
IMO this will happen once the game is figured out. Yeah people have been saying this for awhile but look at where we were a month ago and look where we are now, players are rapidly improving and changing playstyles still.
|
On March 17 2011 02:49 FrostyTreats wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 02:47 mr_tolkien wrote:On March 16 2011 23:50 Kipsate wrote:
Having as much as 70% is quite a respectable winrate, is more of an upset or a ''slump''(if you will). So perhaps it is not as volatile as people might think. 70% win rate is absolutely pathetic for a top player in any sport. It means he is losing nearly a THIRD of the time. A third. Daigo has a 84% win rate on Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition, and makes it to the semi final in almost any tournament he enters. When he falls in a Ro16 as an example, all the other players are in shock. RF is even a better example. He is surely one of the best all around VS fighting player in the planet (already won a SBO in Street Fighter, King of Fighters, and Guilty Gear, the 3 main VS licences), and I promess you he is FAR beyond 70% win rates in tourneys. In tennis, Federer was at 95% in 2005. In any sport, a really good competitor is supposed to be, and IS, generally, highly consistent. SC2 is the only game where I get this feeling of repeated inconsistency. Players happen to be good, players happen to be bad. End of story. Hell, the «safest» way to play SC2 is theoretically to 1 base all in with massive pressure every game. You can't lose to macro aggressive builds, you kill tech builds before they even happen, you can't lose to cheese... If you really want to have a super high win rate, it IS the only viable solution, because of the luck factor heavily involved if you do anything else. lol, the problem is it gets scouted and defended.. and most of the time its very easy to scout. The best win ratio in scbw is 71%? by flash.... maybe rts is just too volatile in general but then i remember oovs 26-1? tvz idk...maybe we just haven't seen any players who just massively outperform everyone else yet. Time will tell i suppose
Well, yes, RTS are volatile by nature. But SC2 has the feat to be even worst than BW on this point. The existence of match ups by themselves doom the meaning of such stats, but they are the only ones which can really be seen as a manifestation of consistency.
Whatever you said about cheese is false btw. If you are performing it well, it's nearly impossible to scout, and it will for one time or another be scouted, but if you're aggressive enough you can forbid any macro advantage your opponent could claim. Play Terran, one base like a mad man with crazy pressure, vary your cheeses a lot, and you'll be able to be really consistent. This is stupid of course. But this is unfortunately true.
Cheesing is theoretically the optimization of Star 2 to me, given the difficulty of scouting. And by cheese I'm very broad. Very dangerous macro is also a «cheese». The only problem is it's risky.
|
It's not volatile, people are just learning the game and improving fast, and for one reason or the other some of the players simply can't or don't keep up.
I would say that people are just not good enough at SC2 yet. None of the players on top right now are great - they're just sufficiently better than others which brings them success for the time being, but they're not actually that great.
Very rarely do we see glimpses of really amazing play in SC2 - players didn't really show any exceptional macro, pretty much everyone is slacking in macro more often than not, it's just not even close to amazing RTS play of modern day BW. Once it all becomes more polished, it will no longer be "volatile".
|
No it's not.
Players are.
Very few players play conservative; MvP ran around the godamn map constantly... map controll sure but then actually engaging when the chances you win the battle is 25%> ? That's just idiocy.
|
On March 17 2011 02:47 mr_tolkien wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 23:50 Kipsate wrote:
Having as much as 70% is quite a respectable winrate, is more of an upset or a ''slump''(if you will). So perhaps it is not as volatile as people might think. 70% win rate is absolutely pathetic for a top player in any sport. It means he is losing nearly a THIRD of the time. A third. Daigo has a 84% win rate on Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition, and makes it to the semi final in almost any tournament he enters. When he falls in a Ro16 as an example, all the other players are in shock. RF is even a better example. He is surely one of the best all around VS fighting player in the planet (already won a SBO in Street Fighter, King of Fighters, and Guilty Gear, the 3 main VS licences), and I promess you he is FAR beyond 70% win rates in tourneys. In tennis, Federer was at 95% in 2005. In any sport, a really good competitor is supposed to be, and IS, generally, highly consistent. SC2 is the only game where I get this feeling of repeated inconsistency. Players happen to be good, players happen to be bad. End of story. Hell, the «safest» way to play SC2 is theoretically to 1 base all in with massive pressure every game. You can't lose to macro aggressive builds, you kill tech builds before they even happen, you can't lose to cheese... If you really want to have a super high win rate, it IS the only viable solution, because of the luck factor heavily involved if you do anything else.
If you are using win rate as a measure of consistency, 70% is amazing in Brood War as well, only Flash is currently above that limit with like 72%...up until MVP lost in GSTL etc he had an 80%+ win rate.
|
personally i believe sc2 has a lower skill ceiling than bw. it sucks to say this but i think that almost anyone in code a, or around the top of the foreign scene could beat a code s champion on the right day. people say that the game is just volatile but i think it's that the skill difference at the top is very slim.
i'm an sc2 fan and player, but i have to say all the extra mechanics required in bw gave it a skill ceiling that no one ever reached; and allowed top champions to stay consistant in. in sc2 people are still getting better and it's still very exciting to watch, but the difference between top players is much smaller than we would like to believe.
|
On March 17 2011 02:28 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 02:11 Iamyournoob wrote:On March 17 2011 00:29 IdrA wrote:
well all your questions are about improving the strategy portion and personally i think itd be better to bring back the mechanical difficulty of sc1, Well, it probably might help to distinguish the good players from the real masters, but on the other hand: Why make a game unreasonably difficult? First of all, I don't think it will ever happen, cause then SC2 would become too much of an elite-game and Blizzard doesn't want that. Furthermore the popularity of a game also depends on how easy it is to access for new players. Making it mechanically more difficult would probably scare some people off. Why is that bad? Well, the more people care for SC2, the more do the sponsors and thus the bigger the prize money. But even if we assume Blizz would make SC2 more difficult would it really have the desired results? I don't know how much you were into WC3 but in terms of macro it is way easier than SC1 or SC2. WC3 had automining, you could tab through units and yeah, you could only select 12 units at once, but there were fewer units to control so this limit didn't increase the difficulty as much as it did in SC1 (I still wonder how pros could handle a 200/200 zerg army with a maximum of 12 units being in a control group). However even though WC3 was so easy (personally I find it easier than SC2 ) there was still an elite of progamers that consistently were on top of everyone else: Moon, Grubby, Lyn, Fly and some more. Well in the end it came down to the micro skills, I guess. So I don't think that the fact that auto mining has been introduced in SC2 and that we have smart casting are reasons why SC2 is too volatile. WC3 was easier and still there were players who made to the very top. Making the game mechanics more difficult for no reason is in my opinion not the way to go. i suspect if war3 had had the korean sc1 progaming infrastructure behind it it would look a lot more like sc2 is looking right now. and i still think the idea that mbs would scare off newbies is a bit of a myth. truly bad sc1 players are not inefficient about making units because they dont have mbs, they dont have bad control because theres no smart casting. people who are really unfamiliar with rts play, the casual gamers who are likely to be scared off by difficult and are gonna change to the next big game in a few months, aren't even aware of those features and what they mean. automine is the only thing i can see an argument for from that standpoint.
you say it is a myth, but not everyone can do 300 APM like you. And since you're talking about casual players, most of them can barely even hit 100 APM, including me. Most of them either cant or dont even bother to memorize the the shortcut keys, nor do they even follow the latest builds or trends posted in TL. Most of them probably dont even know TL exists.
And casual gamers aren't scared of difficulty, they are scared of a game not being fun. No MBS isn't fun. Limited 12 unit selection isn't fun. Having to select each individual HT to cast storms isn't fun. They are not fun because after more than a decade of advancement in the RTS genre, most RTS gamers or gamers in general know that they deserve to have a better UI than in Broodwar. There has to be balance between a friendly user interface for people like me and for pros with 300 APM like you.
|
I guess it seems that SC2 is all about out smarting your opponents all the time. Play mind game with them and always being up ahead in mind of the opponent.. Just mind fuck them the whole way.. Waiting for that genius to pop up with psychological torture the master of rock scissor papar
|
On March 16 2011 20:54 andrewwiggin wrote:
Players are volatile. THAT'S easier to argue than what you're saying. And truer too.
Couldn't hat said it much better.
Its just the nature of all sports in general.
|
There is alot of luck involved in sc2, more than there should be imo. But one of the reasons for it being so varied is that new strategies are still being developed, MKP is gsl season 2? where he lost to nestea only got so far in his TvZ because people hadnt figured out his new style, once they did it was game over for him. It will reach a point where alot of styles will be figured out and the players who only really abused builds that people didnt know how to stop will fade away and the better players will come through, expansions packs will add to the variety of new strategies well just have to wait it out and mechanics will become more and more important.
|
Realistically, when we look at the time since the game has been released in comparison to how Starcraft 1 and Brood War have been, the mechanics are almost a science in Brood War. In Starcraft 2, most people are unfamiliar with the mechanics, and they're changing drastically and rapidly. We're at a point where it will be a while before we see any seriously solid, consistent players.
|
The pro scene is only volatile right now because Uniden isn't competing.
|
On March 17 2011 03:14 Creegz wrote:
Realistically, when we look at the time since the game has been released in comparison to how Starcraft 1 and Brood War have been, the mechanics are almost a science in Brood War. In Starcraft 2, most people are unfamiliar with the mechanics, and they're changing drastically and rapidly. We're at a point where it will be a while before we see any seriously solid, consistent players.
I think you misunderstand what mechanics are. The mechanics of SC2 are the same as BW just easier.
|
I don't agree at all. The examples you give don't fit your conclusions. Those players lost games for the most part because of poor play of their own and/or exceptional play from their opponents, not because of luck.
There are many threads already discussing why the win rates of top players in sc are so low compared to the dominance of superstars in certain other sports. Basically it comes down to a very competitive scene with many solid players and the fact that an individual game is often won or lost in an instant. It takes longer series for the dominant players to truly shine.
|
On March 17 2011 03:08 Rashid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 02:28 IdrA wrote:On March 17 2011 02:11 Iamyournoob wrote:On March 17 2011 00:29 IdrA wrote:
well all your questions are about improving the strategy portion and personally i think itd be better to bring back the mechanical difficulty of sc1, Well, it probably might help to distinguish the good players from the real masters, but on the other hand: Why make a game unreasonably difficult? First of all, I don't think it will ever happen, cause then SC2 would become too much of an elite-game and Blizzard doesn't want that. Furthermore the popularity of a game also depends on how easy it is to access for new players. Making it mechanically more difficult would probably scare some people off. Why is that bad? Well, the more people care for SC2, the more do the sponsors and thus the bigger the prize money. But even if we assume Blizz would make SC2 more difficult would it really have the desired results? I don't know how much you were into WC3 but in terms of macro it is way easier than SC1 or SC2. WC3 had automining, you could tab through units and yeah, you could only select 12 units at once, but there were fewer units to control so this limit didn't increase the difficulty as much as it did in SC1 (I still wonder how pros could handle a 200/200 zerg army with a maximum of 12 units being in a control group). However even though WC3 was so easy (personally I find it easier than SC2 ) there was still an elite of progamers that consistently were on top of everyone else: Moon, Grubby, Lyn, Fly and some more. Well in the end it came down to the micro skills, I guess. So I don't think that the fact that auto mining has been introduced in SC2 and that we have smart casting are reasons why SC2 is too volatile. WC3 was easier and still there were players who made to the very top. Making the game mechanics more difficult for no reason is in my opinion not the way to go. i suspect if war3 had had the korean sc1 progaming infrastructure behind it it would look a lot more like sc2 is looking right now. and i still think the idea that mbs would scare off newbies is a bit of a myth. truly bad sc1 players are not inefficient about making units because they dont have mbs, they dont have bad control because theres no smart casting. people who are really unfamiliar with rts play, the casual gamers who are likely to be scared off by difficult and are gonna change to the next big game in a few months, aren't even aware of those features and what they mean. automine is the only thing i can see an argument for from that standpoint. you say it is a myth, but not everyone can do 300 APM like you. And since you're talking about casual players, most of them can barely even hit 100 APM, including me. Most of them either cant or dont even bother to memorize the the shortcut keys, nor do they even follow the latest builds or trends posted in TL. Most of them probably dont even know TL exists. And casual gamers aren't scared of difficulty, they are scared of a game not being fun. No MBS isn't fun. Limited 12 unit selection isn't fun. Having to select each individual HT to cast storms isn't fun. They are not fun because after more than a decade of advancement in the RTS genre, most RTS gamers or gamers in general know that they deserve to have a better UI than in Broodwar. There has to be balance between a friendly user interface for people like me and for pros with 300 APM like you. theyre not not fun, theyre hard to be good with
if you want to be good its your responsibility to get 300 apm.
being a casual player but then complaining about stuff that makes it hard to win is stupid. you either dont be casual or you dont care if you win.
|
On March 17 2011 01:28 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 01:14 Hider wrote:
Idra could easily be right. I dont think however that we should do something drastically as removing MBS, as sc2 needs to be a game that is easy to play for noobs as well. Anyway MVP was before the matches an underdog vs both players, as terran cant beat good protoss players, and the skill level of the terran is pretty irrelevant. i still dont understand that rationale a newbie is not sitting there thinking fuck i could be so good at this game if only i had to click 5 less time to build units a newbie is bad because of far more fundamental problems. if they're concerned about mbs and automining and smartcasting they're already at or approaching a competitive level, or they're deluding themselves, and at that point you have no right to complain about the game being too hard.
Well if the game is too hard too learn to play at a decent level (like a ubernoob who wants to be a less awfull player, e.g. a bronze player aspiring to be a bit better, like getting into gold), I think he will get annoyed if the game is way too hard to learn. The game needs to be easy to learn, but hard to master. And i kind of agree with you that the game is a bit too easy to "master" right now, but dont think we should change the macro mechanics too much to make it more difficult to master. I think however that micro should be more rewarding and more difficult. There is another thread regarding the collosus that is just awfully designed, and I think we need too have more kind of units that are difficult to use effecitvely (I think marines vs banelings is a good example of this.). I think as well that watching fantastic micro is better for the entertainment value than watching good macro for most people.
|
Professional sports are riddled with inconsistency. Teams can make the championship or superbowl, look unbeatable, then not make the playoffs the following season. The steelers did it in '08 (they won the superbowl then didn't make the playoffs the next year.
Shit happens, the good will still rise. MVP is far from being a no-name now
|
I'm just not seeing this 'randomness' in games that you seem to be. We are clearly seeing where players went wrong and very very little of it seems to be from "random luck". We see scouting errors, unit comp errors, positioning errors, micro blunders, not being ready for certain timings, etc. These are things that can only improve with time. The skill ceiling is higher than many want to admit and I don't see how people can argue that when you see all of the different ways that top players could have won games. There are so many little things that can catch these players off guard and in time, they will be more and more prepared for them. It seems like many people are confusing 'random' with 'haven't dealt with that situation enough to the point where correct responses are completely ingrained into the players mind'.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
