|
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.
Unfortunately, this will be the attitude if they try to take away things they've already added. They won't necessarily need to make game mechanics easier over time, but they can't be seen as intentionally making gameplay harder. If Blizzard takes away things casual players have gotten used to, they become at odds with casual gamers. Personally, I am casual myself, but I also feel that mechanically difficult gameplay is more fun than rush-centered hidden information games.
On the other hand, they could add units in future expansions which require better mechanics to control. They could also do something completely unforseen (like a new resource or something) that requires greater mechanics to fully utilize. We'll have to see.
|
No dude its not too volatile. For one, the games new, and maps all just changed. Balance patches are more frequent than they will be in the future as well. Second, this perception of volatility is partially created by people creating hype that shouldn't exist. Fruit dealer wins... hes the hero of zerg.. best zerg on the planet... UNTIL... Nestea won season two and became the hero of zerg and the best player on the planet... Nestea and fruitdealer still retained this reputation despite not doing much of anything afterwards. MC wins and becomes the best protoss and unstoppable then kind of disappears in season 4. Season 4 MVP declared undisputed best player to every play SC2 reminiscent of dominant BW pros. Season 5, MC looks unstoppable, but guaranteed if Julyzerg wins hes going to be revered at an inflated level by nerds around the world regardless of how he performs.
Everytime a player wins or does something great the starcraft community latches on and acts like they are the best thing since sliced bread. Thats my fanboyness goes as far as people who provide entertaining games. Examples of people who end up in the most exciting games: MKP, Huk, Whitera, July, MC (sometimes, but mainly because when he wins he just makes his opponents look silly), Jinro, fruitdealer, Socke, Catz, Kiri, QXC, Select, kiwikaki, adelscott. Players who are good but are boring for me to watch: Idra, Nestea, MVP, all american Terrans other than those listed above, all NA AND Euro protoss other than those listed above, pretty much all hardcore macro zergs that never mix it up (aka most zergs).
As a spectator and a fan, a player being good is not enough... they need to be good and provide entertainment. I like the constant changing nature of the current environment so no, I don't think its too volatile, though I agree that it IS volatile.
|
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.
IdrA I'm a fellow zerg who enjoy watching you and I think you have a good insight about SC2, but you're clueless about WC3.
You must consider that WC3 had T1 unit with 500+ HP. Maccro was easy, almost inexistant, but micro / multitasking / strategy were pretty important in some way. The skill requirement for WC3 is just so different than the skill you need for SC1/SC2, it's not the same type of game, every parallel between the two games are flawed because of that.
At some point I was good at WC3, in early TFT, and I was ejoying myself so much in games because each game i would go in, I knew it would be a fair game with skill / strategy. It's not a question of mechanics, it's because at some point of the game, you always have your hero (if you're good you almost never loose it) and your hero can defend / help in almost any kind of situation. Because of this relativ "safety" you can always have a good and solid game plan.
That's what made Moon so good, he was so good with his hero, so solid, that he could do things like mass ballista/zeppelin or mass expand without any static defenses.
Well you are right with everything you say, but the reason these mistakes in SC2 mean "Game over" (or rather "gg") is not due to the skill ceiling being so low, but rather because of the design of maps/units and the resulting gameplay. Making SC2 more difficult wouldn't prevent you from losing to 4 hellions wreaking havoc in your mineral line.
Yes, I don't think the problem has nothing to do with skill ceiling. At the 20th minute mark, with 5 expand on big GSL maps you need a pretty good apm to compete: the mechanics are easier than in SC1 but because of that it's also easier to go attack at multiple location, switch tech, manage your army, etc.
I think the game is just poorly designed in early / mid game. It "should" be hard to get a HUGE advantage in this early game, except if you take HUGE risk of course.
Sadly in SC2, it's so easy, you just need to put one or two unit at the right moment at the right place and the game is almost won, without committing to anything, and on the other side, if you decide to commit to an early rush, your opponent HAS to give his all to defend, hindering his own economy by doing so.
|
On March 17 2011 03:18 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 03:08 Rashid wrote:
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 i dont be casual or you dont care if you win.
I don't get your reasoning. The game being harder to be good at without MBS doesn't make lacking MBS not not fun.
No one said that MBS is there to cater to casuals (I don't care if Blizzard said this, what they say doesn't matter as much as what they do). It's there because the game is not as fun to play without it. If you think that's wrong, fine, but imo you're arguing a straw man.
You don't have competition for the sake of competition. There is plenty of shit out there that is hard to do (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rock_balancing), but there is only one Brood War. Good game desing is not just about making it hard to win, it's about making it hard and rewarding to win. BW was hard and rewarding to win, but I don't believe that it's because of 12-unit control groups and lack of MBS.
Still, good to see that you're actually arguing instead of flaming for once.
|
On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote:
yes it is too volatile and its not going to change
blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it
sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games.
Idra, I think your problem is that you are remembering how hard you could crush all of the other white guys in BW. But... you still got crushed by the Koreans. You talk as if in BW, you were beating players because of your superior mechanics and you can't do it so easily in SC2. You mention mbs, smartcasting and improved unit AI make it more difficult for you to consistantly beat players that you are already better in, in terms of overall skill. You were good enough to make it on a team in Korea and that is about it.
So can you admit that you lost to the Koreans and never succeeded 'big' as a BW player strictly because their mechanics were strictly better than yours? You seem to clearly be implying that it is the issue in SC2... that there isn't a big enough skill gap between your mechanics and the mechanics of other white guys. So what was your winrate in BW compared to SC2?
The fact is, you've had some pretty decent results in SC2. How can you really say that things are so random? You've made it pretty far in GSL and have shown that you are Code S worthy. You must at least agree that your biggest strength is your mechanics and not your game sense(we know how you tend to lose games...not saying your game sense isn't SUPER strong, but just look back at how you've lost matches in GSL seasons). Yet your mechanics are allowing you to do pretty darn well. Maybe you just need to accept that while you are among the best zergs in the world, but you just aren't the best... just like in BW.
I don't see your results having anything to do with SC2 being more 'random' and 'volatile'... I just see your results correctly lining up to your skill level. Just look at BW winrates... they aren't very different than in SC2, and that is a game with years of strategies and so many tiny things being figured out. Of course there will be a bit more randomness in SC2 when the metagame still hasn't settled down and there has been such little time for things like timings and strategies to get developed to the point where nobody is truly surprised by anything.
|
things are still changing. the metagame is rapidly evolving, maps are changing, balance is changing. it's definitely going to be volatile until it settles down a bit. i'm sure that in 5 years or so, we'll have the stable list of top players that brood war currently has, but until then it's obviously going to shift around a bit. the best players are going to be the ones who figure out the best strategies first. for instance, Foxer made it to the finals of GSL2 because he had a new strategy, exclusive to him, that was considered completely out of the ordinary for a while. now it's basically standard play, he couldn't take his style from GSL2 and get as far as he did nowadays. people have had time to work out the whole -no-gas-just-marines thing.
that's sorta what i mean. the guys who are first to perfect the next most powerful strategy are going to be the ones on top. after his play is known, he might create another powerful strat and keep his place near the top, or someone else could come along with a better one and take his place.
|
On March 17 2011 03:21 skipdog172 wrote:
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'.
The complaint is not related to lack of knowledge of when timings can possibly occur, it's related to the sheer number of timings which can occur between scouting.
Over a large enough number of games, a player cannot reasonably hope to use mind games and unusual tactics to win consistently against every opponent. They can, however, win a few series against opponents who actually have better mechanics, simply because their play is unexpected. The idea that someone worse mechanically at the game than them did something random and then won because they hadn't prepared a reaction to it is frustrating to some players.
Imagine you're playing a game of chess where you won't get to see your opponents first 5 moves until after he's already made them. You can be a better chess player than your opponent but still have basically lost by the time both sides of the board get revealed. Some people find this frustrating, which I can understand.
|
On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote:
yes it is too volatile and its not going to change
blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it
sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games.
Have you ever heard of a strategy game called poker? Professional poker in America at least is bigger than SC2 will ever be here and it does not "fucking suck" as proven by the absurd prize pools and the fact that I can turn on ESPN right now and watch a bunch of fat slobs playing mind games with one another. There are so many online gamers and pro level online gamers that play online poker at reasonably high levels that would probably agree that poker is indeed a game of skill, entertaining to watch, and as much a sport as you could consider starcraft.
|
I feel the exact same way.
Actually, ive been reading interesting books about this. "The Drunkard's Walk" and "Black Swan Logic" are some of them.
Every game has a level of randomness. Some have it a lot (like poker) and others have very little (like chess).
I would dare to say that the level of randomness in Starcraft 2 is actually higher than WC3 (contradicting a lot of people here and getting bashed after saying this). Since you rely a LOT on micro in WC3, whoever has better micro will usually come out on top. In SC2, you can suddenly get in your opponents base with 3 DTs when he has no detection. Thats some kind of surprise that is rarely found in WC3.
There are a some ways to minimize this kind of results (in sc2 or any other game). One of them is playing a lot of games (for example, instead of playing a BO3, it could be BO5, BO7, etc), or making GSL a single group with everyone playing each other more than one time. More consistent playing will usually be on top (like bnet ladder).
The rule actually goes like this: More games = better accuracy determining relative skill
Lets say we are rolling a dice. I win with numbers one and two, you win with everything else (three, four, five and six). Clearly, you are better, since you can win with more numbers but If we play a best of 1, i have 33% chance of winning, if we play a BO3, 11% chance, if we play a BO5, almost 4% and so on (if my math is not wrong, but u get the idea)...
Im actually glad that you posted this. Feels like im not alone here 
|
On March 17 2011 03:49 Jayrod wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote:
yes it is too volatile and its not going to change
blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it
sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games. Have you ever heard of a strategy game called poker? Professional poker in America at least is bigger than SC2 will ever be here and it does not "fucking suck" as proven by the absurd prize pools and the fact that I can turn on ESPN right now and watch a bunch of fat slobs playing mind games with one another. There are so many online gamers and pro level online gamers that play online poker at reasonably high levels that would probably agree that poker is indeed a game of skill, entertaining to watch, and as much a sport as you could consider starcraft.
Poker isn't a RTS game. I don't see how you can bash his opinion by talking about Poker. If you want to bash his opinion at least talk about what he said and how it relates to Starcraft2.
|
It's too easy to reach a tipping-point that decides a game in SC2. Things that should only be minor or temporary advantages in practice immediately conclude too many games.
Analogy:
It's fun to watch two master swordsmen duel one another -- I could watch duels all day.
But watching master swordsmen duel one another while balancing on a tightrope over lava gets old after a few matches, because such a minor mistake on the part of either duelist concludes the match. Place a foot a few millimeters off, swing a fraction to hard, get struck even once, and you're in the lava -- match over.
In a SC2 tourney, you generally assume that the better of two players will win the majority of the matches in a set. Every single game, though, is a "set" of conflicts and exchanges. In effect every SC2 game is like a mini single-elimination tournament: it doesn't allow for enough conflicts and exchanges to really bear out who is the better player.
A protoss player loses his first stalker to a marauder/marine/SCV poke? Unrecoverable -- that's a game. A Terran loses two depots to an early-game stalker/void ray push? There's no coming back from it -- that's the game.
It's not entertaining to play or to watch.
|
For all you people whining about this.....Did you not watch IEM? The "gods" of the EU/NA scene got farking trashed by the Koreans. Moon in particular showed some ridiculously good tactics while destroying some of best players in the non-Korean world, all while playing the "up" race. There is still quite a ways to go before this game is anything close to settled.
I do, however, believe there is a lack of "critical" units and abilities that allow for things like amazing comebacks and ridiculous micro. Imo, purely more difficult mechanics is not the answer. While it would drop a few players out of the picture, most of the game would continue on as usual. For crying aloud, some people like TLO don't even use unit hotkeys most of the time and click around on the minimap to do most of their work. Merely removing automining and MBS isn't going to suddenly make TLO far behind everyone else in skill, nor will it suddenly make some players amazing. The problem is with dull units, especially the high tier ones. Thor, Collossi, Ultras.....? Really? There is nothing to do with these units other than a+move. And when facing them, unless you have a unit that just directly counters them(viking vs Colossi), there is not way to kill them unless you just have a far superior army. Killing 6 colossi with 20 marines will NEVER happen unless the colossi are just on move command. You have 10 roaches and he has 6 marauders with conc? Too farking bad, there is literally NOTHING you can do about it. No micro, no cute tactic, nothing. You are boned. Just gg right there. You should never be out of the game if you have perfect macro. In SC2, there are just far too many, "fark, I'm dead" situations. No lair and cloak banshees coming in? You are done, there is no possible way you can win. The zerg could be Nestea and the T my 10 year old sister, and my sister would win easily.
THAT is the problem with the game.
|
On March 16 2011 20:04 mr_tolkien wrote:
To really create a regular fan/viewer base, you need stars, you need guys above the whole cast, guys who have a 90% win ratio and meet in finals, and whose losses are really huge upsets has it happens so rarely.
...
What are you thoughts about this ? Do you feel like this too, do you think I'm really over analyzing things, or do you think I'm wrong when I feel like the game is "volatile" ?
I don't think you are over analyzing this. In fact I don't think any analysis has been done on your part. What sources do you have to back your claim that in order to create a fan viewer base you need guys who have a 90% win ratio? Where is this rule written? What studies have been done to support this?
When I look at competitive starcraft I think of professional poker. Poker is a game of strategy and luck. The strategy of poker is more well defined with the help of probability, but there certainly is a lot of luck. Poker has superstars, but no one who wins 90% of the time. These stars are people like Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth, Daniel Negreanu, Dan Harrington , Chris "Jesus" Ferguson, etc. But these guys don't win all the time, yet they are arguably some of the top players.
I am not saying Poker is the most popular sport (game... whatever), but it is certainly way ahead of Starcraft in terms of popularity.
The point is Starcraft is also a game of strategy and luck. As such you will have top players (like poker) but not players who win all the time. Furthermore I don't see the structure or win loss % of the top players as being a hindrance on the progression of growing a fan base or a viewer base.
|
On March 17 2011 03:49 Jayrod wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote:
yes it is too volatile and its not going to change
blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it
sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games. Have you ever heard of a strategy game called poker? Professional poker in America at least is bigger than SC2 will ever be here and it does not "fucking suck" as proven by the absurd prize pools and the fact that I can turn on ESPN right now and watch a bunch of fat slobs playing mind games with one another. There are so many online gamers and pro level online gamers that play online poker at reasonably high levels that would probably agree that poker is indeed a game of skill, entertaining to watch, and as much a sport as you could consider starcraft.
being forced to play percentages and educated guesses is fine when tournaments, or income through online play, consists of hundreds or thousands of hands. things average out, people who make correct decisions win in the long run.
when losing a bo3 eliminates you from a tournament its not so good.
|
We're already looking at seperate ladders for the expantions. Seems like they could eliminate MBS, automining etc...as an option within SC that then places you in seperate competitive ladder. I doubt they would ever do it...but I think blizzard needs to differentiate somewhat between an E-Sport version of the game and casual version. The look and feel is the same to watch so I don't think it would turn off casual fans of the game. Ultimately Blizz needs to recognize that the skill level difference is so high between pro, and casual gamers that one simply cannot balance for all. If they choose e-sports it's goodbye casuals...if they choose casuals it's goodbye e-sports. I really hope they create/allow a toggle mode between competitve and casual.
|
On March 17 2011 03:40 skipdog172 wrote:Show nested quote +On March 17 2011 00:00 IdrA wrote:
yes it is too volatile and its not going to change
blizzards gone halfway between sc1 and chess and done a shitty job of it
sc1 had limited scouting and information but you could still hold a high winrate because the game was so difficult in terms of execution that it was possible to outplay your opponent in a million different ways. mbs, smartcasting, improved unit ai has changed that. we havent hit the skill ceiling yet, but it's low enough that theres not nearly as much differentiation between players already and thats only going to get worse as everyone improves.
people will say now its more of a pure strategy game, and that would be ok. except we still have limited information. a strategy game where its really hard to know what your opponent is doing, especially in the early game where everything is most fragile, fucking sucks. it guarantees theres always going to be a big guessing/luck factor in games. Idra, I think your problem is that you are remembering how hard you could crush all of the other white guys in BW. But... you still got crushed by the Koreans. You talk as if in BW, you were beating players because of your superior mechanics and you can't do it so easily in SC2. You mention mbs, smartcasting and improved unit AI make it more difficult for you to consistantly beat players that you are already better in, in terms of overall skill. You were good enough to make it on a team in Korea and that is about it. So can you admit that you lost to the Koreans and never succeeded 'big' as a BW player strictly because their mechanics were strictly better than yours? You seem to clearly be implying that it is the issue in SC2... that there isn't a big enough skill gap between your mechanics and the mechanics of other white guys. So what was your winrate in BW compared to SC2? The fact is, you've had some pretty decent results in SC2. How can you really say that things are so random? You've made it pretty far in GSL and have shown that you are Code S worthy. You must at least agree that your biggest strength is your mechanics and not your game sense(we know how you tend to lose games...not saying your game sense isn't SUPER strong, but just look back at how you've lost matches in GSL seasons). Yet your mechanics are allowing you to do pretty darn well. Maybe you just need to accept that while you are among the best zergs in the world, but you just aren't the best... just like in BW. I don't see your results having anything to do with SC2 being more 'random' and 'volatile'... I just see your results correctly lining up to your skill level. Just look at BW winrates... they aren't very different than in SC2, and that is a game with years of strategies and so many tiny things being figured out. Of course there will be a bit more randomness in SC2 when the metagame still hasn't settled down and there has been such little time for things like timings and strategies to get developed to the point where nobody is truly surprised by anything.
thats an excellent point because this thread is about me and my results
|
I'll have to repaeat the sentiments that have already been expressed:
1. Time. It takes time for the game to be figured out, especially on these new maps it's almost a different game. Plus, it will take time for the best players to become consistent enough not to make mistakes and to find out who those best players are. 7 months is not enough time to master a game. Even with SC2 being "easy" compared to BW, there's still a ton of things all players could improve on.
2.bo3 format is and will continue to be volatile. Imagine if in tennis they did a bo3 format for each game, instaed of sets. It would be lot more volatile. Too often we look at one tournament and say that shows who the best players are, when it's not necessarily true.
This is why I like what NASL is doing, with a sort of regular season format and then a tournament. I wish GSL would do the same.
Concerning mechanics: why should mechanics be made as harder? First off, it's not going to happen. Second, let BW be the more mechanically difficult game. SC2 is and should remain a different game. Those who miss mechanics should go back to BW.
|
On March 17 2011 03:59 Smancer wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2011 20:04 mr_tolkien wrote:
To really create a regular fan/viewer base, you need stars, you need guys above the whole cast, guys who have a 90% win ratio and meet in finals, and whose losses are really huge upsets has it happens so rarely.
...
What are you thoughts about this ? Do you feel like this too, do you think I'm really over analyzing things, or do you think I'm wrong when I feel like the game is "volatile" ? I don't think you are over analyzing this. In fact I don't think any analysis has been done on your part. What sources do you have to back your claim that in order to create a fan viewer base you need guys who have a 90% win ratio? Where is this rule written? What studies have been done to support this? When I look at competitive starcraft I think of professional poker. Poker is a game of strategy and luck. The strategy of poker is more well defined with the help of probability, but there certainly is a lot of luck. Poker has superstars, but no one who wins 90% of the time. These stars are people like Phil Ivey, Phil Hellmuth, Daniel Negreanu, Dan Harrington , Chris "Jesus" Ferguson, etc. But these guys don't win all the time, yet they are arguably some of the top players. I am not saying Poker is the most popular sport (game... whatever), but it is certainly way ahead of Starcraft in terms of popularity. The point is Starcraft is also a game of strategy and luck. As such you will have top players (like poker) but not players who win all the time. Furthermore I don't see the structure or win loss % of the top players as being a hindrance on the progression of growing a fan base or a viewer base.
Not relevant, but those players are wellknown however definitely not better than the average grinder.
|
On March 17 2011 03:09 ilmman wrote:
the master of rock scissor papar
I think you agree with me, with phrases like that.
Concerning Poker, I agree 100% it's volatile, but it evens out on the long run, it's not the same mentality. And it's popular not for pure entertainment value, but because any noob can grasp the rules and think he rocks online or with his friends by «bluffing» non stop, when he doesn't even understand the quarter of the things he does.
If you want to play «pure mind games», Poker is a good game. But it has nothing to do with SC2 in its mechanics. Because in a RTS, you're not playing with probabilities. You're working with info you gather by yourself, and while thinking you have to allocate attention to other things.
I don't have any clue on how to make the game less volatile personnaly. I think better maps and better scouting, maybe with a bit more sight range for the units, could help a lot. Then, creating mechanical boundaries to be able to win a 10 roaches VS 15 roaches fight if you are 2 times as skilled as your opponent. With the current AI, 20 APM are enough to manage a fight near perfection...
|
@ Idra
We're already looking at seperate ladders for the expantions. Seems like they could eliminate MBS, automining etc...as an option within SC that then places you in seperate competitive ladder. I doubt they would ever do it...but I think blizzard needs to differentiate somewhat between an E-Sport version of the game and casual version. The look and feel is the same to watch so I don't think it would turn off casual fans of the game. Ultimately Blizz needs to recognize that the skill level difference is so high between pro, and casual gamers that one simply cannot balance for all. If they choose e-sports it's goodbye casuals...if they choose casuals it's goodbye e-sports. I really hope they create/allow a toggle mode between competitve and casual.
Is this pie in the sky dreaming or do you feel there is any legitmate chance something like this could exist. Is it even relevant? I agree with many of your assertions having played 12 years of broodwar as well. Do you have any suggestions that could get past the "damned if you do, damned if you don't" Blizzard is in when it comes to their game?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
