After seeing today's GSL results and the overall trend, I really feel like players have troubles being really consistent in SC2, and that hurts the game to my eyes. SC2 has no randomness whatsoever, but it still FEELS random sometimes. The lack of information makes it based partly on bluff and luck, and sometimes don't you feel like a player just won out of luck ? Should that happen regularly in a potential spectator sport ?
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. Seriously, seeing MVP and Boxer in Code A, Nestea, MKP, and FD in up and down matches, and Squirtle in Code B, I can't help but feeling players have trouble being at the place they ought to be. This really makes me lose interest in the Starcraft 2 scene, each match almost seems like a coinflip to me now.
This is something I almost never experienced when I was interested in other competitive circuit, be it soccer (in France), basketball (in the US), or even the VS fighting scene (worldwide). Upset DO happen, which makes it interesting from an entertainment PoV, but as they are rare, they really have a great effect on the excitement and hype you can feel when watching a league/tourney. To end this OP on a more positive note, I really like the shape of the upcoming GSL finals. MC and July both are awesome, know how to be solid, and offer good games. But never forget MC VS Rain.
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" ?
MVP is weak vs P, FD has always been insanely risky, BoxeR sadly isn't that good at star2, and so on. I think that at such an early stage in the game we're still figuring out who the real bonjwas will be and what the best builds will be. Once the game is more figured out we'll see things stablize imo, but i'm not convinced that its "too volatile" as of yet.
I wasn't suprised by today's results at all. MVP needs to work on tvp on these new maps. I think the new maps are reall going to drastically change which players are dominating. I can see zenio doing really really well next season.
the reason you think this is because there is only single elimination tournaments. if you lose 1 bo3 your out for the complet month, you basically vanish from the scene (in korea at least, and i think you are referring to the korean scene).
imagine if you would have a team-league, that goes a whole season, like the bw proleague.
many more player would be able to show their potential, and i would imagine, the current top-players like mvp, mc, nestea etc. would stand WAY more out than other good players that get to ro 16/ ro8 in the GSL.
thats why i want a pro-league like teamleague for sc2, adds so much more rivalries.
KT VS SKT today is just an example, there were 12 pages of hype for a team clash, and there are at maximum only 7 games going to be played. Imagine what, stats, an average a-class gamer all-killed. osl champion fantasy and pro-league bonjwa bisu included
Seeing Boxer in Code A doesn't surprise me at all and if you read the interviews with people in TSL they are all saying they don't expect Boxer to hit RO16. A lot of his hype comes from his BW days and he just doesn't have the mechanics down to compete with the SC2 pros.
As for MVP, he did some really bad desicions like engaging toss at aweful positions and losing everything. Not sure what's going on and I can only guess that he didn't practice or practiced the wrong thing
Well Boxer being in Code A isn't that suprising, he hasn't been above the best in skill level since beta, even though he is still quite good, a lot of good players are in Code A too, although MVP in Code A is definitely an upset.
As for the others in group stage, at least they aren't in Code A yet, keeping a Code S spot means you have to be on top of your game all the time, the best player in the world may not win every GSL, but the best should still remain in Code S, as long as they stay there, I don't think there is any upset, at least not one you should stop following the sc2 scene over.
yeah i don't know, either the game is in an amazing/perfect state where the skill cap is so high and the competition is so close that they're all rising at similar enough rates that nobody can dominate, or something else is a factor (luck, imbalance).
a little bit of both? hopefully moreso of the former.
New maps is like changing balance. It takes a while for players to adjust and "figure" the game out.
The timings will be a bit off because of the new size of maps so the players need to adjust accordingly.
I don't expect SC2 to be stable until there is some kind of "final" map pool and all three expansions are out.
I think it's actually fun to see this "randomness". You see the game grow and change over the course of time which is really fun. I didn't get to experience it with BW unfortunately.
Boxer has not done anything amazing in SC2. He had a good run in S2, where every match (Except one) that he played was TvT - his strongest matchup, and one that suits his playstyle best.
FruitDealer has not been performing since Season 1 at all. He also made it out of Code A, as did MKP, and Nestea.
The gap between the best players and the mediocre players is small, hence why it is volatile in my opinion. It does hurt he player fanbases right now, but there is hardly anything you can do about that outside of the game itself.
I think its a large mixture of the way sc2 is still fairly young, new maps and the way the gsl tournament is laid out where you dont get too play a huge amount.
On March 16 2011 20:12 schmutttt wrote: I guess you could argue it is a little right now, but I think that is because people are nowhere near mastering the game yet IMO.
Give it at least another year before statements like this.
It has already been a year since beta. The meta game will evolve, but I don't see anything really evolving besides maps atm.
As for «MVP played poorly» : I agree. But does that mean you were thinking BEFORE the match he would play poorly ? He needs to work on his vP, but he is overall normally a very good gamer. I think nobody expected him to go 1-4 like that.
I'm really wondering how it will pan out in the long run. But atm, in season FIVE, I'm just not interested in watching the full league anymore...
1. the removal of small maps where terrans absolutely dominated 2. terrans are so used to going MMM and that has won them so many games, that they can't addapt
I'm not saying that there is imbalance or anything, but terrans need to do something different.
On March 16 2011 20:15 Elefanto wrote: BW Spoiler of KT vs SKT + Show Spoiler +
KT VS SKT today is just an example, there were 12 pages of hype for a team clash, and there are at maximum only 7 games going to be played. Imagine what, stats, an average a-class gamer all-killed. osl champion fantasy and pro-league bonjwa bisu
1) Stats is not "an average a-class gamer". 2) Bisu's PvP has been shaky lately, so is Fantasy's if you don't count series in individual leagues where he has always special strategies prepared. 3) It was BO1
Whereas there's no discussion that variance in SC2 is much bigger than in BW because the game is simply easier, I don't think it's as tragic as some people make it seems after the MVP loss. Someone posted his sc2ranks graph in the "LR" thread and he seems to be going FruitDealer's way..
As for me the game itself has nothing to do with that. Imagine BW had only MSL/OSL without PL, last individual leagues had quite similar problem as GSL now, some of players who were considered the best dropped quite fast, yet we were able to watch them still in PL. In SC2 we are missing real seasons, GSTL is again only a tournament, where instead of players dropping out we have teams. It's still quite similar concept to GSL. As long as there is only an individual league it will be like that, I think.
IMO the game is very young. We have no idea who the best are. Give it a few years and youll see the best rise and the second best fall. Right now everyone is still figuring everything out. Even the pro's.
SC2 does have alot of random factors in it. Thats why pretty much everyone has a w/l ratio close to 50%. Its really hard to be consistent and to distinguish yourself from the rest of the pros.
I have heard this argument about stability many times. Honestly it just comes across as a snipe at SC2 as an e-sport. The problem though, is that the argument is complete bullshit and relies on 'facts' such as Mvp or Fruitdealer or whoever being the best players (and then playing their best at every round) rather than just being good at certain stages of the meta-game. We can't actually determine whether that is factually correct until someone actually dominates for a long enough period of time to be called a bonjwa (one season is not enough, lol!). If mvp or FD were actually bonjwa/invincible status then they would've shown consistent results (mvp pre-GSL4 was all hype but no real results), rather than the other way around...
Don't look go into a GSL assuming that your guy is just going to crush face and if he doesn't it's cause the game is broken or 'not stable'. Sometimes there is far more logical explanations, 1) he isn't as good as you think at a particular matchup or overall, 2) he played poorly on the day, 3) he got unlucky.
They just changed the majority of maps from being one base rush maps to macro maps.
Terran are still the most represented race but there was going to be a big glut of terrans go down once that happened. On top of this they're still patching the game.
I really think that this volatiliy is caused by the fact that the players themselves still make way too many mistakes. When we think about BW, those that remain on the top are so ridiculously good, they don't make these mistakes. Even then it just so happens that players like Flash get eliminated early on.
SC2 is "still" a far too young of a game to expect such a great consistency. Because it's not about being able to play well...it's about being able to play well ALL THE TIME. Not having a "bad day" and playing 2 levels below the normal standard. Today it was only, 100% MVP not playing on his normal skill level, this isn't the fault of sc2. He wasn't cheesed, nobody played anything that was "too" out of the ordinary.
Whats the point? Mvp played bad how many matches in a row now?
What everyone seems to forget that Mvp had same issues as MC(before he become bada**) with not delivering to the hype. But he did an amazing run at GSL4.
Maybe his confidence issues he had before are back and obviously affecting his games.
So my point is, lots of upsets is due to players mindset and how they handle the pressure. As soon as Mvp gets over his results and focuses on his play, he will again start executing everything perfectly.
I don't think anyone currently playing SC2 is perfectly balanced at being good in all matchups. It seems that MVP has yet to figure out how to deal with Protoss on these new maps, especially in the late game where Protoss advantages get multiplied.
Everyone has a weak matchup. MC used to be criticized for having a slightly weak PvZ after he dropped a single game to JulyZerg. Fruitdealer just plain sucks in ZvP, so he cheeses all the time in that matchup. Jinro said that he still doesn't know how to deal with Phoenix play in TvP. Boxer's strengths used to lie in TvT, yet his TvZ is terrible. And so on.
Plus, this is just one tournament out of many. Idra getting knocked out early in MLG Dallas doesn't mean he is a bad player, especially since he has other tournament results backing him up. GSL is one tournament, and to use it as the final say in the state of the game is a bit shortsighted.
Also, I agree with this person's statement:
On March 16 2011 20:50 Galek wrote: As for me the game itself has nothing to do with that. Imagine BW had only MSL/OSL without PL, last individual leagues had quite similar problem as GSL now, some of players who were considered the best dropped quite fast, yet we were able to watch them still in PL. In SC2 we are missing real seasons, GSTL is again only a tournament, where instead of players dropping out we have teams. It's still quite similar concept to GSL. As long as there is only an individual league it will be like that, I think.
GSL is ONE league. Just because he did terribly in this league doesn't mean that MVP is going to go in a slump. According to his TLPD, he has done remarkably well in other lesser-known tournaments, and I think his GSL loss is a combination of lack of luck and the fact that he has yet to figure out TvP effectively.
Also, Flash got knocked out of the last MSL by Classic and Ssak, but that doesn't mean he is any less of a player, especially since he is absolutely dominating in Proleague. Likewise, we'll need to see more games and series from MVP before we can truly judge him, and I think GSTL and TSL3 will provide us that opportunity.
It's not just SC2 that's volatile, but also the GSL format. Nevertheless, it's only one tournament, and I expect MVP to easily climb his way back up to Code S. However, Code A isn't all that bad anymore, and the divide between Code A and Code S is quickly diminishing to a point where we can't even distinguish between the two types of players. It took years for Flash and Jaedong to become household names, so I think we all are just a bit impatient.
By the way, saying [spoilers] actually makes it MORE likely that people (ie, me) who weren't watching tonight will have the games spoiled. When a thread like this opens up after MVP plays, especially one that is clearly related to tonight's games, it's pretty obvious what happened.
Nestea, FD and MKP cruised through their up/down matches. SlayersBoxer's demotion was probably expected as he hasn't really done much in SC2.
Only MVP is the real shock. To be fair to the guy he did have a tough group, Alicia is a really good player and MVP didn't play too bad against him. He was terrible against genius though.
And you can see it from MVPs play, missed scans etc. show that he is very stressed out and not confident at all.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Besides, I prefer to watch a sport where there's no one player / team that just can't be stopped. Makes it interesting.
On March 16 2011 21:18 Ezekyle wrote: By the way, saying [spoilers] actually makes it MORE likely that people (ie, me) who weren't watching tonight will have the games spoiled. When a thread like this opens up after MVP plays, especially one that is clearly related to tonight's games, it's pretty obvious what happened.
Seriously? If you get spoiled so easily, maybe you should just not visit TL before watching the games in the same way you wouldn't visit a sports news forum/website if you had delayed watching a game of soccer of something.
You're looking at players that got into the top 2-3 months after the game release and ask why their game is not stable. Well obviously the game was too young at that stage, and there was a lot of possibilites to exploit unknown styles. 6 months later players figured out how to respond to FD's aggresion and MKP's mass marines
You look for specific players that had their moment to shine and slumped since then. Now try to look the other way: are there any players with stable good results? There definitely are!
And you can see it from MVPs play, missed scans etc. show that he is very stressed out and not confident at all.
This could be the smoking gun that seals the deal about MVP's performance, or lack thereof, in the GSL.
Perhaps he is going the way of sAviOr, dominating for a period of time only to experience a shocking loss, then experiencing a sharp slump afterwards.
As I said before, the heroes and celebrities that we idolize right now aren't necessarily the same players that will be consistently winning GSLs later this year or during future years. Even SlayerS_BoxeR had to make way for future stars like iloveoov, NaDa, and Flash after years of dominating the early pro scene. We all are just too impatient right now, expecting to see the SC2 scene develop like the BW scene on steroids and speed, when in fact it's not going to develop as fast enough to satisfy our impatient expectations.
Still lots of mistakes being made and MVP made A LOT today. Looking at Koreans ladder where he used to be #1 for weeks and is now is #88 seems he has been slumping awhile which probably explains even having to play up/downs in the first place. http://www.sc2ranks.com/ranks/kr
Really a lot of it is because there are starting to be more and more players at that high skill level. At that point all you need is a couple off days as a player and you're suddenly back in code A. I guarantee we're going to see more of this in the coming seasons.
That's certainly not a bad thing though. In my opinion it only makes the whole event more exciting!
I absolutely love the volatility of SC2 right now. Someday, SC2 will be figured out and there will be bonjwas. People will whine about how it's boring seeing the same person winning over and over again. Enjoy these years of chaos while we still can.
I remember watching GSL and hearing "ohh hes going for two barracks....he better pull his drones and defend perfectly".....Games changing, level of players skyrocketing. Just imagining how composed/sharp players that play in GSL(both code A & S) have to be, gives me an adrenalin rush :DDDDD
To answer this thread's question: Yes, SC2 is too volatile. But did anyone really expect anything else?
People tend to compare SC2, which has been out for less than a year, to games like SC:BW which had several years and expansion to grow to its maturity. This comparison is just not fair.
How can we expect stability in tournaments and player results when the game itself has an unstable surrounding? There are balance changes, leagues experimented with maps and there are still so many strategies that people come up with because so many things have yet to be discovered.
Also keep in my mind that the longer a game is out, the more people who were playing it from the beginning, will have an advantage over newcomers. Right now lots of talents have the chance to participate and beat succesful players' experience with talent.
Yes and No, i think there are some "good" pro gamer like MC who have shown good results at all. I think the real problem is, that you dont need to train that hard to reach a pro gamer skill. So nearly everybody who had played sc1 quiet good before has a chance to win GSL. Never the less it seems to me like the tactic is a bit more important then the skill , so when you practice your 2 timing-attacks for example , you can win big prices because nobody know how do counter it. But i can imagine that this wont exist forever. During Beta everybody played 1-Base style and this had been changed as well.
In MVP's case, the randomness comes from the tournament structure (and his propensity to choke), not the game itself - he happened to play July twice in the group stage and two very good protosses (his weakest matchup) in the up/downs.
A lot of people are not understanding the point of this thread.
It's not specifically related to MVP, it's a feeling I got since season 2 and FDs fall. Then Nestea vs Rain. Then MC vs Jinro (a HUGE upset). Saying it's linked to the youth of the game is also false. One year after the professionalisation of BW, they WERE players standing out clearly. It's not the case here, there are "top players" all clumped up together.
There is no bonjwa and none have the remote shape of one. MVP never looked like one to me. Neither did Mc or FD. The only one I really saw really standing out at a point was Nestea, but nothing happened. This guys are PAID for doing this. There HAS to be a player more gifted than the others. But clearly SC2 isn't made to allow him to stand out from the crowd.
On March 16 2011 20:54 andrewwiggin wrote: Players are volatile. THAT'S easier to argue than what you're saying. And truer too.
I think a lot of people who spend a lot of time watching these games tend to think of the players as robots who are wired to react optimally to every unforseen tech, every avenue of harassment, etc. The truth is that each player's performance varies - and just like a batter trying to get a hit off of a pitcher in baseball, sometimes they get a hit, sometimes they don't. The biggest difference is that if they have bad judgement, or if their execution is just a little off it's harder to tell in SC2 because so much is happening, and because the game is far more abstract. You can't really blame SC2 for that.
I think most of the inconsistency results from those numerous changes in maps and balance. Those fast changes arent bad for the game, I feel like most changes are needed. It takes some time.
It's the GSL bracket setup that is volatile, not SC2. Probably to make it seem more exciting. Also there is some randomness in SC2, the most obvious being spawn positions, and it does have a big effect on who will win.
On March 16 2011 22:38 mr_tolkien wrote: A lot of people are not understanding the point of this thread.
It's not specifically related to MVP, it's a feeling I got since season 2 and FDs fall. Then Nestea vs Rain. Then MC vs Jinro (a HUGE upset). Saying it's linked to the youth of the game is also false. One year after the professionalisation of BW, they WERE players standing out clearly. It's not the case here, there are "top players" all clumped up together.
There is no bonjwa and none have the remote shape of one. MVP never looked like one to me. Neither did Mc or FD. The only one I really saw really standing out at a point was Nestea, but nothing happened. This guys are PAID for doing this. There HAS to be a player more gifted than the others. But clearly SC2 isn't made to allow him to stand out from the crowd.
So.. if MC wins a second GSL in 3 seasons, will he stand out from the crowd? How much does a player have to do to stand out?
Yes, I beleive that Starcraft 2 is so fragile. Take a look at the Huk game where I think he played against ChoyaFou... Choya outclassed huk in everyway in a match and huk DTS simply got Huk to cripple choyas base and army....
On March 16 2011 20:15 Elefanto wrote: the reason you think this is because there is only single elimination tournaments. if you lose 1 bo3 your out for the complet month, you basically vanish from the scene (in korea at least, and i think you are referring to the korean scene).
imagine if you would have a team-league, that goes a whole season, like the bw proleague.
many more player would be able to show their potential, and i would imagine, the current top-players like mvp, mc, nestea etc. would stand WAY more out than other good players that get to ro 16/ ro8 in the GSL.
thats why i want a pro-league like teamleague for sc2, adds so much more rivalries.
KT VS SKT today is just an example, there were 12 pages of hype for a team clash, and there are at maximum only 7 games going to be played. Imagine what, stats, an average a-class gamer all-killed. osl champion fantasy and pro-league bonjwa bisu included
Stats is definitely not an "average a-class gamer", he's by far the best protoss right now who isn't called Bisu or Stork. Bisu's vP has been pretty bad lately, nothing close to bonjwa, and Fantasy is pretty infamous for his inconsistent play.
@OP
I think the game is too volatile. I remember ret talking about this in one of his interviews and idra touched on it too. A big reason is that the game is faster paced, and the macro mechanics add to that and let u get a large number of units quicker than you normally would. This makes all-ins stronger and makes the game quicker, making it easier for players to lose due to very small mistakes or unlucky scouting.
Another reason is of course the easier mechanics of the game, which I feel makes there be less of a difference between top players since almost any1 in the top 50 can macro nearly perfectly (esp. with toss ). We see upsets in BW too but definitely not as much
This has been written about extensively on TL.net that there are less factors in SC2 than BW that cause skill differential between opponents. Combine less of a skill gap with completely different maps than previously and you will get severe volatility.
On March 16 2011 20:15 Elefanto wrote: the reason you think this is because there is only single elimination tournaments. if you lose 1 bo3 your out for the complet month, you basically vanish from the scene (in korea at least, and i think you are referring to the korean scene).
imagine if you would have a team-league, that goes a whole season, like the bw proleague.
many more player would be able to show their potential, and i would imagine, the current top-players like mvp, mc, nestea etc. would stand WAY more out than other good players that get to ro 16/ ro8 in the GSL.
thats why i want a pro-league like teamleague for sc2, adds so much more rivalries.
KT VS SKT today is just an example, there were 12 pages of hype for a team clash, and there are at maximum only 7 games going to be played. Imagine what, stats, an average a-class gamer all-killed. osl champion fantasy and pro-league bonjwa bisu included
Stats is definitely not an "average a-class gamer", he's by far the best protoss right now who isn't called Bisu or Stork. Bisu's vP has been pretty bad lately, nothing close to bonjwa, and Fantasy is pretty infamous for his inconsistent play.
@OP
I think the game is too volatile. I remember ret talking about this in one of his interviews and idra touched on it too. A big reason is that the game is faster paced, and the macro mechanics add to that and let u get a large number of units quicker than you normally would. This makes all-ins stronger and makes the game quicker, making it easier for players to lose due to very small mistakes or unlucky scouting.
Another reason is of course the easier mechanics of the game, which I feel makes there be less of a difference between top players since almost any1 in the top 50 can macro nearly perfectly (esp. with toss ). We see upsets in BW too but definitely not as much
Perhaps volatility did play a role in MVP's demise, though from what I've heard in the LR thread (since I didn't watch the games), MVP just flat out didn't play well in his up and down matches. I need to watch the games for further confirmation, but I think many of the recent upsets are not due to volatility but instead due to players just not playing their best during the most volatile round of GSL. Volatility doesn't play a role in all upsets, so a close examination of the particular matches is required before discounting the upsets as proof of SC2 being too volatile.
On March 16 2011 20:19 Kipsate wrote: The gap between the best players and the mediocre players is small, hence why it is volatile in my opinion. It does hurt he player fanbases right now, but there is hardly anything you can do about that outside of the game itself.
Lol, that is a crazy way to use the word mediocre. I agree that we don't see a very big gap between the very best players and the second best players consistently yet, but come on.
I think a lot of the extra variance seen at the moment is due to a heavy influx of new maps compared to the the last period April to january.
On March 16 2011 22:38 mr_tolkien wrote: A lot of people are not understanding the point of this thread.
It's not specifically related to MVP, it's a feeling I got since season 2 and FDs fall. Then Nestea vs Rain. Then MC vs Jinro (a HUGE upset). Saying it's linked to the youth of the game is also false. One year after the professionalisation of BW, they WERE players standing out clearly. It's not the case here, there are "top players" all clumped up together.
There is no bonjwa and none have the remote shape of one. MVP never looked like one to me. Neither did Mc or FD. The only one I really saw really standing out at a point was Nestea, but nothing happened. This guys are PAID for doing this. There HAS to be a player more gifted than the others. But clearly SC2 isn't made to allow him to stand out from the crowd.
So.. if MC wins a second GSL in 3 seasons, will he stand out from the crowd? How much does a player have to do to stand out?
It's not linked to the results. It's linked to the level of play. Nobody seems to be just solid. Players fly across the leagues.
But consistent level should lead to consistent results, so in the end I think I wouldn't be saying that if a player did 3 or 4 back to back Ro4. But it just doesn't happen.
On March 16 2011 23:20 mr_tolkien wrote: It's not linked to the results. It's linked to the level of play. Nobody seems to be just solid. Players fly across the leagues.
But consistent level should lead to consistent results, so in the end I think I wouldn't be saying that if a player did 3 or 4 back to back Ro4. But it just doesn't happen.
And maybe it's just that. The players are not solid and do not have a consistent level of play. Hell, even look at FD's interview for TSL. He even says that it's his fault that he hasn't been doing well and that he needs to work harder. I think MVP is pretty obviously in a slump right now. He'll rebound; or maybe he won't. Competition can be like that. People like Flash are not a dime a dozen; that's what makes them special. You say 'bonjwa' like it's free.
I do feel that a good part of it comes down to how "figured out" the game is, and how comfortable players are with the mechanics of their race. For example, prior to MC's win in GSL3, Protosses have been whining about their perceived sub-par performance, and claiming that changes were needed. At the time, in one of the SotG episodes, Tyler remarked that Protoss has all the tools needed to win, and does very well when played near perfectly, but loses really easily to small mistakes. And you did see players losing because they misplaced 1 Forcefield, or didn't split their army perfectly when facing multi-pronged attacks, or didn't scout at the right timing and had their forge FE die to roaches.
Now, try to think, how many Protosses have you seen lose like this during the current GSL season? Not too many, right? That's because they got better - they became more comfortable with what their race required to be played well. Look at Marine micro vs Banelings, it's practically the standard in TvZ after the initial success of MKP. And you see Zergs experimenting with banelings in ZvP, both as drops as well as a straight up army unit - but it will take time before they actually become good at using them, and probably even more time before Protosses figure out how to deal with a new style.
All that being said, one thing SC2 seems to lack is the ability to come back from an unfavorable position. In a huge majority of games, one player gets a significant advantage at one point, and then comfortably rides it to a win. To reference today's MVP games, it's not too bad that MVP's failed attack put him way behind Genius in their first game. What I do feel is bad, is that there aren't many ways to turn a game like that around, either through skillful unit control, or some good strategic decision. Why that is, I don't really know.
Agreed with the post saying the players are too volatile right now. MVP et FD won trophies but they still do not have what it takes to stay on top.
Players like Nada or July are, in the other hand, very consistent since the beiginning of their SC2 career. They are not bonjwas, but we can't argue that they are showing consistencies in their results.
MVP really didn't play well today. I don't think we can blame the game for that. Maybe the real problem is overhype whenever a player has a good run ('OMG he's a legend, it's impossible for him to lose!' etc.). This game is far too unexplored to be dominated by anyone yet and there's nothing wrong with that.
edit- Also look at the BW OSL system vs GSL. In OSL the champion is seeded into the last 16 automatically and doesn't have to play and up/down matches. Plus there is more of a break between seasons which gives him more time to recoup and analyse the styles of those coming up to challenge him.
And even with this BW can be just as volatile sometimes. Last season we had an MSL between Hydra and Great with Flash going out in the early rounds of both leagues despite being the best player. Nobody could have predicted that.
On March 16 2011 22:58 ilmman wrote: Yes, I beleive that Starcraft 2 is so fragile. Take a look at the Huk game where I think he played against ChoyaFou... Choya outclassed huk in everyway in a match and huk DTS simply got Huk to cripple choyas base and army....
That's not fragility. It's Choya not taking into account something that ends the game if not taken into account, which is also something you should take into account when you're miles ahead.
Hmm, after viewing some statistics I must add something. The likes of IMMVP, MC have an impressive winrate. 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.
On the other hand, Starcraft 2 is more unforgiving then BW in some terms, a single engagement can turn out to be GG for you, setting you back so far that you get basically lose already, but thats a discussion for elsewhere.
On March 16 2011 22:58 ilmman wrote: Yes, I beleive that Starcraft 2 is so fragile. Take a look at the Huk game where I think he played against ChoyaFou... Choya outclassed huk in everyway in a match and huk DTS simply got Huk to cripple choyas base and army....
That's not fragility. It's Choya not taking into account something that ends the game if not taken into account, which is also something you should take into account when you're miles ahead.
I've seen BW games where exactly the same thing has happened with DTs killing about 30 drones or probes.
a little off topic however alot of people support the popular foreigners expecting them to do well whoever they face,Huk jinro and idra might be the most popular players in the foreigner world but by no means are they the best.
BW is just as volatile, just got figuredout over a decade of playing 18 hours a day every day. =)
Noone has really figured everything out yet. Especially Terrans who only had to be familiar with early-mid game until recently. Now the onus is on Terrans to understand their race and matchups and maps a little better and adapt.
Probably one of the main reasons is scouting. Most players are unwilling to sacrifice more than one unit if it means knowing what they need to. Sometimes in BW, Protosses would send multiple overlords or observers to the same area to make ABSOLUTELY sure they know EXACTLY what their opponent is doing. And it pays off for them.
Another reason is that SC2 economies scale much faster than BW. You have less time to figure out what's coming before it's too late. I don't know what the answer to that is, but I suspect it lies in a combination of racial balance and map design, and maybe even the food cap/macro mechanics.
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.
Lol.. look at france now .. you sent from euro and world champion to what you are now. But football is a team sport.
You can compare this to tennis for instance, Federer dominated for many years, then came Nadal and started to win some, then Nadal started dominating, then both of them had a chance and right now it's anybodys game because many guys can win it if given a chance.
SC2 went to heavy patching and that changed the game, the one trick poneys go down with the patches, the top guys can go thru a slump because they have a hard time but eventually they will come back. The game is new we just have to give it time.
And you can see it from MVPs play, missed scans etc. show that he is very stressed out and not confident at all.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Besides, I prefer to watch a sport where there's no one player / team that just can't be stopped. Makes it interesting.
MC is still crushing face. I don't think that BW is much more consistent, and i definitely don't think it was more consistent when the game was so open as it is now. In 3-4 years when there are builds as tight as in BW, we can expect more consistency as the best players abuse a greater overall pool of knowledge. For now, lets not worry about it too much.
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.
4 questions regarding this:
1.) would improved scouting options for any race improve this situation?
2.) if yes, how can scouting be improved?
3.) do you think that there are may be undiscovered cookie-cutter strategies (with little adaptions depending on scouting) that might be good at repelling anything your opponent throws at you?
4.) Talking about zerg: To me it seems that Zerg kinda has lots of "specialist units" which are specific counters to specific unit compositions resulting in the situation that if you as a Z didn't scout the right unit mix of your enemy, you lose (e.g.: you build roaches, when banelings would have been better). Do you think that switching the Hydra with the Roach would help Zerg games to be less volatile since the Hydra would serve as an allround unit like the Stalker or the Marine which Zerg doens't have imho?
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.
Very interesting point.
I hope blizzard spotted that problem (wich i highly doubt). I guess they have to choose a direction : - Will they try to mimic SC1 and increase the mechanic difficulty ? - Or will they start to make SC2 a pure strategical game and rebalance all the game with that principle in mind.... Pretty sure it will be option 3 : - They don't spot the problem or realise that it won't boost sells and do nothing about it.
One thing is sure : we don't play starcraft for the randoms part in it. This is everything we hate : Losing because of a luck factor. SC1 history showed that luck can be diminished with very strong understanding of the game and timings. In SC2, you very often have to make a guess.
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.
4 questions regarding this:
1.) would improved scouting options for any race improve this situation?
2.) if yes, how can scouting be improved?
3.) do you think that there are may be undiscovered cookie-cutter strategies (with little adaptions depending on scouting) that might be good at repelling anything your opponent throws at you?
4.) Talking about zerg: To me it seems that Zerg kinda has lots of "specialist units" which are specific counters to specific unit compositions resulting in the situation that if you as a Z didn't scout the right unit mix of your enemy, you lose (e.g.: you build roaches, when banelings would have been better). Do you think that switching the Hydra with the Roach would help Zerg games to be less volatile since the Hydra would serve as an allround unit like the Stalker or the Marine which Zerg doens't have imho?
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, but that aside 1) yes every race needs better scouting, except perhaps protoss as the new observer and hallucinate are pretty good.
2) make overlord speed 50/50 and hatch tech or make base overlord speed significantly faster and make scan and mules both 25 mana, maybe move the observer to cyber core or make hallucination faster
3) unlikely for zerg since hatch tech zerg is so poor offensively. so if you invest in army but they were doing a safe fast expansion you shouldnt be able to put any meaningful pressure on them. this is exaggerated by zerg's units but it holds true for other races as well. if you do an all purpose defensive build while your opponent is playing economically but safe enough to defend your excess of units you'll end up behind.
4) ya, ive said a number of times before that switching the hydra and the roach and modifying each unit accordingly would probably be a good change.
Due to the balance patches that come out every couple months, and the new maps which favor a different playstyle, top players are required to be very adaptable, unlike other more established games where they rarely needed to adjust their playstyle.
Is it hurting the game? Possibly, but if there are changes that need to happen then they should happen.
In my opinion, even this, the volatility of the game, can in the end be related to poor mapdesign. Because of the lack of efficient early (!!!) scouting abilities, you just won't know if your opponent is gearing up for a one base timing attack early enough to respond perfectly....at least not all the time. Nevertheless this only becomes (or is) a problem because the maps make one base play or even 2 base pushes way, WAY too powerful. I'm not saying that there shouldn't be the possibility of rushes...at all....but given the poor scouting options it should at least be possible to defend one basing unless you are playing super greedy. This may come off as a balance-QQ right now, but I'm just trying to make my point more clear. Let's say I, as protoss, play 2 gate robo expo. This isn't an especially greedy build at all. Still, if I don't prepare properly, a timed marine/raven/banshee push off one base will CRUSH me hard. Rushes and one base timing attacks should only work vs especially greedy openings, they shouldn't be that effective vs "standard" play.
Otherwise all the races (including toss imo, since the observer is cheap but SLOW as hell and easy to take out for skilled terrans) would need way better scouting options; so that they could spot any strategy early enough to have sufficient time to react accordingly.
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.
I agree. Another way to make the guessing factor less important might be to rebalance units. At the moment, most units have a hard counter, which means that no matter how much better your unit control is than your opponents, you lose if you have the wrong units. If units don't counter each other that hard anymore, unit controll becomes more important, which might result in the better player winning more often.
On March 16 2011 22:58 ilmman wrote: Yes, I beleive that Starcraft 2 is so fragile. Take a look at the Huk game where I think he played against ChoyaFou... Choya outclassed huk in everyway in a match and huk DTS simply got Huk to cripple choyas base and army....
That's not fragility. It's Choya not taking into account something that ends the game if not taken into account, which is also something you should take into account when you're miles ahead.
I've seen BW games where exactly the same thing has happened with DTs killing about 30 drones or probes.
Dts vs terran and protoss were really stupid in brood war too lol. Making DTs work vs Zerg tho required crazy multitasking and micro
On March 16 2011 20:15 Elefanto wrote: the reason you think this is because there is only single elimination tournaments. if you lose 1 bo3 your out for the complet month, you basically vanish from the scene (in korea at least, and i think you are referring to the korean scene).
imagine if you would have a team-league, that goes a whole season, like the bw proleague.
many more player would be able to show their potential, and i would imagine, the current top-players like mvp, mc, nestea etc. would stand WAY more out than other good players that get to ro 16/ ro8 in the GSL.
thats why i want a pro-league like teamleague for sc2, adds so much more rivalries.
KT VS SKT today is just an example, there were 12 pages of hype for a team clash, and there are at maximum only 7 games going to be played. Imagine what, stats, an average a-class gamer all-killed. osl champion fantasy and pro-league bonjwa bisu included
Stats is definitely not an "average a-class gamer", he's by far the best protoss right now who isn't called Bisu or Stork. Bisu's vP has been pretty bad lately, nothing close to bonjwa, and Fantasy is pretty infamous for his inconsistent play.
@OP
I think the game is too volatile. I remember ret talking about this in one of his interviews and idra touched on it too. A big reason is that the game is faster paced, and the macro mechanics add to that and let u get a large number of units quicker than you normally would. This makes all-ins stronger and makes the game quicker, making it easier for players to lose due to very small mistakes or unlucky scouting.
Another reason is of course the easier mechanics of the game, which I feel makes there be less of a difference between top players since almost any1 in the top 50 can macro nearly perfectly (esp. with toss ). We see upsets in BW too but definitely not as much
Perhaps volatility did play a role in MVP's demise, though from what I've heard in the LR thread (since I didn't watch the games), MVP just flat out didn't play well in his up and down matches. I need to watch the games for further confirmation, but I think many of the recent upsets are not due to volatility but instead due to players just not playing their best during the most volatile round of GSL. Volatility doesn't play a role in all upsets, so a close examination of the particular matches is required before discounting the upsets as proof of SC2 being too volatile.
Maybe, maybe not, I'm just speaking very generally here. I feel the biggest problem is the easier mechanics. Any mid masters player can execute a rush almost perfectly while keeping their macro consistent, so its easier to beat better players just cause ur strat or build happened to be better and it'll only come down to that. But in brood war everything was so hard to execute that u could overcome big disadvantages just by being way better than the other person. Like say u get any televised terran progamer to do a 2 fact all in vs an A+ toss on iccup. If the toss goes 2 gate range --> observers its pretty much the ideal counter build to a 2 fact but the progamer is gonna win 100% of the time just because of a difference in execution that isnt there in sc2
Allowing for perfect scouting or too much scouting takes the fun out of the game. Chesss has millions of moves but there is "no luck" involved since everything is laid out. Some luck allows the game to feel more human and connect more to average viewers. Many times I think the ability to read players is makes game much more interesting. I mean remember the moment when MVP scouted the hidden expo of MKP or when a pro zerg sends his ovie at the exact right time to spot a incoming 4 gate. This allows players to become amazed at the "star sense". However, I do agree with idra that at this moment there is just way too much luck factor involved. Better scouting for all three races is allow(even tho I think scan+liftable bulding for terran is enough).
I also agree early game is very fragile for all races. 3 rax, raven-based(very annoy for toss to deal witth) all in, scv all in, 4 gate, and ling/roach/bling bust puts all race on edge. Should all these be taken out of the game? Definitely not cause if all games are 30 min macro games then it will become very boring. High micro low econ games are very fun to watch.
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.
well dead or alive 4 (the most guessing game of all the serious fighters) had a pro scene...
for like 18 months.
when I played counterstrike I NEVER felt like I lost to a worse opponent. If I lost, it was because the other person was just better than me. I was never confused why my team lost, I mean sometimes I was confused by some **** people did but that very rarely worked out well for them.
with SC2, especially playing Zerg for the good portion of my time playing this game, this was a common feeling upon reaching late game against Protoss. I felt really hopeless after Leenock's Code S up/down matches.
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 agree that the game is just too new still. Its not volatile is just evolving Remember when Fruitdealer won the first GSL? Everyone thought he was gods gift to Zerg now look at him..
The evolution of the gameplay is going to change a lot on who the top players are and that will continue, i hope anyway, for as long as SC 2 is around its what makes the GSL fun to watch Also dont forget that most of these guys are just as good as each other so 1 tiny mistake can take someone like MVP down to Code A or someone like Rain up to the finals... that is why MC is one of my most fav players because each season he is consistent.
Man I'm glad I watched the games before I saw this thread title, it's pretty obvious that MVP lost when you see it. Got spoilered yesterday about Boxer already, really ruins the fun while watching.
But on the topic, no SC2 is not too volatile. Players might be inconsistent but that's their own fault.
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.
On March 17 2011 01:24 Avila wrote: The evolution of the gameplay is going to change a lot on who the top players are and that will continue, i hope anyway, for as long as SC 2 is around its what makes the GSL fun to watch
Honestly I think Blizzard has shown that if there is anything they are willing to do with crushing quickness, it's stop the game from going beyond the scope of what THEY want.
I wont guarantee that T bio, P having colossus in every matchup and Z dying to the flavor of the month all-in will be the trend forever, but I'd be willing to put some money on it.
On March 16 2011 20:15 Kar98 wrote: Seeing Boxer in Code A doesn't surprise me at all and if you read the interviews with people in TSL they are all saying they don't expect Boxer to hit RO16. A lot of his hype comes from his BW days and he just doesn't have the mechanics down to compete with the SC2 pros.
I've been predicting this from the moment I knew BoxeR was going to participate in the GSL. When I said that SC2 BoxeR is horribly overrated (he never really got far), I was met with fanboyish denial and name-calling.
The guy is good as a marketing tool, but he's no match anymore for the younger talent. I mean, how old is the guy by now? Nearing 30?
On March 16 2011 20:15 Kar98 wrote: Seeing Boxer in Code A doesn't surprise me at all and if you read the interviews with people in TSL they are all saying they don't expect Boxer to hit RO16. A lot of his hype comes from his BW days and he just doesn't have the mechanics down to compete with the SC2 pros.
I've been predicting this from the moment I knew BoxeR was going to participate in the GSL. When I said that SC2 BoxeR is horribly overrated (he never really got far), I was met with fanboyish denial and name-calling.
The guy is good as a marketing tool, but he's no match anymore for the younger talent. I mean, how old is the guy by now? Nearing 30?
He played some solid games against Zenio (and would've probably won if not for some mistakes like losing a bunch of tanks for nothing). I guess MVP is just a flash in the pan as well seeing as he dropped down to code A so quickly?
On March 16 2011 20:15 Kar98 wrote: Seeing Boxer in Code A doesn't surprise me at all and if you read the interviews with people in TSL they are all saying they don't expect Boxer to hit RO16. A lot of his hype comes from his BW days and he just doesn't have the mechanics down to compete with the SC2 pros.
I've been predicting this from the moment I knew BoxeR was going to participate in the GSL. When I said that SC2 BoxeR is horribly overrated (he never really got far), I was met with fanboyish denial and name-calling.
The guy is good as a marketing tool, but he's no match anymore for the younger talent. I mean, how old is the guy by now? Nearing 30?
Posts like this are the reason you got called names. I am no BoxeR fan; I didn't follow the SC1 scene so I have no previous opinions concerning him. His TvT was dull and his TvZ was pretty bad, and I agree with you that he definitely is/was overrated (as far as SC2 is concerned).
The retarded part of your post is about age. What does age have anything to do with anything? The guy is barely 30 years old... Nestea is 28, and nobody is saying that age has anything to do with his performance. This isn't football, your bones don't suddenly dry up and you can't compete with the bigger, faster, younger guys. Afaik he doesn't have carpel tunnel or arthritis or anything, so seriously... If you want to call him a mediocre player, go ahead. He is a mediocre player. But don't make stupid comments regarding age.
Maps determine so much in this game and each GSL season we have an array of new ones. Its no secret that smaller, 'quicker' maps favor Terran and that is pretty much all we saw the first few seasons. These new maps leave us with much longer macro games which terrans haven't had to do for the past few months so they are less experienced in these games. Hence why the final 4 featured 3 toss and 1 super skilled zerg.
MVP loses 6 games and now you are all dismissing him and what not. People lose all the time. You could tell by his playstyle that he is struggling to adapt to the new maps somewhat, but hes so good that he will overcome it eventually. Just don't expect someone to adapt within a few weeks time to having to play a new style of game.
The game is far from perfect right now but its improving. BW has been out for 10 years and everyone seems to think that this game should automatically match and/or exceed BW in balance and play right away. Give it time.
Jumping in late here: MVP played a very mechanical, 'standard,' game in the last GSL. Everyone else seems to have improved, while he played the same game. He was outplayed. Nothing volatile about that.
He didn't lose to something odd and cheesy, he went 1-4 against two strong Protoss players.
I bet when brood war first came out you could have said the same things about players then as well. New game is new no one has it mastered yet and I doubt will have it mastered for a long time. The amount of people playing this game is so huge that the time it will take to be able to handle anything that is thrown at you wether it is kiwikakis creative player or heavy long game idra macro style play.
As for upsets boxer being code A wasn't really that suprising. It is sad seeing a legend fall but he just isn't that great at SC2 compared to how he was in broodwar. IMMvp was kind of an upset but he really didnt preform that well so it makes sense.
The problem though, is that the argument is complete bullshit and relies on 'facts' such as Mvp or Fruitdealer or whoever being the best players (and then playing their best at every round) rather than just being good at certain stages of the meta-game
Let's put it another way: why is there no player that seems to be solid enough to get sure to get into at least RO16 Code S ?
SC2 is not stable enough at the moment, not saying the game does not have a high enough standard to be an "e-sport", but at the moment the game hasn't reached a point of stability. I love SC2, but I think without the expansion it is still weak.
The game is definitely too volatile and unless Blizzard makes some radical change to how the early game works (more reliable scouting, more survivable strategies so that surprise causes damage instead of outright losing at that moment, or a greater emphasis on mechanical ability as the game progresses forward) its not going to change in the near future.
This volatility coupled with the absurd ease of SC2's mechanics mean that it's basically impossible for a single player to dominate with a combination of mechanical ability and strategic superiority when you can get a literally unpredictable opponent and lose straight up to shit like DTs. It detracts from the real strategic integrity of StarCraft in my opinion.
If the game is in fact too volatile, which I'm not convinced it is or it isn't...
Take out warpgates and make collossus move slow as hell. Change nydus worms back to nydus canals and nerf viking range maybe make them faster or do splash to compensate. Then make all the maps large like the new GSL maps or larger. And make warp prisms, dropships, and overlords faster. Also increase the supply cap to 300.
Then even if the game isn't less volatile, at least it'll be harder by increasing the difficulty of control(which would make it less volatile ideally) and more interesting without taking out everyones beloved MBS/Automine/Infinite unit select.
SC2 is a freaking random game, because there's way too many variances for a single human player to consider, and it takes a single mistake, one single tiny fraction of a mistake for anyone to lose.
For example, if T goes banshees and Z hasnt even upgraded to lair yet then you're dead. You slip up your mmm micro even for a bit and get rolled by banes and you're dead. If toss goes 4 gate and you dont have enough defense, you're dead. If T has MMM and you don't even have sentries up you're dead. If you didn't get up your turrets in time when the DTs sneak into your base you're dead. If you don't have Thors by the time Z has a flock of mutas you're dead. If you didn't scout the hidden pylon near your natural where P can warp in zealots and HTs or DTs you're dead. If Z 6-pools and you didnt block the ramp you're dead. If feels like each and every action you make has a very polar result of either winning you the game or losing you the game.
And I don't care what the Pros say about that kind of balance, that kind of terrible gameplay aint fun.
I'm surprised at all the Boxer hate in this thread. He played extremely well vs an incredibly skilled zerg, especially in game 3, even with 40 supply less for most of the game he was still hanging on and keeping it even with great micro and decision making. Losing to Zenio doesn't make Boxer 'bad,' Zenio was and is a really skilled player, there's no shame in losing (in fact, ALMOST BEATING) to a damn OGS member.
The game is extremely favorable to aggressive or all-in tactics. This, by nature of these tactics, adds a large amount of randomness to the game and also closes the skill gap between players to a large degree. The results we're seeing are only natural.
Basically this is the partially a result of the shitty scouting Idra mentions and partially because units are so damn specialized other than a select few "attack with these guys the whole game" units (marines basically). Makes the game very linear.
Defense options are just so damn limited that cutting corners is not really a major factor like in SC1 (which results in long macro games) because people just attack and break you if you try anything that isn't extremely minor.
Harass and minor engagements are massively underused compared to SC1 because attacking a base isn't actually that hard in SC2 so once you win one engagement you might as well just roll up the ramp and end the game. Sometimes there are TWO engagements and those are the crazy games!
Cutting out that many facets of gameplay makes it a lot easier to just steal a win or two regardless of skill level.
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.
I totally agree on easier mechanics but I'm not sure that easier scouting will make it better. This is not a turn based strategy game after all , there aren't that deep and complex strategies requires hard work and practice. If both players have almost perfect scouting information , it'll come to who will execute their build better and since mechanics are much easier in Sc2 , the difference between the execution of a top tier pro and a low level pro will be pretty low. Then a luck/unlucky moment is all it takes to beat superior player. Easier mechanics raised the skill floor so much that , ceiling looks way lower compared to BW now. Kinda like , everyone can ride a bike , but the one who can ride it on a wire at the top of a sky scrapper is special. I guess it's way too late for this kinda discussions tho , I highly doubt they'll chance such things after this.
Yeah I think Idra is right about the lack of efficient scouting thing. Because "counter units" are much stronger in SC2 than SC1, if you can obtain knowledge of your opponents composition ahead of time you can win a huge advantage. This can lead to lesser players plucking games off of much stronger players. You can't win SC2 with just mechanics like you could in SC1, its more about strategy.
Ironically I think larger maps will actually make this problem worse. The larger the map, the more places you need to scout in order to ensure that you don't lose to a lesser player's all-in or cheese. We're not going to see people with 90%+ wlr in SC2 until Blizzard improves early game scouting for all three races.
IdrA, thank you for your feedback in this thread. I love seeing pro-level commentary on these topics.
From a spectator perspective I feel that the game is a bit too volatile currently. People don't seem to be able to win consistently enough to keep true "superstars" around at the top level for long periods of time. MVP was being super hyped last season as the best player in SC2, and now he's down in Code A. MKP had to fight to get back into Code S. FruitDealer hasn't been looking stellar in general lately (although I personally was impressed by his two games the other night). Point being, there isn't really a person who can establish themselves as the "person to beat", because folks are just losing left and right. And having no real superstars makes the game less enjoyable as a spectator in my opinion.
I'll leave the commentary on how to actually fix the problem to the pros, but what IdrA says seems to make sense. Even if he traditionally has a tendency to QQ for zerg =) I just hope that this is something related to the newness of the SC2 scene and this is something that blizzard will work on to fix.
If they lose then its their inability to win. Its not the games fault. Stop being a fanboy about everything, the game is still young, maybe one day your view of how it should be will become reality, but for now, it is not. I think a lot of top players are being very overrated, SlayerSBoxeR was never actually good enough to be hyped the way he was, not that he didn't deserve the hype or anything.
So far I only think MC is actually doing consistently good. Hoping July does good too, love watching his style.
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.
Problem seems to be Blizzard and their balance. They've been working so hard to make the game balanced on the old map pool and didn't consider balance on larger maps. Consequently, some races are better than others on these new maps, and balance has to be remade. Hopefully the game will be complete balance wise by the 3rd expansion.
It is sad for me to see MVP in code A, but it's not for sure if he is the best player in SC2 at the moment. He's solid and good for sure. As long as he is in the GSL, he is safe.
On March 16 2011 20:22 mr_tolkien wrote: As for «MVP played poorly» : I agree. But does that mean you were thinking BEFORE the match he would play poorly ? He needs to work on his vP, but he is overall normally a very good gamer. I think nobody expected him to go 1-4 like that.
He was only 7-4 in TvP, so yes an all Protoss group was the worst for him. In his GSL win run he faced mostly Terrans and only a couple of Zergs. Squirtle beat him, and when he met MC, the match was just an showing of failed DT play.
Sure nobody was expecting him to lose, of course not, but that's only because we hadn't seen his limit before. His TvP was his weakest MU before, but we didn't know how weak it is. Just like NesTea's 10-0 ZvZ record, he hasn't faced all the best ZvZers in the world, so one can't assume how good he is, or what his weakness is, because it hadn't/hasn't been discovered yet.
If MVP was 700-400, this would be a huge upset, but right now the statistical polling is so small
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.
In WC3 it was more or less impossible to loose in the early game. You could basically take on almost all the early attack with a shop / a good hero / natural defense of your base. In SC2 the main problem is that there is almost no defense advantage. WC3 was all about map control, creep path, building army and economy and harassing (harass, not attack) your opponent. There was almost no cheese that could work at high level except tower rush. Having a DH and a few moonwell was almost good enough to rush to T2.
In WC3 at some level you could almost always reach the 15 minute (a moment where it actually skilled) mark on even foot or with a slight disadvantage. In SC2, loosing 2 bad rallying vikings early is almost GG in PvT, letting 3 hellion pass your ramp is also a GG case.
I think Jinro said it better than anyone: in SC2 blizzard is making it easy to kill your opponent. In WC3 it was easy to stay on even foot.
A lot of it is that the current understanding of the metagame seems to give protoss the advantage in PvT. I'm not saying that the game is imbalanced I'm just saying that terran in general just doesn't seem to have an answer for a lot of what protoss can do. We're seeing a lot of it in the gsl right now with players like sanzenith, Hongun and anypro getting further than they probably should not to mention MC's continued dominance.
The terrans will figure out new timings, better unit compositions, etc or a patch will come out. Either way the game is going to be in this constant state of flux for a few years (remember how terrans will supposedly unbeatable a few months ago).
Yes, the game is volatile, which adds another dimension of skill into the picture. The ability to think spontaneously and make the correct decisions instantly is becoming increasingly crucial, and it's whats separating good from great right now. It's difficult to say if the game will ever be completely figured out and slowed down, but there the element of surprise is probably the greatest asset a player can have right now. There are still endless strategies out there to be developed, and if you're hoping to win off of pure mechanics then you're going to have to wait a long while. Does that make it less interesting to watch and play for me? Nope, it's the opposite of that. For me at least. : )
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.
In WC3 it was more or less impossible to loose in the early game. You could basically take on almost all the early attack with a shop / a good hero / natural defense of your base. In SC2 the main problem is that there is almost no defense advantage. WC3 was all about map control, creep path, building army and economy and harassing (harass, not attack) your opponent. There was almost no cheese that could work at high level except tower rush. Having a DH and a few moonwell was almost good enough to rush to T2.
In WC3 at some level you could almost always reach the 15 minute (a moment where it actually skilled) mark on even foot or with a slight disadvantage. In SC2, loosing 2 bad rallying vikings early is almost GG in PvT, letting 3 hellion pass your ramp is also a GG case.
Yea warpgate is probably one of the worst mechanics ever invented. Defender advantage is pretty much key in all rts but warpgate negated that and to balance that they had to make warpgate units cost for cost weak which in turn needed to make non-support unit super strong to balance. This complex interaction it is just hard to balance. A slightly weaker aoe unit might cause the balance to shift a lot as they are the balance they keep the game fair in mid/late game but a slightly strong suppoer(gateway) unit would make warpgate rush so much stronger. It is really a fine line to tread. I really wish that warpgates had been a super late or mid game tech that allowed protoss to have better mobility(make it cost a lot like 200/200). Then buff the gateway units. This way we can actually see some non 4-gate pvp and more interesting gateway army based army.
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.
I don't care if it's volatile, I care if the more skilled players win more often. If you watch the games in which "favorites" have been knocked out the winners have played very well. SC2 is still very new and I don't care if MVP, MC, MKP, Nestea, FD, and other "favorites" get dethroned by newer, better players.
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.
In WC3 it was more or less impossible to loose in the early game. You could basically take on almost all the early attack with a shop / a good hero / natural defense of your base. In SC2 the main problem is that there is almost no defense advantage. WC3 was all about map control, creep path, building army and economy and harassing (harass, not attack) your opponent. There was almost no cheese that could work at high level except tower rush. Having a DH and a few moonwell was almost good enough to rush to T2.
In WC3 at some level you could almost always reach the 15 minute (a moment where it actually skilled) mark on even foot or with a slight disadvantage. In SC2, loosing 2 bad rallying vikings early is almost GG in PvT, letting 3 hellion pass your ramp is also a GG case.
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.
Just because someone was amazing at Brood War doesn't make them amazing at SC. Sure it helps a lot but if you look at other competive games with sequels almost all the time with the new game you see new top players. (the exception being Ogre 2 of Final Boss) It's just since it's been the same game for so long now people forget the change in style forced by the new game and haven't adapted.
The issue is that even the worst of amateurs can pull off strats like a seasoned pro. Which makes performance much more important then the actual strategies/mechanics because that part of the game is quite easy to execute.
On March 17 2011 02:33 The_Piper42 wrote: I don't care if it's volatile, I care if the more skilled players win more often. If you watch the games in which "favorites" have been knocked out the winners have played very well. SC2 is still very new and I don't care if MVP, MC, MKP, Nestea, FD, and other "favorites" get dethroned by newer, better players.
Well the game being volatile and the better players winning more often doesn't exactly go hand in hand, it's actually the reason for this thread.
Add more mechanical stuff to be good at. Who cares, newbies won't, they don't even know. I didn't give crap that I had one siege tank or 4 zealots by the 12 min mark back when sc came out. Everybody at my skill level would also be around as bad. Bronze leaguers don't mind having 25 workers and 2k in the bank 20 min into the game, they sure wouldn't really notice the difference with ~15 instead.
If it's to easy to play somewhat almost looking close'ish to optimal without the most ridiculous superhuman abilities then the game will likely result in a bit of a lottery. If I, having played ~200 1v1 games of starcraft 2 perhaps can macro and not mess up all that severly on two base and transfer that into a potent timing attack or whatever. How is someone going to be able to consitently stop that crap without being miles and miles ahead of me.
You can give a pro BW player a severe build order disadvantage and he won't be grazed by even top ladder players, he makes more stuff, he mines more minerals and decision making is just better. Do the same in Sc2 and it's game over at the 7 min mark all to often, there is a lot less to be better at in sc2 and therefore there is a lot less to stand out in. Result: the stuff you can't really be good at starts playing more of a role.
On March 17 2011 02:28 IdrA wrote: 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.
That's kind of interesting, because automining would probably be the easiest to remove without significant changes to other game mechanics. For instance, say you remove MBS, how do warpgates function? If you just keep them the way they are, and remove the "w" hotkey, then Protoss macro suddenly becomes extremely difficult compared to the other races. You could just remove warpgates, and I, for one, would readily embrace that idea, but some (major) change would have to happen.
Likewise, removing smartcasting practically makes it necessary to redesign abilities like Forcefield, where you need to cast a lot of them in a small timeframe very precisely. The other problem, from my perspective at least, is that SC1's engine made it quite easy, even for a noob like me, to just click on a Templar and Storm, since everything spread out nicely and was easy to make out. In SC2, it's a huge headache to select a specific unit from a huge deathball, because of how everything clumps up, not to mention Colossi standing over it with their fat hitboxes.
Btw. I notice you're not addressing unlimited unit selection. Do you think that should definitely stay?
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 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 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".
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 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 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
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.
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 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 01:14 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'.
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 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 03:08 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 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.
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.
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 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 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.
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...
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?
Volitility is what makes sporting events exciting to watch. For example I live in Seattle. If the Seahawks had played the saints 10 times instead of just once, it would have been all but assured that the hawks would not be advancing. But because it was just a single game, it generated a lot more excitement for me because I knew my team actually stood a chance to win.
Another example is the NCAA tournament. No one gets excited when a 5 seed crushes a 12 seed, but if the 12 seed happens to win, its on espn and people remember it for the rest of the tournament.
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.
Well people are always promoting SC2 as a sport. My point is you can have the sport with the luck factor and it can be huge so the luck factor isnt necessarily a bad thing... in fact it can make it more exciting. Poker is strategy based, with very little information available to you about your opponents. If a game like that can be succesful than the volatility of SC2 doesn't concern me at all. If anything it makes it better and more spectator friendly. A hardcore fan of a sport will tune in no matter who their favorite team is playing. A casual fan often won't tune in to watch a game where they know the result. So in Broodwar when Flash played... oh I don't know... anyone but jaedong... its really easy for a casual spectator to just skip over it and not watch. Having bigger skill gaps at the top is not good for competition.
Take the NBA right now.. BORING AS FUCK and they're always having rumors of cutting out 4 teams to make the competition stronger. No one shows up to watch the Kings play the Lakers anymore and its because its not volatile enough.
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.
So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner?
A little bit of volatility is good. Winning only 2 out of 3 matches online when you're supposed to be one of the best is bad.
The skill scale is too small, lots of wins come from «originality» within a very closed system. It isn't sustainable in the long run. The last time I saw a really original, new, and efficient build was 3 months ago.
Even though i hate Protoss and that i do think there`s something to be done to balance that race, we`ve seen Terrans keeping the Bio play and not really innovate in any sense. They got lazy. I`m pretty sure that a guy like MvP, a guy of his stature will find solutions and new ways of playing the matchup.
I believe in you MVP. Now he should think of participating in the NASL.
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.
So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner?
thats a less exciting way to make progaming a viable profession but leaves the fact that you'll never have something close to a dominant player, which is good for competition as long as theyre not too dominant. also dilutes the excitement and entertainment value of any given tournament. a more direct mimic of poker's setup is just having every match be bo7 or bo9 or whatever. but the better solution would be to just fix the game. trying to copy a card game's competitive format with an rts is kinda stupid.
So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner?
he's not saying more competitions...he's saying more games to determing the winner. a BO3 when chance is so high isn't an accurate determinant of skill. Poker overides most of this problem with the fact that 1000's of hands are played over the course of a single tournement. Since this can't realisticaly be done with SC2 then one must consider taking measures to remove some elements of chance.
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?
it'll never happen, if it could it wouldnt be particularly bad i dont think
I think a level of randomness is needed, or else the best players will just win every time. 10% randomness is probably too much (assuming that all 10% of the unlucky matches were lost).
It was like this in SC1 too; if you're good, you have about a 60% winrate, if you're really good you have 70% or so, if you're dominating everyone then you have 80% or higher (bonjwa!!!).
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.
Thats pretty much what i said 5 posts above yours. They should increase the number of games, i think.
Wait, I remember there being a tens and tens pages long thread of people complaining that SC2 is too simple compared to SC:BW.
Now SC2 is so difficult it gets to point of "uncontrollable randomness"?
Some day I have to keep a log of how trends change, just so that I can copy/paste what people said just 1 month ago.
That is not at all what is being argued here....the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult and scouting needs to be made more accessable.
Wait, I remember there being a tens and tens pages long thread of people complaining that SC2 is too simple compared to SC:BW.
Now SC2 is so difficult it gets to point of "uncontrollable randomness"?
Some day I have to keep a log of how trends change, just so that I can copy/paste what people said just 1 month ago.
That is not at all what is being argued here....the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult and scouting needs to be made more accessable.
I don't think it was an "and" statement. If it's intended to be mechanically competitive the way BW was competitive, it needs harder mechanics, or it won't be hard enough to execute to be excited about. If it's intended to be purely strategic-type gameplay, like chess, we have to do away with hidden information (by making scouting a lot easier). I don't think anyone's saying both must happen simultaneously. I could be misstating the position, but that was my understanding.
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.
Thats pretty much what i said 5 posts above yours. They should increase the number of games, i think.
You can't logistically, see how the three way tie last during IEM.
On March 17 2011 04:18 HowSoOnIsNow wrote: Even though i hate Protoss and that i do think there`s something to be done to balance that race, we`ve seen Terrans keeping the Bio play and not really innovate in any sense. They got lazy. I`m pretty sure that a guy like MvP, a guy of his stature will find solutions and new ways of playing the matchup.
I believe in you MVP. Now he should think of participating in the NASL.
I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal. Bio is still more viable than mech imo. When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
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.
Well people are always promoting SC2 as a sport. My point is you can have the sport with the luck factor and it can be huge so the luck factor isnt necessarily a bad thing... in fact it can make it more exciting. Poker is strategy based, with very little information available to you about your opponents. If a game like that can be succesful than the volatility of SC2 doesn't concern me at all. If anything it makes it better and more spectator friendly. A hardcore fan of a sport will tune in no matter who their favorite team is playing. A casual fan often won't tune in to watch a game where they know the result. So in Broodwar when Flash played... oh I don't know... anyone but jaedong... its really easy for a casual spectator to just skip over it and not watch. Having bigger skill gaps at the top is not good for competition.
Take the NBA right now.. BORING AS FUCK and they're always having rumors of cutting out 4 teams to make the competition stronger. No one shows up to watch the Kings play the Lakers anymore and its because its not volatile enough.
You are right, but you also need to know the playing, their personality, their style, to follow them. And you can't do that if they disappear every damn season for no reason.
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.
So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner?
thats a less exciting way to make progaming a viable profession but leaves the fact that you'll never have something close to a dominant player, which is good for competition as long as theyre not too dominant. also dilutes the excitement and entertainment value of any given tournament. a more direct mimic of poker's setup is just having every match be bo7 or bo9 or whatever. but the better solution would be to just fix the game. trying to copy a card game's competitive format with an rts is kinda stupid.
Everyone look up a game called Company of Heroes. It is a WW2 game where mechanics and scouting hardly exist at all, but the better player ALWAYS wins because each game goes on for so long, there are so many engagments and the most consistent player throughout the game always wins. Im not saying that this is a direction to take SC2 because I personally love watching someone who has obviously spent a very long time perfecting their mechanics and getting rewards from it. But I also love the idea of there being God players who carry massive reputation who no-one can touch (e.g. Someone went on a legit 122 win streak on CoH). In SC2, this cannot happen, because the mechanics are fairly easy and one bad engagement can cost you the game which makes the game very VERY volitile and I hate randomness. For example, if I was to play vs the best player in the world at SC2, I have a chance of winning as long as I perfect 1 cheese build and he doesnt scout untill its too late. If I was to play vs one of the best SC1 or CoH players, I would lose 100% of the time with NO exceptions.
Sort of off topic: I play protoss, and I really really hate PvP so much because if Starcraft 2 is volatile, then PvP is like a super volcano. That match-up is a joke in every single way, something needs to be done to stableize(Spelling please someone) it, please Blizzard, im loosing the will to live here. D:
To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show.
I don't think it was an "and" statement. If it's intended to be mechanically competitive the way BW was competitive, it needs harder mechanics, or it won't be hard enough to execute to be excited about. If it's intended to be purely strategic-type gameplay, like chess, we have to do away with hidden information (by making scouting a lot easier). I don't think anyone's saying both must happen simultaneously. I could be misstating the position, but that was my understanding.
If simply mechanics were to be made more difficult it would in the short term make things better but as people get towards the skill ceiling the chance factor due to lack of scouting would bring things back to the same way it is right now. probably doing both at the same time would be too dramatic, but in the long run I think both would need to occur in order to keep up with player skill. We all know that the game evolves over time and that strategies are learned that bring certain unknown imbalances into light..which are then sometimes accounted for naturaly with counters etc...that is also why Blizzard lags behind with fixes. So I agree that changing both upfront in the near term would be too much....In the long term both may be necessary.
On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote: To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show.
In football, you have more or less the same team in the champion league EVERY year, so yes it's not random. Sometime, things can't go against the odd, but it's not like the champion of 2009 will loose first round in 2010.
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. [/QUOTE]
I am your second example of a bronze player aspiring to be better and I am not annoyed that the game is hard to master which it is. I use hot keys, read TL, watch replays and VODs of players I respect, scout, work on increasing my apm etc... I am told I shouldn't be bronze by teammates and opponents but regardless, I love the challenge and if anything I sense the depth of the game if I AM still bronze after working on all these things since the beta playing 5-15 hours a week. This time does not include how much I watch replays and read TL, just game time.
I also feel that the pros I watch have not reached their potential. If the macro has gotten so easy, why aren't we seeing 4 prong attacks with intricate micro happening on each as an extreme example. That would be very diffficult to manage along with macro but surely a genius can approach this type of mechanics. I rarely see two drops happening simultaneously because this too would be very difficult to manage along with good macro. Again, this is difficult but surely possible for someone holding down 300APM. As many have said, the maps are changing, expansions are still to come, and it is very obvious that many new strategies are developing constantly. I agree with many posters that players have not mastered the game yet and I think honestly are far from it.
I think Blizzard should make every unit like the phoenix. That way you can just click things around and they will shoot and use abilities for you. Instead of notifications for when you have idle workers or buildings Blizzard should just have employees help you play the game.
For example here is how I envision it working: once you get ~5 idle workers a Blizzard employee will join your team and help you macro. Once you're back down to 0 idle workers they'll leave the game. Technically this is 100% feasible to implement. The real question is how much it will cost.
Also, you should be able to research an upgrade at your main building so that when your opponents apm is 2 times larger than your apm the game automatically freezes for the faster player. The only thing they will see is a black screen while you will be able to play normally for the next 30 seconds.
I've watched a lot of miniature golf and Starcraft 2 is a lot like miniature golf so I know what I'm talking about.
On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote: To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show.
Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
On March 17 2011 04:47 Zystra wrote: Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
afaik the Premier League does not have single-elimination playoffs I could be wrong though.
First of all im not a SC2 player at all so my opinions might be wrong. The biggest problems for SC2 right now are(my opinion) :
1) units hard countering eachother. 2) Changing the ramp missing factor of BW to no vission and no missing of range units. 3) No Flanking at all
1) This is obviosly a big problem when your micro is worthless if your oponents units hardcounter yours. This wasnt the case with BW even if your oponents hardcounter your units on paper you can still come on top with superior micro.
2) I dont even understand this change at all in SC2.What was the Blizzard staff thinking??? You preety much dont leave any room for diverse strategies when ramp gives you no high ground advantage. For me this is as bad as the hard countering unit system
3) I dont understand why ppl dont flank anymore.For me flanking is what made BW battles so great. Dunno maybe the maps dont allow this and with 1 hotkey grouping all your army its much easier to let the AI to do this for you but its painfull to watch when I see protoss units streaming in line against mass marauder or mass roach blob trying to attack protoss blob of death from one side just to get forcefield to death.
I also feel that the pros I watch have not reached their potential. If the macro has gotten so easy, why aren't we seeing 4 prong attacks with intricate micro happening on each as an extreme example. That would be very diffficult to manage along with macro but surely a genius can approach this type of mechanics. I rarely see two drops happening simultaneously because this too would be very difficult to manage along with good macro. Again, this is difficult but surely possible for someone holding down 300APM. As many have said, the maps are changing, expansions are still to come, and it is very obvious that many new strategies are developing constantly. I agree with many posters that players have not mastered the game yet and I think honestly are far from it.
That's a great point - why can't the mechanical bandwidth that has been freed up by MBS, lack of control groups, and automining can be applied to battle micro? Mechanically superior players will always have an advantage somewhere, even if the mundane, repetitive tasks are no longer manual.
On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote: To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show.
In football, you have more or less the same team in the champion league EVERY year, so yes it's not random. Sometime, things can't go against the odd, but it's not like the champion of 2009 will loose first round in 2010.
France = World Cup finalists 2006 France = 1st round loosers of 2010, but I suppose they lost a lot of players.
On March 17 2011 04:47 Zystra wrote: Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
afaik the Premier League does not have single-elimination playoffs I could be wrong though.
Exactly, that is why we need a league for SC2 and when everyone has a 45-55% win ratio, ill be proven correct.
I also feel that the pros I watch have not reached their potential. If the macro has gotten so easy, why aren't we seeing 4 prong attacks with intricate micro happening on each as an extreme example. That would be very diffficult to manage along with macro but surely a genius can approach this type of mechanics. I rarely see two drops happening simultaneously because this too would be very difficult to manage along with good macro. Again, this is difficult but surely possible for someone holding down 300APM. As many have said, the maps are changing, expansions are still to come, and it is very obvious that many new strategies are developing constantly. I agree with many posters that players have not mastered the game yet and I think honestly are far from it.
You're over-simplifying the answer that you gave to your own question. A large part of the reason that you don't see 4-pronged attacks and simultaneous drops is because it's just a bad idea to have armies split apart like that due to 1) the way SC2 works (deathballs are very much favored) and 2) because the maps are just now starting to get to the point where they're larger and more bases/more fronts can be supported consistently.
I don't think it's that weird. I feel like MVP is just completely overrated (don't start the hate quite yet.) He is definitely a good player but he isn't the god that Tastosis makes him out to be. I feel like they were a little to quick to praise him as the best player ever.
That being said, we are still far from finding the bonjwas of SC2 and results will vary until gameplay/players become more consistent.
On March 17 2011 04:55 Backpack wrote: I don't think it's that weird. I feel like MVP is just completely overrated (don't start the hate quite yet.) He is definitely a good player but he isn't the god that Tastosis makes him out to be. I feel like they were a little to quick to praise him as the best player ever.
That being said, we are still far from finding the bonjwas of SC2 and results will vary until gameplay/players become more consistent.
He went 16-1 and won a GSL. nuff said, but I have a feeling that the person we saw today was not the same person as we saw in January.
On March 17 2011 04:24 Innovation wrote: the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult
I just can't understand this. The mechanics needs to be made more difficult ? Like no workers rally point ? Limit Control group back to 12 units ? can't use control group on more than 1 building ? These mechanics improvement are all things that made me love SC2 much more than I used to like BW, because you can at last focus on your overall plan/micro/ stategy instead of losing time sending each SCV manually to it's mineral patch.
I also feel that the pros I watch have not reached their potential. If the macro has gotten so easy, why aren't we seeing 4 prong attacks with intricate micro happening on each as an extreme example. That would be very diffficult to manage along with macro but surely a genius can approach this type of mechanics. I rarely see two drops happening simultaneously because this too would be very difficult to manage along with good macro. Again, this is difficult but surely possible for someone holding down 300APM. As many have said, the maps are changing, expansions are still to come, and it is very obvious that many new strategies are developing constantly. I agree with many posters that players have not mastered the game yet and I think honestly are far from it.
You're over-simplifying the answer that you gave to your own question. A large part of the reason that you don't see 4-pronged attacks and simultaneous drops is because it's just a bad idea to have armies split apart like that due to 1) the way SC2 works (deathballs are very much favored) and 2) because the maps are just now starting to get to the point where they're larger and more bases/more fronts can be supported consistently.
People who roll with one hotkey deathballs are at best low tier players. Deathballs are actually a lot worse than spreading out your units and hitting multiple expos. Ideally you want your army split into 2, 3, or 4 hotkeys, especially with the power of AoE damage that currently exists. With Zerg's starting to use infestors more, and the buff coming, you will find yourself wanting to split up your units.
On March 17 2011 04:24 Innovation wrote: the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult
I just can't understand this. The mechanics needs to be made more difficult ? Like no workers rally point ? Limit Control group back to 12 units ? can't use control group on more than 1 building ? These mechanics improvement are all things that made me love SC2 much more than I used to like BW, because you can at last focus on your overall plan/micro/ stategy instead of losing time sending each SCV manually to it's mineral patch.
On March 17 2011 04:24 Innovation wrote: the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult
I just can't understand this. The mechanics needs to be made more difficult ? Like no workers rally point ? Limit Control group back to 12 units ? can't use control group on more than 1 building ? These mechanics improvement are all things that made me love SC2 much more than I used to like BW, because you can at last focus on your overall plan/micro/ stategy instead of losing time sending each SCV manually to it's mineral patch.
It makes it more impressive when someone has the ability to focus on strategy/planning just as much while doing so much more mechanically.
The only thing I'll contribute is that in a basketball or other sport event, the game is over when the clock expires, regardless of how far ahead one team is. In a format where the better player wins 100% of the time, It's still exciting to watch since the game doesn't drag on while it happens. Good player sees Bad player doing something he can take advantage of and steamrolls.
Dramatic upsets and comebacks usually happen because one team plays amazing and the other plays bad or makes mistakes. You don't see a lot of dramatic upsets in football where both teams are playing great. Players will suffer from the same problem as teams do, they just might not have a great game, or they might play superbly. I like that kind of system better than a system where you just need to win more than 50% to be victorious.
On March 17 2011 04:48 SkelA wrote: First of all im not a SC2 player at all so my opinions might be wrong. The biggest problems for SC2 right now are(my opinion) :
1) units hard countering eachother. 2) Changing the ramp missing factor of BW to no vission and no missing of range units. 3) No Flanking at all
1) This is obviosly a big problem when your micro is worthless if your oponents units hardcounter yours. This wasnt the case with BW even if your oponents hardcounter your units on paper you can still come on top with superior micro.
2) I dont even understand this change at all in SC2.What was the Blizzard staff thinking??? You preety much dont leave any room for diverse strategies when ramp gives you no high ground advantage. For me this is as bad as the hard countering unit system
3) I dont understand why ppl dont flank anymore.For me flanking is what made BW battles so great. Dunno maybe the maps dont allow this and with 1 hotkey grouping all your army its much easier to let the AI to do this for you but its painfull to watch when I see protoss units streaming in line against mass marauder or mass roach blob trying to attack protoss blob of death from one side just to get forcefield to death.
#1: Units do not hard counter each other. Units can be more effective vs other units (marauder vs roach or muta vs thor for example) but that doesn't make them a hard counter... The way you phrase your point makes it look like you are implying that the game is rock-paper-scissors. It is to some extent, but not because of unit counters. Thors, which are the supposed "counter" to mutalisks can be out maneuvered or magic box'd. It is rock paper scissors because of other factors such as detection, unit count and "omg my units can't shoot up".
#2: Missing attacks is RNG based... RNG = Volatility. High ground still has an advantage via vision. Its not as much of an advantage, but its still an advantage.
#3: Forcefields are omni directional, and chokes are so small that you can wall hug to reduce your army's surface area dramatically. Also because of the small chokes, attempting to split your army to execute a flank could result in half of your army simply being cut off from the other half... which never turns out well. That being said, if you can manage to pull off a flank, it does still have some payoff. Mutas killing vulnerable siege tanks, vikings/corrupters taking out collossi from an angle, sandwiching MMM balls with ZLots so you can storm them all come to mind.
Both #2 and #3 really effect the spectator aspect of the game, but not necessarily how out of control the gameplay is.
On March 17 2011 04:55 Backpack wrote: I don't think it's that weird. I feel like MVP is just completely overrated (don't start the hate quite yet.) He is definitely a good player but he isn't the god that Tastosis makes him out to be. I feel like they were a little to quick to praise him as the best player ever.
That being said, we are still far from finding the bonjwas of SC2 and results will vary until gameplay/players become more consistent.
He went 16-1 and won a GSL. nuff said, but I have a feeling that the person we saw today was not the same person as we saw in January.
Exactly.
Nobody is consistent yet so we need to stop treating them like gods.
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
Wait, I remember there being a tens and tens pages long thread of people complaining that SC2 is too simple compared to SC:BW.
Now SC2 is so difficult it gets to point of "uncontrollable randomness"?
Some day I have to keep a log of how trends change, just so that I can copy/paste what people said just 1 month ago.
That is not at all what is being argued here....the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult and scouting needs to be made more accessable.
Oh, I see, it's this discussion again:
-Too little scouting tools -> randomness -Game skill ceiling is too low
I can maybe agree with the scouting thing, personally I would love to have more tools for that. Skill ceiling too low? Bu..ok. I guess so.
I guess a lot of results of this and past GSL seasons have been good players losing to scrubs with luck. I'll show myself out of this thread.
The slow mechanical players might be doing as well as the former SC1 pros right now, but there are a lot of things that exist in SC2 that allow players to cut corners and take advantage of their opponents who have low apm or bad mechanics. Player with high APM can take advantage of surges in minerals by MULE, for example, better than lower APM players can. As the game matures, the players who have higher APM and better game sense are going to beat the current high ranked players who are now getting by with all-ins and timing attacks and only so-so apm/mechanics. Just be patient.
On March 17 2011 04:24 Innovation wrote: the argument is that mechanics needs to be made more difficult
I just can't understand this. The mechanics needs to be made more difficult ? Like no workers rally point ? Limit Control group back to 12 units ? can't use control group on more than 1 building ? These mechanics improvement are all things that made me love SC2 much more than I used to like BW, because you can at last focus on your overall plan/micro/ stategy instead of losing time sending each SCV manually to it's mineral patch.
It makes it more impressive when someone has the ability to focus on strategy/planning just as much while doing so much more mechanically.
There's a video on youtube showing a girl who can stack and unstack a dozen paper cups in a few seconds.
Impressive? Definitely. Does that mean stacking cups is fun? Definitely not.
I just can't understand this. The mechanics needs to be made more difficult ? Like no workers rally point ? Limit Control group back to 12 units ? can't use control group on more than 1 building ? These mechanics improvement are all things that made me love SC2 much more than I used to like BW, because you can at last focus on your overall plan/micro/ stategy instead of losing time sending each SCV manually to it's mineral patch.
Valid Point...
I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
Also Valid Point....
The fact is both points of view are perfectly valid and is why we need to consider either a toggle between competitive and casual mode...or we all need to accept that SC2 will not be able to perfectly support both casual and competitive players. It takes a game as good as SC2 to make this kind of problem noticeable...most games are so flawed even the concept of fair competitive play is thrown out the window. I guess we'll just have to see how Blizzard reacts over time to the needs of community...Historically they've done a great job. I'm not counting them out yet.
I think the MVP situation has more to do with the current changing metagame that came along with the new maps. Big maps are harder for Terran and they allow Protoss to enter the lategame more easily. I'm sure most people agree that Protoss has some great advantages in the lategame.
On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote: I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal. Bio is still more viable than mech imo. When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals.
You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech.
But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing.
SC2 is marketed to casual right now, If they fundementally change mechanics to make it harder to play then alot of casuals won't buy the game anymore, hence why they won't do a complete overhaul. I have a tiny slither of hope that maybe they will do it as a function/option though, but I doubt that too.
On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote: I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal. Bio is still more viable than mech imo. When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals.
You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech.
But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing.
You know I wonder if Flash turtle is still viable in TvP. Have a sick 2/1 (2/2) push and just harass with BF Hellions and Medivacs until you get your MechDeath. The problem is Blizzard maps are pretty horrible for macro/turtle play. Hopefully they put in the GSL/MLG maps to the ladder play or I'll be relegated to customs (which I think are better than ladder anyways, but without practice partners on throughout the day, it isn't as consistent).
MVP has never been good against toss... he was shitting his pants when he thought he was going to have to face MC... anyone with a third grade education could tell 2 good tosses would be the end of him.
Apparently you never played BW... everybody thought terran was the worst race for a year or two... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Shit changes, and people overhype some players so much that you are shocked when they lose...
I bet you've never watched Savior vs. Bisu in the MSL finals. That would've made your head explode...
On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote: I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal. Bio is still more viable than mech imo. When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals.
You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech.
But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing.
You know I wonder if Flash turtle is still viable in TvP. Have a sick 2/1 (2/2) push and just harass with BF Hellions and Medivacs until you get your MechDeath. The problem is Blizzard maps are pretty horrible for macro/turtle play. Hopefully they put in the GSL/MLG maps to the ladder play or I'll be relegated to customs (which I think are better than ladder anyways, but without practice partners on throughout the day, it isn't as consistent).
The problem is that hellions are pretty bad at killing stalkers while vultures are decent at killing goons with mines.
I would seriously approve of a toggle for a more competetive and a more casual version of the game. DEFINITELY.
It is just genius. I think Blizzard seriously need to think about SC2 and the game as an e-sport.
Edit: Also, I definitely DON'T want to see stuff that only requires a higher apm but not really much of cleverness, like having all production buildings on one hotkey, 12+ units per cgroup etc. More like, more micro-intense capabilities of units, it can even be really subtle.
On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote: I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal. Bio is still more viable than mech imo. When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals.
You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech.
But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing.
You know I wonder if Flash turtle is still viable in TvP. Have a sick 2/1 (2/2) push and just harass with BF Hellions and Medivacs until you get your MechDeath. The problem is Blizzard maps are pretty horrible for macro/turtle play. Hopefully they put in the GSL/MLG maps to the ladder play or I'll be relegated to customs (which I think are better than ladder anyways, but without practice partners on throughout the day, it isn't as consistent).
The problem is that hellions are pretty bad at killing stalkers while vultures are decent at killing goons with mines.
This is true, however, Hellions are better at killing probes than Vultures were. Is this enough to make up for the difference? Should be tested more, since the new maps support this style of play.
On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote: To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show.
Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
Why are you comparing a team from another sport to individual players in a computer game? The differences are so vast that any parallels are inevitably faulty.
The volatility in the game is due to one primary factor: stronger very early game builds that can't be scouted easily. Once players figure out how to do safe, reliable builds that defend against most forms of early cheeses and are reasonably good in the mid and late game, a lot of the volatility will disappear.
The game just seems volatile because players like Bitbybit can beat amazingly good players with ridiculous cheeses. Once those cheeses are invalidated by standard builds (or the standard builds evolve to invalidate them), players won't have to worry about getting all-in'd as much.
Most of the strength of all-ins comes from the early game macro mechanics (chrono boost for getting that one thing you need really fast, mules allowing for SCV's to be pulled, larva inject for faster unit growth rates). It'll be figured out.
On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote: To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show.
Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
Why are you comparing a team from another sport to individual players in a computer game? The differences are so vast that any parallels are inevitably faulty.
Because it shows that randomness makes things broing and their should always be 3-4 best players.
On March 17 2011 04:37 WhiteDog wrote: I'm not a terran player, but I ask, how are you supposed to make mech TvP viable ? I mean, terran had tank nerf, no more mine, and the protoss had two anti mech units/up: charge and immortal. Bio is still more viable than mech imo. When you have a million player playing the game, if one race stick to a certain build, it's more or less because it's the most effectiv for the time being, maybe mech require a completly different style or some up/nerf from blizzard, but at the moment, with the current playstyle, I don't see it going anywhere except one or two game here and there.
I don't mean to be contrary here, but IIRC mech has access to units which are good against zealots (blue flame hellions) and 250MM cannon for immortals.
You may recall this, but bio also has two units they are also poor against, the colossus and high templar. Bio also has issues with forcefields, whereas mech does not - but they also have mobility via Medivacs, which are less useful for mech.
But really, all I'm saying now is that Bio and Mech are completely different - which is true. Saying that if everyone at the top does it that it must be right would make sense in a world where people couldn't communicate strategies to each other, but that's really not the case here. Tomorrow, if huk posted a strategy involving teching safely to carriers in PvT on two bases, I think you'd suddenly see a lot of carriers in PvT. That doesn't mean it's the best build, it just means that's what people are doing.
You know I wonder if Flash turtle is still viable in TvP. Have a sick 2/1 (2/2) push and just harass with BF Hellions and Medivacs until you get your MechDeath. The problem is Blizzard maps are pretty horrible for macro/turtle play. Hopefully they put in the GSL/MLG maps to the ladder play or I'll be relegated to customs (which I think are better than ladder anyways, but without practice partners on throughout the day, it isn't as consistent).
The problem is that hellions are pretty bad at killing stalkers while vultures are decent at killing goons with mines.
Hilariously, and contrary to popular belief, hellions in large numbers become cost effective against stalkers in large numbers due to having much higher dps from splash damage (and the fact that stalkers do almost no damage at all). Goons were also much stronger than stalkers, and tanks do a great job at tearing stalkers a new one. You don't need vulture mines for mech in SC2, hellions are just absurdly good.
On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote: To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show.
Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
Why are you comparing a team from another sport to individual players in a computer game? The differences are so vast that any parallels are inevitably faulty.
Because it shows that randomness makes things broing and their should always be 3-4 best players.
It's the old question -- Parity or David vs Goliath. I enjoy both entertainment spectrums so I would like to see most players on the same level with perhaps a few that are just a slight bit better than the rest, but enough to create the sense of underdog vs. gosu. I do not enjoy watching a great disparity between the skills of players. It's boring to watch Michael Jordan destroy High School basketball players for instance.
Because it shows that randomness makes things broing and their should always be 3-4 best players.
No it doesn't.
Your example doesn't prove anything at all except (maybe) that group competition generally has more stability than individual competition.
A lot of talk about the "instability" of SC2 at the pro level comes from general misconceptions about the nature of the pro scene itself. People look at results without noting how the players reached them, dismiss Code A players as being much worse than Code S players automatically, and generally call players good without knowing what they're good (subsequently, ignoring why they lose when they lose).
On March 17 2011 05:20 VeNoM HaZ Skill wrote: MVP has never been good against toss... he was shitting his pants when he thought he was going to have to face MC... anyone with a third grade education could tell 2 good tosses would be the end of him.
Apparently you never played BW... everybody thought terran was the worst race for a year or two... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Shit changes, and people overhype some players so much that you are shocked when they lose...
I bet you've never watched Savior vs. Bisu in the MSL finals. That would've made your head explode...
You are completly off topic. What made bisu's win so EPIC was especially because Savior was dominating since a longggggggggggg time, not to mention he lost in FINAL. We are actually talking about a game were in 5 season, the number 1 of the previous season ALWAYS miserabily falls in the next season. And now we have "THE BEST PLAYER OF THE WORLD" if you listen to artosis, who falls in first round, loosing everything in the season while he is the fucking previous champion.
It's anticlimatic, for epicness to come, you need some kind of rarity. Seeing everyday THE BEST loosing to a goddamn Code A player has no taste at all.
PS: if you consider that instability, MKP is actually the best player, being in final twice, always having pretty strong result, and he was not demoted to code A.
On March 17 2011 02:40 Noli wrote: Just because someone was amazing at Brood War doesn't make them amazing at SC. Sure it helps a lot but if you look at other competive games with sequels almost all the time with the new game you see new top players. (the exception being Ogre 2 of Final Boss) It's just since it's been the same game for so long now people forget the change in style forced by the new game and haven't adapted.
How is this even related The thread pertains to the upsets of NesTea, MKP, FD, etc.
On March 17 2011 05:20 VeNoM HaZ Skill wrote: MVP has never been good against toss... he was shitting his pants when he thought he was going to have to face MC... anyone with a third grade education could tell 2 good tosses would be the end of him.
Apparently you never played BW... everybody thought terran was the worst race for a year or two... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Shit changes, and people overhype some players so much that you are shocked when they lose...
I bet you've never watched Savior vs. Bisu in the MSL finals. That would've made your head explode...
You are completly off topic. What made bisu's win so EPIC was especially because Savior was dominating since a longggggggggggg time, not to mention he lost in FINAL. We are actually talking about a game were in 5 season, the number 1 of the previous season ALWAYS miserabily falls in the next season. And now we have "THE BEST PLAYER OF THE WORLD" if you listen to artosis, who falls in first round, loosing everything in the season while he is the fucking previous champion.
It's anticlimatic, for epicness to come, you need some kind of rarity. Seeing everyday THE BEST loosing to a goddamn Code A player has no taste at all.
PS: if you consider that instability, MKP is actually the best player, being in final twice, always having pretty strong result, and he was not demoted to code A.
GSL seasons are considerably faster than OSL/MSL's. The game is still very young. Please compare the beginning of any RTS to what it is like a few years down the road. It's a vastly different playstyle and experience. Maps also have a large reason for temporary ups and downs for players.
There has always been substantial uncertainty in Starcraft, even in BW. Flash and Jaedong don't always win OSLs and there's a fairly large group of good players that get eliminated in the group stages because they have an off day. If anything, this proves that just six months of real competition doesn't allow people to effectively gauge player skill.
On another note, I love the variance in success. How else would we get fantastic series like SanZenith? That a player can improve so hugely speaks volumes to Starcraft 2 as a sport, especially considering what happened when players didn't practice like Fruitdealer or Tester. Individual sports shouldn't be something where you're assured of staying at the top once you get there.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
The "casual audience" should go and play FIFA or COD or whatever other shitty flavour of the month it is. Leave SC to the people with skill.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
Make mechanics harder merely makes you do a bunch of tedious bullshit when what you really want to do is develop innovative strategies and make better decisions than your opponent. I can guarantee you that every matchup is going to drastically change within a years time, including PvP. We're not even close to optimal play in any matchups right now.
Also, even top macro players like IdrA have terrible macro still, so I don't think we need to worry about reaching a mechanics skillcap anyway.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
Yeah, I understand. What I would like to see at least is a "casual" SC2 and a "competitive" SC2, like Promod in CoD4. All players should able to join both of the two skill ceilings and play the way they prefer. This way no one should be complaining because it neither limits the player in his freedom or seperates him in becoming better. Maybe this will be done with the next two expansions.
The "casual audience" should go and play FIFA or COD or whatever other shitty flavour of the month it is. Leave SC to the people with skill.
Sorry, I can't agree with that. I doubt this game would have exploded like this in the west if it wasn't that casual friendly, you see so many new faces and basically every player is capable of reaching the Master league. It has to be somewhere between SC1 and SC2, the current state of the game is not supporting a huge E-Sports game.
Going back to the OP, it is argued that since MVP is in code A, and NesTea and MKP didn't get far, shows that SC2 as a game is too volatile, or too much luck is involved. But the fact of the matter is, those players lost because they played worse then their opponent. End of story. The losses had very little to do with luck.
I think if anything, the game is becoming less and less volatile. Remember GSL 3? We were seeing marine+SCV all-ins almost every TvZ. But have there been any this season?(I can't recall any at least). And with the new maps in the current GSL, I would say the current season has had the least luck involved out of any of the previous seasons. It was the players who were volatile.
EDIT: One more thing. The mechanics being too easy "problem" will go away as time goes on. No one is close to perfect mechanically at this game yet, and the gap will only become wider between the players who make this game it their careers opposed to those who play it casually.
Also, even top macro players like IdrA have terrible macro still, so I don't think we need to worry about reaching a mechanics skillcap anyway.
You state this as though it's a well known fact. I feel Idra has become rather well known for how good his macro is. Is there a reason you feel his macro is "terrible"?
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
While adding complexity is usually a beneficial thing for a game from a depth standpoint, it isn't necessarily a good thing. Complexity from things like non-automine, non-MBS, and non-shift queuing (for example) is purely one dimensional. The best players will always do it. The best macro additions are things like what Blizzard ended up adding that present choices to the player as they increase complexity-crono boost, spawn larva/creep tumor, and mule/scan all present inherent challenges to the player. More mechanics in that vein should be interesting. "Press x key sequence to not lose," though, is far too much like quick-time events.
its hard to say, with balance changes, strategies and map changes its so hard to be consistent. i think the most consistent players are Zerg, as they generally have the fewest builds/openers and playstyle. followed by Toss and than lastly Terran
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.
WTF?? No one has ever had that kind of winrate. Flash has a 70 something percent overall winrate, and that's frankly insane. How can you even reasonably expect half of this stuff?
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.
WTF?? No one has ever had that kind of winrate. Flash has a 70 something percent overall winrate, and that's frankly insane. How can you even reasonably expect half of this stuff?
Sc2 is not too volatile, it's just too young.
multiple players have held that kind of win rate for a while
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.
i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points]
now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts: 4049(us) 2681 (eu this is a brand new acct) 3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile)
So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up.
oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread:
On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote: I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised.
as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope].
as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
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.
So then your arguement could be that just having more events would correct a "problem" of volatility since there would always be another chance to win right around the corner?
thats a less exciting way to make progaming a viable profession but leaves the fact that you'll never have something close to a dominant player, which is good for competition as long as theyre not too dominant. also dilutes the excitement and entertainment value of any given tournament. a more direct mimic of poker's setup is just having every match be bo7 or bo9 or whatever. but the better solution would be to just fix the game. trying to copy a card game's competitive format with an rts is kinda stupid.
I agree it'd be stupid to copy the format, but taking the good elements from something to enhance something else usually works really well.
Well how about as a standard format, hosts veer away from having an absurd number of rounds (see MLG) and things like losers brackets, and just have fewer rounds, but each round is a Bo5. MLGs are supposedly extremely grueling, which may or may not be a bad thing, but i know the fans dont even get to see half the games in MLG. With fewer total matches and rounds, but a standard Bo5 format we could see the best players advancing, in a tournament that doesn't make the finalists feel like they've just been through the ringer, and have a higher percentage of matches that are able to be cast and viewed.
Did MVP play well in the up and down matches? I don't think he did. MMM viking can't win in late game against protoss in a straight up battle. There's just no splash damage in that composition.
I have a feeling MVP probably has never seen the type of pressure build that Alicia used in their series. Then against Genius, the second game was a total build order loss, and the first game, he attacked into something he shouldn't have attacked into.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
The "casual audience" should go and play FIFA or COD or whatever other shitty flavour of the month it is. Leave SC to the people with skill.
aaaaannnddd this is exactly what E-Sports does NOT need in order to grow.
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.
i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points]
now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts: 4049(us) 2681 (eu this is a brand new acct) 3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile)
So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up.
oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread:
On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote: I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised.
as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope].
as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
I don't think sleepingdog ever mentioned or suggested once that he is as good or better than idra at starcraft. Even if his credentials are lacking he may be 100% correct (im not saying he is or isnt) and thats part of being a spectator in a spectator sport. Fans in real sports heckle players or talk about how bad or overrated someone is without having even a fracture of the ability of that player. I don't see how this is any different nor do I see how it is relevant or appropriate to put sleepingdogs information out there.
On March 16 2011 22:58 arb wrote: the games still new, once the expansions are out and the games balanced.
then we'll see people like we did in broodwar
I don't know you well enough to simply say "lol sarcasm", but I certainly hope it was.
I did see other people with using that exact argument in this thread though, so let me just add that such thought is fucking stupid. Are you actually gonna wait like three or four years before you really can play the game? And then you don't even know for sure if it's gonna be worth it. Let me just list what blizzard has control over: Units, balance tweaks and single player missions. Maps are already out of their hands. It is by far the players and map makers who will have to make sc2 into something amazing. Of course they require blizzard to great a game for them, but I think it's insane put even one egg in that basket.
On March 16 2011 22:38 mr_tolkien wrote: A lot of people are not understanding the point of this thread.
It's not specifically related to MVP, it's a feeling I got since season 2 and FDs fall. Then Nestea vs Rain. Then MC vs Jinro (a HUGE upset). Saying it's linked to the youth of the game is also false. One year after the professionalisation of BW, they WERE players standing out clearly. It's not the case here, there are "top players" all clumped up together.
There is no bonjwa and none have the remote shape of one. MVP never looked like one to me. Neither did Mc or FD. The only one I really saw really standing out at a point was Nestea, but nothing happened. This guys are PAID for doing this. There HAS to be a player more gifted than the others. But clearly SC2 isn't made to allow him to stand out from the crowd.
Gifted don't shine because everyone can remake an army while still microing battles therefore once you WIN a battle it's 1+1 vs opponents 1 and game usually ends there.
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.
i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points]
now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts: 4049(us) 2681 (eu this is a brand new acct) 3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile)
So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up.
oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread:
On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote: I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised.
as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope].
as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
I don't think sleepingdog ever mentioned or suggested once that he is as good or better than idra at starcraft. Even if his credentials are lacking he may be 100% correct (im not saying he is or isnt) and thats part of being a spectator in a spectator sport. Fans in real sports heckle players or talk about how bad or overrated someone is without having even a fracture of the ability of that player. I don't see how this is any different nor do I see how it is relevant or appropriate to put sleepingdogs information out there.
Yeah fans in other sports may do that, but not when they're talking face to face with the player, that would be silly. Also, I think his main point as that he was acting condescending towards Idra, which is true, and he shouldn't really be acting like that.
Anyway, I think if they fixed the game and made it more skill based the volatility of it would for sure go down. I still see people like Boxer, who admittedly isn't that great now, still make quite a few mistakes in terms of mechanics. The skill ceiling for SC2 is still not near peaking in my eyes. Until we can see the positive effects of taking all of those demanding actions out from BW (mbs etc), the ceiling will still be quite high, and so far that level of play hasn't really shone through.
On March 16 2011 22:58 arb wrote: the games still new, once the expansions are out and the games balanced.
then we'll see people like we did in broodwar
I don't know you well enough to simply say "lol sarcasm", but I certainly hope it was.
I did see other people with using that exact argument in this thread though, so let me just add that such thought is fucking stupid. Are you actually gonna wait like three or four years before you really can play the game? And then you don't even know for sure if it's gonna be worth it. Let me just list what blizzard has control over: Units, balance tweaks and single player missions. Maps are already out of their hands. It is by far the players and map makers who will have to make sc2 into something amazing. Of course they require blizzard to great a game for them, but I think it's insane put even one egg in that basket.
I agree, I HATE blizzard. Why even bother playing SC2? Or even posting on TL for that matter?
Why are we wasting our lives like this!?! Playing a shitty game that we hate oh so much!?!!!
The BW winrates are different and players are infact consistent over time, no point in trying to say SC2 is anything like that yet. The jump from 'S-Class' to high A-teamer to low A-teamer to high B-teamer etc. were all fairly significant just because of mechanical skill alone. A lower level player has a much better chance in SC2 of sneaking games from top players with luck, simple as that. It's the nature of the game and i doubt its going to change.
Lol at the people repeating 'It will get better' over and over since before the game was even released. There's big tournaments running NOW ffs.
Oh, shit. I was going to suggest it wasn't necessarily the game but the tournament format. If every series was Bo7 or Bo9 I don't see NesTea ever losing. The best players will BE the best players in that scenario.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
The "casual audience" should go and play FIFA or COD or whatever other shitty flavour of the month it is. Leave SC to the people with skill.
When you see posts like this you understand why is TeamLiquid often dubbed as Elitist.
Regarding game mechanics, I would really want to hear people about how exactly you can make them harder, and how it would improve competitive play. Cause everyone seems to be repeating the same things over and over again without really explaining. I guess some pro in some post said "we need harder mechanics" and as usual you have a bunch of followers acting as parrots and spewing these toughts all over the place on team liquid.
SC2 isn't volatile, it just hasn't been figured out yet.
It's so easy to auto-lose due to lack of early game scouting. It's pretty lame when I roll Protoss and lose to a Zerg player who does a 2 base Hydra all-in because he denies my scouting probe.
Of course, if you're Terran, then this doesn't happen as much - which is why Sjow can get away without scouting - and probably one of the reasons why Terrans have the highest win ratios.
Mostly retardation in this thread. If there are any statistically minded individuals around it would be great to see the probability of falling out of / staying in / winning the GSL given different estimations of players edges.
On March 16 2011 22:58 arb wrote: the games still new, once the expansions are out and the games balanced.
then we'll see people like we did in broodwar
I don't know you well enough to simply say "lol sarcasm", but I certainly hope it was.
I did see other people with using that exact argument in this thread though, so let me just add that such thought is fucking stupid. Are you actually gonna wait like three or four years before you really can play the game? And then you don't even know for sure if it's gonna be worth it. Let me just list what blizzard has control over: Units, balance tweaks and single player missions. Maps are already out of their hands. It is by far the players and map makers who will have to make sc2 into something amazing. Of course they require blizzard to great a game for them, but I think it's insane put even one egg in that basket.
I agree, I HATE blizzard. Why even bother playing SC2? Or even posting on TL for that matter?
Why are we wasting our lives like this!?! Playing a shitty game that we hate oh so much!?!!!
-_-
Well, some people love sc2 and I don't wonna blame them. By all means, play what you like to play! But if you don't like the game now, don't wait years for it to most likely not get any better.
On March 17 2011 06:47 Barca wrote: SC2 isn't volatile, it just hasn't been figured out yet.
It's so easy to auto-lose due to lack of early game scouting. It's pretty lame when I roll Protoss and lose to a Zerg player who does a 2 base Hydra all-in because he denies my scouting probe.
Of course, if you're Terran, then this doesn't happen as much - which is why Sjow can get away without scouting - and probably one of the reasons why Terrans have the highest win ratios.
If it is 'figured out' why would it then be less volatile? Presumably all the top players will understand the figuring out and copy any optimal builds, then it will be very minor things which separate them. Which will just lead to the 45-55% winrate thing that's discussed already.
More people should read this post which is the exact explanation of the most important difference:
On March 17 2011 01:00 loveeholicce wrote: Maybe, maybe not, I'm just speaking very generally here. I feel the biggest problem is the easier mechanics. Any mid masters player can execute a rush almost perfectly while keeping their macro consistent, so its easier to beat better players just cause ur strat or build happened to be better and it'll only come down to that. But in brood war everything was so hard to execute that u could overcome big disadvantages just by being way better than the other person. Like say u get any televised terran progamer to do a 2 fact all in vs an A+ toss on iccup. If the toss goes 2 gate range --> observers its pretty much the ideal counter build to a 2 fact but the progamer is gonna win 100% of the time just because of a difference in execution that isnt there in sc2
Note its nothing about 12 unit groups or MBS or any of that bullshit that people keep whining about, it's just pure unit control at a point in the game where you don't even reach a 12 unit limit. A better player should always win in this type of situation but it's just not true anymore.
Not to mention the whole issue of comebacks and how unlikely it is now.
On March 16 2011 22:38 mr_tolkien wrote: A lot of people are not understanding the point of this thread.
It's not specifically related to MVP, it's a feeling I got since season 2 and FDs fall. Then Nestea vs Rain. Then MC vs Jinro (a HUGE upset). Saying it's linked to the youth of the game is also false. One year after the professionalisation of BW, they WERE players standing out clearly. It's not the case here, there are "top players" all clumped up together.
There is no bonjwa and none have the remote shape of one. MVP never looked like one to me. Neither did Mc or FD. The only one I really saw really standing out at a point was Nestea, but nothing happened. This guys are PAID for doing this. There HAS to be a player more gifted than the others. But clearly SC2 isn't made to allow him to stand out from the crowd.
This is wrong. Your examples in no way shape or form clearly show anything. FD won when the game was extremely young and not figured out(and it still isn't) and the game has already changed a ton since then. MC vs Jinro was an upset because MC used a stupid obscure(and probably little tested) carrier strat and failed at a rush in the first game.
And comparing it to brood war directly is also wrong. SC2's situation is completley different. A ton of former BW players switched over to SC2 and have done well because they have a head start with mechanics+understanding of RTS's. With BW it was a slower build up of better and better players while with SC2, it started out with a ton of players already very good at BW.
I don't know what the game will look like in the long run, you may be right, but I think you've come upon a premature conclusion with the few examples we've seen so far from the GSL.
But I also think bo3 is volatile by nature. What I would like to see GSL do is have more of a regular season format and a tournament at the end of the season instead of two big tournaments.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
I really dont see making machanics harder being the solution here, seriously.
Its like saying: All quake players should now play with a xbox controller !
Are you serious ? Can you see that you are actually moving backwards ? I get sad when i compare players playing halo on xbox with other players playing quake.
Make MORE controls available. Thats why they are making bigger maps. You need to control, 4 / 5 bases, 3 / 4 drops at same time, etc... First, i think different leagues should have different maps, and unit cap. There are a lot of ways to improve that, and making machanics harder, imho, is the worst of them.
On March 17 2011 05:05 Pulz wrote: I don't really understand the problem in making the mechanics more difficult. Bronze players are going to stay in Bronze, Diamond in Diamond and Masters in Masters because having the Macro mechanics in is the most important thing. If you want to chill with 50 APM and try to become better in this game you probably should switch to WoW.
The problem in making mechanics harder is that it becomes less friendly to a casual audience. I would love if they could do something to make the mechanics harder but since Blizzard is all about the money nowadays I don't see it happening. We can always hope some new mechanic to keep track of is implemented in the expansion.
I really dont see making machanics harder being the solution here, seriously.
Its like saying: All quake players should now play with a xbox controller !
Are you serious ? Can you see that you are actually moving backwards ? I get sad when i compare players playing halo on xbox with other players playing quake.
Make MORE controls available. Thats why they are making bigger maps. You need to control, 4 / 5 bases, 3 / 4 drops at same time, etc... First, i think different leagues should have different maps, and unit cap. There are a lot of ways to improve that, and making machanics harder, imho, is the worst of them.
This actually makes sense. I think that instead of making mechanics more difficult by moving backwards into 1999 technology, they should add more mechanics to the game. This will take quite a while to think up and balance, but once they get it right, it could be quite good and it will separate the good from the elite. Note: Im not talking about MULES or Inject, im talking about something that applies to all of the armies, something cool that everyone will adore. I know, lets put destructable rocks all over the fucking map.
Sigh why do you people assume that harder mechanics means revert back the old style? Watch this video, this is what we mean by harder mechanics:
It's not UI limitations its just plain raw skill involved in controlling the units. Adding that element back into the game would be a start at separating the players in terms of skill.
On March 17 2011 07:22 Buddhist wrote: We have really consistent players. Idra did really well every single season till he left, MC is still a titan, Jinro is almost a titan himself.
It takes a player with a consistent playstyle to get consistent results.
Good job showing you didn't read the thread when IdrA is actually in here disagreeing with you.
Seriously so many 2010 posters coming into a thread, giving one sentence opinion without reading fuck all then leaving. It's getting ridiculous.
Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle.
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.
i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points]
now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts: 4049(us) 2681 (eu this is a brand new acct) 3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile)
So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up.
oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread:
On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote: I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised.
as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope].
as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
I don't think sleepingdog ever mentioned or suggested once that he is as good or better than idra at starcraft. Even if his credentials are lacking he may be 100% correct (im not saying he is or isnt) and thats part of being a spectator in a spectator sport. Fans in real sports heckle players or talk about how bad or overrated someone is without having even a fracture of the ability of that player. I don't see how this is any different nor do I see how it is relevant or appropriate to put sleepingdogs information out there.
I agree that in real sports players are heckled by others whether it be fans, commentators, or what not, however, this is different in several ways:
e-sports have not received wide-spread recognition as true sport(s) in western culture [YET]
fans/commentators, etc don't actually go up to the pro and say "you suck because of these reasons and you will never be better than them", yes ok there is cases of people doing it but it is not normal. moreover this a forum, in this case the pro (idra) is actually connecting with fans.
the player has absolutely no credibility is basically posts an article that is a summarization of rekrul's article (go check it out, you will see what i mean).
skipdog or w/e the fuck his name is nothing but an anti-idra fanboy who doesn't like him because of one or more of the following reasons: hes a standard macro player(ie his play is never like OMG SO CRAZY) he is "bad mannered", however, it is more like telling people that beat him they suck because all they can do are crazy allins because they know they can't compete with him mechanically, which in 99% of cases is true.
by no means am i sucking idra's dick, however, all these anti-idra fanboys are annoying as fuck and often are bronze league heroes who tell him hes: bad, sucks, etc, although in reality, they truly are the ones that suck.
On March 17 2011 07:37 Sovern wrote: Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle.
What the fuck did you even read my post right above yours. Who said that mechanics being harder meant those things. The main issue is units barely requiring control. Not automine.
Besides a REAL TIME strategy game is always going to favour mechanics because its in real time. Why you assume the only meaning of mechanics is those things i don't know. How can you possibly say:
The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap
This just false. Plain and simple completely fucking wrong. Look at the video. How is the micro/positioning anything like it at all? It bewilders me you could even suggest it requires more of any of those things, least of all because positional based units like the lurker and spider mines are out, and theres no cliff advantage meaning positioning is less important than ever. How can multitask have a higher skill cap when theres simply less to do? ugh this is just so wrong.
On March 17 2011 07:24 infinity2k9 wrote: Sigh why do you people assume that harder mechanics means revert back the old style? Watch this video, this is what we mean by harder mechanics:
It's not UI limitations its just plain raw skill involved in controlling the units. Adding that element back into the game would be a start at separating the players in terms of skill..
That video has very little to do with "mechanics" and everything to do with unit design.
BW didn't have deathballs, the units moved slower and were much more spaced out. Because the game was slower and the units had more space, it was actually EASIER to handle some aspects of unit control, such as manually targeting spider mines mid-battle. I would also argue that we already see unit control like this in SC2 whenever we watch a group of marines perfectly split against a baneling ball.
I think the game is more volatile because it rewards strategy more than macro mechanics. In BW, a player with weaker unit control (or who made an early mistake that set him behind) could win solely on the fact that he could create more stuff. In SC2, macro is much easier, which levels the mechanical playing field, leaving the result of the match up to the player that's best at controlling and positioning their army. Rewarding unit control over macro will result in more games where the better player can simply be out-played based on positioning or unit composition, rather than being able to keep up in macro.
That said, the ins and outs of this game are still being figured out. For instance, it's taken almost 3 months for strong phoenix builds to start making regular appearances in pro matches after their build-time buff. As time goes on, more and more timings and openings are going to be developed, leading to more consistency in play that will leave the better player (whether by macro or unit control) winning a higher percentage of games.
It's a bit of a cop-out, but we can NOT forget that the expansions are going to introduce new units and abilities for players to use, which will greatly enhance the dynamics of the game. Starcraft 1 was pretty volatile before BW was released, and then it took til patch 1.08 to really iron out how the units should work in harmony. A lot of the people whining about the volatility of the current scene are just being impatient.
There's too much guessing in this game. Build orders just hard counter other build orders, and most of the time you have to decide on your build before you see your opponents.
At least in Warcraft 3, no common opening just hard countered another common opening, so players won by raw skill (and maybe some item luck/imbalance) instead of by guessing the right build order to go.
On March 17 2011 07:37 Sovern wrote: Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle.
God damnit, did you read the post above yours? Posts like this make me rip my hair.
First off it's STARCRAFT, not chess. Second, mechanics are not only the things your talking about. Read the thread man, the point is many units are so fucking effective with simply a-click. If your build directly counters your opponent, you can just a-click and win, even if the opponent has better control. It helps nothing.
The best example is the Colossus. EVERYONE can use it to fullest potential, while it does ridiculous amount of damage. Theres no realy position required, no micro, nothing. That's were most people want to start, not removing mbs or automining.
If people are saying it's volatile, it's not stopping certain players from dominating across the map, that being oGsMC. And there's no doubt in my mind you can attribute that to his game skill because he's just a major boss. Sure he lost to Jinro last season but Jinro did end up going pretty far.
The video is very much to do with mechanics, how can you say its not? Controlling units is part of the mechanics. The units in SC2 are simpler to control thereby making the mechanics easier. However i believe there's no need at all to make it simpler in that respect considering how many other parts of the game are easier. Having complex unit compositions viable with many possibilities for control and more skill based abilities available would make me much happier with the game regardless of what else is easier.
Edit: Also marine split against banelings is basically the only example repeated over and over, but even that is less dimensional than mnm vs lurker which it replaced.
On March 17 2011 07:37 Sovern wrote: Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle.
God damnit, did you read the post above yours? Posts like this make me rip my hair.
First off it's STARCRAFT, not chess. Second, mechanics are not only the things your talking about. Read the thread man, the point is many units are so fucking effective with simply a-click. If your build directly counters your opponent, you can just a-click and win, even if the opponent has better control. It helps nothing.
The best example is the Colossus. EVERYONE can use it to fullest potential, while it does ridiculous amount of damage. Theres no realy position required, no micro, nothing. That's were most people want to start, not removing mbs or automining.
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
All of the things that I mentioned that SC1 had (no auto mining/no smart casting) are mechanics.....As for this whole idea that scouting is a huge problem early game, that can be remedied by playing aggressive. If your opponent is trying to cheese you, by playing aggressive you can spot his unit composition and possible see his in base structures to see what his build will consist of.
On March 17 2011 08:00 infinity2k9 wrote: The video is very much to do with mechanics, how can you say its not? Controlling units is part of the mechanics. The units in SC2 are simpler to control thereby making the mechanics easier. However i believe there's no need at all to make it simpler in that respect considering how many other parts of the game are easier. Having complex unit compositions viable with many possibilities for control and more skill based abilities available would make me much happier with the game regardless of what else is easier.
Edit: Also marine split against banelings is basically the only example repeated over and over, but even that is less dimensional than mnm vs lurker which it replaced.
The mechanics are exactly the same. You right-click to move, you a-click to attack. Nothing to do with the mechanics have changed at all. What HAS changed is that units now clump into tight, little balls, and are less prone to go wandering across the map or in random zig-zag patterns because of broken pathing code. That's not mechanics either, that's just a pathing fix wreaking havoc on the behaviours of the units, which is essentially a design change. Sure, some units have different abilities than the ones we saw in BW, but again, that's unit design.
The fact that units clump together so tightly, and the fact that SC2 plays at a higher speed than BW makes it much more difficult to perform a lot of the cool micro tricks that are so prevalent in BW, and rewards the use of lazy units with splash damage like collosus, tanks, and banelings. But the mechanics themselves are exactly the same. If splash damage had less radius, and/or there was a little bit more breathing-room between the units, then we'd be watching a game that's much more similar to BW.
On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote: If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game.
Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made?
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose. [/QUOTE]
Okay, today I played a game where I proxy-void-rayed a Terran who tried to expand quite early.
I chased of his SCV, he tried to scout the front, I denied the scout again. Then he scanned and saw nothing because I had my gateways spread out. He only knew that I wasn't expanding.
I rolled over him. Why? Because my strategy was so good? Because I am such a smart player who outthought his opponent and thus won? Or because I just did a cheesy, stupid all-in because I felt like I should try it?
Seriously, having the better strategy and such things are fine. But no one wants coinflip situations like this.
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
On March 17 2011 08:24 Iamyournoob wrote:
Okay, today I played a game where I proxy-void-rayed a Terran who tried to expand quite early.
I chased of his SCV, he tried to scout the front, I denied the scout again. Then he scanned and saw nothing because I had my gateways spread out. He only knew that I wasn't expanding.
I rolled over him. Why? Because my strategy was so good? Because I am such a smart player who outthought his opponent and thus won? Or because I just did a cheesy, stupid all-in because I felt like I should try it?
Seriously, having the better strategy and such things are fine. But no one wants coinflip situations like this.
Terrans who don't account for proxy void rays against protoss got nothing to complain about when they lose.
The border at which a game becomes too volatile is always related to the size of the esport structure behind the game. SC2 is too volatile to become comparable to traditional sports. But excatly the same goes for BW and any other esports game.
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.
i find it funny someone with no reputable reputation of teamliquid decides to try and act as if he is superior to idra. after doing some snooping I learned skipdog is indeed a protoss player [diamond 1250 points]
now lets take into consideration that idra has 3 accounts: 4049(us) 2681 (eu this is a brand new acct) 3811 (kr hasn't been played in awhile)
So i'm trying to comprehend how you can justify that you can be condescending to idra yet you have nothing to back it up, also, it seems all your opinions are formed from the thread rekrul posted regarding idra after he lost a series 2-5 after saying he would 5-2. pros don't win all the time--no one does. But honestly no one likes condescension especially when you can't even back it up.
oh and for shits and giggles i found this in the 100 4gate-challenge thread:
On November 25 2010 06:24 skipdog172 wrote: I'll never understand the 4-gate hate. Oh noes, it's a somewhat decent timing attack! What is the point of whining about it?
can't say i'm surprised.
as for idra, is he the best player in the word? there is no defining criteria of the "best player" it is relative (see einstein's theory of relativity if you need help) seeing that you can't actually define the best player in the world, however, his play is extremely standard and his macro is possibly the best of any zerge--no one can disagree on that [I hope].
as for volatility, idra's suggestion (and many others) of a slight buff to ol base speed or ol speed on hatch tech would help so much, moreover, by getitng ol speed quicker, lair tech would be delayed so its not like the zerg will go for any sort of super cheese it simply makes the game less luck based or more skill, as idra would say if you want a game decided by random luck, play like choyafou.
I don't think sleepingdog ever mentioned or suggested once that he is as good or better than idra at starcraft. Even if his credentials are lacking he may be 100% correct (im not saying he is or isnt) and thats part of being a spectator in a spectator sport. Fans in real sports heckle players or talk about how bad or overrated someone is without having even a fracture of the ability of that player. I don't see how this is any different nor do I see how it is relevant or appropriate to put sleepingdogs information out there.
Yeah fans in other sports may do that, but not when they're talking face to face with the player, that would be silly. Also, I think his main point as that he was acting condescending towards Idra, which is true, and he shouldn't really be acting like that.
Anyway, I think if they fixed the game and made it more skill based the volatility of it would for sure go down. I still see people like Boxer, who admittedly isn't that great now, still make quite a few mistakes in terms of mechanics. The skill ceiling for SC2 is still not near peaking in my eyes. Until we can see the positive effects of taking all of those demanding actions out from BW (mbs etc), the ceiling will still be quite high, and so far that level of play hasn't really shone through.
? The point is that the one guy is a fucking retard for making completely inane/irrelevant arguments. Skipdog was making an argument about the topic at hand (the topic of the OP). The guy quoting him was like "HERF DERF, IF YOU'RE SO GOOD, WHY AREN'T YOU IN GSL!? LOLOLOL"
The mechanics are exactly the same. You right-click to move, you a-click to attack. Nothing to do with the mechanics have changed at all. What HAS changed is that units now clump into tight, little balls, and are less prone to go wandering across the map or in random zig-zag patterns because of broken pathing code. That's not mechanics either, that's just a pathing fix wreaking havoc on the behaviours of the units, which is essentially a design change. Sure, some units have different abilities than the ones we saw in BW, but again, that's unit design.
The fact that units clump together so tightly, and the fact that SC2 plays at a higher speed than BW makes it much more difficult to perform a lot of the cool micro tricks that are so prevalent in BW, and rewards the use of lazy units with splash damage like collosus, tanks, and banelings. But the mechanics themselves are exactly the same. If splash damage had less radius, and/or there was a little bit more breathing-room between the units, then we'd be watching a game that's much more similar to BW.
Pretty sure you either have never played BW or are just trolling. There have been significant changes to base management/unit control mechanics from BW to SC2 that have been debated for well over a year.
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose. [/QUOTE]
Okay, today I played a game where I proxy-void-rayed a Terran who tried to expand quite early.
I chased of his SCV, he tried to scout the front, I denied the scout again. Then he scanned and saw nothing because I had my gateways spread out. He only knew that I wasn't expanding.
I rolled over him. Why? Because my strategy was so good? Because I am such a smart player who outthought his opponent and thus won? Or because I just did a cheesy, stupid all-in because I felt like I should try it?
Seriously, having the better strategy and such things are fine. But no one wants coinflip situations like this. [/QUOTE]
He deserved to lose, like the previous poster said if he didn't account for proxy buildings from protoss than he deserved the loss. This is why playing standard is so important. If the terran played standard and played aggressive he could of poked at your front door with units that you wouldn't be able to hold off since you went for void ray cheese and he would of been able to get out a bunker and ebay fast enough to deal with it.
Early game aggression is vital to getting good intel. It's the reason why most of the top terran players open tvt with 5 marine 1 hellion pokes, tvp a lot of the top terran players open with 2 rax pressure or a fast reaper to get that crictical intel, tvz 2 rax or hellion pressure will get you the intel. This is all coming from a terrans perspective of course but it applies to the other races too. To be able to get good intel early game you have to be aggressive, bottom line.
On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote: If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game.
Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made?
What level do you play at? I'm curious because mainly at the lower levels do strict build orders account for wins. At the higher levels of play most of the time players win off of decision making, strong fundamentals, good scouting, macro/micro, and adapting their build to their opponents build. Only terrible players just blindly follow a strategy and don't adapt to their opponents strategy.
The best players play standard and they all adapt. If Jinro opens 2 rax expand against a protoss and scouts a fast twilight council with a low number of sentry's at his front do you think that hes just going to blindly ignore the great possibility that his opponent is going 1 base dts? Or is he going to just keep following his original strategy of getting MnM's and medivacs? Of course hes going to adapt, get detection and ebay upgrades while getting a raven......only bad players lose to a straight up strategy.
The interesting thing, though, is this: Has anyone actually hit their own cap in physical ability (the physical ability applied to gaming)?
For example, say my maximum apm right now is 50. Say I train for 5 years to get my APM higher, and I get it all the way to 300. What if I train for another 5 years? Maybe I could get it up to 400. The thing is, at some point, I'm not going to need to use all of that APM in a real game of SC2 (or BW for that matter).
I just can't imagine a normal human, without physical or mental disabilities, who is unable to achieve 500 burst APM. 500 APM is more than enough for any game of SC.
I'm willing to bet that you could take any human without disabilities and train them to hit the physical skill cap of SC2. In fact the idea of being unable to do that seems ridiculous. The only problem is, most people don't have the time, effort, or motivation to put into doing that. Not even I do yet, as hard as I try to convince myself, and it kind of sucks.
So a human may be born with factors he can't change (like height, and physical limits in speed), but I think each person's physical limits are far higher than the highest you'd ever want/need for SC2.
Soooo I guess all I'm saying is that Idra's post is completely correct, though I didn't intend to do so.
Edit: And obviously what hot bid was saying is true. I think any intelligent person has understood the fact since SC1 beta: Strategy doesn't come into play unless you can execute it, and that requires mechanics. I'm only arguing that any human without disabilities can handle the highest level of mechanics, given enough effort to learn it.
For the people who were talking about the fact that there should be a proleague in SC2. I totally agree. Seeing players play more would be able to show consistency more accurately. Which is why I think the NASL has a great format. A group stage that lasts 9 weeks, while not as good as the Proleague, should definitely show a little more consistency.
In the first 10 years of football/ basketball and boxing, there weren't huge name stars either. There are certainly impressive players, but I think we're going to have to wait a few years before we get our Flash's Jaedong's and Bisu's.
SC2 is incredibly volatile. I'm pretty sure it's half because it's such a new game and players are still getting used to the constantly shifting trends of it, and half because there's hardly any defender's advantage (i.e. there's a huge snowball effect as soon as you win the first battle that makes it very hard for the other player to recover from).
I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed.
He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams
And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on outplaying your opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually.
99% of people who bought and play Starcraft 2 didn't play it because they think they can be the best in the world. They bought it because it's the sequel to one of the best RTS games ever made, the game that they played when they were kids, and hoping to have tons of fun with the game with out having any old-skool elitism get in the way.
I think a large part of why feels more volatile is because so far there are only knockout tournaments, instead of an on-going Proleague. Upsets happen in BW all the time, like Flash getting knocked out rather early by mediocre players in the OSL and MSL. But when that happens we still get to see Flash play and maintain his exceptional win ratio by dominating proleague.
If there was a Proleague in SC2, then it wouldn't seem so bad if somebody like MVP got knocked out of a tourney early, because he would still be playing in next weeks' matches, and therefore be given a chance to continue to show his dominance.
I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed.
He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams
And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on who outplaying you're opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually.
Just because a games mechanics are hard does not mean it lacks strategy. At the top level you should need both mechanics and strategy to win. At lower levels you should be able to win one or the other. Also, i think he was talking about the individual not teams.
On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote: If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game.
Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made?
If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win?
People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR.
Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
Making mechanics harder isn't gonna do a thing. Once people are better at handling them the problems we have atm (BO roulette basically) are still going to be there.
I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed.
He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams
And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on outplaying your opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually.
99% of people who bought and play Starcraft 2 didn't play it because they think they can be the best in the world. They bought it because it's the sequel to one of the best RTS games ever made, the game that they played when they were kids, and hoping to have tons of fun with the game with out having any old-skool elitism get in the way.
He also says there's exceptions in Basketball sometimes but generally height and physical advantage is important, did you just skim through it or read it properly? You just go on repeat the exact thing that is refuted in his posts. There isn't much depth in 'strategy, wits, deception' in Starcraft 1 or 2. There's no room for constant innovation, most players will be using a known build or at least a refined version of it until everyone copies. The game you are looking for if you want those things is just not Starcraft. Now and then we get some great strategical play which surprises everyone but how can that happen very often when theres hundreds of thousands of games played every day?
Now you just added an extra paragraph which basically makes the rest pointless. We're talking about eSports not 99% of the people who bought the game. If they can't do the advanced mechanics why would it even matter? Thats why theres matchmaking.
On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote: If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game.
Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made?
If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win?
People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR.
Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
The guy wasn't saying slightly less skill; He was saying if he builds the counter he should win. No mention of execution in there or being only slightly less mechanically skilled.
As people are constantly saying its a balance between the two.
I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed.
He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams
And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on who outplaying your opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually.
99% of people who bought and play Starcraft 2 didn't play it because they think they can be the best in the world. They bought it because it's the sequel to one of the best RTS games ever made, the game that they played when they were kids, and hoping to have tons of fun with the game with out having any old-skool elitism get in the way.
The beauty of Starcraft 1 was that you needed a huge amount of BOTH strategy and mechanics to be successful. That's what made it so incredibly exciting to watch, that's what made it so difficult to play, that's what made you feel so absolutely AMAZING after you beat a good player on iccup. Because you beat him in both aspects - strategy AND mechanics. I see people on TL all the time lately arguing that SC2 should be only about strategy, but they are only arguing against the idea that SC2 should be only about mechanics. The truth is that it needs to be about both to be a truly beautiful esport and to have a maximum amount of competition and excitement.
On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote: If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game.
Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made?
If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win?
People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR.
Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
Noone is trying to say that you should win solely based upon mechanics, however it would play an important role in how skilled a player is. Can a person macro with difficult mechanics while maintaing micro, strategic insight, gamesense and decision making? It is part of the bigger picture.
Also the Baneling Marine micro example is getting old, it in fact 1 of the only if not THE ONLY twosided micro there is in SC2 currently.
Hot_Bid's posts should pretty much put an end to this thread, or any other thread regarding mechanics and strategy, and the inherent volatility of games where physical skill is diminished.
Sure, the metagame and maps will (hopefully) continue to evolve in SC2, but when innovation stops occuring on a regular basis, the only thing that's left is mechanics. No one can win consistently by "out-thinking" the opponent in a RTS game of limited information. To the person who brought up the Brazilian soccer team - soccer is a game with an EXTREMELY high (if not limitless) skill ceiling, where some of that is also team chemistry. If a Brazilian team of pros, thrown together in less than a day, were brought in to compete against some college team that's been playing together for 4 years, the Brazilian team will still EASILY dominate. The point is, the skill gap is so large, it's unfathomable. That's not the case here in SC2. Also, team chemistry (which is why teams comprised of slighty "lesser" skilled individual players win) isn't strategy - it's actually part of "mechanics" (having practiced together so they know each others' strengths/weaknesses/styles etc).
I think there are two camps to this: one that enjoys the volatility, and one that enjoys stability. Many people loved the NBA back in the 80's, when it was essentially just two teams chock full of all-stars battling it out in every Finals. I personally think the NBA has become as exciting as ever with what the Miami Heat just did, and what the Lakers and Boston did a few years back (Gasol, Ray Allen + KG). People love to see titans battling it out - it's why TBLS are so revered in the BW scene, and why people loved Boxer, NaDa, Oov, and Savior back when they were dominating.
The other camp I suppose are the ones who don't care about the individual players as long as the level of the games are high. I sympathize with such people, but quite frankly, I think the majority of the spectators have their own favorites, and would love for them to do well all the time. Mvp gained a TON of bandwagon fans when he dominated S4, and I'm sure July/MC would explode with new fans when one of them wins S5. It's just how the mentality of the "average" fan works.
On March 17 2011 09:27 PJA wrote: If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win?
People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR.
Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
It will always be dependant on that unique situation, whether your strat is good enough to defeat his superior mechanics, or if your mechanics can carry your strat all the way through and not fail you.
Mechanics are important, no matter what people on this topic say.
If you're playing at a high level, you can have as wild strats as you want, but if your mechanics can't keep up with them, that's a flaw in your play.
SC2 mechanics are streamlined enough that you don't need to be a korean practicing 20 hours a day to have borderline optimal mechanics, even though it will obviously help, and this allows for deeper strategies and tactics to develop, but it is still a game where you control just about every portion of your race, and mechanics will play in.
starcraft does have some very volatile matchups but i dont think mvp is a good example. PvP is by and far the very worst that the game has to offer, and when its between two players of equal caliber its nothing more than a crapshoot. I dont think im alone when I say that PvP is not at an esport level state of balance/watchability.
with mvp as an example, i think tvp is one of the more far matchups in sc2
openers can be build order roulette as we saw in the 3gate early pressure expand vs fe
other than that he was off his game. pushed at awkward times, the last game his army got flanked out of position and wrecked. i was ok with that, he played (by his standards) poorly
I tend not to pay attention to the players as much (with the exception of maybe idra and a few others) but I find pro-games split off into three categories: one being somebody does an early aggression and cuts drones/probes/scvs to do it, those games are usually short and often extremely volatile, and really don't show off the potential of either player. The other is a nice solid macro game, with drops and multiple expansions. Those are a lot less volatile, and I think once people figure out how to stop early aggression the macro games will stabilize and show us who really is the best of the best.
The third category is when one the players does something crazy unexpected, and then it becomes who can think quicker on their feet. My favorite kind of game personally
Problem is, I m sure as some people have said. There is not enough defenders advantage, especially early and particularly when protoss attacks since they can: - removing reinforcement distance or the ability to cut reinforcements - forcefield to split units, cut concaves, protect from melee, shut down bunkers, prevent running - best unit retention in the early game (high hp, shields) - get more probes early while other races are catching up using their respective macro mechanics.
Still, its not just protoss, slings are very strong early game before their counter units can arrive, and mass marine dps is insane as well. Its just that protoss encompasses that the best.
Its only in the late game that unit control even comes into play, managing multiple groups and fronts and microing spell casters, since the early game is so volatile it often doesnt come down to skill. in the early game, the units are limited by what you can do so even lower level players can beat highly skilled players, If the late game is reached at an even point though, thats when skill really shines (byun vs zenio, jinro vs ensnare LT TvT).
I don't care if a TL mod wrote that, the article is flawed.
He speaks that basketball teams who have better physical advantage, such as height, speed, faster reaction, would trump over another basketball team who have lesser of those characteristics. This is simply not true; a team that is not well co-ordinated or doesn't have any smart plays will have a terrible disadvantage against another team that does. I do not know anything about basketball, but in football, the Brazilian football team has among the most talented players in world who are known to lean more on their feet and less on their head, yet they keep losing to lesser skilled teams simply because they get outplayed by smarter, more co-ordinated football teams
And seriously, people don't like mechanics > strategy is not because of some deep seeded ego that we all can be the best. People don't like it simply because in a real-time strategy game, most people would rather focus on the STRATEGY part more than the real-time. Why does the focus have to be on REAL-TIME? Why can't a game's victor be decided more on outplaying your opponent using strategy, wits, and deception, instead of who can manage 5 buildings each in separate hotkeys or who can cast lockdown the fastest by selecting 3 ghosts individually.
99% of people who bought and play Starcraft 2 didn't play it because they think they can be the best in the world. They bought it because it's the sequel to one of the best RTS games ever made, the game that they played when they were kids, and hoping to have tons of fun with the game with out having any old-skool elitism get in the way.
He also says there's exceptions in Basketball sometimes but generally height and physical advantage is important, did you just skim through it or read it properly? You just go on repeat the exact thing that is refuted in his posts. There isn't much depth in 'strategy, wits, deception' in Starcraft 1 or 2. There's no room for constant innovation, most players will be using a known build or at least a refined version of it until everyone copies. The game you are looking for if you want those things is just not Starcraft. Now and then we get some great strategical play which surprises everyone but how can that happen very often when theres hundreds of thousands of games played every day?
Now you just added an extra paragraph which basically makes the rest pointless. We're talking about eSports not 99% of the people who bought the game. If they can't do the advanced mechanics why would it even matter? Thats why theres matchmaking.
On March 17 2011 08:05 Sovern wrote: If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
NO. You shouldn't win if you're inferior in skill. Go play rock paper scissors or a turn based game.
Hot_Bid's posts on the matter are important. The idea that someone should win purely on a strategy they pick is ridiculous, especially when they probably learnt it from a progame or found on the forums, or even generated it on a program these days ffs. Whats the skill in using a strategy someone else made?
If I am slightly less mechanically skilled than my opponent but I prepare my openings better to beat his, do I deserve to win?
People who think that mechanics are the only real skill and that there is no skill in strategy preparation are massively retarded. As much as this game isn't chess, it's also not keyboard DDR.
Basically every single one of your posts makes commits an egregious error of equating skill and mechanics.
The guy wasn't saying slightly less skill; He was saying if he builds the counter he should win. No mention of execution in there or being only slightly less mechanically skilled.
As people are constantly saying its a balance between the two.
And i read it, and i also say strategy is an important part too. It's useless to have a team of Shaqs if each of them are idiots who like to hog the ball and go for three pointers each time. And the reason there isn't 'depth in strategy, wits, and deception' in Starcraft 2 was because it was made that way, because even after more than a decade, the old-skool elitism mentality among hardcore RTS gamers still exist that refuses to accept that games change. In truth a game that focuses more on strategy instead of frantic clicking not only has more depth, it's a whole lot more fun to play and also a whole lot more fun to watch. Chess games have a lot more depth than DDR or O2Jam.
On March 17 2011 09:53 Rashid wrote: And i read it, and i also say strategy is an important part too. It's useless to have a team of Shaqs if each of them are idiots who like to hog the ball and go for three pointers each time. And the reason there isn't 'depth in strategy, wits, and deception' in Starcraft 2 was because it was made that way, because even after more than a decade, the old-skool elitism mentality still exist that refuses to accept that games change. In truth a game that focuses more on strategy instead of frantic clicking not only has more depth, it's a whole lot more fun to play and also a whole lot more fun to watch. Chess games has a lot more depth than DDR or O2Jam.
SC2 has strategic depth, you simply need to have the mechanics to support it.
On March 17 2011 09:53 Rashid wrote: And i read it, and i also say strategy is an important part too. It's useless to have a team of Shaqs if each of them are idiots who like to hog the ball and go for three pointers each time. And the reason there isn't 'depth in strategy, wits, and deception' in Starcraft 2 was because it was made that way, because even after more than a decade, the old-skool elitism mentality still exist that refuses to accept that games change. In truth a game that focuses more on strategy instead of frantic clicking not only has more depth, it's a whole lot more fun to play and also a whole lot more fun to watch. Chess games has a lot more depth than DDR or O2Jam.
SC2 has strategic depth, you simply need to have the mechanics to support it.
What is the problem with this?
The problem is the game focuses more on mechanics instead of strategy.
I'm sick and tired of this debate. This is the exact same debate we had with Warcraft III. We didn't have it with Brood War because the original builds of Starcraft were originally criticized for being too much like Warcraft II instead of moving forward. We had it with Warcraft III because it took the Blizzard strategy game in a completely different direction and Starcraft was pretty much on its way to video game God status. "Warcraft III doesn't require any skill! Look at the level of play! There's not that much micromanagement! What is this autocast mechanic? What a fucking noob mechanic." And then after all the Brood War players decried Warcraft III as a "noob game" and Warcraft III got a couple of years for the talent and skill level of the player base to flourish (with quite a bit of help from The Frozen Throne), Warcraft III turned into some kind of beast that required the ridiculous micromanagement skills that Brood War players now laud and respect; ridiculous micromanagement skills that bred KiWiKaKi into one of the best micromanaging Westerners out there. I figured we were going to be done with these debates and we had built the body of knowledge to avoid them, but apparently, we haven't.
We have absolutely no way of knowing whether the game is responsible for any volatility or the relatively low player skill (and yes, it will be considered "low player skill" when we're in the year 2015 and 2016 and looking back at the silly strategies we played) because no competitive real-time strategy game has ever been subjected to this kind of scrutiny this early in its life cycle; by either professional players or the thousands upon thousands of fans who watch livestreams and commentaries to see the state of the Starcraft II food chain. People have been playing tournaments since the beta. And over that time, the power structure has shifted from Protoss/Zerg to Terran to Zerg to Terran to Protoss and so forth. All of this in roughly twelve months of play. That is, "the best players thought Protoss and Zerg were the best" followed by "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Zerg was the best" to "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Protoss was the best". Some of those shifts in power came with some pretty substantial balance changes. A lot of them did not. It came with people unveiling new strategies and getting better at the various skills required to go to war with new units and new abilities and a new interface.
It's easier to mount a winning mid-game push than it was in Brood War. That much isn't debatable. There's a very good chance that players are having tough time scouting mid-game pushes because the scouting mechanics aren't good enough. That's also very possible. But we can't just conclude the scouting isn't doable and we need Blizzard to bail us out. The Brood War player base spent too much time complaining that "Starcraft II is too easy" to now begin going out of their way to say one of its most critical skills is too hard. And the Brood War player base, quite frankly, is still playing Starcraft II like it's Brood War. People don't have their head around this game like they had their head around the previous game. Nobody's gotten a spectacular eye for tiny, minute nuances that give away playstyles. Nobody's gotten an eye for the things that are dead give-aways for the Wraith rushes and Dark Templar rushes that were also a part of Brood War. People don't know how to counter the action that kills the scout. People don't know how to counter the action that counters the action. At least not as well as they'd think. Do you know how many commentaries I watch featuring high-level players that are playing absolutely blind instead of fighting like death for watch towers and using that "Brood War micro" to ballhawk any unit that walks down the ramp? Do you know how many commentaries I see "winning moves" that could be incorporated into general play? (And no, I am not claiming I am better than everyone here. Do not claim I am saying that. And please don't invoke the League card. Because as far as I can tell, I'm one of the few people here who isn't making excuses. You invoke the League card when a poor player is saying a strategy can't be beat or the game is too hard. I'm not doing that.) It took how many months for Terran players to begin dabbling in Mech builds against Protoss? That's why players are not familiar with the various strategies and "one build is countering another". In several years, players will be able to do it just like they're capable of doing it in Warcraft III and Brood War. This stuff takes a long time to figure out. It took about four years for Warcraft III to go from a game of Demon Hunters and Huntresses and Mass Casters into a game where everybody is pissing their pants when they see how Moon won his latest game. It took about four years for Starcraft to transform from a game of Six-Pools into Boxer and his Terran arsenal. A lot of that had to do with balance changes and tweaks and new map design. The other portion was the result of increasing player skill. It will take years for people to get their heads around this game and determine whether or not it can hold up to scrutiny. It took years for Brood War to do that and it took years for Warcraft III to do that. "I played 12 years of Brood War and eight months of Starcraft II!" does not change that.
I don't normally invoke the "go play game X and stop whining about game Y", but this seems like a really good time to do it. You've had an entire year to think about whether you enjoy this game. If you do not think it is any good, you have the best real-time strategy game of all-time to comfortably fall back upon. Please do it. I don't come on this forum every week and bitch about how Starcraft II games are a massive downgrade from Warcraft III because the most passionate portions of the Brood War community busted out the pitchforks and torches when Blizzard wanted to make any minor change to the formula, a formula that is absolutely horrible for team games. I go play Warcraft III and I enjoy the hell out of it. I don't come on this forum and bitch about the state of gameplay balance because I know the "state of gameplay balance" is driven by the rapidly improving skill level of the player base and not the game itself. At least when people complained about Warcraft III, they went back to Brood War and stopped complaining about Warcraft III. What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set. You guys are too talented at these games to keep spending month after month after month claiming every situation is hopeless.
On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote: I'm sick and tired of this debate. This is the exact same debate we had with Warcraft III. We didn't have it with Brood War because the original builds of Starcraft were originally criticized for being too much like Warcraft II instead of moving forward. We had it with Warcraft III because it took the Blizzard strategy game in a completely different direction and Starcraft was pretty much on its way to video game God status. "Warcraft III doesn't require any skill! Look at the level of play! There's not that much micromanagement! What is this autocast mechanic? What a fucking noob mechanic." And then after all the Brood War players decried Warcraft III as a "noob game" and Warcraft III got a couple of years for the talent and skill level of the player base to flourish (with quite a bit of help from The Frozen Throne), Warcraft III turned into some kind of beast that required the ridiculous micromanagement skills that Brood War players now laud and respect; ridiculous micromanagement skills that bred KiWiKaKi into one of the best micromanaging Westerners out there. I figured we were going to be done with these debates and we had built the body of knowledge to avoid them, but apparently, we haven't.
We have absolutely no way of knowing whether the game is responsible for any volatility or the relatively low player skill (and yes, it will be considered "low player skill" when we're in the year 2015 and 2016 and looking back at the silly strategies we played) because no competitive real-time strategy game has ever been subjected to this kind of scrutiny this early in its life cycle; by either professional players or the thousands upon thousands of fans who watch livestreams and commentaries to see the state of the Starcraft II food chain. People have been playing tournaments since the beta. And over that time, the power structure has shifted from Protoss/Zerg to Terran to Zerg to Terran to Protoss and so forth. All of this in roughly twelve months of play. That is, "the best players thought Protoss and Zerg were the best" followed by "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Zerg was the best" to "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Protoss was the best". Some of those shifts in power came with some pretty substantial balance changes. A lot of them did not. It came with people unveiling new strategies and getting better at the various skills required to go to war with new units and new abilities and a new interface.
It's easier to mount a winning mid-game push than it was in Brood War. That much isn't debatable. There's a very good chance that players are having tough time scouting mid-game pushes because the scouting mechanics aren't good enough. That's also very possible. But we can't just conclude the scouting isn't doable and we need Blizzard to bail us out. The Brood War player base spent too much time complaining that "Starcraft II is too easy" to now begin going out of their way to say one of its most critical skills is too hard. And the Brood War player base, quite frankly, is still playing Starcraft II like it's Brood War. People don't have their head around this game like they had their head around the previous game. Nobody's gotten a spectacular eye for tiny, minute nuances that give away playstyles. Nobody's gotten an eye for the things that are dead give-aways for the Wraith rushes and Dark Templar rushes that were also a part of Brood War. People don't know how to counter the action that kills the scout. People don't know how to counter the action that counters the action. At least not as well as they'd think. Do you know how many commentaries featuring high-level players where people are playing absolutely blind instead of fighting like death for watch towers and using that "Brood War micro" to ballhawk any unit that walks down the ramp? Do you know how many commentaries where I see "winning moves" that could be incorporated into general play? (And no, I am not claiming I am better than everyone here. Do not claim I am saying that. And please don't invoke the League card. Because as far as I can tell, I'm one of the few people here who isn't making excuses. You invoke the League card when a poor player is saying a strategy can't be beat or the game is too hard. I'm not doing that.) It took how many months for Terran players to begin regularly playing Mech builds against Protoss? That's why players are not familiar with the various strategies and "one build is countering another". In several years, players will be able to do it just like they're capable of doing it in Warcraft III and Brood War. This stuff takes a long time to figure out. It took about four years for Warcraft III to go from a game of Demon Hunters and Huntresses and Mass Casters into a game where everybody is pissing their pants when they see how Moon won his latest game. It took about four years for Starcraft to transform from a game of Six-Pools into Boxer and his Terran arsenal. A lot of that had to do with balance changes and tweaks and new map design. The other portion was the result of increasing player skill. It will take years for people to get their heads around this game and determine whether or not it can hold up to scrutiny. It took years for Brood War to do that and it took years for Warcraft III to do that. "I played 12 years of Brood War and eight months of Starcraft II!" does not change that.
I don't normally invoke the "go play game X and stop whining about game Y", but this seems like a really good time to do it. You've had an entire year to think about whether you enjoy this game. If you do not think it is any good, you have the best real-time strategy game of all-time to comfortably fall back upon. Please do it. I don't come on this forum every week and bitch about how Starcraft II games are a massive downgrade from Warcraft III because the most passionate portions of the Brood War community busted out the pitchforks and torches when Blizzard wanted to make any minor change to the formula, a formula that is absolutely horrible for team games. I go play Warcraft III and I enjoy the hell out of it. I don't come on this forum and bitch about the state of gameplay balance because I know the "state of gameplay balance" is driven by the rapidly improving skill level of the player base and not the game itself. At least when people complained about Warcraft III, they went back to Brood War and stopped complaining about Warcraft III. What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set. You guys are too talented at these games to keep spending month after month after month claiming every situation is hopeless.
I don't actually know anything about WC3, but I have never met or talked to a BW player who respected it so it might be flawed for you to say that BW players thought it was very respectable. I actually was under the impression they had more aversion to it than SC2.
On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote: I'm sick and tired of this debate. This is the exact same debate we had with Warcraft III. We didn't have it with Brood War because the original builds of Starcraft were originally criticized for being too much like Warcraft II instead of moving forward. We had it with Warcraft III because it took the Blizzard strategy game in a completely different direction and Starcraft was pretty much on its way to video game God status. "Warcraft III doesn't require any skill! Look at the level of play! There's not that much micromanagement! What is this autocast mechanic? What a fucking noob mechanic." And then after all the Brood War players decried Warcraft III as a "noob game" and Warcraft III got a couple of years for the talent and skill level of the player base to flourish (with quite a bit of help from The Frozen Throne), Warcraft III turned into some kind of beast that required the ridiculous micromanagement skills that Brood War players now laud and respect; ridiculous micromanagement skills that bred KiWiKaKi into one of the best micromanaging Westerners out there. I figured we were going to be done with these debates and we had built the body of knowledge to avoid them, but apparently, we haven't.
We have absolutely no way of knowing whether the game is responsible for any volatility or the relatively low player skill (and yes, it will be considered "low player skill" when we're in the year 2015 and 2016 and looking back at the silly strategies we played) because no competitive real-time strategy game has ever been subjected to this kind of scrutiny this early in its life cycle; by either professional players or the thousands upon thousands of fans who watch livestreams and commentaries to see the state of the Starcraft II food chain. People have been playing tournaments since the beta. And over that time, the power structure has shifted from Protoss/Zerg to Terran to Zerg to Terran to Protoss and so forth. All of this in roughly twelve months of play. That is, "the best players thought Protoss and Zerg were the best" followed by "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Zerg was the best" to "the best players thought Terran was the best" to "the best players thought Protoss was the best". Some of those shifts in power came with some pretty substantial balance changes. A lot of them did not. It came with people unveiling new strategies and getting better at the various skills required to go to war with new units and new abilities and a new interface.
It's easier to mount a winning mid-game push than it was in Brood War. That much isn't debatable. There's a very good chance that players are having tough time scouting mid-game pushes because the scouting mechanics aren't good enough. That's also very possible. But we can't just conclude the scouting isn't doable and we need Blizzard to bail us out. The Brood War player base spent too much time complaining that "Starcraft II is too easy" to now begin going out of their way to say one of its most critical skills is too hard. And the Brood War player base, quite frankly, is still playing Starcraft II like it's Brood War. People don't have their head around this game like they had their head around the previous game. Nobody's gotten a spectacular eye for tiny, minute nuances that give away playstyles. Nobody's gotten an eye for the things that are dead give-aways for the Wraith rushes and Dark Templar rushes that were also a part of Brood War. People don't know how to counter the action that kills the scout. People don't know how to counter the action that counters the action. At least not as well as they'd think. Do you know how many commentaries featuring high-level players where people are playing absolutely blind instead of fighting like death for watch towers and using that "Brood War micro" to ballhawk any unit that walks down the ramp? Do you know how many commentaries where I see "winning moves" that could be incorporated into general play? (And no, I am not claiming I am better than everyone here. Do not claim I am saying that. And please don't invoke the League card. Because as far as I can tell, I'm one of the few people here who isn't making excuses. You invoke the League card when a poor player is saying a strategy can't be beat or the game is too hard. I'm not doing that.) It took how many months for Terran players to begin regularly playing Mech builds against Protoss? That's why players are not familiar with the various strategies and "one build is countering another". In several years, players will be able to do it just like they're capable of doing it in Warcraft III and Brood War. This stuff takes a long time to figure out. It took about four years for Warcraft III to go from a game of Demon Hunters and Huntresses and Mass Casters into a game where everybody is pissing their pants when they see how Moon won his latest game. It took about four years for Starcraft to transform from a game of Six-Pools into Boxer and his Terran arsenal. A lot of that had to do with balance changes and tweaks and new map design. The other portion was the result of increasing player skill. It will take years for people to get their heads around this game and determine whether or not it can hold up to scrutiny. It took years for Brood War to do that and it took years for Warcraft III to do that. "I played 12 years of Brood War and eight months of Starcraft II!" does not change that.
I don't normally invoke the "go play game X and stop whining about game Y", but this seems like a really good time to do it. You've had an entire year to think about whether you enjoy this game. If you do not think it is any good, you have the best real-time strategy game of all-time to comfortably fall back upon. Please do it. I don't come on this forum every week and bitch about how Starcraft II games are a massive downgrade from Warcraft III because the most passionate portions of the Brood War community busted out the pitchforks and torches when Blizzard wanted to make any minor change to the formula, a formula that is absolutely horrible for team games. I go play Warcraft III and I enjoy the hell out of it. I don't come on this forum and bitch about the state of gameplay balance because I know the "state of gameplay balance" is driven by the rapidly improving skill level of the player base and not the game itself. At least when people complained about Warcraft III, they went back to Brood War and stopped complaining about Warcraft III. What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set. You guys are too talented at these games to keep spending month after month after month claiming every situation is hopeless.
I don't actually know anything about WC3, but I have never met or talked to a BW player who respected it so it might be flawed for you to say that BW players thought it was very respectable. I actually was under the impression they had more aversion to it than SC2.
It's been a very slow acceptance. Either that, or TeamLiquid just banned the hell out of anyone who irrationally spoke ill of Warcraft III. o.o
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
I really enjoy this style of competition, take a look at the NHL yes there are top teams and bottom teams, but on any given night any team seems to win randomly much like in the GSL this makes it way more interesting, instead of going oh the canucks are gonna win every game, and when they don't it's a huge upset, it is oh the canucks should win most of their games but we don't know. If it's a 90% win rate it takes away all competition and enjoyment, so maybe you prefer a more stable, nor chance, sure thing with little surprises but I much prefer a competitive scene as opposed to something like womans hockey in the olympics there is only 2 teams with a shot at gold and that is a snore fest
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
Its real time strategy. Every game in that realm will have a "real time" component and a "strategy" component and depending on where in the spectrum things falls will decide what roll strategy vs mechanics play in determining the winner. I don't see what is wrong with SC2 moving a very small step in the direction of chess from BW so that thinking plays a slightly bigger role and handspeed plays a slightly smaller one...
Obviously it might upset some established elite who won't be as dominate in SC2 as they were in BW as it will reward a different skill set but it doesn't make it a bad game.
Furthermore, if how fast you can do stuff is what you think should be the main challenge in SC2, intentionally crippling the interface to make it like broodwar seems retarded compared to introducing more new exciting micro requiring units/abilities.
Posters in this thread are arguing that the game is too easy mechanically so bad players can win and great players can never dominate. My point is just that if that were the problem then bad players could win at chess also which is clearly not the case and that a strategy game need not be volatile even if the "real time" element is less pronounced.
From the way you're writing IdrA, it sounds awfully like you're implying that the 'dice roll' feeling of the game can only apply to P and T. Might be just me though.
What league are you in? There's so many build order wins in mirror matchups, and guessing zerg has to do when terran walls off on bottom of the ramp in close positoins, or i guess you can all in on ling roach or something... rofl
low levels are defending the "strategy" part of the game, saying mechanical skill is not wanted and you should win solely by picking the right build. execution doesn't matter. this makes me so sad, because i get the impression so many people think that they got now the chance to compete with players much much more skilled than themselves and netting wins they simply don't deserve based on the big luck factor in sc2.
On March 17 2011 10:34 Elefanto wrote: god this thread is awful
low levels are defending the "strategy" part of the game, saying mechanical skill is not wanted and you should win solely by picking the right build. execution doesn't matter. this makes me so sad, because i get the impression so many people think that they got now the chance to compete with players much much more skilled than themselves and netting wins they simply don't deserve based on the big luck factor in sc2.
This is totally misconstruing what I'm saying.
STRATEGY IS NOT PICKING A BUILD ORDER.
It is reacting to your opponent and decision making in game. No one wants to pick a build order and win or lose. I just think that having amazing decision making (like NesTea or OgsTheWind) be rewarded slightly over mechanics is great.
SC2 allowing for this is the reason that NesTea is the best zerg in the world in SC2 but was never near the top of SC1. NesTea makes amazing decisions, is always in his opponents head and 1 step ahead of them, and understands the matchups and I love watching players like that be rewarded.
I don't even think you get what "strategy means". You're acting like it means picking a build in advance and praying it wins which is retarded.
Can someone give me an example in this past GSL where the loss was purely a build order loss? I haven't recalled any cheese or anyone straight up losing to VR's or whatever.
With the new maps and the game being more "figured out" then before, this has been the least luck-based GSL yet. MKP, MVP, and Nestea lost because they didn't play to their full potential. End of story. They didn't lose to cheese, and they had enough information about their opponents to make correct decisions, they just didn't play there best.
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
Let's be honest a lot of people just want the game to play itself for them. It is a hard game, and skill should be the only determining factor in it's outcome. It is rather unfortunate for these people however that skill takes time and effort to aquire.
For all of those people who claim they want it to be a "pure" strategy game, are you a competitive chess player (it is so awesome afterall)? Or would you rather we skip the whole playing football part of the NFL and just have the coaches think it out?
Pure strategy games are not sports, the whole reason we view starcraft as a sport is due to the mechanical aspect of it. Don't ruin it for us.
Now with that said; the skill ceiling for a lot of the powerful strategies being executed at the moment is waaay too low. The risk reward and the 4th resource (multitasking/focus) are not in balance with each other. It is far too easy to shut down scouting, abuse map design, and destroy players better than you. So yes it is volitle, and yes Idra is right when practicing 10 hours a day it is pretty easy for people to close that skill gap awful quick.
I really don't get this. You're complaining that the games AREN'T exciting because anybody can win? In most professional sports there's no team that's "ZOMG sweep" every single time, that would make a sport unwatchable. HOWEVER it's when a team, (or player) can in one season (or tournament) completely dominate that makes it interesting and fun, but this should only happen RARELY, otherwise who would watch a sport where the outcome is pretty much decided. Ya, ok, upsets, but seriously, wouldn't you just say "wow! Cool", and move on. What's the point in getting excited if the player who won the upset is in no way actually a contender? Just my two cents.
Before SC2 was released Blizzard often times promised, that they would intercept the falling skill ceiling with new great Micro moves. I liked the idea behind this approach a lot, because having units that are only great if you handle them correctly is a fun way to play in my opinion. On the other side, i wouldnt enjoy SC2 with crappy SCBW UI, AI, etc. .
Though now, after SC2 is released, i am a bit disappointed. I like the easier unit and macro management. But where are the great new Micro moves, Blizzard promised us? Why do we get Hydras, Ultras, Thors, Immortals, Colossi, Marauders or Banshees? Now i dont mind a few "simple to handle" units for the noobs, or units that are "only" good without micro, but great when u micro them. But the truth is, there arent actually a lot of skill-rewarding units. Those would help to raise the skill ceiling and would make the game less volatile (i.e. defend unscouted cheese with superior micro and some power units), the game would still be as newbie friendly as it is now and the game would be more exciting to watch.
All games have luck involved, video game or not, it's just life, everything is luck based.
The game is so new, so nothing is ironed out yet, sure there are the 'common builds' in certain matchups, but these change almost every month, not to mention the amount of balance changes that change the game regularly. Also, because the game is so new, there is a high level of competition, the 'top' players are not that far ahead of the players that are ranked underneath them.
I think this makes the game very interesting, you see a lot of people that you've never seen before pulling off some amazing plays and getting high placements in tournaments.
SC2 will have its day where everything is ironed out and there will be the top 20 players that dominate everyone else with little to no new talent, but that is far into its future.
I always enjoy these "skill" arguements. They make me smile because both sides are partially right but refuse to acknowledge the possibility that their foe might also have some merit in his arguement.
"Skill" is "strategy". This is TRUE. Being able to formulate a game plan, adapt that plan around changing battlefield conditions and knowing how to respond to emergencies is skill. Pulling a surprise tactic off without getting caught is skill. Strategy and skill go hand in hand.
"Skill" is "mechanics". This is TRUE. Being able to micro marines to defeat banelings, being able to micro stalkers to make them far more immortal than any immortal...these things are skills. Flying through hot keys to micro a battle, build reinforcements and build new structures all at the same time is skill. Mechanics and skill go hand in hand.
The problem with arguements over these things is that most peopel involved tend to argue that the skill sets are mutually exclusive: ie one is superior to the other. This is simply not true. You could posses the ability to produce and APM of 300 with ZERO spamming but utterly lack strategy and NEVER win. Likewise you could have the BEST build order ever dreamed up, one that would make the Darkvoice and Overmind shit their pants in unison, but without the finger speed to pull it off you will lose with it over and over.
Skill in starcraft2 isn't just one thing. It is the bigger picture.
On March 17 2011 11:10 chonkyfire wrote: In Mvp's case... I think that terrans are getting owned using the OP mmm army composition. Mvp's only win last night was with... siege tanks
edit: although the banshees did win that game i supppose
So his only win was due to a banshee. But I do agree that terrans have to figure something out other than MMM
On March 17 2011 10:34 Elefanto wrote: god this thread is awful
low levels are defending the "strategy" part of the game, saying mechanical skill is not wanted and you should win solely by picking the right build. execution doesn't matter. this makes me so sad, because i get the impression so many people think that they got now the chance to compete with players much much more skilled than themselves and netting wins they simply don't deserve based on the big luck factor in sc2.
This is totally misconstruing what I'm saying.
STRATEGY IS NOT PICKING A BUILD ORDER.
It is reacting to your opponent and decision making in game. No one wants to pick a build order and win or lose. I just think that having amazing decision making (like NesTea or OgsTheWind) be rewarded slightly over mechanics is great.
SC2 allowing for this is the reason that NesTea is the best zerg in the world in SC2 but was never near the top of SC1. NesTea makes amazing decisions, is always in his opponents head and 1 step ahead of them, and understands the matchups and I love watching players like that be rewarded.
I don't even think you get what "strategy means". You're acting like it means picking a build in advance and praying it wins which is retarded.
play zerg and react to my build order when im T or P in the first 6 minutes. This in itself isn't a huge problem because the same problem was present in BW, but there were legimate builds you could do that would do ok/keep you alive and not insanely behind vs pretty much everything. This is not the case in sc2. The reason Nestea is the best zerg in sc2 is cuz nobody better than him in bw has swithced to sc2.
If you ever played BW, you'd know it was a waay more mechanically demanding game than SC2. Just managing your workers required pretty high apm, not to mention that you had to move your armies with many hotkeys. Smart casting, ball of units, etc. have simplified the game mechanically. Y
You also don't have good "micro" units anymore. No more disruption web, defilers, no smartcast storm, vultures/mines, idiotic dragoons, reaper/shuttle, muta stacking etc. Instead we have stuff like hellions and collossi.
Perhaps it is because a lot of the technically challenging parts of the game were taken out is why there seems to be smaller skill gaps.
On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote: What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set.
First of all thanks for your post, I believe you explained SC2's true state perfectly. There is so much hope and expectations in this game it's ridiculous. I'm thinking people are spending more time thinking and arguing about it than actually playing it. The early years of SC and War3 were no different, but this time the community expected the pro's to figure things out almost instantly. What this means is Blizzard successfully made people believe that they had developed the perfect esports (I profoundly hate that word) game right from the start. Many friends of mine fell for it. They had all played the older games casually, but this time they thought it was something bigger and that they had to get good quickly. Never have I ever seen a game absorb people not for what it was, but for what it should be. All this talk about esports is irrelevant. Any popular game with a big player base will have exceptional players, and support all kinds of tournaments and competition. What drives most of them? The passion they have for their game, not a feeling of accomplishment in a business that "could", "perhaps", "eventually" allow them to make a living out of it. I'm seeing it in many SC2 streams now. Some people are making good money, but I've seen their morale and passion decay over the past months. It's work now. It's work for a game that has been established by Activision-Blizzard, not by the player base.
On March 17 2011 10:34 Elefanto wrote: god this thread is awful
low levels are defending the "strategy" part of the game, saying mechanical skill is not wanted and you should win solely by picking the right build. execution doesn't matter. this makes me so sad, because i get the impression so many people think that they got now the chance to compete with players much much more skilled than themselves and netting wins they simply don't deserve based on the big luck factor in sc2.
This is totally misconstruing what I'm saying.
STRATEGY IS NOT PICKING A BUILD ORDER.
It is reacting to your opponent and decision making in game. No one wants to pick a build order and win or lose. I just think that having amazing decision making (like NesTea or OgsTheWind) be rewarded slightly over mechanics is great.
SC2 allowing for this is the reason that NesTea is the best zerg in the world in SC2 but was never near the top of SC1. NesTea makes amazing decisions, is always in his opponents head and 1 step ahead of them, and understands the matchups and I love watching players like that be rewarded.
I don't even think you get what "strategy means". You're acting like it means picking a build in advance and praying it wins which is retarded.
Nestea is arguably the best zerg who switched from SC1 to SC2. MVP is the best terran to switch from SC1 to SC2. MC is the best protoss to switch from SC1 to SC2. See a pattern here? You do realize none of the top BW players switched to SC2?
Also, the difference between chess and SC is that in SC players have limited knowledge. The fact that you have to make decisions based off of a limited amount of knowledge increases the luck factor. There's no luck in chess because you know what your opponent is doing and vice versa. The question is do you want SC to be more of a luck game, like poker, or more of a skill game, like football.
On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote: What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set.
First of all thanks for your post, I believe you explained SC2's true state perfectly. There is so much hope and expectations in this game it's ridiculous. I'm thinking people are spending more time thinking and arguing about it than actually playing it. The early years of SC and War3 were no different, but this time the community expected the pro's to figure things out almost instantly. What this means is Blizzard successfully made people believe that they had developed the perfect esports (I profoundly hate that word) game right from the start. Many friends of mine fell for it. They had all played the older games casually, but this time they thought it was something bigger and that they had to get good quickly. Never have I ever seen a game absorb people not for what it was, but for what it should be. All this talk about esports is irrelevant. Any popular game with a big player base will have exceptional players, and support all kinds of tournaments and competition. What drives most of them? The passion they have for their game, not a feeling of accomplishment in a business that "could", "perhaps", "eventually" allow them to make a living out of it. I'm seeing it in many SC2 streams now. Some people are making good money, but I've seen their morale and passion decay over the past months. It's work now. It's work for a game that has been established by Activision-Blizzard, not by the player base.
Thanks for the nod. I agree with you completely. It seems a lot of people have soured on Starcraft II but continue to keep playing the game anyway. For the amateur players, it appears to be "I don't want to lose my sense of community." For the players that are good enough to play for money, it's "I don't want to lose my shot at e-sports fame." I just don't get why people are willing to subject themselves to this grind. The financial prospects aren't particularly compelling and if Brood War is that good, do you really need your buddies to continue making it fun? If people don't feel Starcraft II is playing to their standards, they can come back in two years and buy the expansion pack and see if the game plays more to their liking. If Brood War is the game that "requires more skill" and you play that for those two years, it's not like you're going to lose any practice. o.o
On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote: What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set.
First of all thanks for your post, I believe you explained SC2's true state perfectly. There is so much hope and expectations in this game it's ridiculous. I'm thinking people are spending more time thinking and arguing about it than actually playing it. The early years of SC and War3 were no different, but this time the community expected the pro's to figure things out almost instantly. What this means is Blizzard successfully made people believe that they had developed the perfect esports (I profoundly hate that word) game right from the start. Many friends of mine fell for it. They had all played the older games casually, but this time they thought it was something bigger and that they had to get good quickly. Never have I ever seen a game absorb people not for what it was, but for what it should be. All this talk about esports is irrelevant. Any popular game with a big player base will have exceptional players, and support all kinds of tournaments and competition. What drives most of them? The passion they have for their game, not a feeling of accomplishment in a business that "could", "perhaps", "eventually" allow them to make a living out of it. I'm seeing it in many SC2 streams now. Some people are making good money, but I've seen their morale and passion decay over the past months. It's work now. It's work for a game that has been established by Activision-Blizzard, not by the player base.
Thanks for the nod. I agree with you completely. It seems a lot of people have soured on Starcraft II but continue to keep playing the game anyway. For the amateur players, it appears to be "I don't want to lose my sense of community." For the players that are good enough to play for money, it's "I don't want to lose my shot at e-sports fame." I just don't get why people are willing to subject themselves to this grind. The financial prospects aren't particularly compelling and if Brood War is that good, do you really need your buddies to continue making it fun? If people don't feel Starcraft II is playing to their standards, they can come back in two years and buy the expansion pack and see if the game plays more to their liking. If Brood War is the game that "requires more skill" and you play that for those two years, it's not like you're going to lose any practice. o.o
So do you play BW or SC2? I don't really understand.
On March 17 2011 09:59 MichaelJLowell wrote: What you guys should be bitching about is the fact that Blizzard Entertainment artificially created a tournament scene around a game of theirs that was not ready for the scrutiny and never could have been. You should be bitching about Blizzard Entertainment essentially preparing to sabotage the professional Brood War scene in order to "make Starcraft II a successful game". If you like the game and you think it can be salvaged, play it. If you think the situation is hopeless, don't play. Go play Brood War. Go play Warcraft III. Stop complaining that an eight-months-past-retail strategy game isn't surpassing an impossible standard that its community has set.
First of all thanks for your post, I believe you explained SC2's true state perfectly. There is so much hope and expectations in this game it's ridiculous. I'm thinking people are spending more time thinking and arguing about it than actually playing it. The early years of SC and War3 were no different, but this time the community expected the pro's to figure things out almost instantly. What this means is Blizzard successfully made people believe that they had developed the perfect esports (I profoundly hate that word) game right from the start. Many friends of mine fell for it. They had all played the older games casually, but this time they thought it was something bigger and that they had to get good quickly. Never have I ever seen a game absorb people not for what it was, but for what it should be. All this talk about esports is irrelevant. Any popular game with a big player base will have exceptional players, and support all kinds of tournaments and competition. What drives most of them? The passion they have for their game, not a feeling of accomplishment in a business that "could", "perhaps", "eventually" allow them to make a living out of it. I'm seeing it in many SC2 streams now. Some people are making good money, but I've seen their morale and passion decay over the past months. It's work now. It's work for a game that has been established by Activision-Blizzard, not by the player base.
Thanks for the nod. I agree with you completely. It seems a lot of people have soured on Starcraft II but continue to keep playing the game anyway. For the amateur players, it appears to be "I don't want to lose my sense of community." For the players that are good enough to play for money, it's "I don't want to lose my shot at e-sports fame." I just don't get why people are willing to subject themselves to this grind. The financial prospects aren't particularly compelling and if Brood War is that good, do you really need your buddies to continue making it fun? If people don't feel Starcraft II is playing to their standards, they can come back in two years and buy the expansion pack and see if the game plays more to their liking. If Brood War is the game that "requires more skill" and you play that for those two years, it's not like you're going to lose any practice. o.o
So do you play BW or SC2? I don't really understand.
I play Starcraft II. I played Brood War regularly for about two years prior to the release of Starcraft II. As of the moment, my interest in both games is pretty "meh". I'm mostly tired of this brand of bickering. I had to get it off my chest.
Control and other aids will become only more advanced. I'm sorry for people who still holding to idea of bringing back the mechanical(slave) part in the game somehow will improve the game. It is a fact across all games, it's something like life, even if you don't like, this is how it is.
Players become Champions by adapting and figuring out next step before others(abusing if you wish), not hoping for their best qualities being favorable within game structure. Guy who able to do this more often than other is a Legend.
On March 17 2011 13:23 drcatellino wrote: This thread confirm the idea that most of the community really wanted SC2 to be Brood Wars with better graphics.
If its the better game I do not see a problem with that.
On March 17 2011 04:43 nvrs wrote: To those who are claiming the game is too random, i ll say look at football (soccer for U.S. citizens ). Does the best team win every time in elimination matches (single or double)? Not even close... But still, you can tell who are the better players, and in a proper league that would show.
Look at the English Premier League, 4 teams have dominated for 15 years, enough said. Luck can cause an upset or bad form can cause an upset. But in general, the best always rises to the top and stays there, im struggling to see this with SC2.
But that's what i am saying, the single elimination matches will always cause upsets in every sport and that's why you dont see in football the same teams winning <b>tournaments</b> (not leagues)! If we had a proper round robin league then we could tell how volatile/random this thing was.
On March 17 2011 11:43 dave333 wrote: If you ever played BW, you'd know it was a waay more mechanically demanding game than SC2. Just managing your workers required pretty high apm, not to mention that you had to move your armies with many hotkeys. Smart casting, ball of units, etc. have simplified the game mechanically. Y
You also don't have good "micro" units anymore. No more disruption web, defilers, no smartcast storm, vultures/mines, idiotic dragoons, reaper/shuttle, muta stacking etc. Instead we have stuff like hellions and collossi.
Perhaps it is because a lot of the technically challenging parts of the game were taken out is why there seems to be smaller skill gaps.
To accommodate to the masses blizzard has to do remove the essential of part of what makes bw the game it was that is heavily mechanics dependent and although you are great in macro if you can't micro out of the trouble you get in late game its game over for you . That being said sc2 is probably good game for the new gen as they want everything flashy and easy (hence MBS and smart casting ) with that in your way and an level playing field how can there be a Flash , Jaedong , Stork ,Bisu in sc2 i don't see it coming for now but it blizzards steps up to do something with the game with probably more units that are difficult but gives more reward to the user who is able to control them than it probably will make this game a better game that's my opinion . good luck sc2 ...
On March 17 2011 10:34 Elefanto wrote: god this thread is awful
low levels are defending the "strategy" part of the game, saying mechanical skill is not wanted and you should win solely by picking the right build. execution doesn't matter. this makes me so sad, because i get the impression so many people think that they got now the chance to compete with players much much more skilled than themselves and netting wins they simply don't deserve based on the big luck factor in sc2.
What are you talking about? Of course execution matters and the mechanical factor although toned down compared to BW it's still in there. Luck has its role in every sport, the same goes for mind games. I personally think that the map awareness / scouting that SC2 requires compared to BW is a lot more but ieveryone seems to ignore this fact and whine about the mechanical dumb-down. Oh yeah, i only wanted to see players with 350 apm being able to play this strategy game...
On March 17 2011 11:43 dave333 wrote: If you ever played BW, you'd know it was a waay more mechanically demanding game than SC2. Just managing your workers required pretty high apm, not to mention that you had to move your armies with many hotkeys. Smart casting, ball of units, etc. have simplified the game mechanically. Y
You also don't have good "micro" units anymore. No more disruption web, defilers, no smartcast storm, vultures/mines, idiotic dragoons, reaper/shuttle, muta stacking etc. Instead we have stuff like hellions and collossi.
Perhaps it is because a lot of the technically challenging parts of the game were taken out is why there seems to be smaller skill gaps.
To accommodate to the masses blizzard has to do remove the essential of part of what makes bw the game it was that is heavily mechanics dependent and although you are great in macro if you can't micro out of the trouble you get in late game its game over for you . That being said sc2 is probably good game for the new gen as they want everything flashy and easy (hence MBS and smart casting ) with that in your way and an level playing field how can there be a Flash , Jaedong , Stork ,Bisu in sc2 i don't see it coming for now but it blizzards steps up to do something with the game with probably more units that are difficult but gives more reward to the user who is able to control them than it probably will make this game a better game that's my opinion . good luck sc2 ...
Totally agree with this, i think that Blizzard has all the time in the world (and two expansions) to give us more itneresting units, and the community should discuss, give feedback and see what happens.
If it's 90% you want, look no further than nestea.
ZvT 58.33% ZvZ 100% ZvP 90.91%
I mean in BW didn't the favorites to win every tournament for the past year or so, Flash and Jaedong get knocked out in the first rounds of a recent individual league? Weren't there upsets? Weren't there periods where the champion got knocked out first round, disappeared, and came back *ala SlayerS_BoxeR?*
I think boxers TVT is amazing i mean he took out nada and made it to the round of 4 in season 2 wich wasnt all that long ago, but he really does need to focus alot on other matchups if his other matchups were as good as his TVT i think he would be near the top for sure, i doubt this is the last we will see of boxer he seems to be practicing really hard regardless of results, and those games vs zenio win or lose were some of the most entertaining games ive seen especially the one on xelnaga he killed like 10 hatches and was very close to a come back.
On March 17 2011 15:11 Aberu wrote: If it's 90% you want, look no further than nestea.
ZvT 58.33% ZvZ 100% ZvP 90.91%
I mean in BW didn't the favorites to win every tournament for the past year or so, Flash and Jaedong get knocked out in the first rounds of a recent individual league? Weren't there upsets? Weren't there periods where the champion got knocked out first round, disappeared, and came back *ala SlayerS_BoxeR?*
Flash was the only one who got knocked out in Msl ro32 while jaedong got knocked out in Osl ro16 so it isn't like they have fallen so badly to lose to even scrubs in preliminary stages . Not a really big upsets to me as the game has totally change and players have grown strong through times and practice . Slayers_Boxer was the best in pre jaedong and flash era due to his micro as he rely too much on micro these days he can't beat the younger gen who have found a equilibrium in macro and micro hence that is why you are seeing the old players coming to sc2 these days although that is my opinion on the reason he move to sc2 but according to Lim yong hwan ( he did it for the fans that's why he came to sc2 ).
I think we can hit a happy medium between old school and new school.
What if instead of getting rid of automine and mbs and whatnot, we add in more macro mechanics that are difficult, but at least serve a purpose and don't make you feel like you're stuck in the 90's.
I think creep tumors are a great existing example. They add more macro mechanics for zerg to deal with, but they give you vision and speed bonus.
I think macro mechanics like this would satisfy both crowds: the brood war pros have more stuff to separate them from lesser players, and the sc2 people don't have to do things that feel pointless like send every new worker to minerals.
Perhaps bw pros won't like the idea of adding in a bunch of buffs as strong as creep tumors to each race, so instead, maybe the new macro mechanics could be very minimal in their effects. Something small and silly, like "reset warpgate crystals" on all warpgates (similar to larva inject). The main point is that we can add in more difficulty without it feeling completely forced and outdated and instead it could actually make a little sense and maybe even be fun.
I'm not saying that the OP is saying this, but i feel like the fairly reasonable line of thought in the OP is a slippery slope to saying that the game is too volatile because "my favorite player hasn't been consistently winning." SC2 is a new battleground, and the RTS platform make it a perfect setting for a battle of wills. To be honest, as far as mental prowess goes, most people are pretty close to each other. True mastery of this new electronic battlefield will take time to really master. If the tournament scene is volatile, its because players haven't found the edge to really outclass most opponents. The beautiful thing about the new starcraft scene is that the players that do come out with that winning edge have a much greater chance of being from anywhere is the world.
That being said, I still think fruitdealer, MVP, Boxer, Nestea and MKP are titans in this game and they definitely have the skill to be on that leading edge.
It's important to remember that the GSL is structured as a year-long league, that just happens to mostly be comprised of small tournaments. Come December, when those GSL Power Rankings are put to use, I'm pretty sure the ten best SC2 players will somehow be the ten in the Blizzard Cup.
On March 17 2011 11:43 dave333 wrote: If you ever played BW, you'd know it was a waay more mechanically demanding game than SC2. Just managing your workers required pretty high apm, not to mention that you had to move your armies with many hotkeys. Smart casting, ball of units, etc. have simplified the game mechanically. Y
You also don't have good "micro" units anymore. No more disruption web, defilers, no smartcast storm, vultures/mines, idiotic dragoons, reaper/shuttle, muta stacking etc. Instead we have stuff like hellions and collossi.
Perhaps it is because a lot of the technically challenging parts of the game were taken out is why there seems to be smaller skill gaps.
To accommodate to the masses blizzard has to do remove the essential of part of what makes bw the game it was that is heavily mechanics dependent and although you are great in macro if you can't micro out of the trouble you get in late game its game over for you . That being said sc2 is probably good game for the new gen as they want everything flashy and easy (hence MBS and smart casting ) with that in your way and an level playing field how can there be a Flash , Jaedong , Stork ,Bisu in sc2 i don't see it coming for now but it blizzards steps up to do something with the game with probably more units that are difficult but gives more reward to the user who is able to control them than it probably will make this game a better game that's my opinion . good luck sc2 ...
Bold added, because I thought that was such an odd way of saying "The interface was so horrific* you needed 100+ APM and hundreds of hours of practice just to be able to make dudes out of all your buildings".
I don't mean to diminish BW, or players like Flash who are great at macro, but it frankly should not be impressive that someone who plays a game professionally can actually get his buildings to do what he wants.
Up until GSL 4, one-basing was pretty common. SCV-Marine all-ins off one base were pretty much standard TvZ in GSL 3. In GSL 4, most players were doing 2-base timings. Now GSL games are long macro games more often then not, thanks both to the new maps and the players getting better. As the games get longer, battles stop ending games, and harassment and smart engagements are becoming more and more important. Before the year is done, we'll do what pro starcraft players can do when they're not devoting more APM than most of us will ever hand just building units.
This game is going to get a lot better pretty soon.
*Though it wasn't bad by 1998 standards, of course
I think we're seeing a massive amount of volitity in the match and map build order understanding compared to brood war. People don't understand this game in and out yet. Every 2-3 weeks a new build order that comes out and starts crushing people who should know better, and many build order's are still paper rock scissoring each other, some that aren't really that good ultimately.
MVP made bad decisions, and lost because of it. He probably maid said bad decisions because IM doesn't have the Protosses that are pushing forward the game the way Alicia and Genius are. You can be good at SC2 right now, but to understand the game in a way that you are invincible at this stage is just kinda unlikely.
A huge part of any RTS is that game sense, "can I have my units here on the map right now" will X army beat opponents Y army. The game just hasn't standardized to the point where all exceptions are mapped out yet.
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
I find this interesting.
It seems some people are more interested in the "Real Time" aspect And some other people are interested in the "Strategy Game" aspect.
It is comparable to playing chess and having every piece be 6 ft tall and weigh 200lbs on a giant board. Yes, there is strategy, and those who can do strategy are the best. But you have all the grandmasters left out of the game, not because they are not good enough, but because they lack the strength to participate. Grandmasters are replaced with strong 18-28 year olds, who may not play the "strategy" part as well, but are able to move more pieces before getting exhausted.
Not that this is inherently a bad thing for a game like SC2. But the analogy works. The games are different. Real time is definitely important for this type of game.
But SC2 and even SC1 has a small divide amongst the Real Time and the Strategy parts of the game. I can sit back all day and analyze, examine and criticize the pro gamers on everything from timings to probe count. I can watch streams and say what they should be doing based on scouting information and such. But I am a terribly bad at playing the game. Not because I lack the strategy but because I lack the execution. Because of this, I can never be a pro-gamer, and for that, I can understand.
Imagine a game where there is literally no UI. It is implanted into your mind. What you want to happen, happens. No mouse, no keyboard. But all the basic mechanics like microing unit splits, remembering to inject larvae, keeping your money down and everything. What would be interesting about this would be that a whole new set of pro-gamers would join the mix (no not me... I can't even remember to Chrono-boost 3 minutes into the game). Those who maybe feel limited with the keys and mouse and clicks and APM, and rather play with such strong IN GAME mechanics. However I don't think that would necessarily be a bad thing. There are room for REAL TIME strategy games and real time STRATEGY games in this world.
What we seem to have in SC2 AT THE MOMENT (for whatever reason... could be because it is in it's infancy, or because Bo3 format is risky, or because SC2 is stupid... whatever we may think), is that SC2 is laying right in the middle of those two lines, and because of that, it is being blurred and appears to be volitile. SC1 was very mechanical and the UI limited a lot. Those with insanely high APM and mechanical prowess were able to CRUSH everyone, very quickly... even those who may have had stronger strategy. So they rose to the top. In SC2, their mechanical prowess isn't as important (and still has room to improve), opening room for the strategists who may have been left behind in SC1. Thus there are more people fighting for top spots, leading to a quickly evolving game. People making mistakes both mechanically and strategically, however, so it is very difficult to make that judgment yet.
I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
On March 17 2011 16:21 SwiftSpear wrote: I think we're seeing a massive amount of volitity in the match and map build order understanding compared to brood war. People don't understand this game in and out yet. Every 2-3 weeks a new build order that comes out and starts crushing people who should know better, and many build order's are still paper rock scissoring each other, some that aren't really that good ultimately.
MVP made bad decisions, and lost because of it. He probably maid said bad decisions because IM doesn't have the Protosses that are pushing forward the game the way Alicia and Genius are. You can be good at SC2 right now, but to understand the game in a way that you are invincible at this stage is just kinda unlikely.
A huge part of any RTS is that game sense, "can I have my units here on the map right now" will X army beat opponents Y army. The game just hasn't standardized to the point where all exceptions are mapped out yet.
As I read through this thread I was about to post the exact same thing Thanks.
BW needed years to be discovered and at the moment there is so much competition and so many streams and leagues and tournaments in SC2 are available that the exploration of SC2 is sprinting to eventually get to a point at which BW is at the moment, which involves not only the strategy part but also a good map architecture.
I mean I still like watching BW more than SC2, but it is unfair to say that SC2 is not able to get to that point eventually. Give it some damn time, enjoy watching the progamers and if you can't enjoy that go back to watching BW and look at the state of the game in a year from now.
Also I think it appears more volatile because it is faster paced than BW, so you can't deal with a lot of shit by just having a time advantage. But we have to see in the future how that turns out. Will be fun to bump threads like this in 1 or 2 years from now, just to see what people wrote about the game back then Trust me, SC2 will get bigger and bigger and bigger. Can't wait to hold the expansion packs in my hands.
FFS, Hope Blizzard doesn't get to complacent with SC2's current form.... and take more risks in adding and removing units (either now or in future expansions). That is all i have to say : )
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
This is true to a good degree, the tedious bullshit in SC1 was annoying. Watching SC1 was amazing to me, because I had no idea those people played so well and performed so much of that bullshit that I cannot stand. If I were to watch SC1 with someone who has never played it before: Me: OMG look at Bisu's amazing micro against those Spider Mines! Perfect targetting, using Zealots to take the hits, excellent moves and spread. Them: Uh huh. Pretty cool... Me: Trust me, man, it is REALLY hard. That's why those korean announcers are going nuts! Them: Oh I believe you, that is pretty fantastic... Me: W.e man, you just don't get it. Them: Yep, I don't.
But it definitely built a pro scene that was exclusive and segregated. This was pretty ok for the game to some degree, but probably bad in other degrees. It prevented a lot of access, and it made the good get better and the bad stay bad. Has good parts and bad parts. SC2 is trying to please more people and make a more inclusive game where more people can get involved with eSports. And look... we now have NASL, MLG, GSL, huge amounts in prizes, hundreds of pro-gamers from many degrees of skill sets, many casters and streamers who make a living from SC2 exclusively and hundreds of thousands of followers. That didn't exist in SC1. So some could argue it is a bad thing... but I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction at the moment. Let's give it another few months and see what happens to the pro-scene before we make final judgments. Some people predict doom, some predict success. At this point, there is only one way to find out for sure. Give it time.
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.
WTF?? No one has ever had that kind of winrate. Flash has a 70 something percent overall winrate, and that's frankly insane. How can you even reasonably expect half of this stuff?
Sc2 is not too volatile, it's just too young.
multiple players have held that kind of win rate for a while
For a month? Only player I can recall having that kind of a winrate was oov. And he was coached by Boxer, and played four+ years into the life of BW. We're not even into the first year of SC2, changes are still happening, maps are still changing.
It's unreasonable to expect even a 75% winrate out of anyone right now. Very few players have won multiple consecutive starleagues in BW, or even two consecutive starleagues. Nada's feat of six STILL hasn't been reached. It's quite hard to be that consistent.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
This is true to a good degree, the tedious bullshit in SC1 was annoying. Watching SC1 was amazing to me, because I had no idea those people played so well and performed so much of that bullshit that I cannot stand. If I were to watch SC1 with someone who has never played it before: Me: OMG look at Bisu's amazing micro against those Spider Mines! Perfect targetting, using Zealots to take the hits, excellent moves and spread. Them: Uh huh. Pretty cool... Me: Trust me, man, it is REALLY hard. That's why those korean announcers are going nuts! Them: Oh I believe you, that is pretty fantastic... Me: W.e man, you just don't get it. Them: Yep, I don't.
But it definitely built a pro scene that was exclusive and segregated. This was pretty ok for the game to some degree, but probably bad in other degrees. It prevented a lot of access, and it made the good get better and the bad stay bad. Has good parts and bad parts. SC2 is trying to please more people and make a more inclusive game where more people can get involved with eSports. And look... we now have NASL, MLG, GSL, huge amounts in prizes, hundreds of pro-gamers from many degrees of skill sets, many casters and streamers who make a living from SC2 exclusively and hundreds of thousands of followers. That didn't exist in SC1. So some could argue it is a bad thing... but I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction at the moment. Let's give it another few months and see what happens to the pro-scene before we make final judgments. Some people predict doom, some predict success. At this point, there is only one way to find out for sure. Give it time.
I'm absolutely in the "wait and see" camp. But I think there are ways to increase the skill cap that make the game MORE fun. It'll just take a lot of work and really creative custom mapmaking to find those things. People saying we can make the game more skill-dependent by making it suck are, I think, taking the easy way out instead of the rewarding way.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
This is true to a good degree, the tedious bullshit in SC1 was annoying. Watching SC1 was amazing to me, because I had no idea those people played so well and performed so much of that bullshit that I cannot stand. If I were to watch SC1 with someone who has never played it before: Me: OMG look at Bisu's amazing micro against those Spider Mines! Perfect targetting, using Zealots to take the hits, excellent moves and spread. Them: Uh huh. Pretty cool... Me: Trust me, man, it is REALLY hard. That's why those korean announcers are going nuts! Them: Oh I believe you, that is pretty fantastic... Me: W.e man, you just don't get it. Them: Yep, I don't.
But it definitely built a pro scene that was exclusive and segregated. This was pretty ok for the game to some degree, but probably bad in other degrees. It prevented a lot of access, and it made the good get better and the bad stay bad. Has good parts and bad parts. SC2 is trying to please more people and make a more inclusive game where more people can get involved with eSports. And look... we now have NASL, MLG, GSL, huge amounts in prizes, hundreds of pro-gamers from many degrees of skill sets, many casters and streamers who make a living from SC2 exclusively and hundreds of thousands of followers. That didn't exist in SC1. So some could argue it is a bad thing... but I think the evidence is pointing in the other direction at the moment. Let's give it another few months and see what happens to the pro-scene before we make final judgments. Some people predict doom, some predict success. At this point, there is only one way to find out for sure. Give it time.
I'm absolutely in the "wait and see" camp. But I think there are ways to increase the skill cap that make the game MORE fun. It'll just take a lot of work and really creative custom mapmaking to find those things. People saying we can make the game more skill-dependent by making it suck are, I think, taking the easy way out instead of the rewarding way.
I agree. I think these are probably in Blizzards mind too though. This has been a concern for a while and many MANY people have voiced those opinions. There is a lot of hate for Blizzard out there (especially on the TL.net boards for some reason), but it is getting harder and harder to ignore the fact that Blizzard is genuinely listening to the community. There are already some interesting mechanics that really really set aside the goods from the GREATS. I see these in Dark Templar, Warp Prisms, Medivacs, Marine Micro (oh god, I said it), Ravens, Trasfusion, Infestors, Baneling Carpet Bombers (overlord drops), Nydus Worms... These are some fertile ground for great things to blossom from. But we have 2 expansions to go, and they have openly said that these are to be even bigger than any expansions before it... and if anyone played during the RoC to TFT transition for WC3, that was a HUGE change for the multiplayer scene. Blizz has said there is a little something for everyone in each expansion, so we can probably expect not only a new unit per expansion, but new upgrades, maybe new armor types, possibly new macro mechanics, new map mechanics (low bridges anyone?). Who knows if these things they add won't include a way to raise the skill ceiling? Maybe in a fun way that is interesting to watch, instead of just adding a few more clicks to every round of building units.
I personally (from a Protoss perspective) hope they add a special unit to Protoss that is only buildable from the GATEWAY, and not the warpgate. How about an air unit that can only be build from a FLYING starport...
These are some different and fun to watch ways to increase the click requirement on macro, that aren't super tedious and repetitive, while providing the audience something to see.
On March 17 2011 07:37 Sovern wrote: Making mechanics "harder" is laughable. This is a real time strategy game, not a real time mechanics game. The player that executes the better strategy and has better fundamentals like good macro/multitasking/micro deserves to win. Just because someone can manually mine their workers faster or cast spells by clicking on individual units doesn't mean that they should win, like I said this isn't a real time mechanics game, its an RTS.
All that manual mining and no smart casting is, is a hindrance. Of course a lot of the older BW players are going to want to bring back the hindrances because they're so used to them. The way that I see it is that micro/positioning/multi tasking will have a higher skill cap due to not being held back by having to manually click workers to set them to mine or worry about other small things that are really just a hassle.
God damnit, did you read the post above yours? Posts like this make me rip my hair.
First off it's STARCRAFT, not chess. Second, mechanics are not only the things your talking about. Read the thread man, the point is many units are so fucking effective with simply a-click. If your build directly counters your opponent, you can just a-click and win, even if the opponent has better control. It helps nothing.
The best example is the Colossus. EVERYONE can use it to fullest potential, while it does ridiculous amount of damage. Theres no realy position required, no micro, nothing. That's were most people want to start, not removing mbs or automining.
If my build directly counters my opponents build I'd sure as hell hope that I'd win. Him having better "mechanics" shouldn't give him the win because this is a strategy game, not a mechanics game..... If my opponent blindly follows build orders and fails to scout my build and adapt he deserves to lose.
All of the things that I mentioned that SC1 had (no auto mining/no smart casting) are mechanics.....As for this whole idea that scouting is a huge problem early game, that can be remedied by playing aggressive. If your opponent is trying to cheese you, by playing aggressive you can spot his unit composition and possible see his in base structures to see what his build will consist of.
LOL so you want the game to degenerate to build order rock-paper-scissors.
Great idea you've got there.
That's more or less how most BW ZvZ is, and it's widely considered to be the most boring matchup by spectators. Most PvP is also like that, although to a lesser extent.
Yeah, SC fans find the beauty in those matchups, but to an outside viewer it's boring.
Also, if you wanted SC to be that way, most games will be decided within the first four minutes, before reasonable scouting is even possible. Basically the game would play itself out for you if macro mechanics were really easy; anyone with greater than 40 APM could micro perfectly, and no multitasking would be involved. In fact, I'd probably stop playing if macro mechanics got any easier. I'm actually considering a switch back to BW if the state of the game doesn't improve, because right now it doesn't always feel like the more knowledgeable or skilled player wins. At the moment I'm able to eke out wins in most matchups except PvP and some of the T matchups, but I still hold out hope because the game is young.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
You can exaggerate, so I can too.
Let's make a button that autocreates SCVs. And give a timer for supply depots and pylons! Why not make gas geysers auto-fill themselves when they finish buildings?
Let's create a maynard mechanic where when you build a CC five workers from your main transfer over. When a building is idle it'll have a big red exclamation mark over it. You can press a button to find all your idle workers and send them to mine minerals. You can press another button to select all your military units.
Hell, let's just take out all the macro. Just forget command centers, SCVs, etc. Just make it so that we get a steady trickle of minerals and then we all have to decide what to spend it on. Makes the game fair, right? No stupid mechanics you have to do, it's all based on position and skill! The player with the best strategy wins.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
Your argument is just a rehash of the same old crap that keeps pissing out from some really rude players who don't know anything about BW and think they can make some argument that makes no sense and get like minded people to rally behind you. Your argument requires no thought at all and gets people no where.
Here I have one for you.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we make Basketball 2, where players only have to dribble every 10 steps, and instead of shooting into a hoop they just have to cross a line on the other side of the field. Of course tackling is unfair to bad players who don't know how to hold a ball, so instead of making them learn how to control a ball, lets make it so you can't tackle at all.
The skill required in BW had a side-effect of balancing the game, the examples you mentioned do not balance the game. You obviously have never played BW at a competitive level, even if you say you have, I won't believe you, because everyone who has macro at a decent level much prefers Single-Building-Selection to the imbalanced macro mechanics we have in SC2.
Here are some examples that actually make sense:
More bases require more attention, therefore good macro players will be more efficient on 3 bases than a bad macro player on 3 bases. This is because he can manage his workers more efficiently, and make units more efficiently. Why do you think this is so wrong?
Smart-casting is the reason we have such boring spells that do hardly any damage. So you have to pump a lot of spells out continuously until it looks like a total cluster fuck and no-one can see what's going on.
And try this one for size. Splitting armies take hundreds of clicks, but I bet you think marine splitting is awesome right?
Well in BW the pathing was actually better and you could bunch and split with only a few clicks. It also had this dynamic where armies would not move in great big balls, and you could cut up armies with zerglings by running in between units.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
Your argument is just a rehash of the same old crap that keeps pissing out from some really rude players who don't know anything about BW and think they can make some argument that makes no sense and get like minded people to rally behind you. Your argument requires no thought at all and gets people no where.
I appreciate your response, which will no doubt be rational and well-argued.
Here I have one for you.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we make Basketball 2, where players only have to dribble every 10 steps, and instead of shooting into a hoop they just have to cross a line on the other side of the field. Of course tackling is unfair to bad players who don't know how to hold a ball, so instead of making them learn how to control a ball, lets make it so you can't tackle at all.
1. You can't tackle in Basketball. 2. Dribbling isn't required because it's hard, it's required because otherwise you'd have no legal way to reclaim the ball. The rule has a point. People here are arguing for making the game harder for the sole purpose of making it harder. If you, for instance, made Corruption an AOE spell that affected an area and was way more important, that would add more skill to the game. It would also serve a purpose, and make the game more interesting in many ways.
The skill required in BW had a side-effect of balancing the game, the examples you mentioned do not balance the game.
Neither do yours! How does having to select every single SCV I make and manually tell it to mine add anything to the game but an extra step?
You obviously have never played BW at a competitive level, even if you say you have, I won't believe you, because everyone who has macro at a decent level much prefers Single-Building-Selection to the imbalanced macro mechanics we have in SC2.
Not even if I link my ICCUP profile?
You know, when I started playing BW on ICCUP, I didn't have a mouse. I was using my laptop touchpad for a while! You know what everyone told me? Get a mouse! (I did). I wonder why the ICCUP community didn't tell me to stick to my mechanically harder touchpad.
More bases require more attention, therefore good macro players will be more efficient on 3 bases than a bad macro player on 3 bases. This is because he can manage his workers more efficiently, and make units more efficiently. Why do you think this is so wrong?
Who said I did? I think SC2 strikes a pretty good balance, honestly. Having good macro is about having a good memory and having a polished build, not having a million billion APM.
Smart-casting is the reason we have such boring spells that do hardly any damage. So you have to pump a lot of spells out continuously until it looks like a total cluster fuck and no-one can see what's going on.
Sounds like you have a problem with the graphics. If it makes you feel better, smart-casting means having your casters on one hotkey means they clump means LOL EMP. So I imagine we'll end up seeing less and less of that in the future.
And try this one for size. Splitting armies take hundreds of clicks, but I bet you think marine splitting is awesome right?
Little box, right click, little box, right click, little box, right click. It's not particularly hard. Besides, micro is interesting to watch and to do. Clicking 12 factories every 35 seconds isn't.
Well in BW the pathing was actually better and you could bunch and split with only a few clicks. It also had this dynamic where armies would not move in great big balls, and you could cut up armies with zerglings by running in between units.
That's nice. I'm not sure what your point is, but that's nice.
On March 17 2011 17:08 wherebugsgo wrote:Hell, let's just take out all the macro. Just forget command centers, SCVs, etc. Just make it so that we get a steady trickle of minerals and then we all have to decide what to spend it on. Makes the game fair, right? No stupid mechanics you have to do, it's all based on position and skill! The player with the best strategy wins.
While it wouldn't be Starcraft, there's actually nothing wrong with a game that works that way. Actually, that sounds like a pretty cool idea for a turn-based-strategy game.
Still, I find it interesting that neither of you actually responded to my point except to insult me. C'est le internet.
There is a difference between good things that increase skill, and bad things that increase skill. I don't see any argument for single building selection except that it's harder. I don't want to have to spend fifty APM filling out my tax forms. I want to spend it using interesting spells, doing mutli-pronged harass and counter attacks, using micro to defeat a more powerful army, etc etc etc.
You guys want to raise the skill cap? Fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But for god's sake, raise the skill cap in a way that makes the game more fun to play and to watch.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
Your argument is just a rehash of the same old crap that keeps pissing out from some really rude players who don't know anything about BW and think they can make some argument that makes no sense and get like minded people to rally behind you. Your argument requires no thought at all and gets people no where.
I appreciate your response, which will no doubt be rational and well-argued.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we make Basketball 2, where players only have to dribble every 10 steps, and instead of shooting into a hoop they just have to cross a line on the other side of the field. Of course tackling is unfair to bad players who don't know how to hold a ball, so instead of making them learn how to control a ball, lets make it so you can't tackle at all.
1. You can't tackle in Basketball. 2. Dribbling isn't required because it's hard, it's required because otherwise you'd have no legal way to reclaim the ball. The rule has a point. People here are arguing for making the game harder for the sole purpose of making it harder. If you, for instance, made Corruption an AOE spell that affected an area and was way more important, that would add more skill to the game. It would also serve a purpose, and make the game more interesting in many ways.
You obviously have never played BW at a competitive level, even if you say you have, I won't believe you, because everyone who has macro at a decent level much prefers Single-Building-Selection to the imbalanced macro mechanics we have in SC2.
Not even if I link my ICCUP profile?
You know, when I started playing BW on ICCUP, I didn't have a mouse. I was using my laptop touchpad for a while! You know what everyone told me? Get a mouse! (I did). I wonder why the ICCUP community didn't tell me to stick to my mechanically harder touchpad.
More bases require more attention, therefore good macro players will be more efficient on 3 bases than a bad macro player on 3 bases. This is because he can manage his workers more efficiently, and make units more efficiently. Why do you think this is so wrong?
Who said I did? I think SC2 strikes a pretty good balance, honestly. Having good macro is about having a good memory and having a polished build, not having a million billion APM.
Smart-casting is the reason we have such boring spells that do hardly any damage. So you have to pump a lot of spells out continuously until it looks like a total cluster fuck and no-one can see what's going on.
Sounds like you have a problem with the graphics. If it makes you feel better, smart-casting means having your casters on one hotkey means they clump means LOL EMP. So I imagine we'll end up seeing less and less of that in the future.
And try this one for size. Splitting armies take hundreds of clicks, but I bet you think marine splitting is awesome right?
Little box, right click, little box, right click, little box, right click. It's not particularly hard. Besides, micro is interesting to watch and to do. Clicking 12 factories every 35 seconds isn't.
Well in BW the pathing was actually better and you could bunch and split with only a few clicks. It also had this dynamic where armies would not move in great big balls, and you could cut up armies with zerglings by running in between units.
That's nice. I'm not sure what your point is, but that's nice.
On March 17 2011 17:08 wherebugsgo wrote:Hell, let's just take out all the macro. Just forget command centers, SCVs, etc. Just make it so that we get a steady trickle of minerals and then we all have to decide what to spend it on. Makes the game fair, right? No stupid mechanics you have to do, it's all based on position and skill! The player with the best strategy wins.
While it wouldn't be Starcraft, there's actually nothing wrong with a game that works that way. Actually, that sounds like a pretty cool idea for a turn-based-strategy game.
Still, I find it interesting that neither of you actually responded to my point except to insult me. C'est le internet.
There is a difference between good things that increase skill, and bad things that increase skill. I don't see any argument for single building selection except that it's harder. I don't want to have to spend fifty APM filling out my tax forms. I want to spend it using interesting spells, doing mutli-pronged harass and counter attacks, using micro to defeat a more powerful army, etc etc etc.
You guys want to raise the skill cap? Fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But for god's sake, raise the skill cap in a way that makes the game more fun to play and to watch.
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.
Smartcasting is actually crucial, more important then you think. The reason smartcasting is bad for the game is because it makes it easier, this means that you can NEVER have game-changing spells such as the 112 damage(or 120 dmg if you will) Psionic storm, the Defiler's plague/dark swarm. These spells would be ridicilously overpowerd if anyone could use them perfectly with just a few clicks. There is a reason some people were known for its insane defiler control or Jangbi with his psi storms. It was hard to do, and they could change the tide of the battle. Smartcasting NO LONGER allows this, no spell can be so overpowered as the 112 psy storm or the dark swarm, because it would be overpowerd as anyone can use it by just having 1 control group and spamming T(Overexegeratting slightly, but you get the point).
On top of how hard it was to control casters, you also have massive unit clumping in sc2, a 112 storm would do way too much damage and considered overpowered in SC2. Which means we no longer have an option of game-changing spells which can turn the tide of a battle in the favor of those who micro properly.
On March 17 2011 18:22 Kipsate wrote: On top of how hard it was to control casters, you also have massive unit clumping in sc2, a 112 storm would do way too much damage and considered overpowered in SC2. Which means we no longer have an option of game-changing spells which can turn the tide of a battle in the favor of those who micro properly.
You don't think psy storm is still a game changing spell in SC2? How about EMP? Getting good EMPs off on templars and sentries can make all the difference in TvP. Similarly, good feedbacks on ghosts and well placed psy storms can make all the difference from the Protoss side. Fungal growth and neural parasite can both be game changing when used well. I don't see what the problem is here. None of the spells are OP, but they are still game changing, and require good micro to pull off (in particular feedbacking ghosts).
Blind elitism is so dense. Why are we saying that this game is too easy? The game is still so young and there is NO pro gamer who is playing this game like a bonjwa. This game is so far from being played perfectly I am simply laughing at the dumb posts here. Especially Terran/Zerg can be played a 100x times better. Protoss is a pretty straightforward race except for phoenix harass, which looks very strong when executed perfectly.
Do we see a zerg ever use 3 overlords to drop 24 zerglings in a base? Did we EVER see perfect creep spread? Do we see a Terran using blue flame Hellions an entire game? Do we see a protoss pressuring an entire game?
Pro gamers even leave their army stand still for 2-5 minutes. Multitasking is far from perfect.
Immvp made BIG mistakes. He lost 6 games. 2 against July where he threw away game 1, given that July played pretty sneaky. And Immvp completely botched game 2. He lost 2 games against Alicia, and we have to admit that Immvp didn’t play a good game. Especially game 1, where he played overconfident and thought that he was the only one who would ever harass. Then he lost 2 games against Genious and I didn’t even recognise Immvp. If you play as poor as that, you can say what ever you want, this game was not lost by Immvp because it is to easy and the skill ceiling is too low.
The mechanics are easier. I agree, but please, the good players are far from perfect. FAR FROM PERFECT. The skill ceiling has not yet been touched. Idra you are so far from that ceiling, mc you are so far from that ceiling, Immvp you are so far from that ceiling, July you are so far from that ceiling.
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.
Seriously, if people think that having harder mechanics makes a game more fun to watch and play, then maybe Blizz should make a few changes in HotS; disable control groups or even group select so that you can only select and move one unit at a time. And you need to type a command to use special abilities instead of clicking on an icon or using shortcut keys. And no there wont be any kind of vocal warning that your base, units or probes, are under attack, because all those stuff are for newbs. Instead of just minerals and gas, you'll have 8 more resources that you need to worry about such as Oil, Coal, Wood, Gold, Rock, Plutonium, etc. Make that game, and see how many people would appreciate having harder mechanics.
On March 17 2011 16:40 Ribbon wrote: I'm going to raise $100 for a tournament with special rules to ensure the most skilled player wins.
1. Every time you want to build a worker, you have to arm wrestle a midget, 2. Your units have to be in a heart-shaped formation when attacking, and you have to micro all the units to make it happen. 3. Workers want to be loved, and will go on strike if you don't click on them enough. 4. Building tech structures requires the player to get our of his chair and jump through a literal hoop. 5. You have to pay taxes on your income. You can get deductions by filling out the proper forms.
I'm absolutely baffled by people saying we need to remove Multi-Building Selection and such to make the game more skill-dependent. Sure, it's annoying to do, uninteresting to watch, and is basically just tedious busywork no one likes, but it's harder!
Sure, we could try to make maps where the death ball was easier for Z to deal with. Maybe if we make maps even bigger, Z can counterattack while throwing up hatches everywhere to force the P to play whack-a-mole! Maybe if bases had a very long rush distance but a very wide open natural, P would have trouble defending an expo and couldn't rush up a techy doomball. Maybe we could make Xelnaga towers that provide really useful scouting, or even make custom maps with Xel'Naga scanners or something. That'd be a novel fix to the scouting issue, eh? Making an abandoned Comsat Station from SC1 in your natural that all races could capture and use? Maybe even only Z, if you thought it was a balance issue?
Oh, wait, that requires thought, effort, energy, and playtesting.
Much better to make the players just have to do so much tedious bullshit that even pro games could be decided on who shoveled the most tedious bullshit.
Your argument is just a rehash of the same old crap that keeps pissing out from some really rude players who don't know anything about BW and think they can make some argument that makes no sense and get like minded people to rally behind you. Your argument requires no thought at all and gets people no where.
I appreciate your response, which will no doubt be rational and well-argued.
Here I have one for you.
Hey I have an idea, why don't we make Basketball 2, where players only have to dribble every 10 steps, and instead of shooting into a hoop they just have to cross a line on the other side of the field. Of course tackling is unfair to bad players who don't know how to hold a ball, so instead of making them learn how to control a ball, lets make it so you can't tackle at all.
1. You can't tackle in Basketball. 2. Dribbling isn't required because it's hard, it's required because otherwise you'd have no legal way to reclaim the ball. The rule has a point. People here are arguing for making the game harder for the sole purpose of making it harder. If you, for instance, made Corruption an AOE spell that affected an area and was way more important, that would add more skill to the game. It would also serve a purpose, and make the game more interesting in many ways.
The skill required in BW had a side-effect of balancing the game, the examples you mentioned do not balance the game.
Neither do yours! How does having to select every single SCV I make and manually tell it to mine add anything to the game but an extra step?
You obviously have never played BW at a competitive level, even if you say you have, I won't believe you, because everyone who has macro at a decent level much prefers Single-Building-Selection to the imbalanced macro mechanics we have in SC2.
Not even if I link my ICCUP profile?
You know, when I started playing BW on ICCUP, I didn't have a mouse. I was using my laptop touchpad for a while! You know what everyone told me? Get a mouse! (I did). I wonder why the ICCUP community didn't tell me to stick to my mechanically harder touchpad.
More bases require more attention, therefore good macro players will be more efficient on 3 bases than a bad macro player on 3 bases. This is because he can manage his workers more efficiently, and make units more efficiently. Why do you think this is so wrong?
Who said I did? I think SC2 strikes a pretty good balance, honestly. Having good macro is about having a good memory and having a polished build, not having a million billion APM.
Smart-casting is the reason we have such boring spells that do hardly any damage. So you have to pump a lot of spells out continuously until it looks like a total cluster fuck and no-one can see what's going on.
Sounds like you have a problem with the graphics. If it makes you feel better, smart-casting means having your casters on one hotkey means they clump means LOL EMP. So I imagine we'll end up seeing less and less of that in the future.
And try this one for size. Splitting armies take hundreds of clicks, but I bet you think marine splitting is awesome right?
Little box, right click, little box, right click, little box, right click. It's not particularly hard. Besides, micro is interesting to watch and to do. Clicking 12 factories every 35 seconds isn't.
Well in BW the pathing was actually better and you could bunch and split with only a few clicks. It also had this dynamic where armies would not move in great big balls, and you could cut up armies with zerglings by running in between units.
That's nice. I'm not sure what your point is, but that's nice.
On March 17 2011 17:08 wherebugsgo wrote:Hell, let's just take out all the macro. Just forget command centers, SCVs, etc. Just make it so that we get a steady trickle of minerals and then we all have to decide what to spend it on. Makes the game fair, right? No stupid mechanics you have to do, it's all based on position and skill! The player with the best strategy wins.
While it wouldn't be Starcraft, there's actually nothing wrong with a game that works that way. Actually, that sounds like a pretty cool idea for a turn-based-strategy game.
Still, I find it interesting that neither of you actually responded to my point except to insult me. C'est le internet.
There is a difference between good things that increase skill, and bad things that increase skill. I don't see any argument for single building selection except that it's harder. I don't want to have to spend fifty APM filling out my tax forms. I want to spend it using interesting spells, doing mutli-pronged harass and counter attacks, using micro to defeat a more powerful army, etc etc etc.
You guys want to raise the skill cap? Fine. There's nothing wrong with that. But for god's sake, raise the skill cap in a way that makes the game more fun to play and to watch.
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.
I understand that. It would also be more impressive if you macroed a massive army on 3/4 base while the booth was full of bees. It's difficult for the sake of being difficult. There's no thought, strategy, or point to any of it.
It's a waste. The "skill cap" (mm-hm) can be increased in more interesting ways. Why oh why does everyone want the most boring/aggravating possible method of doing it?
Right now, 80% of players are losing games solely because of mechanics (Plat and below). Probably more than a few diamonds as well.
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.
So would making the players wear boxing gloves. There's nothing inherently interesting about selecting multiple buildings.
Smartcasting is actually crucial, more important then you think. The reason smartcasting is bad for the game is because it makes it easier, this means that you can NEVER have game-changing spells such as the 112 damage(or 120 dmg if you will) Psionic storm, the Defiler's plague/dark swarm. These spells would be ridicilously overpowerd if anyone could use them perfectly with just a few clicks. There is a reason some people were known for its insane defiler control or Jangbi with his psi storms. It was hard to do, and they could change the tide of the battle.
"This ability is broken. Luckily, the interface is so terrible nearly nobody can use the damn thing"
Besides, I'd say the new Fungal is pretty game-changing if it hits a bunch of marines. Remember the Idra vs MVP game where Idra killed like 40 marines with some Fungals? That was pretty awesome, so there can still be "wow" moments.
The bar has been raised, is all. What was once impressive is ho-hum, but what's going to be impressive....damn, yo.
Smartcasting NO LONGER allows this, no spell can be so overpowered as the 112 psy storm or the dark swarm, because it would be overpowerd as anyone can use it by just having 1 control group and spamming T(Overexegeratting slightly, but you get the point).
On top of how hard it was to control casters, you also have massive unit clumping in sc2, a 112 storm would do way too much damage and considered overpowered in SC2. Which means we no longer have an option of game-changing spells which can turn the tide of a battle in the favor of those who micro properly.
See my above point RE: Idra vs MVP. EMP also has some severe game-changing potential because of how much damage it does to a big clump.
What's going to be impressive in SC2 isn't what was impressive in BW. It's what was unimaginable in BW. All those APM that would've been spent clicking buildings are just waiting for a use. The game has been improving kind a bit. It's still got a long way to go. One year from now, someone as good as Idra or MVP is now will be considered a total scrub for not doing Viking transform micro or whatever absurd idea is just waiting to be discovered.
And if there isn't one in the game, we'll make one. Relax.
When the games stop getting better every season, maybe then you can start the doomsaying.
I think the problem is the BO3. stop doing BO3's. They're coinflips and not good tests of the better player. The BO5 has shown to be the best test. BO5's would have given us at least two better GSL finals, and not as many sets that feel downright silly.
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.
Hmm, i cant help but remember playing SupCom (or TA), where you could queue up units without losing effective resources (because they only const if they are built), and that units would act in a more or less sensible way by themselves. Much less clicks on simple tasks, much more on the concrete goals you wanted to achieve. I think thats what a good rts should look like.
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.
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.
N1 calling us BW newfags , thats going to help with the discussion.
You say that you can spend the APM you would use on those factories on other things, guess what, SC2 has nothing in which it can dump the ''excess'' APM. People did that concave and drag injured units to the back while doing hard macro mechanics, which makes them more skilled and more exciting to watch because you know that while he is doing that he is also macroing. It adds to the spectatorship indirectly, not directly.
On March 17 2011 20:48 shinarit wrote: Hmm, i cant help but remember playing SupCom (or TA), where you could queue up units without losing effective resources (because they only const if they are built), and that units would act in a more or less sensible way by themselves. Much less clicks on simple tasks, much more on the concrete goals you wanted to achieve. I think thats what a good rts should look like.
I was going to post about this. In supcom, you don't have to worry about queueing units (you can even queue infinity many units ), your units attack while moving, but even in -10 time (in starcraft it would be very very slow), you're just insanely busy. I don't really know about the high level supcom scene (except TLO played in it), but I think it wasn't really about throwing a coin to decide who wins...
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!
On March 17 2011 22:03 Kipsate wrote:N1 calling us BW newfags , thats going to help with the discussion.
You say that you can spend the APM you would use on those factories on other things, guess what, SC2 has nothing in which it can dump the ''excess'' APM. People did that concave and drag injured units to the back while doing hard macro mechanics, which makes them more skilled and more exciting to watch because you know that while he is doing that he is also macroing. It adds to the spectatorship indirectly, not directly.
And now people will have even more time to do those concave things (which they don't do nearly enough in SC2 as it is), on top of whatever else they can imagine.
Also, there's a reason why I did the BW newfag thing. Think hard about it and the argument that this thread is about.
Hint: It's in the "THAT GAME REQUIRED SKILLS EL OH EL etc..." part.
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!
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.
N1 calling us BW newfags , thats going to help with the discussion.
You say that you can spend the APM you would use on those factories on other things, guess what, SC2 has nothing in which it can dump the ''excess'' APM. People did that concave and drag injured units to the back while doing hard macro mechanics, which makes them more skilled and more exciting to watch because you know that while he is doing that he is also macroing. It adds to the spectatorship indirectly, not directly.
People can't spend all their APM in SC2 though; there's no excess. The tip top players still miss plenty of optimal timings when it comes to mule drops, larva injects/creep spread, and especially chrono boost lategame and those are the direct "macro mechanics!"
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.
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.
On March 17 2011 20:48 shinarit wrote: Hmm, i cant help but remember playing SupCom (or TA), where you could queue up units without losing effective resources (because they only const if they are built), and that units would act in a more or less sensible way by themselves. Much less clicks on simple tasks, much more on the concrete goals you wanted to achieve. I think thats what a good rts should look like.
This would be great.
If queing did not cost anything until the unit would start to be produced then it would make macroing more easy and thus giving more time to develop strategic side of the game.
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.
Literally NOBODY said MBS or automine shouldn't be in the game. So why do idiots keep repeating that 'OMG I CAN'T BELIEVE PEOPLE WOULDN'T WANT IT'? The point is making some new skills that need to be used. I don't understand whats hard to understand about that yet people keep jumping to the defence of SC2 where it's not even needed.
On March 17 2011 16:54 Zanez.smarty wrote:
This is true to a good degree, the tedious bullshit in SC1 was annoying. Watching SC1 was amazing to me, because I had no idea those people played so well and performed so much of that bullshit that I cannot stand. If I were to watch SC1 with someone who has never played it before: Me: OMG look at Bisu's amazing micro against those Spider Mines! Perfect targetting, using Zealots to take the hits, excellent moves and spread. Them: Uh huh. Pretty cool... Me: Trust me, man, it is REALLY hard. That's why those korean announcers are going nuts! Them: Oh I believe you, that is pretty fantastic... Me: W.e man, you just don't get it. Them: Yep, I don't.
This doesn't make sense. If you can't understand whats going on in the video then why would they be watching Starcraft 1 or 2 at all? How is a ball vs ball battle more entertaining or understandable. Not to mention the UI is nothing to do with any of what you are saying. Targetting spider mines and using zealot to take hits is not tedious bullshit its the actual skill of the game, unless you're completely for removing all unit micro from SC2 as well. Besides that, theres tons of casual fans in BW in the crowd who don't play the game and understand whats going on.
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.
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.
Edit: Just to clarify, people said the interface raised the skill cap on BW. That's a fact. Now it's gone the skill cap is lower. Again, that's a fact. But the suggestion is there should be something new to replace it, not change it to BW style. When they've gone in the direction to make even the unit micro simpler, in a lot of peoples opinion that is too far and a problem for the long term interest to spectators.
A lot of people are saying 'Well SC2 isn't played perfectly yet, people miss spawn larvae and miss macro sometimes!'. This is a terrible argument because those things are precisely what the exact same people are saying is boring in BW. Even if someone did play with all those things perfect, why would that be interesting to spectate? People are defeating their own arguments with statements like that.
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?
On March 17 2011 10:57 BaBaUTZ wrote: Before SC2 was released Blizzard often times promised, that they would intercept the falling skill ceiling with new great Micro moves. I liked the idea behind this approach a lot, because having units that are only great if you handle them correctly is a fun way to play in my opinion. On the other side, i wouldnt enjoy SC2 with crappy SCBW UI, AI, etc. .
Though now, after SC2 is released, i am a bit disappointed. I like the easier unit and macro management. But where are the great new Micro moves, Blizzard promised us? Why do we get Hydras, Ultras, Thors, Immortals, Colossi, Marauders or Banshees? Now i dont mind a few "simple to handle" units for the noobs, or units that are "only" good without micro, but great when u micro them. But the truth is, there arent actually a lot of skill-rewarding units. Those would help to raise the skill ceiling and would make the game less volatile (i.e. defend unscouted cheese with superior micro and some power units), the game would still be as newbie friendly as it is now and the game would be more exciting to watch.
Great post, which perfectly describes my opinion on the "mechanics vs. strategy" thing. Not to have smart casting and auto mining is retarded. It is a good thing that you need to have less apm to macro. In Warcraft 3 50 apm were way enough to "macro", however in battles the apm got up to way over 200 for good players because there were so many units that had active abilities to use, because you had up to 3 heroes to individually control, you had times you could use and it was even rewarding to micro a single unit out of battle to save it, heal it up and deny xp for your enemy.
Starcraft 2 requires more macro skill than WC3 but a lot less than SC1. But I don't have the feeling that superior unit control makes up for the less demanding macro in SC2 compared to SC1.
But game volatility imho just stems from unit design and not because SC2's mechanics are too easy.
I mean if 4 hellions can totally screw you over, it would still be the same without auto mining.
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!'
There is no way to reasonably increase skill without dumbing down the interface, period. I'm positive almost everyone arguing that SC2 strikes a good balance joined around 2010 and has only watched a few games of BW let alone played it on a good level. How do you propose to increase skill differential in a game that requires you to use a mouse and keyboard to control it when you barely want to use your mouse and keyboard? Sc2 is what happens when the Halo generation gets its hands on an RTS. If you want to play chess then go play Chess. Sc2 is a REAL TIME STRATEGY meaning not only must you strategize but you must control the game in real time. There are two factors controlling the outcome of the game. Right now the real time part is so easy half the players are alt tabbing mid game to talk to their streamers and don't even miss a beat.
Whatever happened to people wanting a challenge and things to figure out and improve upon? Everyone teamliquid lately just cries imbalance and that refuses to accept that the mechanics in sc2 are easy enough for the average 5th grader to figure out without much trouble.
The only other plausible option I can think of is to add a ridiculous amount of different units per race so that is so hard for each player to decide what to use in every situation. The only problem here is it is impossible to balance without a team of 20 balance professionals working non stop for months.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
I personally also think that SC2 is a bit too volatile, which to an extent comes from the relatively low mechanical requirements and on the other hand from BOs/strategies sometimes countering each very hard while at the same time they are hard to identify/scout
If the game is volatile it's only because it is so new and there is no established "correct response" to a given build.
Take MVP's loss to Genius on Tal'darim. Tastosis said over and over that he shouldn't be trying to cross that huge map on 3 Rax to try to assault a Toss on 3 Gate with Forge upgrades. That seems like common sense, but obviously it wasn't to MVP. These things just take time and a lot more practice.
I would agree with you if I felt these games were out of the control of our superhero's (MVP, BoxeR, Nestea) but in every game you could see crucial mistakes that they made while their opponents just flat out played better.
But you can expect that this early in a game's lifespan.
On March 18 2011 00:46 dras wrote: the game is too unstable for it to be a legit esport in my opininion.
I agree.
In my opinion sports are more about players and teams than skill, this is why major competitions like World Cup are all based on national teams. It is important for any sports to have someone the spectators can root for.
This is why having foreigners or stars in GSL consistently performing is very important.
-200 food vs 200 food battles (where as in BW, it was more of a flux battle, ie. streams of units and fights all over the map) -fact that an entire marine army of 50 food can melt in the blink of an eye to storm, banelings, etc. -siege tanks now need PERFECT siege/unsiege timing (where is in BW, it was OK to miss your siege (o) button by a few seconds, as the battles were in STREAMS, meaning you would lose less units) -absurd late game imbalances (lol 27 larvae per hatchery, really?)
On March 18 2011 01:32 Griffith` wrote: things that contribute to the volatility:
-200 food vs 200 food battles (where as in BW, it was more of a flux battle, ie. streams of units and fights all over the map) -fact that an entire marine army of 50 food can melt in the blink of an eye to storm, banelings, etc. -siege tanks now need PERFECT siege/unsiege timing (where is in BW, it was OK to miss your siege (o) button by a few seconds, as the battles were in STREAMS, meaning you would lose less units) -absurd late game imbalances (lol 27 larvae per hatchery, really?)
SC2 is just a whole lot more gimmicky
Missing your O timing in bw in a tvp match is a gg for you I can assure you that ask fbh for confirmation.....
Well there is truth to that. In sc2 banelings replaced lurkers in taking out large amounts of terran infantry. I agree banelings is one of the more tricky units to use eg. having to morph them at the right now and keeping them from sight. But difference from lurkers and banelings is that once you have enough you just roll in a bunch of them with some lings and mutas and just A move. Just like everything else in this game it is A move. Once protoss has enough colossus, they A move in a big ball. When zerg gets enough banelings they can just A move into the terran.
Its really different from BW in game dynamics. Hidden tech is hard to spot and units die so quick, it is difficult to have the game be under the control of the player. I see mostly whoever guesses right about unit composition wins. Unit composition is more important than positioning in this game as everything dies so quick, it doesn't matter if you have the high ground or easier defense position. You are dead because counter units have really high + attack bonuses.
Example: (I didn't play BW, this is all from observation of VODs.) In T v Z the terran would have the advantage over lurkers and zerglings on the offense with tanks and marines medics until zerg has defilers. Terran gets science vessels. When that happens, an interesting game occurs. Even if Terran has an overwhelming army attacking a small expansion, zerg can delay the terran attack using defilers and a few lurkers until reinforcements come. But the thing is defilers are limited use because of their high gas cost and fragile nature. So we see a see saw nature of zerg pushing the terran back with that cloud the defiler makes until a certain point before they run out of energy or science vessels irradiate them. This makes it interesting with lines drawn on the map as they each expand and try to get an advantage in positioning. This makes it so there are several armies on the field at the same time attacking, feinting, threatening, defending and sieging.
But none of that happens in SC2, what happens is that either zerg gets enough banelings to A move into the terran army....or they don't. There is no delaying of either army using a few units. That is what bothers me. I used to play WC3 and it is the same idea, a base is easily defensible given you sim city correctly and have just enough units to defend while still being able to attack. In SC2 you have to keep your whole army together or else the other person will just gather them and A move into your small chunk into oblivion.
SC has always been a game of incomplete information... In the early days of SC1, it was always anybody's guess who would win a game at the pro level. There were players who were better than others, but anyone could win any given game or match. This is the same in SC2. The incomplete information of starcraft and player scouting and interpretation of what they see is what makes the game so fantastic. Give it time. With more experience and different maps, minor balance changes and further evolution, the game will reach a state more similar to that of BW where its very easy to predict the winner. Upsets will be TREMENDOUS upsets then... But for the time being, enjoy the ride.
dynamics are overshadowed by the strength of brute force. of course micro makes a difference, but units such as the marauder and roach drastically lower the ceiling on how much you can do without a larger force.
On March 17 2011 13:23 drcatellino wrote: This thread confirm the idea that most of the community really wanted SC2 to be Brood Wars with better graphics.
I dont, see reason below.
On March 17 2011 12:06 Enervate wrote: Also, the difference between chess and SC is that in SC players have limited knowledge. The fact that you have to make decisions based off of a limited amount of knowledge increases the luck factor. There's no luck in chess because you know what your opponent is doing and vice versa. The question is do you want SC to be more of a luck game, like poker, or more of a skill game, like football.
Thank you Envervate. You made a very clear and valid point here. I totally agree with you on that.
One thing I would like to point out is that, the game does not need to be so random. For example, ill just list 2 situations:
1. From the 1 min mark to 7 or 8, sometimes, is nearly impossible to realize what your opponent is doing and "luck" or the "surprise element" plays a HUGE role in the game. Thats when win / loses starts to get "random".
2. In the late game, when you have 5 / 4 bases, having a lot of fights, harassing at the same time, dropping, etc., things start to get a little bit less random. Probably because the element of surprise is not so big anymore, you already have the economy and the production facilities to counter that. All you need is speed and multitasking to make those things happen.
Situation number 2 is clearly better to determine skill, and i didnt cripple mechanics. I dont want stalkers to take more than 30 minutes to go up a ramp (yes, i used to play brood war and that used to piss me off).
I think blizzard is slowly taking the correct decisions, and we will soon get there.
A Moving is almost always the worse option. Positioning is almost always better than unit composition. Macro is almost always better than either positioning or unit composition.
If AoE keeps wiping out your army all the time, it just means you're not spreading out fast/soon enough.
If your opponent constantly is able to get 60+ Banelings, you're not harassing often/hard enough.
If you keep dying because both players have reached 200/200 food armies, then stop pretending that you're in a fastest-money-map.
The reason that BW has such a seemingly more complex game-play dynamic is because of *years* and *years* and tactics development. Grrr owned everyone when it started simply because he could put a reaver in a shuttle. Boxer took everyone by storm simply because he used a fast unit (vulture) to kill workers and run away. Nada and iloveoov changed the way the game was played as we know it simply because they built supply depots and scvs consistently. Now we have players like Flash and Jaedong who do all those things all at once. Who knows how unit interact, who know exactly how many units are needed at what times. Where they don't think "I'll build as many tanks as I can afford" but instead think "I can hold position A with X number of tanks and Y number of support units." SC2 does not have that preciseness of unit balance since it's still so fresh.
There is a reason that a lot of the top SC2 players in Korea are former/switched SC1 pros. Because their mechanics are better. Once SC2 has enough players with the same high end (MVP/egidra) level mechanics, then we will finally start seeing stable players, stable metagames.
As for GSL stability; I hope people know that January is really the first official "standard" gsl? The qualifiers last year was so volatile and crazy because it was a wild west shootout and one bad match cost you everything. The actual GSL was just a crap tonne of Bo1 matches before it actually got interesting and one misclick and all of a sudden "top players" are out.
The current system is the first attempt at creating a stable base. IMMVP lost 6 out of his last 8 games to be knocked down to code A. 6 losses is a LOT to of chances to give someone. IMMVP was given way more chances to stay in code S than code B players are given to get to code S. The reasons he(IMMVP) lost? Julyzerg redefining (aka copying Kyrix's old playstyle) ZvT cost him 2 games. Then he played against 2 of the best protoss players in the current metagame, his worse matchup. That's too big a handicap to ignore.
The metagame is still being explored and tweaked. Unlike SC1 where almost all strategies that would be figured out has been figured out and the main showcasing of skill is who has superior mechanics, micro and macro. SC2 hasn't reached that state yet because it's still too new to think that we've figured out almost all possible strategies and timings. JulyZerg has proven that we don't know the timings as well as we thought we did and the new maps have shown that the matchups are a LOT more balanced than people thought it was when it was in the older (aka as smaller) maps.
As both the mapmaking community and the playerbase gets better, the more figured out and balanced the game becomes. It's currently too soon to expect things to be figured out.
--------------------------
TLDR
Stop whining like bronze players just because your predictions and game awareness is awful compared to SC1 pros.
On March 18 2011 01:59 whatthefat wrote: I never understand people saying "you just a-move banelings". In most circumstances that is actually the worst possible thing you can do with them.
What else do you do with them? The AI tends to find the units themselves better than a human could.
On March 18 2011 01:59 whatthefat wrote: I never understand people saying "you just a-move banelings". In most circumstances that is actually the worst possible thing you can do with them.
What else do you do with them? The AI tends to find the units themselves better than a human could.
A Moving is the reason banelings crash into tanks and thors.
Let me put it this way, why don't you play BW and just A move scourge, see how that works for you.
sorry but the apm required to tell banelings to chase after a clump of marines is about 1/10th the apm required to split the marines. It is essentially "a-move" as you need to order one command to the banelings and a-move everything else.
Don't even compare the mechanics of scourge cloning to telling banelings to target marines - scourge cloning is about as mechanically difficult as splitting marines.
On March 18 2011 02:25 lorkac wrote: A Moving is almost always the worse option. Positioning is almost always better than unit composition. Macro is almost always better than either positioning or unit composition.
If AoE keeps wiping out your army all the time, it just means you're not spreading out fast/soon enough.
If your opponent constantly is able to get 60+ Banelings, you're not harassing often/hard enough.
If you keep dying because both players have reached 200/200 food armies, then stop pretending that you're in a fastest-money-map.
The reason that BW has such a seemingly more complex game-play dynamic is because of *years* and *years* and tactics development. Grrr owned everyone when it started simply because he could put a reaver in a shuttle. Boxer took everyone by storm simply because he used a fast unit (vulture) to kill workers and run away. Nada and iloveoov changed the way the game was played as we know it simply because they built supply depots and scvs consistently. Now we have players like Flash and Jaedong who do all those things all at once. Who knows how unit interact, who know exactly how many units are needed at what times. Where they don't think "I'll build as many tanks as I can afford" but instead think "I can hold position A with X number of tanks and Y number of support units." SC2 does not have that preciseness of unit balance since it's still so fresh.
There is a reason that a lot of the top SC2 players in Korea are former/switched SC1 pros. Because their mechanics are better. Once SC2 has enough players with the same high end (MVP/egidra) level mechanics, then we will finally start seeing stable players, stable metagames.
As for GSL stability; I hope people know that January is really the first official "standard" gsl? The qualifiers last year was so volatile and crazy because it was a wild west shootout and one bad match cost you everything. The actual GSL was just a crap tonne of Bo1 matches before it actually got interesting and one misclick and all of a sudden "top players" are out.
The current system is the first attempt at creating a stable base. IMMVP lost 6 out of his last 8 games to be knocked down to code A. 6 losses is a LOT to of chances to give someone. IMMVP was given way more chances to stay in code S than code B players are given to get to code S. The reasons he(IMMVP) lost? Julyzerg redefining (aka copying Kyrix's old playstyle) ZvT cost him 2 games. Then he played against 2 of the best protoss players in the current metagame, his worse matchup. That's too big a handicap to ignore.
The metagame is still being explored and tweaked. Unlike SC1 where almost all strategies that would be figured out has been figured out and the main showcasing of skill is who has superior mechanics, micro and macro. SC2 hasn't reached that state yet because it's still too new to think that we've figured out almost all possible strategies and timings. JulyZerg has proven that we don't know the timings as well as we thought we did and the new maps have shown that the matchups are a LOT more balanced than people thought it was when it was in the older (aka as smaller) maps.
As both the mapmaking community and the playerbase gets better, the more figured out and balanced the game becomes. It's currently too soon to expect things to be figured out.
--------------------------
TLDR
Stop whining like bronze players just because your predictions and game awareness is awful compared to SC1 pros.
I made a post similar to this earlier in the thread and it got drowned out. I completely agree with you and it's aggravating trying to get people to understand this. This thread really is dreadful. The player base is complaining about the "lack of skill" required to play Starcraft II when they haven't even scratched the surface of the game and are clearly playing it at a suboptimal level. Yet all of these same people will buy the expansion packs on the first day. It's pathetic.
Well think about it. In SC1 the lurker had to be burrowed to do any damage. The reaver had to have a shuttle to have any mobility. In SC2 the baneling can be moving with the army and is a constant threat...it can come at you at any time. In SC, you see the shuttle with the reaver or templars and you react, microing, positioning keeping them back. In SC2 you see the colossi and either you have vikings and survive or you don't. In SC the lurkers have to pop up out of the ground and are vulnerable. Terran can stim in with some hero marines or irridate with science vessels keeping their numbers low or softening a defense. In SC2 the banelings are ALWAYS a threat, they have mobility but still a threat. You don't need to set up to use them, when the terran gets close you just wait for the right moment where ever they are, because remember your banelings can move and come in from two flanks and its over if you have enough.
On March 18 2011 02:33 Griffith` wrote: sorry but the apm required to tell banelings to chase after a clump of marines is about 1/10th the apm required to split the marines. It is essentially "a-move" as you need to order one command to the banelings and a-move everything else.
If the marines are in a clump, sure. It's as easy to move a bunch of banelings into an a-moved group of marines as it is to a-move the group of marines. If the terran is splitting and microing well, the banelings have to be microed equally well or they will do nothing.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
I am an advid BW fan, and although I agree that BW might rely less on luck lets not delude ourselves by saying that BO wins don't happen in BW. ZvZ 9speed and PvP DT, 4gate come to mind.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
Actually a big chunk of the best players know when to roll the dice on build order luck even today in BW. Jaedong has 6pooled more than once in a clutch situation to get a build order win. This happens a lot in ZvZ but even so, things like proxies and cheese were what made Boxer famous and also what launched Flash's career.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
Actually a big chunk of the best players know when to roll the dice on build order luck even today in BW. Jaedong has 6pooled more than once in a clutch situation to get a build order win. This happens a lot in ZvZ but even so, things like proxies and cheese were what made Boxer famous and also what launched Flash's career.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
Actually a big chunk of the best players know when to roll the dice on build order luck even today in BW. Jaedong has 6pooled more than once in a clutch situation to get a build order win. This happens a lot in ZvZ but even so, things like proxies and cheese were what made Boxer famous and also what launched Flash's career.
Im not saying BW wins don't happen, I'm just saying its possible in BW to come back from a weaker BO.
It's like that in Starcraft 2 also, though it's only ever obvious how to the observers and people watching the game, and rarely the players. (for obvious reasons)
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
Actually the opposite is occurring. The build orders are so finely tuned and progamer mechanics are approaching their limits, that it gives less room for one player to outplay another player. Nowadays build order wins are way more common than before since people know the advantages and disadvantages of each build far more.
Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes.
Oh I think that's fair to discuss how SC2 could be a better game, but I just don't like the nostalgic fatalist attitude that some people display, pretending that the only way the the game can get better is by mimicking BW, and that Blizzard is bad and the game is never gonna be good, etc.
Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes.
Broodwar is a better game. But it IS being retired, playing it at this point serves no purpose. That doesn't mean I lower my expectations for SC2. I expect it to be as good or better than BW. It Isn't yet.
On March 18 2011 03:22 drcatellino wrote: Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes.
Oh I think that's fair to discuss how SC2 could be a better game, but I just don't like the nostalgic fatalist attitude that some people display, pretending that the only way the the game can get better is by mimicking BW, and that Blizzard is bad and the game is never gonna be good, etc.
Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes.
Broodwar is a better game. But it IS being retired, playing it at this point serves no purpose. That doesn't mean I lower my expectations for SC2. I expect it to be as good or better than BW. It Isn't yet.
Funny how people play SC2, watch SC2 pro replays, but are also spending and awful lot of time on these forums trying to convince us how bad it is. If you guys hate it so much, just go play Brood Wars, the game didn't stop existing after SC2 was released.
I'm simply mind-blown at how this community can be conservative and close-minded sometimes.
Broodwar is a better game. But it IS being retired, playing it at this point serves no purpose. That doesn't mean I lower my expectations for SC2. I expect it to be as good or better than BW. It Isn't yet.
Unless you're planning to go pro and try to make money on sc2, I don't see why it matters which game you play. There are still plenty of good BW players on iCCup / Fish, and there are tons of great pro BW matches to watch, just as always.
Hell, there's even a small WC2 competitive community around (yes, WC2). Play whatever game you like; who cares whether it's the most common or popular game out there right now.
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
MC is very consistent because he has better mechanics and understanding. The rest (IMO) will have to go up and down because they're on the same playing level as everyone else. Just how it goes. Perhaps there are a few that made mistakes that are near MC's playing level, but those mistakes are what leave MC in a category all by himself.
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
LOL Idra bm!
I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
LOL Idra bm!
I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
LOL Idra bm!
I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
To continue this jovial exchange, I'm 100% sure you were either unable to successfully click the "show imbeded quote" button or didn't have the attention span to read the contents therein. Nowhere in the quoted text is the OP directly referenced.
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
LOL Idra bm!
I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
The problem is there's too much reliance and focus on the "Real Time" that the "Strategy" part is merely an afterthought.
On March 18 2011 04:31 shwick wrote: No I'm 100% correct you're 100% wrong. That make sense to you?
Nowhere did the OP say he wanted time to not factor in at all.
On March 18 2011 04:28 dogmeatstew wrote:
On March 18 2011 04:21 shwick wrote:
On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote:
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
LOL Idra bm!
I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
To continue this jovial exchange, I'm 100% sure you were either unable to successfully click the "show imbeded quote" button or didn't have the attention span to read the contents therein. Nowhere in the quoted text is the OP directly referenced.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
On March 18 2011 04:31 shwick wrote: No I'm 100% correct you're 100% wrong. That make sense to you?
Nowhere did the OP say he wanted time to not factor in at all.
On March 18 2011 04:28 dogmeatstew wrote:
On March 18 2011 04:21 shwick wrote:
On March 17 2011 10:15 IdrA wrote:
On March 17 2011 10:11 tarath wrote: Hey guys, I had a great idea!
I think chess would be a better strategy game if you had to beat up mike tyson to move a piece. If he bites off both of your ears you just auto lose. Then instead of having to focus on strategic play and reacting to your opponent the true "skill" players with fast hands, big muscles, and 3 ears would start dominating like they should.
Chess is just way to volatile, but if only people who can beat up mike tyson can move their pieces, well problem solved! Its not like master strategists will ever dominate the sport on their own.
shut up chess is a pure strategy game, that is its genre starcraft and starcraft 2 are real time strategy games. that means how fast you can do stuff is, by definition, part of the skillset required to play them.
LOL Idra bm!
I think in this instance this qualifies as Idra win. He's completely 100% correct, if you play a game with "Real Time" in its genre title and expect time not to factor in then you need to re-examine why you never made it out 7th grade.
To continue this jovial exchange, I'm 100% sure you were either unable to successfully click the "show imbeded quote" button or didn't have the attention span to read the contents therein. Nowhere in the quoted text is the OP directly referenced.
So wait, if I post another 9 times will I eventually convince you that you're wrong?
Just kidding, really.
Err, @other person who quoted me...
I agree that there's a lot of emphasis on mechanics in starcraft but it's much less so that in BW. Realistically I like the volatility that's caused by mechanical errors costing you the game, this is exactly what makes the game fun and a spectator sport, I don't know if you've ever watched chess but it's probably less exciting that watching paint dry.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
Early games like this. You don't need a replay function to make a vod.
On March 16 2011 20:54 andrewwiggin wrote: Players are volatile. THAT'S easier to argue than what you're saying. And truer too.
This.
Plus the fact that the game is still new (heck, there are still some very drastic buffs and nerfs going on in the patch changes), and so we shouldn't jump the gun and expect to see 20 players to stay in the Top 20 spots for SC2.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
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.
Seriously, if people think that having harder mechanics makes a game more fun to watch and play, then maybe Blizz should make a few changes in HotS; disable control groups or even group select so that you can only select and move one unit at a time. And you need to type a command to use special abilities instead of clicking on an icon or using shortcut keys. And no there wont be any kind of vocal warning that your base, units or probes, are under attack, because all those stuff are for newbs. Instead of just minerals and gas, you'll have 8 more resources that you need to worry about such as Oil, Coal, Wood, Gold, Rock, Plutonium, etc. Make that game, and see how many people would appreciate having harder mechanics.
Yeah I played warcraft 1 a few times, it was pretty dope but you had to bandbox by holding control and could only move 4 units at a time.
I also played C&C Red Alert a lot (before I moved on to AoE 2). Imo the biggest problem with that was you couldn't select which buildings would build units, you just had this tab on the right which you would spam every half a second.
I still think the UI of SC2 is not better than BW. Its terrible, in fact. Buttons popping up everywhere, control groups accidentally being reset, units moving in balls, clunky units that you can't control the way you want (wraith micro vs viking micro). People overestimate how good SC2 UI/AI is in comparison to BW, it really isn't that much better.
On March 17 2011 19:07 Ribbon wrote: What's going to be impressive in SC2 isn't what was impressive in BW. It's what was unimaginable in BW. All those APM that would've been spent clicking buildings are just waiting for a use. The game has been improving kind a bit. It's still got a long way to go. One year from now, someone as good as Idra or MVP is now will be considered a total scrub for not doing Viking transform micro or whatever absurd idea is just waiting to be discovered.
And if there isn't one in the game, we'll make one. Relax.
When the games stop getting better every season, maybe then you can start the doomsaying.
See that's a huge misconception. My APM was 250-300 in BW but its only 150 in SC2. Its not like I suddenly have 150 APM free now, it actually makes no difference. My multi-pronged attacks are as effective in BW as they were in SC2. My micro is as good as it was in BW as in SC2. My APM is lower because I just have less shit to do.
The speed you have when doing these tasks actually have little impact on how well you can do other tasks. JulyZerg peaked 818 APM, but you don't see him controlling zerglings individually in SC2.
What will allow players to create more impressive micro has nothing to do with freeing apm. If you want impressive micro, make the units micro-able, which BW had a lot of, and SC2 doesn't. Also simply because of the "freeing up of apm" by making the mechanics easier, you are actually creating the opposite effect.
Units are so weak on their own now that there's much less point in doing harass based play, hellions are strong only in numbers, colossi strong only in numbers, templar strong only in numbers. In BW 1 speed vulture could take out infinite speed lings, 1 probe could scout a base till spire tech, 1 defiler could completely turn an almost complete defeat into a solid victory.
In regards to the OP's question, even the top players don't think there will be bonjwa's like there were in BW. There is simply not enough to differentiate the top players, Jaedong had his mutas and quick thinking, Flash had his impeccable macro and decision making, Bisu had his multitask and ridiculous probe control. Note that all the great players of BW had a strong relation to the "terrible UI" that BW has.
Even with all the free apm in the world, the only thing close SC2 can get is MKP's marines, and you think that's awesome. Well imagine how awesome BW is because nearly every player has something completely distinct about them like MKP does in SC2. It was like this since early competition BW, it didn't take 10 years, and keep in mind BW evolution was a lot slower than SC2.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote: See that's a huge misconception. My APM was 250-300 in BW but its only 150 in SC2. Its not like I suddenly have 150 APM free now, it actually makes no difference. My multi-pronged attacks are as effective in BW as they were in SC2. My micro is as good as it was in BW as in SC2. My APM is lower because I just have less shit to do.
I'm high platinum. Hey, you're a little better than me! We're close enough in rank that I could probably take a game off you in a best of seven, but you're certainly a bit more skilled. Nevertheless, I bet you 20 bucks that if you uploaded a replay pack, I could see plenty of things to spend your APM on. Even if you are Terran ^_^.
And anyway, if there's nothing to do with your APM, isn't add new features like better spells or something a more fun way of fixing that problem that making players jump through hoops? Of all the possible solutions to the "low skill cap" issue you claim, why do you consistently insist of the most boring?
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote: See that's a huge misconception. My APM was 250-300 in BW but its only 150 in SC2. Its not like I suddenly have 150 APM free now, it actually makes no difference. My multi-pronged attacks are as effective in BW as they were in SC2. My micro is as good as it was in BW as in SC2. My APM is lower because I just have less shit to do.
I'm high platinum. Hey, you're a little better than me! We're close enough in rank that I could probably take a game off you in a best of seven, but you're certainly a bit more skilled. Nevertheless, I bet you 20 bucks that if you uploaded a replay pack, I could see plenty of things to spend your APM on. Even if you are Terran ^_^.
And anyway, if there's nothing to do with your APM, isn't add new features like better spells or something a more fun way of fixing that problem that making players jump through hoops? Of all the possible solutions to the "low skill cap" issue you claim, why do you consistently insist of the most boring?
SluggaSlamoo is my NA account, I regularly custom against 3k masters players and beat them on SEA and NA. I don't ladder a lot, and I usually spend my ladder doing gimmicky strategies (I once did a 15CC into mech and won against the top zerg in my division (before masters was out), hence the low win-rate. In short, I don't give a damn about ladder, partly due to the poor map pool.
I've just started uploading Vods on my youtube channel, you can check it out there if you want (sluggaslamoo). All of the players I vs are 3k masters or higher, I include losses as well so its not like they are fluke wins or anything. As the filesizes are huge I haven't been uploading regularly, Ill be uploading more often soon.
As for your last point, it still goes into what I said earlier. You can't really have powerful spells or micro intensive spells because with smart-casting they would be too powerful. Just look at all the QQ caused by forcefield, now imagine if Starcraft 2 had defilers, or ravens had irradiate.
I am not advocating the removal of MBS or anything like that. I'm just saying that the alternatives (or non-alternatives) posed by Starcraft 2 are a lot worse than just having the old mechanics back. I am just pro-BW mechanics, and trying to tell people why BW players like it so much, and I am explaining why the BW mechanics are still superior to SC2 and how they balanced the game.
Basically if Blizzard wants to create a spectator sport, something needs to be done to make the skill ceiling higher. The BW mechanics does this in a very effective way, I wouldn't mind if this meant just removing smart-casting so spells could be more powerful, or implementing units that required control like the reaver and replacing the colossus.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
Actually a big chunk of the best players know when to roll the dice on build order luck even today in BW. Jaedong has 6pooled more than once in a clutch situation to get a build order win. This happens a lot in ZvZ but even so, things like proxies and cheese were what made Boxer famous and also what launched Flash's career.
Im not saying BW wins don't happen.
Then what are you saying? I can't think of more than a handful of build order wins resulting from standard builds in SC2, and most of those are in mirrors like in ZvZ in BW. Maybe cloaked banshees versus toss? But even then, if they scout and react appropriately they should be able to repel the assault. I mean, there are outliers, but those existed in BW too; 9pool versus 14 CC, for example, was Flash's bane for a long time.
It is hard to be consistent at starcraft 2 to be honest. When i'm laddering and I get a nice winstreak, I don't even notice it myself but I get a bit complacent. I think this might have been the case for MVP, every1 hyped him so hard, he might have actually started thinking he was better then every1 else and practiced a bit less serious. I think it's a good thing the big names are losing, it means they need too practice harder and also that other players are improving. Off course I hope they will start winning again, but losing isn't a bad thing aslong as you can improve.
Few more GSL's and we have a lot better stats anyway, in 3-4 GSL's we will see who is consistent and who isn't. Also consistent players don't have to win a GSL I'm more impressed by a player that stays in code S for almost every season but reaches like ro16-r08 every season then a player that wins a GSL but then just can't get his game together anymore
On March 17 2011 19:07 Ribbon wrote: What's going to be impressive in SC2 isn't what was impressive in BW. It's what was unimaginable in BW. All those APM that would've been spent clicking buildings are just waiting for a use. The game has been improving kind a bit. It's still got a long way to go. One year from now, someone as good as Idra or MVP is now will be considered a total scrub for not doing Viking transform micro or whatever absurd idea is just waiting to be discovered.
And if there isn't one in the game, we'll make one. Relax.
When the games stop getting better every season, maybe then you can start the doomsaying.
See that's a huge misconception. My APM was 250-300 in BW but its only 150 in SC2. Its not like I suddenly have 150 APM free now, it actually makes no difference. My multi-pronged attacks are as effective in BW as they were in SC2. My micro is as good as it was in BW as in SC2. My APM is lower because I just have less shit to do.
You realize SC2 APM by Blizzard's APM meter in replays is calculated differently than it was in BW?
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
Notably, MVP's macro in BW wasn't exactly top tier and JulyZerg's age of greatness was pretty long past when he moved on to SC2; he'd been a coach for a while, I believe, and wasn't really dominating when it come to micro or macro at the time. And I'm sorry but Boxer's prime is long past when it comes to mechanics. Once he joined Air Force he could be more or less counted out of serious competition.
My point here is that you can't use these ex-BW players as good examples of what should be "perfect" SC2 players because they're ex-BW players for a reason: they passed their BW prime and saw a good opportunity in SC2. I have no doubt that if we saw Jaedong or Flash in SC2 they would have better rax timing, better larva inject, and better mule drop timing than any of these three and would perform better as a result.
On the other hand, MKP's marine splitting is something to be in awe of. ogsMC's timing attacks are amazing and show a great grasp of the game. Jinro has fantastic macro and a great game sense. I love all these players because they've taken what they learned from BW and applied to SC2 in ways other people just don't.
I hate this argument that SC2 just needs time to develop. Seriously, people will allow a great game to be replaced just on the hope that this replacement game will develop into a game worthy of replacing the great game? Also, the logic is essentially flawed because in the beginning of BWs life, people literally had no understanding of RTS theory. SC2 isn't THAT different from BW, and you can't just say stuff like oh, people will begin to use overlord drops more. How do you know that?! I doubt pro players aren't even bothering to try stuff like "abusing the watchtowers".
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
The community knows what the fundamentals of Brood War are. They do not know what the fundamentals of Starcraft II are yet. We don't know what that added "free time" is going to convert to. We simply don't. Players are still adjusting to it. To quote the Battle.net forums: Relax. It's a beta. Give it time.
On March 18 2011 09:26 etheovermind wrote: I hate this argument that SC2 just needs time to develop. Seriously, people will allow a great game to be replaced just on the hope that this replacement game will develop into a game worthy of replacing the great game?
I'm campaigning for people who don't think Starcraft II will never be as good as Brood War to go and play Brood War. Your fight ain't with me on that. Blizzard is the company trying to "develop a game worthy of replacing the great game", the company that's been trying to do precisely with the help of their budget for legal affairs. Your fight is with them. As far as I can tell, TeamLiquid (and the greater Starcraft community) is attaching themselves to the Starcraft II gravy train as long as Blizzard seems interested in backing their money and confidence behind the sequel.
Also, the logic is essentially flawed because in the beginning of BWs life, people literally had no understanding of RTS theory. SC2 isn't THAT different from BW, and you can't just say stuff like oh, people will begin to use overlord drops more. How do you know that?! I doubt pro players aren't even bothering to try stuff like "abusing the watchtowers".
I know that because it happened with the two previous Blizzard games. The idea that Brood War players played the hell out of Brood War so they immediately discovered all the nuances of Starcraft II and solved the game eight months after its release is impossible. People will find new strategies. People will find new glitches. People will find new ways to play the game. Just as they have been continuously finding new strategies, glitches, and playstyles over the twelve months that this game has been live.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
The community knows what the fundamentals of Brood War are. They do not know what the fundamentals of Starcraft II are yet. We don't know what that added "free time" is going to convert to. We simply don't. Players are still adjusting to it. To quote the Battle.net forums: Relax. It's a beta. Give it time.
The mechanics are exactly the same. You right-click to move, you a-click to attack. Nothing to do with the mechanics have changed at all. What HAS changed is that units now clump into tight, little balls, and are less prone to go wandering across the map or in random zig-zag patterns because of broken pathing code. That's not mechanics either, that's just a pathing fix wreaking havoc on the behaviours of the units, which is essentially a design change. Sure, some units have different abilities than the ones we saw in BW, but again, that's unit design.
The fact that units clump together so tightly, and the fact that SC2 plays at a higher speed than BW makes it much more difficult to perform a lot of the cool micro tricks that are so prevalent in BW, and rewards the use of lazy units with splash damage like collosus, tanks, and banelings. But the mechanics themselves are exactly the same. If splash damage had less radius, and/or there was a little bit more breathing-room between the units, then we'd be watching a game that's much more similar to BW.
Pretty sure you either have never played BW or are just trolling. There have been significant changes to base management/unit control mechanics from BW to SC2 that have been debated for well over a year.
I was speaking directly to his claim that he wasn't talking about Multi-Building selection or 1-key army hotkey. If he's not bitching about one of those two things, then what else is there?
BW had rally points for buildings. BW had shift-queuing, a-move, unit abilities and spell-casters.
Every other complaint I can think of relates to the design of the units, and not their actual mechanics.
What mechanics are you talking about? You can't just call someone a troll while completely ignoring the actual point that they're making (relevant to the discussion they are having with a specific person) and then not spell out your position. You seem to be arguing exactly the point that he is trying to claim is NOT being argued.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
Notably, MVP's macro in BW wasn't exactly top tier and JulyZerg's age of greatness was pretty long past when he moved on to SC2; he'd been a coach for a while, I believe, and wasn't really dominating when it come to micro or macro at the time. And I'm sorry but Boxer's prime is long past when it comes to mechanics. Once he joined Air Force he could be more or less counted out of serious competition.
My point here is that you can't use these ex-BW players as good examples of what should be "perfect" SC2 players because they're ex-BW players for a reason: they passed their BW prime and saw a good opportunity in SC2. I have no doubt that if we saw Jaedong or Flash in SC2 they would have better rax timing, better larva inject, and better mule drop timing than any of these three and would perform better as a result.
On the other hand, MKP's marine splitting is something to be in awe of. ogsMC's timing attacks are amazing and show a great grasp of the game. Jinro has fantastic macro and a great game sense. I love all these players because they've taken what they learned from BW and applied to SC2 in ways other people just don't.
I don't think you understand, Boxer still produced amazing strategies even just before he retired. He's always been like that, it never changed, his ability to produce strategies has nothing to do with his mechanics. Why suddenly, has he stopped making beautiful strategies? obviously with easier mechanics, a brand new game, more interest, he should be making better strategies than he did in BW. But its just not happening, this is due to the so called "dumbing down" of units.
MC's timings are nothing compared to Bests, killing tanks with immortals is like bleh, killing tanks with dragoons on the other hand ... see what I mean? Again "dumbing down" of units. Immortals beat tanks, and immortals beat tanks, and that's that, did I mention immortals beat tanks?
MVP was an A-Teamer, and a mechanical player at that, I would expect his macro to be miles ahead of everyone. This is not the case, because the "dumbed down" mechanics are bringing everyone closer together.
MKP's marine micro is nothing compared to Boxers or Nada's or July's micro in BW. Yes MKP is in his prime, so it should be fair to compare it to Boxer or Nada's or July's prime right.
There's no point comparing them to the progamers of today, because someone will bring out the "give it 10 years" card.
Anyway my point is there is no such thing as "free apm". The new mechanics will simply bring the worst and best players closer together, making it much harder to be the best.
On March 18 2011 09:33 MichaelJLowell wrote: People will find new ways to play the game. Just as they have been continuously finding new strategies, glitches, and playstyles over the twelve months that this game has been live.
For every glitch that someone finds, blizzard patches it.
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
The community knows what the fundamentals of Brood War are. They do not know what the fundamentals of Starcraft II are yet. We don't know what that added "free time" is going to convert to. We simply don't. Players are still adjusting to it. To quote the Battle.net forums: Relax. It's a beta. Give it time.
On March 18 2011 09:26 etheovermind wrote: I hate this argument that SC2 just needs time to develop. Seriously, people will allow a great game to be replaced just on the hope that this replacement game will develop into a game worthy of replacing the great game?
I'm campaigning for people who don't think Starcraft II will never be as good as Brood War to go and play Brood War. Your fight ain't with me on that. Blizzard is the company trying to "develop a game worthy of replacing the great game", the company that's been trying to do precisely with the help of their budget for legal affairs. Your fight is with them. As far as I can tell, TeamLiquid (and the greater Starcraft community) is attaching themselves to the Starcraft II gravy train as long as Blizzard seems interested in backing their money and confidence behind the sequel.
Also, the logic is essentially flawed because in the beginning of BWs life, people literally had no understanding of RTS theory. SC2 isn't THAT different from BW, and you can't just say stuff like oh, people will begin to use overlord drops more. How do you know that?! I doubt pro players aren't even bothering to try stuff like "abusing the watchtowers".
I know that because it happened with the two previous Blizzard games. The idea that Brood War players played the hell out of Brood War so they immediately discovered all the nuances of Starcraft II and solved the game eight months after its release is impossible. People will find new strategies. People will find new glitches. People will find new ways to play the game. Just as they have been continuously finding new strategies, glitches, and playstyles over the twelve months that this game has been live.
Edits for readability.
Everytime i hear the phrase give it time i would like to bang my head against the wall.
What's to add, blizzard basically patches every glitch that improves gameplay, adds excitement away in a drastic manner.
The reason that it is being so volatile I think is because of the simple fact that the game is so knew and less than a year old. The maps that keep changing are being explored in depth my korean teams in their practice houses and it is hard to know and expect everything that is capable of a race on each of the new maps. In time the game will sort itself out and it won't change as much, but that could be years and years away.
On March 18 2011 09:33 MichaelJLowell wrote: I know that because it happened with the two previous Blizzard games. The idea that Brood War players played the hell out of Brood War so they immediately discovered all the nuances of Starcraft II and solved the game eight months after its release is impossible. People will find new strategies. People will find new glitches. People will find new ways to play the game. Just as they have been continuously finding new strategies, glitches, and playstyles over the twelve months that this game has been live.
Edits for readability.
The game will somehow fix itself in the future!
So boring this is. I dunno how some of you are going to get it in your heads, a unit like the Marauder has NO potential for some unknown glitch or anything like you are attempting to suggest. What possible tricks could it do? Not to mention Blizzard has made it clear they patch anything unintended out of the game. So you won't find a new way to play it, you will play it how Blizzard intended pretty much.
Strategies can't evolve forever when the mechanics are simple, the only reason BW keeps changing and finding new things is BECAUSE of the mechanics, not in spite of them. 2hatch muta came into popularity cause people had the extreme micro needed to do it, 2port wraith, sair reaver, arbiters, defilers, bio timings against Protoss, queen usage, the list goes on and on and on. The thing in common with all of these is, as people got better at the game they could actually attempt to use the more advanced units. In SC2 everything is well within everyones power to use. There's no need to have the questions that were constantly asked during BW like, 'Is sair/goon possible against Terran?' because anyone can now use any unit. And if you got 2% of all SC2 players in Masters playing 1v1 regularly you can be sure that strategies are going to be worked out quickly.
Not to mention, innovation is harder because of less defenders advantage now. Means that being units short at certain parts of the game cause you tried something random means you just get run over and lose. That doesn't help either and i can't see why uphill shot misses didn't remain in the game.
I'm sure this will be just glossed over though as people just rush to say 'Nuh Uh' and repeatedly tell everyone that the whole games gonna somehow evolve in time. I bet you right now if the game remained unpatched the current builds would simply be refined. The best Protoss builds in SC2 are the most obvious ones which are used now, the 'deathball' is clearly the most effective way to play. I reckon you could have every Starcaft player all play PvP for the next 10 years without finding anything significantly interesting to change it up, which is pretty sad.
On March 18 2011 10:06 MichaelJLowell wrote: They could have patched Muta-spreading and chose not to. That was the right move.
This doesn't make sense why would they patch the ability to spread your mutas out?
The mechanics are easier. I agree, but please, the good players are far from perfect. FAR FROM PERFECT. The skill ceiling has not yet been touched. Idra you are so far from that ceiling, mc you are so far from that ceiling, Immvp you are so far from that ceiling, July you are so far from that ceiling.
This man speaks the truth, i can´t be bothered to read even half of the comments in this thread. All the faults sc2 has it its big games and leagues, are 1000% player's fault, now that the maps are on its way to fixing. Toss death ball, a move? don´t attack it, try to split it attacking other places, use reinforcement paths correctly. More attacks through the map? Do it with a plan and metagame will shift to it. Micro? Every unit has its micro quirks - sc2 and bw.
I hate the wow train of thought that plagues gaming (in general) forums and playerbase. Not mentioning the gut feeling i have 95% the users that come to whine into these forums do not even play the game, and they´re one more number on sc2 youtube video channels, that watch furiously every single match casted, only to pseudo theorycraft with 0 experience.
So my opinion is this: take off the nostalgia glasses. I love BW but people that defend the game blindly like this have to wake up to the fact that, in less than a year, sc2 is shaping up so well. Something no game managed to do. Ever.
Everytime i hear the phrase give it time i would like to bang my head against the wall.
What's to add, blizzard basically patches every glitch that improves gameplay, adds excitement away in a drastic manner.
Remember fazing on the Void Ray? Patched.
Archon Toilet? Going to be patched.
Vortex Force Fielding? Patched.
There were more, but i already forgot them : /
All of those should have been patched.
1. How is muta spreading a glitch? Viking flower on the other hand ...
2. I play both, BW with friends, SC2 with friends. However I expect the sequel that's goal is to be an e-sport to be more exciting than its predecessor. This is not the case. I believe many other BW players see it the same way, they are frustrated that the sequel doesn't actually improve the game.
3. Ok so you say in the future glitches will be found to make the game more exciting, except all of them should be patched. I don't get it.
The worst part about all this is that the only exciting evolution to come out of sc2 is marine spreading. And now everyone makes it like because of marine micro, suddenly there is going to be a tonne of evolution in the future "HEY BUT WHAT ABOUT MARINE MICRO?!!! BLAH BLAH BLAH". Well sorry but that's the only thing people can come up with within 1 year and a hundred progamers playing 8 hours a day or more. BW had tonnes of stuff, including dare i say it, marine spreading.
The mechanics are exactly the same. You right-click to move, you a-click to attack. Nothing to do with the mechanics have changed at all. What HAS changed is that units now clump into tight, little balls, and are less prone to go wandering across the map or in random zig-zag patterns because of broken pathing code. That's not mechanics either, that's just a pathing fix wreaking havoc on the behaviours of the units, which is essentially a design change. Sure, some units have different abilities than the ones we saw in BW, but again, that's unit design.
The fact that units clump together so tightly, and the fact that SC2 plays at a higher speed than BW makes it much more difficult to perform a lot of the cool micro tricks that are so prevalent in BW, and rewards the use of lazy units with splash damage like collosus, tanks, and banelings. But the mechanics themselves are exactly the same. If splash damage had less radius, and/or there was a little bit more breathing-room between the units, then we'd be watching a game that's much more similar to BW.
Pretty sure you either have never played BW or are just trolling. There have been significant changes to base management/unit control mechanics from BW to SC2 that have been debated for well over a year.
I was speaking directly to his claim that he wasn't talking about Multi-Building selection or 1-key army hotkey. If he's not bitching about one of those two things, then what else is there?
BW had rally points for buildings. BW had shift-queuing, a-move, unit abilities and spell-casters.
Every other complaint I can think of relates to the design of the units, and not their actual mechanics.
What mechanics are you talking about? You can't just call someone a troll while completely ignoring the actual point that they're making (relevant to the discussion they are having with a specific person) and then not spell out your position. You seem to be arguing exactly the point that he is trying to claim is NOT being argued.
Smart-aiming, smart-flanking, automatic split of workers, smart-casting, etc...
On March 18 2011 10:12 Antoniuss wrote: So my opinion is this: take off the nostalgia glasses. I love BW but people that defend the game blindly like this have to wake up to the fact that, in less than a year, sc2 is shaping up so well. Something no game managed to do. Ever.
That's an opinion we don't all agree with though, why can't you or others seem to accept that?
Alright, I tried getting through to you guys. I point out the potential for undiscovered nuances, you tell me "Nope, it can't be done." I point out that the game is new and new glitches and exploits may be found, "Nope, it can't be done." I suggest you keep looking for an alternative and try new things with new units, "Nope, it can't be done." I suggest that the skill level will keep improving and thus the strategies will keep evolving, "Nope, it's been solved. It can't be done." Go make all the excuses you want, I'm tired of hearing excuses. That's all you're making. Starcraft II doesn't play exactly like Brood War and you're going to have to adjust. Get over it.
There is a difference between decision making for situations you trained(MOST Korean progamers) and unexpected situations(True Champions).
Mvp is your perfect example of young Korean boy with insane amount of practice who knows all his timings without thinking about them down to a second. But his game against Genius on new map made me think he is a freaking robot, as Artosis and Tastless pointed out. It was a worst possible map to do a this kind of timing attack on and even after he saw all the sentries he just gave away the game. But I bet after he plays this map another 100-300 times, he will become invincible.
Or it is a mental thing he is going through.
Anyway in SC2 you have to be on your toes all the time compare to BW, again because BW is more mechanical step by stepish and as long as you know the order/how to react and spam those keys fast enough you'll be way ahead of the mainstream.
On March 18 2011 10:56 kash2k wrote: Anyway in SC2 you have to be on your toes all the time compare to BW, again because BW is more mechanical step by stepish and as long as you know the order/how to react and spam those keys fast enough you'll be way ahead of the mainstream.
I don't understand the mentality that BW is all about APM and that you automatically win with better mechanics.
Stork for a progamer has sub-par mechanics, and his APM is pretty low, but he's regarded as the best PvTer to ever play BW. On the other hand, Bisu has amazing mechanics, and his PvT sucks. Now of course, you can flip these for Stork's PvZ and Bisu's PvZ, but the argument holds that Bisu doesn't understand PvT as well as Stork does. This has nothing to do with mechanics, since, if Bisu could rely on his mechanics in PvT alone he would be much better than Stork. This just isn't the case.
Other examples exist, as well. Yes, you're going to have higher APM averages in Broodwar, and that's simply because the learning curve on the UI and the unit AI is much higher. However, in BW players don't magically win just because they have 300 APM.
On March 18 2011 10:34 MichaelJLowell wrote: Alright, I tried getting through to you guys. I point out the potential for undiscovered nuances, you tell me "Nope, it can't be done." I point out that the game is new and new glitches and exploits may be found, "Nope, it can't be done." I suggest you keep looking for an alternative and try new things with new units, "Nope, it can't be done." I suggest that the skill level will keep improving and thus the strategies will keep evolving, "Nope, it's been solved. It can't be done." Go make all the excuses you want, I'm tired of hearing excuses. That's all you're making. Starcraft II doesn't play exactly like Brood War and you're going to have to adjust. Get over it.
Colossis are boring, "give it time".
Units can't be microed, "give it time".
etc
How about make the game better now?
You didn't try getting through to us. You just made a bunch of statements that can't be proven or disproven. I don't want to wait years for SC2 to finally bring in some units that are fun to use.
It doesn't require theory-craft to show that things like colossi drops with phase prisms are pointless. TLO did it in BETA, nobody does it anymore. However when Rainbow started using reaver drops, 8 years later, people are still doing it.
Its because of the way units are designed, and its just so easy to see why. Infestors are useless on their own, 1 defiler can change an almost certain loss into a certain victory. 1 reaver can take out 50 hydras, or win a game. Hell Snows reaver took out 30 hydras without a shuttle, just by moving its slow ass back and forth, same micro as the colossus yet 10000x more exciting.
You don't need to think about it, its just in the design. Do you really think someone can take out whole zerg armies with a single colossus moving back and forth??? Ill give it 3 years, but it will never happen.
On March 18 2011 10:56 kash2k wrote: There is a difference between decision making for situations you trained(MOST Korean progamers) and unexpected situations(True Champions).
Mvp is your perfect example of young Korean boy with insane amount of practice who knows all his timings without thinking about them down to a second. But his game against Genius on new map made me think he is a freaking robot, as Artosis and Tastless pointed out. It was a worst possible map to do a this kind of timing attack on and even after he saw all the sentries he just gave away the game. But I bet after he plays this map another 100-300 times, he will become invincible.
Or it is a mental thing he is going through.
Anyway in SC2 you have to be on your toes all the time compare to BW, again because BW is more mechanical step by stepish and as long as you know the order/how to react and spam those keys fast enough you'll be way ahead of the mainstream.
MVP was never great in BW either, for the exact same reason. Action has one of the highest APMs at the moment, and is not even close to being the best player. The side-effects of BW's mechanics was that more bases meant more difficult management, not more APM means better player.
On March 18 2011 09:10 sluggaslamoo wrote: As for your last point, it still goes into what I said earlier. You can't really have powerful spells or micro intensive spells because with smart-casting they would be too powerful. Just look at all the QQ caused by forcefield, now imagine if Starcraft 2 had defilers, or ravens had irradiate.
People are going to QQ no matter what you do. Spells are too strong! Spells are too weak! Why doesn't Blizzard listen to the community more!
The spells wouldn't be too strong if they could be microed against.
I am not advocating the removal of MBS or anything like that. I'm just saying that the alternatives (or non-alternatives) posed by Starcraft 2 are a lot worse than just having the old mechanics back. I am just pro-BW mechanics, and trying to tell people why BW players like it so much, and I am explaining why the BW mechanics are still superior to SC2 and how they balanced the game.
No, they're not. Yes, BW's interface raised the skill cap because you had to wrestle with it so much. Yes, the spells were balanced because it was so hard to use them. These are happy side effects of the interface being terrible. The interface is still terrible. If your solution to balancing a game is preventing people from playing it, something has gone terribly wrong.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with making the game reward skill better. Doing so in a way that's annoying, unfun, and uninteresting to watch just because some OTHER game did it is objectionable.
Basically if Blizzard wants to create a spectator sport, something needs to be done to make the skill ceiling higher. The BW mechanics does this in a very effective way, I wouldn't mind if this meant just removing smart-casting so spells could be more powerful, or implementing units that required control like the reaver and replacing the colossus.
Honestly, why not just make spells more powerful and keep smart-casting? That rewards skill: It rewards the guy who's not clumping up his army. Why do we keep having to look backwards? Why is there not even an attempt to make SC2 a better game than Brood War?
My issue is more about game design than anything. The idea of purposely making a game less fun for the sole purpose of making it harder is repellent to me. Even if you think the game doesn't have enough depth to allow bonjwas, the solution should be to add more depth, not to gimp everyone with boring, tedious crap.
I think that part of the reason that SC2 seems volatile is because of how armies don't trade evenly. You can't really say whether it is because of unit "hard counter" (which i really hope it is not, and would be inclined to believe that it is not also), or because of "imbalance" in the units, or because nobody knows how to play a stable game yet and we are still figuring out the game. Every time I watch a game of SC2 I can't help but feel that when someone wins a battle at the pro level... that they just CRUSH the opponent and win the game.
It isn't like BW where someone would "win" a battle, but both players would be so crippled food-wise (The winner of the battle less so) that they wouldn't be able to straight up kill the opponent with the left over units. They would have to take there advantage and use it to expand. And the loser of a big battle would spend his time harassing and trying to claw his way back into the game through superior play.
SC2 just feels like when armies engage in battle... The loser of the battle loses EVERYTHING, while the winner loses like... 20-30 food max? For example, in PvZ, a 200/200 food battle between the toss and zerg usually winds up with zerg losing everything and the toss losing like 30 food. TvZ feels the same way but it doesn't feel quite as bad, the terran might lose like 50 food while the zerg still loses everything. And TvP feels like toss can lose so easily in the early game to the insane bio DPS, but in the late game they RAPE terran with colossus and HT... again, at no point in the match do the armies TRADE EVENLY!!!
On March 18 2011 09:10 sluggaslamoo wrote: As for your last point, it still goes into what I said earlier. You can't really have powerful spells or micro intensive spells because with smart-casting they would be too powerful. Just look at all the QQ caused by forcefield, now imagine if Starcraft 2 had defilers, or ravens had irradiate.
People are going to QQ no matter what you do. Spells are too strong! Spells are too weak! Why doesn't Blizzard listen to the community more!
The spells wouldn't be too strong if they could be microed against.
I am not advocating the removal of MBS or anything like that. I'm just saying that the alternatives (or non-alternatives) posed by Starcraft 2 are a lot worse than just having the old mechanics back. I am just pro-BW mechanics, and trying to tell people why BW players like it so much, and I am explaining why the BW mechanics are still superior to SC2 and how they balanced the game.
No, they're not. Yes, BW's interface raised the skill cap because you had to wrestle with it so much. Yes, the spells were balanced because it was so hard to use them. These are happy side effects of the interface being terrible. The interface is still terrible. If your solution to balancing a game is preventing people from playing it, something has gone terribly wrong.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with making the game reward skill better. Doing so in a way that's annoying, unfun, and uninteresting to watch just because some OTHER game did it is objectionable.
Basically if Blizzard wants to create a spectator sport, something needs to be done to make the skill ceiling higher. The BW mechanics does this in a very effective way, I wouldn't mind if this meant just removing smart-casting so spells could be more powerful, or implementing units that required control like the reaver and replacing the colossus.
Honestly, why not just make spells more powerful and keep smart-casting? That rewards skill: It rewards the guy who's not clumping up his army. Why do we keep having to look backwards? Why is there not even an attempt to make SC2 a better game than Brood War?
My issue is more about game design than anything. The idea of purposely making a game less fun for the sole purpose of making it harder is repellent to me. Even if you think the game doesn't have enough depth to allow bonjwas, the solution should be to add more depth, not to gimp everyone with boring, tedious crap.
Yeah except the people that QQ most are the low level players. I never saw psi-storms that much if at all on D-/E ICCUP, you could win a lot of protoss games without them at that level actually.
The QQ balance complaints about psi-storm were basically non-existent in comparison to how much people complained about spells on SC2. The forcefield nerf did nothing to make ultras more viable, no matter how ridiculous ultras sound statistics wise. The fix is simple, change the unit AI so they don't move in big balls, this is the fix, nothing else needs to be done.
Army clumping is actually taking the game a step back, it has nothing to do with better pathing, it's just an inherent feature of badly implemented flocking AI, and is a complete gimmick that ruins RTS. DoW has flocking AI to an extent, and so does Company of Heroes, however the units use the flocking AI correctly and don't move in stupid big clumps. (I think I should publish another article to extend my previous one http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=132171).
I find myself wrestling more with SC2 units and UI than I do with BroodWar.
Wrestle with the UI is an over-statement. There's no "wrestling". Its not tedious crap either, I thoroughly enjoyed sending workers to mine, clicking on buildings individually and individually telling each unit to cast. This is shared amongst a lot of BW players. Telling units to attack or dumb dragoons/goliaths wasn't even an issue for me, it really isn't that bad.
I never really said Blizzard should implement these, but to address the OP's question, the current state of the game shows that in the upper-tiers the game would benefit from these BW features.
On March 18 2011 09:10 sluggaslamoo wrote: As for your last point, it still goes into what I said earlier. You can't really have powerful spells or micro intensive spells because with smart-casting they would be too powerful. Just look at all the QQ caused by forcefield, now imagine if Starcraft 2 had defilers, or ravens had irradiate.
People are going to QQ no matter what you do. Spells are too strong! Spells are too weak! Why doesn't Blizzard listen to the community more!
The spells wouldn't be too strong if they could be microed against.
I am not advocating the removal of MBS or anything like that. I'm just saying that the alternatives (or non-alternatives) posed by Starcraft 2 are a lot worse than just having the old mechanics back. I am just pro-BW mechanics, and trying to tell people why BW players like it so much, and I am explaining why the BW mechanics are still superior to SC2 and how they balanced the game.
No, they're not. Yes, BW's interface raised the skill cap because you had to wrestle with it so much. Yes, the spells were balanced because it was so hard to use them. These are happy side effects of the interface being terrible. The interface is still terrible. If your solution to balancing a game is preventing people from playing it, something has gone terribly wrong.
There's nothing fundamentally wrong with making the game reward skill better. Doing so in a way that's annoying, unfun, and uninteresting to watch just because some OTHER game did it is objectionable.
Basically if Blizzard wants to create a spectator sport, something needs to be done to make the skill ceiling higher. The BW mechanics does this in a very effective way, I wouldn't mind if this meant just removing smart-casting so spells could be more powerful, or implementing units that required control like the reaver and replacing the colossus.
Honestly, why not just make spells more powerful and keep smart-casting? That rewards skill: It rewards the guy who's not clumping up his army. Why do we keep having to look backwards? Why is there not even an attempt to make SC2 a better game than Brood War?
My issue is more about game design than anything. The idea of purposely making a game less fun for the sole purpose of making it harder is repellent to me. Even if you think the game doesn't have enough depth to allow bonjwas, the solution should be to add more depth, not to gimp everyone with boring, tedious crap.
Yeah except the people that QQ most are the low level players. I never saw psi-storms that much if at all on D-/E ICCUP, you could win a lot of protoss games without them at that level actually.
The QQ balance complaints about psi-storm were basically non-existent in comparison to how much people complained about spells on SC2.
People QQing about something being imbalanced has next-to-nothing to do with whether it's actually imbalanced. Suggesting BW is imba is heretical. Until SC2 reaches that point, no one will ever lose because they didn't play as well. It'll be because the game is bullshit OMG.
I find myself wrestling more with SC2 units and UI than I do with BroodWar.
How come wrestling with unit control is bullshit while wrestling with getting all your buildings making units is skill?
Wrestle with the UI is an over-statement. There's no "wrestling". Its not tedious crap either, I thoroughly enjoyed sending workers to mine, clicking on buildings individually and individually telling each unit to cast. This is shared amongst a lot of BW players. Telling units to attack or dumb dragoons/goliaths wasn't even an issue for me, it really isn't that bad.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
I never really said Blizzard should implement these, but to address the OP's question, the current state of the game shows that in the upper-tiers the game would benefit from these BW features.
Arguably. The arguments in favor are that
1. It's harder 2. Brood War did it.
Those aren't good arguments. There are things that can be harder, that are also more interesting to watch. There's no thought or strategy to selecting all your raxen every 30 seconds. It's like rocks, actually. It's something you have to deal with to get to the good stuff. It's not the best way to increase the skill cap. The reason people like it was because they're already good at it from Brood War. That's not a good reason, sorry. SC2 isn't BW, and is shouldn't be. Brood War is already pretty good at being Brood War.
i thuink boxer is going to practice insanely hard and reclaim his glroy with all the bad smash talk about him hes probably getting nothing but motivation. if the same people go to the finals all the time thats boring. i think its good that players got the up n down matches. it encourages better games and more aggression
On March 17 2011 10:19 link0 wrote: This game is definitely more reliant on build order luck than BW. That is a problem.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
Notably, MVP's macro in BW wasn't exactly top tier and JulyZerg's age of greatness was pretty long past when he moved on to SC2; he'd been a coach for a while, I believe, and wasn't really dominating when it come to micro or macro at the time. And I'm sorry but Boxer's prime is long past when it comes to mechanics. Once he joined Air Force he could be more or less counted out of serious competition.
My point here is that you can't use these ex-BW players as good examples of what should be "perfect" SC2 players because they're ex-BW players for a reason: they passed their BW prime and saw a good opportunity in SC2. I have no doubt that if we saw Jaedong or Flash in SC2 they would have better rax timing, better larva inject, and better mule drop timing than any of these three and would perform better as a result.
On the other hand, MKP's marine splitting is something to be in awe of. ogsMC's timing attacks are amazing and show a great grasp of the game. Jinro has fantastic macro and a great game sense. I love all these players because they've taken what they learned from BW and applied to SC2 in ways other people just don't.
There is no way for to be sure, that Jaedong or Flash would be better in mechanics than current starcraft 2 professionals.
The game is DIFFERENT, they will have very, very hard time to get a grasp of SC2 mechanics. Flash and Jaedong are good at BROOD WAR, because they have practiced BROOD WAR.
Its not like I could play guitar if I know how to play piano.
Brood war may be harder, but it is still DIFFERENT game.
On March 18 2011 17:03 Ghost Reportin wrote: i thuink boxer is going to practice insanely hard and reclaim his glroy with all the bad smash talk about him hes probably getting nothing but motivation. if the same people go to the finals all the time thats boring. i think its good that players got the up n down matches. it encourages better games and more aggression
I think Boxer doesn't ever slack off. Like he said himself, he's past his prime and he's been playing Starcraft 1 competitively for a decade. It's hard mustering up the same motivation and drive to practice hard every game. I'm sure he does the best he can given his circumstances and age.
On March 18 2011 17:03 Ghost Reportin wrote: i thuink boxer is going to practice insanely hard and reclaim his glroy with all the bad smash talk about him hes probably getting nothing but motivation. if the same people go to the finals all the time thats boring. i think its good that players got the up n down matches. it encourages better games and more aggression
I think Boxer doesn't ever slack off. Like he said himself, he's past his prime and he's been playing Starcraft 1 competitively for a decade. It's hard mustering up the same motivation and drive to practice hard every game. I'm sure he does the best he can given his circumstances and age.
The biggest problem with SC2 so far is that some units or unit combinations are just too strong and overshadow others. Because of this, people are hesitant to try other units in order to create new strategies. Ravens can be useful in every matchup, but we don't see much raven usage. Seeker Missile for example, can deal damage and force an enemy back in the least, yet almost noone uses it. Neural Parasite, same deal. Protoss gameplay is defined by Colossus alone. Such a boring unit.
There is no way for to be sure, that Jaedong or Flash would be better in mechanics than current starcraft 2 professionals.
The game is DIFFERENT, they will have very, very hard time to get a grasp of SC2 mechanics. Flash and Jaedong are good at BROOD WAR, because they have practiced BROOD WAR.
Its not like I could play guitar if I know how to play piano.
Brood war may be harder, but it is still DIFFERENT game.
And i think this is wrong based on the sheer talent of jaedong and flash. yeah their first few games will probably be not very good, but once they figure stuff out (give it a week of legitimate 10 hour/day practice) they will be likely as good as most of the RO8, and give it a bit more time of them studying all the different possibilities, within a month they'd be competing for the top spots, though they would definitely not be GIVEN first. they are not THAT much better in mechanics to make their inexperience with the game be non-existant.
There is no way for to be sure, that Jaedong or Flash would be better in mechanics than current starcraft 2 professionals.
The game is DIFFERENT, they will have very, very hard time to get a grasp of SC2 mechanics. Flash and Jaedong are good at BROOD WAR, because they have practiced BROOD WAR.
Its not like I could play guitar if I know how to play piano.
Brood war may be harder, but it is still DIFFERENT game.
And i think this is wrong based on the sheer talent of jaedong and flash. yeah their first few games will probably be not very good, but once they figure stuff out (give it a week of legitimate 10 hour/day practice) they will be likely as good as most of the RO8, and give it a bit more time of them studying all the different possibilities, within a month they'd be competing for the top spots, though they would definitely not be GIVEN first. they are not THAT much better in mechanics to make their inexperience with the game be non-existant.
This is just pseudoscientific junk
First of all, you base this solely on thing like "talent" which is not scientific at all. Please, quality your arguments up.
There is no way for to be sure, that Jaedong or Flash would be better in mechanics than current starcraft 2 professionals.
The game is DIFFERENT, they will have very, very hard time to get a grasp of SC2 mechanics. Flash and Jaedong are good at BROOD WAR, because they have practiced BROOD WAR.
Its not like I could play guitar if I know how to play piano.
Brood war may be harder, but it is still DIFFERENT game.
And i think this is wrong based on the sheer talent of jaedong and flash. yeah their first few games will probably be not very good, but once they figure stuff out (give it a week of legitimate 10 hour/day practice) they will be likely as good as most of the RO8, and give it a bit more time of them studying all the different possibilities, within a month they'd be competing for the top spots, though they would definitely not be GIVEN first. they are not THAT much better in mechanics to make their inexperience with the game be non-existant.
This is just pseudoscientific junk
First of all, you base this solely on thing like "talent" which is not scientific at all. Please, quality your arguments up.
Your analogy sucked. It's much more like the difference between a piano and a electronic keyboard, not a guitar. The guy you quoted are probably right.
Also how the hell do you propose to make a scientific argument over something like that? It is enough to be logical.
1. Certain units can be massed into a "ball of a critical number of that unit" and waltz over the opposition easily. This is possible due to the perfect unit movement AI and the unlimited unit selection. The only example for BW was Mutalisks, but due to the limitation of "12 Mutas per control group" you couldnt do it to the extreme. 2. There are quite a lot of units in SC2 which "dont shoot up" or have other limitations and thus you can hard counter them.
So as a result the unlimited unit control might need a revamp into limiting the number of units per control group (this would actually remove the 1-control-group syndrome and thus be good), but I would also think that each unit in a control group should take as many spaces as it costs supplies. Thus a control group would be able to hold "24 supply" instead of "24 Zerglings" which would be a disadvantage for Zergs compared to the "24 Marines".
The fact that "good players" are eliminated from tournaments by "bad players" is good, because it will keep tournaments from growing stale and boring and forces all players to evolve. Having the same two players face each other in the finals every GSL would become boring, because they would not have to develop new styles but rather perfect their own styles.
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.
I want to ask a question since I don't really know about it.
Has creating an UI that is difficult for players to handle, been an important part in the development of the Starcraft 1? I mean, was it part of the plan to NOT have MBS, Auto-mine, or better unit pathing? Or was it because of technological constraints or lack of vision (devs not thinking about it)
This is my theory regarding difficulty in playing BW: when I look at Starcraft in its simplest form, I think that devs might have thought that you never expand beyond the first one for an entire game, and that 2-3 unit producing structures would be enough for ending the game for that period (they never considered the game would be played so seriously and profesionally, or even that it would make such a big impact in gaming). So, they never considered adding these because they thought it wasn't needed.
Now, because of THIS, there was no Automine or MBS because otherwise you would have too little to do, so having them would literally dumb the game down (or at least, not having these features wouldn't be a problem as you don't have to do too many things at once on 1-2 bases) So, the idea was "let them send the workers manually, they don't have much to do anyway and it wouldn't be much a problem" BUT, the game turned out to be much more complex and had the potential to be played into extremes.
Unit pathing was different/hard to handle because of the game coding.
So now, how much of these are true, can someone really truly veteran of SC scene, who knows anything about it from the development period to where it is today, make clear? How correct/wrong am I?
Why does this discussion has turned into a goddam SC2 vs BW debate ? SC2 current situation have less to do with mechanics, don't listen to IdrA all the time ?
The question is more about hardcounters, a 200/200 zergling hydra army, with good micro, could deal some damage if not win the fight against a 150 zealot goon templar reaver army. In SC2, a 200/200 roach hydra army can't do a thing to a 150 stalker colossi sentry army, period. Not to mention micro doesn't change a thing against FF. SC2 is volatile because it forces you to make blind move based on limited information / scouting, and punish heavily for mistakes in army composition / build orders.
There is one or two way to fix it: buff defensive advantage so that it is easier to resist despite small mistakes, fix the whole tech tree or just nerf unit in a way that no unit hard counter any unit.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
Notably, MVP's macro in BW wasn't exactly top tier and JulyZerg's age of greatness was pretty long past when he moved on to SC2; he'd been a coach for a while, I believe, and wasn't really dominating when it come to micro or macro at the time. And I'm sorry but Boxer's prime is long past when it comes to mechanics. Once he joined Air Force he could be more or less counted out of serious competition.
My point here is that you can't use these ex-BW players as good examples of what should be "perfect" SC2 players because they're ex-BW players for a reason: they passed their BW prime and saw a good opportunity in SC2. I have no doubt that if we saw Jaedong or Flash in SC2 they would have better rax timing, better larva inject, and better mule drop timing than any of these three and would perform better as a result.
On the other hand, MKP's marine splitting is something to be in awe of. ogsMC's timing attacks are amazing and show a great grasp of the game. Jinro has fantastic macro and a great game sense. I love all these players because they've taken what they learned from BW and applied to SC2 in ways other people just don't.
There is no way for to be sure, that Jaedong or Flash would be better in mechanics than current starcraft 2 professionals.
The game is DIFFERENT, they will have very, very hard time to get a grasp of SC2 mechanics. Flash and Jaedong are good at BROOD WAR, because they have practiced BROOD WAR.
Its not like I could play guitar if I know how to play piano.
Brood war may be harder, but it is still DIFFERENT game.
I agree completely. No way Flash or Jaedong will be able to grasp MBS or auto-mine.
There is no way for to be sure, that Jaedong or Flash would be better in mechanics than current starcraft 2 professionals.
The game is DIFFERENT, they will have very, very hard time to get a grasp of SC2 mechanics. Flash and Jaedong are good at BROOD WAR, because they have practiced BROOD WAR.
Its not like I could play guitar if I know how to play piano.
Brood war may be harder, but it is still DIFFERENT game.
And i think this is wrong based on the sheer talent of jaedong and flash. yeah their first few games will probably be not very good, but once they figure stuff out (give it a week of legitimate 10 hour/day practice) they will be likely as good as most of the RO8, and give it a bit more time of them studying all the different possibilities, within a month they'd be competing for the top spots, though they would definitely not be GIVEN first. they are not THAT much better in mechanics to make their inexperience with the game be non-existant.
Completely agree. Similar thing with Grubby, even though haters are always gonna hate (yesterday he destroyed whitera on ladder 4gate vs 4gate, afterwards he beat kawaiirice and satinii in custom games). People with a raw talent for RTS and tons of experience will always be able to adapt quickly to any RTS that follows the basic principles of RTS games.
Before I begin: Yes, I think the game is a little bit unstable.
Maybe making the UI less user friendly and more competetive again is a solution - but I don't think it's a good one.
It's true that the problem in SC2 right now is that there are no good ways for a great player to absolutely destroy a "just good" player like it was in BW, since SC2's pathfinding and unit grouping make it hard to actually micro a lot in battles, and SC2's macro is so easy for professional players that it's hard to distinguish yourself from a "just good" player in terms of macro.
But instead of changing the UI, Blizzard should really redesign a lot of units and gameplay mechanics in general. Make the game more deterministic, and less based on chance, by introducing better early game scouting opportunities.
There are multiple ways this could be achieved:
- limiting the early game tech path of all races to something akin to that of Zerg in order to make build orders better readable (especially for Terran)
- give all races micro-dependent scouting abilities in the early game, so that they don't become overpowered in the mid and late game (faster overlords with less HP on Hatch tech, earlier visible observer out of CC with invisibilty upgrade somewhere along the tech path, temporary "scanning probe" for Terran with smaller sight radius instead of scan... etc, stuff like that).
- probably a lot of other ways which don't come to my mind right now.
Without considering the fact that Terran misses out one MULE when using Scan, they arguably have the best scouting ability in the game that is available early game, and even that is based on luck. If you hit the wrong side of the base with scan and miss the one Stargate on the other side of the base, it could mean a GG for you.
Blizzard should also put an effort into redesigning units in a way that lets their damage output scale better with skill (which translates to micro), as opposed to the situation right now where you basically achieve a close to optimal DPS output by 1a'ing and splitting a little bit (marines for example).
There are also basically infinite ways that this could be achieved:
- make immortals much slower but let them have higher damage output -> warp prism / immortal play akin to reaver shuttle play in BW.
- bring back lurkers (lots of damage with good protection /hiding / positioning, not much damage without).
- etc.
All of these things of course would have to be accompanied by a lot of adjustments in the game overall, since some new introductions would be blatantly imbalanced. But that's Blizzards job, they should be able to figure it out.
All in all, I think this angle of approach is much better than reducing the UI back to its BW capabilities.
There is no way for to be sure, that Jaedong or Flash would be better in mechanics than current starcraft 2 professionals.
The game is DIFFERENT, they will have very, very hard time to get a grasp of SC2 mechanics. Flash and Jaedong are good at BROOD WAR, because they have practiced BROOD WAR.
Its not like I could play guitar if I know how to play piano.
Brood war may be harder, but it is still DIFFERENT game.
And i think this is wrong based on the sheer talent of jaedong and flash. yeah their first few games will probably be not very good, but once they figure stuff out (give it a week of legitimate 10 hour/day practice) they will be likely as good as most of the RO8, and give it a bit more time of them studying all the different possibilities, within a month they'd be competing for the top spots, though they would definitely not be GIVEN first. they are not THAT much better in mechanics to make their inexperience with the game be non-existant.
This is just pseudoscientific junk
First of all, you base this solely on thing like "talent" which is not scientific at all. Please, quality your arguments up.
Your analogy sucked. It's much more like the difference between a piano and a electronic keyboard, not a guitar. The guy you quoted are probably right.
Also how the hell do you propose to make a scientific argument over something like that? It is enough to be logical.
Electronic keyboard and piano are from totally different worlds. Worlds best electronic keyboardist would have very, very hard time to learn to play real piano.
On March 18 2011 17:10 Bleak wrote: The biggest problem with SC2 so far is that some units or unit combinations are just too strong and overshadow others. Because of this, people are hesitant to try other units in order to create new strategies. Ravens can be useful in every matchup, but we don't see much raven usage. Seeker Missile for example, can deal damage and force an enemy back in the least, yet almost noone uses it. Neural Parasite, same deal. Protoss gameplay is defined by Colossus alone. Such a boring unit.
So your biggest problem with SC2 is....the untapped potential? It's a good problem to have.
There are plenty of builds and unit combinations in BW that make sense logically but simply don't work because of the metagame, or because another build works better. I think the official strategy guide mentions that zerg should watch out for a firebat rush. Not on it's face absurd. Firebats counter Zerglings, after all, and they do a lot of damage.
In SC1 TvT, tank/vulture kind of dominates. You don't see players going bio TvT (or TvP, for that matter, because Reavers gigglestomp bio pretty hard, and reaver harass comes early). You don't see players, off the top of my head, getting Wraith/Tank/Marine with a Science Vessel or three. There's a vague logic to that composition: Science vessels see mines, and wraiths pwn vultures and tanks (which can't shoot up!), letting your own tanks take a good position, and having marines as a mineral sink for harassment or somesuch. You can even get cloak to deal with goliaths or what have you (or use defensive matrix!). That's a build. It's kind of cool. It has a logic to it. There's nothing about it that's obviously stupid in the 30 seconds I spent thinking about it. You don't see it. Why? I'm sure one of the BW pros in the thread can answer better than I can, but it boils down to Tank/Vulture is better. (Or I'm the Starcraft Whisperer and this build is actually awesome. I doubt that, though).
Eventually, there's going to be a "standard" build. We're already seeing builds fall to the wayside. Thor Rushes are auto-lose to DT, so they're falling out of favor. More builds will follow.
Starcraft 2 is mainly a sport of mind and basketball/football are games of team synergy and physical preparation. A TEAM of players that are considered the best are likely to be the best, i.e a team formed of MC,July,FruitDealer and MVP will likely beat Rainbow,huk,jinro and marine king if each of them play each of them but when they are "alone" 1 of them can losse while only the other 3 win. Even more, since there is not team synergy and physical part of SC2 it is way easier for an "unknown" player to rise up then in other sports. Most of the good players are still up there shiting on the opponents in 80% of the games. On the ladder they do not play a lot so expect them to have WLR around 70% or so but in GSL there are ppl over 90% i believe or at least over 80%.
Really glad that someone posted this. I've actually been thinking about this for a while, but couldn't find the right way to articulate it.
It honestly does seem that it is way harder to remain a consistent player in sc2. Of course that may be due to the youth of the game, but I think its because of maps.
They've been reduced in size at least by 50% in comparison to the maps played in BW tournaments, which makes it astronomically more difficult to remain consistent, because of how many different builds you have to be ready for.
Long distances/multiple spawn locations in BW meant that players eventually got down to a number of safe builds that almost everyone would do in a typical game. This meant that every race would FE every game (there was still cheese, but it was quite rare and not nearly as numerous in amount of different cheeses) and would allow for very stable games, where players would take many bases and have large micro wars.
If you look at SC2, due to the short distances between players and generally less 4-spawn location maps, you have to be ready every single game for 10+ different builds. Your opponent could banshee cheese, Proxy Gateway, do a Raven all-in, do a fast expand, do a void ray build, do a roach rush etc etc etc. This makes it very difficult for players to remain consistent, because you can't just do 1 safe build every game.
MVP is the perfect example of what I'm talking about. In his games vs his first toss opponent in the up&down matches, MVP opens with an economical/tech build. Now, if you look at it from a BW standpoint, this is a typical safe opening. In SC2 however, there are so many different builds that could instantly crush it (which is what happened).
Changing map size to mimic BW would be the most important change to make SC2 more consistent.
Except for the fact that the only reason BW does NOT rely on 'build order luck' is because strategies have been so developed over such a long period of time. Players don't take risks they don't have to with their BO's and since all of the BO's are so fleshed out and well-known, you don't see the kind of 'I'm doing this build and I can't scout for X build that crushes me, so lets hope he doesn't do that build!!!". As more and more people become aware of the fine nuances of each and every possible build, some will become nonviable and things will become more and more 'standard'.
This isn't true. Watch early games. They definitely were NOT bo luck in BW anymore than it is BO luck now. What makes you say that it was like that?
What early games? Starcraft and Starcraft: Brood War didn't feature a replay function for the first three years of its life cycle.
That game was recorded after the replay function was released. That game was released in December 2001, three years and eight months after the release of Starcraft. The equivalent would be if I asked for a video from "the early days of Starcraft II" and you posted a video from March of 2014. Obviously, that isn't happening. Can you find me any tournament-level Starcraft or Brood War videos from 1998 or 1999, when people had little idea of how the game would eventually play? That's the time period Starcraft II is currently in: The period where people have little idea of how the game will eventually play. Listening to people act like they have Wings of Liberty "solved" is laughable.
SC2 players have 12 years of Starcraft knowledge on their belt buckle from the get go. The amount this accelerates the metagame is amazing. Simple concepts such as attacking while expanding, powering, economy management, harassment and so on and so forth were all learned from BW. What has taken SC1 players years to figure out SC2 players have used such former knowledge to apply it within months of the release.
I doubt WoL has fully been solved, but I also doubt it is NOT close to being completely "solved." The relatively limited options for races that aren't Terran, ridiculous to stop and limiting all ins, overpowered Protoss lategame propped up by the crutch that is a collosus, many underused and useless (or if they are used too much and it isn't a banshee/marauder/collosus: nerfed) units and shitty Zerg power overall all seem to be things that point to WoL simply being a lot more shallow than BW. That is what Heart of the Swarm and Legacy of the Void will (Hopefully) fix, unless Dustin Browder comes up with a cross between a reaper and a marauder that can shoot up that he really wants to put into the game.
Those twelve years of understanding how Brood War plays only applies in situations where Brood War and Starcraft II function similarly. There are places where Starcraft II plays differently. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of Watch Towers. Nobody's really learned how to take advantage of the increased mobility that comes from the unit selection cap. Players are still playing blind and still making mistakes when they now have all these available Actions Per Minute to waste on other things. The narrative that "Starcraft II is just a dumbed-down version of Brood War" is simply that. It's a narrative. By removing various mechanical requirements from the Starcraft series, there is a skill set lying somewhere in there that hasn't been fully recognized or utilized yet. When the game is no longer "Brood War players playing Starcraft II" and it's finally become "Starcraft II players playing Starcraft II", I'm willing to hear out any arguments that the game isn't good enough. Until then, we simply don't know. And we won't know if this current build of Starcraft II can hold out to years of scrutiny, because Blizzard's releasing those two expansion packs.
Right now, a lot of people on this forum sound like GameFAQs regulars. They sound like people who played a level for twenty minutes, died a couple of times, and then jumped on the forums to declare that "THIS ONE LEVEL IS IMPOSSIBEL!!!" And let's remember something: This forum was split over the reduction in mechanical skill between the two games. They said it would make the game too easy. Well, anybody who claimed that has no right to claim that anything in Starcraft II is "too hard". Zero. Those players have two options: Stop whining, or get better. I'd prefer both.
On March 18 2011 08:07 sluggaslamoo wrote:
It took a long time for competition BW to take off, e-sports wasn't even a word back then. Now we have $80,000 prize pools from almost the first day SC2 comes out, with players that have been playing pro-BW for at least 5 years. All the stuff we learned from BW is now injected into SC2, already. SC2 has already had its 10 years of evolution, derived from BW.
Most of what I wrote above applies to what you're saying. Starcraft II and Brood War are different games with different skill sets. And unless Starcraft II is truly and purely a "dumbed-down version of Brood War" (that is, removed Brood War skills without introducing a single new skill set or skill), then there is something out there the player base hasn't discovered yet. They should go find it.
Hmmm, I've always been careful about over-generalising and saying SC2 is easy, because of the argument stated above. Unfortunately many people haven't been.
Its not about skillsets or anything like that. Macro, micro, and strategy and the ability to execute all 3 are the fundamentals of traditional Real-Time Strategy, it was in Red Alert, it was in AoE, it is in Starcraft too.
Now when you reduce the players ability to "maximise return" on being good at these factors you reduce the ability for players to differentiate themselves. No one will ever "reach" the skill ceiling, not matter how low it is, but the lower the skill ceiling is, the harder it is for players to differentiate themselves.
Therefore when we say SC2 is a dumbed down version, it is because SC2 makes it easier to perfect the fundamentals of starcraft. And it makes it easier in all 3 aspects. Macro -> MBS, Micro -> Auto surround, auto clump, Strategy -> More A-move units, less diversity. This has the negative effect in the higher tiers of play and spectatorship.
And you can see this in the GSL. MVP's macro is nothing to be in awe of, JulyZerg now doesn't have the micro he was famous for, Boxer isn't producing amazing strategies like he used to even like his time on AirForce Ace (Basically the only way Veteran pro-gamers can actually still play in Proleague).
And like I said earlier, if this freeing up of apm actually made any difference, JulyZerg would be controlling all his lings individually. Ling control is not a new skillset in SC2, so I don't see how that argument has any effect on what I had to say earlier.
Notably, MVP's macro in BW wasn't exactly top tier and JulyZerg's age of greatness was pretty long past when he moved on to SC2; he'd been a coach for a while, I believe, and wasn't really dominating when it come to micro or macro at the time. And I'm sorry but Boxer's prime is long past when it comes to mechanics. Once he joined Air Force he could be more or less counted out of serious competition.
My point here is that you can't use these ex-BW players as good examples of what should be "perfect" SC2 players because they're ex-BW players for a reason: they passed their BW prime and saw a good opportunity in SC2. I have no doubt that if we saw Jaedong or Flash in SC2 they would have better rax timing, better larva inject, and better mule drop timing than any of these three and would perform better as a result.
On the other hand, MKP's marine splitting is something to be in awe of. ogsMC's timing attacks are amazing and show a great grasp of the game. Jinro has fantastic macro and a great game sense. I love all these players because they've taken what they learned from BW and applied to SC2 in ways other people just don't.
There is no way for to be sure, that Jaedong or Flash would be better in mechanics than current starcraft 2 professionals.
The game is DIFFERENT, they will have very, very hard time to get a grasp of SC2 mechanics. Flash and Jaedong are good at BROOD WAR, because they have practiced BROOD WAR.
Its not like I could play guitar if I know how to play piano.
Brood war may be harder, but it is still DIFFERENT game.
You'll notice I did specify areas where Jaedong and Flash would be better. Both of them have absolutely fantastic ability to perform tasks robotically and repeatedly at specific time intervals; Flash is occasionally called a machine for just that reason. They may not immediately adapt to SC2 strategies and unit mechanics, but I'd be surprised if Flash ever dropped a mule with over 55 energy or Jaedong missed an inject.
You didn't try getting through to us. You just made a bunch of statements that can't be proven or disproven. I don't want to wait years for SC2 to finally bring in some units that are fun to use.
No crap they can't be proven or disproven. That's the point. We don't know. The metagame plays completely different than it did two months ago. The metagame is still evolving. It's too early to figure that out. I don't know where it's going to end up. Neither do you. I'm completely open to the idea that the game can't be salvaged in its current state. It's very possible. You're not open to that. And if you aren't, I don't know why you guys would subject yourself to this whining and moaning if Brood War is the consummate real-time strategy game and you have it sitting on your shelf.
It doesn't require theory-craft to show that things like colossi drops with phase prisms are pointless. TLO did it in BETA, nobody does it anymore. However when Rainbow started using reaver drops, 8 years later, people are still doing it.
I remember when people said the exact same thing about the changes to the Warcraft III Blademaster when they were implemented in two separate patches in 2004. Everyone said the Blademaster was fundamentally useless because you could cast Death Coil and Frost Nova on it and it would go away, and the buffs that made it impossible to punish a Wind-Walking Blademaster for being too aggressive were pointless. Nobody realized that you could now simply use the thing to harass and pester players all across the map instead of using it as a damage-per-second machine in battles. It took three years for people to figure that out. The changes were made in 2004 and Orcs didn't begin consistently winning tournaments until 2007. That is, people got better at the game and figured out different ways to play the units. If you don't think that will happen with the current crowd of Starcraft II units, put the game away and go play something else until Blizzard fixes it.
You didn't try getting through to us. You just made a bunch of statements that can't be proven or disproven. I don't want to wait years for SC2 to finally bring in some units that are fun to use.
No crap they can't be proven or disproven. That's the point. We don't know. The metagame plays completely different than it did two months ago. The metagame is still evolving. It's too early to figure that out. I don't know where it's going to end up. Neither do you. I'm completely open to the idea that the game can't be salvaged in its current state. It's very possible. You're not open to that. And if you aren't, I don't know why you guys would subject yourself to this whining and moaning if Brood War is the consummate real-time strategy game and you have it sitting on your shelf. .
Everything i hear from you is "Give it more time, it will solve itself mystically, we are all ignorant and non-believers." It won't. It just won't. We experimented, we still do experiment, but most of the units are just dull.
How do you want to use the colossus different? Drops aren't effective. They aren't effective on their own. They aren't microable in any otherway than kiting backwards. That's everything there is to the colossus. You won't find anymore uses than this over time. You can see it on the units stats. Many of us HAVE the knowledge of years of RTS expierience, mainly bw. There aren't suddenly new fundamentls we aren't aware off. They won't just sprout out of the game and make us look like fools.
And just for the unlikely case that there still WOULD be another use for the colossus than remain in a 200/200 army guarded by force field and other shit throwing themselves into the way of the other army so that the colossus itself can completely own the other army. Blizzard will patch it.
Watch at the Void-Ray. Rather interesting in theory. In reality, completely dull. It even negates micro, because if you micro them, they won't get charged up and remain useless. You can't harass with them, because they have poor accelertion / speed and get owned by the basic units like queens / marines. You aren't microable. But when you get them in big numbers of 15+, they mow everything down with a-click. You just have to look at the given opportunities an unit gives you, to say if it MIGHT become useful.
Now its up to you, provide us with stuff that could make units in sc2 more interesting with the current stuff we have to use. And don't just shit always the same phrases like "give it time" , "there surely will be new things discovered". People said that since the beta, they were wrong until now.
You didn't try getting through to us. You just made a bunch of statements that can't be proven or disproven. I don't want to wait years for SC2 to finally bring in some units that are fun to use.
No crap they can't be proven or disproven. That's the point. We don't know. The metagame plays completely different than it did two months ago. The metagame is still evolving. It's too early to figure that out. I don't know where it's going to end up. Neither do you. I'm completely open to the idea that the game can't be salvaged in its current state. It's very possible. You're not open to that. And if you aren't, I don't know why you guys would subject yourself to this whining and moaning if Brood War is the consummate real-time strategy game and you have it sitting on your shelf. .
Everything i hear from you is "Give it more time, it will solve itself mystically, we are all ignorant and non-believers." It won't. It just won't. We experimented, we still do experiment, but most of the units are just dull.
How do you want to use the colossus different? Drops aren't effective. They aren't effective on their own. They aren't microable in any otherway than kiting backwards. That's everything there is to the colossus. You won't find anymore uses than this over time. You can see it on the units stats. Many of us HAVE the knowledge of years of RTS expierience, mainly bw. There aren't suddenly new fundamentls we aren't aware off. They won't just sprout out of the game and make us look like fools.
And just for the unlikely case that there still WOULD be another use for the colossus than remain in a 200/200 army guarded by force field and other shit throwing themselves into the way of the other army so that the colossus itself can completely own the other army. Blizzard will patch it.
Watch at the Void-Ray. Rather interesting in theory. In reality, completely dull. It even negates micro, because if you micro them, they won't get charged up and remain useless. You can't harass with them, because they have poor accelertion / speed and get owned by the basic units like queens / marines. You aren't microable. But when you get them in big numbers of 15+, they mow everything down with a-click. You just have to look at the given opportunities an unit gives you, to say if it MIGHT become useful.
Now its up to you, provide us with stuff that could make units in sc2 more interesting with the current stuff we have to use. And don't just shit always the same phrases like "give it time" , "there surely will be new things discovered". People said that since the beta, they were wrong until now.
Because i care about the branch starcraft and the progress of e-sports in the west? I care because i want this game to be the best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business. I want it to be as, if not more successful than bw was in korea.
That's the reason i want this game to be as good as possible, and by waiting and twiddling my thumbs there won't be a change. The game won't just be as exciting. It makes me frustrated to see that something with so much potential, backed up by over a decade of expierience of its predecessor and what made it so great, gets wasted. And people like you are promoting the waste of that potential by saying give it more time.
God damnit why do i even respond, you cant mean your stance and stuff serious.
On March 19 2011 00:50 Elefanto wrote: Because i care about the branch starcraft and the progress of e-sports in the west? I care because i want this game to be the best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business. I want it to be as, if not more successful than bw was in korea.
That's the reason i want this game to be as good as possible, and by waiting and twiddling my thumbs there won't be a change. The game won't just be as exciting. It makes me frustrated to see that something with so much potential, backed up by over a decade of expierience of its predecessor and what made it so great, gets wasted. And people like you are promoting the waste of that potential by saying give it more time.
God damnit why do i even respond, you cant mean your stance and stuff serious.
I apologize for that. I thought "fun video game" came before "best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business". After all, that's how it worked for Brood War. The game held up to scrutiny and then people started playing it professionally. So as I said earlier in the thread, if you want to blame Blizzard for anything, don't blame them for releasing a game that doesn't measure up to your standards. Blame Blizzard for designing the program in a manner that allowed them to consolidate control of the tournament scene and proceed to create an artificial tournament scene as a means to nudge the competitive-ready Brood War off to the side. Blame Blizzard for taking the game that "wasn't ready" and putting their full confidence behind it, rather than giving Starcraft II time to go through its inevitable growing pains. Don't blame me for making a very open assumption that the heights of the metagame and the skill cap have not been achieved.
@Ribbon: Yeah, you aren't really addressing any points. Most of the points you made I just end up thinking what the hell you are trying to say. I am not going to respond if the argument will devolve into some back and forth debate about insignificant points that don't relate to the op, please come up with fresh points that actually work towards disproving what I say. I am also writing this after being at the pub so yeah, please account for that if I make any minor mistakes.
People QQing about something being imbalanced has next-to-nothing to do with whether it's actually imbalanced. Suggesting BW is imba is heretical. Until SC2 reaches that point, no one will ever lose because they didn't play as well. It'll be because the game is bullshit OMG.
Yeah see, I don't really understand this point. What are you trying to say? The point is the nerfs to psi storm were due to a bunch of gold and lower level leaguers (the majority) complaining about it. However if psi storm were not smart-cast they would still deal 112 damage today, because less people would have complained about it.
I don't really get what you mean by suggesting BW is imba is heretical. BW was imbalanced, however these imbalances were overcome by smarter unit design and stronger mechanical focus.
How come wrestling with unit control is bullshit while wrestling with getting all your buildings making units is skill?
What the hell does this sentence even mean?
Anyway to address what I think you are trying to say. I said, in BW if you have more bases, it becomes harder to manage because of Single Building Selection and telling workers to mine. This mechanic does not exist in SC2. Did I ever advocate that SC2 needed this? No. I am simply stating that SC2 does not have a base management mechanic similar to this, and macro mechanics fall far short in mitigating this issue.
As for unit control. Yes SC2's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented flocking AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units. SC2's UI is bullshit because blizz thought it would be a good idea to put buttons fucking everywhere so players could click on them and screw up their micro. That's actually some serious bullshit right there.
Different strokes for different folks, I guess.
Exactly, one persons trash is another persons treasure. Using the word "wrestle" for every BW mechanic doesn't serve well in proving your point.
Arguably. The arguments in favor are that
1. It's harder 2. Brood War did it.
Those aren't good arguments. There are things that can be harder, that are also more interesting to watch. There's no thought or strategy to selecting all your raxen every 30 seconds. It's like rocks, actually. It's something you have to deal with to get to the good stuff. It's not the best way to increase the skill cap. The reason people like it was because they're already good at it from Brood War. That's not a good reason, sorry. SC2 isn't BW, and is shouldn't be. Brood War is already pretty good at being Brood War.
What the hell? are you stoned? I am not even going to answer this.
So what does my argument have to do with the OP? Well many of the mechanics mentioned have brought the lower and higher level players closer together. Causing the top positions to be more volatile.
On March 19 2011 00:50 Elefanto wrote: Because i care about the branch starcraft and the progress of e-sports in the west? I care because i want this game to be the best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business. I want it to be as, if not more successful than bw was in korea.
That's the reason i want this game to be as good as possible, and by waiting and twiddling my thumbs there won't be a change. The game won't just be as exciting. It makes me frustrated to see that something with so much potential, backed up by over a decade of expierience of its predecessor and what made it so great, gets wasted. And people like you are promoting the waste of that potential by saying give it more time.
God damnit why do i even respond, you cant mean your stance and stuff serious.
I apologize for that. I thought "fun video game" came before "best fucking thing ever in the western e-sports business". After all, that's how it worked for Brood War. The game held up to scrutiny and then people started playing it professionally. So as I said earlier in the thread, if you want to blame Blizzard for anything, don't blame them for releasing a game that doesn't measure up to your standards. Blame Blizzard for designing the program in a manner that allowed them to consolidate control of the tournament scene and proceed to create an artificial tournament scene as a means to nudge the competitive-ready Brood War off to the side. Blame Blizzard for taking the game that "wasn't ready" and putting their full confidence behind it, rather than giving Starcraft II time to go through its inevitable growing pains. Don't blame me for making a very open assumption that the heights of the metagame and the skill cap have not been achieved.
Well Blizzard designed Starcraft 1 as a fun game, but for Starcraft 2 they designed it with "lets make it easy to play so we can sell tons of copies ... errr market it to a wider audience ... and then make a popular eSport out of it in the west". Thus we have been "straightjacketed" onto tiny maps with unlimited unit selection and perfect movement AI so we can have the maximum number of explosions and short games because thats what viewers ask for, right? It works for Hollywood sequels, so why not for SC2?
The volatility of the game should be clear by now (after we had a beta where certain tiny maps were obviously favoring non-Zergs) and still they are fiddling around with unit stats in an attempt to "fix things". Systematic changes are needed and these changes need to make the game "less perfect" in its control so people need to play perfect instead of simply having a critical mass of units bunched up at one spot ready to waltz over any opposition.
Well Blizzard designed Starcraft 1 as a fun game, but for Starcraft 2 they designed it with "lets make it easy to play so we can sell tons of copies ... errr market it to a wider audience ... and then make a popular eSport out of it in the west". Thus we have been "straightjacketed" onto tiny maps with unlimited unit selection and perfect movement AI so we can have the maximum number of explosions and short games because thats what viewers ask for, right? It works for Hollywood sequels, so why not for SC2?
Well yeah. Removing single-building selection and introducing automining and removing the unit selection cap were the right move. And even if you disagree with that (and I'm sure you will), the problem is that when you remove those things, you need to add something back. When you remove tank controls from Resident Evil, you need to find a way to keep the tension in how the game controls. When you eliminate Wavedashing glitches from Super Smash Brothers: Melee, you need to find a way to replace that lost manual dexterity in Super Smash Brothers: Brawl. But from what I can tell, everybody here wanted the same game. I would have loved a global Hold Fire button. I would have loved natural base defense akin to what players got in Warcraft III. I would have loved a more complex rule set with more natural terrain features like Watch Towers and Destructible Rocks and Xel'Naga Candy Shops. But we ended up getting something that very much resembled the original game. It just doesn't require the same raw mechanical input. So now people are surprised that it's a "dumbed-down version of Brood War?" They wanted the same game and they got it.
On March 19 2011 01:28 Rabiator wrote:
The volatility of the game should be clear by now (after we had a beta where certain tiny maps were obviously favoring non-Zergs) and still they are fiddling around with unit stats in an attempt to "fix things". Systematic changes are needed and these changes need to make the game "less perfect" in its control so people need to play perfect instead of simply having a critical mass of units bunched up at one spot ready to waltz over any opposition.
Blizzard is doing themselves an incredible disservice with how off-hands they've been with the map pool. They should have somebody consulting the community around-the-clock on what maps are popular and what maps aren't. I agree with people that game theory is going to evolve much more rapidly than it did with the previous Blizzard strategy games, just not to the same extent. And if that's the case, the map pool should look completely different than what we had eight months ago.
On March 19 2011 01:50 MichaelJLowell wrote: Blizzard is doing themselves an incredible disservice with how off-hands they've been with the map pool. They should have somebody consulting the community around-the-clock on what maps are popular and what maps aren't. I agree with people that game theory is going to evolve much more rapidly than it did with the previous Blizzard strategy games, just not to the same extent. And if that's the case, the map pool should look completely different than what we had eight months ago.
To be fair, you of all people (I lurked WC3 General) should know how difficult it is for Blizzard to get a good impression from the community on just about anything. This site and places like Gosugamers are hardly representative of all their consumers, bnet forums are about as healthy as raw sewage, and they lack a good way to contact more casual players they're struggling not to alienate. I think they're finally moving in the right direction with changing the map pool by league (Browder said they were considering this recently, I believe) because then at least the thumbs-down statistics will be a little more useful and they can more carefully tailor it to people of different skill levels.
As for the volatility argument overall, I can't think of a game in this GSL when the player who played a worse game won and I still am not seeing perfection at the macro level, let alone the micro level. Just from that I am reluctant to talk about skill ceilings.
On March 17 2011 01:59 tsuxiit wrote: The game is definitely too volatile and unless Blizzard makes some radical change to how the early game works (more reliable scouting, more survivable strategies so that surprise causes damage instead of outright losing at that moment, or a greater emphasis on mechanical ability as the game progresses forward) its not going to change in the near future.
This volatility coupled with the absurd ease of SC2's mechanics mean that it's basically impossible for a single player to dominate with a combination of mechanical ability and strategic superiority when you can get a literally unpredictable opponent and lose straight up to shit like DTs. It detracts from the real strategic integrity of StarCraft in my opinion.
Or you could uninstall the game becuase you clearly dont understand how to improve at it. Anyone who thinks that Blizzard needs to make changes to make them a better player should stick to Webkins imo. Getting better at SC2 is 100% in the hands of the player and requires hard work, practice, research, studying, analysis of replays etc.. Tiger Woods doesnt complain that the greens arent maintained well when he misses a putt- dont blame other factors for your own failures.
Actually, manual injection of larva is as uninteresting as SBS, or limited control groups. I'm still dumb-funded that they didn't let auto-injection. It makes no sense to simplify so many mechanics only to introduce a new thoughtless one.
I understand that the Zerg would have too few things to do if injection was automatic, but they could have found something with more strategical purpose like mules or chrono boosts.
On March 19 2011 01:50 MichaelJLowell wrote: Blizzard is doing themselves an incredible disservice with how off-hands they've been with the map pool. They should have somebody consulting the community around-the-clock on what maps are popular and what maps aren't. I agree with people that game theory is going to evolve much more rapidly than it did with the previous Blizzard strategy games, just not to the same extent. And if that's the case, the map pool should look completely different than what we had eight months ago.
To be fair, you of all people (I lurked WC3 General) should know how difficult it is for Blizzard to get a good impression from the community on just about anything. This site and places like Gosugamers are hardly representative of all their consumers, bnet forums are about as healthy as raw sewage, and they lack a good way to contact more casual players they're struggling not to alienate. I think they're finally moving in the right direction with changing the map pool by league (Browder said they were considering this recently, I believe) because then at least the thumbs-down statistics will be a little more useful and they can more carefully tailor it to people of different skill levels.
From what I've gathered, player bases are good at understanding how to manipulate variables within a system but aren't very good at understanding the theory behind a system. It's like code. I can figure out what needs to be changed by looking at PHP webcode but hell if I can actually write it. When it comes to general game design, I trust the developer over the player. That doesn't mean the developer is perfect. They can do a lot of dumb things. But let's remember: Brood War became a competitive game without an "e-sports team" on the Blizzard staff. That said, when it comes to level design (whether a map or an arena or a battlefield), I take the player's input. I can't think of many great video games where the developer's levels are superior to the custom content created afterward. Maps are designed to accommodate minor changes to the game design. So if the massive player base can say "Okay, this is broken, but if we just change one thing in the level," it's going to be a much more effective peer-review process than a company placing one or two "level designers" on a salary (after the game has released) and telling them to have at it.
On March 19 2011 02:20 TheTenthDoc wrote: As for the volatility argument overall, I can't think of a game in this GSL when the player who played a worse game won and I still am not seeing perfection at the macro level, let alone the micro level. Just from that I am reluctant to talk about skill ceilings.
Neither have I. I'll vouch for you on that. I'd be curious to see if anyone has any suggestions for matches reflecting such an outcome.
People QQing about something being imbalanced has next-to-nothing to do with whether it's actually imbalanced. Suggesting BW is imba is heretical. Until SC2 reaches that point, no one will ever lose because they didn't play as well. It'll be because the game is bullshit OMG.
Yeah see, I don't really understand this point. What are you trying to say? The point is the nerfs to psi storm were due to a bunch of gold and lower level leaguers (the majority) complaining about it. However if psi storm were not smart-cast they would still deal 112 damage today, because less people would have complained about it.
See that bolded part? That's the part I disagree with. Whenever anyone loses the game, they say the thing that beat them is imba imba imba and needs to be nerfed.
I don't really get what you mean by suggesting BW is imba is heretical. BW was imbalanced, however these imbalances were overcome by smarter unit design and stronger mechanical focus.
Imba in the sense of "Protoss is bullshit psi storm is autowin".
How come wrestling with unit control is bullshit while wrestling with getting all your buildings making units is skill?
What the hell does this sentence even mean?
You say that having to select every building one at a time (tedious bullshit that you're good at) makes the game better, while having to split your army (tedious bullshit that you're bad at) makes the game worse. I'd like to hear your reasoning on that.
Anyway to address what I think you are trying to say. I said, in BW if you have more bases, it becomes harder to manage because of Single Building Selection and telling workers to mine. This mechanic does not exist in SC2. Did I ever advocate that SC2 needed this? No. I am simply stating that SC2 does not have a base management mechanic similar to this, and macro mechanics fall far short in mitigating this issue.
As for unit control. Yes SC2's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented flocking AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units.
1. "Yes BW's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented pathing AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units.". People compare the Reaver to the Colo, which is a good comparison to make the point with (Though the reaver itself is unmicro-able. You need a shuttle with it). But otherwise there's not a lot of difference. If you don't want your army clumped up, don't bind the entire army to one control group.
2. What exactly are you advocating?
SC2's UI is bullshit because blizz thought it would be a good idea to put buttons fucking everywhere so players could click on them and screw up their micro. That's actually some serious bullshit right there.
Those aren't good arguments. There are things that can be harder, that are also more interesting to watch. There's no thought or strategy to selecting all your raxen every 30 seconds. It's like rocks, actually. It's something you have to deal with to get to the good stuff. It's not the best way to increase the skill cap. The reason people like it was because they're already good at it from Brood War. That's not a good reason, sorry. SC2 isn't BW, and is shouldn't be. Brood War is already pretty good at being Brood War.
What the hell? are you stoned? I am not even going to answer this.
It's not a complex point, bro. There's no argument in favor of SBS except BW fanboyism and a desire to make the game "harder" in the stupidest goddamn way possible.
So what does my argument have to do with the OP? Well many of the mechanics mentioned have brought the lower and higher level players closer together. Causing the top positions to be more volatile.
It's because every time someone wins a game, TL declares him a fucking Bonjwa and when he loses they rave about how SC2 is terrible.
People QQing about something being imbalanced has next-to-nothing to do with whether it's actually imbalanced. Suggesting BW is imba is heretical. Until SC2 reaches that point, no one will ever lose because they didn't play as well. It'll be because the game is bullshit OMG.
Yeah see, I don't really understand this point. What are you trying to say? The point is the nerfs to psi storm were due to a bunch of gold and lower level leaguers (the majority) complaining about it. However if psi storm were not smart-cast they would still deal 112 damage today, because less people would have complained about it.
See that bolded part? That's the part I disagree with. Whenever anyone loses the game, they say the thing that beat them is imba imba imba and needs to be nerfed.
I don't really get what you mean by suggesting BW is imba is heretical. BW was imbalanced, however these imbalances were overcome by smarter unit design and stronger mechanical focus.
Imba in the sense of "Protoss is bullshit psi storm is autowin".
How come wrestling with unit control is bullshit while wrestling with getting all your buildings making units is skill?
What the hell does this sentence even mean?
You say that having to select every building one at a time (tedious bullshit that you're good at) makes the game better, while having to split your army (tedious bullshit that you're bad at) makes the game worse. I'd like to hear your reasoning on that.
Anyway to address what I think you are trying to say. I said, in BW if you have more bases, it becomes harder to manage because of Single Building Selection and telling workers to mine. This mechanic does not exist in SC2. Did I ever advocate that SC2 needed this? No. I am simply stating that SC2 does not have a base management mechanic similar to this, and macro mechanics fall far short in mitigating this issue.
As for unit control. Yes SC2's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented flocking AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units.
1. "Yes BW's unit control is bullshit, because of poorly implemented pathing AI, and preference of un-microable a-move units.". People compare the Reaver to the Colo, which is a good comparison to make the point with (Though the reaver itself is unmicro-able. You need a shuttle with it). But otherwise there's not a lot of difference. If you don't want your army clumped up, don't bind the entire army to one control group.
SC2's UI is bullshit because blizz thought it would be a good idea to put buttons fucking everywhere so players could click on them and screw up their micro. That's actually some serious bullshit right there.
Those aren't good arguments. There are things that can be harder, that are also more interesting to watch. There's no thought or strategy to selecting all your raxen every 30 seconds. It's like rocks, actually. It's something you have to deal with to get to the good stuff. It's not the best way to increase the skill cap. The reason people like it was because they're already good at it from Brood War. That's not a good reason, sorry. SC2 isn't BW, and is shouldn't be. Brood War is already pretty good at being Brood War.
What the hell? are you stoned? I am not even going to answer this.
It's not a complex point, bro. There's no argument in favor of SBS except BW fanboyism and a desire to make the game "harder" in the stupidest goddamn way possible.
So what does my argument have to do with the OP? Well many of the mechanics mentioned have brought the lower and higher level players closer together. Causing the top positions to be more volatile.
It's because every time someone wins a game, TL declares him a fucking Bonjwa and when he loses they rave about how SC2 is terrible.
1. Less people would lose games to psi-storms and at the upper levels, people complain less, you really only need to look at the the BNet forums to see what I mean.
2. What?
3. a) They "fixed" bad pathing with even worse pathing. SC2 pathing should have been implemented like DoW/CoH where the units don't clump together but still can navigate themselves around the map easily.
Now your saying if I don't want my units to clump up don't bind to one ctrl group. I could use 9 ctrl groups and 1a2a3a4a5a6a7a8a9a BW style and they would still clump up. If you don't want your units to stuff around in BW learn to control them properly? Honestly moving units in BW wasn't hard at all.
3. b) See this is the problem with arguments that involves someone who knows about BW and someone who doesn't. Snow managed to kill 40 hydras with a reaver and no shuttle. Shuttle-less reaver micro exists, and its very similar to colossi micro. However why is it that shuttle-less reaver micro is so fun to watch in comparison to colossi micro. Well Ill leave that up to you to decide.
4. Sorry but the ctrl-group assignment button at the bottom of the screen has caused tonnes of people trouble (http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=121170). There still isn't a toggle to disable it. I only realised a month ago you could disable alerts on the side as well, if you click on them, the camera will slowly move you across the map, causing you to lose around 5 seconds of activity.
5. There's argument in favor of SBS that makes multi-base management and macro a fundamental aspect of starcraft. Some of the most famous starcraft players, iloveoov, Flash are renown for their macro ability.
Just like in any sport, once you learn it, it can be incredibly fun to do.
this game needs less harvesters needed per expansions, more expansions per game(maybe cost of expansion lowered, time build lowered), tier 1 units should be only units without somekind of skill so in end game the better players will have to control their units somewhat invidually removing this a-move deathball play all together and obviously balanced properly afterwards. theres my ideas and maybe add some objects to the map which would deny sitting at base way too long.
more expansions and less harvesters = macro becomes harder, drops become more useful, micro will be more needed, more locations to attack --> multitasking needed even more. you cant just sit at your base at one location hoping for best you need map control and scouting more etc etc
making the game harder by putting boring stuff like removing some of comfortable game mechanics feels like retarded tbh.
sc2 should be almost even combination of micro+macro and currently it's more weighted towards easy macroing and almost non existend micro. I'm sure the game will improve alot with the next couple of expansions.
It's honestly a lot of things put together that I think even with time will not be changed, unless Blizzard does something. There's just a lot of broken things.
The maps are generally terrible and promote cheese/rushes
Unit counters are too hard, and promote seeing the same units every game
Units like the Colossus are absolutely dull, stupid, and have no skill-cap, in comparison to something awesome like the Reaver
Clumping crap into one ball and then raping your opponent with little to no micro involved (mostly protoss)
Huge micro disparities between the races (Zerg have to micro their units really well, Protoss mostly just bind everything in 1 group and pop Forcefields with their "deathball")
Like a poster above said, Starcraft 2 was made for the masses, which means appealing to casual gamers, which leads to an easier-to-play game. Of course, they may try to balance it for high level play, but that doesn't change the fact that the basics are broken and badly implemented. Honestly they would have to scrap and remake the whole game if they truly want it to be a respected e-sport like BW, where you enjoyed large maps with mostly standard FE builds, which would lead to epic 200/200 army games with 4+ expansions, and tons of strategy instead of just 4 gates, raven all ins, deathballs raping zerg, terrans 2 raxing, etc etc etc.
On March 20 2011 02:44 Scila wrote: It's honestly a lot of things put together that I think even with time will not be changed, unless Blizzard does something. There's just a lot of broken things.
The maps are generally terrible and promote cheese/rushes
Unit counters are too hard, and promote seeing the same units every game
Units like the Colossus are absolutely dull, stupid, and have no skill-cap, in comparison to something awesome like the Reaver
Clumping crap into one ball and then raping your opponent with little to no micro involved (mostly protoss)
Huge micro disparities between the races (Zerg have to micro their units really well, Protoss mostly just bind everything in 1 group and pop Forcefields with their "deathball")
Like a poster above said, Starcraft 2 was made for the masses, which means appealing to casual gamers, which leads to an easier-to-play game. Of course, they may try to balance it for high level play, but that doesn't change the fact that the basics are broken and badly implemented. Honestly they would have to scrap and remake the whole game if they truly want it to be a respected e-sport like BW, where you enjoyed large maps with mostly standard FE builds, which would lead to epic 200/200 army games with 4+ expansions, and tons of strategy instead of just 4 gates, raven all ins, deathballs raping zerg, terrans 2 raxing, etc etc etc.
I've seen loads of great fast expand/macro games in this season of the GSL. Seems like you're selectively picking games instead of looking at the whole picture. Since the new maps were introduced we've seen longer, more interesting games.
You're post is full of hyperbole making things look worse than they are. Protoss use alot of micro in most matchups, it's not all a-move. SC2 doesn't need to be crapped and remade to be a viable e-sport game. With more great maps and (hopefully) some new microable units/abilities in the expansions i see a bright future for SC2.
I allow myself to bump this topic, regarding recents results, more precisely : TSL 3 results - No question, foreigners did better BOs. But we can't dismiss it was nearly pure BO wins, meaning, great deal of luck related with scouting GSL WC results - Whita Ra VS San, Dimaga VS San MLG - Kiwi VS IdrA
The more I'm watching SC2 recently, the more I see this game as «not serious», meaning you can't really say the usual good sportmanship phrase «Let the best win». As well, Sen vs MKP is interesting dwelving into. Sen beat him one day and lost twice to him 2 days after. None of those games were real cheeses, neither 100% BO wins, it was just really small things that really made the difference. Things you seem to be allowed given the general leniancy of the game.
But definitly, it's hurting my SC2 watching experience. I would never miss a GSL match before, and the longer it goes, the less interesting the game seems.
I would really apppreciate more feedback from the community after those two weeks which have been really packed with offsets !!!
This game need a huge expansion, with all those tourney it can really become good, but by now matches are just boring :/ I mean just look at this match (the best Tasteless casting ever imo) + Show Spoiler +
And imagine what it could become with the big fan base of SC2
Like a poster above said, Starcraft 2 was made for the masses, which means appealing to casual gamers, which leads to an easier-to-play game.
They've done a terrible job of appealing to the masses with SC2. The game is basically a slightly-modern, prettier version of a 12-year-old game. Every review for the game says that. That's not exactly appealing to the masses. Most of "the masses" who buy the game play the campaign, maybe ladder for a bit, and quit. Others do some rushing on the ladder, because that's all they're able to do in the game. Because the game requires too much skill, ability, and attention for them to do anything better.
If Blizzard had truly wanted to appeal to "casual gamers," they'd have taken out the SC1-style resourcing in favor of something like resource nodes and such, the way many modern RTS games work. They'd have put in formations and such. They'd have automated all aspects of macro and micro, so you need only about 50 APM to play the game at a high level.
Blizzard didn't put in MBS and rally-mining to appeal to casual gamers. They did it because the mechanics make sense for any game, period. What Blizzard failed to do was to completely fill in the macro hole left behind by their addition. This failure had nothing to do to appealing to "casual gamers."
Well if you look for consistency look at MC. I mean i don´t really like him, but you can say his loss in the ro16 GSL jan. was just being unprepared vs mech, then you can say he has been consistent since his GSL 3 win. Every Match he goes in, he is the total favorite. He loses almost never, and can easily kill opponents like july in 10-11 minute games without any problem. And then you have to see: Its not the fault of the game when players play bad. Squirtle played perfectly in GSTL feb. vs MVP thats true, but since then he was so much weaker. You cant say he is supossed to be code S and kill everyone. Also MVP had his problems against toss, than he had bad luck meet 3 tosses in a row and got eliminated. It was his fault for not training TvP enough. FD is one of those guys whose were good when the game was new ( like Maka or so) MKP´s old style just got outfought and then he struggeld to find something new. Vs Sen you have to count that he played a different style every game. With pure Bio he lost, With hellion marine and Mech he won. We don´t know what could have been if he had played mech in the World vs Korea match. So you see, players lose cause they are don´t train enough, get outfought or have to fight against a new unexpected style. And yeah, we don´t really have the player with all the things you need to be a bonjwa or something: Perfect timings, Macro, Micro, game sense... There are some with one or two of these skills but none with every. I think NaDa could do it (fanboy) but he doesnot train enough. (Sorry for my english obviously not my mother tongue)
On April 02 2011 18:47 mr_tolkien wrote: I allow myself to bump this topic, regarding recents results, more precisely : TSL 3 results - No question, foreigners did better BOs. But we can't dismiss it was nearly pure BO wins, meaning, great deal of luck related with scouting GSL WC results - Whita Ra VS San, Dimaga VS San MLG - Kiwi VS IdrA
The more I'm watching SC2 recently, the more I see this game as «not serious», meaning you can't really say the usual good sportmanship phrase «Let the best win». As well, Sen vs MKP is interesting dwelving into. Sen beat him one day and lost twice to him 2 days after. None of those games were real cheeses, neither 100% BO wins, it was just really small things that really made the difference. Things you seem to be allowed given the general leniancy of the game.
But definitly, it's hurting my SC2 watching experience. I would never miss a GSL match before, and the longer it goes, the less interesting the game seems.
I would really apppreciate more feedback from the community after those two weeks which have been really packed with offsets !!!
The TSL 3 results were heavily affected by lag.
The Koreans admitted that they, except July, weren't even trying in the show match, preferring to hide strategies for the real tournament with prize money.
Actually I think, as stupid it may sound the stupider the ai is the better it is for esports. It creates much higher skillcap like in bw. Battles are usually very simple even I could do most of them exactly the same. Ofc I can't do forcefields and marine split at all but other battles are very simple in sc2. The top players should be so good in my mind that no ordinary player should ever be able to come even near their skill level. If I trained 5-6 hours a day I'd be pretty close to the best players. But don't get stuck on this it's not my main point. (in before "why don't you then go to gsl?") I'm just saying that I'll never be close to Jaedong or Flash skill level in bw no matter how I train. I think sc2 has too hard counters and so you are required to scout well to have the exact unit composition you need.
On April 02 2011 18:47 mr_tolkien wrote: I allow myself to bump this topic, regarding recents results, more precisely : TSL 3 results - No question, foreigners did better BOs. But we can't dismiss it was nearly pure BO wins, meaning, great deal of luck related with scouting GSL WC results - Whita Ra VS San, Dimaga VS San MLG - Kiwi VS IdrA
The more I'm watching SC2 recently, the more I see this game as «not serious», meaning you can't really say the usual good sportmanship phrase «Let the best win». As well, Sen vs MKP is interesting dwelving into. Sen beat him one day and lost twice to him 2 days after. None of those games were real cheeses, neither 100% BO wins, it was just really small things that really made the difference. Things you seem to be allowed given the general leniancy of the game.
But definitly, it's hurting my SC2 watching experience. I would never miss a GSL match before, and the longer it goes, the less interesting the game seems.
I would really apppreciate more feedback from the community after those two weeks which have been really packed with offsets !!!
The TSL 3 results were heavily affected by lag.
The Koreans admitted that they, except July, weren't even trying in the show match, preferring to hide strategies for the real tournament with prize money.
First of all if you would have read Jinros thread he explains that it wasnt lagy as in choppy and jumpy, but rather latency, which you can prepare to, also it shouldnt be considered a major factor as Europeans too had latency albeit a slightly less so. They probably were better prepared as they are more likely to play on NA server due to other tournaments, but again - that comes down to preparation not ''lag''
I havent read interviews after showmatch but I do doubt that everyone except July were hiding builds and only July managed to show good play. Even if every single one of them choose not to bust out the best tailored builds they had prepared, each of them have at least few if not dozen different solid builds to choose from.
On April 02 2011 18:47 mr_tolkien wrote: I allow myself to bump this topic, regarding recents results, more precisely : TSL 3 results - No question, foreigners did better BOs. But we can't dismiss it was nearly pure BO wins, meaning, great deal of luck related with scouting GSL WC results - Whita Ra VS San, Dimaga VS San MLG - Kiwi VS IdrA
The more I'm watching SC2 recently, the more I see this game as «not serious», meaning you can't really say the usual good sportmanship phrase «Let the best win». As well, Sen vs MKP is interesting dwelving into. Sen beat him one day and lost twice to him 2 days after. None of those games were real cheeses, neither 100% BO wins, it was just really small things that really made the difference. Things you seem to be allowed given the general leniancy of the game.
But definitly, it's hurting my SC2 watching experience. I would never miss a GSL match before, and the longer it goes, the less interesting the game seems.
I would really apppreciate more feedback from the community after those two weeks which have been really packed with offsets !!!
The TSL 3 results were heavily affected by lag.
The Koreans admitted that they, except July, weren't even trying in the show match, preferring to hide strategies for the real tournament with prize money.
I dont think its shocking at all that sen beats marineking in a showmatch one day, then loses in another, even the best players cant hope for much more than 60-70 percent win ratio vs other very good players. As for the TSL, its not that surprising to have many upsets when players have two weeks to tailor builds exactly to beat the opponent they are facing.
On April 02 2011 20:15 epoc wrote: Actually I think, as stupid it may sound the stupider the ai is the better it is for esports. It creates much higher skillcap like in bw. Battles are usually very simple even I could do most of them exactly the same. Ofc I can't do forcefields and marine split at all but other battles are very simple in sc2. The top players should be so good in my mind that no ordinary player should ever be able to come even near their skill level. If I trained 5-6 hours a day I'd be pretty close to the best players. But don't get stuck on this it's not my main point. (in before "why don't you then go to gsl?") I'm just saying that I'll never be close to Jaedong or Flash skill level in bw no matter how I train. I think sc2 has too hard counters and so you are required to scout well to have the exact unit composition you need.
this is a feeling i get often too. with overall way lower cap and need of mechanics so much of the ingame stuff just isnt as exciting for me.
in broodwar i know how sick hard like evrything they do is so its great to see how well they control.in sc2 i most of the time think " mmhh hes doing 1a... spamming some spell X.... mmhh battle over. that looked like evry other battle at platinum+ level".
and this also relates to the "randomness" of sc2.if mechanics dont matter that much (and in some situations can be almost completly ignored) then practice and "skill" matter less and more just comes down to "my build beats your build. ".
if you now consider how many allins and blindcounters exist in sc2, that the game infact will not be balanced for atleast most of the time in the next few years ( even IF suddenly it was balanced expansions will happen) then there just will not be much consistency.
inshort:mechanics and evolved balanced gameplay bring consistency. mechanics are not very important in sc2 and we wont have evolved balanced gameplay for years to come.
On April 02 2011 20:15 epoc wrote: Actually I think, as stupid it may sound the stupider the ai is the better it is for esports. It creates much higher skillcap like in bw. Battles are usually very simple even I could do most of them exactly the same. Ofc I can't do forcefields and marine split at all but other battles are very simple in sc2. The top players should be so good in my mind that no ordinary player should ever be able to come even near their skill level. If I trained 5-6 hours a day I'd be pretty close to the best players. But don't get stuck on this it's not my main point. (in before "why don't you then go to gsl?") I'm just saying that I'll never be close to Jaedong or Flash skill level in bw no matter how I train. I think sc2 has too hard counters and so you are required to scout well to have the exact unit composition you need.
this is a feeling i get often too. with overall way lower cap and need of mechanics so much of the ingame stuff just isnt as exciting for me.
in broodwar i know how sick hard like evrything they do is so its great to see how well they control.in sc2 i most of the time think " mmhh hes doing 1a... spamming some spell X.... mmhh battle over. that looked like evry other battle at platinum+ level".
and this also relates to the "randomness" of sc2.if mechanics dont matter that much (and in some situations can be almost completly ignored) then practice and "skill" matter less and more just comes down to "my build beats your build. ".
if you now consider how many allins and blindcounters exist in sc2, that the game infact will not be balanced for atleast most of the time in the next few years ( even IF suddenly it was balanced expansions will happen) then there just will not be much consistency.
inshort:mechanics and evolved balanced gameplay bring consistency. mechanics are not very important in sc2 and we wont have evolved balanced gameplay for years to come.
^^ I get that feeling too, mostly when I see protoss play. A lot of toss players against t and z just camp up until 200/200, get a huge colli death ball and then at most, throw up a couple of guardian shields and forcefields. Commentators go CRAZY at this point and I'm just thinking, well, no, all he did was use 1 hotkey, his zealots were behind his stalkers the entire time and he then pressed 1g,g, held f and then clicked a few times, but still demolished the other player.
I think you are right, the game is volatile right now, but I don't think is a bad thing at all. SC2 is very young game and is evolving very fast. We just got new and bigger maps and a new patch for this season, so strategies and meta game is still evolving in a regular basis.
I am sure you didn't have consistent stars to follow when SC1 was 1 year old. More maps, balance patches and new players are gonna keep coming so I expect this trend of evolution in strategies and meta game keep going for quite a bit.
As another poster said I would give SC2 another year before we see the true dominant stars to arise. Keep in mind we are still missing 2 expansions.
On April 02 2011 18:47 mr_tolkien wrote: I allow myself to bump this topic, regarding recents results, more precisely : TSL 3 results - No question, foreigners did better BOs. But we can't dismiss it was nearly pure BO wins, meaning, great deal of luck related with scouting GSL WC results - Whita Ra VS San, Dimaga VS San MLG - Kiwi VS IdrA
The more I'm watching SC2 recently, the more I see this game as «not serious», meaning you can't really say the usual good sportmanship phrase «Let the best win». As well, Sen vs MKP is interesting dwelving into. Sen beat him one day and lost twice to him 2 days after. None of those games were real cheeses, neither 100% BO wins, it was just really small things that really made the difference. Things you seem to be allowed given the general leniancy of the game.
But definitly, it's hurting my SC2 watching experience. I would never miss a GSL match before, and the longer it goes, the less interesting the game seems.
I would really apppreciate more feedback from the community after those two weeks which have been really packed with offsets !!!
The TSL 3 results were heavily affected by lag.
The Koreans admitted that they, except July, weren't even trying in the show match, preferring to hide strategies for the real tournament with prize money.
First of all if you would have read Jinros thread he explains that it wasnt lagy as in choppy and jumpy, but rather latency, which you can prepare to, also it shouldnt be considered a major factor as Europeans too had latency albeit a slightly less so. They probably were better prepared as they are more likely to play on NA server due to other tournaments, but again - that comes down to preparation not ''lag''
I havent read interviews after showmatch but I do doubt that everyone except July were hiding builds and only July managed to show good play. Even if every single one of them choose not to bust out the best tailored builds they had prepared, each of them have at least few if not dozen different solid builds to choose from.
Personally ive never understood why people treat it like the Europeans and Americans didnt lag too lag doesnt exist in just one place in the world people
someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure.
To use another comparison, look at the NCAA men's college basketball tournament (aka March Madness).
Once a year, all the top teams are seeded against each other in a one and done month-long tournament.
Typically, there will be several teams in the tournament that, during the regular season, looked incredibly dominant and had really high winning percentages.
And yet, these teams lose in the tournament all the time. This is why, in America, filling out one's "bracket predictions" (for non-Americans, these are basically liquibets for the NCAA tournament) is a big fad--the tournament is so unpredictable, anyone's bracket predictions could turn out to be right. Just picking all the top seeds never works.
Even the very best teams, the ones that recruit all the top players and have great coaches and programs...only win very rarely. Duke, for example, might be the most dominant team in modern history, yet they've only won 4 times in 30 years.
Does that mean basketball is "too volatile." No, of course not. During the regular season and long series, better teams will consistently perform better, and over time will accumulate high winning percentages.
But one and done is volatile.
Right now, the GSL is basically like a march madness that runs every month.
First of all, the FXOpen invitational today. Kyhol beat both oGsHero and oGsWanT. Do you think Kyhol is a better player than both of those two? There's more than that but I want to cover other tourney's too. TSL3: ThorZaIN beat MC pretty convincingly. The score was 3-2 but the games ThorZaIN won were a one-sided stomping. Copenhagen games: Grubby got 3rd. Grubby is a good player, but he seriously beat TLO and MorroW, both considered to be top EU players. Grubby has only been playing for a few months, and he's already beating players of that caliber. IMMvp + BoxeR got sent down to Code A, while HuK, Lyn, and TSL_Killer got sent to code S Jinro, San, MC, MarineKing all fall down to the up/down matches in GSL. Leenock gets completely knocked out. . Starswar: Dimaga beats the code S player FOXLyn 2-0. IMNesTea, a GSL Champion, gets beaten 2-1 by an unknown chinese player, LoveCD. Liquid`TLO beats a Code S player, HongUnPrime.
As you can see, there's been a TON of upsets recently. You can say that they weren't really upsets, but there are still a lot of weird results. There still hasn't been a player that has been super consistent. Closest to that is MC, and even he has been losing a lot of games. This game does indeed feel too volatile, especially at the highest level.
a lot of matchups seem to revolve around 1 huge decision or 1 huge battle, TvP especially because bad positioning will net you a 50 supply deficit and end the game
might also be because damage is a lot higher in sc2 than sc1
I know a thousand people have already beat me to this but I think the game is still quite young. It's due for some big (although really I can only speculate how big) changes in the two planned expansions so it may still take some time to become less volatile. I think right all we can ask for is that the game is stable enough such that the better player wins.
First of all, the FXOpen invitational today. Kyhol beat both oGsHero and oGsWanT. Do you think Kyhol is a better player than both of those two? There's more than that but I want to cover other tourney's too. TSL3: ThorZaIN beat MC pretty convincingly. The score was 3-2 but the games ThorZaIN won were a one-sided stomping. Copenhagen games: Grubby got 3rd. Grubby is a good player, but he seriously beat TLO and MorroW, both considered to be top EU players. Grubby has only been playing for a few months, and he's already beating players of that caliber. IMMvp + BoxeR got sent down to Code A, while HuK, Lyn, and TSL_Killer got sent to code S Jinro, San, MC, MarineKing all fall down to the up/down matches in GSL. Leenock gets completely knocked out. . Starswar: Dimaga beats the code S player FOXLyn 2-0. IMNesTea, a GSL Champion, gets beaten 2-1 by an unknown chinese player, LoveCD. Liquid`TLO beats a Code S player, HongUnPrime.
As you can see, there's been a TON of upsets recently. You can say that they weren't really upsets, but there are still a lot of weird results. There still hasn't been a player that has been super consistent. Closest to that is MC, and even he has been losing a lot of games. This game does indeed feel too volatile, especially at the highest level.
IMO, the results may feel volatile, but not all the games themselves can be attributed to volatility.
Players are losing because they play poorly. Players are pulling off upsets and wins because they are outplaying their opponents. Although the results may show volatility, watching the games themselves reveals that favored players are making foolish mistakes and playing poorly despite their supposed superiority.
Favored players may not prepare properly against opponents who prepared their hearts out. Favored players get too overconfident and greedy while their opponents exploit this. Favored players go for too gimmicky or too stylistic strategies while their opponents completely figure this out and go for the proper counter strategy.
Each upset can easily be explained by an analysis of the games themselves instead of flat out attributing them to volatility. SC2 may be more volatile than BW, but that volatility is completely irrelevant at this point when top players are making major mistakes and not always playing in top form.
First of all, the FXOpen invitational today. Kyhol beat both oGsHero and oGsWanT. Do you think Kyhol is a better player than both of those two? There's more than that but I want to cover other tourney's too. TSL3: ThorZaIN beat MC pretty convincingly. The score was 3-2 but the games ThorZaIN won were a one-sided stomping. Copenhagen games: Grubby got 3rd. Grubby is a good player, but he seriously beat TLO and MorroW, both considered to be top EU players. Grubby has only been playing for a few months, and he's already beating players of that caliber. IMMvp + BoxeR got sent down to Code A, while HuK, Lyn, and TSL_Killer got sent to code S Jinro, San, MC, MarineKing all fall down to the up/down matches in GSL. Leenock gets completely knocked out. . Starswar: Dimaga beats the code S player FOXLyn 2-0. IMNesTea, a GSL Champion, gets beaten 2-1 by an unknown chinese player, LoveCD. Liquid`TLO beats a Code S player, HongUnPrime.
As you can see, there's been a TON of upsets recently. You can say that they weren't really upsets, but there are still a lot of weird results. There still hasn't been a player that has been super consistent. Closest to that is MC, and even he has been losing a lot of games. This game does indeed feel too volatile, especially at the highest level.
That's because the game isn't figured out yet. It really has little to do with randomness or mechanics not mattering.
I can and do upset players who are probably overall better than me in PvT, because I have some not very standard builds and people don't respond optimally (and not cheese, mind you). It's not that they can't scout what I am doing and adjust, it's just that they adjust poorly because it's unfamiliar territory for them, whereas I've played 200 games out of that opening.
Similarly, thorzain continues busting out non-standard strategies TvP and crushing. He didn't win with mech in game 5 because of a fluke, he won because MC had absolutely no clue how to respond properly. (note: I don't mean to downplay any mechanical prowess thorzain has, just that MC would have at least stood a chance if he had played against thorzain's build 50 times)
If you want a good analogy, look at chess during the second half of the ninteenth century. Even between top players, games ended in 15 moves or under just due to opening novelties that were mostly unknown. If Morphy spends hours and hours developing some new opening trap, what are the odds that some other top player is going to respond correctly over the board? Practically none, they're just going to get crushed. OTOH, any of his opponents could do the same to him.
But good luck pulling that off against super GMs of today who know all the classical lines, and have a huge breadth of knowledge about all sorts of playstyles, openings, position, theory, etc. At best your opening variation will get you half a pawn and let you draw easily with black.
And so it will probably be with SC2. In a few years people will understand how to deal with a wider variety of strategies, and they won't lose to players who are mechanically inferior very often.
On April 02 2011 20:15 epoc wrote: Actually I think, as stupid it may sound the stupider the ai is the better it is for esports. It creates much higher skillcap like in bw. Battles are usually very simple even I could do most of them exactly the same. Ofc I can't do forcefields and marine split at all but other battles are very simple in sc2. The top players should be so good in my mind that no ordinary player should ever be able to come even near their skill level. If I trained 5-6 hours a day I'd be pretty close to the best players. But don't get stuck on this it's not my main point. (in before "why don't you then go to gsl?") I'm just saying that I'll never be close to Jaedong or Flash skill level in bw no matter how I train. I think sc2 has too hard counters and so you are required to scout well to have the exact unit composition you need.
this is a feeling i get often too. with overall way lower cap and need of mechanics so much of the ingame stuff just isnt as exciting for me.
in broodwar i know how sick hard like evrything they do is so its great to see how well they control.in sc2 i most of the time think " mmhh hes doing 1a... spamming some spell X.... mmhh battle over. that looked like evry other battle at platinum+ level".
and this also relates to the "randomness" of sc2.if mechanics dont matter that much (and in some situations can be almost completly ignored) then practice and "skill" matter less and more just comes down to "my build beats your build. ".
if you now consider how many allins and blindcounters exist in sc2, that the game infact will not be balanced for atleast most of the time in the next few years ( even IF suddenly it was balanced expansions will happen) then there just will not be much consistency.
inshort:mechanics and evolved balanced gameplay bring consistency. mechanics are not very important in sc2 and we wont have evolved balanced gameplay for years to come.
The general theme seems to be that the "skill cap" is low. Believe it or not, people thought sc1 skill cap was low until Slayers_Boxer came along. The early days of SC1 (early 2000) Protoss dominated due to "low skill cap". The ability to mass zealot and dragoon was all there was in the game. The first major tournament win of Slayers_Boxer, if I recall correctly, had 14 Protoss, 1 Terran (Boxer himself) and 1 Zerg (Yellow). I think the true skill cap of SC2 is yet to be realized.
One can argue that the early days of SC1 had many units and spells that were not being utilized. Thus it had more room to grow. People often comment that "the future is all about spell X" or the "later on Y composition will dominate." The game can grow towards a totally different direction.
We are in no position to call out skill caps, good for eSport and what not. People claim they find the games boring, yet the people watched the games, are fan of players and took the effort to be a part of this community by posting on threads.
The game is young. There are still million mechanics, strategies and map designs to be figured out.
P.S. You really think mechanics do not matter in SC2? Have you really played/watched enough to make that comment? Is it really the only difference between MC and any other pros in the world? MC just has a better build? Take any pro match. Watch it 20 times. You will find so many little details these players do beyond their "builds" that it will bring tears to your eyes.
the pros havent mastered the game yet so we're bound to see these mistakes that players make. Perhaps two years from now we'll start seeing some really good play where no pro will be making mistakes.
On April 24 2011 15:46 cive wrote: The general theme seems to be that the "skill cap" is low. Believe it or not, people thought sc1 skill cap was low until Slayers_Boxer came along. The early days of SC1 (early 2000) Protoss dominated due to "low skill cap". The ability to mass zealot and dragoon was all there was in the game. The first major tournament win of Slayers_Boxer, if I recall correctly, had 14 Protoss, 1 Terran (Boxer himself) and 1 Zerg (Yellow). I think the true skill cap of SC2 is yet to be realized.
One can argue that the early days of SC1 had many units and spells that were not being utilized. Thus it had more room to grow. People often comment that "the future is all about spell X" or the "later on Y composition will dominate." The game can grow towards a totally different direction.
We are in no position to call out skill caps, good for eSport and what not. People claim they find the games boring, yet the people watched the games, are fan of players and took the effort to be a part of this community by posting on threads.
The game is young. There are still million mechanics, strategies and map designs to be figured out.
Wanted to say something similar too. If you watched Game4 of MC vs ThorZaIN yesterday, it was SICK sometimes. I mean, the ghost micro (that was awesome omg), the constant feedbacking, the HT spread. And much more. There is MUCH potential in the game if people find out the tricks. Its not that obvious like for example in SupCom (there theres virtually no skill cap, you have to build stuff on the whole map and fight multiple battles _constantly_), but its true.
First of all, the FXOpen invitational today. Kyhol beat both oGsHero and oGsWanT. Do you think Kyhol is a better player than both of those two? There's more than that but I want to cover other tourney's too. TSL3: ThorZaIN beat MC pretty convincingly. The score was 3-2 but the games ThorZaIN won were a one-sided stomping. Copenhagen games: Grubby got 3rd. Grubby is a good player, but he seriously beat TLO and MorroW, both considered to be top EU players. Grubby has only been playing for a few months, and he's already beating players of that caliber. IMMvp + BoxeR got sent down to Code A, while HuK, Lyn, and TSL_Killer got sent to code S Jinro, San, MC, MarineKing all fall down to the up/down matches in GSL. Leenock gets completely knocked out. . Starswar: Dimaga beats the code S player FOXLyn 2-0. IMNesTea, a GSL Champion, gets beaten 2-1 by an unknown chinese player, LoveCD. Liquid`TLO beats a Code S player, HongUnPrime.
As you can see, there's been a TON of upsets recently. You can say that they weren't really upsets, but there are still a lot of weird results. There still hasn't been a player that has been super consistent. Closest to that is MC, and even he has been losing a lot of games. This game does indeed feel too volatile, especially at the highest level.
All sports have their share of upsets. Nothing is ever clear cut and if it was, then that would be boring. A player/team can be a favorite but maybe they just don't play up to their potential when needed or at the time.
ogshero and ogswant, they are not even code a? so i don't see the big deal
thorzain beating MC is an upset, i agree, but MC is the most consistent person IMO and maybe other factors like MC having to travel so much making somewhat of an impact (not to take anything away from thorzain, i love the guy). Even so, MC made it pretty far and can't win everything!
Grubby is good and is getting better. He is a WC3 legend and shouldn't be underestimated. He's been practicing with the best in europe already. I thought he was a top player before copenhagen.
Mvp and BoxeR being sent to code a; well gsl code s is a pretty stacked tournament and if you fall into a slump, you can easily fall into code a. People foresaw BoxeR slipping and it was just recently he's been improving so it's not really a blunder. Even if Mvp is a favorite in code a, he's not a sure thing to win it as there are other great contenders like MMA, bomber, and BoxeR. It shows how competitive the field is in gsl.
If someone doesn't play their best they can be knocked from code s to code a. Then it can be luck based of who makes it to code a to code s, depending who's in your group.
Jinro and San were in the group of death. A lot of people wanted jinro to advance but knew he would be underdog coming out with a group consisting of clide, nestea, and san.
MarineKing to me should have won against NaDa in his code s group but played weird when he was in the lead (going heavy mauraders, no tanks). Alicia was also the other person in the group he lost to and he's somewhat of a sleeper as artosis keeps hyping him.
and leenock just played badly, can't really say much to that but he's always been in code a anyways (creator doesn't seem too good maybe because he's a protoss and got lucky).
dimaga has beaten nestea, why can't he beat lyn?
ok, the nestea losing to lovecd was just bad of nestea. I'll give you that.
TLO beating hongunprime is not that much of an upset. Hongun didn't even win any of his code s games this season and will have to play the up/down matches to stay in code s.
On April 02 2011 18:47 mr_tolkien wrote: I allow myself to bump this topic, regarding recents results, more precisely : TSL 3 results - No question, foreigners did better BOs. But we can't dismiss it was nearly pure BO wins, meaning, great deal of luck related with scouting GSL WC results - Whita Ra VS San, Dimaga VS San MLG - Kiwi VS IdrA
The more I'm watching SC2 recently, the more I see this game as «not serious», meaning you can't really say the usual good sportmanship phrase «Let the best win». As well, Sen vs MKP is interesting dwelving into. Sen beat him one day and lost twice to him 2 days after. None of those games were real cheeses, neither 100% BO wins, it was just really small things that really made the difference. Things you seem to be allowed given the general leniancy of the game.
But definitly, it's hurting my SC2 watching experience. I would never miss a GSL match before, and the longer it goes, the less interesting the game seems.
I would really apppreciate more feedback from the community after those two weeks which have been really packed with offsets !!!
The TSL 3 results were heavily affected by lag.
The Koreans admitted that they, except July, weren't even trying in the show match, preferring to hide strategies for the real tournament with prize money.
First of all if you would have read Jinros thread he explains that it wasnt lagy as in choppy and jumpy, but rather latency, which you can prepare to, also it shouldnt be considered a major factor as Europeans too had latency albeit a slightly less so. They probably were better prepared as they are more likely to play on NA server due to other tournaments, but again - that comes down to preparation not ''lag''
I'm Australian, which means I have a shitty internet connection and have noticable latency whether I'm connecting to SEA or NA, and it does definitely have an impact on your play. Every single online game I've ever played I've had this latency, so it's nothing to do with being unused to it. It just makes you do everything about half a second late, and that's actually kinda huge. It's not just a matter of doing things slightly slowly, it also has a huge effect on a variety of different micro tricks. Stutter step is completely impossible. Thors will often get a second shot on your mutalisks before they get out of range. Protoss players can easily cut off the front of your army with force fields and kill it, because you won't be able to pull back in time. You autolose ling/baneling wars, and I'd imagine 4gate wars would be equally difficult, although not quite as bad, simply because half a second of latency can't cause your entire army to die to a single baneling. Any sort of surprise attack gets a free half a second to kill your dudes, which can easily tip a close engagement in your opponent's favour. Any sort of AoE spell will often only hit half as many enemies as it was supposed to, or nothing at all. Blink/burrow micro requires Automaton 2000 levels of prediction, since you need to blink/burrow away before the roach/stalker actually takes damage. There's other things too, but I think you get the point.
Were any games decided by these factors? I'm not sure, I'd have to rewatch them and I cbf, though I do remember Genius wasting thousands of gas on sentries that always dropped their FFs too late to have any impact, which, since those games were very close, quite possibly cost him the series. But latency does definitely have an impact. It can be predicted and adapted to if you play with it often, but it absolutely will make you play worse, and so the Koreans were absolutely at a disadvantage. Trying to argue that a half-second delay on every command affects nothing is foolish and just makes you seem desperate for any excuse to diss the Koreans' skill.
Yea. It definitely seems volatile in that so many "good" players are capable of taking games off of or even knocking "great" players out of tournaments. The only thing I can say is that I agree with those that point towards the tournament format to explain the reason it seems so volatile. If the only time you ever play is in a knockout situation then obviously even "great" players can't win everything and will get upset occasionally. There are just so many tournaments with so many "good" players that even if you're winning 70% of your games in tournaments, you're still going to get knocked out of tournaments and win others. That's just statistics.
I still think that the game is changing and being figured out and even though it seems volatile, you can't just look at all the upsets and say it is volatile. You have to look at the big picture and see how many games and tournaments are being played. Someone can go and list ten or fifteen situations where it seems like a "better player" got knocked out but that's because you can look at the SC2 Tourneys section and see that there are literally LANs and tournaments going on all the time and that is hundreds of games being played. So while the number of upsets you can name seems large, it might really just be a small number relative to the hundreds of games played that might have gone as expected.
And I think MC serves as a good example of a great player who wins a lot and gets knocked out some times. MC is considered one of the best players on the planet and yet someone will point to TSL where he got knocked out by Thorzain and to the GSL where he dropped to up and down matches and say, "wow that's so volatile. MC, considered the best in the world, just got knocked out of two tournaments." This is true but then look at the other things he's done recently. He won the GSL WC and then he went to sweden and won a Dreamhack invitational, and then this weekend he went and won the Copenhagen LAN. He just won three major tournaments and he got knocked out of two. When you look at it that way you can't say winning 3/5 tournaments with tons of great players isn't consistent.
On April 24 2011 16:23 stupidhydro wrote: EDIT: Tournament spoilers + Show Spoiler +
And I think MC serves as a good example of a great player who wins a lot and gets knocked out some times. MC is considered one of the best players on the planet and yet someone will point to TSL where he got knocked out by Thorzain and to the GSL where he dropped to up and down matches and say, "wow that's so volatile. MC, considered the best in the world, just got knocked out of two tournaments." This is true but then look at the other things he's done recently. He won the GSL WC and then he went to sweden and won a Dreamhack invitational, and then this weekend he went and won the Copenhagen LAN. He just won three major tournaments and he got knocked out of two. When you look at it that way you can't say winning 3/5 tournaments with tons of great players isn't consistent.
The gap right now is mostly the same as it was back during the first few years of BW. It was just as volatile back then, and honestly, I don't buy the argument that, since SC2 inherited BW's metagame and basic RTS mechanics, it started off way ahead. Give it a couple of years, and we'll see if the SC2 scene doesn't develop similar dominant superstars we saw from BW and WC3. If it doesn't, then yeah, the game is too volatile.
On April 03 2011 01:38 awesomoecalypse wrote: someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure.
this is such a smart, true explanation.
i was just over in Canada (i'm English), and Canucks vs Blackhawks seems pretty volatile to me - if it was done as a BO5 or BO3, we'd could have had very different results.
the other thing i'd like to mention is that pro SC would be boring if you pretty much knew for sure who would win at the start of every match. (The polar opposite, where every match is totally random, would also be pretty poor though to be honest.)
On April 02 2011 20:15 epoc wrote: Actually I think, as stupid it may sound the stupider the ai is the better it is for esports. It creates much higher skillcap like in bw. Battles are usually very simple even I could do most of them exactly the same. Ofc I can't do forcefields and marine split at all but other battles are very simple in sc2. The top players should be so good in my mind that no ordinary player should ever be able to come even near their skill level. If I trained 5-6 hours a day I'd be pretty close to the best players. But don't get stuck on this it's not my main point. (in before "why don't you then go to gsl?") I'm just saying that I'll never be close to Jaedong or Flash skill level in bw no matter how I train. I think sc2 has too hard counters and so you are required to scout well to have the exact unit composition you need.
this is a feeling i get often too. with overall way lower cap and need of mechanics so much of the ingame stuff just isnt as exciting for me.
in broodwar i know how sick hard like evrything they do is so its great to see how well they control.in sc2 i most of the time think " mmhh hes doing 1a... spamming some spell X.... mmhh battle over. that looked like evry other battle at platinum+ level".
and this also relates to the "randomness" of sc2.if mechanics dont matter that much (and in some situations can be almost completly ignored) then practice and "skill" matter less and more just comes down to "my build beats your build. ".
if you now consider how many allins and blindcounters exist in sc2, that the game infact will not be balanced for atleast most of the time in the next few years ( even IF suddenly it was balanced expansions will happen) then there just will not be much consistency.
inshort:mechanics and evolved balanced gameplay bring consistency. mechanics are not very important in sc2 and we wont have evolved balanced gameplay for years to come.
The early days of SC1 (early 2000) Protoss dominated due to "low skill cap". The ability to mass zealot and dragoon was all there was in the game. The first major tournament win of Slayers_Boxer, if I recall correctly, had 14 Protoss, 1 Terran (Boxer himself) and 1 Zerg (Yellow).
On April 03 2011 01:38 awesomoecalypse wrote: someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure.
this is such a smart, true explanation.
i was just over in Canada (i'm English), and Canucks vs Blackhawks seems pretty volatile to me - if it was done as a BO5 or BO3, we'd could have had very different results.
the other thing i'd like to mention is that pro SC would be boring if you pretty much knew for sure who would win at the start of every match. (The polar opposite, where every match is totally random, would also be pretty poor though to be honest.)
It was actually a rather convoluted explanation. For one thing, the NBA playoffs (funny that he left that one out of his playoffs analogy) are NOT volatile at all - in fact, they are the antithesis of volatile. We all know which teams are the dominant teams (this particular season has been somewhat of an anomaly, but it's partly due to a changing of the guard, which happens once every decade). Hell, NBA purists and fanatics like myself can essentially prognosticate, with a 90-95% accuracy, which 3-4 teams will make the Conference Semis, and which two teams actually have a chance to win the finals. Why? Partly because of non-parity (talent being concentrated on a few teams, and individual talent being more important), and partly because of BO7's in the NBA. Whether or not it's boring is entirely subjective and not worth arguing about. Just for arguments sake, however: the golden era of the NBA was when TWO dynasties (Boston and the Lakers in the 80's) duked it out in every single Final. MJ then brought the NBA to a massive global level - by his own dominance. Many people actually love watching pure dominance and potentially obvious results - as long as the play itself is interesting.
The "well, even the best players can't win everything" argument isn't applicable here, because the premise that we're arguing for isn't that players SHOULD win everything, but the fact that the BEST players are getting knocked out in the first round. Let's go back to the NBA. I can't remember the last time a heavy NBA Finals contender was knocked out in the first round of the playoffs. Sure, Boston or the Lakers might not win every single ring, but they sure as hell aren't losing to some shitty lower seed in the first round. In fact, this comparison isn't even fair - it would be more like if the entire NBA was a playoff (the NBA itself is rather elite already), and you had the Lakers losing to the Minnesota Timberwolves in a BO7. It just does not and will not happen - ever. We can also use individual sports like Tennis as examples. When was the last time Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal lost in the first round of a Grand Slam that wasn't due to injury? I think individual sports, and sports that contain less variance due to extraneous factors that rely on other human beings (basketball is only a 5-man sport, where talent and skill reign supreme) are more pertinent to this argument.
If every single tournament series was BO7 in SC2, we'd see less volatility as well. The counterargument to this is that, empirically, BW and WC3 tournaments had similar formats (mostly BO3's), but they've all had dominant players who've mopped up everything in a given time-span. Perhaps one can argue that mvp and MC are doing just that by winning 4 out of the 6 GSLs, but mvp is currently in Code A after getting knocked out in the first round, and MC might get knocked down next season...from getting knocked out in the first round. The only thing I can say is - give SC2 more time (as I essentially pointed out in my previous post). The "dominant" guys that we're seeing today are not the truly dominant guys that we will see in the future...at least I hope not.
Broodwar was the same in many ways, but yes I agree in:
ZvZ. One baneling in the right spot and win. Never seen it gone beyond 2 base at the most. PvP. Oooo will we see a fourgate, 3gate robo to defend the 4gate or 1base colossus? Either way the micro is usually such a subpar part that if you haven't gone the right tech it doesn't matter. Also can't really scout usually until it's to late. PvZ. Zerg does all in or protoss does all in, zerg can't scout what protoss is doing and in the end if protoss defends we get a deathball and no zerg is able to controll his damned infestors good enough to not suicide 80% of them so they almost always lose horrible.
On April 24 2011 15:46 cive wrote: The general theme seems to be that the "skill cap" is low. Believe it or not, people thought sc1 skill cap was low until Slayers_Boxer came along. The early days of SC1 (early 2000) Protoss dominated due to "low skill cap". The ability to mass zealot and dragoon was all there was in the game. The first major tournament win of Slayers_Boxer, if I recall correctly, had 14 Protoss, 1 Terran (Boxer himself) and 1 Zerg (Yellow). I think the true skill cap of SC2 is yet to be realized.
One can argue that the early days of SC1 had many units and spells that were not being utilized. Thus it had more room to grow. People often comment that "the future is all about spell X" or the "later on Y composition will dominate." The game can grow towards a totally different direction.
We are in no position to call out skill caps, good for eSport and what not. People claim they find the games boring, yet the people watched the games, are fan of players and took the effort to be a part of this community by posting on threads.
The game is young. There are still million mechanics, strategies and map designs to be figured out.
Wanted to say something similar too. If you watched Game4 of MC vs ThorZaIN yesterday, it was SICK sometimes. I mean, the ghost micro (that was awesome omg), the constant feedbacking, the HT spread. And much more. There is MUCH potential in the game if people find out the tricks. Its not that obvious like for example in SupCom (there theres virtually no skill cap, you have to build stuff on the whole map and fight multiple battles _constantly_), but its true.
I've been trying to argue this point for a while, but people are (for some reason) convinced that if the skill cap was actually that high we would know by now, as if that makes any sense. I agree that macroing will never be as difficult as it was in BW, but there is virtually no skill ceiling for micro in either game. All this means is that the proportion between skill in macro and micro will lean far more towards micro in SC2 compared to BW where both micro and macro were difficult. The important thing to remember is that there is a hard limit to how much a person can do at a time, and the skill cap is above that limit. If a person's "skill" is allocated 50% to macro and 50% to micro (just making numbers up), I think the trend we will eventually see in SC2 is more like 20-30/70-80 macro/micro, where the easier macro mechanics force people to micro more and more efficiently in order to remain on top.
We didn't proclaim doom and gloom when SC1 was still full of terrible plays, we didn't claim that it wasn't as good as other *established* games with high ceilings because it wasn't at their level yet, we just played and developed. We gave it a chance, and it turned into the state of BW we have now. Let's give SC2 a similar opportunity (years, not bloody months) to develop instead of dismissing as being too volatile or having too low of a potential skill cap.
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.
You can't just create superstars, the game is still young and even BW doesn't have 90% winrate players. Flash is 72.22% currently and he's the result of years of hard work and innate godliness. More games and multiple leagues will helps establish the great players even if they are only winning 60-65%.
First of all, the FXOpen invitational today. Kyhol beat both oGsHero and oGsWanT. Do you think Kyhol is a better player than both of those two? There's more than that but I want to cover other tourney's too. TSL3: ThorZaIN beat MC pretty convincingly. The score was 3-2 but the games ThorZaIN won were a one-sided stomping. Copenhagen games: Grubby got 3rd. Grubby is a good player, but he seriously beat TLO and MorroW, both considered to be top EU players. Grubby has only been playing for a few months, and he's already beating players of that caliber. IMMvp + BoxeR got sent down to Code A, while HuK, Lyn, and TSL_Killer got sent to code S Jinro, San, MC, MarineKing all fall down to the up/down matches in GSL. Leenock gets completely knocked out. . Starswar: Dimaga beats the code S player FOXLyn 2-0. IMNesTea, a GSL Champion, gets beaten 2-1 by an unknown chinese player, LoveCD. Liquid`TLO beats a Code S player, HongUnPrime.
As you can see, there's been a TON of upsets recently. You can say that they weren't really upsets, but there are still a lot of weird results. There still hasn't been a player that has been super consistent. Closest to that is MC, and even he has been losing a lot of games. This game does indeed feel too volatile, especially at the highest level.
I agree that some people have shifted up and down, but that's the nature of any game. And yes, you've cited quite a handful of people throughout a few tournaments who didn't play as well as they should have (or better than expected).
However, that's out of a sample that's easily ten times larger than the particular players you've chosen. There are *a few* GSL players who are surprisingly volatile, for example. The rest are consistent. There were *some* upsets in arbitrary tournaments A, B, and C. The rest were consistent.
What you're doing is only citing the upsets and ignoring all the players who have been relatively consistent. You're cherry-picking the examples that defend your hypothesis and ignoring the tons more that reject it. It's a logical fallacy known as confirmation bias, or selective thinking, or "counting the hits and ignoring the misses".
The general and overall trend is consistency. And do keep in mind that even a player who goes from Code S to Code A and back to Code S again (gasp!) is actually playing quite consistently... your scope of consistency is far too small. Same with when you say that a player got fourth instead of first, or one great player got knocked out by another great player. They're all great players, and that's just going to happen. You can't expect a player to win 100% of all his games just because he won the last GSL... you've surely played the game before, so you know how it's impossible to keep a winning streak forever. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose.
someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure.
So much truth here. Having almost every game be a knockout and having such a high caliber of players (such as in Code S) means that good players are certain to get knocked out at some point. BUT, a good player should always win the tournament it self.
People comparing win ratios to nfl, mlb, nba' i know where ur coming from, but i think it should be compared more to tennis, where its 1v1. Idk the stats for tennis but Id imagine win ratios would be more consistant. Could be wrong.
Something thats been in my head: I feel like the mining effiency is too high on all workers. This allows players to build things too fast, making maxing out too fast, discouraging smaller battles. This speeds up the game, making scouting harder. Since battles get huge so fast, unit micro doesnt help too much and because you can max out worker efficiency at a base so fast, it encourages 1 base all ins since the player that makes a LOT of workers doesnt really benefit until he\she expands.
Maybe im just trippin but thats what, to me, is the biggest difference between SC2 and BW.
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.
You can't just create superstars, the game is still young and even BW doesn't have 90% winrate players. Flash is 72.22% currently and he's the result of years of hard work and innate godliness. More games and multiple leagues will helps establish the great players even if they are only winning 60-65%.
I really do think it's just the GSL format's group stages. It's just a little too easy to have a bad day. MVP had some issues with TvP for a bit, got three in a row, and now he's in Code A. I think the group stages being Bo1 allows for too much "sniping". Flash can get 3-4 losses in a row against Decent players.He tends not to, but it happens. In the GSL, that causes you to lose seeding.
Plus, the metagame is still changing quite a bit as the game gets figured out, and some people are falling behind. That'll happen in a new game.
But we are seeing the same four players doing well consistently. MC is a two-time GSL champion out of 6. MVP is a GSL Champion, and won the world championships as well. Nestea consistently does well, and Marineking makes it to the finals quite a lot, even though he loses once he gets there.
someone recently posted MC's win stats vs. races in other threads, and he's well over 60% in all matchups (not ladder--actual pro matches), and if you only look at more recent results he's up around 70%.
The very best baseball teams *maybe* get up to 60% win percentages. These days in the NFL, maybe one or two teams will get over a 70% win percentage--between 60% and 70% (10-11 wins or so) is pretty common for a good team that makes the playoffs. The NBA occasionally sees more dominant teams, but if you look at this season, there are only a couple teams barely cracking 70%, and most of the great teams like Boston and Miami are in the high 60's.
In other words, MC during this run as the best player in the game, is winning about as much as the best teams in baseball, basketball and football do. Unless you would argue all those sports are "too volatile" as well, this clearly indicates that SC2 isn't as volatile as people might think.
So why doesn't it feel that way?
Well, because baseball, football and basketball play long, round robin-type regular seasons. If the Yankees drop a game to the Royals, nobody really notices, because they'll just play them again the next day and in all likelihood win. Its not like the Yankees have to keep winning, 100% of the time, and the first loss they get they're eliminated from the season. The postseason does work like that (well, kinda. its one and done in football, Bo5 turning into Bo7's in baseball, and Bo7's in basketball)...but the MLB and NFL postseasons are notoriously unpredictable, with top seeds going down all the time and wild cards frequently making long runs.
But SC2 uses a "playoff" format *all the time*. There is no SC2 "regular season", where players simply accumulate wins and play each other repeatedly in a non-elimination format.
Basically every single SC2 tournament uses some variation of one and done (or two and done, in the case of formats that send losers to a loser's bracket).
This means that even guys like MC, who do win far more often than they lose, will end up playing a *lot* of tournaments where they get an untimely, early loss an go home early.
If baseball ran a monthly "GBL" where all the teams played a one and done tournament, it would seem incredibly volatile as well.
In other words, its not the game itself, its the tournament structure.
So much truth here. Having almost every game be a knockout and having such a high caliber of players (such as in Code S) means that good players are certain to get knocked out at some point. BUT, a good player should always win the tournament it self.
Just quoting this for truth. Plus, upsets are good for a sport becuase it means you can really cheer for less 'skilled' players and they might actually win. Look at the English Premier League, a huge amount of competition - Man United or Chelsea can easily be beaten by a lesser team because they have a bad day or their opponents just play brilliantly - it makes it more interesting. MC is still the best, IMO, but people being able to take him down is a *good* thing because it makes for more competition.
Don't think so atm. It's a relatively new game and player's that have been performing have been being consistent. Inconsistency comes from the player in my point of view (if you're referring to GSL upset's , ofcourse), and not from the game. As you can see, player's like MC have taken 2 GSL's and a DreamHack in relatively short time. Sometime's there build order's don't work out or they just play poorly with a bad strategy against their opponent.
I don't think the GSL is very significant proof either after MVP won the WC MKP made it to another Final NesTea and FruitDealer made it out of the group stages A lot of the semi-finalist's are consistent in staying from Ro16-4
It does feel a lot more volatile because the game is very punishing..you dont see great come backs a lot in sc2. This is because there arent too many game changer spell that can completely turn things around for a side that is losing (A lot of the things said by mahini in his what is sc2 missing post will apply here). Most games come down to a big battle, and if you dont win that or retreat at the right time, your pretty much done. The improved control also I feel has a part to play in this, the units do exactly what you tell them to do for most part, this reduces the effect of armies being controlled to not do stupid things, so the reward for micro-ing them perfectly also diminshes and hence the outcome is basically who has the better army.
See, I don't see how people can look at the current results and think there is a "randomness" or "inconsistency" to star2 as an esport. The best players are having consistently good results, and I'm sure a statistical analysis would yield the same results. MC has won two GSL championships and a Dreamhack invitational, MVP has taken a GSL and a world championship which included the best foreigners, and Nestea has won a GSL and continues to be the go-to player for IM in really important situations (read: both teamleagues).
Sure, MC lost to Thorzain, and yes, MVP is currently in Code A, but both of them deserved to lose. It wasn't a random coin flip that decided their fates, it was their own actions and the actions of the other players.
Look at the world's best golfers, people who are considered athletes by most people in North America; they can win four tournaments in a row one month, and then miss four cuts the next. However, that same guy is going to win again, and on average, he's probably finishing in the top 50 when you consider his all tournament results. It doesn't make any sense to call golf random because things like this happen.
Neither does it make sense to call star2 random when you see the same top players succeeding in many tournaments.
single elim round robin tournament openers that determine your standing for the next month or longer are too volatile. i don't like the way GSL runs their opening rounds. it makes everything highly inconsistent. at this point, code A has really strong players too so it seems like virtually anyone can be knocked out of the GSL at this point if you just have 4 bad games.
On April 25 2011 00:54 Boundless wrote: See, I don't see how people can look at the current results and think there is a "randomness" or "inconsistency" to star2 as an esport. The best players are having consistently good results, and I'm sure a statistical analysis would yield the same results. MC has won two GSL championships and a Dreamhack invitational, MVP has taken a GSL and a world championship which included the best foreigners, and Nestea has won a GSL and continues to be the go-to player for IM in really important situations (read: both teamleagues).
Sure, MC lost to Thorzain, and yes, MVP is currently in Code A, but both of them deserved to lose. It wasn't a random coin flip that decided their fates, it was their own actions and the actions of the other players.
Look at the world's best golfers, people who are considered athletes by most people in North America; they can win four tournaments in a row one month, and then miss four cuts the next. However, that same guy is going to win again, and on average, he's probably finishing in the top 50 when you consider his all tournament results. It doesn't make any sense to call golf random because things like this happen.
Neither does it make sense to call star2 random when you see the same top players succeeding in many tournaments.
MC also lost in the GSL ro32 1-2. And was 2-0ed by Ret in NASL.
Truth be told, the game is volatile BECAUSE it's so young. Thats why MVP and BoxeR are in Code A--because many of the matchups are volatile and their solidness doesn't necessarily translate all the time because the game isnt perfect...yet.
That's not the game being volatile, that's the players being volatile. MVP wasn't just randomly losing to Protoss for unknown reasons, his TvP was considerably his weakest match-up, hence why he got dropped to Code A. MC getting beat recently is because MC's play is risky and able to be abused. The players themselves are not all-around solid, which is why you see their status fluctuate so much.
a lot of people play starcraft 2 thats why. there's just too many good players practicing all day on a relatively new game.
because sc2 is more 'user friendly' it unlocks more potential in more players. also, its not to the point where people have figured out the game/players.
but even now, MC won two titles, MVP also won multiple titles. If you take a look at how many players compete in sc2, you have to understand how hard it is to win multiple titles. if its entirely based on luck, the chances are pretty much impossible.
On April 25 2011 05:40 CodECleaR wrote: Truth be told, the game is volatile BECAUSE it's so young. Thats why MVP and BoxeR are in Code A--because many of the matchups are volatile and their solidness doesn't necessarily translate all the time because the game isnt perfect...yet.
They are in code A because they played badly and lost some games. Losing games is not a result of the game being "volatile", it is human nature, players are always going to have off days, weeks, even months.
Just last weekend Manchester City beat Manchester United in the FA Cup semi finals, Man City are on paper a weaker team, ManU have been smashing other teams right left and centre. Then they have one bad day and lose a game they should have won. That is how sport works, football is not "volatile" because the supposedly best team doesn't win everything 100% of the time. That is normal.
Up until recently Nestea had never lost a single ZvZ in the GSL. That is volatile? That is abnormally consistent. ZvZ is one of the most fragile matchups in SC2 with the extremely low error tolerance yet top players can go on winning streaks that last months.
MKP consistently getting second place in tournament after tournament. Idra getting cheesed out of tournaments and complaining constantly. KiwiKaki placing top5 in 3 out of 4 MLG events.
That to me is the is the exact opposite of volatile. That is stable and consistent.
You better get used to players rising and falling because its going to happen a lot, theres too much competition for anything otherwise. How many other sports have 3 totally different matchups that you need to practice for? Everyone is human, we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. If you think someone won out of luck then your playing a build that isnt refined.
On April 25 2011 07:35 R0YAL wrote: You better get used to players rising and falling because its going to happen a lot, theres too much competition for anything otherwise. How many other sports have 3 totally different matchups that you need to practice for? Everyone is human, we all have our strengths and our weaknesses. If you think someone won out of luck then your playing a build that isnt refined.
Well golf has a new course every tournament, baseball has a new pitcher every day, football teams play completely different styles, etc.
OP: I do think that comparisons to other sports can be helpful. Aside from boxing, where every match by the champion is by definition a title defense, there isn't any sport where the "best" player is expected to win more than 70% of the time. In non-team sports, the percentage is significantly lower. The SC2 scene just looks volatile because there are so few tournaments that we can't truly observe win-loss trends.
Starcraft 2 has been out for less than a year. Starcraft 1 was played professionally for 12 years. @OP I believe your view is skewed by the overall game feeling at the end of Starcraft 1, because it was the most recent experience you had with the game. At that time, Starcraft 1 was very refined, and had a lot of time for strategies/gamestyles/players to develop. Starcraft 2 will need time to develop into the epic game, but once it does... Oh hoh! :D
EPT
). We see upsets in BW too but definitely not as much
The thread pertains to the upsets of NesTea, MKP, FD, etc.
