|
On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play).
Thanks for the assumption I didn't play BW - I did, though not as heavily as some, so I can accept that my viewpoint won't always be accurate, but I don't think it completely invalidates it.
The examples you give of mechanical comebacks all exist in some form of one or another in SC2. DT's (often you see a toss go for late game DT's and catch a Zerg off guard, MC vs Sen in NASL is a perfect example). You can do storm drops (just people don't very often). There are loads of examples where burrowed banelings have caused a comeback in a game (Nestea most famously) The possibility for all these exist in SC2, the game is just still in its infancy.
|
On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. He is not contradicting himself. More like you sound that your only experience with bw is from reading posts on this forum. One have to play the game to understand it and after that to express opinions, I think. I see this as a major problem in these threads, that people who are playing sc2 dont have any experience with bw and say things, which they have heard, but not really experienced in a game. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play).
First of all i think we've sen more games where someone comes back lately. Nestea did against Top in the super tournament with some great baneling landmines for example.
Also the bolded part is fun as it's more like one could make a recovery by babysitting the BW AI better than you opponent, how can the SC2 AI limit you when it does what it's told instead of being slightly retarded?
|
I think one of the problems with the idea that we aren't seeing any Flashes or Jaedongs in SC2 is precisely because they don't play SC2. It's not exactly like they were commonplace in BW. While I don't want to sound like I'm devaluing hard work, there is a certain degree of natural talent that can't be denied that makes players like Flash. It shouldn't be a shock that if such rare finds are still playing BW that SC2 just doesn't have that caliber player because there hasn't been time for new talent at that level to surface.
We won't be able to see what the skill ceiling looks like in SC2 vs BW unless we have someone who has legendary status like Flash come to SC2 from BW(while in his prime). It wouldn't surprise me at all if these legendary pokemon made the switch to SC2 the other pro players wouldn't have enough pokeballs to catch any of them.
Basically we need to wait until someone appears that can really bump their head on the skill ceiling before we can claim that it is, in fact, a problem.
|
On July 13 2011 19:02 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. He is not contradicting himself. More like you sound that your only experience with bw is from reading posts on this forum. One have to play the game to understand it and after that to express opinions, I think. I see this as a major problem in these threads, that people who are playing sc2 dont have any experience with bw and say things, which they have heard, but not really experienced in a game. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play). First of all i think we've sen more games where someone comes back lately. Nestea did against Top in the super tournament with some great baneling landmines for example. Also the bolded part is fun as it's more like one could make a recovery by babysitting the BW AI better than you opponent, how can the SC2 AI limit you when it does what it's told instead of being slightly retarded?
Simple, because better player babysits better. AI narrows the difference hence limits the possible comeback.
|
I don't know if it matters to pro players, whether or not the game is fundamentally easier to play. don't know if it ever factors into a pro players decision to stay or leave Brood War. But it's my suspicion that SC2 can't have players who are beyond dominant. It's just not part of the game.
SC2 Top player stats:
 NesTea: 70-30 (70%)
 MC: 58-25 (69%)
 MVP: 62-28 (68%)
PuMa: 34-11 (75%)
Those are pretty dominant stats if you ask me. I think the reason that the GSL seems like such a revolving door where players come and go, is because of the rigid code classification system. A lot of really good players that should have been in code S, keep bouncing up and down from code A because they keep getting matched against eachother in the up/down matches (case in point: MVP spending (edit) one season in code A, despite obviously being a code S player.) And because the schedule is so hectic, you aren't allowed any slack even if you're the best in the world. Having a bad day, or getting unlucky just once? Whoops, down to Code A for a month.
I honestly think that Code S and A should be merged, and become more like the GSL Super Tournament or the OSL, and have bo5 from the ro16 and on to the semis. More games = more chances for players to prove their worth, and even if you get unlucky, you don't have to wait an entire month to be able to compete at the highest level again. Code A is a joke anyways, a month long tournament for the chance to win $1500? Lol.
But what Blizzard has done with StarCraft2 was they pulled that ceiling down a little. Need another worker? Press two hotkeys and wait. The game will do the rest. Automatically sent to mine. Heck, you can change which hotkeys you have to press to get the worker out. You can put them right next to each other (instead of the pre-defined locations of BW that are all over the keyboard). Want to build out of all your buildings? Just control+click on and hold down a key. Now you're macroing gosu-style.
This is kind of true, but the hard part about macro was never the act of pressing all the buttons. 4m5m6m7m8t. There, I just did a macro cycle as Terran. Took me one second. Even a noob like me could macro perfectly up to 200 supply if i had nothing else to focus on. The hard part was the multitasking, having the mental awareness to remember to go back to your base and macro every few seconds. That part is still there in SC2, and we're still not close to the ceiling here. Even in Code S I regularly see good players getting up to 1k minerals in the midgame, especially during hectic games with lots of attacking/harassing. Having the mental awareness to go 4aaaaaa5ss is arguably just as difficult as remembering to go 4m5m6m7m8t every couple of seconds.
Don't get me wrong, macro is easier in SC2 than in SCBW. But when you factor in all the multitasking and on-the-spot decisionmaking that high level SC2 requires (a requirement that's only getting harder as the game evolves), I think macro will still be difficult enough to allow plenty of chances for the best to outplay the second best.
|
Since many SC-players likes to compare their game as Chess in real time, here comes a light chess analogy one can think about.
Chess is one of the worlds most known strategic games. In chess, mechanics doesn't matter (you are able to play even if you somehow has lost both of your arms). The game-play is instead focused on strategic and tactics, and the only other element to worry about and pay attention to is the chess clock, as usually in a chess game each person has a limited time to make the moves. Despite no focus on mechanics, there exists chess players in the top that is merely untouchable by the general chess player.
Usually in chess you can't count on your opponent to make a fundamental mistake, instead you have to play perfect yourself, forcing him into a trap of some sort while avoiding his traps. But; the less time that is given in a match, the more stressed the players may feel and more emphasis is laid on the opponents mistakes rather than your own perfect moves. In blitz-chess, the total time available to a player to make all of his moves may be just a minute or two.
Instead of chess we can consider a RTS PC game, such as Starcraft. More demanding mechanics (BW) means that more emphasis must be laid on you not falling behind your opponent while hoping that your opponent falls behind you, making it simple for you to just roll him over. This can be compared to blitz chess, where you try to do your openings and over all game plan moves as perfect as possible while hoping that your opponent will crumble under the pressure you put on him.
Less demanding mechanics (SC2) gives instead more time to focus on the actual strategic thinking and in a wider perspective taking your opponents move into consideration. This is compared to non-blitz chess, where time is a lesser factor and you are more able to focus on the strategic part of the game.
Even though the same game skills are demanded in both types of chess, the focus are laid on different things. Easier mechanics in SC2 will give the players time to focus on strategy and tactics. The skill ceiling is moved from macro to more micro, creativity and mind games, and if a player wants to be the best this is where he must focus once he has the macro and mechanics part done. As someone said earlier, noone can micro perfectly.
Finally i apologize for a perhaps messy post as i am on vacation and don't have that much time to think about my text. Next stop: Beach!
|
On July 13 2011 17:58 Talin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 17:37 setmeal wrote:
I like this article. agree mostly. BW was hard because of all the wrong reasons such as poor interface. I'm glad SC2 is better Well if that's your complaint, Starcraft 2 has poor interface as well. - You can't see your production and research timings while in the game. You have to mentally memorize when the things complete and a really simple interface feature would "fix" this. - Units in SC2 all clump in a ball and then get destroyed by forcefields and AOE. Why isn't there a "formations" button where you can force them to move in the formation of your choice? - You can't queue researches which is really annoying when you want to get to +2s or +3s as soon as possible. You have to remember to start it yourself! And yeah I know queuing is supposed to be bad, but it's a cool interface option that helps the user. - The game only warns you about being supply blocked when you're already supply blocked. Wouldn't it be so much better if it warned you at 2 or 4 food below current supply cap? In fact, make it X food below supply cap where you can set X yourself in the game options. - Why don't those Queens just autoinject the stupid larva? They're standing next to the Hatchery all the time anyway, but the game forces the player to move away from what they're doing just to inject larva. Similarly, why can't you just set the building you want to Chronoboost and it does it on its own? - Why can't you edit the SC2 interface in the same way you can edit WoWs to get all the extra information you want in the most convenient layout? All of these and many more make Starcraft 2 harder for what you say are "all the wrong reasons". I can come up with many more "improvements" to Starcraft 2 interface, and every single one would make the game worse, not better. However, what most people don't understand about a GAME interface is that the game interface follows different rules and standards than standard application interface. Application interface is there to make the application easier to use. Game interface does almost the exact opposite - it CREATES the challenge for the player in any real time game. The interface is designed to take up player's time, attention, brainpower, and physical actions - all very valuable resources - just to control what happens in a game. Mastering these control techniques is essentially what "skill" is in gaming, and what creates the excitement in games and difference between players. If there is nothing (or not a lot) to master, there is no skill.
all those SC2 interface 'problem' you mentioned are by design choice, all the BW interface problem are by technical limitation
for an example of technical limitation in SC2 is that one control group can only have max 254 units in it, which can be a design choice or they just lazy as fuck to implement a bigger datatype
imho
|
On July 13 2011 14:15 Moa wrote:
SlayerS plays on a schedule similar to that of broodwar pros, as a result they came out of nowhere and wrecked the competition (see GSTL 1 & 2). They haven't had the same results in the current team league and that is not because they haven't been working hard, it is because other teams started working harder to stay relevant.
Little bit OT, but considering they have played 1 set of GSTL games so far, and were beat more by a massively hotstreaking DRG, its a bit premature to proclaim fire and brimstone SlayerS slump.
|
This article is pretty stupid. The game isn't even a year old yet, of course it's going to be volatile as it's changing ALL the time. Only once it's older and concrete strategies are set in stone will the better players win consistently. It's not as if broodwar instantly had uber-dominant players within a year, god no. It took a fair amount of time for the first really dominant players to emerge, and I believe that the same will be true for sc2.
|
On July 13 2011 19:00 Savern101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play). Thanks for the assumption I didn't play BW - I did, though not as heavily as some, so I can accept that my viewpoint won't always be accurate, but I don't think it completely invalidates it. The examples you give of mechanical comebacks all exist in some form of one or another in SC2. DT's (often you see a toss go for late game DT's and catch a Zerg off guard, MC vs Sen in NASL is a perfect example). You can do storm drops (just people don't very often). There are loads of examples where burrowed banelings have caused a comeback in a game (Nestea most famously) The possibility for all these exist in SC2, the game is just still in its infancy.
I must admit I watch a lot of SC2 and although comebacks occure, they are much much much more less frequent than in bw. Thats just my viewpoint. Also I dont agree that SC2 is still in its infancy. The games has been out for a year now (which for a computer games is a lot of time), but in reality, the most important thing is how much the games has been played. I`m pretty sure that if you get all the pro tournaments combined you`ll get more games that have ever been played on televised games in Korea. Not to mention that all of these SC2 tourmanents are streamed and replays are available. This is a lot of playtime for the game to develop imo.
|
On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. He is not contradicting himself. More like you sound that your only experience with bw is from reading posts on this forum. One have to play the game to understand it and after that to express opinions, I think. I see this as a major problem in these threads, that people who are playing sc2 dont have any experience with bw and say things, which they have heard, but not really experienced in a game. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play).
SC2 is still young, so at this point, better strategies will dominate . But as more and more strategies get figured out, mechanics and multi-tasking abilities will become more and more important.
Imagine if a Terran player could snipe and EMP high templars, kite archons and zealots with their army, and kill workers with blue flame hellions ALL AT THE SAME TIME. Or a Zerg player that controls their brood lord + infestor army while laying siege to another base with an army of advancing spine and spore crawlers.
Did you watch the Puma vs MC games? That was a series where unit control really decided the outcome.
|
Wait, I'm confused.
Less mechanical skills needed = lower quality play?
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat?
|
On July 13 2011 19:14 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:00 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play). Thanks for the assumption I didn't play BW - I did, though not as heavily as some, so I can accept that my viewpoint won't always be accurate, but I don't think it completely invalidates it. The examples you give of mechanical comebacks all exist in some form of one or another in SC2. DT's (often you see a toss go for late game DT's and catch a Zerg off guard, MC vs Sen in NASL is a perfect example). You can do storm drops (just people don't very often). There are loads of examples where burrowed banelings have caused a comeback in a game (Nestea most famously) The possibility for all these exist in SC2, the game is just still in its infancy. I must admit I watch a lot of SC2 and although comebacks occure, they are much much much more less frequent than in bw. Thats just my viewpoint. Also I dont agree that SC2 is still in its infancy. The games has been out for a year now (which for a computer games is a lot of time), but in reality, the most important thing is how much the games has been played. I`m pretty sure that if you get all the pro tournaments combined you`ll get more games that have ever been played on televised games in Korea. Not to mention that all of these SC2 tourmanents are streamed and replays are available. This is a lot of playtime for the game to develop imo.
Yet just now terrans are actually implementing alot of ghosts into their MMM and archons/stargate play is getting more popular against terran. TvZ is seeing mass Mut, well placed baneling mines and some Snipe vs Broodlord play, all interesting and fun. Colossus isn't being used nearly as much anymore and alot has changed in the last couple of months, what's to say that thing pace of change wont keep up? A year ago most GSL players expanded AT MOST one time and that was after the 10 minute mark, buildorders were simple and the level of play was really low compared to now.
|
No SC2 player is anywhere close to a macro skill ceiling yet. Even the titans of the game like MC or Nestea will end up with max energy on their Nexuses, idle creep tumors, etc. There is plenty of room for improvement.
At the same time, these champions still reign over other players with winrates better than Flash.
As for the rotating door of the GSL finals, this really isn't that different from Brood War. Look at Fantasy, winning the OSL and then being removed from his team's lineup for playing so poorly. Slumps and inconsistent players are part of all forms of competition. The very best stay at the top and keep winning.
|
On July 13 2011 19:08 Garm wrote:Show nested quote +I don't know if it matters to pro players, whether or not the game is fundamentally easier to play. don't know if it ever factors into a pro players decision to stay or leave Brood War. But it's my suspicion that SC2 can't have players who are beyond dominant. It's just not part of the game. SC2 Top player stats: NesTea: 70-30 (70%) MC: 58-25 (69%) MVP: 62-28 (68%) PuMa: 34-11 (75%) Those are pretty dominant stats if you ask me. I think the reason that the GSL seems like such a revolving door where players come and go, is because of the rigid code classification system. A lot of really good players that should have been in code S, keep bouncing up and down from code A because they keep getting matched against eachother in the up/down matches (case in point: MVP spending several seasons in code A, despite obviously being a code S player.) And because the schedule is so hectic, you aren't allowed any slack even if you're the best in the world. Having a bad day, or getting unlucky just once? Whoops, down to Code A for a month. I honestly think that Code S and A should be merged, and become more like the GSL Super Tournament or the OSL, and have bo5 from the ro16 and on to the semis. More games = more chances for players to prove their worth, and even if you get unlucky, you don't have to wait an entire month to be able to compete at the highest level again. Code A is a joke anyways, a month long tournament for the chance to win $1500? Lol. Show nested quote +But what Blizzard has done with StarCraft2 was they pulled that ceiling down a little. Need another worker? Press two hotkeys and wait. The game will do the rest. Automatically sent to mine. Heck, you can change which hotkeys you have to press to get the worker out. You can put them right next to each other (instead of the pre-defined locations of BW that are all over the keyboard). Want to build out of all your buildings? Just control+click on and hold down a key. Now you're macroing gosu-style. This is kind of true, but the hard part about macro was never the act of pressing all the buttons. 4m5m6m7m8t. There, I just did a macro cycle as Terran. Took me one second. Even a noob like me could macro perfectly up to 200 supply if i had nothing else to focus on. The hard part was the multitasking, having the mental awareness to remember to go back to your base and macro every few seconds. That part is still there in SC2, and we're still not close to the ceiling here. Even in Code S I regularly see good players getting up to 1k minerals in the midgame, especially during hectic games with lots of attacking/harassing. Having the mental awareness to go 4aaaaaa5ss is arguably just as difficult as remembering to go 4m5m6m7m8t every couple of seconds. Don't get me wrong, macro is easier in SC2 than in SCBW. But when you factor in all the multitasking and on-the-spot decisionmaking that high level SC2 requires (a requirement that's only getting harder as the game evolves), I think macro will still be difficult enough to allow plenty of chances for the best to outplay the second best.
FYI MVP only spent 1 season in code a not multiple seasons, he got second in code a only losing to bomber in the finals then made it right back up through the up and down matches.
|
Bit of a silly "article".
Take a gamer - it will take him much longer to get to the top of SC1 than SC2
Why?
Its a similar game but its been around much longer.
SC1 players are not magically genetically superior than SC2 players. Try to imagine, if you will, SC2 players in 10 years time. There you go.
|
On July 13 2011 19:14 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:00 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play). Thanks for the assumption I didn't play BW - I did, though not as heavily as some, so I can accept that my viewpoint won't always be accurate, but I don't think it completely invalidates it. The examples you give of mechanical comebacks all exist in some form of one or another in SC2. DT's (often you see a toss go for late game DT's and catch a Zerg off guard, MC vs Sen in NASL is a perfect example). You can do storm drops (just people don't very often). There are loads of examples where burrowed banelings have caused a comeback in a game (Nestea most famously) The possibility for all these exist in SC2, the game is just still in its infancy. I must admit I watch a lot of SC2 and although comebacks occure, they are much much much more less frequent than in bw. Thats just my viewpoint. Also I dont agree that SC2 is still in its infancy. The games has been out for a year now (which for a computer games is a lot of time), but in reality, the most important thing is how much the games has been played. I`m pretty sure that if you get all the pro tournaments combined you`ll get more games that have ever been played on televised games in Korea. Not to mention that all of these SC2 tourmanents are streamed and replays are available. This is a lot of playtime for the game to develop imo.
O.o 1 year of SC2 = more games than 12 years of MSL/OSL's and Proleagues? Wah? Compare BW in 2000 to a couple of years later and you can't possibly tell me that game hadn't evolved and developed incredibly. A year might be a lot in terms of a computer game, but from a competitive standpoint its nothing. We have 13 years of BW compared to 1 of SC2. I accept that SC2 development is accelerated due to experience in BW, but not that quickly. And surely you can see how far the game/competition has come since GSL S1?
|
On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:14 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 19:00 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play). Thanks for the assumption I didn't play BW - I did, though not as heavily as some, so I can accept that my viewpoint won't always be accurate, but I don't think it completely invalidates it. The examples you give of mechanical comebacks all exist in some form of one or another in SC2. DT's (often you see a toss go for late game DT's and catch a Zerg off guard, MC vs Sen in NASL is a perfect example). You can do storm drops (just people don't very often). There are loads of examples where burrowed banelings have caused a comeback in a game (Nestea most famously) The possibility for all these exist in SC2, the game is just still in its infancy. I must admit I watch a lot of SC2 and although comebacks occure, they are much much much more less frequent than in bw. Thats just my viewpoint. Also I dont agree that SC2 is still in its infancy. The games has been out for a year now (which for a computer games is a lot of time), but in reality, the most important thing is how much the games has been played. I`m pretty sure that if you get all the pro tournaments combined you`ll get more games that have ever been played on televised games in Korea. Not to mention that all of these SC2 tourmanents are streamed and replays are available. This is a lot of playtime for the game to develop imo. O.o 1 year of SC2 = more games than 12 years of MSL/OSL's and Proleagues? Wah? Compare BW in 2000 to a couple of years later and you can't possibly tell me that game hadn't evolved and developed incredibly. A year might be a lot in terms of a computer game, but from a competitive standpoint its nothing. We have 13 years of BW compared to 1 of SC2. I accept that SC2 development is accelerated due to experience in BW, but not that quickly. And surely you can see how far the game/competition has come since GSL S1?
I can't really think of anything beside BW bias to explain his reasoning. Watch any competitive game, i'm pretty sure none of them were figured out and done within a year. I'm pretty sure CS 1.6 teams now would destroy the teams that played competitively back when the game was new, same with Street Fighter and Quake.
|
On July 13 2011 18:46 Hinanawi wrote:
The people who want mechanics to not play a role in the game are off base, if you want a real strategy game then you should play chess. There are only so many 'strategies' to use, and unless you fancy the game turning into an elaborate version of rock-paper-scissors, mechanics are important.
Good Brood War players can take a horrible build order disadvantage and turn it into a win through superior mechanics. I feel like that's an important part of the game, and it's why I find SC2 too boring to watch most of the time (well, that and the 1a deathball syndrome).
.
Losira helds Kyrix's six pool when going 15 hatch with a much better micro and decission making
gasp, is this mean that the better player overcome BO loss to come up victorious ???
how is it possible at all in SC(1a)2 ???????
|
On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:14 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 19:00 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:53 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 18:37 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 18:30 bgx wrote:On July 13 2011 14:39 yosisoy wrote:
Why do people consider it good that in BW you had to struggle to do mundane tasks and complain that in SC2 you have MBS and auto-mine? It's a STRATEGY game, not a clicking competition. It's like complaining that we as humans have auto-breathe and coordination implemented - plain silly.
As much as I admire good mechanics and people's abilities to be able to control multiple bases, structures and attack fronts, I personally don't consider that aspect as what I want to be the main criteria that wins games. BW is often compared to chess, yet the game of kings has NOTHING to do with "mechanics". Someone without hands could play chess perfectly well.
Final point: BroodWar's design had major flaws that we've gotten used to and now some of us actually except new games to have the same flaws, and focus on the technical sound of the game instead of the strategy/tactics. Because in BroodWar emphasize was put on both Real-Time and Strategy, yin-yang :p What annoys me in Sc2 is the design, seemingly casual friendly but on the other hand its almost impossible to recover after 1 mistake, even if u are much better player mechanically you will lose because of slight mis-judge in the early/midgame. How many matches were already decided in 8 or 10 minute of the game because someone lost 5-6 units, or by reading someone's opponent wrong, or zerg didnt drone enough in early game and was behind for 10 minutes and lost. Yes people stay in those games for sake of opponents making mistakes not because they are able to make a comeback. Sometimes i watch a game (even the highest caliber) and 1 player makes mistake and given if his opponent doesnt slack he lost this match right there, and of course the match continues for 20 minutes and the outcome is still clear. Because BW had those "omg hardcore" mechanics, better player was able to make a comeback. What? You're completely contradicting yourself. You say that BW emphasized both Real time and strategy, yet in SC2 you are upset when you get behind strategically despite being better mechanically. If they're yin and yang, they're equally important (the balance is more equal in sc2 than bw) yet you want to win purely on the basis of your mechanics? Why? In your example, you that 1 player makes a mistake and gets behind, then his opponent doesn't make a mistake... why did he deserve to win? If he was a better player, he wouldn't have made the mistake, or would've forced his opponent into one. Yes, in bw if you made a mistake you could always make a comeback relying only on your mechanics - for example you could turn a game around by using reavers, dts, storm drops, lurkers, mines etc, etc. This is one of the things what makes the games so exciting. In every sport in the world the most amazing things happen when some sick comeback occure. I really feel that this aspect of the game is missing in SC2, because in reality it is much more harder to make a recovery, due to fact that the AI limits you so much, that one cannot use his mechanical supperiority.to win (at least at the current level of play). Thanks for the assumption I didn't play BW - I did, though not as heavily as some, so I can accept that my viewpoint won't always be accurate, but I don't think it completely invalidates it. The examples you give of mechanical comebacks all exist in some form of one or another in SC2. DT's (often you see a toss go for late game DT's and catch a Zerg off guard, MC vs Sen in NASL is a perfect example). You can do storm drops (just people don't very often). There are loads of examples where burrowed banelings have caused a comeback in a game (Nestea most famously) The possibility for all these exist in SC2, the game is just still in its infancy. I must admit I watch a lot of SC2 and although comebacks occure, they are much much much more less frequent than in bw. Thats just my viewpoint. Also I dont agree that SC2 is still in its infancy. The games has been out for a year now (which for a computer games is a lot of time), but in reality, the most important thing is how much the games has been played. I`m pretty sure that if you get all the pro tournaments combined you`ll get more games that have ever been played on televised games in Korea. Not to mention that all of these SC2 tourmanents are streamed and replays are available. This is a lot of playtime for the game to develop imo. O.o 1 year of SC2 = more games than 12 years of MSL/OSL's and Proleagues? Wah? Compare BW in 2000 to a couple of years later and you can't possibly tell me that game hadn't evolved and developed incredibly. A year might be a lot in terms of a computer game, but from a competitive standpoint its nothing. We have 13 years of BW compared to 1 of SC2. I accept that SC2 development is accelerated due to experience in BW, but not that quickly. And surely you can see how far the game/competition has come since GSL S1?
Of course that SC2 is evolving and will continue to evolve, but it will reach its potentional much more faster than bw imo.
The fact that bw is still evolving till this day is due to the fact, not only that the strategies are evolving, but also the in game mechanics. For example - muta stacking. This simple bug in the bw mechanics changed totaly how the way zerg is played 6-7 years after release.
And the people who could control their mutas the best are highly valued by the community, although that their control was due only to their supperior APM.
Cant see such thing happening in SC2 with such polished AI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
