|
On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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. But the fact that bw is still doing the same is due to the fact, not only that the strategies are evolving, but also the 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.
DRG is doing great going mass Mut against T while counterattacking with lings/blings when the terran is out of position. APM intensive and awesome, and that's still totally unexplored and can be improved alot.
|
On July 13 2011 19:19 Executor1 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:08 Garm wrote: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. 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.
OK, my bad then. The point still stands though.
|
On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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.
People who think SC2's skill ceiling is much lower are going to be totally wrong. They forgot that SC2 plays much much faster than it's predecessor.
The reason you don't see as much micro in SC2 has less to do with the units and the AI, and more to fact that the insanely hard to actually micro individual or small groups of units in SC2 when units move faster and die twice as fast. The AI is polished enough that people aren't putting a lot effort into this at this moment, but at some point it will become important.
Also, there are plenty of instances in SC2 where the AI works against you. Clumping units is bad against AOE attacks and spells, yet the AI does it all the time.
|
On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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.
I'm not sure why you use muta stacking (something that appeared in 04? Shark I think) as an example of current evolution in BW mechanics? Do you not have something more up to date?
As for players being appreciated for micro/apm, MKP/MVP/Happy are a great example of people with the best marine splits, and are appreciated as such. A polished AI in SC2 is surely a better thing, as although it might lower required mechanical skill, it removes the random element of stuff like scarab AI from the game, which is better in a competitive environment.
|
On July 13 2011 19:40 dookudooku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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. People who think SC2's skill ceiling is much lower are going to be totally wrong. They forgot that SC2 plays much much faster than it's predecessor. The reason you don't see as much micro in SC2 has less to do with the units and the AI, and more to fact that the insanely hard to actually micro properly in SC2 when units move faster and die twice as fast.
It's easy to let the AI do the work for you in SC2 but he who will spend his APM edge to constantly keep his units properly split and in formation will wow us all and show us how high the SC2 skill ceiling really is.
I think it is telling that those going on record saying that you don't need to practice as much are not posting the results they used to.
|
On July 13 2011 19:11 sandyph wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 17:58 Talin wrote: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 limitationfor 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
Single Building Selection and No Automine was a design choice too
Proof?
You can select multiple larva and make them all build at the same time
You can auto mine SCVs after building something.
Hacks allow you to do everything you can do in SC2 (select and move infinite units) besides move while clumped.
Besides the algorithms for these are piss easy.
Ninja Edit:
Not that I give a stuff about any of these things. The APM intensive tasks in BW such as micro is non-existent in SC2. And the APM intensive tasks in SC2 are really not that interesting or already exist in BW, eg marine splitting, medic/firebat walls (and no banelings) to make drops more effective.
People mention that APM is freed up thus resulting in more investment in things that are more interesting, the problem is there is nothing to invest it on besides making sure your colossi don't get sniped by vikings and terrible uninteresting spells. Its not like my freed APM makes my muta micro better, because muta micro doesn't exist in SC2. If these micro mechanics were kept, then it would be a totally different story and I would agree with the "useless clicks" idea.
|
On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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.
Not true. Muta micro was a combination of timing and pin-point precision with your clicks. If you pressed H or P just a bit too early or too late, of came in at slightly the wrong angle, or clicked to retreat too early or too late, your control would get messed up. The best muta microers are so good because they've spent hours and hours practicing their micro until they have it almost automated, and they know instinctively where and when to click, and they have the hand precision to do it. Saying it was just due to APM is a gross simplification.
|
How is spending APM to make your mutas stack any more impressive than spending your APM to make sure your marines or high templars are NOT stacked?
|
you can't compare a game with one year and another with more then 10 years..
For me personally BW is unwatchable, it's way worse then watching a stream of CS, QL or even WC3 so it's not the same for everybody.
I feel that this talks and these type of articles explaining why BW is so good and SC2 is so bad, broken and retarded are done by 2 types of guys:
A) BW fanatics that trully love BW and hate SC2 and are jealous/bitter that sc2 has a "foreign" scene and so many events/players/money that foreign BW never had
B) BW players that don't dominate like they used to
Don't you guys see there is still BW? you can still play it? The worlds best ever and forever game is still out there and you can still play it...
There are dominating players but this game doesn't reward just fast fingers, it rewards smart play and since it's still not refined like BW (because it exists for more then 10 years) people have lots of room for other strategys and micro intensive battles.
People are still figuring out the matchups, battle positions, how to micro the best way etc..
Give it time or just dump it.. SC2 doesn't need everybody, there is space for all..
|
On July 13 2011 19:45 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:11 sandyph wrote:On July 13 2011 17:58 Talin wrote: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 limitationfor 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 Single Building Selection and No Automine was a design choice too Proof? You can select multiple larva and make them all build at the same time You can auto mine SCVs after building something. Hacks allow you to do everything you can do in SC2 (select and move infinite units) besides move while clumped. Besides the algorithms for these are piss easy.
Yeah they were design choices, design choices based on what was the norm back in the late 90's. Back then almost all RTS games had a limitation on selection. Now they don't and those old remnants of 90's design choice are gone.
|
United Kingdom10823 Posts
I'm waiting for the Hippo In The Room article to come out, so we hear a person's opinion about how SC2 competition isn't a farce
You can pick a different animal obviously
|
A low skill ceiling is one explanation for instability at top levels of play and lack of clear-cut dominance from BW pros. But there are other explanations which I believe are a) inevitable and b) are sufficient to explain what we're seeing:
1. The newer and more popular a game, the more precarious any given player's position will be.
Lots of players experimenting + relatively small amount of practice for individual players = individual players lack the experience necessary to consistently fend off a wide range of opponents.
This situation will tend to improve slowly at first, then more and more quickly. Why? Because not only will the ratio of individual experience to extant strategies improve, but as the better players start to differentiate themselves, they will play each other more and more regularly.
Have we seen this pattern?
I think so. New strategies were popping up all over the place, the map pool changed almost beyond recognition, and consequently we saw an almost total free-for-all at the highest levels of play for the first few months. That is starting to calm down now as the influx of new strategies abates somewhat, and the process is accelerating as top players start to face a more consistent pool of opponents who are themselves concentrating more on refining their play than experimenting.
2. SC2 emphasises different skills.
It's easy to compare BW and SC2 and see only the mechanical challenges that are absent or reduced. But that doesn't mean one game is automatically easier than the other. If there is something you can do with that freed-up APM to improve your chances - especially something that is harder to reduce to muscle-memory - that game can be as or more challenging. And BW pros, while enjoying an advantage, will necessarily be 'parking' a great deal of their hard-won mechanical expertise when making the switch.
Does this appear to be the case?
From what I've seen, yes. Others have already contributed examples of unattainable levels of AI-driven micro, and we're also starting to see the emergence of more multi-pronged play. This latter point is, I think, not given enough attention: streamlined troop movement means engagements can be over so much faster in SC2, and microing effectively across multiple battlefronts could be considered even more difficult. If anything is going to emerge as the defining quality of consistently great SC2 players, I think it will be battlefield multitasking.
|
I am particularly baffled that this pops up AGAIN with no new arguments at a time when the best players are beating lesser players more and more consistently and in more and more dominate fashion.
I mean, is the level of competition in basketball dropping because the US is not dominating as much anymore ever since the sport became more popular in other parts of the world?
|
On July 13 2011 19:40 Savern101 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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. I'm not sure why you use muta stacking (something that appeared in 04? Shark I think) as an example of current evolution in BW mechanics? Do you not have something more up to date? As for players being appreciated for micro/apm, MKP/MVP/Happy are a great example of people with the best marine splits, and are appreciated as such. A polished AI in SC2 is surely a better thing, as although it might lower required mechanical skill, it removes the random element of stuff like scarab AI from the game, which is better in a competitive environment.
Yes, marine splits are nice to watch, but dont require 1/10th of a skill compared to marine vs lurker micro imo. If this is a bad or good thing I dont know. I feel its bad, but thats just me.
Regarding removing the random elements of the game, I think the opposite. In every single sport (not only esport) there is an element of randomness which makes the games more exciting - from football, through baskteball till snooker if you wish.
By removing all the random elements of SC2 you`ll reach a moment where everything is predictable and thus less interesting.
|
On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
you can't compare a game with one year and another with more then 10 years..
For me personally BW is unwatchable, it's way worse then watching a stream of CS, QL or even WC3 so it's not the same for everybody.
I feel that this talks and these type of articles explaining why BW is so good and SC2 is so bad, broken and retarded are done by 2 types of guys:
A) BW fanatics that trully love BW and hate SC2 and are jealous/bitter that sc2 has a "foreign" scene and so many events/players/money that foreign BW never had
B) BW players that don't dominate like they used to
WHATTTTT??????????
On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
Don't you guys see there is still BW? you can still play it? The worlds best ever and forever game is still out there and you can still play it...
We play both BW and SC2, we also watch both BW and SC2, whats your point?
On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
There are dominating players but this game doesn't reward just fast fingers, it rewards smart play and since it's still not refined like BW (because it exists for more then 10 years) people have lots of room for other strategys and micro intensive battles.
People are still figuring out the matchups, battle positions, how to micro the best way etc..
Give it time or just dump it.. SC2 doesn't need everybody, there is space for all..
Of course because Flash is dominating because he has the worlds fastest fingers, the fact that he comes up with a new build every finals that completely 1a2a3a steam rolls the opponent has nothing to do with how good he is. Obviously his damaged wrist is actually a lie because he has to have the fastest fingers in order to win right?
In the past year there have been several revolutions in strategy, 14cc, Sky Terran TvT (Wraith, Valkyrie, BattleCruiser), Reality build, Valkonic, Mass Queen (the BW ones), SKTerran opening into Heavy Metal, just to name a few.
But hey even if I state all these facts it won't make a difference. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=243288 
I guess I will always bite and never learn
On July 13 2011 19:54 Umpteen wrote:
From what I've seen, yes. Others have already contributed examples of unattainable levels of AI-driven micro, and we're also starting to see the emergence of more multi-pronged play. This latter point is, I think, not given enough attention: streamlined troop movement means engagements can be over so much faster in SC2, and microing effectively across multiple battlefronts could be considered even more difficult. If anything is going to emerge as the defining quality of consistently great SC2 players, I think it will be battlefield multitasking.
I didn't have a problem until I got to this bit. Go watch a Bisu game please, and then come back to me about multitasking. 
|
On July 13 2011 19:59 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:40 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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. I'm not sure why you use muta stacking (something that appeared in 04? Shark I think) as an example of current evolution in BW mechanics? Do you not have something more up to date? As for players being appreciated for micro/apm, MKP/MVP/Happy are a great example of people with the best marine splits, and are appreciated as such. A polished AI in SC2 is surely a better thing, as although it might lower required mechanical skill, it removes the random element of stuff like scarab AI from the game, which is better in a competitive environment. Yes, marine splits are nice to watch, but dont require 1/10th of a skill compared to marine vs lurker micro imo. If this is a bad or good thing I dont know. I feel its bad, but thats just me. Regarding removing the random elements of the game, I think the opposite. In every single sport (not only esport) there is an element of randomness which makes the games more exciting - from football, through baskteball till snooker if you wish. By removing all the random elements of SC2 you`ll reach a moment where everything is predictable and thus less interesting.
It's interesting you say that considering how Starcraft players used to shit all over the random damage in WC3. Starcraft players also argued that WC3 is a terrible game when it came out because units didn't die fast enough and that natural defenses were to strong. When SC2 came out, we had talk of terrible, terrible damage instead. So this is confusing the hell out of me.
|
On July 13 2011 19:59 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:40 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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. I'm not sure why you use muta stacking (something that appeared in 04? Shark I think) as an example of current evolution in BW mechanics? Do you not have something more up to date? As for players being appreciated for micro/apm, MKP/MVP/Happy are a great example of people with the best marine splits, and are appreciated as such. A polished AI in SC2 is surely a better thing, as although it might lower required mechanical skill, it removes the random element of stuff like scarab AI from the game, which is better in a competitive environment. Yes, marine splits are nice to watch, but dont require 1/10th of a skill compared to marine vs lurker micro imo. If this is a bad or good thing I dont know. I feel its bad, but thats just me. Regarding removing the random elements of the game, I think the opposite. In every single sport (not only esport) there is an element of randomness which makes the games more exciting - from football, through baskteball till snooker if you wish. By removing all the random elements of SC2 you`ll reach a moment where everything is predictable and thus less interesting.
The randomness of a scarab bugging out killing 0 workers instead of 5-10 is not comparable to a random physical event in regular sports, your comparison is weak.
It feels like whatever arguments people present you will still prefer BW. Why not stick to that then and just leave SC2 to the people who enjoy it? It's totally impossible to please the BW fans and still try to make a new game.
|
On July 13 2011 19:59 mdb wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:40 Savern101 wrote:On July 13 2011 19:30 mdb wrote:On July 13 2011 19:23 Savern101 wrote: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. I'm not sure why you use muta stacking (something that appeared in 04? Shark I think) as an example of current evolution in BW mechanics? Do you not have something more up to date? As for players being appreciated for micro/apm, MKP/MVP/Happy are a great example of people with the best marine splits, and are appreciated as such. A polished AI in SC2 is surely a better thing, as although it might lower required mechanical skill, it removes the random element of stuff like scarab AI from the game, which is better in a competitive environment. Yes, marine splits are nice to watch, but dont require 1/10th of a skill compared to marine vs lurker micro imo. If this is a bad or good thing I dont know. I feel its bad, but thats just me. Regarding removing the random elements of the game, I think the opposite. In every single sport (not only esport) there is an element of randomness which makes the games more exciting - from football, through baskteball till snooker if you wish. By removing all the random elements of SC2 you`ll reach a moment where everything is predictable and thus less interesting.
Eh I'd disagree with your estimation on marine lurker micro but its not that relevant to the main topic.
I'm not advocating removal of all random elements, as the most important and constant random element is your opponent's actions. SC2 is a game of incomplete information like BW, but if you level the playing field so that at least the players can expect that their actions reliably lead to a constant outcome, it leads to a fairer situation relying less on whether a scarab hits a bunch of drones or a mineral field. From a spectator point of view, it might reduce some of the suspense, but in SC2 BFH drops, or baneling drops produce a similar amount of excitement, it just becomes more of how a player reacts to it rather than a gamble on the game's AI.
|
On July 13 2011 20:01 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
you can't compare a game with one year and another with more then 10 years..
For me personally BW is unwatchable, it's way worse then watching a stream of CS, QL or even WC3 so it's not the same for everybody.
I feel that this talks and these type of articles explaining why BW is so good and SC2 is so bad, broken and retarded are done by 2 types of guys:
A) BW fanatics that trully love BW and hate SC2 and are jealous/bitter that sc2 has a "foreign" scene and so many events/players/money that foreign BW never had
B) BW players that don't dominate like they used to
WHATTTTT?????????? Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
Don't you guys see there is still BW? you can still play it? The worlds best ever and forever game is still out there and you can still play it...
We play both BW and SC2, we also watch both BW and SC2, whats your point? Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
There are dominating players but this game doesn't reward just fast fingers, it rewards smart play and since it's still not refined like BW (because it exists for more then 10 years) people have lots of room for other strategys and micro intensive battles.
People are still figuring out the matchups, battle positions, how to micro the best way etc..
Give it time or just dump it.. SC2 doesn't need everybody, there is space for all..
Of course because Flash is dominating because he has the worlds fastest fingers, the fact that he comes up with a new build every finals that completely 1a2a3a steam rolls the opponent has nothing to do with how good he is. Obviously his damaged wrist is actually a lie because he has to have the fastest fingers in order to win right? In the past year there have been several revolutions in strategy, 14cc, Sky Terran TvT (Wraith, Valkyrie, BattleCruiser), Reality build, Valkonic, Mass Queen (the BW ones), SKTerran opening into Heavy Metal, just to name a few. But hey even if I state all these facts it won't make a difference. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=243288 I guess I will always bite and never learn
You post all that yet you know that BW is way, way more figured out than SC2. It's not even comparable, BW might see new builds but SC2 hasn't even settled on what's actually good in the matchups yet.
|
On July 13 2011 20:06 karpo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 20:01 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
you can't compare a game with one year and another with more then 10 years..
For me personally BW is unwatchable, it's way worse then watching a stream of CS, QL or even WC3 so it's not the same for everybody.
I feel that this talks and these type of articles explaining why BW is so good and SC2 is so bad, broken and retarded are done by 2 types of guys:
A) BW fanatics that trully love BW and hate SC2 and are jealous/bitter that sc2 has a "foreign" scene and so many events/players/money that foreign BW never had
B) BW players that don't dominate like they used to
WHATTTTT?????????? On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
Don't you guys see there is still BW? you can still play it? The worlds best ever and forever game is still out there and you can still play it...
We play both BW and SC2, we also watch both BW and SC2, whats your point? On July 13 2011 19:49 shell wrote:
There are dominating players but this game doesn't reward just fast fingers, it rewards smart play and since it's still not refined like BW (because it exists for more then 10 years) people have lots of room for other strategys and micro intensive battles.
People are still figuring out the matchups, battle positions, how to micro the best way etc..
Give it time or just dump it.. SC2 doesn't need everybody, there is space for all..
Of course because Flash is dominating because he has the worlds fastest fingers, the fact that he comes up with a new build every finals that completely 1a2a3a steam rolls the opponent has nothing to do with how good he is. Obviously his damaged wrist is actually a lie because he has to have the fastest fingers in order to win right? In the past year there have been several revolutions in strategy, 14cc, Sky Terran TvT (Wraith, Valkyrie, BattleCruiser), Reality build, Valkonic, Mass Queen (the BW ones), SKTerran opening into Heavy Metal, just to name a few. But hey even if I state all these facts it won't make a difference. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=243288 I guess I will always bite and never learn You post all that yet you know that BW is way, way more figured out than SC2. It's not even comparable, BW might see new builds but SC2 hasn't even settled on what's actually good in the matchups yet.
Why is it that every time I try and answer the question, a random post that has nothing to do with what I said comes flying out of no-where?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
