|
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote:
As far as I understand everything, in Brood War, the "strategy" part of the game was a secondary concern. Mechanics are the driving force behind skill development for everyone up to the very top players. You didn't worry about strategy until you had incredibly solid mechanics and could actually play the game at a fast pace. Due to the enormous physical and mental output needed to sustain constant production and resource management, it was a skill to just keep constant production. Only the best pro players could think and react and develop a strategy and keep their macro and micro going. It was just too hard for everyone else.
No you don't understand shit it seems...
Have you ever read the article "god of the battlefield"?
How can you explain that one of the most dominant player of all time (yes sAviOr) is known to have pretty bad mechanics (and low APM) compared to other players at the same time and yet totally obliterate them (look sAviOr vs Oov 3-0).
The rest of the article has a pretty good point but what was stated by the "elephant in the room" article was the fact that current sc2 players just doesn't practice as much as current (or past) bw players leaving the feeling that the scene isn't "as serious".
|
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.
Marine splitting vs banelings/lurkers seems incredibly similar, what do you base your comparison on? If anything vs banelings is harder because your units naturally clump and there is no room for mistakes. You can dodge every single baneling but then lose focus at the last second and still lose everything.
|
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.
Honestly, you're so biased against sc2 that you're just going to take whatever BW has that SC2 doesn't and say it's superior, and whatever SC2 has that BW doesn't and say it's inferior.
Lurkers attack slowly. Marine micro against them is NOT impressive at all. A proper marine split against banelings is physically harder because of how fast sc2 is.
|
On July 13 2011 20:17 Alzadar wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 19:59 mdb wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Marine splitting vs banelings/lurkers seems incredibly similar, what do you base your comparison on? If anything vs banelings is harder because your units naturally clump and there is no room for mistakes. You can dodge every single baneling but then lose focus at the last second and still lose everything.
Marine vs baneling is many times harder than marine vs lurker in general (unless you go the BoxeR route). However skill has a much larger effect on the outcome of marine vs lurker. Some marines will always die to banelings on creep (no tanks), and Zerg doesn't really have much control over how effective banelings are, instead its up to the Terran to just not fuck up.
However the dynamics of marine vs lurker goes both ways and vary much more wildly. Given enough skill a handful of marines (BoxeR marines) will kill a TON of lurkers without any of them dying, at the same time if you control your lurkers well none of them will die either and they can kill infinite marines, where as with banelings, some will always die.
|
Well, this article might be true, but the non-Korean still get constantly owned be the Koreans, except a few.
|
|
|
The only thing that really pisses me off when i play SC2 is the fact that the outcome of a match is decided by a big battle that lasts 3-4 seconds. If you lose, it's impossible to make a comeback, coz the enemy will roll into your expo owning you so bad. I think this happens because of that shitty unit clumping. Seriously, archon morphing being pushed by zealot?? are u fuckin kidding me? If unit actually weren't so clumped up, it would be possible to create "fronts", "lines" of unit, making the battles last longer and forcing players to micro their unit ( micro isn't only emping or "kiting" )
|
I really wish people would stop trying to compare BW and SC2.
Nothing good will come of it. BW is BW, SC2 is SC2, SC2 might be the 2nd game in Starcraft, but the two games can't be any more different. Stop, please.
|
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote:
Intrigue argued that poor quality of players was responsible for the revolving door that is GSL Champion. But I think the reason GSL champs keep rotating (and why players go from the top of Code S on out to Code B and back up again) is the lower skill ceiling. It turns the outcomes into more a dice roll. The units are more efficient at killing each other and more spells/abilities can be automated. A good player, caught out of position at one unlucky moment, can lost his entire army in 10 seconds. Poof. The poor unit AI in Brood War meant just getting into position was a APM spamming struggle. So bad BW players have a harder time just wandering up and killing good players' armies. In SC2, there aren't as many ways a good player can be head and shoulders above your opponent. Sure, better players have an small edge, but in Brood War, that edge was a cliff and the great ones could drop opponent after opponent off it.
If the skill difference in BW is bigger than in SC2 why do the top pros in SC2 have better winrates than their counterparts in BW? Amount of matches is lower, but I'm not sure if that matters when the trend is clear to see. Bomber is at 75%, Nestea 70%, DRG 77%, MC 70%, Puma 76%, MVP 69%, and Bisu is 66%, Flash 72% and Jaedong 68%.
Want proof? I can't offer that, but there is one barometer that suggests the skill ceiling is at work: the foreign scene. How many BW players came from outside of Korea to play and win in Korea? It wasn't a whole lot. But now? Koreans and foreigners are playing each other constantly and foreigners are winning games from even the current top Korean players. Sure, Koreans are still winning more, but the gap has narrowed. Magically. In a year. 12 years of BW and the foreign scene can't touch Korea, but in 1 year SC2 has a robust competitive group of foreigners? Maybe it's the lack of BW Koreans making the switch, but maybe not.
Lol, this paragraph made me sure that you were just trolling, but I decided to reply in any case.
|
On July 13 2011 20:32 IGotPlayguuu wrote:
The only thing that really pisses me off when i play SC2 is the fact that the outcome of a match is decided by a big battle that lasts 3-4 seconds. If you lose, it's impossible to make a comeback, coz the enemy will roll into your expo owning you so bad. I think this happens because of that shitty unit clumping. Seriously, archon morphing being pushed by zealot?? are u fuckin kidding me? If unit actually weren't so clumped up, it would be possible to create "fronts", "lines" of unit, making the battles last longer and forcing players to micro their unit ( micro isn't only emping or "kiting" )
Then why don't you work on your APM until you can move small groups of units separately as fast they would in a big ball?
|
On July 13 2011 20:22 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 20:17 Alzadar wrote:On July 13 2011 19:59 mdb wrote: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:
[quote]
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. Marine splitting vs banelings/lurkers seems incredibly similar, what do you base your comparison on? If anything vs banelings is harder because your units naturally clump and there is no room for mistakes. You can dodge every single baneling but then lose focus at the last second and still lose everything. Marine vs baneling is many times harder than marine vs lurker in general (unless you go the BoxeR route). However skill has a much larger effect on the outcome of marine vs lurker. Some marines will always die to banelings on creep (no tanks), and Zerg doesn't really have much control over how effective banelings are, instead its up to the Terran to just not fuck up. However the dynamics of marine vs lurker goes both ways and vary much more wildly. Given enough skill a handful of marines (BoxeR marines) will kill a TON of lurkers without any of them dying, at the same time if you control your lurkers well none of them will die either and they can kill infinite marines, where as with banelings, some will always die.
How can lurkers be controlled better to improve efficiency? No matter how good you are, a lurker's spines can be dodged by your opponent. I think you have things completely backwards. The zerg can't really micro beyond how he places the lurkers, it's all in the terran's court. Marines vs banelings depends on both players.
Comparing banelings on creep vs marines with no tanks is silly. That's like a marine army walking directly on top of hold lurkers: no matter what, a ton are going to die.
|
How about comparing the tournament scene in the first year of BroodWar with the tournament scene in the first year of Starcraft 2...
|
On July 13 2011 20:45 petu wrote:
Lol, this paragraph made me sure that you were just trolling, but I decided to reply in any case.
The foreigner scene is a particularly bad barometer since most western brood war pros are being bested by former western WC3 pros, which apparently was a much more competitive scene.
The argument really falls apart there. You cannot use something as a constant which by any indication is not a constant between both games.
|
[QUOTE/ On July 13 2011 20:45 petu wrote:
On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote:
Intrigue argued that poor quality of players was responsible for the revolving door that is GSL Champion. But I think the reason GSL champs keep rotating (and why players go from the top of Code S on out to Code B and back up again) is the lower skill ceiling. It turns the outcomes into more a dice roll. The units are more efficient at killing each other and more spells/abilities can be automated. A good player, caught out of position at one unlucky moment, can lost his entire army in 10 seconds. Poof. The poor unit AI in Brood War meant just getting into position was a APM spamming struggle. So bad BW players have a harder time just wandering up and killing good players' armies. In SC2, there aren't as many ways a good player can be head and shoulders above your opponent. Sure, better players have an small edge, but in Brood War, that edge was a cliff and the great ones could drop opponent after opponent off it.
If the skill difference in BW is bigger than in SC2 why do the top pros in SC2 have better winrates than their counterparts in BW? Amount of matches is lower, but I'm not sure if that matters when the trend is clear to see. Bomber is at 75%, Nestea 70%, DRG 77%, MC 70%, Puma 76%, MVP 69%, and Bisu is 66%, Flash 72% and Jaedong 68%. /QUOTE]
Maybe because they haven't as many matchs played???
|
Nice article. I feel that a lot of the problems come from very passive units aswell, e.g. colossi. Colossi are just dumbed down reavers and make the game very onedimensional. Other dumb units are marauders, roaches, sentries (forcefields kind of take the fun away from the game). I think Blizzard could have been more creative than that.
|
On July 13 2011 20:50 Kanku wrote:[QUOTE/ On July 13 2011 20:45 petu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote:
Intrigue argued that poor quality of players was responsible for the revolving door that is GSL Champion. But I think the reason GSL champs keep rotating (and why players go from the top of Code S on out to Code B and back up again) is the lower skill ceiling. It turns the outcomes into more a dice roll. The units are more efficient at killing each other and more spells/abilities can be automated. A good player, caught out of position at one unlucky moment, can lost his entire army in 10 seconds. Poof. The poor unit AI in Brood War meant just getting into position was a APM spamming struggle. So bad BW players have a harder time just wandering up and killing good players' armies. In SC2, there aren't as many ways a good player can be head and shoulders above your opponent. Sure, better players have an small edge, but in Brood War, that edge was a cliff and the great ones could drop opponent after opponent off it. If the skill difference in BW is bigger than in SC2 why do the top pros in SC2 have better winrates than their counterparts in BW? Amount of matches is lower, but I'm not sure if that matters when the trend is clear to see. Bomber is at 75%, Nestea 70%, DRG 77%, MC 70%, Puma 76%, MVP 69%, and Bisu is 66%, Flash 72% and Jaedong 68%. /QUOTE] Maybe because they haven't as many matchs played???
I've done some math in my day, but I'm no expert on statistics. But I really don't see why that would be relevant. I can be convinced other wise with a good argument though.
|
On July 13 2011 20:55 petu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 20:50 Kanku wrote:[QUOTE/ On July 13 2011 20:45 petu wrote:On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote:
Intrigue argued that poor quality of players was responsible for the revolving door that is GSL Champion. But I think the reason GSL champs keep rotating (and why players go from the top of Code S on out to Code B and back up again) is the lower skill ceiling. It turns the outcomes into more a dice roll. The units are more efficient at killing each other and more spells/abilities can be automated. A good player, caught out of position at one unlucky moment, can lost his entire army in 10 seconds. Poof. The poor unit AI in Brood War meant just getting into position was a APM spamming struggle. So bad BW players have a harder time just wandering up and killing good players' armies. In SC2, there aren't as many ways a good player can be head and shoulders above your opponent. Sure, better players have an small edge, but in Brood War, that edge was a cliff and the great ones could drop opponent after opponent off it. If the skill difference in BW is bigger than in SC2 why do the top pros in SC2 have better winrates than their counterparts in BW? Amount of matches is lower, but I'm not sure if that matters when the trend is clear to see. Bomber is at 75%, Nestea 70%, DRG 77%, MC 70%, Puma 76%, MVP 69%, and Bisu is 66%, Flash 72% and Jaedong 68%. /QUOTE] Maybe because they haven't as many matchs played??? I've done some math in my day, but I'm no expert on statistics. But I really don't see why that would be relevant. I can be convinced other wise with a good argument though.
That is relevant. Bisu, Flash and JD has been playing for 4+ years in BW. Compared to about 1+ year that SC2 people have. The games they have played way more then there SC2 counter-parts.
Taek-Bang LeeSsang has been around for as long as I can remember. 1 year of SC2 total win percentage of what you have said don't stack up to that. Give SC2 several more years, it will even out.
Not to mention, Koreans in BW only play Koreans. SC2 plays a broad amount of people now, not always Koreans. There IS a difference.
|
On July 13 2011 20:55 petu wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 20:50 Kanku wrote:[QUOTE/ On July 13 2011 20:45 petu wrote:On July 13 2011 14:08 aimless wrote:
Intrigue argued that poor quality of players was responsible for the revolving door that is GSL Champion. But I think the reason GSL champs keep rotating (and why players go from the top of Code S on out to Code B and back up again) is the lower skill ceiling. It turns the outcomes into more a dice roll. The units are more efficient at killing each other and more spells/abilities can be automated. A good player, caught out of position at one unlucky moment, can lost his entire army in 10 seconds. Poof. The poor unit AI in Brood War meant just getting into position was a APM spamming struggle. So bad BW players have a harder time just wandering up and killing good players' armies. In SC2, there aren't as many ways a good player can be head and shoulders above your opponent. Sure, better players have an small edge, but in Brood War, that edge was a cliff and the great ones could drop opponent after opponent off it. If the skill difference in BW is bigger than in SC2 why do the top pros in SC2 have better winrates than their counterparts in BW? Amount of matches is lower, but I'm not sure if that matters when the trend is clear to see. Bomber is at 75%, Nestea 70%, DRG 77%, MC 70%, Puma 76%, MVP 69%, and Bisu is 66%, Flash 72% and Jaedong 68%. /QUOTE] Maybe because they haven't as many matchs played??? I've done some math in my day, but I'm no expert on statistics. But I really don't see why that would be relevant. I can be convinced other wise with a good argument though.
Because it's way harder to maintain such stats with a very high number of games played.
It is as simple as that.
|
On July 13 2011 20:46 dookudooku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 20:32 IGotPlayguuu wrote:
The only thing that really pisses me off when i play SC2 is the fact that the outcome of a match is decided by a big battle that lasts 3-4 seconds. If you lose, it's impossible to make a comeback, coz the enemy will roll into your expo owning you so bad. I think this happens because of that shitty unit clumping. Seriously, archon morphing being pushed by zealot?? are u fuckin kidding me? If unit actually weren't so clumped up, it would be possible to create "fronts", "lines" of unit, making the battles last longer and forcing players to micro their unit ( micro isn't only emping or "kiting" ) Then why don't you work on your APM until you can move small groups of units separately as fast they would in a big ball?
The problem is that the thing i described above happens to a certain extent even in pro meatches: if they lose the battle is gg, but usually pro don't gg immediately after that battle and continue playing hoping to do an impossible comeback, which won't happen
|
On July 13 2011 20:10 sluggaslamoo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 20:06 karpo wrote: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?
I should have been more clear that i was talking about the refinement/strategy part.
You named new BW tactics to counteract the guys point about SC2 being less refined with more new strategies compared to BW. Why not admit the fact that SC2 is just way less explored than BW? You listed some strategies yet you didn't touch on the fact that SC2 doesn't really have a base yet for how to optimally play the game.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
