On July 13 2011 22:42 Jibba wrote: I've had some of the same concerns as the OP, but they're only concerns, not beliefs. Why? Because we just don't know yet. A lot of things in SC2 are mechanically easier than BW, but clearly players have not reached the mechanical limit in either game yet and we don't know if they ever will. If SC2's skill cap is lower, that still doesn't mean we'll ever reach it.
I guess I get more concerned than you? :) I agree the mechanical limit hasn't been reached and we might never reach the limit. But even if we don't, is it possible the game is just eay enough for a lot of players to get reasonable close to the limit?
Because then the games would be great, but there would still be a sensation that the talent isn't there because no one player can really outshine another. I'm sure this will get taken out of context (and I don't mean for it to disparage SC2), but what if BW is like chess (fun game with a high skill ceiling that sees occasional dominant players like Kasparov and Fischer) and SC2 is like checkers (fun game with a lower skill ceiling and I can't name any great checkers players)?
Why even bother thinking about that now as there's two expansions coming? If Blizzard sees that the skill cieling is too low they can easily add stuff in the expansions that provide more benefit to the better mechanical player. I really don't understand how you can be concerned about something like this already...
Fuck byun played so good that today he could probably win against any terran and in the next TvT if he plays like that he will be nearly unbeatable but if he plays like nada he will lose! And nada didn't play bad but was utterly outplayed!
Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
One small thing I haven't seen people talk about: I hope the lesser mechanical demands of SC2 leads to fewer players with carpal tunnel and RSIs, maybe results in master players that can compete for longer at the very top of their game.
On July 13 2011 23:21 SugarBear wrote: Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
That argument doesn't really hold as alot of the RTS knowledge does transfer over and people now know alot more about how to play good, yet not optimal. I agree that comparing a game with a huge knowledge base and long competitive scene to a fresh new game is flawed though.
On July 13 2011 23:21 SugarBear wrote: Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
Um... except SC2 players get to watch 15 years of BW. And many of them played some BW before SC2 came out. Including several of the top Koreans. I don't remember BW pros getting to play SC2 for a couple years before starting BW.
The comparison will always be apples to oranges. Because time passes and stuff happens.
On July 13 2011 23:21 SugarBear wrote: Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
This makes no sense. If you are going to compare both games, you have to compare them with the state of bw in 2010 and the current status of SC2.
On July 13 2011 23:21 SugarBear wrote: Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
That argument doesn't really hold as alot of the RTS knowledge does transfer over and people now know alot more about how to play good, yet not optimal. I agree that comparing a game with a huge knowledge base and long competitive scene to a fresh new game is flawed though.
It does hold water as the builds and macro mechanics are entirely different from BW, resource collection is different, we now have 2 gases per base (on most maps) which requires twice the number of workers mining gas, the time to max an army is much shorter, the units are different, large control groups, etc.
The name is the same and some throwback units exist but by and large they are two different games.
On July 13 2011 14:58 XXGeneration wrote: Without these petty tasks such as sending workers to mine, anyone can be good without actually spending effort. Would it be fair for a person who spends 2 hours a day playing SC2 to win over a progamer like Huk who spends his entire day?
If anyone can be at the top when the mundane tasks are removed, the game is shit to begin with.
Also, the skill cap/ceiling thing is such a hipster term.
There is no such thing as a ceiling for a game that has practically infinite variables and things you can constantly improve upon, and even if there was, you can be damn sure that we are nowhere near the level of play that hits it, considering the absolute best of the best players still don't actively attempt making concaves with their units all the time, on top of every other micro/macro "trick" that is common knowledge but not used because they're to busy or to slow and have to prioritize other things. And that is only considering the mechanics aspect of the game. Strategy is just as important for a strategy game, and the less mundane tasks one is required to do, the more APM will be freed up for micro-managing your units and thinking up speshal taktiks.
On July 13 2011 23:21 SugarBear wrote: Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
This makes no sense. If you are going to compare both games, you have to compare them with the state of bw in 2010 and the current status of SC2.
Yes, because BW strategies were not at all influenced by Warcraft 1, Warcraft 2, Command and Conquer, Age of Empires, Dune 2, etc.... Everything in BW was fresh and brand new and easy mode.
Oh wait... that makes year 1 of BW sound like year 1 of SC2.... Easy-Mode RTS games dependent on past RTS conventions for its initial tactics repertoire.
On July 13 2011 22:42 Jibba wrote: I've had some of the same concerns as the OP, but they're only concerns, not beliefs. Why? Because we just don't know yet. A lot of things in SC2 are mechanically easier than BW, but clearly players have not reached the mechanical limit in either game yet and we don't know if they ever will. If SC2's skill cap is lower, that still doesn't mean we'll ever reach it.
I guess I get more concerned than you? :) I agree the mechanical limit hasn't been reached and we might never reach the limit. But even if we don't, is it possible the game is just eay enough for a lot of players to get reasonable close to the limit?
Because then the games would be great, but there would still be a sensation that the talent isn't there because no one player can really outshine another. I'm sure this will get taken out of context (and I don't mean for it to disparage SC2), but what if BW is like chess (fun game with a high skill ceiling that sees occasional dominant players like Kasparov and Fischer) and SC2 is like checkers (fun game with a lower skill ceiling and I can't name any great checkers players)?
Why even bother thinking about that now as there's two expansions coming? If Blizzard sees that the skill cieling is too low they can easily add stuff in the expansions that provide more benefit to the better mechanical player. I really don't understand how you can be concerned about something like this already...
I don't think Blizzard really sees it as a problem. I think they like the product they put out and I don't think the expansions will ever have sweeping changes that affect the game in a radical way, like going back to BW unit control limits or manually setting workers to mine.
And I'm not sure I see it as a problem either. I don't think I ever approached the topic in my OP as "SC2 is broken". I think it's really more of a stylistic choice, sort of the way WC3 is stylistically different from BW and SC2 and plays differently, but still can be fun to watch and compete in.
On July 13 2011 23:21 SugarBear wrote: Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
That argument doesn't really hold as alot of the RTS knowledge does transfer over and people now know alot more about how to play good, yet not optimal. I agree that comparing a game with a huge knowledge base and long competitive scene to a fresh new game is flawed though.
It does hold water as the builds and macro mechanics are entirely different from BW, resource collection is different, we now have 2 gases per base (on most maps) which requires twice the number of workers mining gas, the time to max an army is much shorter, the units are different, large control groups, etc.
The name is the same and some throwback units exist but by and large they are two different games.
Before BW there was no thing such as Build orders, there was no thing such as micro, there was no thing such as macro. Strategy, decision making, tactics all of it was devolped in Brood War(admittedly other games too, but BW was and is an E-sport, hence it was utilized to the maximum here), that knowledge carried over to SC2, when the beta hit people were rapidly devolping strategies, buildorders(As simple as 15hatch 14pool or 4gate pushes)
Timing windows were researched(Stim timing pushes, banshee cloak timing, 2base mutalisk timing, 1 base mutalisk timing) as simple as these may all seem, they were not simple when Starcraft I hit the field, NOONE knew this.
People used mathmathics as soon as they could to devolop optimal saturation, theorycrafting.
These are all key things which are nowaydays simple yet were unknown 10 years ago.
Its like science, more inventions were made in the past 100 years then in the past 2000 years.
On July 13 2011 21:18 kingchipo wrote: as some stated above.. Brood war took years to become as refined as it is. Give SC a few before judging it so harshly... ( you might also consider theirs still 2 expansions to come )
This damn argument... will never... die...
On July 13 2011 21:34 mbr2321 wrote: Can we please reserve judgment until the game has been out for more than 1 year?
Alright, so in two weeks, we can start talking again? Seriously?
What's wrong with the first argument? Alot of the tactics and crazy stuff like Muta micro didn't show up in BW until years after release.
For the second quote you're stupid if you don't understand that he more or less means "Give it time".
I think you misunderstand him. Defending SC2 by saying it is younger/not as developed as BW misses the point of the OP. The question is whether or not based on what we have already seen we believe that SC2 can become as complex as BW. You can always say it needs more time but that is not really a strong argument as you are just postponing the whole discussion.
In response to the OP I would like to point out that mechanics in themselves are not relevant when it comes to the complexity of a game. Large part of the argument to me seems to be rested on the assumption that because the mechanics in BW are harder to learn the game is generally harder then SC2.
Compare for example go and chess. From a mechanical point of view go is much simpler then chess. In chess different pieces execute different movements and there are even special rules that only apply in very specific set of circumstance (pawn changes to queen, etc.). In go on the other hand all pieces are equal and only their placement is important. So despite a difference in mechanics both games rival each other in complexity.
Apart from that I think on the highest level players in both games are struggling to keep up with the mechanics they just face different challenges. Or let me ask you this way: Is it more difficult to fight using bows or rifles? Does shooting rifles have a lower skill ceiling then shooting bows? At the end this is what is being discussed here.
The answer is neither. It entirely depends on who you are fighting against. That is why it's called a competition.
On July 13 2011 23:21 SugarBear wrote: Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
That argument doesn't really hold as alot of the RTS knowledge does transfer over and people now know alot more about how to play good, yet not optimal. I agree that comparing a game with a huge knowledge base and long competitive scene to a fresh new game is flawed though.
It does hold water as the builds and macro mechanics are entirely different from BW, resource collection is different, we now have 2 gases per base (on most maps) which requires twice the number of workers mining gas, the time to max an army is much shorter, the units are different, large control groups, etc.
The name is the same and some throwback units exist but by and large they are two different games.
On July 13 2011 21:18 kingchipo wrote: as some stated above.. Brood war took years to become as refined as it is. Give SC a few before judging it so harshly... ( you might also consider theirs still 2 expansions to come )
This damn argument... will never... die...
On July 13 2011 21:34 mbr2321 wrote: Can we please reserve judgment until the game has been out for more than 1 year?
Alright, so in two weeks, we can start talking again? Seriously?
What's wrong with the first argument? Alot of the tactics and crazy stuff like Muta micro didn't show up in BW until years after release.
For the second quote you're stupid if you don't understand that he more or less means "Give it time".
I think you misunderstand him. Defending SC2 by saying it is younger/not as developed as BW misses the point of the OP. The question is whether or not based on what we have already seen we believe that SC2 can become as complex as BW. You can always say it needs more time but that is not really a strong argument as you are just postponing the whole discussion.
In response to the OP I would like to point out that mechanics in themselves are not relevant when it comes to the complexity of a game. Large part of the argument to me seems to be rested on the assumption that because the mechanics in BW are harder to learn the game is generally harder then SC2.
Compare for example go and chess. From a mechanical point of view go is much simpler then chess. In chess different pieces execute different movements and there are even special rules that only apply in very specific set of circumstance (pawn changes to queen, etc.). In go on the other hand all pieces are equal and only their placement is important. So despite a difference in mechanics both games rival each other in complexity.
Apart from that I think on the highest level players in both games are struggling to keep up with the mechanics they just face different challenges. Or let me ask you this way: Is it more difficult to fight using bows or rifles? Does shooting rifles have a lower skill ceiling then shooting bows? At the end this is what is being discussed here.
The answer is neither. It entirely depends on who you are fighting against. That is why it's called a competition.
How much of this is really down to the skill ceiling being slightly lowered, and how much down to the game just not yet being around for as long as Brood War?
The majority of tournament honours are still going to the former StarCraft 1 pros.
The GSL championship is simply not the revolving door you claim it to be. MVP, Nestea and MC have the bulk of GSL titles between them, all former SC 1 pros.
It was a revolving door at the beginning (first two GSLs) because of how unstable the game was, hence players like Fruitdealer who havent managed to repeat their success. But as the game has developed, a more select group of players have begun to dominate it, namely those three.
The up and comers who are challenging them are mostly players who were considered promising up-and-comers in BW, Bomber and Puma being prime examples.
Yes, they can all have games taken off them, but Flash, Bisu and Jaedong could have games taken off them too. They could be beaten by weaker players. Yes, it did happen. Ultimately most of the honours still went to top players, just as they do in StarCraft 2.
The extra Macro tasks that have been removed, things like manually having to command each new SCV to mine, have made the game easier, but I dont believe they have reduced the skill ceiling as drastically as is being suggested.
Refining build orders, in-game decision making, sense of positioning and controlling space, unit control, multitasking, these are examples of things that played a huge role in Brood War and still do in SC 2, and in which the former BW pros have an advantage over their competitors.
On July 13 2011 23:21 SugarBear wrote: Apples to apples please. If you're going to compare SC2 to SC then compare 1998 competitive SC scene to the first year SC2 competitive scene, not 15 years later when players have had a decade to perfect brood war mechanics and timings.
That argument doesn't really hold as alot of the RTS knowledge does transfer over and people now know alot more about how to play good, yet not optimal. I agree that comparing a game with a huge knowledge base and long competitive scene to a fresh new game is flawed though.
It does hold water as the builds and macro mechanics are entirely different from BW, resource collection is different, we now have 2 gases per base (on most maps) which requires twice the number of workers mining gas, the time to max an army is much shorter, the units are different, large control groups, etc.
The name is the same and some throwback units exist but by and large they are two different games.
Before BW there was no thing such as Build orders, there was no thing such as micro, there was no thing such as macro. Strategy, decision making, tactics all of it was devolped in Brood War(admimttedly other games too, but BW was and is an E-sport, hence it was utilized to the maximum here), that knowledge carried over to SC2, when the beta hit people were rapidly devolping strategies, buildorders(As simple as 15hatch 14pool or 4gate pushes)
Timing windows were researched(Stim timing pushes, banshee cloak timing, 2base mutalisk timing, 1 base mutalisk timing) as simple as these may all seem, they were not simple when Starcraft I hit the field, NOONE knew this.
People used mathmathics as soon as they could to devolop optimal saturation, theorycrafting.
These are all key things which are nowaydays simple yet were unknown 10 years ago.
Its like science, more inventions were made in the past 100 years then in the past 2000 years.
None of the things you talk about is dependent on the fact that BW was hard to physically play. That you needed to send each worker to the mineral line manually was not the reason that timing attacks and build orders were invented.
Those were invented because the scene was large and highly competitive. Not because it was harder to click. That actually supports SC2 defenders and detracts from BW loyalists.
Also, you sound silly to think that there wasn't that much scientific progress in the past 2000 years when MOST of what we know and believe today was literally invented by those "backwards folks from 1000+ years ago +/- 1000 years"
How we count things How we build things Engineering Mathematics Agriculture etc....
You know, the base line things we use to "invent" stuff which realistically are just fancier versions of stuff we already have to begin with.
Sorry, I don't want to derail the thread, but please don't insult human history.
Very good response. I still home that someone(s) will eventually start to distance themselves from the rest, either via mechanics or strategy. Either is fine with me.
I don't see the Rhino personally. There are really only a handful of players good enough to win a GSL title, that makes the ceiling pretty high IMO.
Even if the ceiling is a BIT lower, that's only going to allow for more variety at the top, and allow foreigners to compete somewhat on par with Koreans.
I'll never be good enough to play pro, even in SC7.
On July 13 2011 14:58 XXGeneration wrote: Without these petty tasks such as sending workers to mine, anyone can be good without actually spending effort. Would it be fair for a person who spends 2 hours a day playing SC2 to win over a progamer like Huk who spends his entire day?
[spoiler]
If anyone can be at the top when the mundane tasks are removed, the game is shit to begin with.
Also, the skill cap/ceiling thing is such a hipster term.
There is no such thing as a ceiling for a game that has practically infinite variables and things you can constantly improve upon, and even if there was, you can be damn sure that we are nowhere near the level of play that hits it, considering the absolute best of the best players still don't actively attempt making concaves with their units all the time, on top of every other micro/macro "trick" that is common knowledge but not used because they're to busy or to slow and have to prioritize other things. And that is only considering the mechanics aspect of the game. Strategy is just as important for a strategy game, and the less mundane tasks one is required to do, the more APM will be freed up for micro-managing your units and thinking up speshal taktiks.
-Video removed to avoid double posting it-
This is where the SC2 skill ceiling lies.
Call me when someone reaches that point.
First, the game can definitely have a ceiling. Have the AI in the video play against itself. That's the ceiling. Although not really, since humans can't do that.
This argument is like saying there is no speed cap for human sprinters because I saw a cheetah run 60 mph. Well, no. Humans aren't cheetahs. And humans aren't computer programs written to play themselves as fast as possible. Micro isn't even infinitely high. It's simply unattainably high (no one can individually control every unit at the same time), so let's focus on what humans can actually do.
EPT
