On July 14 2011 01:32 hiphoppopotomus wrote: I personally think that SC2 skill is far more enjoyable to watch and more interesting than BW skill. I mean seriously we're testing how fast someone can click their workers to the mineral line and hit different buildings to build units? Yes, to do that well takes practice and skill, but I liken that to working on an assembly line, challenging, but also insanely boring and kinda useless when we can have the machines (ie AI) do this for us. This is when strategy becomes MORE important than simple mechanics and making it so that people who have a deeper understanding of the game can be competitive instead of those who simply spend thousands of hours practicing their worker splits. (obviously this is an exaggeration but you know where I'm coming from)
Also, I don't understand why people WANT bonjwas in the first place. I mean come on! When the same player wins every time, then the excitement dies down because the game stagnates. Think about soccer (or football whatever) and how there can be freak losses because of big mistakes. Teams can be upset all the time (think 2010 world cup) and this game is insanely popular. It actually takes a higher level of practice to make sure that you don't make these game-losing mistakes which is a skill in its own right. I think starcraft 2 advocates for perfect play, and is far less forgiving in some aspects than BW. Because of this we won't have bonjwas, at least not until people can truly perfect their play.
SO games like chess and go are the most entertaining thing to watch ever? am i right? Because that is what the "deciison based skill better than mechanics based skill" argument implies. That boxers marine vids, jaedongs muta micro, bisu's goon control are boring button mashing, while watching the chess grand masters duke it out is the best thing ever. if thats what you think then more ppower to ya, but to me, it isnt. and neither is it to the rest of the sports entertainment industry, where the big money is in mechanics based sports rather than decision making sports.
On July 13 2011 14:12 iYiYi wrote: How about we all just watch the game and enjoy it.
This man knows what he's talking about.
Anyway, gonna pull the game has only been out for a year card, along with the, it's a different game card. The game is young, it's still being figured out, and it still has expansions to come out. The game is also different. Yes, it is not as labor intensive as Brood War, but if anything the game has its own set of skill ceilings that have yet to be glimpsed.
On July 13 2011 14:22 Waxangel wrote: To give a more serious response, I think that players ARE starting to do some great things with the free time that the easier macro/micro gives them. If you watch some of the highest level games lately, there's a lot of multi-pronged tactics and harassment going on.
Case in point: The Puma vs MC games at the NASL grand final.
I don't think this level of play has spread to everyone, but I think it will be much more commonplace within three~six months.
I agree with this. The best players will always find a way to get an advantage from their opponent. Starcraft is a game of decisions. You make those decisions 120 times per minute for 20 minutes. If you want to talk about a low ceiling look at chess, you make 40 decisions in 3 hours.
In broodwar, being able to make more decisions was more important than making the right ones. In sc2, a single bad decision is a loss. SCBW games are always scrappy to a certain degree. SC2 is a game such that, at some time, someone will play close to a perfect game.
I think sc2 is closer to a sport like chess, where there might be 1-2 great players, but that they can lose to closely skilled players, and less like tennis, where the top players always win all the time and losing is a surprise.
On July 14 2011 01:20 Miefer wrote: in early game where u have a hatch and a ramp to defend do you need untis like lurkers for that?
Yes. Marines can easily destroy base defenses. In BW, once the zerg has teched up to lurkers, it makes marine busts more difficult. The Terran needs to tech up to get detection and get either siege tanks or science vessels for irradiate.
A few lurkers also allow your zerglings and mutalisks to roam around the map harassing instead of having to defend your ramp. Lurkers are way more cost effective at defending ramps. Furthermore, unlike static defenses, you can switch to attacking with lurkers.
do you watch sc2 at all? marine bust? if you mean marine bust by 7rax allin you need your whole army anyway to defend and not only static defense. also how often do terrans run with their marines on your ramp in the midgame on creep? to do what? also spines dont need supply . the free supply can be other units for attack. also lurker plus broodlord and infestor. how are terrans supposed to win?
On July 14 2011 01:34 Lokian wrote: I don't get why that makes things easier for progamers. You want to seperate your units and make an arc vs your enemy just like BW for more damage via surface area. What is the difference here?
Ok I can almost be sure you have never played BW. To be asking how SC2 could be easier for progamers is insanely ignorant.
And it isn't so silly to be asking to make the game more difficult by requiring better mechanics. It better insures the better player will win.
On July 14 2011 01:32 hiphoppopotomus wrote: Also, I don't understand why people WANT bonjwas in the first place. I mean come on! When the same player wins every time, then the excitement dies down because the game stagnates.
It's called meritocracy. Have you ever wondered why Bolt dominates 100m every times he run? have you ever wondered why Phelps wins almost all the different styles races of swimming? Sure, they're incredibly talented, but it's also a fuckton of hardwork. They practice twice every day (Monday-Sunday) if not more. That thing you wrote about excitement is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) You're excitement is "right"( see point 2) for a spectator point of view. But imagine it from the e-athlete point of view: I practiced HARD and then a no-namer with half my skill, half my training, won against me becuase he got a lucky emp/storm/positioning. Would I be pissed off? Yes. It's like you have studied hard for a school test and then an ignorant who hasn't even studied and it's more stupid than me took a higher mark only because he chose randomly the correct answer in the test and picked the right ones. 2) Bolt dominance or Phepls dominance don't ruin my experience of spectator. Instead, I am excited because I want to see how much the skill level has improved. I love when Bolt or Phelps or another athlete break a world record, showing how much athletes are improved
On July 14 2011 01:34 Lokian wrote: I don't get why that makes things easier for progamers. You want to seperate your units and make an arc vs your enemy just like BW for more damage via surface area. What is the difference here?
Ok I can almost be sure you have never played BW. To be asking how SC2 could be easier for progamers is insanely ignorant.
And it isn't so silly to be asking to make the game more difficult by requiring better mechanics. It better insures the better player will win.
On July 14 2011 01:20 Miefer wrote: in early game where u have a hatch and a ramp to defend do you need untis like lurkers for that?
Yes. Marines can easily destroy base defenses. In BW, once the zerg has teched up to lurkers, it makes marine busts more difficult. The Terran needs to tech up to get detection and get either siege tanks or science vessels for irradiate.
A few lurkers also allow your zerglings and mutalisks to roam around the map harassing instead of having to defend your ramp. Lurkers are way more cost effective at defending ramps. Furthermore, unlike static defenses, you can switch to attacking with lurkers.
do you watch sc2 at all? marine bust? if you mean marine bust by 7rax allin you need your whole army anyway to defend and not only static defense. also how often do terrans run with their marines on your ramp in the midgame on creep? to do what? also spines dont need supply . the free supply can be other units for attack. also lurker plus broodlord and infestor. how are terrans supposed to win?
We're not balancing the game here. Obviously, if Blizzard brings back the lurker they would need to give terran a unit like the old science vessel.
Spine crawlers don't do splash damage like lurkers do. They also force detection, something zerg in SC2 lacks currently.
Lurker spines are also avoidable with good micro so they add a dimension to micro as well. In fact, with SC2's easier macro mechanics, lurkers are ideally suited for the game. It's something that uses the spare APM that progamers have. The game needs more powerful splash damage attacks that can be avoided or minimized with good micro.
DING DONG ATTENTION PLEASE In the last pages we aren't arguing about SC2 or BW mechanics. We are arguing the fact that in SC2 the battles: 1) Tend to be usually ball vs ball fights 2) The loser of a big battle has got no chance to recover from his loss => very rare epic comebacks 3) Luck can play a large role on the outcome of those battles.
On July 14 2011 01:32 hiphoppopotomus wrote: I personally think that SC2 skill is far more enjoyable to watch and more interesting than BW skill. I mean seriously we're testing how fast someone can click their workers to the mineral line and hit different buildings to build units? Yes, to do that well takes practice and skill, but I liken that to working on an assembly line, challenging, but also insanely boring and kinda useless when we can have the machines (ie AI) do this for us. This is when strategy becomes MORE important than simple mechanics and making it so that people who have a deeper understanding of the game can be competitive instead of those who simply spend thousands of hours practicing their worker splits. (obviously this is an exaggeration but you know where I'm coming from)
Also, I don't understand why people WANT bonjwas in the first place. I mean come on! When the same player wins every time, then the excitement dies down because the game stagnates. Think about soccer (or football whatever) and how there can be freak losses because of big mistakes. Teams can be upset all the time (think 2010 world cup) and this game is insanely popular. It actually takes a higher level of practice to make sure that you don't make these game-losing mistakes which is a skill in its own right. I think starcraft 2 advocates for perfect play, and is far less forgiving in some aspects than BW. Because of this we won't have bonjwas, at least not until people can truly perfect their play.
SO games like chess and go are the most entertaining thing to watch ever? am i right? Because that is what the "deciison based skill better than mechanics based skill" argument implies. That boxers marine vids, jaedongs muta micro, bisu's goon control are boring button mashing, while watching the chess grand masters duke it out is the best thing ever. if thats what you think then more ppower to ya, but to me, it isnt. and neither is it to the rest of the sports entertainment industry, where the big money is in mechanics based sports rather than decision making sports.
Pointless clicking like having to tell every worker to mine is one thing, unit micromanagement is another. Some kind of automation for units IS needed (see: Medivac heal), but for the most part the game has been balanced on humans not being able to do them perfectly (and thus getting small edges if they do it well).
Also, I bet Chess is the (non-physical) strategy game with the biggest number of fans in the world, much more than starcraft, at least. And yes, matches are very entertaining.
On July 14 2011 01:20 Miefer wrote: in early game where u have a hatch and a ramp to defend do you need untis like lurkers for that?
Yes. Marines can easily destroy base defenses. In BW, once the zerg has teched up to lurkers, it makes marine busts more difficult. The Terran needs to tech up to get detection and get either siege tanks or science vessels for irradiate.
A few lurkers also allow your zerglings and mutalisks to roam around the map harassing instead of having to defend your ramp. Lurkers are way more cost effective at defending ramps. Furthermore, unlike static defenses, you can switch to attacking with lurkers.
do you watch sc2 at all? marine bust? if you mean marine bust by 7rax allin you need your whole army anyway to defend and not only static defense. also how often do terrans run with their marines on your ramp in the midgame on creep? to do what? also spines dont need supply . the free supply can be other units for attack. also lurker plus broodlord and infestor. how are terrans supposed to win?
We're not balancing the game here. Obviously, if Blizzard brings back the lurker they would need to give terran a unit like the old science vessel.
Spine crawlers don't do splash damage like lurkers do. They also force detection, something zerg in SC2 lacks currently.
Lurker spines are also avoidable with good micro so they add a dimension to micro as well. In fact, with SC2's easier macro mechanics, lurkers are ideally suited for the game. It's something that uses the spare APM that progamers have. The game needs more powerful splash damage attacks that can be avoided or minimized with good micro.
banelings already have splash damage and infestors and roaches can borrow move, also there is already the raven so no need of science vessel. the pro players could work on their current micro before bringing units like lurkers in. I see too often infestors running in front of the army into siege tanks or zealots behind stalkers...
SC2 has easier mechanics than BW. This is completely intentional, and will not change. This doesn't necessarily lower the skill cap as a whole.
The thing that worries me about SC2 aren't the mechanics themselves, but the relatively crappy units that were added (Colossus vs Reaver, Hellion vs Vulture, Roach, Marauder, etc.), as well as the unbalanced macro mechanics Zerg and Protoss were given. And finally, the fact that Blizzard apparently likes sacrificing gameplay for balance, they remove problematic stuff rather than attempt to make it work.
I'm personally waiting for the multiplayer HotS preview, because that will really tell me whether they've learned anything within the past year. If not, I just won't buy the expansion, I don't play SC2 a lot anyway.
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.
On July 14 2011 01:32 hiphoppopotomus wrote: Also, I don't understand why people WANT bonjwas in the first place. I mean come on! When the same player wins every time, then the excitement dies down because the game stagnates.
It's called meritocracy. Have you ever wondered why Bolt dominates 100m every times he run? have you ever wondered why Phelps wins almost all the different styles races of swimming? Sure, they're incredibly talented, but it's also a fuckton of hardwork. They practice twice every day (Monday-Sunday) if not more. That thing you wrote about excitement is wrong for 2 reasons: 1) You're excitement is "right"( see point 2) for a spectator point of view. But imagine it from the e-athlete point of view: I practiced HARD and then a no-namer with half my skill, half my training, won against me becuase he got a lucky emp/storm/positioning. Would I be pissed off? Yes. It's like you have studied hard for a school test and then an ignorant who hasn't even studied and it's more stupid than me took a higher mark only because he chose randomly the correct answer in the test and picked the right ones. 2) Bolt dominance or Phepls dominance don't ruin my experience of spectator. Instead, I am excited because I want to see how much the skill level has improved. I love when Bolt or Phelps or another athlete break a world record, showing how much athletes are improved
Are you saying that in your hypothetical exemple you lost to a no-namer with "half my skill, half my training"? If we can't accept ppl lose games because their opponent is a better player, there really is no point in having tournaments any more. We MUST first agree that the better player wins, then afterwards looks for ways to remove "pitfalls" from the game (as in oops, I left my sentries bunched up for half a second)
Also, you mention meritocracy, but merit in a competitive game is determined exactly by who wins the game, not by the ammount of practice each player has put in. If a kid with more talent but less training loses to a kid with less talent but more training, the kid with more talent clearly has more merit.
I feel like we are going to be seeing some really inspired players playing a highly intellectual game this coming year. Now that everyone at the top level has their macro and micro down, the improvisational micro and mind game play will start to pick up.
While it was certainly entertaining to watch Flash with those hundreds of little alarm clocks going off in his head, I will take the inspired and intellectual play that we are starting to see from SC2 pros over that any day.
I want to see the mind games. I feel like SC2 just opens up a whole new world of tactical potential for exactly the reasons listed in this OP. We may not have bonjwas like Flash and Jaedong, throwing every challenger off of that skill "cliff", but we will be seeing some innovation in the "mind games" aspect much, much more over the coming year. I am excited for that.
I don't mean to sound rude but has anyone considered that people are just not any good at starcraft 2 yet? As in maybe we won't have a dominating player for a long time because everyone is around about the same level of play? This is not neccesairly a bad thing though I am just stating what I think to be the case.
On a side note it BW does require extreme amounts of strategy. I attempted to play broodwar at the beggining of 2010 and could not manage it, i would spend the whole time "flailing" about verse my mates because of strategy (we obviously all had bad macro i just didn't know what to do with my units and when i was meant to do it).
Although I played SC since it originally came out, I never really got into spectating the pro scene during BW's heyday. From this perspective, I like what has happened in SC2, where the focus has shifted from incredible APM numbers and strong mechanics to more strategy/decision making.
IMO this shift allows for more interesting games due to the importance of strategy earlier on in the learning curve. This isn't to say that macro is no longer important, of course having strong fundamentals has led many people to win over what appeared to be BO losses. The unique options that players have opened to them now that it isn't required to be in your bases 24/7 moving workers around and starting production have led to some truly unique and exciting games, and again IMO has led to a more "realistic" fighting feel. By this I mean that when units/armies meet, I see battles that I would expect to see if the units were actually sentient beings in the SC universe; the formations and multi pronged attacks as well as spell casting and harassment all make for very engrossing fights when the units are controlled by skilled players.
I agree that at this point in the progression of the metagame, luck has played more of a key role than it perhaps should, but I firmly believe that as players practice more and learn to respect this new aspect of the game, we will eventually see the stabilization of an elite class of players.
EPT
