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.
My post was a response to another person who said Bonjwa would be boring in SC2. I said that FlaSh, iloveoov and the others were able to obatin this Bonjwa status because they were extremely good at BW. Why were good at BW? Because they were talented and they practiced a lot. In BW is very hard to take a game from bonjwas when they're not slumping. In SC2 at the moment even GSL champs were beaten by some relatively no-namer. In BW this doesn't happen as much as in SC2. Why? BEcause at the moment in SC2 the outcome of battles can be influenced by luck. And so the better player doesn't always win the game...
On July 14 2011 02:22 oDDable wrote: 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.
Yeah right there is absolutely no mind games evolved in pro bw... Try to read the thread concerning FlaSh vs Leta from a while ago or even to understand the mind games going on in any bo5 between FlaSh and Jaedong. TBLS are not just good with their fingers (in fact being good with your fingers is pretty much a requirement to be a bw pro not an exeption) they are fucking smart and put LOADS of though in their game (FlaSh even practice late game in his head...)
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...
And you've just hit upon why that "Elephant in the Room" post was written in the first place. With SC2's easier macro mechanics and better interface, we all expected SC2 pros not to do the lazy, stupid shit they're currently doing.
Case in point, BW limited control groups to 12 max. Top BW players are still able to micro their units even though they were forced to use multiple control groups. Or maybe they micro their units because they're forced to. SC2 allows unlimited units in a group, which is nice, except when you're controlling different type of units. I saw a replay this weekend of a Korean progamer using 1 control group for all his marines and hellions. While stutter-stepping his marines, his hellions did absolutely nothing. I had to rewind the replay numerous times to try to figure out wtf he was doing. Somehow, he won the game anyway.
Remember, almost all of the top Koreans are former BW pros. The easier interface in SC2 didn't give them more time to do amazing micro. It actually made them lazier.
PS The raven's spells suck compared to the science vessel's. Science vessels are common in pro games and players actually build a cloud of them. Ravens are rarely used.
On July 13 2011 14:14 rift wrote: I completely agree and have been thinking this since the beta began and we saw competitive play.
If FlashJaedongBisu et cetera switched they would immediately be among the best, but weaker players could take games from them more often than expected.
We may never see a true bonjwa in StarCraft 2. Can anyone honestly see a player completely dominating for over a year?
Maybe not atm. But(and this apparantly has to be said over and over again..) It's been ONE YEAR. Do you realize it takes most game 3-4 years untill they actually become something? And BW was a damn expansion, not the original game.
I think that the only possible way for us to get a Bonjwa in SC2 is for someone to truly master Zerg. I think Zerg can absolutely control the game like no other race if played absolutely perfectly, but we have yet to see someone who can consistently play perfect games with Zerg.
It's not the SC2's fault that players are playing "lazier"
much like it isn't BW's fault that players practice very hard on it.
Both those things are only true for the players involved.
BW was hard to micro/macro--but the armies were also more durable and the game had a lot of built in strats that allowed players to make mistakes.
SC2 is easier to micro/macro--but that means that anything less than perfect execution 100% of the time leads to immediate death.
Some people believe that games should allow for mistakes and have built in anti-aoe ai. Others feel that the games should focus on army control and perfect execution.
On July 14 2011 02:08 xarthaz wrote: Look, micro matters. Its that simple. Compare SC1 2rax allin to SC2 2rax allin:
Its a night and day, and this is why koreans continue to be nuts about the first game in the series, they know what is good and they appreciate it.
I'm not impressed at all. The reason you don't see this as often in SC2 is that it takes way more skill to do the same thing, and players aren't good enough yet. Why is it harder?
1) 3D isometric-like view. Not only are does each unit appear smaller (unless you zoom in), the size of each unit varies depending on distance to the bottom of the screen.
2) Game is way faster. Honestly, that video looked like SC2 played at normal speed. You have to think and execute twice as fast because everything has twice the real-world DPS as it does in SC1. SCVs also have only 45 hp, not 60 hp.
So yes, the skill ceiling in SC2 is higher just because how insanely difficult it is to achieve perfect micro.
Why do we keep talking about this? Instead of writing paragraph after paragraph, why don't you just write "BW was harder and, in SC2, it's easier to go pro because the ceiling is lower."?
It's true BW was harder to master but get over it so we can stop talking about it.
Uhh dude its the other way around.. Given equal ability of players to micro, micro decides the course of the game more in the lower dps game than in the higher dps game, as higher game has less opportunities to hedge off it. Its the same as in shooter games: games with lower damage weapons depend more on aim ability than games with high damage
And its also why the micro in sc1 is so sweet. It is like a long, hard orgasm of refined detail(due to each unit having seperate AI unlike blob-ai of sc2) compared to the fast blunt quickie of sc2. Sure, both are sex and both feel good, but when it comes down to it, the man of taste takes the the former.
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)
Its a night and day, and this is why koreans continue to be nuts about the first game in the series, they know what is good and they appreciate it.
I'm not impressed at all. The reason you don't see this as often in SC2 is that it takes way more skill to do the same thing, and players aren't good enough yet. Why is it harder?
1) 3D isometric-like view. Not only are does each unit appear smaller (unless you zoom in), the size of each unit varies depending on distance to the bottom of the screen.
2) Game is way faster. Honestly, that video looked like SC2 played at normal speed. You have to think and execute twice as fast because everything has twice the real-world DPS as it does in SC1. SCVs also have only 45 hp, not 60 hp.
So yes, the skill ceiling in SC2 is higher just because how insanely difficult it is to achieve perfect micro.
This topic has been discussed everyday since beta came out, so I'm not even sure what compelled me to respond.
You obviously never played Broodwar at a competitive level. Sorry to break it to you, but the mechanics in SC2 aren't that difficult.
I don't agree with this thread. I'm a total supporter of (imo) the fact, that scbw is a better game right now than SC2. For many reasons, more interesting units, no balling up, real highground advantage, micro matters more, and so forth. However, I do not believe that the chore of macroing is what makes it a great game. If anything, I think that is one of the things that has moved in the right direction. I feel like being able to customize what keys to press and having to not worry about things that are so automatic, and simply choring, is a step forward. SC2 imo has a long way to go. It needs better units that require more control, maybe in expansions. It also needs fundamental fixes that I'm afraid might not come in expansions, like the balling up, and lack of highground advantage. But, taking away automine and taking away customizable hotkeys, and mbs, those are not steps in the right direction.
Its a night and day, and this is why koreans continue to be nuts about the first game in the series, they know what is good and they appreciate it.
I'm not impressed at all. The reason you don't see this as often in SC2 is that it takes way more skill to do the same thing, and players aren't good enough yet. Why is it harder?
1) 3D isometric-like view. Not only are does each unit appear smaller (unless you zoom in), the size of each unit varies depending on distance to the bottom of the screen.
2) Game is way faster. Honestly, that video looked like SC2 played at normal speed. You have to think and execute twice as fast because everything has twice the real-world DPS as it does in SC1. SCVs also have only 45 hp, not 60 hp.
So yes, the skill ceiling in SC2 is higher just because how insanely difficult it is to achieve perfect micro.
WTF, are you saying that's it is easier to rush in BW than in SC2? And perfect micro is way harder in bw because the AI is dumber, there is no smartcasting and units are more microable to a certain extent plus the fact that there is "micro tricks" like you know muta micro, partrol micro etc
Its a night and day, and this is why koreans continue to be nuts about the first game in the series, they know what is good and they appreciate it.
I'm not impressed at all. The reason you don't see this as often in SC2 is that it takes way more skill to do the same thing, and players aren't good enough yet. Why is it harder?
1) 3D isometric-like view. Not only are does each unit appear smaller (unless you zoom in), the size of each unit varies depending on distance to the bottom of the screen.
2) Game is way faster. Honestly, that video looked like SC2 played at normal speed. You have to think and execute twice as fast because everything has twice the real-world DPS as it does in SC1. SCVs also have only 45 hp, not 60 hp.
So yes, the skill ceiling in SC2 is higher just because how insanely difficult it is to achieve perfect micro.
Please refrain from making such ignorant posts in the future. This is insulting to a thinking brain + anybody who has ever played bw.
On July 14 2011 03:55 xarthaz wrote: Uhh dude its the other way around.. Given equal ability of players to micro, micro decides the course of the game more in the lower dps game than in the higher dps game, as higher game has less opportunities to hedge off it. Its the same as in shooter games: games with lower damage weapons depend more on aim ability than games with high damage
And its also why the micro in sc1 is so sweet. It is like a long, hard orgasm of refined detail(due to each unit having seperate AI unlike blob-ai of sc2) compared to the fast blunt quickie of sc2. Sure, both are sex and both feel good, but when it comes down to it, the man of taste takes the the former.
We are arguing about different things. SC2 micro is harder. You're saying that SC1 micro plays a bigger role. Well that's because it's easier and more forgiving.
Bigger role != more difficult. The only reason it plays a bigger role is because it's easier and more forgiving.
On the other hand, higher dps actually rewards player with better micro even more, because he'll be able to snipe of a larger part of the army before the other player even reacts properly. The only problem is how difficult it is to micro, for the reasons I gave earlier.
Your comment about shooter games is also laughable. Weapons like sniper rifles and rail guns do the most damage per hit in the game, and have comparable DPS to more spam-friendly weapons.
Its a night and day, and this is why koreans continue to be nuts about the first game in the series, they know what is good and they appreciate it.
I'm not impressed at all. The reason you don't see this as often in SC2 is that it takes way more skill to do the same thing, and players aren't good enough yet. Why is it harder?
1) 3D isometric-like view. Not only are does each unit appear smaller (unless you zoom in), the size of each unit varies depending on distance to the bottom of the screen.
2) Game is way faster. Honestly, that video looked like SC2 played at normal speed. You have to think and execute twice as fast because everything has twice the real-world DPS as it does in SC1. SCVs also have only 45 hp, not 60 hp.
So yes, the skill ceiling in SC2 is higher just because how insanely difficult it is to achieve perfect micro.
WTF, are you saying that's it is easier to rush in BW than in SC2? And perfect micro is way harder in bw because the AI is dumber, there is no smartcasting and units are more microable to a certain extent plus the fact that there is "micro tricks" like you know muta micro, partrol micro etc
Perfect micro means not using micro tricks and instead controlling individual or small groups of units more effectively than the AI can. And that's actually much harder in SC2.
On July 14 2011 03:55 xarthaz wrote: Uhh dude its the other way around.. Given equal ability of players to micro, micro decides the course of the game more in the lower dps game than in the higher dps game, as higher game has less opportunities to hedge off it. Its the same as in shooter games: games with lower damage weapons depend more on aim ability than games with high damage
And its also why the micro in sc1 is so sweet. It is like a long, hard orgasm of refined detail(due to each unit having seperate AI unlike blob-ai of sc2) compared to the fast blunt quickie of sc2. Sure, both are sex and both feel good, but when it comes down to it, the man of taste takes the the former.
We are arguing about different things. SC2 micro is harder. You're saying that SC1 micro plays a bigger role. Well that's because it's easier and more forgiving.
Bigger role != more difficult. The only reason it plays a bigger role is because it's easier and more forgiving.
On the other hand, higher dps actually rewards player with better micro even more, because he'll be able to snipe of a larger part of the army before the other player even reacts properly. The only problem is how difficult it is to micro, for the reasons I gave earlier.
Your comment about shooter games is also laughable. Weapons like sniper rifles and rail guns do the most damage per hit in the game, and have comparable DPS to more spam-friendly weapons.
You are obviously trolling at this point if you can argue that having infinite size control groups and auto-casting/mining with smart AI is harder to use than very limited group size, horrible AI and no auto-casting/mining.
EPT
bonjwa 
