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.
That's not my argument. I'm saying controlling individual/small group control of units is much harder in SC2. And the human can make better decisions than the AI when it comes to movement and targeting. Infinite size control groups with auto-casting does not mean the AI does a better job than what a human could theoretically do. It's just that players don't have to skill RIGHT NOW to out-control the AI in most scenarios.
I agree with the post, but I think a fundamental difference in Starcraft 1 and 2 is the all-ins associated with each game. I mean, I never played Brood War while following teamliquid, I just played the game for fun with my friends occasionally; I never really knew anything about the pro scene. But in addition to ridiculously hard mechanics, Starcraft 1 looks a lot harder to just win with all-ins, thus fleshing out the better player in a more convincing fashion.
I mean, I've started playing TvZ in SC1 just for pure learning, and I realize how much harder of a game Starcraft 1 was to learn. Through one month of playing, I can only imagine how hard it was to learn all 3 race matchups, let alone 9. The difficulty in Starcraft 1 is magnitudes greater than Starcraft 2 and that is without a doubt. The reason is because the race matchups are a lot more watered down in Starcraft 2 and you can just all-in your way with all 9 MU's (yes, random is easy in SC2) and get to the top leagues.
I just wish Starcraft 2 was made with no all-ins in mind, and have innovative players just find cracks and holes, just the way they did with Starcraft 1. I'm sure Starcraft 1 wasn't made with players doing 4 pools in mind, but Starcraft 2 was made with reaper rushes in mind, and when innovative players abuse an already all-in strategy, you get the 5-rax reaper, something grossly retarded...
Either way, I love both games, and I feel that if Starcraft 2 had a few less all-ins and a bit more balancing, it would be a lot nicer, but hopefully that will come with time.
On July 13 2011 14:31 UndoneJin wrote: So what? Everyone who likes the SC2 pro scene should just stop watching because the skill level is slightly lower than BW? This is a pointless topic SC2 is not the same game as BW, and anyone who says otherwise is crazy. Yet all the same, SC2 is the future whether BW lives or dies in Korea.
Another swing and a miss....
Pitchers are having a field day.
He never said don't watch SC2, actually quite the opposite. He is simply trying to explain what people mean when they say the games are different. They have different requirements to excel at. Is that really so hard to understand?
Hes trying to explain the differences between two games which are at completely different stages of their evolution, and hes doing it with factless conjecture. That's what is hard for me to understand. Second, no he didn't say stop watching SC2, but I fail to see a point in bringing up how low the "skill ceiling" is when we just saw one of the most advanced series ever played during the finals of NASL.
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.
That's not my argument. I'm saying controlling individual/small group control of units is much harder in SC2. And the human can make better decisions than the AI when it comes to movement and targeting. Infinite size control groups with auto-casting does not mean the AI does a better job than what a human could theoretically do. It's just that players don't have to skill RIGHT NOW to out-control the AI in most scenarios.
The problem is you're making a SC2-BW comparison. Selecting a big group of units in BW is going to give you a random smattering of shit, which is totally useless to micro. In SC2, it won't constitute good micro, but it'll be slightly more helpful than the BW situation.
I think more than anything else, the difficulty with infinite unit control is that there's a temptation to use it even though it's awful. In BW, the pro knows doing a selection on his entire army is going to be useless. In SC2, that should be the case but at the current level of play, it usually isn't. And for some reason, even ex-BW pros seem to do it, even though they didn't do it in their previous game.
So is using infinite unit selection bad? Yes. Is it worse/harder? Only in that players need to fight the temptation to use it.
On July 14 2011 04:37 Flying_Cake wrote: I do wish that SC2 had a pro mode were it would take all macro features out of the match so skilled players can have better chance at winning.
All i know is I have been enjoying the games that have been coming out of SC2 recently, and that's all that should matter. Whether the spectators enjoy watching the game or not.
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.
No...
It rewards the initiator and the person with the best inital position not the "microer". Catching someone off-guard isn't micro, it's exactly the thing that counters the micro bercause the better microer can be caught off-guard for a second but the lucker won't luck 20 micro tricks in a micro fight. The lucker can however easily initiate one good fight and win from that. The increased damage also increases the variance a lot.
Just like in shooter games people flock to the ones where you get free kills with high damage weapons because you initiated the fight (shooting backs and corner camping). Then they can't take the heat when they play something like quake where you actually have to have sustained stable aim because although position matters it isn't everything like it pretty much is in the former type unless the skill gap is immense.
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.
actually, he's saying that since units die faster in sc2, then there isn't much of a chance to save them through micro. Those whore able to are only able to do so out of great skill. Not because the controls are hard, but because you have a lot more time to actually micro.
For example.
Bolt can run 100m faster than phelps can swim 100meters because of the nature of their sports. Swimming is just so much slower than running. It is easier to run fast than it is to swim fast. And one could argue that swimming is a much more "impressive" feat muscles wise. But Bolt will still run 100m faster than Phelps can swim 100m. Which of the two is more impressive is purely subjective.
On July 14 2011 04:40 Bandino wrote: All i know is I have been enjoying the games that have been coming out of SC2 recently, and that's all that should matter. Whether the spectators enjoy watching the game or not.
Yeah. It seems this topic pops up every couple of months, and everyone always has the same points and the discussion goes no where. I'm a little tired of seeing it to be honest. The current games in sc2 are getting better and better and are extremely fun to watch. I think that is all that matters to be honest.
On July 14 2011 04:40 Bandino wrote: All i know is I have been enjoying the games that have been coming out of SC2 recently, and that's all that should matter. Whether the spectators enjoy watching the game or not.
Yeah. It seems this topic pops up every couple of months, and everyone always has the same points and the discussion goes no where. I'm a little tired of seeing it to be honest. The current games in sc2 are getting better and better and are extremely fun to watch. I think that is all that matters to be honest.
you're right. SC2 players should stop posting long conjecture threads on the BW forum calling BW dead due to random arbitrary reasons.
Oh wait--it's normally the other way around isn't it?
On July 13 2011 14:31 UndoneJin wrote: So what? Everyone who likes the SC2 pro scene should just stop watching because the skill level is slightly lower than BW? This is a pointless topic SC2 is not the same game as BW, and anyone who says otherwise is crazy. Yet all the same, SC2 is the future whether BW lives or dies in Korea.
Another swing and a miss....
Pitchers are having a field day.
He never said don't watch SC2, actually quite the opposite. He is simply trying to explain what people mean when they say the games are different. They have different requirements to excel at. Is that really so hard to understand?
Hes trying to explain the differences between two games which are at completely different stages of their evolution, and hes doing it with factless conjecture. That's what is hard for me to understand. Second, no he didn't say stop watching SC2, but I fail to see a point in bringing up how low the "skill ceiling" is when we just saw one of the most advanced series ever played during the finals of NASL.
Everything doesn't need facts and stats to back up. Sometimes logic will suffice. If I am on the moon and I throw a ball in the air, I think it was come back down. Because that's how it works on Earth. Have I been to the moon? Negative. Do I have any "facts" to back it up? I guess I know gravity exists, that's a fact. But that's not any more proof than I have in my OP.
Does the computer do more stuff for you in SC2 than BW? Yes, fact. Do units move better and attack more efficiently in SC2 than BW? Yes, fact again! Are more highly regarded Koreans still playing BW? Yes, fact! Tres fantastique! + Show Spoiler +
so punny
I used lots of these "facts" that you so dearly need. You just chose to dismiss them. But don't claim they didn't exist.
And the stage of the game is irrelevent to the idea. What difference does it make if SC2 is in it's infancy or if it's 60 years old? It is what it is and it's relationship to BW doesn't change over time. Whether my "factless conjecture" is right or not is a different story. Clearly you aren't a fan.
And my argument was never that SC2 is bad or dumb or won't be fun to watch. Just that the experience will be markedly different than the BW pro scene. And if you noticed that NASL series, the "better" and more established player lost. I just think that trend will continue. That's pretty much it.
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.
Hahahahaha, oh god.
How did the argument go from SC2 being just as hard to play as BW, to SC2 being HARDER to play.
Your dependence on correlation is causing your post to look silly, elitist and much akin to an old man talking about going up a hill both ways in the snow etc....
The rightness or wrongness of your post does not matter because the argument itself is false.
Let me boil down your argument.
"BW is better because you have to click more"
your facts is that SC2's interface is easier to use--which does not actually mean that it needs less clicking, that's merely your assumption.
Your ther fact is that high level BW players stick to BW--a 12 year old custom that carries prestige, honor and fame vs a new release. Not even accounting for the money difference.
And so on and so forth.
It's not that your opinion is wrong, it's just that your argument is wrong. As was your logic and your conclusion.
But your opinion could still be right--if you could prove it that is.
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.
Hahahahaha, oh god.
How did the argument go from SC2 being just as hard to play as BW, to SC2 being HARDER to play.
mostly through BW defenders having no actual argument.
The difficulty of a game is not apparent from these willy-nilly arguments. What really shows the difficulty is the process of getting good at a game because that is what difficulty describes in the first place: the process of change of skill. How long does it take to reach a benchmark level? Be it top/competitive/whatever.
Because of this, the claims of SC2 being as hard/harder than BW are incorrect by definition - it is impossible to comprehend a concept of difficulty at odds with the premise of skill differentiation i presented. As such, Games like BW are the hardest of all time, period. And the claim of Rhino/Elefant existing is correct.
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.
This, so much this. Why do people think it even matters that some of these mundane tasks are automated, it gives so much more room for fantastic creative strategic play and better micro.
EPT
