EPTOn July 14 2011 14:31 lorkac wrote:
A true bonjwa would unplug the keyboard and just go pure mouse.
A true bonjwa would unplug the keyboard and just go pure mouse.
Hmm. ♥
![[image loading]](https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-Etfs4nib5Lk/Th6XpmyzEEI/AAAAAAAAAMM/Or0DvkhVc1Q/nokeyboard%252520bonjwaass.png)
The Rhino in the Room - Page 26
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
justinpal
United States3810 Posts
Hmm. ♥ | ||
|
Slago
Canada726 Posts
I understand where you're coming from, but BW has been around for so lang, in ten years I feel SC2 will have waaaaaaaay more epic games, the reason there are so many, is there are way more SC2 players at an extremely high level. | ||
|
roymarthyup
1442 Posts
here is the truth. even though you CAN group your entire army into 1 control group, that doesnt mean its beneficial. having multiple control groups around the map responding to different threats and doing damage allover the map is in many ways stronger than having a giant 1a ball. and then if your enemy comes to attack you then you can pull back and defend with a giant army however lets not pretend when it comes to army control that there is a MASSIVE skill ceiling that i believe is almost limitless sure, in brood war when it came to macro and executing a build order properly there was a massive skill ceiling in just that and then being able to add that to scouting and army control around the map was a gigantic skill ceiling in starcraft 2, the skill ceiling for following a build order and keeping up macro has been MASSIVELY MASSIVELY REDUCED. tons of pro gamers will have EQUAL macro ability of jaedong because the skill ceiling was simply reduced so much (IE: amount of apm / focus required to do it is less) however, when it comes to army control around the map i believe the skill ceiling has not been reduced at all. it is NOT beneficial to have gigantic groups of units and the more apm you have to do things better the better you will be in army control sc2 still has a massive skill ceiling however i believe that skill ceiling is all in army control and strategy making, its almost not there when it comes to macro | ||
|
Vei
United States2845 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:17 Holcan wrote: I dont need to be the best pianist in the world to know that playing a C on a piano is easier than on a recorder, so why would i need to be the best sc player in the world to notice a difference in skill cap between the games. Because that analogy isn't accurate at all: a better one would be the argument of it being easier to play a C on the violin than a cello (while being amateur at both). | ||
|
Regretful
Sweden91 Posts
| ||
|
slicknav
1409 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:17 Holcan wrote: I dont need to be the best pianist in the world to know that playing a C on a piano is easier than on a recorder, so why would i need to be the best sc player in the world to notice a difference in skill cap between the games. I think anyone can safely say a difference in skill cap exists between BW and SC2. But is fair to compare the competition of the two games given their current states? BW had the original SC(the non-expansion game) and over a decade of competition. SC2 has had 18 months, which includes the beta and a whole series of patches that in some cases fundamentally changed certain matchups. With 2 expansions due in the future, and no one really knowing what they will bring, it will be years before we can even compare the skillcap between BW and SC2. SC2 is still a very new game, we just have to wait for it to become more refined, and thats not going to happen overnight, or even within the next year. | ||
|
haflo
140 Posts
Why wont you tame some of those so you will have something to pet once BW die till the end of the year , since the last couple of die hard fans will forget that outdated pixilated broken mechanic game? Oh that was harsh , not entirely solid and mostly useless statement about something that has a large fan base reading it ? Yes i agree its so silly typing something like that . Let me try and recall some of those animals statements from the last year of sc2. "By the end of the year the skill ceiling will be reached" "You cannot micro in sc2 , banelings will always kill marins" "Protos can only play using collosi death balls" "Positioning tanks is useless in Sc2" "You cannot utilize drops in SC2" "Games cannot last more then one engagement" "Units die too fast , there is no place for micro" "There is no better macro players in sc2" "Sc2 can never be balanced" Don't those animals look silly ? If you want to give Sc2 a chance , go watch stuff like NASL finals and you can see some of the potential in this game. If you don't go watch whatever float your boat . I see no reason why there is this tension and even some hostility between what need to be very close communities of bw and SC2. And about this really nice written article , Seeing the future is a task for oracles and silly people. | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
Now a while ago we had Browder tell us he didn't understand RTS. Now we are at a point where we the majority of the SC2 people here are new to RTS or come from C&C4 or some other game. We used to look down on WC3 as a game that was too easy. Things have changed so much, but the predictions were accurate. It was realized that just strategy would only differentiate the skill level of players so far. It was realized it wasn't enough to create a huge spectrum of skills. SC BW was similar to chess and go in that there were so many levels between you and the best players. There were so many players that would crush the guy just below them in skill level but get crushed by the guy just above him in skill level. SC2 added safety nets execution wise and now the differences are much smaller. The best analogy remains F1 where they added traction control to assist the drivers. When this debate was biggest, F1 had traction control. Today traction control was removed in 2008 so driving once again takes more skill. You want to add things like traction control to a car you are going to sell to consumers. But you don't want to add it to F1 cars. SC2 was made for casual players and TL is now filled with casual players that picked up on SC2 seriously. They don't want their game to have the things we liked most about SC BW 4 years ago. Right now people are driving F1 races in their consumer cars and having a blast. Their skills don't get tested thoroughly, but that's not what they want. Who wants to go back to SC BW doing mundane tasks that make you spin off the circuit when you make a mistake? Their perception of fun is completely different and often the opposite of the perception of fun of SC BW people. And really SC2 has bigger problems than the safety nets added. The bigger problems are no lan latency and ball vs ball AI. It makes no sense to remove automining and MBS until you fix those things. Personally it also shocks me to hear people group all their army into 1 control group. So silly. Often I see people trying to micro their army apart, but the AI just wants to ball up so much it's basically a waste to try to get it to do something else. People are going to be arguing the same thing as in poker. As long as extremely good players on average win more often that really good players, it will be ok for most people. In the end SC2 will be in the spirit of poker while SC BW will be in the spirit of chess. Many people prefer poker over chess. Many people prefer a game where mindgames and strategy dominate and where mechanics and execution are a pretty shallow playing field. And most of the SC2 people on this forum right now are in that category. As for those that prefer SC BW, most former SC BW people like Idra, Ret and who not would prefer if the gameplay of SC2 was more similar to SC BW. They just prefer to play SC2 because the scene exploded. You can't blame them. Basically they now work for Blizzard so we won't see them criticize Blizzard anymore. We can't expect them to bite the hand that feeds them. We can just hope that some other company will make a true successor to SC BW. An RTS only aimed at competitive play. We have the DotA/HoN/LoL style games right now and those are only about competition and not about casual players playing it. They are bigger than SC2. I no longer believe in single players RTS. But I do believe that mutliplayer RTS still has a lot of potential. I would like to see an abstract RTS fine tuned for competitive play. Maybe a company like S2 or some Korean company can do it? Making it abstract would remove any lore constraints. There are a lot of talented people in the RTS scene thanks to SC BW. Blizzard left open the hole of an RTS finetuned for competitive play and esports. Eventually some company will make it. It doesn't require so much effort as most of the money in making SC2 went into the single player game. I actually heard they had 50 people working on the game and then also 50 people working on the cinematics. Then also Blizzard spend a huge amount on marketing. Then I am sure people like Browder are also overpaid. One can make a better successor to SC BW for a fraction of the money Blizzard took to make SC2. I lost my faith in Blizzard after Diablo 2. I remember in high school after Diablo I started to champion their games among my friends. Things have changed a lot. At this point I basically don't have faith in any game developer. Hardcore gaming on the PC? Civ5 was a good example. Also, how Will Wright stopped making new Sim City games because improvements would make it too complex. So instead he makes the Sims and Spore. That's PC gaming for you today. | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:12 Suisen wrote: And really SC2 has bigger problems than the safety nets added. The bigger problems are [...] ball vs ball AI. It makes no sense to remove automining and MBS until you fix those things. I don't get you people, seriously. Praising how BW players overcome the BW unit AI, but complaining about the ball vs ball AI, that could be overcome by potential SC2 bonjwas. It's an example for something where in SC2 players can be ahead of others: Army control. Overcoming stupid clumping AI. In BW it was overcoming stupid movement AI. Yet you list it in the SC2 negatives. So hypocritical. | ||
|
Drium
United States888 Posts
On July 14 2011 16:25 Slago wrote: I completely disagree with the OP, I haven't felt this rhino in the room, or even considered it till now, yes there are soooooo many amazing BW games, and alot of the GSL games have been lacking in entertainment, but overall SC2 has had unreal games, you just have to look in the many many many, other places than GSL or even MLG. As far as I'm concerned there were way better SC2 games this year than BW, alot of the high anticipated BW games were very disapointing, even last night the Flash Vs Hydra games was a disapointment to me, and alot of jaedongs games were hyped so much and lacked, but than I go to Steven's stream after that disapointing game, and I watch some of the best PvZ I've ever seen, Destiny Vs Huk was unreal just watch this game and say SC2 isnt epic http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGqBnDl5QTE I understand where you're coming from, but BW has been around for so lang, in ten years I feel SC2 will have waaaaaaaay more epic games, the reason there are so many, is there are way more SC2 players at an extremely high level. If anything that game was an argument for the OP. HuK, a Code S player who has recently won multiple big tournaments, gets an early disadvantage against a worse player and loses. | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
What is stupid about BW AI anyway? Not sure what exactly you mean? The AI in BW was extremely simple and basic. Very predictable and very easy to improve on even by bad and low apm players. This is essential for good RTS AI. Micro needs to play a role even for the most basic players. If trying to micro only makes you play worse than the default AI, that's bad. Do you mean the pathfinding of SC BW? If you are used to SC BW you will never intentionally give a command that will cause a pathfinding bug. Also, the pathfinding bug is still there in SC2. It's not fixed. It just takes more complex pathing before the AI bugs out. The person that wrote SC2 AI was clueless about competitive RTS. He just wrote what to him would be the most impressive and advanced AI. He did a 'good job'. That's why we have unit AI right now that's bad for the game. Because the Blizz dev team didn't understand how and why competitive RTS as a game model even works, as professed by Browder himself. In SC BW you never overcome stupid AI or fight the AI. The AI was very simple and predictable. in SC2 the AI has a mind of it's own and is hard to improve over. | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:29 Suisen wrote: No indeed you don't understand. In an RTS that tests the ability of the player to control units, 'bad' AI is 'good' and 'good' AI is 'bad'. What is stupid about BW AI anyway? Not sure what exactly you mean? The AI in BW was extremely simple and basic. Very predictable and very easy to improve on even by bad and low apm players. This is essential for good RTS AI. Micro needs to play a role even for the most basic players. If trying to micro only makes you play worse than the default AI, that's bad. Do you mean the pathfinding of SC BW? If you are used to SC BW you will never intentionally give a command that will cause a pathfinding bug. Also, the pathfinding bug is still there in SC2. It's not fixed. It just takes more complex pathing before the AI bugs out. The person that wrote SC2 AI was clueless about competitive RTS. He just wrote what to him would be the most impressive and advanced AI. He did a 'good job'. That's why we have unit AI right now that's bad for the game. Because the Blizz dev team didn't understand how and why competitive RTS as a game model even works, as professed by Browder himself. In SC BW you never overcome stupid AI or fight the AI. The AI was very simple and predictable. in SC2 the AI has a mind of it's own and is hard to improve over. I read a LOT of BW defenders arguing that BW does have stupid unit movement / pathing AI and that it is things like that who give players opportunity to excel. You make it sound like SC2 AI is written so perfect, there is nothing to overcome which is ridiculous because it always makes unit clump up which gets you in trouble in every matchup (Tanks, Banelings, Collossus, Thor, Ghosts (emp), Infestors (FG), Templars (storm), ...). Your last post doesn't make any sense to me. I thought it counts as a fact by now that BW AI is horrible. And SC2 AI is bad for your army positioning because the pathfinding is so "good" that you get big chunks of units as a result. Wait another year, see how it evolves. I'm still surprised how many progamers use so few hotkeys for their armies, move their ball ( <- thx to AI  ) around and when they engage their zealots are stuck in the middle of their stalkers, Immortals don't move in first into tank lines, or moving 8 Infestors in a clump around so they get all hit by one emp, and so on. I see mistakes like that it in like every tournament I watch, and I'm talking about current top players. And you know why I see that? Because it's fucking hard to control your army like that. Talk about skill ceiling. Future top players will use many hotkeys for their army. And overcome the SC2 AI.edit: I want to add that I love BW. I hate having to use the term "BW defenders" in my post. There are actually people that see that both games are a bitch to master, but in SC2 there is still so much room to improve. | ||
|
haflo
140 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:29 Suisen wrote: No indeed you don't understand. In an RTS that tests the ability of the player to control units, 'bad' AI is 'good' and 'good' AI is 'bad'. What is stupid about BW AI anyway? Not sure what exactly you mean? The AI in BW was extremely simple and basic. Very predictable and very easy to improve on even by bad and low apm players. This is essential for good RTS AI. Micro needs to play a role even for the most basic players. If trying to micro only makes you play worse than the default AI, that's bad. Do you mean the pathfinding of SC BW? If you are used to SC BW you will never intentionally give a command that will cause a pathfinding bug. Also, the pathfinding bug is still there in SC2. It's not fixed. It just takes more complex pathing before the AI bugs out. The person that wrote SC2 AI was clueless about competitive RTS. He just wrote what to him would be the most impressive and advanced AI. He did a 'good job'. That's why we have unit AI right now that's bad for the game. Because the Blizz dev team didn't understand how and why competitive RTS as a game model even works, as professed by Browder himself. In SC BW you never overcome stupid AI or fight the AI. The AI was very simple and predictable. in SC2 the AI has a mind of it's own and is hard to improve over. Dragoons. Man people can be so silly ... The fact you can overcome bugs does not mean bugs are good for the game . Do you really want to compare SC2 AI and BW AI and claim that BW is better ? Really , you sure ? what do you smoke i want some of it . SC2 AI has some of the most intuitive and good behavior i ever encountered as a guy who wrote couple of AI's . BW one its kinda failing when you cannot move some units from A to B or they will start mating. When progamers will become good enough you will see some override of the sc2 AI when it gives benifits . AI will never be good as a person controlling each unit , but no one has the APM to do that . Marin split is a simple effective example . You begin to see some sentries HT splits against ghosts / infestors as well . But really don't let the facts disturb you. | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:39 Leviance wrote: I read a LOT of BW defenders arguing that BW does have stupid unit movement / pathing AI and that it is things like that who give players opportunity to excel. You make it sound like SC2 AI is written so perfect, there is nothing to overcome which is ridiculous because it always makes unit clump up which gets you in trouble in every matchup (Tanks, Banelings, Collossus, Thor...). Your last post doesn't make any sense to me. I thought it counts as a fact by now that BW AI is horrible. And SC2 AI is bad for your army positioning because the pathfinding is so "good" that you get big chunks of units as a result. Wait another year, see how it evolves. I'm still surprised how many progamers use so few hotkeys for their armies, move their ball ( <- thx to AI ) around and when they engage their zealots are stuck in the middle of their stalkers, Immortals don't move in first into tank lines, and so on. I see mistakes like that it in like every tournament I watch, and I'm talking about current top players. Future top players will use many hotkeys for their army. And overcome the SC2 AI.Your position just became more puzzling. Just a while ago you wondered why people would prefer fighting stupid AI. But now you call SC BW ai bad because there is no stupid AI to fight. Stupid AI that makes even top players in SC2 fight with bad army positioning. Look, the problem is many of you people won't understand. We played a 6 or 8 year old game after the successor WC3 was already released. Many many newer RTS games were released after SC BW. We found them to be inferior. Many of you are playing SC2 because it is the newest game. To you it's just a newer and maybe slightly better version of C&C4 or WC3, AoE or SupCom. That's the main difference and that's why you will never understand the SC BW position while the SC BW people do understand your position. On July 14 2011 17:40 haflo wrote: Dragoons. Man people can be so silly ... The fact you can overcome bugs does not mean bugs are good for the game . Blizzard could have fixed SC BW AI bugs a long time ago and it wouldn't affect the gameplay at all. Yet because the AI is different, SC BW and SC2 are very different. You seem to think SC BW is just SC2 AI with bugs. Obviously it is not. The real difference is the real difference. Not bugged code that is never executed as long as the player doesn't decide it is time to bug out his units. Not deciding to bug out your unit has nothing to do with playing the game, btw. It's just a stupid quirk you need to get used to. The game would be better without it. But Blizzard incompetence is not something unique to SC2. SC BW had to be balanced by the Koreans. | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:47 Suisen wrote: Your position just became more puzzling. Just a while ago you wondered why people would prefer fighting stupid AI. But now you call SC BW ai bad because there is no stupid AI to fight. Stupid AI that makes even top players in SC2 fight with bad army positioning. Look, the problem is many of you people won't understand. We played a 6 or 8 year old game after the successor WC3 was already released. Many many newer RTS games were released after SC BW. We found them to be inferior. Many of you are playing SC2 because it is the newest game. To you it's just a newer and maybe slightly better version of C&C4 or WC3, AoE or SupCom. That's the main difference and that's why you will never understand the SC BW position while the SC BW people do understand your position. What the hell!? I have been playing BW till SC2 came out (never made it past D+ tho :p) You completely miss what I'm saying. Stuff like "But now you call SC BW ai bad because there is no stupid AI to fight." errm I'm not sure whether I should put the energy into writing another wall of text explaining how I never said this - And I love how you write to me how I would never understand you because I'm a WC3 player or whatever, but I actually was a BW player till SC2 came out. Stuff like "You will never understand that" are great arguments anyway  | ||
|
Gamegene
United States8308 Posts
| ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:56 Gamegene wrote: The presence of Xel Naga towers and lack of area denial units are a bigger problem. If this is what breaks the game it will be so easy to fix If progamers agree with you some time, the maps just won't have Xel'Naga towers, and LotV will introduce area denial units | ||
|
Suisen
256 Posts
And yes, you did say SC2 AI makes the player fight the AI. With a BW player I don't mean a person that played the campaign and LANed with friends back when the game was released. Back when this was a big debate only bad players or non SC BW players took the position in favour of automations because the just didn't understand the beauty of SC BW. Why is it so strange to assume the same is true when so many people are new and are puzzled why people would be able to play a 12 year old game, period? | ||
|
Leviance
Germany4079 Posts
On July 14 2011 18:00 Suisen wrote: And yes, you did say SC2 AI makes the player fight the AI. Dude, how is it so difficult. SC2 AI does not make the player fight the AI, but players who will put the effort working against it to some extent will succeed. Exactly like it was in BW. The rest of your post also doesn't make sense to me. Maybe we just don't understand each other. We shouldn't get married  edit: plus the "But now you call SC BW ai bad because there is no stupid AI to fight." does not even equal "SC2 AI makes the player fight the AI" ? | ||
|
Slago
Canada726 Posts
On July 14 2011 17:25 Drium wrote: If anything that game was an argument for the OP. HuK, a Code S player who has recently won multiple big tournaments, gets an early disadvantage against a worse player and loses. your statement isn't about the OP, you just think destiny is bad, when Huk and Destiny were talking, Huk said destiny was really good, and he was playing on lag while huk wasn't, Huk admited he was giving his all not saying Destiny is better cause Huk did win more games but your point is you think destiny is bad when he is a really strong player and just doesn't perform that well in pressure situations, so he has bad tourny showings, but he's beat bomber and Huk some of the best players in korea, not an argument for the op but against it, there are way more excellent SC2 players than BW | ||
| ||
