| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 02:35 lorkac wrote: you were the guy who brought it up. You not liking the zone control that is available does not mean it's not there. Once again, that's opinion pretending to be fact. I'm not the only one it seems because a part from TvT and TvZ to a lesser extend there is a lot of blob vs blob... | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 15 2011 02:30 corumjhaelen wrote: Edit : @lorkac Your last sc2 examples don't work. For BW you forgot mines and dark swarm I'd say. Also note that BW zone control is way more efficient than what's left in sc2. As for vulture being less efficient than hellion at harass, I'm a bit speechless, because the difference must be marginal (plus mine do help harrasment a lot). Edit : I don't know in which world sc1 mechanics are 80% of the game... You're right. BW has 5. I also agree that zone of control was stronger in BW. But zone of control options being weaker does not mean it is non existent. | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 02:39 lorkac wrote: You're right. BW has 5. I also agree that zone of control was stronger in BW. But zone of control options being weaker does not mean it is non existent. Finally omg you're finally agreeing with my point... | ||
|
Ingenol
United States1328 Posts
| ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 15 2011 02:37 Kanku wrote: I'm not the only one it seems because a part from TvT and TvZ to a lesser extend there is a lot of blob vs blob... yes. When I think of pvp I think 200food blobs. When I think of pvz I don't think about the forcefield usage literally changing the terrain to prevent units from pouring in. Also, zvz, nothing but blob fest, large armies, no micro. Or maybe I think about pvt like the puma vs MC game where puma did not multipronged harass and MC did not deny drops by having a squad of stalkers prevnting units from running around the top half o taldarim. Yes, no zone control in any of those matches. | ||
|
jax1492
United States1632 Posts
I don't agree with your statement that Foreigners are closing the gap, look at the NASL finals, the Left side of the stage was foreigners and the right was all Koreans (ill say sen is not a foreigner, for sake of the point). I mean Idra, who is the best foreigner Zerg is not best Foreigner didn't even make the finals ... i think that foreigners have a lot of ground to make up, if anything i think the are falling behind again as people like Puma come out of nowhere. | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 02:45 lorkac wrote: yes. When I think of pvp I think 200food blobs. When I think of pvz I don't think about the forcefield usage literally changing the terrain to prevent units from pouring in. Also, zvz, nothing but blob fest, large armies, no micro. Or maybe I think about pvt like the puma vs MC game where puma did not multipronged harass and MC did not deny drops by having a squad of stalkers prevnting units from running around the top half o taldarim. Yes, no zone control in any of those matches. Omg will you be arguing on the validity of the term "blob" now? Blob vs blob as nothing to do with the size of the army and again forcefield is clearly not a "decent" zone control ability(it can prevent unit to enter a perimeter but that's just because of the design of the map(a ramp or a choke...))... | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
On July 15 2011 02:40 Kanku wrote: Finally omg you're finally agreeing with my point... actually no. You said there's no zone of control, I said there are and even provided more examples of it than in BW. It simply means your comment on the vulture/hellion comparison is even more wrong. A mineral line can disappear in 1-2 shots from a pack of hellions if the opponent doesn't respond properly. Hellions are much better at killing workers than vultures. Sure vultures are more dynamic, but hellions are more powerful. They also both have specific uses not akin to one another design wise. Namely, AoE attack vs mines. For example on how silly you sound. Would you compare the medic to the medivac because they both heal? Would you say that dropships in BW were bad because they don't heal? The correct answer all three of those units have very different uses. | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 02:51 lorkac wrote: actually no. You said there's no zone of control, I said there are and even provided more examples of it than in BW. It simply means your comment on the vulture/hellion comparison is even more wrong. A mineral line can disappear in 1-2 shots from a pack of hellions if the opponent doesn't respond properly. Hellions are much better at killing workers than vultures. Sure vultures are more dynamic, but hellions are more powerful. They also both have specific uses not akin to one another design wise. Namely, AoE attack vs mines. For example on how silly you sound. Would you compare the medic to the medivac because they both heal? Would you say that dropships in BW were bad because they don't heal? The correct answer all three of those units have very different uses. I used the vulture to illustrate my point please read my post before posting crap and yes you're agreeing with my post because last page I said that the interest of zone control as decreased because of those "weaker abilities" | ||
|
lorkac
United States2297 Posts
what numbers do you want. | ||
|
Rokk
United States425 Posts
On July 15 2011 00:20 lorkac wrote: In any given game there X amount of clicks that are made by a player (between his mouse and keyboard) in order to win the game. Of those X clicks, Y% is dedicated to menial tasks while Z% is used for strategic tasks. BW has a bigger Y% than SC2 because BW has more menial tasks. This means that SC2's Z% is larger than BW's Z% mathematically. If you want the cold hard numbers, SC2 has more strategic potential than BW. That's just the cold hard math of it. It's actually physically impossible for this not to be a true statement. A player not reaching the full potential of a game is not the game's fault. BW players have had more time and talent maximizing their Z% score while SC2 pros still struggle with being supply blocked. But since SC2 will always have less menial tasks than BW, it will always have more potential for strategic play than BW. Anyone who doesn't believe this does not believe Mathematics. Just because you throw variables into something does not mean its a relevant mathematical model or that any conclusions can be drawn from it. Your argument is worthless because your assumption is wrong. A larger percentage of apm going toward strategy does not mean that said game has a larger potential for strategy. To show this, let's extend your model to two new rts games. In the first game, all "macro" tasks are automated for you completely. SCVs are built for you automatically, minerals are mined automatically, your units are produced automatically, your minerals are kept low automatically doing the perfect task at the given time. Any menial task is automated, so your Y is 0%. Therefore your Z must be 100%. However, in this game, there is only one attacking unit: a ranged unit that can move and attack. Think of it like an unstimmed marine. Now in the second game, all those menial tasks must be done manually. You must send SCVs to mine, you must built units yourself, etc. So Y > 0%, and Z < 100%. Now let's say you again have one attacking unit, but this time the unit can do all sorts of things. It has every spell in BW or SC2, it can move, it can shoot, it can stutter step, etc. Game 1 has 0% Y and 100% Z. Game 2 has >0% Y and <100% Z. But if you're going to argue that game 1 has more strategic potential, with its simplistic unit, than game 2 with its complicated unit, then I'm going to stop arguing with you because there is no point. | ||
|
Reyis
Pitcairn287 Posts
| ||
|
wassbix
Canada499 Posts
On July 15 2011 01:50 Kanku wrote: Well if you don't understand that this concept is clearly not as important (like almost useless) in sc2 as he was in BW (god even day9 say that it is the case in his daily concerning happy vs socke on tal darim from not so long ago I believe) I can't do anything for you. Well, they never played BW and SC2 is seriously lacking any unit that controls area (neutered siege tank being the only i suppose) you can see how they can confuse vulture mines/lurker on a cliff being area control and a totally different concept than a hellion that moves fast. (Honestly they are just arguing in bad faith and/or dense so you should give up~~) But to those who genuinely wonder here are some examples: Mutas are Map control but not Area Control They exert Map Control because they are very mobile and therefore you are able to shift your military influence very quickly across the map. Therefore, if you are active, you create the battlefield and the opponent has to play reactively to the skirmishes you create. Therefore, you control the flow on military influence across the map. But they do not Area Control. Why? Because mutas cannot cost effectively sit and fight the opposing army. So if the Terran suddenly decide to move out with his mnm (marine medic) force towards your 3rd expo you cannot deny him this. You control the map in the sense that you choose the point and time of the engagement but you cannot meet his army in an Area he controls. The zerg sounds pretty boned. Once that mnm group arrives at his 3rd the zerg cannot save it, because engaging the mnm with mutas will result in heavy losses and turn over map control completely to the terran. Now suddenly a wild lurker appears. While your mutas were busy harassing the terran you had taken a 3rd expo and prepared 2 lurkers on the narrow cliff leading to your 3rd. Suddenly the terran player is forced into a dilemma. He can choose to engage the 2 lurkers but will face heavy losses, worst case he could lose his whole mnm force for the cost of 1-2 lurkers. Suddenly the equilibrium shifts and the terran is forced to make some serious decisions. The key difference being that a lurker while having zero map control in the sense that they can rarely dictate the location of the battle (because they have a long setup time the enemy can just retreat) however can area control, because once setup they can delay a greater enemy force to buy you time and/or fight at a very resource efficient manner. (2 lurker swipes can massacre a whole mnm force) Another example of Area Control TvP match up is the ultimate example of Area Control Vs Map Control. The Terran Mech army offers the greatest Area Control possible in the game, but provides zero map control. Meanwhile the Protoss has near 100% mapcontrol in this matchup but very little Area Control. Once Terran Mech army has setup, the Protoss army can never engage and come out on top resource wise. So how does the Protoss combat this? Knowing that they control the map they expand like crazy and abuse their superior mobility and the Terran's immobility. When the terran unsieges to move out they trade in their area control for map control. Now the protoss can choose to fight by either engaging before the terran has time to resiege and re-establish their area control or simply recall into a vital location on the map to tie down the terran so its not economically feasible for him to move out. An amazing game between Flash vs Best to use as an example~ | ||
|
SeaSwift
Scotland4486 Posts
One person arguing that forcefields can't control area on a map... because of map design. Map design is part of what makes the game what it is - if forcefields control area on most maps in the game, they control area. No need to be contrary about it. Forcefields control area - that is what they do. In line with this, it is common misunderstanding that BW was balanced on the maps it came out on. In fact, it was horrifically imbalanced, although of course back then macro was only just being used as a term and competitive RTS gaming was practically non-existent. BW was only seen as balanced because community maps solved so many problems, like the ICCUP (I think it was ICCUP) one with the one mineral patch blocking the path round to the opponent's base which you had to mine. This gave Zerg more attack paths and made play more dynamic on that map. Kanku missed the sarcasm in the post about Puma vs MC... and then claimed the other poster, lorkac, was "posting crap". Congratulations, you've earned yourself a hypocrit Gold Star! In general, I wish there was less vehemence in the posts in this thread. You say anything that can be misinterpreted and suddenly 3 different people jump down your throat. Nobody is willing to compromise, or accept others' viewpoints. It's just a bitchfest, plain and simple, and it fits into the stereotype of the Internet so well. Thanks guys. | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 03:08 SeaSwift wrote: Bleeugghh... this thread is soul-destroying. One person arguing that forcefields can't control area on a map... because of map design. Map design is part of what makes the game what it is - if forcefields control area on most maps in the game, they control area. No need to be contrary about it. Forcefields control area - that is what they do. In line with this, it is common misunderstanding that BW was balanced on the maps it came out on. In fact, it was horrifically imbalanced, although of course back then macro was only just being used as a term and competitive RTS gaming was practically non-existent. BW was only seen as balanced because community maps solved so many problems, like the ICCUP (I think it was ICCUP) one with the one mineral patch blocking the path round to the opponent's base which you had to mine. This gave Zerg more attack paths and made play more dynamic on that map. Kanku missed the sarcasm in the post about Puma vs MC... and then claimed the other poster, lorkac, was "posting crap". Congratulations, you've earned yourself a hypocrit Gold Star! In general, I wish there was less vehemence in the posts in this thread. You say anything that can be misinterpreted and suddenly 3 different people jump down your throat. Nobody is willing to compromise, or accept others' viewpoints. It's just a bitchfest, plain and simple, and it fits into the stereotype of the Internet so well. Thanks guys. Obviously you completely misunderstood my point... I said that FF were BAD zone controllers because of the requirement of a choke or a ramp wich is totally different than let's say lurker that can be burrowed everywhere and still do massive damage.(of course it's better in a choke...) Edit: Oh and concerning the sarcasm I totally understood but I can't do everything at once like answering to posts that completely missed my point... | ||
|
skipgamer
Australia701 Posts
I just strongly disagree with the sentiment that SC2 has a much lower skill ceiling than BW. It's just that in my opinion the skill ceiling is in different places. Say for example in BW the skill ceiling is mostly high in overall macro and micro, and managing both of these. The pro players are at the top of these ceilings, and the bonjwa's are also at the top of the strategy ceiling. The SC2 ceiling is definitely lower in these areas, I agree, but I believe there are other skill ceilings that have yet to be developed/realised that will in the future trim the cream from the crop. Simply because while I don't watch Every. Single. Game. As a (relatively) casual fan I DO consistently see the same names, sure they may not be there every time, but it really seems far from random or a roll of the dice as to who is at the top. I made a little (oversimplified) graphic, because I'm finding it hard to get my point across. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/3425/skillceilings.jpg) That's the way I see it anyway, I know people will disagree, and I can accept those points, no need to get all angsty keyboard warrior on me. | ||
|
mmdmmd
722 Posts
On July 15 2011 01:13 lorkac wrote: Yes. Without the Yankees, American Baseball will be ruined forever. ANd Basketball would have never been invented if it wasn't for Michael Jordan. I mean, yeah, I know, basketball was already around for almost a hundred years before Michael Jordan. But my point still stands! Basketball would be nothing without him! Nestea and MC winning a GSL every year means nothing as well. MKP getting to the finals all the time--not at all relevant. I mean c'mon, it's not like they're considered consistent, macro, micro players who are always favorites to win wherever they go. How are these 2 sport doing outside of America? Two words for you my friend: Think Bigger! Think about what Yao Ming has done to NBA(China). Yes, basketball has been invented ages ago, but it took a 7 ft 6 giant to really expand it outside US(now that he is retiring, NBA probably going to be US only again  ). | ||
|
STS17
United States1817 Posts
First off, Starcraft 2 is still in its infancy, and at best can be compared to the beginning days of SC1 and SC:BW, not the peak of their competitive heights and/or where they stand today. Brood War's "Mechanics" requirements are simply because the game is old and couldn't (or chose not to) support the kinds of features you think are ruining the game today (and all other modern RTS's). I am referring, of course, to your so-called simpler mechanics. Yes, it is infinitely easier to macro in SC2 then in Brood War, and it should be. This, contrary to your assertions, actually increases the skill cap of the game as players must now focus their attentions into doing other things better* then their opponent in order to be on top. Yes, it's easier to carpet-storm/fungal/emp an entire enemy army but the skill required has shifted from the caster to the defender, who now is punished much more severely for clumping units then in Brood War, because there are more incoming abilities which can be used more effectively in less time by his opponent that he must deal with in order to succeed. Secondly, You say that the game will not be great in the same way as BW because the players are forced to use more strategy and intelligent play in order to win. Guess what? It's a strategy game. An increased emphasis on decision making, positioning, and timing will not only make the game much more entertaining to watch (encounters will necessarily be more interesting, perhaps not today, but like I said, give the game time to mature as BW has) and ultimately more difficult to play since you aren't automatically good by being able to click buttions fast, you have to make the correct decisions within a very narrow time frame, which makes the game more mentally demanding of the player. Lastly, you argue that because foreigners (a term which I firmly believe is now obsolete) can beat koreans that the game is somehow intrinsically bad. Implicit racism aside, Korea only became so much better at brood war then the rest of the world because the scene exploded there (and became a past-time) much much earlier then it did in the rest of the world, so it was much more accepted (not to mention, it was simply possible) to become a progamer there and devote your life to playing the game in much the same way as professional athletes do in other sports. This wasn't true with Starcraft 2. The playing field started even, with the overall popularity of the game (not to mention cultural acceptance and desire for competitive play) being fairly uniform across the globe. This has ruined the inherent "advantage" koreans had over the rest of the competitive world. *You can counter this point by saying that we don't see this in high level play and "lesser" players are beating their superiors (of which, you have the evidence to support and I do not) but I maintain that the game is too young to make this conclusion and that this will rectify itself in time. | ||
|
Kanku
France123 Posts
On July 15 2011 03:07 wassbix wrote: + Show Spoiler + On July 15 2011 01:50 Kanku wrote: Well if you don't understand that this concept is clearly not as important (like almost useless) in sc2 as he was in BW (god even day9 say that it is the case in his daily concerning happy vs socke on tal darim from not so long ago I believe) I can't do anything for you. Well, they never played BW and SC2 is seriously lacking any unit that controls area (neutered siege tank being the only i suppose) you can see how they can confuse vulture mines/lurker on a cliff being area control and a totally different concept than a hellion that moves fast. (Honestly they are just arguing in bad faith and/or dense so you should give up~~) But to those who genuinely wonder here are some examples: Mutas are Map control but not Area Control They exert Map Control because they are very mobile and therefore you are able to shift your military influence very quickly across the map. Therefore, if you are active, you create the battlefield and the opponent has to play reactively to the skirmishes you create. Therefore, you control the flow on military influence across the map. But they do not Area Control. Why? Because mutas cannot cost effectively sit and fight the opposing army. So if the Terran suddenly decide to move out with his mnm (marine medic) force towards your 3rd expo you cannot deny him this. You control the map in the sense that you choose the point and time of the engagement but you cannot meet his army in an Area he controls. The zerg sounds pretty boned. Once that mnm group arrives at his 3rd the zerg cannot save it, because engaging the mnm with mutas will result in heavy losses and turn over map control completely to the terran. Now suddenly a wild lurker appears. While your mutas were busy harassing the terran you had taken a 3rd expo and prepared 2 lurkers on the narrow cliff leading to your 3rd. Suddenly the terran player is forced into a dilemma. He can choose to engage the 2 lurkers but will face heavy losses, worst case he could lose his whole mnm force for the cost of 1-2 lurkers. Suddenly the equilibrium shifts and the terran is forced to make some serious decisions. The key difference being that a lurker while having zero map control in the sense that they can rarely dictate the location of the battle (because they have a long setup time the enemy can just retreat) however can area control, because once setup they can delay a greater enemy force to buy you time and/or fight at a very resource efficient manner. (2 lurker swipes can massacre a whole mnm force) Another example of Area Control TvP match up is the ultimate example of Area Control Vs Map Control. The Terran Mech army offers the greatest Area Control possible in the game, but provides zero map control. Meanwhile the Protoss has near 100% mapcontrol in this matchup but very little Area Control. Once Terran Mech army has setup, the Protoss army can never engage and come out on top resource wise. So how does the Protoss combat this? Knowing that they control the map they expand like crazy and abuse their superior mobility and the Terran's immobility. When the terran unsieges to move out they trade in their area control for map control. Now the protoss can choose to fight by either engaging before the terran has time to resiege and re-establish their area control or simply recall into a vital location on the map to tie down the terran so its not economically feasible for him to move out. An amazing game between Flash vs Best to use as an example~ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCQ4JGX8NOg&feature=player_embedded#t=1117s That's exactly what I meant, thank you a lot for the examples  | ||
|
NeonGenesis
Norway260 Posts
| ||
| ||
|
|
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
WardiTV Team League
PiGosaur Cup
Kung Fu Cup
OSC
The PondCast
KCM Race Survival
WardiTV Team League
Replay Cast
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
