On July 15 2011 03:27 STS17 wrote: 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 need to take into the account of the big differences in practice/work culture. I am not saying westerners are lazy or anything, but in Asia, most young people are brought up with a view that: Working long hours without breaks is "NORMAL". I've seen countless "foreign pro" interviews where pros say they simply cannot practice Korean hours because of "this" and "that", but never anyone admit it's simply too exhausting for them.
I used to smile at all those post that complains how Kespa/Teams are over working their players with slavery like practice etc etc. Do you see any BW pro complain about too much practice? In fact, it's very common for BW pro to complain they don't have enough practice(Bee!).
Until we see the same practice mindset in foreign pro scene. Kor will forever be on top of West.
On July 15 2011 03:27 STS17 wrote: 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 need to take into the account of the big differences in practice/work culture. I am not saying westerners are lazy or anything, but in Asia, most young people are brought up with a view that: Working long hours without breaks is "NORMAL". I've seen countless "foreign pro" interviews where pros say they simply cannot practice Korean hours because of "this" and "that", but never anyone admit it's simply too exhausting for them.
I used to smile at all those post that complains how Kespa/Teams are over working their players with slavery like practice etc etc. Do you see any BW pro complain about too much practice? In fact, it's very common for BW pro to complain they don't have enough practice(Bee!).
Until we see the same practice mindset in foreign pro scene. Kor will forever be on top of West.
You say this now, and yet tournament results for SC2 disagree with you. Will it be true in 2-3 years? Possibly. But the majority of BW practice was to keep their mechanics up to snuff, something which SC2 doesn't require (at least not today) to nearly the extent that BW did.
On July 15 2011 03:40 NeonGenesis wrote: I don't see why BW would be a better spectator sport because you have to be extremely good at wrestling the terrible UI before the strategy aspect shines through.
And when they become good at wrestling this UI (pros even, perhaps, hinthint), the strategy can shine through even more because the greater mechanical options provide a deeper layer of strategic depth.
It also only matters to the people who is "in the know" about the game as new viewers wouldn't now just how difficult it is to do what the progamers are doing mechanically as that portion of the game is entirely invisible from the spectators point of view. The fact that manouvers are more easy to perform mechanically actually (imo) allows the strategy aspect to shine through as it allows smart players to execute some really slick moves. There is no way that the progamers of SC2 has reached the skill ceiling yet. There is ALWAYS somewhere to put that extra APM through less crude and more precise playing and be rewarded for it.
Here's an example of where the lower mechanical skill detracts from the spectator point of view: spell casting. The most obvious examples are storm and emp. Storm's damage had to be nerfed and its AOE reduced because smartcasting allows it to be cast without much effort at all. EMP was made instant and smart casting makes it trivial to cast, so its AoE had to be reduced and its effect diminished. Before, when you saw blanket storms it actually meant something. It had a huge effect on the engagement (much moreso than it does now), and it was a way for a player to differentiate himself mechanically. Now blanket storms are all but expected. When an EMP went off, there was tension in the audience as the missle crept toward the protoss army. Now there's no tension: you either hit or you miss based on your own skill. The opponent cannot dodge, and there's no suspense.
On July 15 2011 03:27 STS17 wrote: 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 need to take into the account of the big differences in practice/work culture. I am not saying westerners are lazy or anything, but in Asia, most young people are brought up with a view that: Working long hours without breaks is "NORMAL". I've seen countless "foreign pro" interviews where pros say they simply cannot practice Korean hours because of "this" and "that", but never anyone admit it's simply too exhausting for them.
I used to smile at all those post that complains how Kespa/Teams are over working their players with slavery like practice etc etc. Do you see any BW pro complain about too much practice? In fact, it's very common for BW pro to complain they don't have enough practice(Bee!).
Until we see the same practice mindset in foreign pro scene. Kor will forever be on top of West.
You say this now, and yet tournament results for SC2 disagree with you. Will it be true in 2-3 years? Possibly. But the majority of BW practice was to keep their mechanics up to snuff, something which SC2 doesn't require (at least not today) to nearly the extent that BW did.
Which tournament results disagree with him? Western tournaments have been dominated by either Koreans or Huk, who has been in Korea training in a Korean progaming house for most of his career now.
The one thing that I have trouble with is the idea that the mechanics make SC2 less competitive/not as good as BW. It kind of baffles me.
I agree that simplified mechanics make the game easier. But a there really is a difference between dumbing it down and fixing annoying mechanics. Having to go back to your base to tell workers to mine sucked. Not having enough hotkeys or being able to bind more than 12 units/1 building per hotkey also sucked. Good players showed their skills by working with and around these holdbacks, but that doesn't mean that the mechanics were good in the first place. If they, say, forced everyone to play SC2 with no hotkeys, would that make the game better? It would separate those with good mechanics from those with bad mechanics, but honestly, it would just kind of suck for the players in my opinion.
We see top players emerge who have good long-term strategies, good multitasking, and good unit control. That will get you far. Being great at one or all will get you farther. I've said it before, I'll say it again: I fully agree that SC2 isn't as mechanically-focused as SC:BW was, and I'm ok with that. It's a strategy game, so I prefer when it is more strategy oriented. I find it more exciting to watch playstyles and decision making take center stage over how well you're macroing. Mechanics are already something that every competing player should already have, this just makes the entry-level point a bit lower. It doesn't make the difference between low Master and top 10 Grandmaster non-existent, it means players aren't limited by their ability to do repetitive motions for an entire game.
On July 15 2011 04:16 Requizen wrote: Not having enough hotkeys or being able to bind more than 12 units/1 building per hotkey also sucked.
But seeing blob vs blob combat also sucks. Reducing menial mechanics isn't a bad goal, but you have to do it carefully to avoid negatives in the other extreme, and I'll argue that SC2 made quite a few mistakes in reducing menial mechanics.
On July 15 2011 03:40 NeonGenesis wrote: I don't see why BW would be a better spectator sport because you have to be extremely good at wrestling the terrible UI before the strategy aspect shines through.
And when they become good at wrestling this UI (pros even, perhaps, hinthint), the strategy can shine through even more because the greater mechanical options provide a deeper layer of strategic depth.
What, then, is the difference? There really is very little difference in depth between SC2 and SC:BW, other than the fact that BW has a decade of pro-gaming and metagaming behind it. In ten years, I can almost guarantee that the breadth and depth of SC2's strategies will at least match BW.
You're saying that, because SC2's mechanics are easier, it's strategies aren't as good? That because the UI in BW was a monster to fight that the strategies and tactics were somehow deeper? All that it means is that they were harder to pull off while continuing to macro, which just meant that it was harder to have huge battles and most things took place in small skirmishes and squad-type play. At it's core, BW and SC2 have similar tech trees, units, and functionalities, SC2 just has a better UI.
It also only matters to the people who is "in the know" about the game as new viewers wouldn't now just how difficult it is to do what the progamers are doing mechanically as that portion of the game is entirely invisible from the spectators point of view. The fact that manouvers are more easy to perform mechanically actually (imo) allows the strategy aspect to shine through as it allows smart players to execute some really slick moves. There is no way that the progamers of SC2 has reached the skill ceiling yet. There is ALWAYS somewhere to put that extra APM through less crude and more precise playing and be rewarded for it.
Here's an example of where the lower mechanical skill detracts from the spectator point of view: spell casting. The most obvious examples are storm and emp. Storm's damage had to be nerfed and its AOE reduced because smartcasting allows it to be cast without much effort at all. EMP was made instant and smart casting makes it trivial to cast, so its AoE had to be reduced and its effect diminished. Before, when you saw blanket storms it actually meant something. It had a huge effect on the engagement (much moreso than it does now), and it was a way for a player to differentiate himself mechanically. Now blanket storms are all but expected. When an EMP went off, there was tension in the audience as the missle crept toward the protoss army. Now there's no tension: you either hit or you miss based on your own skill. The opponent cannot dodge, and there's no suspense.
This is mostly opinion. It goes back to the idea that "harder to execute is better", which I don't agree with from a spectator standpoint. I (and the friends I watch with) love seeing huge battles with massive amounts of spell casting and unit mixes. It's more exciting, in my opinon. Small fights are tense, but I believe that controlling a huge army effectively is much more difficult that a few units.
As far as smart casting goes, this goes back to "the BW UI sucked". I love BW. I still play it from time to time. But just because landing Storms and EMPs was harder to pull off doesn't make SC2 less competitive or anything. It just means your ideas translate to the game better than they did before, which I think will lead to the smarter, or more clever player winning more often, which they should in a strategy game.
On July 15 2011 01:01 mmdmmd wrote: The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
Some of the auto features are actually necessary and good. Auto-mine, it is silly to send each worker manually to mine. There is no decision making in the action of making an scv, you either want it to gather something, or you want him to go somewhere. You don't want him to just stay at where he is like an idiot unless you tell him to do so. This is just a tedious, boring and unnecessarily repetitive action. Same for MBS. Do I want to make units? Yes. How many production facilities do I have? Let's say I have 5. If I want to train 5 units, I should be able to select all and do it. The reason? Read the above paragraph.
Ofcourse some people will come and say that Starcraft 1 is an esport and therefore had to have these features to create a distinction between top players etc., but this would be flat out wrong because....
For this to be true, SC1 would have been made with the intention of making an esport. Did this concept exist in mid-nineties? I am very sure it was not. Blizzard was not a big company as today, and even though they have been pretty revolutionary in certain aspects of game-development, I don't think they actually intended the game to be played in the level that has been played after SC1 took off in Korea. I don't think they would ever imagine a SC game with more than two-three of each production facility. Therefore, MBS would be not necessary, or be too much work for just integrating it into the game, perhaps it wasn't even possible at that time (think of the old SC engine). After the SC1 scene took off, trying to modify the engine could be problematic for the people who are playing this game for their living,
In terms of smartcasting, I sort of agree. However, if I were to change it, I would still keep it in the game, but either reduce the spellcasters' energy, or limit the amount of a spellcaster that can be built, so that even smartcasted, every spell would have to count for its usage. (i.e, you wouldn't get 15 templars/infestors/ghosts and emp/fungal/storm the whole map that easily)
Unless someone shows me an article, interview or some other source that shows SC1 was definitely intended to be an esport from its development, and therefore, some of these non-automated features were built that way, instead of the technical difficulties existent at that time, I won't believe that these features of automation have been harmful for the competitive scene of SC2.
On July 15 2011 04:26 NeonGenesis wrote: Blobbing is heavily punished by AoE spells which puts the mechanical pressure (gasp) on the player to menially splitting up his army.
Problem is taht after the blob battle the game winner is decided. No comebacks! And this extreme unforgiveness is bad. Luck plays a role in BW and a role in SC2, like in every other game. But while in BW you had to do quite a few error to lose the game, in SC2 you can't even do an error. So, luck in BW played a minor role, because in order to lose by bad luck you had to have bad lack in more occasions, while in SC2 bad luck can actually cost you the game. For example, the scarabs in BW was quite random (I'm not saying it's a good thing), but they NEVER made a player insta-gg after a good/bad shot. EDIT: oh btw, AOE in SC2 are shitty compared to BW. Look, these are BW storms, you porbably never seen them.
On July 15 2011 04:16 Requizen wrote: Not having enough hotkeys or being able to bind more than 12 units/1 building per hotkey also sucked.
But seeing blob vs blob combat also sucks. Reducing menial mechanics isn't a bad goal, but you have to do it carefully to avoid negatives in the other extreme, and I'll argue that SC2 made quite a few mistakes in reducing menial mechanics.
Except things are already moving away from "blob vs blob" combat. Multi pronged attacks with drops and speedling runbys are becoming more wide-spread. Baneling drops are a great, mechanically control oriented skill that demolishes blob armies. A lot of SC2 is moving toward more mobile armies that can be (and have to be) in more than one place at a time to attack or defend multiple bases and execute flanks and rope-a-dope style tactics.
The only army that really even does blob style any more is Protoss, and even that is going out of style for a more Gateway oriented force. Fast Blink for pressure, Archons and Storm to punish packed armies, Force Field to create favorable terrain, and Zealots to trip up units. Almost all of those have to be manually controlled and positioned, just a-moving it won't do much good. Colossi balls are too easily punished. Roach/Hydra groups are cut down by AoE and FF. Positioning and leapfrogging from Terran can cut a Ling/Bling force to bits with minimal losses.
Blob-play is more and more falling out because better multitasking and micro punishes it hard. And even more along your level of liking, we're seeing more small-force timing pushes with a few power units like Infestors or Ghosts with a tiny backup force to do crazy damage early on.
SC2 isn't even a year old yet, so don't expect the meta to be on the level of BW.
On July 15 2011 03:40 NeonGenesis wrote: I don't see why BW would be a better spectator sport because you have to be extremely good at wrestling the terrible UI before the strategy aspect shines through.
And when they become good at wrestling this UI (pros even, perhaps, hinthint), the strategy can shine through even more because the greater mechanical options provide a deeper layer of strategic depth.
What, then, is the difference? There really is very little difference in depth between SC2 and SC:BW, other than the fact that BW has a decade of pro-gaming and metagaming behind it. In ten years, I can almost guarantee that the breadth and depth of SC2's strategies will at least match BW.
You're saying that, because SC2's mechanics are easier, it's strategies aren't as good? That because the UI in BW was a monster to fight that the strategies and tactics were somehow deeper? All that it means is that they were harder to pull off while continuing to macro, which just meant that it was harder to have huge battles and most things took place in small skirmishes and squad-type play. At it's core, BW and SC2 have similar tech trees, units, and functionalities, SC2 just has a better UI.
It also only matters to the people who is "in the know" about the game as new viewers wouldn't now just how difficult it is to do what the progamers are doing mechanically as that portion of the game is entirely invisible from the spectators point of view. The fact that manouvers are more easy to perform mechanically actually (imo) allows the strategy aspect to shine through as it allows smart players to execute some really slick moves. There is no way that the progamers of SC2 has reached the skill ceiling yet. There is ALWAYS somewhere to put that extra APM through less crude and more precise playing and be rewarded for it.
Here's an example of where the lower mechanical skill detracts from the spectator point of view: spell casting. The most obvious examples are storm and emp. Storm's damage had to be nerfed and its AOE reduced because smartcasting allows it to be cast without much effort at all. EMP was made instant and smart casting makes it trivial to cast, so its AoE had to be reduced and its effect diminished. Before, when you saw blanket storms it actually meant something. It had a huge effect on the engagement (much moreso than it does now), and it was a way for a player to differentiate himself mechanically. Now blanket storms are all but expected. When an EMP went off, there was tension in the audience as the missle crept toward the protoss army. Now there's no tension: you either hit or you miss based on your own skill. The opponent cannot dodge, and there's no suspense.
This is mostly opinion. It goes back to the idea that "harder to execute is better", which I don't agree with from a spectator standpoint. I (and the friends I watch with) love seeing huge battles with massive amounts of spell casting and unit mixes. It's more exciting, in my opinon. Small fights are tense, but I believe that controlling a huge army effectively is much more difficult that a few units.
As far as smart casting goes, this goes back to "the BW UI sucked". I love BW. I still play it from time to time. But just because landing Storms and EMPs was harder to pull off doesn't make SC2 less competitive or anything. It just means your ideas translate to the game better than they did before, which I think will lead to the smarter, or more clever player winning more often, which they should in a strategy game.
I guess we'll agree to disagree for the moment. I find spell casting to get tiresome when perfect execution is easy and expected. It's more shocking when a progamer fucks up forcefields or carpet storms than when they do it perfectly (or good enough to get practically the perfect outcome). I'd respond to your points in more detail, but I don't have the time at the moment to think about and type up a longer response, sorry.
On July 15 2011 01:01 mmdmmd wrote: The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
Some of the auto features are actually necessary and good. Auto-mine, it is silly to send each worker manually to mine. There is no decision making in the action of making an scv, you either want it to gather something, or you want him to go somewhere. You don't want him to just stay at where he is like an idiot unless you tell him to do so. This is just a tedious, boring and unnecessarily repetitive action. Same for MBS. Do I want to make units? Yes. How many production facilities do I have? Let's say I have 5. If I want to train 5 units, I should be able to select all and do it. The reason? Read the above paragraph. .
Why automate something that's achievable with some practice? When you automate these things, you are taking away the "I can do the same thing, but I am better at it" factor in competitive gaming. It's what separate the best from the rest. Instead, blizz slowly turned sc into "the best is just like the rest".
On July 15 2011 04:26 NeonGenesis wrote: Blobbing is heavily punished by AoE spells which puts the mechanical pressure (gasp) on the player to menially splitting up his army.
Problem is taht after the blob battle the game winner is decided. No comebacks! And this extreme unforgiveness is bad. Luck plays a role in BW and a role in SC2, like in every other game. But while in BW you had to do quite a few error to lose the game, in SC2 you can't even do an error. So, luck in BW played a minor role, because in order to lose by bad luck you had to have bad lack in more occasions, while in SC2 bad luck can actually cost you the game. For example, the scarabs in BW was quite random (I'm not saying it's a good thing), but they NEVER made a player insta-gg after a good/bad shot. EDIT: oh btw, AOE in SC2 are shitty compared to BW. Look, these are BW storms, you porbably never seen them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3OQJKlbOuI and watch this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpuv7VPb2rA
Firstly: grammar, dude.
There is a difference between luck and error, please don't use them interchangeably to try and prove a point. Luck is scouting your opponent before they scout you by choosing a random direction. An error is a-moving your Marine/Tank army without looking at it and having it die because you're not sieged. In fact, being more punishing to errors means that better players stand out because they make less errors. There is very little luck actually involved in SC2, just how well you multitask your units and how careful you are. Recklessness (like running into an area and getting killed by baneling mines) is bad and should be punished. That's not luck.
I've seen BW storms, they were crazy good. Storms in SC2 are pretty darn good too, but you can also do more of them thanks to smartcasting, meaning you can execute your storms when and where you want. Those vids are cool, but it's nothing that hasn't come up or can not come up in SC2.
AoE is actually better now that the AI tends to clump up units instead of spreading them out, because you're almost guaranteed to hit more. It's more effective and easier to do, punishing "deathball" type play.
On July 15 2011 03:40 NeonGenesis wrote: I don't see why BW would be a better spectator sport because you have to be extremely good at wrestling the terrible UI before the strategy aspect shines through.
And when they become good at wrestling this UI (pros even, perhaps, hinthint), the strategy can shine through even more because the greater mechanical options provide a deeper layer of strategic depth.
What, then, is the difference? There really is very little difference in depth between SC2 and SC:BW, other than the fact that BW has a decade of pro-gaming and metagaming behind it. In ten years, I can almost guarantee that the breadth and depth of SC2's strategies will at least match BW.
You're saying that, because SC2's mechanics are easier, it's strategies aren't as good? That because the UI in BW was a monster to fight that the strategies and tactics were somehow deeper? All that it means is that they were harder to pull off while continuing to macro, which just meant that it was harder to have huge battles and most things took place in small skirmishes and squad-type play. At it's core, BW and SC2 have similar tech trees, units, and functionalities, SC2 just has a better UI.
It also only matters to the people who is "in the know" about the game as new viewers wouldn't now just how difficult it is to do what the progamers are doing mechanically as that portion of the game is entirely invisible from the spectators point of view. The fact that manouvers are more easy to perform mechanically actually (imo) allows the strategy aspect to shine through as it allows smart players to execute some really slick moves. There is no way that the progamers of SC2 has reached the skill ceiling yet. There is ALWAYS somewhere to put that extra APM through less crude and more precise playing and be rewarded for it.
Here's an example of where the lower mechanical skill detracts from the spectator point of view: spell casting. The most obvious examples are storm and emp. Storm's damage had to be nerfed and its AOE reduced because smartcasting allows it to be cast without much effort at all. EMP was made instant and smart casting makes it trivial to cast, so its AoE had to be reduced and its effect diminished. Before, when you saw blanket storms it actually meant something. It had a huge effect on the engagement (much moreso than it does now), and it was a way for a player to differentiate himself mechanically. Now blanket storms are all but expected. When an EMP went off, there was tension in the audience as the missle crept toward the protoss army. Now there's no tension: you either hit or you miss based on your own skill. The opponent cannot dodge, and there's no suspense.
This is mostly opinion. It goes back to the idea that "harder to execute is better", which I don't agree with from a spectator standpoint. I (and the friends I watch with) love seeing huge battles with massive amounts of spell casting and unit mixes. It's more exciting, in my opinon. Small fights are tense, but I believe that controlling a huge army effectively is much more difficult that a few units.
As far as smart casting goes, this goes back to "the BW UI sucked". I love BW. I still play it from time to time. But just because landing Storms and EMPs was harder to pull off doesn't make SC2 less competitive or anything. It just means your ideas translate to the game better than they did before, which I think will lead to the smarter, or more clever player winning more often, which they should in a strategy game.
I guess we'll agree to disagree for the moment. I find spell casting to get tiresome when perfect execution is easy and expected. It's more shocking when a progamer fucks up forcefields or carpet storms than when they do it perfectly (or good enough to get practically the perfect outcome). I'd respond to your points in more detail, but I don't have the time at the moment to think about and type up a longer response, sorry.
Yeah, that's cool. I do understand how some people prefer BW over SC2, it's just preferences. If you're a better player, you can appreciate how skilled those BW players are, which is great.
My opinion is just that you should expect to get your ideas and commands across, so you can do more in battle, rather than having to fight against the controls to get the simplest commands out.
On July 15 2011 01:01 mmdmmd wrote: The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
Some of the auto features are actually necessary and good. Auto-mine, it is silly to send each worker manually to mine. There is no decision making in the action of making an scv, you either want it to gather something, or you want him to go somewhere. You don't want him to just stay at where he is like an idiot unless you tell him to do so. This is just a tedious, boring and unnecessarily repetitive action. Same for MBS. Do I want to make units? Yes. How many production facilities do I have? Let's say I have 5. If I want to train 5 units, I should be able to select all and do it. The reason? Read the above paragraph. .
Why automate something that's achievable with some practice? When you automate these things, you are taking away the "I can do the same thing, but I am better at it" factor in competitive gaming. It's what separate the best from the rest. Instead, blizz slowly turned sc into "the best is just like the rest".
Again, you are trying to apply something that has happened retroactively to something that happened in past. "Seperating the best from the rest", do you really think SC1 was made with this in mind? That the Korea and the game would be so popular and played at such a high level? Can you give me any source on whether these non-automated user interface features existed because of this, but not for other reasons like difficulty of coding them into the engine, or developers not having the vision that the game will be that much popular and be played at such a high level?
"However, the game was still marred by technical difficulties, so Bob Fitch completely redesigned the Warcraft II engine within two months to ensure that many of the features desired by the designers, such as the abilities for units to burrow and cloak, could be implemented."
"Starcraft will feature all the options that made Warcraft a huge success, and then some. While the incredibly simplistic, mouse-driven interface will still be utilized, it will be slightly altered so players can get more information while numerous units are selected."
These quotes from an interview with Bill Roper, look at what he's saying. It took them two months of redesigning the Warcraft 2 engine to do something like burrow and cloak possible. Think of making all the now-shunned automated features possible back then.
"I tend to think of Warcraft as being kind of like chess. You have similar pieces, and the strategy involves the different ways you use those pieces against the other player. Because of the differences between the species, Starcraft will allow you to develop very unique strategies based on which species you are playing, and will require you to think of different strategies to combat the other two species."
Their intention was to create a cool and fun game which had the differences between the species, and therefore would led to different strategies, and as such, a much more cooler game than the other RTS's of that era. In short words, an amazing RTS. BUT, most likely they never imagined what would happen with how the game has turned to be this successful.
Some people also practice and they achieve things like breaking coconuts with headbutts. That doesn't mean what they are doing is meaningful.
On July 15 2011 01:01 mmdmmd wrote: The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
Some of the auto features are actually necessary and good. Auto-mine, it is silly to send each worker manually to mine. There is no decision making in the action of making an scv, you either want it to gather something, or you want him to go somewhere. You don't want him to just stay at where he is like an idiot unless you tell him to do so. This is just a tedious, boring and unnecessarily repetitive action. Same for MBS. Do I want to make units? Yes. How many production facilities do I have? Let's say I have 5. If I want to train 5 units, I should be able to select all and do it. The reason? Read the above paragraph. .
Why automate something that's achievable with some practice? When you automate these things, you are taking away the "I can do the same thing, but I am better at it" factor in competitive gaming. It's what separate the best from the rest. Instead, blizz slowly turned sc into "the best is just like the rest".
Can you give me any source on whether these non-automated user interface features existed because of this, but not for other reasons like difficulty of coding them into the engine, or developers not having the vision that the game will be that much popular and be played at such a high level?
Why are you requesting my "source"? Can you please point out where I said: SC1 was made with these "ideas" in mind(or whatever you said I said).
On July 15 2011 01:01 mmdmmd wrote: The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
Some of the auto features are actually necessary and good. Auto-mine, it is silly to send each worker manually to mine. There is no decision making in the action of making an scv, you either want it to gather something, or you want him to go somewhere. You don't want him to just stay at where he is like an idiot unless you tell him to do so. This is just a tedious, boring and unnecessarily repetitive action. Same for MBS. Do I want to make units? Yes. How many production facilities do I have? Let's say I have 5. If I want to train 5 units, I should be able to select all and do it. The reason? Read the above paragraph. .
Why automate something that's achievable with some practice? When you automate these things, you are taking away the "I can do the same thing, but I am better at it" factor in competitive gaming. It's what separate the best from the rest. Instead, blizz slowly turned sc into "the best is just like the rest".
Not really. The new UI just took out the dull, repetitive stuff. Imagine a basketball game where every thirty seconds all the players had to stop playing and solve a puzzle, and couldn't resume until it was finished. Yeah, this rewards the players who can solve the puzzle the fastest, but it's not a measure of who the best basketball player is. On the same thought, BW macro rewards the player with the best mechanics, but it doesn't really measure who the best strategist and commander is. Strategy and micro does that.
On July 15 2011 01:01 mmdmmd wrote: The person who authorise the "auto" features in SC2 should be demoted like the SC2 head of Korea. He failed.
I suspect the "older gen" BW players had something to do with these decision. Back when SC2 was in development, Blizz asked BW pros for advice but due to the problem with Kespa, they were only able to reach a few. The problem is all these are slow/slumping players. Of course they would want these "auto" features. Hence what we have now. It's a shame really, BW being a more difficult game never stopped people from enjoying it in their own way. Blizz somehow failed to see that.
Some of the auto features are actually necessary and good. Auto-mine, it is silly to send each worker manually to mine. There is no decision making in the action of making an scv, you either want it to gather something, or you want him to go somewhere. You don't want him to just stay at where he is like an idiot unless you tell him to do so. This is just a tedious, boring and unnecessarily repetitive action. Same for MBS. Do I want to make units? Yes. How many production facilities do I have? Let's say I have 5. If I want to train 5 units, I should be able to select all and do it. The reason? Read the above paragraph. .
Why automate something that's achievable with some practice? When you automate these things, you are taking away the "I can do the same thing, but I am better at it" factor in competitive gaming. It's what separate the best from the rest. Instead, blizz slowly turned sc into "the best is just like the rest".
Can you give me any source on whether these non-automated user interface features existed because of this, but not for other reasons like difficulty of coding them into the engine, or developers not having the vision that the game will be that much popular and be played at such a high level?
Why are you requesting my "source"? Can you please point out where I said: SC1 was made with these "ideas" in mind(or whatever you said I said).
Don't frame me to justify your argument ok?
Because you are claiming that these "seperating the best from the rest" factor was there from the start. And I am saying, no, they never thought of that, they never imagined that, and the game wasn't made with that in mind, so when you think this way, you are taking a concept that has appeared after the game was released, to what devs had in mind when they were making the game.
From a spectator's perspective I welcome the changes in SC2.
I sucked at Brood War - my APM was around 60 on a good day - and I preferred to watch replays instead of playing. However the majority of games were incredibly dull. All the skill spent filling build queues; sending workers to mine; compensating for the woeful AI - it didn't come across visually when you were watching a replay and sometimes made it difficult to appreciate the battle that was really taking place between the two players.
In SC2 you generally see much more complex play. Often a strong amateur player will still be kiting marauders in one place, dropping marines in another, and all the while macro-ing back at base. Your argument is that the "ceiling has lowered" but I don't agree with that. SC2 rewards fast mechanics and multi-tasking just as much as BW ever did, it's just that the APM is being used to perform much more complex strategy than was ever possible before (and the level will only increase as the game matures and players begin to understand what is possible). For a spectator this makes for considerably more enjoyable games and that can only be good for e-sports as a whole.
I partially agree with your argument that top players have a greater degree of "fallibility" but I would say that the problem is with the tournament setup and not SC2. With your average BO3/5 it is often difficult for the skill difference to really come into play, especially when a 1 hour game can ultimately be decided by a choice of build order in the first 2 minutes. Perhaps if longer series were used then players would be more willing to GG earlier if they felt the game slipping away and then start afresh on a new map. This would remove some of the chance aspect and allow for the higher skill levels to shine through.
However that said, you still see the same familiar names continually cropping up in the later stages of SC2 tournaments. So if it ain't broke....
EPT
