|
On July 15 2011 05:10 Bleak wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 05:08 mmdmmd wrote:On July 15 2011 04:59 Bleak wrote:On July 15 2011 04:51 mmdmmd wrote:On July 15 2011 04:34 Bleak wrote: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.
Because you are claiming that these "seperating the best from the rest" factor was there from the start.
Source I said SC1 was like that "from the start" or STFU. (omg I think this is the first time I swear on TL  )
You are free to post your views. But please do not try to pass them as mine.
|
On July 15 2011 05:16 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 05:10 Bleak wrote:On July 15 2011 05:08 mmdmmd wrote:On July 15 2011 04:59 Bleak wrote:On July 15 2011 04:51 mmdmmd wrote:On July 15 2011 04:34 Bleak wrote: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. Because you are claiming that these "seperating the best from the rest" factor was there from the start.Source I said SC1 was like that "from the start" or STFU.
You did not say it directly, but that is my point, you think of the game of today and apply it to the game that was in making at past. I'm saying that the way the game was designed, eventually led to high-level play that really awarded practice and skill, but there is no way they could have thought about this and THEN make the game in accordance with that.
|
If starcraft was meant to be harder why include the keyboard at all to the game play? Just have a mouse and the left click, right clicking even. One button one mouse. Why doesn't BW switch to that? It would be more mechanically impressive.
|
On July 15 2011 05:09 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 04:51 mmdmmd wrote:On July 15 2011 04:34 Bleak wrote: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.
OK. But let's look at this in your view.
In a fantasy world, a basketball players is required to stop playing and solve a puzzle every 30 sec. It's part of the game in this world.
In this world, yes, the player who solve faster is the better basketball player. Because it's part of the game(in this world).
edit: actually we have something very similar in our world. I think it's called chess boxing or somthing like that. you can google it. In this game, neither the best chess player or the best boxer is truly "the best". You need both because it's "part of the game".
|
How do you practice strategy? I think if you're a decent intelligent human being, strategy should come naturally. It's just less impressive in SC2 because everyone is concentrating on the strategy aspect of the game.
Also, it's pretty funny that everyone who so fervently defends SC2 has little to no idea what BW is really like (read: joined TL last year). Anybody who has played BW for at least a year and has a working knowledge of the professional scene has no qualms recognizing the fact that BW takes more skill.
|
@blubbdavid
you haven't replied to my retort to your PM. I know you threatened to report me for posting my thoughts about SC2 and BW on the SC2 General Forum, but I really want to know why you want SC2 to be as easy as BW?
|
On July 15 2011 05:36 mmdmmd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 05:09 Requizen wrote:On July 15 2011 04:51 mmdmmd wrote:On July 15 2011 04:34 Bleak wrote: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. OK. But let's look at this in your view. In a fantasy world, a basketball players is required to stop playing and solve a puzzle every 30 sec. It's part of the game in this world. In this world, yes, the player who solve faster is the better basketball player. Because it's part of the game(in this world). edit: actually we have something very similar in our world. I think it's called chess boxing or somthing like that. you can google it. In this game, neither the best chess player or the best boxer is truly "the best". You need both because it's "part of the game".
Perhaps that wasn't the best example on my part, but close enough.
The point I was trying to make was that the BW UI detracted from the actual gameplay to do menial tasks. An RTS (such as Starcraft) is based around getting an army and controlling it with an overall goal to defeat your opponent. In my opinion, if I wanted to play a game that focused on economy more than anything, I'd play Civ or SimCity.
I prefer the action-orientation of SC2 over BW. As I said in an earlier post, I understand that some people like BW better, and that's cool, but saying that SC2 is "bad" or even just "worse" because it doesn't have a prohibitively annoying UI and AI system is just silly. Different games are different.
|
On July 15 2011 05:43 masami.sc wrote:
How do you practice strategy? I think if you're a decent intelligent human being, strategy should come naturally. It's just less impressive in SC2 because everyone is concentrating on the strategy aspect of the game.
Also, it's pretty funny that everyone who so fervently defends SC2 has little to no idea what BW is really like (read: joined TL last year). Anybody who has played BW for at least a year and has a working knowledge of the professional scene has no qualms recognizing the fact that BW takes more skill.
harder =\= skill
does it take more skill to be a surgeon or a swordsman?
How about a runner vs a sprinter?
NASCAR vs Indycar?
Football vs Rugby?
Which takes more "skill?"
Personally, I find it takes more skill to be a good golfer than a good BW player. But that's just my personal and biased perspective. I'm at least willing to accept it as such and not pretend otherwise.
|
On July 15 2011 05:43 masami.sc wrote:
How do you practice strategy? I think if you're a decent intelligent human being, strategy should come naturally. It's just less impressive in SC2 because everyone is concentrating on the strategy aspect of the game.
Also, it's pretty funny that everyone who so fervently defends SC2 has little to no idea what BW is really like (read: joined TL last year). Anybody who has played BW for at least a year and has a working knowledge of the professional scene has no qualms recognizing the fact that BW takes more skill.
Strategy in a game like Starcraft doesn't mean that. Ideas like "I should flank with my melee units to prevent the enemy from escaping" or "I need to protect my light units with heavy support units", or taking good positions is basic strategy. The strategy in SC (BW or WoL) is knowing the game and the metagame. The best strategist in the world, if they've never played SC2 before, can't sit at a computer and master the game in one go. Would they be able to recognize a 3 gate expand over a 4 gate nexus cancel? Would they consider the implications of utilizing Baneling drops on a massed Protoss deathball, at a time where Blings were never really used in ZvP?
SC2 and BW are equally as deep, SC2 is just easier to control. That is the difference, outside of specifics like units and maps.
BW does take more mechanical skill, of course. But most of that APM and memorization required is unnecessary and simply there because Blizz didn't build in functionality to BW's UI. The UI and controls for SC2 are more streamlined, which means easier to pick up and play, less restrictive.
I like that pros can extend their commands to troops easier, it makes for (in my opinion) faster paced games and more intensive micro, which will only get tighter and cooler as the game grows.
|
I agree with what you said, OP, however in SC1 and WC3, the games were changed TREMENDOUSLY with the expansions, and SC2 has TWO expansions that are lined up. Fact is, the game right now is what you describe (one that probably will not see any bonjwas,) but the expansions will probably be a different story.
We'll see after Legacy of the Void where the game is at, because ultimately that's what is important.
|
On July 15 2011 05:09 Requizen wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 04:51 mmdmmd wrote:On July 15 2011 04:34 Bleak wrote: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.
To turn your analogy around, why do we still require basketball players to dribble he ball at all? It's a pretty menial task that gets in the way of shooting, passing, and team work.
|
On July 15 2011 05:50 lorkac wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 05:43 masami.sc wrote:
How do you practice strategy? I think if you're a decent intelligent human being, strategy should come naturally. It's just less impressive in SC2 because everyone is concentrating on the strategy aspect of the game.
Also, it's pretty funny that everyone who so fervently defends SC2 has little to no idea what BW is really like (read: joined TL last year). Anybody who has played BW for at least a year and has a working knowledge of the professional scene has no qualms recognizing the fact that BW takes more skill. harder =\= skill does it take more skill to be a surgeon or a swordsman? How about a runner vs a sprinter? NASCAR vs Indycar? Football vs Rugby? Which takes more "skill?" Personally, I find it takes more skill to be a good golfer than a good BW player. But that's just my personal and biased perspective. I'm at least willing to accept it as such and not pretend otherwise.
Let me break this down for you. A surgeon has a completely different set of skills from that of a swordman, first of all. None of these sports purposely created an easier, more lenient set of rules to appeal to a mass audience. In Brood War, mechanics were hard to master. In SC2, they took the SAME mechanics and made them deliberately easier.
Your examples don't make sense because none of these are inherently easier than the other.
|
On July 15 2011 06:01 masami.sc wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 05:50 lorkac wrote:On July 15 2011 05:43 masami.sc wrote:
How do you practice strategy? I think if you're a decent intelligent human being, strategy should come naturally. It's just less impressive in SC2 because everyone is concentrating on the strategy aspect of the game.
Also, it's pretty funny that everyone who so fervently defends SC2 has little to no idea what BW is really like (read: joined TL last year). Anybody who has played BW for at least a year and has a working knowledge of the professional scene has no qualms recognizing the fact that BW takes more skill. harder =\= skill does it take more skill to be a surgeon or a swordsman? How about a runner vs a sprinter? NASCAR vs Indycar? Football vs Rugby? Which takes more "skill?" Personally, I find it takes more skill to be a good golfer than a good BW player. But that's just my personal and biased perspective. I'm at least willing to accept it as such and not pretend otherwise. Let me break this down for you. A surgeon has a completely different set of skills from that of a swordman, first of all. None of these sports purposely created an easier, more lenient set of rules to appeal to a mass audience. In Brood War, mechanics were hard to master. In SC2, they took the SAME mechanics and made them deliberately easier. Your examples don't make sense because none of these are inherently easier than the other.
Indycar is harder. You have to turn in two directions It isn't just....left....left....left...left....repeat
|
SC2 and BW are equally as deep, SC2 is just easier to control. That is the difference, outside of specifics like units and maps.
I agree, Maybe at the moment BW>SC2 (probably because it had 10 years and very high level players), but hopefully with the expansions SC2 will become so much better than now.
more intensive micro
I disagree. While the strategic part of BW and SC2 are about equivalent, i think ball vs ball make micro less "spectacular" and less useful, especially with the pathfinding where units push each other.
|
@Rokk dribbling is not required in basketball. You could take two steps and pass the ball, he takes 2 steps pass the ball and so on. Dribbling came about to circumvent simply holding the ball tight and walking to the hoop.
|
On July 15 2011 05:59 Rokk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 15 2011 05:09 Requizen wrote:On July 15 2011 04:51 mmdmmd wrote:On July 15 2011 04:34 Bleak wrote: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. To turn your analogy around, why do we still require basketball players to dribble he ball at all? It's a pretty menial task that gets in the way of shooting, passing, and team work.
If I remember my gym class history correctly (yeah, it was an odd school), dribbling was introduced to keep players from simply hugging the ball into themselves the entire game, which made it impossible to steal the ball via anything short of tackling the other player. It was an attempt to make the game more competitive, not to make it harder for the sake of being difficult.
But I digress >.>
|
On July 15 2011 06:06 IGotPlayguuu wrote:Show nested quote +SC2 and BW are equally as deep, SC2 is just easier to control. That is the difference, outside of specifics like units and maps. I agree, Maybe at the moment BW>SC2 (probably because it had 10 years and very high level players), but hopefully with the expansions SC2 will become so much better than now. I disagree. While the strategic part of BW and SC2 are about equivalent, i think ball vs ball make micro less "spectacular" and less useful, especially with the pathfinding where units push each other.
As I said before, "ball v ball" is going out of style in a big way. Mobile forces, drop play, speedling runbys, multipronged attacks and caster-based compositions are demolishing 1a deathballs.
This is still a growing phase for SC2. Everyone was bad at the start, then everyone cheesed for like, 5 months, then deathball play was unbeatable, now mobile/multitask based gameplay is getting it's turn in the spotlight. Whether it sticks or not will remain to be seen.
|
You think the skill-ceiling has been reached? After 1 year of release? After 2 months since the last major balance update? Talk about drawing conclusions prematurely.
|
SC2 will eventually become more entertaining to watch due to the need to outsmart your opponent.
|
I completely disagree that SC2 has a lower skill ceiling; you're implying we've already hit that ceiling... watching Code S games we are constantly seeing people miss macro accumulating thousands of minerals (well before they max out) and a lot of times it's the person with less mistakes who wins. Until we start seeing games of perfect play against perfect play, I think it's safe to say that the mechanics skill ceiling has not been reached.
As far as players dropping from Champions to Code B, I think that's more a reflection of the game only being out a year, and the first people who switched to SC2 weren't necessarily the best. As new better people enter the scene, they should be dropping out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
