EPTThe Rhino in the Room - Page 35
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
| ||
|
sluggaslamoo
Australia4494 Posts
On July 15 2011 07:19 karpo wrote: How do everyone who loves the "mechanics" argument defend against this parody? Hotkeying building is easy compared to Warcraft 2 where you had to go to base and manually build stuff. The skill cieling is lowered with the addition of bigger control groups and being able to hotkey production buildings. BW would be alot better without all the pandering to all the casuals of the 90's. Players would differentiate themselves on the INSANE mechanics required for Warcraft 2 as it was way harder to play and had more hurdles to jump, BW is casual and should not be considered a esport. - That's how all these complains sounds to me, BW did fine even if it provided UI/AI improvements and SC2 will do fine. (I know there's more to WC2 vs BW but it's just a fun example) Lollll have u even played warcraft 2? You can hotkey buildings and make units while looking away, it works the same as bw. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On July 15 2011 08:22 Lumire wrote: What sc2 will degenerate into is build order vs build order due to there being 0 difference between the pros mechanics wise. So if you call choosing a build order that counters his build order before the game even starts strategy and outsmarting your opponent then yeah sc2 is going be very strategic. That argument doesn't really hold water. In BW, all the pros (Flash, Jaedong, Bisu) already have comparable or even the same level of macro, so there already is 0 difference between them macro wise. Therefore, by your logic, BW has no strategy? SC2's mechanics are easier, no one is arguing that. You saying that BW is superior because of the fact that the pros have to do repetitive macro that takes way more APM than it should, well that's just kind of silly :\ | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
On July 15 2011 08:36 Requizen wrote: Suddenly I realize: there is a Brood War forum. Why do people who hate SC2 come to the SC2 forums? I'm fine with discussion and comparing differences, but if you just want to say "SC2 is easy and dumb lolol", then... don't come to a forum where we discuss SC2? There are people who actively play or watch both games. This forum is not your own little world where SC2 is immune to any criticism. This thread DOES discuss Starcraft 2, while comparing some aspects of it with Starcraft: Brood War. Unfortunately, every time BW is brought up on this board in some form of comparison, it always attracts hoards of idiots posting "heh, clicking fast? thats not a skill. wheres the strategy in that". | ||
|
Miefer
Taiwan229 Posts
I mean sc2 came out in 2010. these things are standart in rts nowaday. also this game is not only designed for people who played BW before, it should bring new players into rts too. I mean would sc2 be popular at it is now with a ton of tournements and price money without the big player pool who are interested in sc2? if sc2 would be the same as a game which is more than 10 years old,only with a graphic update, I am sure sc2 would be insignificant like BW in the foreigner scene. Also I would compare sc2 to soccer. everbody can play soccer, it isnt hard to get into that but most of us will never be as good as Messi, Ronaldo or Rooney. | ||
|
humanimal
United States151 Posts
Some people are obviously missing the main point of this article. I'm gonna see if I can take a crack at it -.-" (and hopefully add a bit of my own insight). The OP is basically saying that in BW, mechanics allowed for a distinction between the good and the great. While strategy was definitely a part of the game (look at the original liquipedia, then try to argue this point), mechanics were a barrier to overcome first. Someone couldn't just waltz in with a crazy strategy, and win. Furthermore, a player of lesser skill could not punish a better player with hard countering in a 10 second battle because the other player looked away for part of the battle (primarily the engagement). This punishing would not usually overcome an advantage slowly built up over the process of 10-15+ minutes (as is more commonly seen in SC2 than in BW). In SC2, because mechanics are not as much of a limiting factor (they still play a big role), players of lesser skill can take advantage of catching an opponent off guard much easier and thereby swing the advantage in his/her favor much more quickly. This generally results in less back and forth play (hence the big build up to 200/200 -> major engagement -> profit) and the unforgiving nature of bad engagements. We definitely see more movement away from this because now micro plays a much bigger role. Macroing is simplified more than micro (as in bigger changes between sc2 and scbw) thus microing properly is often more rewarding. In conclusion, scbw fans enjoyed the multiple build ups that occurred in bw and enjoyed a lot of the macro/micro balance (focus on macro and therefore management style; think savior's zerg play). SC2 fans argue that sc2 is still just as competitive and are (rightfully) angered when scbw fans bash sc2 for being easy and uncompetitive; the focus is still on the macro/micro balance (but the focus is on micro and therefore multitasking; think multipronged attacks). The truth ultimately comes down to the fact that the games focus on different things in the current time. The differences are that while the games share similar mechanics, the emphasis is different; possibly almost as different as scbw and wc3. EDIT: That last phrase regarding sc and wc3 was inspired by the fact that most of the arguments are the same. Speed vs. strategy and looking at both extremes. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On July 15 2011 08:54 Daozzt wrote: There are people who actively play or watch both games. This forum is not your own little world where SC2 is immune to any criticism. Fortunately, this thread DOES discuss Starcraft 2, while comparing some aspects of it with Starcraft: Brood War. Ah, I didn't mean any insult, simply that statements like this: Don't need to be said, as they are not discussion. It's simply someone attacking the game for the sake of attacking it. I watch both, but prefer SC2. I don't actively go and bash on BW on the BW forums, and in fact, I don't do it here. No one says that clicking fast isn't a skill, I'm simply saying that having macro mechanics != having superior strategy and understanding of the game and metagame. While BW players have that understanding, it's not because they can remember to tell their workers to mine, that skill is merely incidental. | ||
|
Lumire
United States607 Posts
On July 15 2011 08:31 lorkac wrote: BW: macro was hard but the game forgives you for making mistakes. SC2: Macro is easy but the game rewards perfect play. I wonder which sounds more appealing? The reason BW rewards mistakes is because micro has a much higher high skill ceiling in BW and has way more opportunity's to micro. There is huge variance between micro even at the pro level because every single unit can be micro'd to be 100x more effective then it was otherwise. In a ZvZ between a lower level amateur and a pro in a 12 pool vs 9 pool speed situation with 6 zerglings vs 6 zerglings, if the 12 pooling player holds without losing any drones he is at a very advantages situation, the pro will ALWAYS come out advantageous because even a simple unit can be micro'd and positioned to be much much more effective, not one player wins with 1 ling with half hp left more effective, like one player will have 3 medium-high health zerglings left over. And for macro its a common site to see idle barracks for periods of time or a zerg with 3 larve on each hatchery,the macro is hard because of no mbs obviously and the fact that theres SO MUCH to do that even flash cant do everything he wants any given time, because macro is hard the player with better macro/micro always has a chance to come back and nearly every great game of BW involves a seemingly impossible comeback from one player. Sc2 cant be like this because nearly all units are A-move or smartcasting makes for barley any variance between micro at the pro level, and macro is so easy that every single high level player has absolutely perfect macro unless he has a stroke during the game. A video game with no opportunity's for top players to climb above other players will always degenerate into luck/build order battles and mind games, since near prefect play is so easy to achieve. All the talk about "outsmarting" your opponent is all bullshit and ridiculous. I wonder which game sounds more appealing? | ||
|
Protoss_Carrier
414 Posts
Intelligence and be able to click really, really fast are two totally different skill of human mental power. BW in Korea select for the later. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On July 15 2011 09:02 humanimal wrote: Okay I read through the first three pages of comments and died a little inside. Some people are obviously missing the main point of this article. I'm gonna see if I can take a crack at it -.-" (and hopefully add a bit of my own insight). The OP is basically saying that in BW, mechanics allowed for a distinction between the good and the great. While strategy was definitely a part of the game (look at the original liquipedia, then try to argue this point), mechanics were a barrier to overcome first. Someone couldn't just waltz in with a crazy strategy, and win. Furthermore, a player of lesser skill could not punish a better player with hard countering in a 10 second battle because the other player looked away for part of the battle (primarily the engagement). This punishing could even overcome an advantage slowly built up over the process of 10-15+ minutes. In SC2, because mechanics are not as much of a limiting factor (they still play a big role), players of lesser skill can take advantage of catching an opponent off guard much easier and thereby swing the advantage in his/her favor much more quickly. This generally results in less back and forth play (hence the big build up to 200/200 -> major engagement -> profit) and the unforgiving nature of bad engagements. We definitely see more movement away from this because now micro plays a much bigger role. Macroing is simplified more than micro (as in bigger changes between sc2 and scbw) thus microing properly is often more rewarding. In conclusion, scbw fans enjoyed the multiple build ups that occurred in bw and enjoyed a lot of the macro/micro balance (focus on macro and therefore management style; think savior's zerg play). SC2 fans argue that sc2 is still just as competitive and are (rightfully) angered when scbw fans bash sc2 for being easy and uncompetitive; the focus is still on the macro/micro balance (but the focus is on micro and therefore multitasking; think multipronged attacks). The truth ultimately comes down to the fact that the games focus on different things in the current time. The differences are that while the games share similar mechanics, the emphasis is different; possibly almost as different as sc and wc3. Thank you for putting into words what I've been trying to say :D While good players can catch great players off guard with crazy things like you say, the determining factor for amazing players (DRG, MC, HuK, MVP) is that they don't get thrown off by those kinds of things. So that "great but not top" tier is always in contention, but the best players around continue to be the best players around. | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
On July 15 2011 09:02 Requizen wrote: Ah, I didn't mean any insult, simply that statements like this: Don't need to be said, as they are not discussion. It's simply someone attacking the game for the sake of attacking it. I watch both, but prefer SC2. I don't actively go and bash on BW on the BW forums, and in fact, I don't do it here. No one says that clicking fast isn't a skill, I'm simply saying that having macro mechanics != having superior strategy and understanding of the game and metagame. While BW players have that understanding, it's not because they can remember to tell their workers to mine, that skill is merely incidental. Well, yeah, it doesn't happen because BW vs SC2 arguments rarely pop up in the BW forum, and that the SC2 forum is a lot more active. But generally, every thread that mentions both games will end up in a shit storm like this thread. Also, I've read most of this thread, and the "clicking is not a skill, blah blah BW is about making workers go mine" appears literally on every other page. Like that MBS video on this page. It's been posted like 10 times already and people still believe it's a legitimate argument. | ||
|
Daozzt
United States1263 Posts
| ||
|
badwater
Canada77 Posts
| ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
On July 15 2011 08:31 lorkac wrote: BW: macro was hard but the game forgives you for making mistakes. SC2: Macro is easy but the game rewards perfect play. I wonder which sounds more appealing? The game isnt what forgives you... your good play after making one mistake is what forgives you. | ||
|
Requizen
United States33802 Posts
On July 15 2011 09:04 Lumire wrote: The reason BW rewards mistakes is because micro has a much higher high skill ceiling in BW and has way more opportunity's to micro. There is huge variance between micro even at the pro level because every single unit can be micro'd to be 100x more effective then it was otherwise. In a ZvZ between a lower level amateur and a pro in a 12 pool vs 9 pool speed situation with 6 zerglings vs 6 zerglings, if the 12 pooling player holds without losing any drones he is at a very advantages situation, the pro will ALWAYS come out advantageous because even a simple unit can be micro'd and positioned to be much much more effective, not one player wins with 1 ling with half hp left more effective, like one player will have 3 medium-high health zerglings left over. And for macro its a common site to see idle barracks for periods of time or a zerg with 3 larve on each hatchery,the macro is hard because of no mbs obviously and the fact that theres SO MUCH to do that even flash cant do everything he wants any given time, because macro is hard the player with better macro/micro always has a chance to come back and nearly every great game of BW involves a seemingly impossible comeback from one player. Sc2 cant be like this because nearly all units are A-move or smartcasting makes for barley any variance between micro at the pro level, and macro is so easy that every single high level player has absolutely perfect macro unless he has a stroke during the game. A video game with no opportunity's for top players to climb above other players will always degenerate into luck/build order battles and mind games, since near prefect play is so easy to achieve. All the talk about "outsmarting" your opponent is all bullshit and ridiculous. I wonder which game sounds more appealing? Uh, the bolded statement (and the whole post) boggles me. Aside from nitpicky stats, how are Zerglings and Drones any different between BW and SC2? Except for the exact number changes (and I don't even know if there are any for health/damage), they are exactly the same. Just because there are no crazy 6 Zergling micro wars going on right now doesn't mean there can't be. Units are about as a-move in SC2 as they were in BW, except now they're smarter. To quote Day9, you don't "need 200 APM to get a Dragoon to walk down a ramp". That's not a bad thing, that's fixing crappy AI. The game isn't a year old yet. It will evolve, things will change, plays will get cooler. | ||
|
Lumire
United States607 Posts
On July 15 2011 09:13 Requizen wrote: Uh, the bolded statement (and the whole post) boggles me. Aside from nitpicky stats, how are Zerglings and Drones any different between BW and SC2? Except for the exact number changes (and I don't even know if there are any for health/damage), they are exactly the same. Just because there are no crazy 6 Zergling micro wars going on right now doesn't mean there can't be. . With auto surround yes it actually does, and fixing stuff like dragoon pathing is fine but when you butcher the rest of the game is when it gets sticky. | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
Blizzards policy with micro has been seek-and-destroy... doesnt make me think HOTS is gonna have higher skill ceiling | ||
|
Miefer
Taiwan229 Posts
On July 15 2011 09:07 Daozzt wrote: Well, yeah, it doesn't happen because BW vs SC2 arguments rarely pop up in the BW forum, and that the SC2 forum is a lot more active. But generally, every thread that mentions both games will end up in a shit storm like this thread. Also, I've read most of this thread, and the "clicking is not a skill, blah blah BW is about making workers go mine" appears literally on every other page. Like that MBS video on this page. It's been posted like 10 times already and people still believe it's a legitimate argument. well it counts for both sides. BW people reduce SC2 down to automine and MBS and SC2 people BW to clicking  | ||
|
Lumire
United States607 Posts
On July 15 2011 09:16 puppykiller wrote: Blizzards policy with micro has been seek-and-destroy... doesnt make me think HOTS is gonna have higher skill ceiling That and removing "unnecessary complexity's" and making "big cool shiny a-move glass cannon units". | ||
|
puppykiller
United States3137 Posts
On July 15 2011 09:21 Lumire wrote: That and removing "unnecessary complexity's" and making "big cool shiny a-move glass cannon units". And adding a few absurdly easy macro mechanics to pretend to add a dimension of skill to the game | ||
| ||
