|
On July 13 2011 14:21 deafhobbit wrote:
Really, i don't understand where this "strategy isn't that important in BW except if you're super high level" idea comes from. Just watch some of the early daily's if you want to get a glimpse of what's going on in BW besides macro.
tbh, you really do have to have decent mechanics before strategy starts to matter much. It's why the stove works against bad players, when it obviously should not
|
Umm, if the skill ceiling is so low then why do koreans keep beating foreigners?
|
I would take this more seriously if it was "The Hippopotamus in the Room." Just something to remember for next time. Much more noble animals, Hippopotamuses.
|
On July 13 2011 15:03 aimless wrote:
A sham you say? It is theoretical, because I'm theorizing (theoretical: of, pertaining to, or consisting in theory; not practical). And yes, it's opinionated, because as I stated from the start, it's my opinion. So I literally don't understand what you're problem with it is. It's more a conversation piece than some empirical work of majesty. And it is actually achieving it's goal quite nicely.
Starting threads making a serious claim, then fall back to this is my opinion and I am just trying to strike a conversation are probably the worst way to get your start on TL... I even point out ways on how you CAN back up your arguments with data back in page 3. I am willing to wait for you to do that work. You can even pm me the graphs if this topic end up getting locked.
|
On July 13 2011 15:08 Die4Ever wrote:
Umm, if the skill ceiling is so low then why do koreans keep beating foreigners?
Logically, if a foreigner ever beats a korean than the game isn't hard enough.
|
On July 13 2011 14:33 aimless wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 14:25 Primadog wrote:
This article is terrible.
It is terrible because it consists entirely of conjectures and false analogies with no evidence or data to back it up. The central premise: that the skill ceiling is low, completely counters all existing tournament results everywhere.
Elephant was bad, but this was infinitely worse. There are plenty of resources available if you know or bother to look to which to back your assertions, but no effort were made. Shame on you. Thanks for the opinion. 1. Explain an example of a false analogy. 2. This article was theoretical in nature; it was never intended to have data (which seems impossible to obtain for this somewhat subjective concept anyway). 3. Counters tournament results? I just offer an opinion why MKP goes from GSL champ to out of Code S. Or why Fruitdealer has never been heard from again. The results are erratic, whether I try to explain them or not. 4. The Elephant article was not bad, you just had a knee-jerk reaction to it. 5. Again, resources aren't necessary to suggest a subjective argument. You give me a couple statistics I could use to "prove" the relative skill ceilings of BW and SC2 and I will go do that. It seems like an untenable criticism of the article.
To your 2nd point Fruitdealer was a GSL champion due to him having amazing skill at the game but he is relatively known to not practice as hard as others and thus he fell behind more and more. Also MKP was never a GSL champion and pro's even in BW had matchups they are weak at.
For example Idra's ZvP is lacking but he has a strong ZvT but Losira has a very strong ZvP but a weak ZvT which means if Losira got placed in a group with 3 solid terrans he could fall into code A not because of a low skill cieling but because he cant play ZvT that well.
|
Doesn't the fact that almost all of the GSL champs are repeat champions kind of throw a wrench in this old idea?
|
On July 13 2011 14:58 Severus_ wrote:
This thing again i hope it gets locked I disagree with the OP because first you can compere SC2 thats is 1 year old and BW that is 13 years old.2nd saying that the skill level is low yes the game is more easy for casuals and yes there is the AI but think again after 2 years making your scvs and other things that are auto-tuned by the game WILL NOT MAKE you PRO in SC2.The game will be million years ahead and you will have to do so much more because the AI is so much better look at MC vs PuMa final at some battles you see that PuMa has way more things then MC but MC wins the battle then MC goes for a attack with more stuff and loses them why? because players adjusted things and the battle went another way.Now players lets say can adjust 3 or 4 things at 1 battle and react to 3-4 things that the opponent is doing in the battle while macroing behind imagine after some years players start to adjust 13things at one battle and react to 13 other things the game will be at a whole new level so don't tell me how the skill level is low and stop judging stuff that are so new.The other thing is to say top players will switch fast and there is no dominant player is a insult to all those pro gamers who practice day and night to become better ppl like Idra,NesTea,MC,HuK and many others now maybe there isn't 1 who is above all but there is a pack that is above all.Even in BW there were only some types of dominant players who had only 1 special skill that put them above others but their other skills were on top level as well.Only now after 13 years there is this kid called Flash who has all of them and owns the scene like no one ever was.
PP:I'm sry for my grammar and i hope this gets closed fast.
Swing and a miss...
Three strikes you're out!
Seriously, what the hell is this. You are lucky that I am interested in this topic otherwise I would not wade through this mess. Ok lets go.
This thing again i hope it gets locked I disagree with the OP because first you can compere SC2 thats is 1 year old and BW that is 13 years old.2nd saying that the skill level is low yes the game is more easy for casuals and yes there is the AI but think again after 2 years making your scvs and other things that are auto-tuned by the game WILL NOT MAKE you PRO in SC2
How is this even remotely related to what the OP is saying? He is simply saying that there is a different skill set required.
The game will be million years ahead and you will have to do so much more because the AI is so much better look at MC vs PuMa final at some battles you see that PuMa has way more things then MC but MC wins the battle then MC goes for a attack with more stuff and loses them why? because players adjusted things and the battle went another way.Now players lets say can adjust 3 or 4 things at 1 battle and react to 3-4 things that the opponent is doing in the battle while macroing behind imagine after some years players start to adjust 13things at one battle and react to 13 other things the game will be at a whole new level so don't tell me how the skill level is low and stop judging stuff that are so new
Again, read the OP. Yes, he says the skill ceiling is lower than BW. A questionable and unprovable statement. I don't see him deriding the skill of SC2 players. On the contrary he is simply pointing out that the games are different.
Are you seeing a pattern yet?
The other thing is to say top players will switch fast and there is no dominant player is a insult to all those pro gamers who practice day and night to become better ppl like Idra,NesTea,MC,HuK and many others now maybe there isn't 1 who is above all but there is a pack that is above all.Even in BW there were only some types of dominant players who had only 1 special skill that put them above others but their other skills were on top level as well.Only now after 13 years there is this kid called Flash who has all of them and owns the scene like no one ever was.
If you truly believe, that the SC2 players you mentioned are dominating the scene in the way that BW "dominators" (I won't use the word) did, then ok you have a point. Otherwise, the OP's point stands, there have not been players that consistantly dominate all opposition for extended periods of time.
All in all, calm down a little. The OP didn't get antagonistic, why do you?
|
On July 13 2011 15:04 Gimix wrote:
Oh look it's THIS thread again.
You're entire argument has a huge flaw and because of it has absolutely no value. What's the flaw?
Micro skill ceiling. SC2 has an unattainable skill ceiling with regard to micro. Check the automaton 2000 videos. Ignoring this is ignoring half the game.
Micro never has, never can and never will have a skill ceiling. When people refer to the skill ceiling of StarCraft they tend to mean Macro.
Just because you disagree that there is no skill ceiling does not mean the article has no value the argument was "To be a good player there is less time required to be spent in Activity A so players have to be more competent at Activity B to define themselves as a better player, which is different to how it was in broodwar". It doesn't matter where the skill ceiling is, the point still stands.
|
I think, most of the OP's points are valid.
But, SCBW has such a high ceiling(mechanically) just because it's engineering-wise retarded(due to it's age, don't bash me).
If you let me proceed with an analogy,it's like watching pro nascar/f1 drivers steering cars with square wheels. Is it more demanding than using normal wheels? Hell yes, but it's just a travesty, an accindental fact.
SCBW aimed to be what SC2 is now. Tech restrictions and the near deity status it enjoyed in the Korean community maintained it in the top. It's time for it to step down.
|
Why is there rotating champions? If you are good enough to go into every game with a 60% chance of winning, you will win a Bo3 65~% of the time and a Bo5 68% of the time, you need 3 Bo3 and 2 Bo5 (or something similar) to win a GSL. That means someone with a 60% win rate in ever matchup a less than 13% chance of winning a GSL. Nestea has 2, MC has 2, MVP has 2. The variety is killing me. Winning 3 OSLs was so common.
|
Well OP you raise some very interesting points, I agree that SC2 should not be compared to BW
...at least not yet...
The main counter point to your stance, and the point that has the most clout is that BW players had been playing for a decade plus, while SC2 is just over a year old. the reason i am saying this because of a few things:
1. In The first year of SC Vanilla/BW, no one watched as players played for the very first time, or even tens/ hundreds of times after that. There wasn't a Camera in player's face while they worked out all of their kinks.
2. afterward, they had YEARS of practice, again this is important because the longer you play, the better you get. If you were to go back to the earlier days of BW, and watch those games, and compare those to the BW games of this year, last year, or even 3 years ago, it's probably gonna look terrible, well maybe not terrible, but not up to the standard that BW is at now. These people have been playing so long that Macro/ micro has become second nature to them. Most of them are flawless nad it's that ability to be flawless while thinking strategy that separates a Pro BW players from the masses.
In SC2 No one has been able to have flawless macro consistently yet. Not enough practice. Really good yes, flawless no. will it be easier to get there? It should, yet no one has yet.
You see pros/GMs making mistakes that platinum / diamond players make(not as often of course). The game hasn't had enough time to mature(later point) to where blink micro / ff micro is second nature to pros. they have huge and too frequent slip ups. this will get better with time as better people enter the pro scene and those who cannot keep up with the improvement fall out of the public spotlight.
3. The three races haven't been anywhere fully explored, nor have the tiniest of the tiny nuances been found yet. one easy example of this, although most will laugh at the thought of this now, is zerg larva management. every one (Pros included) goes "well you have to know when to make units or when to drone", allocating the whole cycle of larva to one or the other. something that i feel, within the coming 2, 3, or 4 years, will separate great zerg players from tip top pro zergs will be that they actually manage their larva by the larvae not by the batch. That is a seemingly small thing that will make a world of difference when defending in the future,
4. You cannot fault the game, nor the developers, for the game being less buggy and programmed better thus making it easier to play. high hotkey binding number is one thing, bad pathing/ ai is another. would smarter dragoons have made the game less fun to watch, I dont think so. In fact i think it would be great for both players and spectator. To have units do what they were supposed to do in the first place is a step forward in my book.
Final point.
5. The Game is still changing(literally) -- with Blizz still doing major patches, we wont get to those highest levels of performance. if build times/ upgrade times/ techtrees(expansions) changing, you wont be able to get to the point were the player can play enough to just know what to do, without having to reset it. for instance, after HOTS comes out. tech trees / unit comps will be different, which means a lot of current knowledge will be obsolete, and again when the toss expansion comes out(the name escapes me atm). high level players will have to relearn some crucial nit-picky stuff. making some who we may consider great now, less great because they dont catch on to the new small things as fast as some others.
Conclusion... Meh I wasn't actually trying to write this much, but whatever.
Real Conclusion - To say that SC2 will not be as entertaining as BW had come to be at this stage in SC2's life is a bit premature. As far as i can tell, most pros came into the game competent thanks to BW. we didnt have to go through the OMG you can bind hotkeys stage.
TL; DR ~ since it is really early in SC2s life cycle we, have not yet had the ability to find the true skill ceiling of SC2 because every one is still learning the ins and outs of the game. When the ceiling IS found.. it will be as if not more epic than BW games
|
On July 13 2011 15:15 Tektos wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 15:04 Gimix wrote:
Oh look it's THIS thread again.
You're entire argument has a huge flaw and because of it has absolutely no value. What's the flaw?
Micro skill ceiling. SC2 has an unattainable skill ceiling with regard to micro. Check the automaton 2000 videos. Ignoring this is ignoring half the game. Micro never has, never can and never will have a skill ceiling. When people refer to the skill ceiling of StarCraft they tend to mean Macro. Just because you disagree that there is no skill ceiling does not mean the article has no value the argument was "To be a good player there is less time required to be spent in Activity A so players have to be more competent at Activity B to define themselves as a better player, which is different to how it was in broodwar". It doesn't matter where the skill ceiling is, the point still stands.
"But I think the reason GSL champs keep rotating (and why players go from the top of Code S on out to Code B and back up again) is the lower skill ceiling"
Despite the conclusion, his argument is clearly "SC2 has a lower skill ceiling and this makes winning sc2 matches at a top level easier for the lesser skilled players".
So, yes, it does matter where the skill ceiling is. It's not lower than BW; it's just in a different place.
|
There you go, kurosuke's post is the one I have been fishing for while being relentless with the OP's arguments. There may be a day when SC2 has just wayyyy to many ace players whom cannot differentiate themselves from one-another due to the "skill ceiling," but that's not today. The data sets we have thus far does meet that conclusion.
|
just my 2 cents... im willing to bet that pro SC2 atm is alot more entertaining than BW was in its first 1-2 years
|
On July 13 2011 15:22 Primadog wrote:
There you go, kurosuke's post is the one I have been fishing for while being relentless with the OP's arguments. There may be a day when SC2 has just wayyyy to many ace players whom cannot differentiate themselves from one-another due to the "skill ceiling," but that's not today. The data sets we have thus far does meet that conclusion.
thanks for the love <3
|
I would totally agree with this and as someone who has played rts games at a high level, the sc2 matches just feel very dry and predictable. The fights its really clear whos going to win, and theres not much of the differentiation to even challenge my predictions while watching. In BW I can feel the effort their exerting and feel the back and forth struggle for control
the comparing of BW's beginning to sc2s beginning and saying "well just give it time" is a flawed arguement. These players have 12 years of competitive experience in a scene that was fully developed. SC2 scene isnt introducing magical concepts like practicing, teams, low latency. BW was out at the dawn of the internet and of course people played horribly. Noone knew what it was going to be or what it could be. Theres obviously a lot more detail that could be provided but it really its up to you to want to figure out why they are not directly comparable.
From my view its just so inherently obvious that this game is much shallower and honestly boring from a spectators perspective. If the game had a different title there wouldnt be so many crappy arguements against that. It feels like the dev team tried to make it difficult but failed becuase they wouldnt compromise any new ui features. It also feels like they tried to make it feel unique but just added a bunch of mechanics they dont seem to offer much differentiation opportunities. I cant tell you how stupid it is that forcefields are exciting to me or marine splitting to a lesser extent. The only mildly difficult thing to me is implementing blink stalkers perfectly, but even that feels doable.
|
On July 13 2011 15:16 Steveling wrote:
I think, most of the OP's points are valid.
But, SCBW has such a high ceiling(mechanically) just because it's engineering-wise retarded(due to it's age, don't bash me).
If you let me proceed with an analogy,it's like watching pro nascar/f1 drivers steering cars with square wheels. Is it more demanding than using normal wheels? Hell yes, but it's just a travesty, an accindental fact.
SCBW aimed to be what SC2 is now. Tech restrictions and the near deity status it enjoyed in the Korean community maintained it in the top. It's time for it to step down.
The reason WHY it had a near godlike status in Korea is what you should be focusing on, not that it did at all. Also, what 'tech restrictions'? You make South Korea sound like a third world country that on average couldn't afford computers produced after 2002 -_-.
|
On July 13 2011 15:16 Steveling wrote:
I think, most of the OP's points are valid.
But, SCBW has such a high ceiling(mechanically) just because it's engineering-wise retarded(due to it's age, don't bash me).
If you let me proceed with an analogy,it's like watching pro nascar/f1 drivers steering cars with square wheels. Is it more demanding than using normal wheels? Hell yes, but it's just a travesty, an accindental fact.
SCBW aimed to be what SC2 is now. Tech restrictions and the near deity status it enjoyed in the Korean community maintained it in the top. It's time for it to step down.
Actually this is not true. I dont know why this opinion is cited so much on teamliquid, but bw is not at all hard mechanically. Any 10 year old boy can learn to play without any problmes.
Yes, there are a lot of things that the AI dont do for you, but thats just a part of the game. I always liked one saying about bw "Easy to learn, hard to master", I think this is the main reason for its enormous success as an e-sport. This is also valid for other popular esports games - quake, counter-strike, wc3 etc. In SC2 its more like "Easy to learn, easy to master", which i`m not quite sure is the optimal way for a esport game.
|
On July 13 2011 15:27 Ruthless wrote:
I would totally agree with this and as someone who has played rts games at a high level, the sc2 matches just feel very dry and predictable. The fights its really clear whos going to win, and theres not much of the differentiation to even challenge my predictions while watching. In BW I can feel the effort their exerting and feel the back and forth struggle for control
the comparing of BW's beginning to sc2s beginning and saying "well just give it time" is a flawed arguement. These players have 12 years of competitive experience in a scene that was fully developed. SC2 scene isnt introducing magical concepts like practicing, teams, low latency. BW was out at the dawn of the internet and of course people played horribly. Noone knew what it was going to be or what it could be. Theres obviously a lot more detail that could be provided but it really its up to you to want to figure out why they are not directly comparable.
You knew puma was going to beat MC's army 30 supply down?
TvP... down in supply.. winning?
The only thing dry and predictable in this thread is the BW anti sc2 posters
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
