The Rhino in the Room - Page 41

On July 15 2011 23:14 Kanku wrote:


This argument is still completely wrong...
You cannot compare Flash's stats and MC's, Nestea's and MVP's because there is load of factors to take into account such as the fact that Flash as way more games played and against a more competitive selection of players...

On July 13 2011 14:22 Waxangel wrote:
To give a more serious response, I think that players ARE starting to do some great things with the free time that the easier macro/micro gives them. If you watch some of the highest level games lately, there's a lot of multi-pronged tactics and harassment going on.

Case in point: The Puma vs MC games at the NASL grand final.

I don't think this level of play has spread to everyone, but I think it will be much more commonplace within three~six months.

On July 15 2011 23:14 Kanku wrote:


This argument is still completely wrong...
You cannot compare Flash's stats and MC's, Nestea's and MVP's because there is load of factors to take into account such as the fact that Flash as way more games played and against a more competitive selection of players...

On July 15 2011 23:26 Loodah wrote:


I'm going by the information available. To refute the previous point, it works soundly. Part of his argument is the inconsistency - but really the players are as consistent as should be expected of the best players. They all have good win percentages at the highest level in all matchups. What more can you ask of them really? Essentially what you're suggesting is that no matter how consistent the players are, the argument can't be made that SC2 has the potential to be a truly competitive SC2 game. Either you're wrong, or you think that it's because the players have only been playing for a year. It's impossible to compare someone like Flash to someone like MC because SC2 hasn't been out for over a decade.

On July 15 2011 23:30 Kanku wrote:


Yes that's exactly what I'm saying we don't know if we'll ever see people as dominant as FlaSh in SC2 especially when there is 2 addons to go.
Edit:To sum up, the OP point is not proven and yours too

On July 15 2011 23:43 Loodah wrote:


I'm not making a separate argument really, other than just refuting the original poster's point. So I don't know where you're going with this. I'm just saying you can't really compare the competitive gameplay after a year (a really fantastic year, btw) to that of an RTS a decade old. In everything we CAN compare, SC2 is better - Graphics, interface, etc.

That stuff is irrefutable.

On July 15 2011 23:36 ddrddrddrddr wrote:
For those arguing that Starcraft 2 is still new and that professional players are nowhere near the polish of BW players, might I suggest that a possible reason for this? In Broodwar, micro and execution was key to many type of fights, especially in infestor based plays. In Starcraft 2, it is more important that macro and unit type is done correctly. It is for a good reason that Day[9] have advised newer players in the past to simply A the army and focus on production at base instead. To do anything of the sort in Starcraft 2 would be suicidal for any unit composition. Other factors like fungal growth, forcefield, marauder slow, etc even make micro something of an impossibility because it negates the possibility to micro to some extent.

So tl;dr it is usually better to have a bigger army than to have a better controlled army, and therefore emphasis must be placed on macro rather than micro. I know there are exceptions such as infestor plays, marine splits, and blink stalker micro, but these are exceptions where as in Brood war, finding a composition that requires no micro would be likelier exceptions.

On July 15 2011 23:30 Kanku wrote:


Yes that's exactly what I'm saying we don't know if we'll ever see people as dominant as FlaSh in SC2 especially when there is 2 addons to go.
Edit:To sum up, the OP point is not proven and yours too

On July 16 2011 00:10 Loodah wrote:
You actually can pretty easily.

Graphics, interface, presentation, and connectivity options can all be compared objectively. SC2 is better in all those categories. If you disagree with me, talk to anyone with any experience in game development or game critique.

Don't argue semantics man. It's just silly. The original poster was inaccurate and illogical on many of his points.

How many years did it take for Flash to show up in BW? During the years before Flash was BW a bad game that only noobs played?

No right? As time progressed players got better right?

Or is that something BW supporters don't believe is possible?

On July 16 2011 00:10 Loodah wrote:
Graphics, interface, presentation, and connectivity options can all be compared objectively. SC2 is better in all those categories.

On July 16 2011 00:26 MidKnight wrote:
Oh this thread is back again?
At any case, SC2 is less mechanically demanding, that's a fact and anyone who played SC:BW should understand that immediately.. If that's a good or a bad thing is another discussion altogether.

It seems most of these SC2 elitists never played BW at all least semi-competitive level. That game is HARD, man.
Between stupid AI and thus the requirement to constantly pay attention to your units in order for them to not bug out and be effective, smaller field of vision, 12-max control groups, smartcasting etc. etc., heck, even trying to get rid of a scouting worker requires a lot of attention, because the way AI works you ACTUALLY have to predict your opponents juking patterns and can't simply right-click with your lings and be done with it, the skill ceiling can't even be comparable. Talking from personal experience here.

Again, if that's a negative or a positive thing depends on the preferences, facts still remain facts

[B]On July 16 2011 00:21 Kanku wrote:



And that's exactly what I said (you know the part that you quoted, you know the part talking about the addons...), so please read my posts before posting dumb things like that...

On July 16 2011 00:21 Kanku wrote:


Then if it is trully objective why different people have different opinion on that subject?From an esport POV one of the numerous qualities of quake live is the fact that its graphics are simplistic...



And that's exactly what I said (you know the part that you quoted, you know the part talking about the addons...), so please read my posts before posting dumb things like that...

On July 16 2011 00:14 lorkac wrote:


Actually, once the top players of SC2 stop supply blocking themselves, stop forgetting to expand, etc... Then Micro and positioning and scouting becomes EVEN MORE important.

You can't win a game simply because you move a marine to the left instead of the right--you'll have to have proper scouting, followed by perfect positioning, followed by perfect micro or else suffer immediate death.

In a more intense dps game scouting and positioning AS WELL AS *perfect* micro execution becomes the main winners. I don't understand why a BW fan would prefer a game that does not require as much perfect execution? Why they would prefer a game that allows mistakes at high level play.

Your top two reigning Bonjwas (Flash and Savior) became great because of how good their strategy was! Think about that. Now think about a game where that type of playstyle is encouraged instead of discouraged.

People like to say that SC2 is swingy--yet the top players remain consistently the same.

People like to say that SC2 is too luck based--yet almost all the GSL finals have shown the better player win DOMINANTLY over the other. When one player was considered even slightly better than the other, the game was landslide victory.

People then like to say that foreigners are winning too much despite the fact that even Moon who doesn't play SC2 fulltime can overrun foreign tournaments. NASL, dominated by Koreans. Dreamhack, dominated by Koreans. In fact, the more a person trains in Korea the better he does everywhere else. So even that is actually false.

Are BW fans always this dense to reality? They haven't even gotten past the "Things are better when they're harder" mindset. And when I ask them to remove the keyboard so that it's purely difficult all of a sudden it's all "Oh that's too extreme" because they want hotkeys, they want control groups. They just don't want non-BW hotkeys and non-BW control groups. It's elitism at it's core. Why? Because it's not that BW fans are asking for no hotkeys, and no automation (How many BW fans complain that the medic is an automated Warcraft 1 healer?), it's that they want only BW automation and BW easy mode options.

That is why SC2 supporters are getting upset by it.

It's not BW players are hopping on to the SC2 forums and going "Has anyone found a need to actually hotkey more than 12 units across multiple control groups and if so how has that effected gameplay?" In an attempt to discuss the differences on a case by case basis.

Instead it's threads like this where BW players show up and belittle SC2 players with their only defense being harder is better and you don't understand go watch BW (which a lot of SC2 players have already been doing for a while)

Would a thread be interesting if BW players come by and ask Protoss players how having the probe hotkey on E instead of P changed the way they used to play Protoss (assuming it was a former BW player) etc... etc...

But no. Instead it's this "My game is better than yours, I don't believe anything you say" attitude that is confrontational and malicious.

I love watching BW, I do. BW is what got me interested in RTS games. SlayersBoxer was specifically the guy who got me playing BW as seriously as my internet connection allowed (mostly I depending on LAN parties with my friends because my connection was too bad for online gameplay)

But even then, it was the S of RTS that impressed me. If I simply wanted the RT only--I'd have played a shooter. If I wanted only the S then I would have played Go. But I enjoyed the S with a bit of RT to provide a sense of build up--but not too much. Watching VODs was definitely more enjoyable than playing BW because you finally would be able to watch and enjoy the Strategy that you could only think about or abstractly be aware was happening as you played. Yes it would be impressive to micro a big battle like that--but when you're screen is spent in your main base for so long because you had to keep on top of your production, it became unfun to play a game that specifically *tries* to prevent you from playing it. The only reason people enjoy something being more difficult is elitism. They are people that believe that the less players are able to play the game the better it is for the game. Do you see how silly that sounds?

On July 16 2011 00:36 lorkac wrote:


Then you agree that SC2 is currently only comparable to the early years of BW where Foreign players were dominating and Koreans were just people who played the same build over and over and over again.

SC2 is still a young game. But people like to bring up players like Flash showcasing dominance and when SC2 players show that there more than one person who have the same win % or better--suddenly it doesn't count because Flash's win % is supposedly more meaningful.

It's arbitrary. If you want to stick to the math--SC2 players are already dominating as much as him. If you want to bring up number of games played, SC2 players have time on their side in that they haven't had enough tournaments to allow that many games to be played. If you want to go to the "player quality" aspect--that is all relative. Give me a baseball bat and I could a near infinite number of 3 year old children in a fight. But give another 200+ lbs 6' tall man a baseball bat and it's a high stakes matchup. Difficulty of opponent is only relative to the skill difference between them.

Was Flash's dominance because he was really good or because his opponents sucked compared to him? etc... (Yes, I know he was good, I'm just making an theoretical point)

SC2 players are not as refined and not as intense as BW players--yet. But even now we see trends. How much more once time passes. It took BW FOREVER to get their own Flash. SlayersBoxer was the first bonjwa and he was known for bad macro and bad mechanics. But he could micro really well.

SC2 players have bad macro and bad mechanics right now--but given time that goes away as well.

If something is truly objective, why do different people have different opinions? Well, if that's your only argument, this is a hopeless cause.*
Not everyone is knowledgeable about game development - even those who play games avidly. Also, Obama is a US Citizen, but 1/3 of republican supporters don't believe that. I guess that means it's not objectively true.....

On July 16 2011 00:40 Kanku wrote:


Not the early years of bw because actually you have to take into account the fact that back then ESPORT wasn't even existing macro and micro were unknown concepts and all that good jazz
and again who do you think you are to predict what will happen in the future of sc2 given his current state?
We still don't know...

On July 16 2011 00:33 TritaN wrote:


Yes, but the features you just listed are mostly cosmetic in nature. Gameplay is the single most important aspect of any game - why do you think Counter-Strike, Quake, and SC:BW have been played for over a decade?