The Rhino in the Room - Page 43

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 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.

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?

On July 15 2011 05:56 Requizen wrote:


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.