|
On July 17 2011 18:40 gn0m wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 10:37 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 10:00 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 09:10 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 07:53 gn1k wrote:
This is such a stupid article. Saying that brood war is a better game because the AI and the interface is worse. By your logic SC2 would be a better game if you could only play using the mouse or pro gamers had to play using an Xbox 360 controller.
Brood war had higher level play because it has been out for much longer and people have figured it out to a much higher degree. The main thing for me that makes SC2 so fun is that the interface is better and you can focus on the interesting part of the game instead of babysitting your stupid brood war units. True BW fans play on the apple touchpad--having a mouse is far too easy mode. Wow, these analogies are really blowing out of proportion. Your reasoning is terrible, BW players don’t want to play on touchpads anymore than SC2 players want a button that instantly makes a 200/200 army, or units that can micro themselves perfectly. Try to accept that SC2 is an easier game due to the improved/simplified mechanics (whatever you want to call it). Some like it this way while others don’t, but that is irrelevant. Once you have grasped that, you can actually discuss what implication this have on the competitive scene and the future of the game, which is exactly what this thread is about. sure. Easier mechanics allows non-pro-house atmosphere in the training of players. This allows western countries to remain competitive in a global scale allowing esport to not be confined into just one country. This expands esport into a more normalized structure worldwide increasing global support of esports both financially and numerically (fanwise--as is already seen) . in the end, esports is improved instead of confined to Korea. Rebuttal? Yes and this is what the OP is talking about. Easier mechanics allows players to spend less time on the game and still be competitive, while players that is spending a ridiculous amount of time would not benefit much from the hours they put in. Yes, this might allow the game to maintain support outside of Korea. But it also means that the game will reach a point where it gets hard to distinguish the players from each other (skill wise) and games will be determined by the smallest mistakes. Which leads me to your second point: Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 10:41 lorkac wrote:
If you want this to be about rewarding skill--the fact that sc2 punishes mistakes more harshly than BW means that it's a much better showcasing of skill. SC2 punishes mistakes more because there is less room for a better player to make a comeback. In BW a player is rewarded for skill in each encounter – a better player can make a mistake and still win the game because he will outplay his opponent in every aspect. This means that in a best of series, the better player will more often come out on top. Since you are clearly a fan of extreme examples, here is one for you: Let’s say that you were going to play Federer in a tennis match. Do you think that you would have a better shot at winning if you played five sets, or do you think that you would do better if you only played one ball (and thus mistakes would be punished incredibly harsh.)? Your chances would obviously be slim either way but I think you understand that five sets (mistakes are not punished as harsh) rewards skill and one ball (mistakes are punished hard) reward flukes.
But don't even the best of the best BW players still have only a 70% winrate? That would mean that 30% of the time the game is not 'rewarding skill' as you say it. The top winrates in SC2 are also around 70% btw so it's 'rewarding skill' as much as BW. Really good players like MC and Nestea have shown many games where they comeback just because they play better then their opponents.
|
On July 17 2011 20:04 Logros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 18:40 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 10:37 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 10:00 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 09:10 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 07:53 gn1k wrote:
This is such a stupid article. Saying that brood war is a better game because the AI and the interface is worse. By your logic SC2 would be a better game if you could only play using the mouse or pro gamers had to play using an Xbox 360 controller.
Brood war had higher level play because it has been out for much longer and people have figured it out to a much higher degree. The main thing for me that makes SC2 so fun is that the interface is better and you can focus on the interesting part of the game instead of babysitting your stupid brood war units. True BW fans play on the apple touchpad--having a mouse is far too easy mode. Wow, these analogies are really blowing out of proportion. Your reasoning is terrible, BW players don’t want to play on touchpads anymore than SC2 players want a button that instantly makes a 200/200 army, or units that can micro themselves perfectly. Try to accept that SC2 is an easier game due to the improved/simplified mechanics (whatever you want to call it). Some like it this way while others don’t, but that is irrelevant. Once you have grasped that, you can actually discuss what implication this have on the competitive scene and the future of the game, which is exactly what this thread is about. sure. Easier mechanics allows non-pro-house atmosphere in the training of players. This allows western countries to remain competitive in a global scale allowing esport to not be confined into just one country. This expands esport into a more normalized structure worldwide increasing global support of esports both financially and numerically (fanwise--as is already seen) . in the end, esports is improved instead of confined to Korea. Rebuttal? Yes and this is what the OP is talking about. Easier mechanics allows players to spend less time on the game and still be competitive, while players that is spending a ridiculous amount of time would not benefit much from the hours they put in. Yes, this might allow the game to maintain support outside of Korea. But it also means that the game will reach a point where it gets hard to distinguish the players from each other (skill wise) and games will be determined by the smallest mistakes. Which leads me to your second point: On July 17 2011 10:41 lorkac wrote:
If you want this to be about rewarding skill--the fact that sc2 punishes mistakes more harshly than BW means that it's a much better showcasing of skill. SC2 punishes mistakes more because there is less room for a better player to make a comeback. In BW a player is rewarded for skill in each encounter – a better player can make a mistake and still win the game because he will outplay his opponent in every aspect. This means that in a best of series, the better player will more often come out on top. Since you are clearly a fan of extreme examples, here is one for you: Let’s say that you were going to play Federer in a tennis match. Do you think that you would have a better shot at winning if you played five sets, or do you think that you would do better if you only played one ball (and thus mistakes would be punished incredibly harsh.)? Your chances would obviously be slim either way but I think you understand that five sets (mistakes are not punished as harsh) rewards skill and one ball (mistakes are punished hard) reward flukes. But don't even the best of the best BW players still have only a 70% winrate? That would mean that 30% of the time the game is not 'rewarding skill' as you say it. The top winrates in SC2 are also around 70% btw so it's 'rewarding skill' as much as BW. Really good players like MC and Nestea have shown many games where they comeback just because they play better then their opponents.
No the 30% they genuinely lose be it build order defeat, micro bio into lurkers (flash vs zero yesterday) etc.
|
United Kingdom14464 Posts
On July 17 2011 20:13 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 20:04 Logros wrote:On July 17 2011 18:40 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 10:37 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 10:00 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 09:10 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 07:53 gn1k wrote:
This is such a stupid article. Saying that brood war is a better game because the AI and the interface is worse. By your logic SC2 would be a better game if you could only play using the mouse or pro gamers had to play using an Xbox 360 controller.
Brood war had higher level play because it has been out for much longer and people have figured it out to a much higher degree. The main thing for me that makes SC2 so fun is that the interface is better and you can focus on the interesting part of the game instead of babysitting your stupid brood war units. True BW fans play on the apple touchpad--having a mouse is far too easy mode. Wow, these analogies are really blowing out of proportion. Your reasoning is terrible, BW players don’t want to play on touchpads anymore than SC2 players want a button that instantly makes a 200/200 army, or units that can micro themselves perfectly. Try to accept that SC2 is an easier game due to the improved/simplified mechanics (whatever you want to call it). Some like it this way while others don’t, but that is irrelevant. Once you have grasped that, you can actually discuss what implication this have on the competitive scene and the future of the game, which is exactly what this thread is about. sure. Easier mechanics allows non-pro-house atmosphere in the training of players. This allows western countries to remain competitive in a global scale allowing esport to not be confined into just one country. This expands esport into a more normalized structure worldwide increasing global support of esports both financially and numerically (fanwise--as is already seen) . in the end, esports is improved instead of confined to Korea. Rebuttal? Yes and this is what the OP is talking about. Easier mechanics allows players to spend less time on the game and still be competitive, while players that is spending a ridiculous amount of time would not benefit much from the hours they put in. Yes, this might allow the game to maintain support outside of Korea. But it also means that the game will reach a point where it gets hard to distinguish the players from each other (skill wise) and games will be determined by the smallest mistakes. Which leads me to your second point: On July 17 2011 10:41 lorkac wrote:
If you want this to be about rewarding skill--the fact that sc2 punishes mistakes more harshly than BW means that it's a much better showcasing of skill. SC2 punishes mistakes more because there is less room for a better player to make a comeback. In BW a player is rewarded for skill in each encounter – a better player can make a mistake and still win the game because he will outplay his opponent in every aspect. This means that in a best of series, the better player will more often come out on top. Since you are clearly a fan of extreme examples, here is one for you: Let’s say that you were going to play Federer in a tennis match. Do you think that you would have a better shot at winning if you played five sets, or do you think that you would do better if you only played one ball (and thus mistakes would be punished incredibly harsh.)? Your chances would obviously be slim either way but I think you understand that five sets (mistakes are not punished as harsh) rewards skill and one ball (mistakes are punished hard) reward flukes. But don't even the best of the best BW players still have only a 70% winrate? That would mean that 30% of the time the game is not 'rewarding skill' as you say it. The top winrates in SC2 are also around 70% btw so it's 'rewarding skill' as much as BW. Really good players like MC and Nestea have shown many games where they comeback just because they play better then their opponents. No the 30% they genuinely lose be it build order defeat, micro bio into lurkers (flash vs zero yesterday) etc.
What? So when top BW pros lose 30% of their games, it's because they played worse (showing that the game rewards better players) but when top SC2 pros lose 30%, its because the game doesn't reward better players? That's insanity. Both game's top pros have around 70% winrates, showing that right now at least, the game rewards the best players basically the same amount as it does in BW. You are just straight making up stuff.
|
I would say that until we see a 15+ minute game long of perfect play, i'm convinced that Sc2 won't have the true potential that BW had. Problem is, it will never happen. The skill ceiling is still humanly unattainable, so i don't see the problem with making the game "easier", as in actualyl having a good UI and some decent AI. I would never want to go back to having to manually assign every worker to mine, or having 12 units in a group.
Also, no expansion has come out, and they stated that there will be two. Alot is going to change over the next 2-3 years for sure. I'm sure we could see a dominant player, but seeing 1 person win everything for a year seems almost impossible, and thats imo very good. I don't wanna see MC winning every tournament, i want people to be able to snipe him. Maybe we wont see a Bonjwa, but we can still see today that some players have been performing well consitently, for instance MC and Nestea.
|
A counterexample to your argument is that the koreans are still better than the foreigners although the gap is way smaller than it was in bw. Koreans have better mechanics and arguably better strategy because of the better player pool on the korean server. I think the foreigners are able to stay so close to the koreans because unlike broodwar, everyone got more of an equal start with sc2. Foreigners are also able to play professionally now where they couldn't before.
I do agree with your op somewhat. The skill gap between sc2 and bw is much less. This allows the foreigners to stand a fighting chance against a lot of the koreans at the moment. I don't think it's nearly as bad as the op implies though.
|
Can people stop comparing win-rates of the two games please?
It has already been discussed in this thread, that's freaking retarded.
Edit:Anyway this thread is terrible please let it die now...
|
This thread is the equivalent of an old man going "back in my days, we were so poor we had to blah blah blah".
SC2 has a better user interface than BW did. You may think that means it takes less skill to play, whatever. In my mind "skill" should not be equivalent to "overcoming the limits of a bad user interface".
|
On July 17 2011 20:24 Kanku wrote:
Can people stop comparing win-rates of the two games please?
It has already been discussed in this thread, that's freaking retarded.
Edit:Anyway this thread is terrible please let it die now...
I reckon people think win rate comparison between apple and orange explains any anomaly between the two games when in fact the top star 2 players weren't anything close in bw except maybe Nada years ago. So it's obvious which game is harder but people still want to believe Star 2 is comparison skill wise. So yeah stupid comparison.
|
On July 17 2011 20:31 Baarn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 20:24 Kanku wrote:
Can people stop comparing win-rates of the two games please?
It has already been discussed in this thread, that's freaking retarded.
Edit:Anyway this thread is terrible please let it die now... I reckon people think win rate comparison between apple and orange explains any anomaly between the two games when in fact the top star 2 players weren't anything close in bw except maybe Nada years ago. So it's obvious which game is harder but people still want to believe Star 2 is comparison skill wise. So yeah stupid comparison.
Sangho was better than Zergbong in BW, Nestea is better than Killer in SC2. You can't explain that.
+ Show Spoiler +And BW is only harder because you're not just fighting the opponent, but also your retarded units and primitive interface so it's 1 vs 3 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
|
On July 17 2011 20:04 Logros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 18:40 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 10:37 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 10:00 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 09:10 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 07:53 gn1k wrote:
This is such a stupid article. Saying that brood war is a better game because the AI and the interface is worse. By your logic SC2 would be a better game if you could only play using the mouse or pro gamers had to play using an Xbox 360 controller.
Brood war had higher level play because it has been out for much longer and people have figured it out to a much higher degree. The main thing for me that makes SC2 so fun is that the interface is better and you can focus on the interesting part of the game instead of babysitting your stupid brood war units. True BW fans play on the apple touchpad--having a mouse is far too easy mode. Wow, these analogies are really blowing out of proportion. Your reasoning is terrible, BW players don’t want to play on touchpads anymore than SC2 players want a button that instantly makes a 200/200 army, or units that can micro themselves perfectly. Try to accept that SC2 is an easier game due to the improved/simplified mechanics (whatever you want to call it). Some like it this way while others don’t, but that is irrelevant. Once you have grasped that, you can actually discuss what implication this have on the competitive scene and the future of the game, which is exactly what this thread is about. sure. Easier mechanics allows non-pro-house atmosphere in the training of players. This allows western countries to remain competitive in a global scale allowing esport to not be confined into just one country. This expands esport into a more normalized structure worldwide increasing global support of esports both financially and numerically (fanwise--as is already seen) . in the end, esports is improved instead of confined to Korea. Rebuttal? Yes and this is what the OP is talking about. Easier mechanics allows players to spend less time on the game and still be competitive, while players that is spending a ridiculous amount of time would not benefit much from the hours they put in. Yes, this might allow the game to maintain support outside of Korea. But it also means that the game will reach a point where it gets hard to distinguish the players from each other (skill wise) and games will be determined by the smallest mistakes. Which leads me to your second point: On July 17 2011 10:41 lorkac wrote:
If you want this to be about rewarding skill--the fact that sc2 punishes mistakes more harshly than BW means that it's a much better showcasing of skill. SC2 punishes mistakes more because there is less room for a better player to make a comeback. In BW a player is rewarded for skill in each encounter – a better player can make a mistake and still win the game because he will outplay his opponent in every aspect. This means that in a best of series, the better player will more often come out on top. Since you are clearly a fan of extreme examples, here is one for you: Let’s say that you were going to play Federer in a tennis match. Do you think that you would have a better shot at winning if you played five sets, or do you think that you would do better if you only played one ball (and thus mistakes would be punished incredibly harsh.)? Your chances would obviously be slim either way but I think you understand that five sets (mistakes are not punished as harsh) rewards skill and one ball (mistakes are punished hard) reward flukes. But don't even the best of the best BW players still have only a 70% winrate? That would mean that 30% of the time the game is not 'rewarding skill' as you say it. The top winrates in SC2 are also around 70% btw so it's 'rewarding skill' as much as BW. Really good players like MC and Nestea have shown many games where they comeback just because they play better then their opponents.
This has been answered so many times in this thread. MC has played 85 games. Flash has played almost 600, and has played over a longer period of time. More importantly, SC2 is only one year old and the players are still terrible. This is not critique but natural for a young game, but these winrates can hardly say anything about the state of the game in five years. Imagine when SC2 got their own Flash, Bisu and Jaedongs etc.
|
On July 17 2011 20:42 videogames wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 20:31 Baarn wrote:On July 17 2011 20:24 Kanku wrote:
Can people stop comparing win-rates of the two games please?
It has already been discussed in this thread, that's freaking retarded.
Edit:Anyway this thread is terrible please let it die now... I reckon people think win rate comparison between apple and orange explains any anomaly between the two games when in fact the top star 2 players weren't anything close in bw except maybe Nada years ago. So it's obvious which game is harder but people still want to believe Star 2 is comparison skill wise. So yeah stupid comparison. Sangho was better than Zergbong in BW, Nestea is better than Killer in SC2. You can't explain that. + Show Spoiler +And BW is only harder because you're not just fighting the opponent, but also your retarded units and primitive interface so it's 1 vs 3 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Sure you can. Maybe Sangho doesn't have same passion for Star 2 as he did in bw. Interface was discouraging compared to ease of Star 2 for a majority of people. I wouldn't consider it is a struggle to use as you exaggerate it is though. I didn't see it as being factor in why current star 2 players weren't as successful in bw.
|
On July 17 2011 20:04 Logros wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 18:40 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 10:37 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 10:00 gn0m wrote:On July 17 2011 09:10 lorkac wrote:On July 17 2011 07:53 gn1k wrote:
This is such a stupid article. Saying that brood war is a better game because the AI and the interface is worse. By your logic SC2 would be a better game if you could only play using the mouse or pro gamers had to play using an Xbox 360 controller.
Brood war had higher level play because it has been out for much longer and people have figured it out to a much higher degree. The main thing for me that makes SC2 so fun is that the interface is better and you can focus on the interesting part of the game instead of babysitting your stupid brood war units. True BW fans play on the apple touchpad--having a mouse is far too easy mode. Wow, these analogies are really blowing out of proportion. Your reasoning is terrible, BW players don’t want to play on touchpads anymore than SC2 players want a button that instantly makes a 200/200 army, or units that can micro themselves perfectly. Try to accept that SC2 is an easier game due to the improved/simplified mechanics (whatever you want to call it). Some like it this way while others don’t, but that is irrelevant. Once you have grasped that, you can actually discuss what implication this have on the competitive scene and the future of the game, which is exactly what this thread is about. sure. Easier mechanics allows non-pro-house atmosphere in the training of players. This allows western countries to remain competitive in a global scale allowing esport to not be confined into just one country. This expands esport into a more normalized structure worldwide increasing global support of esports both financially and numerically (fanwise--as is already seen) . in the end, esports is improved instead of confined to Korea. Rebuttal? Yes and this is what the OP is talking about. Easier mechanics allows players to spend less time on the game and still be competitive, while players that is spending a ridiculous amount of time would not benefit much from the hours they put in. Yes, this might allow the game to maintain support outside of Korea. But it also means that the game will reach a point where it gets hard to distinguish the players from each other (skill wise) and games will be determined by the smallest mistakes. Which leads me to your second point: On July 17 2011 10:41 lorkac wrote:
If you want this to be about rewarding skill--the fact that sc2 punishes mistakes more harshly than BW means that it's a much better showcasing of skill. SC2 punishes mistakes more because there is less room for a better player to make a comeback. In BW a player is rewarded for skill in each encounter – a better player can make a mistake and still win the game because he will outplay his opponent in every aspect. This means that in a best of series, the better player will more often come out on top. Since you are clearly a fan of extreme examples, here is one for you: Let’s say that you were going to play Federer in a tennis match. Do you think that you would have a better shot at winning if you played five sets, or do you think that you would do better if you only played one ball (and thus mistakes would be punished incredibly harsh.)? Your chances would obviously be slim either way but I think you understand that five sets (mistakes are not punished as harsh) rewards skill and one ball (mistakes are punished hard) reward flukes. But don't even the best of the best BW players still have only a 70% winrate? That would mean that 30% of the time the game is not 'rewarding skill' as you say it. The top winrates in SC2 are also around 70% btw so it's 'rewarding skill' as much as BW. Really good players like MC and Nestea have shown many games where they comeback just because they play better then their opponents.
Flash in his peak had 90%
Also GSTL is still new, once it takes a foothold, the players win-rates will start to go down. Why? Because teams will start hiring snipers like they do in BW. For example: SKT snatched Hyuk because he was the only one close to rivalling Jaedongs 90% ZvZ. Tempest is always brought out to snipe Bisu because he had S-Class PvP, etc.
This is already starting to show, all the top SC2 progamers are starting to flatten out in terms of win-rates.
|
On July 17 2011 20:31 Serthius wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of an old man going "back in my days, we were so poor we had to blah blah blah".
SC2 has a better user interface than BW did. You may think that means it takes less skill to play, whatever. In my mind "skill" should not be equivalent to "overcoming the limits of a bad user interface".
No, we don't "think" SC2 takes less skill to play, it's a fact. Harder to play = more skill requiring, even if you consider terrible UI as a bad thing.
It's like playing regular basketball or a theoretical variation of basketball where traveling is allowed. One is harder. Simple as that.
I say that because at the current state of SC2 there's nothing to suggest it has more strategic depth than BW. If a game is harder, it's more exciting to see players pull off hard and exciting moves.
Again, it depends on your perspective on what the 'default' difficulty should be. It doesn't necessarily make SC2 a worse game, but to me there are a lot more exciting things happening in a BW game, graphics aside
|
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. EDIT: *Second place in 3 tourneys. Close enough.
I have to correct two of these statements
1. Fruitdealer is irrelevant now because he practices about 4 hours a day and alot has changed since he won GSL
2. MKP isn't out of Code S.
|
2024 Posts
On July 17 2011 22:51 MidKnight wrote:Show nested quote +On July 17 2011 20:31 Serthius wrote:
This thread is the equivalent of an old man going "back in my days, we were so poor we had to blah blah blah".
SC2 has a better user interface than BW did. You may think that means it takes less skill to play, whatever. In my mind "skill" should not be equivalent to "overcoming the limits of a bad user interface". No, we don't "think" SC2 takes less skill to play, it's a fact. Harder to play = more skill requiring, even if you consider terrible UI as a bad thing.
Not true either. If you consider overcoming a terrible UI a skill of any sort, then yeah, you'd rather want to play BW, you'd see it as the more exciting one. SC2 players don't want to spend countless hours on learning how to 1a properly, so they are playing SC2 and will excel in other aspects of the game than just mechanics.
Just accept the fact that both games are just very different games and both require different abilities to be good at them. What's the most painful for most people to comprehend is that SC2 is becoming 'mainstream' now and BW's community is becoming smaller over time - that's something that you just have to get over with or find other ways of changing this situation than "back in my days, we were so poor we had to blah blah blah".
|
Allow me to explain why the skill ceiling is lower in SC2 than it is in Brood War. There seems to be a fundamental misconception that it has something to do with the inherently mechanics-based nature of BW as compared to the more streamlined SC2. This is only partially true, but mechanics in themselves are not what make games competitively challenging. It's entirely possible to have easier mechanics but difficult strategic decisions, which would result in an equally difficult game. The problem, however, is that SC2 doesn't replace mechanical depth with anything non-transitory. Why? In short, because SC2 is primarily a game of BO counters and hard counters.
Let me give you an example: In BW, Lurkers countered marines, but with good play, the person with the marines could actually accomplish something rather than losing all of his forces. Now let's look at SC2. No matter how good your blink micro is, Stalkers are never going to beat Marauders. What's amusing is that the units that people never use/consider UP are actually the only balanced units in the game in a BW sense. Take the Hydralisk: it's slow as shit off of creep and everyone says it needs a buff. It doesn't. All units should be like the hydralisk. Hydralisks counter stalkers in a straight fight, but with good positioning and really good Blink micro, the Toss player can minimize losses and sometimes come out on top.
Look at the Raven: it's another good unit because it's a situational counter which can be dealt with on the fly. Generally speaking, if the opponent gets a Raven, (unless it's a timing push) you can counter it with micro given the units you have, or by picking a position outside of the range of the PDD. Similarly, Banelings are devastating against biological units, but they can be countered through good micro, especially since they represent an inherent investment from the Zerg player. The Baneling is actually one of the best units in Sc2 precisely because it can be used in so many different ways (e.g. drops) none of which are absolute hard counters to anything (since they can always be minimized by micro).
So, when you ask for something to be balanced in SC2, I suggest that you ask for the majority of units to be nerfed, because giving everything a hard counter means that games become Build Order tossups, devoid of skill except for the easily acquirable ability to scout builds early in the game.
In a nutshell, that's why SC2 will falter competitively unless players accept that the game needs to be hard and that strategies should require inherent risk and never be an automatic composition win. There's nothing wrong with having a better army comp giving you, say, a 10% advantage over your opponent's army, but that's all it should be: an advantage, not an automatic victory.
|
I really don't get these threads. BW required more mechanical skill, sure, but that's because the UI was abysmal. The improvements to the interface in SC2 do not lower the skillcap at all. If anything, the blistering pace of the game in SC2 and better unit control creates room for MORE micro and MORE skill. People who think otherwise are mostly blinded by nostalgia.
|
I agree with what stated in your post.
I think most of the coinflip we are seeing right now is mainly because the game is young. It's a lot more stable than BW was in it's first year.
Time will tell whether the 'lower' ceiling will affect the game positively or negatively. Hopefully when things are more figured out we will see pristine play rewarded, where a single mistake from either player can be devastating.
|
There is nothing stopping BW/SC2 players from enjoying their respective games :/. Why do people feel inclined to defend their game by attacking the other. They are different games by design, designed for different playstyles, I don't think anyone expected SC2 to be BW:Improved Graphics, there is nothing gained by SC2 players attacking BW, it will not make you enjoy SC2 more by saying BW sucks. There is nothing gained by BW attacking SC2, you will not enjoy BW anymore because you want to prove that SC2 sucks. Is it really so hard to keep the peace in a forum of 2 different games, I can see CS vs COD being a shitstorm, but BW and SC2, c'mon they are both good games in the own right, learn to enjoy them separately rather than comparing them together.
|
On July 16 2011 16:51 ZeroChrome wrote:Show nested quote +On July 16 2011 16:41 Eknoid4 wrote:On July 14 2011 11:12 sluggaslamoo wrote:On July 14 2011 09:54 SichuanPanda wrote:I think that pro SC2 players are just trying to play the game too much like BW, they keep trying to win in a mechanically-focused manner, instead of focusing on unique strategies, tricky/fancy micro, and unique/sudden unit combos. I'm not saying I don't agree that SC2 is easier to play, but I think that a similarly large gap in skill as to BW good be achieved if players would just break out of the mold of mechanics>all (and I know after up to 12 years for some its hard to do). For example ( Warning GSL July Byun vs NaDa Ro16 Spoiler Warning) + Show Spoiler +In the game of NaDa vs Byun, NaDa the likely undisputed stronger player in terms recognition, expected performance, and micro/macro ability. Byun was able to take Game 2 in particular largely due to the fact that the game allows both Byun and NaDa to have similar macro. or identical macro, and if NaDa mis-controls his skill-gap above Byun is gone. This is exactly what happened. Now NaDa did show us some great Banshee/Viking use to attempt to clear Byun's tank lines, but he continued to try to out-play him with mechanics. Had NaDa got some Seeker Missile Ravens, now that would have made things very interesting, could have surprised Byun and pulled out a win. But NaDa is a mechanical player, so is July, so is MVP. Flash is not a mechanical player at all, he wins on mind games and strategy. what LOL WHAT Flash is not a mechanical player at all? So his macro sucks? you can have the best strategy in the world but if you are sitting at 3k minerals with your tanks unsieged in the wrong location (See: bad mechanics) you will still lose. Flash has slightly bad mechanics relative to other progamers. Its the truth.
Mechanics =/= APM. Flash is easily the most mechanically solid terran and definitely up there with players like Bisu, Jaedong and Effort. Just being great mechanically doesn't get you the title of bonjwa though. His game sense and strategy are even stronger, which is probably why people have that misconception.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
