|
On July 13 2011 16:04 Ruthless wrote:
you cannot compare sc2's first year to the first year of bw straight up because these factors change the starting point of the players skills, the starting point of the community. The sponsors and tournaments increase the amount of support for full time player development which leads to much faster growth. Even how to improve (transferable skills) were really developed during BW. I think that should be enough if you extend the general thoughts here you can probably understand how all of the things I listed impact either the starting point or the rate of growth for the game's players.
Posting on two accounts or something ? Are you the OP?
|
On July 13 2011 16:01 Kurosuke wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 15:57 Soliduok wrote:
I am glad I ran into this thread because just before I did I was asking myself "is SC2 really that good?"
I can't help to bring myself to say no, it's not. It's begining to feel as though I am constantly being told it's good over and over so much that I think that it is without thinking about it critically.
I agree with a number of the points in the OP, especially the skill ceiling. One of the easiest ways to portray this is with players' relative ability in SCBW and SC2. In BW IdrA was a very very good player. Perhaps the best American. He practiced up to 12 hours a day when he was playing with CJ Entus and eSTRO. Now ask yourself, what do you honestly think his chances were of ever competing with Jaedong, Flash, or July? Slim to none. Yet here he is in SC2 competing with the very top players and beating them or taking games of them at the very least. How many top SC2 players today worked hard to compete in SCBW but just couldn't do it?
As far as watching SC2, it is perhaps more pleasing on the eyes and a little quicker paced so I can understand why it's enjoyable to watch, but you can't honestly tell me that SC2 requires more micro than BW. Thats just a fact.
The fundamental issues I think exist in SC2 are the macro mechanics are speeding the game up too fast (as well as starting with 6 harvesters rather than 4) yet scouting has not gotten any easier. What ends up happening is two players are playing blindly, and not actually strategizing. Also, with the power of the quickened macro mechanics (chrono, inject, mule) an all-in isn't really an all-in. It's a "build a big army attack then drone up-in".
I think it would be interesting to see how the game would run without auto mine, starting with 4 harvesters, 12 unit control group limit, and autocast. If that wouldnt break the game then perhaps there could be a "Competetive/Hard Mode" version of SC2 to play. Because Idra just demolished everyone and won GSLs right? I Do agree with the "Competitive thing though"... pros should have restriction that make it harder
He was never close to a 4th place finish at OSL or MSL 
|
Yep i agree with a lot you had to say, however im still hopeful since the game is still fairly new and with 2 more expansions coming, it's still a little early to make such a call.
|
I am not the OP actually, I just feel that people do a great injustice to the amount of skill it took to play BW and the arguement's for SC2 generally are underthought.
comparing BW year 1 to SC2 year 1 directly is a very uneducated approach to the question.
|
After watching Puma ( the preferred practice partner of the one and only flash ) his mechanics were noticeably better than his competition. He could almost rely solely on his multi-tasking/aggressiveness and not worry too much about macro. Which was noted on Inside the game today I believe. This is coming from a sc2 player and NOT a bw player so take that into consideration! Watching any BW is confusing and makes my eyes bleed haha.
+ Show Spoiler +Riley the Rhino is an awsome name as it is also mine!
|
I agree that we will never see a bonjwa of the sorts witnessed in bw. people keep bringing up the argument that sc2 is a new game, it's only been out for one year compared to bw's 12. while that may be true, I have not heard a single ex BW pro that transitioned to SC2 claim that SC2 is more difficult. It's always the opposite. That being said, SC2 is a great game and I'm completely optimistic about the direction SC2 is headed.
As an aside, to any pro that may be reading this, feel free to comment on this if you think SC2 has proved to be more challenging than BW.
|
On July 13 2011 16:05 Steveling wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 15:47 Lokian wrote:
I thought this was already adressed.
SKILL does not awlays mean, APM.
Are people actually saying this? It's like they're discrediting the BW pros. If thats what Skill means, then because Jaedong can press his production buildings without skipping a beat, it makes him better than the next guy? THIS is a game. Whether you win or lose should be based entirely on interactation between you and your enemy, not how well you can maintain MACRO. SC2 is more close to chess than BW has ever been, so whats the problem? Skill cieling? Define skill?
It can also mean using the right strategy, making the right decisions, and tricking your opponent along with MICRO that surpasses the AI (which is more difficult than BW AI fyi).
And its not just that, but I won't elaborate since there's always gunna be these threads due to years of BW brain ingraining and skewed game philosophy. Excellent. This aspect is often times ignored even by veteran community members. Sc2 doesn't require 9000 apm. It requires more strategy and tactics than BW. If someone prefers dexterity and eye hand coordination feats than this, to each his own.
Absolutely not true. This is antoher missconception, mainly by players who are not familiar with bw. If you want to be good at BW you need to know enourmous ammount of strategy and tactics, which are totaly different not only for each machup, but and for every map. Much more than SC2 imo.
|
On July 13 2011 16:04 Ruthless wrote:
you cannot compare sc2's first year to the first year of bw straight up because these factors change the starting point of the players skills, the starting point of the community. The sponsors and tournaments increase the amount of support for full time player development which leads to much faster growth. Even how to improve (transferable skills) were really developed during BW. I think that should be enough if you extend the general thoughts here you can probably understand how all of the things I listed impact either the starting point or the rate of growth for the game's players.
sorry if my posts are not always super fleshed out, usually I use message boards to just express myself, kind of as an outlet. I don't usually see too many posts that put a lot of thought into their responses so I usually dont go out of my way to explain. Even this one only explained my reasoning partially
Thanks for elaborating a bit. i do see where you are coming from and i agree that comparing SC2 year 1 to BW year1 isnt really comparable, but if you pick any year before 2005 for BW, i think they are comparable.
By That time, there was an established base for what it took to be a pro at that game.
my point is that although some things transfer(such as knowledge of what is micro/macro, using hot keys etc) this is a brand new game that does not play like BW so there is no defined set of things a pro player should be able to do that a regular masters player/ even low GM player cant do.
it is because the game is so young that this "list has not been able to develop. so of course the skill ceiling seems low when there are only ~ 20 genuine Progamers and the rest are just lucky Really good players who played a few good series and got "discovered"... as time goes by these people will either get better and join those we can define as pros, as those pros get better as well, or the will dissapear
|
On July 13 2011 14:25 Probulous wrote:Show nested quote +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. Swing and a miss... All he is saying is that relative to mechanics, strategy comes second. Now obviously you can' be way off base but the there is some truth in the statement. To compete at the highest level you had to have immacualte mechanics, only then would your strategy become a point of difference. He never suggested that strategy is non-existent, it just that mechanics are relatively more important.
I can pretty much 100% say that a 100%mechanics player will always beat a 100%. If the 100% mechanic player just goes a standard build, he will out macro you and out micro you at every turn. You can't implement strategy without mechanics.
|
To me, comparing SC2 skill and BW skill is like this.
SC2 skill that a players can ultimately attain: 5+infinite.
BW skill that a players can ultimately attain: 10+infinite.
So yes, while BW can always be much much tougher than SC2, that's irrelevant because archiving the ultimate skill in both games will be the same: no one. People may argue that Jeadong of Flash already reached that level, but no, just no; no matter how good a person is, you can't control 200 food of units the most efficient way all the time while thinking about tactic and strategy. So is SC2. People will get better and better at the game. In BW, one need to develop his mechanics first before strategy and micro, and it's the other way around in SC2.
Using dota image, I want to compare BW player skill is like farm carry, you work on your farming to get fat first, then worry about battle, aka strategy. SC2 player skill is like ganker, you focus and micro around the battle, while keeping up with your macro just enough. With time goes on, better carry will evolve, he is able to farm well while keeping up the presence in the team fight; or better ganker is able to gank heroes very well while still getting all the creep kill he faces. But a ganker will never never never archive the same creep kill as a farmer, he will never get all the luxury items as a farmer, the reason is he doesn't need too. and that doesn't make him a worse player than a farmer. He will develop other skill that a farmer won't be able to.
So tldr: The ceiling is lower doesn't mean the skill will be lower, they just develop another way.
|
On July 13 2011 14:14 rift wrote:I completely agree and have been thinking this since the beta began and we saw competitive play. If  Flash  Jaedong  Bisu et cetera switched they would immediately be among the best, but weaker players could take games from them more often than expected. We may never see a true  bonjwa in StarCraft 2. Can anyone honestly see a player completely dominating for over a year?
really hard to see a single dominate figure in sc2 right now. i mean we have top notch players but they lose games quite a lot. but i still think once blizz gets their crap together and brings out the two expansions...we might see some gameplay changes that award the more skilled player.
|
On July 13 2011 16:20 Golgotha wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 14:14 rift wrote:I completely agree and have been thinking this since the beta began and we saw competitive play. If Flash Jaedong Bisu et cetera switched they would immediately be among the best, but weaker players could take games from them more often than expected. We may never see a true bonjwa in StarCraft 2. Can anyone honestly see a player completely dominating for over a year? really hard to see a single dominate figure in sc2 right now. i mean we have top notch players but they lose games quite a lot. but i still think once blizz gets their crap together and brings out the two expansions...we might see some gameplay changes that award the more skilled player.
Without defining the term skill you can't make this suggestion with good conscious.
|
On July 13 2011 16:16 Kurosuke wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 16:04 Ruthless wrote:
you cannot compare sc2's first year to the first year of bw straight up because these factors change the starting point of the players skills, the starting point of the community. The sponsors and tournaments increase the amount of support for full time player development which leads to much faster growth. Even how to improve (transferable skills) were really developed during BW. I think that should be enough if you extend the general thoughts here you can probably understand how all of the things I listed impact either the starting point or the rate of growth for the game's players.
sorry if my posts are not always super fleshed out, usually I use message boards to just express myself, kind of as an outlet. I don't usually see too many posts that put a lot of thought into their responses so I usually dont go out of my way to explain. Even this one only explained my reasoning partially
Thanks for elaborating a bit. i do see where you are coming from and i agree that comparing SC2 year 1 to BW year1 isnt really comparable, but if you pick any year before 2005 for BW, i think they are comparable. By That time, there was an established base for what it took to be a pro at that game. my point is that although some things transfer(such as knowledge of what is micro/macro, using hot keys etc) this is a brand new game that does not play like BW so there is no defined set of things a pro player should be able to do that a regular masters player/ even low GM player cant do. it is because the game is so young that this "list has not been able to develop. so of course the skill ceiling seems low when there are only ~ 20 genuine Progamers and the rest are just lucky Really good players who played a few good series and got "discovered"... as time goes by these people will either get better and join those we can define as pros, as those pros get better as well, or the will dissapear
Yea I understand your position. Although I am not sure how many people have come from true obscurity (having just started with SC2 or had no prior record with other RTS games).
I dont know if the base BW had in 2005 would be comparable, but the people playing now often have had that base for 7 years. When some of the first pros were kids they were playing games on the original nintendo system.
I have always viewed RTS gaming as a continuation, releasing a new game isnt going to magically change too much. Its a different skin, different units, and different UI/AI nuances but the over all idea is the same. The BW people have to be the best at manipulating the UI/AI just from what they put up with. I think everything transfers but strategy choices, build orders, and "game knowledge" which I would define as things like UI/AI manipulation all the way down to what units beat what. [Another way I think about this is just intuitive understanding of how a situation will resolve. Its often too hard to really empirically determine how a situation will turn out, but "just knowing" is a skill that you gain from that play experience in SC2 specifically]
|
United States62 Posts
So what I got from the article was:
BW players have to spend more time doing things because the game requires them to.
BW players thus have a higher requirement for APM due to poor unit AI and hotkey placement, workers, etc.
Thus, BW is harder than SC2 because SC2 helps the player not worry about these.
Honestly, we are a year into SC2, and already I'm happy with what has happened. As gosu as Flash and Jaedong are, would you actually want a pro scene constantly dominated by the same person over and over? While having another Savior would be cool, at least he was innovating- the entire notion that there should be so high of a skill ceiling that new blood would be few and far between is pointless. That's like saying that professional football should be so difficult that the draft would only introduce five new players into the scene a year. I love how user-friendly SC2 is, and that they fixed the weird unit mechanics and hotkeys, because it means that players have to focus on out-playing their opponent, not just having better mechanics; and even in some cases, it boils down to that in some games now in SC2. But this year in SC2 has been great, and it would've been a shame to just have the same people dominating over and over.
|
BW may always be a more difficult game to master than SC2, but a lot of the changes have made SC2 a far better spectator sport. I never really got into the BW scene, and when I take a few minutes to watch a BW match, I am honestly not impressed by the insane mechanics required for a player to move their units across the screen, because from the spectator's point of view, you just don't get to see the struggle to force dragoons across a map.
Strategy, decision-making, and micro on the other hand are easily seen from the spectator's point of view. Because of this, I can introduce friends of mine who have never played before and after pointing out just a few of the reasons players are making their decisions, they can quickly appreciate the strategic choice players are making. At the very least, it's far easier for the layman to appreciate a great drop feint and excellent marine split than it is to explain to them how hard it is for the players to simply build their armies.
SC2 may not be as mechanically demanding, but because of it's increased focus on strategy and micro, I think it has a greater chance to catch on as an esport in the US. I think rts games have one fundamental problem in comparison to normal sports, the true movements of the players are not seen from the spectator's point of view like the movements of a basketball player's dunk are. SC2 has shifted the focus to those actions that a spectator's screen can observe, namely, micro and strategy. In many ways, I think this shift will also help it succeed far more in the US than any ultra-mechanical BW-esque clone would have.
|
On July 13 2011 16:20 Golgotha wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 14:14 rift wrote:I completely agree and have been thinking this since the beta began and we saw competitive play. If Flash Jaedong Bisu et cetera switched they would immediately be among the best, but weaker players could take games from them more often than expected. We may never see a true bonjwa in StarCraft 2. Can anyone honestly see a player completely dominating for over a year? really hard to see a single dominate figure in sc2 right now. i mean we have top notch players but they lose games quite a lot. but i still think once blizz gets their crap together and brings out the two expansions...we might see some gameplay changes that award the more skilled player.
I dont think there will be 1 dominating player every. solely because there are way too many tournaments, leagues, etc... no one will be able to play in all of them even if they are the best, it will always be, xyz is the best in this league, abc is the best in this league, but bob has won this tournament the past 5 times, which is best, who knows, but as long as they keep getting better, without having to play each other, there will be no way to see who is the best let alone saying thay are dominating... maybe a few dominators at once but never 1 unbeatable person
|
On July 13 2011 16:22 drgonzhere wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2011 16:20 Golgotha wrote:On July 13 2011 14:14 rift wrote:I completely agree and have been thinking this since the beta began and we saw competitive play. If Flash Jaedong Bisu et cetera switched they would immediately be among the best, but weaker players could take games from them more often than expected. We may never see a true bonjwa in StarCraft 2. Can anyone honestly see a player completely dominating for over a year? really hard to see a single dominate figure in sc2 right now. i mean we have top notch players but they lose games quite a lot. but i still think once blizz gets their crap together and brings out the two expansions...we might see some gameplay changes that award the more skilled player. Without defining the term skill you can't make this suggestion with good conscious.
The things that they add will define what skill is in the game. If they add lurkers, then being good with lurkers is part of being a skilled player.
Edit: or for an example already in the game - blink stalkers. Being good with blink stalkers is part of being a skilled protoss player. The game defines what skill is.
|
On July 13 2011 16:14 Ruyguy wrote:After watching Puma ( the preferred practice partner of the one and only flash ) his mechanics were noticeably better than his competition. He could almost rely solely on his multi-tasking/aggressiveness and not worry too much about macro. Which was noted on Inside the game today I believe. This is coming from a sc2 player and NOT a bw player so take that into consideration! Watching any BW is confusing and makes my eyes bleed haha. + Show Spoiler +Riley the Rhino is an awsome name as it is also mine!
Agreed, puma was way ahead of everybody at that tournament, mechanic wise he just was absolutely dominant. We will see a bonjawa theres no doubt in my mind. Whats exciting is that it will be more micro based than the macro based BW. Yea it amazes me watching a FPVod of BW pros watching them macro and micro is just insane, but in BW alot of the battle relys on macroing, so you cant consistently pay full attention to the battle lioke you can in sc2. Its more fun to watch someone pull off micro tricks and make there army taht much better then to just say, well that guy can build units so fast.
Its going to take a long long long time no doubt tho, there are still way to many things to figure out and imo we have a really healthy metagame that is consistnetly shifting. But as said earlier I think with people like Puma and MC(hes fallen off a bit due to travel not game stuff) you can begin to notice that sense of wow, that guy is just plain and simple... Fucking good.
|
On July 13 2011 16:19 canikizu wrote:
To me, comparing SC2 skill and BW skill is like this.
SC2 skill that a players can ultimately attain: 5+infinite.
BW skill that a players can ultimately attain: 10+infinite.
So yes, while BW can always be much much tougher than SC2, that's irrelevant because archiving the ultimate skill in both games will be the same: no one. People may argue that Jeadong of Flash already reached that level, but no, just no; no matter how good a person is, you can't control 200 food of units the most efficient way all the time while thinking about tactic and strategy. So is SC2. People will get better and better at the game. In BW, one need to develop his mechanics first before strategy and micro, and it's the other way around in SC2.
Using dota image, I want to compare BW player skill is like farm carry, you work on your farming to get fat first, then worry about battle, aka strategy. SC2 player skill is like ganker, you focus and micro around the battle, while keeping up with your macro just enough. With time goes on, better carry will evolve, he is able to farm well while keeping up the presence in the team fight; or better ganker is able to gank heroes very well while still getting all the creep kill he faces. But a ganker will never never never archive the same creep kill as a farmer, he will never get all the luxury items as a farmer, the reason is he doesn't need too. and that doesn't make him a worse player than a farmer. He will develop other skill that a farmer won't be able to.
So tldr: The ceiling is lower doesn't mean the skill will be lower, they just develop another way.
Ganger players are usually more skilled than carry ones, bad analogy bro.
Edit: Actually I'm wrong.
Carry players excell on mechanics, last hitting and lane dominance.
Ganger players excell on game sense and tactics.
Kinda exactly how the relation between BW and SC2 is. Hmmm, interesting.
|
On July 13 2011 16:00 USApwn wrote:
A bunch of garbage. Sorry, but different games are different, and just as you say there is no proof to your conclusion I can easily say it's the other way around.
Want some food for thought?
Sorry, we're all out, you can't have any because this topic offers none.
There isn't any reason to insult the original post just because there is no proof. I don't even know what you were reading because his conclusion was something like "the games are different and they shouldn't really be compared," kind of like you said. Maybe you need to actually read the whole post and not stop a paragraph and a half into it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
